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.

Agreed.

Apparently they need skirts for their female identity.

My dd wears cycling shorts under her dresses. We drill into her that her private parts are just that so it's a totally mixed message to then encourage her to handstand/cartwheel/hang upside down on monkey bars and show her knickers to whoever. She makes no fuss about wearing them because I don't reckon she wants to show everyone her privates any more than I want her to. I want her to enjoy exploring her physical skills without it even being an issue. I don't see what's so weird about that...

Oh and some posters on here are incredibly naive. My dd is only in reception and there's already been at least one serious incident that I know of in which one of the boys also in reception has done some very inappropriate things to one of the girls.... Never assume that your child is safe. Drill into them that their private area is their own, listen to them enough that they'll voice any concern, teach them to stand up for themselves if their personal space is invaded and to fight tooth and nail if needed. That's the only way to keep them safe.

Embarrassed if anyone saw her pants - but if she gets changed for PE, someone will see them and it shouldn't be a big deal.

I was tough that private parts are private and we have underwear to cover them, so when something happens (skirt blown up, need to change) we are still covered.

But what is the issue? If the issue is boys making comments then deal with that don't make the girls change their dress or behavior if its boys who are the actual issue.

I like wearing cycling shorts under dresses - I find it much more comfortable somehow. And it's not because of 'chub rub' as I have never had that issue and have quite spindly legs if anything. I just like to be able to sit however I want with my legs apart or climb something if I want to - find it more comfy on a bike as well. Hardly ever wore dresses with bare legs even on holiday before I thought of putting cycling shorts underneath as I don't like sitting with my legs together all the time or having to restrict my movement. I am clearly ridiculous!

My DD (5) prefers dresses, wouldn't touch anything else. But it doesn't stop her from climbing or doing any active stuff!

Mine always asked for cycle shorts underneath their summer dresses, because they loved cart wheeling. If the child wants to, then it's fine.

I'll be honest- it would have been easier if I could have sent my youngest to school in a dress.

I sent my eldest in dresses because I produce tiny children who have no hips or bums. When she started reception as a just turned 4 year old age 3-4 skirts and trousers were too big on their tightest setting. Now as she's older proper school trousers are out of proportion and the ones that fit on waist are too short for her. She likes the feel of the dresses so doesn't ask for trousers.

My boy had to wear thick grey leggings in reception, he's even tinier than my eldest and at age 6 has graduated to age 3-4 trousers. I loosened them yesterday thinking he's grown and was falling down. Dresses would be bloody easier to fit him!!

My DD (8) has just started to ask for them. She wasn’t bothered before and neither was I. She’s the kind of kid who strips off without much embarrassment although that may change in the coming year.

I prefer wearing dresses and find them cooler. I wore one this morning to walk the dog and its comfortable sitting around or doing whatever in the house or garden. No cycling shorts though. I find shorts or trousers more restrictive.

This I thought pants were there to cover up private parts in case of such things. Why do we need another piece of cloth to cover what's meant to do the job. It feels like sexualisation of young girls.

Personally I think its better if both sexes wear shorts, I've seen little girls in the playground before doing gymnastics in their pants and sometimes it looks really explicit. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't expect my daughter to do it.

DD started asking me for shorts under her skirt from about 5, she had started gymnastics, loved cartwheels but hated her skirt falling up. She wears cycling shorts under her skirt and for the last few years during the warmer weather has had the Playsuit version of the blue and white summer dresses which she loves

Fair enough CaptainMyCaptain. Good thing we get to choose then, rather than being told that girls wear skirts and boys wear trousers. It would be nice if our children could have the same choice.

When I was at primary school (over 40 years ago). We all had regulation ‘navy knickers’! They were large, very sturdy pants. They were part of uniform, they basically doubled up as PE shorts. Gave us the freedom to climb as they covered everything. It is now cycle shorts, same purpose as the past very large pants.

It's not seeing the knickers that's the problem, it's girls knickers being so flimsy and badly cut that vulvas are often on display, which is totally inappropriate.

Big School knickers used to prevent anyone flashing their vulva when sitting cross legged, doing a handstand or climbing and jumping.

As School knickers don't exist any more, cycling shorts or shorts knickers under dresses make perfect sense.

It's not about being modest or having to cover up because of the male gaze, it's common decency.

If boys were running around with their willies hanging out they'd quite rightly be told to cover up. The same rule applies for girls.

Bollocks.

never in her life has my 17 year old worn shorts under her skirt and I'm certain that there aren't any secondary girls wearing them either this morning judging by the length of the skirts

This I thought pants were there to cover up private parts in case of such things. Why do we need another piece of cloth to cover what's meant to do the job. It feels like sexualisation of young girls.

If this is the case then why do any of us bother with skirts and shorts? I could have just sent my children to school in t shirt and pants?

I'm not sure I see the difference. If you sit or climb in a dress, how should others know whether that tiny bit we can see is a polite and modest second layer or bad unacceptable knickers?

Just put them in Girls boxer shorts then there is no need for 2 layers.
I’ve seen Girls going into Primary today with cycling shorts/ polo shirt combo which seems very sensible.

Might be a better idea if the manufacturers made girls knickers less 'tiny' like women have more choice with our underwear.

@DataNotLore or perhaps the children enjoy or prefer wearing skirts. That seems to upset you.
Do you believe there is something not quite true about all of the posters on this thread saying their daughters prefer to wear skirts and dresses or does that not fit with your politics?

Agreed. Very odd thread and very odd concerns.

DBS means they’ve never committed a safeguarding crime and been caught.