Is it possible that we are overreacting? With few exceptions, children's clothing has always been similar to adult clothing of the same gender and era. If clothing for adult females is blatantly sexually suggestive as of late, is it any wonder that clothing for underage females would follow suite? I'm just not sure why we are all acting like this is a new trend that is going to have some sort of negative impact on today's youth when, really, dressing children like adults is nothing new. It has been done in the past - say, in the VERY suggestive and ostentatious Rococo period -- and will be done in the future.

Much of the clothing being sold on the market today is incredibly similar to clothing that was on the market in other eras. Sometimes, I look around at the slim pants, baggy tops, and huge earrings and think I've been blasted back to the 80s. The pencil skirts and large belts are clear 40s throwbacks. The empire and baby-doll waistlines are derived from Regency fashion, which was itself derived from the supposed fashions of the "classical" world. And the tunic thing that is currently in style, well, people of all ages and both genders have been wearing tunics for as long as they've been wearing any kind of shirt. Given the similarity of our styles to the styles of other eras, aren't we overreacting to assume that our styles are going to corrupt our youth?

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.

""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?""

Wow, sounds eerily similar to pedophiles attempts at justifying themselves.

I certainly do not intend to justify pedophilia. Perhaps the following will clarify my position....

On Slate.com, Emily Yoffe wrote a column decrying the fashion industry's marketing of sexualized clothing for preteen girls. In the column, she reports on the difficulty of finding age appropriate clothing for her eleven-year-old daughter.

Throughout, Ms. Yoffe is a bit like Goldilocks, crying "this one's too slutty!" and "this one's too prudish!" before finally settling on one or two items that seem "just right." Also like the tow-headed heroine, who romps willy-nilly through someone else's home whilst making these proclamations, our red-headed journalist does not scruple to enter a territory not her own - fashion - and make short work of it with her cutting remarks. To take her view of things, every corner of the fashion industry from the bargain bin to Talbot's Kids must be lambasted for its failure to provide clothing that fits her ideal for her daughter: "stylish while still sweet, trendy but not trampy." The only problem is that Old Navy's not stylish, Talbot's is not sweet, Nordstrom's too trendy, and Limited Too is too trampy. Only Macy's off-brand sand Lord & Taylor's ghastly polka-dot party dresses are "just right," meaning, I suppose, that they allow Ms. Prudence to picture her daughter as a prude for a few years longer.

In blaming the fashion industry for her daughter's encroaching sexuality, I think Yoffe was in error. She misses the most important piece of the puzzle: young girls are not becoming sexualized because they are shopping at Limited Too; young girls are becoming sexualized because they are going through puberty. According to the National Research Center for Women and Families, a recent study found that menarche was common at around age 11 or 12, with breast development and the growth of pubic and axillary hair often beginning between the ages of 8.9 and 11.8, with slight differences corresponding to height, weight, and race. If girls in this age bracket are going through puberty, does that not explain their demand for more sexually suggestive clothing? To hear Yoffe and the other parents who commented to her article tell it, something far more insidious is happening. Forget supply and demand. The girls themselves could not possibly be demanding clothing that (gasp) suggests that they might be sexual beings. Instead, the fashion industry has ignored demand and , by means of providing an overwhelming supply of sexually suggestive clothing, has corrupted girls and their unwitting parents in order to turn a profit.

Forgive me if I find this view of things more than a little extreme. I went through puberty. I remember what it's like. I went a little boy crazy, as did most of the girls my age. At 13, I was even something of a "late bloomer." My experience corresponds with the data presented in the aforementioned study, which indicates that the "tween" age range is exactly the age at which girls start puberty. Of course, the onset of puberty is more than the age at which a girl begins to develop breasts and hair and experiences menarche. It is also the age at which girls' bodies start telling them to look for mates. We get our first boyfriends, have first kisses, etc. In an effort to attract those mates for all those cute little firsts, we start to dress with a view toward attracting the opposite sex. We wear makeup in imitation of adults. We wear our hair in imitation of adults. Whether we do it intentionally or not, this alteration of appearance is signal: it says we are sexually available. Aside from that, we've got these new, more womanly bodies, and it's just plain fun to show them off a little. I went through puberty. I remember what it's like. You can't stop puberty - either the physical or the psychological parts - by pushing pubescent girls into little girl clothes.

I contend that beginning to dress to attract a mate at the age of puberty is perfectly natural. If people don't like the fact that girls are becoming sexualized so soon, maybe they should look at the physiological causes behind this early development, because if anything that is happening is not natural, it's the fact that the average age of puberty is shifting. USA Today proposes obesity, lack of exercise, exposure to certain chemicals in cosmetics and plastics, and undernourishment in the womb as possible contributing factors. CNN theorizes that insecticides may be to blame, and also mentions obesity and genetics. No one seems to know exactly why puberty is beginning earlier in young girls, but scholarly and popular resources do seem to agree that the average onset of puberty in girls is declining.

In view of the fact that young girls are experiencing puberty earlier when compared to their parents' and grandparents' ages of onset, railing against the fashion industry seems a bit like shooting the messenger because you don't like the message. Taking the fashion industry to task will not de-sexualize pubescent girls. Putting pubescent girls in school uniforms will not do it, either. Taking an honest look at what's happening and addressing growth hormones in the food supply, weight, or other dietary and social factors, on the other hand, might prove more useful.

This problem has nothing to do with clothing. If the public is well and truly scandalized by the increasingly early onset of puberty in young girls and all of its attendant side effects, they may do well to remember that the clothes in which they dress their daughters will not change what's underneath. As the famously lovestruck (and sexually active) tween Juliet said in Shakespeare's famous tragedy Romeo and Juliet, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Similarly, whether our daughters wear jumpers that conceal their budding breasts or babydoll tops that reveal them, the buds are still there. Should we really be sending young girls the message that this is wrong?

Summary: Why can't they make cute, stylish, nonslutty clothes for tweens? That's the only point Ms. Yoffe was making. Yes, there are some things out there that are appropriate, but you really have to look. It wouldn't hurt clothing manufacturers to make young girls' clothing maybe a little bit longer, or roomier, and just let young ladies be innocent for a little bit longer. They will be adults much longer than they will be children, let's not rush them into it. I am a young woman, and I remember very well what it was like when I got my gorgeous adult body, and the power I came to realize it brought me (I got a free tire once when my tire went flat, for nothing but a smile, which I'm a little ashamed of myself for accepting now), but my parents were wise enough to do their best to help me learn the power of modesty and respect for myself and others through dressing appropriately.

I guess what I'm questioning here are the following notions:

First, I question the notion that girls should be "allowed to be innocent for a bit longer." Inherent in this idea is the assumption that girls who begin to explore their sexuality are somehow guilty, and I'm not sure that is a healthy message to send to girls. Why do you think clothes make girls "innocent," and why do you think that is preferable to the alternative?

Second, I question the notion that the clothes that are somehow pushing young girls into adulthood. When you argue in favor of a longer period of innocence, you argue that this would be acheived if clothing manufacturers made the clothes "a little bit longer, or roomier." I don't think that longer, roomier clothes are what cause young girls to become young women. I think physiological changes are what cause that. Even if the current fashions were longer and roomier, girls would still be maturing at a faster rate. Just in order to fit, the cuts and fits of the clothes would have to reflect that to at least some extent. If clothes were longer and roomier, do you think that would really delay a girl's transition from girlhood to adolescence?

You ask "why can't they make cute, stylish, nonslutty clothes for tweens?" To that, my answer is that clothing retailers have probably found that those clothes don't sell as well as cute, stylish clothes that call attention to their sexuality. I refuse to use the word "slutty," as it is a derogatory term used to demean the sexually promiscuous. Clothing does not and cannot make a girl sexually promiscuous. To call something slutty is to make a moral judgment, and why should clothiers be held responsible for customers' morality to the extent that they are expected to sacrifice profits? Calling attention to one's sexuality and acting on it to the point of dangerous excess are two completely different things. When the girls themselves seem to want to wear the clothes that call attention to their sexuality, what reasonable, profitable choice do clothiers have but to comply with demand? To your question "why can't they make cute, stylish, nonslutty clothes for tweens?" I suppose I would respond by asking, "why is it the industry's fault that tweens want to imitate the fashions of teens and adults?"

I guess what I want someone to explain is why it is being taken for granted that it is bad for pubescent girls to dress in a manner that calls attention to their developing sexuality. Why is it that sexuality is automatically deemed inappropriate for girls in the tween age bracket? Perhaps if I knew why it is commonly considered desirable to delay expressions of sexuality in pubescent girls, I would understand the argument that the fashion industry is somehow doing something immoral in selling clothing that calls attention to the developing sexuality of pubescent girls. i am not being deliberately obtuse; I am asking this question in all seriousness. Why is it that sexuality is automatically deemed inappropriate for girls in the tween age bracket?

Girls want to dress like their heroes, Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchey, Britney Spears, etc. They admire these women because their slutty dress and behavior has earned them fame and fortune. It's also earned them drug rehab, jail time, abusive boyfriends, and so on. But they seem to be happy with that, preferring slutty notariety to other accomplishments.

I guess this is okay for a small number of women who can vie for the title of National Slut, but not everyone can be a winner in this game. Of the thousands of girls who think they'll be the next Paris Hilton by looking and acting like sluts, only a couple will actually find success. The rest will be consigned to real sluthood, beaten and killed by pimps and various sleazeballs, spending time in grubby jails, having unwanted children they can't support, ruining their health with drugs and aclohol, and generally spiraling down.

I don't think it's wrong at all for parents to want their daughters to look cute and attractive without appearing slutty. I'm sure most moms would prefer their daughters attract boyfriends who aspire to be accountants and engineers, as opposed to those whose ambitions run toward pimping and drug dealing. Their daughters, unfortunately, are not always able to discriminate, and often believe the media message that they must look like Miss Hot Slut to attract that cute, dangerous boy all the girls want.

Too often, the way this plays out is that a 13 year old girl hooks up with a 25 or 30 year old man who feeds her drugs and alcohol, makes her feel special, and gets her pregnant. She drops out of school, has the baby, and finds herself a single mom at 14 or 15 when Loverboy moves on to the next gullible teenager. I lived in a rural, economically depressed area where this scenario played itself out in countless trailer parks. I met more 34 year old grandmothers than I could count, most of whom were raising at least one grandbaby cast off by a confused daughter.

Of course, you can't blame it all on the Slut Look, but that's one piece of a complex social puzzle. It certainly encourages boys and young men to view girls as brainless, interchangable, disposable "sexual beings."

Palambra wrote: "I guess what I want someone to explain is why it is being taken for granted that it is bad for pubescent girls to dress in a manner that calls attention to their developing sexuality. Why is it that sexuality is automatically deemed inappropriate for girls in the tween age bracket?"

My take as a parent: It's bad because because, although bodies may be developing younger, brains are not. Today's 'tweens are only growing up faster in the physical sense; their understanding of sexuality and the emotions and, yes, potential consequences, aren't developing any faster. Clothes that are being marketed to 9 year-olds are more suggestive than what was marketed to 14 year-olds in my generation (& I'm only in my 30s).

I see what you are saying. And, to be honest, I fully expected to be on the less popular side of this debate. I agree that Paris Hilton & Co. are not desirable role models for anyone. I just disagree that allowing a girl to embrace her developing sexuality by showing off her new body a bit is necessarily a one way ticket to Paris Hilton land.

I grew up in a neighborhood in which most of my friends ended up pregnant before they were 18, so I've seen the phenomena you're describing. But all my little 13 - 18-year-old mom friends weren't having babies because of the clothes they wore; they were having babies because their parents (who worked long hours and were in many cases young, themselves) lacked the time and/or authority to closely monitor any aspect of their lives, sex included; because they didn't have reliable adults to teach them about birth control; because they didn't have access to abortion like middle or upper class kids who get pregnant do; because they were trying to find escape or relief from problems a lot bigger than tomorrow's math test; and because of a myriad of other factors of which clothing choices were perhaps a part, but not nearly as much a part as the things I just mentioned.

I, on the other hand, had very involved parents. They were affluent enough to move to a better school district (one that did not have a reputation for either school shootings or teen pregnancy) when I reached middle school age, which circumstance I am sure greatly influenced my outcome. The move did not change anything about what was expected of me, though, or the methods by which those expectations were enforced. I was raised to understand that education and work came before other concerns. My parents expected my best. They raised me to believe that I was smart and that I was privileged to be the first in my family who would have the opportunity to go to college. It was my responsibility to use that to my advantage. If I came home with anything less than an A in most subjects and less than a B in math or my best efforts in gym class (I have a few slight handicaps as a result of a 3-month premature birth), I was grounded until the next grading period. And you had better believe that my parents were in regular contact with my teachers.

I also worked from a very young age, my parents pushing me to take under-the-table jobs at concession stands and to babysit for friends until I was old enough to get a "real" job, at which time I certainly did pick up a job. These things all overlapped the summer during which I was 16, so I had 5 jobs that summer. I was expected to budget and to pay for a lot of my own expenses, including a trip to Europe, which I earned entirely on my own. Work taught me responsibility, and my parents expected me to excel there, too. For the record, I did excel, soon becoming employee of the month and then being promoted to a supervisory position. In high school, I worked 25 hours a week when school was in session and 50+ hours a week when school wasn't in session.

My parents were downright strict about making sure
that I knew that my self-worth was not limited to looking nice or attracting men. Perhaps because that was the case, they were far less strict about socializing and dating than were most other parents. They wanted me to be confident in all areas of my life - sexuality and boys included. So when I started to hide my developing body under baggy T-shirts and pants, my mom took me shopping and bought me clothes that would show off my new figure. My mom admired my new figure. She told me I was beautiful and not to be embarrassed by that. I had shown an interest in boys from the time I was in preschool, but when I brought home my first boyfriend at age 13, my parents met him and made sure there were appropriately chaperoned functions for us to attend together. When I went to my first formal dance, they made a big fuss and bought me flowers. When I went to parties or screenings or other social functions, they didn't give me a curfew or insist on chaperoning. All they insisted was that I kept them informed of my whereabouts in case there was an emergency. When I came home, my mom always woke up to "dish." My parents trusted me. As a result, I usually made the smart decision.

The result of all of this is that I was that powerfully attractive girl who had it all: brains, beauty, confidence, etc. I could walk into a party and pick any guy I wanted or throw one of the biggest parties of the year. And, yes, that was a power trip. And, yes, it took me awhile to learn to treat boys with respect. Perhaps that would have been a negative thing if that was all I could do. But I could also be the editor of two newspapers, sit on the president's and superintendent's cabinets, be a voting member of my girl scout service unit and a mentor to younger girls, supervise a staff, be sent along with the valedictorian to represent my school in an academic competition, and pull my teammates to safety after losing everyone else from the raft in a class V river. I could do all of this even with some heart problems and slightly crooked legs.

I was allowed and even encouraged to dress in clothing that expressed my sexuality. I was taught to embrace that part of my identity just as I might embrace any other. I was not taught that it was somehow bad or wrong. The difference is that my parents raised me to make sure that my entire identity wasn't wrapped up in that aspect of my personality. They took a lot of time and a lot of care to raise me to be confident and competent in every area of life, education and work first and foremost, but also in my sexuality. They made sure that I knew that a boy was lucky to be dating me and that I held all of the cards in the relationship that I wanted to hold, not that I was lucky if a boy looked at me. You are right to think that it is wrong to teach girls that sexuality is their only asset. I just don't think squelching sexual expression is the answer; I think encouraging confidence and competence in school, work, and hobbies so that a girl has a lot more from which to draw on when forming her identity than just sexual attractiveness is the answer. I worry that by teaching girls to ignore or de-value the sexual part of them, we are sending the message that sexuality is something to fear or of which to be ashamed when, instead, we should teach that it is just one facet (and perhaps not even the most important facet) of a girl's worth.

From this perspective, blaming the fashion industry for sexualizing young girls seems like faulty logic because it automatically assumes that girls who embrace their developing sexuality are doomed to be like Paris Hilton, whose exploits land her on sex tapes and in jail. Fortunately, that is just not the case. If a parent encourages a healthy self-image in all areas of life, maybe the girl won't have such a narrow view of what's important in life. Maybe she will then chase her own goals - whatever they may be - instead of Paris Hilton's goals, which almost any girl raised to have confidence in herself and her exploits would find vapid and shallow, anyway.

A couple studies have shown that those most uncomfortable with their own unnatural attraction to minors are often the first in conversations to label others as pedophiles in a fairly classic phenomenon of projection.

Not saying you are one, iahmed, just wondering if your statement actually came from really considering the argument being put forth or if you simply acted in a sort of reflexive defensiveness?

Here we have the cognitive dissonance that constantly accompanies this topic - people are so emotionally invested in these issues that they can no longer form coherent arguments.

On the one hand we're supposed to embrace the 'blossoming sexuality' of youth and condone clothing that decades ago would have most likely indicated that the wearer was a sexualized (ie sexaully active) being. On the other hand many people appear to think there is nothing more despicable than pedophilia, which is obviously something of a side effect of this trend. If you dress a little girl like a woman interested in 'attracting a mate', if you teach her about sex in middle school, if you allow her to learn dance moves that are sexually suggestive, etc. is it really that surprising that there will be some men who will treat her as such?

Here's the simple question - should teens be sexualized or not? Ie Should sex be a part of their lives?

While puberty may be a natural, and wonderful, part of growing up, we do not let our children run wild and give in to all their desires just because they are natural. We set boundaries and teach them appropriate behavior. They are still children who need the strong, loving guidance of wise parents. This applies to clothing as well. While it may be "natural" for a young girl to begin to want to attract boys, that doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate and necessary to guide and channel that desire.

Surely, it is appropriate for a parent to guide and channel that desire. But Yoffe does not condemn parents for buying clothing that they deem inappropriate for their children; she condemns clothiers for selling clothing that she deems inappropriate for her daughter and, therefore, for all girls in her daughter's age range. I don't question whether or not parents should have the leeway to raise their daughters with their own standards of acceptable clothing; instead, I question whether or not it is fair to take the clothing industry to task for not self-censoring - despite obvious demand that just so happens to correspond to proven physiological phenomenon - based on Yoffe's personal opinion of what constitutes appropriate clothing for a "tween" girl.

baal32:

On the one hand we're supposed to embrace the 'blossoming sexuality' of youth and condone clothing that decades ago would have most likely indicated that the wearer was a sexualized (ie sexaully active) being.

Clothing that may have indicated the wearer was "sexually active" decades ago is now just clothing (to the kids). Times have changed, and perceptions have shifted (as they tend to do). This is not a morality statement on my part, just an observation.

Once the child no longer looks like a child, it is not pedophiles one needs to worry about.

I'm glad you have played the devil's advocate in this regard. Young ladies' fashion has nothing the accent on a girl who is on the brink of puberty. A twelve-year old girl (and I use girl rather than young lady intentionally) may be approaching fertility, but she needn't broadcast that to every one in her junior high, much less her elementary school. Such clothing may actually make a girl unconfortable or coerce her to adapt to mentality that does not suit her. Save salaciousness for the young ladies whose knowledge of sex and sexuality is broader and deeper.