Junior Slut: Fashion for Girls
Noreen Cooper
Spice-Girl inspired? Who are the principal manufacturers? How long has
this fashion been hot? And who in the hell would dress their 6yo in
something sexy anyway?
As time goes on, I really do believe the parents of girls have a tougher
time in this society. Geez. Junior Slut. What next?
Noreen Cooper Heavlin
MiTrefoil
wrote:
I wouldn't say this has anything to do with Spice Girls. I've had this
problem since Madonna came out. I don't know if it was before then.
It is a REAL pain to try to buy clothing for a 6 year old knowing that
anything over size 6 is Junior Slut. (I love that term!) There sure is
a rush to push little kids into some kind of adulthood!
--
Marie Houck
> Can anyone fill me in on this Junior Slut fashion for Girls? Is this
> Spice-Girl inspired? Who are the principal manufacturers? How long has
> this fashion been hot? And who in the hell would dress their 6yo in
> something sexy anyway?
>
> As time goes on, I really do believe the parents of girls have a tougher
> time in this society. Geez. Junior Slut. What next?
The "slut puppy" look predates Spice Girls by quite a lot: I had problems
buying clothes for my now 17 year old, and I know my MOM complained about
some of the fashions being sold in little girls sizes for my sister when
she was little -- and she's almost 30 now.
I've been amazed, appalled, and frequently horrified by what I see some
six yo's dressed in: certainly, SOME of the folks who follow the "junior
beauty pageant" circuit, or are interested in modeling, do this to their
daughters -- but even beyond that, I see some women who seem to delight in
dressing their little girls in fashions that are just way too
sophisticated or explicitly sexual for little girls. I don't get it,
either.
And if you think it's tough when you've got a six yo, just wait a few
years. The media/popular culture influence is damned frustrating. I
attended a workshop today, and one of the exercises we did was to analyse
messages people (several age groups identified) receive about sexuality
from several sources: parents, peers, church, school, and popular
culture. When we were all done, and were asked to re-read what had been
written on each of the pages of newsprint and reflect on what we had
learned, I think one man put it best when he said, "Popular culture trumps
everything else."
Marie Houck
trying not to get trumped
MarjiG
>Can anyone fill me in on this Junior Slut fashion for Girls?
That's my term for the age-inappropriate clothes I find in the stores. So far,
I don't think anyone is marketing clothes under this name, but let's not give
them any ideas.
> Is this Spice-Girl inspired? Who are the principal manufacturers?
> How long has this fashion been hot?
It seems pretty wide-spread, I first noticed it when we crossed out of the
toddler sizes, but I suspect it was well on it's way long before that.
> And who in the hell would dress their 6yo in something sexy anyway?
Ah, there's the rub. How to buy clothes for a 2nd grader that wears size 8
when the
clothes are all the same from size 6 up. I'd love it if it was easier to find
non-sexy clothes for my girl, if only someone sold clothes for little girls. I
have found some acceptible clothes at Target, and I've managed to slide quite a
few boys clothes past them, although that is getting harder. Unfortunately, I
don't live near a Fred Meyer anymore, but I will be checking out Land's End. I
considered buying the uniforms for a neighboring school district, but I didn't
think it was too reasonable to make mine the only kids wearing themt. I was
surprised at the amount of resistance I got from other parents when I proposed
defining an optional school uniform. I figure that if half the kids are
wearing it that is enough to avoid undue teasing, and the parents can choose
which battle they want to fight.
>As time goes on, I really do believe the parents of girls have a tougher
>time in this society. Geez. Junior Slut. What next?
>
It might be tougher to raise girls, but it is even more important how the boys
are raised. I can teach my girls all I want, but if the men of their
generation aren't hearing the same lessons then my girls will still be fighting
the same battles
as my generation.
Everyone repeat after me: "It isn't 'babysitting' if it is your child. It
isn't 'helping out' if it is your house."
-Marjorie
Mom to Sarah (8) and Carys (5.5)
naomi pardue
> It is a REAL pain to try to buy clothing for a 6 year old knowing that
> anything over size 6 is Junior Slut. (I love that term!) There sure is
> a rush to push little kids into some kind of adulthood!
Is it really that hard? Jeans? Leggings? Tee-shirts? Flannel shirts?
Turtlenecks? Short-alls? Jumpers?
Those dresses that are so stylish right now with the sheer or burn-out
overdress over the opaque slip? (Not the most juvenile of styles, but
hardly sluttish.)
All of these are in style and widely available ready-made or as patterns
for sewing.
I've had no trouble buying and/or making suitable clothes for my 7 year old.
Naomi
MiTrefoil
<npa...@indiana.edu> writes:
>> It is a REAL pain to try to buy clothing for a 6 year old knowing that
>> anything over size 6 is Junior Slut. (I love that term!) There sure is
>> a rush to push little kids into some kind of adulthood!
>
>Is it really that hard? Jeans? Leggings? Tee-shirts? Flannel shirts?
> Turtlenecks? Short-alls? Jumpers?
>Those dresses that are so stylish right now with the sheer or burn-out
>overdress over the opaque slip? (Not the most juvenile of styles, but
>hardly sluttish.)
Yes, it really is that hard. I am not interested in dressing my 6 year old in
bare midriff dress, or cocktail dresses, or the opaque stuff. That isn't fit
for a 6 year old. She still wants the frilly stuff.
Hmm, I'd qualify leggings as slutty looking - no 6 year old needs form fitting
clothing. And, even the jumpers change in the size 8's (which is what she's
wearing) The cut is definitely different.
>I've had no trouble buying and/or making suitable clothes for my 7 year old.
Hurrah for you. We don't all have the same standards. I don't want the Spice
Girl/Madonna look, and I don't have kids who want it either. Apparently, I'm
not the only parent who feels that way, since I didn't start this thread or the
expression.
naomi pardue
>>Is it really that hard? Jeans? Leggings? Tee-shirts? Flannel shirts?
>> Turtlenecks? Short-alls? Jumpers?
>>Those dresses that are so stylish right now with the sheer or burn-out
>>overdress over the opaque slip? (Not the most juvenile of styles, but
>>hardly sluttish.)
> Yes, it really is that hard. I am not interested in dressing my 6 year old in
> bare midriff dress, or cocktail dresses, or the opaque stuff. That isn't fit
> for a 6 year old. She still wants the frilly stuff.
Nor am I. My point is that, where *I* shop (Target, K-Mart, etc.) there
are ample choices for girls that are neither bare midriff nor cocktail
dresses. I also sometimes buy her dresses from the Storybook Heirloom
which, while costly, has a huge assortment of 'non-slutty' styles.
> Hmm, I'd qualify leggings as slutty looking - no 6 year old needs form fitting
> clothing. And, even the jumpers change in the size 8's (which is what she's
> wearing) The cut is definitely different.
I have no objection to leggings. (They are cheap, comfortable, and have
no snaps/flies to wrestle with.)
If you do, then there are still plenty
of jeans or other pants styles.
> Hurrah for you. We don't all have the same standards. I don't want the Spice
> Girl/Madonna look, and I don't have kids who want it either. Apparently, I'm
> not the only parent who feels that way, since I didn't start this thread or the
> expression.
And nor do I. I do not buy 'Spice Girl/Madonna' clothes for Shaina, and
have had NO trouble finding suitable garments that are NOT in that style.
While I don't' know where you live, I DO find it hard to believe that you
can find NOTHING locally that is appropriate.
(It is also worth noting that, historically, young girls were expected to
dress LESS modestly than their mothers/older sisters. At a time when
women were expected to wear dresses to their ankles or to the floor, girls
wore knee legnth dresses. Being put in 'long skirts' was a sign of
maturity. Any anyone who thinks that 'showing undergarments' is a modern
innovation, has only to look at 18th century styles, where skirts were
routinely pulled back/tied up over petticoats, and chemises commonly showed
under blouses.)
Naomi
MarjiG
>Is it really that hard? Jeans? Leggings? Tee-shirts? Flannel shirts?
> Turtlenecks? Short-alls? Jumpers?
Well, throw in a kid that won't wear jeans or turtlenecks, a school that
doesn't allow
any clothes with cartoon characters or sayings and parents that can't sew and
life gets a little harder.
It isn't impossible to find suitable clothes, but it is way too possible to
find clothes that are completely inappropriate.
Elizabeth Gardner
mitr...@aol.comix (MiTrefoil) wrote:
> In article <7tfs0n$4e1$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, naomi pardue
> <npa...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
> >> It is a REAL pain to try to buy clothing for a 6 year old knowing that
> >> anything over size 6 is Junior Slut. (I love that term!) There sure is
> >> a rush to push little kids into some kind of adulthood!
> >
> >Is it really that hard? Jeans? Leggings? Tee-shirts? Flannel shirts?
> > Turtlenecks? Short-alls? Jumpers?
> >Those dresses that are so stylish right now with the sheer or burn-out
> >overdress over the opaque slip? (Not the most juvenile of styles, but
> >hardly sluttish.)
>
> Yes, it really is that hard. I am not interested in dressing my 6 year old in
> bare midriff dress, or cocktail dresses, or the opaque stuff. That isn't fit
> for a 6 year old. She still wants the frilly stuff.
>
> Hmm, I'd qualify leggings as slutty looking - no 6 year old needs form fitting
> clothing. And, even the jumpers change in the size 8's (which is what she's
> wearing) The cut is definitely different.
>
Geez, my daughter has been wearing leggings since she was 2, with
sweatshirts or t-shirts or big sweaters on top. If you qualify leggings
as slutty looking, no wonder you're having problems. Even Lands' End,
world capital of wholesome, won't do.
If you pair them with a lace see-through top, then yeah, I'd agree.
Claire Petersky
: Hmm, I'd qualify leggings as slutty looking - no 6 year old needs form
: fitting clothing.
When you're a tall and skinny 6, especially one with a fine motor skill
delay (like mine, who has problems with zippers, snaps, and buttons),
leggings are great. Everything else falls down around your ankles.
She was wearing her (clearance item) LL Bean owl long-sleeve t-shirt, and
a pair of grey leggings on the way to school today. Looked outdoorsy, not
slutty, to me.
--
Claire Petersky (pete...@halcyon.com)
under construction: http://www.halcyon.com/petersky
Avery Ke
: fitting clothing.
I wish *I* could find leggings like those available for kids. They are
*not* form-fitting, they are loose-fitting. Adult leggings are more like
little kid tights, which are form fitting and which we only use under
dresses.
Avery, who loves Lands' End Kids clothes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mailto:av...@u.washington.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott Lindstrom
|> In article <7tfs0n$4e1$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, naomi pardue
|> <npa...@indiana.edu> writes:
|>
|> >Is it really that hard? Jeans? Leggings? Tee-shirts? Flannel shirts?
|> > Turtlenecks? Short-alls? Jumpers?
|>
|> doesn't allow any clothes with cartoon characters or sayings and
|> parents that can't sew and life gets a little harder. It isn't impossible
|> to find suitable clothes, but it is way too possible to find clothes that
|> are completely inappropriate.
|> -Marjorie
|> Mom to Sarah (8) and Carys (5.5)
|>
So, the school disallows cartoon characters on clothes, but
allows Jr. Slut fashions?
<scott shakes head in amazement>
Scott, grateful for a BH who works a Lands' End and for
2 kids who will wear what Lands End sells :)
--
Scott S. Lindstrom
A lawyer can be disbarred; Can a meteorologist be disgusted?
Banty
>
> In article <7tfs0n$4e1$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, naomi pardue
> <npa...@indiana.edu> writes:
>
> >Is it really that hard? Jeans? Leggings? Tee-shirts? Flannel shirts?
> > Turtlenecks? Short-alls? Jumpers?
>
> Well, throw in a kid that won't wear jeans or turtlenecks, a school that
> doesn't allow
> any clothes with cartoon characters or sayings and parents that can't sew and
> life gets a little harder.
> It isn't impossible to find suitable clothes, but it is way too possible to
> find clothes that are completely inappropriate.
> -Marjorie
> Mom to Sarah (8) and Carys (5.5)
This discussion reminds me somewhat of a discussion I had IRL about
smaller kid's clothes with cartoon characters. People say it's hard to
find outfits for little boys without them, I say I don't know what
they're talking about.
I think that *perhaps* part of it is that, if you go in for *outfits*,
they tend to be trendy, so the selection is trendy. The key might be to
buy *separates*. I'm with Naomi Pardue here - I don't see how you can
go wrong with crewneck shirts or sweatshirts (if the kid won't wear
turtlenecks), and cordoroys or chinos (if the kid won't wear jeans), and
those things are everywhere! The idea is to get a selection of bottoms
(pants, leggings (which are not "slutty" I agree with the majority
here), etc.) and a selection of tops (dress-tops, sweats, t-shirts,
sweaters) which has among them a lot of cute combinations.
If it's a girl that insists on dresses - fine, go to Land's End and pick
out some nice simple knit dresses. Long sleeve or short. Hanna
Andersen is another good source. Those are more expensive, but,
although I have a boy, I do shop for neices, and there's tons of simple
decent stuff out there. Someone mentioned the cute girl' overalls.
Hard to go wrong with these for school. Solid T's for summer, long T's
for inbetween, and sweats and sweaters under them for winter. Works a
charm.
Banty
MarjiG
Lindstrom) writes:
>
>So, the school disallows cartoon characters on clothes, but
>allows Jr. Slut fashions?
>
><scott shakes head in amazement>
>
The problem is that Jr. Slut is hard to define. Leggings seem to be one gray
area, my girls wear them under dresses, but I don't let them wear them as
pants.
I definately agree with the school about cartoon characters, it simplifies
things. They don't have to make a judgement call about what characters are OK
and which are not.
cu...@op.net
Avery Ke wrote:
> : Hmm, I'd qualify leggings as slutty looking - no 6 year old needs form
> : fitting clothing.
>
> I wish *I* could find leggings like those available for kids. They are
> *not* form-fitting, they are loose-fitting. Adult leggings are more like
> little kid tights, which are form fitting and which we only use under
> dresses.
Anyway, what's innately bad about form-fitting? I am remembering the variety
of bathing suits I saw little girls wearing this past summer. All were
"form-fitting," but some definitely had a purposely "sexy" look about them
(the suits, not the girls!), which I think is gross in a little girl.
I am just as annoyed by overly "girlie" clothes for the little ones that are
just plain impractical. I have seen far too many preschoolers in high-heeled
(pink, of course) sneakers. How is a girl supposed to get physical, with all
the great benefits that go along with that, wearing stuff like that?
Me, I'm just hoping grunge is still in when my kids hit the teen years. Better
to have them looking unattractive in oversized stuff than like, well,
streetwalkers.
;) Beth G.
MiTrefoil
(MarjiG) writes:
>The problem is that Jr. Slut is hard to define. Leggings seem to be one gray
>area, my girls wear them under dresses, but I don't let them wear them as
>pants.
My daughter can wear them as leggings under dresses ok, but not as pants.
There are some schools in this area that don't allow girls to wear pants -
which is a bit archaic to me. My little onle's school allows slacks, and jeans
on designated "special" days. I need to get her some jeans. She doesn't really
care for them, she likes sweatpants, because they are "fuzzy", or soft on her
sensative skin.
>I definately agree with the school about cartoon characters, it simplifies
>things. They don't have to make a judgement call about what characters are
>OK and which are not.
I agree. Many of the cartoon things are inappropriate for kids. Some kids wear
shirts with shows that weren't even made for children - but it's animated, so
they get to see it.
Liz & Allan MacDonald
> I wish *I* could find leggings like those available for kids. They are
> *not* form-fitting, they are loose-fitting. Adult leggings are more like
LLBean Relaxed Fit Leggings. I'm wearing them now. I have no connection
with the company. The site is probably llbean.com.
Betsy Schwartz
decent, not unlike stretch pants. The thinner ones look like tights. I
I think they're OK if worn with a long shirt or sweater for that mini-skirt
look (but not ultra ULTRA mini!)
Sigh, I hope my daughter doesn't get into that look.
I saw one girl recently that I just wanted to scoop off the street and
dress. She looked to be about 14 or 15, was wearing an extremely tight
cutoff t-shirt, the boy's undershirt kind, with nothing underneath, and
pants that slouched halfway to her hips revealing quite a lot of her
underpants.
--
bet...@shore.net http://www.shore.net/~betsys
bet...@bbnplanet.com aka esch...@gtei.net
Yes, I guess I *do* work for an ISP
Banty
> In article <19991007195604...@ngol05.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com
> (MarjiG) writes:
>
> >The problem is that Jr. Slut is hard to define. Leggings seem to be one gray
> >area, my girls wear them under dresses, but I don't let them wear them as
> >pants.
>
> My daughter can wear them as leggings under dresses ok, but not as pants.
> There are some schools in this area that don't allow girls to wear pants -
> which is a bit archaic to me. My little onle's school allows slacks, and jeans
> on designated "special" days. I need to get her some jeans. She doesn't really
> care for them, she likes sweatpants, because they are "fuzzy", or soft on her
> sensative skin.
OK, when it comes to leggings being considered "slutty" or not, it seems
that we're talking about using them different ways. I don't think
people are proposing leggings being worn with a crop top or short jacket
or anything like that - that might come under the "slutty" description.
I think we're talking about leggings with a short dress or a long
sweatshirt. Just like for us adults - although in our case we're
usually talking about esthetics as well as modesty - the rule is "cover
the butt".
BTW, I find that the Land's End stuff is real soft - even the cords I
got my son are really really soft after a wash. Maybe their clothes
will agree with your daughter.
Banty
Animzmirot
beautifully dressed at all times, in wonderful clothing, top quality
merchandise and prestigeous brand names. She has not one item of sleeveless,
spaghetti strapped tight dresses, nor a crop top, nor any of the other clothing
you all have deemed slutty. I won't allow it.
I think that children should dress appropriately for their age. I think that
anyone in the US can head to GAP and find PLENTY of clothing for their
daughters that isn't the slightest bit slutty. I think that if you know certain
brand names, like Sweet Potatoes or Fresh Produce don't make clothing like
this, and you find speciality stores that carry those brand names, you won't
see slutty clothing.
We have rules in our house, and one of them is, modesty in dress is important
to us. I don't wear inappropropriate clothing to work, and I don't let my
children wear inappropriate clothing to school. That means that my son doesn't
get to wear those horrible athletic polyester shorts with the little holes in
them, and my daughter doesn't wear skirts/dresses that are higher than a couple
of inches below the knee. We have NO trouble finding such clothing. NONE.
But, I don't shop Target for clothing unless it is underwear. Their clothes
are, imho, cheaply made, not of good quality, shrink too easily, and aren't the
type of clothing I'd let my kids wear. I DO buy sweats, plain cotton t-shirts,
and at this time of your, short sleeved boy's button down shirts that are sold
as school uniforms. Those are a great deal for summer church/synagogue attire.
Like Banty, I can't figure out why this is such a big deal. It appears simple
to me, you don't like it, don't buy it. If the stores don't have business, they
go OUT of business.
naomi pardue
Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.net> wrote:
> It depends on the leggings. Some of them (like Land's End) seem fairly
> decent, not unlike stretch pants. The thinner ones look like tights. I
> I think they're OK if worn with a long shirt or sweater for that mini-skirt
> look (but not ultra ULTRA mini!)
It may also depend on the child. Shaina has very thin legs, so I've never
seen a pair of leggings that fit her tightly. (And while she DOES wear
tights, those go under dresses.)
Naomi
naomi pardue
> OK, when it comes to leggings being considered "slutty" or not, it seems
> that we're talking about using them different ways. I don't think
> people are proposing leggings being worn with a crop top or short jacket
> or anything like that - that might come under the "slutty" description.
> I think we're talking about leggings with a short dress or a long
> sweatshirt. Just like for us adults - although in our case we're
> usually talking about esthetics as well as modesty - the rule is "cover
> the butt".
Hmmmm... the leggings that Shaina has basically fit like rather snug
pants. While she DOES sometimes wear them under dresses in the winter,
they usually go with whatever top she is wearing, and they don't look
at all indecent or slutty. They look like pants. (Now, as noted in my other
post, Shaina is pretty thin, so maybe they fit tighter on girls with
chunkier legs, but I don't think so.)
Naomi
Kaye Teasley Muth
news:19991008210314...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> I find this entire discussion hilarious. I have a 7 YO daughter who is
> beautifully dressed at all times, in wonderful clothing, top quality
> merchandise and prestigeous brand names. She has not one item of
sleeveless,
> spaghetti strapped tight dresses, nor a crop top, nor any of the other
clothing
> you all have deemed slutty. I won't allow it.
While classically styled girls' clothing may be available at all times with
prestigious brands, etc., it is true that the more inexpensive clothing
tends to follow along trendier lines. A mere stroll through the cheaper
department stores bears witness to this.
I personally like the brands you named, plus some others like
Cottontail Originals (for classic clothes) and Jean Bourget and
Catimini (for that European flavor) but not everyone can afford this stuff.
For some people, even Gap is a stretch. But like I said in an earlier
post, being johnny-on-the-spot for a Gap sale can yield great quality
playclothes for really cheap as their sales are really sales.
The nicer children's boutiques in my town (there are 2 boutiques)
carry all the really nice lines. They both have semannual (biannual? I
never remember what 2 per year is) sales where the clothing can
go to 70% off. You just have to buy summer stuff in August and
winter stuff in February and March and so you have to plan
ahead (and guess a little about the sizes.) I never shop at department
stores (except TJMaxx, where I will find Mousefeathers dresses and
Flapdoodles short sets and Stride Rite shoes and where we buy all
underwear and undershirts). First of all, my town just doesn't have many
shopping stores (no Target, no Macy's) and I too am not interested in
many trendy designs. But I am a comparison shopper and a conscientious
consumer! I can't afford just to go purchase these clothes full retail
price!
Kaye
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
(Animzmirot) wrote:
>I think that children should dress appropriately for their age. I think that
>anyone in the US can head to GAP and find PLENTY of clothing for their
>daughters that isn't the slightest bit slutty. I think that if you know certain
>brand names, like Sweet Potatoes or Fresh Produce don't make clothing like
>this, and you find speciality stores that carry those brand names, you won't
>see slutty clothing.
Unless you have inherited a Middle East oil tychoon, won the lottery,
or your real name begins with Forbes, the GAP and many of the other
places mentioned are insanely priced and not practical for the Rest Of
Us [tm].
>But, I don't shop Target for clothing unless it is underwear. Their clothes
>are, imho, cheaply made, not of good quality, shrink too easily, and aren't the
>type of clothing I'd let my kids wear. I DO buy sweats, plain cotton t-shirts,
>and at this time of your, short sleeved boy's button down shirts that are sold
>as school uniforms. Those are a great deal for summer church/synagogue attire.
It's all a matter of economics. With two girls, we're getting to the
point that stuff for the older one may be recycleable to the younger
one, but the older one shreds hers pretty well, regardless of brand
for the most part. Since they outgrow their clothes fast, it may make
more sense to get inexpensive clothes and change a lot of them, and
put the difference in, say, music lessons, their college fund, or
daddy's fine european sedan maintenance fund :-).
Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos http://home.att.net/~strianta/
At home in Carmel, IN stri...@worldnet.att.net
Carole Duzan
Kaye Teasley Muth wrote:
>
<snip>
> The nicer children's boutiques in my town (there are 2 boutiques)
> carry all the really nice lines. They both have semannual (biannual? I
> never remember what 2 per year is) sales where the clothing can
> go to 70% off.
I used to have the same problem... :^)
bi = 2, therefore biannual = every two years
semi = part (half), therefore semiannual = every part (or half of) a
year
<snip>
naomi pardue
>>But, I don't shop Target for clothing unless it is underwear. Their clothes
>>are, imho, cheaply made, not of good quality, shrink too easily, and aren't the
>>type of clothing I'd let my kids wear. I DO buy sweats, plain cotton t-shirts,
> It's all a matter of economics. With two girls, we're getting to the
> point that stuff for the older one may be recycleable to the younger
> one, but the older one shreds hers pretty well, regardless of brand
> for the most part. Since they outgrow their clothes fast, it may make
> more sense to get inexpensive clothes and change a lot of them, and
> put the difference in, say, music lessons, their college fund, or
> daddy's fine european sedan maintenance fund :-).
I also find that the cheaper clothes make better economic sense. Shaina has
no younger simblings/smaller cousins to hand things down to, so buying
garmentsthat last forever don't make much sense. And, given the price
difference between, say Target tee-shirts and leggings (typically $3-$5
on sale) and 'high quality ones' (tpically $10-$15, and rarely on sale)
it STILL makes more financial sense to buy the cheap ones and have to
repace the occassional worn out garment [shirts never wear out, we've had
to replace a few pairs of leggings that wore out at the knees].
I have also found, sadly, that price is a poor indicator of quality. I
occasionally splurge on sale-items from Storybook Heirlooms, but have
found that they are NOT well made. They are fine for the real dressy things
that don't get worn/washed very often (or get dry-cleaned), but I've had
a HUGE problem with buttons coming off/zippers coming out/hems falling
etc. on the more freqnuently worn items. THe buckle broke on a pair of
short-alls the second time I washed it. A really cute bathing suit arrived
with 'wear-instructions' telling me that it should not be worn in chlorinated
pools or washed in the washing machine...
So, while I'll continue to buy her this stuff, occassionally, becuase it IS
really pretty ... I'll stick to K-Mart for most of her clothes. (And sew
most of her dresses.)
Naomi
naomi pardue
> While classically styled girls' clothing may be available at all times with
> prestigious brands, etc., it is true that the more inexpensive clothing
> tends to follow along trendier lines. A mere stroll through the cheaper
> department stores bears witness to this.
However, the REAL basics (slacks, tee-shirts, polo shirts, simple jumpers,
etc.) are widely available in all price ranges. 90% of Shaiana's clothing
is purchased at department stores, and I've had no difficulty finding
basic styles.
Naomi
MarjiG
<npa...@indiana.edu> writes:
>However, the REAL basics (slacks, tee-shirts, polo shirts, simple jumpers,
>etc.) are widely available in all price ranges. 90% of Shaiana's clothing
>is purchased at department stores, and I've had no difficulty finding
>basic styles.
>
I have. Girl's t-shirts are quite often scoop neck. I can't find girl's polo
shirts at all, I buy boys' when I can find them. Slacks are really tough, I've
had the best luck at Value Village, because then they are already soft enough
to be comfortable. For my K-er, I still try to avoid any type of fastener, so
my choices are even more limited.
I manage to dress my girls according to my standards on my budget, but I have
to believe that someone is buying all those clothes I see in the stores, and
that concerns me. Kids need a chance to be kids, yet they seem to be being
pushed to be mini-grownups more and more.
naomi pardue
> I have. Girl's t-shirts are quite often scoop neck.
So walk over to the boys dept. I do that anyway because, while the styles
are identical, invariably the girls tee's come in pink, lavender, pink
flowers, pink stripes, lavender flowers, and lavender stripes. For a little
more variety in colors (blue, purple, green, red, black,
etc.) I need to shop the boy's section.
> I manage to dress my girls according to my standards on my budget, but I have
> to believe that someone is buying all those clothes I see in the stores, and
> that concerns me. Kids need a chance to be kids, yet they seem to be being
> pushed to be mini-grownups more and more.
I try to not worry about what other people buy. THat is their business. I
buy what I like and find suitable.
Naomi
Banty
>
> Kaye Teasley Muth <kaye...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > While classically styled girls' clothing may be available at all times with
> > prestigious brands, etc., it is true that the more inexpensive clothing
> > tends to follow along trendier lines. A mere stroll through the cheaper
> > department stores bears witness to this.
>
> etc.) are widely available in all price ranges. 90% of Shaiana's clothing
> is purchased at department stores, and I've had no difficulty finding
> basic styles.
>
Right. Actually, I consider Land's End a bit upscale, and shop at Kids
R Us first. They have some house brand lines of real basic, or simple
colorblock boy's clothes.
Banty
Banty
> I also find that the cheaper clothes make better economic sense. Shaina has
> no younger simblings/smaller cousins to hand things down to, so buying
> garmentsthat last forever don't make much sense. And, given the price
> difference between, say Target tee-shirts and leggings (typically $3-$5
> on sale) and 'high quality ones' (tpically $10-$15, and rarely on sale)
> it STILL makes more financial sense to buy the cheap ones and have to
> repace the occassional worn out garment [shirts never wear out, we've had
> to replace a few pairs of leggings that wore out at the knees].
>
>
> Naomi
I'd agree (especially since I have one child). The more expensive
clothes I go to only if I can't readily (readily - time counts, too)
find certain styles in cheaper stores, like cargo pants with elastic
waists. However, one thing - I find that polyester blends, even those
with majority cotton, just don't wash well, and get "pilly" after a few
or sometimes even only one wash. So I do look for all-cotton.
And I find that *really* cheap stuff does come apart at the seams. So I
go middle-of-the-road in price.
Banty
Emma Edwards
I'm in no way old-fashioned or prudish (a bit of a hippy type really) but we
seem to have the same problem here.
Most easily available and reasonably priced clothes for girsl are either
pink/pastels or 'tarty' or both.
I frequently buy my 4 y.o. daughter boy's jeand/trousers because I don't
like the 'bootleg' style that all girls trousers seem to come in these days.
Even that bastion of sensible clothing, Marks and Spencers (who are also
slightly more expensive) are starting to follow suit.
We don't have that many Gap Kids shops here, one's just opened here in
Nottingham) and they are VERY expensive. Luckily though, Once or twice I
year I can get to a GAP KIDS outlet shop (Cheshire Oaks, Ellesmere Port)
where they sell off seconds and last season's clothes really cheaply.
You can find individual items in most shops, but the ranges as a whole seem
to want to dress girls from 2 upwards as if they were going to a nightclub.
And why these companies always seem to want to dress little girls in pale
pink/blue/yellow etc, I don't know...these clothes wouldn't last five
minutes when subjected to a normal 4/5 y.o.'s day.
Emma
Ted Alper
>This discussion reminds me somewhat of a discussion I had IRL about
>smaller kid's clothes with cartoon characters. People say it's hard to
>find outfits for little boys without them, I say I don't know what
Another option I haven't seen mentioned is tie-dye. You can
buy inexpensive, plain white cotton clothes in simple styles
along with dyes and/or fabric paints from companies like
Dharma Trading Co. (www.dharmatrading.com). One fun
home art-project later you have lots of beautiful clothes
without a single cartoon character on them...
Ted Alper
(Morris's & Henry's Dad; apparently, Kitty's Mom, too)
John Hascall
Noreen Cooper <nco...@wahoo.csu.net> wrote:
}Can anyone fill me in on this Junior Slut fashion for Girls? Is this
}Spice-Girl inspired? Who are the principal manufacturers? How long has
}this fashion been hot? And who in the hell would dress their 6yo in
}something sexy anyway?
Who? Ummmm, the Ramseys...
}As time goes on, I really do believe the parents of girls have a tougher
}time in this society. Geez. Junior Slut. What next?
Well, it doesn't seem a whole lot better for boys. Your choices
seem to be:
a) Instruments of war
b) 'heros' of violent ground acquistion games
c) 'heros' of the World Wingnut Federation
d) 'heros' of whatever crap is on the saturday
morning 30 minute commercials
If you could come up with a T-shirt with 'Stone Cold' Pokeman
in tights and helmet, carrying a chain-gun, you could probably
retire in a week...
John
--
John Hascall (__) Shut up, be happy.
Software Engineer, ,------(oo) The conveniences you demanded
Acropolis Project Manager, / |Moo U|\/ are now mandatory.
ISU Computation Center * ||----|| -- Jello Biafra
MarjiG
writes:
> Well, it doesn't seem a whole lot better for boys. Your choices
> seem to be:
> a) Instruments of war
> b) 'heros' of violent ground acquistion games
> c) 'heros' of the World Wingnut Federation
> d) 'heros' of whatever crap is on the saturday
> morning 30 minute commercials
>
And it isn't like you can particularly shop in the girls' department. It is
hard enough
to dress girls in boys clothes.
Mary Samios
> However, the REAL basics (slacks, tee-shirts, polo shirts, simple
jumpers,
> etc.) are widely available in all price ranges. 90% of Shaiana's clothing
> is purchased at department stores, and I've had no difficulty finding
> basic styles.
>
> Naomi
And Banty added:
Right. Actually, I consider Land's End a bit upscale, and shop at Kids
R Us first. They have some house brand lines of real basic, or simple
colorblock boy's clothes.
=======
Add me to this band wagon. I bought several dresses for Lili last year
from Land's End. Luckily for me, they not only fit her still, they also
fit her little sister. Their wardrobes are rounded it with some sweats and
tunic top/leggins combos. While my girls aren't school age yet (Lili's in
pre-school, Jenny's still a toddler), the clothes I got for them where also
in the "big girl" sizes -- both the Land's End dresses, *and* the modest
play wear I purchased at K-Mart.
--
Mary
mom to Lili (5-3-95), Jenny (9-21-97) & Jack (2-15-99)
msa...@artoo.net
jsa...@bcpl.net
http://www.bcpl.net/~jsamios/
Cissy . Thorpe
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Robyn Kozierok wrote:
> I have had bad luck with cheap T-shirts having the hem come down, sleeves
> start detaching, etc. Then again I had the same problem with Hannas.
> (And I'm not talented enough to do a good repair job on jersey knits.)
>
> However, if you do have a quality problem with a pricier item, the maker
> will usualy stand behind it and replace it or at least send you replacement
> buttons/buckles/etc.
>
> --Robyn
Anytime you have a problem with quality - especailly constructon - you
should return it to the store from which it was purchased. They will
continue to use the same manufacturer who will in turn do nothing about
the matter if they don't know about it.
I have never had any store refuse to take an item back that was poorly
constructed. Land's End, Sears, Penney's, Target - even Wal-Mart.
Cissy
shannon
gap. I tend to buy from all ends of the spectrum. I find wal-mart and
k-mart make decent clothes next would be the gap and then target it
concerns me that people are buying into the whole gap/old navy thing
and have convinced themselves that they have a quality store. of all
the stores I shop I have found gymboree clothes to be the best .
unfortunately they are not economical as my daughter is an only. I
recently bought all my daughters main winter clothes at target and none
of it was trashy or anything that I as an adult would wear. The funny
thing is you guys are talking about cropped tops and leggings that style
is over now they all want skirts to the ankle in flower prints and
layered shirts they all want to look innocent now everyone wants long
hair with bangs for the girl next door look. Come on it is no diff than
the jordace or guess jeans we wore skin tight, I might add, with those
stupid prairie girl shirts that emphasized our bust lol relax I am
not saying let your kids wear anything cause there is a lot of junk out
there, But if your buying you do have final say after all
cu...@op.net
> I
> recently bought all my daughters main winter clothes at target and none
> of it was trashy or anything that I as an adult would wear. The funny
> thing is you guys are talking about cropped tops and leggings that style
> is over now they all want skirts to the ankle in flower prints and
> layered shirts they all want to look innocent now everyone wants long
> hair with bangs for the girl next door look. Come on it is no diff than
> the jordace or guess jeans we wore skin tight, I might add, with those
> stupid prairie girl shirts that emphasized our bust lol
But you weren't wearing that stuff at 3, right? I am disgusted by
what I see as a new trend to portray *all* girls, even the youngest, as
sexual objects. Like you, I shop across the spectrum, buying most of
the stuff at Kids 'R Us or buying the Carters line at Sears, and getting
maybe one more expensive outfit somewhere else (e.g., gap--the clothes
may not be better, but I like the styles). I did just go shopping for my
toddler
daughter at Kids 'R Us and just hated (and not on the level of style) a
lot of what I saw. Yes, some of it was just annoying--every pair of
girls' jeans having butterflies on them--but there was a lot of what I
think of now as the Brittney (I guess her mom didn't know how to
spell Brittany?) Spears look. On a toddler? Can't we give them a
fighting chance to define what it means to be female on their own
and in their own good time? It doesn't surpise me when 16 YOs
dress like that; unless things have changed a lot since I was 16,
they're consciously trying to attract sexual attention. Why dress a
3 YO or 6 YO or 9 YO like that?
> relax I am
> not saying let your kids wear anything cause there is a lot of junk out
> there, But if your buying you do have final say after all
True. It was not at all hard to find nice stuff. But I worry about what life
is going to be like for her 11 or 15 years from now, when all her friends
have been taught from birth that they're little vixens. Yes, we were all
also taught a lot of crap about what it means to be female and male, but
I didn't learn that particular one 'til I was well out of diapers. Let's
just
hope that the parents buying their girls sexy outfits when they're 3 are
also frankly discussing birth control and masturbation techniques when
they're 12. Yeh, right.
On a related topic, I just saw something that almost made me retch at my
local grocery store: Cosmo Girl. Beth G.
wee...@my-deja.com
jo...@iastate.edu (John Hascall) wrote:
> Noreen Cooper <nco...@wahoo.csu.net> wrote:
> }Can anyone fill me in on this Junior Slut fashion for Girls?
> Well, it doesn't seem a whole lot better for boys. Your choices
> seem to be:
> a) Instruments of war
> b) 'heros' of violent ground acquistion games
> c) 'heros' of the World Wingnut Federation
> d) 'heros' of whatever crap is on the saturday
> morning 30 minute commercials
>
> If you could come up with a T-shirt with 'Stone Cold' Pokeman
> in tights and helmet, carrying a chain-gun, you could probably
> retire in a week...
My $.02:
It's not difficult to dress my 8-year-old in dresses, skirts, skorts, jumpers
or slacks, tops, sweaters, or the like, that are demure, little-girlish, and
enjoyed by the girl wearing them. Boys that my daughter hangs with (the
girls ask too many questions) wear slacks, jeans for play, funny t-shirts
etc., none of which ever seem to have overly violent themes.
I shop in the usual places (Walmart to Macy's) as well as outlet stores and
resale shops. You hold the purse-strings, and have the final say. If the
child in question thinks that throwing a tantrum in the middle of a store
will work in getting what they want, it's time to nip that thought in the
bud. We've had our battles (especially about inappropriate dresses for
synagogue), but remember who has the maturity and common sense in the family,
and remind the folks in the learning stages of that fact.
I think most of the folks on this list will back you up and give you moral
support if you find yourself wavering, or being overpowered<g>.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lee
My management doesn't mind my reading this newsgroup from work,
but it's embarassing when a coworker looks over my shoulder
and sees that I'm reading a newsgroup that prominently features
Junior Sluts.
Claire Petersky
> While classically styled girls' clothing may be available at all times with
> prestigious brands, etc., it is true that the more inexpensive clothing
> tends to follow along trendier lines. A mere stroll through the cheaper
> department stores bears witness to this.
This brings out an interesting class issue. Those who can afford to buy
the expensive stuff, want to dress their girls like girls. Those who shop
at Target, WalMart, etc. are more likely to dress their girls in a more
sexualized fashion. Why is this? I'd be interested in a discussion -- I'd
like to think about possible answers, myself.
An aside: yesterday I was at the mall, and the April Cornell Store was
having a final 75%+ off sale, as they are vacating that location. I love
the April Cornell stuff, but find it far over my budget and heretofore
never bought anything there. (For a sample of what their regular priced
merchandise, check out http://www.aprilcornell.com -- if you don't want to
bother with the website, just know that girls' dresses are about $80 and
the women's are about $120). I went hogwild, buying girls' dresses for $16
a pop and a couple dresses for me at $20. Suchadeal!
--
Claire Petersky (pete...@halcyon.com)
under construction: http://www.halcyon.com/petersky
cu...@op.net
> Kaye Teasley Muth <kaye...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > While classically styled girls' clothing may be available at all times with
> > prestigious brands, etc., it is true that the more inexpensive clothing
> > tends to follow along trendier lines. A mere stroll through the cheaper
> > department stores bears witness to this.
>
> This brings out an interesting class issue. Those who can afford to buy
> the expensive stuff, want to dress their girls like girls. Those who shop
> at Target, WalMart, etc. are more likely to dress their girls in a more
> sexualized fashion. Why is this? I'd be interested in a discussion -- I'd
> like to think about possible answers, myself.
I was thinking along these same lines, but I am not sure which comes first--a
desire on the part of (some!) lower income people to dress the kids this way
or the selection being offered at places where cheaper clothes are available.
Is it related to the phenomenon of "career" women needing to, and,
I would guess, usually wanting to, dress more conservatively than women
who hold jobs that don't require them to be taken more seriously and seen as
a lot more than sexual beings? If we are imagining our daughters growing up
to be botanists or novelists, are we more likely to dress them "conservatively"
than if we imagine them to grow up to be secretaries or waitresses?
Or, is the difference in the selection more indicative of the prejudices of
clothes manufacturers and marketers? Beth G.
Noreen Cooper
: Or, is the difference in the selection more indicative of the prejudices of
: clothes manufacturers and marketers? Beth G.
Or is it that skimpy clothes require less fabric and the buyers for these
discount stores get such a deal. ;-)
Now that my awareness is heightened to the Junior Slut trend, I am
noticing it more. Silver mesh, skin-tight outfits for 6yo. <gag>
Noreen Cooper Heavlin
Kaye Teasley Muth
>
> Now that my awareness is heightened to the Junior Slut trend, I am
> noticing it more. Silver mesh, skin-tight outfits for 6yo. <gag>
And all those 70's inspired clothes that didn't look good on us
back then and certainly aren't looking any better on any of us
now, after 20 years.....I just can't bring myself to yield to that
particular fashion trend with my 6yo either, doubtless though
she would look better in them than me. But she must forego
the flares, the stretchy shirts with daisy appliques, etc. (BTW,
those clothes are also prevalent at the upscale kids' stores here,
and I just refuse to buy them. I head off to the more traditional
clothes, which they also carry.)
I can't help but think that I may just be out of touch with
the taste of a lot of America. It's that same feeling I get
when I go to a large amusement park and see literally dozens
of people walking around with t-shirts on that say things like
"I'm with Stupid --->" and such. Who buys these things? Well,
someone must. I don't have my finger on the pulse of that
wave though (to mix a metaphor badly, but you get the point).
I have found that my own wardrobe changes far less frequently
from year to year, now that I have finally figured out how to buy
clothes properly. I buy much less frequently, but much better
quality clothes. They are trendy only in the sense that the
Little Black Dress and the basic great-fitting black suit never
go out of style. The same goes for shoes - buying quality
shoes really pays off in the long run because they hold up
so well. But they can be a steep initial investment. It's
sometimes harder justifying spending $40-$50 for a pair of
loafers my 6yo daughter can wear 3-5 months (especially since
we have only one child) but I will do it because I also think
that poorly constructed shoes can lead to feet problems. I
often wait for shoe sales, although sizing can be tricky because
you end up buying in off-seasons. I have made some mistakes
in that area.
Now there are plenty of tacky trendy expensive clothes (and shoes)
that I steer away from both in my shopping for myself and for my
daughter. Bad taste (according to moi) traverses all levels of
affordability. And there *are* some traditional basics that are
affordable -- plain white cotton turtleneck shirts I buy for $7 at
TJ Maxx instead of for $18 at the specialty kids' store. Cotton
tights for her and for me, plain white t-shirts, sweatpants, etc.
I just personally do not like all the tacky "extra" appliques and
machine stitched "designs" and poor quality fabrics that so
much of the lower-priced clothing seems to have. There are
occasional "finds" but they are so occasional as almost not
to be worth my time looking.
Kaye
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Petersky) wrote:
>This brings out an interesting class issue. Those who can afford to buy
>the expensive stuff, want to dress their girls like girls. Those who shop
>at Target, WalMart, etc. are more likely to dress their girls in a more
>sexualized fashion. Why is this? I'd be interested in a discussion -- I'd
>like to think about possible answers, myself.
I beg to differ. A Target and Walmart are across each other here in
beautiful and highly affluent (no kidding) Carmel, IN. I don't go to
Walmart much, but prefer Target. Judging from the types of cars and
(ok, send the PC police) looks of people in either store, there's few
people that frequent both stores. Target has moved relatively upscale
and doing a hell of a job with it.
Clothes wise the problem is that both places carry largely private
labels which are not all that great, quality wise. A few outfits we
bought aeons ago from Walmart fell apart fairly quickly, so we learned
our lesson. Target's private label is of better quality, but value
wise you can do better.
Style wise I maintain that the really 'frilly' stuff is found at the
local upscale department stores, not the discount stores. At least
around here. Maybe because Indiana is way conservative and store
managers have a clue or two about what will sell and what not.
Your initial generalization does not ring a bell with us, tho. The
frilliest stuff here is worn by the children of the affluent, not the
other way round. My eyes tend to roll over far more observing the
loading and unloading of pricey SUV's with kids at Sophia's gym class
(were moms often try to out-frill each other :-)) rather than the
'lower class' Walmart crowd.
Rosalie B.
>>
>> Now that my awareness is heightened to the Junior Slut trend, I am
>> noticing it more. Silver mesh, skin-tight outfits for 6yo. <gag>
>
>And all those 70's inspired clothes that didn't look good on us
>back then and certainly aren't looking any better on any of us
>now, after 20 years..
I don't remember wearing them 20 years ago either.
> But she must forego
>the flares, the stretchy shirts with daisy appliques, etc.
I wouldn't have thought that flares (which I am remembering as bell
bottom pants like sailors wear??) or daisy appliques were particularly
inappropriate looking. Sounds to me more like hippy or flower
children stuff than like .... well I can hardly bring my self to say
the words ... junior slut. And that goes back more than 20 years -
back to the early 60's.
>.. people walking around with t-shirts on that say things like
>"I'm with Stupid --->" and such. Who buys these things? Well,
>someone must.
I do buy T-shirts for my dh and my grandchildren that say things on
them. One of my favorites was one I bought for my 3rd child which
said "Use your own judgement and then do as I say". She wore it into
tatters, and I tried to get another one and couldn't find one. I also
used that as my sig line for awhile. But I agree that some of them
are pretty cutesy. OTOH I don't think that is as bad as the Jr. Sl**
fashions that some of you are (correctly IMHO) complaining about.
Just to your taste.
>.. The same goes for shoes - buying quality
>shoes really pays off in the long run because they hold up
>so well. But they can be a steep initial investment. It's
>sometimes harder justifying spending $40-$50 for a pair of
>loafers my 6yo daughter can wear 3-5 months (especially since
>we have only one child) but I will do it because I also think
>that poorly constructed shoes can lead to feet problems. I
>often wait for shoe sales, although sizing can be tricky because
>you end up buying in off-seasons. I have made some mistakes
>in that area.<snip>
My mother always felt that shoes should not be handed down. So no
matter how quickly our feet grew or how little money she had, she
always bought new shoes for us, and made quite sure that they fitted
properly. We had to try on shoes in the store, and then we wore them
with nylon stockings covering them so the soles didn't get scratched
for a couple of hours at home to be absolutely sure that they fitted
and didn't rub our feet. If they did, she took them back.
Therefore I never tried to hand down shoes, although my daughter, who
has a 99th%ile in size son does give his quickly outgrown shoes to her
nephews who are a more normal size for their age.
>I just personally do not like all the tacky "extra" appliques and
>machine stitched "designs" and poor quality fabrics that so
>much of the lower-priced clothing seems to have. There are
>occasional "finds" but they are so occasional as almost not
>to be worth my time looking.
I used to do my own appliques etc. Of course I was a SAH mom, and did
make some of our clothes.
What I found was that some items were sold so cheaply that it didn't
pay me to make them--either because they were outgrown too quickly, or
because they took so much time and the materials cost more than I
could justify. I concentrated mostly on the things that I could NOT
buy easily or cheaply - special Sunday best clothes, ice skating
costumes (we went figure skating several times a week) and the like.
Sometimes if something happened to damage an item which wasn't quite
worn out yet, I'd put appliques on it, or embroider a pattern over the
tear or stain. My mother used to regularly put deep hems in things
and then when she let them down as we grew, she'd cover the worn hem
line with rickrack.
YMMV
grandma Rosalie
Kalera
In article <19991008210314...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
animz...@aol.comspamfree wrote:
>I find this entire discussion hilarious. I have a 7 YO daughter who is
>beautifully dressed at all times, in wonderful clothing, top quality
>merchandise and prestigeous brand names.
Hey, you're rich! Thanks for pointing it out in such easy-to-understand terms.
>She has not one item of sleeveless,
>spaghetti strapped tight dresses, nor a crop top, nor any of the other
clothing
>you all have deemed slutty. I won't allow it.
That's good. Neither will I, nor most of the mothers I know.
>I think that children should dress appropriately for their age. I think that
>anyone in the US can head to GAP and find PLENTY of clothing for their
>daughters that isn't the slightest bit slutty. I think that if you know
certain
>brand names, like Sweet Potatoes or Fresh Produce don't make clothing like
>this, and you find speciality stores that carry those brand names, you won't
>see slutty clothing.
I can't actually afford Gap clothes, but I do pick and choose among what I can
afford, and purchase quality secondhand clothing when the opportunity presents
itself.
>We have rules in our house, and one of them is, modesty in dress is important
>to us. I don't wear inappropropriate clothing to work, and I don't let my
>children wear inappropriate clothing to school. That means that my son doesn't
>get to wear those horrible athletic polyester shorts with the little holes in
>them, and my daughter doesn't wear skirts/dresses that are higher than a
couple
>of inches below the knee. We have NO trouble finding such clothing. NONE.
I think non-slutty children's clothing is widely available, especially if you
can afford to spend more.
>But, I don't shop Target for clothing unless it is underwear. Their clothes
>are, imho, cheaply made, not of good quality, shrink too easily, and aren't
the
>type of clothing I'd let my kids wear. I DO buy sweats, plain cotton t-shirts,
>and at this time of your, short sleeved boy's button down shirts that are sold
>as school uniforms. Those are a great deal for summer church/synagogue attire.
>
>
>Like Banty, I can't figure out why this is such a big deal. It appears simple
>to me, you don't like it, don't buy it. If the stores don't have business,
they
>go OUT of business.
I think the thing that people are appalled by isn't whether they can find
clothes to dress their children in, but that enough people dress their children
inappropriately that these fashions not only exist but proliferate. I, too,
find it disturbing, and it does create a message about our society that's worth
discussing.
-Kalera
Mommy of Juliet, 1/29/98, and Sam, 10/9/99
http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/5502
Claire Petersky
: Style wise I maintain that the really 'frilly' stuff is found at the
: local upscale department stores, not the discount stores.
I'm not talking about frilly being at discount houses, , I'm talking about
what has been termed, "junior slut". While you can get the basics at
discount houses (and the amount I've spent on things like basic t shirts,
turtle necks, and leggings at Fred Meyer is a testimony to this), what
they mostly sell in addition to basics is stuff I think is inappropriate
for my first grader.
Although I generally don't buy frilly, frilly is still girlish. That you
think upscale places sell frilly doesn't negate my premise: the girls'
outfits I can buy at my local kids' boutique for $40 - $60 are girlish or
at least little kid-ish; the outfits on offer at Fred Meyer can often be
too sexualized or sophisticated for grade schoolers. Often these are the
complete opposite of frilly -- slinky tops; low-cut, navel-revealing
trousers.
My take on this may be that perhaps there's more of a need to be in
current fashion, maybe, among people with lower incomes. The clothes I
wouldn't put my kids into are probably a part of ephemeral fashion trends.
The stuff in more upscale stores tend to be more "classic". (And yes,
"classic" for girls can mean frills!)
Sticking my neck way out here, I'd also say that this sort of pattern goes
for naming girls. (Boys' names are more resistant to trendiness.) Lower
income parents name their kids with trendy names like "Ashley" and
"Brittany". The Volvo set give their kids traditional names like "Kate",
and "Laura".
--
Claire Petersky (pete...@halcyon.com)
Liz & Allan MacDonald
never think of that?"
Thanks for the tip.
Liz
> we wore them (new shoes)
Pas87
>>get to wear those horrible athletic polyester shorts with the little holes
>in
>>them, and my daughter doesn't wear skirts/dresses that are higher than a
>couple
>>of inches below the knee.
I can see the objection to skirts or dresses that are too short but what am I
missing here - what's so horrible about the "athletic
polyester shorts with the little holes in them"? Are you objecting to the ones
that don't have linings in them and you think they reveal too much? Or is this
a class issue and you think they just aren't good enough for your son to wear?
I'm definitely confused because I've never heard anyone ever complain about
them before.
Linda
Kalera
-Kalera
Naomi Lynne Pardue
> animz...@aol.comspamfree wrote:
>>I think that children should dress appropriately for their age. I think that
>>anyone in the US can head to GAP and find PLENTY of clothing for their
>>daughters that isn't the slightest bit slutty. I think that if you know
> certain
>>We have rules in our house, and one of them is, modesty in dress is important
>>to us. I don't wear inappropropriate clothing to work, and I don't let my
>>children wear inappropriate clothing to school. That means that my son doesn't
>>get to wear those horrible athletic polyester shorts with the little holes in
>>them, and my daughter doesn't wear skirts/dresses that are higher than a
> couple
>>of inches below the knee. We have NO trouble finding such clothing. NONE.
Actually, I think one issue we need to define here (sorry if I've come
back into the discussion late. We've been on vacation) is what makes a
garment 'appropriate for age?' Now, I will agree that a garment that is
blatantly 'sexy' is inappropriate for a pre-adolescent, but beyond that
... how is an above the knee dress automatically inappropriate? In our
current society, we are allowed to show our ankles, and even our knees,
without any sexual connotation. Shaina has no spagetti strap dresses, but
she DOES have sun dresses and sleeveless tops. (Some of which have
spagetti straps in the pattern, but I find them easier to sew with a wider
strap.)
I also have to laugh a bit at this. I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's,
when ALL dresses were well above the knee. Only the kids who went to
private Catholic schools had to deal with dress codes, and even those, if
memory serves, said something like 'no more than two inches above the
knee.' Now, the funny thing is, while I wore dresses that were fashionably
short, I was NEVER comfortable in them, and when the trend switched in the
early-mid 70's to the standard costume of jeans n' tee shirts, I was
thrilled. And, still later, when I was an adult and needed clothes for
work, I was comfortable enough with my individuality to wear clothes that
*I* liked, even if they weren't in style. So, while hemlines go up and
down, and skirts become wider and then narrower, my wardrobe consists,
largely, of full skirts falling between the bottom of my knee and a little
above the ankle. (Lately have been having lots of
fun with vintage patterns from the 60's and 70's. And yes, I cut them a
bit longer than the pattern shows...)
But anyway, I too prefer that Shaina wear dresses that are at least to her
knees. But this is more for freedom of movement (so she can run and play
without her skirt flying up) than out of concern that shorter dresses
would be 'age inappropriate' much less 'slutty.'
Still, as I noted a couple of weeks ago, the clothes that I don't make for
her, I buy at 'discount' stores, and I have never had trouble finding
good basic garments, both play clothes (pants and tops) and dresses.
Naomi
Lisa Repka
>
> I used to buy toddler clothes in the girls' section because the
> girls' section had purple and turquoise, where the boy's section had
> only navy and grey. Funny to see that mothers of girls have done the
> opposite in order to avoid pink. More recently all the girls'
> basics seem to have a bit of lace or a lettuce edge on them, though,
> so this has not been possible. Thank goodness for the Dharma Trading
> company.
I was thinking the same thing when reading that. I have a 2-year
old boy, and am tired of dump trucks or bugs, in khaki, olive,
grey and blue -- seemingly my only choices. But when I make a
pass through the fun colors in the girls' section, I can't find
a simple orange or purple shirt either, without lace or scalloped
edges or at least one appliqued flower.
Funny problems we have on both sides.
lisa
p.s. Ran into a similar problem looking for kid's bedding.
I just wanted something fun; but even the youngest stuff is
either ballerinas or construction. Surely they don't have to
be so gender-split? I didn't give in, but after a long search,
settled on a simple mix of primary colors. But I could find
no fun pattern that wasn't obviously targeted to one sex (one
exception -- if you go with a very commercial look -- say, a famous
cartoon character, which I also didn't want to do). I'm pretty
sure it doesn't have to be this way, but it must be what sells.
Robyn Kozierok
Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>My mother always felt that shoes should not be handed down. So no
>matter how quickly our feet grew or how little money she had, she
>always bought new shoes for us, and made quite sure that they fitted
>properly. We had to try on shoes in the store, and then we wore them
>and didn't rub our feet. If they did, she took them back.
>
The reason for not handing down shoes, I believe, is that in time they
mold to the shape of the wearer's foot. Thus I never hand down everyday
shoes, but I do hand down dress shoes that have been worn only a handful
of times and don't appear to have done any molding.
--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96)
Marie Houck
<re...@netscape.com> wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing when reading that. I have a 2-year
> old boy, and am tired of dump trucks or bugs, in khaki, olive,
> grey and blue -- seemingly my only choices. But when I make a
> pass through the fun colors in the girls' section, I can't find
> a simple orange or purple shirt either, without lace or scalloped
> edges or at least one appliqued flower.
>
I don't know if it's as true now -- my "babies" are 13 -- but when my b/g
twins were small what *I* particularly noticed was that it was real easy
to find dressy stuff for my daughter, but very hard to buy dressy stuff
for my son without spending an arm and a leg! My son now enjoys wearing
neat shirts and ties (confuses the heck out of the paternal parent, who
only wears ties under duress) and, now that he's in pretty much adult
sizes, he can dress up easily; but when he was an infant, toddler, and
preschooler, I had a heck of a time finding dress up clothes for him.
Is that still a problem for little boys?
Marie Houck
Noreen Cooper
and Land's End and Eddie Bauer top the charts in quality and service. I
really like the girls clothes in Land's End and I like Land's End in
general for: 1) superb construction; 2) no need to buy in to the "fancy
labels on your butt" mentality; 3) no need to suffer through stupid
commercials advertising their product (and especially those
psuedo-pedophilic ones); 4) no need to fight with trying on clothes in
department stores; 5) easy return policy.
Noreen Cooper Heavlin
Heather
>Is this better? Maybe everyone will follow suit.
>
>In article <7ul279$c...@drn.newsguy.com>, Lee wrote:
>
>>I really hate the subject line of this thread.
>>
>>My management doesn't mind my reading this newsgroup from work,
>>but it's embarassing when a coworker looks over my shoulder
>>and sees that I'm reading a newsgroup that prominently features
>>Junior Sluts.
This reminds me, I meant to comment... I just thought it was pretty
funny that alongside this thread to confuse the co-workers was the
"boys kissing boys" thread! What they must think of us! ;)
And to keep this on topic... It was funny, the other day I was buying
some clothes for Rowan (2 in a week and half!) at a second hand store.
I love black (wear almost exclusively black) as does my husband, and
have a special affinity for velvet; I found the cutest little dresses
in black velvet(een) for Rowan that were modest, but one was a
slightly mature style (I think one is called a princess seam? with the
two stitched lines running down the front?). All I could think was
"who from m.k.m would think I was doing the J.S. thing for her?" ;))
[I had to get it, though, overly mature or not, since it was black
velvet and would work for her birthday party, since last year she wore
a smaller (duh) black velvet turtleneck dress.]
(I also saw a dress that *totally* fit the Junior Slut thing - 2T
dress which was low-cut [just above the nipple line!], spaghetti
straps, fuschia velveteen - so, at least it could have been worse!)
Heather (seeing how many parenthesis she can use in one post)
--
My address is altered to alleviate spam. If you can't figure out
how to change it, i probably don't want to hear from you anyhow! ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Much madness is divinest sense | Mommy to Rowan Justina (11/6/97)
To a discerning eye -Dickinson | Woman of many talents to myself.
Elizabeth Gardner
> Paula Burch wrote:
> >
> > I used to buy toddler clothes in the girls' section because the
> > girls' section had purple and turquoise, where the boy's section had
> > only navy and grey. Funny to see that mothers of girls have done the
> > opposite in order to avoid pink. More recently all the girls'
> > basics seem to have a bit of lace or a lettuce edge on them, though,
> > so this has not been possible. Thank goodness for the Dharma Trading
> > company.
>
> I was thinking the same thing when reading that. I have a 2-year
> old boy, and am tired of dump trucks or bugs, in khaki, olive,
> grey and blue -- seemingly my only choices. But when I make a
> pass through the fun colors in the girls' section, I can't find
> a simple orange or purple shirt either, without lace or scalloped
> edges or at least one appliqued flower.
>
> Funny problems we have on both sides.
>
> lisa
>
> p.s. Ran into a similar problem looking for kid's bedding.
> I just wanted something fun; but even the youngest stuff is
> either ballerinas or construction. Surely they don't have to
> be so gender-split? I didn't give in, but after a long search,
> settled on a simple mix of primary colors. But I could find
> no fun pattern that wasn't obviously targeted to one sex (one
> exception -- if you go with a very commercial look -- say, a famous
> cartoon character, which I also didn't want to do). I'm pretty
> sure it doesn't have to be this way, but it must be what sells.
I've seen some unisex designs--animals, bugs, stars, circus, etc.--at
places like The Company Store and L.L. Bean. We went with Classic Pooh
because when we switched to the big-girl bed, we were going through a
phase of reading a chapter a night from one of the original Pooh books.
It's still selling out to Disney, but at least it's not a cartoon, and she
sure does love them.
Hard to imagine picking a unisex cartoon, even. I can't see a boy being
thrilled with The Little Mermaid or a girl having much interest in Tarzan
(at least at the age of three).
Pas87
>and Land's End and Eddie Bauer top the charts in quality and service. I
>really like the girls clothes in Land's End and I like Land's End in
>general for
I went to the Land's End web site and I thought it was great. You can
construct a model that is similar to your own shape and try different clothes
on it. Not a perfect way to tell how it'll look on you but it's not bad.
Linda
Kaye Teasley Muth
Lisa Repka <re...@netscape.com>
>
> p.s. Ran into a similar problem looking for kid's bedding.
> I just wanted something fun; but even the youngest stuff is
> either ballerinas or construction. Surely they don't have to
> be so gender-split? I didn't give in, but after a long search,
> settled on a simple mix of primary colors. But I could find
> no fun pattern that wasn't obviously targeted to one sex (one
> exception -- if you go with a very commercial look -- say, a famous
> cartoon character, which I also didn't want to do). I'm pretty
> sure it doesn't have to be this way, but it must be what sells.
>
Pottery Barn for Kids (catalog) has some ADORABLE
bedding! Some would be good for either a boy or girl.
Kaye
Robyn Kozierok
Marie Houck <meh...@netgate.net> wrote:
>I don't know if it's as true now -- my "babies" are 13 -- but when my b/g
>twins were small what *I* particularly noticed was that it was real easy
>to find dressy stuff for my daughter, but very hard to buy dressy stuff
>for my son without spending an arm and a leg!
>Is that still a problem for little boys?
I think things have improved a bit even in the last 5 years or so.
When Ryan was a toddler I had a heck of a time finding him really
dressy stuff (except in December, when they do put out dressy Xmas
outfits), but now it seems to be a bit easier, or maybe I'm just
getting better at it. :) And of course I do have a stock of slightly
used outfits from Ryan to fall back on now, which even occasionally
fit in the right season.
--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96)
~
Robyn Kozierok
Elizabeth Gardner <egar...@altavista.net> wrote:
>I've seen some unisex designs--animals, bugs, stars, circus, etc.--at
>places like The Company Store and L.L. Bean. We went with Classic Pooh
>because when we switched to the big-girl bed, we were going through a
>phase of reading a chapter a night from one of the original Pooh books.
>It's still selling out to Disney, but at least it's not a cartoon, and she
>sure does love them.
I don't think *Classic* Pooh is Disney.
>Hard to imagine picking a unisex cartoon, even. I can't see a boy being
>thrilled with The Little Mermaid or a girl having much interest in Tarzan
>(at least at the age of three).
Looney Tunes, Pokemon, Bugs Life, Aladdin, Rugrats and Jungle Book all
seem to have unisex appeal, to name just a few that come immediately to
mind, although sometimes even these are made gender-specific by use of
background detail (pink frills, for example) and the choice of specific
individual characters to use. For example, boys' Rugrats underwear has
only Tommy and Chucky on it; I think the girls' version has Angelica.
That's not to say I favor buying Bugs' Life linens, just that unisex
Bugs' Life linens would be perfectly possible if anyone cared to make them.
Cnsinfo
>>sure does love them.
>
>I don't think *Classic* Pooh is Disney.
Classis Pooh is most certainly Disney. Disney owns the rights to Pooh -- all
of Pooh. They can make *even more* money by marketing TWO kinds of Pooh!
That said, I do like the classic Pooh much more than the cartoon Pooh. *sigh*
The mouse continues to rule the world....
Anne L.
Dawn Price
In article <egardner-251...@egardner-router.soho.enteract.com>,
Elizabeth Gardner <egar...@altavista.net> wrote:
>>We went with Classic Pooh
>>because when we switched to the big-girl bed, we were going through a
>>phase of reading a chapter a night from one of the original Pooh books.
>>It's still selling out to Disney, but at least it's not a cartoon, and
she
>>sure does love them.
>I don't think *Classic* Pooh is Disney.
Sigh. Unfortunately, now it is. We had a Classic Pooh nursery, and at
that time ('91 and '92) it was still hard to find and not owned by any
one company. Now that Disney has taken over, it's much easier to find
but not quite as unique and special, IMO.
>>Hard to imagine picking a unisex cartoon, even. I can't see a boy
being
>>thrilled with The Little Mermaid or a girl having much interest in
Tarzan
>>(at least at the age of three).
Actually, I think before a child is older, s/he is more likely *not* to
go down gender-specific paths, especially not boys. Up until a few
weeks ago we had a huge cardboard Little Mermaid movie display (one
of those monstrous "coming soon" things they put in theatres) in
Henry's room, and he loved it. OTOH he's never been the picture of
typical boy behavior...
-Dawn
Mom to Henry, 7
Elizabeth Gardner
Kozierok) wrote:
> In article <egardner-251...@egardner-router.soho.enteract.com>,
> Elizabeth Gardner <egar...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
> >I've seen some unisex designs--animals, bugs, stars, circus, etc.--at
> >places like The Company Store and L.L. Bean. We went with Classic Pooh
> >because when we switched to the big-girl bed, we were going through a
> >phase of reading a chapter a night from one of the original Pooh books.
> >It's still selling out to Disney, but at least it's not a cartoon, and she
> >sure does love them.
>
> I don't think *Classic* Pooh is Disney.
Alas, you're mistaken. If you look at the labels, you will see that
Disney bought the rights to the whole kit and kaboodle. They didn't
create it, but they're making the money from it.
I sure hope Christopher Robin made a killing on the sale.
Claire Petersky
: > p.s. Ran into a similar problem looking for kid's bedding.
: > I just wanted something fun; but even the youngest stuff is
: > either ballerinas or construction. Surely they don't have to
: > be so gender-split? I didn't give in, but after a long search,
: > settled on a simple mix of primary colors. But I could find
: > no fun pattern that wasn't obviously targeted to one sex (one
: > exception -- if you go with a very commercial look -- say, a famous
: > cartoon character, which I also didn't want to do). I'm pretty
: > sure it doesn't have to be this way, but it must be what sells.
We found fun, non-licenced, non-sex differentiated stuff at a children's
store (the same place where you find classic kids' clothes for too much
money). We started with generic teddy bears in blue and green for Rose,
and farm animals for Emma. Then Emma got really into teddy bears, so we
traded. Then Emma decided this was not feminine enough for her (she's
my girly-girl) so we got some standard adult flowered bedclothes on
clearance at a catagory-killer linens place. Rose still has the farm
animals.
Anyone want the teddy bear stuff? I still have a comforter cover, sheets,
and pillow case.
Karin Cernik
Robyn Kozierok wrote:
> I don't think *Classic* Pooh is Disney.
>
(snip)
Actually, yes, it is. The license was transfered to Disney about 2
years ago. This has at least made it more available; when I had my
first child there was extremely limited availability of Classic items,
no linens at all. Now it's everywhere! :-)
Karin (Erin 4/19/93, Kelly 7/6/97)
aka 'P Bear' (just check my license plate!)
Lisa Repka
>
> I don't know if it's as true now -- my "babies" are 13 -- but when my b/g
> twins were small what *I* particularly noticed was that it was real easy
> to find dressy stuff for my daughter, but very hard to buy dressy stuff
> for my son without spending an arm and a leg!
> Is that still a problem for little boys?
Absolutely. Fortunately I don't do it very often; last time was
last year's holidays. It's not that you can't find *anything*,
but like you said it's expensive. And the choices are extremely
limited if you make any comparison to what's available for girls.
This year I'm thinking of going for a velour overalls and
turtleneck combination I saw in some catalog. Shouldn't restrict
his movement or anything, but may look dressy enough to satisfy
me. And potty training doesn't appear on the immediate horizon,
or the overalls might not be a good choice (because he can't
pull them off as easily by himself).
lisa
Kalera
trend in the upper-income set is all about giving girls androgynous
last-name-sounding names. However, among the very upper-class, i.e. "old
money", they seem to stick with basics.
Ten years ago, the upwardly mobile were really into names like "Brittany",
"Ashley", "Courtney" etc.
In article <7utef1$dcv$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, pete...@halcyon.com wrote:
>Sticking my neck way out here, I'd also say that this sort of pattern goes
>for naming girls. (Boys' names are more resistant to trendiness.) Lower
>income parents name their kids with trendy names like "Ashley" and
>"Brittany". The Volvo set give their kids traditional names like "Kate",
>and "Laura".
-Kalera
Dena
about how we name our children. Examples are the currently popular
names, like Brittany and Ashley, old-fashioned names that are becoming
popular again, like Sarah and Emily, the ones that are STILL too
old-fashioned like Myrtle and
Gladys, and the ones that may never be used again, like Adolf and
Kermit.
I think they put out new editions regularly, because, of course, the
trends are changing all the time.
Dena
(Mother to Doria Rose, named for a great-great-great grandmother
(Doria), a great-grandmother (Dorothy), and a grandmother and step-
grandmother (Doris) and another great-grandmother (Rosa).
In article <19991029021253...@ngol02.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kalera
leggings are the bulky, loose variety, but I find them indispensable for my own
wardrobe as well as for hers. They're perfect under jumpers, tunics, or
dresses... even with a long t-shirt for playing around the house in.
In article <egardner-071...@egardner-router.soho.enteract.com>,
egar...@altavista.net wrote:
>Geez, my daughter has been wearing leggings since she was 2, with
>sweatshirts or t-shirts or big sweaters on top. If you qualify leggings
>as slutty looking, no wonder you're having problems. Even Lands' End,
>world capital of wholesome, won't do.
>
>If you pair them with a lace see-through top, then yeah, I'd agree.
Robyn Kozierok
Karin Cernik <karin.h...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>Robyn Kozierok wrote:
>
>> I don't think *Classic* Pooh is Disney.
>>
>
>years ago. This has at least made it more available; when I had my
>first child there was extremely limited availability of Classic items,
>no linens at all. Now it's everywhere! :-)
>
>Karin (Erin 4/19/93, Kelly 7/6/97)
Oh, sigh. I was basing my presumption on my experiences in 93 when
my first was born as well. Oh well...
Animzmirot
>I can't help but think that I may just be out of touch with
>the taste of a lot of America. It's that same feeling I get
>when I go to a large amusement park and see literally dozens
>of people walking around with t-shirts on that say things like
>"I'm with Stupid --->" and such. Who buys these things?
The same bazillion people who have Hard Rock Cafe t-shirts from every burg in
the free world. Never mind Planet Hollywood and clothing from the Disney Store,
my personal pet peeve.
My daugher wears flare jeans and I don't have a problem with them. She loves
them, she doesn't wear crop tops or stupid shirts with daisy's on them, to
quote you. She usually chooses a regular t-shirt and then wears a flannel shirt
over them, for the 7 YO grunge look. Doesn't bother me a bit, as she's fully
covered from head to toe in clothing, unlike other kids in town whose belly
buttons appear to be public property.
Does ANYONE think navels are sexy?