Would you feel better about the word “bralettes” if it had some other term like “Camisole” or “Lacey Tank Top”? Bralette is a just a term! The point of it is to cover body parts AND to be visible. Ostensibly created because the world could not handle seeing a “gasp” bra strap. But you know it is ok, to see a man’s t-shirt peeking through the neckline of an opened button of a dress shirt or a visible belt which is really just an object to hold thing up, somewhat similar to the purpose of a bra strap!..bras and corsets where created to conform the body to a certain silhouette, nothing more!
A lot of the mom jean shorts are high waisted but still VERY short.
Personally, I really don’t like mom jeans or mom shorts. IMO, there are very, very few people that they flatter.
And to me, that’s the difference. I think it is fine to talk about what is attractive or flattering without making a character judgment that questions one’s morals. I also dislike the whole cold shoulder look that is trendy right now but I just think it is unattractive, I’m not making value judgments about it. :-??
@labegg agree about the terminology for bralettes. I could not come up with a good descriptor. @doschicos agree that mom shorts can still be short. I love them. I really disliked the lowrise shorts and jeans (and I don’t mean for me;) My oldest is tiny. She is often in junior clothes because a 00 is too big. That almost always means the shorts or skirt is shorter than it would be.
My son has been taught to treat women with respect regardless of their wardrobe choices.
It seems like most of the responses in this thread are from women, which is interesting. As a man, my first (totally sarcastic) response to the topic was “please post pictures.” Just kidding, but there’s a point underneath that. In general, men are more visually stimulated than women are (I realize that not everyone is the same, I am speaking of averages here). And I think that our current Western culture actually amps up that tendency in men. That doesn’t mean that a man can’t be accepted to control himself (actions), or redirect his thoughts/eyes, but the initial reaction will be there, and will influence subsequent thoughts and actions.
You know your daughter, her values, and how she wants to be perceived by friends and strangers. This may be exactly what she is aiming for! If you think that a tendency to sexualize her is not in line with the way that she intends to be perceived, then it would be a considerate thing to make sure that she is aware of the potential impact of her clothing. how to do that effectively is up to you – it may be a great mother/daughter conversation for some, but not for others. For some, it may be best to have a trusted male (father, brother, good platonic friend?) explain how similar clothing affects his thoughts and attitudes toward other young women, so that she is aware that it not judgment of her, but a reflection on just the way things work. Or it may be that there is no safe way/person to approach it, and the rest of the relationship is more important than making this point.
All of the arguments about bikinis at the beach, what Europeans do (by the way, European men are in general even more prone to sexualize women than American men, so that is probably not the right place to start an argument), what mom’s wore when they were teens in the 70s, etc. are missing the point. Those are theoretical and argumentative. As a man, what I am here to tell you is that it is normative for a man to notice clothing that shows a good deal of an attractive, young, female body; that this may be the first thing they notice and it will impact their initial thought patterns; and that it will take extra work on the man’s part to remove these attitudes and thoughts from subsequent interactions with that girl.
Hate me for delivering an unpopular message, but take it for what it is worth in deciding whether/how to speak to your daughters.
I do not want to be sarcastic, either, and appreciate the point you are attempting to make. However, this is the reasoning used to justify men insisting women wear a burkha. Then we get back to talking about cultural norms. I am fine with women choosing to dress modestly and do so myself. But I do not do it because it keeps men from being aroused. In the end, I consider that to be a losing battle and not a woman’s responsibility.
I already did that sweatsuit thread. Thanks ucbalumnus for the link and memories! 
Might be a reasonable conversation to have with a middle school girl but in this case the young woman is 20. She would have to be a very sheltered 20 year old to still be unaware of anything her father, brother, or mother could impart in that area, IMO. The OP, the mom, stated her comments have not been well-received. I think age here is very pertinent to the approach - or the option to just back off.
“by the way, European men are in general even more prone to sexualize women than American men, so that is probably not the right place to start an argument”
I’d argue it can vary by country quite a bit. For a good chunk of Europe, I strongly disagree with you, although I could see cultures/countries where that might be the case, but I’ll avoid sidetracking to that discussion further here.
I’m a dad, too, but I won’t be staring at your daughters no matter what they wear because it would be creepy. Excuses otherwise are just that. Last year while moving my D to campus, the only girl’s outfit I remember was the one with long shorts and a modest top because she was the only one.
I consider it my main job to give my kids advice about weather-appropriate clothing, nothing else, except take the occasional picture when they have gone through some effort.
As a teen at a European language program, I loved how the Swedish gals in the program wore open weave knit tops (see thru) with a colorful bra under. At my age, that was a long time ago.
Of course hip huggers can be risque. Think plumber’s butt.
Don’t some here realize what a young girl wears is less worrisome than what she chooses to do with guys, in private? You don’t manage or influence any of that by saying, my dollar, my choice what you buy.
It depends on the relationship you have with your daughter and clothing. If she is sensitive about any comments regarding her appearance, then probably a comment on the scantiness of the cladding is not going to help the relationship. If you and she share clothes and discuss fashion and point out to each other what works and what doesn’t on other people (OK, I know you don’t do that, but some people do that) then a light comment about the brevity of the outfit might help her put her look in perspective - if she knows your views in general, she can calibrate your reaction to her look.
For a 16 year old, M&D have some veto power.
For a 26 year old, smile and nod.
But for a 20 year old, well, it depends.
I abhor the hyper-sexualization of young girls, and I think the retail push to expose more and more flesh of preteens and young teens and older teens/20 somethings is part of that. Girls aren’t doing this because they thought of it themselves. Girls are doing this because it has been sold to them.
A lot of the clothing in question is also cheaply made and disposable. That is also something that has been sold to them, and it benefits clothing manufacturers who aim to take maximum advantage of cheap labor.
Why require clothes at all?
So my naked butt would not pick up HPV off the bus seat where someone else’s naked butt deposited their bodily fluids. 
Lol…bring a towel. Seriously, though, if scantily clad is fine, then why not be allowed to go naked, or at least (female) topless? Why is it ok to have 99% of a breast exposed (side, top, under), but not that nipple! Oh my, a nipple!
I think it helps when you realize what is on trend for young people. One summer, when I saw many young girls around town in short shorts, I didn’t feel so shocked when my daughter was wearing a pair and showing some butt cheek.
I think it took watching Mad Men to be reminded just how short mini-skirts and mini-dresses were in late 60s. I don’t remember thinking anything was “wrong” with those short hems then. It was simply what was in fashion at the time.
In our house, we focused on what’s appropriate dress for work, school functions, etc. Both of our girls worked in restaurants as hostesses in a conservative town and part of ongoing job training was discussions from management on how to dress the part.
I’ll spare you all my feminist ranting on policing and judging women’s appearances and clothing choices. 
<<< we focused on what’s appropriate dress for work, school functions <<<
Any why are there such things as: what’s appropriate for work? School functions? Why? Why not be able to wear a bikini/crop top/sports bra and bootie shorts to school or work if you want? Especially if you have the young skin to show off (or even not!)
Because you’d get arrested for public indecency. I’m not following your logic here.
Because there are customers like many posters on this thread who will judge them and employers don’t want that.
But then you have stupid places like Hooters and Tilted Kilt who make a business out of sexualizing their employees.
Why are such things “public indecency”? Why? Maybe those laws are antiquated. If at a govt job or govt school, why not be able to wear (or not wear) anything the heck you want…see thru, skimpy, cut to the navel, backless, frontless, whatever.
As a side note, I am always struck by the irony of people making choices about their external appearance that are clearly designed to draw the eye, then complaining when people look at their tattoos, piercings, exposed bottom, cleavage, dramatic makeup, dragging pants displaying their underpants, extravagant jewelry, etc.
BTW, there was a young woman at my HS who would wear very see-through blouses with no underwear at all. Every detail of her torso was clearly visible. It was jaw-dropping and embarrassing for everyone, frankly, and everyone had to make an effort not to look in her direction in classes. There are those on this thread who would apparently say that anyone who found this distracting had a problem.