To what age should girls wear white socks?

[Malthus]

What age a girl wears white socks shouldnt be an issue but it seems to interest lots of males. I wore white socks to 15 and never gave it a second thought as I found them comfy and in the summer they were tons cooler than tights. I even wore white ankle socks as a fashion item after leaving school and before the School Disco thing became popular. As I got older I realised that men were turned on by girls in socks so it is a sexual thing at least for older girls in their mid teens.

Parents have a right to decide when their daughter starts in tights but they shouldnt humiliate her by making her the only girl in her class who still has to wear socks.

Just added a post saying the same as this on the other related topic a about the girl having to wear knee socks at 15. Its wrong to make a girl the only one in her class to wear childish clothes but she could wear socks away from school up to 15 or 16.

[Barbara_K]

If I were a schoolgirl in this weather I would much prefer white ankle socks to tights. We had to wear tights from year 9 and I found them too hot in summer but fine in winter. Knee socks in winter can be warm enough and look alright with school uniform.

[Mature student]

End of fifth form would be a good time to move from socks to tights but let older girls wear ankle socks in the summer if they want. I think of white socks as being part and parcel of schoolgirl uniform but when not in uniform at weekends and holidays girls could wea tights.

[20th Century]

In the early part of the 20th century children were dressed differently to adults. From Edwardian times boys wore knee breaches which later became short trousers and Edwardian girls wore shorter dresses than their mothers. This was to reflect the fact that children then were more active than today’s children and was dressed in a way that made it easier for them to play. In the case of girls when silk stockings/nylon tights came about in the early part of the 20th century only older teenagers and women wore them because they weren’t durable enough for playtime activities and were costly. In the immediate post war austerity period boys (shorts) and girls (dresses with socks) were dressed in children’s clothing styles until they reached school leaving age of 14/15 due to the lack of money for clothing.

It was only until the 1960’s when more money was available and the rise of the teenage fashions that older children were able to dress in clothes more akin to adults. I believe that many parents and schools approved of having distinctive clothing styles for children, but of course as children became teenagers they wanted to start dress more like adults, but there were always parents who felt their off-springs should remain in children’s clothing styles. White socks as opposed to tights, traditionally represent a hieratical distinction between being a young girl and a grown up woman. There was also a view in the early and mid decades of the 20th century that children’s legs shouldn’t be covered and that bare legs were healthier and more appropriate. At my senior school in the 1970’s girl’s white socks were referred to as “Virgin Socks” and it was usually one the first and second formers who wore them. Anyone who wore them in the fourth or fifth form was regarded as not being normal.

Today trousers and tights are cheap to buy and we don’t see the need to dress children distinctively from adults, although I would guess (from the some of the postings here) there are those who believe it is important they are dressed differently so some of the reasons I have mentioned.

[Mature Student]

The issue here is should young girls be dressed as children or as adults. They are children so dress them as such. It is wrong to allow a 13 or 14 year old to wear make up and tights and high heels regardless of being in school or outside. She is still a child. How far do we take this. Should we let girls of 8 dress in tights and trousers. No we shouldn't. Kids shouldn't grow up so quickly. Wearing white socks is a clear sign that a girl is still a girl.

[Malcolm49]

The issue here is should young girls be dressed as children or as adults. They are children so dress them as such. It is wrong to allow a 13 or 14 year old to wear make up and tights and high heels regardless of being in school or outside. She is still a child. How far do we take this. Should we let girls of 8 dress in tights and trousers. No we shouldn't. Kids shouldn't grow up so quickly. Wearing white socks is a clear sign that a girl is still a girl.

Definitely agree with this post. I would never let a daughter of mine wear tights and heels at 14 as its far too young. White socks show that a girl is a girl and not a mini adult. There are still sensible parents who keep their daughters in white socks for school and outside well into their teens.

[Sorbita]

Why not have all girls wear socks when they are at school and let their parents decide on what they wear at other times. If all schoolgirls have to wear socks no girls will be teased for not being in tights. Simply, really!

[1970's kid]

There are times when it is appropriate to keep a teenage girl in socks. I recall at the local secondary school I went to my mother was a teacher there who specialised in teaching remedial pupils. She taught a fifth form girl and it was noticeable that she was the only girl in her year who wore white knee socks. I was in the upper sixth at the time, and about to leave school, and I recall my mother talking about the girl. I asked my mother what she thought about her wearing white socks at 15/16. To my amazement my mother told me the girl only had a mental age of about nine, and it was unlikely she would be aware of how she was perceived about being different to the other girls of her age who wore tights. The girl was the eldest in her family and her siblings were much younger. I noticed she never walked to and from school with pupils of her age, but with her siblings and their friends. Because she was mentally retarded the girl was probably not inclined or capable of convincing her mother that she was too old to wear socks. It was probably for the best that this girl was kept in socks because it made her visually unattractive to teenage boys (who went for girls who looked more mature and fashionable) and therefore meant she was less likely to be put into a situation where she was vulnerable.

[Sorbita]

There are times when it is appropriate to keep a teenage girl in socks. I recall at the local secondary school I went to my mother was a teacher there who specialised in teaching remedial pupils. She taught a fifth form girl and it was noticeable that she was the only girl in her year who wore white knee socks. I was in the upper sixth at the time, and about to leave school, and I recall my mother talking about the girl. I asked my mother what she thought about her wearing white socks at 15/16. To my amazement my mother told me the girl only had a mental age of about nine, and it was unlikely she would be aware of how she was perceived about being different to the other girls of her age who wore tights. The girl was the eldest in her family and her siblings were much younger. I noticed she never walked to and from school with pupils of her age, but with her siblings and their friends. Because she was mentally retarded the girl was probably not inclined or capable of convincing her mother that she was too old to wear socks. It was probably for the best that this girl was kept in socks because it made her visually unattractive to teenage boys (who went for girls who looked more mature and fashionable) and therefore meant she was less likely to be put into a situation where she was vulnerable.

If all girls wore white socks for school then this situation would not arise as this special needs girl would not have stood out from her fellow pupils. It is unfair to keep a backward girl dressed as a child if all her classmates are in tights even if she is not aware of the difference as it would produce teasing. Her parents could keep her dressed like this away from school.

[Melanie39]

Children are allowed to become little adults at ridiculously young ages. They should dress as children until they are more mature and schoolgirls should be in white socks until a minimum of 15 or 16. I wore white socks all the time to 16 and they were miles more comfortable than tights

[1970's Kid]

Initially I felt sorry for this girl with learning difficulties, which is why I was surprised when I was told about her mental age and that she did not have the same level of comprehension as those of her age with normal intelligence. I however don’t think the girl’s low mental age was the only reason she was kept in socks, although it did mean her parents were not under any pressure to get her tights. This was back in the early 1980’s and tights were relatively more expensive and laddered very easily, so it was only older teenagers and above who wore them on a regular basis. Her family were poor, relying on DHSS benefits and with a large number of children her parents would have probably struggled financially to regularly buy her tights. Our school was a Comprehensive and many of the pupils came from council estates and unemployment was high. The school uniform didn’t specify where parents sourced their items and it was obvious that pupils from wealthier homes generally wore better quality clothes e.g. a woollen blazer as opposed to a cheap synthetic one. It was common for girls from less well off homes to have to wait longer before they were given tights for daily school wear, although by the fourth and fifth forms virtually all the girls had moved onto tights.

It is unfair to keep a backward girl dressed as a child if all her classmates are in tights even if she is not aware of the difference as it would produce teasing. Her parents could keep her dressed like this away from school.

Going back to the argument of fairness you shouldn’t necessarily treat everyone equal but to suit their individual circumstances. Children, like this girl, should ideally not have been in a mainstream school. I don’t think not being in tights would have made any difference to the relationship she had with the other pupils, where she was taught separately in a small class by a specially qualified teacher. In this case her companions were younger and would not have felt as singled out as might have been the case. I don’t think the girl would have been any happier or have had different friendships if she had been wearing tights. Therefore, I now believe it was perfectly acceptable that some (not all!) special needs children are dressed in a manner that makes it obvious they are children so they aren’t mistaken as being much older and exposed to things they don’t have maturity to handle.

[Sorbita]

I read a newspaper article that some adult female inmates of UK Mental institutions were kept dressed as young girls in white socks and gingham frocks. This may still happen as the case I read about was only four or five years ago. The woman who was in her thirties wore white knee socks with blue T-strap sandals and a blue and white check schoolgirl type dress with a white cardigan. I think she also wore a white Alice band in her hair but I cannot remember all the details. She must have looked like a woman dressed as a little girl.

The logic behind this was that she would be unable to dress herself in tights and socks and sandals were easier to put on and take off. Even if this were true one questions the need to make her wear a schoolgirl frock and childish ribbon in her hair. It is as though the staff took the view that since she had the mental age of a child she should be dressed - and treated - like one. The female journalist who wrote the article interviewed the lady who did not seem to mind or even be aware of her childish attire. Maybe this was/is also the attitude of some schools to “backward” pupils although it seems cruel to emphasize a person’s mental immaturity but making them wear children’s clothes even if they have to be treated this way.

[1970's Kid]

There’s a world of difference in keeping a 15 or 16 year old with learning difficulties in socks compared to what has happened (and still could be) to these unfortunate adults in mental institutions. Sadly the worst cases do not have the mental capacity to develop into mature adults and will need constant care and attention, and have to be spoken to like a young child so it is at a level they can understand. It doesn’t however mean that these women should be dressed as little girls and they ought to be given the dignity their chronological age merits. I understand their clothes need to be practical and I would have thought that something like a jogging suit with Velcro strap shoes would suffice.

You have to wonder if the staff are deliberately humiliating these patients for their own pleasure therefore abusing their position of trust and authority. The poor woman with the Alice band is probably told she looks very pretty and is almost certainly in seldom contact with the outside world to know better. Some of these patients are probably incontinent so wearing a simple dress without tights may be practical. These patients are also likely to have behavioural problems and have tantrums just like toddlers do when they can’t get their own way. It wouldn’t surprise me if the occasional smack on the leg is used to deal with this and another reason why they are put in dresses with socks.

[Sorbita]

There was a case some years ago (in the late 1990s I think) which received a great deal of publicity where inmates in a UK home for people with learning or mental difficulties were kept in nappies. They had to stand in the corner facing the wall with their hands on their heads when they misbehaved and were subject to other childish punishments. These were young women in their late twenties and thirties. I cannot recall if male inmates were treated this way but the "carers" were male (I think).

I have been unable to locate the details on the internet but it definitely happened. The inmates were treated like little children and, aside from being made to wear nappies, they may have been dressed childishly as well. Not surprisingly, there was a great fuss when it all came out.

[Sorbita]

There was a case some years ago (in the late 1990s I think) which received a great deal of publicity where inmates in a UK home for people with learning or mental difficulties were kept in nappies. They had to stand in the corner facing the wall with their hands on their heads when they misbehaved and were subject to other childish punishments. These were young women in their late twenties and thirties. I cannot recall if male inmates were treated this way but the "carers" were male (I think).

I have been unable to locate the details on the internet but it definitely happened. The inmates were treated like little children and, aside from being made to wear nappies, they may have been dressed childishly as well. Not surprisingly, there was a great fuss when it all came out.