To think babies in bikinis is just a step too far?

[Whothefuckfarted]

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=400511556708813&set=pb.168291156597522.-2207520000.1374321888.&type=3&theater

I don't get it. I just don't...

Some would say that there must be something wrong with me to not agree with it... but I don't get it, I just think no... not for a baby..

www.babikini.com/

This is the website page..

I do like their one pieces for babies though! :)

I have pictures of me aged about 2 in a bikini, I don't see the issue tbh. My little wriggle pants is difficult to get I to a one piece so I might consider a bikini for next holidays.

That is a horrid bikini! But generally yabvu there are some lovely frilly two pieces for babies that are cute and don't make them look cheap

I think some of the two pieces are lovely too, It's the triangle ones I find a bit...

i had a triangle one in the 70s, it's just a fashion item. looks cute, that's all.

today is like mn groundhog day lots of threads that always appear this time of year, or have i been here too long

ahhhh it's just a bikini - would I put my baby in one - no - is it a step too far - meh not really

Maybe I just haven't been here long enough southeast ;)

I find it disturbing.

I wouldn't put a baby or child in one myself. Rather odd to cover up non existent breasts.

the pic is the op is def weird though, i had mine when i was a toddler rather than an actual baby

I've no issue with the two piece swimsuits (apart from sunburn issues), but the triangular-cut bikini tops, which are versions of the adult cups designed to cover breasts, strike me as inappropriately adult on a pre-pubescent child.

See, when I read your title, I thought you meant something like this - which, while unbearably twee, is ok and not a step too far.

But having seen what you linked to, I agree with you - YANBU, it is a step (or several!) too far and Just Plain Wrong.

Don't understand the point of the bra top bit of the bikini for little ones.
Covering non existing breasts is just odd.

I don't get it at all. Why would they need the top bit? What on earth is there to cover? Actually I do get it - and it disturbs me.

Surely the side tie bottoms would be impractical n small children?

I have an issue with bikinis and flimsy suits on babies and young children purely because I am so concerned with sun safety-the wetsuit type suits you get are fab or stick a tshirt over the bikini so shoulders are covered. There is a lovely swimsuit i have seen for DD but won't be buying it because of this.

I find it disturbing. That picture makes me feel a bit queasy.

Aside from how inappropriate they are on tiny babies - what about 'containment issues'? Would that nasty tiny string-sided bottom hold a poonami?

YANBU, definitely. A more 'substantial' two piece on an older child maybe, string bikini on a tiny baby - no way!

My first though is, how can you put a swim nappy under those bottoms.

Thank god I have a son!

I find it disturbing when people say they think it sexualises the child.

I don't find it disturbing, but I can't imagine all those babies are toilet trained. Babies need to be in a swim nappy if in a public place, wear whatever they like once they can control their bowels and bladder.

I don't real,y understand the bra bit, but then little girls wear swimming costumes which are designed to be a handy way to cover your breasts and bum etc; in one piece, so this is really no different to a swimming costume but easier for a baby.

Imagine how uncomfortable it must be for a tiny baby having to lie on that huge knot tied in the back of the bikini top.

I personally wouldn't dress my child in it. Probs would just put her in a swimming nappy.

YANBU

Makes me queasy too. Not entirely sure why but I think it's because you are going to the bother of separately covering the baby's chest. But she is a baby. There is nothing to cover. It might not be sexualisation but is is definitely separating genders in a way that is utterly unnecessary at that age. Yuk.