Sexualization of girls via Old Navy, Boston Globe

Old Navy back to school ad2
I’m wondering how exactly Old Navy could have made the decision that this is an appropriate advertisement for its clothing for little girls.
Remind you of anyone?Old Navy Back to School ad Boston Globe 2



This child is about 10 years old, and recreating a pose from the porn-y Miley Cyrus. Nice job, Old Navy. This is where we are today, that the Boston Globe would think nothing of publishing this full page ad with a creepily sexualized photo of a 10-year-old girl. What I find particularly bizarro is 20130922-mileycover-x600-1379956938__width_420that this ad is in the front section of a daily newspaper. Who is this meant to sell to? Does Old Navy think that this image will appeal to the parents who will be reading this paper? Or are they just trying to establish a porn-y image?


What do you think, parents? Is this ad ok with you? Is it cute?


Update: A few choice Twitter comments:

And here’s how I found out I’m uncool:


  1. I’ve learned on Twitter today that the New York Times also ran this ad. Shame on you New York Times.

  2. So now a fully-clothed kid who sticks out her tongue is child porn? Get a grip, America.

    • Could this be one of said hipster parents now, weighing in? Connect the dots, dear Reader, connect the dots.

      • To clarify, dear Reader, this is not “child porn” per se, but an example of the way porn culture is seeping into our everyday lives via mass media.


  1. […] program in Brookline, Massachusetts, sent along this photo and comment, as a follow up to my previous post about Old Navy […]

  2. […] (KGOY) market of mini-me messaging,  amidst the rise of ‘hipster parenting purchasers’ perpetuating the pop culture zeitgeist, no matter how short-sighted and damaging the messages may be. (“Baby skinny jeans?” […]

%d bloggers like this: