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: 03-27-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:06pm

Andre 3000, Bjork, David Arquette and many in what are called "creative fields" (fashion, art, music etc.). These are adults who embody a dress sense that is about visual impact minus an attempt to look traditionally sexy. Lots of children dabble in this dress sense and I rejoice when I see them at the grocery store wearing their visual statements. Fuschia mocossins, spangles, glitter, hot pink, lime green, Batman everything, synthetic tulle, Spiderman light-up shoes and an abused t-shirt that they are in the process of loving to death. These are wonderful things on children. They can also be wonderful things on adults but there are fewer venues and professions where it is considered suitable.

I can understand the objection to clothes advertising a sexuality that doesn't exist yet. And a great many subthreads have been devoted to parsing what is or is not such advertising. But what I can't understand is objection to things that are not premature sexual advertisement but merely bold visual statements about what a child likes and considers visually interesting- be it lights in shoes or fuschia. Picasso said that all children are artists and adult artists are simply the ones who didn't shed that side of themselves along the way. When I read that I just thought of painting etc, but after this thread I can see it applies to clothes very well too. The path from toddler to David Arquette and Bjork is paved with lots of interesting clothing choices that have nothing to do with trying to look "adult sexy" (or imitate iconically sexual adults) and everything to do with clothes as visual statement.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:08pm
I thought so but wasn't sure. She seems particular about shoes, lol. I don't pass down my kids sneakers as there usually isn't much left to pass down. I've been to the Goodwill though and I'm often appalled at the shoes people "pass down." Some are plain garbage and they should be ashamed to pass that mess on to those who can't afford new shoes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:08pm

I wish I had that luck.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:12pm
I understand discouraging premature advertisement of sexuality. But I don't understand objections to items that are not sexual but merely visually bold or interesting: light-up shoes, fuschia mocassins, loud colors (which are much louder on synthetic materials many of which take dye so excellently) and all manner of decorations. Not every statement is a sexual statement and not all loud clothes are trying to say "I wish I were old enough to be understand what 'hot' means". Sometimes fuschia (or other loud colors) is chosen simply because it's a visually arresting color.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:15pm
I don't know I remember middle school being the time I wanted to shock and annoy my parents with my clothing. A few items I should NOT have been wearing but since they didn't make a fuss and I really didn't like them anyway, I stopped wearing them. By high school I was wearing flannel, jeans, and boots (as close as I ever got to grunge, lol) and was completely covered. I dress pretty conservatively now. With some kids you'd be fueling the fire to forbid articles of clothing. That isn't to say that one shouldn't have limits, and I'm quite certain I will, but I'm more inclined to pick my battles. Pink shoes are just not the thing I want to fight over.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:15pm
Meh. I'd buy those for dd in a heartbeat if she wanted them. One person's "ugly beyond description" is another person's "beautiful, bold and striking". But then, I see nothing wrong with synthetics (which hold neon dye better than natural fabrics), metallic finishes, cartoon characters etc. This isn't appropriate vs. inappropriate, it's just two different aesthetics. There is nothing inappropriate about having an aesthetic that appreciates the bold over the subtle.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:17pm
I can't see the harm in buying pink shoes just to stand out. Its not like the kid won't eventually notice that most people don't care what is on their feet. I wore plenty of things in high school just for the sake of standing out. I wanted to see what sort of reaction I'd get and I learned pretty quick that I wouldn't get much of one.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:18pm
Don't you think pink or red shoes look good with jeans, though? I do. Also with black pants and skirts.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:20pm
A young girl is the only person I can think of who could actually get away with wearing shoes of that color. On anyone else they look cartoonish.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 02-27-2007 - 1:21pm
So kids who don't try to dress exactly like all the other kids just don't have enough of a life to distract them from being involved with their appearance??? Maybe, just maybe they simply have their own aesthetic and don't feel like foregoing fuschia just because everybody else has.

Pages