The advertisement was placed by Uni K Wax. And, I hate to speak negatively about this company as I've been a loyal customer for years (and will recommend their services to anyone who asks), but as they stand by their advertisement, I imagine they'd have no problem with the 7 of you who read this blog hearing about it as well. The ad featured a young girl (we'll call her a preteen for lack of a more specific guess) jumping for joy (essentially) and declaring her independence. I'm not entirely sure what she was declaring independence from (hair?) but it was touted as a sort of Fourth of July special. The ad then offered 50% off waxing services to girls 15 and under. It was limited to first time patrons and seemed to be intended to entice this young demographic to try waxing.
(You may also note my new obsession with uploading screen shots. But, I mean, come on, look at that, aren't you a little bit disturbed?)
Naturally, my immediate reaction was horror. And because sometimes I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, my first thought was: "Is Uni K running a child porn ring? Why else would they be trying to lure young children into their premises and pouring hot wax on them? This just seems wrong on so many levels." Of course, I'll admit my initial reaction was focused mostly on the concept of a bikini wax (which was aided by the fact that the 12 year old girl in the ad was jumping for said joy in a bikini) but I recognize that the ad did not require children to remove their clothing and the offer also could apply to a girl who wanted her eyebrows or mustache waxed and I suppose most child pornographies are not casted with fully clothed children sporting unibrows. But, the ad did not limit its services, and indeed when asked for comment on the Good Morning America piece, bikini wax was a viable option for these young girls. In fact, the (12 year old) girl featured on ABC went in for a bikini wax. Plus, you'll have to forgive my ignorance of this whole tween waxing culture in the first place. Apparently it is somewhat commonplace and accepted. Well color me stupid, but it seems like it should be the exception not the rule. But, whatever. Then again, as a blondie, I recognize my body hair woes were minor and when I started shaving it was - without permission - and only because everyone else was doing it (I never claimed to be above peer pressure).
The initial horror was quickly followed by better-placed bewilderment as I tried to understand why any corporation would think targeting young girls in this manner was a good business model. I mean, even if you think it is perfectly appropriate to rip hair from preteens (I'd argue its barely appropriate practice for adults, but we suffer through because pain is beauty. Guys have it so freakin easy.) why limit the promotion to young girls? Why construct a special that will likely result in debate? And, if it seemed a bit controversial to me - a 30 year old without children, I was sure there was an entire camp of outraged parents. (There was. That's what ABC investigated). Bottom line, don't draw attention to a somewhat questionable practice (stupid). If Uni K had offered a general 50% off ad applicable to ages 12 and up, it would not have received the same attention even though 12 is younger than the 15 advertised (See, I'm good at Math after all). To limit the ad to young girls is what I think is the actual problem here. It isn't just that it encourages children to think that they should be removing this hair in the first place - and in an already superficial society, why do we need to teach these sorts of lessons on vanity? - but it gives you a sort of bonus for getting to it early.
Now, granted, even though Uni K offers this service to minors, a parent must consent to the procedure if the child is under 17. Please add this to the list of reasons to get the hell out of dodge (i.e. NYC) if I ever have children. These mothers are signing off on 12 year old children getting bikini waxes for summer camp?! You have got to be kidding me. And, side note, thank god I'm not a 13 year old girl in 2012. But again, as I continue to drift from my point, it is really the emphasis on tween waxing in the ad that I found so cringe-worthy. The ad felt very reminiscent of 'a guy in a white van in a parking lot with candy' because of its picture and age cut-off rather than age minimum. The statement Uni K provided to ABC was "By the age of 11 or 12, some young girls develop hair on their legs and upper lip. This can not only be embarrassing, but it often makes these young girls targets for bullying at school, especially during PE and recess...Uni K Wax is offering a safe solution in a comfortable environment for these girls.” While I suspect that is all true and god knows kids can be cruel, why can't they shave their legs like we did (in the good old days) or even better - do they still make Nair? Let kids asphyxiate on the sweet smell of whatever the hell that chemical is that allows a product to essentially burn away unwanted hair on your leg without leaving a trace....plus as I recall the ads claimed it lasts longer than shaving(!) though I suppose not as long as waxing, so...alright then, never mind. As for the mustache, I imagine that could be quite a source of bullying, but it is up to a parent to determine the best way to handle that situation and if their child is being bullied I doubt this extra 50% push from the waxing industry is going to be what saves the day. What I'm saying is perhaps waxing is the best answer sometimes, but I imagine, in those cases, a 50% promotion is not going to make or break the decision and certainly not a 50% promotion that caps out at 15. I can empathize and by all means go get a wax (I suppose) but targeting tweens seems unnecessary and feels just a little dirty.
I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said on this subject in the 24 hours since the ad was released (I'm just saying it better. jokes), but I figured I'd take a moment to do a sort of public service announcement on yet another subject that makes my skin crawl a little. By all means, feel free to draw your own conclusions - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/07/waxing-for-girls-younger-than-15-ad-sparks-parenting-debate/
Naturally, my immediate reaction was horror. And because sometimes I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, my first thought was: "Is Uni K running a child porn ring? Why else would they be trying to lure young children into their premises and pouring hot wax on them? This just seems wrong on so many levels." Of course, I'll admit my initial reaction was focused mostly on the concept of a bikini wax (which was aided by the fact that the 12 year old girl in the ad was jumping for said joy in a bikini) but I recognize that the ad did not require children to remove their clothing and the offer also could apply to a girl who wanted her eyebrows or mustache waxed and I suppose most child pornographies are not casted with fully clothed children sporting unibrows. But, the ad did not limit its services, and indeed when asked for comment on the Good Morning America piece, bikini wax was a viable option for these young girls. In fact, the (12 year old) girl featured on ABC went in for a bikini wax. Plus, you'll have to forgive my ignorance of this whole tween waxing culture in the first place. Apparently it is somewhat commonplace and accepted. Well color me stupid, but it seems like it should be the exception not the rule. But, whatever. Then again, as a blondie, I recognize my body hair woes were minor and when I started shaving it was - without permission - and only because everyone else was doing it (I never claimed to be above peer pressure).
The initial horror was quickly followed by better-placed bewilderment as I tried to understand why any corporation would think targeting young girls in this manner was a good business model. I mean, even if you think it is perfectly appropriate to rip hair from preteens (I'd argue its barely appropriate practice for adults, but we suffer through because pain is beauty. Guys have it so freakin easy.) why limit the promotion to young girls? Why construct a special that will likely result in debate? And, if it seemed a bit controversial to me - a 30 year old without children, I was sure there was an entire camp of outraged parents. (There was. That's what ABC investigated). Bottom line, don't draw attention to a somewhat questionable practice (stupid). If Uni K had offered a general 50% off ad applicable to ages 12 and up, it would not have received the same attention even though 12 is younger than the 15 advertised (See, I'm good at Math after all). To limit the ad to young girls is what I think is the actual problem here. It isn't just that it encourages children to think that they should be removing this hair in the first place - and in an already superficial society, why do we need to teach these sorts of lessons on vanity? - but it gives you a sort of bonus for getting to it early.
Now, granted, even though Uni K offers this service to minors, a parent must consent to the procedure if the child is under 17. Please add this to the list of reasons to get the hell out of dodge (i.e. NYC) if I ever have children. These mothers are signing off on 12 year old children getting bikini waxes for summer camp?! You have got to be kidding me. And, side note, thank god I'm not a 13 year old girl in 2012. But again, as I continue to drift from my point, it is really the emphasis on tween waxing in the ad that I found so cringe-worthy. The ad felt very reminiscent of 'a guy in a white van in a parking lot with candy' because of its picture and age cut-off rather than age minimum. The statement Uni K provided to ABC was "By the age of 11 or 12, some young girls develop hair on their legs and upper lip. This can not only be embarrassing, but it often makes these young girls targets for bullying at school, especially during PE and recess...Uni K Wax is offering a safe solution in a comfortable environment for these girls.” While I suspect that is all true and god knows kids can be cruel, why can't they shave their legs like we did (in the good old days) or even better - do they still make Nair? Let kids asphyxiate on the sweet smell of whatever the hell that chemical is that allows a product to essentially burn away unwanted hair on your leg without leaving a trace....plus as I recall the ads claimed it lasts longer than shaving(!) though I suppose not as long as waxing, so...alright then, never mind. As for the mustache, I imagine that could be quite a source of bullying, but it is up to a parent to determine the best way to handle that situation and if their child is being bullied I doubt this extra 50% push from the waxing industry is going to be what saves the day. What I'm saying is perhaps waxing is the best answer sometimes, but I imagine, in those cases, a 50% promotion is not going to make or break the decision and certainly not a 50% promotion that caps out at 15. I can empathize and by all means go get a wax (I suppose) but targeting tweens seems unnecessary and feels just a little dirty.
I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said on this subject in the 24 hours since the ad was released (I'm just saying it better. jokes), but I figured I'd take a moment to do a sort of public service announcement on yet another subject that makes my skin crawl a little. By all means, feel free to draw your own conclusions - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/07/waxing-for-girls-younger-than-15-ad-sparks-parenting-debate/
Sadly, I bet there were parents in NY and LA too that thought this was a fantastic idea. All of their children are definitely extras on Gossip Girl.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of something a yoga teacher said a few months back in class. Two yoga studios in NYC merged together, and one was a Buddhist belief lineage of yoga while the other was Hindu belief school. These two schools of thought are in opposition to one another yet they come together because "in our culture, the most prominent value is Capitalism."
ReplyDelete