Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think the world has gone mad?

237 replies

macdoodle · 10/04/2011 18:33

or AIBU??
We live in a quiet residential cul de sac. lots of children. DD1 (9) and her friends are going round offering to wash cars. DD2 (3) is with them.
They have just come in saying a neighbour (one I don't know) has told them to come in and put some knickers/trousers on DD2 Shock
She was wearing a long Tshirt and wellies Grin, she had been playing in the garden with no pants on. I thought nothing of it TBH, she is 3 FGS.
Surely its his own filthy mind he should be worried about rather than my 3yr old??
I don't know AIBU?? I've put some trousers on her now.

OP posts:
violethill · 10/04/2011 18:45

I think we must assume it can't have been very difficult to see she had no knickers on, as he clearly noticed quite quickly.

I am with the vast majority of posters here, who say YABU. Fine in your own home and garden, but not wandering around the streets.

I am also a little Hmm at the reference to his "dirty mind". Are you suggesting all of us who think it's inappropriate have "dirty minds"? Hasn't crossed your mind that it's just a case of finding it unecessary and not very pleasant for other people who don't particularly want to see a child's genitalia as they bend over.

beesimo · 10/04/2011 18:45

giddypickle

I think you have confused me with another I am firmly in the pants ON camp!

Original poster
macdoodle · 10/04/2011 18:46

she's not 3 and touting for work Hmm Dear me...the older girls are playing at washing cars, she's tagging along.

OP posts:
goodbyemrschips · 10/04/2011 18:46

My question is why do you think it is acceptable for her to be out with no pants on?

And if you drove by and saw a random girl aged 3 running around a street with no pants on what would you honestly think?

TheVisitor · 10/04/2011 18:47

He would consider himself at risk of being accused of looking/touching etc by your child being pretty much naked with no adult there. It's self preservation on his part, and I don't blame him. People are far to quick to cry "paedo" these days.

Easterfeaster · 10/04/2011 18:47

In your back garden it would be ok.

OP what age would you have stopped Dd1 from going out with no Knicks on?

AgentZigzag · 10/04/2011 18:47

Your cul de sac is as private as MN, ie it isn't.

I think it says more about how you think about him thinking about your DD tbh.

He's just remarking your DD needs to get off home and get some clothes on, it's you putting a 'he's got a filthy mind' spin on it rather than anything he said.

Original poster
macdoodle · 10/04/2011 18:48

I wouldn't particularly notice a childs genitalia TBH. It was quite difficult to see she had no knicks on because I didnt even notice when they went out.
I stood at the door and watched them do my car and next doors, and still didn't notice, so I have no idea how he did. IMO that says more about him than me and her.
But I am prepared to accept it is unreasonable, sadly.

OP posts:
Becaroooo · 10/04/2011 18:48

I let my dc go pant-less in the summer in our own garden all the time and will continue to do so.

I wouldnt let them go out of the garden without pants on, however, even if it was just next door.

YAB a bit U

ilovesooty · 10/04/2011 18:50

You weren't aware your child had no knickers on when she went out?

whitevanwoman · 10/04/2011 18:50

you are unreasonable OP, children without adults shouldnt be in the street with no clothing on their bottom half

Original poster
macdoodle · 10/04/2011 18:52

ok, so society says no I see :(
I think thats sad, it would be an issue for me I guess when she wasn't comfortable with no knicks. We are not a very prudish house, and will often walk around upstairs ie bedroom and bathroom, naked. But it is just me and the girls, so maybe they are comfortable in their own skin.
I can see maybe it is more about him protecting himself, which either makes me very sad that we are so scared of being accused of being paedophiles, or he is covering himself which is a whole other discussion.

OP posts:
amberleaf · 10/04/2011 18:52

I stood at the door and watched them do my car and next doors, and still didn't notice, so I have no idea how he did. IMO that says more about him than me and her.

Do you really think its fair to slur him like that?

hairylights · 10/04/2011 18:53

Yabu.

GiddyPickle · 10/04/2011 18:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
macdoodle · 10/04/2011 18:53

ummm sooty, no not really, you couldnt really see TBH.

OP posts:
Original poster
macdoodle · 10/04/2011 18:54

Giddy I accept that and will be more vigilant in future.

OP posts:
violethill · 10/04/2011 18:54

You wouldn't particularly notice a child's genitalia?

So are you implying that this man had deliberately tried to look?

I'm a little lost here.

I am assuming your dd was bending over (and young children are very flexible, and can bend over and display A LOT - I remember my own toddlers, when getting dressed, or inspecting the contents of the potty). Why do you think other people might want to see that?

MrsPresley · 10/04/2011 18:54

He could have noticed a number of ways, maybe your DD lifted her tshirt to scratch her tummy, maybe she bent over, she might have sat on the grass and we all know wee girls are not always "ladylike" when sitting.

The fact is he noticed, and quite rightly asked your older DD to take her home and get underwear.

You seem determined to make out the man is at fault here Sad

AgentZigzag · 10/04/2011 18:54

You're doing it again OP.

Implying there's something filthy about him because he noticed your DD had no kegs on.

He noticed because she didn't have any on.

The fact you didn't as she went out is neither here nor there, because he did see, so it must have been obvious.

It's almost like you're suggesting that to see she didn't have any on he must have pulled her shirt up or something.

violethill · 10/04/2011 18:55

BTW my children were comfortable in their own skin too - they didn;t need to wander around the streets naked to prove it

Original poster
macdoodle · 10/04/2011 18:55

No I'm not at all. I accept IABU. she is now dressed and I will take better notice in future.
I still think its sad, my opinion thats all. As unreasonable as it may be.

OP posts:
gorionine · 10/04/2011 18:56

I think he was right too. TBH I would think nothing of a toddler without pants in a swimming pool or on the beach but somehow I see it dfferently when touring the neighbourhood.

Shoesytwoesy · 10/04/2011 18:56

macdoodle sorry I read that she was 3 and going around washing cars

JaneS · 10/04/2011 18:56

I think you're making far too much of what the neighbour said.

I don't have kids, so am not hugely au fait with what to expect at different ages. If you don't have children, you don't necessarily know what's right for them. If I saw a child wandering around with her big sister, not wearing anything on her bottom half, I'd probably assume she was out like that without her mum's permission. It doubt paedophilia would occur to me. It'd just be an obvious reaction: this child isn't wearing half her clothes, she's wandering around our driveway with her sister, clearly she needs taking home.

I'm sorry to find that that's the wrong reaction for some people, but honestly I bet loads of people would react just the same, and not think the issue was a complicated one at all.

Swipe left for the next trending thread