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.

Little girls knickers don’t always cover what they should!

Boys have to wear shorts over their pants, no-one is saying it’s too hot for them to do that. Why can’t they just wear a long t-shirt

I don’t see it as being about modesty at all. I agree that that seems ludicrous. It’s more about the freedom to move actively without the risk of friction burns, grazes, dresses getting caught on posts, in bike wheels etc.

But boys aren’t wearing pants and shorts AND a dress. Well, maybe they are, but that’s a different thread. The shorts cover the boys’ pants. The dresses cover the girls’ knickers, except for the odd glimpse, which is hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

More policing and control of women and girls’ bodies and clothing choices. Is this the patriarchy or would women do it to their own sex if men ceased to exist? So hard to unpick now as women are socialised to accept so much internalised misogyny.

When DD wears a dress to school / out to play in, I always take and offer a pair of cycling shorts for under (a lot of metal slides in parks where we are) I'd hate myself to be on the receiving end of a friction burn or singed rump so figure, that for comforts sake, it's good but otherwise I dont really think it's overly necessary if you're talking for modesty reasons.

@Fishneedscycle is it though, boys have to wear shorts, they couldn’t just turn up in a long T-shirt. They have to dress much more ‘modestly’ for want of a better term. Girls usually have many more options when it comes to school uniform than boys do.

As an early years teacher, I would always personally put a little girl in either boxers/shorts style underwear or put shorts over the top of knickers when wearing dress/skirt. When they sit cross legged or swing themselves upside down in the playground, they can (very) often flash more than just the knickers they are wearing, and that’s not something I would feel comfortable others seeing personally!

This, in spades.

My DD, age 2, wears a dress to nursery every time she goes. I’ve never sent with shorts underneath and they’ve never said anything. They encourage independent use of the potty or toilet and being able to pull up and down underwear etc in the nursery we use. Shorts would just get in the way as they also need to hold up the dress. It’s a non issue really.

You think the reason boys don’t wear long t-shirts over pants is just for modesty reasons? Offer a 5 year old boy (for example) the chance to wear a long t-shirt and no shorts out somewhere. Guarantee they (and their parents!) wouldn’t allow it because ‘it looks like a dress’, and god forbid anyone could mistake them for a girl!

What do people think knickers are for if not to protect modesty?

I don’t think some parents realise quite what can be on show at carpet time.

I disagree. Little boys can just wear trunks on the beach or swimming (as in fact do adult males.) It is less acceptable in shops etc but men do go without a top in the summer in their own garden or home. When boys wear shorts, they are not wearing another item on top such as a skirt or dress. Pretty sure if they wore a kilt to a wedding or function they wouldn’t wear shorts under it.
The idea that women and girls have to go to great lengths to hide parts of their anatomy from others seems to me to be patriarchal in origin.

Parents of little girls just wearing knickers, did yours not play much? Mine climbs trees, slides down ropes, throws herself around indoors and out. When we've just had knickers she always ends up with scratches or grazes on her upper legs/ bum etc.

Even if they just sit on a bench, dress goes up a bit and then it's their bare skin on the wood whilst they're shuffling around. More fabric is just more protection.

You buy bloomers from h&m, they're like slightly bigger knickers with elastic edges but thinner than shorts.

Mine played loads. That’s why they generally wore shorts and t-shirts. Not for any reasons of modesty though, just because dresses aren’t really practical as they get caught on things. That would be the same if they had shorts under them or not.

ETA some kids (boys and girls) are into different kinds of play though… crafts etc. And that’s fine too.

It's so interesting to see many different opinions on this. After reading some of this thread this morning I did put little shorts on her, because she does go down the slide and play in the bark area of the garden etc and I wouldn't want her to be uncomfy. She said 'shorts don't go under dresses!' and I told her I thought it might be easier for nursery so she doesn't hurt her bottom on the bark. I didn't want to bring covering her knickers into it! I will order some of those short knickers from Next today as they look ideal and I didn't know they existed until now.

If there are any issues like knickers are always on display or not covering enough then the nursery will tell you. They shouldn’t and don’t want to be in a position where they are seeing private parts unnecessarily and kids have a right to privacy from other children in a childcare setting (usually children in nappies won’t be changed in full view of other kids). On a personal level I wouldn’t care if the kids in my care were all naked because it’s natural, however the rules/guidelines are there to protect everyone, and it’s hard to teach kids about who should and should not be seeing their privates if they aren’t covered in the first place (just making the point that it’s about protection not sexualisation). I think shorts and a top is generally just more practical

I'd never heard this until MN though I'm seriously old, as a child in the '50s I recall tucking my skirt/dress into my knickers if I was doing handstands, never reached the dizzy heights of cartwheels!

I remember doing that in the 80s too!

I also remember boys looking under the table in primary school, so they could see what colour our knickers were.

I can only imagine what my reaction would have been if dd came home and told me that now.

I agree, underwear covers everything so why the need for shorts too?

I always buy my daughter the boxer short type pants from Next. You can get black ones that she wears under her school uniform. Perfect as she likes doing cartwheels 😂.

For me it’s for protection, going down a slide and legs getting stuck to the slide etc
I always put shorts on under dresses

I use those next short tights for my dd.
All good and well saying underwear covers it, but I clearly remember a very uncomfortable incident.
at my older ds school event the kids were all seated on the floor and one girl had just her knickers on, legs wide open and some sort of a wedgie happening. It was really awful and the poor parents were so embarrassed. They tried to catch her eye to close her legs but she didn’t.

It doesn’t though, and people have said that further up
the gusset is gaping when they’re sitting cross legged and they’re not covered
short style knickers are probably better

I guess it’s the same as women’s knickers now where the gusset is much more narrow than it used to be

Yes.
and if her underwear doesn’t cover properly, get better underwear!

wtf is the point of a nice cool dress if you’re going to put shorts under it - shorts and a top, OR dress and good pants.