Fashion Question

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even worse than those are the really fat ones from the 70s. Bad color schemes, too. 

Those were awesome. Especially the flower and paisley ones. My mom made really fat flower ties for me and my college roommates. We were so cool BYU hired us part-time to air condition the Marriott Center. 

https://goo.gl/images/iLqFCa

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

Honestly,  there seems to be no boundaries with the church when it comes to micromanaging personal choice.  Would anyone be shocked if the new Strength of Youth pamphlet advised against wearing anything yellow because it is too strong of color?  First it would be advised against wearing it during church on Sunday because it is distracting and takes away from the Spirit of the meeting.  Then advised against wearing it at youth activities.  And finally, yellow is out. Let's see.  Next on the list?  Open toe shoes.  

I can remember wearing a salmon colored dress shirt to church one Sunday.  A member came up to me and told me how brave I was to choose such a color.  LOL.  I guess the normal rebels against white shirts only dared to dally in blues. 

[Jeanne]

When it comes to shirts...I like a certain style..being older I don't want the big V neck and short sleeves..but if I find one I really like..I take it off the rack...and whattayouknow...there is Minnie Mouse...or Donald Duck on the front...

[Maidservant]

20 hours ago, Thinking said:

The peek a boo shoulder is very popular right now.

I'm curious what the posters on this board think of the peek a boo shoulder.

Would/do you allow your daughters to wear a shirt with peek a boo shoulders?

Would/do you discourage your sons from hanging out with girls who wear tops with peek a boo shoulders?

I don't make home rules about what my children wear--clothes, jewelry, hair.  Life's too short for me to use Mom energy on that.

I don't make home rules about who my children hang out with or date and would hope that they would specifically seek out non-members to include for friendship or dating, without even the wisp of a thought of what they are wearing.

Granted, I live in a conservative, Mormon, small town (although not everyone, of course) that is full of good kids of all religion or none at all. Granted, my kids are friendly with many different kinds of souls, even to be my example.   Granted, my girls have turned out to have a natural desire to cover their body even more than I even have for my own body.  I wouldn't term that modesty (I would term it embarrassment), but nevertheless it has functioned to not cause there to have been a bigger issue that we have even had to deal with to even make a decision about.

Granted, I no longer believe that modesty is a virtue at all, and is one of the most dangerous falsehoods out there, and that no one, especially women, but no one should be evaluated on the modesty-immodesty axis at all.  We could have an entire planet and world history without that at all and be all right, I think.  But we'll never know.

I have had sons ask me if they can get earrings and grow their hair out.  I've told them they need to make a decision about that, that is none of my business.  No one got earrings.  Only one actually grew their hair out for a time.  I've had two sons wear beards a lot as teenagers i.e. not clean shaven even to participate in priesthood (one son is still too young; and one son never had an attractive beard, just splotches, so he didn't).

I have sat in church standards nights that have ignited fury in me and made me wonder if I should stand and walk out in order to preserve my integrity and make sure none of it got into my daughters' ears and psyche; and that caused me to readjust my daughters' thinking afterward (I hope!).

Again--I can't say that I have been confronted with huge issues on this with the individual children, to be tested about whether I have a comfort zone or blind spot I'm not aware of.  We've just sort of gone along.  My daughters wear long maxi dresses or skirts to church usually, just as a matter of style and personal preference.

I do tell my kids that their father has a different opinion, and that other family members (Grandma, etc) would probably be disappointed in 'out-of-the-box' choices; but if they think they can deal with that, then go for it.  I also think that there is something to dressing for where you are at (i.e. church meetings), but again, haven't been tested where the line for this is at.  I myself often wear quite short skirts to church (not necessarily tight, some of them are flowy), but I wear leggings underneath.  I do this for fashion, it's cute and feminine in my own eyes, not anything about anything else.

As a personal feeling, I would be glad if I never wore a stitch of clothing again except for purposes of artistry and for winter warmth.  I hate covering up my body, for reasons of comfort.  At home I wear little, tank tops, shorts, sleeveless summer dresses; even sometimes my garments sleeves peeking out.  I have to remind myself to change when I want to go to the store etc.  *I* actually don't care what people see of my body (but perhaps the garments), but still I'm not strong enough to make a statement and it's just easier to wear what is normal for the area.  Although I understand in L.A. it's normal to shop in your bikini; in New York, you wouldn't be doing that.  Not sure if that's true, just heard it.  I do know that in my college, people went to class in their jammies and slippers and bed hair--a low key western college.  Not sure if that would fly in every university.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

When I see a toddler running around in a sun dress or a halter top, I don't think to myself, "Have you no shame!"

 

The Friend article that has a 6? Year old insisting on wearing a T-shirt under the sundress her grandmother bought her was not the first time I felt a Church magazine article was less than inspired, but it ranks near the least for me.

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/lds-magazines/friend-june-2011/2011-06-19-hannahs-new-dress-eng.pdf

Add-on:  The story specifies the dress is not modest (Mom says it) until a tee shirt is under it.  And I was wrong, not a 6 year old, but a four year old.  Sigh...

Edited May 18, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was the high councilman in charge of stake youth dances in the early 90s and sleeveless was on the prohibited items on our dance card, IIRC. 

All of our stake dances as a youth were formal dances (e.g., shirts with ties, no jeans, knee length skirts, etc.), so most of the girls wore dresses or blouses with sleeves. 

However, I do remember plenty of girls wearing sleeveless outfits. Our Bishop's daughter, who I dated for some time, had a sleeveless denim dress shirt that she wore to pretty much everything. And I distinctly remember there being a style of sleeveless western wear blouses that were a big hit with the country girls for some time as well. 

The leaders were super strict about two elements of the dress code: dress length and ties being required. In fact, the stake youth leaders ran the check-in table and if you weren't wearing a tie you could either borrow an ugly tie from their collection or you could go home and get one of your own - which, in our stake, that could have been up to a 45 minute drive. For girls whose skirts didn't go to the knees, there was fabric which you could use to loosely stitch to the bottom of your dress in order to come into compliance, or you could go home and change. I have no idea why sleeveless outfits weren't considered taboo, but they weren't.  

 

[rpn]

The way I resolve this is I don't buy tank tops, off shoulder, too short shorts or too tight (either boys or girls), or two piece swimwear.   But when a kiddo has their own money and chooses to buy such things, I do not prevent them from wearing them (nor protect them from the natural consequences of doing so).   There have been occasions when I have bought such clothes from my kids and thrown them away (and I did have one very enterprising child who funding a whole desired wardrobe before I caught on to the fact that I was buying stuff that she'd gotten cheap at the second hand shop at full price to have funds she wanted rather than what I was willing to fund).

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, rpn said:

 (and I did have one very enterprising child who funding a whole desired wardrobe before I caught on to the fact that I was buying stuff that she'd gotten cheap at the second hand shop at full price to have funds she wanted rather than what I was willing to fund).

Oh my word, that is one dangerous child, lol.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, The Mean Farmer said:

Mine show all the time.

I have never seen the need to wear 2 full sized and full sleeved shirts, especially in the summertime.    A tank or sleeveless shirt would suffice IMHO.  

Today we went to get my son at the high school to take him to the doctor. We got there just before there was a break in class. We had to laugh after seeing a number of kids wearing jackets. At that moment it was 100 degrees.

[Bernard Gui]

It’s such a terrible burden to wear clothing that covers the temple garment. Oh, the horror! I don’t know how anyone can bear it.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

All of our stake dances as a youth were formal dances (e.g., shirts with ties, no jeans, knee length skirts, etc.), so most of the girls wore dresses or blouses with sleeves. 

However, I do remember plenty of girls wearing sleeveless outfits. Our Bishop's daughter, who I dated for some time, had a sleeveless denim dress shirt that she wore to pretty much everything. And I distinctly remember there being a style of sleeveless western wear blouses that were a big hit with the country girls for some time as well. 

The leaders were super strict about two elements of the dress code: dress length and ties being required. In fact, the stake youth leaders ran the check-in table and if you weren't wearing a tie you could either borrow an ugly tie from their collection or you could go home and get one of your own - which, in our stake, that could have been up to a 45 minute drive. For girls whose skirts didn't go to the knees, there was fabric which you could use to loosely stitch to the bottom of your dress in order to come into compliance, or you could go home and change. I have no idea why sleeveless outfits weren't considered taboo, but they weren't.  

 

We had similar procedures. We also had problems with kids who repeatedly feigned ignorance of the standards, so I made a guest book where kids who had to be reminded signed that they had indeed been reminded, so that excuse wouldn’t work at later dances.

 

It takes some of us longer to make the climb over Fool’s Hill.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

No. 

 

 

Also no. Many young women in the ward wear these, and many friends as well. It's not an obsession in our house.

I go to the whole week of girls and boys camp. At girls camp two years ago, during a whole-camp meeting, a member of the stake YW presidency pointed out to me that one of my young women (an inactive girl we were glad to have with us) was wearing a tank top. I thanked her for pointing that out and continued listening to whatever was being said to the group. She was angry at me and then worked her way through the crowd to tell the girl to "cover up" (someone gave her a jacket to diffuse the situation). Afterwards, she scolded me and my leaders for not policing the stake YW presidency's standards (which also ban capris and shorts). I told her, be completely honest, I hadn't noticed that she was wearing a tank top. And I really hadn't. Until she pointed it out, I hadn't noticed at all. There are other stories and experiences I could share with this particular sister . . .

My approach is much more one of my family living in such a way that others will want to be like us (quiet but effective example), without making a big production about it. I think this does more to "enforce the norms and mores" of the group than "policing" does. 

Thank you so much for withholding judgement on this inactive girl. That YW's leader probably did a whole lot of damage, possibly hindering that girl from ever wanting much to do with the church. It has gotten so out of hand, to the point that there is a problem with young men or older men, thinking a girl deserves to be sexually harrassed/abused because of what they wore/wear. 

The church needs to just stop! The messages of modesty go into much more than what you wear. I think the church's big reason for doing this to even young children, is becaause they want young women to be better able to wear the church temple garments one day. That is opinion of course, but it may make it a little easier for them. For one reason or another, it was never a problem for me to wear the garments. In fact even with my so so belief...I can't quit wearing them.

But it's getting a little on the ridiculous side. I do remember my mother's dance picture at BYU and yes, shoulders were shown. What happened to those days? Now it's an obedience church. Obey obey obey....

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Modesty is also about not wearing super expensive clothes or being flamboyant in style or dress, etc.  It's about being moderate and unassuming.  People can be fully covered and still be very immodest.

[Calm]

Quote

It has gotten so out of hand, to the point that there is a problem with young men or older men, thinking a girl deserves to be sexually harrassed/abused because of what they wore/wear. 

Where have you seen LDS youth or adults sexually harassing or justifying sexual harassment on this basis?  Just curious.

I have heard of harassment  (such as imo Rongo's example), but given sexual harassment would most likely be a violation of the law of chasity, I am wondering how a Mormon who was following the modesty trend would justify that to himself.

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where have you seen LDS youth or adults sexually harassing or justifying sexual harassment on this basis?  Just curious.

I have heard of harassment  (such as imo Rongo's example), but given sexual harassment would most likely be a violation of the law of chasity, I am wondering how a Mormon who was following the modesty trend would justify that to himself.

I wasn't talking about Mormons, just in general. Sorry I didn't specify that. 

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

My judgment was on a current fashion is unflattering, silly, and ugly, not on the modesty of looking like you have droopy tricep bags under your arms.

So don’t wear them (and work on those triceps)

Edited May 18, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I was being sarcastic in my response. Marginal's logic was lost on me and I tend to reject such poor leaps of logic.

I note your registered gender is male. Males opining on what is or isn’t immodest for a woman to wear is a traditional Mormon pastime. 

That logic was lost on you is unsurprising.

Why would a peekaboo shoulder be considered immodest, simply because you can see the persons shoulder skin?

Edited May 18, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Maidservant]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s such a terrible burden to wear clothing that covers the temple garment. Oh, the horror! I don’t know how anyone can bear it.

Ha ha. ☺️ Right. 

But this is not the definition of modesty.  It's a different issue.  Modesty is not the covering of temple garments.  It's the covering of the body.  The reasons for each are different.  We do not wear the garments to cover the body (except perhaps symbolically), at least not covering for the purpose of preventing sexual expression (or the unwise or perverted use of such).  We wear them to remind ourselves of our covenants.  It's between ourselves and God, and not the public. But, for example, we take garments off to wear swimsuits, and all get in the pool together, so this is not a 100 percent thing and NOT an issue of modesty because there is not a problem to wear a swimsuit in the right setting; not to mention removing the garments for an appropriate reason.  BUT then we get into wars and policing and shaming and on and on about what kind of swimsuit is too much or too little and THAT *is* an issue of modesty and body covering and NOT A FAN. 

Bottom line, 'covering garments' and 'modesty spectrum' are not to be conflated (in my opinion) and both understandings (or misunderstandings) suffer, especially for women, when they are conflated (in my opinion).

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

Why? My garment sleeves never show, but then, I wear normal shirts. 

I also wear what I consider 'normal' T-shirts, and for years my garment sleeves have hung out. When I noticed an online survey at store.lds.org a few years ago, I raised this very point. I finally got all new garments a few months ago, and the sleeves aren't longer than a T-shirt anymore. Nice!

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

But, for example, we take garments off to wear swimsuits, and all get in the pool together, so this is not a 100 percent thing and NOT an issue of modesty because there is not a problem to wear a swimsuit in the right setting; not to mention removing the garments for an appropriate reason.

We have a family in our ward who think that swimwear that isn't 'garment length' is immodest. 

I personally think that wearing fabric of any kind in the water is a hazard and should be kept to the bare minimum ... or avoided full-stop.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

Ha ha. ☺️ Right. 

But this is not the definition of modesty.  It's a different issue.  Modesty is not the covering of temple garments.  It's the covering of the body.  The reasons for each are different.  We do not wear the garments to cover the body (except perhaps symbolically), at least not covering for the purpose of preventing sexual expression (or the unwise or perverted use of such).  We wear them to remind ourselves of our covenants.  It's between ourselves and God, and not the public. But, for example, we take garments off to wear swimsuits, and all get in the pool together, so this is not a 100 percent thing and NOT an issue of modesty because there is not a problem to wear a swimsuit in the right setting; not to mention removing the garments for an appropriate reason.  BUT then we get into wars and policing and shaming and on and on about what kind of swimsuit is too much or too little and THAT *is* an issue of modesty and body covering and NOT A FAN. 

Bottom line, 'covering garments' and 'modesty spectrum' are not to be conflated (in my opinion) and both understandings (or misunderstandings) suffer, especially for women, when they are conflated (in my opinion).

How can wearing a bikini at the beach not be considered immodest by people who consider peekaboo shoulders immodest?

[Maidservant]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

How can wearing a bikini at the beach not be considered immodest by people who consider peekaboo shoulders immodest?

That's what I'm saying, and challenging all of it :).

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I don't make home rules about what my children wear--clothes, jewelry, hair.  Life's too short for me to use Mom energy on that.

I don't make home rules about who my children hang out with or date and would hope that they would specifically seek out non-members to include for friendship or dating, without even the wisp of a thought of what they are wearing.

Granted, I live in a conservative, Mormon, small town (although not everyone, of course) that is full of good kids of all religion or none at all. Granted, my kids are friendly with many different kinds of souls, even to be my example.   Granted, my girls have turned out to have a natural desire to cover their body even more than I even have for my own body.  I wouldn't term that modesty (I would term it embarrassment), but nevertheless it has functioned to not cause there to have been a bigger issue that we have even had to deal with to even make a decision about.

Granted, I no longer believe that modesty is a virtue at all, and is one of the most dangerous falsehoods out there, and that no one, especially women, but no one should be evaluated on the modesty-immodesty axis at all.  We could have an entire planet and world history without that at all and be all right, I think.  But we'll never know.

I have had sons ask me if they can get earrings and grow their hair out.  I've told them they need to make a decision about that, that is none of my business.  No one got earrings.  Only one actually grew their hair out for a time.  I've had two sons wear beards a lot as teenagers i.e. not clean shaven even to participate in priesthood (one son is still too young; and one son never had an attractive beard, just splotches, so he didn't).

I have sat in church standards nights that have ignited fury in me and made me wonder if I should stand and walk out in order to preserve my integrity and make sure none of it got into my daughters' ears and psyche; and that caused me to readjust my daughters' thinking afterward (I hope!).

Again--I can't say that I have been confronted with huge issues on this with the individual children, to be tested about whether I have a comfort zone or blind spot I'm not aware of.  We've just sort of gone along.  My daughters wear long maxi dresses or skirts to church usually, just as a matter of style and personal preference.

I do tell my kids that their father has a different opinion, and that other family members (Grandma, etc) would probably be disappointed in 'out-of-the-box' choices; but if they think they can deal with that, then go for it.  I also think that there is something to dressing for where you are at (i.e. church meetings), but again, haven't been tested where the line for this is at.  I myself often wear quite short skirts to church (not necessarily tight, some of them are flowy), but I wear leggings underneath.  I do this for fashion, it's cute and feminine in my own eyes, not anything about anything else.

As a personal feeling, I would be glad if I never wore a stitch of clothing again except for purposes of artistry and for winter warmth.  I hate covering up my body, for reasons of comfort.  At home I wear little, tank tops, shorts, sleeveless summer dresses; even sometimes my garments sleeves peeking out.  I have to remind myself to change when I want to go to the store etc.  *I* actually don't care what people see of my body (but perhaps the garments), but still I'm not strong enough to make a statement and it's just easier to wear what is normal for the area.  Although I understand in L.A. it's normal to shop in your bikini; in New York, you wouldn't be doing that.  Not sure if that's true, just heard it.  I do know that in my college, people went to class in their jammies and slippers and bed hair--a low key western college.  Not sure if that would fly in every university.

Your post reminded me of shows I've seen about gypsy girls.  They all dress like strippers, even at a young age, but they are also completely above reproach when it comes to their conduct.  Most of them would never even consider being alone with a boy let alone doing anything else. Their culture has successfully divorced modesty from purity, which is kind of refreshing to see.

Now, I'm not lauding their culture (I don't know enough about it, for one thing, and for another, it's pretty messed up when it comes to how they treat women in general) but I think it's a good example of how the connection between modesty and purity is somewhat manmade.  

[MiserereNobis]

15 hours ago, rpn said:

The way I resolve this is I don't buy tank tops, off shoulder, too short shorts or too tight (either boys or girls), or two piece swimwear.   But when a kiddo has their own money and chooses to buy such things, I do not prevent them from wearing them (nor protect them from the natural consequences of doing so).

What are the natural consequences of wearing a tank top? Tan lines on your shoulders?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What are the natural consequences of wearing a tank top? Tan lines on your shoulders?

Well, one of the natural consequences from wearing revealing clothing is more attention (and usually negative attention) from men.  That won't bother some girls, but others it will and they will learn to dress in ways that minimize it (and that's not to say that such natural consequences are a punishment for a sinful choice.  Consequences come with all choices, good, bad, or neutral.  They exist regardless of whether they are fair or just.)