I agree that we raided Mom's make-up but usually I was just running around in the woods in a tu-tu and ballet slippers. How's that for girly/wierd!? I remember having "my own" make-up then, too. In the early/mid-80s, when I was 5-10 years old, I had girl style lip gloss, nail polish and other make-up stuff. I'm sure it was branded with the name of something I played with (My Little Pony, Strawberry Shortcake, Barbie, etc)It's luster wore off and I now hate to put much make-up on except when I go to work. It is limited then. What happens is that you think you need make-up to look grown up, then have a year or 2 when you realize that you look better without it; finally bemoaning that you really need it so you don't look so "grown-up", a.k.a. old!

Dear lord this is sick. What's WRONG with these people?! You know, my mom had a name for this sort of thing back when I was little: Baby Slut Wear.

Actually, I guess I could make a lot of money if I marketed Baby Slut Wear as a clothing line for fetuses... Move over, Bratz and Barbie!

Honestly, is there no other "untapped market" these pigs could find to exploite?

That the real seducers are you daughters of Eve.

Not that I think this is a good idea. You lot are dangerous enough without several extra years of practice with your paints, potions, and philters.

Ripple is right--there is nothing new about this idea. When I was growing up a lot of girls had "play" makeup that came in atrocious bright colors--a lot of pink, of course. I even remember a group of girls in the third grade putting on the makeup at recess and wearing it in school. Of course, that's when the teacher got angry and yelled at them: "You look like a bunch of cheap teenage hookers!" Ah, those were the good old days...

If I am remembering correctly, children (once out of infant swaddlings) dressed as miniature adults until the late 19th century. Little girls wore corsets and hoop skirts and/or stays and farthingales. Their non-chests were put on display like their moms.

I wonder why we used to do that?

I am guessing we had 2 reasons:

1) children mortality rates were very high for their first few years of life, then lveled off after age 6 or so. So young children were dressed as babies (who didn't have souls or the capacity to reason, according to conventional wisdom) until parents were reasonably certain they would live.

2) children, especially girls, were viewed as commodities: something to be bought or sold (in marriage). A good match required (besides wealth or political connections) a girl with beauty, and the ability to bear children. So girls wore clothes that played up these attributes.

The Victorians/Edwardians made children into children. So that's when children's clothing began to look distinct from adult fashions. And while the Victorians and later generations may have overplayed "Ah, the innocence of youth" aspect ofchildhood, they were wise in desexualizing girls' clothes.

So, my question is, what are we saying about our kids now, when we create prostitots? Are they commodities again? We're investing all that money and angst into getting our kids "the best" toys, educations, extracurricular activities, etc., so they can be "successful." Is this overt sexulization of prepubescent girls a throwback to our inner medieval Machiavel? Or are we so led by consumerism that we don't even know what we're doing?

At least, I don't think it is. I distinctly remember having Barbie-brand nail polish as a child, and I'm 26 now.

I definitely had play make-up in elementary school in the 80s. Some of it was Hello Kitty brand. I also remember quite clearly that we were not allowed to wear it to school (except on Halloween, natch), or anywhere in public for that matter. For me this one goes under the category of "kids want to play at everything they see grownups doing." No big deal unless the parents start sending them out looking like little JonBenets.

I'm no fan of the Bratz, but I'm sick of Barbie being held up as a paragon of wholesomeness, just because she has straight blond hair and a thin nose(Paris?). She was modeled after a German sex doll and as most women who played with her as children should admit, she never changed. As soon as mom turned her back, Barbie was getting it on with GI Joe, his commie villain, Midge, and Mattel's latest attempt at a brunette or Black Barbie. Poor Ken, left out and not yet OUT.

I concur -- I'm 33 and I remember Barbie makeup and Bonne Belle flavored lip glosses, marketed at little girls in the early 80s. Fortunately the quality was crappy enough that it hardly showed and wore off quickly. The more sophisticated little 'uns will probably still prefer to raid big sister's "real" makeup and to buy lots of cheapo Wet 'n' Wild nail polishes in every outrageous color they come in.

I agree, this really isn't anything new - I'm 26, and for me, it was the Tinkerbell line, complete with bubblegum-pink peel-off nailpolish...oh, the memories...

http://www.crowncombo.com/articles/2007/001_tinkerbell/tinkerbell.html

I think playing dress up is one thing, see what it's like to be mommy, children often mimic adults during play time. I remember hello kitty make-up, peel off nail polish, flavored lip glosses for kids when I was a kid, this was over 20 yrs ago. My mother would not buy any of it and I'm pretty sure according to my memory I only wanted it because my friends had it, same with plastic jelly shoes and earrings. She told me I could wear make-up when I was a teenager in high school and I could peirce my ears at 18 and plastic shoes were bad for my feet. I still wear very little make-up and if it wasn't for the birth control acne, I would rarely wear it and I never pierced my ears.

I would prefer it if parents didn't buy make-up or jewlery for their little girls, I know I won't if I have girls, but there is nothing to stop people from doing things they believe is harmless and there is no proof it's harmful.

I look at it this way, a little girl needs lip gloss and nail polish as much as a dog needs a dress, but people still like buying dog clothes.