Women teaching patriarchy to women.

[Uncle Ted]

This is is getting bandied about on some other forums:

http://lds.org/friend/2011/06/hannah...dress?lang=eng (go read it, it is really, really short)

And got blogged about here:

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2...-mormon-style/

Let me ask the this progressive/open mind yet mostly faithful crowd: is it possible for a four year old or a baby to be immodest? How early (if at all) do you start to teach your girls that they must cover their stomachs and shoulders? I'm trying to get a sense of whether this is pretty well accepted and conformed to or whether there is a fair amount of open rebellion on the issue.

This kind of reminds me of a story I heard about the following art...



The ensign said they wouldn't publish this picture because the baby Jesus was practically naked and Mary's hand was on his rump. The artist changed the picture using photoshop so the baby was clothed which also covered the hand. Ironically baby Jesus was wearing a roman toga in the published version.

[Surfah]

I agree with Wuap for the most part. I don't think there is an age that is too young to start teaching modesty. I think consistency is important.

The commercial that annoys the hell out of me is that laundry detergent one where the dad sees the tiny mini skirt drying on the clothesline. He takes his dirt covered hands and wipes them clean with the skirt. The mom then takes the skirt and with the power of the stain lifter restores the mini skirt to a brilliant white. Cut to end and teen daughter is wearing her skirt much to the delight of mom and dismay of dad.

FTR, I don't have that much of an issue with my 5 year old wearing sleeveless, spaghetti strapped type stuff. But Gidget does. She always makes our 5 year old wear a little sweater to cover her bare shoulders at Church for example. Mind you, Gidget is a convert and was never browbeat with this stuff in Primary or Young Women. It's important to Gidget so I support her in that.

[UtahDan]

I have problems with it for the same or similar reason I have problems with patriarchy in general, but I do see the logic that if you are going to submit to it there is no reason to have that begin at any particular age. The message of the Friend article is certainly that you can never start too young.

Wuap you may have said but must your son cover his shoulders as well?

[LA Ute]

I have problems with it for the same or similar reason I have problems with patriarchy in general, but I do see the logic that if you are going to submit to it there is no reason to have that begin at any particular age. The message of the Friend article is certainly that you can never start too young.

Wuap you may have said but must your son cover his shoulders as well?

I don't know about wuap but we have pretty much drawn the line on either of our two sons having bare shoulders in church, at whatever age.

[KillerDog]

I don't understand the preoccupation with sex in LDS Culture. When we are talking about whether a child needs to dress modestly, we are too pre-occupied with sex and attaching sexuality to things and pople where it doesn't belong.

[LA Ute]

I don't understand the preoccupation with sex in LDS Culture. When we are talking about whether a child needs to dress modestly, we are too pre-occupied with sex and attaching sexuality to things and pople where it doesn't belong.

Growing up, my brother and I used to joke that sex was not dirty, it was just that talking about it made our mother feel ill.

[Jeff Lebowski]

:igiveup:

[Sleeping in EQ]

Growing up, my brother and I used to joke that sex was not dirty, it was just that talking about it made our mother feel ill.

Who is "Norman Bates?"

I'll take Repression for $1,000, Alex.

[UtahDan]

People can wear what they want, or don't want. But, modesty is something that I value in my personal relationships.

It seems like you have said this before (you can correct me) and that the reason was you preferred not to be placed in the uncomfortable position of wanting to look, not being able to look etc. Had you been raised in some other part of the world where you had become accustomed to seeing nudity you would not be feeling that conflict. Of course, you weren't. The whole concept of modesty is a cultural construct that we are free to deconstruct if we want to (though I certainly respect that people have religious beliefs that stomachs and shoulders are to be covered just as lower legs and forearms once were).

[LA Ute]

Who is "Norman Bates?"

I'll take Repression for $1,000, Alex.

At least we joked about it and haven't bought wigs and dresses. Yet.

[Moliere]

This is is getting bandied about on some other forums:

http://lds.org/friend/2011/06/hannah...dress?lang=eng (go read it, it is really, really short)

And got blogged about here:

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2...-mormon-style/

Let me ask the this progressive/open mind yet mostly faithful crowd: is it possible for a four year old or a baby to be immodest? How early (if at all) do you start to teach your girls that they must cover their stomachs and shoulders? I'm trying to get a sense of whether this is pretty well accepted and conformed to or whether there is a fair amount of open rebellion on the issue.

I actually like the way modesty was presented in the article. It wasn't presented as a commandment or mandate from the Lord. Instead it was shown next to everyday tasks (combing hair, eating breakfast, etc.) which I think separates it a bit from a commandment and makes it appear more as a choice.

Given other ways this concept could have been portrayed, I think the friend did a good job.

Ftr we teach modesty to our kids from the time they start to dress themselves. My definition of modesty may vary slightly from other parents, but I am fairly conservative, although my daughters to wear sleeveless dresses from time to time.

[wuapinmon]

It seems like you have said this before (you can correct me) and that the reason was you preferred not to be placed in the uncomfortable position of wanting to look, not being able to look etc. Had you been raised in some other part of the world where you had become accustomed to seeing nudity you would not be feeling that conflict. Of course, you weren't. The whole concept of modesty is a cultural construct that we are free to deconstruct if we want to (though I certainly respect that people have religious beliefs that stomachs and shoulders are to be covered just as lower legs and forearms once were).

Yes, my son has to cover his shoulders.

And, you haven't lived until your gorgeous Finnish student invites you to her senior art showcase, and the entire exposition is naked pictures of her, including one of her sitting spread eagle staring at the camera, and thereby, you.

I liked seeing her as my student and my friend, the person who took excellent Christmas photos of my kids. Not the naked woman that I never wanted revealed to me that I'll see all the time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes, my son has to cover his shoulders.

And, you haven't lived until your gorgeous Finnish student invites you to her senior art showcase, and the entire exposition is naked pictures of her, including one of her sitting spread eagle staring at the camera, and thereby, you.

I liked seeing her as my student and my friend, the person who took excellent Christmas photos of my kids. Not the naked woman that I never wanted revealed to me that I'll see all the time.

What the hell does that have to do with your son wearing a tank top?

[KillerDog]

Bottom line, kids are not and should not be sexual beings until they hit puberty. Treating them as though they are potentially sexual beings and drilling them about modesty at that age is bad for the child and for the adults responsible. I hate to say this but I wonder what may grow from such actions. I suspect one result could be increased sexual perversion amongst the faithful another could be increased sexual repression amongst the faithful. Only time will tell which it will be. Wishing for sexual repression is a bad place to be.

[LA Ute]

Bottom line, kids are not and should not be sexual beings until they hit puberty. Treating them as though they are potentially sexual beings and drilling them about modesty at that age is bad for the child and for the adults responsible. I hate to say this but I wonder what may grow from such actions. I suspect one result could be increased sexual perversion amongst the faithful another could be increased sexual repression amongst the faithful. Only time will tell which it will be. Wishing for sexual repression is a bad place to be.

Here in CA there's a move to teach elementary school kids about LGBT contributions to the state's history. In fact, the bill has passed and is awaiting the governor's signature. It's the FAIR Education Act, and it's described pretty neutrally here.

I don't think the subject can be taught without getting into sexual behavior and related subjects. (I'm not thrilled about the new law but I'm not calling the governor to urge him to veto it, either.) I'm not trying to be difficult but your comment did make me think of that. How old should kids be before these subjects are taught?