Sexualize your daughters? At what age?
 

So at what age will, or do yo think you should, sexualize your daughters?

We have debates in this country about age approriate dress and when girls should be sexually active. Which is fine.

But my qustion is when do you start dressing your daughter up in such a way that they become sex objects to males?

Specifically, when will you allow your daughters to wear make-up like an adult woman and wearing clothes that accentuate her body's sexual attributes?

After all, once you allow this you can stop expecting males to see your little girls as just little girls. They will be seeing young women in a sexual way.

Any thoughts?

James, there's a difference between dressing your daughter up like a hooker and allowing her to dress herself up like a hooker. ;)

Personally, right now I feel like when my future daughter wants to start experimenting with her looks, I will be okay with it. Maybe I'll feel differently when/if I actually have kids . . . but I figure that as long as I take the time to educate my daughter about what these clothing/makeup choices mean and I feel like she understands that, I'll be fine with it.

After all, wearing a thong/low-cut top/lots of makeup doesn't mean you're having sex. Nor does it mean you're a bad person. But you have to take into account the fact that other people are going to treat you a certain way because of what you wear, which is a fact that I think girls of a certain age don't always fully grasp. As long as I think my daughter understands what impact her wardrobe choices have -- not just in terms of "sexualized" clothing, but also if she chooses to dress punk or goth or what have you -- I think I'd be okay with the choices she makes.

When I have my daughter I'll be sure to keep her like hell away from James.

ok i mean seriously, do you just sit around and think of random topics to post about? or have you been lusting after some young girls lately :p

i don't think dressing "sexualized" as you call it is a rite of passage that happens at a certain age - and i KNOW most mothers don't turn to their daughters and say, "honey, it's time i start dressing you in clothes that draw attention to your breasts, stomach, and butt."

i think a lot (not all) of girls go through this phase in middle school and into high school, when they see the older girls with their more womanly bodies and they want to emmulate that.
but overall i agree with sugarandspice... i think whenever my daughter wants to start dressing more "mature" i'll support her and educate her as how to look more feminine, pretty, and classic.

Thank you for the intellegent response.

I think its also important to note the amount of attention and the type of attention that a girl will get when they dress in this way.

And as you say, a lot of young girls may not realize it, or may realize it too well . . . but might not be aware where it could lead.

I am not thinking abuse or anything, but just being considered a a sexual object.

We sit there and say, at such and such an age a girl should not be sexually active, but then we allow them to dress and act in ways that are sexually provocative. I wonder if thats a mixed message.

What age do you think its acceptable for a girl to be sexually active?

Sandy, did I miss a meeting? Did I wrong you in another life? You are kind of hostile for someone I have nearly no interaction with.

James, you're only realizing this now?

Interesting topic and one that my husband and I have discussed at length. We have 2 daughters and 2 sons and we are dismayed at the sexualization of children that seems to have grown more pronounced in the past 5-10 years.

We take a very strict, controlling approach... but our children don't recognize it as such. We homeschool, so while our children have lots of encounters with other children, their exposure to pop culture and peer pressure is limited. To them, wearing jumpers and tights is normal. They don't spend their days surrounded by 7 year old Brittney wannabees.

I tell you what! It is getting harder and harder to find clothing that is appropriate for a little girl. If I go into a shopping mall I often come home empty handed. No hip-huggers for my 4 year old, thank you very much. Is it too much to ask that their shirts cover their tummies? It would be nice to find a pair of shoes that didn't have a chunky, 2 inch heel.

I wouldn't be okay with her choices if the impact her appearance had was one I don't think she's ready to handle. I'd explain why... I'd listen to her feelings... but I'd still say no.

I sometimes blame feminism, more freedom, and the breaking down of traditional family values for the sexualization of children. How a lady behaves and how a gentleman behaves used to be taught at a very early age. Now that SOME women have rejected the notion of being proper, it has forced men to do so too. This slums down proper society, which is why so many schools today have dress codes (even schools with uniforms are stricter than 10 years ago. When I started at my high school in 1992, there was no official regulation for skirt length. It was automatically assumed that everyone's skirts would be no shorter than three inches above the knees. Of course, girls liked to wear long boxers or bike shorts under their skirts back then, and as long as those didn't show, they were fine. However, by 1995-96, boxers and bike shorts were out, and shorter skirts were in. By my final year, the faculty actually measured the girls' skirts the old fashioned way, having the girls kneel if they felt that the skirts were too short.) What I don't understand is this: The "in" look this season (as it has been for the past few) is "the lady". I guess that "in" look is for us grown-ups and not for the younger set. Funny, because when I was a kid, I wanted to be like my mom.

Sure, because feminism is to blame for all the woes of the modern society. :rolleyes: Let's forget that the twentieth century brought increased media into our homes and exposed thousands of people to movements that far exceeded that of the feminist agenda. Let's not think of the multitudes of complex social issues that created today modern culture and blame it all on the feminists.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people stomping over the entire women's movement because they don't agree with very small poritions of it. Feminism did not ruin family values. Don't paint such a large, long-term movement with such a wide brush.

- Kappaloo (a fourth generation feminist, thankyouverymuch)

eta: just reread the quote, and it do realise that taualumna was not blaming feminism alone for the sexualization of children but I think most of my post stands as is so I'll not change it.

Thankfully, that is a far distant memory for me. As I recall, though, they were reasonably moderate. They probably really began thinking strongly about sexuality in late middle school.

But, as I said, it's been a while ago -- and you don't remember pain well.

Hey, I did say SOME. Feminism DID lead to society accepting social issues formerly considered scandalous, such as, oh, I don't know, "shacking up" (I'm not saying that couples didn't shack up before, but it surely wasn't "ok", and one surely didn't get benefits by living common law). In any case, I don't really agree with a good portion of feminism. Most of it is confusing anyway. One minute we want equality, but the next we want to be treated like ladies. If you want to be truly equal in a man's world, shouldn't you "act" like one? If we want true equality, we might as well not have women's and men's GLOs, the Junior League, DAR, IODE, and other single gendered organizations. Feminism, in some cases can be as whiney as Quebec politics.

Note: IODE=Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire. There website is www.iode.ca

Maybe this is just me, but if it comes down to choosing between the right to join a sorority/Junior League/DAR or being able to vote, being able to take action against an abusive husband, or not be shunned for choosing a path other than being a housewife from age 20 til the day I die -- I'd pick the latter every time.

The great thing about feminism, though, is that we don't have to choose between the two -- we get both options.

As we've discussed on these forums before, sororities would not exist without feminism. The founders of most of these groups were all feminists, whether or not they described themselves as such. I'm not sure where the inherent conflict between sororities and feminism comes in.

As for feminism causing the ills of the world -- I don't think I could begin to get into it on a board like GC, but Taualumna, your grasp of history and social issues is so clearly lacking that I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this topic with you (or many other GCers that I know share your viewpoint). To keep a long story short, I agree with kappaloo that the pervasion of the media has a lot more to do with the oversexualization at a young age than feminism ever did.

Well said kappaloo and sugarandspice.

Keep in mind the following advertising slogan was used to promote a particular airline. An image of a female flight attendant with the caption of "Coffee, tea, or me?".This campaign came during an age of traditional values was an insult to women. The majority of the advertising firms are run by men,who have pushed the envelope time and time again. The use of sex, objectification of women, and the illusion use for titilation to sell has been used and spun to fit every decade. This was long before the second wave of feminism.

As for allowing the daughter to dress to express herself, I would take the AXOjen approach when she's in grade school, middle school.When she's in high school, the sugarandspice approach sounds like it would work.

Ideally, parents should lay the groundwork as to what is and is not acceptable to their kids to wear. I know certain fads passed me by because my parents said no. Consumers speak volumes when they choose not to spend their money.

I think our Founders would agree with this. In Alpha Phi at least, our first alumna initiate was Frances E. Willard, one of the most famous women of her time, dean and professor at Northwestern University and one of the few women to have a statue in the Capitol building. Ms. Willard attended the school that was the predecessor to Syracuse University and was recommended to our founders by Dr. Coddington. She was a leader in the sufferage movement and the International President of Alpha Phi for 4 years. She believed firmly in the existence of sororities as developers of women and key to the advancement of women.

I think some of us aren't quite "getting it". Do you know why the media are selling sex to kids? Because they know that many moms and dads aren't home all the time so they can control them. With dual income families, and big box stores who are able to sell fashionable clothing and other items at an affordable price, most families are able to afford these things for their kids. It's a little harder to say "we can't afford it" now than it was before, and with all these confusing rules on what constitutes child abuse and what doesn't, some parents don't really bother to punish their kids if they throw a temper tantrum. Let's just say that the kids are just too spoiled.

Sorry, the "myth" of the single family income was for many North Americans (and Europeans, and ...) was always that - a myth. The lower class has always had both parents working. ALWAYS. It's just no one used to care about the lower class.

As for the rest - yea, some parents suck. We should expect better. But as for the clothes. My family never bought me expensive clothing and I sometime paid dearly for it. I was that kid that who went to a "rich kid school" but didn't dress like a rich kid. But they tought me there were bigger and better things in life than clothes so most of the time, I just didn't care. eta: and I really feel most children should be raised similarly. That last bit was the point, and I left it out

Umm... and sorry for turning this into a Taualumna against the world thread. You know I still adore you right?

Kappaloo, the "lower classes" of the past had a lot less money than they do today (before the government caved in and assisted them, the only help they got, if they were lucky was from the church or a secular organization. That wasn't really enough) Today, unless one is homeless, one probably has plumbing, heat, and probably a lot more luxuries than they did in the past. What they have today might very well have been considered "middle class" luxuries 50-60 years ago. If you want to know what REAL lower class is, then you should talk to my dad. In post WWII Hong Kong, many families of four or five or even more lived in rooms the size of a typical university residence room......imagine that...FIVE PEOPLE. And many of us complain that our rooms are cramped when we only have one roommate. Often, 50 people would share one bathroom. Today, that kind of housing would be shut down by the government because the standards are deemed too low.

Your parents sound like good people, limiting what you can buy when it came to clothes. Good for them! :)

I'm not going to discuss feminism right now.

I see little girls wearing clothes that I would be embarrassed to wear in front of my mother, and I'm in my thirties. I don't mean 15 year olds. I mean grammar school children and pre-teens. Parents need to be responsible for their children and what they wear. A nine year old dressing like Britney Spears is inappropriate.

I think that it is the role of parents to lay down a strong foundation for their children. The world seems so eager to corrupt them at an increasingly younger age. Sadly, many parents abdicate their responsibilities or want to be friends with their children instead of guiding them into adulthood. Parents need to prepare their children by discussing choices and actions and consequences with them. They cannot control them when they become teens, but parents can arm them with information as well as set an example.

I'll go ahead and age myself here. I was 16 in 1992, the height of the grunge era. I shopped the men's department for corduroy. Cute and girly was a baby doll dress with opaque stockings. We showed no skin, we layered our t-shirts, provocative was not an issue. Today, the little girls are wearing hip huggers and heels and trying to look like Britney but I strongly believe this is just the whims of fashion. The pendulum will swing back the other direction. In fact, I think it's already starting to.

Eh- the feminism thing would take forever to type, lets just say I feel that feminism is more or less causally unrelated to what James was asking.

My daughter will pretty much be allowed to wear what she wants, once she's old enough to understand the consequences of portraying yourself a certain way. (I'm thinking around the age of 16.) But she'll never go out of the house with her ass hanging out of her skirt, or wearing a see through shirt, whether she's 12 or 30. I'd hope that among other things, I'll teach her how to dress. There are sexy/attractive clothes, and stripper/trashy clothes. My daughter will know the difference. Along that same vein, she'll wear appropriate clothes to church and family functions, whether she's the stereotypical prom queen or a goth. If she's overweight or stick skinny, she won't be styling clothes 3 sizes too small for her. Again, it's just the concept of wearing what's appropriate.

That being said, if I saw my 13 y.o. (you know, "junior high"er) with a belly button ring, I'd rip it out.

Oh, when they're 30 or so :)

Obviously I know I have no control over that, my mom and I get into fights all the time and I'm 22. :) All I'm saying is that I would hope that I teach her how to dress in a flattering way...and if she doesn't get it by the time she's 30 then there was probably a mix up at the hospital.

First, in defense of Taualumna, I thank all the pioneering females of the women's movement who have allowed me the opportunities I have today. However, I think that oversexualization has been kind of a 'side effect' of that movement. I believe this is the point that she's trying to make. Women were given more freedoms, and along with that came the freedom to dress or act ANY way we chose. Does that make sense?

Cuaphi, you took me back! I went back to one of my little brother's football games in 1996, and I was shocked at how the girls were dressing...pretty much like a hooker. While I worry about what affect those girl's attire choices may have, I worry more about my son! LOL! While oftentimes parental supervision is lacking (I'm a teacher, I know.) I've also seen a lot of parents not really seeing anything wrong with it. Somebody's buying the clothes for them!

Finally, if I have a daughter, she will be approved for departure from the house.

aj

Interesting thread.

I don't think I would ever let a daughter of mine wear an outfit that screams to the world "Look everyone, I'm a sex object!" Nor am I going to make her wear a habit. Nonetheless, any daughter of mine will surely be a ravishing beauty just like her mother, and therefore turn heads regardless of how she's dressed. :cool:

With younger kids, mom or dad has to take them shopping, and that means mom or dad can lay down the law as to what is appropriate and what is not. Sadly, this isn't as easy as it used to be, both in terms of finding appropriate clothing and in terms of dealing with the kid's temper tantrums when you won't buy her a micro-miniskirt. When the kids get a little older, you can explain to them why you won't buy them the hip huggers and midriff-baring tops.

Teenagers usually pick out their own clothes and have their own money to spend (from an allowance or job income) so mom and dad get less say. Hopefully by that age, the "don't dress like a hooker" message has gotten through, and the kids will be choosing outfits that say "Look at me, I'm a young woman/man" but not "Wouldn't these clothes look good on your bedroom floor?". At some point you have to trust your kids to make their own decisions about how they will dress, just like you have to trust them to make their own decisions about everything else in life. As adults, they will have to make these decisions on their own every day. As teenagers, they can start making them, subject to parental veto.

I practically grew up in a convent :rolleyes: so I will most likely give my hypothetical future children a lot more leeway than I had. But there are plenty of outfits I've seen in stores and on people around town, that if my hypothetical future 16-year-old daughter were to try to leave the house wearing, I would be sending her upstairs to put on the rest of her clothes. :p The same goes for my hypothetical future 16-year-old son - if he wears something inappropriate, he gets sent upstairs to change, too.

I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if this has been said, but a few of the earlier post about feminism are confusing feminism with RADICAL feminism.
Feminism was never about burning your bra, and not shaving your legs and bashing men left right and centre. It was about having choices. It was about choosing to stay home and raise a family or choosing to go to work. It was about equal pay for equal work. feminsim is not the downfall of society. It's not to blame for over sexualized kids. We have to stop lumping feminsits into one giant catagory of extremists.
I'll admit I have been guilty of this. I've never liked to be called a feminist because I don't want people to lump me in with the radicals. But I suppose I am a feminist because I am all for choice. I want all women to be able to choose how they live their lives. If that means "traditional"...stay at home mum, 2.4 kids and a white picket fence, by all means go for it, if that's your choice. If you want a career and no kids. Super! I want you to have that.
Anyway, enough of my rant.

I don't think that's fair. The government did cave in. The welfare state was started in this country during WW2. It was started to help everyone. Times were tough, even for the middle class. It wasn't a cave in, it was to help everyone in a dire time. The welfare state was never stopped though. Yes there are abuses, but it's not because the government decded it would be alright for people to be lazy.

From the time I was old enough to dress myself, my parents always allowed me to pick out my own outfits and dress any way I wanted to.

Before I left the house in a not-so-classy outfit, my mom would always tell me to think about what image I was presenting of myself. Every time she said that, I wound up changing clothes.

My parents knew that I would rebel against direct control, but if I was given the option to choose, I would be more likely to listen to them. I will raise my children the same way.

I was in Target this weekend and was browsing the shoe section when I saw a mother with two girls doing some [presumable] school shopping. The older of the two girls (who couldn't have been more than 12) was trying on black patent leather pumps with cut-out toes and 3" heels. The younger (who was maybe 8 or 9) was trying on white platform sandals. They were wanted those shoes not to emulate mom, they were trying them on because that's what they thought looked cool. I was shocked. This girl who was 13 years younger than me wanted her mother to buy her shoes for school that were shoes I would have worn for work or a night out to the bars! That was a bit much for me. I don't know if the mother got them or not, but I know I wouldn't have.

I agree that it's more a product of the media than feminism. You have a 13-year-old singer [JoJo] who is wearing high heels and belly tops in her video because that's what some 30-year-old stylist put her in. The media is taking fashion that is geared towards adults and putting them on teenagers and that sends a dangerous message. At a time when kids are very impressionable and trying to discover themselves, they are very open to suggestive advertising. They don't want to be seen as little kids anymore, they want to look like their idols but they don't understand that's not how JoJo or Britney would normally dress for school or just hanging out with friends (well, maybe Britney would). It makes me nervous when I hear high school girls say they love Sex and the City because I don't think the majority of them are emotionally or mentally mature enough to understand it. It is okay for children to act, talk, think and look their age, I just wish the media would understand that.

That being said, I will allow my children to make their own decisions, but if I don't feel something is age-appropriate, I will let them know. Daughters can start wearing minimal make-up in middle school, with me teaching them proper application. If they want to spend their own money on trendy clothes, they can, but if I'm buying them, I will stick to versitile, classic pieces. I very rarely ever buy into fashion trends, so if my daughters were to look to me for fashion advice, they would see [hopefully] a classic, well-put-together woman. Then again, they might just see a big nerd who dresses 30 years behind the times!

My children are not having sex. Ever! (Unless I want grandbabies) :p ;)

I heard a quote on the CBC the other day that said in 1901, the rate of single-parent-households in Canada was something like 13%. In over 100 years, the rate has only gone up one percent. So much for blaming feminists and changing social mores.

But back to the original question: I'm not a mom (nor will I ever be), but I think that if I were, I wouldn't wait until my daughter expressed an interest in sexuality before I started teaching her responsible ways of presenting herself. I'd try to find age-appropriate ways to teach her how to deal with the changes she's going through, how to critically view images that are presented in the media, and ways that she can take pride in her image and appearance without making her into a junior strumpet. But you know, friends have more influence over parents at a certain age, so I'd also make sure I get to know her friends and their home situation fairly well. One of the scariest movies I've seen in recent years was the movie "Thirteen". If you're a parent of girl children and you haven't seen it, rent it ASAP.

But that clubbing style really isn't geared to adults. Lately, women's styles seen in the magazines and in stores have been more "lady-like" than "ho-like". It is only the tweens and teens that are trying to look like they're going clubbing.

When I was 7, it was "OMG, Cher is showing her navel."

When I was 17, it was "OMG, Madonna is writhing on the MTV stage."

When I was 27, it was "OMG, Janet Jackson has a guy's hands over her boobs."

In the words of Andy Rooney, it's amazing how long this country has been going to hell without ever having gotten there.

Basically my daughter would be allowed to dress how she wants... it's just I'll only pay for some clothes :). Seriously I hope that my daughter would be intelligent enough not to fall for the media trap of using sexuality to sell clothing.

As for younger kids dressing they way they do now... it was unfortunately to be expected, because I can remember the numerous articles discussing the rising spending power of "tweens". It was simply exploiting another economic niche.

As for Feminism being responsible for the this sexualization of younger and younger girls... BS. I come from a family with a long history of feminism so I have been exposed to the traditional ideals of the movement all my life... and from what I seem to recall it was about the empowerment of women, based on values and charactersitics that were seperate from their sex (and by extension overt expressions of sexuality).

Suffrage/"Famous Five" feminism and post WWII "Feminazi" Feminism are not and should never be put in the same box, assuming that your family has been connected to the former.

I don't want to have a daughter.
I don't want to have to worry about her going out dressed like a dime-store hooker. I don't want to her to worry about body image, I don't want to worry that she'll come home pregnant at 13. Oh, I hope I have sons.

In case I don't have sons, I want to make sure my daughter is dressed appropriately for her age. And while I'm buying her close I will decide what is age appropriate. If she wants to wear makeup, she'll be taught how to apply it properly. I want to make sure that my daughter knows the ramifications of dressing like a "floosy". I see some young girls out today and I wonder what their parents were thinking.

Best idea: be a stay-at-home mother or work at home (which hopefully will be more possible in the near future. We already have the technology to do it, but it's just that many companies WON'T do it!) That way, if you have kids, you can control their behaviour.

Actually I would classify radical Feminism with most radical movements, a product of the 60's. Even then it was an extension of the base arguement of being judged as a person not as a woman, hence the doing away with sexual identifiers or "constrants" (ie. the whole bra burning, not shaving thing). It was the 70's that saw rise the militant feminism or the infamous "Feminazi's" you see wandering around campus...

This is really OT, but all the feminist stuff makes me want to say it:

Check out a book by Susan Douglas called Where the Girls Are. And if you think you're not a feminist - read the introduction.

My mom - who gave me all of my feminist values - always shuns the label because of the 'feminazi' association. But when she read that intro she laughed and told me I was right all along - she really is a feminsit.

It's good in theory but I recall there were always girls who left home dressed one way and on the bus or at school changed outfits.

As for tweens buying power, unless babysitting is paying more than a entry level corporate job , these kids are getting cash from somewhere.Last time I checked child labor laws are in place. And I won't start on the issue of allowances.

That's why many schools have dress codes that don't allow very short skirts or pants, loud t-shirts, the display of bra straps, non-religious headgear, etc...maybe more schools should do that. Anyway, I'm sure twelve years ago, people were complaining about how teens were dressing inappropriately because of the grunge movement. It's just that we covered ourselves back then, so there was no "sexualization" of young girls. However, the clothes certainly weren't "lady-like" either.