Thongs for ten year olds. Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilara. What do these things have in common? In spite of the fact that no one seems to care about any of them anymore, a lot of people were certain that this was the start of the wholesale sexualization of children by the media (as opposed to their sexualization by priests). With Christina Aguilara appearing in Playboy, the debate might be re-ignited (I can only hope). There's probably some hidden meaning behind the fact that the spread is non-nude; but since I'm not Umberto Eco, I can't really say. Although I am pretty sure the words "merciless tease" would be mentioned.

Since most ten to thirteen year olds don't have enough money to go out and buy their own clothing, the parents are the gatekeepers of their childrens' skin. I can't think of a single parent who would consider buying their children clothing which gives them a plumber's crack. But then again, I once saw a women show her child his Christmas present two months early, just to shut him up. Following this train of thought, if any kids out there are wearing these "shocking" clothes, it must be because they really want to.

I'm not a big fan of letting children do the things that they really want to. Primarily because those things tend to involve petty theft and vandalism (at best), or dangerous things best left to inadvertently suicidal adults (at worst). Kids hurt themselves doing stuff which seems really fun all the time. That's why grown-ups have the job of making sure that kids can't do whatever the hell they want, like wearing belly shirts and listening to Brittany Spears.

In spite of this, it's possible that neither parents or children are to blame. On whom should we be heaping the responsibility? Perhaps we should examine (in a limited way) why adult women show off their bodies.

There are almost as many opinions as to why some women like to dress up in sexy clothes as there are naked breasts at Mardigras. But one popular opinion is a rather boring one about the sexual revolution. Both Brittany and Christina have said in interviews that their choice of apparel is a statement about self-esteem and self- confidence, which are important issues with regard to the women's movement. Showing one's midriff seems like a silly way to exercise personal power, but they might be right.

It seems strange, but the days before women even had the ability to vote, society insisted that they be as covered in as much fabric as possible. At present, the countries in which woman are the most severely oppressed are the same countries in which they are forced to wear clothes that cover every inch of their heat-stroke affected bodies. While the issues of education, medical care, and freedom of movement overshadow this fact, there is a definite correlation between the power of women in a given society and the amount of skin that they tend to show on a regular basis.

Women in America might have it bad, but they are much better off than the ladies of Saudi Arabia. Give them a little freedom, and the next thing you know the micro-mini is invented. Yet I was always told that fashions which show off women's bodies were the signs of their oppression; now I see footage from countries where it seems not to be the case. (After all, when one imagines a country run specifically to destroy women, wouldn't one picture that they would be forced to run around without any clothing at all?) And I've yet to see a women wearing a bulky sweater in the middle of summer, telling people that she's doing it to boost her own feelings of self worth. It's a complex game, and it's hard to tell who's right: Barely legal pop-stars, or women's rights advocates. It might be true that women are treated as 2nd class citizens, but are the half naked 18 year olds helping or hurting the cause?

I don't know. But it's clear that the only thing that can solve the dilemma at this point is The View. Star Jones, we need you now more than ever.

-B. C. Silvia