s/o - elementary girls in leggings

[Anonymous]

Side note, but I just noticed yesterday that the inseam on my 2 year old DS's shorts is longer than the one on 5 year old DD's shorts. Why are all the shorts choices for girls so, well, short?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Side note, but I just noticed yesterday that the inseam on my 2 year old DS's shorts is longer than the one on 5 year old DD's shorts. Why are all the shorts choices for girls so, well, short?

Why are all the shorts choices for boys so long?

[Anonymous]

I have not read the whole thread. I have a three year old with sensory issues, and she won't wear anything but leggings. She cannot stand "pants" of any sort. I actually prefer leggings with a long shirt to a dress where her panties can show when she is playing or sitting criss cross.

I have a ten year old. She likes her leggings too, but has jeans and other options. When she wears leggings she must wear a shirt long enough to cover her booty. Oddly enough, I won't let her wear those same shirts with shorts if you can't see the shorts under them.

As for a school banning leggings in their dress code, this is absurd unless for some reason it is disruptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a 5 year old. Please come back when your child is going into 6th grade.

Leggings are not pants.

Well I think that's the question. Why do we sexualize 6th grade girls and not elementary. Equally inappropriate, no?

Why don't we teach boys that there is nothing sexy about girls wearing leggings?

This. Or, better yet, if boys think it's sexy, then they need to learn to deal with it. That's their problem...it's not the girls' problem to fix by wearing different clothes. What are we teaching our daughters here?

[Anonymous]

Leggings aren't pants for anything. It's not sexual - just no one needs to see your junk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leggings aren't pants for anything. It's not sexual - just no one needs to see your junk.

^ aren't pants for anyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a 5 year old. Please come back when your child is going into 6th grade.

Leggings are not pants.

Well I think that's the question. Why do we sexualize 6th grade girls and not elementary. Equally inappropriate, no?

Why don't we teach boys that there is nothing sexy about girls wearing leggings?

This. Or, better yet, if boys think it's sexy, then they need to learn to deal with it. That's their problem...it's not the girls' problem to fix by wearing different clothes. What are we teaching our daughters here?

I am the second quoted pp here. I think it's unfair to say "it's their problem" to boys who are going through puberty. Maybe if we stopped trying to pretend that adolescents don't have sexual feelings we could allow girls to wear what they want AND teach boys how to behave appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have a 5 year old. Please come back when your child is going into 6th grade.

Leggings are not pants.

+1. My oldest is 7 and I know this. Many 6th graders weigh more than I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leggings aren't pants for anything. It's not sexual - just no one needs to see your junk.

Your idea of leggings must be different from mine. In my idea of leggings, nobody is seeing anybody's junk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a 5 year old. Please come back when your child is going into 6th grade.

Leggings are not pants.

Well I think that's the question. Why do we sexualize 6th grade girls and not elementary. Equally inappropriate, no?

Why don't we teach boys that there is nothing sexy about girls wearing leggings?

This. Or, better yet, if boys think it's sexy, then they need to learn to deal with it. That's their problem...it's not the girls' problem to fix by wearing different clothes. What are we teaching our daughters here?

I am the second quoted pp here. I think it's unfair to say "it's their problem" to boys who are going through puberty. Maybe if we stopped trying to pretend that adolescents don't have sexual feelings we could allow girls to wear what they want AND teach boys how to behave appropriately.

OK, it's not their problem. It's their issue. If they are distracted by girls in leggings, then they need to learn to deal with that. (I am not any of the quoted PPs.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a 5 year old. Please come back when your child is going into 6th grade.

Leggings are not pants.

Well I think that's the question. Why do we sexualize 6th grade girls and not elementary. Equally inappropriate, no?

Why don't we teach boys that there is nothing sexy about girls wearing leggings?

This. Or, better yet, if boys think it's sexy, then they need to learn to deal with it. That's their problem...it's not the girls' problem to fix by wearing different clothes. What are we teaching our daughters here?

I am the second quoted pp here. I think it's unfair to say "it's their problem" to boys who are going through puberty. Maybe if we stopped trying to pretend that adolescents don't have sexual feelings we could allow girls to wear what they want AND teach boys how to behave appropriately.

You do realize that this is the same line of reasoning employed by Muslim extremists who make laws requiring women to veil and dress very modestly?

[Anonymous]

NP. I don't understand this thread. Yes, thick HA leggings are close to bring pants. But they're not. Wear them with tunics, not with short t-shirts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don't understand this thread. Yes, thick HA leggings are close to bring pants. But they're not. Wear them with tunics, not with short t-shirts.

Why are they not pants?

What is the definition of "pants" and how do leggings fall short of qualifying?

[Anonymous]

I'm with the leggings aren't pants crowd.
Go ahead and put your kid in them but I and many others will be looking down on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don't understand this thread. Yes, thick HA leggings are close to bring pants. But they're not. Wear them with tunics, not with short t-shirts.

Why are they not pants?

What is the definition of "pants" and how do leggings fall short of qualifying?

Convention: leggings are not pants. As many posters complain, DCUM is pretty conventional. Therefore, IMO, girls should wear tunics with leggings.