CogBlog

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that “sexy” clothes are marketed almost exclusively toward girls. In our environment of evolutionary adaptedness, males looked at certain physical traits in females as honest signals of reproductive health and maturity. These characteristics were weighed heavily when selecting a mating partner. Males in nearly every culture judge a waist-to-hip ration of about .7 as optimally attractive, and, in keeping with evolutionary expectations, this ratio also has been found to be indicative of hormonal levels conducive to fertility. The conspicuousness of female breasts serve as pair bond enhancers between mates. The curvaceous shape of a human female has developed as a signal of robust health and fertility. Thus, it makes sense that clothes for women are constructed to show off these features (waist, hips, breasts). However, the girls in these ads are clearly not of reproductive age, so it doesn’t make sense to dress them in provocative clothing.

I believe that this "shift" in the mating environment is directly much more toward girls than toward boys. However, I have to wonder just how much of a shift is taking place. If we look at human history (especially ancient history and European history), we see small children dressed as adults and marrying at an early age. Thus, in some ways modern society is more conservative in its attitudes toward children. However, I do agree that the clothing line by Beyonce, while conservative, dresses young girls as teenagers. It is interesting to respond to this blog entry after the lecture about JonBenet Ramsey tonight. Professor Davis, the speaker, commented that beauty pageants for children attempted to make young girls look like sexy women, and this contributed to the sexual abuse that JonBenet endured.

I will not forget the first sixth gym class when I realized that my peers were all of a sudden attempting to dress like women and I was still wearing clothes from Limited Too. I must admit that I have difficulty understanding why parents would like to make their children look older prematurely, as this would draw attention to younger girls and require extra father guarding. I think that dressing "sexily" reflects the competition among younger girls to look more attractive to boys; basically, the closer one looks to age eighteen (the ideal age that boys would like in a woman), the more desirable one is.

Although some parents pointed out that this clothing was less revealing than a lot of other clothes that are out there for children today, I think they are missing the point. What seems most important to me is not that this clothing is necessarily bad for the children right now, but rather that it sends them the message that they need to dress in such “high fashion.” Personally, I believe this is not something 4 year olds should need to worry about or even be exposed to. It seems like even if these clothes are not revealing now, this intense focus on appearance will later (but still too early) lead girls to dress in provocative and revealing clothes, as this is what fashion demands today. This may not occur at age 4 or as soon as the kids put on one piece of designer clothing, but still will probably be an issue before most parents would like. Even if these children aren’t looking for a mate right now, they are preparing to do so, whether they realize it or not. In the end, dressing kids this way just teaches them that their looks are all they have to offer to a mate, causing competition to increase and clothing to get more inappropriate, as children begin competing at an increasingly young age.

I definitely think socio-economic status plays a role in the sexualization of daughters at an early age. Across all social classes, the role of clothing is important to appearance and mate attraction, but it seems like different classes employ to the use of clothing in different ways. I’m not sure if this is a generalization, but from what I have seen, it definitely seems like dressing more provocatively is the strategy more frequently taken by people of lower socio-economic classes and the scarcity of quality men could be an explanation for this. In theory, starting kids on this path as early as possible will help ensure that they will win one of these mates.

I think that this movement is definitely directed towards girls rather than boys. I can’t think of any company that would advertise their products by making little boys look sexy, because evolution doesn’t place high emphasis on male physical attractiveness. While more understandable, the idea of making little girls look sexy would still be something I wouldn’t expect any company to do, but it is occurring nonetheless. I am hesitant to say that this reflects a shift in the “mating” environment, because who would want to mate with a four-year-old? It seems obscene that any parent would want their young child to be sexual.
The only pictures on Beyonce’s page that alarms me are the pictures of the Asian girl. She is wearing high heels and somehow manages to look seductive. The rest of the girls look to me like they got together at a play group and broke into mommy’s make-up to look sophisticated and imitate grown women whom they admire while playing an innocent game of make-believe. These girls are simply too young to take them seriously as sexual beings.
However, I do remember when Victoria’s Secret became popular in middle school. Some of my friend’s moms’ wouldn’t let them buy thongs or other garments from VS so they bought them in secret and hid them in weird places in their rooms. I think this exemplifies sexual behavior gradually becoming something both males and females do earlier. Kids are starting to be sexual earlier (but not when they’re age 4, like Beyonce’s models) and so middle school girls want sexy underwear, as it is an easy material step to have sexual appeal. I don’t think this shift results from an innate desire to reproduce earlier, but rather to grow up faster and be like their older sisters and cousins and favorite movie stars. It is also a way for adolescents to seek attention.

I was talking to another student (not in our class) about this, and she wondered if (with the Beyonce line) these effects may be seen differently depending on one's SES or specific culture within the US.

In thinking about this, one would predict that the desire to sexualize daughters at an earlier age would be more prevalent in cultures where high quality men are fewer, thus driving greater female competition.

Your thoughts?

The sexualization of girls is definitely happening at an earlier and earlier age. If I were a parent of a young girl, I would not allow her to wear any of Beyonce's line, simply because that would project the wrong image of my daughter. I would want my children to stay children as long as possible- not become miniature adults as soon as they hit kindergarten. I think that some parents think these clothes are cute, so they will buy them for their kids. Why the provocative clothing is marketed to girls and not boys doesn't really make much sense if girls are the choosers. I guess clothing like this (and worse) is designed to show off a woman's/girl's body. I guess that's okay for an adult, but definately not for a young girl

As I looked at these articles, I had flashbacks of shopping with my mom in elementary school. I wanted all my clothes to be from Limited Too, but my mom refused to purchase some of the short shorts, tank tops, and then-scandalous underwear for her fourth grader. I can only imagine what she would think of Beyonce's collection!

My only guess for why parents would try to dress their young daughters like grown women is to already make them more appealing to men. With the pervading monogamous nature of our culture today (despite cheating statistics, we still boast monogamy), I feel like men invest more in their mates, and therefore exercise more choice in mate selection than in our harem ancestral past. Perhaps these parents begin to dress their daughters in such a "sexy" way at this young age is to make them more appealing to a man with many resources. If they are chosen because of their good looks over a more modestly dressed girl, the genes will be propagated and raised by a better father. Of course I'm not saying that parents want to marry off their daughters at age 4 (daughter guarding would argue the opposite even), but perhaps the unconscious desire to pass on our genes is even invading how we dress our children.

I completely identify with the Victoria Secret's blog. However, for me it was sixth grade gym class. We took it a bit further though. If someones underwear was peaking out from your jeans, which lets face it with the low riding jeans it was almost a guaruntee. We would say "Hey Victoria, your Secret is showing." This of course rubbed it in the face of the girls who either couldn't afford Victoria Secret or whose parents refused to buy their little girls panties from there. It also elevated those of us who "were privelage enough" to were Victoria Secret.
`In response to the Beyonce blog, I honestly thought the clothes were pretty cute and the tea party scene clothing I thought was completely normal. I don't know if I am biased but I have definately seen girls in my home time dressed up in clothes similar to those. The thing that horrified me (like some of the bloggers) was the make up and high heels. However, honestly I had to suffer thru that as well during dance recitals starting at age three. I could see this be advertising for the reproductivity of your little girl because your trying to make her look older and give her competition over the girls her same age. This would be an imitation of the advantage of the girls who mature/ reach menarche earlier than their peers.
` I don't know if their is a sex difference. The Jcrew catalog I get advertises mini Jcrew clothes to both boys and girls. However, girls looks are more important evolutionarily speaking so I would expect this to advertise more to girls.

As just a response to my reaction after viewing both sites:

After seeing Beyonce's line of clothing I felt that her clothing was not very revealing and questionable. I felt that the only possible ideas that would be questionable would be the use of high heels and pink boas and noticeable amounts of makeup on younger girls that could represent the typical sexual theme. It seems that wearing revealing clothing with sexual implications like mini-skirts would be more controversial than wearing non-revealing clothing with sexual implications.

As for the VS campaign, given that I'm not an underage girl, I would not know accurately the desire to buy sexier intimate wear. However, I do feel that the significant difference between societal pressures on boys vs girls wearing sexier clothing would be the fact that women do not highly regard extreme physical attractiveness and youth as a significant factor when choosing a mate.

I think the main reason why it seems to be targeted at girls rather than boys is because the things that women look for in a mate can't really be represented through clothing as easily. More mature and sexually aimed clothes call attention to a girl's body, which seems to be the main thing that males pay attention to. Since females look for males who are good providers, dressing little boys in sexually provocative clothing wouldn't really do anything.
Also, I think a lot of the reason why clothing lines for younger girls like this exist is simply because these girls want to imitate older girls; not because they consciously want to look sexy for potential mates. Even so, though, I wouldn't dress my kindergartener in those red studded high heels...