to think that 'modesty shorts' are going to lead to trouble

[RainbowsStars]

A hypothetical young woman isn't wearing any under a shortish skirt. She goes out and is sexually assaulted. The defense know this. She is then considered to have 'asked for it' just as women used to be (I hope it is used to be) because she chose to be 'provocative' by not wearing the modesty shorts that have become a standard item for females wearing dresses and skirts.

I have a son so I was quite surprised when I heard of modesty shorts. apart from in school I can't see much of a reason for girls to wear them really.

SEmyarse is your school in the UK? I am amazed at that. What a terrible message to give to young girls.

That they should comet up their bodies wow just wow.

special exactly so.

I used to wear cycling shorts under short dresses when I was a teenager, but it was a 'thing' rather than a rape defence.

They sound ridiculous. Aside from the fact that they are a nonsense idea perpetuating female blaming for sexual assault, and a fear culture around leaving the house; they're also going to do the whole of nothing to prevent someone who actually wants to commit sexual assault.

Yes, I'm in the south of england. And tbh it seems such a common thing round here that I just assumed it was the thing to do now, although I do roll my eyes every time it comes up.

A lot of the girls (age 5/6) just wear the big baggy PE shorts under their dresses and it makes the uniform look ridiculous.

Yeuk and the dreaded thrush.

Any school telling the girls to cover up like this just incase they flash their pants doing handstands needs to be put into special measures I think. Fucking ridiculous sexist nonsense. And a terrible message to both the boys and the girls.

In the midlands here and never seen/heard if it.

If girls choose it then that's fine of course but as a school policy I can't see how they can enforce this. Is it a private school?

And dd2 is now fussing because she has to wear a particular red dress for the school concert. She's only standing there singing but she's fussing that 'she might show her knickers', and keeps trying to sneak a pair of lime green shorts into her bag to wear underneath, which are much more likely to be visible.

I'm pretty fed up with it tbh, but she's totally bought into the idea that she mustn't show her knickers, so even refuses to do cartwheels in the garden without getting changed.

Modesty shorts . For grown women!?

Bog standard state village primary.

But it's not just them. We had a letter specifically from the drama group, and she came home verbally saying from street dance that she must wear shorts.

"Modesty shorts" oh what a vomit inducing term

And as for that link to Asda, if I shopped there I'd boycott them for that.

OP

You are worried about what boys/men will think.

You are bringing up a son.

Teach him right - be the change you wish to see.

It is the fault of the attacker, not the attacked.

The op is not talking about what normal decent people think. She is concerned about yet another weapon being handed to victim blamers and rape apologists

Could people read the OP before piling in. She is saying that the growing habit of saying that girls should wear shorts under dresses for "modesty" reasons (there have been many Mumsnet threads about this) with many posters thinking it's a good idea) will give victim blamers and rape apologists another "reason" for saying that women are responsible for their own rape by not wearing "protective undergarments"

Will there soon be modesty modesty shorts to cover up the modesty shorts that are covering up the knickers?

The name is a bit shit...but in concept, I don't really see anything wrong with girls wearing 'modesty shorts' to stop the flashing of knickers. It's not really that different to the fact that my ds's wear a belt on their summer school shorts, because they're not elasticated and it stops them coming down and flashing the top of their pants.

I think some people overthink things hugely and are looking to be offended tbh. Would there really be such outrage if Asda (or whoever) brought out a line of 'modesty belts' for boys, to stop them flashing their pants?

People have taken the huge jump to 'No modesty shorts = asking to be raped'. Which IMHO is a lot little hysterical.

"People have taken the huge jump to 'No modesty shorts = asking to be raped'. Which IMHO is a lot little hysterical."

No they aren't. They are saying that rqpe apologists/victim blamers will make that jump. Which for them will be a tiny step, not a huge jump.

Do the men wear the modesty shorts to make them stop raping women?

If so then I'm all for them. In fact I think it should be regulation wear, with extra padlocks on. In fact I might be better if he was sewn into them- you could have matching vests/ onesies.

Every man has the choice not to rape. If he feels the need to rape someone he should phone a friend to talk him out of it. The modesty shorts might give him a few minutes to find his phone.

Maybe they should have a special beeper pocket, so he can press a panic button and help will arrive from the anti rape squad.

I don't mean to be facetious, but it's men who do the raping, and they are the ones who need to change.

It's not up to women to wear more and more clothes to be 'modest' in order that men can stop committing violent crime like rape.

Men are in charge of themselves, let them start to take responsibility for their own actions.

I find the whole thing a bit bizarre TBH. What is so risqué about knickers? Would it be OK if the child wore bikini bottoms instead?

My DD has been wearing ASDA 'modesty shorts' as PE shorts for the last year

This is relevant considering someone on the first page says that judges wouldn't allow allow that kind of talk these days. jezebel.com/uk-judge-thinks-man-who-raped-sleeping-woman-isnt-a-c-1600613924

UK judge feels sorry for convicted rapist because he fancied the woman who was asleep on his sofa, so how could he be expected NOT to rape her?

I know there's nothing about clothes in that link, but attitudes are still totally fucked. That judge would have been more disapproving if he'd stolen a wallet.

'underwear' is by definition worn under your clothes and generally, in out society, not for public display.Avoiding showing underwear is a dignity thing not a puritanical thing.
If young children have reached the age where they have grasped this, then it is better they find away to cover their pants than curtail their activities IMHO

This is so fucking stupid.

By the time girls are old enough to care about flashing their knickers, they've outgrown cartwheels and hanging from monkey bars at school anyway, surely?

And if you're wearing normal, kids' knickers, what are they not covering that the 'modesty shirts' would cover? The top couple of inches of an 8-year-old's thigh?! Big deal.

So now we're going to have primary-aged girls getting thrush from wearing Lycra all day, while teenagers strut around shopping centres with their bare arse cheeks literally hanging out.

The world's gone mental.

More 'traditionally built' women do sometimes wear these items to prevent chafing (having sadly no thigh gap) but glad to know they are also 'modest' !!!