to be ? that a teacher told my dd (6yrs) to wear cycling shorts under her summer dress if she was going to be doing cartwheels?

[mulranno]

?

[StuntGirl]

I'm trying to imagine how a pair of knickers can be constructed so that while sitting it reveals to an onlooker a flash of vuvla - the only way I can imagine it is with crotchless panties and I'm assuming they don't make those for 6 year olds!

[StuntGirl]

*vulva. I do know how to spell really, I promise

[mizu]

I have two dds who are 7 and 8. Both are cartwheel crazy and both wear summer dresses to school some days.

Have never known any girls to wear shorts under school dresses and think that it would be ridiculous to do so. They both wear sensible pants that cover everything that should be covered.

[RubyGates]

Have you read this?
www.amazon.co.uk/The-Terrible-Underpants-Cooke-Kaz/dp/0140568824?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21

'Tis the best book about underpants in the entire history of the universe.

And I was delighted to find out there's a sequel!

[digerd]

I prefer the sound of vuvla . Think I'll call it that in future.

[ChubbyKitty]

I just asked DP for his opinion and he said he can see the reasoning wrt peados etc, but at the same time he wouldn't want to send his daughter with shorts under her dress if she were the only one with them because there's a fair chance she'd be teased for it. I can see what he means (we went to the same secondary and I know exactly the attitude he is talking about - first hand experience!). But he also said if they were all wearing them either by chance or school policy then he would definitely go with the shorts.

Different primaries so no idea what his was like but mine was quite like this sometimes. One extreme being that I was deemed weird because I only had normal bobbles and not a freaking scrunchie

[ravenAK]

My dd1 (7) has several pairs of knickers that are short, but relatively wide-legged -think boxers but shorter than boys' boxers - they gape on her because she has very skinny legs & bum.

So if she's sitting crosslegged in a skirt & these pants, yes, you'd probably get a flash of more than pants.

She is aware of this (because some of her classmates wear similar knicks & if she's sitting opposite them them she's the one getting the view up their knicker legs!) - so said last year: 'Can I have leggings to wear under my dress, like K? I don't want people seeing my minnie like I can see R's when she's sitting on the carpet.'

I said, why not just wear one of the many pairs of knickers she owns which are not cut like this, but she'd already made her mind up that she wanted leggings - mostly because she thinks her mate K looks cool in hers! We compromised on cotton shorts.

Meanwhile, ds doesn't wear boxers with shorts. Same reason - it's not because someone might see your pants. Pants are fine. It's genitals which probably shouldn't be on display in a school context.

[MeSoFunny]

This thread is so depressing.

[Pixel]

Even my mother who is in her 60s seemed to run around with very little on as a child as I have seen photos of her in her knickers and no top on, on the beach in public.

Sorry I'm a bit late catching up with this thread but had to comment on this. Did anyone see that documentary last year about the Royal family where they showed never-before-seen family photos and films? There was a cine film of Prince Charles and Princess Anne, not sure how old but not far off teens, larking about on a public beach just in their pants. Obviously it was seen as just normal fun, even for royalty, and no shock horror involved. Probably not really relevant to the thread but I thought it was interesting that they supposedly grew up in a more 'stuffy' environment yet had less inhibitions than some people today.

[CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs]

I used to wear cycle shorts under my summer dress so I could do backflips in the playground...

So I automatically got them for DD. when she started a new school in Y2, it was unusual there. It started a trend!

[Pixel]

Seems to me from comments here is that the main problem is people buying inappropriate pants for their children. Primary school girls should be wearing proper little girls' pants not scaled-down versions of teenage fashions, then there would be no 'gaping' and nothing to see.

And dd was adorable in her gingham dress. Leave gingham dresses alone .

[ravenAK]

Heh, I knew someone would say that Pixel!

To be fair, the 'gaping' boxer-style pants were hand-me-downs which simply passed under my radar - I have a mate who is an inveterate catalogue queen & regularly passes on bags of barely worn stuff. Frankly, it never even occurred to me that little girls' knickers came in different styles/cuts - they certainly didn't when I was wearing them in the 70s...

My preferred solution to the teeny bopper knickers would definitely have been to ruthlessly bin 'em as soon as dd1 mentioned the gaping issue. But by that point, dd1 had already noticed other girls wearing leggings/shorts & decided that was what she'd feel comfortable in.

It's a non-problem to me. Short cotton frock + cotton shorts = entirely appropriate clothing for school. No different from long t-shirt/tunic + shorts out of school.

Equally, cotton frock + sensible pants would be fine. Dd2 chooses this option.

I suppose I could have said to dd1: no, you absolutely may NOT have shorts under your dress. But I do think that would've made it an issue where to my mind there isn't one. I also feel unhappy about not allowing her to choose the clothes she feels comfortable wearing - if she doesn't want her knickers on show, well, they're her knickers.

If either of them preferred uniform shorts, like the boys, that would be no problem from my POV either - some girls at their school do wear these. Both girls prefer their gingham frocks!

[Pixel]

Yes, Miss Predictable, that's me .

[ravenAK]

Not so much that, as I read my own post & thought: Yeah. Why did I ever let her have those ghastly saggy gapey fluorescent-coloured Sponge Bob boxers in the first place? I never liked them....

[MERLYPUSS]

Does she change for PE in the classroom along witht he boys in her class. I am guessing they will see her knickers? Get her the shorts style knickers if there is such a big hoo har. Presumably they will not show through the lightweight summer dresses as most cylcling shorts I have seen are dark coloured.
I agree. It's making the poor kid body concious already.

[Rowgtfc72]

DD would love a pair of pants with princesses on that she can get both her arse cheeks in and all her front bits at the same time when she sits cross legged. Shes six, its not much to ask. If any one spots these illusive pants let me know.Were in 11-12 supermarket cheapies and she can only just get all her bum in. I did look at boxer type shorts but shes six and I want her in knickers.She does incidentally streak through the house,as i do on occasions,no hang ups here !

[Mumsyblouse]

Row- Sainsbury's pants have cute bears on and good coverage for a 6/7 year old! M&S are also substantial and either come in plain white or pretty colours.

Next pants are really skimpy and I don't get them anymore, I don't think anyone could see anything, it's more that they don't come up high enough to be comfortable on mine, they sit on the hips when little girls don't have hips!

[DangerousBeanz]

We need to return to navy blue school knickers, with a pocket. That'd solve the problem. They were practically shorts anyway, I feel we need to start a campaign lol

[Rowgtfc72]

Thanks Mumsyblouse. Got to go in M and S to look for huge bra so will have a look at pants.

[FreyaSnow]

DD has pants that are both from M&S and are boy style with fluorescent pictures of sponge bob on them. They fit her properly. I think it is more that different pants fit different kids, just like any other kind of clothing.

[ChubbyKitty]

Freya I have adult versions of them!

Very good coverage. Even for someone as chubby as me.

[mulranno]

OP here again - have since found out that it is NOT school policy to wear shorts under dresses at daughters school....and shorts for girls is not an option either. We are new to the school - joined mid year - so didn't have all the info on everything. I also asked my 6 year old if any of the other girls wore them - as it might just be the "done thing/fashion" at this school - she said no one did. Personally I don't mind if SHE wanted to wear shorts under her dress - but I am uncomfortable that the support teacher told her directly to wear shorts -- the support teacher is a female vicar - so maybe this might be where the "modesty" comes from. As I have said before - her pants a big and snug - so the issue wasn't one of seeing genitals - but one of seeing pants. I think that the support teacher should have come to me directly if it was an issue and not brought this to my 6 year old.

[Branleuse]

ffs theyre little kids. who cares if someone sees their pants.

weird

[HairyLittleCarrot]

bloody hell. This rather makes the point that DRESSES ARE STUPID. Why have a school uniform that is perfectly practical for boys (no danger of them flashing their pants) and entirely impractical for girls, requiring a whole debate over extra coverage or modest (boak) behaviour.
About time the girls and boys had the same uniform as standard.
Why is it always the girls to have to make extra accommodations?

[Boomba]

Shorts aren't an option for GIRLS?
are they a uniform option for boys???

If so, that is where I would be concentrating my fury

It won't be long before your dd herself doesn't want to flash her kecks. If dresses/skirts are the only option then she will end up spending less time upside down. Which is a disgrace

What kind of dark-ages school doesn't allow girls to wear trousers/shorts these days??