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..

The site is American and I don't think they are very comfortable with nudity even in very small DCs.

I think tops would just feel natural there.

Anyway a bikini clearly isn't suitable for the beach and swimming, but for getting covered in sand, mud and water in the garden then going straight in the shower it might well be.

The toddlers on the site look cute, the face book baby doesn't

Horrible. I don't understand why people want to dress babies like adults.

I'd just like to let you know that my DSs both wear one piece swimsuits that cover their whole bodies

That is in no way the same as a swim suit is it?
Nor is board shorts and a t shirt.

A girls one piece swim suit is designed to cover the breast area. It is not for sun protection.

So are you playing devil's advocate, or do you really believe there is no difference between the string bikini and any other little girl's swimsuit, Soup?

(I never said board shorts, by the way. I think they're vile).

Can you not see the contradiction between complaining about bikinis covering non existent breasts and putting a girl in a one piece swimsuit specifically designed to cover non existent breasts?

I don't look at a child in a bikini and think "sexualisation"- I think that is weird and fucked up (to steal a phrase from the Nay Sayers). Unless the top is padded to resemble breasts there really is not a problem.

And good luck with getting an older boy into trunks rather than swim shorts. :) I think mine wore them until 7 then flatly refused. Swim shorts cover more and thus give more sun protection anyway.

I believe that one piece swimsuits for females are a modesty issue. That string bikini has nothing to do with modesty at all. Happier with that?

Sorry - not explicit enough. One piece swimsuits and tankini style swimmers.

And what has a small girl to be modest about?

A string bikini is about covering breasts.
A one piece is about covering breasts.
A tankini is about covering breasts.

There really is no difference in the function of any of them. Some cover up the stomach as well but their function is to keep the breasts covered. And the lack of breasts in a small girl is what people are claiming the "wrongness" stems from. If this were the case they would object to all but sun protection suits and trunks with or without a t shirt.

DD wears or does not wear the top half of her bikini as she pleases. It doesn't bother me either way.

A top padded to resemble breasts is sexualisation. Flat fabric is not.

I never look at any child and see 'sexualisation'.

I can't really see that a child in a bikini is 'twisted and fucked up' I think posters need to get a bit of a grip.

the shooting of Malala by the Taliban is twisted and fucked up.

a baby in a bikini isn't really is it??

SoupDragon - I would say that there are differing levels of sexiness. If you consider adult swimwear, a sting bikini is sexier than a more substantial bikini, which is itself sexier than a tankini or one piece swimsuit - and it is with those perceptions that we look at baby swimwear, and that is what makes some of us see the sting bikini as less acceptable than the tankini or one-piece.

I think it's unreasonable but only because baby should be wearing a swim nappy not because of the top!!!!

From a practical point of view, I think a tankini looks better, as young children dont have anything to hold up a bikini top so must be uncomfortable for them. Though nothing wrong with a child wearing just a bottom of nothing at all

I think when you look at a child whatever they are wearing you should think child....