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.

Thing is it’s often not just knickers, the children at school who do somersaults on the bars end with their dresses or t shirts hanging over their heads while stomachs showing as well as pants.
It’s really stops some of them
playing and doing their tricks.
Personally I wouldn’t wear a dress to go to the gym.

I wear shorts under my tshirt dresses because when I bend over you can see my bum. I’m taller than average so I guess this is why, I’m just buying standard sized tshirt dresses not mini ones. I don’t want people seeing my bottom when I bend down. My DD’s asked to wear shorts under their dresses towards the end of primary school because they didn’t want to flash their knickers when they flipped around in the playground.

I think it’s practical personally, just makes sense.

I can totally understand where the school is coming from with this,but like a lot of previous posters,it makes me feel uncomfortable. Protect their modesty from what/who? I don't remember this being 'a thing' when I was that age (late 1960s).

I believe modesty should be taught at a certain point but I also think that if something would be very briefly shown at still quite a young age it's not that big of a deal. Isn't it common just a few years before this in nursery for children of both sexes to even use the same toilet and get changed together? Something how we go from that to worrying about this so quickly.

Duh? Really? Are you 5 years old?

Yes but girl’s underwear unfortunately does tend to gape, so why take the risk?

Is this comment serious? It’s hardly eroding the concept of being a woman. We were asked to do this when I was in primary school 30 years ago. Underwear can gape when sitting cross legged and we used to love going upside side and doing cartwheels. Seems like common sense to me and not a big deal.

"Yes but girl’s underwear unfortunately does tend to gape, so why take the risk?"

Buy better underwear. Don't teach little girls they are responsible for mediating men's behaviour.

The playsuits aren't great. They end up on the toilet floor for under 7s and then get wet. My daughter has the sainsburys gingham shorts

Don't need to I agree, but if they want to, their request should be accepted.

I couldn't care less if people see my underwear. Saying this peice of cotton is underwear and must never be seen, and this peice of cotton is designated shorts and so is fine to be seen is nuts in my opinion.

I also dry my underwear on the line where anyone can see it gasp! Shock! Horror!

Incidentally- I don't think I've ever seen a child's genitals when they are wearing pants, unless they are deliberately pulling them aside.

Protect their modest" here is a euphemism for "not show everyone their vagina or bum when they do a cartwheel

lol at poster not knowing the difference between a vagina and a vulva. Educate yourself

Far more sensible to just say all children wear shorts, no skirts required.

If they are wearing skirts then knickers should be sufficient to cover genitals, if not buy knickers that are sufficient. One of my neighbours used to kit her 5/6 year old daughter out in G-strings as underwear, which I personally didn't think suitable (even before handstands and cartwheels).

😆

Bit disturbed by all these alleged reception teachers spending the day in horror at flashed genitalia. I taught reception for years and yes, you'd get the odd flash of pants, but I have never ever been confronted by genitalia hanging out of them like apparently is a regular occurrence on here

I wondered too about these teachers. I spent a lot of time with my daughter and her friends growing up. They sat on the floor, did cartwheels when out and about, had picnics etc. I barely saw knickers never mind genitalia. Yet teachers are getting an eyeful of vulvas (vulvae?) it seems. Very odd.

I think that was a teacher too 😳

Just wondering - was the underwear the same type as it is today? Sorry if this sounds a daft question but I am too young to know.

@katepilar No - 1960s (and even 1980s) underwear was much more substantial. Think granny pants but for little girls, with high waists and elastic all around the legs.

I remember as a child reading the Malory Towers books and being quite nonplussed that Jo ‘tucked her pocket money in her knickers.’ I remember thinking what the hell is going on in this school that people are putting five shilling notes in their undies! Now I know that school knickers back then weren’t really like knickers now and I explained to DD when we reread them together 😂

It teaches little girls to change their behaviour to stop boys from looking at them and commenting on their body. Start of victim blaming attitudes.

My daughter is 7 years old and likes wearing modesty shorts under her summer dress. She doesn't have to but prefers it as she is an active child with all the gymnastics/running around she does at school plus her friends wear them as well.
The school dress code doesn't say anything about shorts under summer dresses but if a child feels the need to cover up or if a parent asks their child for the child's preference then I don't see an issue with it.
I'm also trying to teach my daughter that her body is beautiful and its up to her what she wears within reason e.g school uniform.

My view is that skirts are oppressive. You can't do gymnastics without flashing your underwear. Stop putting girls in skirts and there is no issue.

katepilar Thinking about it,I think the underwear we wore was a bit more substantial. I can remember wearing navy blue knickers that were quite thick and high-waisted.

Ridiculous ideas.