See over on the lower right hand side of the first picture, what looks like a little pair of short shorts? Those are meant to be worn under dresses like that. They’re sometimes called “spanks” or “spankies” or “bloomers”. In babies and toddlers, they’re sometimes called “diaper covers”. They are usually made in matching or coordinating colors to the dress and sometimes contain a ridiculous amount of ruffles and lace.
But for the larger question: yes, those dresses are too short for today’s standards without anything underneath. Leggings have become more popular than spankies, but I don’t know anyone who would take their child to a formal event (say, church) in a dress that short with nothing underneath but a diaper or underwear.
The 1970’s (those look late 60s or early 70’s, but it hard to guess from children’s patterns) were very fond of the long lean bare legged look for all ages and genders. Today we like long and lean (see: skinny jeans, leggings), but not so much bare.
I’m the parent of a girl. Granted, she’s way too young (at 9 months) to be making her own clothing choices, and if she did, she’d either be completely naked all the time or wear only clothes made out of her favorite blanket.
That said, I’m a bit horrified by what I see in children’s clothing stores. Some stores are better than others, it’s true. I’ve found that the high-end stores are less shocking, but then I refuse to pay $40 for a onesie.
There’s one store near me (in downtown Brooklyn) that I swear is meant to serve diminutive prostitutes. What parent would buy this stuff for their daughter?
Every store (except name-brand, designer stores) has stuff like the “Juicy” or “Pink” garbage. There is no way in hell my daughter, at any age, is walking down the street with the word “Juicy” on her butt.
And the princess crap – again, not happening in my house.
So, yes, there is a lot of clothing out there for little girls that is wildly inappropriate and overly sexual. It’s beyond creepy.
There’s plenty of stuff that isn’t like that, too, but (in my experience), it tends to be quite a bit more expensive.
Those are clearly dresses for little girls. And pretty dressy ones, at that. “Too short” is contextual, and what’s too short for a 13-year-old isn’t, for a three-year-old.
But take a form-fitting garment made out of some stretchy fabric, with rhinestones and glitter, and the words “Worth Every Penny” on the (low-cut) chest, and something even tackier on the butt (yes, I’ve actually seen this), and it’s a different thing altogether.
Well yes, but I thought clothing for little girls was exactly what we were discussing. The article is specifically about child’s clothing in the XS size, which I can’t imagine would fit children much older than 6 or 7.
I agree that these dresses are different than “Juicy” shorts. Though, the fact that these dresses had little tiny shorts no bigger than panties under them doesn’t seem that different, at the same time…
Logically, they’re not. Logically, there’s no reason why little girls shouldn’t, at least in the warmer seasons, wear nothing at all except sunscreen. We don’t need clothes. We don’t actually cover up skin to deter pedophiles (those pedophiles are going to be just as turned on by a clothed little kid as an unclothed one.) We cover up skin because reasons. But those reasons are real in a social sense, and will indeed lead to people making assumptions and treating our daughters and ourselves poorly and limiting their opportunities in life if we don’t play the game.
I spend 6 weeks out of the year not caring even a little what my daughter is wearing at clothing optional camp grounds, and the other 46 telling her to go get a pair of leggings on because that dress is showing a bit too much skin for public consumption. Makes absolutely no logical sense. But it makes absolute social development sense.
My daughter is extremely tall and thin, making finding things of an appropriate length incredibly difficult. This summer I finally just threw my hands up and said, “Screw this!” and went to Walmart online and bought 10 toddler dresses for $4 each because pants and shorts were just never, ever going to happen. I picked a random assortment and found myself underwhelmed at the options. They had dresses with spaghetti straps that were perfectly cute except that any time she twisted or turned her nipples were exposed. They had better dresses with that Y type of back/strap that were excellent in every way except there was no give to the neckline so getting them over her head was an ordeal. Then they had dresses with a strap only on one side that fit her fine but made me :dubious: because they were just suggestive enough a design that I felt it might not have been the best option for a 2 year old. At $4 a dress I really couldn’t complain, especially as she is at a point where she isn’t going to get more than 2 or 3 months wear out of any item of clothing.
Just when I thought we might have to go live in a nudist colony I discovered an amazing thing, funnily enough also at walmart. Adjustable waist jeans! 3T or 4T length and the ability to shrink down to a teeny, tiny waist is just perfect! The waist still doesn’t get quite small enough for her (her preschool teachers call them her rapper pants because they sag a little in the butt) but they give us functional pants for her whereas before we didn’t think pants were going to be much of an option at all.
Those things are made of awesome. My daughter’s a beanpole, too, and to get something long enough in the legs that isn’t slipping off her nonexistent hips was really impossible until I found those.
FYI - as your little one grows up faster than she grows out, those dresses will become great tunic tops over a pair of (yes) leggings.
This thread is exhausting me with all the moving goalposts.
Basic reasonably priced clothing is completely not available…except at every major discount retailer. Short dresses are turning our kids into sex objects…except the cute little bloomer outfits I find tasteful. Dresses just keep getting shorter…except the 50s, 60s, 70s and probably 80s. Toddler clothes are to sexy…except…well hey can we just talk about pre-teens instead?
But still THOSE parents are terrible, and I’m not like them at all, as demonstrated by my decrying the epidemic of baby club clothes (which I can’t really produce any actual evidence of…but still I’m against it!)
I have a three year old daughter. I have no trouble finding tasteful leggings and tops for her. I find them at Old Navy and Target, and also at Meijer and Wal-Mart, and also in that thrift shop down the road.
I’m kind of underwhelmed by the outrage. Yes, tacky stuff exists. It always has and it always will.
I tried to buy my son some My Little Pony shirts. The kid friggin’ loves that show and I see no reason to discourage it. But I can’t find any pony shirts for boys, and when I shop in the girls’ section they are all SUPER cut for girls. I don’t have a problem with a little ruching on the hip or a puffier sleeve, I am not getting them for my son but they would be cute on a girl. My real problem is how they are all tailored for little waists and sexy hips. IN THE TODDLER SECTION. These girls are built exactly the same as the boys, why are their shirts cut for the curves of a woman?
All clothes these days are more fitted. The fashion look is more fitted clothing for guys and girls today.
A large t-shirt size today is smaller than large t-shirt size of the 90’s.
The clothes in the 90’s where more baggy for both guys and girls.
If you want bit more baggy clothing get extra size more. If you know you wear a large t-shirt size than get it in extra large t-shirt.A extra large t-shirts today are large t-shirt size of the 90’s.
If you are a teen they normally go with small or medium size t-shirt.If you bit husky built teen you may have to go with large t-shirt. A large t-shirt will be medium size 90’s t-shirt.
If you a husky in your 30’s you may have to go with extra large t-shirt or extra extra large t-shirt.
It just that today clothing is more fitted that is the fashion look.Like a tight shirt and tight jeans.
Why do baby clothes have pockets when babies don’t have the coordination to use them? Why do we buy those little baby socks that look like shoes, when babies don’t need shoes? Ever seen those little baby bow ties? We put kids in grown up looking clothing because it’s amusing.
This whole line of thinking is bothering me-- it implies that ordinary women’s clothing and the very existence of an adult woman’s body is automatically and primarily “sexy.” I don’t wear a fitted tee shirt to show off my “little waist and sexy hips.” They are just ordinary pieces of clothing in a modern cut. Imitating them in little kids clothes is kind of silly, but they aren’t any sillier than dressing a kid in a grown up masculine outfit- maybe a basketball jersey and shorts.
Basically, IMHO, clothes I would wear to a PTA meeting are not sex clothes, they are just plain old women’s clothing. I think it’s kind of creepy to project sex on them, especially when we are talking about little kids.
This works great for t-shirts. Not so much for pants or shorts.
As for the topic at hand, I don’t really have much of an opinion, having no little ones of my own. However, I’d love to see the trend of “all pink, all the time” for little girls to die a million horrible deaths. That is all.
Can’t you get jeans in bigger size and wear a belt if it is too big? I mean if your jean size is x and you want it more baggy get jeans in bigger size and wear belt.
This will only work for jeans or jean shorts not basketball shorts.
Well, it depends on how small someone is, versus how big they need their pants to cover the area they desire. For example, if the mother in the article wanted her daughter to have fitted shorts as long as the boy’s pictured, they’d probably be beyond huge when bunched all up to go around her daughter’s waist.
You think that’s bad look at Halloween costumes. Basically from early teen on up almost every female costume is some version of sexy vamp, witch, nurse, Dorothy, or whatever.
