“What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.”

What are we doing to our little girls? This is the question I have when I see my neighbor's daughter of 4 years old in a bikini...that's right, not a tankini or a sporty two-piece but a cutesy, blue polka dot bikini. Why not mind my business? Why not put my head in the sand?  Because it's not just my neighbor's little girl, little girls of all ages are adopting the sexualized fodder of the marketing industries. And THAT IS DANGEROUS FOR EVERYONE! 

Really! This an Appropriate Swimsuit for a Child? 

Maybe a great many mothers have no clue about the origins of the bikini, so let us dive in! 

The modern bikini was first introduced in 1946, despite the controversy, most of Europe had embraced it and by the 1950s a market was created in the U.S., Hollywood no doubt be among the first to popularize it, Esther Williams, Betty Grable, Marilyn Monroe and Brigitte Bardot all used the bikini as a prop to increase their sex appeal. Though still relatively small in popularity, designers started to push the envelope and took their designs to the fringes of decency. Critics spoke on one of such designs, "It's nothing more than a G-string. It's at the razor's edge of decency." A 1957 issue of fashion magazine Modern Girl, was quoted saying: "it is hardly necessary to waste words over the so-called bikini since it is inconceivable that any girl with tact and decency would ever wear such a thing".  The bikini was such a topic of moral decency and controversy all over the globe, it was banned by Spain, Portugal, and Italy and it remained prohibited in many US states. Prior to 1965, one could get a citation for wearing a bikini on many of the east coast beaches. But by the end of the decade, a trend for strapless styles developed, these bare-shouldered two-pieces were often referred to as “Little Sinners”. However foreign designers pushed the boundaries of decency, it seemingly never satisfied the buyer.  It was the halter-top bikini aka "Huba Huba" or "Revealation" that caused the most moral controversy for its indecent, immodest degree of exposure.  Even so, the appearance of bikinis kept increasing both on-screen and off,
but it was the sex appeal, not the fashion

"but it was the sex appeal not the fashion"

that prompted filmmakers to incorporate the swimsuit into their productions of surfer movies, such as 1963’s Beach Party. But one of the most memorable iconic scenes featuring the bikini was in 1962 when Bond Girl Ursula Andress emerged from the sea wearing a white bikini in Dr. No . This small white bikini helped shape the career of Andress.  According to the actress, "This bikini made me into a success." Later that white bikini would be described as a "defining moment in the sixties liberalization of screen eroticism".  The anti-bikini argument was a continuation from the 20s and 30s, that women were degrading themselves by slowly lowering the standards of how they display themselves with sexual undertones in public. And that those promoting the bikini, are promoting a body ideal for all women, and that because of its impossibility the youth both male and female suffer from harmful psychological effects. This argument would become drowned out by the loud and radical sexual revolution. By 1965, according to that year's issue of TIME magazine, changes in sexual attitudes and practices had already taken hold of 65% of young America (mostly those entering or in college). TIME also hailed the bikini as being one of the influences behind the changing attitudes, stating it was "almost square" not to own a bikini. On the subject of both the bikini and the sexual revolution, French fashion historian Olivier Saillard stated, "The emancipation of swimwear has always been linked to the emancipation of women", though one survey reveals that 85% of all bikinis never even touch the water. The argument against the bikini from the 20's and 30's lacked proof - data and statistics, but fast forward to the future - 2015, and we are showing that the argument was indeed correct...actually its worse. I am sure no one thought that the bikini would have ever been marketed to children. I did a search to find out when was the first child's' bikini designed and or modeled, but I could find nothing, I welcome your help, please post anything you can dig up in the comments below.

The APA reports - "Psychology offers several theories to explain how the sexualization of girls and women could influence girls’ well-being. Ample evidence testing these theories indicates that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality and attitudes and beliefs."

As another parent puts it "C’mon, when girls are encouraged to become prepubescent eye-candy before they hit the double-digits, and ‘buffed boys’ strive for ripped six-pack abs of video game icons, ‘hot’ Calvin Klein ads, and ‘pumped up’ athletic physiques, there IS going to be socioemotional fallout. “Duh.” As an irreverent tween might say."

"Eye - Candy", try OBJECTS.  

Another woman fighting the good fight, Jessica Ray, former Power Ranger and now a smart young designer of modest swimwear points out in her swimwear slogan; “Modesty isn’t about covering up our bodies because they’re bad, modesty isn’t about hiding ourselves… it’s about revealing our dignity.”  Ray tells in one of her presentations how the male brain is affected by a women who is immodestly dressed, for instance, when a man sees a women in a string bikini on the beach the part of his brain that lights up is the same part the lights when he sees a tool such as a hammer or screwdriver. The part of his brain that thinks about feelings and personality does not at all get stimulated, the area remained unlit. Meaning that she was viewed as an object, not a person. Watch her presentation here. 

In 2011 a study was released and an analysis written called "Putting On" Sexiness: A Content Analysis of the Presence of Sexualizing Characteristics in Girls' Clothing. Please take the time to read the full analysis, it is important you know. 

Because we are past the threshold of blurred lines!

Oh Yes They Are!

 The Lyrics to this song, yes the same song of the infamous Miley Cyrus "twerking" performance;
Tried to domesticate you
But you're an animal
Baby, it's in your nature
Just let me liberate you
You don't need no papers
That man is not your maker
And that's why I'm gon' take a
Good girl
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
You're a good girl
Can't let it get past me
You're far from plastic
Talk about getting blasted
I hate these blurred lines
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
But you're a good girl
The way you grab me
Must wanna get nasty
Go ahead, get at me

Yup, that's right...title linked in with My Little Pony, a toy that is marketed to girls 5 - 12 years of age. This sweatshirt is in the girls' department sizes 6 - 14. 

This is a good article; The sexualization of girls: Is the popular culture harming our kids? Where they explore the big question and write;

Evidence that sexual images of minors influence the way we view children

Does the sexualization of young girls affect the way ordinary people regard kids? This isn’t easy to test. As you might imagine, ethical considerations make experiments very difficult.

The most relevant study to date tested the effects of “barely legal” pornography, in which an 18-year-old model is made to look younger. Researchers Bryant Paul and Daniel Linz presented 154 undergraduates --the majority of whom were women-- with sexually-explicit images.

Some images depicted adult women who appeared to be at least 21 years old. Other images depicted females who appeared to be minors.

Afterward presenting these images, the researchers administered a classic test of unconscious association. They presented the study participants with a series of images and words on a computer screen. The test worked like this:

First an image was flashed on the screen—e.g., a non-sexual image of a girl who appeared to be about 12 years old.

Next, a series of letters appeared. Sometimes, these letters spelled out a word (e.g., “beauty”). In other cases, the letters spelled out a nonsense word (e.g., “bartey”).

Participants were instructed to press the ‘W’ key as soon as they could tell whether or not the letters spelled out a genuine word. If the letters spelled out a nonsense word, participants were to press the ‘N’ key.

Study participants evaluated an array of words, including neutral words (“window,” basket,” cloudy”) and words with sexual connotations (“sexy” “erotic” and “arousing”).

The researchers measured reaction times and compared them with the reaction times of people who had been shown pornographic images of apparently adult women. How long did it take people to accurately classify the words and nonsense words?

It depended on the words and the images.

The people who’d seen the “barely legal porn” were quicker to recognize words with sexual connotations when those words were presented immediately after a nonsexual, image of a girl who appeared to be around 12 years old.

Implications

Did the viewers of barely legal porn become more tolerant of child sexual abuse? Researchers found no evidence of this.

But the most accepted interpretation of word association effects is that people have an easier time recognizing words when these words are already “on our minds.”

It’s called spreading activation--the idea that viewing an image makes your mind activate memories and associations that are linked with the image. So if you see a table, some part of your mind is ready to think about chairs, too.

The “barely legal” study suggests that ordinary--people who aren’t pedophiles--have no trouble learning to associate 12-year-old girls with sexuality. And that was after only a brief exposure to simulated images of teen sexuality in the laboratory.

What happens when people are repeatedly exposed? What happens when the imagery features 7-year-old girls, rather than adolescents? And what happens when pedophiles see the popular culture endorsing the sexualization of children?

These questions haven't been addressed by current research. But the stakes seem high. Perhaps in the next few years, new studies will help us understand the true costs of sexualizing children.

To further this point I will leave you with this image: 

Paris Vogue fashion add