At what age is it no longer appropriate for kids to be pantless when company is over?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it mostly an issue if you take them to be printed because at that point you don't have control over who has access to the picture. Some unscrupulous employee could make extra copies and use them without you permission. Printed at home you have the only copies. Same with social media, you can control the setting on who can see what you post.
Oh ok yeah I can see that-that makes sense.
 
There's a point when people are just flat out being mean. This thread has crossed that line quite a few times IMO. I get it. Many of you disagree about the need for pants. Fine. Many of you think the OP was out of line and are defending her sister. Fine. However, the sister isn't even here. The only person we "know" in this thread is the OP. She is a member of our community. A community that I like to feel is supportive. Why not give her some slack? Why can't we have some feeling of sympathy and understanding while disagreeing. Good grief, people!

When people (trying not to quote specific posters) are unable to come up with ANY kind of remote feeling of understanding for the OP despite disagreeing, why even discuss it other than to browbeat the OP? SAD.

Because it's a discussion board. If it bothers you, no one is forcing you to keep reading.
 
Depends on where you are... and where photos are being developed.

A couple of instances where pictures of their own young child got someone in trouble.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/when-getting-photos-developed-leads-trouble-law-n135981
A Peoria, Arizona, couple sued Walmart in 2009 after bath time pictures taken of their infant daughters led the retail giant to call police for alleged child pornography. The couple claimed customers weren’t properly informed about Walmart’s print policy. But a federal judge ruled in favor of the retailer, citing state statutes that protect employees from liability in such situations. The couple, who temporarily lost their kids, has filed an appeal.


I've not had any such pictures developed since 2002, but I do hear of situations like above where the developer will refuse to develop pictures or worse, turn someone in.

I don’t understand. This example is of a bare butt in the tub. The example I was referring to (and is talked about in my quoted post) is about shirtless boys. Obviously naked children are different.

I just wish people would check to see if what they were siting was relevant before using it as “proof” of their point.
 
Last edited:


By OP asking the boy to at this dinner, it would seem she could have been following his lead from previous dinners and trying to help out
this is a good point imo.
I think that since OP kinda comes off as condescending, it taints good intention. But honestly, we can't hear her talk so how do we really know if OP is condescending or not?
You seem to think OP was standing there giggling with glee that her sister and BIL disagreed about something.
not saying OP was doing this but this does actually happen. I've witnessed it on multiple occasions with my aunt and my bf's mom. They both deliberately bring issues up that cause drama then gloat about how they're "so much better" .. it's sad really . And annoying
 
There's a point when people are just flat out being mean. This thread has crossed that line quite a few times IMO. I get it. Many of you disagree about the need for pants. Fine. Many of you think the OP was out of line and are defending her sister. Fine. However, the sister isn't even here. The only person we "know" in this thread is the OP. She is a member of our community. A community that I like to feel is supportive. Why not give her some slack? Why can't we have some feeling of sympathy and understanding while disagreeing. Good grief, people!

When people (trying not to quote specific posters) are unable to come up with ANY kind of remote feeling of understanding for the OP despite disagreeing, why even discuss it other than to browbeat the OP? SAD.

I’m going to pin this post to every thread I start from here on out LOL
 


I
I read through this entire thread Saturday afternoon, and I’ve slept since then and have a terrible memory, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the gist of it?

Dressy family dinner at technically grandma’s house (even if it’s across the yard/3 foot fence) in plain view of multiple neighbors houses.

Everyone else in nice “church” clothes.

Great-Aunt from out of town visiting.

5 year old boy who was told on a previous day to 1) put on pants and 2) not pee in the flowerpot is again not wearing pants.

Aunt who is close and comfortable with the boy tells him to put on pants after he ignored his uncle. Then dad tells him the same thing.

I really don’t see the issue with anything the OP said/did, and when I brought this up with my sisters last night, they didn’t either. Obviously, all families have different dynamics, but we all agreed that the biggest issues were the boy not respecting his uncle/aunt and doing what he was told and then mom not keeping to what they had told him to do (not just the uncle/aunt/dad on this day, but also dad/mom on a precious day).

As far as the original question-what age should they not be pant less in front of company? My PERSONAL opinion is never. I have more modesty than normal probably, but I can’t imagine ever having allowed my child to run around without a shirt or without bottoms. As a point of reference, look up come child pornography laws. When we went to get the 12 month photos (granted, it WAS ~12 years ago), we wanted the baby sitting in a bucket without a shirt picture and were told we would have to schedule it before the 1 year birthday because to do so afterward would be breaking the law. Now obviously pictures are different than real life, but I still think it’s a valid point. Kids should be fully dressed in public not just because it’s the respectful and socially acceptable thing to do, but because of some sickos out in the world, and an open backyard is out in public.

Thanks for the concise synopsis. Hopefully, it will clarify matters for those who are skimming the thread's responses and forget that the BIL/father was in agreement with the OP.

When I showed my sisters this thread over the weekend their reaction mirrored yours<insert dunno emoticon here>. As for asking/telling nieces/nephews/younger degrees of cousins and various types of grands to do something whether their parents were nearby or not, that creates no particular problem for any of us either.
 
this is a good point imo.
I think that since OP kinda comes off as condescending, it taints good intention. But honestly, we can't hear her talk so how do we really know if OP is condescending or not?
not saying OP was doing this but this does actually happen. I've witnessed it on multiple occasions with my aunt and my bf's mom. They both deliberately bring issues up that cause drama then gloat about how they're "so much better" .. it's sad really . And annoying

I think whether or not she came off as condescending is a matter of opinion. I can understand that some people felt she was appearing so, but I read it as her simply trying to explain and give more context to the situation after so many posters seemed to go off on her.

I completely understand and agree with you that there are some people who love causing drama with other people. My mom is notorious for doing that and has tried using the kids to spark an argument between DH and I. In OP's situation though, given that her sister was fine throughout dinner and OP updated the next day saying her sister didn't seem upset, even if the OP were trying to cause a rift (and I don't thinks she was), it didn't really seem to work. People on this thread appear to have gotten far more heated about it than anyone who was even there. Since none of us were there, and those who were are okay, it doesn't seem like it was that big of a deal that she said anything.

I


Thanks for the concise synopsis. Hopefully, it will clarify matters for those who are skimming the thread's responses and forget that the BIL/father was in agreement with the OP.

When I showed my sisters this thread over the weekend their reaction mirrored yours<insert dunno emoticon here>. As for asking/telling nieces/nephews/younger degrees of cousins and various types of grands to do something whether their parents were nearby or not, that creates no particular problem for any of us either.

My DH's response when I read him the title and OP and explained what all was being discussed was, "People of any age should be clothed outside their bedroom and bathroom." He did agree that that sort of request would not be an issue with anyone on either side of the family, but pointed out that the question was simply "At what age is it no longer appropriate for kids to be pantless when company is over?" Of course discussion boards will never simply just address the question at hand, but still, that was the question asked... Not "Do you think I was right in asking my nephew to put on pants? Was I overstepping or justified?"
 
My DH's response when I read him the title and OP and explained what all was being discussed was, "People of any age should be clothed outside their bedroom and bathroom." He did agree that that sort of request would not be an issue with anyone on either side of the family, but pointed out that the question was simply "At what age is it no longer appropriate for kids to be pantless when company is over?" Of course discussion boards will never simply just address the question at hand, but still, that was the question asked... Not "Do you think I was right in asking my nephew to put on pants? Was I overstepping or justified?"

Well then the OP should have simply asked that. She felt the need to share much more info on this discussion board. That being the case, everything she said in her OP is up for discussion. :teacher:
 
Well then the OP should have simply asked that. She felt the need to share much more info on this discussion board. That being the case, everything she said in her OP is up for discussion. :teacher:

She did ask that in the title of her post. She explained why she was asking that by providing the context in the first post. I understand what you are saying that everything is open for discussion, but at the same time, she was not asking for a critique of how she handled the situation, but rather the question in the title. A common theme here on the dis (as I'm sure with many other discussion boards) is people often over analyze posts and things turn accusatory.
 
I believe that what was being said is that the OP should have very simply asked that question only.

She might not have asked for a critique of 'how she handled it'....
But, when you post that much info on a chatboard, well...
This IS fair game for discussion.

My thoughts on the situation have not changed.
Not her house.
Not her kid.
Not her husband's house.
Not her husband's kid.
Not their business.

Both parents were right there, and 'UNCLE' thinks it is appropriate to interject.
Kid is supposed to automatically do what uncle says. when it is not at the uncle and aunt's home, and both parents are right there. Right in their own back yard.
Just no way that this would be okay with me.

Yes, the OP posted a lot of additional info. I appears to me that all the additional info that the OP has posted has been very focused on trying to justify her own viewpoint. All about her being right.

She asked for opinions. And she happened to get some opinions that do not agree with hers.
 
Last edited:
I think family dynamics play a role.

My dh family has interesting dynamics. His brothers and their wives and his parents for that matter would not have a problem correcting a behavior of my children but if DH or I corrected one of their children they would be upset and we would be the bad guys.

His brothers have moved out of state and we now see them for about a week a year. It's not a week my children or I look forward too...
 
I've got two sons, so if any of you females are jealous and would like to have them as your sons you may. We already paid for braces, so you'll need to pick up college costs, ok???????? One of them is constantly leaving his dirty socks inside out in the hallway, and the other is addicted to mint chocolate chip ice cream. As a bonus they come with two male dogs who enjoy sleeping in front of the fireplace, skunk attacks and barking at the trash guy Thursday mornings at 4:45 AM.
Disclaimer: They wear clothes in the house...well, except for socks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top