:irked:
All right, I've read through this whole thing, and ....
Wow. Just. Wow.
The judgemental attitudes from some of you really have me wondering how "open-minded" you claim you are raising your children.
"Hootchie", "Skanky", and "Slutty" in the way you women are using them are derrogatory, offensive and down right mean.
A few momma's here have made really good points on *their opinions* both for and against these type of clothing. But I do not and will not be open to someones opinion who insists on using slut, skank, or hootch as part of their reason as to why they don't like the clothing.
Those mama's are sexualizing the clothes themselves by calling it skanky, slutty, and hootchie and then claim that others will view it as such. Well, you are in essance encouraging others to view it that way because YOU are viewing it that way.
**Bolds and inderlines my emphasis**
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eminer
Well, I honestly think that these issues have more to do with your perception of adult attire and sexuality and the social context than with age appropriateness. I never went "clubbing" and would consider it degrading to go around wearing clothes for the sole purpose of turning other people on. I do sometimes wear skimpy clothes to the beach, however. Why? Because I love feeling the breeze and sand and water on my skin. Because I feel good and sexy in the best, most meaningful sense: beautiful, unashamed in my body, unashamed to enjoy it. It took me a long time to get there, partly because I heard comments like those in this thread and developed negative impressions and feelings. *snip* Bikinis aren't what hurt girls and their developing sexuality. And underwear should follow the contour of our bodies. When my dd wears briefs, they slip down under her little belly and the extra fabric bunches up. She likes them anyway, and I support her.  But what would be wrong with underwear shaped more like her? And um, shirts that show her cute little belly button...?!
|

:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lucysmama
I must say I am totally shocked by how many people think a child's navel exposed in a swimsuit is wrong or inappropriate. Is this really the message we want to send our kids? That their navels are somehow sexual and we must cover them for fear that a hypothetical predator may find it arousing? I just do not get this.
*snip*
I think the problem here is that lots of people associate a style of clothing with a certain ethnicity, a certain socio-economic background, a certain sexual fetish, a lack of religion perhaps, a lack of moral fiber maybe, and they find it inappropriate to see a child (or their child) associated with this. This reeks of prejudism to me, not in the racial sense, but the literal-judge-a-person-by-their-cover mentality that I hope not to pass on to my kids.
|

:

:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by genna
Well as far as little girls clothes- I think there is a difference between a bikini and a 2 piece bathing suit. A bikini has the triangle top and skimpy bottom, a two piece has a straight across full coverage top and appropriate bottoms that cover everything.
|
I'm sorry, I know you are trying to decern between two styles, but I just have to say it... a bikini is two pieces of cloth yes? That covers the same portions that the bathing suit "2 piece" does? Both of them are 2 pieces, end of story, some just like a different style than what your 2 piece style it. That does not mean that bikini's are different type of bathing suit at all. What is it called then? A duo piece if not a straight 2 piece?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to throw in a little humor here, not sure if it's getting across what with my mood of the overall thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joandsarah77
God gave clothes as a covering for a reason.
|
So, why were Adam and Eve born naked? And why did they only use "clothes" after they got thrown out of the Garden? Apparently they were perfectly OK to go clothes free in the Garden. That doesn't tell me that God intended us to wear clothes... IMO...
Follow Mothering