Pop cul­ture’s dis­turb­ing new pe­dophilia chic

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Michelle Malkin

If you thought the soft-porn im­age of Dis­ney teen queen Mi­ley Cyrus — wear­ing noth­ing but ruby-stained lips and a bed­sheet — in Van­ity Fair mag­a­zine was dis­turb­ing, you ain’t seen noth­ing yet.

Pop diva Bey­once Knowles, 27, and her fash­ion de­signer mother have launched a girls’ cloth­ing line that makes Mi­ley’s bare­backed glam ses­sion look like a Shirley Tem­ple photo shoot.

The Knowles’ fam­ily busi­ness, “House of Dereon,” re­cently pub­lished ad­ver­tise­ments for its “Dereon Girls Col­lec­tion” with young mod­els who look no older than my sec­ond-grade daugh­ter. They are se­duc­tively posed and tarted up, JonBenet Ram­sey-style, with bright lip­stick, blush and face pow­der. Draped in bling, sev­eral of the girls sport leather jack­ets and stud­ded ac­ces­sories.

One of the chil­dren wears sparkly, killer high heels (more pint-size Pussy­cat Doll than Dorothy from “The Wizard of the Oz”) and an­other slouches, gangsta gal-style, with a neon pink boa, leop­ard-skin fe­dora and stilet­tos. An even younger model is a tod­dler-aged Bey­once Mini-Me with huge hair, skinny jeans, spike­heeled leather boots and at­ti­tude to match.

Aber­crom­bie & Fitch prompted an out­rage a few years ago with its line of thongs for el­e­men­tary school girls and pe­dophilia chic cat­a­logues. And, of course, Calvin Klein started it all with 15-year-old Brooke Shields purring that “Noth­ing comes be­tween me and my Calvins.” But the House of Dereon photo spread sinks even lower. It’s sick and it’s wrong, and it’s not so­cial con­ser­va­tives who first said so. Fash­ion and celebrity web­sites have been buzzing with out­rage:

“Pimp my kid,” de­cried one blog­ger. “Dereon Girls ad too adult,” con­cluded an­other. Gos­sip king Perez Hil­ton polled read­ers on whether the ad was ap­pro­pri­ate. The over­whelm­ing con­sen­sus: Hell, no.

The creepi­ness fac­tor is height­ened by the fact that women were re­spon­si­ble for mar­ket­ing this child ex­ploita­tion. I’d ask: “Where was Bey­once’s mother to tell her daugh­ter to wipe all the gunk off the Dereon mod­els’ faces?” But Bey- once’s mother — who has helped man­age the “Booty­li­cious” singer’s ca­reer from child­hood — is her ea­ger and will­ing part­ner in crime.

As for the moth­ers of this new crop of Lit­tle Girls Gone Wild mod­els, they were un­doubt­edly thrilled to see their daugh­ters painted up and pos- ing like Vic­to­ria’s Se­cret an­gels-in-train­ing. If we’ve learned any­thing from Lind­say Lo­han and her hard-par­ty­ing mother, it’s that the Lolita-pos- ing ap­ple doesn’t fall far from the bo­som-flaunt­ing tree.

So, what’s next? Nine-yearolds per­form­ing strip­per rou­tines? Oh, wait. It’s been done al­ready. I saw that very night­mare last fall on the cable TV re­al­ity show “Keep­ing Up with the Kar­dashi­ans” — fea­tur­ing the grade-school-age daugh­ters of Olympic star Bruce Jen­ner strap­ping on stilet­tos and twirling around a strip­per pole in their par­ents’ bed­room as friends and fam­ily cheered them on. Fu­ture House of Dereon clients, no doubt.

Bey­once’s clothes, you should know, are avail­able at Macy’s de­part­ment stores and other “fine” es­tab­lish­ments will­ing to carry tit­il­lat­ing tot wear. Shame on them all. Shame them all. It’s time to re­dou­ble our ef­forts to fight back against the For­ever 21 cul­ture that poi­sons Hol­ly­wood, Hal­loween, prom sea­son and ev­ery sea­son in be­tween. In our in­de­cent world, 7 has be­come the new 21. Shouldn’t a child’s in­no­cence last longer than a porn star’s .25-ounce pot of lip gloss?

Michelle Malkin is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.