AIBU to think that JL have this sooo wrong?

[Lovesgiantbuttons]

So it's holiday time. I have a 5yr old redhead and we are off to Spain for a week. For quality purposes I shop at JL for high protection rash vest. I see a funky coloured set with 40spf protection in her size. Great I think until I take to the till and find It's a 3 part set and the extra piece is a triangle bikini top! I did not want that and she most certainly won't be wearing it. In the first instance I'm buying for sun protection so why on earth advertise high protection then give an item that barely covers her at all?!! And secondly she's 5, should they really be producing such skimpy clothing for that age group???
I told the shop assistant how appalled I was and am considering writing a letter of disapproval....

YANBU. I thought there was a campaign against producing that kind of thing for under-10s?

The most needless addition and so in appropriate in my eyes. Just wanted to gauge what others thought before I have a directed rant and JL...

I'd get rid of the bikini and keep the two-piece. I think it looks odd to see under 10s in bikinis - as you also point out it doesn't help with sun protection either!

Did you buy it?

Yeah chuck the bikini top it seems really pointless as a set as the long top and bottoms is perfect on kid own.

You could post on twitter/Facebook pointing out its inappropriate nature.

lilac believe me I discarded the bikini top as soon as I got home! And think it's worthy of letting JL know how inappropriate this pairing is...

I did notso. The 2 piece was exactly what I was looking for. Just can't understand the triangle bikini. The others they had weren't in her size and I'd left it a bit late to shop around (although hadn't thought I would need to!)

I can understand including a top of some sort. it means that if you area swimming indoors you don't need to buy a further swim suit.
I also think there are a lot of under 10s out there who are certainly developed enough to need to wear a bikini top of some sort. Also I think most girls from about 7 up will fell uncomfortable going topless as it were.
Is it the specific style you have a problem with?

Unfortunately some people think it's 'cute' so JL may be covering all 'bases'. Nothing wrong with complaining though and asking why JL would be happy to promote inappropriate clothing for young girls. Perhaps take copies of these replies or direct them to this thread?

We used to wear bikinis when we were children. They weren't sexual or sexy.

I can't get excited about an additional triangle bikini top.

To be perfectly honest the most offensive thing about that set is the pattern.

Yabu.

I agree the bikini top is a bit pointless but I don't think I would be that annoyed about it.
I am however confused by the skimpiness of the bottoms. I only have a boy but his sun protection wear is either an all in one which reach to his knees or a two piece similar to yours but again, trouser length is to the knee.
For me the issue would be why don't they make the bottoms shorts to protect girls' legs.

Sun protection aside, why is a two-piece inappropriate for a 5-year-old? Very practical when they need the loo.

I can't get excited over a bikini top either.

It's so you can use the set on the beach for sun protection and in a swimming pool as a two piece without the sleeved top.

Personally I'd just chuck away the bikini top and forget it.

I agree with Seeline. It is helpful to have a top half for swimming indoors. Plenty of 7 year old son would not want to wear nothing on top.
I can't get excited about sorry. I don't see a bikini as sexualise at all. I have photos of me as a child clearing a bikini and I'm not that young so not a new thing either. Doesn't bother me.

I don't get the fuss about bikinis on children.. I far prefer them to those hideous all in ones. Much easier when they need the loo and unless they are padded or thong style not sure what how they 'sexualise' the wearer..

Most little girls on the continent just wear bikini bottoms.

Why does everyone seem in a rush to sexualise everything? It is a bikini top and kids wore those when i was young they werent sexy or anything and they arent now. Agreeing that the patterning on the item is the only thing offensive here.
YABU

If something appalled me to the point of complaining to a sales assistant, writing a letter of complaint and starting a thread on the internet about there is no way I would give my money for it.

I don’t think it is inappropriate at all. It is the sort of thing my DD’s would have worn when small. They loved a bikini. There is certainly no sexual connotation with it. If you don’t like the top then you can get rid of it but i don’t think it warrants a complaint to JL.

OTT IMO ( You ). Over here in Italy it is perfectly normal to see children in bikinis, or just the pants part and nobody blinks an eye. My now 7 year old last summer wore a combination of the 2 . BTW M&S also do a similar kind of thing and do Next - I have bought them for years mainly for the sun proof top as my half English do need the extra sun protection .
At times a one piece is too hot for them to wear so a bikini is ideal. From 9 dd1 started to wear a top more as she felt self concious

You objected to it so much that you bought it? Strange! You were happy to buy it so seems strange to complain now that you thought it was inappropriate.
Next and boden do great rash vests with shorts and can order online for next day delivery.

Not sure I agree with comments about triangle bikinis not being sexualised. young enough boys and girls look bodily the same and if they have tan capability then wearing just pants I think is fine so why give the girls an item to cover her chest? but with Irish decent and milk bottle skin it isn't for my dd and is the whole reason I needed rash vest. I want her to have as much fun playing in the pool as the kids that do tan instead of me making a big deal about getting out for more cream every hour.

kids like to copy their parents. I assume no one's going to be forced to wear it. a child in a bikini is a chikd in a bikini ajd anyone who rates the bikini as a sexual item of clothing wheb being worn by said child is the one with the problem.

both Dds have worn two pieces for the beach as it's far more practical.

it's no more sexual than seeing kids playing naked on the beach or getting g changed

plus it's not unusual to have children in different sizes to their age.

so an age five could be worn by a three yr old who let's face it will probably abandon the tops In minutes. but it might also be fir a 7 ur old who wants to wear something on her top half.

For sun protection the bottoms are completely unsuitable though, legs burn too. If you feel a bikini top is inappropriate then doesn't the fact it has skimpi bottoms where boys one would have shorts also annoy.

I think if a bikini top is seen as sexualised then a standard one piece costume must be viewed as sexualised as both are implying a little girl has something to be covered.