Sometimes I can be what my mom likes to call ‘beligerent’ about certain topics.
Like when I get in a huff over the infantile and intelligence-insulting plots of, say, a James Bond movie. “It’s only a movie, Mara,” mom says with a quick eye-roll as if she’s sick of my rants (how can she be sick of them? I only do this like once in a WHOLE day). And I say, “I know Mom. But I’m still mad about……” And my anger is kind of sterile and stupid but I feed it anyway. Or when my six year old is acting so six-year-old-ish and not listening to anything I say and I’m eternally frustrated because he isn’t nice *already* like every other perfect spawn of my friends or family. And usually my anger has very little basis in something I like to call ‘logic’ or a silly concept called ‘reality.’
Well, over the weekend on a book club blog I belong to, I got a little (can you hear my mom’s Southern-Utah accent with the emphasis on the first syllable?) ‘beligerent’ about The Modesty War. But I’ve decided I have some logic to back up my anger (although I couldn’t express it at the time) on this topic.
I had a very wise professor explain the vast array of political systems as not a line with the extremes on either side (say, Communism on the far left and Fascism on the far right) but as a circle where the extremes meet and where the similarities of the supposedly different extreme systems bare a striking resemblence. Think about the people who live under communist or fascist regimes…they lack personal freedom, they have very little control over basic resources, they have no individual voice that could affect their governments, I could go on…would you like me to? I thought not.
So, here’s my political model extrapolated onto the modesty war. On the far left, we have the porn industry which overtly hyper-sexualizes women, we have child pornography rings which overtly hyper-sexualize children. To a lesser extent, we have Tween clothing stores that are creating ’sexual’ garments for children, effectively marketing the concept that kids can/should be ’sexy.’
On the right, we have those who are trying to fight these corrupting influences by putting ‘modest’ T-shirts on babies and young girls, insisting on clothing that covers the body as if a child wore the LDS garment long before the child ‘develops’ or becomes a sexual being (or is able to understand the healthy concept let alone the importance of modesty). Now, in my opinion, forcing our children to ‘cover’ as if they were adults also supports the hyper-sexualization of young girls and future women. Admittedly, in a much less destructive way than the porn industry, we’re taking away our child’s right to be a-sexual, to be children. In my opinion, both extremes are destructive and should be avoided.
I think the long and sometimes-twisted pathway to healthy sexuality is one that, like with all things, we must be allowed to grow into. We must be given time to enjoy our bodies before thinking about what we’re not covering, about the shame that we might feel if, in our play, we expose one of our sexual parts. We must be taught that our bodies are both sacred and fun, exciting and beautiful. I think we all deserve the time and space to grow into the very important need for modesty. And I think we must understand that forcing sexual standards on asexual beings is potentially damaging to their developing sense of self.
I can’t help but smile when my 4 yo is playing with his penis as if it’s the coolest organ…EVER. Because, frankly, it is. I can’t think of one that’s cooler. Except maybe breasts, those are pretty neat (and so functional too!). I would never want him to think anything but that his genitals are exceptional pieces of God’s workmanship. Not something to ‘cover’ or be ashamed of, but something to learn SLOWLY how to enjoy, protect, respect, and reserve for appropriate uses. But, at four, I don’t think it’s the time to teach sexual principles.
And so I teach him about using the bathroom for bathroom functions. I teach him how underwear helps us to be more clean. I teach him that penises are AWESOME. I don’t teach him to be ashamed of or cover his private parts. I don’t worry if he runs around naked in the house after a bath or in the middle of the day or whenever he feels the need to strip down. I don’t teach him that it is ‘immodest’ to pull down his pants in a crowded room in order to try to make it to the bathroom.
Modesty and sexual education are absolutely important. But, so is moderation. And I think we would be well-served to value and respect both principles when it comes to teaching our children about their bodies. I think this allows children to enjoy being asexual, to learn slowly what modesty is and its importance, and to hopefully allow them to grow healthily into their sexual self which, if I may so, is quite a marvelous thing to be.
Related posts:
Very interesting post, Mara. I confess to being on the right of the modesty-in-kids issue. I spent three hours one Saturday in March hunting for an Easter dress for my daughter that wouldn’t show her shoulders. Most of the time it’s not that hard to avoid, though.
I’ve never read your line of logic before, and I see where you’re coming from–by emphasizing my daughter’s shoulders, I’m making her aware of her body, and perhaps even her sexuality, in a way that’s premature. And that may not be a good thing; only time will tell. For me, though, it’s about establishing the habit of modesty now. I see it not in terms of heightening early sexuality in a child who’s meant to grown into things; instead, I see it as establishing a pattern and making her aware of what’s modest and what’s not. Hopefully, I’ll be able to set the pattern in a way that will feel natural to her, not super-intense (in spite of our three-hour shopping trip), so that she will want to live it instead of fight against it when she gets older. Only time will tell. As with all things parenting, I have to do what feels right for my kids and my family.
Mara, I agree it’s important to consider the underlying messages of “modesty” for babies and very young children. I’ve had some interesting discussions with my kids about this. For example, we have a gorgeous baby photo of one of my kids in nothing but a diaper, and my 6-year-old once asked, “isn’t that immodest?” And I said no. Modesty is not an issue for babies. It becomes an issue gradually as the child begins to mature. It’s inevitable that different parents will have different ideas about when the garment-test applies. For me, it’s not until puberty hits, although when I buy strappy dresses for my elem-age daughter I also buy short-sleeved sweaters to go with them, because she feels exposed without that cover when we’re in a public place. At home she wears sundresses and we have no problem with that.
One problem with the children-as-sexual-beings issue is that while they shouldn’t be treated as sexual beings until puberty, they are regarded as sexual beings by an ever-increasing number of pedophiles. I can understand why parents would want to cover the genitals of even preschool-age children for this reason. But I think that’s an issue separate from modesty per se.
My attempts to teach modesty to my elem-age children, which attempts were zealous in past years, have had some unfortunate side-effects. I’m sad that my young kids give each other flak over nakedness. They’ve often said “that’s gross!” when catching glimpses of each other’s bodies. I continually say, “Our bodies aren’t gross. They’re glorious things created by God.” But I’m the one who gave them the indirect message that we cover our bodies because there’s something undesirable about them. The covering of bodies is a complex issue, and it’s hard to teach it in a way that doesn’t have a negative subtext. I believe it can be done, but it must be done with much forethought, and much discussion, and nuance.
Great post. And yeah, I’ve got to agree, penises are awesome!
The issue starts to change, though, as I watch my daughters getting older. I am definitely not comfortable with my 9 year old running around naked or wearing a shirt that shows off her stomach. I think that I agree with these ideas as we discuss very young children, but the path begins to change with every year of their lives.
Each year, it seems, brings them closer to a greater understanding of sexuality, and I think that by the time my children have been baptized, they are aware enough of the world that their bodies demand more respect from them. And by that baptism date, they have all (so far) accepted that their bodies are too important to flout around.
A secondary problem arises, however, when the older children see the younger children in less modest clothing. So, without making a big deal about it, our family has remained modest for all. But really, it’s not like our kids are wearing headdresses and burkas.
As you well know, Mara, there is a lot more socially accepted nudity in Europe, and there is so much less of a problem with porn and sexual violence against women. I think it’s an interesting discussion to have.
Yes! I have said almost the exact same thing, using the exact same argument–especially about sleeveless tops and “short” shorts. Imposing those standards on my children is buying into the notion that at 3 and 5 they should be aware of their bodies as sexual objects.
I think there is a lot of time in between 5 and when my daughter becomes a preteen and I’ll use those many years to slowly discuss and talk about modesty and what it means. I grew up in a family that was straight forward about modesty. Children are children and when you get a bra you are required to follow the suggestions for modest dress. (my mother never had to say or get into young women’s because we all hit before we were 12, but you get the idea).
The flip side is that I refuse to let my daughter use nail polish or lip gloss or get her ears pierced or wear a “modest” shirt with the word sexy on it. That is the other side of my circle. Those are things to slowly be introduced as she moves toward becoming a woman. And also who wants to monitor a 5 year old with a bottle of nail polish?
I just noticed how sexist my post sounded. I only talked about my daughter and modesty because I’m pawning off the whole male side onto my husband and I have no personal experience with male modesty. But trust me they both will get equal treatment in the modesty department.
I’ve never understood the no sundresses for toddlers line of thinking. Kids are actually fairly smart. You can teach them that different things are appropriate at different age.
I’m not feeling articulate today, so I’m just going to quote one of my favorite bloggers, Veronica at Toddled Dredge who just talked about this: (the link is :
“Here are the thoughts that went through my modesty-believing head every day of my college career:
I must not lie in the grass, no matter how beautiful the day or how tempting it is to enjoy the spring breeze while reading a book. When I lie down, my curves are more obvious, and guys walking by me might notice.
I must not stretch in public, no matter how stiff or tired I am. When I stretch, men notice me.
I must not dress to stay cool on a hot day, even if it is 100 degrees. When I go inside where it is cool, men will notice the shape of my nipples.
I must hunch my shoulders when I wear a t-shirt. Maybe then men won’t stare at my chest.
I must spend hours searching for padded bras to hide my nipples, even though almost no one makes padded bras in my size. I must spend $50 on such a bra if I find it, even if I don’t have $50.
I must never run. I bounce when I run.
I must never jump. Same reason.
I must not rest my arm on the back of the couch. Raising my arms lifts my breasts, and men notice.
I must always sit with my knees together, even in jeans. I must not stretch my legs out in front of me. It makes my body too noticeable.
I must not choose sitting positions based on what is most comfortable, even if I am only with women. A man might walk in at any time, and I am guilty for that brief instant he saw me before I changed position.
I must never complain to the men around me about the burden of these rules. Talking about the unfairness of these rules is the same as saying, “Look at my body.”
I don’t know what to do on windy days. My clothing clings to me when I walk to class. Sometimes it makes me not want to go outside.
If only I could find the right clothing, I would be safe from unwanted attention.
If only my figure were less extravagant, I would be free of this responsibility. I hate my curves.
If only I were sexless, I would be at peace.”
Sorry, I know that was long, but I thought it was powerful.
Oops. I messed up the link. Sorry about that.
What an interesting point, Mara. I will admit that I don’t think dressing my children modestly from their youth has stressed their sexuality prematurely, but has helped them to feel that covering ourselves is not a big issue–it’s just how we dress. I have to wonder though, if as my children begin to mature and change (like my 14 year old is now) if changing our standard NOW, because of her changing shape is not placing even MORE emphasis on their sexuality. She’s still very young! But perhaps changing standards for shorts and sleeves at this age would not be any different than shopping for the first bra–although I tend to think that it would be. Buying a bra that is now necessary does not take much explaining, but having to change standards of sleeves or shorts would. Why should she now wear clothes with sleeves and in longer lengths than last year? Is it because of how she is perceived or what it will make others’ think? Or is it because her body is sacred? Was her body any less sacred at 4 than 14? Just imagining the discussion we would have. What do you think?
Justine – I wonder why you think pornography is less of a problem in Europe? When I lived in France pornography was abundant and very accessible. I’m sure it is more so now.
Sorry for that tangent. I have to agree that I teach modesty to my young children as a matter of habits that I want them to establish for life. I also teach it as a matter of obedience not about sexuality at all. That said I have no problem with my girls (5 and 3) hanging around the house in only underwear but I would have a problem with them pulling their pants down in a public place. Like evey issue there needs to be a balnce. But I also do not let them wear sleeveless or short shorts. I think we should definately refrain from placing our sexual ideas and understanding on young childre. We need to remember that they are innocent and I want to keep them that way as long as possible.
Sorry this is long but one last thought. The other day my kids were playing with their cousins. My daughter and my nephew were wrestling and she ended up sitting on his tummy with her legs straddling him. Obviously, completely innocent. He is 4 and she is 3. But my 12 year old neice was very uncomfortable with it because she found it sexual. To me that is sad that is what my neice’s mind automatically went to. I think sometimes we do that to children. We see them do something (like explore their bodies) that is perfectly normal and fine for their age and we see it as something dirty. We can really mess up our kids development of their sexual awarenes when we do that.
Interestingly enough – this subject has been on my mind lately. Maybe with teenagers it never really leaves my mind, I don’t know.
I was one who decided early to have them dressed as I hoped they would continue to dress in their teens. And yes, that is why I did. Because I looked at it as setting an unspoken line very early on. That was just how dh and I agreed to do it for our children.
But I also think you need to teach children from early on who they are. At 2 that doesn’t mean making them feel guilting for running around naked, even if, as you said, it happens because they need to get to the bathroom. At 9, they can begin to understand more about themselves and how special they are. At 15 I wish more had respect for themselves on both sides and encouraged each other more. That Men and Women are both wonderful and can help each other be our best.
After reading the above post I wonder if some miss the real message about modesty. If in trying to find a way to tell our children how to “dress” modestly – more the outward expression – that somehow some miss teaching or hearing that they are a Child of God.
I just don’t see that it should be all about sex.
Jennifer B, I would explain that women dress differently than children. And young women are just that: young women. Adults should cover their bodies in ways that children don’t necessarily need to, because puberty brings changes to the body, and the standards for public display change.
Changes in clothing styles don’t need to be abrupt, as in “you’re 11, you can wear tank tops, you’re 12, you can’t.” It can be a gradual thing, grounded in the gradual growth toward young adulthood.
Is there going to be a magic age when you will suddenly teach your son that he should not be playing with himself or showing off his body in public? I can’t imagine that will suddenly be easy to do. Or will you just allow him to continue doing this as long as he would like? And I can focus on protecting my kids from children who have not been taught when things are appropriate and when they are not. Because I would prefer that other children not practice their sexual freedom and enjoyment on my kids. By the way, I believe you already are teaching him sexual principles. Whether you think that or not. Last question…when did respecting the body and being modest about clothing become a sign of being ashamed of ourselves or our gender?
Thought 1:
When my little boy (age 3) runs out of the house and down the block without pants on, I am delighted. I’m delighted by his innocence, his freedom, his cute little bum cheeks bouncing…
I don’t hold him to the same standard of behavior that I’d hold an older child, much less an endowed member. And I think you can explain stuff like that to older children (who would be in serious trouble for running out of the house naked.)
Thought 2:
We brush our teeth so we don’t get ouchy holes in them. We read the scriptures to learn about Jesus. We hold FHE to increase our love for one another. We were our nicest clothes to church because it’s Heavenly Father’s house and we want to show reverence. Generally, unless I can teach my child at least part of the Spirit of the law, I don’t think he’s ready for the law.
We wear clothing, we weren’t clothing. Sorry.
Heathermommy, I suppose you’re right. The pornography is just more socially accepted and open, eh?
I also don’t think that there is just one right answer here. We can certainly have some room to raise our children differently and still in righteousness. So just because my 5 year old doesn’t wear tank tops doesn’t mean that she’s on the only track to a righteous existence. In fact, I hardly think that guarantees anything!
SamanthaR–No there is no magical age, I think a moderate approach dictates flexibility. And children don’t have sexual freedom, they’re not sexual beings.
I think if one takes an extreme approach to modesty with children who cannot possibly understand, one side effect can be that they become ashamed of their private parts. I don’t think this necessarily has to be the case because each parent/child are different. But, I do think it’s a consequence of emphasizing modesty before they are able to understand the purpose of the law.
And let me also say that I don’t have all of the answers. I’m listening to everyone’s input and I’d love to hear about the transition from being an asexual being to a sexual one, the gradual learning curve and how to handle it as a parent who cares both about the protection of my children’s asexual-ness as well as the appropriate expression of their sexual-ness.
Thanks for your comments everyone.
I’m afraid I don’t have a source for this, but I heard once of a study that found that, statistically, children who wore tank tops were more likely to be violent and to be victims of violence. Weird statistic, huh? And it could just be that a certain demographic is both more likely to wear tank tops and more likely to be violent — but I thought it was interesting. I think it says far more about the adults who are dressing the children than about the children, but, still.
I bought my then 6-year-old daughter a sleeveless dress two Easters ago; its armholes are snug-fitting, and I think it’s classy and modest enough for her age — plus, she wears it with a sweater — but I don’t have a problem with her removing the sweater. I’ve told her that she’ll need sleeves when she’s older, but that I think this is fine for now (whereas, I do have her wear t-shirts with jumpers and sundresses.) Unfortunately, she hates wearing the dress, since the girls at church told her it’s immodest. I told her different families have different rules and that I think it’s okay — and I think I’ve won her back to wearing the (really very lovely) dress, but I think she still feels somewhat self-conscious in it. I’m also a little annoyed with her friends, but I do think six-and-seven-year-olds are better at absorbing rules than understanding tolerance and nonjudgmentalism, so I do think they were behaving normally for their age.
I had the same reaction Heather did to Justine’s comment about Europe — I suppose it really depends on what part of Europe you’re talking about, but in urban France and Belgium in the early 90’s when I was a missionary, pornography was rampant — as was promiscuity and cohabitation, even among the very young. I don’t know about overall violent sexual crime rates compared to the U.S., (although there have been a few examples of horrifying sex crimes in Europe in recent news,) but in my observation as a missionary, the effects of an extremely casual (and unpuritanical) attitude toward sex were mostly very destructive. At the same time, I have to agree that a relaxed, non-shaming attitude towards the body is a good thing. I once heard someone say that her daughter, who was a toddler, used to bathe with her Daddy until the day that she pointed to his groin and said, “What’s that?” The question went unanswered and the girl was no longer allowed to bathe with her dad. I was pretty horrified by that story — talk about creating shame and mystique around a perfectly innocent question. (And, by the way, another statistic I can’t document (but which I remember as coming from a reliable source) is that fathers who physically care for their children — bathe them, change their diapers, etc. — are very unlikely to molest their children or be pedophiles. And a really scary/sad statistic? Children living in single-parent homes are *far* more likely to be molested or be victims of other forms of violence than children in a two-parent home. (Again no source, but I read this one very recently, so I could probably track it down if anyone wishes.)
Mara, I do agree with you that it’s easy to go overboard and teach children modesty in a shaming way. I agree with others, though, that it’s less confusing if the rules don’t change too much over time, so I think it’s less a question of when it’s taught (hopefully, it’s taught all along, but in age-appropriate ways) but more of *how* it’s taught. And even very small children can learn a difference between public and private behavior, and even some sort of simplified rationales — such as “bodies are beautiful, but we don’t show our bodies in the grocery store,” etc.
(Oops, was I going to do some laundry this afternoon? Did I write an essay instead? Oh, well.)
I agree that a naked baby (I have lots of those pictures) or a toddler running around in diapers is no big deal, but I do choose modest clothing for even my young children as a matter of course. My kids learn as we shop for clothing and dress that we do so with Church standards in mind. It doesn’t make sense to me to say that modesty only matters to sexual beings. For starters, what is considered sexual is individual and is largely socially determined, while Church standards of modesty aren’t. At one time in my adult life I hung around naked alot, and it had nothing to do with sexuality for me (although I imagine it did for the guy who tried to break in on one of those occasions). If I were waiting for my kids to become sexual, is that defined by them having sexual feelings or by how others perceive them? There isn’t a clear line separating the sexual, particularly in this culture. My preteen girls ( I only have daughters) are already self conscious at times about their changing bodies. I’m glad that I don’t have to complicate this transition by expecting them to suddenly change their entire wardrobes. I think that would cause more shame or other uncomfortable feelings than starting the habit early ever did. I also think it is harder to change a teen’s habits than to establish a child’s.
What a fantastic post.
When I was a teen I wore short shorts (not that short, but shorter than I wear now), and it seems like every other LDS kid did, too. I do see this shift toward greater modesty for children.
Recently I was asked to teach the Valiant girls, 10 turning 11. I have noticed that they sit, well, they sit like little kids (wide legs, etc.). They’re in dresses and they don’t pay attention to the fact that I might be able to see their underwear, etc.
Is this my job to say something, or should I let them be kids? I swear I was just arguing to myself about this very thing this morning.
Say something. You don’t have to oversexualize the way you do it. No kid wants her underwear to show. Remember the elementary school playground?
Angie–here’s my beef. Church standards are for the youth (as in the standards outlined in ‘For The Strength of the Youth’) and for adults (the garment dictates those). I’ve not seen a dress code for kids outlined by the church (and for good reason, I think). So, to me, dressing standards for children are a personal decision but not one that should be justified by church standards.
The sticky part still seems to be ‘when’ do we introduce modesty to our kids. And that is an excellent question. In my opinion, it’s probably very very personal. Obviously, here is where moderation and personal revelation come into play.
Mara–there’s no specific dress code outlined for kids. But the Friend is laden with pro-modesty anecdotes. There’s a recent one about not buying a backpack with immodestly dressed characters. There have been several about not wearing two-piece swimming suits. As you say, there are no specific guidelines–children this age wear X, children older can’t. But there’s a definite awareness of modesty issues in the Church’s magazine for kids. I don’t think they see it in emphasizing sexuality too early terms (I never had thought of that till I read your post). I think they frame it in terms of early obedience and habit, leading to adult obedience and habit.
I have made a huge deal about Not Saying Anything to other kids. I would hate to have my kids make other kids feel unwelcome, although I know it may happen sometime in spite of me. I held my breath one day when my daughter’s best friend showed up in a sundress. I could see her noticing the friend’s dress. But she didn’t say anything then, and when I asked her if she’d mentioned it later, she said, “No! That’s not our business.” “That’s exactly right,” I said. “Good job.”
Em–That’s a lovely story about your daughter. I hope my kids can act that beautifully when faced with a situation in which they could easily be judgemental. I think Zina is right that maybe the question should not be ‘when’ but ‘how.’ I still maintain that modesty is an issue to be addressed at an age where the child can understand the nuance and importance of the principle. However, I respect those of you who think otherwise.
I agree with Angie and Emily M. I happen to think that it brings more attention, and often more often negative attention, to suddenly change wardrobes and begin focusing on modesty at a certain age, rather than just to teach it quietly and age-appropriately from day one. The same way that I do not begin to prepare my children for Kindergarten, and tell them what they can expect, on the morning they are to go. I quietly and consistently help them to prepare themselves and to feel more confident about what they will be doing in the future as they begin school.
I definitely talk to my children about modesty from the time they are young–as calmly and positively as I know how. And how when we dress as beautifully/handsomely (I don’t think that is a word) as we can, then we can go out into the world confident and happy and not worrying about ourselves, but about others. And I tell them how important it is that we do not judge others or say things to others about how they are dressed…or how they spend their Sabbath, or what they choose to drink in the morning, or what kind of car they drive, etc., etc. Because it is not our business. And we have no way of knowing their hearts. I truly believe that instilling in my children a sense of confidence and love and respect for their body, from the day they are born, is a wonderful and lasting gift I can give them.
My gospel standards, written for primary children, includes the statement
I will dress modestly to show respect for Heavenly Father and myself
It does not define explicitly how short shorts can be, for example, so there is some room for interpretation, but obviously modesty is intended to be taught to children.
I do agree that “how” is critical. I have met people who communicate by their anxious approach that bodies are somehow not okay, so if you are reacting to those kind of attitudes I can see where you are coming from.
I think so much of this is in the general anxiety level of parents. We talk pretty openly about our bodies and about sex if questions are asked or if the conversation moves in that direction.
We’ve always talked about our bodies not in a sexual way, but in a divine way. We’ve framed the modesty discussion as a way to show respect for ourselves and the Lord. Sex isn’t part of that conversation.
But I don’t certainly don’t think this is the only effective way to frame the discussion. There are likely dozens of ways to effectively address this issue with our kids.
I actually take GREAT offense with the idea that the opposite, or contrasting side, of child pornography is “forcing” my two-year-old daughter to wear a t-shirt that covers her shoulders.
I agree also that it’s important not to communicate anxiety about our bodies as we teach modesty. And I really love to watch my cute naked kids dance around at bathtime. There’s something great about baby bums.
I’ve talked about the way we chose to dress *our* kids (3 m/2 f)before. We live in the hot Mojave Desert of SoCAL. As an endowed adult one wears the garment. We wanted our children to be prepared to make keep sacred ordinances. Wearing an extra layer of clothing in this heat takes some acclimation.
As infants, parents often dress their babes with onesies and an additional outfit over the onesie. The onesie is there to protect the babies newborn skin from the roughness of clothing.
Back in the dark ages, *our* parents insisted (before onesies, et all) that we wear undershirts as a protocol of refined behaviour. Dated, I know, but that’s the way it was.
As parents, we figured that we would just continue the onesie idea throughout our children’s life, as our parents had continued our required wearing of undershirts and camisoles.
In the past when I have mentioned this, I have been met with harsh criticism for “forcing” our children to where extra clothing in the heat, tantamount to “child abuse”. It’s odd. Our children rarely complained. They acclimated to the extra layer as toddlers, just as husband I are acclimated currently wearing our garment.
The idea of sex had nothing to do with the extra layer. We handled it more as an etiquette issue. We also taught our children that their bodies were sacred and fun and that sex was just fine and actually was supposed to be fun when you are married. “You’re actually *required* to have fun with your spouse! It’s between you two, It’s great!” We actually laugh about it now, as I was quite the artist with the white board and dry erase markers when a child had a question.
All but one of my children are currently endowed, the last is still too young, however she still feels more comfortable with wearing a camisole than just a shirt alone. When the time came for the kids to go to the temple there was not a single article of clothing that had to be thrown out. They weren’t dressed like Britney Spears, but they weren’t the Amish either. They managed to fit in just fine with clothing that covered them.
No one told them not to stretch or to worry about nipples showing. How someone chooses to look at your body is their responsibility, not yours. You cannot control another’s thoughts, you do not have that power.” The boys were also uncomfortable about wearing their shirts and tees without their undershirt. It went for both genders.
When they were little they ran around buck naked all the time -I actually kept the babies naked as much as possible -I was a hippy chick that way. When we went outside of the property they had to dress, but hey at the house…free willie! It was a matter of “it’s appropriate here, not so much there.”
When we were at the beach or pool everyone ran around in their suits and felt as free as the other kids. The only complaint my girls had/have about their bodies is their mother’s short legs and fishbelly white skin. The boys feel their bodies are, of course, God’s gift and how lucky their wives must feel to have them. Yeah, they are a tad ego driven, they are still in their 20’s.
My point is I think you can dress your kids with a “temple standard” prior to commitment without it adversely affecting their sexual perceptions. You can also choose to dress your child in sun dresses and shorts, or plaid golf pants and propeller beanies… they’re *your* children; have fun with them. For *us* once we made the decision it was over, no more thinking about it later on. The habit was fixed early on and no one thought about it much after that. It was easier *for us*. I highly recommend the easy way out when you can get it.
That’s all. Carry on.
Justine, I’m not sure what part of Europe you were talking about. My experience in Sweden was that pornography was easily accessible. 14-year old boys were being directed to porn sites for sex education classes. Violence numbers against children and women were comparable. And there were a number of child-porn rings that were discovered in Sweden.
But there is a completely different approach to nudity. Children being naked at a beach was not an invitation to think of them sexually. Even seeing a woman going topless at the beach was not a sexual statement.
I don’t think it has so much to do with pornography as it does with the general attitude in the country about nudity.
I’m much more comfortable with nudity after living in Sweden.
Sorry for the tangent. I haven’t much to add to the discussion. This isn’t something that I’ve thought about much.
I was chatting with the gal who cuts my hair, she told me that when her niece came out to visit, she tried to take her niece out shopping and buy her some clothes. But the niece, who happens to be mormon, would not accept any clothing unless the sleeves went DOWN TO HER ELBOWS. Visiting from Arizona, where she always wears sleeves down to her elbows. I had to say, well I’m mormon, and my sleeves aren’t down to my elbows, neither are my children’s.
And I don’t know if some part of the story was lost in communication–whether the rejection of flutter sleeves was misconstrued as DOWN TO HER ELBOWS, but the story freaked me out. Because the modesty movement is escalating in a way I can’t relate to. The fact the mormon niece was from Arizona added to my panic, since I see Arizona as a place that births extra rules that spread unwelcome into my local ward.
I don’t see why we have to change things from how we did it when I was a kid. There are pictures of me as a toddler in a two-piece bathing suit, something we’d call a belly-showing tankini now. I wore sleeveless tees and blouses in the summer as a child. I wore undershirts in the fall and winter, but not in summer or spring. When I married, i had a couple skirts that turned out to be slightly too short, and a couple shirts that lacked sleeves. I didn’t really experience that as trauma, that it was time to set those aside. I never had a world view that caused me to gape at the “immodesty” of Jackie Kennedy in an A-line sleeveless shift.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. I really see other people’s clever uber-modesty strategies on their children as nonessential. and it can be hard to be charitable about those differences. I can’t relate to it, i find it alien and weird, and building a fence around the law, and oddly intense. do they bring this same intensity to other things? probably. probably other things i can’t relate to either.
Johnna, I agree that the modesty movement seems more intense than when I was little. Sleeves to the elbows sounds pretty extreme even to me. Is it that we are panicking over all the things we can’t control about the world, and clothing seems to be one thing we can control, that might possibly help prevent something we can’t?
I don’t know. I love the “essentials unity, non-essentials liberty, all things charity” line. Very nice, very true.
The first thing I thought when I saw this was, “Maralise is gonna get a lot of comments on this post!”
It’s always such a charged topic….
I’m tempted to mull over my thoughts and reasons for my choice on this more on my blog, but for now, here are some thoughts I have had tonite:
-The concept about wanting kids to be able to be asexual by not worrying about dress is an interesting one I hadn’t really thought about before, and I appreciate having that thrown into my mental mix on this topic. I think it *is* important to allow some space for our kids to go without over-anxiousness about body parts, body differences and the like. It bothers me when parents of little ones freak out when their children touch themselves, for example. If there was ever an area of life where we need to not overreact, it’s this one – through ALL the stages of their growth. I think teaching sexuality is a life-long process, and it starts when they are young.
I guess, though, that I’m having a hard time thinking that *not* dressing my kids in tank tops or whatever is necessarily directly *harming* their sexual or personal development in this way. I can see how uptight *attitudes, reactions, and teachings* about it all could be really detrimental, but I don’t think dress standards *alone* are going to cause — or prevent — problems in this regard.
- Closely tied to that is that I think we too often equate modesty and the standards of the Church with sexuality, with wanting to prevent sexual sin. I think that is a limited and limiting view of the purposes of these standards, and it’s the broad view that affects my personal choice on this matter.
- If anyone is interested, Sister Lant (General Primary President) recently talked directly and specifically about this topic. She even addressed the topic of dressing young children. But she goes beyond those kinds of things to help us understand principles in a broader way.
I realize some may not agree with her specifics, but I think this at least illustrates that we *are* receiving some specific direction about standards for children, and there are in my mind some compelling reasons to at least consider it — or at least not criticize that decision if parents choose to do the ‘modest from birth’ kind of approach.
This is a very interesting discussion. I have to admit to being uncomfortable with this post as I lean toward the right (but not too far as my 7yo daughter wears sleeveless stuff and pretty short shorts) on the modesty issue. That said, I also worry that I am too uptight about my boys touching themselves because of the problems that I know my husband had with porn and masturbation–which caused problems sexually for us for a long time (until we read Laura Brotherson’s book and we worked some things out). I am not that comfortable saying I think that penises are great, but can see that that attitude isn’t bad.
I like that the main goal seems to be trying to give your kids a healthy sense of self–as children of a loving God who gave them their bodies that will become sexual as they physically mature. I try to teach my kids that sex is a great part of married life. I just don’t want them to start before they are married, so I think the modesty effort is part of that worry.
Seeing as how I bought my 13-year-old daughter her first bikini this year I’m probably not the most qualified mom to have an opinion about this.
OK, I’m messing with you. I did buy the bikini, but I bought it because all the one-pieces in her size range were dog ugly and didn’t fit well and I know she won’t be seen wearing anything w/o a long pair of board shorts and her matching underarmor T-shirt over it.
I’m with Johnna on this one: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
This has been a thought-provoking discussion. To be honest I find it hard to be tolerant of people who follow or promote extremes on either side. But it’s really none of my business. I can choose what I feel is best for my family, but it’s really none of my business what anyone else chooses for their own kids.
Final thought: Modesty runs so much deeper than sleeve, skirt or shorts length.
I’ve very much enjoyed this discussion too. And like Dalene, I’m with Johnna. I don’t know if what I have to say will add anything to the discussion, since the veil generally represents different ideas to others than it does to me, but it’s how I got where I am.
I’ve become very concerned about young Muslim girls who are required to wear the veil at a very young age. Most don’t- the veil is usually a choice at any age or required when a girl becomes a teenager. But I cringe whenever I see a little girl wearing a veil for many of the reasons Maralise mentions, and I have to be concerned too when I see little Mormon girls who are required to startlingly obvious modest clothing. I include in this oversized clothes because the parents can’t find knee-length size 3 dresses, etc. It’s too much, and I can’t see why it’s necessary.
It’s perfectly possible to teach children that different ages and situations allow for different standards. I’ve seen it done quite successfully all over the world by families of all sorts of political and relgious persuasions. I also think it’s perfectly possible to raise well-rounded children with a much stricter rules than I employ with my children. But I don’t think those rules necessarily make it easier for those children, and sometimes draw undue attention to those children, in the same way the veil does on young girls.
Can I ask what people consider super/uber modest? There have been several comments about an “intensity” and “strictness” about modesty and I’m not sure I understand. Are you talking about anything modest, or anything longer than regular sleeves, or what? (And for the record, my children have often had clothes in sizes a little too large, but that was because we were students, and were trying our best to save money by limiting the clothes we had to buy. I do not think it is fair to assume that it is because we are overly strict and overly intense about modesty.)
Two thoughts: I feel like those who have said that some are crazy and out-of-control about insisting on modesty are saying that anyone who chooses modesty, especially at a young age, has a problem and must be a little unstable and must bring that “intensity” to other parts of their life. I don’t agree and think that is a pretty broad statement. To me it is like saying that anyone who doesn’t choose to teach their children modesty from birth must be lazy about many of the other commandments also, which is not true.
And…what non-essentials are we talking about? Whether the t-shirt is blue or green or whether the dress has flowers on it or is plain, that is a non-essential. Modesty has never been presented to me as a non-essential, but rather our leaders and our God have been very specific about it. But that is also why it isn’t up to us to judge. Because it has nothing to do with me. And is only between them and the Lord.
i love you for many things, mara, but i love you lots and lots for this post. (YAY for naked babies and toddlers!)
i haven’t read all the replies, but for me, modesty is a state of mind and so much more than what you wear.
with that said, i think the standard is completely dependent upon your age. kids should get to be kids, and adult women should dress appropriate to age.
Can I just throw my two cents in and say that one of the worst things ever made for the “mormon” market are those dang t-shirts that “cover everything” but show every bump on a womans or girls body. Come on people, those should be under things, not worn as a modest tee for heaven’s sake! They are anything but with how tight they are.
[...] interesting post and comment “conversation” on modesty. You might want to pause to read it here. It was a Mom who had interesting views on modesty and small children. It is a topic I [...]
I just wanted to take what anonymous too said about why she reacts when her kids touch themselves as a springboard for something else I was thinking last nite. I think that is an example of how we each bring our own experiences to the table. Emily M talked of how she remembers power struggles and so she wanted to try to avoid them by how she approached these things.
I think Justine said this earlier, but I think there are different ways to approach all of this concept of teaching and helping our children to view their bodies and sexuality in a good way. I don’t think it’s as easy as reducing it all to how you dress a toddler, and as such, I think it’d be good if we all could cut each other a little more slack. I guess in a way I wonder sometimes why this is a “war” at all, because isn’t it like everything else — we take the principles we are taught and then do our best to live and teach them? I doubt we all would agree on what is modest for adults, either, even with the specifics we do have there.
I think God knows how much we each care about our kids, and that He can help us figure things out — and that there is mercy along the way as we do our best. I think mercy is important to show each other as well.
I appreciate all the comments on this subject, but:
I also believe that there’s too much focus & association between sexuality & nudity.
I think the two ought to be separated.
Women (people) should NOT be considered sexual objects because of the way they dress, NOT EVER.
by ‘going along’ with the emphasis on “modesty”, we’re teaching-reinforcing that association.
We cannot control what others think of us; why buy into that mentality.
I believe that chaste nudity is a short-circuit to that association that can be practiced either just at home or with other like-minded people.
In my model, people will be more at ease about their bodies; short-tall, fat-skinny, ‘perfect’ or not; tan-pale, surgical scars, missing extremities, WHATEVER.
I think all sorts of differences-details between individuals should be given LESS Emphasis; we’re all people, all our basic needs are (nearly) identical: to be treated with Respect (regardless of what we’re wearing), Loving & being Loved, safety needs (nurishment, protection, health care, etc).
the association between sexuality & nudity has no rational moderation, we’ll all be wearing burkas sooner or later if we let extremists rule.
WOMEN ARE NOT WALKING PORN!
I too wonder what is an example of being too modest. I think being jusgemental can go both ways. Are we judging people for being too modest, not modest enough. Obviously there is a principle taught in our church and we each have the responsibility to apply it the best we know how.
To tell you the truth, I don’t really connect modesty with sexuality at all. I mean how much more sexy is two inches above my knee then the knee itself?? To me it is an obedience issue. I comply because I want to be obedient. I teach my children at a young age to be modest because that is what God asks of us not because there is anything bad or sexual about their bodies. I personally just think it is best to sow the habit early. Then it just becomes a way of life.
So what does immodest mean? I always thought of it as dressing in a way that was intended to titillate or promote sexual feelings. Is showing your shoulders necessary “immodest?” I don’t show mine because I wear garments, but I don’t feel naked or overly sexy when I am in my swim suit at the pool. When it comes to things like tank tops and sundresses, I think there are ones that seem to intentionally “sexy” and ones that just show your shoulders. I think teaching young people to use discretion and personal judgement in these matters would be a good idea.
Also, maybe I am in the minority, but before I was endowed, I had many shorts that were above the knee, some by only an inch or so, and when I became endowed I gave them away to goodwill and bought new ones (when and if i could find ones long enough). It wasn’t a big deal.
There have been two relatively “recent” posts at Segullah about modesty and on both, it has been mentioned multiple times that extreme modesty leads to burkas. That frustrates me to no end for people to compare the Church’s stand and commandment on modesty to religions that require their women to wear burkas. Seriously. I think so much more of our leaders than that and find it offensive that it could ever be compared. Do you mean that if the Church continues to teach this and people act extreme about it, the people will sway the Church to require that we all start wearing burkas? Or do you mean that the Church leaders will eventually come to that decision on their own? That comparison is not okay with me. In fact, it makes me laugh that the word extreme is always used for those that believe the right side of the issue, but those are the left are being moderate in all things.
I honestly dont understand those who say they can’t find cute modest clothing. Its the most popular style of clothing right now, you cant NOT find a short-sleeved, overly long, baby doll top in any store you walk into. And one piece swimsuits are all the rage lately…they have TONS at Target and Old Navy alone for children, and the internet has even more choices. I don’t think its a good idea to say “well, since there are no cute ones, we’ll buy the immodest suit instead” especially, when, as it was said, it will just be covered with shorts and a top anyway (soooo, whats the point?! just buy the one piece!)
Also, I know many adults who grew up to have problems controlling their sexual appetite (which eventually led to pornography) that stemmed DIRECTLY from masturbation. You don’t need to make the kid feel bad about it, but I do think it is necessary to draw some lines. From what I’ve read, distraction is the best way to stop any unwanted behaviors. You don’t even have to talk about the action itself, just say “hey, lets go draw some pictures!” until they are old enough to understand why that behavior is not appropriate until marraige.
I also don’t understand the “extreme modesty” issue. I see lots of girls in knee length bermuda shorts and I think its super cute. Whats wrong with dressing them in short sleeves and long shorts?! :/ There are so many cute options out there, and luckily, its whats in style at the moment!!!
And the AZ comment….um….no one around here wears 3 quarter length sleeves in the summer. I think that woman probably got offended/embarrased that the girl wouldn’t wear flutter sleeves and exaggerated the story as she passed it along. (and how immature to be offended by a child’s choice to be modest anyway?!) She should respect her religious and personal views. (I will never understand why every other culture and religion is viewed as “neat” and “respected” and heaven forbid you are not 100% politically correct about it, yet Christianity is seen as something HORRIBLE and UGLY and people tear it apart left and right.)
Anyway, its an interesting post, and lots of thoughtful answers I enjoyed reading. It definitely brought up a lot of bits for me to chew on for awhile.
anon–How is wearing a bikini under knee-length board shorts and an opaque sleeved t-shirt any less modest than wearing a one piece swimsuit or, for that matter, wearing a bra and panties under your clothes? There were lots of darling one-piece suits in the children’s sizes at Target, but my daughter is 13 and tall and stuck in that miserable no-woman’s land between cute one-pieces for children and dog ugly one-pieces for old ladies. The two-piece gave her the support she needed and was a much better choice than the handful of halter-style one-pieces we found.
Also (this is in general–not directed to anyone), there is nothing more painful than spending hour after hour, day after day, watching your usually confident and happy daughter just crumble under the pressure of trying to find decent swimwear. Which is part of why the point of my previous comment was that I will make the best choices I can for my family and I will allow others the freedom to do the same for theirs.
I’ve not read all of the comments but here’s my take on this modesty issue.
Modesty is about simplicity, a measure of self-respect, respect for others and reverence for creation. There are different standards for different time periods. I’m sure the pioneers would balk at me for wearing shorts and sandals. My mother (who was not LDS) balked at me for not wearing shorter shorts and sleeveless tops after I was endowed. She thought I looked like an old lady.
I will let my girls wear the same clothing I once enjoyed which, even in my pre-LDS days, were considered modest in our area. I was happy to set those things aside after I went through the temple even though it was a little heavy on the wallet for a poor newlywed. They may choose for themselves when they come of age.
Now, there is a manner of dress which I find is blatant in promoting the wearer’s sexuality and makes others uncomfortable which I will heavily discourage. But that is my definition of immodest.
We have no control over whether someone else finds a certain thing “sexy” and staying away from that. My husband finds me most attractive (and this is how we met) when I’m wearing men’s long board shorts, a ratty old t-shirt and horking a volleyball around a sandy court. Going by someone else’s definitions of what is or isn’t sexy would make me nuts! It varies from person to person so I promote my personal standard with my family. We will adhere to the freedoms and styles enjoyed in our time and age.
It’s all a personal choice as we follow few specific guidelines. I’m just trying to find things here which are long enough and help me weather the humidity well.
Wear what you like and work it.
My six-year-old is obsessed with modesty. I have taught her that it is important to dress attractively but that we should be careful about dressing modestly. She gets very uncomfortable with women and men who are scantily clad. I tell her over and over it is ok for her brother to go shirtless sometimes. I tell her we need to not judge others by their clothing choices. Sometimes I catch her pulling her shirt up to show her belly button or her sleeves down to show her shoulders. I think she is just trying to figure out what is OK with her. She often tells me she doesn’t like one of her shirts because it falls open at the top (I thought it was perfectly fine) or she buttons all her buttons on her polo shirt (which is so not me). I think every child is dfferent some children are going to be more aware of their bodies at a younger age, while others are completely oblivious. My three-year-old daughter on the other hand has no qualms about stripping down naked in front of anyone whenever she feels the need to change clothes or run to the restroom.
My ten year old son reacts to women’s modesty in this way.
On a recent trip to the local swimming pool he noticed (as did I) that many of the women were wearing bikinis, and not to be judgemental but some of the bikinis were not in the least bit flattering to said women. His response was. “I just wanted to say. Geesh, Woman cover up.”
I just thought it might be interesting to see the viewpoints of different kids personalities. And I have three different personalities in my house.
Thanks for the comments everyone. I think it’s easy to turn this into teams…the ones advocating for modesty and the ones advocating for immodesty. And I think that’s a false polemic. I think we all want our children to be able to learn and grow by following correct principles with a certain respect for individualized implimentation. Johnna’s point that ‘in all things: charity’ definitely applies. In fact, the whole quote is something I want to cross stitch (not that I do that) and put on my wall. And I agree with those that say that this is not about the length of the shirt or skirt, but it’s about the WHATs and the WHYs and the HOWs of modesty and sexuality. And although I haven’t changed my opinion on the central issue, I have gained hope that my children will be treated with respect no matter how I mother them.
I can’t tell you how I appreciate this post. Modesty is something that is often on my mind as my two daughters are now coming into the age where clothing is the most important thing in their lives. And it is surrounded with conflict for me, unfortunately, because my husband (and inactive member) thinks that I go ‘overboard with the whole modesty thing.’ It’s not that. I just don’t believe that we should sexualize CHILDREN for goodness’ sake! And I agree with what you saying about not introducing the concepts too early so as not to confuse the children about why exactly it is that we should be modest. I have always explained modesty to my girls, and I try to explain to my husband, that modesty isn’t about hiding or being ashamed, it’s about self-respect. Something I want my girls to have down pat. And for me, as a convert I now very much appreciate modesty and am so happy to be able to raise my step-daughters with this value. The eldest on her own volition wants to be modest and I think the other one is maybe a bit too young to care one way or the other and so I buy her clothes and dress her. But when the time comes for her to care what she wears, she’ll have big sis to look up to!
I suppose this is like throwing gasoline on the fire — but I’m sure many of you have already heard this news story. One thing I noticed was that in the article the models are said to have been posed “in modest poses.” Earlier in this thread, when people were talking about trying to teach modesty to both their sons and their daughters, I had almost commented to say that years ago I’d taught my now 11-year-old son that the rule in our family is that he wear a shirt outdoors — the exception being when he wears swim trunks, of course. (Lately he prefers to wear a sunscreen shirt with his trunks, though — but just because he thinks it looks cool and he likes not having to wear sunscreen.) There was also one time when he was about six when he admired tank tops, but again I told him that in our family we don’t wear tank tops. (In both cases I told him that other families have other rules but that that was what seemed modest to me.) In both cases he accepted the rule without too much difficulty. Obviously these are gray areas requiring our personal discretion, but, while the young men featured in the calendar were not disciplined, (and, reading between the lines, I tend to think maybe there might be more behind the excommunication of the calendar’s creator than just that he made the calendar, although that’s just me speculating) but anyway, based on the cover shot that’s shown in the article, in my perception the young men’s poses, while not strictly indecent, were also quite clearly not “modest.” I’m sure they just thought they were being good member-missionaries. But, based on how we’ve taught modesty in our family, I think my son would probably know not to accept a modeling job of this sort.
To further muddy the waters, though, now that I think about it, I don’t think I would disapprove of my son going shirtless in a film if he were a professional actor — which I guess means I don’t have very clearly defined views on this, after all. But, thinking more about it, I guess shirtlessness for an acting job wouldn’t bother me since he’d be portraying a character with a different belief system — whereas in the calendar, the men were meant to be representing themselves (sharing their personal religious views, etc.) (And I would have a problem with any of my children acting nude.)
By the way, (going back to what some were saying about different children’s personalities vis a vis modesty,) my son is naturally very modest and demure. We watched “Enchanted” on DVD recently, and, although he’d been warned about the kissing scenes and so knew to close his eyes and got through those okay, it wouldn’t have occurred to us that the scene where Amy Adams breaks into song in Central Park would offend his sensibilities. He HATED that scene, (with all its spontaneous emoting) pronouncing it “horribly awkard,” and actually running out of the room to escape it seeing it. My 8-year-old daughter, on the other hand (although she also hates kissing scenes,) is very bawdy and ribald and frequently torments her brother with jokes and teasing about body parts and functions. (Ribald humor is mostly allowed in our family, as long as it’s kept at home.)
One additional comment…
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.
Hey, look, that cute new “Seriously So Blessed” blog weighed in on the modesty question:
http://seriouslysoblessed.blogspot.com/2008/07/here-ya-go.html
(It’s part of the answer to question two.)
Zina–from what I understand, the only person facing discipline for this was the creator, not the models.
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.
I know they weren’t disciplined (it’s up there in the last third of that long first paragraph,) and you couldn’t necessarily say they did anything wrong — but to me it seems clearly in poor taste, AND, I hope, if my teaching sticks, my own son would recognize an opportunity to pose like this as crossing a thresh-hold of modesty. Also it was just funny to me that the press report used by all the different sources that carried the story said that the men were in “modest poses” — meaning they weren’t indecent — but applying a different standard of modesty from mine.
I know I am coming in late to this discussion, but here is my thought:
I remember reading (years before I had the kid, when I had energy and brain cells available to read things without detectives and paperback covers) a book about protecting oneself from predators. The thing that stuck with me was the explanation of the pedophile mindset–that they actually see the children not as victims, but as willing partners, with whom to share their “love.” Which made me sick. But as I pondered it, I felt strongly prompted to, when I had kids, ensure that I did everything in my power to dress them as children, not as sexual beings, for as long as possible. And for me, along with not dressing my daughter in “adult” styles, it means reasonably modest clothes with sleeves. And not dresses that show their buns when they bend over. And flat church shoes–not the ones with heels for Pre-Ks. (I KNOW my daughter is not sexual. She is three, for crying out loud, but it was clearly communicated to me not to make her look any older than she is. Even more troubling is the fact that she is going to be hot when she gets older. We are praying for braces and,possibly, a neck brace until she is 20.) Because I don’t want to have someone look at her and think “Man, that is a hot little body.” I want someone to look at her and think “Man, that is a three-year-old.”
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?)
But I think that the most important thing about this decision that I made was that it was prompted by the Spirit….(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?)
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.
Unfortunately I would imagine that there are pedophiles who prefer an innocent look as much as there are other kinds of pedophiles — but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t dress our kids in an innocent style, of course, just that there’s nothing that can completely protect our children from sick things that may go on in others’ minds. Following the Spirit is of course always the way to go, though, and I’m sure that a modest appearance gives a child a greater measure of protection than the inverse. Come to think of it, I’ll bet a modest look conveys that a child is well-looked after and appropriately protected, which I would guess to be a very large deterrent. A parent who dresses their child in an adult, sexual style conveys a naivete or indifference to potential danger, which in and of itself increases a child’s risk.
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.)
That should have said “Maralise was never talking about” — an extra “not” slipped in there. (It’s too late at night fro me to discover any other typos or goofs.) Well, maybe that last sentence should say “and what restricts our child’s innocence and freedom at a cost too high for the protection in might afford.”
*it* might afford
here are some cents from me, just to stir the pot a little bit more. if modesty is an issue related to sex, and sexuality, and sexiness, and the having of the sex, then it would follow that we’ve been going about this all backwards: when the sex shouldn’t happen (i.e., birth to marriage), the body should be covered to discourage ourselves from thinking about it, engaging in it, or letting others think about it. when the sex IS allowed (marriage), the body should be sexy as well! sexy lingerie and low-cut tops for everyone! right?
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?