Advice: The big "talk"
Find a Conversation
Advice: The big "talk"
| 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
Again-- If you weren't implying that heels equal the pre-teen bimbo look, then what was the purpose of this combination of sentences. Usually, when someone puts two sentences together they are related in some way.
If you were implying a possible connection, you might have been better off to include a less definite word than *must.* Can you not see how those two sentences can be read as an implication that any shoes other than flats equal the bimbo look?
Considering my daughter is six months old, I doubt anything in her wardrobe could be construed as bimbo attire. But, yes, when blanket statments are made-- i.e. flat shoes under age 12 are a must-- especially when a poster is using alternate definitions of words, I can see how a parent might get defensive. Because by your statements about what you consider bimboesque, I would guess pretty close to every pre-teen has clothes or shoes that if paired with other inappropriate things would create a bimbo look, but are by themselves not an indication of the bimbo look. Most parents, especially good parents like the ones on this board, are probably not letting their pre-teens dress like bimbos.
<>
I've already explained what I meant, which was that unless the shoes are flat, they might imo be a component of the bimbo look. Not "equivalent to" but "a component of" or an "an element of", or "an ingredient in", and I also stand by my use of "must", because that is how I feel. I don't know how else to qualify this.
<>
Probably true. However, when I think of "dressing in heels for an interview" or "wearing heels with an outfit", I'm not thinking of anything that could remotely be appropriate for a 9yo. I'm certainly not thinking of any of the shoes that have been posted in this thread. Probably some pre-teens have actual high heels in their wardrobes, but probably most don't.
<>
Absolutely. And when people say "heels", are they talking about the little white ankle strap Easter shoes posted in the thread? I doubt it.
<>
Actually, I don't think I am.
<>
Probably about 1 1/2 inches? Just for fun, I went to the Zappo's shoe site and searched what they call flats. That's about how high their flats seem to go. There are different heel heights that are still considered flats, ranging from ballerina slippers with 1/4" heels to pumps with much more substantial heels that still aren't high heels.
You really don't see how that post could be seen as implying any heels on shoes are an indication of the bimbo look by themselves? Because there have been at least three of us that read it that way.
Preteens often do have shoes with heels on them-- ones like the shoes posted in this thread. But since you are using a different defintion of shoes with heels than most of the other posters are using, I understand a little bit better what you were saying.
<>
No, I don't. The only way I can account for it is, as I said before, a kind of defensiveness related to insecurity on this topic, but who knows?
<>
I don't think my definition of shoes with heels is any different than what's standard in the shoe biz. If posters think of "shoes with heels" as being like those little white Easter shoes, then I really don't see why. Imo, those are in no way shoes with heels.
<>
Perhaps not, but when they say "shoes with heels," the cute little Easter shoes fit the defintion of "shoes with heels."
<>
So you consider anything under 1 1/2" to be flats?
<>
Okay-- it's just all in our imaginations. Eye roll.
<>
I think most people have a different defintion of heels than yours, if you don't consider the Easter shoes to be shoes with heels.
<>
Hadn't really thought about it much, but yes, I suppose I do. The Zappos site brings up shoes with heels as high as 1 3/4" when you click on "flats".
Pages