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??)

The primary school has changed its uniform since, to be fair- now shorts/culottes for both boys and girls. And navy blue not yellow.

getoff... Lass doesn't want to be seen as feminist and she always feels she has to make the point that she believes people sneer at women like her who enjoy wearing expensive women's fashions. It's part of her charm, don't let it take up too much room in your thinking, unless you want it to.

DD just repurposed her gym shorts (over pants) to wear under her dress (M&S 'performance' shorts: www.marksandspencer.com/girls-active-sport-shorts/p/p60101936?image=SD_04_T76_1036_F3_X_EC_90&color=DARKNAVY&prevPage=plp ) : it's a new thing for her in Y6.

I was really torn too and had a chat to dd about it: but on balance, it's not socially acceptable for pants to be on show (on either sex, tbf) so if they are wearing summer dresses then shorts underneath means that their behaviour isn't restricted. I'd rather they wear shorts and do what they like, than not wear shorts and worry about being teased for pants on show/therefore not do stuff. I choose my underwear carefully if wearing a skirt + being active (e.g. camping trips/work when I had to climb on chairs and tables sometimes!!)

aah - thanks for the heads-up Xenophile! Don't mind being challenged - helps my thinking about this stuff. Was just a bit surprised.

Gah where do M&S get these names from?! Performance is better I guess! Those are like cycling shorts or v short leggings? I will show the DDs.

Would she consider skorts? DD would wear these when she was going through her "nothing but skirts and dresses" phase.

Yes, like cycling shorts: I'd rather have performance than modesty ;-)

Although I've just spotted those ones must be an upgrade on dd's as hers don't have the bum pocket...that might be a bit umcomfy if you're sitting in classes...

My youngest has always insisted on shorts under skirts and dresses. Little boys still like looking up girls dresses. It is as it always was. Why they think it's ok is a separate issue.

My daughter wears them. In fact the school insist on them. When they sit on the floor or are climbing running etc you usually see the knickers. Nobody should see them or look. It is not the girl's fault and they have no idea as they are just playing. Keep them safe and just buy them.

Hmm my DD primary school has insisted on pe shorts under dresses, I think I found the solution by buying a dress with built in culottes, very practical and DD loves it.

I hate the name but dd wears something similar. She just webt and got her pe shorts and put them on.Now she has been told in no uncertain terms that underwear does it's job (she wears seam free shorts from m&s) and if anyone says anything about underwear it's their issue not hers. As far as I'm concerned she can and does wear what she likes. I felt refusing would make as much of an issue as making her wear then would so I allow her to do what's comfortable for her.

In all honesty if I wear skirts or dresses I wear bikini shorts underneath as I just don't like the feel of just underwear.

Oh and she also wears them under jeans or trousers as aside from leggings we struggle with trousers that fit herbal she wears shorts underneath as they stop the adjustable waist button/strap from running. She sleeps in them too.

She loves her shorts does dd.

Oh and they also stop the back of her legs getting itchy from the carpet (you can feel through the skirts sometimes)

I remember wearing like cycling shorts under my skirt at school, mb it was just in P.E days. But if she wants to wear them I don't see the harm

Right, I think I have got there:

I am not buying the modesty ones on account of them being called that, but will look into performance, cycling and longer legged black boy-shorts.

My reasoning is: practicality to prevent the restrictions the dress creates and the impracticality of inadequate girls knickers.

Big pants/overpants are now a feminist solution and underwear generally is protecting your private bits and not for show.

Marketing them as modesty pants is shit and I will be writing to M&S about this.

I am still consuming so the world will keep on turning.

Phew. Thanks all!

I share pretty much all your feelings on this, OP. And the name 'modesty shorts' makes me want to scream.

My ten year old dd usually wears shorts for school, but likes to wear a summer dress occasionally. She's taken to wearing her dance shorts (v like those M&S ones but without the dreadful name!) underneath. On balance I think it's important that she feels comfortable being as active as she likes, so I've made my peace with it.

I think they're a great idea.

We had to wear 'gym knickers' under our PE skirts at school and these are a great improvement!

Who cares what they are called if you can do a cartwheel without people seeing your knickers?

At secondary school our skirts were cut so that a gust of wind could flip them upside down. So wore them then too.

Same here but the skirts were the fashion not a requirement. To be honest I don't think this is an issue if shorts/pants are also an option.

Wanting to wear a dress in summer is fine, wanting to do cartwheels in the dress is fine, not wanting people to see your knickers is also fine and understandable even from an 8 year old.

The name is bullshit though.

*Lass doesn't want to be seen as feminist and she always feels she has to make the point that she believes people sneer at women like her who enjoy wearing expensive women's fashions. It's part of her charm, don't let it take up too much room in your thinking, unless you want it to(

I'm not charming. It was however a serious point. Sneering at anything feminine is just as bad as enforcing it.

My other point was that dresses and pretty things are gendered as female and I would have no problem with them at all if it were equally socially acceptable for boys and men to wear them, and by extension to have their freedom move restricted similarly

Then work to make it so. Although why something should only be worthwhile if boys want it is a skewed way of looking at things.

Oh and this "freedom to move is impossible in a dress" oddly I didn't seem to have any problems in a very active outdoor rural childhood in the 60s.

I wish they had been a thing in my day, I used to get shocking chub rub :(

I'm not sure you get to make the call on whether or not you're charming Lass, but I'll bow to your superior knowledge

There is certainly a tendency for the "girl" version of things to be less practical and/or substantial than the "boy" version. Think of shoes, for example. And pants- boys pants are generally made of thicker material and are more covering than girl's.

And language is important. Modesty has distinct connotations-nobody would ever say that a little boy was "being immodest" if his trousers slipped a bit and his pants showed. Modest is something that girls are expected to be. And I honestly don't see why, if you have substantial pants that cover you, you need to have other pants to cover those pants. It's the body under the pants that the campaigns are teaching children to keep private, surely, not the actual pants?

A primary school near us has added black knee legnth cycling shorts to its uniform options, by the way- so polo shirt and trousers, school shorts, skirt or cycling shorts.

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

Off topic, but teenage DD is coming over all wistful at the memory of primary school's loose cotton summer dresses in the hot weather, rather than secondary school grim black polyester skirts and trousers.

Hope your daughters enjoy the cartwheels while they can!