Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default High heels for girls are sexualising children

    High heels for girls are sexualising children, parenting groups warn

    Retailers are selling high-heeled shoes to girls as young as three, according to parenting groups who fear the new fashion trend is prematurely sexualising children.

    By Anita Singh - 13 Jun 2010

    Three-year-old Suri Cruise is regularly pictured in her ballroom-dancing shoes

    The trend was sparked by pictures of Suri Cruise, the three-year-old daughter of actors Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, who is regularly photographed in sparkly heels.

    Asda, GapKids and Next are among the High Street brands who offer heels for young girls.

    Justine Roberts of Mumsnet, the parenting forum, said: "Some of the shoes I have seen on sale look more suited to a lap-dancing club than the feet of a young girl."

    "The items in question are prematurely sexualising young children
    . We are saying to retailers, 'Have a look at your range and ask yourselves if these items are appropriate. Some of the school shoes Tesco sells have got a two-inch heel. You shouldn't have a high heel if your feet are developing."

    "It's not about being Mary Whitehouse. It's about not sleepwalking into a world where this is normal."

    "Young girls always want to dress up and emulate adults, and that's fine. But when the bulk of the range on offer is like this, then it is making our children grow up too fast."

    Mumsnet is running a campaign, Let Girls Be Girls, asking retailers to sign up to a code of practice and given an undertaking not to sell products which prematurely sexualise children.

    Nicola Lamond of Netmums, another parenting group, said: "I went shopping with my daughter and was horrified by how many shoes came with a high heel in sizes to fit girls as young as three. These shoes will be harder to walk in than flat shoes so I'd be worried my child would injure themselves."

    Gregor McCoshim, a podiatrist, warned that young children should not wear heels. "The fact children can wear these is worrying. Any heel above 2cm increases the risk of twisting an ankle. Wearing them can cause strains in the back which is a potential problem for their growth and development."

    A spokesman for Asda, which is currently selling a pair of Disney Princess children's sandals with a 3cm heel, said the retailer had received no customer complaints. A Next spokesman said: “Their popularity suggests many parents agree we’ve come up with a look that’s special without seeming inappropriately grown up.” GapKids said their child heels had been tested to ensure safety.

    The subject of Suri Cruise's footwear has become a hot topic on parenting forums. Her mother said they did no harm. "Like every little girl, she loves my high heels. They are actually ballroom dancing shoes for kids. I found them for her and she loves them."

    In April, Primark withdrew padded bikini tops aimed at girls as young as seven following criticism that the items were sexualising children.

    David Cameron, then leader of the Opposition, described the clothing as "completely disgraceful" and condemned the "early commercialisation and sexualisation of our children".


  2. #2
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Dance Teachers: Stop Sexualizing Your Pre-Teen Students

    Social media users have expressed dismay and shock after an image of six-year-old girls dressed only in skimpy underwear at a dance competition emerged online. Users have expressed their anger at the overt sexualisation of the small girls, and this outrage has led to a debate in the over-sexualisation of young girls in the dance industry as a whole.

    Are the dance industry and main stream media sexualizing little girls?

    According to experienced dance teachers with many decades in the industry, the mode of dress for competitive dancers has changed considerably in the course of the past few years. Teachers and observers alike have noted that the costumes that young girls were once given to wear during performances were once quite considerably modest. However, nowadays, there is a trend to make the outfits as small and revealing of flesh as possible.

    Many cultural commentators believe that the sexualisation of children in dancer performances can be credited in large part of the rise of overt sexuality among the most popular pop artists of the day. Young girls who are interested in dance and performance tend to idolize older female pop artists such as Beyonce, Nicki Minaj, and Ariana Grande. All of these singers have appeared at some point or another dressed in incredibly skimpy outfits. It is believed that the girls that they too have to bear their flesh on stage to match up to the standards presented by their favorite recording artists.

    Some advocates have attempted to shrug off the criticism of the sexualised outfits saying that the smaller, more skin tight costumes are beneficial to the girls as it allows to move more freely. However, as the smaller and more revealing outfits have come in tandem with a significant increase in the makeup applied to very young dancers on stage these claims have been met with incredulity.

    Critics of the trend in the dance industry have claimed that the skimpy outfits are very likely to pander to the deviant sexual desires of paedophiles and may even facilitate them in normalising their desires. Critics have also warned that the sexualisation of young girls may also have an impact on their long-term self-esteem as it teaches children that they are only worthy of attention if they are overtly sexualised.

    Here are some examples in this video to make things clear:


  3. #3
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Just when you thought sexualising of girls in the dance industry couldn’t get worse

    Last year we exposed global dancewear company California Kisses for posting sexualised images of underage and even pre-teen girls on their Instagram – images that attracted hundreds of comments of a sexual nature from adult men which CK failed to even moderate.

    image : http://melindatankardreist.com/wp-co...07/popthat.jpg

    Pop a 12 year-old's virginity says global dancewear company. The girl on your left is 16. The one in the middle is 14. The one to your right, she's 12 years old.'Pop that'; For those who are unaware, this is a porn-inspired phrase referring to the ‘popping’ of her cherry – taking her virginity. It’s a popular porn genre. It is also the phrase superimposed over the three child models on the homepage of California Kisses (CK).

    But it seems the message is not getting through. Yet another dance wear company (which also sells swimwear) is regularly posting sexualised photos of underage girls on its popular social media account. Frilledneck Fashion is an Australian company trading online internationally.

    image - http://melindatankardreist.com/wp-co...rilledneck.jpg

    Note how the young girls pictured are dressed, styled and posed. Even when dressed in dancewear, girls are not depicted dancing (see the image above of the girl in red lying supine with an arched back.) Clothing is designed to emphasise certain parts of the body, drawing attention to adult, sexual features children do not yet possess. Girls replicate poses and sultry facial expressions that would be common in sexy adult female models. There are many other examples of even younger girls we have chosen not to show.

    image - http://melindatankardreist.com/wp-co...illedneck2.jpg

    It is important to remember also that these images are carefully constructed. Every detail is deliberate, designed this way to sell a product. This is not about girls’ self-expression, this is about adults directing them children in costuming, how to pose and how to look at the camera. This is not how children look playing at the beach.

    This comes in the wake of advice from E-Safety Commissioner Alistair MacGibbon, who warned that images on children online were increasingly being co-opted and misused by paedophiles. Does Frilledneck Fashion not care about where images of its young models might end up?

    image - http://melindatankardreist.com/wp-co...illedneck3.jpg

    According to the American Psychological Association’s 2007 Task Force into the sexualisation of girls, sexualisation occurs when:

    • a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

    • a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

    • a person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

    • sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person

    Sexualisation is not the same as healthy sexuality, or natural, age appropriate curiosity and discovery. Child directed play, dress ups and trying on mum’s lipstick and high heels does not constitute sexualisation. There are several common misconceptions or defences for sexualisation we’ve addressed below.

    “Sexualisation is in the eye of the beholder”

    Micki Wood, mother of US child beauty pageant star Eden Wood, made this same argument in response to child advocates and health professionals who spoke out against sexualising and exploitative pageants, claiming that if an individual looks at a child and thinks ‘sex’ the problem is with them. At this time Eden was six years old and famous for her Vegas showgirl routine.

    This notion that viewers are simply choosing to view children though a sexualised lens is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue, one that obscures reality in such a way as to let advertisers and marketers off the hook completely, as if deliberately contrived ads somehow happened by accident and viewers are seeing something that isn’t there. This argument is either disingenuous or indicates a lack of understanding into the significant global body of research into the harms of sexualisation. (See our resources page for more.)

    “Critiquing sexualisation = shaming girls”

    A common refrain is that to acknowledge sexualised clothing is to ‘shame’ girls for their choices. The fact is, the sexualisation of girls has very little to do with girls choices, and much more to do with adults- companies, advertisers and marketers- whose financial interests are at stake, as can be seen here- corporations who make choices to sexualise girls for their own financial gain.

    Calling out retailers that manufacture and sell padded push-up bras and g-strings for pre-pubescent girls, clothing and underwear with sexualised and suggestive slogans and merchandise embedded with the logo of global pornography brand Playboy is not shaming girls. It is holding these companies accountable.

    “Critiquing sexualisation = victim blaming”

    Another accusation from sexualisation deniers is that accurately labelling children’s clothing as sexualised is tantamount to arguing children are inviting sexual attention or even sexual assaults from grown men. Identifying sexualisation and outlining the harms for girls is in no way suggesting girls or victims are responsible for crimes against them. What the research does indicate, however, is that the sexualisation of children may play a role in ‘grooming’ children for abuse.

    image - http://melindatankardreist.com/wp-co...illedneck4.jpg

    Dr Emma Rush, co-author of Corporate Paedophila report said, “Premature sexualisation also erases the line between who is and is not sexually mature, and as such, may increase the risk of child sexual abuse by undermining the important social norm that children are sexually unavailable.”

    The American Psychologial Association concluded that “Ample evidence testing these theories indicates that sexualisation has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality and attitudes and beliefs.”



    This is how the kuffar sexualize children, and this is what they want to do to Muslim girls; hence their accusing hijab of "sexualizing" little girls when a look at the 4 bullet points above shows that hijab is opposite to all of them and protects girls from sexualization.

    Last edited by islamirama; Apr-14-2018 at 05:09 PM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts