Time To Move Beyond Anatomy: Disney Princesses Past vs Present and Why is Hot Topic Selling GIRLS Lingerie?

The ether is all abuzz over whether or not these Japanese "Disney Princess Lingerie" items are a Dream Or Nightmare.

Fairly modest lingerie visually, but intellectually, rather disconcerting. 

(Yes, "Belle" has been misspelled). 

Personally, I'm unwilling to answer: dream or nightmare?-- because that's a very childish way of asking, good or bad?  Instead I'd rather ask, how did this get made and to what purpose was it made?  Are these being marketed to little girls, pre-tweens, 'tweens, teenagers, young adults, fetishistic adults, furries, fangirls - to whom for purchase?  Was there such a large demand necessitating supply?  Frisky writer Winona Dimeo-Ediger gushes over the bras and even asks, ..."any guys reading: do you dig the sexy princess look?"  I say if the dude does, keep him away from your princess crazed daughters.  

There's no denying that there's some weird hypersexualization of Disney Princesses meets Bratz Dollz occurring.  All anybody has to do is look to see the transformation of physicality for so many princesses.  Or Google Images "Disney Princesses Classic/Original" vs Google Images "Disney Princesses 2013" to compare and contrast some of these changes.

The "original" Disney Princesses: 

vs.

The contemporary "Forever Fairy Tale" Disney Princesses:

Let's put the immediate focus on Snow White.  Here she is as originally portrayed in 1944:

And here is Snow White as her more recent 'forever fairy tale' incarnation: 

Here is a little girl wearing a contemporary Snow White costume:

I'm sure even the most unobservant eye can discern that over the course of 69 years or so, Snow White has undergone some radical albeit seemingly slight changes.  Her simple red bow placed in the center of her crown, is now a bedazzled headband placed cockily at an angle, to enhance a face that certainly alludes to innocence but not youth.  The Plasticine innocence seems feigned due to the bow placement.  Her heart-shaped neckline hearkens breasts that once upon a time, as a normal 14-year old, Snow White would still be in the process of developing.  (That's right, Snow White is supposed to be 14).  She's covered in sequins, sparkles, and designs that were not there before.  1944's shoes are gray with with bows and probably had a shorter heel.  But now she's more coordinated with her footwear.  The extra fabric of her dress spiraling over exposed ankles (most stills from the 1944 animation portray the character with her dress hem covering her feet entirely obscuring her shoes).  Tilted head, coy smile, interlocked fingers and hands, all paired with a loose--very unladylike--stance really make present-day Snow White look, well, sexually knowledgeable.  Which is the true insult behind the word "slutty-looking", it's a woman looking like she knows what sex is and that she knows that she likes sex.   I know these are just cartoons I'm mincing over, at least until you look at the real-life little girl, emulating her cartoon princess fantasy, and it's seen that it's not the character that child is so enchanted by but the ability to be a breathtaking princess.  There's no care for woodland critters in this dress-up kit.  It's all about superficiality, she's flirting--quite literally--with shallowness.  The only red bows adorn her high-heel shoes and scepter, she has a crown on--the key to this play fantasy being fulfilled--and her tiny torso is embellished even further with piping that pantomimes the hourglass figure of a fully developed woman.  With a royal crest being used FIVE TIMES to further the perception of being a princess, as if the crown and scepter were not sufficient enough.                  

Seriously?!--it's over the top!  Especially for a child's toy.  Especially for child's play.

And why princesses?  Why is it SO important to little girls to be something so untenable and unattainable as a princess?!  It's one thing to imagine being a princess, it's quite another to profess that indeed, you are one.    

(All hail Princess Bitchface)!

It's like Disney is profiting off of setting-up novice parents for failure on how to "properly" rear an adolescent girl.  Little girls want to be princesses because of marketing, and marketing child's play is corporate governed gender engineering, and ultimately becomes SOCIAL engineering.  Not mere child's play so much, if you think about it like that.     

(Excuse me while I get my royal shop on y'all).  

Shouldn't our daughters want to be chemists, engineers, doctors, writers, computer programmers, just as much, if not more so, then wanting to be "Disney princesses" or shopaholic sluts?  

At first it was fairly jarring to see the "Bell" bra and pantie set until I realized that Hot Topic has a girls lingerie section, not underwear, lingerie.  (And for some reason 'tutus' are considered a subcategory of lingerie).  So this isn't your run-of-the-mill mom's Victoria's Secret lingerie (which, honestly, should be the only type of lingerie being sold) but lingerie being donned by most likely your 'tween or wannabe 'tween.  Every woman knows that the difference between underwear and lingerie is, unseen and seen.     

So who the hell is supposed to be seeing this on a GIRL:

 

(Guess the matching bra and panties would really make the outfit).

I'm not a prude by any means, but the notion this crap is getting purposely marketed to hipster kids as 'lingerie' is sickening.  How are they supposed to "celebrate" a sexuality that they don't even comprehended completely yet?  How are they supposed to realize that SEX is a minor blip on the radar of life as a whole, and that hormones, disease, aging, and maturing perceptions are going to distinctly impact how they relate to themselves and others not just as sexual beings but as conscious self-aware beings?  That's just it, they don't.  So why is lingerie like the following being showcased and made available to impressionable youth? 

(The jailer stripes must be a visual play on the concept of 'jail-bait' and notice the wordplay of "BANG" and "come" centered on this model of unknown age's ass).

Party-on lovesick indecisive jail-bait that confuses sex with love, and let your ass speak for you in the bedroom.  Seriously though, how old are these models showcasing this tawdry filth and does underwear really even need to be displayed on anything other than a mannequin ever?

I remember my first racy pair of underwear were a stolen pair of red thongs that had a crushed red velvet front, with a little red bow at its top, and a sheer red lace back.  My high-school boyfriend was overjoyed that Valentine's Day, especially when at the age of 16 or 17, I had the perfect heart shaped ass.  But I was no virgin by that particular Valentine's Day and when I did loose my virginity, I was donning an Alfred E. Newman t-shirt, not a stupid red velvet lacy thong.  

      

Kids are going to grow-up and fuck each other, sure.  And they probably won't even be wearing underwear when they are fucking, I know.  BUT that doesn't mean grown ass adults need to be all sketchy on their ethos and literally market LINGERIE to GIRLS.  It's Perverted Capitalism.  It's disgusting to see some corporation that gets afforded most of its brand loyalty due to the perceived notions of having pro-family values, make shit like these Disney Princess Hipster Panties sold at JCPenney:       

(That's just one "M" away from 'mmm').

What else is bothersome is the literal gender inequality delivered via Hot Topic's underwear categories.  The blatant hypocrisy.  Boys get to be GUYS, whereas girls stay GIRLS, even when they get to dress like smutty GALS.  GUYS get to wear underwear, even push gender boundaries by allowing their hidden bronie to show:   

But that's just it, there's no lingerie for males being marketed.  There's certainly no lingerie for 'tween or teenage boys being marketed with Aladdin rubbing the "magic lamp" on the front of a boy's lacy G-string.  There's not an equality in the hypersexualization of the adolescent American male vs. the adolescent American female.  On Hot Topic's website it's just one page of 12 items, all boxers, all under the ONE category of UNDERWEAR for Hot Topic's banal guys.  Unlike the FIVE subcategories girls get to deal with under LINGERIE:

- Blackheart Lingerie

- Bras/Bandeaus

- Panties

- Bustiers

- Tutus

It's like the notion of young females being able to wear plain old underwear is somehow old fashioned, instead of just practical.  

I know there's an extension of childhood occurring in America right now, but in the end, every parent has to ultimately grow-up to ensure that their child doesn't get a replica of their own childhood or a similar childhood even, or forbid a worse life experience, but instead a different childhood, unique to them, a hopefully better childhood then what their parent's experienced.  That type of foundation doesn't have a tag on it and isn't sold in retail stores.  But our children need a better childhood, both sexes, so our species can advance together, not stagnate together, with a pink plastic rhinestone tiara on top of our budding fashionista's collective head just so some shareholder can pick up another eight-ball of coke Friday night.  Where's the advanced humanity in that, Disney?!     

(Anyone else out there identifying with this graffiti stencil right now?) 

MC Lars was right, indeed, Hot Topic is NOT punk rock:

We as human beings need to recognize that anatomy is not our singular destiny.  Human beings have far more anatomical similarities then differences.  There's got to be a commonality to ensure the common good.  Our "souls" are all sexless and colorless and classless.  We have to hope that during this Communications Revolution that we find ourselves in, there will be an accompanying period of enlightenment, that with the power of social media, we'll actually witness an end to gender altogether.  Both issues that Johanna Blakley and Alice Dreger outline in the following TED Talks:

Johanna Blakley: Social Media and the End of Gender.

Alice Dreger: Is Anatomy Destiny?

Because in Japan, matching couple's underwear isn't actually a big deal, ironically enough.  

So ladies, don't dare don that "Bell" pantie set unless he's in one to match!