To think kids shouldn't wear bikinis?

[cinnamonswirl99]

I'm just browsing the kids swimwear range on the John Lewis app, and keep coming across bikinis for little girls.
I don't know, am I weird for thinking this isn't right.
If I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her to wear something like that at such a young age.

Is it because you think they only need bottoms because they have no boobs to cover? If so yes fair point.

If not, sorry that's sexualising girls- I assume you're not bothered what boys are wearing?

At school, the boys all wear their swim trunks to school on swim days so ease. The girls can't do that, because they're not allowed to wear bikini's and it too hard to get their whole swimsuit off to wee. Unfair if you ask me.

I do find it a bit odd. One piece swimsuits are not the most practical for days at the beach. So then I think, why can't she just wear shorts/bottoms like boys to feel some sun on her tummy (UV permitting!)...

BUT having said that it is the case that we live in a world of gender norms...

So I just go for rash top and jammers. Will also note that lots of girls rash sets come with briefs but boys always get shorts! (Women's too)

YABU to not say what you would put them in instead so we can judge your motive properly. For all we know you might believe that it's sinful to show their belly buttons.

I am not keen on string/triangle bikinis on kids, they are designed for boobs and for sunbathing and not very practical for vigorous swimming or playing.

However the shorts and crop top style is fine IMO and very practical, more so than a swimsuit - easier to go to the loo, easier to change the top for a UV top if the sun is strong, or change the bottom half for normal shorts if going for lunch. Easier to get changed on the beach as they can cover up one half then the other rather than having to get completely naked.

When DDs were small they often just wore bikini-bottoms type swimwear. I remember being 😱 at a friend of a dd (they were no more than about 7) insisting on wearing a bikini top because she ‘couldn’t’ show her (non-existent!) boobs!

DD 8yo wears 2 piece swimsuits like this, either shorts or briefs bottoms.

They're easier to go to the loo, easier for changing in to/out of, and she has quite a long torso so I can buy ones that fit her rather than buying one that's long enough but gaping everywhere as it's too wide.

Tankinis or bottoms and a rash vest fine, but yes, adult-style bikinis seem wrong on little girls - like they’re drawing attention to the non-existent breasts and yes, sexualising children’s bodies. DD always had a one piece or a rash vest and bottoms - I’m not even sure now that she’s getting breasts that I’d like her to wear a bikini until she’s more of a grown adult. I really don’t like the trend of very young teen girls wearing clothing that makes them look like mini adult women.

Two piece swimwear is much easier for changing and toileting but I will be be trying to keep DD in the sunsafe ones with full coverage and sleeves as long as possible for skin cancer prevention (and avoiding constant sun cream application). It used to be common for girls below a certain age to just wear the bottoms on the beach before we all became a bit more sun aware.

I’m sure some of the bikini style ones are being worn with a rash vest anyway.

Are you posting from Downton Abbey?

It depends what kind of bikini really, both my DDs have had them to go on holiday because it's way easier to go to the loo in a 2 piece when you're in it all day on holiday.
But they have been the sporty type ones with a top that looks like a cropped vest.
Bikinis in "sexy" styles are a bit gross for little girls but also people shouldn't be thinking of children that way anyway....

Seems a bit like overthinking it to me.

I mean there's no reason women should have to cover their top half. Breasts are for breastfeeding. Society has sexualised women's breasts too much.

I wouldn't put a child in a sexualised bikini. But a child's bikini is fine and purely down to personal preference whether the girl wants a one piece, a bikini or just swimming shorts/bottoms.

In reality no one at the pool (whether at your local pool or on a beach holiday) takes the slightest bit of notice what anyone else is wearing.

My family owned a holiday home in a hot, sunny European country when I was a child. So we spent every holiday out there (80s child). I was not allowed to wear a bikini and instead wore bottoms. My mum allowed me to wear a swimsuit back in the UK for swimming lessons, if only to have a place to sew all my badges. 😂

My parents would have totally lapped up all the arguments about bikinis sexualising children and the top half being completely redundant for little girls with no breast development yet.

FINE. But this takes no account of the fact every other little girl in my friendship group, and in fact, every other little girl around me as far as I could see, wore a two piece. I was the only girl I knew forced to wear bottoms and never given the choice. Irrespective of the logic around wearing a two piece, I felt exposed, embarrassed and different from my friends and the fact I was wearing only bottoms was commented on by them. Had I been given the choice, I would have opted for the kind of two pieces my friends were wearing. I just wanted to fit in.

I'm with you OP. I'm always thinking they look weird, mainly because the top of a bikini is usually cut in a curved or triangle shape to look aesthetic and cover boobs. If you are a kid and don't have boobs, it just rides up and is pointless and uncomfortable.

Plus why does a small child need something cut to showcase a chest and make it look attractive, surely it's just functional?

Little boys don't have shorts cut to make their bottoms or fronts look attractive, or to highlight their abs, people would find that downright weird, so why is it OK for girls?

Better to have shorts or brief bottoms and a vest type top, gats better for sun protection too and won't ride up and be uncomfortable 🤷🏼.

No- it’s on the people who design and sell them. Small children do not need their nipples covered, and to suggest they do IS sexualising their bodies.

Same here, I've bought some for my 3 year old for next summer. Getting in and out a one piece when you need the toilet is tricky enough as an adult!

Well my dds wore them sometimes and none of the above happened. They were more like short tankini tops and were absolutely fine.

Didn’t make them look like mini sex objects 🙄

A bikini top for women v men’s trunks is because women’s breasts are considered sexualised, unlike men’s chests.

I have no idea why small children’s nipples need covering up, and wearing a bikini therefore suggests something about their bodies that needs covering up.

My Dc either wore just bottoms, or bottoms plus T shirt for sun protection, or rash vest / suit.

I remember on holiday wearing a little pair of bikini briefs and that's it. After a while our parents would put one of those T-shirts on us with the tassels - 'I ❤️ Torremolinos' or similar. She'd cover us both in factor 50 and we never once burned.

I agree, little girls don't need bikini tops, but not because they're sexualised but because they're unnecessary. Same as little boys don't need them.

Exactly - I had a yellow one with an octopus on the pants.
I loved it

I used to (back in the day ) to get more sun tan.
Of course not now.

Agree, never put my dd in a bikini. She had a full length top covering her arms and tummy, and then bottoms with a frilly skirt on. I’d have rather she went topless than have a bikini top on. Each to their own though and we all have different parenting approaches.

I don’t see the problem as long as the style of the top is age-appropriate (ie no triangles, strings, padding etc). It’s certainly not a new thing either. I wore a “bikini” (cropped vest and pants style) when I was 5 in 1990.

Don't get this point of view at all. Bikinis are far easier for going to the toilet in; and bikini bottoms also work really well with rash vests, making them safer in the sun.
If you're not very active when you're on holiday then I can get why you might find a swimsuit practical but, imo, if you're spending full days on the beach and in the sea surfing/bodyboarding etc then bikinis and a rash vest are just easier.
M&S do pick-and-mix sets with the bottoms, tops and long-sleeve rash vests which are usually on 3 for 2 in the summer and have a great range of prints. Nothing "sexualised" about it.

I completely agree. We've just come back from centre parcs where we spent every day in the pool and while there were a few women there with very fit and toned bodies who perhaps (but equally perhaps not) were happy and proud to be wearing such skimpy swimwear. And when I say skimpy, I mean just the standard costume/tankini easily available and affordable to women. But the vast majority of women there were just normal mums and grans with very real and imperfect bodies and I do wonder just how many of them are thrilled at the cut of women's swimwear. I only saw one woman over the age of mid twenties in a bikini. I don't relish having no more coverage on my bottom half than if I were out publicly in a pair of knickers. Last year there was a lady there who I'm guessing was Muslim and she was wearing a modest swimsuit like the kind women wore until the 1940s? Or maybe later? It didn't look frumpy at all to my eyes, she was lovely and slim anyway and it was navy blue, came to her mid thighs and had wide shoulder straps and a zipper. She looked fab. I think we are just stuck in what has become normal, it will take a big culture shift to change it now.

Agree. They're grim. My girl will be in shorts and a rash vest, like her brother.