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!

Definitely sturdier pants needed! I get DD shorts style pants and even they aren’t great. Girls knickers are ridiculously flimsy.

This is why DD chooses to wear trousers..
Well, that and she went down a slide once in a dress and her skin squeaked all the way down the metal... In DDs own words,
"Trousers are faster"
she's wise for a 5 year old. Lol

Sturdier pants definitely needed anything cotton with lace edging on the high street or from supermarkets is generally inadequate.

Dresses and skirts are healthy for the vulva. Cycling shorts cause thrush. Little girls with thrush cannot concentrate at school.

I used to help in primary school. It was somewhat off-putting to be faced with a phalanx of (ill-fitting) pants when they were all sat cross legged. Perhaps shorts for all would be more sensible, and none of these sequinned 'daisy dukes' that seem to be the norm for many girls.

Cycling shorts cause thrush

DD wears cycling shorts/leggings a lot. She’s never had thrush. Mostly cycling shorts because you can’t get shorts a decent length that mean she can move properly while playing!

I think it's OTT for a 6 year old but talking to my mother knickers aren't what they used to be. She reckoned that they used to be wider with more grip round the legs.

Back in the 50s, maybe. That was the time of the horror that was knickers with "knicker linings" - i.e. you effectively wore two pairs of pants, and the top pair were baggy with elasticated legs. We really don't want to go back to that sort of nonsense.

FFS, why the hell should a 6yo start feeling self conscious about what she wears and does? As long as she’s not deliberately flashing her bits to the world I can’t see an issue. Talk about trying to sexualise children. As someone who went to school in the PE in ‘pants and vests’ era, or if you forgot to wear a vest just pants (wasn’t actually that long ago) I can assure you that no harm is done if a school full of primary children see a flash of knicker.

My 12 year old dgd wears shorts under her skirt, but it's her choice. Her skirt is fairly short so she feels more comfortable/secure with the shorts on.

No rule. Although the skirt is actually a skort which is way more practical. My thinking is that if the school seems it necessary to wear shorts under a uniform skirt then the skirt isn’t fit for purpose so they need to rethink the uniform.

No, DD's school have never mentioned anything like this although the other girls do tell her that her blue dinosaur pants with pink elastic are for boys. She's 5.

I'm not sure if gussets used to be wider and stronger elastic like another poster suggested but I wouldn't be surprised if so

50 years ago we used to do gym in knickers and vest. But they had to be those proper navy blue knickers with very well elasticated legs and double gusset. If wearing standard cotton knickers then we had to sit it out. Same for the boys. The had to have shorts - or sit it out.
50 years ago, folks.

It's not sexualising children to suggest that their genitals should be appropriately covered in public. It's basic courtesy if nothing else. Trust me in a primary class you sometimes see a he'll of a lot more than a flash of pants and it's easily preventable.

not a rule in our school but loads of dd's friends (age 6) wear them anyway - their parents insiste - I find it bloody awful personally

Back in the 50s, maybe. That was the time of the horror that was knickers with "knicker linings" - i.e. you effectively wore two pairs of pants, and the top pair were baggy with elasticated legs. We really don't want to go back to that sort of nonsense. What??? Were you actually around in the 50s? We wore navy knickers to school (certainly not lined) because that's what we used to do gym in (in the playground adjoining the road). And out of school all sorts of pretty knickers, including lacy frilly ones because it was accepted that sometimes little girls showed a bit of knicker.

Isn’t the pants rule that what is under your pants is private

Yes. It is not the pants that are private, but what the pants cover.

Although at secondary school there was a uniformly derided (and ignored) rule that you had to wear navy knickers so "the boys wouldn't see a reflection of your knickers in the shiny floor". Since the school was single sex and the only males around were the teachers, I'm not sure what lesson one should take from that!

Well in the 90s we spent one joyous session per week running round in our 90s pants that are just as flimsy as the ones my dd wears today. If the schools are that bothered then they should start providing sturdy pants as part of uniform.

@MereDintofPandiculation

Were you actually around in the 50s? We wore navy knickers to school

As I now recall, they were actually part of the uniform. And you'd get told off by the teacher if ordinary white pants were spotted.
As a pp pointed out, we did have nice pretty frilly knickers to wear at home as well, but were required to wear sensible uniform ones for school. I don't think it's a new idea at all.

What??? Were you actually around in the 50s?

Yes