under arm shaving for being bridesmaid

[Jojaney]

My 14 year old daughter is being a bridesmaid this summer. She has mousy brown hair under her armpits. I suggested she shaves them this summer but she dismissed my idea and seemed quite offendec by my suggestion.

Should I let this go- is arm pit hair a personal preferance? I am concerned she will look ridiculous.

[Cherryblossomsmile]

Leave her be.

Can't stand the whole "groomed to within an inch of their life " wedding style.

Next you'll be making her get stick on nails, eyelashes etc. she us 14. She will look beautiful regardless.

Making her shave will tell your child she's not good enough as she is.

[Marnierose]

Your daughter sounds amazing. Good for her. I can only hope and pray that any children I'm lucky enough to have have her confidence.

[OutsSelf]

It's not 'politically correct' to assert that someone has the right to her bodily integrity, it's just plain correct. From a human rights point of view.

I agree with a PP who said that forcing someone to shave their armpits is abusive and those of you advocating it are, indeed, massive massive cunts.

Also doing stuff like, buying hair removal cream for someone, and suggesting she might want to use it, is coercive, even if you put the cowardly and despicable caveat 'it's up to you' at the end of that particular interaction. Calling this a choice is makes the word meaningless, except in a cunting neolib way. People doing that should fuck right off, too.

I can't actually believe I have to bring my daughter up in this fucking vile environment. Why are you betraying your daughters like this?

[brdgrl]

BTw taking away somebody's right to do what they want with their body "and making them" isn't un pc. It's abuse and those of you advocating it are massive cunts.
I am actually in agreement with you on this issue, but this is a massive overstatement. At 14, there are plenty of reasonable restrictions a parent might make over what a child can do with her body, which do not represent abuse. Fuck's sake.

[squizita]

She's 14, she knows her own mind. Let her be.

[ElephantsNeverForgive]

She is part of the wedding party, she has signed up to the whole groomed to within an inch of her life melarky.

That's part of the deal. You look decorative, we'll give you food, dancing and some pretty pictures.

You don't like the deal don't be a bridesmaid.

[OutsSelf]

At 14, there are plenty of reasonable restrictions a parent might make over what a child can do with her body, which do not represent abuse

This is not one of those things. It is abusive to insist that a woman's basic bodily appearance be forcibly or even only coercively changed in order to save her mother's embarrassment. It is intimate and personal, it's nothing like getting a hair cut before you even bother, or wearing clothes. If you need to clarify what the difference is, you're a dick. Shaming someone into hair removal is abusive. It is. It's an abuse of your relationship with them, an abuse of the way their emotional and physical integrity is entrusted to you and a violation of her right to bodily integrity. You don't own your children's bodily integrity as a parent, you advocate for it and protect it.

[JohnFarleysRuskin]

Really? That's what a bridesmaid is these days?

I thought it was just supporting the bride!

[OutsSelf]

Elephants, there's no evidence that the bride has required this, only the mother of the girl in question. If that is 'the deal' - and I'm pretty sure that lots of people would really question your role as 'decorative' for a bridesmaid but you are welcome to your own fucked up values - it's between the bridesmaid and the bride.

[brdgrl]

OutsSelf, I already said, twice, that I disagree with the mum asking the DD to shave. But the statement as it stood by FedUp was not right.

[OutsSelf]

I saw that you said that - I'm arguing against your assertion that this is not abuse brdgrl

[Kirsty0612]

Ok I'd never condone this behaviour but I was in primary school! me and my friend laughed our heads off and said really rude things about a girl in our class who wore a sleeveless top and had hairy underarms! Don't even think she should have shaved at that age and we wouldn't have even grown any yet! All u'd need is a mean wee girl or boy or drunk uncle to say something to destroy her confidence. I'd go down the look there's hair removal cream a razor etc in bathroom if u want to use them or want to ask me anything. If not it's ur choice. She prob said no straight away as embarrassed or worried it would hurt.

[brdgrl]

Would you say it was abuse then if the DD wanted to shave and the mother said that she could not?
I think it is hysterical and minimizes abuse to say that it is abusive for a parent to make restrictions about how a child is allowed to alter her appearance. It is not abusive to tell a child they may not have a tattoo. It is not abusive to tell a child they cannot have a particular haircut or dye their hair. It is not abusive to tell a child that they cannot pierce their ears. It is not abusive for a parent to tell a child that she is not old enough to wear makeup or shave.
The DD in this case wants not to alter her body, and the mum should respect that. But the converse - that if the DD wanted to alter her body, she would be being abused if she were not allowed to do so - is not true. I think that distinction is lost in posts like FedUp's, and I am entitled to say so and to clarify where the difference lies for me, as a person and a parent, without being called a dick.

[trevortrevorslattery]

people seem more accepting of a teenager altering her appearance to conform to a standard of beauty, than they do of a teenager refusing to alter her natural appearance

This

[brdgrl]

I'm arguing against your assertion that this is not abuse brdgrl

Where? If you read my post properly, you will see that I categorically did not say that the hypothetical situation at hand (the OP forcing her DD to shave) was not abuse. In fact, I began by saying that I agreed with FedUp on this issue, but not on the sweeping nature of the statement.

[OutsSelf]

The difference which you have noted is that the mother is trying to alter the girl's body, this is of a different order of issue to the girl wanting to make cosmetic alterations and her mum vetoing this on the grounds she is protecting the girl's bodily integrity In this case the mother is threatening and not protecting the girl's bodily integrity. It is for exactly this reason abuse and not at all like the other examples you give.

This is not minimising abuse but naming it. It's minimising to not call enforced shaving abuse, it minimises the way that it violates the girl's bodily integrity; to say that it's like her mum said she couldn't have a tattoo is minimising.

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

"She is part of the wedding party, she has signed up to the whole groomed to within an inch of her life melarky."

Excellent. Perhaps she can get an up do for her armpit hair, along with ribbon or hair jewels?

[rideyourbike]

Armpit hair aged 14? Urgh, I had been shaving my legs and armpits since age 12, why wouldn't you?

[brdgrl]

OutsSelf, I think in your rush you have misinterpreted my comments.

[OutsSelf]

I stand by every word of Fedup's statement. It is not overstating anything to say, and it's worth saying again:

Making this girl shave her armpits is abusive. People advocating that are massive cunts.

Can you imagine a relationships thread where a woman's husband was forcing her to shave her armpits to spare his embarrassment. We'd have real questions about what her actual worth to him was, and more than a few of us would be calling it abuse and telling her to LTB

[OutsSelf]

What was the overstatement then? Is it the relative size of the cunts that are advocating this?

[yumyumpoppycat]

Could she wear a bolero/shrug or something and keep the hair?

[brdgrl]

As we are saying exactly the same thing. FedUp's comment (the comment to which I responded) intentionally or unintentionally suggested something different, which was that there is no distinction between this shaving example, and other cases of "taking away somebody's right to do what they want with their body".

[madwomanbackintheattic]

I have absolutely no idea if my bridesmaids shaved their armpits, and nor do I care.

I absolutely agree with everyone who is saying that suggesting this girl shaves, or even buying stuff and leaving it around and making 'helpful but not coercive, oh, no' suggestions is actually telling your kid in no uncertain terms that their body does not meet the required societal standards. Even if you do tack on the 'only if you want to' crap.

Yes, I do have a 14yo girl. Fortunately she makes her own mind up. She dances competitively and spends about 10 hours a week with her arms stuck up in the air and her legs on show. She doesn't shave at all for most of the year, but does whip the hair off during the month long competitive season, purely because she is aware that most people have an aesthetic sensibility where dancers are concerned, and yes, she DOES display her pits to everyone. For the rest of the time (which includes the summer, as comps are on when the snow is on the ground) she is hairy. Even in strappy dresses. No one gives a shiny shit, least of all her. In other news, she also doesn't bother wearing make-up unless she's on the stage. Performing has given her a strong sense of 'things we do because they are expected' and a freedom to go against the grain when she doesn't want to 'perform' femininity as required by social convention. Even in a strappy sundress.

I'd like to say this thread is unbelievable, but sadly, it's no surprise that the world is stuffed full of women who want to indoctrinate their daughters that they aren't good enough, aesthetically speaking. The veet dudes are counting their millions and supporting you all the way, ladies.

[settingsitting]

This is a first time poster with this name, and one who has not returned.