Everyone Is Still Mad About Those French Vogue Ads With Sexified Girls

When I was a little girl playing dress-up, it always made me so unhappy and pouty that I would just lie around on plush couches and make sad faces. Wait, no, I’m thinking of those controversial ads running in French Vogue right now of (very) pre-teens posing in stilettos and looking way too adult for their own good.

From Jezebel on down in the blogosphere, the blogs are all abuzz about the ads for Cadeaux, as some decry what they see as the oversexualization of young girls, or point out the exploitation of women in general in an attempt to sell clothing.

But who are these ads even aimed at? Probably not me. When I see a little girl dressed up in an outfit that I could never afford I just think, dang, I hope she doesn’t spill apple juice all over that couture. The ads probably aren’t directed at all those six-year-olds with money to burn reading French Vogue, either. So are they just out there to make people talk about them, or actually sell clothes to some mysterious consumer?

What do you think? Are these ads anti-feminist, exploitation, inappropriate, beautiful, a clever advertising ploy or just plain yucky?

French Vogue’s Sexy Kiddie Spread Is Misunderstoood [Jezebel]
French Vogue Dolls Up Little Girls, Turning “Ooh La La” Into “Oh, No.” [Strollerderby]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Chris J. Stone says:

    This is the first time I’ve seen it and I’m not familiar with the criticism, but if it’s mostly from the US or other non-France countries, remember that different cultures have different standards and different tastes. I’m just saying it would be more fair to discuss it if it were happening here, but since it isn’t, there are other factors to consider.

  2. Beaufoux says:

    I think these ads are anti-feminist, exploitation, inappropriate, beautiful, a clever advertising ploy and just plain yucky. Ugh, it just makes me so *insert emotion*!

  3. cspschofield says:

    Is it just me, or does anyone else think that these ads are a VERY mild case? I’ve seen lots worse live and walking around in public. Frankly, these kids look like leftover extras from Bugsy Malone.

    • Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

      Which I thought was a fabulous movie, by the way. :U

    • PadThai says:

      There is something uncomfortable about these pictures, but they are not pornographic. I don’t think it’s tasteful, but I agree with the other comments that there are much more severe cases of young girls being objectified every day.

    • Kishi says:

      Yeah, I was thinking if people are in such a flurry over this, they probably shouldn’t go to the mall.

    • jesusofcool says:

      I’m tempted to agree. Not that I don’t find that kinda gross/weird (I do). But even though I’m a woman who tends to lean on the feminist side of things I do think the ladies over at Jezebel tends to be hyper-sensitive and over-analytical to these types of things.

  4. Jean Naimard says:

    Being french, I never cease to wonder at how religion, particularly the puritan protestant religion that makes the United States of America so stupid (yes, I’m looking at you, southern baptists and mormons!) can rot the brain to the point of totally refusing any representation of the (particularly female) human body.

    The best illustration of this fact is the uproar caused by the “nipplegate” and the ho-hum reaction whenever anyone goes postal and goes on a shooting rampage.

    • osiris73 says:

      You’re confusing the reaction of the US media vs. the reaction of the actual people of US. They’re rarely ever the same thing. Ever.

    • pop top says:

      What does religion have to do with being offended and angry about the sexualization of young girls? It is a problem in this country that needs to be addressed, especially with the easy access that kids now have to their own computers and cellphones. It makes it much easier for predators to find and groom their victims and easier for the girls to hide it from their parents.

      But I’m sure there are no child molesters in France and young women don’t have to worry about their sexuality in French society because everything over there is perfect all the time!

      • Clyde Barrow says:

        They’re not perfect in Europe (France), just more mature and they deal with things much better than us.

        • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

          Yeah, like how they deal with their fear of Muslim immigrants by banning religious clothing. Like how workers go on strike and paralyze the country anytime they think their precious welfare-state benefits are threatened.

          But you go ahead and keep gushing about how progressive and enlightened they are compared to stupid worthless Americans.

          • Jean Naimard says:

            You are just jealous that your fellow americans do not have the gumption to strike whenever they want to fight against the continuous erosion of the middle-class, and, deep down, you still believe the old bromide that if you work “hard enough”, you’ll be a zillionnaire.

            • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

              Oooooh! So another bead on your superiority necklace is that you’re telepathic! It’s sort of exciting to be probed with such depth and accurace, if you know what I mean.

              P.S. I’ve had the dubious experience of being near the wharf when a French ship made a port call–your sailors smell revolting. Just thought you should know!

      • VectorVictor says:

        Squinko–America was founded by fundamentalists and (for the time) religious zealots from Europe (e.g. Puritans, Quakers) that abhorred any sort of sexuality (save for a wife’s “duties”) and typically only permitted private consumption (read: home) of alcohol. Those beliefs are prevalent even today in our society:

        Violence is generally considered acceptable for minors to watch in the U.S., but sexuality is not; in Europe, the opposite is generally true.

        In the U.S., drinking laws are as draconian as the day is long, especially in the South with “dry zones” and the legal drinking age set at 21. In France, there is no legal drinking age (18 to purchase), and the decidedly younger 16 in the UK (18 to purchase). Germany, 14 to drink, and 16/18 to purchase (depending on what you are buying).

        As for the sexualization of young girls, folks should be more upset about the beauty pageants that go on in our country over a couple of covers that IMO honestly don’t look sexual–they look like girls playing pretend grown-up or dress-up that were just scolded for playing in their mother’s makeup.

        • pop top says:

          I love how you’re lecturing me about the country I live in, like I don’t know that we are ass backwards on many issues. Just because I don’t like those covers doesn’t mean I support every single practice of the US government and our society in general. I would also like to point out that Europe has a lot of problems as well (integrating immigrants into society, sex trafficking, etc.) and aren’t some magical bastion of perfection that a lot of people make them out to be. We could do things better here and they could do things better there but insulting our country (or theirs) doesn’t change the fact that our society still sexualizes young girls (with those pageants being a HUGE issue to many who care about this).

        • Verdant Pine Trees says:

          Actually, you, Jean, and JW have it wrong. Puritans were not squeamish about sex within the confines of marriage. They believed it was a natural expression of God’s love, and the type of godly love created by marriage. In fact, there was at least one case in which a man was punished because he refused “congress” with his wife. They weren’t so hot on holidays like Christmas, but that didn’t mean they didn’t enjoy getting frisky.

        • Michaela says:

          Actually, a variety of Christian religions traveled to the Americas before 1776. While many recall the Quakers and Puritans, Catholics colonized Maryland. People of many religions came over just for monetary purposes (consider Jamestown).

          By the creation of the USA, a variety of religions had settled the land (though, yes, those religions were all Christian). Our founding fathers were more focused on Deism than the typical Christian ideal, which is reflected in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson even edited the Bible to remove the supernatural aspects of Jesus’ life.

          It is important to remember that while Puritans inhabited Massachusetts Bay, not all of America fit that mold. The country has been a melting pot since its creation and continues to become more and more diverse every decade.

        • H.Ry says:

          Think there’s a reason why we have such a big problem with molestation/rape in America? If the French can look at these photos and see–how cute–little girls dressing up, but people in the U.S. see sex-objects, who here is off-base? Americans are very sensitive to anything potentially laden with sexual suggestion, and I think it’s because of how we’ve been raised to view sex. You can’t honestly say we’re a permissive people as a whole, and all that suppression doesn’t make us mentally stable when the issue arises. Yes–generalizations–but based on personal observation.

    • Michaela says:

      Millions are members of SBC and Church of Latter-Day Saints. To assume they all (or even half) believe the hyper-conservative crap that some may spout is no better than someone assuming all French-persons are snotty cowards who can’t win a world war and never shave their pits.

      • Clyde Barrow says:

        Oh god that was a poor, poor comment to make. Is that all you can muster up Michaela? Making another tired, lame remark about “war” and whatever the media have force-fed you to believe and then regugitate just to help you feel more enlightenend than the French?

        Fact is Jean Naimard is correct. We American’s are oversensitive and we see “sex” in every little bit of our imaginations. And dammit, our puritan attitudes will get all riled over seeing a “nipple” on a statue or ad such as Cadeaux ad’s. The problem is that we are hypocrits. As long we “feel” good about something, then it’s acceptable. Otherwise, all the special interest groups will be waving their “hear me roar” banners at the steps of the Capital.

        It really comes down to this: We’re not a mature nation anymore. We act like children and we love to throw temper-tantrums at any given moment because our poor, delicate, sensibilities have been shattered.

        And while we’re talking about the Cadeaux ad’s, I suspect that those of you that do not like this ad are going to try to ban the under-18 beauty pageants? I hear no complaints about using nine-year girls, dressed up as hooker’s, and parading them around a stage for the benefit of mommy’s ego and pocketbook yet.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          I think you missed Michaela’s point.

          The point was that Jean Naimard’s comment made a very inaccurate assumption; that all of America is a conservative base. In reality, they are simply the vocal America. If someone doesn’t object, they tend not to complain about it. And since the conservative base objects to just about anything, you hear from them a lot. Michaela’s point was that you can make such assumptions about an entire nation. She made the examples of assuming all French are cowards. Which is obviously not true, and a pet peeve of mine as well as, I assume, for Michaela.

          • Michaela says:

            You seem to be the only one who got my point. I was saying that I get really tired of everyone assuming all Americans (or even all of a particular religion) believe the exact same thing as a few radicals. Those assumptions are as inaccurate as those that people give to the French.

            My comment was not meant to reflect my views on the pictures above, or my feelings toward the French.

        • iParadox{InLove} says:

          As soon as I started up my Computer this morning I heard a very loud *WOOSH* sound, like something going over someone’s head. I immediately came to this site and this story and found out where it came from.

          *stares at JW Pepper*

        • Michaela says:

          I don’t think you got my comment…
          Try rereading it. Was I telling the commenter that French people were lame OR was I telling them that over-generalizations about groups create stupid and inaccurate depictions of populations?

      • El_Red says:

        FYI : USA would have never won their independence war without France’s and Russia’s help.
        Learn your own country’s history.
        Who cares if your friend tends to be snotty. Everyone has faults.
        And by the way, these are Belgian fries. Not French. So ”liberty fries” was the most ignorant redneck campaign ever.

        • Shadowman615 says:

          Like JW Pepper, you also seem to be unable to comprehend what you read.

          • El_Red says:

            I understand. But bigotry presented as sarcasm, or even as an answer to a troll, is not acceptable.

            • Michaela says:

              So because I notice what people say about the French, I am a bigot? I was commenting on how the use of generalizations is stupid and harmful. I never said I believed these stereotypes, but instead that to believe them is no better than believing all Baptists or Mormons are zealots.

              Also, I made a 5 on my AP US History exam (and yes, I am young enough that I could go back and ace it again). I know US History.

    • ssaoi says:

      Is this why Polanski is hiding in France?

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      I’ve lived in both America and France, am an atheist, and still find dressing up little girls to sell clothing to adult women to be objectionable.

    • dragonfire81 says:

      Coincidentally enough, there was a shooting rampage this past weekend that got a lot of notice in the media, far more than these girls did.

    • cspschofield says:

      If you think the headless chicken squawking that’s going on over the latest shooting spree is “ho hum” I hope never to experience what you would consider an uproar.

      I agree (see my above comment) that the subject of this post is Much Ado About Nothing.

    • El_Red says:

      Are you trolling today?

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      You fit in your French box so well. How very quaint and predictable your reply is.

    • kajillion123 says:

      Female form? These girls are prepubescent. They could be boys in wigs for all we know.

  5. dagreenone85 says:

    Personally I don’t have an issue with the pics at all. I think the pics are meant to capture a moment that all adults can relate too “Playing Dress Up”. Whether you were a superhero, model or, solder. In short I think the pics are a representation of what’s going through I childs mind while playing dress up.

    • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

      Normal, healthy kids dress up as characters who DO stuff (astronaut, truck driver, chef) not as characters who do nothing other than lie supine in makeup and heels, waiting for someone to notice and/or screw them.

      • 12345678nine says:

        I like this comment

      • Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

        Those are all men’s occupations, these girls are dressing up as high-paid fashion models or wives of the rich and famous, the epitome of womanhood. okay, okay, put down those flame throwers, it wouldn’t be as funny if it weren’t true to some extent.

      • I just blue myself says:

        I think the ad is fine. Don’t you girls remember when you used to play dress up and how special and grown-up you felt? I think that’s what this ad is going for.

    • El_Red says:

      Playing dress up does not involve complex makeup and hairdo.

      • sugarpox says:

        Actually, for me it did. I used to beg my mom to put makeup on me. She had an old pair of pink sandals that my sisters and I used to fight over. We used to do our hair and put on her old dresses.
        I see nothing wrong with these pictures. Granted, their looks are a little too “come hither” but I think they’re adorable nonetheless.

  6. PunditGuy says:

    Roman Polanski approves.

  7. Mr. Fix-It says: "Canadian Bacon is best bacon!" says:

    Hi, I’m Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC. Why don’t you have a seat over there…

  8. qwickone says:

    Maybe it’s a comment on modeling a la A Modest Proposal – If you’re so incensed about 7 yr olds dressing up as adults while fully covered, why is it ok for a 14 yr old to model underwear. Ok, maybe a fashion magazine isn’t making that commentary on purpose, but maybe we should think about that?

    • 339point4 says:

      That was my first thought as well. These kids are maybe 9 or 10 years old and people go all hysterical seeing them dressed like this, but no one bats an eye when 14 year olds are routinely modeled the same way.

  9. osiris73 says:

    These pics are really pretty mild. I’ve seen worse exploitation of little girls at the competitions they hold at the mall.

  10. heathen says:

    How is this any worse than all the insane American beauty pageant mothers dressing their 3-10 year old daughters up like prostitutes? Vogue is just giving them the chance not to look so tacky now.

  11. Kibit says:

    The girls look like they are playing dress up in their mother’s clothing an makeup.

  12. ecvogel says:

    I just wanna puke looking at those pictures.

  13. Papa Bear says:

    I may be wrong, but isn’t Vogue geared toward upscale women’s fashions? Aren’t most of its readers upscale women interested in wearing these sorts of clothes and maybe purchasing them for their daughters? As such, aren’t these adds simply focusing on the fashions that its readers want to see and those clothes might look on their potential wearers?

    If so, how is it exploiting women and girls who are making huge amounts of money for posing in these adds? Isn’t the point of feminism empowering women so they can earn a decent living in the profession they choose? If these models choose to be models, how is that exploitation?

    What I find intriguing about many feminists is their belief that if a woman chooses to do a job traditionally associated with women and makes a very good living doing it, she is somehow being exploited. Many feminists view these women as traitors for not doing jobs traditionally done by men, when in fact, they are probably holding truer to the ideas of feminism than their detractors. If a woman chooses to be a homemaker, how is that exploitation? It’s true feminism because it’s a woman exercising her rights to choose!

    I always thought feminism was about choices and women being able to choose to exploit their talents and gifts in their favor. If by doing this, they happen to make someone else wealthy, too, so what. Everybody’s work benefits someone else making more money, does it not? More often than not in modern fashion, it is other women becoming wealthy. So its a win, win.

    BTW, if a women chooses to enter a job traditionally held by a man, she should be paid exactly what an man entering that field is paid, and visa-versa. But if she can’t handle the work, she should not be able to keep that job simply because she is a woman. If she were a man performing badly, she would get fired, so why should accommodations be made for poor performance because she is a woman? That is not feminism, but that is the idea many modern feminists hold.

    • wonderkitty now has two dogs says:

      I mostly agree with you, as a “veteran feminist”. These aren’t women in the ads though- but I definitely don’t think they are being exploited. If these girls were told to look “sexy”, forced to do something they weren’t comfortable with, and lost a moment of their childhood- well, that would be different. That’s child abuse and wrong. And while I don’t want to comment too much on how this shoot went down, I doubt it was any of that. They got to put on clothes I wouldn’t even touch and wear make-up. The girl in gold is pushing it with the sexy look, but if she doesn’t know it’s sexy- what’s the upset? This is not a big deal.

      Beauty pageants where 4-year-olds wear midriff bearing costumes are exploitative. Skanky clothes for kids are gross. Obviously, no child would ever wear this. It’s not even made for them.

    • kmw2 says:

      How much do you imagine a model makes for a photo shoot for an advertisement? Especially a seven year old model with no portfolio? Those little girls aren’t Claudia Schiffer or Naomi Campbell, they probably made a couple hundred euros at most. Not exactly bathing in Champagne levels of fundage.

      • Papa Bear says:

        A couple of hundred euros is not exploitation. I question the parents, but kids in modeling, at least in the US are pretty protected. There is often even child service workers at the shoots. BTW, this is how they develop a portfolio.

    • pop top says:

      The sexualization of young girls is not pro-feminism.

      • Papa Bear says:

        Didn’t say it was. Just said that it was not exploitation for a woman who chooses to make a living this way to do so. As far as those pics being sexual, that is all in the eye of the viewer. I qualified my statement by saying that the magazine, Vogue, is geared toward a group of people who may choose to dress their children in these sort of clothes. It is not a sex rag.

        • pop top says:

          “Just said that it was not exploitation for a woman who chooses to make a living this way to do so”

          We’re not talking about adult women here, we are talking about young girls. If adult women want to model, that’s fine.

      • evnmorlo says:

        I don’t see how posing for a women’s magazine can overly sexualize girls (unless there are lots of creepy lesbians buying it)

        • pop top says:

          Men can buy womens’ magazines too. I know it sounds crazy, but they do.

          As for your point, I really want to say the fact that you don’t see anything wrong with it proves my point, but I’ll actually give you a non-snarky answer. Putting “sexy” young girls on the cover of magazines puts those kind of images in the mainstream and makes them seem acceptable. Girls and women already have a lot of problems to deal with in our country re: sexuality and the expression thereof (see: sexy girls’ Halloween costumes, childrens’ pageants, etc.). We don’t need shit like this in the mix as well.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          Try lots of creepy child molesting men buying it. Men do most of the molesting. With that said, these ads aren’t particularly startling to me. It seems like much ado about nothing.

    • Verdant Pine Trees says:

      Sorry, I call bullshit. Feminists were at the forefront of wanting society to respect the work that homemakers and parents do, demanding that employers reconsider the need for child care and flexibility in the workplace. Meanwhile, please find me an example of a woman calling another woman a traitor for taking a traditional job, and then prove that it is widespread.

      As for your comment about women not being able to handle jobs traditionally held by men, first please find me proof that feminists support women continuing in jobs despite “poor performance”.

      Aside from hostile workplaces (I’m thinking of a dioxide plant in which a woman supervisor was persistently harassed, including through sabotage; but I can also think of a few workplaces hostile to men), the real issue is not about gender differences, it’s about the fact that whether you are a man or a woman, you can be penalized for having children or prioritizing your home life. My husband’s workplace routinely expects the men to “toe the line” as far as overtime, bringing work home, etc., and many places are much worse. Most of the people he works with came of age in a time when women stayed home and took care of everything, and the man was expected to break his back working late every night. Now everyone, regardless of gender, is expected to both break their back but also take care of everything family-wise.

      • Papa Bear says:

        I fully support a woman’s right to work in their field of choice and to be paid equal wages to men for that work. And, I never said women could not handle the jobs traditionally handled by men. I said that if they could not handle them, they should not be able to use their status as a woman to get get special accommodations. There hundreds, if not thousands of EEOC complaints asking for just this. All you need to do is read the EEOC’s opinion digest. According to the EEOC and to virtually every state’s fair employment laws. accommodations must be made for a woman who cannot perform a physical aspect of a job simply because she is a woman.

        As far as feminists being at the forefront of demanding society respect homemakers, this is a fairly recent phenomena. For years, the majority feminist criticized women made the choice to stay home.

        I have two daughters whom I encourage to work in whatever field they choose. These girls can repair their own cars, are both black belts in Tae Kwon Do and yet both were part of a world championship All Star Cheerleading squad, the CYC Raiders of Kenosha, WI. One is planning on law school and the other teaching. So I am all in support of true feminism.

    • El_Red says:

      I resent their makeup. If these girls were simply dressed, it would be cute. It’s the makeup that makes it so creepy.

  14. wonderkitty now has two dogs says:

    Eh. If little girls aren’t going to see them (unless they get their dirty hands on Mom’s magazine) I don’t see what the HUGE deal is, honestly. I would rather children play dress up in couture than some of the skank stuff I see here in the States. Has anyone seen the skank Halloween costumes for kids these days? I’d rather my kid ask me if she could wear a nice dress and make-up then a midriff showing costume.

    The girl in the gold is definitely looking “sexy”, and it’s a bit creepy. But, it’s just dress-up for them. I’m gonna vote with “clever” but not anything else.

    • Michaela says:

      The girl in gold (and red on the tiger pelt…I think it is the same girl) was the only one I felt was a little racy. The rest reminded me of dressing-up in my mom’s clothes when I was a kid.

    • wonderkitty now has two dogs says:

      I did not just commit a “then/than” grammar mistake! It’s the one I hate the most! PLEASE FORGIVE ME, GRAMMAR GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. oldwiz65 says:

    In the U.S. it would be kiddie porn, good for a long stint in jail and a sex offender label for the rest of your life.

    Personally though, I would just consider it tacky.

  16. Beeker26 says:

    Yet it’s still more tasteful than Toddlers and Tiaras.

  17. Bitingback says:

    Seriously… would people be all ticked off and screaming “child porn” if they saw these pictures in an art gallery or museum? I find the pictures of the little girls juxtaposed with high fashion to be intriguing in that little girls often want to grow up to look like the models in Vogue. Why do we think it is anymore becoming for women to look that way in a magazine? In my opinion, it is all gross, but Vogue sells a crap ton of magazines for reasons that I don’t understand. This is hardly salacious. More importantly, it should remind some of us women to ask ourselves why we enjoy looking at pictures that depict such fantasies of money, thinness and beauty in highly unrealistic ways.

    • pop top says:

      “More importantly, it should remind some of us women to ask ourselves why we enjoy looking at pictures that depict such fantasies of money, thinness and beauty in highly unrealistic ways.”

      More importantly, it should remind some of us women to ask ourselves why we let society make us think we should enjoy looking at pictures that depict such fantasies of money, thinness and beauty in highly unrealistic ways and strive for it.

  18. Clyde Barrow says:

    Anti-feminist? WTF? Just how can an ad such as this be “anti-feminist?”.

  19. OSAM says:

    Lol @ Jezebel.

  20. blink says:

    I’m sure these girls have mothers; any criticism of them? This type of exhibition of sex at an inappropriate age is simply status quo in Western society. So boo hoo to all you phonies who are appalled by this. You’re all part of the status quo and helped to create the monster.

  21. Shinumo says:

    Rabbits wearing underpants. Seriously. Rabbits. Wearing. Underpants.

  22. dourdan says:

    i think it means that the perfume they are selling is so “fun” it will make you feel like a very high fashion kid……maybe

  23. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    They’re cute and I like them. I see nothing sexual or shocking about them. If someone thinks these are ‘sexy’ I’d say that person has a personal problem. Those wishing to puke, go right ahead and puke, I’ll hold your hair back for you.

  24. I wumbo. You wumbo. He- she- me... wumbo. Wumbo; Wumboing; We'll have thee wumbo; Wumborama; Wumbology; the study of Wumbo. says:

    I think the point of the ad is to feel young in their [whatever they sell].

  25. sweetgreenthing says:

    I have a 4 hear old daughter and it doesn’t really bother me. I’ve seen much worse in the girls’ section at kohl’s lately. The kid in gold is the only one I kind of flinch at, but I think all in all the ads are still fine. I think it does speak to the gross excess of fashion, that when we see it on girls we feel both drawn to and revolted by the show- and it’s clever that a brand that IS part of that gross excess points fingers at it. It’s an old tactic.

  26. Jane_Gage says:

    We didn’t need little girls fantasising about growing up to be research scientists anyway.

  27. Combat Medic says:

    Maybe they are trying to say that their clothes will make you feel like a little kid playing dress up again, and by extension feel younger? IDK. But its honestly not half as bad as what (or how little) I’v seen on younger girls in the mall or at Disneyland.

  28. sprintchickwv says:

    A lot of people are talking in the comments about a woman’s right to participate in whatever sort of work she would like, which I agree with, but let me point out that These. Are. Not. Women. They are children, young pre-pubescent children who have no idea what they are doing. A nine-year-old doesn’t know enough (about media theory, the fashion industry, or her own personhood) to make a decision about whether or not to participate in sexual advertising. Really, I would go as far to say it’s inappropriate to make children the focal point of ANY advertising campaign for a product that is meant for adults. Unless the product in question is for children, I see no need to use them as advertising fodder.

  29. Tevokkia says:

    I might be a little irked about them if the hemlines were high or the bustlines were low, but I’ve seen worse at a primary school cheerleading competition. This is Toddlers in Tiaras level dress-up to me.

    Not that Toddlers in Tiaras isn’t a plague all by itself.