To think that 5/6 year old little girls don’t need to wear shorts under dresses to “protect their modesty”

[Darthwazette]

Just what the subject like says really. I’d be interested to know other parents thoughts. I’m not a weirdo, this request has been made of my daughters from school and it makes me feel a bit icky.

@VasariMichelangelo Why are you applying the same clothing rules to a 5 year old as you would apply to an adult woman?

Agree, and i always wear shorts under dresses for this very reason

@Inkypot no i didn't notice that!

Mind you some of the descriptions on Amazon are beyond bizzare!

I might just message Amazon and point out the inappropriateness of the wording there. The knickers are good though.

I'm not worried about school staff seeing my daughter's knickers. I'm more concerned about her own comfort. I give her the autonomy over whether she wears the shorts and who she is comfortable showing her underwear to. At school she doesn't not like showing her underwear and that is fine.

Traditionally little girls wore bloomers. It's something my 6yo daughter wears as she loves dresses and as we go to parks etc, so it makes sense to protect her modesty.

“the amount of girls”

The number of girls…

All the posters comparing 5 year old girls to adult women make me despair. As another poster says it is about the increasing sexualisation of little girls.

Modesty is probably the wrong word. Perhaps "so they don't show their pants/more" to anyone when they are doing cartwheels.

I guess girls can't wear actual shorts or trousers because that would mean that they were identifying as boys?

I put shorts under my DD's dresses since watching her climb things (she's 4). I don't wear them myself because I'm seldom in a position where my knickers would be visible, so it's completely different! I don't like the word "modesty" particularly, but I think it's reasonable to not have knickers on show in public.

Maybe they've had experience of children bullying etc when they have accidentally caught sight of another one's privates

Good grief.

Just checked and cannot see the word ''sexy''. Unless i'm missing it? It says:

Intricate Lace Trim – Each pair of cute kid’s bike shorts features beautiful lace trim and ideal length to give them an adorable, beautiful touch right at the hem line of most dresses.

It was a thing when I was at school over 50 years ago.

That's the real ridiculousness of it all imo. Why are the girls in an unpractical uniform.

I really dislike the tone and language used by many posters on this thread. Why is it a "polite gesture" to wear shorts under a dress? Polite for whom? And why do little girls need to "protect their modesty". It sounds fucking Victorian.

Frame it as protecting their privacy and I'm willing to listen. But the shit about modesty is making my blood boil.

I think modesty shorts are brilliant. They give girls the freedom to climb and run around without the awful mock coy 'I can see your knickers' thing.

Underwear doesn't do a good enough job in covering the genitals of either sex. Would you send a boy out in just his underpants? Obviously not.

It's also more hygienic than having kids fiddling with their bits during carpet time🙄 Another layer of fabric is a blessing!

I think some schools have made them part of the uniform for good reason and wish more did so.

I wouldn't do it on purpose, but...
Let's imagine an accident would happened, like getting my skirt stuck in my knickers weist band. I would just put it down when I would notice, I wouldn't feel mortified or wish I had extra shorts. Why should I?

I wouldn't want to show my private parts, but I do consider one layer good enough, unless it is highly revealing underwear which doesn't really provide that one good layer.

I always put shorts on my girls for school or park if they wanted to wear a dress. They wanted to wear dresses to fit in but at the same time I wanted them to have freedom of movement like their brothers had/have, not to be limited or uncomfortable when climbing or jumping or anything else.

I’m the same with my boys - I wouldn’t put them in clothing that was likely to show their underwear either! They’re just less likely to ask to wear a dress so it isn’t so much of an issue.

The irony comment was in reference to the above.

In my opinion

It is ok for a young girl to choose to wear a dress to school and just wear pants underneath if they choose and feel happy.

It is ok for a young girl to choose to wear a dress to school with shorts on underneath if they choose and feel happy

It is ok for a girl to wear just shorts, the jumpsuits or whatever uniform they bloody want.

So why don't we allow girls to run around without any underwear?

If people want a no underwear to be shown at school rule then schools need to provide private changing rooms to get changed into for pe. These are the same pupils who strip down to underwear to get changed. So it's ok in one situation but not in another?

Also - who on earth is the poster who says they wear cycling shorts under a dress as an adult? Has the world gone properly mad?

I wear them under a dress, I feel more comfortable knowing I won’t flash by accident if my dress gets caught on my bag, I bend over or the wind blows.

I also think the school is correct, I’m a teacher and I frequently feel uncomfortable because girls sit with their legs crossed and you can see much more than their underwear. I don’t want to see anybody’s vulva or penis when I am at work and I think that should be respected, it makes me feel uncomfortable and I would avoid looking in their direction meaning they are no longer getting the attention they may need, I also feel me ignoring it and carrying on as normal is removing their dignity. I also don’t feel comfortable highlighting the problem to them as I worry the message will get muddled and there will be an accusation made, similar has happened before at my school. You also don’t know who the tradesmen are in school/who is looking through the fence with a camera.

Assume that's to me! Thanks hun, good input 🙄