Why The Need To Do This?

[Tacenda]

During a Primary Program yesterday in Sacrament meeting, a darling 1st grade girl got up on the stand and sang a song (so precious) and wearing a sleeveless sun dress. It made me think of the article I posted below and I became frustrated at the thought that some people would sexualize a child. I was glad this mother didn't see anything wrong with the dress her daughter wore.

It's like that Coppertone commerical many years ago with the dog pulling on the little girls swimsuit bottom and it shows her tan. No one was shocked at that. Maybe if it was a woman, yeah then that might be offensive.

I've read accounts of this happening in church, one where a young woman was pulled aside by her YW leader and told that her dress was inappropiate because her dress didn't have sleeves, and this young lady went home in tears.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/09/03/editing-photos-to-add-cap-sleeves-is-a-bad-idea/

[happy]

And to think if the parents were following the rules, the kid would never have been humiliated. That's the real part of the story, is it not? That the parents put their kid in that dress knowing there was a dress code that has existed forever. Reminds me of the parents who are shocked when their kids play violent video games, only to find the parent bought the game in the first place.

[Tacenda]

And to think if the parents were following the rules, the kid would never have been humiliated. That's the real part of the story, is it not? That the parents put their kid in that dress knowing there was a dress code that has existed forever. Reminds me of the parents who are shocked when their kids play violent video games, only to find the parent bought the game in the first place.

Dress code? CFR

[oremites]

Did anyone in your ward make any comments about the sun dress on the 1st grader being inappropriate?

[Tacenda]

Did anyone in your ward make any comments about the sun dress on the 1st grader being inappropriate?

No, I wasn't aware of any. Should they have?

[happy]

Re

Dress code? CFR

Really? *Sigh*

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. Young men and young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior. They should choose appropriately modest apparel when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change.

[KevinG]

Those rules for modesty are for youth (12-18) and adults. Someone making a big deal out of a little primary girl in a sleeveless summer dress is overstepping their aauthority big time.

Even if there were a dress code for primary age children (which there is not) it is up to that child and her parents to made the decisions on appropriate dress. If someone is truly concerned about someones dress they need to quietly take someone aside and discuss it with them, but that is a big if and should be a rare occasion.

Too many shorts and camisole police in the church. Sisters who think nothing of offending a family over the length of a cap sleeve or shorts.

[happy]

Those rules for modesty are for youth (12-18) and adults. Someone making a big deal out of a little primary girl in a sleeveless summer dress is overstepping their aauthority big time.

Even if there were a dress code for primary age children (which there is not) it is up to that child and her parents to made the decisions on appropriate dress. If someone is truly concerned about someones dress they need to quietly take someone aside and discuss it with them, but that is a big if and should be a rare occasion.

Too many shorts and camisole police in the church. Sisters who think nothing of offending a family over the length of a cap sleeve or shorts.

Right. So how far shall we go? I see a lot of little girls in rather racy and frankly disturbing clothes. But as long as they are under 12, that's ok? I am failing to see the logic here. And a Young Woman Leader is very much in her bounds to point out people being immodest.

Or do you find girls under 12 in sexuality charged outfits OK in the chapel?

Picture deleted. Happy has left the forum for inappropriate behavior. -Ares.

(This image is from Toddler's and Tiaras on TLC.)

Edited September 17, 2012 by Ares

[MormonMason]

The manuals of instruction teach modesty. Parents are asked to dress their children modestly. If you don't start teaching them when they are young, it will be harder to teach them to dress modestly when they are older.

As to making the child cry, I am sure that there was a better alternative to doing that, such as politely talking to the parents and sharing with them the teachings of the manual. Another way would be to address the subject of modesty in sharing time and explaining why we dress modestly. Children have a tendency to go back and tell parents things they hear. Often, they realize that something is a potential problem and have no problems addressing the parents--unless they are too frightened to do so.

Edited September 17, 2012 by MormonMason

[KevinG]

Right. So how far shall we go? I see a lot of little girls in rather racy and frankly disturbing clothes. But as long as they are under 12, that's ok?

If you can't tell the difference between a sun dress and a hootchie mama outfit please stay away from my daughters and granddaughters.

[Buckeye]

Sunday was our primary program too. For me, the highlight of the year. In our program we had a few girls with sleeveless dresses. One of them was mine. For the record, when she went up to the stage she had on a sweater that covered her arms, but during the course of the program she got fidgety and pulled off the sweater. No one complained to me about my daughter or the othe girls with bare shoulders.

[Garden Girl]

Those rules for modesty are for youth (12-18) and adults. Someone making a big deal out of a little primary girl in a sleeveless summer dress is overstepping their aauthority big time.

Even if there were a dress code for primary age children (which there is not) it is up to that child and her parents to made the decisions on appropriate dress. If someone is truly concerned about someones dress they need to quietly take someone aside and discuss it with them, but that is a big if and should be a rare occasion.

Too many shorts and camisole police in the church. Sisters who think nothing of offending a family over the length of a cap sleeve or shorts.

I think sleeveless on a primary child is okay to about age 8 - 10... then the parents can start being more careful about following the guidelines. Parents should teach modesty in a positive way, and explain why we hold to these standards... not just say NO!! The way a girl feels about herself is very important in instilling a love for modesty vs the fashions of the world, and she is more likely to follow our standards willfully when she has a clear understanding of why we are modest.

GG

[KevinG]

Tacenda I just read the article you posted. Adding cap sleeves to a photo to encourage modest dress is not a problem for me. Art is modified all the time for commercial purposes and promoting modest dress is a good thing.

It is the way modesty is promoted that must be done with care. Making a girl cry by scolding her in front of class = classless. Promoting modest dress in church art and photos = propriety.

[oremites]

No, I wasn't aware of any. Should they have?

No. I was just trying to understand the point of this thread.

A little girl wears a sun dress to church. No one at church cares.

I realize I'm slow to understand things sometimes, but I don't get what we're supposed to be reacting to here.

[mfbukowski]

Dress code? CFR

Give me a flipplin' break.

You start the thread based on complaining that people have expectations on how people should be dressed, and then object to the term "dress code"?

Total set-up.

Edited September 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

Give me a flipplin' break.

You start the thread based on complaining that people have expectations on how people should be dressed, and then object to the term "dress code"?

Total set-up.

Years ago the church wasn't as legalistic as they are with a dress code. I'm worried it's a trend. Will it get worse? I don't like women even young women and even worse children being sexualised. End of story. End of rant.

[Deborah]

I realize I'm slow to understand things sometimes, but I don't get what we're supposed to be reacting to here.

Ditto!

I was wondering why this thread if no one said anything to the little girl. Talk about making a mountain out of nothing.

[cursor]

[ edit ]... just not worth it ... sorry

Edited September 17, 2012 by cursor

[Freedom]

The dress code is like the word of wisdom. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with having the occasional glass of wine, but there is a separation that occurs when we do not partake, and there is a protection put in place for those that are less disciplined. With clothing, it is a simple demarcation that prevents any disputes. If you allow sundresses, then what about mid drifts? The line can be moved all over. Society is tolerating the sexualization of our youth, so God, in his wisdom, as drawn a line in the sand. The line was drawn because we are not capable of governing ourselves. This si why the law of Moses was so stringent.

[mfbukowski]

Years ago the church wasn't as legalistic as they are with a dress code. I'm worried it's a trend. Will it get worse? I don't like women even young women and even worse children being sexualised. End of story. End of rant.

I would like to suggest to you that no one understands what you mean by this. Your posts seem to be totally contradictory.

On one hand you are saying that "dress codes" are bad and that we should let kids walk around in immodest clothes and on the other hand you say you don't want children to be sexualized.

What the heck are you saying?

I really don't care but I am only posting this to help encourage people to actually put the mind in gear before they hit the keyboard to avoid all these threads which have no substance whatsoever, and it is become clearer and clearer that this is one of them.

[Tacenda]

I would like to suggest to you that no one understands what you mean by this. Your posts seem to be totally contradictory.

On one hand you are saying that "dress codes" are bad and that we should let kids walk around in immodest clothes and on the other hand you say you don't want children to be sexualized.

What the heck are you saying?

I really don't care but I am only posting this to help encourage people to actually put the mind in gear before they hit the keyboard to avoid all these threads which have no substance whatsoever, and it is become clearer and clearer that this is one of them.

In the link I provided, one comment made to it, is probably a good one for you to read since it conveys what I'm trying to say in my OP but apparently did not do a good enough job of it.

Tracy M Says:

September 4, 2012 at 3:23 am

This puritanical obsession with bodies we currently have (and I do believe it’s somewhat recent, coinciding with the uptick in ‘modesty’ discourse, perhaps) efficiently and thoroughly hyper-sexualizes us as a people. When a person can look on the shoulders of an innocent child and find them something in need of covering, something has gone greatly off the rails. Cynthia is right- we need to stop. And we need to stop NOW.

I struggled with this in my modesty post last year- once I joined the church as an adult, I was aware of bodies— in particular women’s bodies— in a way I never was prior to my conversion. I still feel it a violation, and I still resent that warped notion of modesty being thrust into my awareness.

And yes, please– read the link Cynthia gives in comment #1 and in the sidebar. It’s relevant, and incredibly important.

[blackstrap]

I'm afraid that the poster Tracy M has it exactly backwards. Society does NOT have a puritanical obsession with bodies and hasn't for decades. The entire advertising world spends its energy trying to sexualize almost any product. If they could they would use young children in as provocative a way as possible. Those who complain about modesty in dress as infringing on their freedoms have no clue about the real world. Recently there was a big fuss made because someone suggested that one way to avoid sexual harrassment or even attack,would be to NOT dress like a street walker. Oh how the rights folks jumped on that suggestion.One wonk even said that a woman should be able to walk naked down any street without fear of attack. In theory that could be true,but in reality it would be foolish. These people still lock their houses and cars.Why?Theoretically they should not have to.In reality it is a very wise precaution and a good habit to get into.

[MorningStar]

I don't have my daughter wear sleeveless dresses. Not because I think it looks wrong, but because I don't want to tell her suddenly that she can't wear them anymore. Might as well be consistent.

[Calm]

We shouldn't sexualize our children, but I think we are living in a daydream if we think that we can ignore the fact that there are people out there that will sexualize them.

Applying the same dressing rules for younger children seems to me to be more a protective measure than a sexualizing one. Perhaps I tend to be overcautious due to a friend's six year old daughter being kidnapped and raped.

Having said that, I would never label a young child as immodest for wearing clothing that would be immodest on an adult. That doesn't mean it can't be inappropriate though.

Edited September 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[MormonMason]

Tacenda,

God created clothing. End of story.