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]

?

Have you actually asked the teacher why they have suggested wearing the bike pants? We suggest it to parents at our school for several reasons:

1. There's a big variation in what some people consider underwear. When you've seen six year olds being sent to school in g-strings, then you understand.
2. It actually allows the girls to relax a bit more, regardless of their underwear as they aren't worrying about their underwear on show. They don't worry about rearranging skirts when sitting on the floor or moving about for activities. Yes, even young children are quite aware of this. We actually want them doing cartwheels!
3. There are girls that menstruate quite early. It gives them an additional degree of privacy and less worry about sanitary items being dislodged whilst being active while they are still trying to learn.
4. In the hot summer, girls do get burns on the back of their legs from things like going down the slides.

It has nothing to do with avoiding pedophiles or stopping boys from laughing (well perhaps point 1 slightly, but if everyone would send their girls in appropriate underwear then it would be negated).

Well here is yet another reason to think that school uniform is a really really bad idea. If my dd's teacher had told my dd at six that she had to wear shorts underneath her school dress I would have been very angry and told her that she had absolutely no right to say such a thing.

The OP's dd was not wearing a thong, but ordinary six year old pants, which are hardly 'immodest'. If she had been wearing a thong then fair enough for the teacher to have a quiet word with a parent (not the child). Allowing girls who wish to wear shorts or trousers is one thing, but forcing them to cover up because of a teacher's sensibilities is really outrageous.

The only time my dd has worn shorts under a skirt is when the skirt was very short and it was a part of the design of the outfit.

Also whoever said that in the US and Canada school have skorts as a part of their uniform, very very schools out here have uniforms at all because teachers trust children to wear appropriate enough clothes to get by just fine without excessive 'guidance'. Some girls wear very short skirts and some boys wear low slung trousers, and it really really doesn't matter.

Midnight isn't the appropriate suggestion in your circumstance to suggest that the girls wear shorts? Not dresses with shorts. Or are shorts only allowed for boys at your school?

We're not asking them to cover up for any teachers sensibilities, but for several other reasons that I outlined above. And I guarantee you that the type of parent who lets their six year old wear a g-string to school is also the type to respond to a polite request of wearing more appropriate underwear with "whatcha doin' lookin' ya perv". Easier to not have that discussion lol!

When I say "shorts" I am referring to what we call "bike shorts" in Australia. A fairly form fitting pair of short legged pants like these: shop.target.com.au/p/black-short-school-bike-pants/P50398898 in school colours. More liked boy legged underpants, rather than traditional looser fitting shorts.

I would LOVE our school to incorporate a casual short for the girls with our day uniform like the boys do. We've finally got it approved for them to wear them as part of the sports uniform (as opposed to the former netball skirt requirement. We're a church based school, so the powers that be are still quite traditional, but we'll get there eventually. Most of us teachers are firmly in the shorts/pants for all camp!

Burkas. Its the only way.

In the 70s we did PE in knickers and vests. We always had to wear huge, thick navy blue knickers at school. Maybe some "uniform" type knickers would be the answer.

I can't remember little boys flashing me their knickers (or boxers/briefs) on the playground. Ever. Why? Because they are covered up!

Since when does women's equality come in to play with little girls dressing inappropriately?? Women don't have to dress so modestly anymore, but little girls do. We wonder why our children grow up beyond their years? Get a grip people. Oh, and yes, paedophiles are everywhere. Reality check. Just look at the news. Everyday. You want to bait the lion with fresh meat? Sick thought, but we can't be so trusting.

My daughter, if she chooses to wear dresses or skirts, (remember, there is always the option of trousers you know that gender equal item of clothing?)will instead be wearing the pantalones/short/skirt/jumper things. Where it looks like a skirt but is really hidden shorts to make sure she is dressed appropriately, no matter how she plays. Problem solved.

If anyone is naive, I think it is the people who think you can deter paedophiles by changing the dress code for 6yos. Once all little girls wear shorts, I'd bet you anything there will be pervy photos of little girls' shorts on the internet. In Victorian days, people used to perv over the sight of an ankle. Paedophiles don't stop being paedophiles because the dress code changes.

Baiting the lion with fresh meat is a) an OTT phrase and b) an extremely distasteful one

this reminds me of when we went to a kids party and a little girl (aged 6) decided to go naked, she just stripped off!!!!

everyone was very uncomfortable and her mum said airily "oh she loves to be naked"

I was somewhat conflicted
(a) so what, she is only 6
(b) her mum should avoid making everyone feel uncomfortable tell her to put clothes on

I still dont know, its a weird one

Good luck with the 'pantalone' shopping then, Doe-eyed!

You think a paedophile is going to be watching little girls doing handstands, see that they're wearing shorts under their skirts and then shuffle off harmlessly? You think it's that simple?

Agree with fanjo - a very unpleasant metaphor re. lions.

It's not skimpy underwear it's more those looser shorts type pants that reveal more than they sgould.I guess it's just not a matter of the girls dignity, others should not either have to be exposed to glimpses of girls genitals.I don't think parents would be very happy if boys were flashing their genitals in front of girls

Frankly I think it's sad that this has been derailed by the "paedo-perv" stuff, when the issue is actually about practicality, comfort and dignity.

The real problem is those absurd gingham school dresses which girls are expected to wear. If we could ditch the dresses altogether and simply have a uniform of trousers and shorts for boys and girls there would be no problem.

My swedish friend goes naked very airily too, and she's a grown up!

Extra 'modesty' in 6 year olds. What a bunch of pearl clutchers.

This is the thin end of the wedge.

As longs as she is wearing knickers that cover her up then I wouldn't want to my DD to wear cycling shorts. Some of the knickers are pretty skimpy for young girls now and don't actually cover anything up.

I had various problems as a child to do with my kidneys and problems associated and it would have been unsuitable for me to have worn shorts over knickers (don't want to give too much information!). This is fairly common and not good for girls to be having lots of tight layers in that way.

ryanboy- girl's genitals? My 7 and 9 year old wear nice M&S cotton pants and are as active as the next child, wear skirts and dresses all summer (as pure cotton better for eczema, nylon trousers evil) you can not see their bits! Ever! The problems is in your mind- what are these looser pants of which you speak?

My girls wear cotton pants and cotton dresses as these are the healthiest for their skin and minimize any chance of infections (nylon encased bits on a hot day running around really does increase them as we have found out the hard way). The idea that it is better to preserve modesty than keep children healthy.

As for the fresh meat remark, that is actually disgusting and shows a complete inability to understand predatory paedophile behaviour about which a lot of studies have been done. Better not take them on the beach in their 'skimpy' swimwear, then eh?

Sorry- the idea that it is better to preserve modesty than to keep children's skin healthy is bizarre, I don't let them wear nylon trousers/nylon jumpers for the same reason, cotton all the way (and I don't care we are breaking the school dress code).

Some of the knickers are pretty skimpy for young girls now and don't actually cover anything up.

And I guess that is part of the reason that schools put in a rule about this as they can hardly say to a girl "your knickers are too small get some bigger ones or wear shorts" its much easier to ask for shorts all round if parents choose to send them in a dress

Parents can choose to buy decent underwear though. I don't buy my boys loose boxer shorts as its not very nice for people to see their 'bits' if they are wearing shorts with loose pants.

I can see it would be difficult for the school to stipulate the 'size' of a girls knickers but its a shame people don't use more common sense. Homestly, when my friends DD stays over some of her knickers are as skimpy as mine - very bizarre.

But shorts are not fully cotton!!!! You shouldn't encase your privates in tight part-nylon pants over shorts unless you want to have the kind of problems MrsMelons is talking about, ask any GP about how common these kinds of infections are in young girls. Tights with lots of nylon in are equally problematic.

But it's not about health, skirts do not require shorts as well to make them acceptable. Pants are not offensive, not to me at least.

And, by the time they start wearing skimpy knickers (say secondary) they are not cartwheeling anyway! I don't have to wear shorts under my skirts, why should my young pre-pubescent children 'in case anyone sees anything'? I have two girls at home all the time, the only time we see 'anything' except knickers is in the bath not routinely in playing/climbing trees/normal child activities.

If we could ditch the dresses altogether and simply have a uniform of trousers and shorts for boys and girls there would be no problem.

Or, "we" could just get a grip.

Sorry- the idea that it is better to preserve modesty than to keep children's skin healthy is bizarre

Cotton shorts aren't going to do anything to damage a childs skin. I found it very easy to buy my DD red cotton shorts for under her uniform, so I don't see why you are getting hung up on the 'nylon' issue.

I think young girls knickers (if you buy them cheap as I did) are generally very 'skimpy' - I found I was always buying them a couple of sizes up until I discovered the 'boy shorts' type that DD now prefers. I think the M&S ones are the best, but Peacocks do a good, cheaper version.

Quite a few of my friends DDs have had these sorts of infections even without having the additional medical issues I had. It is really upsetting for the girls (and mums) as is so so painful and uncomfortable and unfortunately if they are prone to it unless you are careful it will continue.

It is sad that these things are an issue these days, I feel sad we cannot video our DCs in the school play, take photos of them in public and let them just be children, TBH the list is endless - everything seems to be linked in with something sinister when 20 years ago it was just kids stuff.

LtEveDallas - you are meaning shorts instead of knickers that are actually made as underwear? that is different. I think the issue is children being asked to wear tight shorts over their knickers.

Tight fitting proper full knickers are as sufficient as shorts IMO.

I think some of you are being naive - as has already been pointed out on here, pictures of little girls at play, accidentally and innocently exposing their knicks, DO make it onto the internet and DO attract the wrong sort of comments. As do pictures of kids on the beach running about starkers.

There is a particular still from the first Harry Potter film that is popular on the internet because Emma Watson's pants are on show. How old was she then?