Girls only allowed to do handstands and cartwheels on the field IF they wear shorts under their dress

[CrackerOfNuts]

Is it me, or is that just barmy.

Both dd's have come home moaning as they like to try and do cartwheels and handstands on the field at lunch time. The dinnerladies have now said that unless they take in shorts to wear under their dresses, then they aren't allowed to do it because the boys will see their knickers.

From what Dd1 said, the majority of the boys are not even on the field, they are in the playground playing footie, so can't even see the girls letalone their knickers.

[CrackerOfNuts]

LOL, I namechanged ages ago.

[DefinitelyNotMARINAWheeler]

LOL at "crazy panda" Enid, but they are still great pants aren't they
Trust me, the boys' "messages" are even more odd

[branflake81]

stupid.

When I was at primary school, our "pe kit" was our knickers and vest.

And none of the boys gave a shit. As you would expect.

[BananaPudding]

Perhaps I'm very old-fashioned or just a prude...but my dd wears shorts under her dresses all the time. She chooses to wear them, because we have taught her to be modest. What on earth is wrong with modesty? dd plays very hard at school and she doesn't want everyone seeing her pants.

Now, if I was told she HAD to wear shorts, I wouldn't be happy about it. I don't like being told what to do I don't understand all the "who cares? it's just knickers fgs" comments, but I suppose modesty is a personal choice.

[MrsBadger]

how far does it go though?

she wears knickers so you can't see her bottom
and shorts so you can't see the knickers
and a skirt so (most of the time) you can't see the shorts

what next?

[BananaPudding]

Why does there have to be a next? Who puts a skirt on to cover shorts? I have worn shorts under a skirt as a child when I was going to play hard, and I have not progressed to a bhurka...so perhaps being modest with your knickers doesn't have to progress to hysterical proportions.

[mrsruffallo]

Banana Pudding- It sounds as if you consider girls who don't wear shorts immodest.
I would have no intention of asking my daughter to wear shorts.

[edam]

You might consider it to be modesty, I'd suggest it's teaching your daughter that there's something shameful about her body.

[FluffyMummy123]

Message withdrawn

[milfAKAmonkeymonkeymoomoo]

Whatever happened to tucking your skirt/dres into your knickers so the dress/skirt didn't fall over your head when doing a handstand... were we the only girls that used to do this??

To the OP yes the head is barmy.

[TheFallenMadonna]

Sorry, but "modest with your knickers"? Eh?

There's nothing more to see with knickers (assuming these primary age children aren't in thongs, which is a whole other thread) than in a swimming costume surely?

[edam]

well said, Cod!

[FluffyMummy123]

Message withdrawn

[TheDevilWearsPrimark]

icod, you are funny at times but that was below the belt no?

[TheDevilWearsPrimark]

op is over the top but no need for that..

[VanillaPumpkin]

I would feel incredibly sad if my 5 year old came home and asked to wear shorts under he dress. I would wonder where I had gone wrong tbh.
They are children. Their carefree innocence is being eroded earlier and earlier.
There is nothing 'modest' about wearing shorts imo. I would just think what a shame .

[TheDevilWearsPrimark]

Indeed!
Should my toddler have not strolled around the park in a short dress and pants? When does it end/start?

[FluffyMummy123]

Message withdrawn

[FluffyMummy123]

Message withdrawn

[cadelaide]

barmy.

stark raving bonkers.

the world's gone mad.

now i'll read the thread.

[BananaPudding]

I think part of my perception on this is colored by the fact that in the US (I have no idea about UK) there have been major problems with perverts taking photos of young children in public and trying to get pictures up their dresses and then posting on the internet.

Obviously I know that knickers are just clothing the same as, say, socks. I also know that the problem lies with the twisted adults who might target a little girl this way, and that they are the ones who should be dealt with, not the children. Sadly though, at least here, it is rarely some icky person standing at the school fence hoping for a glance but more likely someone further away with a telephoto lens. So I choose to put shorts under a dress to protect her from that sort of thing. And before I get slated for teaching her to fear all strangers or cameras, I have never stated my parental reasons for shorts under dresses to her. Just that knickers are UNDERclothes.

I honestly don't believe I am teaching my daughter that her body is something to be ashamed of. We are not prudish within our family, she runs around the house in knickers or naked all the time.

I don't know if perhaps knickers being a private thing is a cultural difference?

Thanks for apologising Cod, I appreciate it.

[cory]

Does that mean you would never allow your child on the beach in a swimsuit? Or do you believe a perv couldn't equally get a kick from that? And if so, why would the child be more damaged if he is slavering over a picture of her doing handstands than over her in her bikini?

I would expect a school to be more vigilant about who hangs around outside the playground than you could ever be on the beach.

Besides, if these photos are taken on the sly- how would the child suffer from it? They are not actually being abused, are they?

In our school, there was talk of banning all photography of nativity plays as pervs might get hold of the pictures. Yet the school photograph was published in the local press every year. And noone was ever able to explain to me what harm would come to my child from a perv seeing a photo of him posing as a shepherd with a teatowel on his head.

Plenty of adverts, and photos in medical books, parenting books etc show semi-naked photos of young children. Naturally, a perv could use those pictures for purposes they were not intended for. But the original subject would not be likely to come to any harm from that.

[seeker]

Another case of our children's freedom being curtailed by perceived dangers - this makes me so cross!
Even if some moron took a photo of my child paying in the playground I would rather that happened than she absorbed the message that it is her responsibility to mediate male behaviour by the ways she dresses. And anyway I am pretty sure that a paedophile could find much more "satisfying" pictures much easier than using a telephoto lens on a school playground.

[aintnomountainhighenough]

This is ridiculous. I assume then that the girls have to get changed separately for PE?