AIBU to think that M&S shouldn't be selling modesty shorts.

[GlitterGlue]

www.marksandspencer.com/3-pack-seamfree-shorts-6-16-years-/p/p60093359?extid=DR_P_IM_B_257_DPA_27_08_17&cvosrc=social+network+paid.infectious+facebook.23842608573520181&cvo_cid=23842599543350181&cvo_pid=23842608573300181&cvo_adid=23842608573520181&mcptredirect

Knickers cover bottoms. Are knickers now so unseemly that girls need to wear a second layer in case A MAN should see a glimpse of white elasticated pants? Are they fuck.

How is selling these the "opposite of a choice"?confused

Because the whole modesty aspect suggests that they're something that 'nice' girls wear. It's really only women and girls who are pushed to be modest.

I think the use of the word modesty may be to appeal to some religious or cultural groups who use this word in the context of female dress.

Just like underpants, knickers are underwear meaning they go under clothes and are not seen in public. From what I can see lots of girls want to wear skirts and do cartwheels. I suppose 'modesty pants' are then pretty sensible. Trousers would,of course, be waaaaay more sensible.

I'm saving my outrage for the shoe shops that stock flimsy Mary Jane shoes with no grips or ankle support and guarantee the wearer a winter of staying indoors or wet socks.

I'm starting to think all children should wear trousers and stout shoes for school so that everyone can climb trees.

Blame the schools, who've been telling girls to wear shorts under their skirts for years. If they hadn't have started it M&S wouldn't have found a gap in the market.

On another note, they'd be ideal when young teens/preteens are getting the hang of sanitary towels and potential leakage. I'd have loved them then.

Love them under a skirt and feel really uncomfortable and exposed otherwise. Without something like that, I just feel like my bum's out, even if it's not.

But we shouldn't need to 'keep our knickers private' because knickers are the things that are keeping our 'privates' private. By that thinking we will soon need something to keep our 'modesty shorts' private.
Will we soon be back to bloomer style swimwear?

I don't like the name, but I don't have a problem with the concept.

I have three daughters, and I have bought a lot of knickers in my time. Many are simply not up to the job of providing full "seat" coverage. Thin material, and skimpy gussets.

I either by mine seam free shorts for summer, or they wear cycling shorts over the top.

I don't have a problem with privates being private. Not sure why anyone does TBH.

@Happydoingitjusttheonce - Muslims and Jews would make their kids wear leggings or tights under skirts/dresses. Not aware of any other religion that needs modesty but then also allows the use of shorts.

We wore these for sport ! Called them
Athletic shorts - had a white stripe down the side. Itchy! Like the old black leotard material! Hah! No issues here! All girls
School and covered our pants as we jumped about.

When I was at, private all girls no male PE teachers, school we had to wear big knickers for sports - gym knickers.

But these aren't gym knickers. These aren't for sports - these are for "modesty"!

FFS!

Asda sell them but call them jersey shorts instead

Modesty shorts. FFS.

Just sell practical pants and that will do the job fine, thanks.

What are little girls who don't wear modesty shorts - immodest? Being modest touted as a desirable concept seems like a massive backward step.

If it's good enough for Serena Williams...

Asda have sold out as well. Very popular item of clothing then.

They are ideal for school girls to wear under skirts.
For example (younger girls doing cartweels)
Teenagers (Walking up stairs in school and feeling self concious )

These are made for children

Yanbu but people have become really weird over this.

I'm starting to think all children should wear trousers and stout shoes for school so that everyone can climb trees.

I completely agree with this. One of my football mad 7 year olds once arrived in school beaming from ear to ear because she had got 'boys' shoes and could finally take part in her favourite game without getting soaking, muddy socks.

I see some little girls wearing the modesty shorts at my school but thankfully they are a minority and they look odd.

Your issue with the name and "nice girls" is not the same as "opposite of choice" OP. I'm not bothered about them. As a child I found it easier to cartwheel in dresses than trousers but stopped when I started getting self conscious about others seeing my knickers. Same with my friends who didn't want anyone knowing they were wearing sanitary towels. We had athletic shorts for PE but these would have been handy for outside school.

The name is awful but I'd have loved some for when I went to see an osteopath.

I do object to the notion young girls should cover their pants.

The fact is, they want to, not aged 4, but aged 7 many do. This is why this thread will be an advertisement for M&S modesty shorts, because many shops have sold out, as PPs have mentioned.

My daughters wore M+S knickers and never needed 'modesty shorts' my SDs wore primark 'shorty' knickers with a gusset about 2cm wide and did need to wear modesty shorts.
It seems to me that M+S are just cashing in on those who buy their pants elsewhere: and why not? If there's a market for them.....why people buy their daughters knickers which don't cover their labia is beyond me. I wanted my children to be able to cartwheel or climb trees and not feel they were exposed.
I'm old enough to have adult children and went to a very old fashioned school: we wore knickers like this in baggy cotton when I was at school. White for most days, navy for PE. I spent my preteen/early teen years moaning about how dowdy they were.....but I never ever had to think twice about what I did or where I went or how I behaved. I would have been mortified if someone (male or female) has seen my labia as I climbed a tree aged 13/14. As it was it never even entered my mind. How warped are we that we as a society dress our kids in knickers they daren't let anyone see and then have to put shorts over the top. The whole thing is frightening and bizarre. BIg pants! No Shorts!

Nuttynoo I know of primary aged Muslim girls who wear shorts in summer, short sleeves etc. My experience is that fuller body coverage coincides with girls starting to wear the hijab.

Dd's wear a leotard at gymnastics. It covers a lot less than their school uniform and I have pointed out to dd1 in particular that she does not have a problem cartwheeling etc in front of her male gymnastics coach (female coaches also available and present).

However, when dd1 is cavorting around in the park etc she wants to feel less exposed in a dress (her favourite item of clothing). It doesn't matter that she wanders around naked at home in front of us. She cannot articulate why she wants to wear shorts under her dresses except that she doesn't want Joe Public seeing her knickers. I'm not going to tell her not to cavort. She's 9. She can play as she pleases.

I don't really see the problem as long as no one is forced to wear them without a choice. I'm sure some girls would prefer to wear them, there's times when pupils have to sit on the floor in assembly and getting up would show their knickers, so if these make them feel more comfortable then great.

Boys don't show off their underpants, they cover them up with shorts or trousers. There is nothing wrong with girls having an option to cover up their underwear too.