Modesty shorts recommended for 4 year olds.....

[Mumdiva99]

I know these exist. I get it. And if a girl chooses them - then her choice. But recommending them? How have we got to this point....

(Apologies if this isn't the right board for this.)

metro.co.uk/2021/06/07/school-introduces-modesty-shorts-under-skirts-for-four-year-olds-14729680/?ito=facebook%7Csocial%7Cmetroukfacebook&fbclid=IwAR28Scyyvkd8FGKXAirwgyCZLZr8sUcwYfxWAqcxVyzMQnOex2BqAc0uGUY

There is a huge amount of styles of underwear for young girls and it isn't massively expensive. Look at Asda for example.... direct.asda.com/george/kids/girls-underwear-socks-tights/D25M2G1C9,default,sc.html?prefn1=productType&prefv1=Underwear
You can have shorts, briefs, bikini style....and none of those are designed not to cover the bits they should cover.... So I don't subscribe to the girls underwear doesn't do it's job. It does.

Equally - school dresses and skirts in the right size do allow for sitting cross legged. I have a daughter we buy her clothes to sit on or below the knee - there is plenty of fabric to cover her pants. And yes I do buy supermarket brands for her - so saying the cheap ones aren't cut right is again not true.

I think the use of the word modesty is disgusting. I hate how the word modesty is used for the female body for anything from this to breastfeeding.

Having said that, as someone who works with young children both in and outside of schools I have had quite a few occasions where I’ve moved where the group iI’m working with have been sat (from the floor to chairs) because sitting cross legged has exposed some girls private parts. As a previous poster said, some little girls underwear is flimsy and so flimsy underwear coupled with floaty or short summer dresses on young children who want to roll about/cartwheel/lay legs acimbo can lead to children private accident being visible.

I’m not sure modesty shorts are the right approach though. I think the wider issue is why young girls uniform and clothing in general is designed the way it is (eg girls shorts are often shorter than boys, girl T-shirt’s age often tighter and shorter than boys of the same age). I guess girls clothing is more often designed to be pretty than practical. Maybe school uniforms should be more practical for young children?

Having said that my daughter is starting school in September and already wants to wear the school gingham dress rather than trousers.

Sometimes on these threads it feels that some posters just don't like girls wearing dresses and use arguments such as them not being practical etc when not everyone would agree. I like wearing dresses- I find them cooler in summer. I always have liked them - as well as trousers, shorts, skirts. I like that as a woman it's easy to wear very different styles without it ever being seen as odd. It's sad how much fuss there was when Harry Styles wore a dress on the cover of vogue, he looked great.

My DD loves wearing jeans and trousers but she loves her dresses too. As long as girls have the choice to wear what they like and what is comfortable to them, and are allowed to wear shorts and trousers as part of school uniform, that's all that is important IMO. My DC's school has a really sensible uniform policy- they very sensibly don't set out a boys uniform or a girls uniform- there is just the uniform. Trousers, shorts, skirts and pinafore. Gingham summer dress (and I presume the gingham culottes etc if preferred). Plenty of girls choose shorts/trousers. Looking at the way the school set out the policy it reads as though a boy could wear a skirt if he liked but sadly I don't think boys feel comfortable to do this at school on the whole.

I completely agree that the word modesty shouldn't be applied to women and girls clothing. I wouldn't want to be flashing my pants and my daughter doesn't like it either. Getting bigger pants isn't even the issue really- yes they are available and I agree that for a 4 year old that is fine. And of course for my 8 yr old daughter that is also fine! But she has become more conscious and doesn't want to flash them. I respect that. She loves her gingham dresses and it's pretty much the same comfort wise as if she were wearing at shirt with a pair of cotton cycle shorts. She has choice and I like to go with what she chooses.

@Mumdiva99

There is a huge amount of styles of underwear for young girls and it isn't massively expensive. Look at Asda for example.... direct.asda.com/george/kids/girls-underwear-socks-tights/D25M2G1C9,default,sc.html?prefn1=productType&prefv1=Underwear You can have shorts, briefs, bikini style....and none of those are designed not to cover the bits they should cover.... So I don't subscribe to the girls underwear doesn't do it's job. It does.

Equally - school dresses and skirts in the right size do allow for sitting cross legged. I have a daughter we buy her clothes to sit on or below the knee - there is plenty of fabric to cover her pants. And yes I do buy supermarket brands for her - so saying the cheap ones aren't cut right is again not true.

I've just looked at that link. You can get a 10 pack of briefs or 'short knickers' (which look to be like larger briefs basically, not boxer-type underwear) for £4. The only other option on there are the seam-free short knickers which look more like short boxer-style coverage than the 'short knickers' in the big packs, and they are comparatively only two pairs for £4. That's a huge price difference when you need to buy loads of pairs for a toddler who still has accidents and gets very mucky in messy play - 10 for £4 or 2 for £4! There is also only a total of 3 different styles which I wouldn't say is a 'huge amount of styles' either.

It feels like a lot of people are making a sweeping statement of "kids don't care"... I did. I remember being about 8/9, and of course doing handstands etc but we all tried to wedge our gingham dresses to not show our pants. Some of us wore cycling shorts, but we were told off because they were (exact words) "unhygienic". Which would be funny if it wasn't actually a far bigger deal than the teacher made of it.

I think the pushing of it as modesty advice is worrying in a victim-blaming kind of way but personally see no issue with choosing to do it if it makes you/her feel more comfortable. Good for the chub rub too if that’s an issue.

These are the same size (3-4 years), both described as "briefs" with the same sort of indicative outline on the packaging. The polar bears are sold for girls, plain red sold for boys. The boys' cut is much more generous and much more comfortable looking.

You also can struggle to get anything other than "briefs" in the smaller sizes. "Boy shorts" tend to start around 7-8.

The other issue is balance between gaping around thinner thighs and a big enough gusset...

@Stroopwaffle5000

My DD is 9 and has almost exclusively worn dresses and skirts since she was old enough to choose. She is also a competitive (obsessed) gymnast so spends a good portion of the day upside down doing somersaults, back handsprings etc. It was her choice at about 5 years old to wear shorts underneath her outfits so no one would see her knickers, and she still does to this day. She now says it feels weird if she doesn't wear shorts. I guess I wouldn't have though twice about 'modesty' pants had it not been for her tendency to upside down constantly.

My DDs were like this too. Upside down on climbing bars, doing cartwheels and climbing trees. They hated being teased for “I can see you knickers” type comments. So I think these would be brilliant for more active girls who don’t want their knickers on show.

I agree calling them “modesty” is bad marketing as we are talking pre-puberty so modesty doesn’t really apply.

It’s a better answer than forcing a feminine girl to wear masculine clothes (trousers, shorts) imho. One of my DDs is very feminine.

I agree the word ‘modesty’ is the problem and using it is completely unnecessary. It’s not about modesty it’s about dignity - also not a great word but I’ll use it for lack of a better one. For example walking around in a bikini and walking around in your underwear is essentially the same thing except of course in real terms it isn’t - one is dignified and one is not. Modesty varies from person to occasion - like what we wear at work vs what we wear on holiday, I’ll happily walk around in a bikini and T-shirt with half my arse hanging out on holiday at the beach, not immodest in that situation, but I wouldn’t walk around like that at work, in that case not appropriate. But even on holiday I wouldn’t show myself in bra and pants, because it wouldn’t feel dignified.

I've often dressed my young daughter in dresses with leggings and recently bought some of the 'cycling short' leggings for the summer months. It didn't really occur to me that they were meant for 'modesty' (ugh), I was more thinking about comfort when going on seesaws and other play equipment (she also has some tummy issues so they have had the added bonus of containing any accidents more effectively).

If the cycling shorts are so popular for this reason it seems strange to me that knickers, summer shorts and PJ bottoms for girls are so ridiculously skimpy and flimsy.

I think these 'modesty' shorts for such young children mentally are more damaging. It surely will make boys more inquisitive than if they see a snatch glance off a girls underwear, and girls they will cover up because they will be looked at. Where are we going. Years ago as children doing P.E in our underwear and none of us took any notice of each other. These maybe fine for our puberty girls, but let our little innocent children concentrate on children activities not 'modesty".

I don't have girls but I have seen a lot of the little girls around here wear bicycle shorts under their dresses. I don't think it is because they (really their parents) don't want their knickers to be seen, but rather that the knickers might not cover everything if they are doing cartwheels or handing upside down. So the bicycle shorts go over the knickers and under the dress, and cover everything from hip to upper thigh.

I think both boys and girls prefer to be sure none of their private parts are accidentally in view. From my own experiences and talking to parents of other boys, they do pay attention to this with their own shorts, making sure the legs openings don't show too much when their posture is relaxed and that their underwear fits properly. There are brief-style boxers for boys that cover up to upper thigh and I know lots of boys who use those or regular boxers so that they can move freely and still feel covered.

I don't like the word "modesty" for the reasons you all describe but I think the shorts themselves are ok. I call them, "fit-and-forget-it" shorts.

(Sorry, I just know what my own boys wear in this case.)

I am totally fine with the label "modesty shorts". It describes exactly what they are: shorts to wear under dresses. This distinguishes them from shorts that are worn as outerwear. Even young girls don't like showing their underwear. Let's not force them to do so.

The arguments on this thread are ideological and silly. " It is unfair to girls because boys don't have to wear modesty shorts". Well boys clothes are inherently modest. If more boys wear dresses they will need modesty shorts.

"(In order to avoid modesty shorts), lets put all girls in trousers". This limits girls' choices as many like to wear dresses.

In order to avoid modesty shorts, lets lengthen dress hemlines, or lets not sit on the floor.

There also seems to be some linguistic gymnastics to avoid the word "modesty" while in effect describing the same thing: kind of like "people who menstruate".

Or stop body shaming
Stop teaching young children that legs and tums and bums are shameful