Pants under skirt for 4 year old - DH and I disagree

[Thatsnotmynamee]

In short, I just had a weird conversation with DH. Our 4 year old daughter was wearing a dress with pants under it today. We were on a short ferry journey, it was pretty packed. When back at our campsite, I realised DH had made her put on shorts underneath. He later told me he had felt extremely uncomfortable on the ferry, that there are paedophiles everywhere and he cannot bear the thought of a photo of her ending up in the wrong hands. He also said he's already noticed men looking at her?? I was shocked, completely taken aback - my mind just does not go there, am I ridiculously naive? (I don't post photos of her online btw apart from my private Instagram and never exposed.)
But I feel so grossed out by this, I wasn't able to discuss properly with DH. There's a part of me that wants to insist she doesn't need to wear shorts. Is he being rational?

This is really interesting OP because it's been quite topical for me the past couple of weeks (shorts under skirts for little girls that is).

So we started potty training our 2 year old about a couple of weeks ago and I've been putting her in briefs/knickers. She's literally 2 so doesn't care at all about her skirt going up etc. When in her buggy, if she's wearing her dress without tights is can bunch up and pretty much could be very revealing and show her private parts.

So that's the backstory. My mum is a nursery teacher (kids in her class are 3-4 years old) and she took noticed the above and told me two specific things:

• almost all the girls in her nursery wear shorts or boxer type briefs under their skirts and not knickers. I was quite surprised because I am quite conservative myself (and dress according to my religious beliefs which is Muslim) and I didn't think to do that for DD
• she said even though their pupils don't pay attention, they (the adults in the nursery) are very mindful of pupils and their intimate areas during things like nappy changes (it's done out of sight of the other kids).

I didn't really ask her why the above is done but just assumed that's what is best practice. I guess it could be to do with a paedophile issue.

Another thing is that both DH and a male friend independently wanted their daughters to wear shorts/bloomers under their skirts/dresses. I wonder if men know how other men think or something of that ilk.

are you also concerned about boys overheating in their shorts at school?

Sorry that was a question for @BasilandTom

I didn't say she had taken chances, she said should she see everyone as being a potential danger to her child, im just saying potentially yes so minimise risk/ acsess wherever and how ever you can. Its all hypothetical/ potential isn't it, these "people" dont wear signs and they manipulate to get access, that's why it happens so often.

That’s a nasty leap. He could simply be fearful for his child and over-protective

Paedophiles need to get across the water too. They don't all swim

I think you have to trust him when he says he saw someone or some people looking - why would you doubt this? Unless he has done something in his past you are aware of or has had abuse as part of his past? If my partner said this I'd be confident that they weren't making it up for no reason. We know a lot of men look at porn and the police say they can't possibly arrest all of the peadophilia cases because there are so many and it's growing. It's not a huge secret this is a big issue globally we don't have a handle on.

When I went to primary school in Australia throughout the 80’s, girls were expected to wear bike pants under their school skirt especially for PE. You could get them in the school colours to match your uniform. And we still can get bike pants in school uniform colours today.

It’s not a new thing at all. But it is a new thing to make a big deal of it and insist that it is somehow damaging for girls or it’s somehow sexualising girls to care about their modesty (in the same way that I would protect my son’s modesty) by covering up their underwear.

How is simply making it easier for someone to not show their underwear sexualising them or putting it on them to police sexual predators and perverts? It’s not.

I can tell you right now that no one that I knew (including myself) felt or expressed that they felt sexualised for being expected to wear bike pants. I don’t think it ever occurred to us to link modesty to sex. At a young age we didn’t even know what sex was and that’s the way it should be.

However, there are plenty of children’s clothing for girls that are sexualised. It really became noticeable when I needed to get my daughter shorts for summer and all of them were tiny shorts with no length in the leg part. I had to buy shorts from the boys section just so I could find shorts that were appropriate for an activity at camp where they were wearing a harness and had to protect her legs from chafing (summer in Australia is often too hot for wearing long pants). Why were all the shorts for boys not only more modest than the girls but more practical and durable too?

Your husband is being a normal parent and is not being unreasonable or paranoid. If he noticed men perving or leering at your daughter, good on him. He was doing a good job supervising her. And good on him for handling it by communicating it with you and wanting to make a practical change to protect her. That’s what parents do. That’s what I do as a parent. And even though I am a woman I do have eyes and I have noticed whenever a man or men have looked at children in a predatory, sexual way. It is obvious.

Most people that I have known in real life can recognise it too regardless if they are male or female. To not be aware of something so (unfortunately) common is to not only be naive but either completely oblivious or stubbornly in denial, or very well aware but wanting to gaslight or groom people into trivialising or minimising predatory behaviour.

Just remembered this recent study too https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/news/shocking-number-australian-men-sexually-attracted-children-and-teens

I have a daughter and I have always put shorts under skirts/dresses. If I know she's going to be tumbling around - then its trousers, leggings etc.

I put shorts on under my 6 year old's dresses. She plays with loads of energy - as she should - and her pants would pretty much always on show otherwise. And possibly more! She sits cross legged at school so for me it's a no brainer. I don't get why it's so weird?

My reasons are not paedophile-related, more just common dignity for my kid. Boys don't have their underwear on show all the time, why should she?

but if we’re now telling little girls that they need to do extra it’s very unfair

But is it extra, compared with boys, who have long been expected to wear shorts or long trousers over their underpants?

That's ludicrous. I think girls' underwear is awful, tiny, and as I said on a recent post about this subject, I'm sick of seeing little girls' vulvas because knicker gussets are so small. But if schools are getting involved then that's admitting their uniform isn't fit for purpose and is sex discriminatory. At which point the girls should be wearing trousers and shorts so they're not held back developmentally by their clothing - physically and mentally. What sort of a message is it when the school is telling girls they're not doing enough to cover themselves wearing their uniform?

Yes, it's extra. The shorts are enough, apparently: They fix the skirt "problem".

Hard agree on the girls pants. Dd has always worn boy-shorts (admittedly because she is large of bottom) but anything else was simply not worth putting on. So many pants have stitching in the middle of the crotch too which makes it uncomfortable so girls have to keep moving the gusset about. I also hate seeing the high leg 4-5yo pants with "Delicious" or whatever written on them, it's horrible and I can't understand anyone thinking girls need that on their pants as children. There's either poor thinking behind manufacturing going on with girls pants or parents are buying it...god knows why!

Then I suspect you have a sensitivity and are bringing a meaning to this that isn't needed. You've said before that you don't want your daughter to 'feel she has to change her behaviour at such a young age' (or words to the effect, apologies for the paraphrase) but really it doesn't have to mean that unless you make it about that.

It's just about being able to comfortably move and use her body however she likes without showing her underwear - which would be odd and unacceptable for every demographic except little girls it seems.

I would find wearing shorts under dresses in summer extremely uncomfortable, and my thighs rubbing together is no issue whatsoever.

Surely just make sure their knickers are substantial enough to cover everything.

But I'm from the generation who wore short skirts to school with tiny knickers underneath, and no-one thought twice about it.

Girls knickers must have got smaller because when I was a kid in the 70’s I’m sure that nothing could be seen, and we played in parks hanging upside down on climbing frames with our dresses over our heads

Tell us about how popular the Dark Web was back in those idyllic, innocent days when you were in primary school. You know, that place where countless men share their sneaky images of little children for others to collect and wank over?

He's a nut job. His paranoia will do her more harm than creepy men looking at her. Because one of those things she will notice more than the other.
And actually his behaviour is more likely to make her notice men looking at her and be self conscious about that when she is far too young to be thinking about any of that, let alone taking on responsibility for that.
I don't make my girls wear shirts under anything because I want them to have body confidence and not feel like they have any type of responsibility about what random men think or feel about their bodies.
I never understand these people who say there are paedophile every where.
Maybe there are. I experienced CSA on a crowded train in broad daylight whilst dressed in baggy jeans and a sweatshirt.
Paedophile don't magically vanish because there's 2cm more material on your child.
End of the day the only thing you can do is raise your girls to be strong women. Teach them about consent and boundaries and the correct names and terms for their bodies. Teach them about sexual exploitation and grooming.
But at no point make them feel that they or their bodies are ever in any way responsible for the behaviour of men.

Tbh I always make dc do the same but more for modesty rather than paedophiles!

His theory doesn't make that much sense as a pedophile couldn't care less.

I don't find them uncomfortable at all, the opposite in fact. The same way boxers are more comfortable than pants.

Being happy for young girls to have to display their bodies in a way that young boys are not obliged to, does not = "instilling body confidence".

It means teaching girls that their bodies are for display and "fashion", whereas boys' clothes are expected to be sensible and practical.

Yes. I'm wary of threads like this.

It could be a genuine one, but after 18 years on MN, I'm aware that there are threads posted with the sole intent of discussing young children in this way.

I’m not paranoid about paedophiles but for modesty my daughter either wears a skort or a dress with cotton cycling shorts underneath, she does a lot of gymnastics at playtime and doesn’t want to be flashing her pants to classmates, we’ve been doing that since reception