Girls Gone ... Mild: Teens Encouraged to Cover Up - Page 2

[caro113]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

In our house we are teaching DD to dress in a way that she is comfortable with. She is most comfortable with covering up at the moment, but if that changes we aren't going to beat ourselves up about it. Dh and I know that she is fully capable of telling a guy to growup if he can't look anywhere other then her chest or ass..

Thank you!! When I was in highschool I wanted to wear tight clothes as a means of making myself feel better. (I also had self esteem and body image issues.) I wore hip huggers and tight shirts and makeup. I never showed my stomach (because that freaked me out) but I wanted to show off my chest. I liked buying fabric corsettes and wearing them with jeans or baggy pants, depending on my mood. In the summer, I wore bikinis. Then I went through a boy shorts phase because I hated short shorts. Then I went into a skirt and tight pants phase because of college. Then I just went into a whatever is comfortable phase because I was done dealing with all that headache. Right now, I like to wear long skirts and shirts that don't have a cleavage cut. That's what I like right now. And since I'm pregnant and hate maternity pants, I'll be wearing skirts all winter and I'm okay with that. I haven't worn makeup in years and haven't dyed my hair in even more years, except for one experiment after DD was born and I immediately regretted it. I used to be the girl who shaved every two to three days because that's what made me look good. Now I don't shave at all. I've really delved into this whole "natural" phase and I'm quite happy with it. Sure, I could definitely get away with wearing a nice tight bikini at the 4th of July party this summer (4 to 5 weeks after my baby is due) but I won't. Because I don't want to.

I've definitely done a lot of growing up in the just the past few years. I've learned that I don't really need form fitting clothes to make myself feel better about my body. I don't need makeup or razors or hair dye. I don't need to feel embarrassed because I happen to wear a swim suit and it happens to show my stretch marks from pregnancy. Now that's not to say that women who do like to wear form fitting clothes or wear make up or shave haven't grown up. That's what they like and that's fine. But for me, I did those things because I felt that they would make me feel better about myself. And I was wrong. And honestly, I do have to thank MDC for some of that, particularly the stretch marks. One mama on here said a while ago that they were like her battle scars, a physical proof of carrying her child and that it was completely natural so why be embarrassed by it? She really got me thinking and after some deep soul searching, I realized she was right.

Figuring these things out has saved me a lot of stress and a lot of effort and time. I don't need to spend an hour getting ready to go to the store. So what if my hair is a bit messy. Why yes, I am wearing a sweatshirt that's two sizes too big; it's DPs and I like wearing his things. I can wear a tank top with unshaved arm pits; get over it. I really feel that I am more at peace with myself because I was able to figure out what made me comfortable, without worrying about how it effected other people. That's not my problem nor is it my responsibility. I can't control other people, only myself.

[karne]

I read the article. At first I thought that maybe this was coming out of a place of parents wishing to protect their children. But really, the tone is extremely negative, as in "You are how you dress". I also didn't care at all for the idea that young women can't be trusted to decide how to dress themselves. It just seems the opposite of the messages we wnat to be giving young women. It's very, very shallow. I thouhgt that the interaction between the mom and daughter was sad as well.

[lorijds]

When my oldest was 11 or so, she really started to get a more womanly figure and started dressing as a teen. Not a teen like the tasteless Brittany Spears look. More like an Urban Outfitters look. Still--skinny jeans, layer tank tops with low-cut shirts, short skirts with tights, that sort of thing.

I really struggled with how to balance instilling pride in her body with a sense of modesty. For me, there *IS* a line somewhere, but I can't quite find that exact point. What I finally discussed with her is that I want her to be proud of her body, she can show it off all she wants, but she has to follow school rules and she cannot dress with the idea of attracting people to her sexually (she is now 14, we had this conversation when she was 12). I just told her, if you want to wear something because it is comfortable, you like it, it expresses something about yourself you want to express, and/or you think you look good in it, go for it. If you want to wear it because it might turn someone on sexually, no. If you feel comfortable wearing it in front of your grandpa, it's cool.

As a consequence, I think she shows more skin than I am comfortable with sometimes (and definitely more skin than her father is comfortable with), but I honestly feel she is dressing for herself and not others. I fully recognize that much of our discomfort is rooted in the feeling of disbelief that our baby is old enough to look like a woman. It's reluctance to acknowledge that she *is* in fact growing up and will someday move on with her life and we will miss this lovely time we are having right now. There is also a loss of control-we used to dress her, buy her clothes, tell her what to wear, basically. Now she is asserting her own will and style, controlling her own body. It's not that we don't want that--it's just that it is new and unexplored territory for us.

If she dressed absolutely horribly, I would probably lay down stricter guidelines. By that I mean something like a thong showing out the back of some jeans cut so low that she'd have to wax to not have her pubic hair showing, accompanied by a short shirt that said something like "You can't be first but you can be next!" on it. And I'd worry more about why she was trying to send that message--the clothes would be more a symptom of a true, big problem rather than the actual problem, you know?

As is, she seems to dress is a manner that exudes confidence, a certain edgy sense of style and taste, as well as a comfort and pride in her body. While sometimes I feel the pants are too tight or the shirt is too low, I don't say anything. I smile, tell her she looks beautiful (because she does), and send her on her way to school. If I am to be completely honest, I would probably dress like that, too, if I had such a beautiful, long-legged, fit body like she has! So I really can't say anything.

[aniT]

Where do you find jeans that AREN'T low rise??? My 11 year old is moving up to Jr's sizes and I can only find low rise.. I am keeping her in girls as long as possible but she is wearing a 16 so that isn't going to be much longer.

I went to her favorite store for shirts and they only carried low rise.

And yea.. my 16 year old sometimes has a thong showing when she bends over.. but she tends to wear long shirts so it's just a symptom of low rise being the only jeans you can find.

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by aniT

Where do you find jeans that AREN'T low rise??? My 11 year old is moving up to Jr's sizes and I can only find low rise.. I am keeping her in girls as long as possible but she is wearing a 16 so that isn't going to be much longer.

I went to her favorite store for shirts and they only carried low rise.

And yea.. my 16 year old sometimes has a thong showing when she bends over.. but she tends to wear long shirts so it's just a symptom of low rise being the only jeans you can find.

I have had the misery of no matter what I wear having a butt that somehow enables my underwear to show when I bend over NO MATTER WHAT It is sooo hard to find a pair of jeans that aren't low rise to the point people can see my butt every time I bend over to pick something up! I know how hard it is, I found a pair of jeans from old navy that are decent though if your 16 year old has that problem

[mbm]

Do at least try on a few pairs of jeans labeled "low rise". They might not be as bad as you think. Certain Gap and Old Navy "low rise" styles are low enough to fit me and be flattering (I have big hips but a small waist) but are still modest enough that I am comfortable wearing them to work.

Re the original article: I spent my teens in oversized flannel shirts, leggings and Timberland boots because that was the style at the time and we didn't have nearly as many clothing choices as girls today. In a way I am envious because I think of what cute stuff I could have worn back when I was thin enough and young enough to pull it off! But it also seems very difficult for girls (and moms) to navigate so many choices and advertising messages and come up with a style that suits them.

[onelilguysmommy]

Originally Posted by Equuskia

I understand, but girls check out men too. Teachers, the coach, etc. And their thoughts are anything but "pure". And men (and boys) in general don't go around in public "baring flesh". So how can we protect boys and men from the devouring eyes of girls? By covering them up?

And please don't think I'm picking on you. Not at all! It's just the idea in general that, like orangefoot eloquently stated, men are lions just waiting to prey on the innocent little lambs. I think it's demeaning to males and victimizes females.

It's easy. Girls don't want it so there is nothing to protect the poor weak minded menz from!

[GoBecGo]

If you find a store with a "tall range" the low rise jeans often have a deeper rise than those in the standard range - you might have to take the legs up but it gives you an extra inch or two coverage in the butt/front. Of course that's no help if you're already in the tall range like me, but still, worth a try?

[MittensKittens]

After going to the "pure fashion" website, I have to admit to wondering what the average teenager in the US dresses like nowadays, if that is supposed to be modest. I certainly see nothing "radical" about what the girls on the pure fashion website are WEARING, though I didn't much like the article and its emphasis on religion either.

[karne]

Originally Posted by aniT

Where do you find jeans that AREN'T low rise??? My 11 year old is moving up to Jr's sizes and I can only find low rise.. I am keeping her in girls as long as possible but she is wearing a 16 so that isn't going to be much longer.

My 11 y/o has the same problem-she needs a juniors 00 or 0 for the length. She's completely uncomfortable with the low rise, even w/ long shirts-have you seen how low some of the jeans are?? Crazy. We've found a couple of Aeropostale pants at consignment that were a bit better, and some Gap, but not much. Old Navy never works for her. It's also really, really hard to find cute skirts to wear with leggings, that aren't super mini's, which bugs me.

[orangefoot]

Originally Posted by mbm

I spent my teens in oversized flannel shirts, leggings and Timberland boots because that was the style at the time

Me too except I wore Doc Martens not Timberland! I wear more fitted clothing now than I did as a teen.

[Teenytoona]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree

I'm not particularly concerned about immodest dress, although I admit that I don't think it's attractive to see young girls dressed in Bratz-doll-like fashion. I don't worry about modest dress and my dd. I do have a little sympathy for the sentiment behind the quote about men looking at teenage girls.



My dd is 13 y.o. She is my height, and has a better figure - more developed - than I had when I went to university. Men look at her. A lot. It's automatic - she comes into view and I see men's eyes do an up/down/up again - often stopping at certain parts of her body. It's more than a little disturbing to see her being "checked out" by men in their 20's, 30's, 50's and older. I can't help but feel a little protective at that moment.

So I have a lot of sympathy for a mom who wants a modest dress code. I'm not going to implement one, but I understand the motivation.

True, but the onus shouldn't be on her to prevent a man's interest/action. The onus should be on the man. I think the article comes from the position that the man is the accelerator, woman is the breaks. Plus, as a stepmother of a very attractive now 19 yo, doesn't matter if she's wearing courdoroys and a sweater, if she's good looking, she will be noticed.

Originally Posted by orangefoot

I really don't know where to start with this other than to say that a writer who starts with the premise that all men are sexual fiends and all women are prey is in a pretty disturbed place.

Yes!!

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

My problem with the whole idea layed out in the article in the OP is that women (and girls) are apperently responsable for a man's self control. It's her job to not entice him into looking, as opposed to his job to learn how to control the urge to look. Which is exactly why you get men in their 20's, 30's, 50's etc who can't keep their eyes of certain body parts. Yeah I have the occasional naughty thought, but guess what? I can keep my eyes north of anything appealing in that way when I know such attention is inappropriate (such as not in a night club or when DH is walking around in his undies). It's called self control and it's a great thing to have.

Bugs the crap outta me. DD is not responsable for what the teen and adult men around her do. She is responsable for herself only.

The idea that teens in a physical relationship is always bad irks me too, but less so simply because there are people in every age group who are very much not mature enough to be in a physical relationship with someone.

In our house we are teaching DD to dress in a way that she is comfortable with. She is most comfortable with covering up at the moment, but if that changes we aren't going to beat ourselves up about it. Dh and I know that she is fully capable of telling a guy to growup if he can't look anywhere other then her chest or ass.

The one and only girl I had sex with dressed conservatively and she was younger then 15 when we did it. It was also her idea and involved more then just lust.

Agreed! Why aren't there articles upon articles about how to teach boys (and therefore the men they will grow into) about responsible sexuality?? It's just so much easier to blame the slutty dressed girl.

[crl]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree

There's also an issue with older men having sex with girls - that's why there are statutory rape laws against that kind of sexual activity, but no "Lolita" laws. .

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that only the older person is prosecuted for under-age sex? (Which I believe to be true. The underage person is considered the victim.) Or do you mean that only men are barred from sex with people under the age of consent? Ie, that older women with younger boys are not prosecuted? (Which I do not believe to be true.)

Not that wiki is the ultimate legal source, but for what it's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

Catherine

[MusicianDad]

I think she meant general statutory laws, the gender assignment she gave is simply a result of the pre-programmed idea of "a woman would never do that" showing up. It's something many people, even those who understand that's not the way it is tend to go their first, even if only for a brief moment.

[lorijds]

Yes, I assume too that she was simply pointing out that there are not laws prosecuting the younger person having sex with an older person, because it is not simply the act of sex that is a crime, but rather the older person is committing a crime by having sex with a person of such extreme youth. Does that make sense?

[crl]

Yes, thanks. I just couldn't quite tell if it was a statement about gender or a statement about age.

Catherine

[Smokering]

Huh.

Yes, reactionary article. The site, though... you know what's funny? A fair few of the people I know at church who are concerned about modest dress would find the clothes in the photos section too revealing. Heck, a few of the necklines are lower than what I prefer to wear. So they're not advocating burqas or anything - none of those clothes would cause me to think "modest" (or "immodest", really; they're just clothes). And though they're not exactly my style, I think they were fairly nice - not frumpy or Lilies of the Fieldish (my apologies to anyone who wears Lilies of the Field)! They don't look "alternative religious", they just look... normal.

I do prefer modest dress, and I will probably set some limits on DD's clothes when she's older. But the article (I didn't investigate the site too deeply) did have a rather odd tone. It was a bit Josh Harrisy, putting a LOT of responsibility on the (clad!) shoulders of girls to prevent the thoughts of men that, in that mindset, are more or less inevitable anyway...

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by lorijds

Yes, I assume too that she was simply pointing out that there are not laws prosecuting the younger person having sex with an older person, because it is not simply the act of sex that is a crime, but rather the older person is committing a crime by having sex with a person of such extreme youth. Does that make sense?

Correct. I was responding to a previous poster who noted that girls ogle older men and perhaps the men need to be protected from the girls' staring, based on the flawed logic in the article.

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

I think she meant general statutory laws, the gender assignment she gave is simply a result of the pre-programmed idea of "a woman would never do that" showing up. It's something many people, even those who understand that's not the way it is tend to go their first, even if only for a brief moment.

I think it was because of the context of the discussion - which has centred on modest dress for females, and the arguments supporting it, the chief one being protection from men. The discussion was about the older male/younger female dynamic. Another poster pointed out that young females also ogle men. Certainly, older women may also be offenders, but I don't think the article suggested the possibility (and I'm not inclined to go back to it, it wasn't good enough for a re-read, lol!). Hence the phrasing - it was in response to a specific scenario .

[cheery]

Originally Posted by IrishMommy

Clicked on the link. Got a popup ad for match.com. I sense some irony there.

:

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree

I think it was because of the context of the discussion - which has centred on modest dress for females, and the arguments supporting it, the chief one being protection from men. The discussion was about the older male/younger female dynamic. Another poster pointed out that young females also ogle men. Certainly, older women may also be offenders, but I don't think the article suggested the possibility (and I'm not inclined to go back to it, it wasn't good enough for a re-read, lol!). Hence the phrasing - it was in response to a specific scenario .

True, the article focuses on modest dress for female, but there is social programming to think that adult ogling teen/adult in a relationship with teen means the adult is male and the teen is female. For instance if you say ages but no genders, most people will assume by default the older is male and the younger is female.

All it takes for a female to be a cradle robber is being 25 and dating a 21 year old man. But for a man to be a cradle robber she has to be young enough to be his daughter.