And now for the latest in vomit-inducing trends: personal shoppers for toddlers. Over in the U.K., the Daily Mail reports that big-time department stores like Harrods and Harvey Nichols have come to specialize in the growing field of baby fashion, which has mothers clamoring for tiny Uggs, miniature Dior blazers, and Fendi scarves. These moms, however, don’t want to deal with the oh-so onerous task of dressing their kids themselves, so they’ve enlisted the services of personal shoppers at sky-high prices—Harrods clients must spend a minimum of about $4,000.

What does a mom get out of one of these style consultations? Here’s an excerpt where a stylist advises a black sequin mini-dress: “This is fabulous, but we’ll have to see how the color works—that complexion is begging for pinks and purples.” Naturally. Who are these people?

We get it with the whole parenting thing—once you have a kid, the house goes from something like looking like a Design Within Reach showroom to a backdrop for a Disney cartoon. For the parent who wishes to maintain a high-design pad, there’s a litany of concept toys out there on the market—like these Home On The Go dollhouses, which feature streamlined, Jetson-esque miniatures in artistic color schemes. Either, the kid who plays with this has one heck of an imagination ... or she grows up with a cold, cynical outlook on what constitutes a warm, friendly home.

What’s that, honey? You wanted a Malibu Barbie Dream House? Sorry dear, it clashes with the Eames rocking chair. [Swiss-Miss.com]

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a veterinarian. And then a firefighter. Then a marine biologist. Then a screenwriter. But according to a study of 3,000 kids in the U.K., today’s pre-teens have very, very different goals: Twelve percent want to be sports stars; eleven percent want to be pop stars; and 11 percent want to be famous actors. That means that more than a third of kids today want to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous. And while there’s sure to still be a lot of reality TV slots available when they come of age, what’s gonna happen when this fame thing doesn’t pan out for 99 percent of them—are we going to have an entire generation in therapy because the paparazzi isn’t stalking their every move? After the jump, see how today’s kids’ career goals stack up against those of 25 years ago. And chime in on whether you think we’re going to hell in a handbasket or not.

American Apparel: the store people either love to hate or hate to love. As for us, we go back and forth, at times comically appalled by its hijinks and shenanigans, other times in love with its new fashions. Shopping at American Apparel can feel like a guilty pleasure—you know you’re buying into hipster culture, yet you’re going to be just as happy to purchase the same zip-up hoodie that everyone else has.

Then there’s this, which does make us question the company’s true moral barometer. (Even though the latest scandal involved an ad which looked like teenage porn, the model was 23—so, there’s no real legal encroachment there.) While the kids line is nothing new, these leg warmer items and the little one wearing them are. Seriously? That girl is practically a toddler and already practicing her Playboy poses. [American Apparel]

Twisted Twee is offering this decidedly provocative shirt for the kids. Yes, that is a shirt for a child. And it has a set of sequin, tasseled pasties on it. Of the sort, say, a stripper, or, you know, a burlesque dancer would wear, and not, uh, a child. Also? It’s described as “Something for the Evening.” Weird. Perhaps this is some British sense of humor thing that I am missing? (The company is based in the UK.) Here are some other tops that are funny if you think coupling the letters of the alphabet with things that could fatally harm a child is amusing. Although, I do like these “Obama” kids’ underpants. What do you think of this ostensibly for kids fashion line? [BuzzFeed]

If you thought the easiest way to tell the financial status of a woman was by the kind of car she drives, the size of her diamonds, or how affected her accent is, guess again. A new “scientific” study claims that wealthier woman have more sons than daughters. Um, ohh-kay. A group of Dutch researchers — it’s always the Dutch, isn’t it? — studied 95,000 Rwandan women to test an evolutionary theory that suggests “when conditions are good, and babies are likely to be healthy, a mother’s best chance of passing on her genes to another generation is to have boys.” When conditions are bad, however, and pregnant women are malnourished and more likely to have sickly or weak babies, it makes more “evolutionary sense to have a girl who does not face competition to become pregnant to continue the family line.” In the polygamous tradition of Rwanda where high-ranking wives tend to have more influence and income, they have, on average more sons than daughters (99 daughters for every 100 sons). Lower-ranking, poorer wives, on the other hand, have 106 daughters for every sons. So, there you have it — scientific proof that Victoria Beckham is rich. [via DailyMail]

There’s no better way to get everybody fighting than to bring up the “having kids” or “not having kids” debate. The so-called “mommy wars” are a surefire way to make everybody defensive!

But the discussion gets the nastiest and most infuriating when women with kids accuse women sans kids of being “selfish”—which happened repeatedly in the comment section when I posted a joke-y list last week—“10 Reads Not To Have Kids Now…Or Ever”—which was pegged to Cameron Diaz talking about childless women.

Cameron Diaz thinks your kids are bad for the environment.

Well, no, not really. But she told Cosmopolitan she thinks women shouldn’t be pressured into procreating or “shunned” for not having kids because “honestly, we don’t need anymore kids. We have plenty of people on this planet already.”

While we agree with Cameron that it’s b.s. women still get hassled for not raising rugrats, we can think of far better reasons than old Mother Nature for staying childless. Our reasons, after the jump…

I waited five months before introducing my boyfriend, Andy, to my 3-year-old son. All the books and advice givers, including my therapist, suggested we meet at a public place; I chose the Children’s Museum of Manhattan and invited my mother to come along as a buffer.

A friend of mine just heard that his 9-year-old godson proposed to a girl in his class who he’s been crushing on. Last night at a skating party, he bought a plastic ring and asked her to marry him. The kid’s mom told him, “If she says yes, you’ll have to pay for her the rest of her life.” But even that harsh reality check didn’t deter him. The 9 year old said, “It would be worth it.” If only adults retained this attitude, divorces wouldn’t be so messy—or even exist! We’re still waiting to hear whether the girl said “yes.”

My older brother tortured me through childhood, but now he’s saving my lifestyle. According to a new study, I’m less likely to spawn thanks to my big bro. Yay, baby free forever! (Can you tell I don’t want kids?) Sheffield University researchers, who poured over birth, marriage, and death records, discovered that anyone, male or female, with an older male sibling is 5% less likely to have children than people with female older siblings. They also have children later in life and space their babies out. (Hmm, maybe we are just wiser?) On the downside, guys’ younger siblings are much more likely to be shorter. So that explains why my brother is over six foot while I’m one inch away from legally being a little person! The theory being tossed around is that first-born males took a toll on your mom back in the womb and researchers believe it has even more psychological implications on the siblings that came after. In time, I hope science will give me the go ahead to send my big bro my therapy bills.  Meanwhile, I’m just grateful he’s helping me keep my curves childproof. There’s only room for one baby in this family—me! [Daily Mail]

Whether or not a person wants kids is often a relationship dealbreaker. We had our girl Lori cruise the streets of SoHo in NYC to find out what people think about birthing little stinkers. The consensus? Children are expensive, strollers get in the way of life, and 9-year-olds are annoying.

When it’s sexy time, it’s also time to take off your clothes and put on some sweet tunes—like the Pixies, right?  Cause you know when I put on the Surfer Rosa record it is time to get busy. Sadly, now my hip, hot record collection favorites are being marketed towards new parents so they can bring the classics of classic rock to their kids. Awwww…ugh. [Simcha, you know you think that baby with the headphones is a-dor-a-ble.—Editor] Rockabye Baby is a company dedicated to turning the rock, metal, and pop songs you like to do it to into precious little lullabies. That’s right, the same jams that put you in the mood for baby makin’ have been remade for your little bundle of joy. Creepy! When the album you lost your virginity to is on the list (i.e. Nirvana’s Nevermind) it just seems like another sign that you’re are supposed to be squeezing out lil’ screamers by now. But alas, for those actually with mini-me’s the music series features great artists like Led Zeppelin, No Doubt, Bjork, Radiohead and yes, even Metallica, Tool, and Queens of the Stone Age all done over again soft and sweet for nap time. Nicole Richie and Scott Baio spin them for their celebuspawn, because after all, it’s never to early to teach your kid how to headbang to a xylophone heavy rendition of Nine Inch Nails’ The Hand That Feeds.  [Ad Freak]

The National Children’s Bureau, an organization in the U.K. that receives about $23 million in funding a year, has issued guidance to “play leaders and nursery teachers” advising them to be alert for little kids expressing racist attitudes about food. The NCB published a 366-page guide for staff in charge of preschool children, and, among other things, it says children might “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuk.’” Despite this possible negative reaction, the guide advises that “No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action.” As silly as this sounds, learning to be more accepting of unfamiliar foods could be a great way to teach children about different cultures. In my hometown, we didn’t even get an Indian restaurant until I was in high school. One of the only things I knew about Indian culture was that my friend Nivedita had amazing gold hoop earrings and a nose piercing, and her mom was okay with this because they were part of their culture. Yeah, I was pretty ignorant. [The Telegraph, U.K.]

If you can’t trust Beyonce to not tart up your kids, who can you trust? The singer has a line of clothing called House of Dereon—which is horrible, by the way, I have tried it on at my discount department store and BLECH—and she’s now releasing a line for little girls. We expect such things from Disney, but B? Uh oh, uh oh, uh oh, oh no no. [Pop Gumbo]

“I respect Gwyneth Paltrow, because she covers her babies’ faces – she never lets the paparazzi get that picture. I’m not going to put the Spice Girls down, because I’m a fan, but they took their kids on stage at every single show of that last tour. To be a child of three and have 25,000 girls screaming at you – I don’t think that’s necessarily good. But I’m not a mum, what do I know?” —Kelly Osbourne [The Sunday Times, U.K.]

“Sex—What’s the big deal?” A French Museum of Science and Industry exhibit for children is asking that very question. The “cheeky, hands-on” experience is adapted from a book by Zep and Hélène Brulle and features a comic girl and boy as hosts.  Kid visitors, unlike most adult sexual experiences, start off “Being in Love” in the “Gallery of Kisses” where they can flirt or hang out on a heart-shaped bed. Sadly, they must head to the “Puberty” section next, an adult-free zone decked out like a bathroom, where students get a first-hand look at what’s going to happen to their bodies.  (We’re sure a few kids run out crying.)

The school board in Montgomery, AL, has such a strict policy against public displays of affection that it recently gave detention to two middle school girls who hugged female friends while on school grounds. Supposedly, bans like these are hyper reactive measures to prevent sexual harassment claims between students. The rationale behind “no hug” bans is that school officials don’t want to have to make the distinction between friendly hugs and unwanted ones—but shouldn’t the student being hugged be the one to express the difference? Anyway, if you tell kids that hugging each other inappropriately is not an on-campus activity, they’re just going to assume it’s okay for off-campus recreation, along with smoking cigarettes behind the 7-Eleven and stealing Playboys from under dad’s bed. [MSNBC]