« Fitting-Room Modesty | Main | With No Men in Sight, Everything's "Beachy" »

July 06, 2007



It seems that stores are trying very hard to get young kids-- especially girls-- used to wearing next to nothing at an earlier age. I'm convinced that it's not natural to not have shame, but that young children go through a period where they don't have a problem with it.

If we're to be raising modest children, we're going to have to be careful from the moment they are born up!


Hi Meghan, the pictures of the string bikini for tots (and a discussion about it) can be
found here:


The comments don't seem to be accepting HTML code today, but if you copy-paste it's a very interesting blog.


I'm not sure that I really have a problem with "skimpy" clothing for young girls, since the appropriateness of showing skin depends much on how it exudes sexuality. The nudity of an infant does not scream "sex" the way that of an adolescent or adult would, and is not immodest. Personally, I used to run around the house in my underwear as a child, and thought nothing of it. Of course I covered up more as I grew. What is modest and immodest has always depended on social position, including age; e.g. the "need" for women to cover their hair for modesty depends on age, sexual maturation, marital status, etc...
What I do have a problem with is the premature sexualization of little girls, as in 8-year-olds wearing thongs, bras, and high-heeled shoes, or makeup. So my problem is not so much how much skin is being shown, but the style and message of the clothing in question. Clothing that imitates adult styles naturally sexualizes the children who wear them and deprives them of their right to a real childhood.

Michael Alexander Chaney

Hello is there a male version of this or should I start one.

Anna S

Sexualization of very young girls is perverse and disturbing. It's not just revealing flesh; it's making kids seem more adult-like and sexy. That's scary.


LORa, I think you're right about a lot of it. I don't have a problem with little girls wearing sundresses or other clothing that is obviously for toddlers. It's the sexualization of young children with skimpy, sexy clothing that I really object to. Styles that imitate the sleazier teenage fashions are all over girls' sections in department stores, and I think that's a huge problem.

At the same time though, we've now spent the past 20 years seeing younger and younger children put into sexy clothing, and so I think there's been a cultural change where skimpy = sexy, even when the clothes are child-like.

For a more extreme example that makes it clearer, look at the dresses for little girls that were fashionable 70+ years ago (the young Shirley Temple is one example); the skirts were very short and often barely covered the bloomers. Bare legs were childlike, and covered legs were adult. Nowadays, short skirts are considered adult wear--and so almost any little mini-skirt, no matter how cute and kiddy, looks 'older' on a little girl. I put my daughters into longer dresses (knees or longer), partly because that looks more childlike to me.


Euh... what exactly is that dustmybroom site? The comments were disgusting, but I know that bloggers can't exactly help what comments they get (unless they want to screen as is done here). So I looked at some of the other posts... really don't know what to make of any of it, or of the inclusion of a link to it on a modesty blog! It really had rather a foul ambience.


With freedom comes both good and bad; we live in a free country and I am very glad about that. You are a facist when it comes right down to it, all I can do is pray that the only people who take your inane blather seriously are the other imbeciles whose comments you have posted on this site.

Dress any way you like, just keep your laws off my body.

Crimson Wife

As a mom on a budget, I get very frustrated when the discount stores are full of inappropriate toddler and little girl clothes while the expensive stores have tons of cute age-appropriate ones. I can't afford to shop at Gymboree, Talbot Kids, Hanna Andersen, etc. Why can't Target, Old Navy, etc. sell similar styles? Do they really think that just because their customers are not wealthy they have no morals?


Anonymous- I'm pretty sure facists wouldn't mind skimpy clothing on little girls seeing as they're already down the path of immorality and evil.

J E Williams

I was reading our morning paper called the Sacramento Bee, when I came upon the artical "A Britney backlash?". I became excited & encouraged to read this "old value" movement is seeing some light. I am a grandmother and my heart has ached for many years to see girls/women who do not value themselves or understand how precious before God they are. When men who have moral values stand up against the way women dress & value their own daughters & wives so much that they don't want other men looking at them in a cheap way it could send a BIG message to our culture. The GOOD men have been sleeping.... to long! KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK.... TOUCHING ONE LIFE AT A TIME!

The comments to this entry are closed.