To think that infant school pupils don't need special cover up knickers?

[DrSeuss]

A local FB seller is flogging gingham over knickers to wear with school summer dresses. Just in case a child of five should do a cartwheel and someone should see her underwear for a brief moment, presumably? My daughter is five. While I would not wish her to run around showing her Frozen themed undies to the world all day, I have no wish to teach her that she must cover herself at all times. Having taught as a peripatetic in primary schools, I always walked a fine line between wishing they could sit on a carpet without flashing me their pants and thinking that their innocence and lack of inhibitions were to be held onto as long as possible since they would be sexualised soon enough.
Would any of you want to buy the chequered modesty preservers?

orangepeels Brilliant post, I just spat out my drink laughing.

Yes, I agree knickers should definitely cover labias.

Would boys be happy to wear dresses that showed their underwear. It's nothing to do with sexualising. Boys comment eventually as unfortunately it does become noticeable that they are different as children get older, but actually I think it's more in the sense that they're wearing clothes that reveal their underwear whilst boys don't. In the first couple of years of primary no it's not an issue. No young child will notice or question it. Girls should not be limited with what they can do by what they wear either. Equality would be that they all wear trousers or shorts. Dresses are just not that practical for active children.

Another random thought. Women's underwear is often supposed to be 'sexy' in a way that men's underwear isn't. Male underwear is nearly always practical. Women's underwear that is 'practical' is famously un-sexy (Bridget Jones springs to mind).

Although saying that, a VPL is a major no-no as well. So your underwear is supposed to look good, but nobody is allowed to see it.

I once had a 3 year old turn up to my (extracurricular) class in a sun dress, and when she sat down crosslegged, I could see she had NO knickers on! Now, I'm assuming either the mother didn't know or the little girl had had an accident on the way to the class and had taken off wet knickers. I was a little bit surprised, but none of the other kids noticed and the little girl was perfectly happy.

Personally, I think it's a bit sad when very little kids are 'modest' and I think it can only come of parents telling them they should hide their bodies, and parents being secretive about nakedness at home which is a shame and makes them think bodies are something to be ashamed of. My kids only started getting even vaguely modest around 8 years plus. My 5 year old would still happily run around naked given half a chance.

By the way, to all the people saying girls should just wear shorts - yes but lots of girls love wearing dresses, so why should they stop?

What 2cats said - my reception DD loves dresses, why does she have to change to suit other peoples hang-ups, isn't it bad enough she'll have the rest of her life to put up with this crap?

Actually we quite like the leggings-and-dress combo, in winter, lovely warm legs and layering looks good on a tiny, but not for bloody modesty !

Had DD1 (age 9) asked about whether it was bad to show your knickers whilst doing gymnastics on the field. I told her that the reason we wear knickers is to cover up our nethers (as they're known in our house - too much Firefly). Told her no need to hide your knickers - they're the things doing the hiding. Feel the same as adult.
On a similar note a lot of her Year 4 class are also wearing bra tops! Told her these were unnecessary until you have breasts & pointed out the boys have the same torsos as the girls at that age.
We live in a crazy world where kids under 10 need to wear the (not very comfy) undies of adults but once they get to 10 you can only buy outer clothes that make you look too grown up!!

Isn't the fact that some schools dictate the girls' uniform as a dress in summer already sexualising them a bit? It is treating them differently to boys and is a hangover from a time that girls were seemingly more ladylike (I say 'seemingly' cos I think they've always climbed trees given half a chance!) and would grow to wear dressers and boys would grow up to wear trousers.

By putting them in an impractical uniform where people can see their underwear (teachers, other parents, older boys in the school) seems to increase the chances of them becoming more aware of their 'privates' (as mentioned above) through people pointing it out or by the (horror) stories of boys putting hands up dresses.

If the girls wore polos and shorts like the boys, they would surely be more innocent as no such discussions would come up. They wouldn't be so aware of pants being seen, or that it isn't 'right', they'd just get on and play in their shorts.

I wouldn't be keen on other people seeing DS in his pants even if he was 4 or 5.....just doesn't seem in keeping with our conversations at home regarding that part of his body being private (in relation to future protection of him, not cos we're a weird family) and I was pleased to see a girl in his class finally having cycling shorts under her dress so when she goes upside down on the bar on the way home, I don't have to see what's under there, nor does any other passerby and she can finally turn upside down without a care.

At my daughters school in Qatar they used to wear a combination of skirts and shorts - skorts. They were brilliant . They looked a bit like a kilt on the outside and shorts underneath. Looked very smart but also very practical.

A lot of the young girls in my grade generally start wearing sports pants under their uniforms around the time they reach this age (grade 3/4). We do have the option for girls to wear shorts, but they often prefer the dresses or skirts. I've had a number over the years who have begun having their periods quite early, and I think they feel more secure wearing a pad with the shorts on.

1stWorld I really hate to burst your bubble but some girls of 9 have periods and breast buds. So they do need bra tops...to support their growing breasts.

My DDs class had quite a few early developers so they never felt alone.

On a similar note a lot of her Year 4 class are also wearing bra tops! Told her these were unnecessary until you have breasts & pointed out the boys have the same torsos as the girls at that age.

precisely violet

people here often sound like they care more about some self imposed approved age cut off than they do about how their child actually feels about things.

I've seen a few kids who look like they could use a bra or crop top. I wo der if their parebts are the ones on here flapping about them being too young whilst ignoring the development in front of their eyes.

Dd hates getting changed in front of the boys. she knows they don't care she's just 9 amd getting more concious of these things.

her shorts and vest top or crop top make her feel a bit better about it.

at home she quite happily walks around In just pants . and often sleeps just in pants too.

I developed late. I didn't need a bra til I was 16.

my mum refused to buy me crop tops like all the other girls were wearing.

the embarrassment was immense.

Luckily DD school allow girls to wear both dresses or shorts. She wears either, and prefers boy short pants. As says they are more comfortable but will do cartwheels in what ever she's wearing she doesn't care. And so far we don't seem to have had a problem at school about it, the odd member of staff have mumbled about girls wearing shorts under dresses but I think it's unnecessary. Really they are children what is the problem with some people. We don't have a problem with teasing and girls do have a choice to wear shorts if they want to.

Crop tops are the same as vests but shorter and that's what I told DD. If little girls go through stages of confusion or want to emulate their mummies, I don't see the harm. DD wanted a pack and I was a bit surprised, after much deliberation, I bought a plain unpatterned pack and she wore them once or twice - she's yr3. Had I said NO they would have been all the more desirable. She's got some sensory issues so I didn't think they'd be comfy anyway. They're a ridiculously big size (I can get into them and I'm a 36C - although a bit tight) so she'll grow in to them and maybe want to wear them in a couple of years or so. She's going through a stage where she's confused about which people she is and isnt comfy about showing herself to so I don't see an issue with helping her out on that one and her curiosity is satisfied on crop tops.

I do put cycle shorts under dd 9 summer dress, it keeps the draft away, and preserves her modesty. She has SN, and is not aware if her dress is riding up, or her sitting position means, that others get a good old view of her undies.

I always put my daughter (3) in little shorts under her dress - it keeps her warm and she was going through a phase of exploring her nether regions all the time! A teacher I have never heard children pick on each other because of underwear - I don't think they really care at this age. It's down to personal preference as a parent.

If a child of mine asked for crop tops or "modesty"(ffs) shorts I would provide them.
I assume that a 4 year old would not do this.

I find the idea of promoting "modesty" for girls and young women deeply problematic.

I have a 4yo and an 8yo. As I said above the 8yo asked for crop tops and shorts the week before half term and so I bought them. They still get changed together for PE and she didn't like having no top on in front of the boys and whereas she's happy in a vest in the winter she doesn't want one now - they're just getting to the age where they're all getting a bit silly. Regardless of how I feel about crop tops and the shorts, it's about her not me and she asked for them.

The 4yo couldn't give less of a toss and we're lucky if she even wears pants at all so she won't be asking for either any time soon!

But it might not he about "modesty" though.

Dd doesn't like to wear skirts irndressesnwiyhouy shirts or leggins under them.

and usually the skirt comes off at some point and she just wears the shorts or leggins.

I too hate wearing a dress or skirt with nothing underneath. some pants can honestly feel as if your not wearing any. it's just a horrid feeling. being In skirt or dress and nothing else. plus shorts help hold the tummy in a bit

"But it might not he about "modesty" though"
Why are they called "modesty" shorts then? And please god let 4 year olds not be thinking about holding their tummies in......

I never said I agree with the name.

and many just wear the pe shorts. as they are just cycling shorts. Dd has a mixture of both. the modesty shorts are shorter and didn't show underneath her skirt. which was a bit shirt but I wasn't going to replace as it was heading to summer uniform time

she hates tights too so they were an extra layer..

and I was talking about holding my tummy in

I usually wear leggins or bikini bottoms under neath if I wear a skirt

And when the shorts are just put on the drawer they don't know what they are called anyway

At primary school we just wore our pants for PE - boys and girls. But in those days everyone had white rather large pants. No nylon skimpy stuff. In secondary school we had "navies" - big furry navy overpants.

Putting little girls in "modesty shorts" under dresses... ridiculous. Dresses are nice and cool (dh has remarked that he wishes he could wear a nice cotton dress instead of a hairy wool suit to work!) and to then put a pair of shorts underneath defeats the object.

My only concern with seeing pants is hygiene - small children's pants can be, er, less than Persil white the whole day through so I can understand if teachers didn't want an eyeful of that on a summer's day.