Sexualize your daughters? At what age?

[James]

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?

[sugar and spice]

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.

[mullet81]

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

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.

[James]

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?

Originally posted by sugar and spice


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.

[James]

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.

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

Originally posted by James
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?

[AXOjen]

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.

As long as I think my daughter understands what impact her wardrobe choices have... I think I'd be okay with the choices she makes.

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.

[Taualumna]

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.

[kappaloo]

Originally posted by Taualumna
I sometimes blame feminism, more freedom, and the breaking down of traditional family values for the sexualization of children.

Sure, because feminism is to blame for all the woes of the modern society. 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.

[DeltAlum]

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.

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by kappaloo
Sure, because feminism is to blame for all the woes of the modern society. 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.

- Lisa (a fourth generation feminist, thankyouverymuch)

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

[sugar and spice]

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.

[wrigley]

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.

[bruinaphi]

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.

Originally posted by sugar and spice
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.