Swimsuits, again, kids' this time - Page 2

**Phemie** · #16 Aug 17, '08, 3:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litcrit

Letting kids run around naked has the exact opposite effect from the sexualization of a little girl described here. It sends the message to kids and adults alike that little kids' bodies are just NOT sexual.

While some pedophiles might react to the 'sexualization' of a kid, generally pedophiles want kids that look like kids. How else to explain the abuse of children under 12 months?

Just wondering · #17 Aug 17, '08, 5:35 pm

Growing up (in Canada, in the 80's) we wore one-piece swimsuits to the beach or the pool. In our own yard, we swam naked. When we moved to the country, we swam naked in our own pond and fully dressed in the swimming holes nearby. We all swam naked until at least the age of 12 or so, as long as we were at home. In public, though, we wore swimsuits. I have no idea if that's because of modesty or to avoid prying eyes or just to avoid making others uncomfortable.

I've never thought about it for my own children, but I know my boyfriend's 7-year-old daughter went swimming with her aunt, who bought her a two-piece bathing suit. When he saw the photos, he threw away the two-piece because it made her look like she was trying to be an adult. I'm guessing our future kids will also wear one-piece bathing suits!

Feanaro's Wife · #18 Aug 17, '08, 5:44 pm

OK, let me preface this with "I only have a 2 year old daughter".

I can see the problem with immodest two piece suits on older gilrs/teens. But on a 1 or 2 or 3 year old? I think they are cute, not sexy in any way.

Plus, the suit selection was really limited when I was shopping (first time I've done this so not sure if it's always like this) but I was lucky to find one in her size at all. I chose a really cute "bikini". Now, the bottoms look like the shape of regular panties (no strings etc) and the top is not two itty bitty triangles, kind of goes straight across the top and bottom, like a tube top with straps.

If I could have found a tankini that would have been my first choice. Which leads me to the one-piece question for the other moms.... isn't it much harder to check diapers (for the un potty trained) or use the potty (for the trained)? Pulling down a two-piece bottom seems like it would be a whole lot easier.... opinions?

I think next summer I will see if any of the boys trunks are cute enough to pass for a girl...they seem like they would be so much more comfy anyway

Mary Gail 36 · #19 Aug 17, '08, 5:55 pm

My DD has a tankini and a yellow polka dot "bikini" ( I had to)

The bottoms of the bikini is large enough that a swim diaper can go under, and cannot be seen. The top is similar to what Malia described, a tube top with straps. I don't even think her belly button shows.

I don't think it's immodest at all.

But at the same token, she isn't nude.

Jennifer J · #20 Aug 17, '08, 6:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litcrit

I think I understand your view and respect it and believe it appropriate for your culture. Also, I applaud the wonderful tactfulness of your post.

I tried to be nice, I hope it came across that way. I know cultural views are different

and here in Minnesota we only have summer for like 2 days anyway

Can you just clarify: do you believe nakedness-to-bikinis to be immodest for very young girls, or that you need to teach them this at a very young age so modesty won't be an issue later, when they grow up and their bodies develop?
Ummmm, both I think.....I don't think nakedness/bikinis for very young girls is a good idea (in public) AND because allowing them to wear nothing/bikini young gives them the impression that it's okay later--and for our family, it's not. A modest 2 piece suit is fine, however, I prefer one piece suits, because we're likely to misplace one of the pieces and then be without a suit

Thank you for all the answers, they're all very sane and logical (especially the sand thing

. Growing up, I used to go to rock beaches... no sand

. )

I don't think there are many rock beaches around here, but I don't know. We only go to the pool as we're landlocked---well besides those 10,000 lakes, but I wouldn't swim in most of them (oooo leaches yuck!)

Jennifer J · #21 Aug 17, '08, 6:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanaro's Wife

OK, let me preface this with "I only have a 2 year old daughter".

I can see the problem with immodest two piece suits on older gilrs/teens. But on a 1 or 2 or 3 year old? I think they are cute, not sexy in any way.

Plus, the suit selection was really limited when I was shopping (first time I've done this so not sure if it's always like this) but I was lucky to find one in her size at all. I chose a really cute "bikini". Now, the bottoms look like the shape of regular panties (no strings etc) and the top is not two itty bitty triangles, kind of goes straight across the top and bottom, like a tube top with straps.

Here are some swim separates from Lands End, I assume they ship to Canada
http://www.landsend.com/ix/swimwear-...eSize=12&tab=6

If I could have found a tankini that would have been my first choice. Which leads me to the one-piece question for the other moms.... isn't it much harder to check diapers (for the un potty trained) or use the potty (for the trained)? Pulling down a two-piece bottom seems like it would be a whole lot easier.... opinions? I always just put the swim diaper on and then the suit. My kids haven't really had any messy accidents in the pool, that I remember. It is a pain if they have to go potty, but not impossible at all. I just prefer one piece suits and if I need to go to 2 pieces, it would be a tankini with plenty of coverage.

I think next summer I will see if any of the boys trunks are cute enough to pass for a girl...they seem like they would be so much more comfy anyway

Again, Lands End has nice suits. Here's another place with nice suits:
http://www.cwdkids.com/servlet/quagg.../_qprm_/browse
and I'm sure there are others. We really like the speedo brand because they really do last, we've been able to pass suits down for 3 girls now. Those cheap department store suits don't last.

Truly Beloved · #22 Aug 17, '08, 6:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanaro's Wife

Which leads me to the one-piece question for the other moms.... isn't it much harder to check diapers (for the un potty trained) or use the potty (for the trained)? Pulling down a two-piece bottom seems like it would be a whole lot easier.... opinions?

When we check diapers, we pull the leg opening of the diaper away from the baby's thigh, so no issues with that.

I have memories of going potty in a swimsuit when I was little, and my mom just taught us girls to pull the crotch/bum of the suit to one side and hold it there until we were done wiping. Again, no big deal, really.

Now, changing a diaper is a lot easier with a two-piece swimsuit, for sure. I would rather have a tankini for my daughter for this reason, but since I couldn't find an affordable tankini, I decided it was better to have her covered by a one-piece suit. The diaper changing may or may not even be an issue, since you only change swim diapers in the event of a bowel movement.

Sr Sally · #23 Aug 17, '08, 7:20 pm

I love the surfer/rash guard shirts that are popular now. If I had littles now I would definately have them in swim diapers and one of those. Modesty is easier to enforce when they are little and becomes a habit for later. Also all the health issues--sand, sun, etc make a suit a necessity for me.

lifeisbeautiful · #24 Aug 17, '08, 7:33 pm

We also dress our kids in swimsuits (or at least swimming diapers for the boys) since they are born (or at least since the first time they get in a pool/beach). DD wears a one piece, trunks for the boys (or just the diaper, depending on where we are). If they need more sun protection I might put a thin tshirt on etc. I don't like bikinis on babies, just like I don't like any mini "sexy" or adult clothing on little girls (I am not fond of the trend of dressing little girls like little teens). As a Catholic mom I feel I have a responsibility towards my innocent little girl to dress her in an appropriate manner. Also, if one dresses little girls in clothes such and mini skirts or short shorts when they are younger (not babies, I mean like 6 etc) because they haven't developed yet, where do you draw the line? Do you just tell them they can't anymore one day? Its hard to teach modesty as it is... I would not want my dd to see that I dressed her in a bikini when she was 4 but don't let her dress herself in one when she is 14.
I do think it does make a difference, teaching children about modesty from day 1. Teaching a child to guard their body is not the same as teaching them to be ashamed of it.

monicatholic · #25 Aug 17, '08, 8:44 pm

when my oldest (now 27) was a little kid, he was nakeda t the beach till he was nearly 3, when he asked for a spiderman swimsuit.

my second son had the whitiest skin, so he was covered in a baggy Tshirt and a bandana on his head.

following kids have always been dressed in bathing suits for beach or poolside.

sing · #26 Aug 17, '08, 10:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litcrit

What happened in the meantime? Why 'carelessness'? I honestly don't get it.

'Younger children have no breasts to cover' is what I'm thinking too, along with those adults of (I don't know how old you are, but presumably) a couple of / few decades ago.

Seriously, what happened in the meantime?

You want the honest answer? People have finally become aware of the prevalence of child abuse. Unfortunately, they think the pedophiles and abusers are strangers. The news media buys into this, and so people think child abuse happens when a man in a van asks a child to help him find a puppy. This is a tiny minority of abuse, but its not put in perspective at all. The vast majority of children are abused by parents, other family members, and family friends.

I don't know why people are so determined to divorce themselves from reality. Maybe they prefer to watch "To Catch A Predator" and blame the internet than to believe that Grandpa could be a pedophile. God knows that plenty of priest sex abuse victims weren't believed. When my sister in law(after years of abuse) finally told people that her father had been molesting her, the parish priest said she was lying and sinning against her father. I guess people want to believe that molesters aren't part of their actual world. If they did,pedophiles would have a face, and people might have to try and understand why pedophiles act the way they do. But as it stands, pedophiles are faceless monsters. No one needs to understand a monster.

It almost seems like victim blaming to me. Like saying a woman won't get raped if she doesn't wear a miniskirt.

Litcrit · #27 Aug 18, '08, 12:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifeisbeautiful

I don't like bikinis on babies, just like I don't like any mini "sexy" or adult clothing on little girls (I am not fond of the trend of dressing little girls like little teens). As a Catholic mom I feel I have a responsibility towards my innocent little girl to dress her in an appropriate manner. Also, if one dresses little girls in clothes such and mini skirts or short shorts when they are younger (not babies, I mean like 6 etc) because they haven't developed yet, where do you draw the line? Do you just tell them they can't anymore one day? Its hard to teach modesty as it is... I would not want my dd to see that I dressed her in a bikini when she was 4 but don't let her dress herself in one when she is 14.

Again, just for the sake of logical balance, I need to make a clear distinction between 'sexy' bikinis and mini skirts on babies (sexualization and 'adultization' of babies' bodies) and naked babies or babies just in tiny bottoms / swim diapers (babies being babies, non-sexual). To me, they are the exact opposites.

apricot yogurt · #28 Aug 18, '08, 1:48 am

My children all wear something like this. More practical for our British weather. I got one for my eldest dd after she developed a mole on her back and realised I needed to keep them covered.
My boy in this picture has Down's, and is anatomically disadvantaged in some areas, so going naked is not an option for him.
My six year old has a neoprene wetsuit, as that seems to provide more insulation for her.

lifeisbeautiful · #29 Aug 18, '08, 5:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litcrit

Again, just for the sake of logical balance, I need to make a clear distinction between 'sexy' bikinis and mini skirts on babies (sexualization and 'adultization' of babies' bodies) and naked babies or babies just in tiny bottoms / swim diapers (babies being babies, non-sexual). To me, they are the exact opposites.

First of all, please know I am not out to offend anyone, I am just presenting what I think/ have learned on the matter.
Although to me personally they are not exact opposites, I do agree they are different. I mentioned not liking bikinis, because of the reasons you just stated above along with the other reasons I presented. Now, about naked babies or babies with tiny bottoms, well I personally don't consider a topless 4 yr old a topless baby girl (and much less a topless 9-11 yr old girl or whatever the range was), and wouldn't do it. I personally think one should teach about modesty, guarding the body, before puberty etc. I have to be careful with what I teach my 3 yr old as it is. A younger baby, who is too young to notice whether he is naked or not, I just wouldn't do it for practical reasons too (no control over bodily functions, sand and sun exposure, etc).

Jennifer J · #30 Aug 18, '08, 5:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sing

You want the honest answer? People have finally become aware of the prevalence of child abuse. Unfortunately, they think the pedophiles and abusers are strangers. The news media buys into this, and so people think child abuse happens when a man in a van asks a child to help him find a puppy. This is a tiny minority of abuse, but its not put in perspective at all. The vast majority of children are abused by parents, other family members, and family friends.

I don't know why people are so determined to divorce themselves from reality. Maybe they prefer to watch "To Catch A Predator" and blame the internet than to believe that Grandpa could be a pedophile. God knows that plenty of priest sex abuse victims weren't believed. When my sister in law(after years of abuse) finally told people that her father had been molesting her, the parish priest said she was lying and sinning against her father. I guess people want to believe that molesters aren't part of their actual world. If they did,pedophiles would have a face, and people might have to try and understand why pedophiles act the way they do. But as it stands, pedophiles are faceless monsters. No one needs to understand a monster.

It almost seems like victim blaming to me. Like saying a woman won't get raped if she doesn't wear a miniskirt.

I really don't need to "understand" a pedophile (I don't think I ever could!!)--they have a warped view. I do need to know how they act and how to protect my children and that would seem, for me, to keep them clothed, to know the people they are with (teachers, coaches, Priests, Family, etc) very well, to trust (and listen to) my instincts about people, and to listen to my children, and to teach my children how to keep safe. This isn't "victim blaming". Keeping children clothed appropriately is just smart--and for American culture, that incluldes appropriate swim suits and goes along with other means of protection.....