Gross. Just gross

Haven't read most posts so someone has probably already mentioned this: our 4 year old daughter wears shorts under her dresses so she can go on the slide during recess at preschool. It's too hard to slide, i.e. skin sticks, otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:Has nobody mentioned that it is more sanitary and better for your DD's health... idk I have only boys, but I've seen plenty of 3 & 4 year old girls without shorts under and I find it really gross. It's just easier for rotavirus, etc to spread if multiple students are only wearing a thin layer of cotton between their bums and the seats they all share. As a former teacher (upper elem.) it seems like a totally normal request even though the students are younger.

ITA. Three year olds should wear shorts or some other barrier under skirts for hygienic reasons. Three year old don't wipe very well. My three year old comes home with skid marks in her underwear sometimes if she poops at school. It is disgusting to think that dirty underwear is touching seats, slides, the rug, etc. That's how many diseases are spread. I hate seeing other girls who don't wear underwear playing on the slide and thinking "ugh, I hope those underwear are clean".

Ehh... Tell her to be thankful she had underwear on.

I raised my siblings and I received a call one day that c who was 5 had no undies on.

I was mortified in class an hour away. She will never live it down lol.

From then on I checked them for undies....

I haven't read the rest of the posts, but I think there's nothing wrong with asking for more appropriate attire for a playground.

Personally I wouldn't send DD to a playground without shorts/leggings anyway. My DS always wears shorts. I'd never send him somewhere in just his underwear and a long t-shirt!

Yes, the teacher should have just said "It would be a good idea to send Mary to school in shorts or jeans since we do a lot of climbing ... ".

That way it's about the right attire for the activity.

I think it is much less intrusive just to ask that they wear shorts. After all, the boys have shorts on over their underwear. To me it is much more sexualized and intrusive to constantly be telling a girl to pull her dress down.

When I was first out of college a million years ago I worked in a preschool for 2 years. On one occasion we did have a "dirty old man" issue when we took the kids out on a field trip. I do think pedophiles are attracted to large groups of young children on playgrounds or in public places.

Anonymous wrote:I thought underpants were there to stop people seeing kids' private parts! How many layers must we have ... ?!

I'd be totally annoyed if anyone suggested to me that I should make my kid put shorts on under a dress. I'd ask the teacher to tell my child to pull her dress down and that's it.

To ensure her undies are always covered, she'll have to sit down at recess and not be able to run and play, flip upside-down on the jungle gym, etc. Why do you want your daughter to have to do this? I am happy to let my DD be a tomboy as long as she likes, I encourage it even, and if helping her not have to worry about covering her undies helps with this, I am more than happy to! Why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought underpants were there to stop people seeing kids' private parts! How many layers must we have ... ?!

I'd be totally annoyed if anyone suggested to me that I should make my kid put shorts on under a dress. I'd ask the teacher to tell my child to pull her dress down and that's it.

Why would you have her pull her dress down if underwear is the only layer needed? If you are fine with her underwear being on display as it provides adequate coverage while she rolls, plays, tumbles...then why ask to pull a dress down over it?

I think you know what I'm getting at. Let's not be pedantic.

Anonymous wrote:I thought underpants were there to stop people seeing kids' private parts! How many layers must we have ... ?!

I'd be totally annoyed if anyone suggested to me that I should make my kid put shorts on under a dress. I'd ask the teacher to tell my child to pull her dress down and that's it.

Why would you have her pull her dress down if underwear is the only layer needed? If you are fine with her underwear being on display as it provides adequate coverage while she rolls, plays, tumbles...then why ask to pull a dress down over it?

Pre-school never mentioned it to us, but I prefer to send DD in with shorts or pants under her dresses. She is very skinny, and the 2-3T underwear that is the smallest I could find is a bit big on her and loose around the legs. When she is sitting down, you can almost always see more than is appropriate in public.

Also, as one PP also mentioned, she has a tendency to touch herself a lot, and the shorts and pants make it easier to keep her from absentmindedly touching her privates. Before having her I thought it was only boys who were obsessed with touching themselves. But I have since learned that another friend with a daughter instituted a rule that underwear must always be worn at the table for this same reason!

I thought underpants were there to stop people seeing kids' private parts! How many layers must we have ... ?!

I'd be totally annoyed if anyone suggested to me that I should make my kid put shorts on under a dress. I'd ask the teacher to tell my child to pull her dress down and that's it.

We always put shorts or bicycle pants on my dress-obsessed daughter. I don't want her to not climb the monkey bars for fear of showing her underpants. I also think its just more comfortable going down slides and stuff.

OMG I can't imagine DD NOT wearing shorts under skirts.

She would get rashes, mulch, dirt, sand, god-knows-what in her vulva!!!

Doesn't your daughter sit on the ground? Doesn't she go down the slide? How do you protect the area with just that pretend underwear they have in 2T, 3T sizes?

Anonymous wrote:This is normal and required in K at our school.

Ours too, we are at a JKLM school.