Inappropriate clothing

[Mymumiswatching]

I've NC'd for this as no doubt my mum will read it.

My mother took my 7year old daughter out to buy a Christmas party dress but came home with a black mini skirt and a top bearing more skin that I'd feel comfortable with on a teenager. Apparently my mother had "no choice" but to buy it because the 7year old didn't like anything else.

AIBU to think she could have said no to what is an entirely inappropriate outfit for a 7year old child?its not like my dd would have died without getting an outfit today.

And why is it that most shops can't do nice party dresses for girls beyond the age of 5? Aside from John Lewis, where is there that does age appropriate party dresses that aren't designed to sexualise and objectify young girls or turn them into a disney princess?

I do actually, and cannot believe they go down to pre school age right up to teens, its just so wrong. I agree with Trifel, I will too, as we are obviously on different wavelengths and will never agree.

That's fair enough. It does bother me though that we still live in a world where, when abuse happens, the concern is not about what the abusers do but about what the children and their parents do. The insistence that wearing certain clothes will protect children is a bizarre sort of magical thinking IMO and one that is very damaging to girls in particular who grow up believing that if they are harassed/abused then they are somehow at fault because of how they look/what they do/where they go.

I would love to see this sort of attitude change.

Don't let her take her shopping again then for clothes, perhaps she just want to be a " cool nan" and didn't know what your daughter can and cant wear. Chill out ,.. im sure we have plenty of parent fails.. she is allowed a nan fail.

Aeroflot I a man not telling you what to do with your DD, I am questioning your reasoning. You hold a view for which you can give no reason. As a rational benign this should lead you to re-examine your position.

For what it's worth I've had the misfortune to come across a paediphile and he couldn't give a shit what we wore. He was interested in children who were lacking in confidence, who could be manipulated, who would not be believed by the adults around them. Luckily I found him scary and got away early on but I don't think I would have been protected by my clothes even if I had been wearing a burka.

I gave you my reason, I will not repeat it. It has nothing to do with paedophiles and abuse. I am sorry for what you had to go through, and you are right, they do not care what children wear.

Next do lovely age appropriate party dresses-I just got one with a winter scene on for my 8 year old.

Btw, it's worth saying that I don't think creeps who target kids and vulnerable young people care what they wear at all. I do think they are often skilled manipulators who will target children and young adults who look a certain way, because they assume those children don't have secure boundaries, parents aren't watchful and they may be easier to exploit.

But it's obviously not just about abusers. I am not going to expose my child to her peers and other adults making any assumptions about her that might be damaging (however incorrect) while she is too young to understand the effect this could have on her. When she is an adult she can obviously do and wear what she likes, as by then she will understand what impressions she makes and can decide for herself whether she gives a shit.

'Btw, it's worth saying that I don't think creeps who target kids and vulnerable young people care what they wear at all. I do think they are often skilled manipulators who will target children and young adults who look a certain way, because they assume those children don't have secure boundaries, parents aren't watchful and they may be easier to exploit.'

You've totally contradicted yourself here. You say creeps who target kids don't target them based on what they wear, but they do target children who 'look a certain way.' In other words, what a child wears might lead to abuse.

'But it's obviously not just about abusers. I am not going to expose my child to her peers and other adults making any assumptions about her that might be damaging (however incorrect) while she is too young to understand the effect this could have on her. When she is an adult she can obviously do and wear what she likes, as by then she will understand what impressions she makes and can decide for herself whether she gives a shit.'

She'll have been taught very clearly by you growing up that she can't really decide for herself, that in fact she should dress based on what other people might think. Which I think is a pretty sad way to live.

TheSparrowhawk: As I said before, I am backing away from the discussion with you because I find you unreasonable.

I find you incomprehensible Trifle, because you're arguing two different things at the same time.

TheSparrowhawk: I don't think I am, I think you are just not understanding the nuance of what I am saying, which is really quite simple and obvious: that a person's appearance can contribute to making them an easier target for an attack without their appearance being 'the cause' of the attack.

If something contributes to something else, then it is a cause of it. So if I say hunger contributes to poor memory what I mean is that hunger is a cause of poor memory.

If you're saying that a person's appearance contributes to making them an easier target for an attack, then what you are saying is that a person's appearance is a cause of the attack (not the only one, but one of them.)

Either appearance plays no role, or it plays a role. You can't say it both does and doesn't.

TheSparrowhawk: No, the cause is the thing that directly makes it happen - the attacker. Without the attacker there would be no attack, and the attacker will attack given be opportunity to do so, not only of the victim is wearing X. BUT when the attacker is selecting their victim they will look for someone vulnerable, and I have no intention of my child looking like that person.

You can say that is me saying their appearance 'causes' the attack if you want. I don't think I am saying what you think I am saying, but it makes no difference to whether or not what I am saying is true.

Trifle - do you believe victims have a certain 'look'? Do you think Jamie Bolger had a look, or Madeleine McCann, or the victims of Fred and Rosemary West? Or any of the child abuse victims you see in the news all the time? I certainly didn't have any 'look' when I was abused - I wore jeans and jumpers and was well cared for.

The idea that you can prevent your child from being attacked by dressing them in a certain way is totally bonkers.

TheSparrowhawk: Logical leaps all over the place here. Obviously attackers can and do attack people who don't look vulnerable as well as those who do, but vulnerability is something they look for because it makes their goal easier to attain. Madeleine McCann - vulnerable. Jamie Bulger - vulnerable. Children of Fred and Rose West - vulnerable. I do not want my children to look vulnerable, so I am not going to let them dress as if no-one gives a shit about them. It is part of being a responsible parent.

Ah right. So what it comes down to is whether you look like a bad parent or not.

The vulnerability of the children I mentioned had nothing to do with their clothes by the way. Jamie Bolger was in a shopping centre with his mum FFS!

TheSparrowhawk: See? Deeply unreasonable. I didn't even come close to implying that. Again, think we are done here.

TheSparrowhawk: And I didn't say their vulnerability did have anything to do with their clothes. Vulnerability can be conveyed by any number of factors.

Right. Yes I think we are done.

When your child is young - seven in this instance - it is you who will be judged by others, usually women, on how they look or behave. Not the child. Well, probably some people will judge the child and then hurriedly say: 'It's not the child. It's the parent (mother)' just in case people think they are being nasty.

That's what the OP and some other posters are worrying about.

trifleorbust you are mixing two different causes and effects (logic teacher here): the first is the attacker who is the cause of the attack, the identifiable person who did this; the second is the reason the attacker chose the particular victim, I.e. the child's apparent vulnerability made her more attractive to the attacked than another victim. So your argument now is "I do not dress my child is clothes that reveal a lot of skin because that makes her appear more vulnerable and she will be chosen over another child by a paedophile". That does sound silly now, doesn't it?

Booboostwo: I don't see what is silly about it. You seem to have understood what I am saying well enough. Obviously I don't want any child victimised by anyone, but my particular responsibility is towards my own children, and I am not going to allow them to dress in such a way that it makes them vulnerable.

Clothes do not make a child vulnerable

It's a circular argument with you, isn't it? We disagree. End of story from my point of view.