Well - I don’t know about the sexualizing of breasts. I think a few million years of evolution has play in that. We are still beholden to what we are wired to find attractive.
But anyway, yes, you can go past “sorta funny snark” and dive down to “now I am uncomfortable and sickened” with anything. Clearly one can cross the line with anything.
understandable?
An important part of the solution is not to let the littie tykes have credit cards. Kids these days have no sense of restraint, and the babies are the worst.
Good luck when that happens - unlike with the super onesie, the purple one has a collar that you can’t pull down in an overflowing diaper scenario.
I know, right? Who gives thighs to a 6 month old baby? My 5 year old won’t even eat them.
Don’t blame them: babies and toddlers wore white dresses until potty trained, and then white clothing after that. Easier to bleach and get the stains out, and the same dress could be worn by every baby in turn, no matter what gender they were assigned.
Surely for maximum profits, we should dress all children in body shaming clothing - All Hail Our Corporate Overlords!
Well when you at least half a dozen kids, with maybe half of them making it past 8, you had to be more practical in your attire.
I… don’t think you have a grasp on what satire actually is. Being or acting exactly as what you claim to be satirizing is not, in fact, satire.
Long story shore: @Mister44 does not know what satire is. Hint: Acting like or being exactly what you are claiming to satirize is not, in fact, satire.
I recommend synthesizing these! Beautiful colors with frills, sparkles - and construction equipment.
Has your baby indicated a preferred set of pronouns? YOU’RE the one gendering too early, attempting to lock in a gender because you think you know?!
(Smile, guy! I’m just pulling your leg!)
Baby’s gotta eat, you know.
Well, soliciting an honest opinion from the wearer can be time-consuming. 
Pretty much anything an infant wears or eats or sleeps upon has been imposed upon the kid without anyone asking if the tot likes it or not. Anyway, my daughter used to wear this when she was that age:
which at least had the virtue of bearing a true statement on its front. She did seem to like Jethro Tull more than Maiden back then, though now she appreciates an odd mixture of Carly Rae Jepson and Ronnie James Dio. Sigh… 8-year-olds…
In my experience, babies’ mealtime attire usually ends up being ‘the meal’ anyway.
Er what? I am not trying to be satirical. This time.
That’s unavoidable. Unless you dress your baby in a potato sack, you are “imposing your aesthetic tastes” upon it. (And even a potato sack sends a message about the parents’ priorities, not the baby’s.)
It’s generally understood that an infant does not care how its thighs look or know who Glenn Danzig is.
Yeah. I know. I wasn’t talking about you specifically. I was talking about the outfit that you seem to think is satire. That is not satire.
It’s a stupid sexist clothing that should be burn for gender neutrality sake.
I suggest just get their children blank clothing and let their minds develops on their own. Or better yet, not segregate clothing at all since that offends people who’re insecure about their identities (i.e Trans people, gays, lesbians).
I think she refering to how what you said offends her because you bluntly stated how you don’t care about how toxic social standards (i.e. how men and women should act) can affect those who’s at a young age.
I hate identity and identity politics more than most, but IMO that doesn’t have anything to do the practice of gendering clothing. People (arguably, if they really want to) have genders, but clothes do not, and never have. It is those people who need for their clothes to inform themselves and others of who they are, and their “role” in society who are the insecure ones.
