Disney ad for lacy umentionables
 

I didn't know where to put it... Internet? Current Events? Entertainment? Quality Images? Parenting? Philosophy?

Anyway. A reporter in China sends home a photo of a Disney underwear billboard. He finds it somewhat contradictory to Disney's disavowal of the shocking Miley Cyrus photos. The model may be more than 12, but if she is she doesn't really look like it. Probably SFW.

http://www.slate.com/id/2190209/

shit....how does Disney act nonsupportive to the Cyrus girl and have Gay Day every year at their California location where they support the wearing of S&M bondage leathers and other such apperal at a children's theme park. They are a bunch of hipocrites. Not news to me.

They do?! That's it! I'm removin' DC from my personal DirecTV list!

Firstly, the underwear isn't lacy.
It's little girl underwear, on a little girl.
The ad is designed to appeal to little girls who want Disney underwear, and seeimg the advert will pester their Mum to buy it.

In my opinion it is fit for purpose and does not attempt to sexualise the model - which I understand is the problem with the picture of the 15 year old (I can't comment as I haven't seen it).

Now I'm not a Disney fan, but I don't think they are being hypocritical here.

Psst! Mickey is gay. And he's fuckin' Goofy.

Women love clothes and they do it so well. They love looking good. Just don't involve children in sexy clothes in high media - it's not right. Let them experiment in privacy. I did!

it's clear, as the article mentions, that Disney cannot oversee all their licensees' advertising. I personally don't find the billboard too racy--the underwear is not "lacy," or particularly risque, imo, but I'm unclear as to the distinction between making ladies underwear and advertising it. There are also cultural differences which may not translate too well--as the article also pointed out, the age of consent in China is 14.

I guess risque/sexy is in the eye of the beholder, you bunch of pervs. I can't imagine any kid that age wanting to wear little girl designs like that, but how are they supposed to advertise it if not by using a picture of a child who is only wearing underwear? The market they are aiming at will best respond to models.

Just to clarify, my title for the thread was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek using a (to my ears) old-fashioned euphemism, and did not reflect any belief or assertion on my part that there was actual laciness involved.

Sorry Steve, I wasn't taking issue with you. It's just that the mere word lacy in the title gives a very different impression of the underwear involved, that I wanted to dispel for anyone not keen to click on the link.

I have to admit: the puppets are a little creepy.

That's definitely a cultural thing--in many Asian countries, general immaturity and overt cuteness among young females is quite encouraged. Late teens or early twenties might sometimes even wear designs like that.

Even so, she looks like she's doing kiddie porn, and I fail to believe she agreed to this.

I assume you mean the Miley Cyrus photo. I have seen it. It's not nearly as "bad" as the one in the slate article, but still inappropriate.

the Chinese girl is wearing a bra--clearly not too "little" a girl.

I took a look at the Disney Store website--there are no undergarments on there for big or little girl, other than sleepwear and sleep camis.

I've never seen kiddie porn in my life, so I have no idea how it looks. However, given the number of 9-12 year old girls in China, compared to the number of paedophiles, I still think that a photo of a little girl in (IMO) unrevealing children's underwear should not be shocking.
I've now looked it up just so I can have my own opinion. I think it's all a storm in a teacup, but I can understand why Disney feel it is a sexual image and therefore inappropriate. I can't see any comparison between this and the Chinese billboard. The two different issues are about men who are only sexually excited by children compared to men who might find a more womanly image of an underage girl attractive.
I have a school photo of my class when I was 12. I was away from school on photo day, but from looking at the picture - and from memory - I would have made it three girls not wearing (needing) a bra had I been there.

No doubt, many of you will think I'm lieing, but neither have I, actually.

The Miley Cyrus photo shows about 20 square inches of fifteen year old bare back. I assure you her most modest swimsuit shows far more flesh than does the Liebowitz photo. The uproar is that it is a very classic pose which would be associated with cheesecake shots. Her posure is reminiscent of artistic photos of older females, and so is raising an uproar because Miley is only 15.

Agreed, look how many girls in Japan right up into their twenties, do the Hello Kitty or Sailor Moon, shtick.

:thumb:
Reminds me of an old quote from "Soap" Billy Chrystal ......"Plato was gay"
Bert replies, "Mickey Mouse's dog was gay?":p

that Chinese girl isnt that young. Not that I really care either way. Disney has been on a steady downhill in their programing for years. I still like their Pixar/Disney movies, but as a whole, the entire empire of Disney is on a steady downhill.

Walt Disney ink becomes Disney Inc.

Disney is the anti-christ. No, Wal-mart is the anti-christ. OK, they're co-anti-christs.

I agree. I blame Disney and their anthropomorphization of mice and dogs for the creation of groups like PETA.

yeah, but they really fucked up on the duck. Daffy was wayyyyyyy better. Warner Bros rule! Except for their cable company. Which is also the anti-christ.

Someone give me a punchline to this joke:

How many anti-christs does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None, he's too busy running Walmart

None. Hillary prefers to call it "change" a lightbulb.

Well, they're trying to sell it off.

Little girls wear bikinis too. I guess that looks more bra-shaped than the usual trainer/pretend bras, but no more so than little mermaid costumes for example.

It's all a storm in a teacup though, really. Disney's about as clean as Kwame Kilpatrick. They just have more muscle.

Although I agree that it's sort of hypocritical to advertise Disney underwear on an underage model in Asia and then condemn Miley Cyrus' pictures.... it seems to me that the problem is that Miley's conduct insinuates some personal choices, while the model was hired to do a particular job.

I guess I'd have to say that I agree with monster... if she's wearing what she would at a public beach, it can't <i>really</i> be considered lewd. Now <i>what</i>, exactly, a girl her age wears to the beach is a matter left to her parents' discretion....

Have you ever seen Annie Liebowitz in action? She's very demanding, and won't take no for an answer. She would be very difficult to stand up to--even Queen Elizabeth couldn't. Apparently, she made Miley remove the flesh colored tank she was wearing, too. I don't think it was her fault--but the adults she had with her should have put their foot down when they saw the too-suggestive pose.

I think the only thing that concerns Disney, is how each incident is perceived by the target audience and effects their bottom line. They'd probably have both those girls, spread eagle naked, if that's what the public demanded for their money.

Absolutely. And Miley's dad, Billy Ray Has-been, would conveniently be missing for that part of the shoot as well. He has no problem ho-ing out his daughter. Not that I think the pics are all that bad, but it doesn't seem the road Miley should take at this point in her career.

That's probably true Bruce. It puzzles me how we demand that our 11-16 year old crowd remain virginal... and then the moment they're 17 or 18, we want them to be instantly Britney-esque, so we have some new meat. Seems interesting, since Americans are kinda viewed to be uptight about anything erotic. I mostly just feel bad for Miley, because heck, when I was sixteen I probably did a lot of stupid things that would have looked really bad if the media were hounding me!!

Let's just call it an early investment on the future. My friends all looked at me like a sicko when I told them that the coach's daughter in Remember The Titans was gonna be a smoking hottie. Who'd she turn out to be? Hayden Panettiere.

Although in all honesty, I can see Miley going the way of Tiffany, fading into "Bolivian" and then doing a Playboy shoot when she's 33.

disney shouldnt be selling underwear. why do they have to sell underwear? what does disney have to do with underwear? if they are going to sell it., they dont need to advertise it. especially with models. its just wrong....

where is our common sense?

Personally, I'm more fine with Minnie Mouse panties from Disney than "Who Needs Credit Cards?" panties from Wal-Mart...