To think telling a child to "cover up" because of male teachers is ewwww?

[FreeeeeeeeFreeFalling]

DD and her mates were wearing fairly standard vest tops at school for an own clothes day. All dressed exactly the same. DD singled out and told to cover up (I suspect because she is slightly larger chested than the others), which she found humiliating. She was told "there are male teachers around" as the reason!
They are 16.
I kind of think if male teachers can't keep their eyes to themselves, they shouldn't be teachers, right?!

AIBU to think this is a bit off?

I just think some attitudes on here are dishonest. They disingenuously claim that youngsters who choose revealing clothing are not trying to be sexy. I'd like to see them make a plausible argument for this!!

They want us to believe that revealing part of your buttocks isn't meant to be sexy. If not, just what are they hoping to communicate?????

• This. Though I think some younger girls especially may be focusing on staying in with cliques and maybe in done ways revealing clothing has become so normalised via SM etc they're desensitised to it.

It is weird though when people claim showing buttocks (or even back or shoulders) isn't meant to be sexy. Why the faux naivetie? It's not smart or feminist...

Stomachs on display is not appropriate in school for anyone. Clothes should be appropriate to a professional environment.

Shoulders aren't sexy. I assume that they often say no vest tops as many of them have strings to hold them up which means that your bra straps are being shown and that part could be seen as sexy.

It does though, like it or not! Girls going out clubbing looking to hook up with a man don't go out in modest attire do they? They wear cropped tops, short skirts, show cleavage or whatever to attract the male gaze.

I quickly learnt, as a teen, that wearing shorts or a skirt while waiting for the bus would get me beeped at and catcalled at by men in passing cars. If I wore jeans I'd barely get any attention.

Male staff in school absolutely should not be an issue but I wouldn't be so sure about the boys and I definitely wouldn't be so sure about random pervs on the street outside.

It was my niece and it was a skort.

They didn't say because of the male teachers (although they did in the OPs post)
They said it was 'too short'
Too short for what?? What is so bad about seeing a child's legs? It clearly stems from misogyny and the sexualisation of girls.

It clearly stems from misogyny and the sexualisation of girls.

Yes, the fashion for skimpy clothes does stem from exactly that.
Well done to the schools for not allowing it.

A skort? This was part of the sports uniform at my school (Gen Z), people often wore them with leggings but not always.

I don't see anything wrong with that as part of a sports uniform..

But I'm assuming this skort wasn't part of the uniform? It' fair enough for then to set rules against shorts/skorts/short skirts if they want to.

It's arguably not very professional though to show shoulders at work - or school.

And arguably the fashion for shoulderless tops, halternecks etc is because at least some people DO see them as sexy.

Can you cite a source showing that attire incites behaviour? Specifically sexual assault.

No they're allowed to wear skorts (skirt with shorts underneath) their issue was the length.

Would be bloody insane to say girls can't wear short skirts but also can't wear skirts with shorts built in- wouldn't it??

What I'm trying to understand is what is wrong with a child wearing a short skirt. What is wrong with seeing a child's legs? Why is everyone still sexualising them in 2026??

It's not seeing the legs that are a problem, it's when clothing is so short that you can see their underwear/private parts (if the underwear isn't doing it's job well).

It wasn’t legs that were the issue at all in the OP, it was cleavage. The discussion has moved on to short skirts too, but the original comments by the teacher were about a girl wearing a vest top.

Children should be able to be naked without anyone batting an eye.

Don't be so silly. Teenagers?

The girls in question are 16.
There has been a recent court case regarding 2 x 14 year olds who were raped. The judge praised the perpetrators for being brave and let them off.
Sadly, we live in 2026. I don't know what the victims were wearing. However, some boys and men will see scanty clothing as an invitation. We need to adapt to the changing culture of this country.
I believe the attackers were 14. The judge didn't want to ruin their lives by sending them to prison. Poor lads.

Why is it ok for teenagers to be showing their privates/underwear, but a 40 year old man would be arrested? You shouldn't have one rule for some and another for others.

Toddlers on the beach, yes; but teenagers at school - really? That's bonkers.

The word 'children' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here!

I had my adult size and frame at 16

Usernamenotav · 30/05/2026 15:24
Children should be able to be naked without anyone batting an eye.

First, define 'children'.

I've been following this thread because this controversy interests me - to me, it's about different interpretations of what feminism is about.

To sum up my reaction (up to now!):

• Schools (and workplaces) require a certain type of clothing - appropriate, professional, business-like, whatever adjective you want to use.

• Male teachers, and men in general, should not be used as a reason for women to modify their clothing. It's unfair on them and suggests that they're all lustful beasts slavering at the mouth. I think revealing clothing (of the breasts, buttocks or midriff) has no place in schools but that's nothing to do with male teachers - it's to do with a more general consideration for other people and what you are forcing them to see/live with/avert their eyes from.

Please never allow 40 year old men to show their privates/underwear. My gag reflex is strong.

Not really, when I was talking about a 10 year old.

A lot of 10yo children have already started showing signs of puberty, though. Whilst it's obviously only grossly sick adults who are actually sexually attracted to them, they do need to learn as they grow and slowly transition into the adults they will become about what is and isn't appropriate in society.

Just like (absent SEN) children learn that the food throwing, tantrums and running around screaming wherever they are, which they freely did when they were very little, are no longer appropriate or acceptable by the time they reach school age - nothing to do with the fact that they aren't anywhere near being adults yet.

they do need to learn as they grow and slowly transition into the adults they will become about what is and isn't appropriate in society.

Exactly. All societies have conventions and taboos about what's appropriate for different contexts. Sure - people enjoy transgressing these, and especially teenagers, and that's natural - but as you say, youngsters need to be taught when this is OK and when it isn't. I cringe when I think of some of the things I insisted on wearing until my mum stopped me as a young teenager (13 ish). Kids of that age really do have limited knowledge of the world as it really is and little judgement and they need guidance.

It's more OK in your leisure time with your friends and family - I don't think it's right to push the boundaries at school or work.