Beyonce’s new brand of pedophilia chic

Michelle Malkin's picture

If you thought the soft-porn image of Disney teen queen Miley Cyrus — wearing nothing but ruby-stained lips and a bedsheet — in Vanity Fair magazine was disturbing, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Pop diva Beyonce Knowles, 27, and her fashion designer mother have launched a girls clothing line that makes Miley’s bare-backed glam session look like a Shirley Temple photo shoot.

The Knowles’ family business, “House of Dereon,” recently published advertisements for its “Dereon Girls Collection” with young models who look no older than my second-grade daughter. They are seductively posed and tarted up, JonBenet Ramsey-style, with bright lipstick, blush and face powder. Draped in bling, several of the girls sport leather jackets and studded accessories.

One of the children wears sparkly, killer high heels (more pint-size Pussycat Doll than Dorothy from “The Wizard of the Oz”) and another slouches, gangsta gal-style, with a neon pink boa, leopard-skin fedora and stilettos. An even younger model is a toddler-aged Beyonce Mini-Me with huge hair, skinny jeans, spike-heeled leather boots and attitude to match.

Abercrombie & Fitch prompted an outrage a few years ago with its line of thongs for elementary school girls and pedophilia chic catalogues. And, of course, Calvin Klein started it all with 15-year-old Brooke Shields purring that “Nothing comes between me and my Calvins.” But the House of Dereon photo spread sinks even lower. It’s sick and it’s wrong, and it’s not social conservatives who first said so. Fashion and celebrity websites have been buzzing with outrage over the past week:

“Pimp my kid,” decried one blogger. “Dereon Girls ad too adult,” concluded another. Gossip king Perez Hilton polled readers on whether the ad was appropriate. The overwhelming consensus: Hell, no.

The creepiness factor is heightened by the fact that women were responsible for marketing this child exploitation. I’d ask: “Where was Beyonce’s mother to tell her daughter to wipe all the gunk off the Dereon models’ faces?” But Beyonce’s mother — who has helped manage the “Bootylicious” singer’s career from childhood — is her eager and willing partner in crime.

As for the mothers of this new crop of Little Girls Gone Wild models, they were undoubtedly thrilled to see their daughters painted up and posing like Victoria’s Secret angels-in-training. If we’ve learned anything from Lindsay Lohan and her hard-partying mother, it’s that the Lolita-posing apple doesn’t fall far from the bosom-flaunting tree.

So, what’s next? Nine-year-olds performing stripper routines? Oh, wait. It’s been done already. I saw that very nightmare last fall on the cable TV reality show “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” — featuring the grade-school-age daughters of Olympic star Bruce Jenner strapping on stilettos and twirling around a stripper pole in their parents’ bedroom as friends and family cheered them on. Future House of Dereon clients, no doubt.

Beyonce’s clothes, you should know, are available at Macy’s department stores and other “fine” establishments willing to carry titillating tot wear. Shame on them all. Shame them all.

It’s time to redouble our efforts to fight back against the Forever 21 culture that poisons Hollywood, Halloween, prom season and every season in between. In our indecent world, 7 has become the new 21. Shouldn’t a child’s innocence last longer than a porn star’s .25-ounce pot of lip gloss?

[Michelle Malkin is author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.” Her email address is] COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

login to post comments | Michelle Malkin's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by sageadvice on Thu, 05/15/2008 - 5:03pm.

I recall that somewhere in the mid twentieth century, women started demanding to be treated as people instead of sex objects.
It turns out now that they really wanted both! They want full recognition in all aspects, and, they also want to be free to entice men for whatever purpose without effecting their status as feminists.
Never saw that one coming.
I do remember in the 1970s that many women, old and young, wore dresses and skirts so short that it was impossible for them to be seated without showing what a certain Hollywood star did recently getting out of a vehicle! Everything.
Of course it is hard to understand Mothers who start teaching their little daughters--not long after they walk--what women's clothes and make-up are all about. They of course tell them that it is so they will be prettier than other little girls and win trophies to brag about. At about 13 these same girls find out on their own what Mama was really talking about.
What we have now generated is a certain group of young women who are morally loose, but considered sophisticated; and also, another group who are also morally loose, and considered just that, and not excused for it as are the more sexy appearing ones in extreme make-up and make-over, I might add.
If you can afford a very expensive hotel or guarded home---morals are different than are those in a car or at a motel--or so it seems by the readers of the terrible mags and the awful TV shows of T & A.
Even Fox news now apparently hires news readers according to just how much thigh they are able to show and appear to be trying
constantly to cover up---which they never do.

Little girls see all this and are sure that this is all necessary to be popular, be in movies, magazines, and be successful. Maybe even marry Sean Penn!
Yet there are still women who argue that they can have both.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.