Catherine McKinnon claims that, “Infants, though sensory, cannot be said to posses sexuality…because they have not had the experiences (and do not speak the language) that give it social meaning” (215). This quote immediately brought to mind a recent conversation I had with my housemate about Noah Cyrus (Miley Cyrus’s younger sibling). Ten year old, Noah Cyrus is a new face of “Ooh! La, La! Couture”, the children’s clothing line. Along with Emily Grace (co-start in Hannah Montana), the two are preparing to market a line of lingerie for girls aged 9-14. Believe it or not, these extremely young girls are posing in fishnets and short lacey undergarments in order to advertise their line to global consumers. Fortunately, the latest update on this controversial fashion faux-pas reports that “Ooh La, La! Couture” will not be endorsing the children’s lingerie line.
But Noah’s reputation does not rest here. She has been highly criticized for playfully pole dancing at the 2009 Nickelodeon Teen Choice Awards, as well as for dressing as a dominatrix for Halloween, this past year. It is interesting to see how boots, lace stockings, and a mini-skirt take on an entirely different connotation when worn by a ten year old compared to a 16 or 22 year old. For some reason, females in high school and college are perceived to have a better understanding and sense of responsibility and autonomy to dress oneself in these outfits. I beg to differ.
As we were discussing today in class, there are structural and institutional forces that limit and produce what is considered “desirable”, “sexy”, and “pleasurable”. I might be going out on a limb with this one, but I would propose that the majority of our class could agree that 9 and 10 year olds should not be sporting lingerie in their daily fashionable lives. Yet, why the push for portraits of pre-pubescent girls in erotic dominatrix lingerie? Who exactly is this clothing line for? If it’s for children, then I think we should reconsider what McKinnon is claiming about sexuality and age. If it’s for adults, then shouldn’t we be a bit more concerned for the wellbeing of these children bordering on the line between child pornography and fashion design? I see this particular debate over children’s lingerie as highlighting the controversy over the “allowed” and “not allowed” sexual acts and behaviors that characterize American politics, economics and social constructs.
Wow, I had NOT heard about the childrens lingerie line and am competely set back by someone even coming up with this idea and trying to pursue it. It also makes me question the parents of children willing to allow their daughters to dress in lingerie at age 10. Although, I agree with you that even women in high school and college are still getting a grasp on the "appropriateness" of wearing seduction clothing or lingerie. I know my perspective has been changing during this class, but a child does not yet know the things we have learned. They are easily persuaded by their peers and television. It is concerning that mothers and fathers don't protest these things more, because even if their child isn't doing it their friends may be the girls in the push up bras.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that children have the capacity to fully understand sexuality, but, like C Martin says, they are inluenced by the media. These girls idolize the actresses, singers, and other stars that Hollywood produces, and see them wearing sexy clothing and acting sexy. While young girls might not totally understand what their sexuality or acting sexy means, they do know that that is what is desired by our society. It is not surprising that girls are wanting to emulate the "sexiness" of their Hollywood idols at younger and younger ages because the stars that they try to model are showing more sex appeal at younger and younger ages as well.
ReplyDeleteI first heard about the Noah Cyrus line on Cheslea Lately and figured it was joke. But is it really that shocking? Her older sister Miley has been criticized the past year or so for trying to break away from her disney role into the more sexually driven pop world. Starts like Miley Cyrus and Hilary Duff have both made this transition and received criticism for abandoning their wholesome appearances and values to their younger admirers. I'm sorry but Miley and Hilary aren't going to stay 17 forever. The stars should not be blamed for maturing in the media world they have decided to participate in. Parents should be responsible for providing guidelines and information on the process of maturing. Yes these stars set an example whether we want them to or not but they should not be confined to particular stereotypes as they are having to mature themselves.
ReplyDeleteBack to the Noah Cyrus underwear line. I don't think anyone can agree that this is anything but a terrible idea. But seriously, do 9 year olds even have breasts? Lingerie comes after puberty not after pretty pretty princess.
I respect your argument for these teenage girls and their freedom to explore their sexuality while getting paid for it, but I think it is a bit troubling to simply see it in terms of the inevitable. The fact that it is not so shocking to you or the majority of the American public, for that matter, is exactly the reason it has become normative and therein, so well-accepted. I do not mean to place blame, since we are all responsible for the perpetuation of highly erotic fashion design (whether you participate in it yourself, or if you refrain from actively protesting the line). But I do think that parents are exploiting their little girls for a big fat check. Now whether this is capitalism at its best or at its worst is a matter of opinion, but I also do not think that the lack of breasts constitutes any reason for not taking seriously the greater gender implications of these little girls "choices". Perhaps if little girls, and all females for that matter, were depicted and perceived as sensual beings rather than sexual objects this argument would play out very differently, but that's most definitely not the case; and we shouldn't ignore, nor fuel the reification of this objectification process.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of this children's lingerie line! Needless to say I'm appalled that anyone would put lingerie on a 10 year. I do agree that children at that age are not aware of what sexuality at that age but overtly sexual displays by children are learned.
ReplyDeleteI've observed, especially over the past 5 years, children acting in a way that is age inappropriate. I've seen little kids dancing raunchily with adults around and everyone thinks it's cute and funny but it's so disturbing. These behaviors are learned from the media but in some cases its also the parents.
Check the video: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/1084144/
Cat,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to thank you for your honesty. Secondly, I would like to revisit my initial response to your comment, and attempt to clarify my thoughts. I realized that my reaction to your comment reflects the type of feminist lens through which some females often perceive and criticize the world around them. And by 'feminist', I mean, for this instance, the stereotypical man-hating, bra-burning, white, outspoken, middle class female. As you stated, the majority of American citizens would consider lingerie for 9-14 year olds a superfluous and inappropriate aberration. But after recently hearing Gloria Steinem speak at a lecture, I have reconsidered the power relations at play when certain fashion trends, through the collective dominant discourse, are deemed "slutty", "revealing", and "offensive". All of these characteristics, said of mini skirts, belly shirts, and low-cut clothing, are projected meanings. That is, the image of a 15 year old female in a skin-tight outfit walking around a neighborhood at night is usually considered shocking and problematic. We see this as true, because we fear that young girls are being taken advantage of and exploited for their premature bodies and sex appeal, but this is not the whole story; it is but only one voice in the discussion.
When asked about her feelings toward the risqué clothing that children wear today, Gloria Steinem responded with, "Well, when I was young, I was wearing mini skirts with a belly ring that read: cunt power. At that moment, I realized that it is not our expressions of sexuality that is the problem, but rather, their interpretations. If we think children aren’t mature enough to wear “sexy” clothing, then it is because of our assumptions about the act of wearing those clothes. We automatically assume that being sexy implies a desire for sexual behavior. It goes back to the differentiation between being a sexual object versus a sensual being.
We immediately judge females for calling attention to those around them by looking and dressing a certain way. This resonates with the same argument that, women do not ask to be raped just because the general public perceives her appearance as ‘wanting it’. There is an interpretive role in every situation. If we didn’t place so much responsibility on the female who is exploring her sexuality, than criticizing the system that perpetuates the belief that females can’t or aren’t sexual creatures, then perhaps we could demystify the unknown by calling into question the validity of the sex/gender myths regarding the implications of female behavior.