The Ironman 3 star has reignited ongoing debate over the sexualisation of young girls in advertising. This begs the question: Are we crossing the line between soft porn and advertising, and how young is too young?
 |
Gwyneth Paltrow. [Photo: IMDB]
|
Gwyneth Paltrow, The World’s Most Hated Celebrity, just can’t catch a break!
This is the second time the star has been publicly slammed in the past month. First for her controversial decision to ban carbs from her children’s [Apple, 8 and Moses, 6] diets, and now for 'sexualising children' by endorsing a new line of child bikinis on her lifestyle site GOOP.
 |
Michelle Odabash for GOOP Exclusive kids New York Bikini set retails for $45 on Paltrow's website.
[Photo: GOOP] |
The Michelle Odabash for GOOP bathing suits are embellished, fitted and feature feminine ruffles and ties. Michelle Odabash swimwear is regularly seen on adult celebrities including Beyonce, Elle Macpherson, and Paltrow herself, but the new line of swimwear is designed for young girls aged 4, 6, and 8.
“We've collaborated with Melissa Odabash on several exclusive (and super cute) beachwear items for girls,” the website description reads, “perfect for little girls who want to match their mothers.”
 |
The navy bikini pictured is a replica of the adult version, also sold on the website.
[Photo: GOOP]
|
So, young girls wearing bikinis doesn’t offend me so much. In fact, spending several summers in Europe as a kid, it was very common to see little girls (and boys) wearing no swimwear all by the beach or pool.
I think the bigger issue here is the advertisement campaign.
I’m sure that within another context it wouldn’t be so unsettling. If the pictures were of the same girls, wearing the same bikinis but laughing and building a sand castle on the beach with their siblings, it wouldn’t be so uncomfortable. A young girl wearing a bikini is cute when you have it in a family photo album. The same picture on display in an art gallery is artistic and beautiful. But when you see it in an advertisement on the Internet, it is inappropriate.
These children aren’t being children. They are posing, pouting, and being made to look like adults. It's awkward that the young girls are positioned in a way as to showcase womanly parts when they are far from being “womanly.” Being photographed from behind, hips slouched and backs arched, the images worryingly remind me of poses reserved for adult models and personalities who are presented as being sexually provocative.
 |
The outfits have been described as "perfect for little girls who want to look grown up."
[Photo: GOOP] |
Child sexualisation in my opinion is not about the lack of clothing, but about what the audience is being asked (or shown) to picture them as. Children are innocent; they are not sexual objects, but it’s uncomfortable to see young girls portrayed in a way that is meant to signify a full-grown woman.
It makes me wonder what the people who are producing these campaigns are thinking? It's easily to put the blame on parents, but what about the make up and costume crew who ultimately decide what these girls will wear and how they will look? And the photographers, who decide which angles to shoot from, and direct the young girls to pose in certain positions. They are the people allowing it to exist.
We are living in a society where a lot of advertisements and media messages that are geared towards children now have a sexual connotation attached to it.
Sure, this is not the most extreme example. Remember 10-year-old Thylane Loubry Blondeau who was featured in a 15-page French Vouge spread in 2011? Stretched out over a tiger skin rug with fire engine red nails and her leopard print stiletto heels kicked up, Blondeau looked a far cry from a typical 10 year old. In this case it was difficult to even identify what was being sold in the ad.
 |
Thylane Loubry Blondeau in French Vouge Dec/Jan 2011 co-edited by designer Tom Ford.
[Photo: Pedestrian TV]
|
What is similar between these two examples is that you are not initially looking at what is being sold in the ad. Rather, you notice that these are extremely young girls portrayed as adult women, in scaled down versions of women’s clothing. In this sense I think they are advertising pre-pubescent sexuality, which is disturbing. If you replaced any of these photos with an 18-year-old model, you wouldn’t even question the context.
Furthermore, this could all easily be avoided! On retail site LandSend, a girl of the same age is pictured wearing a two-piece ruffle bikini, walking along the beach with her “mum”, laughing and being a child – nothing controversial at all. The problem is that the poses in the GOOP campaign are all typically looks we associate with much older girls, not pre-pubescent girls who should be throwing a ball around outside, or playing hide and go seek.
I for one think it’s good that people are upset about this because it’s the public’s responsibility to voice opinions and express concern. I wouldn't want my own hypothetical child to be exposed to advertisements of this nature because it is setting an example that is not appropriate for their age.
What to you think, is the Michelle Odabash for GOOP campaign crossing the line?
A spokeswoman for Paltrow has defended the star, calling the latest allegations “absurd”, claiming “two-piece bathing suits have been worn by young girls for decades.”
Gwyneth is yet to comment on the matter...watch this space!
