Miley Cyrus' 9-year-old sister launches a line of kids' lingerie

Reidmar wrote:

VileCorp wrote:

Once they reach the age of four or five, it's understandable.

The hell man? No, it's ALL messed up dude, meaning it shouldn't even be allowed period.

FYI: VileCorp just says shit like that all the time. He gets a hard on when people give him death threats, so if he bugs you I would recommended just ignoring him.

Honestly vile doesn't bother me, it's extremely hard to disturb me. I doubt vile could do it properly. Oh well.

I have to agree with grumbles* here, that is one seriously ugly child.




*This is how I pronounce your name. Go with it, you have a bloody weird name.

REEEEEEAAAAAAAACTION FACE THREAAAAAAAAAAAAAD


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hate to be the voice of dissent here, but I like the collection. I think it looks cute. I totally would've wanted one of those tutus when I was in grade school.

guys the fbi is kicking down my door

what do i do

Mafiosa wrote:

guys the fbi is kicking down my door

what do i do

TELL THEM YOU REGRET NOTHING

Mafiosa wrote:

guys the fbi is kicking down my door

what do i do

Turn off the lights and sneak out the window. They'll never think to turn it back on again so they can find you. I saw it in the X-Files.

Edit: South Park predicted this.

What possible purpose is there for young children have for lingerie? Who the hell are they supposedly going to be sexy for?

Nine year old girls do not need lingerie.

In case you missed that, I'll repeat it:

NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS DO NOT NEED LINGERIE


That is all

Chaltab wrote:

What possible purpose is there for young children have for lingerie? Who the hell are they supposedly going to be sexy for?

Paedophiles, duh. Also, I imagine the sinister underlying commercial goal (besides selling kids, or rather their parents, crap they don't need) is to promote massive overspending on sexualized clothes at a younger age, thus producing an even more obsessive generation of mallrats than the previous one.

Moar reaction face!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

REACTION VIDEO FOR A CHANGE

Who the hell is Morrigan?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Gary approves.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Reidmar wrote:

VileCorp wrote:

Once they reach the age of four or five, it's understandable.

The hell man? No, it's ALL messed up dude, meaning it shouldn't even be allowed period.

FYI: VileCorp just says shit like that all the time. He gets a hard on when people give him death threats, so if he bugs you I would recommended just ignoring him.

Yeah, it's not like I constantly draw kiddies getting fucked and raped, because I find the idea of using small children as fuck toys very arousing...

Wait a minute, why am I trying to prove I'm a pedophile?!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Actually, I'd love that trap. Now, where was I? Why are kids so darn arousing? Well, it's because kids are just so pure-hearted and untainted. It's a known fact, that corrupting something pure and innocent is extremely satisfying. Also, their skin is very smooth.

GOD FUCKING DAMN IT I should have bet money on VileCorp posting in this thread. I COULD BE RICH NOW

*huffs* *puffs*

Chicago Brown wrote:

grumbles*

*This is how I pronounce your name. Go with it, you have a bloody weird name.

No worries, half the board calls me grumbles. Other variations include: grimbles, grmb, gibberfish, gibberish, gumball, Sara.


On topic, saeku is right in that the clothes aren't horrible (well, I find them horrible, but not inappropriate). What's horrible is that someone decided to tag the word "lingerie" on the clothes and the kid.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Nine year old girls do not need lingerie.

In case you missed that, I'll repeat it:

NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS DO NOT NEED LINGERIE


That is all

This, so much. When I was 9, I had cotton panties with characters printed on them and a couple of slips. That was all.

Lingerie? For children? No. Just no.

You all seem to have goonrushed the actual frontpage of the collection, but my only outstanding expression about the iamges in the article was, "Jesus, what an ugly kid. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] "

grmblfjx wrote:

GOD FUCKING DAMN IT I should have bet money on VileCorp posting in this thread. I COULD BE RICH NOW

*huffs* *puffs*

Chicago Brown wrote:

grumbles*

*This is how I pronounce your name. Go with it, you have a bloody weird name.

No worries, half the board calls me grumbles. Other variations include: grimbles, grmb, gibberfish, gibberish, gumball, Sara.


On topic, saeku is right in that the clothes aren't horrible (well, I find them horrible, but not inappropriate). What's horrible is that someone decided to tag the word "lingerie" on the clothes and the kid.

I'm in the same camp as Saeku and Grumbles. The undergarments themselves aren't inappropriate.

HOWEVER

lingerie:–noun

1.	underwear, sleepwear, and other items of intimate apparel worn by women.

2.	Archaic. linen goods in general.

I think we have come to link the word "lingerie" with "sexy things", but the definition is being applied correctly in this case. They are undergarments being worn by people of the girly persuasion. (Or, you know, whoever wants to wear them)

Just Chipper wrote:

EDIT because cool kids ect:

Chiiiip...