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.

Do contact the school. I know the teachers are over burdened but that little boy's influence needs monitoring

Reading that back, I wasn't suggesting all male teachers are guilty of something.

@DataNotLore at our school the uniform isn’t split by sex. Boys and girls can either wear a dress or shorts and shirt. You don’t get many choosing to do it, but the can.

personally I prefer skirts and dresses.

The boys and girls get changed separately. I remember some boys who used to use a ruler to lift your skirt up, not many but even one is too many. I know it would be nice to think all children are innocent but some are not so much. My DD has no issues getting changed in front of other girls which is something she has just naturally been fine with (quick costume changes for dance have likely helped with that!). But boys and girls have different parts which they understand from a young age, they are curious about each others bodies and will look which would make anyone feel uncomfortable.

I'm unsure on the school enforcing it, but it may be something has happened to get to the point they are at.

My daughter likes to wear them. Having worked in schools, I have found that when young girls are sitting cross legged etc on the carpet their knickers often gape slightly at the crotch revealing their genitals. So for me it’s not about someone seeing their knickers, it’s about them inadvertently showing more than that.

Wouldn't it be better if schools just had practical uniforms that allowed children to play?

If girls are wearing shorts why do they need a dress over the top?

Weird! I’m a grown woman (obviously!) and I’ve never worn shorts under my skirts or dresses, not as a child and not as an adult. Why don’t we just stay indoors in case someone catches a glimpse of our immodesty? 🙄 FRO!

Once when I was at primary school, a boy was standing watching us do handstands because he could see our knickers (his words). He was only about 8 and he was sniggering a bit and generally being annoying. The teacher came along and told him off and got him to move away and play with the other boys. At no point did she try to shame us or send a note home that we wear bloody shorts under our dresses! She dealt with the nuisance (sniggering boy).

I have two DDs and they’ve never worn shorts under their dresses nor have they asked to, and nor has the school requested that they should.

@ZiriForEver so I suppose not if EVERYONE saw her pants, but there is a time and a place where it is expected - ie changing rooms. Any other time even other girls would say 'I can see your pants'. Same as adults, you expect it in a certain setting.

My DD has worn Leggings + Pinafore over winter (almost 6, finishing up Receptionyear) and Leggings + Polo shirt for PE. Her summer uniform is just a gingham dress, too hot for tights or leggings and she hasn't asked to wear shorts.

Agree 100%
Honestly til i read this thread it never occurred to me that seeing a flash of a kids underwear while doing a cartwheel was an issue. So what? We are talking about 5 year olds. Two or 3 years earlier they were only coming out of nappies. It seems like people are desperately trying to sexualise them. And so what if a similar aged boy sees something, is the human body wrong or disgusting? It's not sexual to a 5 yr old boy so why make it so? I work with 4 and 5 year olds and we tell those in skirts to pull theirs down, but it's also not uncommon for a boy to wander out of the toilet with his underwear around his ankles, and they are also immediately asked to cover up. Its just not a big deal at all it's part of being 5 and innocent.

I don’t think this is about paedophiles at the school gate.

we all know we’re not meant to show our pants in public. Wearing shorts means no pants on show.

I’m not ‘protecting’ my DD putting her in shorts I’m just teaching her not to show her pants in public.

Sometimes my daughter's underwear can go to the side and you get a view of her private parts. I would rather it was properly covered.

Since when was it impolite for a little girl to not wear short under a dress. Do you thing these little ones are rude and ill mannered ?

I don’t think it’s bigotry to teach your child to not show their underwear. As an adult you wouldn’t show your underwear to others , so why force that on a small child?

It's not about shaming the girls AT ALL and I have no idea why people are thinking along these lines. I wouldn't like my DD to have to deal with sniggering anyone and as stated repeatedly, it would be exactly the same for boys - but they normally don't wear dresses so their underpants are always covered. If they were on show I would bet others would be sniggering at them too and why would anyone want that for their child?

DS boxers are practically the same as shorts, doesn't mean I was ok with him running about in them without shorts over the top!

I think it's very different to be honest because a woman's private parts are a sexualised thing, a little girls are not.

If a boy uses a ruler, the issue is the boy and school should deal with that, not change girl's clothes.
Having second shorts doesn't change how bad upskirting is (it isn't about knickers as such, it is about violation).

About different parts - what is the difference between one and two layers? Especially the very tight cycling shorts.

Maybe it’s just about girls not showing their pants . Boys don’t show their pants do they ? And as for adults not wearing shorts underneath dresses and skirts surely if it’s their choice then it makes no difference to you or your life .

Is like to see this too

I agree but you'll be accused of sexualising and shaming girls, despite (I'm assuming) referring to both sexes.

That in itself is not a reason for woman not to show their underwear! Underwear is called underwear for a reason. It’s worn under clothes as not to be seen and that should apply to everyone!
men , boys , girls and women alike !

I have been buying shorty type knickers only. And preferably in dark colours. Works fine for us.

In my view I think in line with the sensible teaching of consent having a clear line of “nobody else should see your underwear” sets a clear boundary for them from a young age.

part of the problem is girls school uniform is on the whole completly impractical when it comes to playing and being a child!

The gingham jump suits are a good alternative. My daughter prefers them now to the dresses. If she asks for shorts I’ll get some and not stress but equally I won’t make her wear them just yet but girls do spend a lot of time doing handstands and cartwheeling so I can see how schools can sometimes ask for shorts when there are loads of girls hanging upside down with their knickers on show.

As others have said, it's because a lot of the girls are constantly doing handstands and cartwheels,underwear moves/can be loose fitting, so it's to prevent them inadvertently showing their genitals.
My teenage dd wears very short skirts to high school, and always wears short shorts underneath, lile the style of cycling shorts, but much shorter, think they might actually be called modesty shorts.