To hate 'short' shorts aimed at babies?

[ReindeerBollocks]

I was out shopping today for DD who is 2. I was amazed at the amount of teeny shorts there are for babies. They were much shorter than normal shorts for little ones, and were based on the 'barely covering their bottom' variety that I'd see on grown women. Okay, some pairs came with leggings or tights, but I was still slightly disgusted that little ones need to keep up to date with these type of trends.

I personally feel these shorts are meant to be sexy on women (as you can see a hell of a lot of leg) but then why recreate this for babies? I'm not saying all babies need to be in baby grows all the time, but there are many options, I just felt this particular item was not necessary for little ones.

I fully realise I'm turning into a prude in my old age, but am I on my own in disliking this piece of clothing?

My dd had short shorts when she was 1, not particularly tight though and I'd put her in them now. I think it depends on what the shorts look like and not the length.

I.e. Adult/teen version in miniature = not acceptable, child shorts that just happen to be short = perfectly fine in our house.

And I am the queen of prudes when it comes to kids looking like kids. I refused to let my dd where an M&S puff ball style top with leggings which was a gift (age 2-3). Something about the fact that I wore such things myself when I was trying to erm... attract the boys

I bet most people that buy small shorts for their little girls, put them on, realise nappy shows and don;t bother with them anymore.

DD had short shorts and long shorts as a baby. That the short ones were meant to be sexy would not occur to me at all! I don't remember nappy showing being a big problem.

2yo DD has a spring/autumn outfit that is shorts with braces over tights and long sleeved top but so cute!

Still not sure which shorts you mean.

Looking back at pics of my friends and I in the early 70s we all had super teeny tight shorts (even the boys) and short,short skirts albeit in A line style. In one my brother has a pair of donkey brown hotpants matched with mustard Simon shirt and clodhopping t-bar sandals. You can see the outline of his terry nappy through the shorts.
I doubt anyone was banging on and on about them being innapropriate and we were being sexualised. They were hideous mind you!

Really?? I think women that wear short shorts look rather childish.

My dds both wear short shorts in the summer. It never occurred to me that they may be inappropriate in any way. I actually consider them as children's attire rather than clothes for a grown woman so IMO, OP YABU.

I can't see any of the links. My DS wore those poppered vests with a bit of a leg when he was a baby. But he didn't look remotely sexy. I can see the reinventing adult clothing for small children thing is a bit gross but I can't judge without pictures (dammit :o )

When I was a baby 1970's. We wore angel dresses which barely covered the frilly pants. Cute not sexy. I don't have acproblem with shorts for babys. Mostly meant to wear with leggings or tights. The kids used to wear very tight short towelling shorts too in the 70's. I m sure all eras have there own fads in adults and kids clothing

Oops red panda I didn't read yr post before comments posted but agree!!!

( apart from I'm a fan of 70's clothes. Long live the flare)

I'm still getting over the wet-look leggings I encountered whilst shopping for my five year old last year...

Where did you see hotpants for babies? I normally look in places like Debenhams, M&S, Next, Mothercare and see lots of these sorts of shorts but have not noticed hotpants for babies.

YABU.

And weird.

I think anyone over the age of about 12 looks ridiculous in short shorts and that they are for little kids.

I like seeing pudgy little baby legs. DS2 has some cute little denim cutoffs, they are so funny and his dimply knees are just as cute as cute can be.

What is the difference between these and no shorts at all just the nappy? Which is pretty much our preferred outfit at the moment.

You're all being unreasonable because I have a little boy so I can't buy those adorable knickerbockers for him :(

I agree that it's all in the styling - bum-cheek showing shorts are both impractical and a bit off..

However I also remember wearing shorts as a young girl that I would probably also consider indecent now (also of the towelling variety, with the little rounded corners at the side split)

Dresses so short you can see a baby's knickers, Boo ?

Disgusting!

Errmm, what condensed said. This is the daftest LGBG thread yet, and that's saying something!

I like the little shorts with tights for dd. She has a nice plum coloured tweed pair from zara and red velvet ones from next. So much more practical for crawling around than a skirt.