Wow!

A lone CSR can make a decision like that.

Right...

I just feel compelled to add...

Ewwww.

The weirdest thing about this company is all their other clothes are found in the "adult bookstore" merchants. They don't sell any other kids' clothing. It's almost like they had too many of these tights and someone said, "Hey. I got an idea. Let's sell these extras to kids."

Only making sure 'sexy' as a word is not included, they'd have to make sure the overall sales pitch doesn't even allude to 'sex'.

'Hey girls, check out this clubbing outfit!'
'The same crotchless panties Paris Hilton wears.'
'Look 27 and still be only 12 in these thigh high boots.'

I've worked in online retail and I can say the it's not hard for something like this to happen. A lot of the time, content going into a store is automatically generated and not checked by humans, especially when there is several thousands entries going into a database. For some reason the title generation script they used put in 'sexy' when it shouldn't have. Nothing to see hear, move along. They just need to amp up the QA/QC.

If the item REALLY is sexy and a parent has a problem with it, then don't buy it for your daughter...problem solved! If the item REALLY IS sexy, not using the term "sexy" doesn't magically make the item non-sexy.

Point is, if you have a problem with the product, then have a problem with the product. In this case, someone isn't complaining about the product, but rather what words a company chooses to describe its product.

Seriously, are there not enough problems in the world for parents to worry besides stupid stuff like this? Are they so bored that they have to resort to surfing the internet to find occurrences of non-PC advertising to make a fuss about?

watch them change it from sexy to lascivious.

The old product link doesn't work anymore, but that doesn't mean they've made any changes....

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Spider-Sexy-Tights-Hosiery/dp/B001CVI1ZM/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=apparel&qid=1228400962&sr=1-25

http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Opaque-Sexy-Tights-Hosiery/dp/B001CV4SQS/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&s=apparel&qid=1228400953&sr=1-20

Changed indeed.

@mrdeeno: Actually, I sort of agree with you. Parents should take more responsibility, and so should that company.

Don't know about you, but I certainly was a sexy kid. I caught cooties multiple times due to my promiscuity.

@vliam: Sadly I think this will not make much of a difference in the world. Oh, sure, it will likely lead to the descriptions in Amazon not including the word "sexy," but will it stop the alluding? Probably not, just like johnfrombrooklyn's story about their other clothes being in "'adult bookstore' merchants."

Whether they remove the word "sexy" or not is inconsequential. Why is a company that brands themselves "PrettySinful Risque Lingerie" marketing to children at all? Anyone viewing their website would be exposed to some very adult stuff like crotchless panties, tied crotched panties, fetishwear, etc.

@badgeman46: We need a slashdot-style meta-moderation points system for this blog. +5 for you.

@mrdeeno: I'm a little lost in the recursion here--you're making a complaint on the internet that people shouldn't complain on the internet?

@mrdeeno: There is a larger issue, which is that when we allow tweens (or their accoutrements) to be described as "sexy" without protesting that description, we're allowing the over-sexualization of pre-teen girls to continue. An aware parent doesn't just protect their specific child from that, but attempts to fight the culture that pervasively over-sexualizes children.

There was an excellent report from the American Psychological Association about two years back that looked at the influence of advertising on little girls and their premature sexualization, and the various negative outcomes from that. Even children who are protected from the ads and from the toys/clothes/whatever that are the subject of the ads still suffer from the culture that permits these kids of ads.

Ok so I don't see what the big deal is over these stockings. They are after all just a par of stalkings that women, and yes even young girls, have been wearing for ages. So what the item description says "sexy", do you people not watch tv or listen to music? Everything in society is geared towards sexuality. Even the dolls you buy for your daughter look like little street walkers. The word "sexy" should be the least of parents concerns. Your little girl is not going out and buying this stuff for herself... you are buying it for her. So if you don't like the idea of your daughter dressing like a stree walker, THEN DON'T BUY IT!

@floraposte:

no, i'm not saying people shouldn't complain on the internet...i'm saying PARENTS have worse things to complain about than how a company decides to DESCRIBE their product.

Hey, if the product WAS too sexy for a tween or whatever, then I would see a valid complaint...but that's not what the complaint was about, it was about the freakin DESCRIPTION which has no bearing on whether the product really is or is not "sexy".

@mrdeeno: I agree, and I was jumped all over yesterday on the original post on this topic when I said that parents should be more worried about raising their own kids, and less worried about what corporations decide to sell, or what artists decide to make.

href="#c9254928">dialing_wand:

I think these companies should complain that parents aren't keeping a leash on what their kids are looking at on the internet.

@badgeman46: A company can market however they choose to, so long as no laws are broken. If parents don't want their kids buying things like this, they shouldn't let them. Corporations are not responsible for upholding the moral fiber of our society. If they were, this would be a sad place indeed.

Also, anyone viewing the web in general can easily be exposed to much more explicit things than crotchless panties. I don't think Amazon product listings are particularly risque in light of the internet as a whole. Once again, it is up to individual parents to protect their children. I'm not claiming this is easy, but it's a simple fact that cannot be changed.

@Applekid: Dude, PATRIOT Act. That is all.

@Eyebrows McGee: I see what you mean, but trying to "fight the culture", no matter what that culture is, has historically been a futile act of desperation. In fact, fighting a pervasive culture has usually been grounds for being declared insane.

I'm not claiming you have no right to disagree with the marketing, or with the trend you describe in general. What I'm saying is that addressing the problem at the level of one's personal relationship with one's own child is always more effective than trying to launch some crusade against the advertising industry.

Not criticizing your parenting at all, so I hope my tone doesn't seem to imply that. The phrase "fight the culture" did catch my attention however, as it has historically been impossible. Robert Pirsig has some fantastic meditations on this in his masterpiece "Lila".

@mrdeeno: Right. You're saying people who make trivial complaints can't be tending to serious matters. So you're making a trivial complaint about a trivial complaint. But presumably you yourself still manage to attend to serious matters, yes? So why do you think the person who dashed off an email to the company can't manage this complex maneuver as well?

@Rhayader: So it makes sense for a company that sells adult, fetishy items to sell children's clothing as well?

Yeah, companies can do whatever they want to but that doesn't mean it's logical.

Seriously, are there not enough problems in the world for parents to worry besides stupid stuff like this?

@mrdeeno: It's possible to worry about more than one thing at one time. Multi-tasking is awesome.

@Rectilinear Propagation: My claim is not that it is logical. It is legal though.

Logicality is a rare find in our world, and we can't depend on the things around us falling into place neatly. There are obstacles we can't remove, so we need to do our best to personally overcome them.

@Rhayader: Really? Then we're defining culture quite differently, as I'd say that successful acts of fighting a culture abound. They're in defense of another culture, of course, so I suppose one could recategorize all these acts as the plaintiff culture being triumphant rather than another culture successfully fought, but that would seem rather bogus to me.

I don't disagree with you about the value of the personal, but I don't think that precludes an industry-direct address, and I don't think the latter is useless.

I'm right there with you. The best way to combat it, though, is with your pocketbook - AND to email the company and say that as a parent you will never purchase clothing for your children from a company called "PrettySinful Risque Lingerie."

@Rhayader:

The ridiculous part about the complaint is that it's not even about what a corporation decided to sell or what an artist decided to make...the complaint's not about the product at all, but rather a word that the vendor used to describe the product...that's what irks me!

@l3lueSunScar: Agreed. Personal responsibility is our only line of defense. We can't control what the world says and does.

@l3lueSunScar: I DON'T BUY streetwalker looking dolls for my daughter. Your reply is therefore MOOT.

It's not a huge deal, this labeling of kids' clothes as 'sexy.' It's indicative of a larger problem that the removal of the word 'sexy' doesn't truly address.

However, it was disgusting, offensive, and uncalled-for. People on this site keep trying to treat good parenting and complaining about disgusting crap like this as mutually exclusive. They're not. I can be a good, responsible parent, AND complain to companies who are this vile.

I know we didn't just save the world, but dammit, we DID get it taken down.

@harlock_JDS: Personally, I assumed they'd be called erotic from now on.

I love the "Thanks for bringing this to our attention" -- that's a well-run company there.

What's the kid in the photo supposed to be? Sexy elf?

I kid, I kid. But a lot of people have already said what I wanted to say, so I'll leave it be.

@floraposte: I'm sure I am failing to express myself as well as I could, but let me try again.

A culture is nothing more than a collective consciousness and sense of values. For that to change, there needs to be a critical mass of the population that is dissatisfied. I would submit that during any historical major culture shifts that seem to have been initiated by one person, there was already a large undercurrent pushing the culture in the new direction. The final, identifiable moment is simply the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

So, to get back to the issue of trying to "fight" this alleged over-sexualization of minors, there is very little that one individual can do. I suppose it's unfair to call the attempt "useless", but it is certainly going to be of no more importance than, say, voting in a political race. The fact is that it is the collective consciousness that ends up mattering, not the opinion of any one single participant. That's what I mean when I say time and energy is much better spent trying to influence our own spheres of life, rather than society as a whole.

Again, I have to recommend Pirsig here. A lot of you have at least heard of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", but "Lila" is much less popular. Both are extremely important works that can shed an interesting light on where our culture has ended up and how it got there. Just great stuff.

@Rhayader:

I think the problem goes much deeper than just protecting their children.

First, whatever happened to raising children to act, think, and DRESS morally or properly? If a child was raised with the right values/morals, there would be no need to protect the child from exposure to things they shouldn't be exposed to because the can be trusted to do right.

Secondly, failure to do the first leads parents to need to protect the child from exposure to things they shouldn't be exposed to, because they fear that exposing the child will now corrupt the child since they failed at raising the child properly.

Thirdly, failure to do both the first 2 leads them to complaints like this, where they now pass on the responsibility of morality to 3rd parties. They failed at raising the child morally, they failed at protecting the child from being exposed to corruption, so let's pass the onus on to strangers to make sure our child is protected.

From what I see in society, most parents don't even bother trying the first 2 steps, they just skip to the 3rd...that way they always have someone else to blame.

It passes two out of three parts of the Miller Test, that should be enough to scare them into taking down the offensive images.

@lrbreckenripple: Uhhhh, what? What you call his or her "reply" is an independent start to a thread. Not sure exactly what you are getting at here.

@lrbreckenripple: You personally may not, but someone out there is or companies wouldn't be selling them. We as consumers are the ones that drive marketing. If there is no desire for a product then it will not sell.

Let's club them like baby harp seals.

As of 8:41 a.m. PST, the description on another of their products hasn't changed:

[snipurl.com]

@mrdeeno: I agree completely. That was the point I tried to make in the original post on this topic yesterday, albeit sarcastically.

Basically, parents are the first, last, and only parties who have a vested interest in making sure their children are raised properly. Casting blame on the world around us, whether out of genuine concern or out of a desire to shirk responsibility, is to focus attention on something that cannot be changed.

Yes this is a bit creepy. I absolutely agree with that fact.

But...come on folks...are we really getting our panties in a bunch over a word? Get over it...seriously. PC conscious people are ruining our society - particularly the parents. You try and protect and shelter your kids to the point where they grow up with a false sense of entitlement and have no idea of how the real world works. Then...these are the SAME parents that are always whining about the younger generation walking around with an undeserved sense of entitlement. Well guess who raised all these kids?

Those tights wouldn't be "sexy" even if they were on an adult.

@Eyebrows McGee:

Right...so then parents have to protest a product description that over-sexualizes pre-teen girls just by mentioning the word "sexy" in the description.

I guess Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant by immaculate conception because it has nothing to do with sex, because I don't see any complaints to disney about teen pregnancy when TEENAGE ROLE MODELS are getting pregnant.

@tc4b: To start, I agree with what you are doing as a parent to complain about what you don't find acceptable.

"I know we didn't just save the world, but dammit, we DID get it taken down."

What have we actually accomplish though? One site took the word "sexy" off an item description. Kids are still going to watch tv, listen to radio, and just go out in public. Honestly do you think your children are influence more by that item description or by what they see on tv shows/commercials, hear in their fav. songs, or read about in magazines. It really sucks that we have little control over what influences the younger generations.

@l3lueSunScar: Yeah, lrbreckenripple seems to feel that your comment was directed specifically at him or her. Sounds like a bit of an ego issue to me.

@l3lueSunScar: Since my kids are younger, I have about 95% control. I may not make much of a difference combating this kind of thing, but I refuse to just lay down for it.