Bikinis on Toddlers...

[NiceCupOfTeaAndAPartyRing]

AIBU to feel quite uncomfortable when I see young girls (5 and under) wearing bikinis? I'm not sure if I'm being a prude or not, just seems there seems to be more and more of them. I in no way am saying ridiculous things like they're a 'target' for creepy advances, and of course there are often girls completley starkers on the beach etc, but that's not sexualised, just totally natural.
Somehow I just find it odd that you would want your kid in anything sexualised at that age - But perhaps bikinis aren't seen as sexualising anymore??
I even saw a Virgin Holidays ad with one on. I really don't know! AIBU or do others feel a bit awkward about this too??

Can you understand it from my 10 year old viewpoint squoosh

I wouldn't put a bikini on my toddler because I think it looks chavvy and nasty and also because I live in NZ and they would be burnt to a cinder in 15 minutes

It's in the same category as babies with nail polish/pierced ears/little high heels. Yuck.

I think attitudes to child nudity depend very much upon where you live. I'm not Scandinavian, I'm certainly not from the most liberated country in Europe but no one would think twice about letting their kid run around naked on the beach. It's what they do. The idea that a two year old girl should be taught to cover her chest makes me feel very sad.

WHY is it important that we fit in with ridiculous social norms? Shouldn't we challenge ones that we don't agree with?

If it wasn't important, people with Aspergers would not be struggling.

We can argue how logical things are all we want, but it doesn't change how society is set up.

You can bellow all you want about how a 13 year old girl is a child and not a sexual being, and that anyone looking at her like that is a pedophile. But she still needs to cover up, and people would be uncomfortable with a naked 13 year old.

There comes a point where something is quirky, which is a socially acceptable form of pushing the envelope, and when something is so deviated it looks like you're making an obvious statement or you just come across as weird.

slithy I'm guessing the problem occurred because your parents went from allowing you to run around naked to suddenly telling you to cover up and didn't explain themselves properly leading to your feelings of shame. I can see that would be confusing but I don't think the solution is to cover little girls up from babyhood. I think the solution is to discuss bodies and how they change and what this means.

squoosh I'd imagine it would be pretty embarrassing to suddenly have to cover up once puberty hits, considering every girl hits it differently. It just marks that you're different from the other girls somehow. I personally would not want everyone to suddenly know when my DD is hitting puberty. It's a hard time for girls as it is and making them suddenly feel singled out or "marked" by a sudden chest covering would make that time even more awkward for them.

Agree, however my parents (mum) did explain the changing of my body and it was so embarrassing, it's why I felt dirty. It didn't help that I'm the eldest and as I've said, my younger sister was still free as a bird. Would have been much better had we both got used to wearing full costumes for a while - or at least if she had started at the same time as me.

My dad's a nudist so the nakedness was normal for us - till puberty hit of course.

That was to squoosh

I wouldn't cover kids up from babyhood. But I think when they start to lose that baby chubbiness and become more child like, (5/6?) I would start encouraging tops when swimming.

We stick to other social norms e.g. in a restaurant, I don't see the harm in introducing that particular one earlier than it's needed so it's not a big deal.

Kind of like giving girls crop tops before they have breasts, so that the bra when it's needed isn't embarrassing or strange.

I'm remembering back to when I was a child, I think that when a lot of children reach age 7 or so they develop a natural modesty and become more private about their body. I think I only ever wore bottoms till I was 6-ish then I wore one piece swimsuits as that was what was in fashion and probably I was more aware of the differences between male and female bodies.

But there was never a time where I was told 'this is what you must wear now', it was something I decided for myself.

I like two pieces but think little bikinis look a bit silly. and don't have much sun protection.

We can argue how logical things are all we want, but it doesn't change how society is set up

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this one, Princess, but if no-one ever challenged societal norms, women would still be the property of their fathers or husbands and only land owners would have the vote. Change does come through such challenges. Your attitude seems somewhat defeatist to me.

I'm fairly sure I wasn't bellowing about 13 year old girls, either, just the rather bizarre notion that you had to 'cover up' a tiny child, to even deny them a choice in the matter...

I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this one, Princess, but if no-one ever challenged societal norms, women would still be the property of their fathers or husbands and only land owners would have the vote. Change does come through such challenges. Your attitude seems somewhat defeatist to me.

That's not what I meant. There's a difference between creating a movement to challenge the status quo and being a social deviant.

As I said, if social norms weren't important people with Aspergers would not be struggling. They're not challenging anyone's views with how they act, they're seen as a bit weird which is why they go to therapies and classes to understand body language and social norms.

What's the difference between covering a small child and big child? Neither should be being looked at sexually. Why should one be covered and the other not?

Princess the difference is because we only cover girls.
So I think let's cover boys too. Men and boys can stop going around topless and then we can see how restricting it actually is.

All children should have a proper top on if in the sun, either one piece swimming costume or rash vest/ tankini top. If not strong sun, ie at swimming pool, bottoms would do unless they like to wear a top/ cossie.

But I agree re bikinis that suggest you are covering boobs and tanning the rest.

Slithytove - if your dad was a nudist why did anyone need to cover up at any age?

String bikini on a child? No way.

Tankini? Yes absolutely - comfortable, practical and no different from a one piece apart from a hell of a lot easier to deal with.

My daughter has three piece sets - bottoms, tankini top then rash vest. Rash vest for hottest part of the day, tankini with relevant sun protection for when its cooler.

Perfect

whether we like it or not it's important that we do fit in with social norms

One of the really important social norms to teach is that social norms for children are different from the social norms for adults. Teaching our children to behave well is important. Teaching our children that children's bodies are sexual and need to be covered up (which is what you ARE teaching them, as that's why adult bodies are required to be covered up) is really, really awful.

A social deviant?? For not putting a top on a baby??

Sorry, there aren't enough WTAFs in the world for that comment....

Because my dad was a nudist. Not my mum, not me etc.

is a nudist. I'm still not.