Thoughts on 'modesty' shorts please

[getoffthesofa]

A few girls at my DD2's primary school seem to be wearing these She has asked if she can have some too as she really likes to wear her school summer dresses and is also quite active, running and climbing and leaping and cartwheels etc (also I suspect there may be some karate style kicks going on!).

I strongly object to schools (or anyone) suggesting, or insisting that girls wear these shorts under their dresses, as I do not believe that the knickers of small girls should be funny/sexy/rude/offensive etc (it is essentially victim blaming and the conversation always seems to revert to the excuse that men and boys are able to help themselves being aroused). But she has asked, and if it makes her feel more confident, able to move around as freely and vigorously as she likes, then that can't be a bad thing? My DD1 (yr 8) has also requested them - she wears her skirts short as many of the girls do and now we are out of the tights season I think she too feels exposed (she wears black shortie-knickers anyway).

Yes I know she could just wear, culottes, trousers or shorts, but she refuses too. She loves her summer dresses and I think they are comfortable (the modesty shorts seem rather to defeat the point of feeling cool and breezy round your legs, but there we are)

I hate that they are called "modesty" shorts - what decade are we living in? I hate that small girls can't just dress as they like without feeling looked at and sexualised (though they may not it express it that way). I hate that there is a product cashing on this and I hate that the intention is that girls should cover up instead of men wearing these bloody things on their heads if they can't manage not to objectify or be "offended". And I hate that there is never a suggestion that in a gender neutral uniform boys could wear the dresses too and then everybody's pants would be waving around. But also I want my girls to feel safe and happy.

Do I buy them or do I help my girls blaze a trail for short-free pant freedom? (also do these things go over your usual knickers or do they replace your knickers??)

[DropYourSword]

Do I buy them or do I help my girls blaze a trail for short-free pant freedom?

You buy them if she's asking for them and you can afford them. I was at school 30 years ago and a lot of the girls, including me, wore shorts under their skirts even then. Out of choice.
I wouldn't have appreciated my mum stopping me out of some misplaced "trail-blazing" stand on my behalf.

[thinkingaboutLangCleg]

I still think that men should wear modesty pants on their heads as they are the ones with the problem.

I totally agree, OP!

[Helleofabore]

Wellll.... Melbournians and all that.

It is probably a country Queensland thing.... bloomers would not be a word that passed our lips . And I can attest that they were not hot to wear even in 35 - 40 degree heat and still running around like crazy kids.

Meanwhile, 5 years ago in Sydney they were called 'sports shorts' if I remember correctly when I bought them in BIG W or Target for my child.

[timeisnotaline]

We called those bloomers in melbourne @Helleofabore. I did little athletics in grade 3 and my uniform was shorts but the big girls - grade 4 and up- just wore bloomers and I really wanted to wear bloomers

[Helleofabore]

In Australia, they were called basketball shorts and were literally Lycra shorts without legs (shaped like ‘full briefs’.

We wore them under sports skirts which were upper mid thigh or shorter or just under any school uniform. And yes, we did handstands and cartwheels and swung upside down on the monkey bars with them in primary. In secondary, I wore my sports uniform everyday for comfort.

They were particularly good for when you started menstruating and all of a sudden you were getting discharge as they were dark coloured. And the fact my undies were often baggy because money was scarce.

[timeisnotaline]

I have grown up calling them bike shorts (I’m sure for a while there at about 8/9 I thought they were ‘cool’) so would be sticking with that name. Anyway, good plan op.

[SquirrelG]

The are completely unnecessary, knickers cover genitalia , nothing further is needed.

I must be really old, but when I was at school we simply wore knickers under our skirts/dresses. By the time I got to secondary school we were wearing short skirts and tiny knickers, whereas the secondary girls here have been wearing black shorts under their dresses for years.

[PinkSyCo]

What’s wrong with good old fashioned belly warmers?

[PyongyangKipperbang]

I would cheerfully call them modesty shorts if everyone wore them, including and especially the men who dont have a problem wandering around with their sweaty hairy arse cracks on show. Far from getting overwhelmed with lust, I have to swallow down the urge to vomit. Big pants for everyone would make me very happy.

[WandaWomblesaurus73]

@Isadora2007

They're cycling shorts surely. I can't believe they're rebranding as modesty shorts.
Dd is a gymnast and spends half her playtimes upside down so has worn small black/navy shorts like these for the last 3 years she has been at school.
I don't want to see anyone's undies thanks, and I'd like children to also know underwear is private.

They are cycling shorts exactly - just in cotton and you can even get ones with frills on if you have a drill obsessed daughter.

[WandaWomblesaurus73]

I lived my princess dresses when I was little and I also loved climbing trees in them.
Wearing short leggings underneath a dress is something I do now.
DD lived in her Frozen dresses and her Moana skirted outfits and always wore little shorts underneath them.
It just meant that dirty old men didn't get an eyeful of her underwear when she would be at the top of a tree singing "I am MOANA!"

[Quaggars]

The issues raised in here are as relevant now as they were then
Agree

unsurprising since it's only a year old.
It's 2017? That's not a year old, that's 4 years.

[ApplesinmyPocket]

@PurpleWh1teGreen

A zombie

The issues raised in here are as relevant now as they were then, unsurprising since it's only a year old.

Why IS there this self-important rushing-in to report that a discussion is 'zombie', just because it wasn't posted last week?

Anyway, my thoughts are that while I'd like little girls never to have to worry about their genital-covering knickers being on show, in reality there comes an age when hitherto unaware children who rolled around on the grass, did joyous handstands and happily and freely hung upside down on the bars, one day will come home and say 'the boys were trying to look at our knickers!' (I've been there with two DDs.)

At this point one could hope the BOYS are the ones who change their behaviour and are told it's unacceptable and to bloody well stop doing it. But even if they ARE told, this apparently urgent and ubiquitous desire of men and boys to look at, glimpse, peek, stare, goggle at girls and women's private parts, even if repeatedly told not to, is difficult to stem. So one does find oneself considering 'shorts over the knickers' or 'playsuits' (which look lovely.and comfortable and practical, but the toilet issue..) or suggesting girls wear trousers even if they were happy in nice cool cotton dresses...

Grrrrr. It makes me cross but I don't see a good or easy solution .

[SpiderinaWingMirror]

Dd13 has just bought some to wear under her school skirt.
Now it's too hot for tights, their school skirts are too short (it's the regulation one and the longest length) plus the added risk of up skirting.

[Quaggars]

Bugger
Just noticed it's a zombie lol

[Quaggars]

Modesty shorts?!
No, why should they have to cover up?
It's maybe a pair of pants for crying out loud, surely someone isn't that sensitive they're going to get an attack of the vapours.
They're kids!!
It's not the 1800s, but you'd think it sometimes.

[PurpleWh1teGreen]

A zombie

[Askinvillarblues]

I bought my daughter some from Gap when she asked and they were advertised as cartwheel shorts 🤸‍♀️ , which I thought was a great name!

[lilithxx16]

As a mum of boys, I have always bought boxers or trunk style pants. These are quite substantial under-garments. I have never seen an equivalent for girls. Girls' pants are tiny! I remember wearing school pants as a child. These were navy blue, full briefs. Girls do not need modesty shorts but they do need sensible pants for school.

As for body parts flashed at school, I see far more 'builders bums' than I do girls' knickers. So do boys need braces to stop their trousers falling down?

[hoodathunkit]

When I lived in London I often walked through a park that had a kids playground in it. The playground featured a couple of pieces of equipment, one was a slide the other one I can’t remember exactly what it was, but both pieces of equipment were used by young children and both also, when viewed from good level, provided “up-skirt” perspectives on children’s underwear.

I spoke to the park warden, a lovely, caring man and he expressed concern that many parents did not dress their children appropriately when using the equipment.

The warden and various young lads using the nearby skateboard / BMX park kept a close eye on the playground so as to protect children from predators.

On one occasion the warden told me that the kids from the skateboard park had spotted a man near the playground taking “up-skirt” photos of little girls on his phone. The lads had encircled him with their bikes while they called the warden and the police.

The pervert had deleted the photos / film from his phone by the time the police arrived, but they were able to recover the deleted files.

The fact that such a thing as “up-skirt” photos even exists is an abomination. The fact that this pervert was taking photos of little girls enjoying play in a playground is horrifying.

Of course, in an ideal world, little kids would be able to run around completely naked and be safe from perverts. We do not live in an ideal world and parents need to dress children so as to protect them from the gaze of voyeurs, predators and perverts.

Some parents need educating about appropriate clothing for children to wear while they are involved in sports and active play, especially on elevated equipment.

I have absolutely no problem at all with the “modest pants” advertised in the OP.

I do not think they are victim blaming at all. The word “modest” is a word used by many women and parents who wish to purchase non-sexualised clothing for themselves and for their children.

The modest clothing industry is a huge industry that has seen rapid growth in recent years. Many of the clothing items originally designed and manufactured by religious entrepreneurs are now purchased by non-religious people who just don’t want to expose too much flesh, for whatever reason. I know women with lupus who buy modest clothing as it helps them avoid exposure to sunlight that can make them sick.

I can understand the objections to the word “modest” but whether you like the word or not if you want to purchase clothing that covers the body the word “modest” is a key search word.

If women want to invent a new search word, an alternative to modest, then there is nothing to stop you from starting your own business catering for women who want to cover up or dress their children in appropriate clothes for active play.

The modest clothing industry exploded into massive growth due to largely female entrepreneurs who didn’t feel that their clothing needs were met.

When my niece was aged 11 she and her friends wanted to wear tops with provocative statements on them. Kids want to look like their friends and peer pressure is a powerful thing re parental spending power.

I find it reassuring that a little girl is pestering her mother for modest pants as it shows a shift in pester power from sexualised clothing through to clothing that is practical and appropriate for young children.

[Lamaha]

Need to edit that!
" this is simply a modern day reality and it goes both ways. Today young women sexualise men in a way we wouldn't have dreamed of in my day. It's simply a fact. I'm on Facebook and not a day goes by without some woman posting a photo of half naked firemen and drooling over their bodies or of David Beckham's "sexy" bum (their word not mine) or photos of men with bulges in their crotches and tittering." Sorry!

[Lamaha]

Sorry, just reread my post. Of course it should be in winter we wore thick cotton bloomers!

To get back to the sexualisation of bodies: thus us simply a modern day reality and it goes both ways. Today young women sexualise man in a way we wouldn't have dreamed if in my day. It's simply a fact. I'm on Facebook and not a day goes by without some woman posting a photo of half naked firemen and drooling over their and, or of David Beckham's "sexy" bum (their word not mine) of photos of men with bulges in their crutches and tittering. So it does go both ways these days and it's always annoyed me that women now are just as objectifying of men as men are of women; yet they do so openly and without rebuke ). i certainly say nothing.
I guess the reality is that both sexes like to look, secretly or not. Somehow people get a kick at seeing parts of another's body that is supposed to be private. Women have always known this and that's why traditionally we cover up. Now men know it too, but I'm guessing they LIKE being ogled and sexualized.
I don't think we should make a big deal about covering the private parts of our bodies. I do/did it without thinking twice and without reflecting on feminist values. I'm too old now to be ogled, but I made sure my daughter dresses "modestly" when she was in my care because I know the reality. We can say a thousand times that men need to have pure thoughts but they won't.

[auldcraw]

I'd say let her wear them if she's comfortable. I wear them to stop top of legs charging in hot weather. Change the language though. Modesty shorts - really!
Suggestions - long drawers, granny knickers, panteloons or what's wrong with shorts?