Modesty Shorts

I would always assume that a girls knickers were adequate to cover her thoroughly. Nothing new about that, my mother did it, and so did I. If you have little girls who love doing gymnastics on any area of grass they see, rolling down grassy banks and practicing their ballet, whether in dress or leggings/trousers or indeed in any situation, modesty and safety always have and always will be a prime consideration

To be honest, I think it applies to both sexes all the time. I lived in the Far East as a child at a period when men wore enormous baggy shorts. When they sat down in typical man-spread position you could see right up to their underwear, all us horrible little children used to snigger and claim we could see more than we ever actually did, but if they had gone for teeny tiny briefs or gone commando, we children would have seen far more than anyone would have been happy with.

Sadly the world children live in today they are exposed to internet television and other media that influence the behaviour of girls and boys children are more aware of things than we were at school plus modesty taught from a young age isn't a bad thing

What innocent days we grew up in. Dress tucked into your gym knickers and cartwheels and handstands!

There are two things under discussion here, I think. One what precautions do we need to take to be reasonably sure that our GC are not targeted by perverts?
Here I don't really think their clothing is the issue, although too skimpy garments probably do catch a pervert's eye. We, the grown-ups, need to be on the watch for adults hanging around playgrounds, or staring over our garden fence at children playing. Sadly I think we have to assume that any person who we do not know might have ulterior motives if he or she (yes, there are women among the sexual predators, usually more interested in little boys than little girls)is hanging around staring at children.

The other aspect of shorts under dresses or leggings is that little girls have always teased each other, and little boys teased little girls if the girls' pants could be seen when climbing trees. Most of us dealt with it by telling the others that they were rude for looking up under our skirts, but it's fine by me if little girls want to wear an extra layer under their skirts. I'm not so happy at the thought of parents demanding they do so, but it is after all up to parents to decide what clothes their children should or should not wear.

I distinctly remember wriggling around trying to get out of a wet swimsuit, dry myself and get into my clothes under a large beach towel. In the teeth of the kind of gale blowing on the average Scottish beach that was a difficult exercise, but modesty forbade "wee gurrils" in their nothingness on the beach in the 1950s, and I don't remember any "wee willies" on show either, so the rules must have applied to wee laddies as well.

After the permissive society of our young days, the pendulum was bound to swing back, again. Grandmothers who had grown up in the kind of clothes Napoleon's Josephine wore must have felt the same at the start of the Victorian era - there is nothing new under the sun,

grandtanteJE65. Stranger danger is misleading, around 90% of abusers are within the family. It is the father, step-father, grandfather, uncle, brother or family friend taking too much interest in a child's activity play who is the greatest danger.

We may have grown up in innocent days, but that innocence could better be described as ignorance. In those 'innocent' days of the 1950s, I was the victim of a very minor sexual attack, I didn't know or understand what was happening, I was too ignorant to have any understanding of the concept of a man having a perverted sexual appetite. I only knew that I was not comfortable playing with one of the men at our local swimming pool and after the one occasion, always got out of the pool when he got in and stuck to my mother like glue.

I couldn't tell my mother because I didn't have the language or knowledge of the effect of male arousal to explain my discomfort or I would have. I told her in adulthood and know she would have responded appropriately because she had a similar experience when she was a child just after WW1.

Aren't we in danger of teaching little girls there is something wrong with their bodies? I agree that modesty is best but most little girls knickers, like those my DGD wears, are perfectly respectable!

As another poster has said, it's not only stranger danger but the closer adults (sadly there are female as well as male dangerous adults) who can often be more of a risk

MOnica is right to point out that most sexual abuse of children takes place within the family.
Yes, women can also be perpetrators but the research evidence to date suggests they usually do do with or under the influence of a male partner. I've seen no evidence to support the suggestion that female perpetrators are "usually more interested in little boys than little girls.
The paedophile units in special hospitals used to have photographs stuck on the lockers and bed stands, from Mothercare catalogues, showing infants and under five year old boys and girls, modelling vests and pants. Making our children wear shorts or leggings in an attempt to prevent paedophiles finding them sexually attractive is bound to fail.
Children need to have as much freedom as we can give them. Its a fine line between helping them understand that not everyone is kind and scaring them isn't it, better that we talk more openly than we did when most of us were children.

I don't think it's parents 'making' their daughters wear shorts - my GDs decided they wanted to wear them under their skirts, even the one who doesn't do handstands and cartwheels.

The reason given was that they didn't want anyone seeing their knickers, including other girls!

Lots of small girls seem to wear leggings under dresses, but that can't be great in hot weather.

How did we all cope with mini dresses and skirts back then?

We had no shame roses! I crochet a mini dress and matching beret, goodness only knows what I looked like but I felt great. I always wanted to wear shorts as a little girl, trews once they were available. Much easier for riding bikes, roller skating, climbing trees and playing ball games.
It's definitely a fashion choice, the shorts and leggings under skirts or tunics.

I am - I agree we will never forget the embarrassment as teenagers having to walk down the road in front of men and the boys' school in our navy knickers to get to the field for games. Anything is better than that.
My DGD age 9 often wears shorts under skirt or dress at school. It seems sensible at playtime for rolling down the field, doing handstands etc.

Your reading too much into this, it's nothing to do with child abuse or modesty it's a fashion statement one kid wears them, probably influenced from the dance moms programme and they catch on They might sell them up to 16 but I don't know any kids over 10 wearing them Anyway I think they re going out now 'they are so much last year' as I m told

I remember being quite taken aback when I read of a jewish community who didn't let girls ove 5 cycle because it was provocative ,my daughter said one friend in particular was concernned about her daughte showing her ladybits when she wears a skirt ..surely kids of 5 or 6 shouldn't have to worry about things like that...thers nothing sexual about a wee girl in knickers ..well not unless you have a warped mind .Or am I just being naive ?

As long as the pants cover their bottoms, that is fine. The young girl with a thong under a floaty skirt I feel is wrong. Apart from that thongs are so uncomfortable. I was always in shorts growing up , but I was a bit of a tomboy.

Paddyann it's the adults that are putting the pedeo slants on all this, the kids don't wear them to avoid abuse they wear them because all the kids wear them simple as

grandtanteJE65I
and I don't remember any "wee willies" on show either, so the rules must have applied to wee laddies as well.

I suspect that on cold windy Scottish beaches it would be so cold you would not be able to see any wee laddies bits in bathing trunks.

I think shorts as well is very practical option for girls they can then do cartwheels and hand stands, climb trees and so much more without boys shouting "we can see your knickers"
We do not usually see boys outside with their pants on and no trousers.

Yes you see lots of young women wearing shorts and tights and short tunics .
I rather think is it just a fashion statement.

Even if its just a fashion fad, it seems a fairly sensible one. I dont believe I ever taught my daughter to be ashamed of her bits, just that they were named "private parts" for a reason.

I think short over girls pants is brilliant. Not for perverts, for the girls privacy.

I remember trying to get dressed under a wraparound towel on a breezy NE beach too, shivering from the freezing water.
OTOH I have a photo of me on the same beach, just pre-war, aged about 2, completely nude. Mum and Dad nearby.

Anyone Remember the days of tights with coloured pants integral,they were great in the mini skirt days,I used to wear another pair of pants over the top !!!