Don’t tell anyone, but sometimes I wear secret boxers of stupendous badassery. When combined with my not-so-secret black button-up shirt of stupendous badassery and my condiment-stained blue jeans of questionable badassery, they’re part of a complete badass ensemble.

I too have underwear of badassery. The main diff i think is that i have sets. Some of them are black, and some of them have superwoman symbols displayed proudly on the front ;-)


Oh, and then theres the strawberry shortcake ones….

Strawberry shortcake underware? Very delicious, but I imagine a bit sticky in the long run. ;o) Okay, I’m sorry, but I simply could not resist – I know, I’m weak and wicked, and it’s quarter past one in the morning…

Actually they are just really girly, white with little strawberry shortcakes all over them. Luckilly they are in a big girl cut. I hated the kind of underwear they had when i was a kid, could no one make bikini cut for an eight year old?? This is a long standing issue with me though. If they had low riders when i was a kid, i would have refused to wear anything else.

I think the fashion industry is waking up to the call, these days, though. Even eight-year-olds have a sense of what they like and don’t like, and what’s fashionable – and fashion equals profits, no matter how old the customers are.

Perhaps, though, there’s also a factor of how parents want their kids to look. I’m sure there are parents who don’t think bikini cut is appropriate for their young daughters, but feel more comfortable with having them wear grannie panties instead because (and forgive me for once again crossing the line to a taboo – doing so just happens to be a hobbyhorse of mine, in case someone shouldn’t already have noticed) it’s less sexually provocative.

It would occur to me, however, (correct me if I’m wrong) that any pedophile should be more turned on by a potential victim wearing cute little kid clothes than one wearing grown-up fashion style clothes. Hence, we’re once again approaching a conclusion of Victorian tightassery, related to parental desires of dissociating any grown-upness with their children and preventing them from developing a will of their own and independent opinions too soon.

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one, GreyStork. I believe dressing little girls (and boys) in sexually precocious outfits is alluring to paedophiles. The fact is that paedophiles do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in our own sexually-charged culture. Provocative clothing is a sexual symbol. It sends signals—one can argue about whether those signals indicate ‘availability’ or what, but they are sexual in nature, and therefore a child in a provocative outfit is more likely to constitute a sexual object to a paedophile than a kid in Osh-kosh overalls and a t-shirt. Think of it this way: substitute (for provocative clothes) a T-shirt that says SEX. It makes people think of sex. On a kid, that would make most people confused, even angry at the adult who put the T-shirt on them, or roll their eyes at the ridiculousness of it. Whereas to a sexual predator, it’s a perfectly understandable signal.

Also, while it’s entirely possible that not all paedophiles are the same (I haven’t made a study of it and would rather not) I do know that paedophiles have been recorded as saying things like “She wanted it,” or “the little bitch led me on.” They are quite capable of thinking the children are consciously putting out sexual signals. Disgusting, but true.

Hrm. I don’t really get this. My main reasons for moving to bikinis from whatever the thing is between that and briefs were A) lower-cut jeans (not very low, maybe 3 inches above the protrusion of the hipbone) and B) they’re sexier. Neither of these should be applicable to children. Do you think they’re comfier on an absolute level?

Before puberty, you have no hips to wear hip-hugging pants on, and frankly, such clothes aren’t made for running, playing, and wriggling without hips to hold them up. Therefore, the kids will be wearing high-waisted pants. Wearing high-waisted pants with low-cut panties and an active lifestyle sounds like a recipe for discomfort to me, and discomfort is Not Good.

Actually I would have to agree with Lillis here. Esspecially for someone who is very active, high-cut panties with high-cut pants over them makes for lots of bunching at the waist and pinching when you bend over. Also I get fairly hot around the mid-section when I’m running around so the fewer layers of fabric there, the better.

Huh. I’m just going to have to be mystified by this entire thing. Maybe you guys had different little-kid panties from mine, but mine were not at all uncomfortable for crawling commando-style through big pipes at playgrounds, going on slides, climbing trees, fighting with boys, going on monkey-bars, and escaping the grasp of my parents—all the important parts of life. They certainly didn’t come up as far as my “natural” waist, but neither did pants. I really don’t understand what advantage bikini-cuts would give a kid. Ah well, it is not an earth-shattering question!

I think perhaps what we need to define is what is considered sexually provocative, then. Are low-rider jeans sexually provocative, or just fashionable? It goes without saying that you don’t dress your young children with the specific intent of making them look sexually attractive to pedophiles; what I’m trying to convey is that people are different, regardless of age.

Some 50-year-olds feel like they’re 18 inside, and some 8-year-olds feel the same way. While the 50-year-old has the option of dressing how they feel, whether the 8-year-old is allowed to do the same is in the hands of the parents. It would be cruel and unnecessarily humiliating to force an 18-year-old to wear baby clothes, yet that’s effectively what you’re defending. Perhaps you didn’t feel older than your actual age when you were a kid, and thus didn’t mind dressing ‘practically’, but obviously Lillis felt differently.

What I’m promoting is that you should continue to guide your child in matters of reason so they may learn the values determined by society, but you should also respect their choices and at the very least attempt to reach an acceptable compromise whenever opinions differ.

When it comes to pedophiles, I also don’t think you can protect your kid by forcing them to wear ugly clothes. The best way of protecting your kid is simply by taking away any opportunity for potential molesters to get to your child and by choosing your neighborhood very carefully. In my opinion, pedophiles don’t need ‘provocative’ clothing as an excuse – they only need an opportunity. From there, anything else is mere post-rationalization of actions committed by a sick individual.

What it all boils down to is whether you want your life to be dominated by fear. When facing your fears, it’s all too easy to choose safeguards dictated by irrational convention, rather than think for yourself and determine what is reasonable. Some precautions are simply not effective enough to justify the invasion into your privacy, happiness and personal freedom they constitute. Being so afraid of something that you don’t even dare to think about how you can best protect yourself while still allowing yourself (and your loved ones) to live your life according to your own desires, will automatically put your choice of lifestyle into the hands of someone else, who will likely put their own interests and agendas before yours. Leaving it to the experts will not automatically yield a better result than thinking for yourself.

Ack, lots of things to respond to.

First off, I wasn’t advocating any course of action re: pedophiles and kids’ clothing. I was just sharing what I’d read on the subject because you’d asked to be corrected. Hopefully one’s kids will never be in a position where a pedophile has the option of grabbing them, whether they’re wearing a ball gown or a paper sack; or if they do, they’ll be able to kick him in the knee and run away. (Note: hard to do in a ball gown. A new consideration to add to the discussion: practicality.)

Frankly, defining what is sexually provocative is quite impossible. There are probably levels of it that are pretty universally recognized (almost anything Britney Spears has worn recently, for instance) and things that are recognized as being the opposite (nun’s habits!) In between, you run the gamut. Since I can’t make general rules for society, here are some things I will take into account for my kids about clothes. They are not about sexuality and clothes, just clothes, as you are talking about freedom of choice.

A) I am paying for it, so I get some say. (this my mom did to me, and that was okay. When I was old enough that I a) saved money and b)saved it for things other than toys and microscopes, then of course I could buy my own stuff. This is quite reasonable, I think)

B) The kid gets veto power (past the age of 5 or so) (I did not really have this. She couldn’t make me wear it, but oh dear, did I have closets and closets full of stuff that was a good bargain and I didn’t want.)

C) Practicality (within limits and according to its use). Have to be able to run in shoes, not hurt self by running in shoes et c. Things which are impractical they can save up for if they want ‘em.

D) Past a certain age, I cease having input. I dunno what age, I am sleepy and it doesn’t really matter til I have kids anyway. Oh, and at all ages, they can dress themselves (unless they want help). I get input on buying it, that doesn’t mean I get to dress them like a porcelain doll (like my next door neighbor. For a while she actually snuck clothes to school and changed in the bathroom.)

See, here’s the thing. I’m really tired. No, that’s a different thing. The thing is, to a certain extent, I believe in letting kids make their wee mistakes themselves. If they want to wear shorts in January, you tell them why it’s bad, and if you can’t convince them, you let them do it, and then they know you’re right. If they want to wear a purple silk cape everywhere (what? I LIKED IT!) then they can, and if they don’t like the consequences, they’ll stop.

An’ I think - I’s sleepy here, but I think - that Lillis thinks that low cut panties are more comfier, not that they were a fashion statement. Cuz I was a kid at the same time as her, and I guarantee they didn’t have any hip-hugging jeans, so it’s not a matter of how she wanted to look. Heck, they did not have the hip-hugging jeans for adults then, it was before the 70s styles came back.

So—in short, do not waste your words of wisdom on me about respecting children’s choices and stuff. I do not disagree. The matter of bikini-cuts for kids is just that. A specific thing I don’t understand, any more than I would understand if Lillis said she had wanted red flannel boxers with a blue LED as a child. It’s not a value judgment, I jes’ don’t get it.

Oh, and E) or F) or whatever—my kids can choose their own damn colors! That is one thing I don’t think parents have any right vetoing. It’s one thing to say, “Honey, you have thirteen sweatshirts, we’re here for summer clothes” and quite another to veto colors. I really hated liking a shirt and having my mom refuse to pay for it because it “made me look sallow” (green) or worse, “black is so stark and makes you look pale.” (I don’t think I was allowed to wear black next to my face until high school. And guess what one of the prettiest colors on me is?) Oh, and “neon colors are a fad and will go away!” BAH! BAH I say! My kids can have whatever colors they want, so neener neener.

Felicity go sleep sleep now, no more talky clothes.