This is sad.

Ummmm I think describing this as sexualisation is a bit pushing it. Gender binary and expectations yeees. I've seen kids clothes in the uk far more sexualised than this. Tis one of the things I like about american kids clothes, even if sometimes they are almost over cutesy sometimes.

Gender expectations, sure.  Although it must be said that there is no rule that dressing as Cookie Monster (or any character in
popular culture) must be done in an absolutely faithful way.  Both of those costumes are adorable in their own way.

As for sexualization...  Wearing an a-line, sleeveless dress and posing in the ballet curtsey position is sexualization?  I've been enjoying these posts on gender differences in costumes, but this post is a lot more valid as an insight into the shrill perspectives of radical feminism, than as a continuation of this topic.

I  dont even think sexualization should be brought up in this picture? There just kids.

girls have less clothing on their costumes for some odd reason

I worry about individuals who see this young girl as "sexualized."

I don't have a big problem with the girly (or sexy) costumes. I do have a problem with the fact that the unisex costumes are being presented as male.

wtf they should call it "cookie monster themed dress" instead of a cookie monster costume.

How is it NOT sexualization that the little girl is wearing a costume that shows more skin, is styled like an adult woman's a-line dress (complete with being above knee-length), and she's posed in a very cutesy/flirty way? Sexualization of kids is not the same thing as child pornography, but it does mean that girls are being taught to look and pose like an adult woman from a young age.

Okay, let's ignore the questions of sexualization for a moment. Do you really see nothing wrong or disordered about the boy's "Cookie Monster" costume being a costume of Cookie Monster, and the girl's "Cookie Monster" costume being a blue dress with a cookie monster hat? If a little girl wants to dress up as Cookie Monster, why are we telling her that the only way to do so is to make herself as *pretty* and *feminine* as possible, instead of being what she wanted to be in the first place? In other words, why on earth are they not the exact same costume? If my daughter said "I want to be Cookie Monster for Halloween," I wouldn't assume that what she meant was "I want to wear a dress with a picture of Cookie Monster on it." So why is that what society is telling her she must want? 

Am I the only one who thinks the girl costume looks like Cookie Monster is literally consuming the child? Dressing little girls as consumables has always creeped me out.

Wait a minute: why does the "Toddler Boy" picture portrays a toddler, and the "Toddler Girl" portrays a girl who is probably around 5 (?) years old ...?
Anyone who has children or who has ever worked with children knows that a toddler would be extremely uncomfortable with the "Toddler Girl" costume - especially with those shoes! Now, the boy's costume instead looks much more comfy and toddler-like.

Then, I guess that we should add "comfort" to the discussion on gender and sexualization. It's just too sad, however, to realize that in this case "comfort" might actually equate to the toddler's inability to move properly (provided that the costume was actually created for toddlers...).

It looks like either the girl has killed Cookie Monster and is wearing the top of his head like a trophy, or like he's just come up behind her and is eating her head.

I was just looking around the parent site at the other toddler costumes, and what strikes me as just how many of the girls' costumes are dress versions of something (101 Dalmatians, a ladybug, Hello Kitty, a pumpkin). I know dress version costumes have been common among adult women for a while, but I don't remember ever seeing them on kids when I was of trick-or-treating age in the 90s. Is this a new trend? As a female who once went as a hobbit, hairy feet and all, I find it sad that for many girls actual costumes might be replaced  by theme dresses like this one.

On a brighter note, some of the costumes for sale on that website are not so ridiculously gendered and also really, really adorable. ...Just sayin'.

Like others, the existence of a "gendered" cookie monster costume isn't what's bugging me, it's that unisex cookie monster jammies are presented as "boy's."

Something else that bothers me about "girl's" and "women's" costumes: very often, people label them simply as "sexy" or "sexualized."  And very often, that's not the case.  This is one of those cases; that's a pretty typical church dress for a small girl.  It's gendered (entirely based on the fact that boys don't generally wear dresses), but it's not sexualized.  It also isn't a "cookie monster costume."  It's a cookie monster themed party dress with a matching hat.  Without the hat, that little girl can wear that dress any day of the week, and passerby would say "oh, what a darling dress, it has a cookie pattern, how cute!"  It's no more a costume that a t-shirt with cookie monster's face on it.  Similarly, this -> http://www.yandy.com/Sexy-Lime-Wedge-Costume.php is not a "lime costume," it's a club dress with a lime pattern.  I bet a hundred bucks they sold these at Rainbow in the late 90s as "green and white sparkly club dresses" for half the price and double the quality.  Companies are trying to make things girly not by making them sexy, or pink, but by completely throwing the idea of "costume" out the window, and just making a typical looking dress in the color of the character with a novelty hat and purse.

I think it's also interesting that the girl toddler looks like she's about 4 or 5 years old, while the boy toddler can't be two full years yet.

I'd like to discuss the subject of a costume that exposes a lot of skin in a different light.  By Oct 31, many locations in the US are quite cold.  A child who wears the "girl" costume will either have to wear a coat that obscures the costume or be very cold.  It is a usual tradeoff between girl's and women's (and, admittedly, some boy's and men's) fashion vs. health and well being.

Where's that girl supposed to go trick-or-treating? Florida?

When that little girl grows up to become a radical feminist and meets a Cookie Monster on the road some day, this is what will probably happen:

But the girl can wear both without objection or judgement, and the boy can only wear one. Where is the true inequality? 

To anyone that thinks there is a grand conspiracy to feminize women, they need to slow down and think of marketing practices. They basically poll kids to see what they like (toys, colors, etc.) so they know what will sell good. They aren't going to push a failed costume just to try and "brainwash" little girls into trying to be sexy when they grow up. My friends tried everything to keep his daughter away from stereotypes, but you know what she wanted to be more than anything in the world for Halloween? That's right... a princess. And they don't even own a TV.

Remember when ladies weren't even allowed to show ankles in this country?

You get what you argued for.  Now you want to go back?  Am I on a conservative website?

There is nothing wrong with a more feminized conception of womanhood to which girls should aspire (notice I didn't say domestic) and a more masculinized conception of men to which boys should I aspire. Neither gender should be subjected to prejudice for purely sexual reasons, or any reasons at all, but I really don't think the overwhelming majority of people would like a society that achieves complete gender androgyny.  Moreover, if such a society where NATURAL gender identity was suppressed in the extreme was ever created, people would creatively devise visual means to distinguish between and express their gender identities, just like how students at schools with uniforms will find loopholes in the dress code, the circumvention of which enables the expression of suppressed identity.
Specialization of role based upon sex is something that is ubiquitous in the field of biology. More evolved species can accomplish more by assigning certain "types" of individuals certain tasks, based on characteristics endemic to that "type" of individual----hence the notion of hunter(male)gatherer(female) society. In order to undo the epochs of evolution which lead to those distinctions, one would have to employ eugenics to alter the rudiments of our DNA which predispose us to such distinctions.

I think the real question here is that because society has compartmentalized the cookie monster look to be general blue fabric with zipper for boy, and dress with hat for girl, it would appear strange if a mother who honored her young daughter's wish to wear the cookie monster costume would appear to have deviated from the norm.

I think there both cute!

A clear example of gender expectations and sexualization starting early.

The 'Toddler boy' is presented as a little boy.
The 'Toddler girl' is presented as a miniature version of a woman.
..including adult woman hair style, using a girl rather than a toddler, posing, impractical clothing for toddler age and season, costumes function is to be attractive rather than to be the cookie monster.

European Parliament's definition of sexualization, that it:
'involves the imposition of the sexuality of adult persons on girls'...
'with the person’s worth being measured in terms of the level of sexual attractiveness'...

The picture imposes the sexuality of an adult woman onto a girl.
The picture of the girl aims to make her look attractive (over styled hair, unlikely style for age, impractical clothing for a toddler/weather etc.)
While attractiveness is not a central theme of the picture of the boy.

Its just a fucking costume. Stop whining.

You need to look up the definition of sexualization.... it's about the objectifying and victimizing of little girls (and boys, too)...

Wow. I’m the little girl in this photo, I know this is old but I just stumbled across this. I was a little girl (I was 4 here) and absolutely LOVED dresses and tutus...so I loved this costume so very much! They were in no way trying to sexualize me, and y’all kept bringing up the shoes and my pose....I chose to pose like that, and the shoes were my own that my mom brought to the shoot because they were my favorite. Stop trying to make this something it’s not-