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.