Leopard Costume Pulled From WalMart Shelves

[TrackerSam]

There is nothing wrong with the costume itself, but whoever decided on that name for a toddler costume needs to take a better marketing course.

Yes, naughty also means a misbehaving child. I don't see anything 'suggestive' about the costume. I don't understand why anyone complained. They couldn't possibly be complaining about the costume.

 

[Isabelle]

Once the costume is taken out of the package and the package thrown away, it is no longer "naughty kitty". I agree, this was started by people with too much time on their hands. I think it was a cuter costume than most.

 

[LadyL]

Nothing about this makes sense.

 

[panthera]

RSBM

That's just it. It's a cute costume for a toddler girl. There is nothing at all wrong with the costume itself. So, why not call it a "cute leopard" or a "pretty leopard" instead of using "naughty", a word that gets plenty of use in adult costumes that are fully intended to be provocative.

It was an unnecessary adjective to use IMO.

The costume itself aside, I personally have issues with the words "naughty" and "leopard" being used in the same sentence. There is no such thing. Leopards are beautiful cats and deserve more respect.



MOO

 

[SeekingJana]

Maybe not the best choice of words, IMO. However, when you are distributing possibly 50-75 different costume choices, I guess you run out of good adjectives. :floorlaugh:

I well remember when JonBenet told people on her last Halloween that she was dressed as a " Sexy Witch". It was one of the first things people who knew the family remembered. Since she couldn't read well enough to have read the package if it was a store bought costume (doubtful), she HEARD the title said in her presence.

Because of that incident, and what later happened to her, I think even possible sexualizing of children is a harmful thing to do.
However, unlike the words " Sexy Witch", children are sometimes called " naughty" in another context, meaning they misbehaved or were mischievous. I'd say the Halloween costume was a judgment call which erred very far on the side of the children. JMO.

 

[Ausgirl]

I think it's just incredibly sad that people find it necessary to make an issue of this. On several levels.

 

[oh_gal]

I think it's just incredibly sad that people find it necessary to make an issue of this. On several levels.

OMGosh...you are so right! Do people not realize that naughty for children does not mean, "sexual deviant?" I've seen far, far more obnoxious children's costumes that should be pulled from the shelves than a silly little leopard.

 

[Jan]

I think the costume itself is fine but I don't like the word "Naughty" in the description of it. I wouldn't have bought it for that reason.

 

[JeannaT]

I think it's just incredibly sad that people find it necessary to make an issue of this. On several levels.

I usually find people to be too easily offended; on the other hand, in this case, it's refreshing to me to see people do something about the sexualization of children.

I use the word "naughty" frequently to define mannerless behavior in children. It's a cute, quaint word that makes light of children's high-spiritedness. ;D

But in this case, it's sexual. It's the naughty nurse, naughty librarian, etc. that's clearly being referenced. For some reason, Halloween has turned into a holiday where normally reserved women seem to want to dress like prostitutes. And that's disturbing too. Why take this holiday, which was to scare the evil saints away, and dress like a prostitute to celebrate it? And then the idea trickled down to a baby's costume and that's where it totally crosses the line.

Sexualization of children is hard define by words, but I know it when I see it.


On the other hand, it's quite possible that whoever wrote that label was simply copying that word off all the other female costumes and assumed it meant "sparkly" or "bling".

 

[TrackerSam]

Why take this holiday, which was to scare the evil saints away, and dress like a prostitute to celebrate it?

It's their fantasy.

 

[oh_gal]

I didn't get that at all. When I saw "naughty", I thought of a kid with their hand in the cookie jar, type of naughty. Am I missing something? Did the costume come with fishnet stockings???

 

[JeannaT]

It's their fantasy.

I totally agree. It's also their fantasy to have men gawk at their nearly nude bodies, on a day when it's seen as appropriate for some reason. It's just becoming wearisome, is all. ;D

 

[JeannaT]

I didn't get that at all. When I saw "naughty", I thought of a kid with their hand in the cookie jar, type of naughty. Am I missing something? Did the costume come with fishnet stockings???

Yes, you missed something. If you go up and down the aisle of halloween costumes, notice the ones that say "naughty". There are no cookie jars involved. If this were a copy cat dennis the menace costume, and it was titled "Naughty Boy" that's a different thing.

I think everyone looking at female halloween costumes knows what the connotation "naughty" means.

 

[oh_gal]

Yes, you missed something. If you go up and down the aisle of halloween costumes, notice the ones that say "naughty". There are no cookie jars involved. If this were a copy cat dennis the menace costume, and it was titled "Naughty Boy" that's a different thing.

I think everyone looking at female halloween costumes knows what the connotation "naughty" means.

Well, I guess it depends on how your mind is wired.

 

[oh_gal]

So...there's nothing else included in this costume to intimate an adult-themed costume....no fishnet stockings; fur-lined handcuffs; copy of "50 Shades of Gray"; whips; chains; stiletto heels?

You're basing all of this on the word....naughty?

Couldn't a boy wear this costume, too? Would that change things, if you saw a little boy with it on?

 

[lisser]

So...there's nothing else included in this costume to intimate an adult-themed costume....no fishnet stockings; fur-lined handcuffs; copy of "50 Shades of Gray"; whips; chains; stiletto heels?

You're basing all of this on the word....naughty?

Couldn't a boy wear this costume, too? Would that change things, if you saw a little boy with it on?

I have no issues at all with the costume itself. It is a perfectly cute costume for a child. I just think it was poorly named. There is no good reason at all that they included the word "naughty" in the title of a costume intended to be worn by a toddler girl.

 

[JeannaT]

I have no issues at all with the costume itself. It is a perfectly cute costume for a child. I just think it was poorly named. There is no good reason at all that they included the word "naughty" in the title of a costume intended to be worn by a toddler girl.

I totally agree. The costume is perfectly fine.

I just think as a culture, we need to keep our awareness sharp and start to fight back when it comes to sexualization of children, which is SO prevalent in this era. Whether this was just a simple language translation error, or whatever, we need to begin to react when we see children being sexualized.

 

[JeannaT]

Well, I guess it depends on how your mind is wired.

I think it depends on whether you're able to discern subtlety. Some people, for example (maybe you're not one of them) have no idea what to do with sarcasm and take everything at face value. They are unable to determine if something is a Farce - like The Onion newspaper, for example. They are unable to process subtlety and sarcasm in the wording and photos of an article and so it's neither funny nor clever to them. They just don't get sarcasm at ll.

This label, although some may not notice, is very similar to sexualized adult women costumes that comprise the majority of female costumes on the consumer market now.

But for those who don't notice it, it's not really in the best interest of the culture (in my mind) to say the symbolism isn't there. It is, it just goes unnoticed by some people.

And the more consumers look the other way when items like this are offered for sale, the more and more obvious the sexual content will become until it's undeniable to all. It won't be a nuance anymore - it will be a photo of a child engaged in a sex act.

Best to allow those who see it in the early stages, IMHO, to speak up and be heard.

 

[oh_gal]

I think it depends on whether you're able to discern subtlety. Some people, for example (maybe you're not one of them) have no idea what to do with sarcasm and take everything at face value. They are unable to determine if something is a Farce - like The Onion newspaper, for example. They are unable to process subtlety and sarcasm in the wording and photos of an article and so it's neither funny nor clever to them. They just don't get sarcasm at ll.
This label, although some may not notice, is very similar to sexualized adult women costumes that comprise the majority of female costumes on the consumer market now.

But for those who don't notice it, it's not really in the best interest of the culture (in my mind) to say the symbolism isn't there. It is, it just goes unnoticed by some people.

And the more consumers look the other way when items like this are offered for sale, the more and more obvious the sexual content will become until it's undeniable to all. It won't be a nuance anymore - it will be a photo of a child engaged in a sex act.

Best to allow those who see it in the early stages, IMHO, to speak up and be heard.

(bbm)

You're right. I don't have the time to dissect what someone is saying, to determine what point they were tying to get across. I much prefer someone to say what they mean, and be done with it. Less room for error that way. And less a waste of time.

 

[JeannaT]

Right. But that puts you in a position where you might not notice things that might greatly offend other people.

Remember that Starbucks ad released VERY shortly after 911? It had this dragonfly headed directly for two cups of starbucks coffee. To me, and many others it looked like a graphic of the plane hitting the first tower. They had to pull the ad and run a big mea culpa campaign that they didn't do it on purpose. It was so obvious to me what it looked like it was hard to think they didn't do it on purpose, or at any rate, what in the world were their editors doing not noticing that?

I believe them, actually, that it was a pure oversight and the person doing the ad just didn't see things the way most of their consuming public does.