My mom was asked by one of her coworkers if she would like to bring my family down to the lake with them this weekend. My mom has been trying to think of a way for us to afford a small vacation that would be fun for my brother and sister and myself alike (I am eighteen and my brother and sister are 7 and 5) and that she would still be able to relax at. My brother and sister go back to school in a few weeks and I will be heading off to college in about a month so time was running out and she jumped at the chance to go.
We got down there and something became blatantly obvious to me. All of the little girls are dressed in tiny french bikinis that are not appropriate for younger teenagers let alone the 2-10 year olds that are there wearing them. It shocked me to see girls who were my sisters age wearing bathing suits that do not cover their little bodies but instead leave them on display the way grown woman's bodies are. My mom would never have let me wear something like that when I was that little, and she doesn't put my sister in them now. I was 16 before I wore a bikini and when I finally did I realized that they are impractical and reduce the amount of swimming that you are able to do, not to mention that they cover so little that it is almost necessary to cover your entire body including your breasts and your butt in sunscreen if you don't want to burn.
Little girls have no business wearing garments like that. Bathing suits for little girls need to be practical, movable, and cover as much as thy possibly can so that the least amount of skin needs sunscreen on it as possible because it is very hard to get little kids to stand still while you put the stuff on them. But this is just a part of a much bigger problem that I have seen as of recently. All of little girls clothing seems to be getting less and less like clothing for little girls and more and more like the clothing for grown women. The jeans are lower waisted, tighter, and are cut to show off curves and bodies that they just don't have yet. Their skirts are getting shorter and tighter as well. Their tops now only seem to come in three colors are and always have some message about them being princesses or angels. If you can actually manage to find a pair of shorts they too are extremely short (what all of my friends and I refer to as "booty shorts" because they cover less than half of your ass) and also seem to only be made out of blue denim or the same three colors that the sirts are made out of.
Gone are the little girls cotton briefs with the days of the week printed on them that I remember getting and wearing proudly in kindergarten, they are now replaced with low cut bikini bottoms, boy shorts and oh yes I am saying this THONGS to wear under those tiny skirts, booty shorts and low rise jeans. Anyone who has ever worn a pair of those pants knows that they restrict your movement and hurt your vulva because of the way they are cut. As a society there is no legitimate reason why we would subject our children to this kind of thing. But parents buy the clothes because that is all there is. The problem here is that the reason why they were ever put on store shelves to begin with is because of America's fetish with little girls and their bodies. We have turned little girls with their purity and innocence into a sex symbol. This is evident in our fetish with shaved vulvas, and the reason why our media perpetuates models to be sickly skinny with no hips or breasts, the way little girls looks.
Because it hasn't taken off to get grown women to wholly make themselves look like little girls, our society is now going to make those little girls look more like grown women and stare, scrutinize and criticize their small growing bodies. I find this absolutely sick. Its not enough that we set impossible beauty standards for women or that we tell them they must weigh a certain weight and wear certain clothes to be sexy, now we are doing the same thing to little girls who are growing and changing. Their bodies are fine as they are they do not need a beauty standard, nor do they need to be wearing clothes that are too small/tight/sexy for their little bodies. I really would like to know when it became okay for our society to objectify kids in the same way that women are and if this is just some short lived trend or if we need to start making little girls clothes at home permanently.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: and the subjugation of little girls continues.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15293
I agree with you on most of this, but:
"It shocked me to see girls who were my sisters age wearing bathing suits that do not cover their little bodies but instead leave them on display the way grown woman's bodies are."
I spent most of my childhood running around naked -- I grew up in Bangkok, and the weather was very warm -- and i often see very young children of both sexes running around topless. What are your thoughts on that?
I can't speak for rmanning, but dressing children in sexualized adult clothing is worse than letting them run around naked (which I actually don't think is a problem). Thongs and whatnot say "this body is a sexual object." Little kids swimming naked does not.
I'm fine with that, its not about modesty but about the sexualization. I think that its perfectly fine for them to be naked, because then people just don't look whereas if they are minimally covered it heightens the sexual factor for some reason, I don't know if its just an American culture thing or if its a patriarchy thing where men are taught that women in bikinis are hot, and then they look and keep on looking. That was really just the straw that broke the camels back its really the fashion for little girls in general that I was trying to point out. I just want to know that little girls can grow up with a sense of security about their bodies without having to be scruitinized the way they will start to be as soon as they hit puberty
Agreed nattles_thing. I grew up in Southern Louisiana, where, I couldn't tell you what the exact temperatures or humidity levels were, but I can tell you that I remember it being ever so HOT. So me and every other kid I knew were up until about when we would have started going to school or kindergarden, permitted to run around in the nude. At least at home.
I agree wholeheartedly with Naught's comment. Just wanted to add that whether nakedness or covering up is chosen is going to depend upon the enviromental conditions. In Australia we have to be very aware of the dangers of skin cancer.
Yeah I have to say I don't see a problem with bikinis for little girls. I have a problem with *alot* of the clothing that's out there for little girls right now and I agree immensely that it is hypersexualized and dangerous. But swimwear is different. Swimwear at its core is tight and clingy and would be indecent in most non-beach-or-poolside situations, but there is more cultural leeway at the beach to be open with the body. I'd say we should embrace that opportunity, it's refreshing. In fact, two-piece bathing suits are far less sexualized IMO than fully covering skinny jeans and tight little Junior Miss tops because there are no implications of sexuality, swimwear is taken to be more revealing and left at that.
Ever since I first wore a two-piece (I was probably 8 or so) I've found them more practical than one-pieces, not less. They're more comfortable and you can mix & match sizes; I'm short but have an oddly long torso and have always felt one-pieces stretch too much and give me constant wedgies. Bikinis don't do that to me, they give me more mobility, not less.
I'm not saying everyone would agree that they're more comfortable, because I'm sure some people would say the opposite, but I think little girls who think so should have that option for comfort if that's how they feel. Little-kid two pieces are often full of frills and bows, I don't think they're sexualized at all--well some of them are but they're not sexual in theory, and there are plenty of nonsexual choices out there--they just show more skin. I do agree sunscreen is an issue, but sunscreen should be a concern of any parent anyway no matter how "revealing" their kids' swimwear is. Parents should relish the lakeside as an opportunity to escape the confines of "how do I present my child" and just let their kids be.
Exactly.
Swimming clothing would be obscene in just about any other context. I don't wear my bikini to walk down the street, even though it's really hot right now and that would be nice.
Two-piece swimsuits are a pretty normal part of our culture, and they're not always sexualized. I mean, there's the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and all that, but that doesn't mean that all bikinis are by extension sexual.
I went to Catholic school and wore a uniform. I had a crisp white button down and a short red plaid skirt. It's the exact outfit that's been in about a gazillion pornos, but it was never considered "inappropriate" because of that.
First, I have no idea what a french bikini is--I googled with no luck answering that.
I think bathing suits are very different from other clothing choices; the whole point of them is to cover less of the body than street clothes would. My parents were kinda strict about clothing, but guess what? I have pictures of myself wearing an awesome, rainbow, ruffled bikini in the 1980s when I was about 3 or 4. About a year or so after that, one pieces came in and then the bikini was banned until I was 15 or 16, I think. So...yeah, they existed for kids back then, too. Maybe your mom didn't put you in them, but others probably did. I don't quite see the distinction between "then" moms (read: practical good) and "now" moms (irresponsible and bad) that I'm getting from your tone.
I feel from this post, OP, that you would very incorrectly think that my parents were fetishizing me, so thanks for that. Poor, naive parents believing no one would sexualize their 3 year old just because she is in a bikini.
Whoops, that was meant as a reply to the OP.
heres food for thought for you. I'm eighteen (which would put my b-day in 91, my mom is the same mom today as she was then. And believe me that is as antifeminist as you can get as a mom, but do not insult the fact that she chose to make sure her kids aren't being sexualized by the adults in this world who seem to think its okay to dress children in clothing like booty shorts and thong underwear.
oh and a french bikini is the type of bikini that has the bottoms which look like hi cut from the sides but are low cut in the front and back. The tops represent the tiny triangles that we are supposed to push our boobs in, you know the ones that cover less than some pasties? My mom was given a bunch of hand me down clothes from my godmother to my little sister and in there was a bikini that I kid you not, was only two tiny fish which were suposed to go over the non-existent boobs, and two strings, one to tie it to the back and one to tie it up over the neck. the bottoms that went with it could not have covered a new borns ass all the way let alone a five year olds. This is what I'm talking about as far as the bathing suits go. They are impossible to swim in because of the way they are styled. The clothing that is avaiable now is so not the clothing that was available when I was little. Pants actually fit me when I was little, the pants that are made now do not fit my sister, and I was the same height/weight/build as my sister is when I was the same age. The shirts always have something about being princesses or angels printed on them. Oh and the shorts if you can even call them that all have something written across the ass. The clothing was not like that when I was little.
Wearing bikinis emulating adult suits is projecting the idea that the young bodies should be viewed/treated as adult and sexualized.
I think that little girls shouldn't be viewed as having to wear a top to their bathing suit at all, similar to boys! (choosing to is entirely different).
its not about the tops. I agree that they shouldn't have to wear them I point it out just for the point that the little amount of fabric looks just like the adult tops which is only there to cause the sexualization of them because it is to make people remember that they are women in training, a concept that scares me not only because of the sexualization but because of the gender based stereotyping that it causes
I started wearing a bikini when I was thirteen (well, plus board shorts). Why? I hated one-pieces. I always wanted to wear shorts like a guy was allowed to, without something covering my stomach.
Honestly, I think it's easier to swim in what I wear swimming, which is why I wear it. I don't swim competitively, but I do wakeboard, and I would rather wear a bikini top under my life jacket because of the minimal layers covering me.
I think puberty is the time when the swimsuit options should open up for girls. When I hit puberty was when one-pieces became me worst enemy in the summer. Your body looks awkward, and one-pieces really accentuate that.
There is a huge difference between wearing board shorts and the teeny little bikini bottoms that make it nearly impossible for these little girls to learn to swim. Its not just about the swim suit, its the clothing in general and the problem that it causes ie child pornography and molestation of little girls and thinking that it is okay to do this to these little girls that I find problem with. Also I highly doubt you were doing this when you were 2 or younger, when most kids learn how to swim or before they even can
gir I accidently deleted half of the response before it posted, the rest of it was: because that is when these bathing suits are being put on them and that is when the sexualization of these little girls starts, when they are still babies
Of course child porn and sexualization of girls is a problem, but the problem is the viewer and the market, not the girls themselves. If a predator gets a high from seeing a nine-year old in a two-piece at the beach, that is sick and unhealthy, but the result shouldn't be restricting what these little girls can wear. It should be to try and tackle the root of the problem.
I remember wearing tiny shorts as a child in the seventies - think everyone did then.
I do hate to see young girls clothing which is emblazened with sexual messages, and also with bad behaviour messages for that matter.
It seems to me that girls clothing is designed to disable it's wearer. Light colours so the child can't do anything which might make them dirty and high heels on girls is the most disabling thing to do to a child.
Well I wear mostly a one piece because I swim laps and string bikinis cut off an injured body’s circulation. I used to get sexually harassed as a kid at the beach and else where and I mean harassed. So while I don’t like the idea of a string bikini on a child a two piece to allow for as free an experience as a little boy gets is fine.
What about this though the other day a little girl I was teaching either could read the name of an exotic bird I was showing her or she remembered it or recognized it. When I reworded her for it and asked if she could read she is only four she said no but began to cry……I think because she was so not used to being rewarded for such a good thing. She didn’t want the candy and I said that was fine I use it as rewords some times. But once again a little girl does something really good and feels really bad about it.
I ment reward not reword.....
I totally agree. To be honest, I probably started wearing 2-pieces around age 10 or 11 because I hated how constricted I felt in one-pieces -- but I always managed to find very modest two-pieces that covered everything that needed to be covered and didn't at all resemble grown women's bikinis. Nowadays, I walk into the little girls' section at Target and I can't for the life of me find two-pieces that are modest like the ones I used to wear. It's the same with all the little girls' clothing I see in department stores, really. Those princess and angel-related messages on pastel-colored t-shirts really irk me. And then you go into the boys' section and all the messages on t-shirts are about sports or videogames or how much homework sucks.
Honestly, seeing girls of that age group in impractical clothing which is clearly intended to mimic that of grown women is just really depressing. Some of my best memories of that part of my life include running around, climbing things, digging in the dirt, etc. -- and God only knows how many little girls are being denied those kind of childhood experiences because their clothing gets in the way.
I had a one piece and a two piece as a child. Yesterday to swim in the ocean I wore a handkerchief suit top and cut offs. I don't think the bikini with the starfish and the ruffle on it I wore at age 4 did me too much damage.
I agree that the sexualization of any young children, not just young girls is highly unsettling, but I think it's also damaging to look at little children as 100% pure cherubic entities. Children should not be sexualized, but we should recognize that one day, these children will grow into adulthood and become sexual beings*.
I'm not arguing that the sexualization of young girls isn't a problem; it is. --Yet, I can't help but take issue with the words "Little girls have no business..." I think that their parents have no business foisting that crap on them, but what if a little girl or boy wanted to wear a particular swim suit because they fancied the color? Or the print? Should we tell them "no you can't wear it because it makes you look like a little whore to the rest of the world? You're bad for even wanting it?" Don't kids get enough of that already? These kinds of shenanigans aren't the fault of children under 10.
And as someone who, due to size issues has to buy undergarments in the teens and girl's departments I can tell you that cotton briefs with days of the weeks, stripes, frogs and peace signs are still alive and well. Yes there are more clothing choices for young girls that are more sexual than they were ten years ago, but it's not all that's available. I really think a huge part of the problem is the emphasis of youth and sex in our culture. Teen idols have their place in pop culture I suppose, but doesn't any one remember that Debbie Harry was 34 when Blondie had a hit with "Heart of Glass"? And that in addition to being conventionally beautiful she was an intelligent, funny, talented performer?
There is nothing inherently wrong with youth and I would argue (though some may disagree) that there is nothing inherently wrong with sex... -But when a huge emphasis is placed on the two coming as a package, well the short version is it fucks some things up.
I am very well aware that they are going to grow up and be sexual beings. That is natural, normal and there is nothing wrong with it. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with sex. As far as the whole thing goes, you do not need to explain to the child that it makes her look like a whore, you just need to explain that it is not appropriate for her age because she is trying to learn to swim and that type of bathing suit would make that very difficult. And I'd sure like to know what store you shop at because none of the ones here have days of the week panties and you have to search and search to find pairs that are even a little bit age appropriate. Children have no business being sexualized in any way shape or form. And while it is fine to talk to them about sex and explain that it is a natural and happy part of life, it is not okay to think that they are old enough to be sexualized.
I also am not blaming the little girls for this, or their parents for that matter. I blame the people who create these garments and think that it is okay to sell them and have them put on little girls. Little girls clothing needs to be designed by moms. Moms who know what little kids like to wear, what is going to be comfortable and practicle for them, and what is going to be appropriate to cover their bodies. Instead the fashion industry and the media( you know the same ones who are responsible for grown women hating their bodies) are the ones who run what it produced and because of that what is worn.
Target, baby. I've bought some rocking kids underpants for myself there (adult woman in a size 14 girls FTW!). My favs are the purple briefs with sparkly frogs. I buy bras there, too.
Oh hell yes. Also, Kohls. The last time I was there I got these great briefs with little suns and moons on them.
I am very well aware that they are going to grow up and be sexual beings. That is natural, normal and there is nothing wrong with it. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with sex. As far as the whole thing goes, you do not need to explain to the child that it makes her look like a whore, you just need to explain that it is not appropriate for her age because she is trying to learn to swim and that type of bathing suit would make that very difficult. And I'd sure like to know what store you shop at because none of the ones here have days of the week panties and you have to search and search to find pairs that are even a little bit age appropriate. Children have no business being sexualized in any way shape or form. And while it is fine to talk to them about sex and explain that it is a natural and happy part of life, it is not okay to think that they are old enough to be sexualized.
I also am not blaming the little girls for this, or their parents for that matter. I blame the people who create these garments and think that it is okay to sell them and have them put on little girls. Little girls clothing needs to be designed by moms. Moms who know what little kids like to wear, what is going to be comfortable and practicle for them, and what is going to be appropriate to cover their bodies. Instead the fashion industry and the media( you know the same ones who are responsible for grown women hating their bodies) are the ones who run what it produced and because of that what is worn.
I'm terribly sorry for the repeat post, my internet is having problems today and I hit send twice because it came up with the error message if the feministing staff is reading this please delete the second time I posted it, I apologize for any inconvenience that this causes
"but we should recognize that one day, these children will grow into adulthood and become sexual beings"
But why are we deciding for them at a young age what type of sexual being they should be?
Boys and girls under 10 have bodies that are basically the same shape, yet they are dressed in as diametrically opposed colours and styles as possible. There is something very wrong when there is more overlap in clothing styles for adults. It's almost like we are panicked with the notion that someone won't be able to tell a boy from a girl!
If we ever want to have any hope of treating boys and girls the same equal options as the grow into adults we need to stop pasting big PINK and BLUE labels on them.
Sorry, should be 'giving boys and girls the same equal options [...]'
I'm not arguing that we should be dictating what type of sexual beings they should be; I guess I should have tried to make that clearer. What I was trying to get at was that if my young child wanted to wear a two piece, a one piece or swim trunks, regardless of their sex or gender, I wouldn't see a problem with it.
Really, I don't think there should even be a problem with a woman being topless or nude in adulthood if that is how she is most comfortable swimming. Breasts shouldn't HAVE to be sexual. I understand that like it or not, in American culture, they ARE, but they shouldn't have to be. Men have nipples, so do women. Society looks at these nipples very differently. I know that isn't going to change much any time soon but it's still a double standard.
I agree with both parts of what you said about breasts. They shouldn't be considered more sexual than men's chests and they are and that's not going to change any time soon. But that's only part of my point.
Breasts themselves shouldn't be considered sexual but their presence is a sure sign that the girl in question is developing into a sexually mature adult. Tops designed to look like bikini tops give both adults and children the visual cues to treat these girls like sexually mature adults.
If a child I had a role in raising wanted to wear such a garment, my response would be "they are grown up clothes, when you are older you can wear them if you want," and in the meanwhile suggest some of the myriad of other options.
"Should we tell them "no you can't wear it because it makes you look like a little whore to the rest of the world? You're bad for even wanting it?"
It is possible to just say no to a child! It is up to the parent to choose appropriate clothing for their child - it does exist in shops alongside all the crap that paedophiles design.
As someone who used to wait tables in a kid-oriented restaurant, I would never suggest that we indulge every child's every whim. Of course you can tell a child no, of course. But then it should be explained to them why in an honest manner. Most of the kids I've known, so long as they were above kindergarten age, respected their parents' or guardians' decisions more if they were given a rational explanation delivered in an even tone.
Kids are a lot more perceptive than many people give them credit for. Even if you don't tell them "no because it's going to make you look like a baby slut", if that's your reasoning they will pick up on it eventually. Being told and shown that anything connected to sexuality or sexual beings is bad, does plenty of damage.
Should we be explaining to young children the various positions of love making? Of course not, that's not age appropriate. Should we explain to them why wearing a certain bathing suit might make total strangers perceive them as a child and me as a parent in a very negative light? Yes, I think so.
Also, as Teen Mommy said: " A pedophile will be attracted to a kid in a parka just as much as a kid in a "slutty" bikini."
I don't think it's a good thing that young girls are wearing string bikinis, I'm not arguing that. --But I'm not thrilled about it because it teaches them from a young age that unless they let themselves be objects for the pleasure of others, they are worthless. Not because I'm worried about pedophiles. Worrying that pedophiles are going to attack little girls in bikinis smells exactly like the victim blaming aimed at older victims of sexual assault.
This is I think what rubbed me the wrong way about this post in the first place. The Original Post at first reading seemed to have a gist of: "no one could be surprised if young girls would get attacked by pedophiles because they have on such trampy swim suits".
that was not the point of this AT ALL. my point is that we are taking little girls, when females are at the only time when they are actually treated like human beings, not peices of meat, not an incubator for babies, not anything that the patriarchy has turned our bodies into and are taking it away from them, and as feminists we are allowing thise. I site the pedophilia just as an example of why this is so wrong. As I have said again and again, its not about the bathing suits, it about the fact that the only options available for these parents to buy and put on their children is clothing that is made to make them look sexy and older because our country has some weird fetish with the way little girls bodies look, and that is wrong and we should stop it. Parents do have the right to tell their children what they can and cannot wear, with or without an explanation. Little girls need to wear clothing that is appropriate for their age, and that means something comfortable, light weight, that doesn't restrict their movement, that allows them to run around and play without having to worry whether their pants are going to fall off or not or without having to worry about making sure someone can' see their panties. The clothing that is being marketed to parents for their children are not appropraite. There is no reason why five year olds need to wear a lacy thong covered by a barely bigger peice of fabric that we are supposed to call shorts with juicy or hot printed across the back. As feminists we fight against grown women being treated like objects, well that is what they are doing with our little girls now but no one seems to get it. I will repeat again THERE IS NOTHING OKAY WITH PUTTING A FIVE YEAR OLD IN A THONG.
I guess I will be in the minority, but I don't think of bikinis as inherently sexual, and I don't see any problem with children wearing them. It depends on the individual bikini, I suppose. If it says Juicy on the butt, that's one thing, but if it's just a swimming garment that happens to show the midriff, I don't see a problem.
Also, I think that, outside of extremes (and I don't think the average bikini is an extreme), children should be able to choose what to wear. More broadly, I believe very strongly that all human beings should have the right to as much self-determination as they are capable of exercising in a remotely reasonable manner at the given time.
They might not be inherently sexual, but the role they play in our culture does seem to be a sexual one. Especially the little stringy ones. And it's odd, because toddlers and little girls don't have breasts to cover, but the bikini tops suggest they do. My friend's daughter was really into super heroes when she was 4, and there are no girls swimsuits with superheroes, so she chose a pair of Spiderman swim trunks. One of the other moms at swimming lessons pulled my friends aside to inform her that she ought to have her daughter wear a tank top with the shorts since it was inappropriate for a girl to only wear shorts. It seems like this kind of thinking comes from the whole bikini tops and strappy little shirts on little girls thing.
I wish I could click I liked this comment 10 times.
Yeah, that's moronic -- I would let my baby girl run around shirtless at the beach (once she can actually run around, that is). But if she were older, I'd also let her wear a stringy bikini top if she chose it. I would not choose such a thing for her, but I would understand and never make a fuss over it if she felt differently. My opinion is probably partly informed by the fact that my mother was so strict about keeping me de-sexualized that she made me ashamed of my body a la The Purity Myth.
Smoke comes out of my ears when I see other girls in my 18 month-old daughter's room at daycare wearing shorts that say "hottie" and "princess" on the ass. On the ass! Who designs this shit!?!
Paedophiles develop this kind of clothing chaelaking.
I grew up in Asia and am currently living in Australia. I remember when I was growing up, how no one cared about boys running around naked. The whole naked boys not needing modesty constrasted greatly with girls, who were always almost in some top and bottom. A sister seeing her brother naked....so what, no one cared. A brother seeing his sister naked....call the parents! What a big contrast.
I grew up in Asia and am now living in Australia. My experience while growing up in this region is that no one really cared about little boys being naked. It was like no big deal. But I distinctly remember little girls being covered up, at younger ages maybe not the upper torso, but definitely at a later age, even when they haven't undergone puberty yet! It was like, if a sister saw her brother naked, no big deal....but if a brother happened to see his sister naked....god help him....there would be screaming and cursing...
Apologies. I didnt realize the first post posted. This is embarassing.
You'd think someone would design an interface that checks for 90% the same text as your last post and warns you wouldn't you?
I often here older people going on about how kids are looking less like "kids" every passing generation. But doesn't this correllate with adults dressing more and more "sexy" (for want of a better word) as time has passed?
Hasn't children's fashion always been designed to imitate adult fashion in some way or the other? Adults always see everything from a sexual perspective (i.e. bikinis being sexual), but that doesn't mean that children do too.
Another thought: In my (relatively conservative) family, a 7 year old wearing a bikini is perfectly acceptable. A 16 year old wearing a bikini, however, is considered immodest. I assume this is because the 16 year old has the matured body to make the bikini look sexually attractive, while the 6 year old does not.
"Hasn't children's fashion always been designed to imitate adult fashion in some way or the other? Adults always see everything from a sexual perspective (i.e. bikinis being sexual), but that doesn't mean that children do too."
No, it hasn't. As an example, it might surprise you to know that it isn't uncommon to see boys in dresses in photos from the 19th century.
Clothing is cheaper now that it has ever been. In the past, because children grow out of things quickly, clothing would be handed down, it was more common for boys and girls to wear their sisters' and brothers' old clothes. Clothing wasn't desinged specifically for boys or girls so much partly because of this phenomenon.
I have seen picture of young boys from the 1900's wearing dresses. But I was thinking more of the little girls looking like duplicate, miniature versions of their mothers in the paintings/pictures from the 1500's, 1700's, 1930's, etc. You're right that a market specifically designed to make affordable children's clothing hasn't always been there, which meant that children would end up jumping straight from "baby clothes" (like the dresses for boys) to adult clothes. So at a certain age, childre would walk around looking like mini-adults, and perhaps that's where this adult-imitation style in children's fashion came from.
I think you do have a point here.
Bikinis have been around for long enough that they're not really considered sexualized anymore, unless the person in the bikini is sexy. Children aren't sexy, so a 4-year-old in a bikini isn't sexualized.
A 16-year-old with boobs and a possible interest in being sexualized is a different story all together.
I do agree with the OP about all the pants that say HOTTIE and all that shit, but I don't think a child in a bikini is the terrible thing she makes it out to be.
Sorry, but I just have to add one more thing!
Some people here are implying that little girls dressing up in clothing that may be sexual on women encourages pedophilia and child sexual harrassment. But pedophiles are pedophiles--they assault children because they are children, not because of what they are wearing. It seems like victim-blaming to me to suggest otherwise.
Thank you. That is true. A pedophile will be attracted to a kid in a parka just as much as a kid in a "slutty" bikini.
it does encourage people who otherwise may not be looking at that specific child to look and then attack them. Its not victim blaming at all. Children are innocent, they do not understand that the clothing that they wear can make them a target for some creep who should be in prison anyways. But the point is that the hypersexualization of little girls has created more of a problem and more and more people think it is okay to look at child pornorgraphy or to molest little kids. That is not the fault of these little girls, however it is the fault of the awful people who designed the clothes for these little girls in the first place.
Do more and more people really think those things are okay?I would bet we just hear about it more. I really question whether your thoughts here are based in fear or research.
Your damn right I am fearful for my little sister. I was raped by her father when I was twelve. I do not want her to have to live in fear of being raped. But that is the reality. The second that we are born and the doctor announces that its a girl, she is going to be the target of sexism gender stereotyping, and ultimatelygrow up in fear for her own body because of a bunch or assholes who do not think we have the rights to our own body. We live in a dangerous world where our children are not safe and creating a place where little girls are wearing booty shorts with phrases like "juicy" and "cute little princess" (the second one is actually an outfit that was sent by her aunt) on their asses wearing THONG UNDERWEAR underneath them is not okay. I'm really not taking so much issue with the bathing suits as I am the clothing options and the underlying sexualization of little girls in general. The problem here is not so much what they are wearing but why it is even being made for them. You are a mother and I would think that as one you would want to do everything you could to keep your child safe, including making sure that she is not being sexualized by a world that already has sexualized her mother to the point of making it that her body is something to ogle, and not an actual person attached to it. Do you really want that for your kids? My fear is that its not just going to stop with the clothes. I'm afraid for their overall welfare and you cannot tell me that putting little girls in clothing that is meant to make them look sexy does not contribute to the problems girls grow up with.
As a mother, I don't want to do everything possible to protect my daughter. I want to protect her to the extent that doing so isn't a form of harm in itself. I obviously draw that line somewhere different than where you do. Again, this belief of mine has been formed by the fact that my mother "protected" me out of having any meaningful life before age eighteen.
Also, I wasn't questioning that you should feel fear ad worry about certain things. I was questioning how realistic the particular beliefs your fears cause you to have.
I draw a very large distinction between controlling your child and protecting them. Once they are a teenager you have done the best job you can do with them and it is now your responsiblity to be there for them when they reach out to you, to help them make the best decision for themselves without judging them, and to encourage them making decisions that will benefit their lives. However, I think that until they are in their teen years parents have a responsibility to keep their children safe because nobody else is going to and actually most of the world is going to hurt them. I think that making sure your child is in appropriate clothing, not thongs and booty shorts with hot or juicy printed on the ass, is part of protecting them. There is no good reason why childrens clothing needs to look like this. No one benefits from these kinds of clothes. Think about it this way. Would you want to be in a thong and tight low rise jeans or booty shorts running around for long periods of time? What about climbimg trees? Squatting down to dig in the dirt and just generally playing? Those are the things that I remember that were some of the best moments in my childhood. I certainly would have thought twice about doing those things if I had to wear clothing that hurt me when I did them. I'm sure most little girls would too
What makes a bikini appear sexual on a little girl whose body hasn't even started maturing? I thought it was the presence of a pedophile.
I would suggest that what makes a bikini appear sexual on a little girl is that a bikini top is designed specifically to cover the breasts. Small girls don't have breasts, wearing a bikini top implies that they have begun to develop breasts and are reaching sexual maturity. This sends signals to others (adults and children) to treat them like sexually mature individuals, thus shortening their childhood.
It may interest you to know that although girls mature physically earlier than boys, brain development occurs at the same rate. What we observe as girls acting more 'mature' from an earlier age is a result of us (society) beginning to treat them like adults from an earlier age. And we are treating them like adults earleir because of the visual cues we are receiving.
The presence of a naked or half naked child isn't going to turn anyone who isn't a pedophile into a pedophile.
And a child in a bikini is certainly not going to "encourage people who otherwise may not be looking at that specific child to look and then attack them." Methinks you've watched far too many episodes of Law & Order: SVU.
Pedophiles generally know and court their victims over a long period of time, they are family members or friends of the family. Stranger attacks or abductions are exceedingly rare.
Not to mention, blaming a child's attack on what they were wearing... We don't let people do that to adult rape victims, why would you do that to a child?
The presence of a naked or half naked child isn't going to turn anyone who isn't a pedophile into a pedophile.
And a child in a bikini is certainly not going to "encourage people who otherwise may not be looking at that specific child to look and then attack them." Methinks you've watched far too many episodes of Law & Order: SVU.
Pedophiles generally know and court their victims over a long period of time, they are family members or friends of the family. Stranger attacks or abductions are exceedingly rare.
Not to mention, blaming a child's attack on what they were wearing... We SHOULDN'T let people do that to adult rape victims (and certainly shouldn't engage in that here of all places), why would you do that to a child?
Crap, sorry about the double post.
YES. THANK YOU. I wish I could like your comment a billion times.
I really doubt that anyone "thinks it's okay" to molest children. In a culture where other crimes -- even some fairly horrific ones -- aren't nearly as stigmatized as they should be, child molestation is still thought of as the worst thing anyone can possibly do.
A kid in a bikini isn't going to turn anyone into a pedophile. I also kind of doubt it would attract pedophiles. Rapists don't choose their victims based on clothing, and neither do pedophiles. (And if anything, aren't most pedophiles attracted to innocence?) (Also, how do you feel about kids who run around naked?)
Talk all you like about how sexualization might be harmful to the girls, but getting hysterical about pedophiles is pointless fearmongering.
"it does encourage people who otherwise may not be looking at that specific child to look and then attack them."
I don't think this is true. The attacker is at fault, not the top.
Withut looking at the suits myself I can't say if they would have bothered me or not--but some people put little girls in 2 piece suits because they are easier for them to get on and off in the bathroom.
Just the bottoms or no swim suit at all is even easier to get off.
How old are we talking? Kids in diapers should not swim with no swimsuit. Just sayin'.
Fair point.
Also, a surf shirt (what Australian's call a 'rashy') would be as easy to get off as a bikini top and probably much more appropriate.
But the kid might not want to wear that much fabric on top if it's a hot day. I was just at a beach and did not notice any small girls in "French Bikinis," though I did see some in two piece suits.
Being from Australia where skin cancer is a major cause of death, I have trouble equating hot day with less clothing coverage at the beach, seeing as how a hot day is almost certainly going to be during the summer.
Also, it's worth noting that melanoma rates amongst women are higher than those amongst men in Australia. I can only equate this with the idea that tanned skin is somehow a necessity for women and that women expose more of their skin to the sun on a day to day basis.
Yes, I have heard this from many parents. I still think that putting little girls in tops that imply that they have breasts is weird. The weirdest I saw was this ruffled, triangle top which actually made it look like the kid (about 3) really had breasts. Creeeepy. You can't really ditch the top, though, or you and the kid will catch hell from the other parents. Adults can blow off the other parent's bullshit, but the kid will pick up on it, and who wants to put a kid through that?
Man, I was like 30 before I wore a bikini, but that's b/c I'm a maladjusted freak.
I feel the same. I personally find one-pieces to be so much more inconvenient. As an adult, I have trouble getting them on and off for bathroom purposes, and I think little kids probably feel the same way.
I agree that more skin should be covered in general, just because it can help protect against the sun. Tiny bikinis don't do that well.
Ideally, swimwear should promote movement and swimming, which I have a hard time believing when I see people in tie-string-type bikinis (don't those knots loosen? Does it ever come undone?). I like the kind with tank tops for that reason - it covers a lot of skin, it allows me free movement (I've never had a tank top fall off or ride up so far that I feel exposed, but others may feel differently), and I usually wear it with board shorts.
I may be the wrong person to ask about this, in many ways, because I dress very "modestly" most of the time. I am really shy and don't like showing skin when I can help it. Honestly, if I could just swim in a sheet, I'd be happier :D But still, I think that little kids could wear two-piece swimsuits and still not be sexualized.
My opinion, little girls should go naked for as long as possible.
Now that I sound like a creepy peddy, here's my second question:
How would you tell a little girl she should cover up her body without making it seem like her body should be something she should be ashamed of?
See the "how to babysit for a curious kid" thread: teach about public vs private: your body is private, it's for you. Teaching a kid to cover up does not have to mean teaching hir that hir's body is shameful. It can be about teaching how much we show at different times - it's ok to take your shirt off at the beach, but not at school. It's ok to wear shorts to school, but you need to wear pants to a wedding. Etc.
I have to say I think it's pretty sick. My mom wouldn't let me leave the house in a skirt that didn't cover my butt or a 2 piece swimsuit. But also when I was 10 or 11 those things were not available and I'm 27! This just shows how times are changing I guess. My particular favorite is the shorts that say 'juicy' 'baby' 'hottie' ect that are meant for older girls but are in small sizes. I'm sorry a 10 year old girl is not 'juicy' or a 'hottie'. Disgusting. I also do not like the 'princess' comments. Sorry at least here in the US there's no such thing. You are setting her up for something that will never happen and she will become a spoiled brat because of it. Subjugation was perfect.
which is the exact reason I used the word
I agree with the OP's logic. If a particular piece of clothing is able to sexualize an adult, ie bikini, low cut jeans, etc. then a smaller but otherwise identical one would do something similar for a child, even a prepubescent child.
Obviously though, sexualizing a child is different, most people won't see it that way because children are inherently non-sexual.
However, unless pedophilia is entirely caused by genetics and physiology, then these social trends will cause a rise in pedophilia.
I'm only seventeen. It wasn't that long ago I was a little girl. And I never wore adult looking bikinis and neither did any of the other girls I knew. We would wear one pieces or two pieces designed for little girls. I don't know when this started but now it's all I see. Even today my favorite swimsuit is a fairly modest one-piece. I also have a modest two piece and two or three bikinis. I don't wear the bikinis when I actually want to swim because that's pretty difficult and I always worry they'll fall off me. But it's really hard to find modest swimsuits in a size small enough for me. The only one pieces you can find these days are designed for older women or women in larger sizes.
Target usually has two peices that provide more coverage than the average one peice. The tops usually have wider straps than the one peices and the bottoms are usually either shorts or swim skirts with the attached panties. I however do not like any of the options for womans bathing suits and wear mens swim trunks with a t-shirt when I am actually swimming. That provides you with even more coverage and the swim trunks are just plain more comfortable than a tiny peice of fabric being up your ass all the time
I personally like low-rise jeans. They don't hurt me or restrict my movement. They're actually more comfortable for me as they don't cut into my belly the way high-waist pants do.
I also like bikinis. I hate one pieces and haven't worn one since I was 12. They invariably flatten my breasts to my body which is extremely uncomfortable.
I'm sick of all this fear mongering regarding clothing. I'm not saying 4 year olds should be running around in lipstick and thongs, but I'm sick of all this "prostitot" hysteria.
"This is evident in our fetish with shaved vulvas, and the reason why our media perpetuates models to be sickly skinny with no hips or breasts, the way little girls looks."
I'm not getting into the pubic hair discussion, but our media does not perpetuate women without hips and breasts. Runway models are often extremely thin, but lingerie models hired to titillate have round butts and push their boobs up as big as they can. The twiggy-esque models is not the American beauty ideal. Women like Tyra and Heidi are.
hm... so then why is there all this pressure for models to be a size 2? basically unless they are modeling bras for victoria secrets all the models in the US are twigs, sickly looking twigs but that is not the point the point is that the clothing industry has decided to put little girls in thongs and booty shorts