Why The Need To Do This?

[Traela]

Once upon a time, children wore clothing styles that were specifically for children, which would have been inappropriate (and for women, immodest) for an adult. It used to be a Big Deal when a girl lengthened her skirts or otherwise put on adult clothing.

I think the big concern now comes from most little girls' clothing being in the same style as adult clothing. Basically the thinking is that if little girls are wearing the same styles as adults, then they should be held to the same standards of modesty. At the very least, it makes it much harder to draw a line on what is appropriate for a particular age.

[Tacenda]

Once upon a time, children wore clothing styles that were specifically for children, which would have been inappropriate (and for women, immodest) for an adult. It used to be a Big Deal when a girl lengthened her skirts or otherwise put on adult clothing.

I think the big concern now comes from most little girls' clothing being in the same style as adult clothing. Basically the thinking is that if little girls are wearing the same styles as adults, then they should be held to the same standards of modesty. At the very least, it makes it much harder to draw a line on what is appropriate for a particular age.

True, but the girl in the article wasn't wearing something like you described. What you described made me think of something...

Awhile back, a show on cable that I don't normally watch or like, has these little girls compete in make up, hair do's and outfits, can't remember the name but it's a reality show. And one of them dressed like a hooker portraying Julia Roberts in the movie "Pretty Woman". This caused some definite controversary and was deemed inappropriate and I totally agreed, plus the mothers' on this show are something else.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

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

Then why are you looking for something to find fault with?

[ERayR]

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.

Then teach them modesty.

[Tacenda]

Then why are you looking for something to find fault with?

I was bothered that it appears to me that at one time this photo was used somewhere and there wasn't a problem with the sundress. Now the photo is being doctored, why the changes? It may be that the church wants women to get use to dressing a certain way in order to slide right into wearing garments. I guess this a pretty good idea. I'll back off my previous statements I guess I was pretty quick to jump on the bandwagon somewhat.

[mfbukowski]

End of story. End of rant.

Uh, I don't think so, but we can all hope so.

Edited September 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Alvino]

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.

Because the solution is to humiliate a child. Great...

[Alvino]

The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change.

Really? Can I let my beard grow Brigham-style as a stake president?

[ERayR]

I was bothered that it appears to me that at one time this photo was used somewhere and there wasn't a problem with the sundress. Now the photo is being doctored, why the changes? It may be that the church wants women to get use to dressing a certain way in order to slide right into wearing garments. I guess this a pretty good idea. I'll back off my previous statements I guess I was pretty quick to jump on the bandwagon somewhat.

There must have been a midnight emergency meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve where this was discussed and orders came down from on high.

[bluebell]

Little girl fashion today is almost obscene.

This summer i saw a string bikini on a toddler-a string bikini with the triangle top parts and everything! I've seen 5 year olds with the word 'juicy' written across their rumps wearing mid-drif bearing shirts and a girl that looked like she was about 9 wearing mascara and blush and high heels with short shorts walking into a motel next to her parents. Miniskirts on a 3rd grader is gross, not trendy or fashionable, unless they have leggings sewn into them.

Parents need to get a clue! It's not cute to make/let your toddler/little girl dress like a 20 year old with bad self esteem who is starved for male attention. You are emotionally and mentally messing them up AND you are telling all those gross men out there who get off on that kind of thing that it's o.k. to think of little girls in a sexual way. And those kind of men are far more common that you realize and they really don't see anything wrong with oogling young girls who dress that way. I've sat in front of enough of them at county fairs and other events and had to listen to their horrible talk to know what they think of your daughters.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with a little girl in a sleeveless sundress and i don't think anyone else on this thread or in the church (as far as i am aware) has an issue with such things either. But Tracy M or whatever her name is needs to take the blinders off. We are sexualizing our daughters by the way we allow them to dress and we need to stop. It is a big deal and it is creating issues that they don't need to be dealing with. She has been blinded by society to believe it's natural to advertise sexuality but it's not.

[mfbukowski]

Really? Can I let my beard grow Brigham-style as a stake president?

In fact the stake president would be the one to decide that question. We have bearded priesthood leaders in our stake.

[wenglund]

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?

From what I can tell, Tacenda is simply looking for even the least reason to sneer at the Church and/or its members, presumably to feel better about herself. If so, then consistency tends to be against this objective and is too oft set aside.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[emeliza]

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.

I basically have the same thought as MS. My daughter has quite a few sleeveless dresses, but the rule is that she either has to wear something over or under them. This is not because I think shoulders are immodest, it is because I want her used to wearing clothes that cover her shoulders. The same goes for why I buy her shorts to her knee. It is easier to just always have the same rules in some situations rather than to change them later on.

[Alvino]

In fact the stake president would be the one to decide that question. We have bearded priesthood leaders in our stake.

You know as well as I do that having a beard is strongly discouraged (not to mention BYU codes). If the Lord's standards don't change, why are they discouraged now? I suppose LDS women today, as those of yesterday, shouldn't wear skits that reach to the knee...

Come on, mf, I'm sure you also don't accept the "the Lord's standards don't change". You can't be so ahistorical.

[Lightbearer]

If anyone is sexualizing children it is certainly not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the leadership. It is the corrupt society we live in that calls evil good and good evil... it condemns those who strive to keep the commandments of God. It also thinks that a "villiage" should raise our children instead of loving, righteous parents who have faith in the Lord and His Church instead of the philosophies and teachings of men. You cannot start too young teaching modesty and chastity, if you wait until age 12 it is too late.. This child should not have been publicly corrected (if that happened), instead the parents (the one responsible for how minors act and dress) are the one's who should have been taught the correct principles and they are obligated to bring up their children in light and truth. Oh and btw nothing has changed in Church policy, sundresses have always been taboo in Church even when I was in primary (over 40 years ago!) So please stop throwing mud against the Church just for the sake of "kicking against the pricks." Oh and as for the beard comment to prove the church standards change, it has always been such in a church that has current revelation. I suppose in Brighams time beards were considered respectable (in my generation it is associated with the hippy counterculture) So if their is a tightening of standards of dress it is a reaction to the abominable customs of the 20th and 21st century.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I am still trying to get this stated clearly.

You are saying modesty creates lust. Is that what you are saying?

So we should all go naked, and that way we will do away with lust. Is that the general point? What IS the point, without innuendo, without nuance and without conflicting statements?

To me this underlines the fact that women and men are totally different. It seems that the women here understand each other well enough to agree or disagree whereas the men remain clueless as to what is even being discussed.

It could very well be just me- but I would love to have at least one clean and clear statement of a thesis here.

[mfbukowski]

You know as well as I do that having a beard is strongly discouraged (not to mention BYU codes). If the Lord's standards don't change, why are they discouraged now? I suppose LDS women today, as those of yesterday, shouldn't wear skits that reach to the knee...

Come on, mf, I'm sure you also don't accept the "the Lord's standards don't change". You can't be so ahistorical.

It is not "strongly discouraged"- the customs vary from culture to culture and of course the Lord does not care about fashion. In Samoa, one could say that men wear dresses to church. (I know they are not dresses- I am making a point. Samoans can wear lava lavas to church, but if a white guy does it looks really weird)

So why do you have to bring up all this stuff about "the Lord's standards don't change"?

Of course they change- we believe in continuing revelation- or maybe you hadn't noticed that we no longer offer blood sacrifices in church or burnt offerings?

Did you fail to notice that we no longer practice polygamy and that Blacks have the priesthood? I know you have probably not been to the temple but guess what- even there we have had major changes.

Did you ever see a picture of Brigham Young? Did you maybe notice a beard?

So what's your point??

Edited September 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mapman]

I don't have any children, so take this comment for what it's worth. The church doesn't say that little girls have to cover their shoulders. Parents can decide for themselves what they think is appropriate for their child to wear, and it would be inappropriate for anyone else to tell them that they are wearing the wrong thing. Personally I think that our culture has distorted the doctrine of modesty to be about how long articles of clothing should be or whatever, instead of being about being modest - wearing clothing that isn't trying to draw attention to yourself for the wrong reasons (which I think include showing off wealth). I'm also troubled by how modesty has also become almost exclusively about women. I think it does a disservice to both women and men to have people view women's bodies as walking pornography. It is also puzzling to me that the Ensign has been photoshopping pictures. If there was something they didn't like in the picture, why didn't they just use a different picture? Surely that would have been less work?

Edited September 18, 2012 by mapman

[mfbukowski]

OK I will say it.

I admit I have been playing dumb because no one wants to really address the direct issue here.

Women have perfected the art of using fashion to be just a little sexy while also being able to be seen as "modest" and this thread is about discussing that line, and men have encouraged that behavior by wanting women to simultaneously be sexy and yet seem virginal and chaste.

So women button up, and put on makeup which used to be regarded as only something a "cheap tramp" might wear, but it serves the same function as immodest clothing. It makes them appear more attractive to men, and that is the only reason to wear makeup.

Calmoriah pegged it- (of course) and made a distinction between being "immodest" and "inappropriate".

The fact is that the culture allows for more skin to be shown on little girls, and that can be "appropriate" without being "immodest"

But the conflict remains. We as a culture want women to be "attractive" but in church "sexy" is going too far. As men, it's ok for other guy's wives to be (ahem) "attractive" but we don't want OUR wives to be (ahem) "sexy" to other guys.

So the conflict is built into the culture itself, and yes, clothes can be "sexy" and sometimes more clothes can be sexier than no clothes. It's just a fact.

So what's the point of MY rant?

This issue is not going to go away- it is part of being human, and where we draw the line is subject to custom and fashion. It used to be controversial for women to show their ankles, and now if you DON'T wear a dress above the ankles, you look weird.

The issue is never going away- it's just a question of where we draw the line, so in my never humble opinion, we can argue about where the line is, but that will be different six months from now anyway, so why bother?

[thesometimesaint]

mfbulowski:

"Samoans can wear lava lavas to church, but if a white guy does it looks really weird)"

My Scottish ancestors would disagree. Though of course they called it a kilt instead.

I still have my family's tartan, and am entitled to wear it.

[KevinG]

I was bothered that it appears to me that at one time this photo was used somewhere and there wasn't a problem with the sundress. Now the photo is being doctored, why the changes?

Because when correcting an individual it is best done in private, but when producing materials for the institution it is best to provide good examples for everyone.

[mfbukowski]

mfbulowski:

"Samoans can wear lava lavas to church, but if a white guy does it looks really weird)"

My Scottish ancestors would disagree. Though of course they called it a kilt instead.

I still have my family's tartan, and am entitled to wear it.

So maybe they are plaid lava lavas?

I said that because we had a guy do that last Sunday because it was really hot in LA the last couple of weeks, but with the white legs and feet against the dark lava lava and sandals- it just didn't make it!

I was also visiting a ward where the AC went out and it was around 100 outside and all the poor guys on the stand kept on their coats and were just dripping wet.

I was sitting in the congregation and took mine off- but I think I was the only one to do so. I mean I agree with proper church attire, but there comes a time when it is just silly to get heat stroke because you don't want to take off a wool jacket in 100+ degree weather. It isn't good for one's health. You might even argue that keeping on a jacket in such a situation was against the Word of Wisdom. In the tropics, lava lavas and no tie seem perfectly appropriate, so to me, all these supposed rules have to be moderated by the what culture and common sense dictate.

[Tacenda]

I don't have any children, so take this comment for what it's worth. The church doesn't say that little girls have to cover their shoulders. Parents can decide for themselves what they think is appropriate for their child to wear, and it would be inappropriate for anyone else to tell them that they are wearing the wrong thing. Personally I think that our culture has distorted the doctrine of modesty to be about how long articles of clothing should be or whatever, instead of being about being modest - wearing clothing that isn't trying to draw attention to yourself for the wrong reasons (which I think include showing off wealth). I'm also troubled by how modesty has also become almost exclusively about women. I think it does a disservice to both women and men to have people view women's bodies as walking pornography. It is also puzzling to me that the Ensign has been photoshopping pictures. If there was something they didn't like in the picture, why didn't they just use a different picture? Surely that would have been less work?

Thank you so much for putting in words (bold) what I've felt. Also, there was a photo in the Ensign that photoshopped a painting of Carl Bloch's, shown on the link. I just think things are going too far sometimes. But I understand the other side of the coin too.

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012/05/on-immodest-angels/

[emeliza]

Too funny, my husband brought up that painting and was pretty saddened by it as well.

On a side note, we have this conversation at our home quite often. Neither I nor my husband feel that it is immodest to show our shoulders or some of the other criteria, but we do believe it is a problem to show off your garment. We also want our children to get used to the idea of garments so they are often required to wear clothes that would fit that make. However when my oldest is in show choir and the costume is a halter top dress that goes above the knee, we support her in wearing it because it is a costume for a specific type of group she is involved in and we don't think it is an immodest outfit (it is really kind of cute). We wouldn't want her to wear it outside of this group, but like wearing a swimsuit when you are on the swim team, she can wear the dress to be in show choir.

Another thing I hate to hear is that young women should dress modestly to help keep the young men's thoughts clean. I prefer my daughter dressing modestly because I think modesty is important for her, but young men should learn to keep their thoughts clean on their own. If they have unclean thoughts, it is NOT the fault of some girl who wore a tank top or shorts that went mid-thigh. The fault lies with the young man and he needs to learn self control.

I am sure others disagree, but it reminds me of how people used to blame the rape of a women on how she was dressing. That is BS.

[Tacenda]

Too funny, my husband brought up that painting and was pretty saddened by it as well.

On a side note, we have this conversation at our home quite often. Neither I nor my husband feel that it is immodest to show our shoulders or some of the other criteria, but we do believe it is a problem to show off your garment. We also want our children to get used to the idea of garments so they are often required to wear clothes that would fit that make. However when my oldest is in show choir and the costume is a halter top dress that goes above the knee, we support her in wearing it because it is a costume for a specific type of group she is involved in and we don't think it is an immodest outfit (it is really kind of cute). We wouldn't want her to wear it outside of this group, but like wearing a swimsuit when you are on the swim team, she can wear the dress to be in show choir.

Another thing I hate to hear is that young women should dress modestly to help keep the young men's thoughts clean. I prefer my daughter dressing modestly because I think modesty is important for her, but young men should learn to keep their thoughts clean on their own. If they have unclean thoughts, it is NOT the fault of some girl who wore a tank top or shorts that went mid-thigh. The fault lies with the young man and he needs to learn self control.

I am sure others disagree, but it reminds me of how people used to blame the rape of a women on how she was dressing. That is BS.

Ditto on everything you said! Just wanted to add a link about a BYU coed that was passed a note on campus that her outfit wasn't appropiate. This is what I mean when I say that it sometimes gets out of hand.

http://thestudentreview.org/?p=3618

Edited September 18, 2012 by Tacenda