Posted by Amanda Marcotte December 11, 2007 in Boggles the Mind, Fashion
Spotted in the juniors’ section at Wal-Mart. Since I’m in a generous mood, I’m going to pretend they’re encouraging teenage girls to shoplift.
51 Responses to “I want ones that say, “Who needs panties?””
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Ew ew ew ew ew. That is *so* skeevy.
Sweet zombie Jesus.
I’m wonder how long it’s going to be before they just come out with juniors panties that say “Whore” in glitter in cute swirly letters. Maybe the O can be a daisy or something.
Why on earth would you need that phrase on your panties? Or any other article of clothing?
To be fair, those panties apparently say on the back, “…when you’ve got Santa.” IMO, that reduces the skeevy factor, but not by much.
I find Wal-Mart’s standards utterly confusing. On the one hand, they get all squirrelly and self-righteous about selling Plan B and rap CDs with raunchy lyrics, and then they turn around and carry stuff like this. I seriously don’t get these people.
No thanks, I’m holding out for the pair that says “Who needs credit cards… when these panties cost three dollars?”
oh. I guess that’s a little better than what I thought the implication was: “…when you’ve got a pussy.”
And I suppose that Santa comes down the Chimney only once a year?
Gack. With cheap panties like those, you’ll need those credit cards to buy gyne-lotramin or equivalent.
This is one of the many reasons I just don’t shop there.
“To be fair, those panties apparently say on the back, “…when you’ve got Santa.” IMO, that reduces the skeevy factor, but not by much.”
I disagree. These are in the juniors dept. Shoppers in that area tend not to be in the santa believing camp anymore. So its basically saying “get a skeezy old sugar daddy, teehee!” But with santa added in to pretend that’s not what it says.
You have got to be fucking shitting me.
Why not put that on a $6 tee shirt instead? Wouldn’t “Santa” be more likely to see it?
Not to mention the fact that it will be cold day in non-existant hell before we see boys underwear that links their genitals to money.
Why not put that on a $6 tee shirt instead? Wouldn’t “Santa” be more likely to see it?
Well… let’s think about that for a moment and what it would mean. Now excuse me a moment while I gag…
Honestly, I don’t understand why there are slogans on panties period, seeing as the point of them would be for someone (aside from you) to see them.
Betty Boondoogle,
Remember the Onion’s Larry King column a while back, “I Am Fucking Insane?” One of the ramblings was, “I don’t give a fuck who you are, I paid the goddamn bill.”
That should have said, “why their are slogans on children’s panties,” I apologize.
Matt - I have no idea what you’re talking about and so the reference is lost on me. Linkie?
Ultra, you got it right the first time… lol…
So, if the panties are in the junior’s department, and the girls are old enough to know that Santa isn’t real, but is really their daddy, and they are going to wear these panties to send him a message when they see him….
I need a brain shampoo, stat. ICK.
And I suppose that Santa comes down the Chimney only once a year?
Geez, no wonder Santa only lasts for 34 microseconds per house. The guy should try having a little fun the rest of the year, too.
I’m wonder how long it’s going to be before they just come out with juniors panties that say “Whore” in glitter in cute swirly letters.
There’s a brilliant scene in one Family guy episode where the mom takes her awkward daughter out shopping for “cool, cute” clothes. The mom browses through several increasingly offensive T-Shirt slogans (”This one says, ‘I’m easy’–ooh, how about ‘Cheap slut’?”) before they finally agree on “Cum Dumpster”. I’m starting to wonder if that was prediction instead of parody…
Maybe the O can be a daisy or something.
Or an onion ring.
Lois Griffin: “Oh what about this Meg, a pink baby tee that says “Little Slut”. That seems pretty hip.”
Meg Griffin: “I don’t know if that’s really me mom.”
Lois Griffin: “Well, they’ve got one that says “Porn Star” and another that says “Sperm Dumpster”, and they’re all written in glitter.
Meg Griffin: “Alright, alright. Give me “Sperm Dumpster”.
Lois Griffin: “That’s the spirit!”
I’ve actualy seen a shirt with the word Slut all done up in glitter and the thing looked about the right size for a 13-15 year old girl. And this was about 3 years ago, Family guy wasn’t predicting anything it was just making a comment on what is already out there … scary
DeadMan
Don’t fool yourselves ladies feminism is totally to blame for the sexualization of young children. Just look at the feminist notions of sexual independence and economic self-reliance glamourized by these very panties.
Join the Republican Party now before it is too late!!!
But hey, this is just like Fox News…
It’s a very twisted, and paternalistic view of women. As property…
“I’m starting to wonder if that was prediction instead of parody…”
I think it was more a reaction to the “Porn Star” and “Pimp” (or was it “Pimpette”?) lines that were already being marketed to disturbingly young girls. The “Cum Dumpster” shirt was the real-trend-taken-far-too-far punchline.
Someone upthread mentioned The Onion–they did something on it a while ago.
That underwear is the exact wrong color to clearly convey the holiday message hidden on the ass.
I would wholeheartedly condone shoplifting from Wal-Mart if I didn’t know they would just take the loss out of their serfs’ employees’ asses.
Oops, “serfs’” should be crossed out. Didn’t mean to give away the game.
RIGHT! Once you fill young girls minds with the idea that they can be anything that they want to be, well, then what do you have then… A lot of women that don’t want to cook and clean and bake cookies and sit at home while their republican husbands cruise airport mens rooms for casual sex on their many ‘business’ trips…
Then you have women running for president and running corporations and talking all that ‘man talk’ and then there’s the man on dog sex and then gays and then all hell breaks loose and people start expecting accountability for their leaders and the government and the republicans can’t have that now can they…
So you see that these underwear are purely harmless… Consider what could happen if this is made into a big deal…
I really need to stop smelling that Kool-Aid…
For those that don’t do nuance: /sarcasm
wtf’ing f. Plan B, no. Uncut CDs or DVDs, no. Projectile weapons and clothing that labels its adolescent wearer as a whore, sure. It’s really the modern version of victorian patriarchy in a nutshell.
Of course, Walmart isn’t nearly at the forefront of this kind of soft-core child porn. Even trying to find unsexualized clothing for under-10 girls can be hard work. (One of my neighbors was commenting, for example, that the least upsetting sunday-go-to-meeting dress she could find locally for her six-year-old grand-daughter had spaghetti straps and tailoring to match.)
Why not put that on a $6 tee shirt instead? Wouldn’t “Santa” be more likely to see it?
Hey now, “He sees you when you’re sleeping!”
“He knows when you’re awake!”
Santa is just like God. Or Jesus. He’s always watching you. Even in the bathroom.
And I hate to say it, but my mom does teach some 10 and 11-year-olds who still believe in Santa. Hmmph.
Santa is just like God. Or Jesus.
Who needs credit cards when I have Jesus?
Of course “Jesus” would be written on that teen’s ass …
It’s massively icky. I guess I’ve led an excessively sheltered life, but I’m having a real problem imagining (1) why someone would produce such a thing and especially (2) the psychology of someone who would actually buy such a thing.
Or is it simply an ultra-tasteless gag gift? Something for pedophiles to fetishize? Something no one would actually wear??
Somewhere, out there, someone pitched this idea. And someone else green lighted it. I often wonder if my misanthropy is excessive. Apparently not.
Gyah, between that and the “Brown” t-shirt with the SS’s totenkopf symbol on it having been sold at Wal-Mart, I have even MORE reasons to not like them. >.
Not long ago I saw a girl of about five with a T-shirt that said:
1. I want it.
2. You buy it for me.
Any questions?
I was torn between amusement and annoyance. There was nothing sexual about the message, but it still wasn’t a very wholesome one. As if manipulating others into giving you things was the highest value a little girl could aspire to.
why dont they just superimpose that machine that you slide your credit card through over the crotch of the panties? i bet the same people who buy this abusive shit for their daughters would think it’s just as amusing.
seriously, i have a sister who grew up reading Cosmo & bodice rippers, & at base, this is the what she believes about women. the gross thing is, she has a girl who she’s imbedded these beliefs into.
i want to scream & cry at the same time.
as for the people who green light this child pornification, we need a michael moore to drag them out & make fun/humiliate/expose them for the creepy lowbellies they are.
I hate almost all the messages on children’s clothing and probably all advertising directed at children. If it’s not bizarrely sexualized for girls, ridiculously militarized for boys, or advertised as having “attitude”, it’s usually just crap anyway. I buy the plain or striped shirts, underwear should only be read to determine which of my sons it belongs to, and the pants and shoes just have to fit. Some days they look like slobs, some days they look cute as hell, and some days they look like extras from Leave It to Beaver. Sure, they have some Spiderman and Star Wars shirts, but that’s for weekends. Luckily, they’re still young and controllable.
I remember the fights my wife had with my daughter, who was all about image. I stayed the hell out of discussions of whether a twelve-year-old should be allowed to have thong underwear, wear miniskirts and halter tops on very cold days, and similar topics. Good parenting involves saying no, but I also knew that good parenting involves letting a child act beyond her age now and then. Too much control is repressive, too little is not showing love. There’s no winning if the messages of self-respect fall on deaf ears. My daughter had too much self-esteem and not enough self-respect and didn’t and probably still doesn’t know the difference. She was the target audience of such panties, my wife and I were the horrified onlookers as she would invariably be drawn to such things, and the rest of the world got a lesson in how things can go wrong (but no lesson in how to right things.) At some point, it becomes impossible to disallow all the dumb choices someone wants to make.
I don’t see wh there wa the comment about Gyne-Lotrimin. These panties seem to be breathable cotton.
And as for Betty Boondogle’s comment: Appropriate male underwear would say “See the scar on my cock? I was an Ob-Gyn’s bitch for an extra $200!”
And Dorothy, the daisy is for virgins, the onion ring is for later on. While I think onion rings are a fine side dish, I can imagine that at future purity balls fathers will give dasies to their daughters as they decline to eat the worst prepared onions ever fried.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that if I want neutral, let alone empowering, messages on clothes for my daughter (even now, at the age of 5 months, to say nothing of later), I’m bloody well going to have to design them myself and iron them on.
I’m currently looking for a good picture of Wonder Woman to put “Fights Like a Girl” under. (Note: I wish I could take credit for the idea, but someone else came up with it.)
Betty,
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33734
I have slowly come to the conclusion that if I want neutral, let alone empowering, messages on clothes for my daughter (even now, at the age of 5 months, to say nothing of later), I’m bloody well going to have to design them myself and iron them on.
CustomizedGirl.com will let you put pretty much anything you can upload onto a t-shirt. I’ve ordered a couple of things from them and they’re good quality. Frequent sales, too.
Truth is these teen panties are sold because they shock grown-ups, and teens like to shock grown-ups, so there’s a market for ‘em.
Now, that doesn’t make our shock illegitimate, because the sentiment (Santa ass or no Santa ass) is legitimately repugnant to thinking beings. But it is the reason this apparel was designed, made, marketed, and why it sells.
Once again, the skeevy invisible hand of the market is touching us inappropriately.
I suggest readers in Cary NC or wherever these unmentionables are found should buy the lot of them. Then take them directly to customer service for a full refund. I’ll keep them off the shelves for a day. Eventually they’ll show up on Walmart’s apparel buyer’s computer as having such a high return/restock rate that they’ll be considered unprofitable and cut from the merchandise list.
Don’t just tut-tut. Give that invisible hand a good smacking, folks.
.
Adam, I like your idea.
Feminists don’t let feminists shop at Wal-Mart.
Why were you at Wal-Mart to begin with?
MH - I followed the link. If you mean Amanda, it’s not her photo. It was taken by a commenter at feministing, and Amanda picked up the story. But yeah, for a second I had an Amanda-shops-at-Walmart?? moment.
Just out of curiosity, what’s a good way for parents to tell their daughters exactly what they hate about this kind of thing without sounding like they’re trying to bottle up/deny/vilify their daughters’ sexuality wingnut-style? Most girls who want to wear these things want to feel sexy and attractive to boys, so how do you get the message across that wanting to feel sexy and attractive isn’t antithetical to having self-respect, and that you can’t magically get assholes to treat you well by not wearing the “wrong” clothes? It just seems like most people who object to these clothes are engaging in a little slut-shaming, and since I know people here generally don’t think that way, I’m wondering how they frame their arguments.
I should have been clearer. When I say “most people who object to these clothes,” I mean most people not posting here.
Just out of curiosity, what’s a good way for parents to tell their daughters exactly what they hate about this kind of thing without sounding like they’re trying to bottle up/deny/vilify their daughters’ sexuality wingnut-style?
Disclaimer: I am only a parent to cats. However, having been a teenager, the most productive line for me would have been to discuss how these “sexy” items (and the “whore” stuff) are trying to convince girls that their sexuality isn’t something that belongs to them, but is a commodity that’s up for sale to the highest bidder. Would they cut off their arm and sell it to whoever wanted to buy? If not, why try to sell any other body parts?
Just a notion off the top of my head.
junk science, I can definitely recommend Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers’ Schemes (currently on sale at Amazon for ten bucks!). I’m only partway through it, but it provides a lot of things to think about and some solid suggestions as to how to get your daughter thinking about this stuff. They also point out that teenagers are really good at seeing through this kind of thing if they want to be. I don’t have any kids yet, but when I do, I’ll be trying to limit the damage that Disney can do.