Anonymous wrote:I think some girls don't realize what their butts look like from behind. It's like that scene in Harry Potter where the characters time travel to earlier in the day and Hermione says Is that what my hair looks like from behind. But instead it's, Is that what my behind looks like from behind.

Case in point, Ariel Winter.
https://people.com/style/ariel-winter-response-to-short-shorts-photo/

This is what she was wearing.



Showing midriff or going without a bra doesn't bother me at all. But the butt cheeks showing are too far for me. Guess I'm old now.

Anonymous wrote:I hate middle aged ladies who complain that young ladies aren’t wearing enough clothes. It makes me think they are jealous fat girls all grown up. Me, I enjoyed my time as a young size 0 and got to participate in the cute trends of my time.

Your use of “jealous fat girls” and “size zero” revealed a great deal about your inner workings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At an elementary school event this week, some girls (I
assume 5th graders) were wearing shorts where the pockets can be seen below the short line.

Who are their parents?? Why would you let your kid leave the house like that?

Oooh, me!! Raising hand! My 5th grader has these and wore them to an elementary event this week, no less. I'm shocked anyone would take issue with these. Her athletic shorts, which she wears most days, are usually shorter.

https://oldnavy.gap.com/browse/product.do?pid=557252002&vid=1&&searchText=jean%20shorts#pdp-page-content

I am actually more restrictive than her friends' parents about what she wears. She does not wear crop tops and no strappy tanks to school, but can wear them elsewhere. These shorts, with the pockets hanging out, don't bother me in the least.

I hate middle aged ladies who complain that young ladies aren’t wearing enough clothes. It makes me think they are jealous fat girls all grown up. Me, I enjoyed my time as a young size 0 and got to participate in the cute trends of my time.

Anonymous wrote:I am appalled by the crotch length, super tight dresses.

8th grade promotion 3/4 of girls looked like Real Housewives. Sad.

Our 8th grade SoCal private had to send out dress code advisories the year after the Valedictorian showed up in a nude/beige short, tight bodycon halter dress teetering on platforms. The nice girl (smart, kind, etc.) was very fair, tall and thin which gave this weird prepubescent Pretty Baby/Model going clubbing vibe. It really looked like some short of undergarment shape wear on a thin child. She had a lot of stage time as did her mother who volunteered for a lot of school clubs. The head/owner of the school was visibly wincing in the audience.

Stop the body shaming. Wear whatever you want. Let the Karen’s get into a tizzy.

We grew up with halter tops, no bras, Daisy dukes, mini skirts with no spandex underneath, short rompers with again no bras, low rise jeans with tiny tight cropped tops etc…..

And many of you turned into Karen’s judging this generation which is BY FAR the less showing skin generation. If anything they dress like absolute slobs.

Anyone else grow up in the late 70s when we wore halter tops (the teen girls wore tube tops) that tied in the back and short shorts...with tube socks?! What a horrible fashion look, but it was no less exposed than today.

Well maybe our ankles and shins were more covered.

I am appalled by the crotch length, super tight dresses.

8th grade promotion 3/4 of girls looked like Real Housewives. Sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but it looks terrible. On their own time, in social settings, I dgaf what they wear, but I hire teens to work at my business and a lot of the girls show up for work in our company t-shirt and, apparently, nothing on the bottom. I can't say anything because I don't want to be accused of body shaming, but it's unprofessional and doesn't represent my brand well, and I really really hate this god-awful trend.

If they work for your business, you have every right to have them wear long pants or have a dress code. That is not "body shaming." It's really weird that you have not instituted a dress code rule. Every job I had as a teenager or young adult had a dress code for this very reason. Usually it was no shorts or jeans.

With that said, I really don't care what the kids wear to school. When they go to work, they need to wear what the job requires.

Would love to do that, but what would I say exactly that wouldn't come across as body shaming and sexist? We work outside and need to be comfortable, so long pants are out of the question in summer. So what would our dress code say that wouldn't focus on covering up women's bodies?

Require that everyone wear Bermuda shorts as part of their uniform. No need to bother with inseams. They are not short and come in summer fabrics. Amazon sells many really cheaply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but it looks terrible. On their own time, in social settings, I dgaf what they wear, but I hire teens to work at my business and a lot of the girls show up for work in our company t-shirt and, apparently, nothing on the bottom. I can't say anything because I don't want to be accused of body shaming, but it's unprofessional and doesn't represent my brand well, and I really really hate this god-awful trend.

If they work for your business, you have every right to have them wear long pants or have a dress code. That is not "body shaming." It's really weird that you have not instituted a dress code rule. Every job I had as a teenager or young adult had a dress code for this very reason. Usually it was no shorts or jeans.

With that said, I really don't care what the kids wear to school. When they go to work, they need to wear what the job requires.

Would love to do that, but what would I say exactly that wouldn't come across as body shaming and sexist? We work outside and need to be comfortable, so long pants are out of the question in summer. So what would our dress code say that wouldn't focus on covering up women's bodies?

Just say shorts must have at least a 3” inseam and be visible below the short. then whatever other restrictions (no tank tops, no crop tops)

Who cares? Nobody cares what you think, old bag.

This look is banned in my house. I don’t care how short your shorts are, but it needs to be obvious that you’re wearing pants. If you shirt covers your shorts, put on a different shirt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but it looks terrible. On their own time, in social settings, I dgaf what they wear, but I hire teens to work at my business and a lot of the girls show up for work in our company t-shirt and, apparently, nothing on the bottom. I can't say anything because I don't want to be accused of body shaming, but it's unprofessional and doesn't represent my brand well, and I really really hate this god-awful trend.

If they work for your business, you have every right to have them wear long pants or have a dress code. That is not "body shaming." It's really weird that you have not instituted a dress code rule. Every job I had as a teenager or young adult had a dress code for this very reason. Usually it was no shorts or jeans.

With that said, I really don't care what the kids wear to school. When they go to work, they need to wear what the job requires.

Would love to do that, but what would I say exactly that wouldn't come across as body shaming and sexist? We work outside and need to be comfortable, so long pants are out of the question in summer. So what would our dress code say that wouldn't focus on covering up women's bodies?

People work outside in pants all day long. Farms, construction, landscaping, etc. Just saying.

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, leave girls alone, ffs.

Is it really good for kids to "leave them alone" and give them no boundaries or rules?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but it looks terrible. On their own time, in social settings, I dgaf what they wear, but I hire teens to work at my business and a lot of the girls show up for work in our company t-shirt and, apparently, nothing on the bottom. I can't say anything because I don't want to be accused of body shaming, but it's unprofessional and doesn't represent my brand well, and I really really hate this god-awful trend.

If they work for your business, you have every right to have them wear long pants or have a dress code. That is not "body shaming." It's really weird that you have not instituted a dress code rule. Every job I had as a teenager or young adult had a dress code for this very reason. Usually it was no shorts or jeans.

With that said, I really don't care what the kids wear to school. When they go to work, they need to wear what the job requires.

Would love to do that, but what would I say exactly that wouldn't come across as body shaming and sexist? We work outside and need to be comfortable, so long pants are out of the question in summer. So what would our dress code say that wouldn't focus on covering up women's bodies?

Everyone wears a non-graphic crew neck tshirt that has sleeves to just above the elbow and is long enough to cover the waist band of their almost knee length shorts. The skin showing is from the neck up, sleeves down and knees and below. No vnecks, no tank tops, no crop tops. No skirts or dresses. So what you want with your hair and shoes. Dress code applies to everyone.