To send little one to nursery in a dress without shorts?

[dahliadream]

First time posting on mn so please be kind, not sure whether this board is the right home for this or not?!

I have a three year old girl, it's hot so I have been sending her to nursery in casual loose t-shirt dresses, about knee length. My friend told me yesterday that when she puts her daughter in dresses for nursery she puts shorts underneath. I havent been doing that. She doesn't wear shorts with dresses at home and also wouldn't it make her even warmer on a hot day? She is quite active at nursery and she spends a lot of time outside.

AIBU just to put her in a dress? Or should she be wearing shorts too? Three seems so little to worry about modesty doesn't it.

Same. Mine are teens/tweens now and it never occurred to me at any point to put shorts under dresses.

I didn't when my daughter was little. Apart from the cute dresses that have matching short/bloomers?! But she wouldn't be wearing that to nursery. She wears shorts now under some dresses age 10. Just because you never know when you might need to do a handstand or cartwheel. Plus she's more aware of not wanting to show her knickers.

Shorts and knickers????
Perhaps when she’s 9 or so onwards and doing cartwheels in school breaks but nursery?

My daughter is a flasher but we never bother with shorts under her dress, her knickers cover her private parts. Only time I’d probably put shorts on under would be going to the park to avoid friction burns but her wearing a dress at the park is impractical so she’s normally in a T-shirt and shorts anyway

I think shorts under dresses for practical reasons eg to prevent friction burns is fine but for modesty reasons is ridiculous for such young children. It wouldn't have crossed my mind when dd was nursery age.

I also think that some posters have misunderstood the NSPCC pants rule. It doesn't mean teaching children that nobody should see their pants; it means teaching children that the private parts of the body are the parts that are covered by pants.

I can’t stand how this has become somehow expected: my 9 year old does it now because she likes doing gymnastics but I haven’t until she wanted to. at nursery where they are supposed to be safe and are with other children I feel like it sends children the wrong message, it’s just knickers!

I understand both sides here. Nobody should be sexualising young children and I think the majority of us seeing a little girl doing handstands in a dress and seeing a flash of underwear wouldn't even bat an eye. However, my DS private nursery backs onto a housing estate. They are outside all the time and if anyone wanted to be pervs, well its not hard to see through or over a fence. I will always do shorts underneath dresses. Or just shorts and T. It's our job to protect them as best we can.

I always did put the little cycle shorts on underneath for my daughter

Mine asked for shorts from about 3 or 4. It hadn’t really occurred to me before that. Now they’re at school and they still wear shorts under their skirts/dresses every day. I think all their friends do too. My youngest says she feels too “exposed” without them now.

I didn't bother at that age, no. As she got older, she decided herself that she'd like to wear shorts underneath because she's one for turning cartwheels and doing handstands etc.

This is a recurrent topic on here.

DD was a super active little girl- cartwheels and monkey bars all day long.

Age 7 at school an older boy commented that he didn’t like seeing her knickers and she was mortified.

So shorts under school dress after that.

It’s just the norm at school- and agree that there is no reason why. Knickers cover everything….

As a nursery teacher I would say that little girls sitting crossed legged on the carpet, knickers have a tendency to gape. I'd put bloomers, shortie pants or cycling shorts on with dresses tbh. Also helpful on slides and climbing.
You won't be thought of as a bad parent at all.

I wouldn't be mentioning it to my child in a way of her needing to stay modest but if she is wearing them then you don't have to tell her to put her dress down etc with is actually reinforcing the 'stay modest' vibe. Kids seem to go through a phase between 2 and 3 of showing their bellies to each other and if they are wearing a dress the whole lot comes up!

What on earth is the harm in kids not wanting people to see their pants? What do you mean it sends the wrong message? What message? No one needs to be seeing their pants it’s of no benefit to anyone.

Modesty for a three year old? What should they be wearing to swim in? Full body coverage?I can see the argument re friction burns, in which case maybe dresses aren't that practical in the first place but feel very uneasy with little children (girls) being expected to consider a concept of modesty.

My DD is 3.5. She loves to wear dresses and is very active - climbing, sliding, jumping, dancing and I put cycling shorts underneath her dresses because it just seems better than having bare bare legs when doing those things. We also have the next short style pants which she can wear if it’s very hot. She’s just always flashing her pants one way or another. I agree it shouldn’t matter but I think it sort of does.

Never occurred to me to put shorts on DD; still wouldn’t at six when she cartwheels as a mode of transport.

I work in a nursery and we would never put shorts on a child for the sake of modesty. Some parents do, but we genuinely don’t even think about it as a problem, pants cover everything required and they are so little to be made to feel pants need covering up.

However from a practical point of view, we have put them on if a child is struggling to climb etc in the garden. Sometimes longer dresses get in the way and prove a hazard. In that situation I have grabbed a pair of shorts and tucked the dress in to make it safe, we then tend to remove them when we come back inside.

We wouldn’t care about seeing pants, just safety.

If she's active and playing outside I would just put her in the shorts and ditch the dress. But when she did wear a dress on the odd occasion I didn't put shorts underneath at nursery age.

I put little cotton shorts on my daughter under her dresses.

I watched the jimmy saville documentary where one of the victims recounted the sexual abuse she experienced where he put his hand up her dress and sexually assaulted her in a crowd at a church service. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. I feel that putting cycling shorts on my little girl provides a bit of protection. Knickers are looser and gape and don’t offer the same coverage. I’ve seen my young girl going down the slide or doing handstands or even just sitting cross legged and think it’s more suitable

I never put shorts on under dresses when my DD was 3. She’s now 8 and prefers a skort to a skirt / dress.

The way kids 'squat' when they play with a toy on the ground often pulls their knickers to the side IME- sitting cross legged can do the same. It's not about seeing their knickers, it's about seeing everything under their knickers when the knickers do not stay put. I'm a teacher and we ask for shorts under dresses for this reason. Shorts deter the hands in pants too.

I always did but they had lots of slides and things so it was more to save her bum than cover up.

We never bothered with shorts under dresses for our daughters and I'm surprised the number of posters who say their child's pants move out of place. We've never found this an issue.

My 7 year old did request shorts for under school dress last year so we got them for her as it's her body and her choice. However I don't think she found them comfy so didn't wear them for long.

If it was in a nursery's policy (as I think a couple of posters have said) then I wouldn't be sending my child there.

That seems drastic over a very small issue 😵‍💫