sexualisation of children vs slut shaming

Ok, another question, if we're embarrassed to have our daughters imitate us then why are we giving them such a bad example in the first place?

A woman can have sex without having any breasts, so they don't have any essential sexual function. They are an erogneous zone, as are elbows and the backs of knees, but we don't cover those up. The primary function of breasts is actually to feed babies and having them uncovered is essential for that.

Breasts are sexually pleasing to men. Therefore, women have to cover them up. Hmm, who seems to be dictating the agenda here?

They're doing what they're shown, surely. They don't just make these things up, it is our society that teaches them that this is what women do.

Also it's not just what they wear but how they act. All those selfies with provocative pouts. I've known my DSS since 9 all his female friends have been doing it since I've known him. So they got the clothes and the pose, but do they know why?

So why is it sexual to wear something that pushes your chest up but not sexual to wear nothing at all bike?

As a mother of a daughter who is only 3, I worry about this a lot. These are my concerns:

Even at my daughters age most shorts are like hot pants and all t-shirts are tight. This is not so for boys. Girls grow up knowing they must wear tight and revealing clothes by society and boys do not. Yet girls don't really understand why I don't think until around 16? When they are mature enough to deal with sexual relationships and confident enough to turn down unwanted sexual attention.

Girls want to fit in, they want to be like their friends and they copy female role models in pop culture. A lot of these dress like porn stars. yet they will have no idea why they do for so many years.

Children are innocents, and we read in the news recently that a vast proportion of men are sexually interested in children. Ok so you could argue that a man may find a child dressed in sexy clothes stimulating to him, but so long as he is only looking and not touching what is the harm? I think most parents feel uncomfortable about someone finding their child sexually attractive and perhaps it is that fear that drives them to say those comments.

Also I do not want to prevent my daughter from expressing herself but I want to protect her too. I have been thinking that as she gets older if she wants something I find inappropriate to wear then she needs to use her own money to buy it. Saving up pocket money, birthday money and hopefully eventually a part time job. I wouldn't be saying no, and I hope that the pull of dressing in sexy clothes will only become important to her as she gets older.

Intetesting question and something that i'll be facing myself in a year or 2. Part of me thinks let them wear what they like especially in the safe confines of a school party. Clothes are an expression of who we are and they should be allowed to experiment without being branded as sluts. And it's nice if they have developed physically that they are proud/happy enough to show it rather than hiding themselves away.

The other part of me thinks that there's no way that I want dd dressing like that and looking like a mini adult as she's still a child. I am horrified by some of the clothing that I see available for her age. I have nothing against short shorts and crop tops as such as long as they are child like and not adult like iyswim.

The comment about the effect on men makes me uncomfortable. I'm sure most men are uncomfortable to see their daughters developing into women rather than thinking of them in a sexual way.

So all in all I don't have an answer!

You said it far more eloquently than I could, Tei.

Even baby clothes were an eye opener. Trying to find white socks in the 'girls section' was impossible as I don't want wee ribbons and beads that she could pull (Tesco and asda had only adorned socks). My daughter doesn't need trinkets, she needs clothes I can easily take off and wash when her nappy explodes, she'll be lovely as she is and I want her to know that from day dot. Maybe you've been navel gazing too much when you feel socks are a feminist issue. Got some plain white ones from the boys section.

The way I see it, a body is a body, there's nothing inherently sexual about it, particularly when it's a child's body. Men walk down the street all the time with no top on and no one tells them to cover up. They are allowed to just have a body that they entirely own and can do whatever they like with without judgement.

Women on the other hand, are sexual objects, so them wearing very little clothing is seen as a sexual act. Women are not allowed to do what they like with their bodies because men are more important and dictate the agenda. So girls who want to emulate women and wear skimpy or tight clothing have to cover up because men might ogle them. Women who want to wear loose clothing have 'let themselves go' (ie have not made themselves attractive enough to men). Women who wear clothes that are very short and tight are 'tarts' (ie they have made themselves too attractive to men). Women like Zara Phillips who have had babies and now have a 'mum tum' are photographed and analysed - why does she have a mum tum, what caused it? Women like Kate Middleton who have a baby and look essentially the same as before are photographed and analysed because they're the same as before - how do they do it? Why is she so slim?

A man who sees a young girl in a short skirt and heels may have sexual thoughts about that girl. Does that mean that girl must then not wear those things? That's a genuine question btw.

I should have said--the title of this thread gets into the conflict thing right away: "sexualisation of children vs slut shaming". That is the main concern, but then "sexualisation" is very subtle. We'd have to ask ourselves what's genuinely erotic and what's just a game, and whether we can say that a child can't be seen as erotic regardless of clothing.

The question "why it is that we need to have these discussions about clothes all the time, why it is always girls clothes?" was pretty much answered by Hedgehog talking about her son. He wears long shorts without protest, and it's what society expects and it's the kind of clothes the shops sell. On the other hand, skimpy clothes for girls are available, in fact some people say that's all that's available. Hence, it's girls' clothes that are an issue.

So do we accept that little girls are going to wear less clothing than little boys, and do we think it's a meaningless custom with no message attached? Or is there something sexual being conveyed? If more skin exposed means something sexual, it might make us uncomfortable if it's a child doing it. And there's more to consider: whether the child has full responsibility for choosing clothes, and if anyone sees it as sexual, whether it's entirely that person's fault, or the child's, or that child's parents'. This is an everyday thing that gets incredibly complicated, and it may put some feminist issues in conflict with each other.

You could ask them, and yourself, exactly why it is that we need to have these discussions about clothes all the time, why it is always girls clothes, why at 11 yrs old.

Children should be wearing clothes that are appropriate for playing with, maybe in their favourite colours or with a nice picture on the front. There shoukd be no need even to discuss sexualisation of clothes for an 11 yr old, however advanced her growth is.

Personally I'd prefer similar rules for adults too. Sex shouldn't come into it, (until it comes into it!)

Can you articulate why you think they look tacky bike?

I'm getting the impression you don't actually want to discuss this Hedgehog.

He is 11. Off to high school this year. He's yet to ask for short shorts or heels. I do choose his clothes in that I buy them. He wore a shirt and tie with plain trousers to his leavers party. Like OP's daughter he wore converse, he played and danced like a maniac. He couldn't give a flip about clothes, long as he's not naked he's happy. Long as he's dressed for the weather/activity I'm happy.

Luckily him being male, no one compared his choice of dress/hair or makeup to anyone else at the party, or implied he was dressed too old or too 'sexual'. I totally get where OP is coming from here, I reckon there's a lot of situations I'll be facing over the coming years that would never have crossed my mind if we'd be raising only boys.

The OP was talking about a year 6 girl who was going to a party, not a younger child who was playing in the sun. Do you think your son will still allow you to choose his clothes for him when he's 11?

I also explained the benefits I feel my DS gets from his long shorts and being covered in warmer weather, allowing for more robust play outdoor too. My son would get no benefit from hot pants and heeled sandals, why would I be denying my daughter anything to expect it would be the same for her?

I asked you why you would ask your child to cover up and you said to protect her from comments from other parents, which implies that it is comments from other parents that drive your decisions. Is that not the case?

No, I raise my children in a feminist social vacuum.

So you conduct your parenting in response to comments from other parents Hedgehog?