AIBU to question a pool asking my four-year-old daughter to cover up?

Yes children that age wearing bikini tops is weird. But a simple two piece? What’s wrong with that?

I’m surprised no one else has picked up on your comment that you’ve only just thought to buy her a swimming costume for swimming lessons that start next week!! Was this your first ever visit to a public swimming pool?!

Grandma here. I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid personally.
What I did get concerned about recently was a neighbours eight-year-old child in her bedroom window without her PJ top on waving at me as I walked up the short path to visit. Definitely showing she was a girl as she has very long hair.

Think about why little girls - babies - should have to wear a top, when little boys, whose torsos are identical, do not. A pre-pubescent child’s secondary sexual characteristics are non existent. So to imply a little girl needs to ‘cover up’ is implicitly sexualising a toddler’s flat chest and nipples. It’s indefensible.

I wish kids could be kids all the time too. My kids would be completely naked year round if they had it their way.

Unfortunately though, there are people who enjoy seeing kids with their bodies exposed. Your choice what to do with that. For me, it means covering my daughter's top half.

It is uncommon for girls to be topless after the swim nappy stage. A combination of safeguarding awareness (teaching children about private body parts) and covering up more for UV protection when outside have contributed to that shift in culture.

There's also been parallel shifts in culture with moving to proper PE kits rather than pants and vest (where vest may not have been worn in warmer weather) I doubt many parents of 4-7 year olds would welcome a return to that standard of dress...

My sons have usually had their tops covered when swimming, first with UV suits that went over their swim nappies that made them easier to hold than slippery wet skin. They also reduced the number of sensory changes of being in/ out the water with a more consistent feel. They then wore shortie wet suits for warmth. Larger costumes also make it easier to be more visible in the water for safety/ lifeguarding with sensible colours compared to bare skin. There are many practical reasons why children are wearing more for swimming that aren't about modesty.

A 4 year old girl probably wouldn't raise eyebrows being topless in a more "male" style of trunks/ shorts that are cut a bit more generously. Bikini bottoms are socially coded as being half an outfit in a way that boys' swimwear isn't. It's clashing two layers of social expectation and stands out as unusual.

4 is not so very far from ages where physical differences start to show up. 4 is the start of school years and by 7 at the end of infants there is a need to draw a line on female and male privacy. Embarassment sometimes does kick in naturally, it doesn't always and I wouldn't want to have to teach two layers of social rule of acceptable dressing/ privacy a few years apart. I was a late developer and only started wearing crop-tops and bras out of social pressure at secondary school, first on PE changing days as no one else was topless. I only finally wore a bra daily because I was laughed at and ridiculed by the boy behind me who couldn't see straps through my shirt. Drawing a line at physical differences doesn't always hold up well and creates years of gulf between early developers and late developers.

For comfort, we're in an era of a range of options on what swimwear is avaliable.

A topless 4 year old girl wouldn't offend me, but it is something that is sufficiently unusual (in a swimming pool) to attract attention and comment. In gender expectations, it's not a hill I would die on to buy a couple more years on in gender neutral/ equal dressing.

This is bizarre and the comments equally bizarre. A 4 year old girl has nothing to cover on top. By saying she should cover her top and a boy, who would look the same at that age doesn’t need to is internalised misogyny. It is looking at a child’s future potential to grow glands to feed babies, which men also sexualise. Therefore, demanding a 4 year old girl cover a top is absolutely sexualising your daughter, consciously or unconsciously

I think it saves lifeguards from having to police older girls and make judgements on who or who hasn't started puberty by just having a blanket rule for all girls. And by this being the norm it helps avoid embarrassment for those 8 or 9 year old girls whose parents aren't aware of their stage of development or who are maybe being sent in inappropriate swimwear for abusive reasons.

There’s a big difference between “nobody should touch or ask to see my private parts” and “I ought to cover up (including chest) at all times”. The former is telling kids they can say no, the latter is putting a big restriction on kids and making them wear more clothing than they may feel comfortable in.

Ah ok thanks. I must say our two (DD and DS) weren’t brought up with that. When they hit puberty they were anxious to cover themselves up of course, but when they were small they were quite happy to run around on the beach and play in the garden in the summer without clothes, just the same as I did at that age.

It’s an NSPCC campaign. It’s widely used in schools and educational settings generally including many early years settings.

this is the campaign
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/advice-for-families/pants-underwear-rule/

the private parts song isn’t the original song that went with the campaign but it seems to be widely used - this version is on insta

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVk8rKIjN5M/?igsi=MWV1ejVnNWw0cnZyOA==

I’d complain then go to a different pool

Totally not the point of the thread, sorry, but the first time you wrote fafth I assumed it was a typo of faff, but is it an actual word?

I’ve seen plenty of babies and toddlers in swim nappies only in pools. The baby swimming classes near me are when I’m swimming in the adult pool sometimes and swim nappy seems to be very common.

at the point they move out of nappies (which is obviously going to vary from child to child) it’s usual in the U.K. to either have a one piece with short legs and arms (both sexes) or shorts for boys and a one piece for girls.

at the beach or outside children are usually more covered up and rash vests etc are more common mostly due to concerns about skin cancer. It’s either that or it’s clearly an impromptu beach trip and the children are wearing a lot less. Nakedness at the beach/river/lake is a lot less common than it used to be when I was young (80s and 90s) I suspect mostly due to skin cancer concerns.

i do see some pre-pubescent girls wearing bikini tops but it’s more normally towards to the top of the age range and it’s tweens wearing a tween version of whatever the fashionable adult bikini style is.

i lived through the 80s in the uk when getting a tan was a wanted thing and my ExH has now had to have investigations for skin cancer; there’s a lot more awareness now that getting burnt in childhood can really ramp your risk up. He’s super careful with his new kids about not being exposed at all.

pools are obviously different in that you don’t get the skin cancer risk but it genuinely isn’t common in the U.K. for girls to wear only bikini bottoms/shorts to swim in once out of nappies.

On a purely practical note, now that DC is 4 and school age, the sooner she is able to get herself in and out of her own clothes, including changing for swimming, the easier your life will be!

Goodness me that seems an odd way to bring up a family. I’m all for safeguarding of course, but that really doesn’t sound healthy to me.

How many times can you say getting them in and out of swimwear is hard? it’s no different than dressing them in any other clothes and at the age of 4 they could do it themselves if they had to. Sounds pretty lazy to me and seems like you wanted a reaction.

No it isn’t. It’s much more awkward and difficult trying to get a soggy wet costume off a child within the confines of a changing cubicle than just putting dry clothes on a dry body at home.

This is where the sexualisation of female bodies begins. Unfortunately it is so ingrained that people are simply unaware they are doing it. You are right to raise it with them OP.

If you're looking at the easiest on and off option I find the all in one suits that have vests and shorts length bottoms and zip in the back a size too big make life really easy and much comfier for the child.

Little girls wearing only bottoms used to be perfectly common. See this famous Coppertone advertisement attached!

OP was not accusing the attendant/pool policy of being a paedophile/paedophillic, but of seeing a bare chested four year old girl in terms of her being possibly sexually attractive to someone out there, hence the need for her to cover her top.
Otherwise there is no reason.

Schools even teach little children ‘the swimsuit rule’ that no one must touch them on the part covered by a swimsuit. ( I am worried because little boys should not be touched on their nipples either.)

I wonder if more people/ pool organisations are just worried that a paedophile somewhere will be looking at the children there?

She was weird and sexist, but you won't get the reasons you want in MN. This website is prudish, conformist and most of them can't swim properly so don't have sense of practicality. Just say she identifies as a boy next time ;) Although you shouldn't have to because girls should be allowed to wear practical swimwear too

We go swimming every week and I have never seen any girls that are only in bottoms.

Quite honestly you’re just being lazy, and your 4 year old is old enough to notice she will be the odd one out amongst her peers and it will have an impact on her.

To me bikinis on little girls are more weird for some reason! One piece costumes.

Oh really? I’ve seen it here before, and it’s really common in lots of European countries.

I don’t think you can say with any certainty or confidence at all that the OP ‘wants a reaction’. The idea that most people would do something like this for ‘attention’ (good God), rather than just thinking ‘she’s four, there’s no need for a top’ is absurd.