Boys did used to wear shorts like that. Hip hop became really popular and grunge and music tends to influence fashion so suddenly long shorta and baggy pants became popular. Moreso with boys but there are girls that like them too. So if the argument is that both boys and girls should be able to wear short shorts or long shorts then I agree with you and I think both sizes belong in the children's section. Not the silver ones though but that's just because they look hideous and cheap. I don't see anything wrong with denim or cotton shorts like that though. I grew up in the 80s and both my brother and I wore short shorts.

@Kari Panda: My view is that no clothing is inherently sexy. Adult bodies can be, while the bodies of young children and babies cannot be viewed as sexy unless you've got something wrong with you. If a toddler wanted to wear something like a negligee, why not? I'd probably not let them out of the house dressed like that if it was up to me, but that's just me. As for the cut of those shorts: that was totally normal when I was a young child in the 1970s. Everyone wore shorts that short - although I don't recall anything in shiny silver fabric for very young children (Glam Rock was a thing, so shiny silver clothes were in the shops), and of course the shorts for boys need a slightly different shape.

I think the point they're trying to make is if any normal person saw a toddler in lingerie we'd think it was weird or we'd be like "wtf" because we know that people wear lingerie to look sexy. A predator is gonna find a child appealing no matter what they are wearing because they're sick. I don't think a predator is gonna see a little girl alone in long shorts and then decide not to groom her because she looks modest...they probably like that because they're disgusting and they want to corrupt the innocent. The only thing you can do is never leave your children alone with people you don't 💯 trust and even then teach them to be assertive and say no! Predators aren't looking for the most scantily clad child they are looking for the most vulnerable child.

@Pyla: I was trying to make the point that only sexual predators say things like "she liked it" and view young children as sexual objects. People who are not sexual predators of children never view young children as sexual objects. Also, people who are sexual predators don't care what their victims are wearing, as their victims keep on pointing out. I stand by my claim that no clothing can sexualise a young child because "sexualised" is all in the head of the viewer.

Sorry, son but you have lost the plot. The outrage is about an entire industry dressing little girls differently to little boys. No one in their right mind looks at toddlers and thinks they are sexy. Therefore it makes no sense to produce clothes that are obviously different. If it’s not harmful for female toddlers to wear shorts that are so very much shorter than the boys’ shorts, why are the boys’ shorts longer?

Longer shorts came into fashion for boys in the late 80s early 90s when hip hop became popular. Girls also liked to wear baggy pants and some girls wore longer shorts too. I know I did. I wore both. I think either is fine for either gender. Not every girl wants to dress like a cheerleader or a pop star and not every little boy wants to dress like a football player or a sports star. Let's be honest though, at 2 years old it's the parents that are buying the clothing and because society already has a preconceived notion of what's feminine and what's masculine that's what a lot of people are buying for their children. You wanna make a difference, don't raise your children with gendered stereotypes. Teach your boys that girls are not responsible for their actions and teach your girls that it's good for men to be sensitive and express their feelings too.

Mmm. Boys knew that girls weren't responsible for the actions of the boys when I was growing up. As far as I can tell, that sort of nonsense has always just been an excuse for the inexcusable. Also, I reckon it's mostly boys who need teaching that it's good for boys and men to admit their feelings. Well, boys and their parents including their mothers - who do you think teaches boys not to show their feelings?

@JB, when I was a youngster in the 70s, "son", everyone's shorts were short shorts, and the outrage is partly about clothing that supposedly sexualises little girls; I don't really see your point. There's a big jump between pointing out that no sort of clothing on toddlers can be "sexy" on the one hand and on the other hand considering the full range of issues of sexism in the fashion industry and the myriad of effects it has. All the clothes for boys and girls need a rethink but that's got nothing to do with whether or not the clothes attract sexual predators, because that myth has been debunked a long time ago. https://today.tamu.edu/2019/11/19/what-were-you-wearing-exhibit-explores-sexual-violence-myth/

I agree with you. I'm also disappointed that they don't have more options in the sizes of girls shorts and boys shorts though because I think both are fine for a 2 year old. I don't like the disco shorts though because they look like a cheap costume instead of durable summer clothing but that's my opinion.

I'm with you on that. Shorts which were not what we now think of as "short shorts" were basically not available in the 1970s from what I recall. We could do with a variety of leg lengths and so on available for everyone.

@The Other Guest: the thing about sexual predators is that they are unaffected by the clothing of their victims.The thing about those of us who aren't sexual predators is that we're not too bothered either - sexiness is not so much down to the clothes as to who's wearing them. If you've got a paedophile on the prowl, it doesn't matter what the kids are wearing: they're all at risk exactly the same way. The idea that certain clothing makes sexual assault more likely has been proven nonsense time and time again; e.g., https://today.tamu.edu/2019/11/19/what-were-you-wearing-exhibit-explores-sexual-violence-myth/. I say let the kids wear whatever they like, and also ensure that they are protected from predators of all kinds. The two issues are independent of each other.

20191114_W...efault.jpg

- taken from an exhibition of what sexual assault victims were wearing.

I am aware that clothing does not increase the chance of assault. But I still wouldn't want to put my kid's behind on display, knowing there are predators out there with no way to identify them. And clothes cut like that are *intended to draw attention to certain aspects of a person's body;" that alone makes them inappropriate for a child. Some things are just meant for adults, and Daisy Dukes are one of those things.

Those shorts are not gonna look like daisy duke's on a 2 year old. They look shorter on the hanger. No butt cheeks are gonna hang out of those lol.

No butt cheeks hung out of my mother's short shorts either. Then again, I knew just how big her knickers were... No, I was not rummaging through her underwear drawer, I just got told to hang out the washing on the washing line (or bring it in). What's the point of having children if you can't get them to do the housework? 🤨

But shorts cut to Daisy Duke's length were totally normal for all children when I was a child back in the 1970s. My mother also wore shorts that short. When The Dukes of Hazzard turned up on the TV, Daisy's clothes appeared entirely unremarkable. If you know that clothing doesn't attract predators, why worry? I don't follow your idea that clothes cut like that are intended to draw attention to certain parts of a person's body. I'd appreciate an explanation of your thinking on that point, because I don't get it at all.

I grew up in the 70s too, and neither I nor my friends wore shorts that short. And certain types of clothing is absolutely designed to draw attention to certain parts of the body; it's been that way for centuries. Bustles to emphasize the buttocks, neckline ruffles and/or plunging necklines to draw the eye to the breasts, hoop skirts and panniers to broaden hips & make the waist look smaller. Short-shorts are absolutely designed to draw attention to the buttocks, and it's very telling that the boys' shorts cover so much more skin than the girls' shorts do. EDIT - I'm curious about the downvotes, here. I'm not saying any of this makes children sexy, because it doesn't. I'm saying it sexualizes them, which is not the same thing.

@The Other Guest: just repeating an idea doesn't make it true. Bustles hide buttocks, and I can tell you for sure that "short shorts" never have drawn my attention to anyone's backside or anything else (okay, except sometimes legs; in my view they generally ruin the lines of a figure, distracting attention from whatever's really there), hence my scepticism regarding that point. Surely it's just as telling that when I was growing up in England in the 1970s, everyone's shorts were pretty much that short, boys and girls alike? Long shorts were what your granddad wore. I've just watched a few episodes of 1963/64 Doctor Who - oh now, *there* are some outfits displaying some very comely rear ends: high waisted trousers with stirrups to keep them tightly stretched. Meanwhile, whatever a 2 year old child is wearing, I'm mostly looking at their faces and just like any other normal person, I'm not thinking "sexy" under any circumstances, not even if I can see their bare legs. /s

I didn't say that those clothes make children sexy. I said it sexualizes them, which is not the same thing. Perhaps in 70s England, it was the norm; it wasn't where I live. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

(Meanwhile: short shorts in England in the 1970s were totally standard for everyone and were just a matter of style and practicality. When everyone who wears shorts is wearing short shorts, it can't be sexualisation - my mum, me, footballers in the first division: short shorts were standard. Long shorts can in some cases be less practical than short shorts in some ways - depending on the fabric and cut, they can be more inclined to restrict movement. When I started middle school (upper primary school), I had to be talked into wearing long trousers because I much preferred the freedom of movement I got from shorts)

@The Other Guest: in that case, I've no idea what you mean by saying "it sexualized them". If the term doesn't mean "it turns them into a person viewed as sexy", what does it mean? My query is sincere: I wish to understand.

I am not a very articulate person, so perhaps this will help? https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/sexuality_versus_sexualization_why_is_it_important_to_know_the_difference

What? What kind of a lunatic thinks there's anything so wrong with @Bob Brooce's really very sensible point that it needs downvoting?

Also the fact there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between boy and girl shorts in this place... That makes the message clear as F to me that it is about sexualising young girls in this instance... Really f*****g disgusting. If it was the same then i might buy your argument. BUT IT IS NOT! Notice how in some societies and culture in Africa specifically where it is the norm that ppl are topless...THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between how men and women dress... ALL the men ALL the women wear skirts and some ornamental jewellery and just that...NOBODY THERE bats an eye... To us that would be off right? Because again culture and the perception about certain clothing IS ASSOCIATED with sexualisation! So now i ask you. When you see boys offered short that are worn by everyday ppl and you see girls offered shorts that are worn by nicki minaj or some other sex symbol celebrity... WHAT IS THE MESSAGE I ASK YOU!

Welcome to Bored Panda, Forrest, where outrage is always the correct position to take. What you're saying is exactly right.

Look children should not be sexualised. Look at it this way... -A kid running around naked i just a kid probably being a little demon pissing off their parents or some s**t like that.... -A kid wearing clothes that have the "sexy" label on them on all the media produced by a society sends the CLEAR MESSAGE that it is sexualising children. IS it clear now? The context matters. Bikini in the beach is ok... Lingerie is not ok... It is the exact same concept... THE MESSAGE BEHIND IT is what matters.

@Ben Aziza, the point I and others are trying to make is that little children cannot be sexualised because "sexual" is in the mind of the watcher. Little children are innocent of such matters. Only sick adults view children as sexual and clothing has been proven to have nothing to do with it. Put it another way: you say "bikini in the beach is okay, lingerie is not okay." But why? What harm does it do a child to wear lingerie, if they have chosen to do so?

What Bob Brooce said.