Sorry but first gut response to your post... nausea. Seriously, I want to vomit at the idea of telling a 12 year old it's ok to dress like a "sexual being". I don't care if a 12 year old child gets her period, or "boobies", she's still a child, and it is NOT OK to tell her she's a sexual being. She's not, shes a child.

I do not agree with your synopsis of this article. While it's true these pubescent girls are becoming sexual beings, it's not appropriate to advertise it and invite boys or men of any age to gawk and stare at them! Most tweens lack the emotional maturity to handle adult situations, so why would you invite that type of behavior to be directed at your little girl? When I was 13 my mother bought me a perfectly modest one peice bathing suit that had a tiny black playboy bunny decal on the right hip. As soon as my father saw the bunny he threw a fit until my mother peeled the decal off my suit. When I asked him what the big deal was, my father politely explained that the bunny was an invitation for unscrupulous men to hit on his 13 year old daughter and that he would feel better with it removed. It made sense to me then, and it makes sense to me now.

I hope you're not suggesting your parents should have gone completely the other way and allowed you to dress like a whore, then have sex with as many boys as you could attract. That goes far beyond allowing you to explore your sexual identity, or recognizing your nature as a sexual being, or anything else.

Sexual attractiveness is a good thing. It allows people to accomplish some very positive things. Like any asset, it nees to be used wisely, not indiscriminately. Parents need to help their children figure out the line between smart and reckless. Encouraging or allowing pre-teen girls to dress like prostitutes is not smart.

I guess it's the same six pre-teen girls I see with push-up bras, clothing that looks like lingerie, and heavy makeup. I see them in quite a few public places, so they must really get around. One minute I see them walking near the middle school. The next minute I see them chilling in the grocery store parking lot with their gansta boyfriends. A few minutes later, they've moved on to the mall. With that kind of speed, I guess they're safe.

OMG Can you join us here on planet Earth for a few moments? First of all do you have any girls? Do you let them dress to gain the attention of men too? Where do you draw the line? Stillettos? Yes the girls are becoming aware of their own sexuality. So what!! They are pre-pubescent which means they are MINORS. The clothing industry is being irresponsible in promoting this type of clothing. What is next? Alcohol and cigarettes for minors because they are naturally curious and want to behave like adults? They are just doing what is natural right? Come on, we as a society have a duty to protect our young, and putting them on display for the attention of all males including the pedophiles out there is in my opinion one step short of promoting your daughter to prostitute herself. The clothes are offensive to see even adult women wearing them, let alone a CHILD, which is what the young girls still are. Its called PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. The clothing industry is trying to get the highest bottom dollar and don't care about our children who are molested and murdered. They want to put our young girls in clothing that is sleazy. What's sad is that people like you support them, or do you just work for them and have to justify yourself so you can sleep at night?

I cannot believe I just read that - what kind of an idiot are you??!! That is the ultimate "We are apes without the ability to reason or have any control over our desires, and giving in to them is what makes us happy" screwed up reasoning. Just because an 11 year old girl is at the beginning of puberty and the development of her sexuality doesn't mean she should be encouraged to advertise that sexuality. Do you think 11 and 12 year old girls should go ahead and start having sex? Their bodies might be ready to reproduce, maybe they should go ahead and do what nature has made them ready to do and start having babies.... Does anyone not find it a bit disturbing that fashion, as just one part of society, sends this crazy mixed message that girls should use their sexuality starting at a very young age, but be sure not to cross the line into actually having sex, or becoming a young slut..... at least until you're 16 or so, and then, just be sure not to be trashy and get pregnant or contract an STD....

Palabra:

That said, even if women's clothing is designed to be sexually suggestive, why shouldn't it be? What is so inherently wrong with sex? Puberty is hitting girls earlier - usually at this newly developed "tween" stage that we're all so busy lamenting. Has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that sexualized clothing for tweens is an expression of the fact that the tweens are hitting puberty and becoming sexual beings? We can't blame the clothes for what nature is doing. When a girl begins puberty, it is perfectly natural for her to begin to think of attracting a mate and to dress and act accordingly. If we don't like the age at which this is occurring, maybe we should be looking into the physiological causes for the new trend of early onset of puberty instead of railing against the fashion industry. The clothes don't cause girls to think of themselves as sexual beings; they merely reflect the fact that pubescent girls are, by their very nature, becoming sexual beings.

What ever happened to the days where guys were attracted to a girl who was genuinely pretty, without having to be dressed like a slut? As a 21 year old college Junior, I can tell you that the women I look at with nothing but lust are the women that dress like that. I don't look at them with the hopes of doing anything honorable with them. Now a pretty woman who leaves something to the imagination, those are the kind of ladies you want to have a relationship with. Because they have self-respect. If you are dressed like a slut, people think of you as a slut, whether you are a slut or not. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if you dress like a WASP, that is almost equally as disenchanting. There is nothing wrong with showing you are pretty without making it look like you are for sale.

So makeup? Fine. Clothes that shape with her body? OK. But slutty clothes that leave nothing to the imagination? No. Not if you want your daughter to be thought of as respectable by anyone above her age group.

You really hit the nail on the head, charjun.

you have either never been a dad to a girl

or

have a propensity for little girls

I am not a mother, nor do I have a propensity for little girls.

That said, I think a lot of people are twisting my remarks around to make it sound like I think it's perfectly okay for 11-year-olds to be promiscuous and to wear their clothing as an indicator of promiscuity. I do not think that. When I called pubsecent girls "sexual beings," I was merely refering to the fact that puberty is the age at which we tend get our first boyfriends (with whom we hold hands and play footsies), have first kisses, etc. I am not saying that we go through puberty and then suddenly have the sex lives of 20-somethings! I am just saying that it is natural and normal to want to start taking those first steps at the onset of puberty. Part of that is beginning to dress in imitation of older women. By pointing this out, I was just saying that if people don't like it, I think they should complain about the possible cause (early onset of puberty) rather than the effect (increased demand for more adult clothing for younger girls). I was protesting blaming the fashion industry for something that could have physiological origins; I was not advocating promiscuity for little girls!

What you may have taken as advocating promiscuity was my questioning of the notion that it is okay to write about little girls as being "slutty" or "trampy" or any other sexually derogative word simply because they are dressing in fashions that imitate the prevailing adult fashions. The fact that I worry about the self-esteem of girls who are called these things from an early age merely because their clothing imitates that of adult women does not make me crazy! Forgive me if I think that's the wrong message to be sending to girls. I don't think we should make them feel ashamed, and what else do words like "tramp" do but make people feel ashamed?

It is perfectly legitimate to examine whether or not the fashion industry is selling the clothes that it is selling because of increased demand due to early onset of puberty. That is a possible cause to the effect that people don't like, so why not look into it instead of just griping about fashion? It is also legitimate to question the psychological and sociological impact of calling pubescent girls "tramps" based solely on prevailing trends in fashion. I am not advocating promiscuity in little girls; I am merely questioning whether or not it is appropriate for society's adults to call girls "tramps" for their clothing choices and then to blame the fashion industry for this "trampiness" when evidence suggests that there may be underlying physiological causes.

"What is so inherently wrong with sex? Puberty is hitting girls earlier - usually at this newly developed "tween" stage that we're all so busy lamenting. Has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that sexualized clothing for tweens is an expression of the fact that the tweens are hitting puberty and becoming sexual beings?"

Are you crazy?

You are basically suggesting that 11 year olds should start having sex. Sure, tweens do go through puberty and things are changing for them, but suggesting that it is ok to dress like a skank when you are 11 is not okay.
And becoming sexual beings? You make this seem like an episode of Sex and the City.

Wow! Sounds like you can't wait to be a grandparent, eh? Let me know how it feels when you're stuck raising your preteens child so they can hopefully graduate from school.

No, I'm not crazy. I am not suggesting that 11-year-olds should start having sex. Where did anyone get that idea? What else is puberty but the process by which the body begins to generate the hormones, processes, secondary sex characteristics, and behaviors of a sexually mature adult - or, in other words, "becoming a sexual being?" Isn't that what puberty is? I am not making an outrageous claim; I'm just calling it what it is. People who interpret my words as approbation of sexually promiscuous eleven-year-olds are reading their own paranoia into my words. Calling puberty what it is - the process by which children become sexually mature adults - does not mean that I think eleven-year-olds should skip the "becoming" phase and get right to the "being" part by having sex.

Let me say it again: I do not think eleven-year-olds should jump into sex.

That does not mean that I do not think that it is perfectly natural for eleven-year-olds to begin to notice boys or to dress in imitation of adults and in accordance with their developing adult bodies. And I'm not using the term "skank." I never said it is ok to dress like a "skank." In fact, I have deplored the use of sexually derogative terms to describe pubescent girls in every post that I have made thus far. I am not sure what dressing like a "skank" would entail, but I very much doubt that empire waisted tops and slightly padded bras have the ability to turn girls into "skanks." If by "skank," what you really mean is an eleven-year-old dressing like the average twenty-something, then I would question why it is ok to tell eleven-year-olds that adult women are skanks for the way they dress and/or to tell eleven-year-olds that they are skanks. I do not think it is ok to use such offensive language when describing anyone - least of all eleven-year-olds girls.

Honestly, I'm not proposing anything Earth shattering here. All I am proposing is the theory - bolstered by recent studies - that girls are maturing into women at an earlier age and the opinion that it seems likely and logical to me that those girls are therefore starting to dress as adult women at an earlier age. Viewed in this light, it seems wrong to blame the fashion industry and to call girls "tramps" when it would be much more effective to green light a few studies into *why* girls are maturing faster and then, if it is deemed appropriate, to take the necessary measures to reverse the trend. I am not promoting anything. What I am doing is opposing Yoffe's approach, which seems to involve lashing out at the fashion industry for meeting the demand with the current supply and calling girls "tramps" for fueling that demand.

Frankly, I am astounded by the backlash that I have received for pointing out that early onset puberty may be a contributing factor and for questioning a society that is content to call girls "tramps." I don't think it's right to blame pubescent girls - girls who are becoming adults - for wearing clothes in imitation of adult trends or to blame clothiers for meeting that demand. If you are going to do that, then I think at the very least you owe all of those girls and the fashion industry a cursory examination of the reasons behind current trends. There is nothing threatening about that idea except that, perhaps, it makes people uncomfortable to think that they might have to do something more than point and shout "tramp!" if they actually want to solve something that they perceive as a problem.

Decent is decent……
indecent is indecent…….
PERIOD……

And it seems you support INDECENT….

speaks loads for you doesn’t it?

Preteen girls shouldn't have to dress in frumpy clothes and be ashamed of their bodies, but they shouldn't put their new developing bodies out there for the whole world to see either. Do you honestly think it was a good idea for Abercrombie to make thongs for 10 year olds? Come on, think about it!! The whole thing about puberty happening earlier now, is that really the case? Or is it that the fashion industry is allowing this generation of girls to express their sexual energy more because of all the provocative clothing? I remember being 10, or, 11 and I had sexual fantasies at that age - it's nothing new. It's totally natural, and always has been. The only difference from the pre-teens in the past, and the pre-teen girls now is that they have the means of expressing this energy with clothing. I agree that you shouldn't be ashamed of your sexuality, but these are still children!!!!! I agree with you that parents should address the new feelings their child is experiencing, but don't go out and by them a thong and say "you're a woman now!!!" They are not children in the sence that they like to color in coloring books or fingerpaint, but they are still easily persuaded in many different ways. It's nothing new that girls want to start dating when their 13 or so, but they don't have to wear hip-hugging jeans and a push-up bra! What kind of message does that send to them - if I don't wear these "cool" clothes, my date won't like me. Also, have you ever heard of child molesters?? Those people aren't in their right minds - but it seems more important to you that these girls can "express their sexuality!!" Don't worry about the man who's peeking around the tree at these "sexual beings", ready to snatch one of them as soon as you look away.