Wall of Shame: Baby Boudoir Is Icky
I'm all about women loving their bodies, whatever their shape. Posing for boudoir photos was an empowering experience that allowed me to celebrate my curves and my personality. I loved flaunting what I'm rockin' for the photographer, for my husband and, ultimately, myself. I've encouraged all of my female friends to do it as well. But I don't encourage their two-year-old daughters. Or their four-month-old babies, either.
While the site Babikini doesn't sell boudoir services for babies and young girls, their front image is kind of... icky. See?
Photo source: Babikini.com
I honestly have a pose from my boudoir session that is strikingly similar. In fact, I think I'm covered up more than that little girl. When I searched for a photo with the term "sexy woman," this photo popped up.
Almost the same pose. Scary.
Baby rolls are cute. Showing them off with short-shorts and other baby apparel is fun. I get it. I used to nom the inside of my sons' legs, because they were so delicious. The giggle that accompanied that action remains one of my favorite memories. But, really, do babies need string bikinis? In leopard print? Or with cherries? (Really? Cherries?) If ever I needed proof that we are over-sexualizing our little girls sooner and sooner, this is "here's your sign" kind of moment. Kind of makes tutus seem tame.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the pose wasn't so, well, posed. Someone made that little girl stretch out on her arm, put her other arm on her leg and smile at the camera. You have to wonder who decided that photo would be "the one" to represent the company.
The website does boast "one piece" bathing suits as well, though none are currently available.
Although I fear their bathing suit design would look more like this:
Let's let our little girls be little girls for awhile longer, shall we? Please?