Thoughts on 'modesty' shorts please

I hate the name but at the same time nor do I want to flash my underwear ( or see anyone else's- male or female) so if I don't want to wear trousers/ leggings/ shorts for exercise I wear a skirt with built in shorts. Therefore while I think the term is awful, they're pretty practical.

Why the hell are they called modesty shorts and not just pants? It does imply that there's something to protect or keep hidden. I'm more used to hearing them called 'boy pants' as opposed to the thongs that are more prevalent these days.

But, ultimately, I think they're a good thing if they encourage robust play and activities.

Oh, and I wear them over underwear usually

I think a "no underwear on show" rule is good whatever the sex. So nothing wrong with shorts imo.

Next thing there'll be modesty-modesty shorts, to cover the modesty shorts, that cover the knickers, that cover the genitals.

Modesty shorts is a shite name, there's no denying that.
I agree with your sentiments regarding women covering up because it is presumed men can't control their behaviour.
However, we are teaching kids that what is under clothes is private to protect them. This will make some kids conscious that they don't want to show their underwear when playing.

I've never heard of them, I have boys. I've just googled them and you can get gingham ones too. What a good idea. I would have liked them when I was little. The name is crap though. Reminds me of religious fundamentalists.

Buy them.
I don't wear short skirts, ever, but if I did, I would replace my white, legless cotton undies with something that is a) black or dark blue and b) less likely to accidentally reveal my genitals, i.e. fits tight around the legs.

I agree that "modesty shorts" is a shit name.

I think a "no underwear on show" rule is good whatever the sex. So nothing wrong with shorts imo

There is no underwear on show in girls who wear skirts. They wear the skirts over their underwear.

When people go swimming, it is generally accepted that one layer of clothing over the genitals is enough if that layer safely and completely covers the genitals.

I don't see why other rules should apply to ordinary clothes. If you wear one pair of black shorts as underwear, and above that wear a skirt, is there really a need to wear another pair of black shorts to cover the first one?

Those "modesty shorts" (crap name) look a lot like gym knickers or the pants tennis players wear under skirts. I wouldn't have a problem with them but I'd want them to be worn instead of pants and be appropriate material to do so - if those particular ones don't work then maybe athletics shorts?

Personally the easiest thing would be if she would just ditch the frocks, but they are increasingly made to be prettier and more appealing in a normative feminine way - with bows and heart buttons and frills and sashes

Yes, let's ridicule and trash anything which isn't "unisex" or "gender neutral" or more accurately any article of clothing that a boy would wear without comment. Let's sneer at any women or girl who doesn't want to wear the approved unisex uniform.

The name is ridiculous - but are they any different from good, thick, substantial knickers?

I don't wear short skirts, ever, but if I did, I would replace my white, legless cotton undies with something that is a) black or dark blue and b) less likely to accidentally reveal my genitals, i.e. fits tight around the legs

Good point.

I agree with you completely OP but I bought some for 9yo dd (from peacocks - cheaper)

Actually they're cycling shorts. So I sidestepped that grim term!

It was her request, and I agree with PP nobody should be showing underwear in public. My dd is a keen gymnast but prefers dresses to trousers etc. It's just part of her daily uniform now.

We used to wear something similar when we began getting periods, to help avoid leaks. Didn't help our uniform was a light yellow colour. At secondary school our skirts were cut so that a gust of wind could flip them upside down. So wore them then too.

I was once doing a partner stretch at the gym which involved sitting legs wide facing your partner, and suddenly my partner looked horrified and said 'don't look down!!' I was like 'why????' She said 'because by labia just escaped from my shorts'

Some gym shorts are too short

The name, I take as just an indicator of purpose, to help you identify what you're buying - the same as a modesty panel. It doesn't mean you're obliged to be modest, just that they are intended as supplemental cover-ups, iyswim.

I don't really know much about girls underwear, but when I was primary age I had big substantial knickers. Maybe these days th manufacturers trend towards more flimsy ones, that have attendance to gape at the sides if you're doing a cartwheel? I think mine would now, if I could actually do one!

They're cycling shorts surely. I can't believe they're rebranding as modesty shorts.
Dd is a gymnast and spends half her playtimes upside down so has worn small black/navy shorts like these for the last 3 years she has been at school.
I don't want to see anyone's undies thanks, and I'd like children to also know underwear is private.

We used to wear something similar when we began getting periods, to help avoid leaks. Didn't help our uniform was a light yellow colour. At secondary school our skirts were cut so that a gust of wind could flip them upside down. So wore them then too.

British school uniforms are a human rights violation, really.

It requires a quite sadistic brand of misogyny to demand that girls be "modest" while forcing them to wear garments with which this is next to impossible.

(Also, I suspect a conspiracy of dirty, pervy old men who want young girls to be forced to show their legs)

And what kind of sadistic asshole makes teen girls wear light yellow uniforms?

I just can't get over how accepted this still is.