Modesty issues...again

[SouthernMo]

As Mormons, we often scoff at the exaggerated Law of Moses the Pharisees taught at the time of Christ.  Christ often taught the purpose behind the law.  Love for others seems to be at the root of Christ’s teachings.

I think we’d be more effective at teaching the principle (not law) of modesty if we did a better job of teaching where love fits into modesty.

If we can’t tie love of others to the principle of modesty, it makes me wonder how Christ-centered the teaching really is.

[strappinglad]

The speed limit on most highways is 60 mph. A random sampling of vehicles would see that the average speed is close to but just over 60. Why is that ?

The OP does show a zealousness perhaps unwarranted in the circumstances. That said, there are 12 years olds and then there are TWELVE year olds. What would be fine for one would be problematic for another.

I student taught in a large SLC high school in the early 70s when the mini skirt was the rage. As a visual learner I spent quite a bit of time looking at the back of the room for some reason. Internal programming I guess. And don't tell me those sweet  things didn't know exactly what they were doing to this  intern. The world continuously tells females that their power come from the body and how it is presented. Would that it were not so , but it is. The church is trying to ask that restrictions be put on that power, even though it is done inconsistently and at times ham-fistedly.

As for the standards of modesty, I relate this anecdote . One of my daughters wore a beautiful gown made by my wife to her prom/graduation. The dress was styled so as to cover the front up to the neck but had an open back. One of our YM leaders commented that it was not very modest. This woman was fully covered front and back with a  tight white blouse that revealed every line of her under clothes and every bump and roll. My inner voice said ," sorry lady, you don't know immodest when you see it, do you ? "

For the record, I find a man on the beach ,shirtless, sporting a massive beer belly and wearing shorts with socks and sandals, immodest verging on revolting.

Edited August 25, 2018 by strappinglad

[CV75]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous. This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.) 

I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts? The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot. The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to wear shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

"Elder Boyd K. Packer, in speaking about the moral values of modesty and virtue, said: “The responsibility and the right to teach these sacred [things] rest with the parents in the home. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the public schools, nor is it the responsibility of the organizations of the Church. The contribution of the Church in this respect is to teach parents the standards of morality that the Lord has revealed and to assist them in their responsibility of teaching these sacred subjects to their children” (Teach Ye Diligently [1975], 256)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/personal-and-family-responsibilities/lesson-19-teaching-modesty-and-virtue-in-the-home?lang=eng

[changed]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I think I understand the irritation with imposed modesty dress standards, but doesn't there have to be a line drawn somewhere as to what is appropriate and what is not?  Is the frustration more that it is only directed to women and not men?  I can understand that, but surely, everyone here has seen an outfit that they have found inappropriate to wear in public.  Finding a line that everyone will agree with is the impossible part, but doesn't somebody have to draw the line anyway?    

There are some pictures of outfits that I would probably be banned for posting on here.  

People in Africa wear very little... those in Europe have topless beaches etc. - they are not scared of their natural bodies.  ... if you had been raised in a different culture, one in which cloths were not seen as necessary, you might not feel the need to draw any lines either.  

I am going to post something here... part of a confession letter that someone wrote recently... 

"When I grew up I learned about the physical addiction dangers of cigarettes and drugs and so I never tried them..."... "Our home growing up was of course very conservative...I knew nothing about sex... I don't recall my folks ever talking to us about sex - I found out about it myself... I couldn't believe all this stuff had been kept secret from me all these years... "taboo" knowledge gave me a great fascination with it and a desire to explore and learn everything I could... I wish it were easier for people to get help with this sort of problem...I wonder if our society's obsession with the taboo of sex is what creates the fascination with it. If I had been raised a nudist I doubt I would have ....."

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by changed

[changed]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

"Elder Boyd K. Packer, in speaking about the moral values of modesty and virtue, said: “The responsibility and the right to teach these sacred [things] rest with the parents in the home. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the public schools, nor is it the responsibility of the organizations of the Church. The contribution of the Church in this respect is to teach parents the standards of morality that the Lord has revealed and to assist them in their responsibility of teaching these sacred subjects to their children” (Teach Ye Diligently [1975], 256)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/personal-and-family-responsibilities/lesson-19-teaching-modesty-and-virtue-in-the-home?lang=eng

 

What if parents are ultra conservative?  What if parents are _____?  The reality is, kids are around more than their parents, most kids learn about sex from their friends.... Sex-ed in school is not very healthy - just teaches kids about reproduction and STD's, does not say anything about pleasure centers or any of the positive things about sex.  Most kids masturbate - where did they learn that?  Not from their parents (hopefully), and not from school - they learn it because they have a body, we all do.  

If everyone here considers their first sexual experiences and education and where they got it from... and what would have been a more healthy way to get it... 

Either - "let's cover our bodies up, ignore/hide/avoid the subject, pretend that kids will not figure it out on their own, pretend kids will not learn it from their friends... let's pretend everyone is hormone free, has no nerve endings, ".... sure... that really works doesn't it?

Edited August 25, 2018 by changed

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, changed said:

 

What if parents are ultra conservative?  What if parents are _____?  The reality is, kids are around more than their parents, most kids learn about sex from their friends.... Sex-ed in school is not very healthy - just teaches kids about reproduction and STD's, does not say anything about pleasure centers or any of the positive things about sex.  Most kids masturbate - where did they learn that?  Not from their parents (hopefully), and not from school - they learn it because they have a body, we all do.  

If everyone here considers their first sexual experiences and education and where they got it from... and what would have been a more healthy way to get it... 

Either - "let's cover our bodies up, ignore/hide/avoid the subject, pretend that kids will not figure it out on their own, pretend kids will not learn it from their friends... let's pretend everyone is hormone free, has no nerve endings, ".... sure... that really works doesn't it?

You do see the conflict between your two consecutive comments, right? One guy saying I needed to be told about sex in the home and this that says young people learn all they want about sex from their peers. 

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So, I know this has been talked about quite a bit but it is still aggravating. On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous. 

I think you're confusing bravery with hypersensitivity. 

 

Quote

She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is pretending that it isn't ever possible for an 8-12 year old to be dressed immodestly. 

 

Quote

This year, for girls camp the packing list said, "4-5 t-shirts (not tight enough to be revealing, no inappropriate logos, must be long enough to cover mid-riff if arms are above your head) • underwear • t-shirt, shorts and shoes that can get wet (shorts MUST be to the knee, If not you will be asked to change.) 

Those all seem like fairly reasonable requests. 

I've never been a stickler for knee-length shorts as an absolute, personally, but that's mainly because I grew up in the South, with three sisters, and I know how difficult it was for them to find modest shorts. But that doesn't mean I think there is no such thing as immodest shorts - there are. 

 

Quote

I compared the packing lists for the Priesthood encampment vs. for girls camp and found no theatening language. There were no "logo" warning or short length warnings. No threats about being asked to change. Have these words ever been said in a packing list for scouts?

Give me a break. Daisy Dukes have been a thing for decades.

When guys start showing up to camping trips wearing shorts where the pockets sewn into the garment extend farther down the leg than the actual hemline does, I guaranty something will be said about it. 

 

Quote

The scouts often hike shirtless when they get hot.

We never did. And pretty much all of our hikes were in Texas...in the summer.

The only thing taking your shirt off is going to do is guarantee that you have a worse sunburn. 

 

Quote

The boy scouts wear shorts not to knee. Why do young girls who are not endowed have to wear shorts to their knees at an activty which includes exercise.

Well, when it comes to shorts, "not to [the] knee" encompasses a range of lengths, anywhere from barely larger than panties down to one millimeter shy of the knee. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that nobody is saying anything to the scouts because in your ward - just like every ward I have ever attended - they don't have a problem with the boys showing up to activity night wearing booty shorts. 

 

Quote

It's getting old and I realized today, I'm not the only one in my ward who notices and finds it "ridiculous." 

I don't know. I think it's kind of ridiculous for someone to flip out over a Facebook invite to a stake activity because it literally contained one single word about modesty. 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Amulek

[Rain]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

A lot of bare-midriff-type stuff out there.  Including stuff for little girls.

"Modesty" is not a bright line rule.  But just because there is no clear-cut definition does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

Pretty standard stuff.

Every summer our stake's young women go to Girls Camp, one evening of which is devoted to "Bishops' Night," in which each bishop brings dinner or a dessert for the girls in his ward.  One year a bishop in our stake went up there and forgot that shorts were not allowed at the camp.  He didn't have time to go back home and change (the camp was about 1.5 hours away), so he showed up and took a pretty good ribbing for it.

Modesty in clothing is like harmony between spouses.  It is an ideal to which we aspire.  It is a concept that has no clear delineation, but from which some things can be understandably excluded - even if that exclusion has an element of arbitrariness to it.

"You will be asked to change" is a threat?

Yes.

I think it is part of our culture that, as far as clothing options go, there are far more "modesty" concerns for girls/women than for boys/men.  As a male attorney, it is understood and required that I wear a suit to court.  Women, however, have all sorts of options available to them, some of which are potentially inappropriate.  I'm not sure that's "sexism."  It's just that women have more sartorial options than men, some of which can be inappropriately "revealing."

So it is, I think, with women in general.  Although "modesty" in clothing choices is not exclusively a female problem, it sure seems to be a predominantly female problem.

I've never seen that.

Preparing now for choices they will face in the future, perhaps?

I can't remember the time I had to consider "modesty" when buying clothing for myself.  My wife and teenage daughter, however, have to factor that in all the time.  Low-cut jeans.  A blouse a bit too open in the chest area.  A formal dress that shows "too much" back or is too short at the hemline.  A dress that is too form-fitting.  

And so it goes.  The broader spectrum of options for female clothing will understandably include options that risk veering toward nebulous notions of "immodesty."  Men and boys run into that problem, too, but not as often.

Do you find the concept of modesty itself to be "ridiculous?"  Or just the particular instructions noted above?

Thanks,

-Smac

I love this story. I love it because it shows exactly what is wrong. If he forgot, then he may have forgot because it makes absolute sense that you would wear shorts to camp, so a rule against common sense may not be remembered well.

The young men in our ward just had their camp. Every single boy and leader were wearing shorts - and girls camp this year? Shorts were not allowed. 

No. I am not worried about it being "fair". I just think it really odd that for 1 group it is common sense and for the other a "modesty" issue.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Rain

[Rain]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I had one mother call the Stake Young Women’s President when the dress code for a swimming activity had clear instructions for “no cleavage.”  She told her her daughters where not invited to this activity because unless they wore a shirt there was no swimsuit made that would reveal no cleavage for her daughters.

My old stake required shirts with swimsuits at girls camp. It is “ridiculous.”

Last year I got an insulin pump. For my vacation this year, I realized it would be SO much easier to have a tankini when we went to the beach so I wouldn't have to fish the pump in and out of my suit all day long. I hoped to find a cute one, but prayed to find one at all that would work for my size, medical issues etc. even if it were ugly. I finally found one after I don't know how many stores, online websites and even more than a couple of malls. It gave me a little more cleavage than I would have, but I literally felt it was an answer to prayer and that Heavenly Father understood. 

It's weird, when you think about it, that cleavage, "the hollow between a woman's breasts when supported" is a modesty issue. If women let their breasts hang then you wouldn't have near the cleavage, but then you would hear it is "immodest" in some other way.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I think I understand the irritation with imposed modesty dress standards, but doesn't there have to be a line drawn somewhere as to what is appropriate and what is not?  Is the frustration more that it is only directed to women and not men?  I can understand that, but surely, everyone here has seen an outfit that they have found inappropriate to wear in public.  Finding a line that everyone will agree with is the impossible part, but doesn't somebody have to draw the line anyway?    

There are some pictures of outfits that I would probably be banned for posting on here.  

I heard a nun speak on Monday about her experience with refugees and then later with people who used and sold drugs. It was interesting to me that she had the same goal in mind when working with the refugees and those that were on drugs. Love them. Obviously you can't change everyone,  but she found that as those with the drugs felt her love they started to change on their own to be more like her. 

I find that the more you love people the less you have to draw a line. Yes, you may need to draw it somewhere, but if someone feels your love they are less likely to need the line.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

In my experience, most girls will self-regulate on those occasions.  Our YWs focuses on teaching them correct principles and then letting them (and their parents) govern themselves.  

My friend told about talking her daughter and her friends to the temple to do baptisms for the dead a few months ago, and one of the girls wore a dress that was kind of short (mid-thigh).  She was visibly uncomfortable surrounded by girls in longer dresses and skirts and while no one said a thing to her about it, she spent the drive trying to pull the skirt down so it would be longer, and eventually mentioned to one of the other girls that she wasn't going to wear the dress again because it was too short.

I've never see a girl wear something truly inappropriate to a church activity, but when we do get girls who wear shorts that are way too short or shirts that show some cleavage or whatever, we don't say a thing.  We would rather the girl was there than not, regardless of her clothing.  

When my husband was young men's president he was asked to chaperone at one of the stake dances. It was Sunday best dress.

One of his young men came in with I think black leather pants, an extreme haircut etc. Someone told my husband that you should tell this young man to go change. My husband refused. Instead he went up to him, put his arm around him and told him how glad he was that he came. 

If I remember right, the young man didn't stay long.  He likely didn't feel comfortable. But that created quite a bond between them. There was a change in the young man. I love to hear my husband talk about him now and the love he still has. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Rain

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

The young men in our ward just had their camp. Every Sigler boy and leader were wearing shorts - and girls camp this year? Shorts were not allowed. 

This is madness. Who makes these decisions. In our ward, if our youth go on a camp, they do all the planning, with the assistance of their advisers, and subject to bishopric approval. At what point in this process does the whole 'females can't wear shorts' thing even come in?

Edited August 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is madness. Who makes these decisions. In our ward, if our youth go on a camp, they do all the planning, with the assistance of their advisers, and subject to bishopric approval. At what point in this process does the whole 'females can't wear shorts' thing even come in?

Girls camp is a little nuts here. Since we have lived here each ward had to attend stake young women's camp. I think there was a compromise and they could do a half week of ward and half a week stake. Whoever made the ruling on the shorts, it was at the stake level, but I don't know if it was the stake presidency or the stake YW presidency. It easily could have been either one.

The older girls supposedly plan it, but the year my daughter was supposed to be doing that was a joke and I've heard that other years have been similar. When she did it they seriously were hurting for help because they wouldn't allow the girls to plan and all the girls,were dropping out. DD naturally supports her leaders, but in the end she prayed and could no longer in good consciousness support them. But that all would be a subject for another thread.

Seriously though, the shorts thing is a very common rule here in frosty Phoenix Arizona for young women.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Rain

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

When my husband was young men's president he was asked to chaperone at one of the stake dances. It was Sunday best dress.

One of his young men came in with I think black leather pants, an extreme haircut etc. Someone told my husband that you should tell this young man to go change. My husband refused. Instead he went up to him, put his arm around him and told him how glad he was that he came. 

If I remember right, the young man didn't stay long.  He likely didn't feel comfortable. But that created quite a bond between them. There was a change in the ypung man. I love to hear my husband talk about him now and the love he still has. 

Sweet, Rain! This brings to mind many years ago in the 70's, I wore a sleeveless shirt, not a tank top, to play church volleyball, even back then they had these standards for the women in church. And I wasn't allowed to play, but will forever remember being taken to the side gently by the Young Women's leader. I can't imagine if someone else had rudely told me to go home to change, how that might have felt, but she put her arm around me, just like your husband did this young man, and it made all the difference. I know this story might sound made up, but this something I do remember, unlike so many other events in my life. 

I was hoping someone here was old enough to remember what the rules were for girls playing sports with sleeveless shirts back in the day, because I was thinking it wouldn't have been such a big deal back then. I guess the church really hasn't changed all that much where modesty issues are concerned. 

I believe that if someone were on the cusp of inactivity in the church and then treated the way this young man was about to be treated, might throw someone to never returning to church again. And I believe the Lord would not be happy about that. 

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is madness. Who makes these decisions. In our ward, if our youth go on a camp, they do all the planning, with the assistance of their advisers, and subject to bishopric approval. At what point in this process does the whole 'females can't wear shorts' thing even come in?

I swear Hamba, you live in a different world entirely when it comes to the church. I want to go to church where you live!!  You always have such beaming things to say of your experiences in the church. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sweet, Rain! This brings to mind many years ago in the 70's, I wore a sleeveless shirt, not a tank top, to play church volleyball, even back then they had these standards for the women in church. And I wasn't allowed to play, but will forever remember being taken to the side gently by the Young Women's leader. I can't imagine if someone else had rudely told me to go home to change, how that might have felt, but she put her arm around me, just like your husband did this young man, and it made all the difference. I know this story might sound made up, but this something I do remember, unlike so many other events in my life. 

I was hoping someone here was old enough to remember what the rules were for girls playing sports with sleeveless shirts back in the day, because I was thinking it wouldn't have been such a big deal back then. I guess the church really hasn't changed all that much where modesty issues are concerned. 

I believe that if someone were on the cusp of inactivity in the church and then treated the way this young man was about to be treated, might throw someone to never returning to church again. And I believe the Lord would not be happy about that. 

I don't remember playing sports, but I wore sleeveless in the 70s and didn't have different standards for Church except for skirts being required.  (Went through high school without wearing a skirt once to school, who really wants to sit on a bus or walk an hour in a skirt?  They must be insane).  This was California though, maybe Utah was different (assuming you grew up in Utah, pardon me if wrong).  I remember no miniskirts or strapless being an issue...and two piece bathing suits.

My mom even bought me a halter top (I hating shopping and would have been happy with Tshirts and jeans, but no way that was allowed) and she is conservative when it comes to clothing.  Though born in Utah, I think they moved in her early teens or before to back East, so perhaps that made a difference...but her mom was way over the top concerned with appearance (cut hair off a wig and attached it to a baby bonnet to put on wee little Mom so no one would guess she was bald), so I think if there were issues back then Mom would have picked it up.  Mom was somewhat obsessed with weight in us girls (translated it into a measure of health mostly, but definitely had tones about attractiveness), so I know she put effort into things she thought were important and I noticed when she did so (who puts their kid on a diet for 5 lbs?).

Edited August 25, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't remember playing sports, but I wore sleeveless in the 70s and didn't have different standards for Church except for skirts being required.  (Went through high school without wearing a skirt once to school, who really wants to sit on a bush or walk an hour in a skirt?  They must be insane).

My mom even bought me a halter top (I hating shopping and would have been happy with Tshirts and jeans, but no way that was allowed) and she is conservative when it comes to clothing.

I remember making a halter top when I was in 6th or 7th grade. Pretty easy to sew.

Was hoping someone would remember the rules in church sports to back my story, I remember it distinctly.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember making a halter top when I was in 6th or 7th grade. Pretty easy to sew.

Was hoping someone would remember the rules in church sports to back my story, I remember it distinctly.

Would not be a bit surprised if your stake had that rule.  Just would be surprised if it was churchwide.  Unless you are talking late 70s, by which time I was at BYU.

I am trying to remember the uniform I had for PE for the few months I was there in sixth grade...my memory is that it was a one piece sleeveless with snapped straps, but I might be mixing it up with 8th grade in CA...I remember hating the PE uniform after moving from Illinois ( and Farre Junior High in Provo was particularly hated because we had to change in a converted classroom, I was really bothered by having to put my clothes on a bench rather than having a locker or basket for some reason), but that was a two step process.  And I don't see how Utah would get away with such a uniform with its winters.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Outlining an exact measurement that is acceptable for clothing at an activity like that is an absurdity in my opinion. And it breeds an attitude of judgement in a certain type of person (who then grows up to perpetuate their random standards of modesty on the next generation of young women).

Out of curiosity, what type of person would that be?

Edited August 25, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

But, what exactly was the problem?

That you and others were embarrassed and uncomfortable?  (I know that could come across as snotty but I do not mean it in that tone.  I'm sincerely asking-what exactly was the problem the girl caused that day?)

I cannot and do not speak for Smac in responding to this question (and I certainly wasn't there that day). But I would suggest a reason some might have felt embarrassed and uncomfortable, that being that Latter-day Saints are called to present before the world a certain image and demeanor that befits the covenant people of God.

From the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet:

 

Quote

 

Prophets of God have continually counseled His children to dress modestly. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others. Your dress and grooming influence the way you and others act.

Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval.

 

I might feel uncomfortable or embarrassed as well were a young man to show up at a Church activity wearing a T shirt bearing the Jack Daniels logo or a design that glorifies worldliness or unchastity.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I swear Hamba, you live in a different world entirely when it comes to the church.

Because we actually follow Church guidelines and policies?

Quote

I want to go to church where you live!!

It's a bit of a hike/swim ...

Quote

You always have such beaming things to say of your experiences in the church. 

I'm glad that comes through. As I used to say to our bishop when I was Young Men president, if this is all there is, I could be happy forever with it. What a miracle it is to me to have access to prophets, priesthood and eternal principles that work!

[SouthernMo]

16 hours ago, bsjkki said:

On my Ward's facebook page, the activity days leaders posted an invitation to a Stake activity day girls activity.  On the invitation it stated, "Please wear modest casual clothes with shoes for exercise."  One brave sister in my ward found the whole thing ridiculous.  She commented about why girls bodies age 8-12 would be considered immodest and found the words "modest casusal clothes for exercise"... ridiculous.

Lots has been said about modesty for youth. But, going back to the OP - this started as a discussion about modesty for 8-12 year old girls.

If someone is worried about these children being too sexually tantalizing for men, is the problem really that the girls aren’t dressed right?  Maybe the wrong men are around them...

[bsjkki]

49 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Lots has been said about modesty for youth. But, going back to the OP - this started as a discussion about modesty for 8-12 year old girls.

If someone is worried about these children being too sexually tantalizing for men, is the problem really that the girls aren’t dressed right?  Maybe the wrong men are around them...

Yes...and I misstated the age range. It is 8-11 not 8-12.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, changed said:

What if parents are ultra conservative?  What if parents are _____?  The reality is, kids are around more than their parents, most kids learn about sex from their friends.... Sex-ed in school is not very healthy - just teaches kids about reproduction and STD's, does not say anything about pleasure centers or any of the positive things about sex.  Most kids masturbate - where did they learn that?  Not from their parents (hopefully), and not from school - they learn it because they have a body, we all do.  

If everyone here considers their first sexual experiences and education and where they got it from... and what would have been a more healthy way to get it... 

Either - "let's cover our bodies up, ignore/hide/avoid the subject, pretend that kids will not figure it out on their own, pretend kids will not learn it from their friends... let's pretend everyone is hormone free, has no nerve endings, ".... sure... that really works doesn't it?

I think this is why Elder Packer put forth what he did. He is saying the first thing to do is establish boundaries, regardless of who is better at parenting or running a Church program, what either believes is right to hold as a standard, or what various influences a child is subject to outside of the home and Church.

Once a sense of boundary is established at the most intuitive level, parents and children develop a sense of right and wrong as they make their way through life. They move past this level and make informed choices. Parents humble themselves to learn the Gospel and teach it to their children. On the narrow subject of modesty, any extreme will yield bad results and that unfortunately is going to happen, and these "ultra" cases can be held up as object lessons. I think these tendencies among those so disposed can be prevented with fellowship and social interaction (charity).

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

When my husband was young men's president he was asked to chaperone at one of the stake dances. It was Sunday best dress.

One of his young men came in with I think black leather pants, an extreme haircut etc. Someone told my husband that you should tell this young man to go change. My husband refused. Instead he went up to him, put his arm around him and told him how glad he was that he came. 

If I remember right, the young man didn't stay long.  He likely didn't feel comfortable. But that created quite a bond between them. There was a change in the young man. I love to hear my husband talk about him now and the love he still has. 

That may well have been his Sunday best.