Su Qinian on Sexually Suggestive Images on Children's Clothing

Su Qinian, “Sexually Suggestive Images Should Not Appear on Children’s Clothing”[1]
 
Introduction by Hannah Wang
 
Introduction
 
On September 19, 2020, a netizen posted on social media that JNBY, an international Chinese clothing design brand, was selling children's clothing with inappropriate messages and images.  Some themes were “hellish”—messages like "welcome to hell" (in English) and various pictures of “fire and brimstone.” The netizen also included pictures of children’s clothing with the message "let me touch you" and another with the design of a strange creature holding a saw to be used to cut a leg.
 
Two days later, the official account of JNBY Children's Clothing made a public statement. They apologized for the inappropriate messages and on children's clothing products, and said that they had removed offending products from the shelves. They promised to take this event as a warning and strictly verify their products to prevent such incidents from happening again. We might note that they only sent their official apology after being criticized for their original reply to the complaining netizen, in which they informed him that he could apply for a refund.
 
One can’t help but wonder about the sincerity of JNBY’s promise, because it turns out that there is a great deal of offensive content.  We know this because JNBY’s perfunctory apology triggered an online reaction from consumers, in which netizens pointed out many more examples of clothing containing violent, bloody, and sexually suggestive messages and images:  broken limbs, anime characters holding guns, hands touching the lower parts of girls bodies, a rabbit’s head bleeding from the eyes and mouth...In addition to eroticism and violence, there are also confusing images of human organs and religious symbols.  Child models on the company’s website are also posed in ways to suggest horror movie themes or to mimic adult sexually suggestive behavior.
 
In the online commentary the event sparked, some netizens argued that only adults would notice these details and that children were surely oblivious.  Other netizens replied that this was a huge underestimation of kids, who are often more awake to details than adults. One netizen reported buying a black t-shirt with a Pikachu design simply because she and her husband though it was cute. When she gave it to her 6-year-old nephew, however, he asked her “what’s wrong with Pikachu?” and “why does Pikachu have cracks and holes on his face?”  The netizen had not noticed that part of Pikachu’s head was missing.
 
Su Qinian, the author of the text translated here, argues that brands like JNBY should simply stop designing inappropriate clothes for children.   The arguments employed to make this case will be familiar to Western readers, because Su draws on Western sources:  images are powerful and we are judged by the way we dress. 
 
Su Qinian is not suggesting that this incident caused a huge controversy in China.  The text is nonetheless revealing of a certain sensibility, particularly in urban China, where money and fashion matter and where parents’ concern for the welfare of their children is widespread.  It is not surprising that the incident occurred completely online.
 
Su Qinian is an editor at “Nutshell 果壳.” According to its website, “Nutshell is a well-known popular science and culture platform in China. It is committed to providing responsible scientific and technological themed content in interesting and diverse ways. Advocating a scientific and rational lifestyle, it has become a scientific companion to people's daily lives since its establishment in 2010.” 
 
Translation by Hannah Wang and David Ownby 
 
After the relevant authorities questioned JNBY (an International Chinese design brand) concerning the inappropriate designs it was using on children's clothing, the news of "cult films" and "sexual violence" gradually faded from media attention.  After the dust settled, it became clear that netizens were not unanimous in their condemnation of JNBY, and while JNBY managers chose to remain silent, many people continued to explain where the designs on their clothing came from.  For example, one commentator posted a picture of a child with liquid on her face[2] on their online account, a 1971 work by photographer Linda McCartney, part of her family routine with Beatles star Paul McCartney in 1971.  The pictures on the clothes related to Native Americans come from the 1907 children's book Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland.  There are also designs from “Paradise on Earth”, Hieronymus Bosch’s 1510 painting, including the image of a female nude. 
 
Once they understood the origin of these designs, some people felt that the images were a kind of artistic expression and there was no need to over-react. Their position was, if you feel uncomfortable about it, then just don’t buy it.  But is it appropriate to print Paradise on Earth on kids clothing just because it is a masterpiece? Not really.  In fact, sexually suggestive designs should never appear on children's clothing. 
 
Dive In :  The Tumble Disney Took 
 
The "dive in" event from the UK 13 years ago can serve as a reference for today’s JNBY incident.
 
According to the Daily Mail, Sue Ralph, a 57-year-old grandmother, was shocked to find the words "dive in" printed on the panties she bought for her 7-year-old granddaughter.  Dive in, which originally means to jump in or dive into the water, but it easy to imagine what else it might mean, so what is it doing on little girls’ underwear? This suggestive slogan quickly outraged the public.
 
The Disney spokesperson explained that the underwear was part of a marketing campaign for the movie and television show "High School Musical". The slogan “dive in” was inspired by the classic scene at the end of the movie where the main characters jump into a pool.  

But parents weren’t buying it, and strong protests followed from organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Here's what Grandma Ralph, who originally brought the story to light, said:  "I don't believe Disney or anyone else would be stupid enough to not be aware of the connotations of the words they chose…This is sexually explicit, inappropriate, and completely wrong." In the end, Disney publicly apologized for this line of products and promised to recall them (with the spokesperson pathetically noting that “we are innocent, and had no intention of offending our customers.”)
 
In China and elsewhere, people are very sensitive about associating children with sex symbols/sexual suggestiveness. The problem with this kind of thing is: children themselves are not themselves choosing to be associated with sexual suggestiveness, and parents are not choosing to have their kids associated with sexual suggestiveness, instead the clothing manufacturers are imposing it on them through the designs they choose.
 
This is actually sexualizing children.
  
The Sexualization of Children:  Imposing Sexual Elements on Kids 
 
In 2007, The American Psychological Association released a report on the topic of sexualization of girls, calling on people to pay attention to the problem of children (especially girls ) being represented in a sexualized manner on media such as television.  Sexualization is considered to be present if any one of the following four criteria are met.
 
1. a person’s value is depicted as  deriving solely from his or her sexually related appearance or behavior, excluding all other characteristics;

2. a person is depicted as following the norm that sexiness is equivalent to the narrow sense of physical attractiveness;

3. a person is depicted as sexually instrumentalized, that is, he or she is treated as a tool for others’ sexual purposes, rather than as an individual with independent behavior and decision-making abilities;

4. a person is depicted as having inappropriate sexual elements imposed on him/her.
 
Number four, the imposition of inappropriate sexual elements, is exactly where children are most affected by sexualization. Whether it be JNBY or Disney, the red line they both crossed is this one.
 
People Tend to View Hyper-Sexualized Children as “Dumb Kids” 
 
Why are researchers so against the sexualization of children? Because being hyper-sexualized damages girls in several ways, including eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression. It has a negative impact on the development of how teenagers view sex and sexual activity and make girls more susceptible to gender stereotypes.  In addition, adolescents may think poorly of hyper-sexualized children. 

In 2012, researchers assembled a group 162 college students. Each student would look at random at one of three photographs of the same face of a young girl. The only difference was how she was dressed.  In the first photo, the girl was wearing a gray T-shirt and jeans, a medium length leopard-pattern dress in the second, and a short skirt and a leopard-pattern cardigan—and a ladies’ shopping bag-- in the third.  The students participating  in the study generally agreed that the hyper-sexualized girl scored significantly lower in terms of skills, competence, perseverance, intelligence, moral sense, and self-respect than the others.  The researchers then told the college students that the girl had outstanding grades, was the top student in her class, and was the president of the student council.  However, the participants still rated her low as long as she dressed like an adult.
 
It's hard for children not to be affected when others constantly view them this way. Moreover, this is completely different from the situation with adolescents who express themselves through the clothes they wear.  Adolescents can buy their own clothes, but children's clothes are bought by parents. Children are not expressing themselves, but rather representing the image of the child shaped by the parents. Children themselves have no choice. 
 
Sexualization of Children in China:  Cultural Differences 
 
Although the sexualization of children is not an openly discussed topic in China, people are worried that children will be harmed, so society is quite alert to things like this.
 
In January, memes that criticized children's images + sexually suggestive language appeared. In March, Taobao (China’s leading online shopping site) pulled allegedly soft-porn ads for kids’ underwear off the shelves. In July, Kwai (China’s popular short videos platform) banned soft-porn videos targeting children. These events are all related to the sexualization of children. 
 
Our understanding of  the sexualization of children is also culturally different from that of people in other countries.  A paper published in 2020 compared Spanish and Chinese perceptions of sexual elements in photographs of the same group of under-12 children’s clothing models. It was found that the Chinese were more sensitive to adult-like clothing (e.g., dark colors, unisex styling, etc.) and punk styles (e.g., studs, leather jackets, etc.).  This, in turn, relates directly to what sparked the incident we started with: pushing adult styles on children has always been the JNBY’s selling point. The industry generally sees it to be a leader in extending adult-clothing styles into the field of kids’ wear, adopting adult-like designs even for young children between the ages of three and six. 
 
The indiscriminate imposition of adult styles on children and the lack of sensitivity to the sexualization of children are what enrage the public.  The same is true of punk style. There are indeed parents who accept this, , but those who do understand that the design is avant-garde, and are clearly in the minority.  Most parents buy products from JNBY Kids without understanding the specific meaning of the images, and then are bombarded with media accounts that the images are "toxic." They definitely feel like they have been cheated. 
 
What Can We Do About the Sexualization of Children? 
 
The sexualization of children is not a common topic of public discussion in China. However, people are naturally uneasy about such things and hope can avoid them.  In reality, unfortunately, the sexualization of children is often vague and hard to detect, but still quite common.
  
One solution is to give the design of a kids’ clothes back to them. It's might be a really good idea for manufacturers of children’s’ everyday items to let kids make their own designs and give them the freedom to express themselves.  IKEA's "SAGOSKATT" series does just that, selecting ten drawings from children around the world each year to make toys, including works by Chinese children.  Adults may think these toys are weird and ugly, but children may feel the same way when they look at kids’ clothes made by adults.  Once safety standards are met, isn't it fascinating to have kids clothing that expresses children's sense of autonomy? 
 
In addition, parents should be more sensitive to the sexual messages children receive and the sexual suggestiveness of the environments children are exposed to.  In a report in The Economist, the author divided child sexualization into direct and indirect categories. The article argues that with technological developments, children are more likely to receive sex-related content, which is also a form of indirect sexualization of children. 
 
It is not easy to completely keep children away from sex:  we should note that already in 2009, 57% of 14-16 year olds considered the media as an important source of sex-related knowledge [8]. Today, given the even freer flow of information, this percentage will only be higher, including for younger children.  Sex education with proper guidance from parents and schools is necessary to address such issues.   The newly released China's Children Development Outline(2021-2030) includes sex education for the first time, with corresponding goals and strategies, placing higher demands on sex education in both schools and families.
 
In the end, appropriate sex education exists to meet the developmental needs of children. children's clothing that sexualizes kids, on the other hand, meets adults’ needs for expression and control.  Adults should learn to respect children, listen to children, rather than imposing adult standards on children and forcing them wear clothing that does not correspond to their age group. This is the biggest lesson adults can learn from this children's clothing incident.
 
Notes

[1]苏七年, “有性暗示的图案，从来不该出现在童装上,” posted online on Nutshell/果壳, on September 29, 2021.
 
[2]Translator’s note:  I think the implication here is that the “liquid” could have been semen, but that in fact the picture was completely innocent.