Tweet
I think most of the modesty rhetoric in Mormonism is damaging and false. Babies are not sexual. Hell, shoulders and knee caps aren't sexual. They're not shameful. They're not dirty. I don't think that's exactly how modesty is framed most of the time, but I know that it's exceedingly easy to feel ashamed of one's body when the constant message is that anything exposed beyond these imaginary lines on the female form is immodest. And we're taking modesty too far. Many women fall victim to the self-appointed Modesty Police. It's a method to judge one's worthiness and commitment to God. I find this bizarre. I've heard multiple accounts recently that the new standards for bathing suits at girls' camp is a "modest one piece, with a t-shirt and knee-length shorts over." This is insanity in my opinion.
I've heard the argument that you want to prepare girls to wear garments so they don't have to totally adjust their wardrobes. Newflash: they'll probably have to anyway. I threw out a bevy of modest clothes when I went through the temple that just didn't work with garments because they had square necks and the garment peeked out or the gigantic batwing sleeves poked out of the regular shirt's cap sleeve or a variety of other issues. Garments are poorly constructed and ill-fitting; it takes an assortment of layers and tricks to keep them adequately covered. It's maddening. And I don't understand holding a 4-year-old child to the same dress standards as an endowed adult based on a ceremony she might actually never participate in.
I think you teach modesty in terms of self-respect and appropriateness for the circumstance. Honor your Heavenly Mother in whose image you're created. Honor yourself. You wouldn't wear a mini skirt to a business interview. Wear a swimsuit to swim. Wear workout clothes to the gym. In my opinion this is very different from teaching them they must keep their shoulders and kneecaps covered, or that they're responsible for keeping the young men from thinking sexual thoughts about them. If we ever have a daughter, she can wear thick-strapped tank tops and mid-thigh shorts and skirts if she wants.
Of course I've been called a feminist apostate recently, so what do I know?
I've heard the argument that you want to prepare girls to wear garments so they don't have to totally adjust their wardrobes. Newflash: they'll probably have to anyway. I threw out a bevy of modest clothes when I went through the temple that just didn't work with garments because they had square necks and the garment peeked out or the gigantic batwing sleeves poked out of the regular shirt's cap sleeve or a variety of other issues. Garments are poorly constructed and ill-fitting; it takes an assortment of layers and tricks to keep them adequately covered. It's maddening. And I don't understand holding a 4-year-old child to the same dress standards as an endowed adult based on a ceremony she might actually never participate in.
I think you teach modesty in terms of self-respect and appropriateness for the circumstance. Honor your Heavenly Mother in whose image you're created. Honor yourself. You wouldn't wear a mini skirt to a business interview. Wear a swimsuit to swim. Wear workout clothes to the gym. In my opinion this is very different from teaching them they must keep their shoulders and kneecaps covered, or that they're responsible for keeping the young men from thinking sexual thoughts about them. If we ever have a daughter, she can wear thick-strapped tank tops and mid-thigh shorts and skirts if she wants.
Of course I've been called a feminist apostate recently, so what do I know?
Comment