A mom’s TikTok post about some dresses for girls she found at Target, which she thought were too inappropriate for children to wear, has sparked a viral debate.
Meghan Mayer’s (@thecrazycreativeteacher) video raked in a whopping 2.6 million views as of Saturday, dividing viewers.
“Am I overreacting?” she asks in a text overlay as she looks into the camera, which she records from the interior of a Target.
“My oldest daughter and I are at Target and they have some cute Spring stuff,” she says. “I am a little bit more conservative when it comes to my kid’s clothes so maybe I’m overreacting but let me know what you think of these dresses.”
The clip then transitions to her showing off a pink and white dress in the children’s clothing section of the store, specifically the one for ages six to seven.
“Look at these little slits on the sides of these dresses,” she says while pointing out the holes on the sides of the dress. “Right at the hips on all of these dresses.”
The mom starts going down the line of clothes, showing that another color variant of the same dress style also packs these same holes.
“I see this little slit, on the side, OK? So on a…10, 12-year-old, OK, but like a 6, 7-year-old?” she questions. “We’re gonna expose this much skin.”
She uses her hands to open up the hole, demonstrating how the styling would probably look like on a human body.
She wonders out loud if she is overreacting, stating again that she doesn’t let her daughters even wear bikinis, but reiterates that she doesn’t think its appropriate for the age group.
One TikToker perceived Mayer’s post as an instance of “victim blaming,” writing, “A predator doesn’t care what your child is wearing. A rapist will rape no matter what you have in. Why are we still victim blaming?”
Another person responded that it didn’t have to do with victim blaming but people’s clothes that are designed to “sexualize little children.”
Someone else said that the clothes shouldn’t have slits, but other features that children would probably utilize and appreciate much more.
“WHY THE SLITS…GIVE THEM ROCK COLLECTING POCKETS,” they wrote.
Another user on the app agreed with Mayer and wrote that they, too, believed the clothes were inappropriate.
“I completely agree,” they said. “My daughter is 4 and is in a 6/7. Absolutely inappropriate.”
@thecrazycreativeteacher Thoughts?
♬ original sound – Meghan Mayer
Someone else replied, “That dress is SO CUTE until you see the slit. Why did they have to ruin it like that?!?”
One other TikTok user commented, “I’m radical and progressive and feminist and I feel this is just unnecessary and absolutely sexualizing.”
“You’re not overreacting. You’re parenting properly,” another said. While someone else wrote, “I think retailers are trying to mature our kids too fast. I agree with mom!”
But some folks pointed out other clothing trends from her childhood that also had children wearing showing skin.
“When I was a kid in the 70’ s I wore halter tops and tube tops they were not seen as big deals,” they said. “I don’t think this is scandalous.”
“Idk I think it’s cute and that everyone just making it weird when it really isn’t,” someone else said, while another replied, “I feel alone in these comments. I would want to see it on before buying, but I think it’s fine.”
One parent commented that they purchased the dresses and Mayer was “overreacting,” writing, “Both my girls have the blue and white, you can’t even tell much, it’s not that big of a hole. The dresses are so cute.”
Live Science penned a piece about the apparent over-sexualization of children’s clothing in recent years. The outlet highlighted a response from Kenyon College social psychologist Sarah Murnen who argued that there’s been an uptick in clothes that expose more skin on children. The worst offending retailer, according to Murnen, was Abercrombie & Fitch: “Abercrombie Kids had the highest proportion of sexualized kids’ clothes, with 72 percent of preteen clothing featuring sexualizing aspects, such as suggestive writing, slinky material or a revealing cut.”
J Store Daily also published an article delving into the phenomena of more “sex-typed” clothing for children over the years, indicating that there appears to be a shift in older women’s styling which has become more androgynous — on the flip side stuff for kids has become more geared on sexuality. The Hope Army argues, however, that brands have been shilling children’s goods designed to sexualize them from a young age for a very, very long time.
This isn’t the first time Target has taken a hit when it comes to children’s clothing and sexuality: Previously the brand has been on the receiving end of criticism for featuring kids’ clothes that have LGBTQ+ messaging, like a shirt that reads, “Trans People Will Always Exist.” Target ultimately scaled back some of the offerings during Pride Month, however, purportedly putting some queer-owned businesses in bad financial positions as a result.
The Daily Dot has emailed Target and Mayer for further comment.
