# "Keep your legs closed"



## BroodyWoodsgal

Is this something you teach your girls? I have a three year old DD and I realized, after reading another thread that touched on the subject, that this has never come up for us.

To me, when I say it in my head, it sounds like "hide your vagina, it is nasty and/or offensive to others!" - but at the same time, were I to wear a dress or skirt that was short enough that you could see my underwear, I would definitely make sure to close my legs at the ankles (though, most of my skirts/dresses fall below the knee....I think I still do cross my ankles when I sit, though).

Anyway, I am a very "pro-gina" lady and I love my vagina(I'm not, like, obsessed with it or anything, I just think it rocks!). My DD loves her vagina, too, and is not ashamed of it at all - she doesn't know that vagina shame exists for anyone. I consider it my gift to her as a mother, that I have shielded her from our cultures vagina shaming ways until she is old enough to internalize the existence of this shaming in a healthy way...but *would* I feel compelled to tell her to be more modest if we were in public and she was wearing one of her pretty dresses and had her legs hanging open and people could see her underoos? I don't know!?

Do you instruct your DD to keep her legs closed/crossed? If so, why? If not, why?


----------



## chelko

It is less of an issue now, but when she was younger we would tell dd (now 6) to wear shorts/leggings under skirts because she was usually sitting with her legs up in the air or tumbling, so her skirt was always up around her head. As long as she is covered, she can do what she likes, unless there is a safety/politeness issue (i.e. church, dinner table, etc) Even then it is just a request to sit in the chair properly, no mention of crossed/closed legs, just bottom and legs down.

We consider the private areas just that, private. It is not a girl vs boy thing, because we don't let ds walk around with his underwear hanging out either.


----------



## <3mymom

Okay, disclosure: I don't have children, so take my opinion with that in mind.

I am very "pro-gina" (I gotta use that phrase more) also and think that if I had a daughter I would do my best to raise her without vulva/vagine shame (I mean I have a beautiful painting of a vulva hanging in the living room). Once she was old enough, however, to have a conversation about what society considers appropriate behavior and why it is considered appropriate I would want to explain to her why some people think she should sit with her legs closed when she wears a dress. I wouldn't force her to sit like that but I would want her to understand what other people might expect knowing that she has my full support to sit in whatever way is most comfortable to her.

I don't think I could ever tell her that she must sit with her legs closed, however, because to me that also feels like promoting a hide vaginas because they are filthy attitude. There are also numerous studies that show that at young ages girls are often instructed to police their bodies more than boys and therefore they learn to take up less space, be less free with movement, and in general just have more restrictions on behavior. That is not something I would want my daughter to learn (and also not something I would want to teach a son to expect of women).


----------



## crunchy_mommy

I don't have a daughter but I guess I feel it just makes more sense to dress girls appropriately so that they don't have to worry about how to sit. So just put shorts/covers or pants on under the dress just like dancers, cheerleaders, etc. do. It seems like keeping legs closed & sitting 'properly' would be tough for most 3yo's anyway. And I don't think covering up your underwear means you are ashamed of your privates. I do think when/if she decides she doesn't want to wear anything under her dresses that it would be good to suggest that she sit carefully. But I guess this all depends on your family's views regarding modesty and all.

I have a hard time picturing myself dressing a future DD in dresses though... for some reason I feel like I'd just use the same clothes DS wears.







Dresses just seem so hard to play in and girls' bathing suits look so skimpy I'd be afraid she'd get burned... so I guess I will have a DD that looks like a boy (which only makes sense since everyone thinks my DS is a girl







)


----------



## Triniity

My DD loves dresses, and they are rather short, since she can move much better. She wears just shortie-like underwear beneath it. More because she just prefers shorty like underwear, anyway  I don´t consider seeing underwear (of a child) as being offensive, it´s not much difference to a bathing suit, anyway.

I always thought my girl will not like dresses, I am not a very girlie person. But DD is. She has everything in pink, loves dresses and Hell*Kitty


----------



## hildare

yeah... i love vaginas, people. however, i don't dress my kid in anything she can't run/trip/fall/climb things in. until/unless she reaches a point where she demands otherwise, i just don't get that.

my parents sent me to a religious elementary school at which dresses/skirts of knee length or greater were required, and though i personally prefer dresses/skirts now as an adult, as a kid, i felt this was the most restrictive thing ever.

i often wonder why skirts for kids even exist, and i think sometimes it IS to restrict mobility/activity to confine girls to a particular set of expectations. girls are often expected/pushed to be calm and quiet, while activity, roughhousing, and getting dirty are what's expected of boys-- at least from what i see, this seems to be what lots of people think. i think that clothing reinforces that in many cases.

eta: i don't think pro-gina has anything to do with kids or having them sit a particular way-- it's not their little vaggies they're showing people, it's their underpants.


----------



## MariesMama

My 3yo DD wears skirts as a rule, because they're more comfortable for her. She dislikes any pants except for leggings or very loose drawstring pants because they are constricting. She's not a girly girl at all, she just likes the feeling of dresses.

At her preschool, they ask that the girls wear shorts under their dresses to avoid anyone being uncomfortable and to avoid any girls not being able to run/jump/crawl/tumble. It also prevents that whole discussion, "close your legs".


----------



## lifeguard

Interesting - it never occurred to me it was teaching shame of the vagina or protecting others from being offended. Like a pp said privates should be private on girls AND boys & I would be just as likely to correct ds if he was sitting/tumbling/dressing in such a way that others were seeing his parts. The ways boys are dressed generally doesn't create this situation as often though.


----------



## BroodyWoodsgal

Hahaha, let me clarify a few things:

DD is allowed to dress herself...she wears a lot of "boys clothes" because I like to be able to recycle her things with her DS, who is 16 months younger. So, he ends up wearing a lot of things that some people might "double take" and she wears a lot of things that look like, by "societies" standards, may have been made for a boy. They both wear pretty colors and good quality stuff that is comfortable and easy to wash, etc, so I don't really care what someone else thinks.

Lately, DD has been dressing herself more and more..she loves picking outfits and wears a lot of "boyish" gear because we live in the middle of the woods and the two of them are outside all. day. long and dresses aren't exactly practical for a lot of what she does...but she's also a NUT about dancing and LOVES her little twirly, brightly colored skirts.

Some of the skirts have built in shorts...but some don't, because I'm not going to say "no, you can't wear that" because it has no shorts underneath it and while I may SUGGEST leggings or something like that, well, if she doesn't want to, I'm not going to tell her she has to just so her underwear don't show if she twirls.

Hildare: I would respectfully disagree with you. People all around me tell their little girls "cross your legs, cross em" - all the time. It's not because they don't want people to see their little girls underwear...it's because under the underwear, there is a vagina lurking. I see people telling their little girls to close their legs even when they are wearing pants....in our society, it is considered rude and inappropriate for a woman to sit with her legs splayed. Sitting up straight, with your knees closed and her hands placed in her lap...this is how a young lady or woman is "supposed" to sit. I've never once in my life heard anyone tell a little boy to close his legs. Our society sees something inherently "yucky" or "indecent" in female sex/sex organ/etc and it's been that way for a long time.

My whole reason for asking, is because I don't know where my own deeply engrained "vagina issues" end and my desire to see my DD behave in a way that makes her "acceptable" begins...and how much right I have to impose that on her to begin with.

I love my female body...I love the parts of me that are naturally hairy and the parts which are naturally smooth and hairless...I am a sexual being and that doesn't make me a sl*t. I don't feel that the way I sit should be a clue to someone about my sexual identity or whether or not I'm a "fast ticket" - but in society, it does.

I don't know. There is a part of me that melts inside with pride and love when I see my girl sitting nicely somewhere, looking like a "proper" young lady...and all of that....and there is a part of me that feels something odd and "weird" when I see her carefree, legs splayed, wild and free. But when I get that weird feeling and question it...it goes away and is replaced by joy and thankfulness at the thought that my DD can sit, stand play, whatever...in a way that feel natural and comfortable to her.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

I am the oldest of five sisters, and have only a daughter. My mother always taught us to "sit with our legs closed" and "act like a lady" and various other sexist things that I find very insulting as a woman who is proud of her vulva. My daughter sometimes goes naked, and her vulva is exposed on a regular basis, but she is only 18 months old. As she gets older, I will likely insist that she wears panties under her skirts. Honestly, I see no difference in panties and a swimsuit, so I wont likely require her to wear shorts under her skirts. I feel that as a parent it is important to teach our children that you behave differently in different places. For example, you may run naked at home, need to wear panties under your skirt while you do summersaults at our friend's house, but when we go to the public playground you need to wear shorts or shorts under your skirt because we dont know those people and they may look with ill intentions. To me that is no different than trying not to cuss when you are at your grandma's house, not wearing your string bikini to the family bbq, and not making out with your boyfriend while your dad is in the room. There is a time and place for almost everything, so I see no sense in trying to teach my daughter how to "be" but more teaching her how and when her actions are appropriate.

That being said, I wear skirts almost everyday. I garden in them, bend over and pick stuff up in them, and typically sit with my legs closed because its more comfortable.


----------



## AbbieB

When my DD was little I did not really worry about if her undies were visible or not. As she got older she decided SHE did not want people to see her underwear. I think she was 3ish. So all I had to do was whisper to her, "Tuck your skirt down, I can she your underpants." if she was sitting legs up and she would arrange herself. I never made a big deal about it. At home I would never worry about it. I certainly never said anything about keeping her legs together.

I am not a mom that worries about what thoughts others are having if they should get a peek at her undies while she's playing. I think this has a lot to do with my relaxed attitude. It seems like most other moms I've been social with are worried about it so they keep their little girls undies covered up with shorts under the skirt.


----------



## LynnS6

I've got a girl, and have been 'called out' by busybodies who were upset that they could see dd's underwear. I'm baffled, because isn't the whole point of underwear to cover up your private parts?! So you want my child to put on something else over the clothing that covers up her vagina-vulva-labia-anus? OK. Since when did UNDERWEAR become something to worry about?

I didn't enforce that with dd. But at some point in time (age 5-6), other kids started to comment that they could see her underwear, and she chose to put on shorts underneath her dresses when she wore them.


----------



## onlyzombiecat

I have an 11 year old dd who likes to wear dresses and skirts sometimes.

I don't tell her to sit still and cross her legs with her hands in her lap ever.

I don't think I've ever told her a behavior is lady-like or isn't lady-like.

I don't tell her to wear shorts under skirts in case her skirt twirls up in a breeze or something.

I do tell her when she is squatting on the floor with her skirt hiked up so her underwear is on full view that if that is the way she wants to sit/move then she should change to pants or shorts. If it is important to her to wear the skirt or dress then she changes her position. It isn't about being proud or ashamed of her body parts. The earth won't crumble if her underwear shows but I just don't feel it is good mannered/appropriate/nice/classy to show undergarments in public for either gender and that is what I am trying to convey to her.

I don't care how dd sits in pants- except keeping her feet down on the floor while at the table.


----------



## Katwoman

My DD loves dresses because they stay on her body. (She has no hips, butt, stomach. She has to spend all her time hitching up pants - or holding them up while she plays. Too much trouble for her.) She climbs trees, geocaches, rolls in the mud, and tumbles in them. We have discussed making sure people can't see your underwear. (Mostly because it makes other people uncomfortable and because I want a sense of personal space for her.) But that mostly includes her tucking her skirt in between her sprawled legs. It never occurred to me to discuss "keeping your legs closed". It seems keeping your legs closed is more about "proper lady-ness" than it is about what other people can see.....


----------



## Linda on the move

I have 2 daughters who are now 13 and 14. When they were little, I let them pick their own clothes, and they both like to wear dresses sometimes. I had them wear leggings or shorts under, because being able to run, play, climb slide, etc were important activities.

It was only with puberty and wanting to dress more like an adult, wear make up, etc. that we talked about how to sit in a dress, get in and out of a car in a dress etc. It was a one time conversation when they were old enough to care about looking and acting appropriately when they dress up. More about pose and manners than "what it means to be female."

I HATE the "cross your legs, keep your knees together" thing. To me, it bring unnecessary attention to a little girls genitalia, and seems to assume that their are wild penis about that might go flying into a vagina if ever we females let our guard down. I was constantly put in dresses against my will as a child, and then shamed for "showing my crotch."

I've also made to through nearly 15 years of parenting a daughter without ever once bringing up "acting like a lady." I'm doing my best to raise strong women, not polite ladies.


----------



## Imakcerka

We're still wearing shorts under dresses over here. And that's because at any given time you can find one of them hanging upside down from a tree dress in face. When it comes to dressing in a nice dress that isn't for play I only remind them that some people might not be comfortable seeing your chonies. So try not let it all hang out. I don't do the cross your legs or keep your legs together and they don't normally wear anything short enough that it's an issue. As they get older I'll just remind them that not everyone wants to see what color of chonies you're wearing. I keep it based on respecting others.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> *I'm doing my best to raise strong women, not polite ladies.*


Nice.


----------



## rachelsmama

LOL I used to hang around with a lot of kilt-wearing men, so when I picture how to sit properly in a skirt without showing underwear (or a lack of), I actually picture large bearded men with hairy knees. I think I would be pretty annoyed if anybody started hassling me or DD to keep our knees shut though, since that's not necessary in lots of styles of skirts, and if it is necessary I dont' wear it.


----------



## phathui5

"Since when did UNDERWEAR become something to worry about?"

I've always thought that you didn't go around letting people see your underwear.


----------



## One_Girl

I tell my dd to hide her underwear if she is doing something in a way that shows it. I explained it to her as an expectation in our society once she was in grade school and started noticing that people don't go around flashing their underpants. Boys are also expected not to go around showing their underwear off so I don't see it as a big deal. I don't teach her to sit a certain way because that isn't something that is expected of kids or most adults, plus I think it is funny when kids sit with their legs crossed because they wiggle so much it looks like they are about to wet themselves. If she needs to cross her legs when she is an adult I am sure she will pick up the skill.


----------



## beanma

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AverysMomma* 

Hildare: I would respectfully disagree with you. People all around me tell their little girls "cross your legs, cross em" - all the time. It's not because they don't want people to see their little girls underwear...it's because under the underwear, there is a vagina lurking. I see people telling their little girls to close their legs even when they are wearing pants....in our society, it is considered rude and inappropriate for a woman to sit with her legs splayed. Sitting up straight, with your knees closed and her hands placed in her lap...this is how a young lady or woman is "supposed" to sit. I've never once in my life heard anyone tell a little boy to close his legs. Our society sees something inherently "yucky" or "indecent" in female sex/sex organ/etc and it's been that way for a long time.

AverysMomma, it may be the area you are in. I have never heard anyone in my area aside from some old great grandma types say that sort of thing. And I'm in NC so not exactly a place where you wouldn't expect such sentiments, but I am in a more liberal hotspot. I've been hanging around little girls for the past 10+ yrs and this sort of talk just doesn't come up around here.

However, many folks do talk about not seeing underwear or remind kids (usually girls) that they can see their underwear. I do encourage my girls to wear shorts under their dresses if they're planning to do a lot of playing outside. If we're just going to the library or grocery store and the dress is not super short I'm fine with just undies, but if they're going to be doing the monkey bars or something I do encourage shorts.

Likewise if I had a little boy I would encourage him not to be showing his underwear, too. I would not be down with the baggy pants hanging down past his crotch look.

I don't really wanna see a grown-up's underwear, either, so I don't think it's vagina-shaming so much as teaching appropriate modesty and not just for girls. After some age I wouldn't let my hypothetical boy run around naked in public, either. I'm okay with public diaper changes and a naked toddler at the beach or park doesn't bother me, but at some point I would like some clothes on the kids and also at some point I would want the clothes to be more than just underwear. At age 3, eh, it wouldn't bother me. If I saw a 3 yr old running through the park in nothing but undies I'd probably think it was cute, but if it was a 10 yr old, not so much.

Kids develop their own sense of modesty, too, as they mature - some more than others. My dd2 (age 7) has been shutting the door to the bathroom at home and locking it for about 2 yrs now, but my 10 yr old still will leave it wide open! Neither one of them would want someone else to see their underwear now. It would be soooooooo embarrassing!

So, I guess, my advice is not to think about it as sexually shaming, but instead as instilling appropriate levels of modesty and in my house that doesn't include "keep your legs closed" at all, but instead "I can see your undies".

hth


----------



## APToddlerMama

I've only scanned the replies, but seriously...I think we're really overthinking things. I like my vagina. I like my underwear too. That doesn't mean I think other people want to see either and it also doesn't mean I'm interested in seeing a bunch of other vaginas or underwear. I see no parallel between being a strong woman, or girl, loving your body, and needing to be free to sit around with your legs spread wide open.

It isn't sexist to suggest a person not show their undies in public or around visitors/guests. At our house, that guideline will go for the boys and any girls we may have. It is just a matter of being sensitive to others' feelings of perhaps wanting to go about life not feeling like they have to be uncomfortable looking at my vagina or my underwear.


----------



## Tjej

Yeah, when DD was little she just thought that dresses always had shorts/pants on under them, like shirts do, because I dressed her that way because I did not feel she should have to keep her skirt down. Now that she is older she chooses between wearing shorts/pants/tights/nothing. She does know, though, that noone wants to see your underwear, so if she chooses nothing she has to be thoughtful of that. She usually wears something, but sometimes doesn't.

The rule goes for DS too - people don't want to see his underwear (or nipples! ). I think it is part of being appropriate in society. I don't think it is oppressive.

Stark


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X

If dd is wearing a dress I have always told her to sit upright so that she wouldnt have it up around her neck. I have never told her to close her legs but I have said hey I can see your unders. If she is wearing a dress to school I do have her wear shots under it since I want her to be able to play without worry of showing off her backside even though it is covered in underwear.


----------



## tropicana

my opinion:

1) a 3 year old cannot be expected to sit still, let alone sit with their legs closed or even sit up straight for any length of time. at least not my kids!

2) my DD, who is 5, is going to be wearing shorts under her skirts for a long time yet. she cannot sit still yet.

3) it is so not about her vagina! she wears underwear every day, so the vagina is always covered up. it's about the underwear and "flashing" in general. yes, it is innocent -- she is a young child. but it is my job to protect her. unfortunately, there are plenty of perverts out there in the world, and i sure don't enjoy the thought of any of them sneaking a peek at my dear child's skivvies. sorry... just no.

4) she has no problem with wearing the shorts. i simply frame it as nobody wants to see underpants. that's why they are called "under" wear. you wear them under your clothes!


----------



## Lazurii

We aren't there yet, since Doozer is just 18 months. But I hated the shaming that happened when I was a kid, and I see it all the time since I attend a very conservative church every Sunday. Also, people are telling me already that I need to be more careful with Doozer than I was with BuggaBoo because she's a girl. Not that I was lax with BuggaBoo, but we're not all uptight about nakedness around here. When he hit about 3 I told BuggaBoo that he need to wear underwear around friends and in the front yard because it was polite, but he can be naked in the house or our backyard, no biggie.

I never understood why it wasn't okay to see underwear but swimsuits and "spankies" under cheerleading uniforms was okay. They're the same thing! They show just as much! In my opinion it is a form of vagina shaming, because I've seen people say "Close your legs" to girls in pants, and I got that all the time in middle school from middle school boys. They learned it from somewhere!

Another example is from when I worked in a public school. One of my favorite little kids was a girl that belonged to a "skirtish" religion, she wore skirts every day to school. She was also extremely active and loved to tumble and play. She always wore shorts to school under her skirt. One day another playground duty told her she couldn't play on the monkey bars and she needed to act like a lady. She replied that she had shorts on, and the duty said, "Doesn't matter, you're in a skirt, you need to act like a lady." After she was done talking to the girl I went over and said, "She wears a skirt every day, it's their religion, and she has shorts on. What's the big deal? When is she going to be able to play according to your rules?" The reply was, "Well, probably never, because she'll always be in a skirt, but that's just how it is."

Later I went to the little girl and told her she could play however she wanted and to refer any nay-sayers to me. She was very grateful.


----------



## midnightmommy

My daughter is only two, but I usually have her wear shorts. For one if you are sitting on a monkey bar, tree limb, the ground, etc. it's and extra layer between that thing and your bum. Underwear are usually made of thin fabric. Nothing is more annoying than a scratch on your rear! My other fear is not so much that no one wants to see her underwear, but that some weirdo does. When we are at home I could care less. When we are out in public though I just don't like that feeling that a preditor could look see something that triggers something in them. I know that deep down that really isn't totally rational, but that doesn't stop my from thinking it.


----------



## podsnap

The waist band to boys and mens underpants shows in back any time their shirt tails ride up when they sit down. Doesn't offend anyone unless their butt cracks are showing.

And men sit with their legs spread apart all the time. Never heard anyone complain about it.

What I don't get are girls bathing suits. Why are girls expected to go around in bra/underpants swimwear that will require them to have to remove their pubic hair as soon as it grows in while boys get to swim in regular shorts?


----------



## philomom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AverysMomma*
> 
> Anyway, I am a very "pro-gina" lady and I love my vagina(I'm not, like, obsessed with it or anything, I just think it rocks!). Do you instruct your DD to keep her legs closed/crossed? If so, why? If not, why?


You mean pro vulva? Or pro labia?Cause no one sees a little girl's vagina... and no one sees a woman's vagina except her lover and her midwife. The vagina is unseen... its the inside part.

And yes, after age 6 or so .. I did teach my daughter to close her legs a bit when wearing a skirt. Or wear shorts underneath or leggings.


----------



## Triniity

My sister is lesbian and not a girlish girl at all, that means, no skirts ever. Yet she wears her underwear in a way that people can see it. (it´s more the CalvinK type of shorties anyway, but she actually buys them because she loves how they peak out her pants. She is a grownup though.

I don´t mind seeing underwear esp. in kids. sometimes they are nice. Don´t wanna see dirty underwear though


----------



## Tigerchild

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *podsnap*
> 
> What I don't get are girls bathing suits. Why are girls expected to go around in bra/underpants swimwear that will require them to have to remove their pubic hair as soon as it grows in while boys get to swim in regular shorts?


Huh, I've never seen a kids' bathing suit that WOULD require it. My DD has had pubic hair for awhile, still wears kid sizes (albeit the upper end, she's too thin to fill out a junior size yet since she's majorly growth spurting and the weight isn't keeping up with the height!), and it's never a problem. Swim shorts and rashguard shirts are pretty popular with girls here too (you can even get girls' cut ones).

Heck, I don't shave my pubic hair (a little trim once in a while but not down to the skin) and I've never had a problem with bathing suits. Maybe I live in a prudey area or something, but I think this statement is catastrophising a bit.


----------



## purplerose

I have 3 girls, and with skirts I tried to teach them not to show underwear. I didn't teach to always have their legs closed when wearing pants or shorts, though. Usually they wore shorts under their skirts. My 16 year old occasionally wears skirts, and still wears shorts underneath  I wear shorts when wearing a short skirt also(which is not often).

The only time I have ever said anything about being ladylike to my daughters is if I burp loudly or one of the teenagers burps or curses, I joke, "That was very ladylike!" They know I am kidding bc I am so not into being a lady. I don't know how I ended up with so many daughters with my attitude! LOL


----------



## rparker

Short answer: Little girls should always wear shorts/pants/opaque tights underneath skirts until they're old enough to not be constantly flipping their skirts up. If I had a boy who wanted to wear dresses I would hold him to the same standard fwiw.

Longer answer: My older daughter is three and obsessed with dresses/appearing "feminine." For us the dresses became an issue when she potty trained late 2010 and stopped wearing diapers. I'll admit it, I'm not wholly comfortable with her obsession with dresses and I'd rather she just wore pants. I'm DEFINITELY not comfortable telling her "how to sit" in a dress, but on the occasions where I can't persuade her to wear shorts/pants/tights underneath her dresses I DO gently correct her when she ends up with her skirt around her neck... and my husband believes that this is completely unnecessary. I don't tell her to keep her legs together, but I do tell her to keep her skirt pulled down/feet on the floor if she isn't wearing anything underneath the dress except panties. I guess I view this in the same category as wearing shoes in restaurants, not chewing with your mouth open, wearing clothes in public period? Like, not showing your underwear is something that goes with the territory of wearing a dress... which is why I, personally, have a strong preference for pants. My husband and I have also had some disagreements about "appropriate skirt lengths" as DD1 outgrows items of clothing and they become too short. He sees no issue with dresses being shorter than fingertip length, but I view that as overly short/adult for a young child's dress. I have no problem with teenaged/adult women deliberately wearing short skirts fwiw, but 100% of the time if DD1 puts on a skirt and it seems "too short" to me it's in a size that she's outgrown/about to outgrow.

And to put this in context, I'm not at all socially conservative and consider myself to be a feminist.


----------



## funkymamajoy

No, I don't tell any of my children to keep their legs closed. If you can see DD's underwear, its probably because that all she has on. I'm sure this will change as my children get older but right now I'm not at all concerned about my 4-year appearing "ladylike."


----------



## Imakcerka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *podsnap*
> 
> The waist band to boys and mens underpants shows in back any time their shirt tails ride up when they sit down. Doesn't offend anyone unless their butt cracks are showing.
> 
> And men sit with their legs spread apart all the time. Never heard anyone complain about it.
> 
> What I don't get are girls bathing suits. Why are girls expected to go around in bra/underpants swimwear that will require them to have to remove their pubic hair as soon as it grows in while boys get to swim in regular shorts?


Yeah... men don't ooze sex. And for the most part their chonies are shorts or atleast look like shorts. Girls wear thongs, g strings, various fabrics, see through, lace and I could go on. So seeing a mans not so HOT cotton chonies is a TURN off. I mean since you're bringing man panties into the conversation,.


----------



## Lazurii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> Yeah... men don't ooze sex. And for the most part their chonies are shorts or atleast look like shorts. Girls wear thongs, g strings, various fabrics, see through, lace and I could go on. So seeing a mans not so HOT cotton chonies is a TURN off. I mean since you're bringing man panties into the conversation,.


I just...wow. I find certain men very sexy and I think boxers are hot. I find it demeaning to both men and women to say that only women "ooze sex".

"Officer, I couldn't help it, she was oozing sex."

"No, sweet husband, I can't bring myself to sleep with you, you just don't ooze sex."

I mean, really?


----------



## Peony

I have never said that to my girls. Both my girls prefer to wear dresses almost exclusively, I have always just put little shorts or leggings out with their clothes when they get dressed. DD1 also doesn't wear underwear but I don't care as long as something is covering her butt and they are something like short shorts.


----------



## Tigerchild

SOME "girls" do...though not everyone--I'd rather just do without than deal with buttfloss and itchy lace, sorry. Guess i don't "ooze sex". (Kinda gross-ish visual picture I'm getting there, like a giant slug wearing a corset). Similarly, not all men wear tighty-whiteys (and not everyone finds tighty-whiteys unsexy either). I appreciate that you are not visually turned on by appearance or men in their panties apparently, but that doesn't generalize to everyone.  Also...what does this have to do with young girls? I know there are thongs available for small sizes but since I don't shop at abercrombie and fitch or whatever the latest hot shop is (I'm sure it's moved on to something else!) and buy my kids' underwear at Target or Freddies, I have yet to see real buttfloss, lace, or see-through stuff for the kids size m - xl crowd. Even if my daughter is flashing someone, she's going to be flashing "monday" or polka dot or some obnoxious kid color undies, not Li'l Miss Victoria's Secret.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> Yeah... men don't ooze sex. And for the most part their chonies are shorts or atleast look like shorts. Girls wear thongs, g strings, various fabrics, see through, lace and I could go on. So seeing a mans not so HOT cotton chonies is a TURN off. I mean since you're bringing man panties into the conversation,.


----------



## IrishWristwatch

I love the (mostly) positive vibe of this thread.

My daughter wears skirts and dresses a lot and is always monkeying around, so it's basically inevitable that anyone around sees her pants at one time or another. I've never scolded her about it, it didn't even occur to me. She's 6 now and developing a bit of a sense of modesty on her own and doesn't want anyone to see her underwear, so it's basically a self-limiting behavior (flashing her pants by accident, that is). No shame, no need to harp on her about it.

When she wears shorter dresses and tunics, usually she wants to wear leggings with them anyway, so again, it's a non-issue.

We also do biking shorts under dresses sometimes. Same reason as some of you above: active kid, often found upside down. Plus it's more comfortable for riding in dresses/skirts, which for whatever reason Maya loves to do.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *podsnap*
> What I don't get are girls bathing suits. Why are girls expected to go around in bra/underpants swimwear that will require them to have to remove their pubic hair as soon as it grows in while boys get to swim in regular shorts?


board shorts are really popular where we live. Longer suits for competitive swimming are around, but not really popular yet.

I see lots and lots of options in girls'/women's swim wear.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> I see lots and lots of options in girls'/women's swim wear.


I have boys, but I've noticed lots of options in female swimwear, too. I tried buying boy-shorts type swimsuits for myself once or twice, but I have thick thighs and they just roll up and give me a wedgie. So yeah, I end up wearing regular panty-style swim bottoms....and yeah, I shave a bit to wear them, but it still ends up being more comfortable.


----------



## Imakcerka

It was brought up that guys show off their boxers.

Either way, it's not just me who doesn't want to see everones chonies. I'm just saying that since girls/women are more sexualized in the media and of course outside the media, that men showing off their man panties isn't exactly as eye catching as girls/ women showing off theirs.

Now if we were discussing Tyrese showing off his boxers/ briefs and if god loved me enough, his thong... then yes I would agree that men showing off their under things to be sexy. I don't think it's demeaning to not be for the most part visual, I think that's my personal thing. Just as all the other comments here are personal. If I generalize then I'm sorry if anyone was offended. Not really... mmmm Tyrese...


----------



## *bejeweled*

This is such an interesting discussion. It reminds me why I love MDC so much.

My DD is 8 and she wears skirts and dresses all the time. I taught her to always wear shorts or leggings underneath so it's not an issue.

However, I did teach her not to chew gum in public.


----------



## Imakcerka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> I have boys, but I've noticed lots of options in female swimwear, too. I tried buying boy-shorts type swimsuits for myself once or twice, but I have thick thighs and they just roll up and give me a wedgie. So yeah, I end up wearing regular panty-style swim bottoms....and yeah, I shave a bit to wear them, but it still ends up being more comfortable.


We wear surf shorts or swim shorts. They rock! DD1 likes it better, she doesn't want to be pulling out the occasional wedgie.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

I have only boys right now. If we have a girl, she will learn what our boys learn: Private parts are private. They are not nasty, not shameful. But they are private. So dress/sit/pose in a way that keeps that in mind. I wouldn't want my boys sitting with legs wide open and crotches thrust forward anymore than I'd want a daughter to sit that way. To me that is just across the board inappropriate.

I don't have any issue with raising my children to be polite and socially appropriate, and since we have a bi-cultural family, they are learning that "socially appropriate" varies, and we give consideration to whatever culture we're immersed in at a given moment.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I have never thought of closing ones legs, or crossing them, while wearing a dress means you are trying to hide your vagina (and, yeah, it's vulva - it would take more than a casual glance to see one's vagina, even w/o underwear).

Legs crossed or closed together is so that everyone else isn't seeing your underwear. Same goes for men/boys who wear really baggy/gaping shorts.

I guess the whole "vagina shaming" thing never crossed my mind, especially with regards to telling a little girl to not flash her undies. I mean, come on, there is nothing sexual about a child, anyhow. Just as you would not wear a long t-shirt and underwear only to the grocery store, you don't walk around holding your skirt up. It's common courtesy, b/c underwear are private, b/c they are designed cover private areas. Ditto for bras.

For my own DD: she is 10 now, and never really had a major "must wear a dress stage" that I can recall. I also don't recall making her wear shorts or being stressed about her showing off her undies, so I guess it wasn't an issue. But I wouldn't go around teaching her that because society expects that, in most public places, underwear go under what you wear - that it's anything against feminism or means you can't love your vagina/penis all the same.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> We wear surf shorts or swim shorts. They rock! DD1 likes it better, she doesn't want to be pulling out the occasional wedgie.


Granted, I rarely go shopping for swimwear....but I have yet to find shorts-style swimwear that are cut for women with bubble butts. They are always too tight in the hips and too big in the waist, as if they were cut for a guy. If you have a recommendation, I welcome it.


----------



## podsnap

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> board shorts are really popular where we live. Longer suits for competitive swimming are around, but not really popular yet.
> 
> I see lots and lots of options in girls'/women's swim wear.


Maybe it's regional. I only see the bra/panties bathingsuits for girls around where I live but I live among a culture where hyper-femininity and the passage from girl to womanhood are celebrated in a major way. Very little girls here wear hair-gel, lip gloss, glitter, nail polish, pumps ect. and moms boast about their daughters' bra sizes. I know it's not very MDCish.


----------



## beanma

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> Granted, I rarely go shopping for swimwear....but I have yet to find shorts-style swimwear that are cut for women with bubble butts. They are always too tight in the hips and too big in the waist, as if they were cut for a guy. If you have a recommendation, I welcome it.


2xy, I like Athleta's stuff, but not sure if it's quite bubble butt material or not.

I see tons of rash guards and board shorts here and my dd2 has a swim mini skirt that she loves.


----------



## Imakcerka

They are men shorts and I have a gadunk a dunk! Sweet Judas blessed me with my hispanic jeans. I have to try quite a few on but it's not that bad. Boy stuff is pretty roomy!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> Granted, I rarely go shopping for swimwear....but I have yet to find shorts-style swimwear that are cut for women with bubble butts. They are always too tight in the hips and too big in the waist, as if they were cut for a guy. If you have a recommendation, I welcome it.


----------



## Storm Bride

I'm not sure what age we started to teach dd1 that it was considered to be less than the best manners to have one's underwear hanging out all the time. I know it wasn't as young as three, though. I don't care even a little bit if I see a child's underwear while they're playing, running around, etc. I have no interest in requiring my dd2 to be "ladylike", although I'll teach them the "rules"...at least as far as I understand them (I've never been very ladylike, and I'm more than okay with that). If someone else gets bent about the fact that my little girl (either of them) has visible underwear, said "someone else" will be invited not to look at her. My kids always wear underwear (okay - I lie - ds2 is a wiz at slipping under my radar and going commando, but we try), so the issue of their privates not being private doesn't even arise.

Someone upthread said something about dresses and skirts being intended to prevent rough-housing and climbing and such. It's possible that such limits were a factor in the way gender has been assigned to clothing...but it doesn't work. If a child is allowed to play wildly outdoors, and wants to do so, a dress won't stop her. I've seen dd1 dig for bugs in a Disney princess dress, and climb playground structures and turn cartwheels in other dresses, and tear through the woods in a skirt and shirt. I, personally, loved skirts and dresses as a child (funny, because I can't stand them now)...and my favourite games were playing superheroes, playing in dirt and stuff (usually studying bugs and small critters - caterpillars were my favourite) and climbing around on playground structures. I thought dolls were boring, and had less than no interest in playing house, or having tea parties or whatever. It's not hard to climb a tree in a skirt, as long as the skirt isn't too long or full, and you're allowed to do it in the first place.


----------



## One_Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> Granted, I rarely go shopping for swimwear....but I have yet to find shorts-style swimwear that are cut for women with bubble butts. They are always too tight in the hips and too big in the waist, as if they were cut for a guy. If you have a recommendation, I welcome it.


Have you considered the traditional swim bottom with the skirt sewn around the outside of it? I use that in the pool and it never lifts up to show that I don't shave my pubic hair. If you just want a cover without having to shave it may work. I have also used the separate wrap around with good results.


----------



## Storm Bride

Just a thought to throw out there, but it's really kind of OT...

With respect to the inherent sexism or lack therof in this topic, and whether it's vagina/vulva/labia shaming...when I saw the thread title, I assumed it was with respect to an obnoxious remark to a pregnant woman or a mom of many. When I've heard the expression "keep your legs closed", it's always, always, always, without a single exception that I can remember, been about a woman's sexual behaviour.

I've also known guys to wear kilts, in the traditional (ie. commando) style at social events. I've never heard one of them be told to "close their legs" if they happen to be sitting with their legs apart. Admittedly, the kilts have been long enough to cover their actual genitalia...but women and girls are told that, even when everything is covered.


----------



## Imakcerka

Sorry the kilt thing made me laugh and reminded me of the time my uncle and his boys wore kilts at his wedding. Oh the alcohol was a terrible mix. And yes we all saw more than we wanted and you're right not one person said anything. It was all giggles and "oh my goodness, did you see that Irene?" Flipping disgusting though. I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying man balls are disgusting. Seriously it was my uncle it was gross! He's ginormous and I'm not sure if that was his balls or part of his belly/thighs... maybe knees... HA! Just had to add that.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Just a thought to throw out there, but it's really kind of OT...
> 
> With respect to the inherent sexism or lack therof in this topic, and whether it's vagina/vulva/labia shaming...when I saw the thread title, I assumed it was with respect to an obnoxious remark to a pregnant woman or a mom of many. When I've heard the expression "keep your legs closed", it's always, always, always, without a single exception that I can remember, been about a woman's sexual behaviour.
> 
> I've also known guys to wear kilts, in the traditional (ie. commando) style at social events. I've never heard one of them be told to "close their legs" if they happen to be sitting with their legs apart. Admittedly, the kilts have been long enough to cover their actual genitalia...but women and girls are told that, even when everything is covered.


----------



## rubidoux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phathui5*
> 
> "Since when did UNDERWEAR become something to worry about?"
> 
> I've always thought that you didn't go around letting people see your underwear.


I don't want anyone seeing *my* underwear, but I see it as completely normal and fine for a three year old to be showing her underwear -- and probably much older, somewhere closer to 10, I think. If I had a daughter, she'd be much older than that before I'd have to *do something* about her showing her underwear because she's playing or sitting comfortably. And if it did get to the age that I felt I had to do something, it would not be to say she should close her legs. It would probably be something more along the lines of it makes people feel uncomfortable if they can see other people unders, and I'd make it clear that it was only about some people being uncomfortable, ie, not a problem with her vulva or vagina or style of underwear or anything that she should feel bad about, but just about getting along in this world where some people get uncomfortable about silly things.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *podsnap*
> 
> The waist band to boys and mens underpants shows in back any time their shirt tails ride up when they sit down. Doesn't offend anyone unless their butt cracks are showing.
> 
> And men sit with their legs spread apart all the time. Never heard anyone complain about it.
> 
> What I don't get are girls bathing suits. Why are girls expected to go around in bra/underpants swimwear that will require them to have to remove their pubic hair as soon as it grows in while boys get to swim in regular shorts?


I can't believe there are people fighting this point about girls being made to wear very revealing suits when boys are not. It might be *possible* to find suits that aren't revealing for girls (I don't know, I haven't tried), but when I go to the beach or public swimming pool here, almost all of the little girls are in bikinis and then maybe a couple in tankini or one pieces, with the traditional underwear type legs (or lack of legs). These are so much more form fitting and revealing than what little boys swim in. It is amazing to me that we even make bikinis for tiny little girls. Ugh. I feel yucky just to see it. If little boys can go in no shirt, than why not little girls, and if little boys have to wear a protective rash guard shirt, then why shouldn't the girls. It makes no sense to me. Why would a little girl need two little triangles to cover her someday breasts??? If I had a little girl, I'm pretty sure I'd be buying her board shorts and rash guard sets like I do for my boys.

And for the record, I remember at a very young age (13 maybe) feeling like I needed to shave along my bikini line, and I also was pretty disinclined to show off my body. I was not in a bikini for sure, and probably went out of my way to find the most conservative suit I could.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IrishWristwatch*
> 
> I love the (mostly) positive vibe of this thread.
> 
> My daughter wears skirts and dresses a lot and is always monkeying around, so it's basically inevitable that anyone around sees her pants at one time or another. I've never scolded her about it, it didn't even occur to me. She's 6 now and developing a bit of a sense of modesty on her own and doesn't want anyone to see her underwear, so it's basically a self-limiting behavior (flashing her pants by accident, that is). No shame, no need to harp on her about it.


This is what I was thinking. My son is 8 and I think he'd be feeling pretty uneasy about having his underwear showing and would have been for at least a year now. As far as I'm concerned a 5, 6, 7 year old showing their underwear is just a non-issue.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> With respect to the inherent sexism or lack therof in this topic, and whether it's vagina/vulva/labia shaming...when I saw the thread title, I assumed it was with respect to an obnoxious remark to a pregnant woman or a mom of many. When I've heard the expression "keep your legs closed", it's always, always, always, without a single exception that I can remember, been about a woman's sexual behaviour.


I think the two things -- "keep your legs closed" and stop being a tramp and "keep your legs closed" to be ladylike -- are different sides of the same coin. Either way you're still worried about the "lurking vagina" (lol, OP, nice phrase!) and I do think the two ideas are related culturally. And I do think it's shaming for girls to grow up with people telling them to "keep their legs shut" or anything along those lines. With the right attitude, "don't show your underwear" sounds better to me, but if it's said with the same feeling as "keep your legs shut," eh, not so much...


----------



## erigeron

My girl is still a baby, so this hasn't come up yet, but this thread makes me think I should warn her about, at the very least, other people's attitudes towards this. I had a kid in my middle school gym class (ah, middle school, that bastion of social indoctrination) tell me I shouldn't sit with my legs apart. I'd rather that my daughter find out from me that some people think that, before somebody else decides to tell her and be a lot less nice about it.


----------



## mumm

I have 3 girls and I've only said it when space on the plane, in a car, etc is the issue, not hiding underclothes!









At about age 4 I start requiring underwear with shorts that may have wider leg openings just to keep things hidden for other people's comfort levels. I figure they need to start keeping underwear hidden (it is called UNDERwear afterall) around the same time they might start being uncomfortable with peers seeing their underwear and therefore doesn't need to be taught.

We're not the most proper people 'round here though, so take this with a grain of salt!


----------



## velochic

I was thinking of this thread yesterday. There are some things, that I just don't understand about this, and am honestly asking about things I'm puzzled over. How can the OP be so passionate about something and not even know the proper body parts? As others have pointed out, it would be the labia showing, not the vagina. That seems so odd to me. Also, why would a woman's strength come from her vagina? That's like telling a boy that his penis is what makes him a strong man... and that's just, IDK, wrong? In my mind it is, anyway. I feel that raising daughters with strong character, thinking for themselves, has nothing to do with their strength as sexual beings. To me they are two different lessons. We are teaching them to be strong women LONG before there is any social impact of them as sexual beings.

I also don't get why "acting like a lady" is negative. To me, it's more about manners and being polite. We live in a society. What good comes from letting dd wear loose underwear and a skirt on the playground so that boys (who will tease) and girls (who will also tease) and adults (who will scratch their heads) can see her labia while playing? What "power" does that give her? How is teaching public modesty, without shaming, negative? What are we taking away by saying to sit with the knees together when wearing a skirt? At home, do what you want... but since none of us live isolated, I think it's important to understand the social mores where you live and culturally accept them as the unwritten social contract. And as a huge breastfeeding advocate, if we want to talk about this kind of power in women, by god, it's in their breasts as much as it is in their vagina! If we're going to expose ourselves, let's start up top. 

(Also, I've never heard anywhere, a woman in slacks or shorts being told to keep their knees together. Never. Even in conservative muslim countries. But my cousin, who plays the bagpipes, does sit with his knees together when wearing his kilt.)

We were at chamber concert yesterday and dd, wearing a longer Land's End dress, sat with her legs "criss-cross-applesauce" in the seat, with the skirt pulled over her knees (no panties showing). The lead violinist was a female, on the edge of her seat in her long, formal dress, with her legs spread wide with her impassioned performance. I cannot even imagine that anyone would tell either of them to sit with their knees together because "there's a vagina lurking underneath". That, to me, sounds like a personal hang-up and not something that is prevalent in our society. Yeah, if your skirt is shorter than knee-length, have some manners, but pants, long skirts and the like... nope, I don't see it.


----------



## 4midablemama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tropicana*
> 
> my opinion:
> 
> 1) a 3 year old cannot be expected to sit still, let alone sit with their legs closed or even sit up straight for any length of time. at least not my kids!
> 
> 2) my DD, who is 5, is going to be wearing shorts under her skirts for a long time yet. she cannot sit still yet.
> 
> 3) it is so not about her vagina! she wears underwear every day, so the vagina is always covered up. it's about the underwear and "flashing" in general. yes, it is innocent -- she is a young child. but it is my job to protect her. unfortunately, there are plenty of perverts out there in the world, and i sure don't enjoy the thought of any of them sneaking a peek at my dear child's skivvies. sorry... just no.
> 
> 4) she has no problem with wearing the shorts. i simply frame it as nobody wants to see underpants. that's why they are called "under" wear. you wear them under your clothes!


BINGO!!!! I have never, to my knowledge, told my daughter that she should "close her legs" nor have I ever told her that she should be ashamed of her private parts. I do, however, spend a lot of time telling her to please pull her dress/skirt/jumper what-have-you down, and it is totally because there are, unfortunately, too many pervs and weirdos in the world who get their jollies by exploiting what should be totally innocent. I don't let my daughter wear two-piece bathing suits to public pools or to the beach for the same reason. She's five years old, it should be safe for her to run around stark naked in the front yard if she chooses to, but sadly, it is not and it is my job to protect her from prying eyes until she is old enough to protect herself. My daughter is allowed to be a free spirit; she wrestles with her little brother, she plays with trucks and cars as often as she does her dolls, she digs in the dirt and hunts for bugs and given the choice, will nearly always pick a skirt or a dress over pants. To me, it's not teaching her to be ashamed of her femininity when I have her wear shorts underneath, it's a matter of making it safer for her to move and act and play in whatever way she feels is natural.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *podsnap*
> 
> Maybe it's regional. I only see the bra/panties bathingsuits for girls around where I live but I live among a culture where hyper-femininity and the passage from girl to womanhood are celebrated in a major way. Very little girls here wear hair-gel, lip gloss, glitter, nail polish, pumps ect. and moms boast about their daughters' bra sizes. I know it's not very MDCish.










try Sports Authority. They have a girl's department here, and they sell board shorts and racing style Speedos. Competitive swimming is wonderful for kids for many, many reasons, but one of the thing my DDs got out of it was a deep desire to wear swim suits that stay put! For them, it's all about the flip turn, their time in the 200 IM, etc. A suit like this:

http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11801766&cid=CSE:BingShopping

is a much better bet than the cutesie things sold at the mall. They also know that any one who thinks their suit is dorky is very beatable across the pool. I like their focus on what they can DO rather than what they look like.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *velochic*
> 
> I also don't get why "acting like a lady" is negative. To me, it's more about manners and being polite. ...
> 
> (Also, I've never heard anywhere, a woman in slacks or shorts being told to keep their knees together. Never. Even in conservative muslim countries. But my cousin, who plays the bagpipes, does sit with his knees together when wearing his kilt.)
> 
> We were at chamber concert yesterday and dd, wearing a longer Land's End dress, sat with her legs "criss-cross-applesauce" in the seat, with the skirt pulled over her knees (no panties showing).


"lady like" isn't a precise term, and different people use it to mean different things. When I was growing up with my Fundy Christian parents, it meant being passive, not speaking up, taking care of others, always putting myself last, and looking pretty without ever drawing attention to my sexuality. It's the combination of focus on appearance combined with passivity that causes me to cringe. Plus, I've seldom heard in used in a positive way -- I hear people point out to girls when they AREN'T lady like. I don't hear people using it to describe women in positive ways, just put down little girls and tell them how they are missing the mark, using by moving.

Crossing legs isn't good for circulation. It's healthier to let the blood flow.


----------



## beanma

Think about it. If you, as a mom and adult, were going to wear a skirt or dress and planned to be on the monkey bars hanging upside down, wouldn't you rather have shorts on? That's all it is for me. I'm not much of a skirt/dress woman myself, but if I do wear one I do make sure my undies aren't showing and I teach my girls to do the same. I don't tell them not to climb on the monkey bars, nor do I insist that they not wear skirts if they're planning on climbing the monkey bars, but shorts underneath are a good compromise for me. I view my job as a parent as guiding my kids toward adulthood. This is one step on the way for me.

I like Lands End bathing suits for my girls. They're feminine w/o being skanky, even the bikinis. Podsnap, I think bathing suits are very regional. I have a mom acquaintance who came from a region in the US where bikinis were the norm for moms, too, but when she came here she got a tankini because she saw that not as many moms wear bikinis. Some do, though, and I think she would have been fine to wear one, but for whatever reason she didn't feel comfortable. I prefer the boy shorts (not board shorts, but the tight ones) so I don't have to shave because I'm too [email protected] lazy and I don't like the skirts. I know moms and girls in my area who wear bikinis, tankinis, competitive suits, skirt suits, board shorts and rash guards. The pool culture in my area is actually very focused on swim team so there are lots of competitive suits in our local pools. In my area there's definitely nail polish, but not so much the other products, hair gel, etc.


----------



## velochic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> "lady like" isn't a precise term, and different people use it to mean different things. When I was growing up with my Fundy Christian parents, it meant being passive, not speaking up, taking care of others, always putting myself last, and looking pretty without ever drawing attention to my sexuality. It's the combination of focus on appearance combined with passivity that causes me to cringe. Plus, I've seldom heard in used in a positive way -- I hear people point out to girls when they AREN'T lady like. I don't hear people using it to describe women in positive ways, just put down little girls and tell them how they are missing the mark, using by moving.
> 
> Crossing legs isn't good for circulation. It's healthier to let the blood flow.


Put that way, I can understand the negative connotation. That almost sounds like the christian attitude of a wife submitting herself to her husband.

That wasn't my experience with the term, so it holds no negativity for me. It did include dressing modestly as a young girl, but more like having manners, not gossiping, not commenting on a person's physical traits, not commenting if someone is rude and being able to smooth over arguments, giving people the benefit of the doubt, etc. It didn't make me feel that had to be less of what I am, especially female, but more of what I could be. Some stuck, some didn't, so I'm not sure how it all turned out.









I agree about the circulation. I was taught to cross at the ankles and pull the feet back to the side a bit. That way, you never had to get up and promptly fall down on your face when you realized your foot went to sleep.


----------



## limabean

Nearly all of my DD's skirts come with little built-in shorts. When she wears the ones that don't, I put little legging-type shorts on underneath. That way she has freedom of movement and never has to hear me telling her to sit in such a way that her undies are covered. I would never use the phrases, "Sit like a lady" or, "Be ladylike," but I might say, "Oops, your undies are showing" or something, just like I sometimes do to DS if he pulls up his shorts/undies in a weird way and they end up twisted or with the undies sticking out the top. In our family undies are meant to be concealed under clothes -- I don't think that's oppressive in and of itself, and I don't think the gentle reminders I give my kids about it are oppressive either.

I saw it mentioned a couple of times in this thread, but I've never in my life heard someone tell a girl wearing pants to close her legs. I can definitely see how that starts to veer into, "Hide your sinful place" territory.


----------



## *bejeweled*

Oh please velochic. Stop taking it so seriously. We all know it's the frikkin' labia. The OP called it a vagina. So the frick what? Your comment was extremely Rude.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *velochic*
> 
> I was thinking of this thread yesterday. There are some things, that I just don't understand about this, and am honestly asking about things I'm puzzled over. How can the OP be so passionate about something and not even know the proper body parts? As others have pointed out, it would be the labia showing, not the vagina


----------



## Lazurii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by **bejeweled**
> 
> Oh please velochic. Stop taking it so seriously. We all know it's the frikkin' labia. The OP called it a vagina. So the frick what? Your comment was extremely Rude.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *velochic*
> 
> I was thinking of this thread yesterday. There are some things, that I just don't understand about this, and am honestly asking about things I'm puzzled over. How can the OP be so passionate about something and not even know the proper body parts? As others have pointed out, it would be the labia showing, not the vagina
Click to expand...

Yes, only those that are properly educated can be passionate about things. /sarcasm

Seriously, I just don't see why this is a debate anymore. Yup, most women understand that what you can see is the vulva. But we just refer to the whole area as "vagina". It's like when I'm talking to my son about his penis. We've started differentiating between glans/shaft/foreskin, but it's still all together his "penis". SAME THING.


----------



## insidevoice

I have a pubescent girl who is COMPLETELY unaware of where her body is and whether or not it is covered. Coupled with a body that is kind of an odd shape, she often has pants falling down too low on her bum or something similar. Not about shame, but there are social norms that are important to follow within reason. I do remind her to pull up her pants or generally rearrange her clothes.

When she was younger, we just tossed leggings/bike shorts whatever on underneath a skirt or dress- it made it a complete non-issue.

I have essentially the same rules regarding modesty for all my kids- male or female:

Put on weather appropriate clothing if we are going out in public. If you are over 4/5 (old enough to realize that society does expect you to wear clothes) wear clothes at all times. In the house with just family around lounging in a tank top and a pair of undies on a hot day is understandable, but adding some shorts is preferable. Toddlers and kids learning about using the toilet are often naked from the waist down. Kids in diapers often wear just a shirt and a diaper in warmer weather.


----------



## 2xy

As for the term "ladylike"....I can only recall one person ever telling me I was being unladylike. I was 17. He was one of my very best friends in high school, and we had just gotten finished with playing basketball, for Pete's sake.







We were sitting on the floor of the gym, backs against the wall, drinking water. I was sitting with my legs bent, feet flat on the floor, knees apart.

He looked disturbed and said that the way I was sitting wasn't "ladylike." I told him that a BJ wasn't ladylike, either, but I bet he never complained about that. He turned red and shut up.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *velochic*
> 
> It did include dressing modestly as a young girl, but more like having manners, not gossiping, not commenting on a person's physical traits, not commenting if someone is rude and being able to smooth over arguments, giving people the benefit of the doubt, etc.


Other than modesty, but that seems like basic behavior for all humans, not just females.

I don't see polite behavior any different for males and females. Therefore, I don't see polite behavior as "ladylike."


----------



## Imakcerka

If keeping your legs closed is considered shaming... is being told to act like a lady demeaning?

I just told my cowork to shut his legs. He has a stain on his pants from his coffee... looks like poo squirts!


----------



## rparker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazurii*
> Seriously, I just don't see why this is a debate anymore. Yup, most women understand that what you can see is the vulva. But we just refer to the whole area as "vagina". It's like when I'm talking to my son about his penis. We've started differentiating between glans/shaft/foreskin, but it's still all together his "penis". SAME THING.


Actually, what you can SEE is the labia and the entire "area" is properly referred to as the vulva not the vagina. The term vulva refers to the external genital organs of any female mammal. We taught our three year old to say vulva because both DH and I are overly pedantic and obsessed with encouraging her to have an accurate/varied vocabulary, but this post has made me reconsider the implications of different word choices in relation to this topic and now I'm finding other reasons to be annoyed by the use of "vagina" when someone actually means "vulva".... Basically, the hyper focus on vaginas is a focus on the sexual/reproductive aspects of a girl's body and that really shouldn't be an issue for girls as young as three. It really shouldn't be an issue prior to the onset of menstruation. The term vulva--which encompasses all the parts people are worried about other people seeing or not seeing or whatever--only technically includes the opening of the vagina, not the entire structure. I'm actually not sure that my three year old even realizes that she HAS a vagina although she certainly has some idea of what they are and how they function after the birth of her sister.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by **bejeweled**
> 
> Oh please velochic. Stop taking it so seriously. We all know it's the frikkin' labia. The OP called it a vagina. So the frick what? Your comment was extremely Rude.


Don't you understand that if you arent educated about the correct terminology of the parts of a woman's body you arent allowed to have feelings or be passionate about it?


----------



## umsami

I have a 4 yo DD who loves dresses. Nine times out of ten, she pairs them with leggings or shorts (or another tutu or whatever--her choice--she picks out 99% of her outfits). She does like to go upside down on the couch, etc. It usually isn't an issue--because if you do see her undies it's a quick glimpse as she flips back over. However, sometimes we'll tell her, "I can see your undies"...and she puts her dress down. It's not a big deal--or about vulva-shaming either. We'll let our boys know if their undies are showing as well. We'll say something like, " Undies go underneath our clothes--so in general, we don't show them to other people."


----------



## Imakcerka

We use correct terms in our house. As correct as I see them

Cookie

Hooha

hoodi hoo

Vajayjay

Tootie

tootems

Bootyhox

Banjo My favorite!

And yes they know these correct terms by heart and use them properly!


----------



## hildare

ok... so... i am genuinely wondering, not trying to be a smartiepants...

so if you wear something that requires you to wear a whole other complete item of clothing beneath it, what is the purpose of wearing item 1 in the first place?

i don't put skirts/dresses on my kid, and from what i see, the kids who do wear them seem encumbered, for the most part. i know there are different kinds of skirts that don't restrict movement but mostly i just don't get the point.


----------



## Lazurii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> ok... so... i am genuinely wondering, not trying to be a smartiepants...
> 
> so if you wear something that requires you to wear a whole other complete item of clothing beneath it, what is the purpose of wearing item 1 in the first place?
> 
> i don't put skirts/dresses on my kid, and from what i see, the kids who do wear them seem encumbered, for the most part. i know there are different kinds of skirts that don't restrict movement but mostly i just don't get the point.


My kids love skirts. I wouldn't dream of telling them they couldn't wear a skirt because I have them wear shorts underneath. The point for them is the swishy-swirly fun of the skirt.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> so if you wear something that requires you to wear a whole other complete item of clothing beneath it, what is the purpose of wearing item 1 in the first place?


because the child likes the dress or skirt and wants to wear it. That's the only reason. It allow the child to make their own choices.


----------



## philomom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazurii*
> 
> But we just refer to the whole area as "vagina".


Sigh, its like telling your daughter she's wearing her innards outside of her. The area you see is the vulva/labia. Only the canal inside is the vagina..... that really is never seen by the casual eye..... even if you are a nudist.

I fail to understand why educated people intentionally get this wrong. Our daughters and sons need the language to describe every part of their body.


----------



## rubidoux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> If keeping your legs closed is considered shaming... is being told to act like a lady demeaning?


Yes, exactly!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Sigh, its like telling your daughter she's wearing her innards outside of her. The area you see is the vulva/labia. Only the canal inside is the vagina..... that really is never seen by the casual eye..... even if you are a nudist.
> 
> I fail to understand why educated people intentionally get this wrong. Our daughters and sons need the language to describe every part of their body.


I don't see this as such a big deal. A lot of people use the word "vagina" when referring to the whole package, and I feel like I can always, or at least usually, tell from context what they mean. There is not another proper word (I mean other than things like hooha -- though I'm more unclear on the technical meaning of hooha) for it, as far as I know. If people are uncomfortable with or for some reason don't want to use "vulva" or "labia," why does it matter? I'm sure we all know those words. There are some words that really bother me because they feel like baby talk or like a way of pretending we don't really have vulvas, labias, or vaginas, like "girl parts", but if used with affection I don't have any problem with hooha or vajayjay. If I had a little girl, I'd probably be using "vulva," "labia," and "vagina," and quite possibly using the word "vagina" to mean more than just her innards here and there, because I do think a lot of us are uncomfortable with those words because they weren't used with us as kids and I wouldn't want to pass that on to my dd.


----------



## erigeron

I don't think that feeling personally uncomfortable is a good reason to give another generation the same uncomfortableness that you (generic you) grew up with. Calling all of a little girl's genitals "vagina" is like calling everything a little boy has his testicles. It's just not accurate. I don't think it's fair to kids to pass down these inaccuracies. I'd honestly rather have a slang word to use as shorthand than use a correct word but use it wrong. I'd rather have my daughter learn that sometimes we call it by a fun name than to learn the wrong words for stuff.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Sigh, its like telling your daughter she's wearing her innards outside of her. The area you see is the vulva/labia. Only the canal inside is the vagina..... that really is never seen by the casual eye..... even if you are a nudist.
> 
> I fail to understand why educated people intentionally get this wrong. Our daughters and sons need the language to describe every part of their body.


I suspect this is partly a generational "hangover". While growing up, my mom was never taught the correct terms for any of her genitalia, as my grandmother was the type who tried to pretend that nobody, especially girls, even had genitals. When we were kids, mom used the "correct" terms with us, as she felt we deserved to know the names of our own body parts. However, we were taught to call the whole area the vagina. As I got older, I realized that "vagina" was a term specific to the birth canal, but I didn't know the word "vulva" and assumed for a long, long time that "vagina" was also used - correctly - as a label for a woman's entire genital area. It was after I came to MDC that I discovered the term "vulva". I was in my late 30s, and was pregnant with my third child (as well as three miscarriages before that), and had read a lot about the female body, including looking at a lot of diagrams, when I was younger. "Vulva" was an invisible word. So, even though I now know the term "vulva", and have taught it to my kids, I still sometimes slip up and say "vagina", because I have 30+ years of habit driving that usage.

I think that, over time, if people continue to use the correct terminology, it will become normalized. It's just going to take time.

I do have to say that, over the years, I've been somewhat horrified at the level of scorn and mockery heaped on the heads of posters who incorrectly use "vagina", instead of "vulva". We, as a culture, aren't that far removed (or removed at all, in some places) from only using cutesy names and/or completely avoiding any reference to female genitalia (except in very crude, demeaning usages by some men). Women using "vagina" are clearly making a real attempt to move away from the body shaming and nonsense that our culture has been riddled with, and I don't understand why people are so condescending when they (we? I don't think I ever posted using the incorrect term, but I certainly could have) slip up. It's not simply about clarity of communication with others, because I'm almost sure that there are more people in North America who believe that vagina is the correct term than people who know the word "vulva".


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubidoux*
> 
> I don't see this as such a big deal. A lot of people use the word "vagina" when referring to the whole package, and I feel like I can always, or at least usually, tell from context what they mean. There is not another proper word (I mean other than things like hooha -- though I'm more unclear on the technical meaning of hooha) for it, as far as I know. If people are uncomfortable with or for some reason don't want to use "vulva" or "labia," why does it matter? I'm sure we all know those words. There are some words that really bother me because they feel like baby talk or like a way of pretending we don't really have vulvas, labias, or vaginas, like "girl parts", but if used with affection I don't have any problem with hooha or vajayjay. If I had a little girl, I'd probably be using "vulva," "labia," and "vagina," and quite possibly using the word "vagina" to mean more than just her innards here and there, because I do think a lot of us are uncomfortable with those words because they weren't used with us as kids and I wouldn't want to pass that on to my dd.


It's funny how differently we all feel. I would vastly prefer "girl parts", "lady parts", "girly bits", etc. over "hooha" or "vajayjay". Actually, I've learned to largely tune out "vajayjay", but I think if someone used it to refer to my own genitals, my first reaction would be to want to smack them. I hate that term with a passion. (Mind you, a former Cub Scout leader I worked with referred to hers as a "whatsit", which made my head hurt, too.)


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erigeron*
> 
> I don't think that feeling personally uncomfortable is a good reason to give another generation the same uncomfortableness that you (generic you) grew up with. Calling all of a little girl's genitals "vagina" is like calling everything a little boy has his testicles. It's just not accurate. I don't think it's fair to kids to pass down these inaccuracies.
> 
> Actually, it would be more like calling the whole thing his "penis", and I've certainly known a fair number of people who teach their boys a lot more about the penis and what to call it, than the testicles/scrotum. That said, there really are differences in teaching the names for boys, because 1) everybody does know the terms "scrotum", "testicles" and "penis", whlie not everybody knows "vulva", and 2) a boy's genitals are all hanging out and visible, so the question of discrete names for the various parts comes up much more clearly (I can actually remember one of my boys - not sure which - asking me what his scrotum was, and then asking me what was inside it). I honestly don't even remember wondering what my inner labia were all about, when they started to grow during puberty. It was just one of those body changes, and I didn't realize they had their own name, until sex ed. It just didn't occur to me that they were a separate part.
> 
> I'd honestly rather have a slang word to use as shorthand than use a correct word but use it wrong. I'd rather have my daughter learn that sometimes we call it by a fun name than to learn the wrong words for stuff.


I don't see a big problem with a slang word to use as shorthand. I, personally, wouldn't use most of them, because I don't find them "fun" - I find them annoying and unnecessarily cutesy. But, I don't see an issue with them. The issue with slang words, ime, is that many people use them, and don't teach any correct terminology at all.

There was a former daycare worker (I think - something like that - maybe a relative of the child?) who posted here once, talking about a child who was complaining that her "purse" hurt. Nobody had a clue what she was talking about. If that same child had said, "my vagina hurts", it's a safe bet the staff would have known where the problem was and been able to take steps to address it. (It's also possible that if the girl said "vulva", they'd have been confused.) Slang terms as shorthand are one thing. Slang terms, in lieu of any kind of proper words, is something else.


----------



## meemee

i think i started dont show your underwear when dd was what 5. however she does wear long dresses (its cheaper for me - get more wear out of it). shorter dresses she wore shorts or boxers or leggings underneath.

today at nine we dont do the shorts anymore. dd is more aware - but not always. she is usually mindful when she sits cross legged.

she is the climbing, high energy going crazy child so she doesnt always remember.

however i have NEVER done the cross your legs. that term makes my stomach curl.

and dd has always loved dresses and sweats since a toddler. not even jeans coz sweats and dresses were easier to climb and play in. dresses were GREAT to potty train in. i think its because of her dresses during potty training that she can pee flawlessly standing up. sit on her haunches to pee and she dribbles all over.


----------



## Alphaghetti

I encourage my children to respect the comfortability of the other people (within reason, of course).

To be completely honest, I don't care if my children:

*say, "oh my god"

*burp out loud

*wear a hat to the dinner table

*ask innocently about another person's physical differences

*keep their elbow off the table

*wear appropriate attire in public

...but other people do, and in my opinion, we all deserve to be comfortable coexisting, and these are very little things that my children can do to ensure that everyone feels comfy.


----------



## APToddlerMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rparker*
> 
> Actually, what you can SEE is the labia and the entire "area" is properly referred to as the vulva not the vagina. The term vulva refers to the external genital organs of any female mammal. We taught our three year old to say vulva because both DH and I are overly pedantic and obsessed with encouraging her to have an accurate/varied vocabulary, but this post has made me reconsider the implications of different word choices in relation to this topic and now I'm finding other reasons to be annoyed by the use of "vagina" when someone actually means "vulva".... Basically, the hyper focus on vaginas is a focus on the sexual/reproductive aspects of a girl's body and that really shouldn't be an issue for girls as young as three. It really shouldn't be an issue prior to the onset of menstruation. The term vulva--which encompasses all the parts people are worried about other people seeing or not seeing or whatever--only technically includes the opening of the vagina, not the entire structure. I'm actually not sure that my three year old even realizes that she HAS a vagina although she certainly has some idea of what they are and how they function after the birth of her sister.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> Sigh, its like telling your daughter she's wearing her innards outside of her. The area you see is the vulva/labia. Only the canal inside is the vagina..... that really is never seen by the casual eye..... even if you are a nudist.
> 
> I fail to understand why educated people intentionally get this wrong. Our daughters and sons need the language to describe every part of their body.


I'm an educated person who intentionally "gets this wrong." Most people, at least on MDC, know the proper terms, but you know what? 99% of people I talk to IRL use the word vagina to describe the vulva and the labia (even though most of them I'm sure know the correct terminology), so I do too. I think it sounds totally pretentious to use vulva and labia when the rest of the world uses vagina. To me, it is like the difference between soda and pop, water fountain and bubbler. If you live somewhere where pop is typically used and someone asks for soda, you *know* what they mean and it is rude to correct them.

I mean, seriously, who cares? If I had so few things to worry about in my life that I could find the time to be "annoyed" at others using the word vagina inaccurately, I'd consider myself a very lucky woman. It reminds me of my grandma who gets pissed when people pronouce bruschetta and Ralph Lauren wrong. Life is a little too short to get uptight about stuff like this...


----------



## hildare

my dh is not an idiot by any means but just the other day he was surprised that i was using the word "vulva" to dd to describe just that. he was also under the impression that it was a vagina. i think there are lots of people who either use that word for the whole shebang or else are confused.

(and for the record.. i haven't noticed that not knowing the correct terminology made him less ardent in general  )

i don't see that it matters a whole lot, because at least when people are using either word they are attempting to communicate to their kid that there's a real word for the thing. we don't have silly words for our arms and ears, etc. and i think that using slang just adds to the mystery/confusion. fwiw, my parents never. ever. even implied there was a word for it of any kind whatsoever. so i'll take vagina over silence anyday.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:
Originally Posted by *hildare* 


> so i'll take vagina over silence anyday.












Yes. This, exactly. You said what I was trying to say, and said it much, much more succinctly.


----------



## umsami

We're in the process of looking for books for my two eldest on sex, and I've noticed that if one looks at books from the 70s (I think "Where Did I Come from?" is one), one is likely to just see "vagina"--rather than labia, vulva, etc. If one looks at more recently created books ("What the Big Secret", "it's Not the Stork"), one will see vulva for the external genitalia, and vagina referring to the actual vagina. My guess is that back in the 70s, it was a big deal...and liberating...to just teach your kids vagina vs. girl parts or whatever it was called in the 50s or whatever.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> While growing up, my mom was never taught the correct terms for any of her genitalia, as my grandmother was the type who tried to pretend that nobody, especially girls, even had genitals. When we were kids, mom used the "correct" terms with us, as she felt we deserved to know the names of our own body parts. However, we were taught to call the whole area the vagina.


My mother never used terms at all to refer to genitals. Ever. Not the right ones, not the wrong ones. Not cutesie ones. My genitals were "down there" or my "crotch".

I also got through basic "puberty education" at school in the 70's without real words being used. We just learned about our periods.

Honestly just telling my kids that "boys have penises and girls have vaginas" was a really massive step forward. We stuck with that for years because it was simple and clear. Around 9/10 I got a book and went through the whole shebang. Very detailed.

One of my DDs is currently in sex ed at her private progressive school -- which doesn't receive government money and therefore can tell the truth, and my DD was the best informed on human anatomy at the beginning of the class (the labor and delivery nurse who is assisting in the class told me I was doing a great job.







)

I think very parents actually follow through and teach their kids anatomy and that this is one of the situations where mothering.com can be a bit extreme. Most girls don't have a clue what a vulva and clitoris are.

Based on my growing up experience and what I see of my kids' peers, I think any mother who manages to speak *clearly and positively* about her DD's genitals is doing a great job -- whatever words she chooses.


----------



## rubidoux

So when your (general you) 2 year old son asks "do you have a penis, mama?", what do you tell him? My first thought would be to say that I have a "vagina," but if I said that I'd definitely be thinking *wrong* because in my head I'd be using that word to mean the whole shebang. So then I thought, maybe vulva, since that's what he can see if he's around when I get out of the shower, etc. But then what he's really asking is "I have a penis, what do you have that is like a penis to you?" But I don't think I can quite stand to tell my 2 yo, who is quite a talker, that he has a penis and I have a clitoris. At least I wouldn't want to be there when he starts singing loudly about it in the grocery store. And anyway, although it's the closest approximation of a penis, I think, it's still pretty different. I don't use it to pee, for example. In the end, I guess I think "vagina" is fine -- and that would be the whole package kind of vagina, not the innards only version. I am pretty sure that's what just about everyone we know is going to tell their little boys. And some day in the future he will learn the correct terminology.


----------



## philomom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> I mean, seriously, who cares?


Obviously, I do.

Also, when you think your daughter or son may have been touched inappropriately... it helps a bunch for your kids to have the language to tell all. For kids who may have been misinformed on body part language.. the police have a special doll your kid can use to point to the parts the offender touched.

Telling any kid her vagina is the whole outside part is gross. Is she a sea cucumber? Did she turn her insides outside? Weird!


----------



## *bejeweled*

Are you kidding?!







Many police officers wouldn't know what a vulva is! They'd more likely know what a vagina is.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Obviously, I do.
> 
> Also, when you think your daughter or son may have been touched inappropriately... it helps a bunch for your kids to have the language to tell all. For kids who may have been misinformed on body part language.. the police have a special doll your kid can use to point to the parts the offender touched.
> 
> Telling any kid her vagina is the whole outside part is gross. Is she a sea cucumber? Did she turn her insides outside? Weird!


----------



## beanma

I think telling a girl that all her girl parts are called a vagina is analogous to saying that your anus, rectum or colon is your butt. It's just not the same and it is much more empowering to know the true names for your body parts. I do think it is important to know in cases of molestation as philomom pointed out and also just because it's always good to have the ability to be specific. I have certainly told my girls all their parts including clitoris, but now at age 10 in the age of embarrassment (cue music) my dd1 has started referring to her girl parts as her "crotch". Wouldn't be my choice, but whatever.

Personally, although as evidenced by this thread many women use "vagina" when they mean "vulva" or all female genitalia, I never think of a vulva when I hear "vagina" just like I don't think of a butt when I hear "anus". I don't know that I know anyone who uses "vagina" to refer to their vulva, either, although I don't spend a lot of time talking with my female friends about this subject, but it just hasn't come up in conversation. I think my female friends would be more likely to use a nickname and I'm not at all offended by that any more than I would be offended by hiney, or tushie, or bum, or rear end, etc, instead of butt or gluteus maximus.


----------



## Imakcerka

I can see them scratching their head staring into an anatomy book while trying to write the report...

Also I've seen the dolls used, not by police by the way and they don't have the genitalia labeled... So if they point at the Vagina when they mean the left shoulder... then maybe they should label it all correctly.


----------



## Lazurii

The thing is when my daughter is "playing with herself" I tell her she's touching her vagina because at that moment her fingers are as far in her vagina as they can go. Sometimes she's touching her clitoris and I tell her that, but it doesn't happen as often. So I'm sure she thinks all of that area, her vulva, is actually her vagina. Whatever, when my son was that age he thought the whole thing was his penis. He know knows penis, glans, foreskin, shaft, scrotum, testicle, and urethra. But if I had introduced all of that too soon he would have been very, very confused. So I'm sure that in the beginning it's totally okay to refer to the vulva as a vagina.


----------



## erigeron

I suppose I'm biased because my mother taught me that I had a vulva, and I figured out what a vagina and clitoris were a little later on. Vulva just seems like a more relevant concept for a young child because that is the structure that is the easiest to see and interact with. I suppose anything is a step up from "down there" or silence, but I'm an idealist.

Kind of off-topic, euphemisms got away from me in a big way when I had my daughter. In post-partum the nurses would periodically want to check my "bottom", and I was kind of mystified because I figured that wasn't the part that had taken a beating during the birth process, but I kind of went with it. I didn't figure out until my six-week post-partum checkup what she meant, when the student midwife used the same word and was clearly referring to the vagina. I'm not entirely sure whether this qualifies as trying to make patients comfortable, or trying SO hard to make people comfortable that you end up obscuring what you're talking about, or if this is just a euphemism that everybody knows except me... to me, "bottom" was the buttocks and associated structures. I can think of a lot of terms that could be used for the vagina and that one would never have registered. (I'm in the US, btw. I understand the slang is different in other countries.)


----------



## APToddlerMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Obviously, I do.
> 
> Also, when you think your daughter or son may have been touched inappropriately... it helps a bunch for your kids to have the language to tell all. For kids who may have been misinformed on body part language.. the police have a special doll your kid can use to point to the parts the offender touched.
> 
> Telling any kid her vagina is the whole outside part is gross. Is she a sea cucumber? Did she turn her insides outside? Weird!


Are you kidding me? I've worked extensively with children who have been sexually abused. *If* that child happened to know semi-appropriate words to describe their genitals, those words were penis and vagina. I've not once heard the words vulva or labia used by a child. Not only that, but plenty of judges, police officers, social workers, parents, and offenders would probably look at the child if they used the word vulva and say "huh? the what?"

If the wording is important to you, I think that is okay. What I don't think is okay is that the tone of this thread has become condescending towards those who choose to use the term vagina or who don't know the difference. Vagina is correct in that it is the word that 99% of Americans use in their daily conversation to describe the vulva and labia. It isn't like anyone is suggesting calling it a fun box or something.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erigeron*
> 
> Kind of off-topic, euphemisms got away from me in a big way when I had my daughter. In post-partum the nurses would periodically want to check my "bottom", and I was kind of mystified because I figured that wasn't the part that had taken a beating during the birth process, but I kind of went with it. I didn't figure out until my six-week post-partum checkup what she meant, when the student midwife used the same word and was clearly referring to the vagina. I'm not entirely sure whether this qualifies as trying to make patients comfortable, or trying SO hard to make people comfortable that you end up obscuring what you're talking about, or if this is just a euphemism that everybody knows except me... to me, "bottom" was the buttocks and associated structures. I can think of a lot of terms that could be used for the vagina and that one would never have registered. (I'm in the US, btw. I understand the slang is different in other countries.)


The same thing happened to me!! In fact, I was absolutely terrified of them checking my 'bottom' because I didn't understand what they actually meant... I thought they were going to do a rectal exam or something!









We use 'vulva' but I don't have a daughter so it's more, "Boys have a penis & girls have a vulva" and really, I still feel like I'm not being totally accurate but DS seems to get the point well enough, and even understands that friends of ours refer to it as a 'yoni'...

I hate the cutesy terms though, they just make me cringe. Yuck, I can hear my mom's words for things echoing in my head...


----------



## jenrose

Haven't read all replies but here's my take:

1. My daughters, when they wear dresses at an age where they're still prone to tumbling but are out of diapers, have always worn shorts, leggings or tights under dresses while playing. Diapers, not so much. If a kid is still in diapers, therefore not potty trained, therefore probably not developmentally "there" on learning to cover their butts in public.

2. My son will be told to keep his underwear covered outside the house too, once he's old enough to understand the concept of appropriate behavior. It's just good manners to not go waving your underwear around in public.

3. Teaching kids that "where your underwear covers is private" is an important safety lesson... My mother taught it to me, and when a stranger reached out and grabbed my crotch in an alley when I was 9, pulling away and running and yelling "No" because that's *private* probably kept me a hell of a lot safer than if I hadn't been given a really clear message that the only person who got to touch that was me.

4. I would never tell anyone to "cross their legs" to hide their crotch... crossing legs is bad for circulation. No one should do it habitually, least of all the kids of someone with a clotting disorder. (My teenager inherited the same disorder from me)

5. That said, I don't think it's a bad idea to teach kids more formal manners for more formal situations. And more formal manners can include sitting with knees together, with good posture, for either gender. But it's not something to insist on away from a party table or afternoon tea with Grandma. Teaching kids this kind of manner can be done in a fun way, and it's good practice for kids to learn that some social situations call for different kinds of "good manners" than others.

6. Likewise, at home, we're far less concerned about covered underwear than say, at church, or in the grocery store. Different manners for different places.

ETA: Skimming back... oh my god. The language debate... We've always just called it a crotch. Works for either gender. Been called that for centuries. Then again, we've had girl children only in the family going back sixty years, so the whole differentiation thing doesn't usually come up much until kids are four or five. I'm sure that will change when my son is born. My niece uses "yoni", and I'm fine with that. I prefer the word to vagina, for etymological and anatomical reasons. I don't really like kids of either gender running around and yelling about their penis or vagina casually. Once they hit 5-7 years old, I have a bunch of midwifery books and "A New View of a Woman's Body", which has the most amazing detailed drawings of both male and female anatomy, with scientific names, etc.

I answer all questions about body parts, where babies come from, sex, etc. as frankly as seems appropriate given the questions being asked.

I thought pee came out of my clitoris until I was at least 8 years old, so helping kids understand what exactly is where is something I'm happy to do. I'm fine with my girls knowing what their parts are called, but for most usages, crotch or yoni is sufficient, and if we need to get more specific, we'll pull out the diagrams and get more specific.


----------



## philomom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> Vagina is correct in that it is the word that 99% of Americans use in their daily conversation to describe the vulva and labia.


But its not correct.

If 99% of Americans jumped off a bridge, would you? Cause that's your line of reasoning here.

My friends and I use the correct terminology... even with our small children.


----------



## Imakcerka

Fine... you're super correct!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> But its not correct.
> 
> If 99% of Americans jumped off a bridge, would you? Cause that's your line of reasoning here.
> 
> My friends and I use the correct terminology... even with our small children.


----------



## rubidoux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> But its not correct.
> 
> If 99% of Americans jumped off a bridge, would you? Cause that's your line of reasoning here.
> 
> My friends and I use the correct terminology... even with our small children.


I think most of us use colloquialisms every day without anyone feeling like it's the equivalent of jumping off a bridge. I'm sure that to some people it matters very much that their use of language be technically correct, but to a lot of us what's important is that the person we're speaking with understands us. I don't see anything so terrible in that.

I'm intrigued by the fact that you and your friends are all so much on the same page about this topic. I used to have a friend who used the term "girl parts" and I was irritated every time she said it and told her so. But she had a lot of value in other ways.


----------



## APToddlerMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> But its not correct.
> 
> If 99% of Americans jumped off a bridge, would you? Cause that's your line of reasoning here.
> 
> My friends and I use the correct terminology... even with our small children.


Well I disagree that it is not correct. Part of using language to communicate is using words that others commonly use to describe the same thing. While many people know exactly what a vagina is and isn't, the vast majority of people use the word vagina to describe the vulva. So maybe it isn't technically correct to say vagina, but if the point is communication, why wouldn't I and others choose to use the word that the vast majority of people use? There isn't anything offensive about the word vagina.

I learned "Spain" spanish. When I started working with Mexican and Puerto Rican families, it became clear to me very quickly that many words that were used to describe one thing by someone from Mexico were used for something else by someone from Spain. So, I rolled with it. Using vagina to describe the vulva is the same thing. I choose to use words that are commonly used to express the same meaning so a) people understand me and b) I don't sound like I'm holier than thou. That is my choice. Others can make a different choice. However, I don't see the point in being condescending towards those who choose to use a different word when it isn't offensive. How nice, but also limiting, it must be to have all of one's friends use the exact same terminology....


----------



## tropicana

so our culture seems to prefer the term vagina over vulva. why is that so wrong?

not "medically correct"? maybe. but if everybody seems to get the word and agree on it's meaning, then it certainly gets the point across, right? it's a consensus.

and more so that vulva or labia does. even if those are more technically correct, anatomically.

so if the goal is clear communication that reaches most everyone in our culture, vagina actually wins.

i guess i wonder if words like vulva or labia are confusing enough to a lot of people, that some take the shortcut to "vagina" or even a more slang term for it.


----------



## beanma

I take exception with the 99% of Americans use the word vagina to mean the whole package thing. I'm 47 yrs old and have, to the best of my knowledge, never heard any woman (or man) I have known throughout my whole life use the word vagina to refer to anything but their vagina. I really don't think that 99% or maybe not even the majority of Americans use the word "vagina" to refer to women's visible genitalia. Maybe someone should start a poll. Maybe it's regional or generational. It really sounds to me like saying anus or rectum when you mean butt.

I hate taking this thread so off topic, but I think I've said everything I can say about "keep your legs closed" and underwear.


----------



## limabean

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> But its not correct.
> 
> If 99% of Americans jumped off a bridge, would you? Cause that's your line of reasoning here.
> 
> My friends and I use the correct terminology... even with our small children.


"Sherbe*r*t" isn't correct either, but that's how nearly everyone says it. And when I say "sherbet" some people look at me strangely and might not even know what I'm talking about. But they always know exactly what people mean when they say "sherbert." It's acceptable usage, even though it's not Perfectly And Undeniably Correct. And my snitting at people about it in the ice cream line isn't going to cause a widespread change in colloquial usage, so if someone says to me, "Mmm, isn't this sherbert delicious?" I'll just smile and say, "Yes it is!" instead of saying, "This what? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. In my circle of friends, there is no foodstuff called sherbert."


----------



## beanma

Limabean, that's not the same thing at all. There is no other foodstuff that is sherbeRt. That's more like saying vageena instead of vagina. It's a mispronunciation.

It would be more like someone saying, "Isn't this sorbet delicious," when they mean "ice cream" or maybe popsicle? It's a different thing altogether.

Vagina vs vulva - it's not as different as elbow and ear, but it's more than a mispronunciation. I really don't care what people call it w/in their own families and friends, but for my family and in my circle of friends we don't stretch the definition of the term and really use the correct one when we're using anatomical terms.


----------



## beanma

This old thread on the topic of vaginas, vulvas, yonis might be interesting to some:

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/104596/the-word-vagina

ETA: My completely unscientific survey of MDC threads conducted by searching on the term "vagina" showed that when most posters on MDC used the term they were actually talking about vaginas and not vulvas.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beanma*
> 
> I take exception with the 99% of Americans use the word vagina to mean the whole package thing. I'm 47 yrs old and have, to the best of my knowledge, never heard any woman (or man) I have known throughout my whole life use the word vagina to refer to anything but their vagina. I really don't think that 99% or maybe not even the majority of Americans use the word "vagina" to refer to women's visible genitalia.


This is interesting to me. I'm 43, and I've never heard the term "vulva" used in real life, except among my homelearning friends. I'd never heard it at all until I was here on MDC. And, most of the time, when I've heard someone talk about their vagina (or even their "vajayjay" or "hooha"), they've been talking about the vulva and/or vulva and vagina.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> This is interesting to me. I'm 43, and I've never heard the term "vulva" used in real life, except among my homelearning friends. I'd never heard it at all until I was here on MDC. And, most of the time, when I've heard someone talk about their vagina (or even their "vajayjay" or "hooha"), they've been talking about the vulva and/or vulva and vagina.


i am 46 and that has been my experience too.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beanma*
> 
> Limabean, that's not the same thing at all. There is no other foodstuff that is sherbeRt. That's more like saying vageena instead of vagina. It's a mispronunciation.
> 
> *It would be more like someone saying, "Isn't this sorbet delicious," when they mean "ice cream" or maybe popsicle? It's a different thing altogether.*
> 
> Vagina vs vulva - it's not as different as elbow and ear, but it's more than a mispronunciation. I really don't care what people call it w/in their own families and friends, but for my family and in my circle of friends we don't stretch the definition of the term and really use the correct one when we're using anatomical terms.


The thing is...lots of people will use the term "ice cream" to cover sorbet, sherbet, popsicles/fudgsicles/creamsicles/whatever-on-a-stick, gelato, etc. It's not correct, and it's not technically accurate, but people still know what you're talking about if you say it, yk? I think "vagina" tends to fall into that category, too.


----------



## onlyzombiecat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> This is interesting to me. I'm 43, and I've never heard the term "vulva" used in real life, except among my homelearning friends. I'd never heard it at all until I was here on MDC. And, most of the time, when I've heard someone talk about their vagina (or even their "vajayjay" or "hooha"), they've been talking about the vulva and/or vulva and vagina.


I'm 37 and I've never heard any of my friends of any age talking about their vagina, vulva, labia or clitoris. It has never once come up in conversation. I wonder why since it seems to be as common as discussing the weather for other people.

I grew up without names for these body parts. I do consider vagina a step up from absolutely nothing. If I didn't have a book with the parts neatly labeled I would have only been able to tell dd vagina.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onlyzombiecat*
> 
> I'm 37 and I've never heard any of my friends of any age talking about their vagina, vulva, labia or clitoris. It has never once come up in conversation. I wonder why since it seems to be as common as discussing the weather for other people.












Same here!


----------



## Venia

I guess what bugs me about simply using the word vagina to describe the sum of a woman's genitalia is that its basically saying (in anatomical terms)....."boys have a penis, girls have a penis receptacle". If the question is strictly a one-for-one comparison, "vagina" works, but as a description of the sum of area or only the external area it is entirely inappropriate. Since society has been evolving from a male-dominated stance, it is no surprise that the term has been so widely accepted in the past. In my personal opinion, I do think its far more empowering to women (and men) describe every part, distinctly. As we all know, our sexual being and child bearing capabilities are far more intricate and complex than a simple "penis" and "penis receptacle".


----------



## beanma

Y'know, to clarify I haven't heard women talk about their vaginas or vulvas very much. Occasionally I might hear a mom talk about a problem with their baby or toddler girl's vulva being red or irritated, but most women I know don't use either term in casual conversation. My point was the only time I've heard a woman talk about her vagina, say talking about a birth experience, she actually meant vagina and not vulva. Neither is a term that you just bring up in casual conversation, but I have never heard an acquaintance use "vagina" to refer to the whole shebang and I have heard it used to mean the actual vagina. I just don't agree that it's a given that *most* Americans use vagina to mean the vulva. If some people want to use it that way, well whatever floats their boat, but I don't think *MOST* people necessarily use it that way and certainly not 99% of Americans.

I agree that the sorbet/sherbet example wasn't very good. I was just trying to change that example to be more representative of the vagina/vulva question and I don't think it worked very well. I guess a better one might be saying "beer" and meaning beer, wine, vodka, gin, and all the liquors, etc. It's not the same thing. I suppose some people might say "beer" when they mean "chardonnay", but "beer" is really not an inclusive or equivalent term.


----------



## hildare

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Venia*
> 
> I guess what bugs me about simply using the word vagina to describe the sum of a woman's genitalia is that its basically saying (in anatomical terms)....."boys have a penis, girls have a penis receptacle". If the question is strictly a one-for-one comparison, "vagina" works, but as a description of the sum of area or only the external area it is entirely inappropriate. Since society has been evolving from a male-dominated stance, it is no surprise that the term has been so widely accepted in the past. In my personal opinion, I do think its far more empowering to women (and men) describe every part, distinctly. As we all know, our sexual being and child bearing capabilities are far more intricate and complex than a simple "penis" and "penis receptacle".


well... that would mean that someone is drawing a conclusion about a vagina = a penis receptacle in the first place, wouldn't it? it could be a tampon receptacle, a finger or fist or whatever receptacle, too, or just a lovely tube of tissue that remains empty, ya know. vaginas, as you know, aren't just for penises to go into....


----------



## Alphaghetti

I personally don't think of my vagina is a "penis receptacle". Under this logic,, couldn't it as easily be interpreted to, "boys have a penis, girls have a "baby expulsion canal"? AND may I also point out that we don't say, "boys have a prepuce, girls have a vulva"? Who cares?

I broke my knee when I was a kid. Oops, I mean my patellla. 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Venia*
> 
> I guess what bugs me about simply using the word vagina to describe the sum of a woman's genitalia is that its basically saying (in anatomical terms)....."boys have a penis, girls have a penis receptacle". If the question is strictly a one-for-one comparison, "vagina" works, but as a description of the sum of area or only the external area it is entirely inappropriate. Since society has been evolving from a male-dominated stance, it is no surprise that the term has been so widely accepted in the past. In my personal opinion, I do think its far more empowering to women (and men) describe every part, distinctly. As we all know, our sexual being and child bearing capabilities are far more intricate and complex than a simple "penis" and "penis receptacle".


----------



## Imakcerka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> well... that would mean that someone is drawing a conclusion about a vagina = a penis receptacle in the first place, wouldn't it? it could be a tampon receptacle, a finger or fist or whatever receptacle, too, or just a lovely tube of tissue that remains empty, ya know. vaginas, as you know, aren't just for penises to go into....


Due to my inability to be mature... calling the "vagina" a receptacle is FLIPPING FUNNY! How bout we all just call it a [email protected]#K Holster?!

Yes there are correct terms for all the beautiful parts between our thighs, just as there are corrects terms for everything else. Though I simply cannot fathom reminding my kids to wipe their anus after defecating.


----------



## philomom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *April*autmaiajude**
> 
> I personally don't think of my vagina is a "penis receptacle". Under this logic,, couldn't it as easily be interpreted to, "boys have a penis, girls have a "baby expulsion canal"? AND may I also point out that we don't say, "boys have a prepuce, girls have a vulva"?


Baby expulsion canal would be demeaning for those women who have chosen to remain childless

I did tell my son "boys have penis and girls have a vulva"... so did all my friends in our playgroup when the kids were small.


----------



## Lazurii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Venia*
> 
> I guess what bugs me about simply using the word vagina to describe the sum of a woman's genitalia is that its basically saying (in anatomical terms)....."boys have a penis, girls have a penis receptacle". If the question is strictly a one-for-one comparison, "vagina" works, but as a description of the sum of area or only the external area it is entirely inappropriate. Since society has been evolving from a male-dominated stance, it is no surprise that the term has been so widely accepted in the past. In my personal opinion, I do think its far more empowering to women (and men) describe every part, distinctly. As we all know, our sexual being and child bearing capabilities are far more intricate and complex than a simple "penis" and "penis receptacle".


You know, the pairing could just as easily be rendered as "vagina" and "vagina-filler".


----------



## Imakcerka

Everything can be demeaning.


----------



## hildare

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazurii*
> 
> You know, the pairing could just as easily be rendered as "vagina" and "vagina-filler".


and there are also many other places to put the latter... just sayin'.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Maybe this thread should be moved from Parenting to Sex Talk.









I am LOL'ing at "vagina-filler". So, thanks!


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onlyzombiecat*
> 
> I'm 37 and I've never heard any of my friends of any age talking about their vagina, vulva, labia or clitoris. It has never once come up in conversation. I wonder why since it seems to be as common as discussing the weather for other people.
> 
> I grew up without names for these body parts. I do consider vagina a step up from absolutely nothing. If I didn't have a book with the parts neatly labeled I would have only been able to tell dd vagina.












I don't know too many people who really sit around talking about them. But, terms do come up in conversation (eg. the Cub Leader who was takling about Brazilians, and not being willing to get one, referred to the entire area as her "whatsit"). And, it's usually very clear that "vagina" is being used to mean the entire area.

ETA: I just read beanma's post about birth stories. Yes, every woman I've ever heard talk about a birth or whatever uses "vagina" to mean her actual vagina, if that's the context she's using the word in...but they also use it to apply to the entire area. (I think it's similar to when I say I have a "stomach-ache", even though I know full well that the pain almost certainly includes my intestines.) They know what the word means, but I think at least some of them believe it also applies to the vulva.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Venia*
> 
> I guess what bugs me about simply using the word vagina to describe the sum of a woman's genitalia is that its basically saying (in anatomical terms)....."boys have a penis, girls have a penis receptacle".


I've never thought of my vagina as a penis receptacle. Actually (probably because I did grow up thinking "vagina" was also used to describe the whole area), I tend to label my vagina itself as my "birth canal" (even though it's never been used for that purpose *sigh*). If a man chooses to think that "vagina" = "penis receptacle", that's his hangup, not mine. I don't have to accept that way of looking at it, and I don't. However, with the exception of two really obnoxiously, blatantly, misogynistic guys I knew in my teens, the only people I've ever heard refer to the term "vagina" as being semantically equal to "penis receptacle" are all women, and usually staunch feminists. I, personally, don't define my own anatomy in terms of somebody's else's anatomy.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Baby expulsion canal would be demeaning for those women who have chosen to remain childless
> 
> I did tell my son "boys have penis and girls have a vulva"... so did all my friends in our playgroup when the kids were small.


That's not equivalent, either. I don't think a term for male genitalia that's equivalent to "vulva" even exists. If you say "penis" and "vulva", then you're ignoring the scrotum.


----------



## childsplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *April*autmaiajude**
> 
> I personally don't think of my vagina is a "penis receptacle". Under this logic,, couldn't it as easily be interpreted to, "boys have a penis, girls have a "*baby expulsion canal*"? AND may I also point out that we don't say, "boys have a prepuce, girls have a vulva"? Who cares?
> 
> I broke my knee when I was a kid. Oops, I mean my patellla.












I'm picturing a potato shooter for some reason???


----------



## childsplay

IRL, I've only heard the word vulva in conversation once (and that was by a drunk woman who may or may not have been trying to say Volvo).

I have however heard vagina, vag, downstairs, lady locker, and the batcave all at least once this month.

And I hear weiner and nuts many times during the day.


----------



## Alphaghetti

Totally missed my point. That's ok though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Baby expulsion canal would be demeaning for those women who have chosen to remain childless
> 
> I did tell my son "boys have penis and girls have a vulva"... so did all my friends in our playgroup when the kids were small.


----------



## Alphaghetti

The poor scrotum always gets left out!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> That's not equivalent, either. I don't think a term for male genitalia that's equivalent to "vulva" even exists. If you say "penis" and "vulva", then you're ignoring the scrotum.


----------



## childsplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *April*autmaiajude**
> 
> The poor scrotum always gets left out!












and


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubidoux*
> 
> I can't believe there are people fighting this point about girls being made to wear very revealing suits when boys are not. It might be *possible* to find suits that aren't revealing for girls (I don't know, I haven't tried), but when I go to the beach or public swimming pool here, almost all of the little girls are in bikinis and then maybe a couple in tankini or one pieces, with the traditional underwear type legs (or lack of legs). These are so much more form fitting and revealing than what little boys swim in. It is amazing to me that we even make bikinis for tiny little girls. Ugh. I feel yucky just to see it. If little boys can go in no shirt, than why not little girls, and if little boys have to wear a protective rash guard shirt, then why shouldn't the girls. It makes no sense to me. Why would a little girl need two little triangles to cover her someday breasts??? If I had a little girl, I'm pretty sure I'd be buying her board shorts and rash guard sets like I do for my boys.


Well, I actually have the opposite issues with swim suits. DD has always had choices from teeny tiny bikinis, to tankinis, to one pieces suits, to rash guards and shorts. DS meanwhile, we have to *search* for a swimsuit that doesn't pull him down under the water with the weight of it! We've finally found boy's racing shorts, but it's a lot harder to get DS a swim suit that is actually meant for *swimming* than DD!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erigeron*
> 
> Kind of off-topic, euphemisms got away from me in a big way when I had my daughter. In post-partum the nurses would periodically want to check my "bottom", and I was kind of mystified because I figured that wasn't the part that had taken a beating during the birth process, but I kind of went with it. I didn't figure out until my six-week post-partum checkup what she meant, when the student midwife used the same word and was clearly referring to the vagina. I'm not entirely sure whether this qualifies as trying to make patients comfortable, or trying SO hard to make people comfortable that you end up obscuring what you're talking about, or if this is just a euphemism that everybody knows except me... to me, "bottom" was the buttocks and associated structures. I can think of a lot of terms that could be used for the vagina and that one would never have registered. (I'm in the US, btw. I understand the slang is different in other countries.)


Yeah, WTH is up with that. It's been 13 years, so hopefullly this has changed for the better, but I saw midwives with DD and they used bottom. When I finally figured out what they were saying, I wanted (and should have) said, "You've actually seen up there, couldn't you use the right words!?!?!"

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jenrose*
> 
> I thought pee came out of my clitoris until I was at least 8 years old, so helping kids understand what exactly is where is something I'm happy to do. I'm fine with my girls knowing what their parts are called, but for most usages, crotch or yoni is sufficient, and if we need to get more specific, we'll pull out the diagrams and get more specific.


I've always liked the term Yoni as well. Until DS got a friend NAMED Yoni. It took me a couple days to be able to shout "Go Yoni" or "Good job Yoni, nice goal" at their soccer games.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beanma*
> 
> I take exception with the 99% of Americans use the word vagina to mean the whole package thing. I'm 47 yrs old and have, to the best of my knowledge, never heard any woman (or man) I have known throughout my whole life use the word vagina to refer to anything but their vagina. I really don't think that 99% or maybe not even the majority of Americans use the word "vagina" to refer to women's visible genitalia. Maybe someone should start a poll. Maybe it's regional or generational. It really sounds to me like saying anus or rectum when you mean butt.


Definately start a poll! I have often heard people refer to all their girly bits as "vagina."


----------



## *bejeweled*

So you and all your friends sat around talking about penises and vulvas in your playgroup?

quote name="philomom" url="/community/t/1329989/keep-your-legs-closed/100#post_16666922"]

Baby expulsion canal would be demeaning for those women who have chosen to remain childless

I did tell my son "boys have penis and girls have a vulva"... so did all my friends in our playgroup when the kids were small.

[/quote]


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *April*autmaiajude**
> 
> I broke my knee when I was a kid. Oops, I mean my patellla.


Weeellllll.....referring to your knee as patella is similar to referring to your entire genital region as vagina. The patella is just one distinct part of the knee. The vagina is one distinct part of the female genitalia. Just sayin'.

I've already been through this argument more than once, which is how I got my DDDDC, so I won't belabor the point....but I do think that words matter.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> Weeellllll.....referring to your knee as patella is similar to referring to your entire genital region as vagina. The patella is just one distinct part of the knee. The vagina is one distinct part of the female genitalia. Just sayin'.
> 
> I've already been through this argument more than once, which is how I got my DDDDC, so I won't belabor the point....but I do think that words matter.


I guess my thing is that I think it is important to learn - and use - the correct words. Whta I don't like is the level of condescension towards women who don't do so. It seems as though a lot of people see using the term "vagina", instead of "vulva", as being roughly equal to not even attempting to use correct terminology and sticking with either avoiding talking about it at all, or only using ridiculous terms that accomplish the same thing (total avoidance).

I look back on people like my mom, who made a conscious decision to avoid passing on the stigma about female genitalia that she'd been raised with, and taught us the "correct" terms, and think about the level of scorn that would be heaped upon her here, and it makes me cringe. I think it shows clear thinking and strength to avoid passing on the kind of shame she was raised with, but because she was unaware of the word "vulva", she'd be treated as if she were the kind of person who says "purse" if she were on MDC. There are still people who think that women who ever mention that body part, in any way, are being crude and vulgar and simply unacceptable...and we're worrying about whether a woman uses a term that many people don't even know, or the one that (I suspect) a majority would think was correct??

Honestly, this whole thing seems like gettning bent over people saying "belly button", instead of "navel". I know they're not the same thing (as we have no body part called a "belly button", while we do have a vagina, so the "belly button" isn't part of the navel, the way the vagina is one part of the area being described with the word), but there are similarities. And, one of those similarities is that most people know what a woman means when she says "vagina", whereas a whole lot of people have never even heard of a vulva. I think someone mentioned upthread that even the "know your own body" type diagrams didn't use that word until fairly recently. So, how were women to know it, no matter how correct they were trying to be? Once a woman knows she has labia majora, labia minora, a clitoris, a vagina, a urethra, and maybe knows the clitoral hood has a separate name, why would she know that a name for the whole thing even existed? (Heck - I'm pretty sure I learned the word "labia" by sneaking my dad's copies of "Letters", and I know that's where I learned "clitoris". I'm 99.9% sure they weren't in our "here are your sex organs" pictures at school.)


----------



## journeymom

> Heck, I don't shave my pubic hair (a little trim once in a while but not down to the skin) and I've never had a problem with bathing suits.


I'm thinking your pubes don't spread partway down your thighs like mine do?


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> I look back on people like my mom, who made a conscious decision to avoid passing on the stigma about female genitalia that she'd been raised with, and taught us the "correct" terms, and think about the level of scorn that would be heaped upon her here, and it makes me cringe. I think it shows clear thinking and strength to avoid passing on the kind of shame she was raised with, but because she was unaware of the word "vulva", she'd be treated as if she were the kind of person who says "purse" if she were on MDC.
> 
> Honestly, this whole thing seems like gettning bent over people saying "belly button", instead of "navel".


I understand where you're coming from, but I guess my feeling is that using incorrect terms just perpetuates misinformation and ignorance on the subject. Sure, your mom should be commended for trying her best. She wasn't educated on the subject. Shouldn't those of us who ARE educated on the subject be commended for trying to educate others? No, I don't think it should be done in a condescending or scornful way. I've seen corrections made calmly and pleasantly before and the Vagina Defenders still get all ticked off.

Even saying "labia" to refer to the outer portion would be better than "vagina." Most people know the word labia.

A belly-button and a navel are the same thing, so I don't really get the comparison. That would be like saying booby instead of breast. Same thing, but one's a slang word. I feel like people are turning "vagina" into a slang word. So....if what we can see from the outside is called a vagina, what do we call the inside part? It's like calling your buttocks "rectum."


----------



## erigeron

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
> It's been 13 years, so hopefullly this has changed for the better


I had my daughter 3 months ago... change is slow in coming.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> I tend to label my vagina itself as my "birth canal"


That was another thing that always got me. In childbirth class when we discussed the "birth canal" I always wanted to be like "Don't you mean the VAGINA?" Descriptions of birth always seem to use "birth canal" like it's some separate place.

So I guess when I add all this up, I have learned from this thread that I would rather my vulva be referred to as a vagina than that my vagina be referred to as my "bottom" or "birth canal". Euphemisms used in a clinical/teaching context by people who SHOULD know better bug me more than attempts at using proper terminology. (If an individual prefers to think of her own parts that way, that's different.)


----------



## Venia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> well... that would mean that someone is drawing a conclusion about a vagina = a penis receptacle in the first place, wouldn't it? it could be a tampon receptacle, a finger or fist or whatever receptacle, too, or just a lovely tube of tissue that remains empty, ya know. vaginas, as you know, aren't just for penises to go into....


That is the scientist in me speaking, no apologies here. Straight 100% biologically/anatomically speaking, a vagina serves the purpose of sexual reproduction. No conclusions need to be drawn. Yes, it can be many other things, but the fundamental biological purpose is pretty straight foreword. You could say the same thing about an anus, but no one will argue that its primary role is to release stool. Some folks are not able to use theirs, but that does not change its intended purpose either.

As far as a secondary role as a birth canal, one must be impregnated first.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazurii*
> 
> You know, the pairing could just as easily be rendered as "vagina" and "vagina-filler".


That is exactly my point though. Why are we using a single term for either? So when its said that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina, there is an exact one-to-one sexual structural comparison. It makes absolutely no sense unless we are talking about the exact sexual anatomical structural opposite. Can you not see that its a 100% biological sexual comparison of paired structures?

As others have pointed out, its not an accurate anatomical comparison to external genitalia, nor a label that says that a women's genitalia are anything other than the 100% anatomical structural opposite to a man's penis. It does not take a staunch feminist to argue that a woman's genitalia should not be defined by a man's (as many of you have pointed out), So why choose to do it by calling the your entire complex genitalia a "vagina"?


----------



## Imakcerka

I'm going with Vulva, mostly because it seems most people don't use that term and I really want my girls to freak people out. Especially my mother who will pray for them afterwards.


----------



## tropicana

so i had this discussion with my daughter today. (she is 5. she was wearing a dress, and had gotten her shorts and underpants wet playing with water on the front porch. so had taken them off.)

me: you will have to put on some new undies and shorts before we leave the house.

her: i know.

me: obviously you can't show other people your vagina.

her: i know.

me: actually, did you know the vagina part is actually a part that's on the inside? the part you see on the outside is called the vulva, or the labia.

her: mom, can we just call it the vagina?

me: sure.

her: is the penis really a penis?

me: well, it also has all sorts of different parts, the actual penis is what's inside, the outside has a foreskin, the big part to the back is the scrotum.

her: can we just call it a penis.

me: sure.

good enough for me.


----------



## Imakcerka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tropicana*
> 
> so i had this discussion with my daughter today. (she is 5. she was wearing a dress, and had gotten her shorts and underpants wet playing with water on the front porch. so had taken them off.)
> 
> me: you will have to put on some new undies and shorts before we leave the house.
> 
> her: i know.
> 
> me: obviously you can't show other people your vagina.
> 
> her: i know.
> 
> me: actually, did you know the vagina part is actually a part that's on the inside? the part you see on the outside is called the vulva, or the labia.
> 
> her: mom, can we just call it the vagina?
> 
> me: sure.
> 
> her: is the penis really a penis?
> 
> me: well, it also has all sorts of different parts, the actual penis is what's inside, the outside has a foreskin, the big part to the back is the scrotum.
> 
> her: can we just call it a penis.
> 
> me: sure.
> 
> good enough for me.


HA! They don't want to be bothered by it all. Just give it a name and leave it be. I can't get my girls to use correct terms. They like to come up with all sorts of things for it. It's like giggle fest 2011 when they have a good one to share. And they love to embarrass poor DH. Like telling him about their parts. DD1 told DH her bootyhox was itchy... You should have seen his face. He told her to go take a shower that might help. She came out and told him she scrubbed it reeeeeeeal good and it felt so much better. I love that he gets red in the face when they say stuff like that, so do they!


----------



## rubidoux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tropicana*
> 
> so i had this discussion with my daughter today. (she is 5. she was wearing a dress, and had gotten her shorts and underpants wet playing with water on the front porch. so had taken them off.)
> 
> me: you will have to put on some new undies and shorts before we leave the house.
> 
> her: i know.
> 
> me: obviously you can't show other people your vagina.
> 
> her: i know.
> 
> me: actually, did you know the vagina part is actually a part that's on the inside? the part you see on the outside is called the vulva, or the labia.
> 
> her: mom, can we just call it the vagina?
> 
> me: sure.
> 
> her: is the penis really a penis?
> 
> me: well, it also has all sorts of different parts, the actual penis is what's inside, the outside has a foreskin, the big part to the back is the scrotum.
> 
> her: can we just call it a penis.
> 
> me: sure.
> 
> good enough for me.


Too funny! But are you going to really let her get away with that? It's not 100% correct.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> I understand where you're coming from, but I guess my feeling is that using incorrect terms just perpetuates misinformation and ignorance on the subject. Sure, your mom should be commended for trying her best. She wasn't educated on the subject. Shouldn't those of us who ARE educated on the subject be commended for trying to educate others? No, I don't think it should be done in a condescending or scornful way. I've seen corrections made calmly and pleasantly before and the Vagina Defenders still get all ticked off.
> 
> I've seen very few corrections on these boards that were made in a way that wasn't condescending. Many of them are out and out insulting, and strongly imply that the person being corrected has no business even having an opinion about that part of their anatomy if they don't use the correct terms. I, fortunately, picked up on the "vulva" terminology a long time ago. The way I've mostly seen it presented over the last few years would have probably made me dig in my heels, too.
> 
> And, no - I don't actually think it's really perpetuating the problem. IMO, the real problem isn't a lack of knowledge about the correct terms. The real problem is the underlying idea that those areas shouldn't be talked about at all. If a woman is comfortable talking about her vagina, and using that word, I think it's huge, huge, huge progress.
> 
> Even saying "labia" to refer to the outer portion would be better than "vagina." Most people know the word labia.
> 
> A belly-button and a navel are the same thing, so I don't really get the comparison. "Belly button" is a slang term, but it's one that pretty much everyone knows...just like "vagina" for vulva. That would be like saying booby instead of breast. Same thing, but one's a slang word. I feel like people are turning "vagina" into a slang word. So....if what we can see from the outside is called a vagina, what do we call the inside part? It's like calling your buttocks "rectum."
> 
> Yes. Technically, it's like calling your buttocks your "rectum". But, in general usage, "vagina" is used for both the vagina and the vulva. I don't even understand why you're asking what we call the inside part if we call the visible part the vagina. We call it the vagina. People have been doing this (using "vagina" for both) for decades, and it really hasn't caused a lot of problems for those of us who did it. In every single case I can ever remember, it's very, very clear from context which part the speaker is referring to. I certainly never had anyone express confusion. I know many women my age who do the same thing, and none of them has ever encountered confusion.
> 
> As I type, dd2 is saying "you poked me in the tummy" to her big brother. "Tummy" is short for "stomach", as I understand it, and I highly doubt that ds1 was poking anyone in the stomach...but it doesn't cause any confusion when she says that. And, I've never had any trouble figuring out what my kids are talking about when they say "I have a stomach-ache/tummy ache" (internal) vs. "so-and-so hit me in the stomach" (external). This is really, really, really not a big deal, in terms of creating any kind of confusion, because it doesn't.
> 
> Seriously, in 43 years of life in a English speaking area, the only people who have ever been confused about this are posters (usually condescending and snarky) on MDC. Literally every. other. person. I've ever met who has heard someone (in real life or on tv or whatever) use the term "vagina" has been very clear as to whether the area being discussed is the actual vagina, or the vulva.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erigeron*
> 
> That was another thing that always got me. In childbirth class when we discussed the "birth canal" I always wanted to be like "Don't you mean the VAGINA?" Descriptions of birth always seem to use "birth canal" like it's some separate place.
> 
> So I guess when I add all this up, I have learned from this thread that I would rather my vulva be referred to as a vagina than that my vagina be referred to as my "bottom" or "birth canal". Euphemisms used in a clinical/teaching context by people who SHOULD know better bug me more than attempts at using proper terminology. (If an individual prefers to think of her own parts that way, that's different.)


I'm honestly not even following you. I've never heard "birth canal" used as if it's "some separate place". It's a descriptive term for the body part the baby comes through (approx. 66% of the time). And, while I hate, hate, hate "bottom", and certainly respect your views, I can't see how "birth canal" is even remotely euphemistic. Really, in a clinical setting relating to birth, I think "birth canal" is much more appropriate than "vagina" (at least since I found out here that "vagina" comes from the Latin for "sheath" - where babies are concerned "birth canal" is a lot more accurate than "sheath", yk?).

In any case, it doesn't bother me at all to hear "birth canal", in lieu of "vagina". It's not a euphemism. It's just a less clinical term.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

We say "vulva" over here, but more because I dont like the orignial meaning of the word "vagina" than because it is correct. I really dislike telling my daughter that she has anything that was named the same thing as a "sheath for a sword". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina

For me it just goes right along with all the other insulting medical terms that make me feel awful to be female. Like a few of these words: http://books.google.com/books?id=ve2huw15GUsC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=%22incompetent+cervix%22+insults+women&source=bl&ots=pfyD9l6QnT&sig=Es-_u66rvFdHiKbusKnERas3eIs&hl=en&ei=_z17TvLAMciltwfW8MX6Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

why can I never get the links to be short.

At any rate, I see no reason to teach my child the incorrect, slightly offensive medical term for the all encompassing area of her private parts. When she is older, I will teach her that the vagina is inside of you, the same way I will teach her that her pupil is inside her eyeball. My grandmother always called the butt a "rectum" and I wont teach her that is the word for butt, because the rectum is _inside_ . To me, it just doesnt make sense.

ETA: Obviously, I didnt read the last page of posting before I posted this, and Storm Bride covered it.


----------



## erigeron

Well, okay, if "birth canal" and "vagina" mean THE SAME THING, and neither of them is a "slang" term ("birth canal" tends to be used in clinical or wannabe-clinical contexts, not slang contexts), what is the reasoning for even using the term "birth canal"? It seems like a redundant term that should not even need to exist. The only reason I can think of that it would be used is because people don't want to use the term "vagina" for some reason. And most reasons that people do not want to say "vagina" come down to the same OMG IT'S GROSS TO SAY THAT rhetoric that I dislike.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> The only reason I can think of that it would be used is because people don't want to use the term "vagina" for some reason. And most reasons that people do not want to say "vagina" come down to the same OMG IT'S GROSS TO SAY THAT rhetoric that I dislike.


ahhhhhh no, there really are those out there that don't know how the baby comes out! they "think" they are two different places


----------



## rachelsmama

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *erigeron*
> 
> Well, okay, if "birth canal" and "vagina" mean THE SAME THING, and neither of them is a "slang" term ("birth canal" tends to be used in clinical or wannabe-clinical contexts, not slang contexts), what is the reasoning for even using the term "birth canal"? It seems like a redundant term that should not even need to exist. The only reason I can think of that it would be used is because people don't want to use the term "vagina" for some reason. And most reasons that people do not want to say "vagina" come down to the same OMG IT'S GROSS TO SAY THAT rhetoric that I dislike.


I vote that we get rid of the term vagina then, and just use birth canal; after all, why use such a silly sounding word, which sounds like a euphemism (even if it isn't a euphemism in its current usage), if there's a perfectly good english word which is just as specific, and far more descriptive?

And wow, has this thread ever gotten off topic!

And here's a completely random bit of skirt related trivia: I was taught that the way to sit in a kilt is knees apart with the apron part of the kilt (and the sporan) draped between. I honestly find it much simpler to avoid unintentional gaps that way than with knees together anyway.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erigeron*
> 
> Well, okay, if "birth canal" and "vagina" mean THE SAME THING, and neither of them is a "slang" term ("birth canal" tends to be used in clinical or wannabe-clinical contexts, not slang contexts), what is the reasoning for even using the term "birth canal"? It seems like a redundant term that should not even need to exist. The only reason I can think of that it would be used is because people don't want to use the term "vagina" for some reason. And most reasons that people do not want to say "vagina" come down to the same OMG IT'S GROSS TO SAY THAT rhetoric that I dislike.


Why do so many people say "belly button". Do you think it's because they find "navel" offensive? I don't.

I actually don't care for the word "vagina" (I also have an irrational dislike of "penis", "spleen", "ulna" and other anatomical words, so don't jump to the preposterous conclusion that I dislike it because it's "gross to say".)

Personally, I like "birth canal", because I think it expresses the fundamental reason why we have one better than "vagina" does. I didn't care one way or the other, except for not really caring for the word "vagina" itself (probably part of why I switched to "vulva" so easily when I discovered the word), until I found out about the "vagina = sheath for a sword" thing. I don't get really hung up on that stuff, because I don't really think "vagina" does mean that, anymore - "vagina" simply means the internal part of a woman's genitals. But, I do think "birth canal" has a nicer connotation than "vagina" does. Plus, the one thing I really wanted out of life and didn't get was to use mine as a birth canal, so the term carries extra emotional weight for me.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rachelsmama*
> 
> And here's a completely random bit of skirt related trivia: I was taught that the way to sit in a kilt is knees apart with the apron part of the kilt (and the sporan) draped between. I honestly find it much simpler to avoid unintentional gaps that way than with knees together anyway.


Yes. That works. But, I've seen girls/women sit like that in skirts/dresses and then be chided for being "unladylike". There's definitely a really weird double standard on that one...although I guess chiding a 6' hairy man in a kilt for being "unladylike' would be inherently weird.


----------



## hippiemombian

I haven't read through all eight pages of replies yet, but here's my take. My girls love to wear skirts/dresses. I require them to wear either leggings or shorts underneath. It has nothing to do with being ashamed of their vaginas, but when they are running, jumping, playing etc they're underwear shows. As an adult I think it's tasteless to have your bra, thong, boxers etc to be hanging out of your clothes.. why would I teach my child that it is acceptable. Also, another HUGE reason for this is because people are perves and I don't want someone looking at my child and getting their kicks filled by seeing my daughters panites. Call me paranoid or crazy, but it does happen.


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erigeron*
> 
> In childbirth class when we discussed the "birth canal" I always wanted to be like "Don't you mean the VAGINA?" Descriptions of birth always seem to use "birth canal" like it's some separate place.


No, that's not quite correct. The vagina is just one of three parts that make up the whole which is commonly referred to as the birth canal. The birth canal refers to the cervix, vagina and vulva.

I suppose if you really wanted to get righteous you could be like, "Don't you mean the PARTURIENT CANAL?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/birth+canal


----------



## 2xy

Storm Bride, I honestly never heard anyone refer to the entire female genitalia as "vagina" until about five years ago, and I've lived all over the place and have known lots of different kinds of people due to the military, and used to work in family medicine and women's health, so I've talked and listened about lady parts a LOT.

Seriously, this is a NEW thing for me, and I find it to be weird and backwards. Just my opinion.


----------



## liliaceae

I grew up in Florida and everyone referred to it as the vagina. The only place I've ever heard anyone refer to it as a vulva is in books and on MDC. We do say vulva in our home though.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> Storm Bride, I honestly never heard anyone refer to the entire female genitalia as "vagina" until about five years ago, and I've lived all over the place and have known lots of different kinds of people due to the Navy, and used to work in family medicine and women's health, so I've talked and listened about lady parts a LOT.
> 
> Seriously, this is a NEW thing for me, and I find it to be weird and backwards. Just my opinion.


Fair enough. Another poster said the same thing. But, as I said, I'd never heard or seen the world "vulva" until I came to MDC. I haven't lived in a lot of places, but I've read a lot and talked to a lot of people, both in real life and online, from a wide variety of regions, cultures, socioecomonic classes, etc. Admittedly, I've heard stuff like "vajayjay" and "hooha" a lot more than even "vagina", but even those women, if backed into a corner and asked to avoid cutesy and/or trendy terms, used "vagina".


----------



## rubidoux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> No, that's not quite correct. The vagina is just one of three parts that make up the whole which is commonly referred to as the birth canal. The birth canal refers to the cervix, vagina and vulva.


Whoa!!!!!!! That, to me, sounds like the whole package! Apparently there is a word for it. Otoh, I think I'd feel weird about using "birth canal" to describe the anatomy of a 2 or 3 year old. I actually don't love the idea of using "birth canal" because it sounds so un-sexual somehow, like there's been an immaculate conception.

Btw, I keep thinking about the "Mulvah" episode on Seinfeld and wondering how many people didn't get it because they had no idea what a vulva was. And don't we have a "Mulvah" here? Awesome username!


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:
Originally Posted by *journeymom* 



> No, that's not quite correct. The vagina is just one of three parts that make up the whole which is commonly referred to as the birth canal. The birth canal refers to the cervix, vagina and vulva.


After reading this thread, I'm convinced that, dictionary definitions notwithstanding, most terms used to describe the female genitalia have no real meaning, in normal conversation, because people don't agree on a meaning. I've never heard of, or thought of, the birth canal including the vulva.


----------



## mkksmom

I know it's kind of random, but this conversation reminds me of my in-laws and how they think they are "real Italians" because they call spaghetti sauce "gravy." It's the same stuff no matter what you call it and a different name for something just makes you different. No one is better than anyone else. Your general attitude makes more of a difference in my opinion than your actual word choice. My girls know both and call all of their parts by a variety of names. I'm fine with that.

Anyhow, my dd wears shorts under her dresses and started doing so when she was 4 and went to Pre-K. I didn't want her to have to worry about how she was sitting or someone laughing if they could see her underwear. She saw it as freedom to move and sit however she wanted.


----------



## mkksmom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> Storm Bride, I honestly never heard anyone refer to the entire female genitalia as "vagina" until about five years ago, and I've lived all over the place and have known lots of different kinds of people due to the Navy, and used to work in family medicine and women's health, so I've talked and listened about lady parts a LOT.
> 
> Seriously, this is a NEW thing for me, and I find it to be weird and backwards. Just my opinion.


So I guess you never saw the movie Kindergarten Cop? LOL!


----------



## Imakcerka

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina


----------



## journeymom

Roubidoux/Jayne, that's a great distinction you make there. I'm thinking the term 'birth canal' has to be used in context of a woman who has a baby to push out. I can't see using it with a three year old either.


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina


Even thats not always true!


----------



## Imakcerka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even thats not always true!


Gee I know, a friend of mine just informed me he's married to a unich... Apparently due to Vulva cancer at 2. Very interesting. They literally cut it all off and took out her other female parts... just in case. Is this normal in Ireland? I've heard cancer is but it makes you wonder if it's a "small pox blanket" sort of deal.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkksmom*
> 
> So I guess you never saw the movie Kindergarten Cop? LOL!


Yeah, I've seen it. I never took it to mean that the vagina meant anything more than the vagina. Girls *do* have vaginas.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> No, that's not quite correct. The vagina is just one of three parts that make up the whole which is commonly referred to as the birth canal. The birth canal refers to the cervix, vagina and vulva.


The alimentary canal starts with your lips and ends with your anus. That doesn't mean your throat is the same thing as your colon. The birth canal begins at the cervix and ends at the vulva, and the tunnel in between is the vagina.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> Gee I know, a friend of mine just informed me he's married to a unich... Apparently due to Vulva cancer at 2. Very interesting. They literally cut it all off and took out her other female parts... just in case. Is this normal in Ireland? I've heard cancer is but it makes you wonder if it's a "small pox blanket" sort of deal.


Yes, vulva cancer is commonly treated by excision of the vulva, and not just in Ireland. It's a horrendous surgery and frail or elderly women often cannot survive it.

Are we calling women without ovaries "eunuchs" now? I've never heard the term used to refer to a woman.


----------



## Imakcerka

No, she can urinate and can have a bowel movement. Everything else is gone. As in closed off. This was done almost 40 years ago. They also removed all her reproductive organs. I just thought it was rather odd. And the stories about the rest of her siblings and their cancers at a young age. I think only one of them has had kids. Rather odd if you ask me. I've heard of families where cancer is big but not all the siblings and very spread out. Then again I haven't heard everything so... you know how that goes.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2xy*
> 
> Yes, vulva cancer is commonly treated by excision of the vulva, and not just in Ireland. It's a horrendous surgery and frail or elderly women often cannot survive it.
> 
> Are we calling women without ovaries "eunuchs" now? I've never heard the term used to refer to a woman.


----------



## 2xy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imakcerka*
> 
> No, she can urinate and can have a bowel movement. Everything else is gone. As in closed off.


I'm really not sure what you're responding to with this.


----------



## babygirlie

I think it's more etiquette. it just looks ugly to have your knees hanging out eating with your hands and chewing your cud with your mouth wide open. No reason we can't look and act nice. Doesn't have anything to do with sexuality imo


----------



## podsnap

I think girls are fussed at to look and act nice far more often than boys are fussed at to look and act nice.


----------



## meemee

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> I think it's more etiquette. it just looks ugly to have your knees hanging out eating with your hands and chewing your cud with your mouth wide open. No reason we can't look and act nice. Doesn't have anything to do with sexuality imo


we are talking culturally right?

i am not sure exactly what you are saying

but

eating with your hands

chewing your cud with your mouth wide open

is culturally acceptable in many places.

and i have no objection to either of those.

the very concept of ugliness and beauty are so culturally diverse.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> we are talking culturally right?
> 
> i am not sure exactly what you are saying
> 
> but
> 
> eating with your hands
> 
> chewing your cud with your mouth wide open
> 
> is culturally acceptable in many places.
> 
> and i have no objection to either of those.
> 
> the very concept of ugliness and beauty are so culturally diverse.


Agreed...except that I find the phrasing "chewing your cud" objectionable, all by itself.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Agreed...except that I find the phrasing "chewing your cud" objectionable, all by itself.


yup i agree.


----------



## lonegirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Agreed...except that I find the phrasing "chewing your cud" objectionable, all by itself.


LOL growing up on a farm....I have seen many cows "chewing the cud"....it is a great visualization for some people when they eat. Open mouthed, food smacking....icky. Yes we don't have multiple stomachs (yes I know that it is one stomach with multiple chambers-reticulum, the omasum, the rumen and the abomasum) and regurgitate....but still same visual effect.


----------



## meemee

i agree it is a v. 'apt' term but its still kinda derogatory.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lonegirl*
> 
> LOL growing up on a farm....I have seen many cows "chewing the cud"....it is a great visualization for some people when they eat. Open mouthed, food smacking....icky. Yes we don't have multiple stomachs (yes I know that it is one stomach with multiple chambers-reticulum, the omasum, the rumen and the abomasum) and regurgitate....but still same visual effect.


----------



## FarmerBeth

Wow! Has this thread really diverged! Nine pages!

My daughter wears what she likes and she sits how she likes. But she knows that in formal situations, slouching and sitting in a sloppy manner are not acceptable.

About the semantics debate here: Words vary according to culture, situation and the relationship of the people talking. That is perfectly normal. My 7 year old son told me last weak that "At school I have a wiener and at home I have a penis". I might not prefer "wiener", but he's learning a lesson in how peer to peer language differs from language used with adults. Also, my daughter has quite correctly told me that she told on a boy who pulled down a girls pants to look at her privates (quite appropriate in that it shows she understood how what the boy did was wrong) and has also told me that the skin of her vulva was sore. Different words for different situations.

Working in health care, I have heard lots of crazy slang terms for female genitalia, including "monkey" and "mustn't-touch-it". A lot of the time, I had to use whatever terms would be understood, sometimes by trial and error. And it's not just women that are lacking terminology. I've seen men completely baffled when asked about the rash "on their scrotum". Only "balls" would work. I kind of just had to go with the flow. Really, generic "vagina" and "penis" are still a step up. Now, when I taught prenatal classes, that was different, because people were there to be educated. The situation fits the term.

I've also seen attempts at anatomical and political correctness fail terribly. One mother I knew taught her boys that "Boys have a penis and girls have a urethra", because she said that little kids are asking about the differences between the parts the different genders pee out of. True point, but of course, boys have a urethra, too. Sometimes nitpicking leads to more error rather than less.


----------



## BroodyWoodsgal

Oh my word, ladies...I get busy for a few days and come back to all of this! I feel i've been a lousy thread host!! 

I think that the fact that my eldest child is only three makes this a different question than it is for some of you with older kids. I see a three year old playing, running and jumping with no care as to who is seeing her underwear...and it's cute. Maybe it will look less cute when she's a gangly 12 year old and I will feel compelled to explain to her that "society" says well-mannered children sit "politely" with their knees closed, etc. Or, maybe not....but I do think maybe I should reserve judgement until I've BTDT!

Also, I think that maybe some of you don't encounter this concept in the way I have....this phrase "keep your legs closed" - is used all around me, all the time. I do not hang around hideous, mean people, either. Maybe it's a cultural thing? Anyway, it really bothers me and I don't care for it, because it's directed at small children and the tone is very yucky (like a PP upthread said, it sounds very "don't be a tramp") and I don't feel it is appropriate and it IS shaming.

For the record:

My daughter is aware of the names of different parts of her private area. If she has a problem, like an itchy scratchy problem, or if she hurts herself....the proper names for where she is hurt are used because I believe that in a medical context it is important to be able to properly speak of your own parts.

But her preference seems to be to call the whole "kit and kaboodle" her Vagina....specifically, she calls it "My 'Gina" (That's pronounced "gyna")....and her tone, when she's talking about this special place of hers, is so loving and proud, that I really don't have the heart to turn all mean-mama and forbid that she calls her special parts what she wants. It's hers. I give her the proper terms and she says what she wants. Past the point where I make her aware of the proper terms...I really don't consider it my business.

Depending upon the occasion, who I'm talking to and what I'm trying to convey....I call my "lady parts" by any number of names:

- The Gates of Life (I actually first heard that here at MDC)

- Lady Parts

- Vagina/Vulva/Labia (proper terms)

- Nether Regions

- Her/She

I can't really think of any more at the moment...but there are many more! My Lady Place is wild, fun, serious, life giving and on and on....she can't just have one name or set of names...it's boring.

I am very passionately "pro-gina" ....and I pout at any ninny who would take herself so seriously, that she would frown at a mama such as myself, who is raising her daughter to be strong and confident about her whole body and who lets her call her vagina/vulva/labia whatever she chooses.

PhiloMom: I don't know what happened. I really like you and I used to think you liked me...I don't know why, I just got the sense that somehow we were "friendly" around here. But the last couple/few times you've replied to me directly, you've been rude and made it abundantly clear that you think I'm a raging idiot. Okay, whatever, but if you were planning to continue speaking to me like that, let me save you some time: Just don't. Don't do it anymore. I know you have a right to say whatever you'd like...and that's fine, but I really don't care for the tone you've been taking with me lately and I'd appreciate it if you would just keep it to yourself. Or to PM people privately to discuss how dumb I am, or whatever else you want to do. So long as I don't have to read the "you're an idiot" snark from you anymore, I don't care how big an idiot you think I am or who you tell all about it. I seriously resent your assertion that my using the term "vagina" here on this thread, to refer to the region in it's entirety, means that I am uneducated and cannot possibly be so "passionate" as I claim to be about girls and women feeling positively about their reproductive organs/rights.

But yeah, anyway....my daughter wears what she wants, play how she wants, refers to her "privates" however she chooses and doesn't get any kind of weird judgement from me.....and somehow, she is a wild, funny, sweet, extremely well mannered child who interacts beautifully with other people and is a constant pleasure to be around. So, I guess I'm not such an idiot after all.


----------



## *bejeweled*

[quote name="AverysMomma" url=
PhiloMom: I don't know what happened. I really like you and I used to think you liked me...I don't know why, I just got the sense that somehow we were "friendly" around here. But the last couple/few times you've replied to me directly, you've been rude and made it abundantly clear that you think I'm a raging idiot. Okay, whatever, but if you were planning to continue speaking to me like that, let me save you some time: Just don't. Don't do it anymore. I know you have a right to say whatever you'd like...and that's fine, but I really don't care for the tone you've been taking with me lately and I'd appreciate it if you would just keep it to yourself. Or to PM people privately to discuss how dumb I am, or whatever else you want to do. So long as I don't have to read the "you're an idiot" snark from you anymore, I don't care how big an idiot you think I am or who you tell all about it. I seriously resent your assertion that my using the term "vagina" here on this thread, to refer to the region in it's entirety, means that I am uneducated and cannot possibly be so "passionate" as I claim to be about girls and women feeling positively about their reproductive organs/rights.


----------



## babygirlie

Hmm I know that in Europ if your feet are on the chair at a Mcdonalds you would be kicked OUT and never let in. I wonder what country loves seeing peoples chewed food or underpants just sagging out? In Africa they wear very long skirts so even if your legs were open you wouldn't see anything and they are very polite when eating even if they have to share bowls etc.

chewing your cud is derogatory? Because it refers to cows? I don't think it's a cow thing but how a cow eats. It's not attractive.. very drooling and around around around. lol

I saw a guy blow a huge snot out of his nose as he was selling flowers by the roadside. Yeah I wouldn't buy water in the desert from that guy. I think you want people to percieve you as educated and I'm sorry but that does include ettiquette.


----------



## Lazurii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> Hmm I know that in Europ if your feet are on the chair at a Mcdonalds you would be kicked OUT and never let in. I wonder what country loves seeing peoples chewed food or underpants just sagging out? In Africa they wear very long skirts so even if your legs were open you wouldn't see anything and they are very polite when eating even if they have to share bowls etc.
> 
> chewing your cud is derogatory? Because it refers to cows? I don't think it's a cow thing but how a cow eats. It's not attractive.. very drooling and around around around. lol
> 
> I saw a guy blow a huge snot out of his nose as he was selling flowers by the roadside. Yeah I wouldn't buy water in the desert from that guy. I think you want people to percieve you as educated and I'm sorry but that does include ettiquette.


Yup, but I feel that it's bad etiquette to insist that a little girl keep her legs closed in a skirt or pants (because it happens in both instances) but not a little boy. And I have experience with boys in skirts, my son likes to wear them. No one tells him to keep his legs closed. It's bad etiquette because it sexualizes something that should not be sexualized.


----------



## podsnap

> Also, I think that maybe some of you don't encounter this concept in the way I have....this phrase "keep your legs closed" - is used all around me, all the time. I do not hang around hideous, mean people, either. Maybe it's a cultural thing? Anyway, it really bothers me and I don't care for it, because it's directed at small children and the tone is very yucky (like a PP upthread said, it sounds very "don't be a tramp") and I don't feel it is appropriate and it IS shaming.


I live in the city and take public transportation almost every day and frequently hear little girls, some as young as toddler age, being admonished to keep their legs together and having their dresses tugged down, sometimes just to hide a diaper.


----------



## BroodyWoodsgal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> Hmm I know that in Europ if your feet are on the chair at a Mcdonalds you would be kicked OUT and never let in. I wonder what country loves seeing peoples chewed food or underpants just sagging out? In Africa they wear very long skirts so even if your legs were open you wouldn't see anything and they are very polite when eating even if they have to share bowls etc.
> 
> chewing your cud is derogatory? Because it refers to cows? I don't think it's a cow thing but how a cow eats. It's not attractive.. very drooling and around around around. lol
> 
> I saw a guy blow a huge snot out of his nose as he was selling flowers by the roadside. Yeah I wouldn't buy water in the desert from that guy. I think you want people to percieve you as educated and I'm sorry but that does include ettiquette.


I agree completely with the piece about etiquette, which is why, I think, I initially started a thread on this topic. My love of etiquette and my love of my daughter being wild and free and completely unhindered by the laws of social correctness (at least at age three)...are conflicting. I don't believe in rudeness...but I don't know where, when it comes to etiquette, my lines are drawn in the sand. I think I prefer to be the parent I want to be...even when it sets off my Miss Manners red flags, as opposed to the constant corrector of my childrens behaviors.

I would also say, that somewhere between rudeness and social correctness lies the underbelly of society, patriarchy and all it's trappings, and the desire on the part of many women to try and let their kids be who they are, how they are, without impeding on their beautiful growth and "self-ness" with remarks and judgements about politeness and sitting the right way.

I am genuinely asking the questions I pose, I really wonder about how I'm going to feel as DD gets older. I don't want her to be seen as rude. I don't want to have children who are regarded as heathens. But I also don't want to burden my babies with the enormous load of caring what other people think, how society is judging them, from too early an age.

There is plenty of time in life, to sit around and wonder if you're "doing it right"...if other people think well of you....there is only one special time in life ly when you are so pure and untouched my negative ideas that you really believe that you're completely great, all the time, and that everyone in the world is smiling at you.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> Hmm I know that in Europ if your feet are on the chair at a Mcdonalds you would be kicked OUT and never let in. I wonder what country loves seeing peoples chewed food or underpants just sagging out? *In Africa they wear very long skirts so even if your legs were open you wouldn't see anything* and they are very polite when eating even if they have to share bowls etc.
> 
> My daughters wear underwear, so if they're sitting with their legs open (which they don't - but dd1 does play on monkeybars and such), you can't see anything, anyway. That's part of why we wear underwear, imo. I find the wear shorts/leggings over your undies argument bizarre. The whole thing is that underwear goes under your clothes, and that's why it's called underwear - but if a girl has shorts on over her undies, then her shorts are also underwear. It's just such arbitrary weirdness.
> 
> Polite when eating, "even" if they have to share bowls, etc. Sharing bowls can be part of being polite, which I think was part of the point the other poster was making. Manners vary and what's polite in one place isn't necessarily polite somewhere else. And, I don't really care if people chew with their mouths open (although I have taught my kids the "rules"). If it's really gross, I just don't look. And, sometimes, it's really hard not to do so (bad nasal congestion, etc.).
> 
> chewing your cud is derogatory? Because it refers to cows? I don't think it's a cow thing but how a cow eats. It's not attractive.. very drooling and around around around. lol
> 
> Yes. It's derogatory. Humans don't have cud, and don't chew cud, and referring to a person "chewing their cud" is pretty much implying that said person is a cow.
> 
> I saw a guy blow a huge snot out of his nose as he was selling flowers by the roadside. Yeah I wouldn't buy water in the desert from that guy. I think you want people to percieve you as educated and I'm sorry but that does include ettiquette.
> 
> Which etiquette? Etiquette isn't a universal rule book. It doesn't really matter, anyway. I can't even imagine caring if people perceive me as being educated or not. Why on earth would I care? (FWIW, I have a year of vocational community college, a correspondence diploma in graphic design and a few programming classes at a technical institute - all completed over a decade and a half ago - and no other post-secondary education at all. At various times in my life, I've been mistaken for a high school dropout and a degree holder. I don't care in the slightest, either way.)


And, none of this, imo, has any bearing on whether or not a young child, who happens to be female, should be required to wear shorts under her dress, in case she goes upside down on playground equipment. A child's underwear (or diaper or pull-up or whatever) is covering the genital area, and the only thing anyone is going to see under the dress that's covering part of her body is another piece of clothing that's also covering part of her body.


----------



## MoonlessNightx

I tell my daughter that she shouldn't be showing of her vagina to everyone because it's a very private and special part. I also tell her it's not ladylike to let everyone see her private parts. It's a cliched saying but still rings true.


----------



## beanma

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AverysMomma*
> 
> I am genuinely asking the questions I pose, I really wonder about how I'm going to feel as DD gets older. I don't want her to be seen as rude. I don't want to have children who are regarded as heathens. But I also don't want to burden my babies with the enormous load of caring what other people think, how society is judging them, from too early an age.


Caring what other people think is not all bad. It's one of those two sided coins. I'm guessing that almost all of us here on MDC hope for our children to be thoughtful and considerate of other people. Of course, we don't want them to be wrapped up in a keeping up with the Joneses mentality either. People can go too far both ways - becoming a doormat and letting individuals, society, and corporations tell them what to think/do/buy/wear and being sucked into the borg so to speak, but people can also be too self-absorbed and not care what anyone else thinks and couch that all in terms of being true to themselves and following their bliss, who-gives-a-crap-about-other-people. So while we don't want to go down the road of caring so much about what other people think that we don't let our kids be themselves, we also do want to help our kids learn where they fit in the world and part of that is things like saying "please" and "thank you" and, after a some indeterminate age, not showing your underwear to the world.

I doubt if any of us grown moms would run around in our skivvies, but nobody thinks twice about a toddler playing in nothing but a diaper in the hot summer. Sometime along the way we decide not to show our undies to everyone. It's different for everyone and every family, but I doubt you're going to find many 8 yr old girls who want other people to see their undies. I know my 10 yr old and almost 8 yr old would be mortified.

As far as caring what other people think and feeling like society is judging them, if your child is little (3?) I doubt that many people would really care. I certainly wouldn't, but in your town/area of the country YMMV. At some point, though, you may want to protect your child from embarrassment by encouraging a little more discretion, either by some bike shorts under her dress, or by reminding her to not show her undies, keep her legs closed, "be ladylike" (not my choice of words), etc. I think the bike shorts are easier! It's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where a girl (or boy) is playing on a playground and other kids might make fun of her (or him) if they can see her underwear. Now, I gotta tell you many kids go through a phase where they want to show their underwear or butt and think it's absolutely hilarious. (And really a little kid butt is pretty darn cute and funny, too.) When my dd2 was in K, there was a big thing about underwear! But at some point most kids (and adults) would be really embarrassed by other people seeing their unders. My dd2 is in second grade now, and would absolutely die of embarrassment if someone saw her underwear. She locks her door for privacy when she gets dressed at home! (Big sister, on the other hand, still leaves the bathroom door wide open when she's on the toilet).

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I think the larger issue here is helping kids be themselves while still getting along in society. I have always encouraged my kids to let their opinions and feelings be known, but I do often ask them to rephrase. Instead of "No, broccoli is gross! I hate that!" rephrase as "No thanks. I don't really like broccoli." I don't want to send them the message that they need to suck it up and do it anyway even if they don't like it (although occasionally they do need to hear that, too), but the main idea I try to impart is for them to get their message across in a way that does take other people's feelings into consideration, but doesn't squelch their own feelings. IMO, shorts under a dress are an easy way to do that, but at 3 I probably wouldn't worry about it too much. If other people are going to be offended by seeing a child's underwear or if the child is going to be embarrassed and made fun of, then I think shorts are a lot easier compromise and allow her to still get her feelings (of playful freedom) across (turning somersaults, playing on the jungle gym, etc) but in a way that takes others into consideration (so they're less likely to make fun of her, or it's less likely they might be embarrassed). I agree that I don't think wearing shorts under a dress is necessary at all, but because I want to save my girls a tricky situation later on I do sometimes suggest it, although at their current ages they usually think of it themselves or ask me if I think they need to wear shorts. In turn I ask them to think about what they'll be doing and if they think they will want them. Sometimes the answer is "no" (we're going out to eat and they're not likely to be upside down) and sometimes the answer is yes (they're going the playground or dance class and will be doing all sorts of things). This kind of situation comes up over and over and over again in parenting and in our lives as grown ups. We do need to think about others and be considerate of the way others feel, but not at the expense of our own feelings and being true to ourselves.


----------



## babygirlie

Actually I hate it when a guy has his legs so sprawled it takes up three seats.. one seat on each side. I find it rude and gross looking. If my son didn't know how to sit without holding his legs together and letting his hand rest on his penis I would also tell him to behave like a gentleman. He won't be taken seriously out in the world behaving like that like it or not. I actually still have vivid memories of a bf of my mothers doing that on that couch in his shorts and me being a child on the floor could see EVERYTHING (and I think he wanted me to personally). It's lude. And if my son wanted to wear a skirt yes.. I would tell him the same thing if we were in public.. just me and him I probably wouldn't care too much unless I k new the behavior would bleed out at a Christmas pageant or whatever. Good habits start early.


----------

