To think telling a child to "cover up" because of male teachers is ewwww?

I've been following this thread because this controversy interests me - to me, it's about different interpretations of what feminism is about.

To sum up my reaction (up to now!):

• Schools (and workplaces) require a certain type of clothing - appropriate, professional, business-like, whatever adjective you want to use.

• Male teachers, and men in general, should not be used as a reason for women to modify their clothing. It's unfair on them and suggests that they're all lustful beasts slavering at the mouth. I think revealing clothing (of the breasts, buttocks or midriff) has no place in schools but that's nothing to do with male teachers - it's to do with a more general consideration for other people and what you are forcing them to see/live with/avert their eyes from.

Usernamenotav · 30/05/2026 15:24
Children should be able to be naked without anyone batting an eye.

First, define 'children'.

The word 'children' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here!

I had my adult size and frame at 16

Toddlers on the beach, yes; but teenagers at school - really? That's bonkers.

Why is it ok for teenagers to be showing their privates/underwear, but a 40 year old man would be arrested? You shouldn't have one rule for some and another for others.

The girls in question are 16.
There has been a recent court case regarding 2 x 14 year olds who were raped. The judge praised the perpetrators for being brave and let them off.
Sadly, we live in 2026. I don't know what the victims were wearing. However, some boys and men will see scanty clothing as an invitation. We need to adapt to the changing culture of this country.
I believe the attackers were 14. The judge didn't want to ruin their lives by sending them to prison. Poor lads.

Don't be so silly. Teenagers?

Children should be able to be naked without anyone batting an eye.

It wasn’t legs that were the issue at all in the OP, it was cleavage. The discussion has moved on to short skirts too, but the original comments by the teacher were about a girl wearing a vest top.

It's not seeing the legs that are a problem, it's when clothing is so short that you can see their underwear/private parts (if the underwear isn't doing it's job well).

What I'm trying to understand is what is wrong with a child wearing a short skirt. What is wrong with seeing a child's legs? Why is everyone still sexualising them in 2026??

No they're allowed to wear skorts (skirt with shorts underneath) their issue was the length.

Would be bloody insane to say girls can't wear short skirts but also can't wear skirts with shorts built in- wouldn't it??

Can you cite a source showing that attire incites behaviour? Specifically sexual assault.

It's arguably not very professional though to show shoulders at work - or school.

And arguably the fashion for shoulderless tops, halternecks etc is because at least some people DO see them as sexy.

A skort? This was part of the sports uniform at my school (Gen Z), people often wore them with leggings but not always.

I don't see anything wrong with that as part of a sports uniform..

But I'm assuming this skort wasn't part of the uniform? It' fair enough for then to set rules against shorts/skorts/short skirts if they want to.

It clearly stems from misogyny and the sexualisation of girls.

Yes, the fashion for skimpy clothes does stem from exactly that.
Well done to the schools for not allowing it.

It was my niece and it was a skort.

They didn't say because of the male teachers (although they did in the OPs post)
They said it was 'too short'
Too short for what?? What is so bad about seeing a child's legs? It clearly stems from misogyny and the sexualisation of girls.

It does though, like it or not! Girls going out clubbing looking to hook up with a man don't go out in modest attire do they? They wear cropped tops, short skirts, show cleavage or whatever to attract the male gaze.

I quickly learnt, as a teen, that wearing shorts or a skirt while waiting for the bus would get me beeped at and catcalled at by men in passing cars. If I wore jeans I'd barely get any attention.

Male staff in school absolutely should not be an issue but I wouldn't be so sure about the boys and I definitely wouldn't be so sure about random pervs on the street outside.

Shoulders aren't sexy. I assume that they often say no vest tops as many of them have strings to hold them up which means that your bra straps are being shown and that part could be seen as sexy.

Stomachs on display is not appropriate in school for anyone. Clothes should be appropriate to a professional environment.

I just think some attitudes on here are dishonest. They disingenuously claim that youngsters who choose revealing clothing are not trying to be sexy. I'd like to see them make a plausible argument for this!!

They want us to believe that revealing part of your buttocks isn't meant to be sexy. If not, just what are they hoping to communicate?????

• This. Though I think some younger girls especially may be focusing on staying in with cliques and maybe in done ways revealing clothing has become so normalised via SM etc they're desensitised to it.

It is weird though when people claim showing buttocks (or even back or shoulders) isn't meant to be sexy. Why the faux naivetie? It's not smart or feminist...

honestly think most people now don’t understand the connotations of clothing. Jeans are also considered not smart traditionally. I know things have changed and everyone lives in cheap stretch clothing but school isn’t one of these places…

• yes, I personally think stricter dress codes would be better. It helps to psychologically prepare for work or school if there are differences in what you wear. The new laxness about clothes isn't ideal.

I agree with you in the sense that I find it hard to believe that some of the sights I see in and out of school on teenagers (girls far more than boys - and why might that be?) could ever incite desire - it seems to me to be coarse and try-hard.

So why is it a problem for schools and for lots of people? Because of its inappropriateness, I guess, as pps keep on saying here.

We're told that all behaviour is communication. I'm not sure I buy that 100% , but if that's even a little bit accurate, then clothing choices most certainly are communication - no news there. They have been, for the affluent, since the dawn of history.

Except when I go to dig the garden or do the tough housework my clothing certainly is communication. At my age I want to communicate style, discernment, taste, a bit of dash etc. At my age and situation (it's different for younger people) I do not want to communicate 'sexy'. even if I thought I could.

I just think some attitudes on here are dishonest. They disingenuously claim that youngsters who choose revealing clothing are not trying to be sexy. I'd like to see them make a plausible argument for this!!

They want us to believe that revealing part of your buttocks isn't meant to be sexy. If not, just what are they hoping to communicate?????

If they are intending to be sexy, then that has no place in school or at work.

Wearing things which reveal your arse to everyone at school isn't a feminist statement - it's just pandering to the male gaze and specifically to a porno culture which suits pervy men far more that is serves young women.

Some people like to blame male teachers for not being allowed to dress inappropriately at school rather than because it's inappropriate for school.

Now if they had simply said the attire is inappropriate for a school environment that’s fine. It’s the “male teachers are around” bit that is problematic