Do you let your preteen daughter wear "jeggings"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course it isn't sexual. How you present yourself to the world is not just about sex. A 9 yr old going out in nothing but her underwear is still not sexual but by my standards not appropriate. Same with leggings or tights (as pants). If your child wants to go out in tights or not wearing pants and you think that is a great way for her to present herself to the world and the people in it - then go for it. I tell my kids that the outline of your genitals is not something to share with the world - not because it is sexual, it is just private. So no ass cracks, no camel toes, no clothes that show the outline of the penis. Since we have raised the kids with an understanding that the clothes you wear and how you carry / dress yourself does send a message, they would actually be pretty mortified if their penis, ass crack or vulva were visible to others. They have no desire to wear skin tight clothes or to go out without pants and they aren't thinking sexual at all.

Ok, that sounds good for your kids. For mine, I would be more mortified (and so would DD) if her pants fell down, which is what happens with regular pants. Jeggings fit her more like pants (and are still loose around the crotch and behind) since she is such a petite little string bean. She feels comfortable in these b/c she does not have to keep yanking them up, or retucking herself in, or worrying that her underwear will be displayed to the class if she bends over (which would certainly garner a lot of teasing in a room full of kindergarteners).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rule in this house is leggings/jeggings need to be worn with a long top. Meaning tunic or sweater dress. I hate the trend of wearing leggings as if they are pants...they aren't so cover your ass!

+1

They are cute with a longer top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it isn't sexual. How you present yourself to the world is not just about sex. A 9 yr old going out in nothing but her underwear is still not sexual but by my standards not appropriate. Same with leggings or tights (as pants). If your child wants to go out in tights or not wearing pants and you think that is a great way for her to present herself to the world and the people in it - then go for it. I tell my kids that the outline of your genitals is not something to share with the world - not because it is sexual, it is just private. So no ass cracks, no camel toes, no clothes that show the outline of the penis. Since we have raised the kids with an understanding that the clothes you wear and how you carry / dress yourself does send a message, they would actually be pretty mortified if their penis, ass crack or vulva were visible to others. They have no desire to wear skin tight clothes or to go out without pants and they aren't thinking sexual at all.

Ok, that sounds good for your kids. For mine, I would be more mortified (and so would DD) if her pants fell down, which is what happens with regular pants. Jeggings fit her more like pants (and are still loose around the crotch and behind) since she is such a petite little string bean. She feels comfortable in these b/c she does not have to keep yanking them up, or retucking herself in, or worrying that her underwear will be displayed to the class if she bends over (which would certainly garner a lot of teasing in a room full of kindergarteners).

Exactly. My daughter is very thin. When she wears leggings, they are still loose through the seat. They also stay on her body, which is fabulous. I have bought her many a pair of pants (and in fact jeggings from certain stores) that literally fell down her body as she walked across the room trying them on.

Not all leggings/jeggings are cut the same. I find that some of them (for example Gymboree) have a very straight cut - you'll notice if they are not on someone. Others (Justice) are very curvy when there isn't a body inside.

On many girls, the curvy jeggings are snug through the butt and knees, and the seams really emphasize the normal curves of their muscles. On thin girls, the leggings can be loose through the butt, loose through the knees, and don't highlight curves/muscles at all.

[Anonymous]

We moms-of-string-beans can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but the hussy-callers are too invested in their hysterical fantasy to even listen to a rational point of view. At least we know that we have sisters-in-arms (sisters-in-legs?) who take a sensible approach where leggings are concerned.

[Anonymous]

but that is a different point. if the jeggings are loose and not form fitting they cease to function as jeggings and there is nothing to discuss. the problem is with innapropriate skin tight clothes, especially on an older girl who is starting to develop. I don't wear stuff like this myself either because I don't believe that is appropriate for anyone to wear and I know my husband wouldn't like me wearing it as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We moms-of-string-beans can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but the hussy-callers are too invested in their hysterical fantasy to even listen to a rational point of view. At least we know that we have sisters-in-arms (sisters-in-legs?) who take a sensible approach where leggings are concerned.

The post was about skin tight leggings on preteen girls. Preteen girls are going through puberty. Your young child wearing loose pants that sag in the butt are not jeggings, not skintight and not applicable to preteen girls going through puberty. Go back and read the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moms-of-string-beans can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but the hussy-callers are too invested in their hysterical fantasy to even listen to a rational point of view. At least we know that we have sisters-in-arms (sisters-in-legs?) who take a sensible approach where leggings are concerned.

The post was about skin tight leggings on preteen girls. Preteen girls are going through puberty. Your young child wearing loose pants that sag in the butt are not jeggings, not skintight and not applicable to preteen girls going through puberty. Go back and read the OP.

Our skinny girls are pre-teen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moms-of-string-beans can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but the hussy-callers are too invested in their hysterical fantasy to even listen to a rational point of view. At least we know that we have sisters-in-arms (sisters-in-legs?) who take a sensible approach where leggings are concerned.

The post was about skin tight leggings on preteen girls. Preteen girls are going through puberty. Your young child wearing loose pants that sag in the butt are not jeggings, not skintight and not applicable to preteen girls going through puberty. Go back and read the OP.

OK, so if my preteen girl is wearing leggings, but they are not skintight on her, then they're not leggings? Or they are leggings, but OP wasn't asking about them? Or...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moms-of-string-beans can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but the hussy-callers are too invested in their hysterical fantasy to even listen to a rational point of view. At least we know that we have sisters-in-arms (sisters-in-legs?) who take a sensible approach where leggings are concerned.

The post was about skin tight leggings on preteen girls. Preteen girls are going through puberty. Your young child wearing loose pants that sag in the butt are not jeggings, not skintight and not applicable to preteen girls going through puberty. Go back and read the OP.

+1 The post is not about adorable little kids in jeggings. It is about a developing girl/teen woman in jeggings. But 99% of girl teens around here wear them.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm. I have a 10 and 12 year old DDs. Both are "preteen", yet both still have the toothpick legs they have always had, so leggings/jeggings are still loose on them. My mom (quite conservative) has purchased jeggings for them as part of gift outfits. I'm not too worried about them suddenly turning into hussies in a few years....maybe some of you are secretly worried about your own kids---projecting from your own past, perhaps?

[Anonymous]

What in the hell is going on in the world?

As a kid in the 80's ALL we were were leggings...thin leggings and loose tops. They were much more skin tight than jeggings. I guess I looked like a whore in my bright pink leggings and gray oversized shirt with massive bows in rainbow colors sewed to it. Who knew!

Seriously, this is absolutely ridiculous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What in the hell is going on in the world?

As a kid in the 80's ALL we were were leggings...thin leggings and loose tops. They were much more skin tight than jeggings. I guess I looked like a whore in my bright pink leggings and gray oversized shirt with massive bows in rainbow colors sewed to it. Who knew!

Seriously, this is absolutely ridiculous!

Eh, I think there is one (may be there are two) posters who are anti-jegging and convinced that little girls can be hos. Perhaps it's the same person who equates bikinis with underwear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What in the hell is going on in the world?

As a kid in the 80's ALL we were were leggings...thin leggings and loose tops. They were much more skin tight than jeggings. I guess I looked like a whore in my bright pink leggings and gray oversized shirt with massive bows in rainbow colors sewed to it. Who knew!

Seriously, this is absolutely ridiculous!

Eh, I think there is one (may be there are two) posters who are anti-jegging and convinced that little girls can be hos. Perhaps it's the same person who equates bikinis with underwear.

I am anti-leggings as pants and it has absolutely nothing to do with being hos or hussies. It actually only seems to be a couple pro-leggings posters who keep bringing up hussies and hos so they seem to be the ones who think of their daughters that way depending on what they wear. Different dress is appropriate for different contexts and places. What you wear to work is not the same as what you lounge in at home. What you wear to bed is not the same as what you wear skiing. What you wear to the beach is not the same as what you wear to a dinner with friends. There are socially acceptable ways of dressing depending on the context and situation - that at least for me, but not for some of you has nothing to do with sex or being a hussy or ho. I don't talk to or about my kids that way. Not appropriate for school or in public just means that those aren't clothes you wear in that setting. Just like you might tell your daughter she can't wear her pyjamas to her graduation - are you telling her that because you think pajamas make her look like a hussy or a ho or can you understand the concept that it isn't right for the context. For us wearing tights with or without feet (leggings) are not appropriate as pants unless you are lounging at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What in the hell is going on in the world?

As a kid in the 80's ALL we were were leggings...thin leggings and loose tops. They were much more skin tight than jeggings. I guess I looked like a whore in my bright pink leggings and gray oversized shirt with massive bows in rainbow colors sewed to it. Who knew!

Seriously, this is absolutely ridiculous!

Eh, I think there is one (may be there are two) posters who are anti-jegging and convinced that little girls can be hos. Perhaps it's the same person who equates bikinis with underwear.

I am anti-leggings as pants and it has absolutely nothing to do with being hos or hussies. It actually only seems to be a couple pro-leggings posters who keep bringing up hussies and hos so they seem to be the ones who think of their daughters that way depending on what they wear. Different dress is appropriate for different contexts and places. What you wear to work is not the same as what you lounge in at home. What you wear to bed is not the same as what you wear skiing. What you wear to the beach is not the same as what you wear to a dinner with friends. There are socially acceptable ways of dressing depending on the context and situation - that at least for me, but not for some of you has nothing to do with sex or being a hussy or ho. I don't talk to or about my kids that way. Not appropriate for school or in public just means that those aren't clothes you wear in that setting. Just like you might tell your daughter she can't wear her pyjamas to her graduation - are you telling her that because you think pajamas make her look like a hussy or a ho or can you understand the concept that it isn't right for the context. For us wearing tights with or without feet (leggings) are not appropriate as pants unless you are lounging at home.

No, no, no. Anti-jegging AND convinced that jeggings make little girls look like (insert perjorative term for woman who likes sex here). I get where the jeggings are leggings posters are coming from (I don't agree, but that's fine). The discussion keeps veering off into totally ridiculous terrain, though.

[Anonymous]

This was an amazing thread, wasn't it? Are those things still in style? Or are they just too hot in the summer?