Advice: The big "talk"

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Advice: The big "talk"
1221
Sun, 02-18-2007 - 7:28am

Okay, I need advice on when people started or will start to have the big "talk" with their kids.

My oldest is going to be 9 next week. I have some friends telling me they already had this talk with their children at this age. She just seems so young to me. She still plays house, school and dolls with her little sister. IMO, telling her about sex is going to take some innocence away from her. But, am I sheltering her too much?

She knows about periods and body hair development. She already has little breats "bumps" (as she likes to call "em).

Agghhh..I really thought I had until she was 12 to have this talk like my mother did.

What is everyone's opinion?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 4:43am
I have no problem agreeing to disagree. If you were beating your kid, I would feel obligated to try to persuade you to do otherwise. This stuff is nowhere near being in the same league. It is a matter of taste and that is a very personal thing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 4:48am
OK, we disagree there. No, I do not mean cheap. Most of dd's clothes were cheap and when she was under 3 half were homemade usually. But tacky is tacky, whether the item is on a child, in a store or on a grown person.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 4:53am

This was never a battle with dd, except for a few instances of wanting to wear halloween costumes to the store. There have also been compromises along the way, I am not an absolutist.

What is strange to me is that people do not care at all about this. If you do not care, then obviously there would be no point in worrying about it, but the not caring is odd to me. I have forced myself over the years to care much less than I was brought up to care, but I can't bring myself to not care at all.

Also, your objection seems to be that I limit things on account of taste. OTOH, you too would limit certain things, like belly shirts or whatever. Either way, it is a limit.

FWIW, dd has been dressing herself since she was 18ms old. I controlled what went into her closet, but she controlled what came out and what was combined with what. Plenty of strange and horrendous outfits resulted, don't worry.




Edited 2/24/2007 5:40 am ET by sild
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 6:32am
Yes, I can see the difference. Although, if a parent can't see the difference between a "little heel" and a flat heel on a 9 or 10yo, then they might also not see the difference between a skirt and a too-short skirt, a top and a too-low, too-tight top, and so on. How else can there be so many bimbos-in-training at the mall?
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 6:34am
There's definitely some obtuseness (obtusity?) in the thread, but not in my posts.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 6:36am
How they "got that idea"? Same way some posters tend to make the common error of reading "some" or "usually" and turning it into "all" or "always". I like your word for it: "obtuse".
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 6:38am
Hm-m-m... tacky vs. inappropriate. Another case of "eye of the beholder", wouldn't you say? Best way to avoid the whole issue, imo, is to make sure your little girls dress like little girls.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 7:19am

"Best way to avoid the whole issue, imo, is to make sure your little girls dress like little girls."

Something about this statement bothers me and I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it's the implication that there is a certain "look" that all little girls should have. I, personally, would rather say that children (both girls and boys) should dress appropriately for the kinds of activities that most children tend to engage in. For me, that precludes high heels, tightly fitting clothing etc. for the simple reason that such clothing impedes the natural movements that children tend to make and inhibits activities that children should be involved in.

Dd doesn't wear generally skirts or dresses, strongly prefers comfortable well-fitting trousers and has never expressed the wish for high heels of any kind. Her reasoning is pretty simple: she can't easily climb trees or walls in high heels, overly tight jeans or shirts, skirts or dresses. I make sure that the shoes I buy her have solid, flexible soles that can grip surfaces for the same reasons. There are plenty of cute flat "little girl" shoes that I have rejected because they lacked a decent sole or were not flexible enough. She has other shoes (mostly winter boots) that have a slight heel and are designed to grip even in icy conditions. None of this has anything to do with dressing her like a little girl.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 7:22am

absolutely........tacky is in the eye of the beholder as proven throughout this thread. tacky is the inappropriate t that says "it's a blonde thing". and in my child's size,too for heaven's sake! or tacky are the cheap character shoes for a few bucks! imo.




Edited 2/24/2007 7:25 am ET by egd3blessed

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 02-24-2007 - 9:22am
I see no reason to make it complicated. To me, dressing kids like kids simply means not like an adult or an adult wannabe.

Pages