home an unabashed exploration of the plain, ordinary, mysterious matter of vaginas contact | about vbook survey | vvmail list | participate
 public: down under with Rose:  
A bra designed for eight-year-old girls hit the market last week and the media went ballistic.  

  Storm in a Triple-A Cup
by Rose Cooper
down under with Rose main pagedown under with Rose  
It was a fairly tame little strappy blue number, but it caused a big commotion. A bra designed for eight-year-old girls hit the market last week and the media went ballistic.

My initial reaction to this underdeveloped undergarment was “they’ve got to be kidding”. Then something started niggling at me - isn’t this current wave of concern about fashion’s effect on child welfare all a little bit too little too late?

What is it about a bra, that screams “sexploitation” louder than the skimpy bikinis and halter-tops that kids have been wearing since the 70s? Where was the moral outrage then? Let’s face it, the corporate monster hijacked everyone’s sense of decency long ago…society has tolerated far worse assaults on the innocence of children. This bra controversy struck me as more than a little ironic.

It’s incredible that I have to point this out, but a bra is, ostensibly, an item of underwear. Unlike the Viking-inspired, Gautier number once favoured by Madonna, the garment is clearly meant to be worn underneath clothes – ergo hidden from view.
So…where’s the beef?

The case against the bra went thus: It’s padded, forcing children to look older (and supposedly sexier) and the older-looking child would then be more vulnerable to pedophiles.

Superficially, these arguments seem valid, but let me play devil’s advocate. Spokespersons for the bra assured the media that it isn’t padded, but merely lined with felt. Personally, I think it sounds practical.

Surely a pubescent primary school child clad in today’s teeny-tiny midriff tops would present a more demure visage wearing an opaque bra, than she would wearing no underwear at all. Personally, those ultra-low slung hip huggers strike me as far more inappropriate for children - I’ve seen ten year-olds baring more flesh than Cher at the Oscars. Where was the outcry about that?

However, it was the pedophile angle – which turned my niggle into full-blown anger. Somewhere within that argument, is the contention that the twisted mind of a pedophile is something that could be aggravated by the style of underwear worn by an unsuspecting child.

It stuck me (like a cricket bat up side of the head) that this conclusion is exactly the same as saying that a woman who dresses provocatively, is asking to be raped – a notion that takes pride of place in the Politically Incorrect Hall of Fame.

News flash no. 2: Pedophilia was around even in the days of corsets and pantaloons. By citing a greater pedophilia threat as a reason for children not to wear bras – they’re saying people cannot be held responsible for what their sexual urges “force” them to do. It’s playing into their sick hands.

To make matters worse, it’s become increasingly hard to differentiate pedophilia from society’s mainstream obsession with sex and youth. After all, Anna Kournikova and Britney Spears both attained sex goddess status while they were still minors and the emergence13 year old “supermodels” red flagged the fact that the powers that be in the media and fashion industries had lost all conscience. The corporate monster wins another round. Sexploitation has become so much a way of life, teenage sex symbols have become the norm. To paraphrase Derryn Hinch – who’s looking after the children?

In the 60s, the sexual revolution was able to stage a coup over the moral majority – so why can’t the same thing happen in reverse? I’m not saying we should return to the sexual double-standards, stereotypes and bigotry of the 50s, but it’s becoming obvious that by achieving our so-called freedom we enslaved ourselves in a far more sinister way. We weren’t nearly evolved enough to handle it. Humans lack the necessary self-respect. Times changed once before, no reason why they can’t change again. For starters, someone brave has to slay that corporate monster.

Got a sling-shot?

  email Rose     
home about vagina verite vagina world vagina talk vaginaverite.com features vaginaverite.com reference  

  about the site • mission statement • terms of use • contact • vvmail list
© 2000-2012 vagina vérité®.  site designed by leave the castle