how old does your daughter have to be to wear a bikini?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so thankful that my 12 year old has no interest in wearing bikinis. Lots of her friends wear them and I think they look soooooo inappropriate. My daughter thinks they are a. too revealing and b. impractical for actual swimming. I'm thrilled that she does not dress to impress boys or older kids and gets confidence from her body's abilities rather than from showing it off. She's gorgeous btw, so it's not that should couldn't rock a bikini. Just that she's so awesome she doesn't need to.

That's great for your DD. It would be nice if all girls had this confidence…however, your judgment of her friends isn't so great. Girls don't need any more scrutiny and judgement about their bodies - especially from their "gorgeous" friend's mother. I hope you're not encouraging your DD to judge her friend's for their choices because that would be in the "mean girl never grew up" category

FWIW, her friends' mothers also lament that their daughters want to wear bikinis and comment that they wish their daughters had the confidence that mine does. Yes. I think wearing a bikini at 8 or 12 is inappropriate. I'm sure I've stated my opinion at some point, so my daughter is aware of my feelings about it but I'm not judge-y and don't harp on it. If my daughter wanted to wear one, we'd discuss why and I'd consider her opinion. My point is that I'm thankful that it's not an issue.

I guess for all the parents whose daughters "like bikinis" I'd suggest talking about what it is that they like about them. And it might be a good idea to let them know how people might view them when they wear a bikini- sexy, confident, over-sexualized, cool, fashionable, insecure- both positives and negatives. There a messages being sent and it's good to think about what they are.

I just asked my 6 and 9 year olds why they like wearing bikinis.
-easier to take off to use the bathroom
- more opportunity to mix and match
- they like how the sun and water feel on their bellies
- 9 yr old thinks they're more whimsical and fun - she thinks one-pieces are for hardcore swimmers doing laps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I just asked my 6 and 9 year olds why they like wearing bikinis.
-easier to take off to use the bathroom
- more opportunity to mix and match
- they like how the sun and water feel on their bellies
- 9 yr old thinks they're more whimsical and fun - she thinks one-pieces are for hardcore swimmers doing laps

Obviously they have not yet learned to think of themselves as objects, rather than subjects. Good for you, PP! (<---sincere praise)

[Anonymous]

Obviously they have not yet learned to think of themselves as objects, rather than subjects. Good for you, PP! (<---sincere praise)

you nailed it pp - all of the "modesty" posters assume that women and are objects to be gazed at and consumed rather than subjects who choose their swimwear for a purpose other than being sexually available to any man who looks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just asked my 6 and 9 year olds why they like wearing bikinis.
-easier to take off to use the bathroom
- more opportunity to mix and match
- they like how the sun and water feel on their bellies
- 9 yr old thinks they're more whimsical and fun - she thinks one-pieces are for hardcore swimmers doing laps

Obviously they have not yet learned to think of themselves as objects, rather than subjects. Good for you, PP! (<---sincere praise)

Would you let them go naked? Why not? Much easier to go to the bathroom. Even MORE opportunity to feel water and sun on skin. I guess it's less matchy-matchy, but other than that why not full nudity or topless?

Clearly there are some standards of what's appropriate and they are dictated by societal standards of modesty and privacy, so stop pretending that this is a value-free choice for little girls who are untainted by objectification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just asked my 6 and 9 year olds why they like wearing bikinis.
-easier to take off to use the bathroom
- more opportunity to mix and match
- they like how the sun and water feel on their bellies
- 9 yr old thinks they're more whimsical and fun - she thinks one-pieces are for hardcore swimmers doing laps

Obviously they have not yet learned to think of themselves as objects, rather than subjects. Good for you, PP! (<---sincere praise)

Would you let them go naked? Why not? Much easier to go to the bathroom. Even MORE opportunity to feel water and sun on skin. I guess it's less matchy-matchy, but other than that why not full nudity or topless?

Clearly there are some standards of what's appropriate and they are dictated by societal standards of modesty and privacy, so stop pretending that this is a value-free choice for little girls who are untainted by objectification.

Yes, there are standards of what's appropriate. That is why, for example, people typically wear swimsuits to the swimming pool and office clothes to the office. This has nothing to do with "modesty" and "privacy". And especially not "modesty" defined as "this much of women's bodies must be covered up, because women's bodies are sexual objects by definition."

If you object to society turning girls into sexual objects, then stop turning girls into sexual objects. Society's obsession with covering women's bodies is just as sexually objectifying as pants with "juicy" printed on the rear. More, in fact, because it's possible to avoid wearing pants with "juicy" printed on the rear, but it's not possible to avoid people who are obsessed with covering women's bodies in the name of "modesty". The opposite of "modest" is "prideful", not "bare skin".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just asked my 6 and 9 year olds why they like wearing bikinis.
-easier to take off to use the bathroom
- more opportunity to mix and match
- they like how the sun and water feel on their bellies
- 9 yr old thinks they're more whimsical and fun - she thinks one-pieces are for hardcore swimmers doing laps

Obviously they have not yet learned to think of themselves as objects, rather than subjects. Good for you, PP! (<---sincere praise)

Would you let them go naked? Why not? Much easier to go to the bathroom. Even MORE opportunity to feel water and sun on skin. I guess it's less matchy-matchy, but other than that why not full nudity or topless?

Clearly there are some standards of what's appropriate and they are dictated by societal standards of modesty and privacy, so stop pretending that this is a value-free choice for little girls who are untainted by objectification.

Yes, there are standards of what's appropriate. That is why, for example, people typically wear swimsuits to the swimming pool and office clothes to the office. This has nothing to do with "modesty" and "privacy". And especially not "modesty" defined as "this much of women's bodies must be covered up, because women's bodies are sexual objects by definition."

If you object to society turning girls into sexual objects, then stop turning girls into sexual objects. Society's obsession with covering women's bodies is just as sexually objectifying as pants with "juicy" printed on the rear. More, in fact, because it's possible to avoid wearing pants with "juicy" printed on the rear, but it's not possible to avoid people who are obsessed with covering women's bodies in the name of "modesty". The opposite of "modest" is "prideful", not "bare skin".

I actually don't have any idea what that means.

Also, I don't think it has anything to do with turning girls into sexual objects because I feel the same way about boys and them having respect for their bodies. Plus, I would honestly rather see them run around naked. I have no problem with taking pride and pleasure in bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you object to society turning girls into sexual objects, then stop turning girls into sexual objects. Society's obsession with covering women's bodies is just as sexually objectifying as pants with "juicy" printed on the rear. More, in fact, because it's possible to avoid wearing pants with "juicy" printed on the rear, but it's not possible to avoid people who are obsessed with covering women's bodies in the name of "modesty". The opposite of "modest" is "prideful", not "bare skin".

I actually don't have any idea what that means.

Also, I don't think it has anything to do with turning girls into sexual objects because I feel the same way about boys and them having respect for their bodies. Plus, I would honestly rather see them run around naked. I have no problem with taking pride and pleasure in bodies.

I will try again. Usually, when people talk about "modest" clothing, they're not talking about inexpensive clothing in muted colors. They're talking about how much of the girl's or woman's body the clothing covers.

And yes, "modesty" objectifies women. Just look at all of that "modest is hottest" stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you object to society turning girls into sexual objects, then stop turning girls into sexual objects. Society's obsession with covering women's bodies is just as sexually objectifying as pants with "juicy" printed on the rear. More, in fact, because it's possible to avoid wearing pants with "juicy" printed on the rear, but it's not possible to avoid people who are obsessed with covering women's bodies in the name of "modesty". The opposite of "modest" is "prideful", not "bare skin".

I actually don't have any idea what that means.

Also, I don't think it has anything to do with turning girls into sexual objects because I feel the same way about boys and them having respect for their bodies. Plus, I would honestly rather see them run around naked. I have no problem with taking pride and pleasure in bodies.

I will try again. Usually, when people talk about "modest" clothing, they're not talking about inexpensive clothing in muted colors. They're talking about how much of the girl's or woman's body the clothing covers.

And yes, "modesty" objectifies women. Just look at all of that "modest is hottest" stuff.

I suppose anything that focuses on what people wear objectifies them. But we do that all the time.

[Anonymous]

LOL, there is an age? I have only bought my daughter bikinis since she was a baby. There are a bunch of cute one pieces, but they are a pain to take off when wet and she needs to go to the bathroom. Why are bikini's a big deal, I don't get it. It's a belly button on a little girl, oooh, the shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, there is an age? I have only bought my daughter bikinis since she was a baby. There are a bunch of cute one pieces, but they are a pain to take off when wet and she needs to go to the bathroom. Why are bikini's a big deal, I don't get it. It's a belly button on a little girl, oooh, the shame.

There is a difference between a convenient and easy tankini two piece and a string bikini. Two different things. Also, there is a difference between babies who wear two pieces and tweens who were happy with tankinis and one pieces suddenly wanting to wear bikinis. Obviously these girls didn't just suddenly decide they like the feel of water on their skin...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I will try again. Usually, when people talk about "modest" clothing, they're not talking about inexpensive clothing in muted colors. They're talking about how much of the girl's or woman's body the clothing covers.

And yes, "modesty" objectifies women. Just look at all of that "modest is hottest" stuff.

I suppose anything that focuses on what people wear objectifies them. But we do that all the time.

Really? Recently on DCUM, the clothing discussions have been about:

1. short shorts, and what they say about girls' sexuality
2. leggings, and what they say about girls' sexuality
3. bikinis, and what they say about girls' sexuality
4. jeggings, and what they say about girls' sexuality

So, no, we don't focus on what "people" wear all the time. We focus on the clothes and sexuality of young girls and teenage girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is a difference between a convenient and easy tankini two piece and a string bikini. Two different things. Also, there is a difference between babies who wear two pieces and tweens who were happy with tankinis and one pieces suddenly wanting to wear bikinis. Obviously these girls didn't just suddenly decide they like the feel of water on their skin...

OK. And so...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a difference between a convenient and easy tankini two piece and a string bikini. Two different things. Also, there is a difference between babies who wear two pieces and tweens who were happy with tankinis and one pieces suddenly wanting to wear bikinis. Obviously these girls didn't just suddenly decide they like the feel of water on their skin...

OK. And so...?

OMG! I just really love the way these 5 inch heels and tiny miniskirt make me feel. It has nothing to do with the attention I get from men. Why can't people understand that this is just me expressing who I am? It has nothing to do with history or society or culture or ANYTHING like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's plenty of girls younger than that running around in bikinis. They look pretty silly, in my opinion, but she won't be the only one. Interestingly, my 10-year daughter has always felt comfortable with more fabric. But she's slender and athletic - and blonde! - so I can guess what's coming!

Don't get the point with your last sentence. If she was not slender, athletic, or blonde, she wouldn't be dating as soon?

Uh. Hello. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just asked my 6 and 9 year olds why they like wearing bikinis.
-easier to take off to use the bathroom
- more opportunity to mix and match
- they like how the sun and water feel on their bellies
- 9 yr old thinks they're more whimsical and fun - she thinks one-pieces are for hardcore swimmers doing laps

Obviously they have not yet learned to think of themselves as objects, rather than subjects. Good for you, PP! (<---sincere praise)

Would you let them go naked? Why not? Much easier to go to the bathroom. Even MORE opportunity to feel water and sun on skin. I guess it's less matchy-matchy, but other than that why not full nudity or topless?

Clearly there are some standards of what's appropriate and they are dictated by societal standards of modesty and privacy, so stop pretending that this is a value-free choice for little girls who are untainted by objectification.

I've let them go wading in lakes and streams in just their underwear, yes. When we were in Europe at beaches where it was appropriate I let them go topless. I wouldn't allow it at a pool here in the U.S. because it's not appropriate here, just like it's not appropriate to wear their cowboy costumes to see a Broadway play. It's appropriate to wear a swimsuit (ANY type of swimsuit) at a pool, so that's what we do.