Pants under skirt for 4 year old - DH and I disagree

I’d be cross about this tbh. It’s paranoia and you’re right it will make them extremely self
conscious.

I agree with everyone that it’s way over the top from your husband!!! I wondered if he had been sexually abused or had some other link as to why this is a topic so much at the forefront of his mind…

I remember being a little girl in the 80s and being self conscious about my knickers showing when I was on the climbing frame. There was no idyllic utopia in the past when nobody noticed or cared about little girls having their knickers exposed.

I don't think paedophiles are around every corner, but I do think parents should be more mindful of how they dress little girls. I don't like to see little girls limited by their clothing. Dresses with knickers under mean they either flash their gussets when they are playing or have to be held back - why do we think that's ok for girls when boys get to wear robust, practical shorts and trousers? Little girls often have flimsy shoes that aren't suited for scrambling and climbing whereas boys get sturdy trainers. I don't think your DH is wrong for not wanting her knickers to be exposed when she's playing. I would say the same about a boy too but boys are never put in that situation because their clothes are far more suited to play 🤷🏼‍♀️

I don't think paedophiles are around every corner, but I do think parents should be more mindful of how they dress little girls. I don't like to see little girls limited by their clothing. Dresses with knickers under mean they either flash their gussets when they are playing or have to be held back - why do we think that's ok for girls when boys get to wear robust, practical shorts and trousers? Little girls often have flimsy shoes that aren't suited for scrambling and climbing whereas boys get sturdy trainers. I don't think your DH is wrong for not wanting her knickers to be exposed when she's playing. I would say the same about a boy too but boys are never put in that situation because their clothes are far more suited to play 🤷🏼‍♀️

I think the father is being protective and there is nothing wrong with that. Instead of asking a load of strangers why don't you ask him.
There are a load of odd people about so he is try to keep his baby safe. My Dad was a worrier too.

Considering most women have a 'me too' story I really don't get the attitude of some on this thread. Why wouldn't there be perverts on a boat? They can be/are everywhere. Just look at the number on the tube for instance.

I came here to say the same thing. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if my daughter was running around with a dress on and her underwear was on show.

Yeah, this. I'd put her in shorts under the dress.

Erm I put my girls in wee shorts if there wearing dresses and playing out in parks etc just feel more comfortable about it these days, but maybe that's because we had a recent family scare where someone took pics of my cousin's little girl in a playpark unknown to her and it was the police calling that enlightened is they were online and anyway long story but ever since I prefer shorts on mine

Of course there are pedophiles on ferries. Do you think they DBS check people as they are embarking? And if one happened to be on your ferry they would probably have noticed your DD.

But assuming your 4 year old had a parent with her at all times there was no risk to her, shorts or no shorts.

Pedophiles are also allowed to go to beaches where children run around completely starkers FYI.

It's up to you as a parent to tread the line between keeping them safe and allowing them the freedom to be a kid.

My 3 year old wears shorts on under her dresses. My reason is because it's more comfortable for her and it means she can play freely without showing her pants. I teach all my kids (sons and daughter) that pants are private we dont show them ect.

A lot of people are saying paedophiles aren't everywhere whilst I agree but you also dont know where paedophiles are. From as young as I can remember, I remember being sexualised by strangers/ neighbours/ family friends so I guess I am more protective of my kids and this is always in the back of my mind particularly with my daughter/ but also my sons.

If what he said bothered you I would have a healthy conversation in your differences in opinions their might be a reason he is more "protective" than you.

I’m not paranoid about paedophiles but for modesty my daughter either wears a skort or a dress with cotton cycling shorts underneath, she does a lot of gymnastics at playtime and doesn’t want to be flashing her pants to classmates, we’ve been doing that since reception

Yes. I'm wary of threads like this.

It could be a genuine one, but after 18 years on MN, I'm aware that there are threads posted with the sole intent of discussing young children in this way.

Being happy for young girls to have to display their bodies in a way that young boys are not obliged to, does not = "instilling body confidence".

It means teaching girls that their bodies are for display and "fashion", whereas boys' clothes are expected to be sensible and practical.

I don't find them uncomfortable at all, the opposite in fact. The same way boxers are more comfortable than pants.

Tbh I always make dc do the same but more for modesty rather than paedophiles!

His theory doesn't make that much sense as a pedophile couldn't care less.

He's a nut job. His paranoia will do her more harm than creepy men looking at her. Because one of those things she will notice more than the other.
And actually his behaviour is more likely to make her notice men looking at her and be self conscious about that when she is far too young to be thinking about any of that, let alone taking on responsibility for that.
I don't make my girls wear shirts under anything because I want them to have body confidence and not feel like they have any type of responsibility about what random men think or feel about their bodies.
I never understand these people who say there are paedophile every where.
Maybe there are. I experienced CSA on a crowded train in broad daylight whilst dressed in baggy jeans and a sweatshirt.
Paedophile don't magically vanish because there's 2cm more material on your child.
End of the day the only thing you can do is raise your girls to be strong women. Teach them about consent and boundaries and the correct names and terms for their bodies. Teach them about sexual exploitation and grooming.
But at no point make them feel that they or their bodies are ever in any way responsible for the behaviour of men.

Tell us about how popular the Dark Web was back in those idyllic, innocent days when you were in primary school. You know, that place where countless men share their sneaky images of little children for others to collect and wank over?

Girls knickers must have got smaller because when I was a kid in the 70’s I’m sure that nothing could be seen, and we played in parks hanging upside down on climbing frames with our dresses over our heads

I would find wearing shorts under dresses in summer extremely uncomfortable, and my thighs rubbing together is no issue whatsoever.

Surely just make sure their knickers are substantial enough to cover everything.

But I'm from the generation who wore short skirts to school with tiny knickers underneath, and no-one thought twice about it.

Then I suspect you have a sensitivity and are bringing a meaning to this that isn't needed. You've said before that you don't want your daughter to 'feel she has to change her behaviour at such a young age' (or words to the effect, apologies for the paraphrase) but really it doesn't have to mean that unless you make it about that.

It's just about being able to comfortably move and use her body however she likes without showing her underwear - which would be odd and unacceptable for every demographic except little girls it seems.

Hard agree on the girls pants. Dd has always worn boy-shorts (admittedly because she is large of bottom) but anything else was simply not worth putting on. So many pants have stitching in the middle of the crotch too which makes it uncomfortable so girls have to keep moving the gusset about. I also hate seeing the high leg 4-5yo pants with "Delicious" or whatever written on them, it's horrible and I can't understand anyone thinking girls need that on their pants as children. There's either poor thinking behind manufacturing going on with girls pants or parents are buying it...god knows why!

Yes, it's extra. The shorts are enough, apparently: They fix the skirt "problem".

That's ludicrous. I think girls' underwear is awful, tiny, and as I said on a recent post about this subject, I'm sick of seeing little girls' vulvas because knicker gussets are so small. But if schools are getting involved then that's admitting their uniform isn't fit for purpose and is sex discriminatory. At which point the girls should be wearing trousers and shorts so they're not held back developmentally by their clothing - physically and mentally. What sort of a message is it when the school is telling girls they're not doing enough to cover themselves wearing their uniform?

but if we’re now telling little girls that they need to do extra it’s very unfair

But is it extra, compared with boys, who have long been expected to wear shorts or long trousers over their underpants?