TPTW - The "Lolita Effect" - What is our role, if any?

[mizzy_dizzy]

I don't think something illegal like drug dealer is the right analogy (sp) here ,

When what we do is not illegal ,

Mc Donalds sells burgers .... People get fat because they eat them ... They pay for that service ... We can't all go around blaming Mc Donalds ...


We provide beauty enhancements what ever that might be ,it's a business , we (as in the industry) are not to blame , for children being older younger but the parents are for not setting adult / child boundrys!

A client of mine was telling me about someone she works withs doughter coming into word totally caked in make up at 12 years old ,

This client said the first time her dad let her out of the house with make up was for her junior prom at 16 .
She said she always rem era how grown up she felt that night ,

Sadly many many children now will never experience that feeling ,

 

[jacquelineanna]

If a mother chooses to beautify her daughter that has nothing to do with you or me or anyone else.

It is not against the law.

If you think it is wrong, and you feel that by offering pamper parties leads you to some responsibility in creating a lolita effect, then I cannot see that you are making your case for any other reason than moral.

I do not believe our industry is to be held responsible for the situation under discussion based on my previous arguments.

The logic is there to support my thought.

But I do not have the will to dissect it down further to another level at this moment as it starts to get bitty.

I will still be reading others views though with interest though and thank you for a thought provoking subject.

Jacqui xx

 

[deanosnana]

In the U.S., we have two shows in particular that strike at this very topic: Toddlers in Tiaras and Dance Moms. The recurring statement from the mothers of these girls is: "When I was a girl, I wanted to be...." or "When I was a girl, I never got the change to be..."

These little girls' (even babies) faces are caked in make-up. They have smokey-eyes and false eye-lashes. They are spray tanned. Their hair is high-lighted and done up in exaggerated styles. Their clothing is ridiculous and, more times than not, whore-ish. They look like little street walkers.

The competition and behavior of these mothers is abhorrent. These mothers will tell you their little girls "want" this. In reality, it's the moms who do. With that in mind, I feel that mothers feed this Lolita trend.

We as professionals need to set aside the all-mighty dollar and say no to sexualization of children. Will it stop it? No. But at least we can hold our heads high and say we took no part in it.

I could not agree more! I was flipping channels yesterday and came upon a commercial for 'Toddlers & Tiaras' and I could barely watch THAT! This little girl all made up, like you say; looking whore-ish, and the mom is pulling her to the stage. The kid is SCREAMING at the top of her lungs.

Yeah, the kid WANTS that.

I've kept out of this debate because my convictions are SO STRONG, I don't want to say something that will get the thread closed.

 

[deanosnana]

parents are responsible for setting the boundaries for their children, not me or my workmates.

Personally i think its vile to dress a 4 year old like a grown up and put her in a pagent, but i also think putting a child on stage is vile too. It is only my personal view, and not a business perspective.

amen!

 

[VHunter]

I don't think something illegal like drug dealer is the right analogy (sp) here ,
When what we do is not illegal ,
Mc Donalds sells burgers .... People get fat because they eat them ... They pay for that service ... We can't all go around blaming Mc Donalds ...


We provide beauty enhancements what ever that might be ,it's a business , we (as in the industry) are not to blame , for children being older younger but the parents are for not setting adult / child boundrys!
A client of mine was telling me about someone she works withs doughter coming into word totally caked in make up at 12 years old ,
This client said the first time her dad let her out of the house with make up was for her junior prom at 16 .
She said she always rem era how grown up she felt that night ,
Sadly many many children now will never experience that feeling ,

I do realize that the analogy is a poor one, but I was looking for something that once upon a time, people just turned their heads. Then society grew concerned, and made changes. It was the easiest analogy to grab.

And yes, very sad that many will never experience it.

If a mother chooses to beautify her daughter that has nothing to do with you or me or anyone else.
It is not against the law.

If you think it is wrong, and you feel that by offering pamper parties leads you to some responsibility in creating a lolita effect, then I cannot see that you are making your case for any other reason than moral.

I do not believe our industry is to be held responsible for the situation under discussion based on my previous arguments.
The logic is there to support my thought.

But I do not have the will to dissect it down further to another level at this moment as it starts to get bitty.
I will still be reading others views though with interest though and thank you for a thought provoking subject.

Jacqui xx

I have appreciated your input!
I think we both have some logic. I think we all do. Hence why it was brought up. To provoke some 'thinking' and looking at all sides, which I think we are all doing.

Thanks again, and I understand what you're saying and I respect that.
:hug:

 

[Unique.Tips]

Although you have said morals are not the issue and shouldn't be mentioned, all the points made re things we might do in our work and private lives ARE based on one's morals.

As to the question of the beauty therapists/hairdresser/nail techs role in the lolita effect.

Being asked to do highlights on a 6 year old or spray tan a 4 year old or put acrylic nails on a 10 year old .. it seems to me that again it does come down to the morals of the individual.

However, if we can set our personal morals aside, then it comes down to business and money. Upon which the whole world turns.

So if the therapist et al makes a business decision completely devoid of her moral view, then I do not feel she is contributing to the lolita effect.

She is contributing to her own welfare, the welfare of her business and employees and family.

The Mothers of these children are responsible for creating the Lolita Effect. They are driving this out of control vehicle.

Therapists could say no to performing these treatments, and could therefore be said to be taking responsibility by doing so, but if they do say no, its because they feel morally obliged to.

Why else would you refuse trade and payment if not because of morals.

If you decide to opt out completely of beautifying children and therefore not contributing to the lolita effect it wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

Because the Mother is driving the bus and she will just move on down to the next salon until she finds someone who will.

So the only way to prevent such beautification of children is to ban it.

And is that right? That's another debate. But if the mother cannot be held morally accountable for her child then neither can anyone else.

At the moment a mother cannot be put into jail for any of the things we are currently debating.

So from a purely business perspective totally devoid of any morals, no we should not decline the services requested by these mothers for their children.

But it just keeps on coming back to the moal perspective ....

Jacqui xx

Amazing point

 

[Unique.Tips]

In my opinion, the only way we as beauticians could contribute to this "Lolita Effect" directly is by targeting children 12 & under. By advertisement and service targeting. Which here in Mississippi I haven't really seen done. Closest thing would b Princess parties but really all that is is a day full of make believe. A little polish and cute hair clippies. Nothing extreme like spray tans, acrylic nails, and hair bleach.

The responsibility really relies in the mother of the child. I wear high heels every day. And not ur normal heel. Lady Gagas heel-less shoe is just an example of a piece from my collection. does my daughter trot around the house in them occasionally? Yes. Does she go outside in them? No (I wear an 11 so that's almost impossible lol). Do I buy her a pair of Childrens high heels to wear in public? (she is 4) No. Does a little girl her age at school own and wear a pair? Yes.

That being said, exposure to young children comes from the adults around them. What they are ALOWED to do. I don't have cable mainly bc it's hard to control even the COMMERCIALS that come on TV. And dont get my started on that sassy Disney Channel. So we watch Netflix shows and movies to eliminate that. Do other parents feel there is not a need for this? Yes. Is it their choice? Yes. Not my business.

So going to the "to do or not to do" question, as a beautician refusal when these services are requested is purely up to the professional. Yes it's a moral decision. Bc it's not illegal. The parent will find someone who will. (Shoot.. A lady here in the States was injecting her kid with BOTOX.) So it's up to the professional whether or not they want to support it.

I have a policy, no enhancement service on anyone under 16. No Shellac on anyone under 12. Even then, their parents have to be regulars of mine. So I know they'll b exposed to proper upkeep. But will I polish every cute little-girl finger that walks in my door? (free of charge for the tiny ones) of course! Sometimes it keeps them still while mommy gets her service lol.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Hope I didn't offend anyone or get off topic or anything.

 

[gr8nailz]

I have put Shellac on 5 - 12 year old "pageant" girls for competition. They were on my book....I found it distasteful and expressed my opinion. Although we are strictly natural nails now that I no longer do enhancements at the salon, I pointed out our policy that we didn't perform ANY services on CHILDREN, natural nails or otherwise, in the nail spa...no service to children under age 15. Our owner as well as our CFO agreed and this practice of making exceptions for pageant children was stopped.

Did it stop the pageant children, the little Lolitas, from getting their prescribed treatments? No. But I was able to sleep at night.

 

[VHunter]

Did it stop the pageant children, the little Lolitas, from getting their prescribed treatments? No. But I was able to sleep at night.

That's what I'm thinking too... at least I'd sleep better at night and not feel guilty about getting ruled by the all mighty dollar, stomping on my morals.

:hug:

 

[gr8nailz]

As awful as it sounds, I thank the Great Spirit in the sky that I didn't have a daughter. A friend of mine has a 12 year old daughter who is badgering her about getting her nose and belly button pierced. Why? Because all of her friends have their's pierced.

Why the hell would a 12 year old have her nose and belly button pierced? Better yet, why would a parent allow it?

 

[sophiegees]

I would say that this as with many things is media driven. The media shapes our world, our thoughts and tells us what is important and what isnt - shows us the news they decide is important - ignore what they think is not.

The choice of whether we perform treatments is just that, a choice.

xx

 

[tiggerlady]

I dont think the industry is responsible, it's mothers who want/dont mind/dont care that influence/allow their children to be 'all glammed up and nowhere to go'
Its not illegal for a mother to spray tan her child..we might think its immoral, but thats our personal take on it. We all have morals of differing standards/levels, some may say they're going downhill fast, and I would agree.
I wont spray under 16,but what a mother does who owns her own salon is up to her really....
With regard to the pageants, that is just sooo wrong on so many levels..now THAT is the Lolita effect shown at its best..young girls primped and preened to look adult performing in front of an audience?? Most times for the parents gratification, as most of the kids dont seem enjoy all the prep and the parents seem to be pushing them ever harder!
A talent show does not need to be like that..it needs someone, somewhere to stand up and stop it.They'll be spray tanning tiny babies next!!!
Like most young girls I played with Mums make up and nail varnish, but only at home. Its a part of growing up when your Mum and you spend time..and she helps you learn to do it so you dont look like a clown hahhaa!
With regard to padded underwear for 6 year olds, thats a prime example of big business's greed,with no thought for the morality of what they are selling as long as it makes them money. They commission a firm to make them knowing that somebodys mother IS going to buy it, as lets be honest, how is a 6 yr old going to buy it for herself..??!!

So that really brings us back to the original point. Its not us as therapists that makes the Lolita effect, we train in beauty therapys etc not only because we love it, but because it will make us a living, but we have to have our morals and standards as thats what makes us who we are and not gutter slime, and if we have to refuse someone a treatment because they are unfit to recieve it, whatever way, and they go elsewhere, then we have to live with it and hold our heads up high and respect our own selves.
Thought provoking thread though..

 

[deanosnana]

As awful as it sounds, I thank the Great Spirit in the sky that I didn't have a daughter. A friend of mine has a 12 year old daughter who is badgering her about getting her nose and belly button pierced. Why? Because all of her friends have their's pierced.

Why the hell would a 12 year old have her nose and belly button pierced? Better yet, why would a parent allow it?

I'm with you. God blessed me with two BOYS and I thank Him, daily. I was SO strict with them...if I had girls, they'd be in a convent.

A few years ago on Dr. Phil, there was this 'mom' complaining to the good doc that her 10 YEAR OLD was wearing thong underwear. The mom was upset because the undies were too sexy, too grown up, etc.

Finally, Dr. Phil looks at her and asks, 'so, who bought her the thong underwear?'. She looks at him sheepishly and says, 'I did'. WELL, THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM!

I know another 'mom' who let her underaged daughter get a tattoo. Not only let her but took her to the tat parlor. The 'mom' wanted to be her daughter's 'friend'.

My opinion: kids have enough friends. If you are a parent, then be a parent.

Oh, and I was going to stay out of this debate. :o

 

[VHunter]

So that really brings us back to the original point. Its not us as therapists that makes the Lolita effect, we train in beauty therapys etc not only because we love it, but because it will make us a living, but we have to have our morals and standards as thats what makes us who we are and not gutter slime, and if we have to refuse someone a treatment because they are unfit to recieve it, whatever way, and they go elsewhere, then we have to live with it and hold our heads up high and respect our own selves.
Thought provoking thread though..

But do we 'contribute' to the existing effect? By either promoting services that target children OR accepting a client's request to perform a service on a child?

I would say that this as with many things is media driven. The media shapes our world, our thoughts and tells us what is important and what isnt - shows us the news they decide is important - ignore what they think is not.
The choice of whether we perform treatments is just that, a choice.
xx

YES, much is media-driven. But to whom does the media cater to? Us, the adoring public. If they don't give us what we want, then we watch another channel or read a different magazine that DOES give us what we want.
So, in that regard, by them responding to our 'demands to keep us interested' so to speak; does that indirectly make us (us as in SOCIETY as whole) responsible for their methods of using marketing and sensationalism to get our attention?

As awful as it sounds, I thank the Great Spirit in the sky that I didn't have a daughter. A friend of mine has a 12 year old daughter who is badgering her about getting her nose and belly button pierced. Why? Because all of her friends have their's pierced.

Why the hell would a 12 year old have her nose and belly button pierced? Better yet, why would a parent allow it?

YES, why would a parent allow it. Well, perhaps the parent wasn't raised as strictly and no one is telling her otherwise?
Which brings us back to "village raising a child" :wink2:

(with regards to the great spirit giving you boys, am thankful my spirit gave me girls... I much prefer indoor plumbing with less surprises LOL)

I'm with you. God blessed me with two BOYS and I thank Him, daily. I was SO strict with them...if I had girls, they'd be in a convent.

A few years ago on Dr. Phil, there was this 'mom' complaining to the good doc that her 10 YEAR OLD was wearing thong underwear. The mom was upset because the undies were too sexy, too grown up, etc.

Finally, Dr. Phil looks at her and asks, 'so, who bought her the thong underwear?'. She looks at him sheepishly and says, 'I did'. WELL, THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM!

I know another 'mom' who let her underaged daughter get a tattoo. Not only let her but took her to the tat parlor. The 'mom' wanted to be her daughter's 'friend'.

My opinion: kids have enough friends. If you are a parent, then be a parent.

Oh, and I was going to stay out of this debate. :o

I sometimes joke that I'm going to go to an Antique shop and buy medieval chastity belts for my girls that will remain locked until they are 25yrs old LOL :lol:

YES, Parents are frequently the ones that are the most responsible. I won't argue that. But what of businesses intentionally targetting children with underwear that's not appropriate? Really? a bra for a 6yr old? EWWWWWW

Ditto re: Parents need to be PARENTS.

As for staying out the Debate: no need to stay out of a debate. We're not having a s**t-slinging contest LOL
We're sharing perspectives and exploring other avenues of thought.
Nothing wrong there
:hug:

 

[strawberrypie]

Have 'shortened' the quotes below, just to abbreviate:wink2:

I appreciate your thoughts on this, I DO.
But really, my questions by themselves are not about Morals.
I raised the issues that I did only to explain WHY I felt I needed to ask those questions.

I'm only wondering at OUR IMPACT on the issue and if we are partly RESPONSIBLE for it.
More of a Yes or No answer.

Morals only come in to play if we were to sit and determine what is right or wrong, or at what age something is acceptable.
But that's not what I'm asking.

Morals would come in to play if we were to determine IF we should say no, and/or at what point we should say no. Again, not the questions at hand.

AND that would be in regards to our PERSONAL morals.

BUT just to touch briefly regarding making a living, and nothing wrong with that:
This is a GROSS exageration of an example, of course, and not at all comparable, but bear with me: Drug dealers are just trying to make a living too, and meet the needs of their clientel. I know one that had 3 kids. He was supporting his family too.
AS I SAID, not even in the same ballpark. It's like comparing Apples to Potatoes. But just a thought, to throw out there.




Ahhhhhhhhhhh but there is the crux of the matter... IF something is not available and it is denied - across the board - then perhaps culture COULD change?

Would the culture really change though or just go underground? Just a thought.

My personal view is that it is not our decision to make even if we don't condone it, rather that of the parent. I say this as both a salon owner and mother.

 

[deanosnana]

As for staying out the Debate: no need to stay out of a debate. We're not having a s**t-slinging contest LOL
We're sharing perspectives and exploring other avenues of thought.
Nothing wrong there
:hug:

Oh, I LOVE a good debate...I'm just afraid I'M going to say something naughty. :hug:

 

[deanosnana]

YES, Parents are frequently the ones that are the most responsible. I won't argue that. But what of businesses intentionally targetting children with underwear that's not appropriate? Really? a bra for a 6yr old? EWWWWWW

:hug:

A month or so ago, there was a segment on the Today Show where a well known clothing company (initals A & F) designed a padded, push up bikini top SPECIFICALLY FOR 7 YEAR OLDS??? Really??? What the heck does a 7 year old have to push up. And padded? Why, so a 7 year old CHILD can appear to have ****ies?

Personally, I think businesses that target children are reprehensible. When their only concern seems to be the almighty dollar, then I have no respect and will not patronize their stores.

VHunter, this has been a great thread! Very TP!

 

[VHunter]

OOPS, I missed this one. sorry!

In my opinion, the only way we as beauticians could contribute to this "Lolita Effect" directly is by targeting children 12 & under. By advertisement and service targeting. Which here in Mississippi I haven't really seen done. Closest thing would b Princess parties but really all that is is a day full of make believe. A little polish and cute hair clippies. Nothing extreme like spray tans, acrylic nails, and hair bleach.

I agree to a point, and I have been offering Princess Parties. Now am reconsidering... Some parties have been for children as young as 5yrs old. And then I wonder.. well if they have this at 5, what will Mommy give them at 7, at 10, at 12? And I'm actively contributing to the beginning of this cycle by offering this service. I am responsible for having done so. Because it just increases, right? That's my concern and why I'm rethinking my service, as successfull as it is :-(

The responsibility really relies in the mother of the child. I wear high heels every day. And not ur normal heel. Lady Gagas heel-less shoe is just an example of a piece from my collection. does my daughter trot around the house in them occasionally? Yes. Does she go outside in them? No (I wear an 11 so that's almost impossible lol). Do I buy her a pair of Childrens high heels to wear in public? (she is 4) No. Does a little girl her age at school own and wear a pair? Yes.

LOL, yes, I'm guilty of the high heel collection too

That being said, exposure to young children comes from the adults around them. What they are ALOWED to do. I don't have cable mainly bc it's hard to control even the COMMERCIALS that come on TV. And dont get my started on that sassy Disney Channel. So we watch Netflix shows and movies to eliminate that. Do other parents feel there is not a need for this? Yes. Is it their choice? Yes. Not my business.

Glad to know that I'm not the only one being discriminatory about television and all those blasted commercials. I will NOT have Bratz dollz in my house either. Anything Bratz gets tossed. They are ATTROCIOUS. My daughter's only know of Hannah Montana because she's talked about at school. Otherwise, they're oblivious.

So going to the "to do or not to do" question, as a beautician refusal when these services are requested is purely up to the professional. Yes it's a moral decision. Bc it's not illegal. The parent will find someone who will. (Shoot.. A lady here in the States was injecting her kid with BOTOX.) So it's up to the professional whether or not they want to support it.

"Support it" being the key words, and that's the awareness I wanted to achieve. That we DO do that, sometimes (some of us).

I have a policy, no enhancement service on anyone under 16. No Shellac on anyone under 12. Even then, their parents have to be regulars of mine. So I know they'll b exposed to proper upkeep. But will I polish every cute little-girl finger that walks in my door? (free of charge for the tiny ones) of course! Sometimes it keeps them still while mommy gets her service lol.

I'm thinking I may apply the same policy... not sure... still thinking on this whole thing lol Up until this point, have discouraged my own daughters from wearing polish except a handful of times per year because I figure if polish becomes mainstream and boring for them, then they'll want L&P at 12 and heck no, not going that route.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Hope I didn't offend anyone or get off topic or anything.

Oh, I LOVE a good debate...I'm just afraid I'M going to say something naughty. :hug:

I'm sure someone will smack ya LOL xoxo

Would the culture really change though or just go underground? Just a thought.

My personal view is that it is not our decision to make even if we don't condone it, rather that of the parent. I say this as both a salon owner and mother.

I'm not sure it would go underground.... it seems a lot of fuss.
Baby-Walkers have been made illegal in Canada.. no one is going underground for them. The odd one gets unearthed, but it hasn't become epidemic, if you know what I mean.

A month or so ago, there was a segment on the Today Show where a well known clothing company (initals A & F) designed a padded, push up bikini top SPECIFICALLY FOR 7 YEAR OLDS??? Really??? What the heck does a 7 year old have to push up. And padded? Why, so a 7 year old CHILD can appear to have ****ies?

Personally, I think businesses that target children are reprehensible. When their only concern seems to be the almighty dollar, then I have no respect and will not patronize their stores.

VHunter, this has been a great thread! Very TP!

Yup, linked that show up above in the original post of the thread:green:
Thanks for your kind words!
And what's TP? lol
(at our house, 'TP" is toilet paper LOL)

 

[deanosnana]

Thanks for your kind words!
And what's TP? lol
(at our house, 'TP" is toilet paper LOL)

LOL and sorry, TP at my house is toilet paper, as well. On here though, I meant it as Thought Provoking.

 

[sarahrose14]

Can I just ask what does TPTW mean? X