WOW you ladies were busy chatting it up! I have a few thoughts on posts since my last post. First, sexual abuse isn't always about sex. Sometimes it's about power over another individual, and sex is just one tool they use to wield their power over another individual. Second, how do you know that innocence of children isn't what turns a predator on? Maybe a child molester might look over the child in a bikini and go for one more modestly dressed. Despite what our culture tries to sell us, people have different desires and turn on-some guys don't like blondes, some prefer flat chested women some prefer fat chicks. You can't say all predators would be attracted to a child in a bikini more than a child in a one piece, especially since anyone sexually attracted to a child isn't normal to begin with. As far as consistency, I don't really buy that argument either. The fact is, children of different ages are developmentally ready for different things. I mean, I allow my 8 year old to use a sharp knife, but I didn't allow him to do it at two. On the other hand there are things toddlers can get away with that tweens can't, because we know the toddler mind can't understand, but the more mature tween mind can. But my point is, this is one of those areas that the Bible doesn't answer with Chapter # and verse number thou shalt not put your 2 year old in a bikini. So we must leave it open to interpretation and conviction of the parents. It's like the pants or skirts for women issue-the Bible doesn't say women must not wear pants. I think it's another interpretation and personal conviction issue. Another thought to throw into the mix on talk of modesty. You can be covered from head to toe in loose fitting modest clothes, and still be immodest in speech and behavior. Modesty isn't always just a fashion thing, it's very much an attitude and mentality.
Josie, I appreciate your thoughts on this subject very much. However, on your argument against consistency....well, I just do not see how developing skills and awareness are comparable to consistency in dress code.
A few years ago, Abercrombie & Fitch decided to sell g-string panties for toddlers. There was a HUGE uproar from those who didn't think it was appropriate. Abercrombie & Fitch's spokesman's response to the media was that they will no longer sell them in their stores and would gladly pull them from the shelves but they couldn't because they sold out! :twisted: :twisted: If I remember correctly, the g-strings could be worn under clothes or over diapers. Then, I believe it was last year, I heard that Abercrombie & Fitch was selling push-up bras for little girls, meaning between 6-8 years of age. While I wasn't surprised, I was disgusted how many parents thought it was cute and appropriate because the girls were young and not yet "sexualized". I find it strange that those who say it is alright because the girls are young and not yet “sexualized”, run out and dress their unsexualized children in what is considered sexy. So who is doing the sexualization? Is it those who believe these garments are not appropriate for children or is it the parents who find it cute to see a little girl in what was once saved for the bedroom. ...and yes, I know bikinis are not bedroom attire, yet they look like a bra and panty. I know that some people will not agree with me, but I am having difficulty in seperating what Abercrombie & Fitch sells and dressing 2 year olds in bikinis because it is cute.
And I appreciate yours as well. And I think we can respectfully agree to disagree. My posts are not meant to try and change anyone's opinion on the subject, just stating my views and why I have them. As far as the consistency issue, I let both my boys run around naked during potty training. As babies/toddlers they would sometimes go to walmart in their pajamas or just a diaper or diaper and tshirt. At 5 and 8, I would not allow them to walk around walmart in their underwear or their pajamas and I don't allow them to run around the house naked anymore either. I don't see it as inconsistency, but rather changes that come with growth which can be applied to many issues, not just modesty issues. What about dresses? Infant toddler dresses are often quite short and often have matching diaper covers or bloomers. (like these) Would you allow a 2 year old to wear one of these dresses? If so, would you allow a 16 year old to wear one? Personally, my 2 year old daughter probably swim in a swimming diaper and sunscreen due to my practical and frugal nature
I'm glad you said this, because that's what I was thinking. Kids don't have a grasp of alot of things, but that's why we are here: to teach them how, and why we do things. Sadly, in today's world you have to teach your children that there are people out there who aren't good like our family, and without too much detail try to explain to them about those kinds of people. It's a sad fact, and there is a person or 5 like this in EVERY city whether you know it or not.
I did not dress my daughter in any dresses above her knees at any age, but she did usually have bloomers or shorts until she learned to sit and move modestly in a dress. She has always like tea length dresses and is quite modest on her own now. She even mentioned once when she saw a teen in a haltered dress that she was showing her whole back. "How embarrassing" (She meant for the girl.) Typically, I dressed her in all-in-one rompers and overalls mostly because I used cloth diapers which are bulky. Also, she always has been on the lean side, so later most items of clothing were too loose in the waist anyways.
Without reading all the other responses my boys wear swim trunks, no shirts usually. Though TBH I would prefer to put them in those swim shirts with their trunks but affordability is an issue and we're rarely in our suits in public - grammy's yard is the most frequented locale in swim suits. Sierra had a nice one piece last year. This year she has a one piece but she hates it. I tend to put her in her brothers old suit that's her size - it is one of those swim t's with trunks. She actually ran around the local fountains in just her cloth diaper the last time we went up because the suit was uncomfortable and she stripped it off about halfway into the trip. That said I think that there is a HUGE difference between 2 pieces and bikini - there are definitely tasteful two pieces and that is the direction I would lean as she grows - the t-shirt style top and I'd prefer short bottoms. I want to teach her modesty as she grows. And typing this our reminds me that my sister JUST gave us a second swim set with a swim t and suit bottoms - not shorts but meh. Like the op said I wouldn't stop someone and tell them that I disapproved of their child's suit. And yes I do think we should go back to more modest 1920 style swimsuits but that's just me.
Not the person you were talking to but no I don't let my 2yr old wear dresses that short. Anything at or above the knees has a pair of coordinating biker shorts under it and is treated as a shirt rather than a dress. And she's still in diapers. I've always dressed her this way. I want her to know modesty from the start. I'm sure some people think I'm strange but I don't care. I agree that consistency is important and that's why I am the way I am. :lol:
The "above the knees" is really pushing it for infants/toddlers. Keep in mind that their proportion is so different from an older child. Even if a dress is "longer", it's hard NOT to have the diaper/undies show. On a more humorous note, Rachael's friend did her Senior Pictures. In one of them, Rachael was sitting on the ground in a knee-length dress. But the way she was sitting and the camera angle showed right up her dress, and you could see her underwear :shock:!!! Believe me, we deleted that one right away!!! And the young lady taking it hadn't noticed. She's a very sweet young woman who is VERY modest, and would NEVER have sent it on to me had she noticed. I did give her a hard time about it, though !
Hey, read this article today, and thought it applied to our conversation: http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html
I quizzed Loralei and she said she * looks like the modest doll but wants to look like the sexy doll. * thinks the sexy doll is more popular than the modest doll. * wants to be friends with the sexy doll more than the modest doll.
Considering the ages of the girls (6-9 years old) this paragraph kinda shocked me I wasn't at ALL worried about being sexy at that age! Nor did I know any 'sexy girls' at that age.
I was 11-12 before I learnt girls were suppose to be sexy (I grew C cup boobs and very quickly learnt that guys only thought of me one way a shock to the system for a life long tomboy I spent over a decade after that trying to be invisible.)
Just popped in here to the Spot to see what everyone has been up to and I actually have read all 8 pages of responses! Anywho....not that it matters but I totally agree with what is quoted above. It isn't your business to tell me how my children should be allowed to dress, what they should eat, how much tv they should be allowed to watch, what homeschool curriculum I should use, etc...........and it isn't my business to tell you either. I allow both of my daughters who are 16 and 9 to wear bikinis, tankinis and one piece suits. I am 36 years old and wear bikinis too. When I go to the beach or pool the last thing on my mind is what some other family is going to think of my choice in swim wear. As long as my husband and I are ok with it and my girls feel comfortable in what they are wearing then my focus is on having a fun family day. I would never ever tell my friend that I think her choice of swimwear for her child isn't appropriate.
