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

[disykat]

Skimmed the thread. My two cents. I think there’s a big difference between demanding something of someone else’s kid and making a suggestion. “Go put pants on now.” Or “Hey, buddy, want to go put pants on for dinner? No? Well you better go talk to mommy about that.” The first would make me mad the second would be totally fine with me. As to the OP title question I think five is fine to walk around in shirt and underwear at a family gathering. I think once they start getting 8 or older probably a time to make pants a regular thing but this is coming from a mom of an almost 10 year old DS that just got caught in his underwear ( in the afternoon) by the neighbor kid coming over asking to play. Since then he’s been getting dressed earlier

And for the record he does wear clothes if “company” is coming over. Or family whatever. Life is too short to be arguing over a kid wearing pants. This is the definition of pick your battles.

This blows me away. Really? I get why someone who doesn't think anyone (kids, adults, whatever) needs to wear pants in their own home wouldn't think it was a big deal. But I'm honestly having a hard time understanding why anyone would think kids less than 8 are exempt from clothing rules that apply to others. Is it because you think they aren't capable? Or won't be cooperative? Or that there are just plain different expectation levels for kids and they shouldn't be subject to the rules? It sounds like getting dressed before people come over is a general expectation at your house. Why would kids below 8 be exempted? I've always expected kids past toddler age to pretty much fall in with the expected behavior and consider it a teachable moment when they don't.

It's been almost 20 years since I've had a five year old living at my house, but I did have one visit for the weekend last week. He pretty much got dressed when everyone else did.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Conservative, I may be, but my answer is it's never appropriate for a child to be pant-less when company is over. At any age.

 

[mummabear]

And the rest of us at the dinner table had a right to eat our dinner without a child in his underpants. She was the ONLY adult there that though it wasn't an issue, and how would she know our collective opinion that it wasn't if nobody said anything?

Wow, your rights are being infringed on

 

[ShayBells]

This blows me away. Really? I get why someone who doesn't think anyone (kids, adults, whatever) needs to wear pants in their own home wouldn't think it was a big deal. But I'm honestly having a hard time understanding why anyone would think kids less than 8 are exempt from clothing rules that apply to others. Is it because you think they aren't capable? Or won't be cooperative? Or that there are just plain different expectation levels for kids and they shouldn't be subject to the rules? It sounds like getting dressed before people come over is a general expectation at your house. Why would kids below 8 be exempted? I've always expected kids past toddler age to pretty much fall in with the expected behavior and consider it a teachable moment when they don't.

It's been almost 20 years since I've had a five year old living at my house, but I did have one visit for the weekend last week. He pretty much got dressed when everyone else did.

I just don’t think not wearing pants is a big deal. You talk about rules and if it’s a rule in someone’s house than sure they should wear pants. I’ll be more worried about how my kid treats others. I want him to follow the rules but for me with family coming over at five it wouldn’t have been a hard rule to wear pants. Again, I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal and it was just an opinion. Unless there’s a law somewhere saying after 2 kids have to have on pants all day all the time then rules are different in each persons house. No kid is exempt from any rules no matter the age. But the rules from the parent as long as no harm is being caused to others. You can disagree with me and that is totally fine.

 

[kimmar067]

....I just wanted to comment regarding those of you who think it's ok because the 'company' is 'family': just because you are related to the person, if you are not a member of that particular household and see the daily comings and goings of said premises, you ARE 'company' - you just happen to also be related.

 

[kimmar067]

....and for the record, what anyone does in the privacy of their own home is THEIR BUSINESS as they see fit, whether it's a big deal or not to wear specific articles of clothing. However, obviously the OP felt uncomfortable enough to bring up the subject in the first place - I don't sense that it was an 'authority' or 'power' issue, but more of a sense of decency or courtesy...

 

[goofyernmost]

So you went to their house and decided how their children should be dressed and you and your dh both told their child to do something without speaking to his parents first?

Regardless of how I feel about when a child should be wearing pants, it isn't my place to tell them to put them on when I am in their home. I would speak to their mother or father and have them tell their child if they decide too.
If I didn't like their rules for their children when I am in their home then I am free to leave.

It's their ocean, it's their rules of the house. You don't approve you don't have the right to change their rules, you can leave, but really, I cannot image this scenario ever happening it seems so brainless. We, at least we used to, live in a civilized society. Alone in your own home run around naked walking on you hands and playing a flute with your butt. When entertaining guests act at least a notch above neanderthal.

 

[Summer2018]

It's there ocean, it's there rules of the house. You don't approve you don't have the right to change their rules, you can leave, but really, I cannot image this scenario ever happening it seems so brainless. We, at least we used to, live in a civilized society. Alone in your own home run around naked walking on you hands and playing a flute with your butt. When entertaining guests act at least a notch about neanderthal.

 

[Hikergirl]

It's there ocean, it's there rules of the house. You don't approve you don't have the right to change their rules, you can leave, but really, I cannot image this scenario ever happening it seems so brainless. We, at least we used to, live in a civilized society. Alone in your own home run around naked walking on you hands and playing a flute with your butt. When entertaining guests act at least a notch about neanderthal.

Well if he was running around naked playing a flute out of his behind I'd agree with you, but a 5 year old in Lighting McQueen undies in his own yard and surrounded by his own family. I would hardly call him a neanderthal, I'd call him a kid. Sure he could have out some pants on, but really is it that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Do people really believe this is the start of him deciding to not wear pants anywhere?

And yes, I do think pants are appropriate at the dinner table, but I'd be more concerned with my child eating their veggies rather than they have their legs covered with fabric while sitting there. If they weren't, like you say playing a flute out of their rear, then I don't see the need for someone else to order the kid to do something about it.

 

[kimmar067]

....I'd be more concerned with my child eating their veggies rather than they have their legs covered with fabric while sitting there...

....Really? I think it's the same reason eateries have the "NO SHIRTS, NO SHOES - NO FOOD" rules....some things need to be properly covered when food is involved.

 

[kimmar067]

....if I am at the home of someone who has a 5-year-old running around in the backyard in his/her undies (which begs the question: is it okay for boys AND girls?) or in their room, or whatever, no biggie....when a meal is introduced, whole different ball game. However, I also feel it is the responsibility of the parent to enforce the rules of etiquette.

 

[Hikergirl]

....Really? I think it's the same reason eateries have the "NO SHIRTS, NO SHOES - NO FOOD" rules....some things need to be properly covered when food is involved.

He wasn't at an eatery, he was in his backyard. No different than him sitting in a bathing suit eating at a backyard BBQ, so yes REALLY.
And for me this isn't about him wearing pants or not, IMHO that isn't a big deal. The big deal is the OP deciding she was going to set the rule fo for this kid at his house with his parents there. Would she go into an eatery and start dictating policy, that is the real question.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

15 pages, I can't believe people are this invested or angry about a 5 year old wearing his underwear around family. Omg. And these same people are on here blowing a gasket over other people "overreacting" to really important issues. You know my answer to this would have been "mind your own beeswax". Holy cow, I can't believe it. Some even stating they can't believe they had to eat dinner with a 5 year old with underwear on. Incredible. Back talk is not nice and would have been addressed, but he was probably humiliated and embarrassed. I would be much more sensitive and would never do that to my nephew. Looks like both had bad manners.

 

[kimmar067]

The OP said she knows the parents have disagreed about it before....

....and therein lies the crux of the problem.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

....Really? I think it's the same reason eateries have the "NO SHIRTS, NO SHOES - NO FOOD" rules....some things need to be properly covered when food is involved.

Since you brought his particular part up I'm guessing here but have you never eaten at a casual place near a pool, ocean, lake, etc where people are wearing bathing suits (and let's be honest sometimes the bottoms do not cover what this little boy's underwear is covering).

ETA: That rules serves far more due to appearance (meaning you're not a dirty unkempt poor hygiene person) otherwise thousands of places that allow you to eat in a bathing suit would be in violation of some food health rule.

I did a bit of research and found this: "What's clear from the history of the "Shirt and Shoes Required" sign is that it never had anything to do with enforcing health codes,"..It became very very popular I guess during the Hippie Movement.

 

[BLAZEY]

Reading old posts of yours, you have a lot of animosity towards your sister. Perhaps this is why you feel you can discipline her child?

It's a 2 way street, we have disciplined each other's kids and have for years. If she wants the privilege of disciplining mine, which she has done for years, even before she had hers then it works in reverse too. If she decides that is no longer the case...

 

[BLAZEY]

Since you brought his particular part up I'm guessing here but have you never eaten at a casual place near a pool, ocean, lake, etc where people are wearing bathing suits (and let's be honest sometimes the bottoms do not cover what this little boy's underwear is covering).

ETA: That rules serves far more due to appearance (meaning you're not a dirty unkempt poor hygiene person) otherwise thousands of places that allow you to eat in a bathing suit would be in violation of some food health rule.

I did a bit of research and found this: "What's clear from the history of the "Shirt and Shoes Required" sign is that it never had anything to do with enforcing health codes,"..It became very very popular I guess during the Hippie Movement.

Our pools that have food service all have signs stating you must be fully dressed to buy food. Only time I have not seen the sign is at the ice cream that randomly sometimes shows up at the lake. But that's take away food, not at a dinner table.

 

[DaddysPrincess]

I feel like this has more to do with the parents/parenting style "differences" than the actual child not wearing pants. This is something my aunt would do to my mom to prove she's the "better" parent. Esp knowing that the child's parents have discrepancies with each other regarding the situation.. imo you're just asking for drama and/or are needing others approval so you can seem like the "better parent"
Not trying to be mean or anything.. this just seems so unbelievably petty

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Our pools that have food service all have signs stating you must be fully dressed to buy food. Only time I have not seen the sign is at the ice cream that randomly sometimes shows up at the lake. But that's take away food, not at a dinner table.

Great that's your pools and they can post those signs if they want to it's not a law everywhere that they have to and it's not related to food prep as far as why it became common to see.

I'm not sure if you were trying to negate what I'm saying or not here nor do I see a point in bringing up dinner table.

The poster said "....Really? I think it's the same reason eateries have the "NO SHIRTS, NO SHOES - NO FOOD" rules....some things need to be properly covered when food is involved." and that is simply not the case. I'm fairly certain that most people have had experiences where they've been at a casual place near bodies of water where someone is sitting with a bathing suit bottom and being served food.

If this sort of thing gives you pause please don't go to the Lake of the Ozarks. You'll now find pools all over at casual restaurants (this became popular about 2 years ago), there are places where you can eat in your bathing suit, etc

 

[nkereina]

....I just wanted to comment regarding those of you who think it's ok because the 'company' is 'family': just because you are related to the person, if you are not a member of that particular household and see the daily comings and goings of said premises, you ARE 'company' - you just happen to also be related.

That's a matter of opinion. If its family I do not see often, then sure, they are company to me. But if its family like my niece/nephew or my in-laws who we see weekly, they have keys to our house and an open door policy. They are welcome any time and can make themselves comfortable however they want - go in our fridge, eat our food. They would not be company to me, and I would not make any special accommodations for them when they come over. Nor would they expect me to. Do you not have any relationships like this in your life, either in your own home or someone else's?

It sounds like the OP's sister was just comfortable with OP like this and allowed her kid to go pants-less because of that. If OP wants an arm's length, should be considered a visitor/company type of relationship, that is totally fine but OP would then need to establish those boundaries with the family.