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.

Apparently the shorts are called “modesty shorts” by those who are very Victorian in outlook. Good God, talk about regressive.

Or allow a choice.
Why should other children not be allowed to wear a summer dress?

Try Google.

"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."

This. So does calling it "flashing" or "showing off" their underwear.

"I wish they would stop the summer dress nonsense and just make it grey shorts like boys"

Why does it have to be grey shorts like the boys?

Are they?
Knickers and shorts are the norm for many people. I don't think a little thin dress or skirt over the top is going to make much difference to that aspect as it doesn't touch.

It really doesn’t. If anything, it teaches them to be just like the boys. I don’t let my boys wear clothing that will expose their underwear. I don’t let my girls wear clothing that will expose their underwear. It’s the exact same. I wouldn’t let my boys have their underwear out and say ‘well their genitals are covered by underwear, it doesn’t matter.’ Same with girls.

Why can't girls (and boys if they want) be allowed to wear skirts or dresses?

I almost always wear dresses. I don't like wearing trousers. I find dresses way more comfortable - and in winter, with thick tights warmer too.

Why can't we be allowed to chose?

Plus surely the boys are managing to wear underpants with shorts over the top without instantly becoming ill from the terrible combination of underwear and clothing?

@Kanaloa I don't think you understand how conditioning works.

My daughter is 4 and I put shorts on her if she's wearing a dress.

Its awful but I feel like it covers her underwear from people who may have less than innocent thoughts. She loves to run and climb and would be often flashing her underwear otherwise. She likes wearing shorts/leggings/tights under her dress, otherwise she tells me I forgot to give her trousers! X

I usually wear shorts under my dress to work do I can just get on with stuff without worrying about showing my knickers!! I work with children so on the floor alot. I see this as the same thing tbh.

It's bloody stupid a bit of a stretch to suggest that making uniform rules designed to avoid girls showing their underwear while doing normal activities like sitting cross-legged or doing cartwheels constitutes 'accusing them of being immodest'.

If thr school words it as 'to protect their modesty', it's probably because they think it sounds better and a bit more formal on the school policy than 'to stop them from flashing their knickers'.

I do if it is hot. I have Ines I bought specially and are supposed to be of a cooling material. Anyway, they don't make me sweat.

Sadly as I've got older thigh rub has become more of an issue. I'd rather wear a thin pair of shorts under my dress (as said before, I nearly always wear dresses as prefer them) than get sore thighs.

The only women I know who do this are pretty fat and do it to stop chub rub. I don't know anyone who wears them otherwise.

I'm not particularly overweight, but could do with losing a bit.
Dd isn't overweight and wears them.
My sister is very much the opposite of being overweight and wears them.

Our genetic body shape means our legs often touch at the top and if it's hot or humid it can be sore after a while.

I know many women who do - infact the Ines I night were recommended to me from a very slim woman at work 🤷‍♀️

I completely agree with this.

I think it must be very hot to wear kickers, shorts and a dress.

It’s nothing to do with conditioning. I’m saying that it isn’t sex based. I wouldn’t allow any of my children, boys or girls, to wear clothing that exposed their underwear.

I don't think that having young girls wear shorts under dresses is Victorian or regressive! I also don't think there is anything wrong with teaching girls (or boys) from a young age that underwear is private.
My daughters always wore trousers, shorts or skorts to school when they were young, so they could cartwheel to their hearts content, or sprawl or sit cross legged on the carpet, with no concern about revealing their underwear or private parts. That shouldn't be something they have to think about.
Out of school they would sometimes wear skirts or dresses. If they were going to be playing at the park or something, they would wear shorts or leggings underneath. For a nice dinner or something like that, they wouldn't.
And I really don't understand the "health" concerns about wearing shorts and undies. Really? Since when has been wearing underwear underneath trousers been an issue? We live in Florida and pretty much live year round in shorts with no problems.

"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."

The only sexualisation of girls is in the ridiculous flimsy ill-fitting pants manufacturers make!

School knickers would solve all these issues. But as that's not going to happen any time soon, shorts under dresses is a good idea.

If you're happy for the dog and his wife to see your girls vulva as she climbs, sits cross legged and does handstands leave them in the flimsy pants. Personally I'd prefer sturdy knickers or shorts.

It's all about training girls that they are responsible for men's behaviour.

I know that is often a mesage given out to women and girls, and it's appalling. But really - do you honestly believe that primary schools are saying to their girls that the reason their underwear shouldn't be visible in school is because they shouldn't be tempting men and boys to look at them? I seriously doubt it. No pupil or staff member's underwear should be visible in school - that doesn't seem like a terribly controversial idea tbh.

Completely agree, we should be dealing with the boys who are looking and commenting and changing their behaviour. The girls are covered up by their knickers. We don't make them wear 2 costumes at the pool in case someone sees their first layer of clothing so why now.

My daughter likes play suits in gingham - they look just like the supermarket school summer dresses. Sainsbury's also does gingham shorts in their school uniform colours - I don't know how strict your school uniform is? I see far too much of her knickers and, like the previous poster, was thinking of her teacher when they're crossed legged on the carpet! Especially as my daughter (5) wouldn't think anything of fiddling with her knickers!!

I agree. I constantly had this battle with dd’s primary school when she was there.

Without any luck!

Irony was, they didn’t give them the option of actual shorts. So if girls wanted to use the play equipment provided, they had to wear two layers in the middle of summer.

This is it. Why are girls exposing underwear? Surely that’s the weirder thing. Just have the dresses longer. You’d never let a boy have his pants out.