Children are small for such a short time. It is my belief that clothing should reflect the natural curiosity, whimsy and charm of the wee ones who wear them. On more than one occasion I have encountered a little boy or girl, more often a girl, who is dressed beyond his/her years. Recently, on a trip to the orthodontist, I was astonished to meet a pre-teen girl wearing a very low cut blouse. Why ? Being a pre-teen, there was really nothing more than a little flat chest showing. But, why is it necessary that this little girl dress provocatively? Is it because our society is more and more accepting of less and less clothing, even on little girls ?
There is nothing quite as distasteful as the sight of a young girl clad in low cut jeans, and a midriff blouse. The eight or nine year old is cute, no matter what she wears, but the lack of covering is a distraction from the innocence of the child. There is never a reason, in my estimation for a child to look 'sexy'. What is Mama thinking? Maybe, it is not completely Mama's fault. Perhaps it is becoming more difficult for parents to affordably dress their young ones from the retail sources available to us. Not only is it more difficult to do so affordably, but less and less chaste options are available. I understand, staying up with trends and fads, but come on, what about smocking, lace, rick-rack and bows ? Does this really go out of style for little girls ? What about pinstripe, and seersucker for little boys ? After all who sets the trends ? Lycra and, spandex are perfectly acceptable fabrics for exercise,and swimwear. But I would suggest another route for a play date, and school wear. I do not know who first said, " you are what you eat", but it stands to reason, if this is true, "you are what you wear", is also true. If I do not wish that my curvaceous seventeen year old wear an 'itsy bitsy, teeny weeny' bikini, then when she is seven, I do not place one, on her straight little body.
There is nothing quite as distasteful as the sight of a young girl clad in low cut jeans, and a midriff blouse. The eight or nine year old is cute, no matter what she wears, but the lack of covering is a distraction from the innocence of the child. There is never a reason, in my estimation for a child to look 'sexy'. What is Mama thinking? Maybe, it is not completely Mama's fault. Perhaps it is becoming more difficult for parents to affordably dress their young ones from the retail sources available to us. Not only is it more difficult to do so affordably, but less and less chaste options are available. I understand, staying up with trends and fads, but come on, what about smocking, lace, rick-rack and bows ? Does this really go out of style for little girls ? What about pinstripe, and seersucker for little boys ? After all who sets the trends ? Lycra and, spandex are perfectly acceptable fabrics for exercise,and swimwear. But I would suggest another route for a play date, and school wear. I do not know who first said, " you are what you eat", but it stands to reason, if this is true, "you are what you wear", is also true. If I do not wish that my curvaceous seventeen year old wear an 'itsy bitsy, teeny weeny' bikini, then when she is seven, I do not place one, on her straight little body.
What are Mama's options ? Complain. Make your money talk. Demand retail stores stop carrying 'hoochie mama' choices for wee girls. Dress little girls, as little girls, not as grown women, or worse.
1 comment:
This article reflects my thoughts 100%. Why do we want our children to represent something we never want them to become?
Post a Comment