Forum Index
»
Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers
Children's Place clothing sizes--more a comment than a question
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
no- not at all |
Anonymous
| I'm constantly amazed by girls' clothing. I think leopard print is a little odd for a toddler. |
Anonymous
|
children's place ran small for us.
this is no slam on children's place, but i found the consignment shop in kensington (near johnson's) to be great for baby clothes. really cute stuff, lots of variety, plus great prices. they go through clothes so fast at that age. you might want to check them out if you live in the vicinity. |
Anonymous
Ok, I'll take the bait again. What is so odd about leopard print? Is there some sexual connotation that I'm missing? Are all animal prints "odd" for a toddler? What about zebra print? Or giraffe print? (Yes, I know this is borderline DCUM Farce and is a bit of a hijack, as well. Sorry ladies!) |
Anonymous
I think that so many still have the Peggy Bundy association with animal print. I personally don't think the pattern, in and of itself, is as big of an issue of the cut of little girls clothing. |
Anonymous
| Leopard Print...tacky maybe but by no means sexual. I really wonder about people who spout off comments like this. I also find it odd to make a girl wear boys shorts because they are a little longer? I am guessing that perhaps you and your family wear these swimsuits http://www.wholesomewear.com/ for a day out at the pool or beach (assuming that you go and are not offended by others wearing swimsuits. |
Anonymous
Agree, tacky and ugly but not sexual. I think the cut is what makes the clothes sexual. Like short shorts, mini shirts, belly shirts that are not todderish but teenagerish. Some of the stuff is just in poor taste. |
Anonymous
You're really an idiot. We don't "make" her wear "boys" shorts anymore than we would "make" her wear "girls" shorts. We choose shorts for her to wear that are roomy, don't crawl up her bottom, have pockets, and are cut full enough that - since she is now 2.9 and potty trained - she can pull them up and down easily herself. Animal prints as a whole - and leopard print in particular - have always had a very sexualized connotation - see the pp about Peggy Bundy who was nothing if not a representation of unguarded female sexuality. See also their frequent appearance in Playboy and other magazines of a sexual nature. They only recently began to show up in the clothing for grown women outside of lingerie items. And now they are showing up in clothing for girls as young as just months old. If you think that clothing for young girls is not currently often disturbingly sexualized, then you either have your eyes closed or are in denial. There is a difference between making something pretty and making something that makes little girls look like sex objects (see tee shirts with pictures of cherries featuring the phrase "sweet and juicy", etc.). |
Anonymous
| OP-My 18 month old is 22 pounds and wearing 12-18 month clothes in Gap and Old Navy, so the Children's Place clothes sound right about on target. Sounds like you have a good eater on your hands, I hope it lasts through the picky toddler years! |
Anonymous
|
I also have a hard time seeing animal prints alone as a sexual thing.
On the clothing sizes, you just have to sort out what size of each brand works for your child. Little girls can be built very differently, so you may find later that some brands don't even fit her well. My daughter has a bountiful rump (family curse) and she can no longer wear the pants or shorts from Gymboree, but Osh Kosh still fits her. |
Anonymous
| My nearly four year old wears the 4T size in bottoms, and the XS size in tops. The 4T tops are too small. |
Anonymous
|
I'm with the minority here... I consider most animal prints to be hooker-wear. There's a way for some women to pull it off-- a blouse under a jacket, or a scarf-- but I think the Peggy Bundy comparison is spot on.
Also, little girls' clothes with writing on the backside. What is the point of printing something there if you DON'T want people staring at your butt? Tacky tacky tacky. I actually saw one pair of baby girl's pants with "Daddy 4-ever" across the bottom. Sickening. |
Anonymous
|
You're really an idiot.
We don't "make" her wear "boys" shorts anymore than we would "make" her wear "girls" shorts. We choose shorts for her to wear that are roomy, don't crawl up her bottom, have pockets, and are cut full enough that - since she is now 2.9 and potty trained - she can pull them up and down easily herself. Seriously, I think you may be either lazy or just completely ridiculous. I have been able to find plenty of appropriate shorts for my 25lb, potty trained 2 and a half year old to wear without having to go to the boys section. If you are so worried about her pulling them up and down herself perhaps you should look into dresses or skirts....quick tip they are found in the girls section. |
Anonymous
Honestly, this seems to be a bigger issue to you than it is for me. Clothes are clothes. Some are marketed certain ways, others are marketed other ways. My dd has a mix of clothes - most of them "girls" clothes and some of them not. Who cares? She doesn't. I don't. You, apparently, do. Whatever. |