Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

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

154 replies

GlitterGlue · 12/09/2017 19:07

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.

OP posts:

liz70 · 15/09/2017 15:36

Also, they look like the regulation school knickers that many girls had to wear back in ye olden days. To be worn as underwear, not over underwear. Just a little bit longer in the leg and we'll be back to the directoire style drawers of my nan's youth. I always used to wonder how the girls at Malory Towers and St. Clares kept their money in their knickers.

RachelP247 · 15/09/2017 15:39

I used to wear similar when doing sports at school.

Not sure what the problem is?

heateallthebuns · 15/09/2017 18:48

I don't think it's wrong to sell them as many girls would rather have a bit more on under their skirts. But they're wrong to call them modesty shorts. That smacks of making girls feel responsible for men looking at them. If some girls don't wear them are they 'immodest'? Why couldn't they call them 'under skirt shorts' or even 'under skirt cover ups' (like beach cover ups. I don't think the title should reflect the moral standing of the wearer!!!!

DrKrogersfavouritepatient · 15/09/2017 18:59

It's interesting that we dress girls in clothes which show their pants and then create a cover up to solve the problem of them showing their pants.

DrKrogersfavouritepatient · 15/09/2017 19:02

*Calling them cycling shorts or monkey bar shorts (LOVE that name) means that what should matter to girls is cycling or playing on monkey bars.

Calling them modesty shorts means that what should matter to girls is modesty. And fuck that.*
This. A lot.

RockyTop · 15/09/2017 19:12

No one is being made to wear them so I don't see the issue. Perhaps a slightly misguided name, but I imagine that is to appeal to some customers.

I wear similar, short cycling shorts, under dresses in the summer. Stops my thoughts rubbing or inadvertent flashing due to a gust of wind or generally chasing a toddler around.

Ellapaella · 15/09/2017 19:28

We had to wear them under our PE skirts when I was at school - can't see this is any different.

Whatsername17 · 15/09/2017 19:39

I teach Drama. Girls regularly wear these type of shorts under their skirts so that they can move freely without flashing their pants. No one forces them to wear them, the girls choose to wear them for comfort YABU.

NikiBabe · 15/09/2017 19:46

They are sold out in sizes 6-8 and 9-11 so they are popular. Cant see an issue.

cazzyg · 15/09/2017 19:48

DD calls hers pant shorts. They're instead of not in addition to knickers/pants.

She finds them more comfortable that normal pants and at 9, she's becoming more more aware of her body and feels more comfortable cartwheeling and swinging round trees with them on.

I don't see the problem with them.

d270r0 · 15/09/2017 19:52

At school we used to have to wear those horrible very short gym skirts but weren't allowed to wear shorts underneath. These would have been good as lots of girls hated flashing their knickers all the time, particularly as there were often boys around.

crazyhairdontcare · 15/09/2017 19:55

With a 10 year old that cartwheels as much as mine I love them! YANBU about them having a crap name though.

Stickerrocks · 15/09/2017 20:06

They're absolutely perfect for teenage girls having their period who may be stuck in class & worry that they won't be able to get to the loo when they need to. Loads of older girls wear branded sportswear versions under their school uniform for just that reason.

Loopytiles · 15/09/2017 20:09

The name is unacceptable but the product is a good solution to stupid school uniforms and unwanted comments girls get at school.

The problem is that girls' uniforms are no good for being active in and expose underwear, and boys' are practical and cover underwear.

kali110 · 15/09/2017 20:47

Danceswithwarthogs
Me too, would have loved more than the one pair for at school!

StickThatInYourPipe · 15/09/2017 21:01

I wear them under my dresses Chubb rubb is really people I don't want to flash my pants at everyone. I would equally be mortified if my dp flashed his pants to everyone.

hibbledobble · 15/09/2017 21:03

I only wish they still had them in stock in the younger sizes.

hareagain · 15/09/2017 21:22

I think the issue that prevails here is more about the school uniform rules. Imo there should not be separate uniforms for boys and girls.
'Here's what's allowed for everyone, take your pick '. It surely doesn't have to be any more complicated than that...?

Shadow666 · 16/09/2017 03:06

DrKrogers I think at that age most girls are choosing what they want to wear themselves.

Balaboosteh · 16/09/2017 03:43

Blimey! Were you people never children? Isn't it the point of cartwheels to flash your pants at the boys (or girls)? It's fun FFS. I think that the prudishness that so many of you are bemoaning starts here.

Balaboosteh · 16/09/2017 03:48

FWIW my DD who is very active loves those school uniform grey culottes that M&S do. Perfect solution in my opinion. Can't girls pick up thrush etc by wearing too much in the pants department? I know I used to if I wore tights under jeans for example.

vegetariansAreDelicious · 16/09/2017 06:55

I wear similar under a skirt sometimes.

My boys wore similar when they wore shorts as opposed to flashing their balls with baggy underwear.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

"The use of the word modesty to any item of clothing is objectifying and pervy."

How is it pervy? I think you need to get a grip.

Londoncheapo · 16/09/2017 07:48

I hate the name. Very American and prudish sounding.

That said, they are a solution for girls who want to wear a dress and who do not want people to see their underwear.

I don't think it's sufficient to say "Well, they should all just wear trousers all the time" or "What does it matter if their underwear is on display"---I'd be delighted for girls to have the option of trousers/shorts for all school uniforms and so on, but what if some girls choose to wear skirts or dresses? What if the preference not to show underwear is coming from them?

Londoncheapo · 16/09/2017 07:50

I suspect that the growing number of mobile phones in schools has a lot to do with this. Of course perpetrators should be dealt with accordingly, but the photos will already be out there and on show to others by the time that happens.

saltandvinegarcrisps1 · 16/09/2017 08:02

OP YABNU. But there was a thread similar to this not too long ago - about a young DD being told she couldn't cartwheel in the playground for fear of "flashing her knickers" at male teachers. You will get all the comments about there being nothing wrong with this - with "the concept" - the concept being that young girls need to keep themselves covered/veiled for fear of arousing men. Sadly there is a significant amount of women who don't get that we should be teaching boys/men not to "perv" (sorry - I am on the bus home after nights and cannot think of the right word to use) rather than teaching girls/women they have to police their bodies to protect themselves. Its interesting that the shorts for the younger girls are sold out - do posters who say "nothing wrong with it" really, truly believe that they need to teach their 6 year old to be "modest"? Why the blazes does a 6 year old need to know this?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7