School and 'rules' re shorts under dress

[oblada]

Before I take this further quick 'poll'; does your school insist that girls wear shorts under their dress if they want to mess about at break time in a way that could involve someone seeing their knickers? Would you expect a rule like this? My daughter is saying that her school and her after school club have told her off for doing gymnastic 'moves' during break time whilst wearing a dress with no shorts or tights underneath. She says she's been told it's 'rude' because people can see her knickers. She is 6yrs old btw. I think this is completely bonkers and she should be allowed to do as she wish as long as she is not actually showing her 'privates' to people on purpose. Underpants are underpants and are not offensive (to me). Of course I don't know yet how much she has actually been told off, or whether it's peer pressure rather than school so I'll go and ask later. But thought I'd gather some views!

" I dont see why other children should have to see it though?"

To imply that a child might have a problem with glimpsing another child's underwear for a seconds.. I don't even know where to begin with that one.

There have been a few posts saying, as long as the kids aren't deliberately flashing their knickers to people then there shouldn't be a problem. I wonder what the difference is really? They are still showing their knickers, they are still children.

Sorry didn't make that staement very clear, i mean more when the underwear isn't doing its job correctly and staying in place and more than underwear can be seen.

Oh, so they might see a few square millimetres of a child's pubic area for a second or two if they stare hard enough... oh, the trauma! Won't someone think of the children?

FFS.

liz70 just because someone holds different views to you doesn’t mean they’re stupid or foolish. You’re extremely rude. and being a bit of a twat

God I must be old I did gym in knickers and vest at primary school. Big navy blue ones.

Honestly what a load of horse shit. Knickers are there to act as a cover they don’t need another cover.

I wouldn’t stand for crap like this op it’s ridiculous

It's just a school rule. I can't see what the problem is. They are already having to conform to a uniform, and are not allowed to attend school naked, wearing only underwear, or pyjamas. How is it a big deal to add an extra pair of shorts under a skirt?

Ridiculous to suggest that could cause thrush.

It's not about sexualising children, it's just that a school is not an appropriate place to have underwear on display. Weird that people care about the shorts thing but don't object to having a uniform.

"doesn’t mean they’re stupid or foolish. "

I said nothing of the sort.

They could wear pyjamas if they wished. Probably get a lot of teasing away from charity days, though.

I said nothing of the sort

You’ve consistently mocked or sneered at anyone who disagrees with you. And your inability to see why genitalia ought to be covered in public is beyond ridiculous yet you take a high handed tone with anyone who thinks their children have a right not to be exposed.

Even at 16 I was doing athletics in just an Aertex blouse and gym knickers. I'm not that old. So seeing all of teenagers' legs in a sports context wasn't seen as a problem.

"How is it a big deal to add an extra pair of shorts under a skirt?"

Not a big deal at all; it isn't to going to happen with my DD3, unless she requests it, and she hasn't, so I don't. She doesn't need shorts over her pants under her skirt. If I were that hung up I'd make her wear trousers or school shorts, but I'm not, so I don't.

"genitalia ought to be covered in public"

Well, no shit Sherlock. My DD does actually wear full, properly fitting pants, thank you.

You’re a cheeky fucker aren’t you? Why then, have you consistently across the thread said that seeing a child’s genitalia in public is no big deal? And mocked?

Oh dear please stop clutching your pearls at my comments if you dont like them then please move on. There are plenty of reasons why a child maybe uncomfortable upon seeing someones genitalia but thats a whole other topic.
My point is if you can see someones genitals then they are not dressed appropriately for the activity regardless of age. No you shouldnt shame children about their bodies but you should teach them some decorum and modesty. Its called underwear for a reason if you are wearing a skirt and doing hand stands it is exposed therefor it is no longer 'under' anything. And its not just a second my daughter can easily spend her entire playtime on her head!

"You’re a cheeky fucker aren’t you?"

And you call me rude!

I teach my 3 year old (only just) dd politely not to have her knickers on show. This teachers her boundaries and what is or isn't appropriate. It teaches her to respect her body and in turn to respect others.

If we're off to the park i put her in leggings so climbing frames aren't an issue. I want her to be able to run around unrestricted. She wears dresses to play in the rest of the time.

I would never tell her off for it but I do gently encourage her to be aware. Rightly or wrongly I'm hoping this will help her if she ever finds herself in unsafe situations. She knows all the more people shouldn't be looking at that part of her.

Nude cycling shorts cost very little and you can't see them under a summer dress as they look like legs

Look, all of you parents who want to have their daughters wear shorts under their dresses or skirts, go ahead. Your choice. But don't imply that by not insisting that I do the same with my own DDs that I am somehow compromising their "modesty" or putting them at risk. I'm not buying that for one second.

And you call me rude

If you can’t take it, might I suggest not dishing it out?

But don't imply that by not insisting that I do the same with my own DDs that I am somehow compromising their "modesty" or putting them at risk. I'm not buying that for one second

You’ve spent the entire thread mocking and insinuating you’re somehow superior and now you’re getting irritated? That’s ironic.

Nobody, literally nobody told you what do to with your own child. Unlike you!

"Nude cycling shorts cost very little and you can't see them under a summer dress as they look like legs"

But again, it doesn't matter how inexpensive or discreet, my DD doesn't need shorts over her pants.

I tell my 4yo not to take down her pants in public and that she doesn't really have to wave her dress up round her ears to show us what's on her pants... but that's rather different to suggesting she restrict her play or always wear leggings or cycling shorts.

I do the same for my DS who as I posted upthread tends to let us see a couple of inches of pants (today I noticed one side was so bunched up you could see the hem over the top of his shorts. No idea how he does it). But I wouldn't suggest he wore nude cycling shorts over his pants and under his school shorts. Would anyone suggest this for a boy?

My DD wears shorts or leggings when climbing for ease of movement. At other times if she is wearing a dress and wants to climb she does but finds its not as easy.
We should not project others deviance that their bodies are a sexual temptation to others onto them and make them responsible for others thoughts and actions.
Seriously, if a pervert is going to find them sexually attractive, not even a body bag is going to make a difference. So all this attitude achieves is to make children ashamed of their bodies.
Underwear already covers the genital area, adding another layer on top just makes another layer of underwear that will eventually be shameful and also need to be covered up under the excuse of decency.

Would anyone suggest this for a boy?

If their crotch was showing, yes. I would.

If I came across a school insisting on that, I’d use it as an opportunity to insist on shorts or culottes as an option for girls.

It’s ludicrous that girls might be expected to wear TWO adequate outfits, layered on top of each other.

I have to say I think a ban on shorts/trousers as uniform for girls is ludicrous. I’ve not heard of it here, only on MN.