n/t

from the father of a 2 and a 4 year old girl.

pedophilia. Only (wannabe) child molesters would throw a hissy fit over a preschoolers going around without a top.

bathing suit top on is shamed but an adult female, usually with fake boobs hanging out leaving nothing to the imagination, is acceptable? OMG

always had a top. Even then I was conscious and she really didn't feel comfortable..without "TOP & BOTTOM...Mommy!

It was a different time in America though..

For as long as I could when I was a kid. Around the age of 9 is when it becomes more personal I think. This is so ridiculous.

out to the pond in her Grandparents back yard. We all thought it hysterically funny at the time. But, when she got older she suddenly became very modest...(like she knew it was time to defend her privates or something). It was from her...but if her naked running had continued to when she turned 9-12..and up...probably some discussion about her running naked into ponds would have occurred around the dinner table as to "wisdom of naked runs." Just saying.

don't think they should be trashed for that...though.

in the South. In the fifties.

Not old enough for school, you were still a "baby" and free to run around in various states of undress. Kids who had started school, not so much -- and the pressure was as much from peers as from adults.

underpants on hot summer days in So. California and playing in the sprinklers to cool off.

It counted as a bath!

Good Gawd Almighty...the stupidity of some is overwhelming. She is 4 yrs old, and is being taught to be ashamed. Ignorant assholes.

How is such a rule even constitutional if men are not?

And dammit if I don't agree,

The disingenuousness, she amuses.

the kid looked younger than 2 - maybe 18 months - and was just wearing a swim diaper. The conversation was bizarre at best. Why on earth does this rule exist? So stupid.

Also, when my oldest was a toddler, I had her running through the sprinkler in just a swim diaper, and a neighbor came by with a swimsuit for her. LOL. It didn't occur to me that she might have thought my baby should be covered up. I thought it was toddler fashion advice or something.

Anyone who sees anything sexual in a topless 4-year-old needs to seek professional help immediately.

Am I the only one who see this as a way to protect the child from lurking pedophiles and perverts? (Sorry, I watched Little Children for the first time this weekend, and this story reminded me of that.)

But yeah, they could have handled it better,

Sorry but lurking pedophiles and perverts are not going to be deterred by clothing.

And where is line drawn? At 5? At 6? Is probably not wise to leave this open for individual interpretation.

We draw lines all the time. It can be done.

And if the kid is wearing swim trunks, just how do these pool nazis know who is a girl and who is a boy for sure? Don't defend stupid. There is no need to draw lines in this case. Just say "proper attire" and if someone is not in proper attire take them aside quietly and talk to them.

What you don't do is throw a 4 year old out of the pool for not having a top on. You just don't.

Much like well functioning adults can be turned on by other adults even when they're wearing clothes.

There's no visible difference between a 4-year-old boy or a 4-year-old girl, as long as they're wearing something on their bottom half.

I understand what you're saying, but then who makes the decision as to what point a top is more appropriate than no top? Do you suggest we leave that up to individual choice?

Will that be up to the parent as well?

Or a 17-year old?

Heck, keep on moving through the decades. 20s? Sure. 70s? Sure. Enjoy.

What, exactly, are you trying to protect people from?

Or pretend to try to discard them wholesale.

I said they handled it wrong. I guess I should have stopped there.

Maybe my ignorance of the pedophilic mind is showing.

I don't think a public pool is necessarily an appropriate setting right now for challenging American norms. Yes, we need to be challenged as a society to evaluate these things, but a public pool with clearly defined rules is, in my opinion, a poor choice for where do it.

the exact age when a girl should wear a top.

Just say "young girls don't have to, older girls and women do". The rule is reinforcing a cultural norm. People adhering to that norm will figure out the exact ages where they feel comfortable. As an added bonus, as the norm changes you don't have to change the rules.

That would protect them from pedophiles, too.

It's crazy how sad this world has become when a 4 year old needs to "cover up" to defend them from "lurking pedophiles". That's what their parents and lifeguards are there for... unless you assume that ALL adults are pedophiles and might be turned on by your children.

If that's the case, I guess we should keep them all in the house, because that's the only way to TRULY defend them from all those 'lurking' pedophiles.

I know we have that expectation, but is it reasonable?

from a pedophile? And that's why all of us need to be told how to protect our children?

Will every single parent out there protect their child from child molestation? No

Will 99.9% of them protect their child from child molestation? Yes

And I am loathe to set "rules" and "laws" that regulate a 4 year old's attire because of the fact that .1% of the parents out there may not stop a pedophile from molesting their child.

Where do YOU draw the line? Should women be told how to dress because we need to be protected from rapists? Because that's seriously where your logic is heading.

I might add that your world view is pretty sad that you see pedophiles everywhere just waiting to snatch all the children and a battalion of parents who would do nothing to stop it.

And yes, if it saves just one child it is worth it.

Clothing isn't going to stop a rape or a child molestation. Saying that you think children should dress the way you see as proper just because you think some parent is going to let their child be kidnapped by a pedophile is a sick world view indeed.

Telling a little girl that she must wear a top to protect her does NOTHING to save "just one child".

Well it is being questioned now. Good example of "What is, ought to be" thinking.

It is stupid to require tops for prepubescent girls. Sometimes the "policy" is wrong and needs to be changed. And it sounds as if it is not a written rule that is posted anyway.

Then defy anyone to figure out if it is a boy child or girl child. I haven't seen very many children under 5 or even up to puberty that you can really tell if it's a boy or a girl. Of course the girl might object to boys clothing, they seem to understand the difference even before they can talk.

I can see not wanting to open that can of worms.

When I was in Germany, kids under 4 would be naked in public sometimes - usually at a pool or river, but sometimes even playing at parks

...if a topless little girl were caught in the background of that picture, at what age for that little girl could the person who took that picture get in trouble for being in "possession" of what might get categorized as kiddie porn?

If a person took a picture of just the topless girl herself, and the girl wasn't their own daughter, how much trouble would that cause? Would that be an important legal distinction? A lot of parents would be freaked out by that, I'm sure.