Sexy Halloween costumes spark outrage; sexy dolls, not so much

Sexy Halloween costumes for little girls prompt big-time outrage, but when critics call out dolls for being too sexualized, people rush to defend them. What's the difference?

Courtesy of Rebecca Hains
Sexy Halloween costumes like these garner lots of online criticism.

Do you object to sexy Halloween costumes for little girls?

When you compare the “Little Leopard” costume for young girls to the adult “Sexy Leopard” costumes, do you cringe?

When you see children’s classic Disney Princess costumes placed literally steps away from Sexy Disney Princess costumes, are you outraged?

When confronted with Monster High costumes for girls ages 4 to 14, are you appalled because they are far too sexy for our children?

Then I’d like to point something out: You should object to the sexualized aesthetic of girls’ dolls, too.

Here’s what I’m thinking. The internet is full of objections to sexy Halloween costumes for little girls. Just a few weeks ago, Walmart’s “Naughty Leopard” costume generated so much outrage that the retailer was forced to pull the costume from shelves – and rightfully so.

But when critics call out dolls like Monster HighEver After High, Equestria Girls, Fairy Tale High, and Bratz for being too sexualized for girls, people rush to defend them. Sexy dolls for little girls are so common, so ubiquitous, folks can’t see them clearly anymore.

They say: “Stop reading so much into it! Girls see these dolls as cute and fun. It’s just fantasy. If you think these dolls are ‘sexy,’ then wow – you’re the one with the problem. Get over it.”

I should know: As a children’s culture critic, I’m on the receiving end of these comments all the time.

But these dolls? They are dressed in outfits exactly like the sexy Halloween costumes. There is no difference between what popular fashion dolls wear and the little girls’ Halloween costumes that everyone objects to.

If anything, the dolls are even worse.

What’s going on, then? Why do we object to the Halloween costumes and not the dolls?

When we actually see these tawdry outfits on our children, we are horrified. We have become desensitized to dolls for four-year-olds that look like prostitutes, but when real children wear the same get-ups, the scales fall from our eyes. Suddenly, we can see the unvarnished truth about children’s culture, and it is awful.

So I’d like to suggest a new litmus test for girls’ dolls. Would you want to see your daughter, niece, or granddaughter in a Halloween costume based on the doll’s attire? No? Then harness that insight. See the doll for what it is: A sexualized item with no business in a child’s toy box. Just say no to sexy Halloween costumes – and say no to sexy fashion dolls, too.

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best family and parenting bloggers out there. Our contributing and guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor, and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. Rebecca Hains blogs at rebeccahains.wordpress.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.