To think that 'cartwheel' shorts for girls are unnecessary!?

[Badgoushk]

So, GAP are selling cartwheel shorts for girls.
www.gap.co.uk/browse/product.do?cid=1075544&vid=1&pid=000452255005
Since when has it become inappropriate for a girl to do a cartwheel without wearing said modesty shorts?!

Nor in the yrs

Dyac

I see this as just another example of how society is sexualising young kids.

They shouldn't be necessary, but they should be available. I was very conscious that knickers were 'underwear' from a young age and if I hadn't worn shorts under my school dress/skirt, I wouldn't have even tried to do cartwheels, etc. Other children might not have cared at all. Neither approach is right, it's about the individual child's comfort.

VV&ROO

I guess protecting their modesty was the wrong kind of term to use. I agree I'm sure rape statistics are similar regardless of what people wear in any given country.

It's just personally for me, I think short shorts under a skirt is a good idea. But maybe I'm thinking of periods and black shorts hopefully would hide any surprises for girls who weren't regular, that's one example.

I remember girls being bitchy if a girl had been caught unaware. Or if they were heavy bleeders.

I said everyone is going to have their own opinion on this, I would never say oh you dressed to get raped, assaulted, that's ludicrous.

I just think shorts are practical, I like wearing them or fuller knickers over skimpy one. It's a comfort thing for me. Are they called high leg or something. Not full on granny pants but not underwear that you'd have to have a well maintained bikini line for. This is in relation to my choice as an adult, not young girls. But I would be horrified at the thought of a child under 12 wearing a thong, even at 12 it makes me pull a silly face. I've never understood the benefits of things apart from in the bedroom.

A bit like bikini's, not sure about them on young children. I think when we were on holiday, say I was 6 or 8, I'd wear no top on the beach as my family would say there's nothing really to look at. Not saying I agree with their stance. Maybe bikini bottoms and a crop top for each of changing. But not anything padded, not the triangle shaped bikini tops. I can't say why as I don't know, but I just don't like them.

I'll add again though, just to make sure, this is what I think, others might disagree.

I think for young children they are pointless, I have never used the frilly knickers that come dresses or put anything over her nappy when she wears a skirt/ dress (other than tights). It is fine for children to wear shorts under skirts if they want though. This thread shows that juniors have been doing it for decades. I do agree with pp that it's a bit like the cropped top debate- some parents seem to like to prove a point that children don't need to cover up, even if that causes their child distress. When my daughter grows up I want to teach her that it's her body and she can cover up to the extent she feels comfortable with.

They have their uses on small children. Stopping them fiddling with the nappy for one.

The other is "look grandma's seem you in the dress now. Take it off and go play"

I often put best top and shorts under the kids clothes. Cos 9 times out of ten they'd wanna wear something ridiculous so when they realised they couldn't climb the slide steps in their outfit I could just pull it off

It was never to "cover up" though.

When did crop tops/bras for 7yr olds and cycle shorts under skirts become a thing? Don't even remember cyvle shorts being around. They must have made an appearance at some point. Maybe we were all too poor to bother sbout unnecessary extras.

Can understand older primary girls preferring the shorts as you start to become self aware.

I wonder if group changing has anything to do with it.

Bits and girls often had separate pe activities. I definitely remember separate changing rooms at primary school too.

Now they change together until like yr 4/5

I guess kids are just more aware now

When did crop tops/bras for 7yr olds and cycle shorts under skirts become a thing?

I teach dance. Nearly every kid from 5+ wear crop tops, or even bras under their leotards. "Boy shorts", too. Often brightly coloured so you can see dora the explorer quite clearly.

There are yards of rumpled fabric on show, and it cannot be comfortable as the kids are always pulling at themselves.

I don't know what the parents think they are doing, but personally it's far worse to see a kid in a leotard with pants hanging out the bottom, bra/crop top straps showing or the whole garment rumpling above the leotard. Leotard fabric is thick enough you don't need anything under unless you are pubertal and need support.

I am going to have to issue an edict that if pants are worn they must be white/flesh colour and tight fitting so as not to show or rumple. Most dance schools suggest pants are not worn. Bra's only if they are proper dance bras for support, and again must not show.

It just must have started at some point. I don't remember it at primary in the 70's.

My daughters school sent a letter a while ago saying that the girls would not be allowed to do cartwheels in the playground,in skirts unless they wear shorts. Fgs how daft! Why create sexualization where its not.

DD(8) puts cycling shorts/leggings on under skirts and dresses, not because she cares about people seeing her knickers but because have you ever tried going down a slide in a dress? it rides up and your bum sticks and the slides always either really hot or really cold so it hurts, shorts make for better sliding

I always wear cycling shorts under my skirts too, Shorts and a vest mean we can take our skirts off, go for a paddle in the sea/a stream, or to climb things or have a kick about with DS (coz long skirts get in the way and double as goal posts.) basically I like wearing pretty dresses and ankle length skirts but I have also never grown up.

I don't have a problem with it.

Boys are not walking around in just long t-shirt and pants- and noone's complaining that they're not having their innocence stolen because no one can see their perineums at carpet time.

Wearing a sturdy pair of big pants or shorts is just a bit more dignified.

DD(8) puts cycling shorts/leggings on under skirts and dresses, not because she cares about people seeing her knickers but because have you ever tried going down a slide in a dress? it rides up and your bum sticks and the slides always either really hot or really cold so it hurts, shorts make for better sliding grin

Why not just wear shorts or trousers then? it's kind of the rule in our house, you want to climb/slide/make mud pies you dress accordingly. Dresses just aren't designed for play.

bam

I went to school in the 80s we had those dreadful pe knickers.

No way would we be heading to our pegs to put those on at break.

Now cycling shorts are what they wear so often they just don't take them off after pe or they just go get them out the bag and put them on.

Plus I'm. Pretty sure that pe bags just went in on pe days.

Now they keep them at school and bring them.back at half term

Why don't we just bring back bloomers? Win win, girls don't have to wear an extra (superfluous) layer and the modesty police are kept happy because little girls are kept sufficiently covered for their Victorian sensibilities.

I've never worn an extra layer under skirts or dresses (tell a lie, I did once, but I was dressing as a pirate wench,) and even as an adult I've had a few 'Marylin Monroe' moments. It happens, I deal with it. If someone sees my knickers they can deal with that too. Women and girls didn't actually start wearing knickers until the start of the 19th century.

Cos with shorts you can take your skirt/dress off as soon as schools done and hit the park.

Can't see vest and bloomers being a look dd would give for.

However she even sodding sleeps in these Damn shorts

I think cycling shorts appeared in the 80s. I remember wearing them under skirts to stop my fat thighs rubbing together, but not really for modesty purposes. I don't remember anyone wearing them to stop people seeing their pants.

Mind you, our (convent) school had a very weird approach to modesty. In junior school huge grey knickers were part of the uniform though many people ignored that rule. My mum bought them with enthusiasm and made me wear them over my regular ones for extra insulation for my kidneys (I think extreme concern about children's kidneys and the perils of sitting on pavements may be an Irish thing but I am not sure).

In senior school, the playground would be policed at lunchtime for girls who dared take off their socks and flash their ankles and feet in the sunshine, in case a passing builder might be overcome by the sight (there was a lot of building work going on at our school). However, at the same time, the school introduced ghastly nylon athletics knickers in primary colours which left nothing to the imagination and were the bane of our teenage lives - no worries about how the builders might feel about those!

So I don't think odd attitudes to girls' modesty is a new thing but I do agree that making pre-pubertal girls were shorts under skirts for modesty purposes is completely unnecessary unless they want to themselves.

wear not were

I think it's absolutely ridiculous. There's no need.

However school have said girls can't do handstands at playtime unless they put their PE shorts on under their skirts. (Skirts are compulsory uniform)

I have a 5 year old DD who has to follow the rules. Putting PE shorts on at playtime takes ages for a 5 year old. So guess what I've bought....

It's bloody ridiculous.
(But I do like those dresses with matching pants to go over nappies, but purely 'cos it looks pretty!)

My DD wears these. She wears long leggings in the winter because she hates tights and as they get holes in the knees I cut them up into short leggings.

It's just a case of offering the choice to those that want or need it, surely? Whilst I wouldn't buy them for my own DDs, I used to teach a little girl who wore shorts under her school dresses. She was from a different culture and religion than the rest of the class, and presumably those were needed for her to be able to wear the normal uniform.

We are an increasingly multi-cultural society, and what constitutes necessary undergarments varies from family to family and culture to culture.

I don't see knicker flashing as a issue myself but I know a lot of adults and children do. I'm not outraged at the existence of cartwheel shorts - they are just another name for cycling shorts.

DD is 7 and she requests shorts under her skirts and dresses (unless it's cold enough for tights obviously). She says the boys point and laugh at the flash of knickers when doing cartwheels or handstands in the playground, so it's either shorts or she doesn't want to join in. She is hyper sensitive about people laughing at her so I can understand why she wants them.

The plus side for me is I feel less guilty about sending her to school in the previous years summer dresses. They start at knee length but by the time she grows over winter they are more mid thigh come spring time, with shorts underneath it doesn't matter so much.