7yo dd was told at swimming pool to wear the top part of her bikini

[vacaloca]

I sent the kids to a holiday club today where they have a pool. They were wearing the bottom part of a bikini and the 7yo (very skinny as well) was told to wear the top part of her bikini tomorrow. I think that's just weird and I'm feeling a bit upset about it. AIBU?

this discussion on mn always ends with a split in opinions. one where mostly every has to agree to disagree!

I think its mad that people think bikinis are sex clothes.

I also think its mad that 7yos should have to cover up in general if they are comfortable not doing so but as others have said in a public place where it would be unacceptable for adult women to be topless then it makes sense for a blanket rule to apply to all girls to avoid the embarrassment of having to ask that individual girls cover when their friends don't have to.

But the maddest thing of all is sending a girl off to a holiday club, where another adult is being paid to be in loco parentis without the conventional clothes. Its not the beach or a friends back garden or playing in the street with a hosepipe. Its asking too much from an adult who is at work to make the judgement on if its ok for your child and all the other children for your child to go topless. Whether people like it or not, whether its right or fair or not, in the UK developed breasts do need to be covered in a public swimming pool and its unfair to put another person in the position of having to judge the extent of breast development of pre teen girls.

I had a lifeguard ask us to leave Venice beach once when dd was about 3 as she was running around with no suit on at all. Pretty ludicrous considering what some of the fully developed adults were wearing that passed for bathing suits.

I think that the whole thread is getting silly with- why can't DDs go topless because boys do. You will find that when girls are about 13/14 they won't want to be topless. There was a thread recently where a mindbogggling amount of women never let their DHs see them naked-so I can't see them baring all at the local swimming pool!!
It is a simple blanket rule-if I had a private swimming poolI would make rules and if people didn't like them they could simply not use it! When my DSs had to wear swim hats I didn't make a huge fuss-I got them swim hats. In this case she hasn't even got to buy anything extra or different-simply put both parts on.

OP, does the seven year old have a younger sister who wasn't asked to put a bikini top on? They may not have said anything to a younger girl of 4 to 5. The thing is, some children of 7 or 8 are starting to develop and I agree with those who said that it's much easier for them to have a blanket rule, rather than having to try to explain to girls that they need to wear a top because their breasts are developing. A couple of people mentioned that they didn't wear a top until they were 11, well, I certainly couldn't have as I was very well developed by the age of 10 or 11. Girls tend to develop younger nowadays.

With it being a holiday club and parents not being there, can you imagine if they let a girl go into the pool with no top on who was starting to develop? If they did, a lot of parents wouldn't be very happy about it.

Maternelle, have you lived in the UK long? I'm guessing not if you think that nobody is going to have any issue with a 9 year old girl who is developing breasts going into the pool with no top on.

I'm glad that you see the point, sixpinetrees, it is so simple that I don't know why people are missing it. If my DS had a student job at a swimming pool I would be giving him a lot of warnings first, so that on no account he innocently put himself in a compromising situation.

They have far more rules in some European countries.
My DS found it very different in Iceland when he went with the school.
I can imagine some parents on here getting very uptight about their rules!

... and the question remains unanswered

Can ANY of you who think bikini tops (on children) are sexual/disgusting/inappropriate/whatever please explain why you think a full one piece is suitable?

It makes no bloody sense at all!

The design of the bikini top is to hide developed breasts and their nipples: by definition, secondary sex characteristics. Therefore they are for adult women and not children and children waering them is echoing a fully developed woman.

TBH my kids wear the lightweight suncreen suits that come to elbow and knee as i'm so scared of skin cancer. However, my stance is that bikini tops for young girls is wrong, it is sexualisation as it is designed to hide 'titillating' boobs.

ps go to France, everyone's topless there anyway ;-)

Yes, bikini tops for babies and toddlers do look like bras, MightyQuim. By which I mean, they look a hell of a lot more like bras than they look like another, more appropriate garment for a baby. Like a vest, t-shirt or other top.

I'm finding this whole discussion fascinating, not merely because it sheds light on my own 70's swimming experience. We holidayed mostly in Portugal, where my dad is from. Every single little girl (i.e. under 10) on the beach wore short shorts or a bikini bottom. You NEVER saw them wearing the tops and I suspect they weren't even sold together, because that particular society saw no need for it. My dad used to spit feathers at the very idea of a young girl in a bikini, which he saw as unnecessarily sexualising her. I agree with him. If I had a daughter, she'd wear a swimsuit or a bikini bottom. I wouldn't want her to feel out of plac among friends, so maybe if holidaying in the UK, a one-piece would be best.

FWIW, lots of people have questioned why one-pieces are seen as better than bikinis (to the bikini-top haters). Clearly, the difference is that in a one-piece, the fabric covers the whole torso. Tummy too, though there's nothing sexual about a stomach. A bikini top preferentially covers only the (non-existant) breast area, therefore it really does (in my mind) draw attention to that area in a young girl who would otherwise not have that area highlighted. Ok, it sounds over-thought when it's written out like that , but I think that's what most people have in mind when they say they prefer one-pieces for young girls.

Personally, and you can flame me for a snob if you like, I see bikini tops on babies and toddlers in the same light as those stupid headbands with bows on for girl babies. I see, and I judge. Unnecessary. Why do people see the need to accessorise their tiny girls? They don't do it with boys.

Do they have topless women in swimming pools in France? The don't have men in baggy swimwear-it is deemed unhygienic-at least in the ones I have been to-they have to wear speedos.

Some people do accessorise boys, with earrings, baseball caps, Nike trainers etc. Surely there are worse things in the world than a baby girl wearing a bow in her hair? I suspect what you really mean is that only chavs wear those headbands. Don't be such a snob.

Could not agree more Reshape.
We're not talking topless women but topless children. Quite different.

halcyondays Don't be so patronising.

that has been answered chippingIn, maybe not one you agree with but all the same people have stated why they feel a bikini is inappropriate and either pants or a one piece is more acceptable.

My dd has her ears peirced, I know others disagree with that but the difference is she does have ears, she does not have breasts yet therefore no need to accessories them.

I wasn't intending to be patronising, it was a genuine question. Different countries have different norms about these things. If you are at a lake in Sweden or Germany it is fine to go naked, at a UK swimming pool it is not the norm for women or girls to go topless.

I think that girls who are too young to have breasts should be allowed to wear bikini bottoms only and I understand that this is the norm is many european countries - I wish it were so here.

Any swimwear covering the nipples is clearly designed for females with breasts (since men don't wear either) and that includes bikinis and swimsuits. I personally find no difference between bikinis and swimsuits for children and I don't think one is inherently more sexualized than the other - I just question the need for either of them when a pair of bikini pants will do and boys are not expected to wear any more than that.

festi I don't think it has been answered actually, apart from reshape making the point that a one piece covers the stomach in addition to the chest. The point of a one piece is it still covers the chest area otherwise we would surely all have our girls running around in bikini bottoms/board shorts.

reshape continuing from your point I am interested in why you perceive it to be a problem that "attention" is drawn to a pre pubescent girls chest area?

Rereading some of the posts I think it is interesting how many people perceive bikini tops as some sort of breast "accessory". I don't see my bikini top as any more of a breast accessory than I consider my board shorts to be an "arse accessory". Both are worn to preserve my modesty in a way in which I am comfortable and in line with current fashions/trends/cultural norms.

Current fashions/trends/cultural norms can be challenged when they are stupid. Victorian women bathed all covered up and would not show an ankle.

I also think that there may be an element of parents thinking along the lines of 'don't look at my little girl's bits, you dodgy perv' therefore, unintenionally, buying into the sexualisation and reinforcing it.

One pieces are better for competitive swimming as they don't come off, other than that chippingIn does make a good point of why should kids wear them? i'm quite happy for my daughter to strip to her knickers if she doesn't have a swimsuit but then she is usually more covered to protect her skin.

maternelle of course they can and should. Aside from that I am not sure what your point is? Are you saying board shorts and a bikin top on an adult are stupid? Are you agreeing/disagreeing that bikini top is a breast accessory board/ shorts are an arse accessory?

When little girls wear a t shirt or vest in the summer are they "accessorising their breasts"?

People cover their arses in most cultures for hygiene reasons.
A child's non-existent breasts do not need covering. Not any more than an ankle or an elbow.

Come on! A t-shirt or a vest are not the same as a bikini top.
A bikini top only hides the nipples. It serves no other purpose than hiding the nipples.