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.

My DD plays a sport that means she wears very short shorts. Hot pants, really I'd call them. But she doesn't wear knickers with them, just a thong, because knickers get caught up in places she really doesn't want them caught up.

She's 16. Am I inviting her to be sexually assaulted then by letting her go into the shop yesterday for an ice cream on the way home, whilst wearing the shorts?

She did have joggers and a hoodie with her but she was hot and sweaty and in her shorts and vest top.

I never considered that I was doing the wrong thing letting her go into the shop on the way home - she is hot and sweaty and horrible and goes straight home for a shower.

We used to just tuck our skirts into our knickers when we were doing handstands and cartwheels. The boys were usually too busy playing footie to care, as far as I know.

Young girls in the 1920s or so used to wear matching bloomer things to go with their short dresses. I'm not sure what age they stopped wearing that sort of thing, if it was when they went to school or what.

I do wish people wouldn't say "flashing their knickers".

What I mean is (and I'm not articulating myself very well) she was at an event yesterday. In her short shorts and a vest top and I picked her up and brought her home. She was roasting and sweaty and she wanted an ice cream so I stopped at a petrol station on the way home and she ran in the shop to buy one.

Is the premise then that I'm inviting her to be sexually assaulted because I let her go in the shop in her shorts and a thong? Really?

Hakluyt Why?

That's what 'flashing' means: showing a quick glimpse of something. Eg knickers, as you do a cartwheel.

"Is the premise then that I'm inviting her to be sexually assaulted because I let her go in the shop in her shorts and a thong? Really?"

No it's not. Read the OP- it doesn't say that at all.

Ivory, no, that isn't the premise - if you are referring to the OP's message. She is categorically not saying that your daughter is inviting sexual assault by wearing shorts. She is however saying, correctly, that that is the excuse some abusers make, and if stupid modesty shorts become a thing then that will hand them another excuse. It's true that it wouldn't be accepted in court, but I would be concerned that it's yet another factor that may deter women from reporting rape at all.

Ah thanks all I've obviously misunderstood.

Although I'll stop her and make her wear her tracksuit from now on.

I used to have cycling shorts for under short skirts when I was a teenager. Some parents do insist on it, especially from some religious groups.

I must say, I hate the thought that girls might feel pressured into this by marketing that seeks to guilt-trip them and their parents. It is utterly ridiculous on any level and any school that makes it a uniform requirement really needs to take a long hard look at itself.

Icimoi I agree.

Even though I'm feeling guilty about letting DD run in the shop yesterday.

I agree totally.

I have to say though that conversely the thought of the girls who WANT to wear them and are encouraged not to also makes me uncomfortable. I've been trying to express this all afternoon!

(I could have misunderstood).

ivory I don't understand why you felt guilty about letting a young adult go to the shop in her shorts and top?

MrsCakes because I read the OP as if I should have been getting her to cover up so she wouldn't be inviting sexual assault.

Oh OK - I see, thanks for explaining. There is no reason at all for her to cover up, the sort of people who attack women will always try to excuse and justify their behaviour - failing to recognise that it is inexcusable and indefensible.

Strange no-one is saying that girls mustn't be allowed to wear these if they want.

Just that if they do not wear them they should not be banned from normal childhood activities in the playground or told they must wear them for "modesty".

Post at 11:38

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.

Sorry to single it out. As I said before, I could have misunderstood.

Erm OK so one poster on the thread said they they didn't want their daughter to wear green shorts under a red dress for whatever reason.

I expect you are best off waiting for that poster to respond I guess.

I was the part 'keeps trying to sneak' that got to me. As if she wasn't allowed. While I understand why the poste might be unhappy about the doctrinisation(sp?) of the daughter, I can't understand making it even more of an issue to deny the dd if she is uncomfortable.

I guess maybe if it was aimed at that poster a cnp might have helped! I must admit that I took your post as a general point that girls were being discouraged / prevented from wearing these if they wanted, which is not the message I have got from this thread.

I didn't say it was lots of people. I read it this morning, and have pondered it a few times this afternoon.

Sorry, you are right .

Oh OK I misunderstood your post.

I agree with you, if a girls wants to wear some shorts under a dress for whatever reason then so be it. I just let my children wear what they fancy generally though, although I do insist on knickers for school for Dd2, she is not keen on wearing any undergarments at all.

*Hakluyt Why?

That's what 'flashing' means: showing a quick glimpse of something. Eg knickers, as you do a cartwheel*

No,"flashing" is getting your genitals or even your tits out deliberately for a sexual/provocative reason. It's an inappropriate term to use in the context of children turning cartwheels or a flimsy skirt getting caught in the wind.

This whole thing makes me think of peter stringfellow's statement:

"Of course it's sexually stimulating," said Stringfellow. "So is a disco. So is a little girl flashing away with her knickers showing. "

Is this where this whole stupid thing has come from? 4 year olds having to wear "modesty" underwear or not join in with normal playground fun because of some old perve?