obviously we don’t wear our temple garments because of sex, it has nothing to do with sex at all. it’s about respecting our bodies and being obedient to commandments. same with standards for the youth. i don’t have children now but hope to soon, and i will be dressing them in sleeves and longer shorts and teaching them to sit like ladies (and gentlemen) and imparting a sense of respect for oneself and for our Heavenly Father who created us. modesty (for me, anyway) did not create a chasm in how i felt about my sexuality (that’d be chastity lessons and my mother’s admonition of “don’t blow it!”) and i never felt hyper aware of covering my body because of the clothes i wore (also my mom: “pray you don’t inherit these hips from me!” “diet now before it gets harder!”). so i suppose what i’m saying is that, for me, modesty isn’t be about sex, though it sure is tied into it real good, and sexual identity is already easily complicated in plenty of other areas of upbringing, so why not have a hard, fast line about modesty, take the sex out of it, and focus instead on teaching your children to obey Heavenly Father’s commandments and not to feel afraid of their own bodies?

I know this has strayed from the original topic in that Maralise was never talking not about overtly dressing children immodestly, but rather letting them enjoy a certain degree of innocent undress — but it does tie back in, somewhat, when we consider that, unfortunately, there are sick individuals who won’t see any degree of youthful undress as innocent. But since there’s also no amount of clothing on children that will eliminate pedophiles from our society, we have to choose what level of protectiveness is healthy, and what restricts our child’s innocence and freedom beyond any protection it might afford.)

Well said. To me, that sums up what should matter most regarding this or any other issue or decision we need to make with our kids, or our own lives, for that matter.

And, to me, this is an issue of safety, not modesty. We talk about genitals and keeping our pants on at our friends’ homes and all that comes up.

But I think that the most important thing about this decision that I made was that it was prompted by the Spirit. Not because I decided that I wanted modesty or immodesty. (And isn’t that what we all want for our families–to be guided by the Spirit so that each of our unique situations can be tailored and adjusted for the good of the family?)

Kathy–Good point. I agree with you on the need for a gradual transition. I also wanted to point out that the guidance in the Friend and other primary auxiliary materials covers ages 18 mos. (or three if you want to start counting at Sunbeams) to 11 years old. And I think when we read and try to follow that guidance, we need to keep in mind that it is meant for a wide range of ages, some points being applicable at different stages and maturity levels.

Thanks all for the great discussion.

http://seriouslysoblessed.blogspot.com/2008/07/here-ya-go.html

(It’s part of the answer to question two.)

Nobody here, that I’ve discerned at least, is suggesting a sudden change of wardrobe when a girl becomes a young woman. I’ve read several comments deploring that kind of approach, and I just wanted to clarify that I don’t think any sudden change is a good idea, and I don’t think anybody else who has commented does either.

My approach is to foster a gradual covering between babyhood and puberty. I don’t think 2-year-olds need to be covered to the extent that 12-year-olds should be. I also don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to begin the habit earlier than necessary. But I do think it’s important to look out for ways in which an extra-cautious approach can backfire, and Mara’s post is good thinking material for this purpose.