Posted by: amamasblog | February 16, 2008

Is It Just Me?

I have been looking around for some cute baby clothes as a birthday present for my niece who will be one in April.  A few nights ago, I was looking on Old Navy’s website, and got to the section where they have swimwear.  I couldn’t believe my eyes when there was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie (striped) bikini for a baby girl,  starting at age 6 -12 MONTHS!  The bikini top was tiny, and so were the bottoms.  I know babies this age can get by without a swimsuit- lots of parents just put them in a diaper and that is it.  That isn’t what bothered me.  What bothered me was that they actually make bikinis like this for babies.  It looked liked they were trying to make the bikini overly sexy, and alluring.

Having two boys, I have never run into this.  Swimming suits for boys are trunks. I don’t know if they make Speedos for baby boys, but I have never seen a swimming suit / pair of swimming trunks for a baby boy that looked like they were trying to be sexy.  This just seems so wrong.  It seems like our society pushes kids to grow up so fast anyway, but making overly revealing bikinis for baby girls just seems like it is crossing a major line.

I wanted to post a picture of the bikini in question, but I was pleasantly surprised to see it was not on Old Navy’s website as of today.  I can only hope they got complaints and decided to remove it.  The other option is that they sold out of it.  That would be scary.  However, there were still bikinis for babies that I thought were questionable. 

I wondered if it was only Old Navy who is trying to sell these.  I looked at Gap (same parent company as Old Navy) and saw their bikinis were better than Old Navy, but the tops still bothered me, AND their sizes started at 0-3 months.   Children’s Place was better, and they had one bikini which covered way more than the previous two stores, and one which looks like a tankini, which I don’t have a problem with.  Then I looked at Target- they have bikinis starting at size extra small, which I would assume would be about age 4 or 5.  They were much more age appropriate in my opinion.  There was one toddler Dora bikini starting at age two, which seemed age appropriate.  I wonder why Old Navy and Gap are trying to push  skimpy bikinis off on baby girls and newborns? 

It is times like this, when I am glad that I don’t have a daughter.  Who wants to think about having to deal with these types of swimming suits when she isn’t even one yet?  If stores are marketing swimming suits like this for babies, it makes me cringe to think what is down the road for girls in our society.  Let them be babies for pete’s sakes!  You be the judge: here are some pictures of the bikinis I mentioned- what do you think?  Is it just me, or would you let your baby daughter wear these?

From Old Navy



From Gap



From Children’s Place  



From Target

                  Girls' Xhilaration® Preppy Stripe 2-pc. Swimsuit                     Toddler Girls' Dora the Explorer 2-pc. Swimsuit - Pink

The suits from Chidren’s Place and Target, I thought were ones I might let an older daughter wear, but still not a baby who wasn’t even one yet!



  1. i can see how some ppl might think they are cute, but i’m with you – too sexy, too early.

  2. I hear you on this one Heather! I’ve encountered flared jeans, tiny swim suits, and other girls-wear that I just don’t think is appropriate for my teenage niece, let alone my 21 month old! It’s just so frustrating that people think it’s cute to sexualize girls at a young age. And let me tell you, low-cut flared jeans look silly on a cloth-diapered baby, tee hee!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: