Playboy Logo

WindSock

*Warning, moral outrage content inside:

What the hell is it with this feckin stupid bunny logo? Why is it all over kids pencil cases, t-shirts and knickers etc? I'm pretty sure the parents buying them know the origins of the logo. Do the kids ask them to buy the stuff because there is a pretty bunny on the merchandise?

Nevyn

It's a cute bunny and it's pink and the playboy corp has done it's best to separate the logo from the porn so that people don't see it and think 70s hairy center fold spread.

I had to have the talk explaining why it is the brand symbol of with my daughter when she was 7 and why it was not appropriate, that was sooo much fun.

NoDice

OMG totally agree I'm disgusted by the amount of parents that buy these for their kids. I was nearly fired from an old retail shop I worked in (won't name it obv) cause I refused to sell "teen thongs" to a group of school kids. They must have been about 11/12 and we had brought out a range of adult underwear for them to wear. I was at the till and said no sorry. Was killed by their mothers but I couldn't do it.

Another one they're all buying into is the Jordan range of jewellery etc.

I think because now glamour modelling is so glorified now and all over the tv and magazines, kids are starting to look up to them and want to look like them. Why? They have the body most guys drool over, they're rich and they don't work at all! Just look pretty!

IMO it's totally distasteful and tacky.

Rant over.

Danniboo

I think Penneys were selling these kiddies bras and pants with the logo on them it's a bit sick and perverse really.

WindSock

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's a cute bunny and it's pink and the playboy corp has done it's best to separate the logo from the porn so that people don't see it and think 70s hairy center fold spread.

I had to have the talk explaining why it is the brand symbol of with my daughter when she was 7 and why it was not appropriate, that was sooo much fun.

I'd say it would be fairly hard to explain to young kids why they can't have pink bunny schoolbag, but the mind boggles as to why it is on childrens things in the first place.

Danniboo

WindSock wrote: »

I'd say it would be fairly hard to explain to young kids why they can't have pink bunny schoolbag, but the mind boggles as to why it is on childrens things in the first place.

I think with schoolbags it can be passed off as a cute bunny logo, but putting it on kids underwear is taking it a step too far as us adults know where the image stems from and what it did/does represent. I don't know at what point do you draw the line, can it be accepatable on one thing and not on another or does it need to be banned full stop.

lizardfudge

Personally I'd like to see a range of Hugh Hefner smoking jackets for pre-teens.

WindSock

Actually, thinking of this reminded me of the Japanese Fertility Festival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanamara_Matsuri (mildly nsfw img)

Images, models and sweets of an erect phallus are celebrated by all ages. It is quite bizarre to see pictures of kids with the lollipops, yet it's totally accepted there. I know a fertility festival isn't quite the same as a child brandishing a porno logo though. But it is still a bunny, and the other is an erect penis.

http://qjphotos.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/kanamara-three-riders.jpg (mildly nsfw)

LittleBook

Furious Vicar Clears Shelves At Local Shop Of Playboy Stationery Targeted Children

The vicar rejected Playboy's claim that all its products are aimed at adults only and attacked its marketing strategy as 'grossly irresponsible and appallingly negligent'.

He said: "Ultimately, what they are trying to do is normalise pornography even among much younger children ...

Staff At Woolworths Baffled By Fuss Over Little Girl's Bed Called "Lolita"

Whereas many mothers were familiar with Vladimir Nabokov and his famous novel, it seems that the Woolworths staff were not. At first they were baffled by the fuss. A spokesman for the company told The Times: “What seems to have happened is the staff who run the website had never heard of Lolita, and to be honest no one else here had either. We had to look it up on Wikipedia. But we certainly know who she is now.”

"Sexy" Children's Underwear Withdrawn

British Home Stores (BHS) was criticised for selling a range of Little Miss Naughty underwear, based on the cartoon favourite.

The padded bras and briefs were described as "disgraceful" and "ill-advised" by charities Childline and Kidscape.

Tesco Condemned for Selling Pole Dancing Toy

Tesco today agreed to remove the product from the Toy section of the site, but said it will remain on sale as a Fitness Accessory, despite the fact that the product description invites users to "unleash the sex kitten inside".

WindSock

"unleash the sex kitten inside''

:eek:

My word!

LittleBook

WindSock wrote: »

:eek:

My word!

Indeed! What started as a quick Google because of your OP quickly led to some fairly disturbing results!!

WindSock wrote: »

:I'd say it would be fairly hard to explain to young kids why they can't have pink bunny schoolbag, but the mind boggles as to why it is on childrens things in the first place.

Playboy (and several consumers I must admit) have claimed that the products are aimed at college age students.

While I'd be of the "PARENTS shouldn't buy this stuff for their kids" school of thought, I also turned up an interesting article on how products are marketed

How to Market to Kids

It seems they don't even bother marketing to parents anymore but go straight to the kids who then use their "pester power" to get what they want.

I found the section on "Marketing adult entertainment to kids" particularly shocking.

Children are often aware of and want to see entertainment meant for older audiences because it is actively marketed to them. In a report released in 2000, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed how the movie, music and video games industries routinely market violent entertainment to young children.

The FTC studied 44 films rated "Restricted," and discovered that 80 per cent were targeted to children under 17. Marketing plans included TV commercials run during hours when young viewers were most likely to be watching. One studio's plan for a violent R-rated film stated, "Our goal was to find the elusive teen target audience, and make sure that everyone between the ages of 12 and 18 was exposed to the film."

WindSock

Interesting link there, LittleBook.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/issues_teens_marketing.cfm

There is a section on the 'tweens' market

By treating pre-adolescents as independent, mature consumers, marketers have been very successful in removing the gatekeepers (parents) from the picture—leaving tweens vulnerable to potentially unhealthy messages about body image, sexuality, relationships and violence.

mood

This will continue as long as parents continue to buy this crap and as long as people don't complaint. It's sick.

NoDice

+1 to moods comment. To be fair, when I was working in the shop I mentioned above, I wasn't the only one to refuse to sell the underwear to the teens. Apparently staff from different shops in the UK wouldn't sell them either. The stock was taken off the shelves within a few days of them going out.

pickarooney

The Lolita one is curious. Are girls called Lolita judged for their name because an author used it for a character in a book? Suppose she'd been called Kate or Mary?

lizardfudge

Well the name is irrevocably linked to the novel now.

It would be like trying to name a breakfast cereal 'Hitler'

LittleBook

There's an American group called Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. Their mission is to "reclaim childhood from corporate marketers".

Their website makes for some pretty eye-opening reading.

Last year they started running their TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young Children) Awards, here's the winner:

Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader Barbie

They campaigned successfully against having radio (including paid advertising) broadcast to the captive audience of state school buses, as well as stopping McDonald's from using school report cards for advertising.

Some of the campaigns they've had to run ("Spongebob and Sexualisation Don't Mix" ... children's hospital wings being sponsored by and named after clothing manufacturers ... Nickolodeon's onling gaming site showing such games as "Soroity Panty Raid", "Bloody Day" (“Back alley butchering has never been so much fun. . . . How many kills can you rack?”) and the Perry the Sneak series, where gamers take the role of a peeping Tom trying to catch revealing glimpses of scantily clad and naked women) would be funny if they weren't actually real!

Admittedly it's more relevant to the US but I find that things that start there tend to spread to the rest of the world AND closer to home I've just discovered the Campaign for Commercial-Free Education. I don't know much about them yet but anything that keeps advertising out of schools is worth looking into.

pickarooney

lizardfudge wrote: »

Well the name is irrevocably linked to the novel now.

It would be like trying to name a breakfast cereal 'Hitler'

Not to that extent. There are still loads of Lolitas and places and products with that name which have no link to the Nabokov book.

The name did see an inexplicable drop off in the US in the 60s though
http://baby-names.familyeducation.com/nametracker?Lolita&detoured=1

lizardfudge

pickarooney wrote: »

Not to that extent. There are still loads of Lolitas and places and products with that name which have no link to the Nabokov book.

Oh true enough... but to name something as specific as a bed for little girls Lolita is very, very odd. And one of those cases where you wonder what was going through the minds of the people making the thing.

I mean look at this:



What the hell were they thinking?

LittleBook

pickarooney wrote: »

The name did see an inexplicable drop off in the US in the 60s though
http://baby-names.familyeducation.com/nametracker?Lolita&detoured=1

Cool link! If I'm reading the graph properly it looks like the name shot up in popularity after the book came out (1955) but then the film (1962) killed off it off almost completely.

lizardfudge wrote: »

to name something as specific as a bed for little girls Lolita is very, very odd. And one of those cases where you wonder what was going through the minds of the people making the thing.

The staff at Woolworth's claimed to have never heard of "Lolita" but still, I'd have to wonder how someone could give a name to a product marketed to young girls which is defined in the OED as - "noun (a Lolita) a sexually precocious young girl"

pickarooney

lizardfudge wrote: »

Oh true enough... but to name something as specific as a bed for little girls Lolita is very, very odd. And one of those cases where you wonder what was going through the minds of the people making the thing.

I mean look at this:



What the hell were they thinking?

Interesting background to that, including one customer who bought it and complained he was offended by it... the mind boggles. There were white and hispanic Lil' Monkeys too, although most reports conveniently overlook that.

pickarooney

BTW anyone else slightly depressed at the standard of journalism where the same article appears in 10 newspapers with only the paragrph order changed?

speedboatchase

lizardfudge wrote: »

Oh true enough... but to name something as specific as a bed for little girls Lolita is very, very odd. And one of those cases where you wonder what was going through the minds of the people making the thing.

I mean look at this:



What the hell were they thinking?

There's nothing racist about that though - you're racist or easily manipulated if you're making the connection. As has been stated there was white and hispanic dolls too. Reminds me of an Australian advert for KFC with a white guy in a sports stadium surrounded by black people, he looks really left out on his own and wins them all over by giving them fried chicken. Loads of people thought it was racist but it wasn't, the ad was only broadcast in Australia and the idea was he was at a Cricket game and sitting in the opposition seating (West Indies). You can take anything out of context to look racist.

I duno am I just naive or something, but I had to first wonder what the problem was with that doll picture, and then seeing someone say "it's racist" had to make me think about what was racist about it!!
Seriously people must be going out of their way to get offended by that one ??

Dudess

Posted this already - I was in Dunnes and heading over to what I thought was the lingerie section moved to a new part of the floor, when it hit me that this was actually the children's underwear section. My mistake stemmed from the fact that there were matching padded bra and knickers sets for 10-year-olds. And their designs, while not "raunchy", still would not look out of place on a grown woman. Someone mentioned these are padded because of soreness - if that's the case though, why weren't they always around? And why don't they have a more functional, or at least "childish", look?

As for the Playboy logo - hmmm... it is just a one-dimensional image. Not everyone will associate it with nekkid girls... which I suppose is the thinking behind it. Is it harmful though?

lizardfudge wrote: »

That is one of the funniest things I've ever, ever seen - "Diaper fits both baby and monkey!"

PopUp

pickarooney wrote: »

Interesting background to that, including one customer who bought it and complained he was offended by it... the mind boggles. There were white and hispanic Lil' Monkeys too, although most reports conveniently overlook that.

No there weren't. The companion doll was white and called 'Pretty Panda'.

The fact that black people have historically been called monkeys is pretty well known. That doll was an unbelievably stupid business decision.

Back on topic, the Playboy logo is tacky as hell. I don't know why people would buy that stuff for a little girl. And... to be perfectly honest, I do think a bit less of grown women who choose to wear it too. Like they are obviously free to do it if they want, but I am equally free to think it makes them look tacky.

Dudess

PopUp wrote: »

The fact that black people have historically been called monkeys is pretty well known. That doll was an unbelievably stupid business decision.

Agreed. I don't go out of my way to be offended, and I'm not at all offended by this monkey/black doll product (I just think it's hilarious :pac:) but at the same time, it is a bit "wtf?!" for the reasons you gave. Whether there was any malice behind it - unlikely, but they surely weren't stupid enough not to realise there would be controversy.

Coriolanus

While I do think a lot of the marketing going on today, especially in regard to kids is cynical in the extreme, I always tend to look at the parents in these cases. Whether it's violent 18s rated videogames or sexualised underwear for tweenies, it's generally the parents who hand over the cash.

And yes, I know just how pester power works but honestly, as a kid I was in love with Power Rangers on tv, but not once did I succeed in pestering my mother into buying me a single toy out of the range. I have it from her own mouth that I was a little horror, kicking and screaming, tantrums in the shopping centres etc but not once did she give because she didn't believe they were appropriate.

dotsman

PopUp wrote: »

No there weren't. The companion doll was white and called 'Pretty Panda'.

I really think you should read that article in full. It very clearly states that YOU are wrong.

With regards to the playboy logo. Would have nothing against the logo itself., nor with girls having it on their stationery etc. However sexy/playboy lingerie etc is definitely wrong for the "tween" market. But we had marketing when we were kids as well. Our parents just seemed to be able to say "no" a lot better.

pickarooney

PopUp wrote: »

No there weren't. The companion doll was white and called 'Pretty Panda'.

Yes there were. Why would you contradict me when even a perfunctory google would have given you this?

PopUp wrote: »

The fact that black people have historically been called monkeys is pretty well known. That doll was an unbelievably stupid business decision.

The fact this spurious association exists doesn't make it acceptable, and tacitly validating the notion by making white and hispanic versions but no black version would be worse.

The popularisation of the Playboy logo is just another in a long line of examples of brand expansion. For kids it's just a bunny; they're not really advertising their desire to shack up with Hugh Hefner.

shellykbookey

Dudess wrote: »

As for the Playboy logo - hmmm... it is just a one-dimensional image. Not everyone will associate it with nekkid girls... which I suppose is the thinking behind it. Is it harmful though?

They need put put a picture of Heff and his band of "girlfirends" in the middle of the logo so there's now doubt in anyones mind that they're funding this letch so he can keep these idiots on an allowance. Women buying playboy merchandise are probably contributing more money to the empire than the guys who buy the mags. Its a slap in the face to the suffragettes >:/

Coriolanus

shellykbookey wrote: »

They need put put a picture of Heff and his band of "girlfirends" in the middle of the logo so there's now doubt in anyones mind that they're funding this letch so he can keep these idiots on an allowance. Women buying playboy merchandise are probably contributing more money to the empire than the guys who buy the mags. Its a slap in the face to the suffragettes >:/

That's a good point. I'd be interested to see how circulation of "actual" porn has been effected by the internet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember there being much playboy merchandise available 10-20 years ago. Interwebs could very well be the driving force behind the product now.

BumbleB

All that stuff is dying a death ,they know that and they need to diversify.its the same reason duracell is now producing usb keys.

Teddy Chips

I think as a label it has been massively devalued over the last decade. Heffner is no longer a business player, a joke figure at this stage actually.

Dudess

shellykbookey wrote: »

They need put put a picture of Heff and his band of "girlfirends" in the middle of the logo so there's now doubt in anyones mind that they're funding this letch so he can keep these idiots on an allowance. Women buying playboy merchandise are probably contributing more money to the empire than the guys who buy the mags. Its a slap in the face to the suffragettes >:/

I don't really see what's so repressive to women about Playboy. Some women consider it a viable career option.

pickarooney

shellykbookey wrote: »

Its a slap in the face to the suffragettes >:/

Why? Did the suffragettes campaign so that women could have the opportunity to do what they (the women) wanted or what they (the suffragettes) wanted them to do?

convert

Whatever about the brand and logo being pushed at young children, the parents should know better than to buy bags, pencilcases, underwear, etc. with the logo on it for their young children. It's disgusting to see young children running around with these logos on their bags and pencilcases, while designing sexy underwear for pre-teens and tweenies is just plain wrong.

Nevyn

It's a disconnect, they have managed to disassociate the icon from pron in a lot of peoples minds, it is a very clever business move and has many people think ah sure whats the harm sure it's just a bunny.

Wonder if the same can be done with the swastika.

Dudess

In my opinion, it's better for young girls to associate sexualisation of the female body with grown women and an adult audience rather than be exposed to it in the form of an oiled-up teenage (or barely past teenage - but either way, they were marketed at kids) Britney/Christina in a seedy den, simulating sex acts, gyrating their arses and declaring orgasmically that they're "slaves"/"durrrty".

pickarooney

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's a disconnect, they have managed to disassociate the icon from pron in a lot of peoples minds, it is a very clever business move and has many people think ah sure whats the harm sure it's just a bunny.

Wonder if the same can be done with the swastika.

Why not, the swastika was a symbol of positivity (and still is) before them boys got their grubby mitts on it.

What's good for the goosestep is good for the Gandhi.

giddybootz

I think it's important to have a balance...i would never bring up a daughter to think that women who appear in those mags are sluts or wrong. I think it's important for every woman to grow up and then be proud of their sexuality...that sort of thing was repressed for too long.

However....dolls such as the Bratz are disgusting imo. Little girls should not be playing with spoiled bratz in mini skirts and crop tops!!

My mom was always very open about sex and sexuality with us growing up but i was not allowed a Barbie as she didn't want me growing up with a warped vision of what all women should look like. A little extreme maybe...old 80's Barbie was a mild creation compared to the slutty dolls around now!

neuro-praxis

giddybootz wrote: »

I think it's important to have a balance...i would never bring up a daughter to think that women who appear in those mags are sluts or wrong. I think it's important for every woman to grow up and then be proud of their sexuality...that sort of thing was repressed for too long.

You are very confused. Pornography has little to do with sexuality. It's an industry.

DaveyDave

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's a disconnect, they have managed to disassociate the icon from pron in a lot of peoples minds, it is a very clever business move and has many people think ah sure whats the harm sure it's just a bunny.

Wonder if the same can be done with the swastika.

All I know is the swastika is a lot easier to draw on someone's school books than a Playboy bunny, funnier too.

Swastika > Playboy bunny

Nevyn

giddybootz wrote: »

I think it's important to have a balance...i would never bring up a daughter to think that women who appear in those mags are sluts or wrong. I think it's important for every woman to grow up and then be proud of their sexuality...that sort of thing was repressed for too long.

However....dolls such as the Bratz are disgusting imo. Little girls should not be playing with spoiled bratz in mini skirts and crop tops!!

My mom was always very open about sex and sexuality with us growing up but i was not allowed a Barbie as she didn't want me growing up with a warped vision of what all women should look like. A little extreme maybe...old 80's Barbie was a mild creation compared to the slutty dolls around now!

The bratz line of dolls has been discontinued.
Many of the playboy play mates dress just like those doll, it is not a lifestyle I think we should be letting little girls aspire to.

chocgirl

Thaedydal wrote: »

The bratz line of dolls has been discontinued.
Many of the playboy play mates dress just like those doll, it is not a lifestyle I think we should be letting little girls aspire to.

I thought Bratz were being made by the Barbie company now, I can't remember the name offhand.

I'd agree that little girls shouldn't be aspiring to be playboy bunnies but at the same time I think that the little girls sporting the logo have absolutely no idea what it represents. For me it is the fact that it is funding the playboy industry that I'd object to and I just don't think little children should be advertising porn no matter what way you look at it.

BumbleB

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's a disconnect, they have managed to disassociate the icon from pron in a lot of peoples minds, it is a very clever business move and has many people think ah sure whats the harm sure it's just a bunny.

Wonder if the same can be done with the swastika.

The swastika is the sanskrit symbol for the sun ,good luck ,it predates christianity and has been found on artefacts all over the world ,even in Ireland.

A certain individual inverted its form also inverted its meaning.When you invert something you reverse its energy.
Just like witches say the Lords prayer backwards.

Disassociation has been happening for a long time .
The disconnection between sex and love.The disconnection between humankind and nature that once existed in celtic times.

Nevyn

BumbleB wrote: »

The swastika is the sanskrit symbol for the sun ,good luck ,it predates christianity and has been found on artefacts all over the world ,even in Ireland.

That may have been the origin but isn't what the majority of people will associate it with.

BumbleB wrote: »

A certain individual inverted its form also inverted its meaning.When you invert something you reverse its energy.

Just like witches say the Lords prayer backwards.

I know at least 30 witches personally and none of them do that.

BumbleB wrote: »

Disassociation has been happening for a long time .
The disconnection between sex and love.The disconnection between humankind and nature that once existed in celtic times.

Really? what is your citation for that?

metrovelvet

Symbolic meaning changes. The bunny doesnt strike the same chords it once did. Once sleazy, now pink and fluffy.

Joey the lips

I have been followin this thread for a while and while its in the ladies lounge i wondered if i could give my opinion.

I am no different than most men. I would read a fella's top shelf mag or to pardon the pun I would more likely look at the pictures.

However. I think this logo is terriable on kids pencil cases and clothing. I cannot say honestly why it's wrong but when I see a 10-12 year old with a pencil case with this on it I wonder what they are being subconcenciously( misspell) being thought.

pickarooney

Thaedydal wrote: »

That may have been the origin but isn't what the majority of people will associate it with.

I'd say there's a good chance you're wong in that knowledge of the third reich would be fairly cursory in most of the third world but huge numbers of people know and use the swastika without any thought of nazi Germany.

Unless you mean 'the majority of Irish people'.

Nevyn

The majority of people in the western world, :P