Modesty in children

[Commando]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aWhn0Hc8ps

[Jeff Lebowski]

May or may not be immodest. But regardless they can definitely be sexy.

Modesty and fashion are important in that it sends social queues to other people about what kind of a person you are. So I wouldn't want my teenage daughters dressing slutty because I wouldn't want others to assume they're slutty and treat them that way. Who defines all that? Unfortunately society does. There's no eternal principle here. It's a societal rule.

Little girls wearing sun dresses? Give me a freaking break.

Shoulders aren't inherently sexy/immodest. That was my point. In our culture we often assume that any clothing that reveals shoulders is immodest. There was a woman in our ward that used to jog with a tanktop and many of the sisters would gossip about her being immodest. I think our LDS obsession with bare shoulders is weird.

In the long run, the garment design dictates what we consider to be modest, hence the nutty stuff about shoulders. If they had not changed the garment design in 1930 or so to get rid of the design that went to the ankles and wrists, I wonder if we would be dressing like this now:

[BigPiney]

Shoulders are not unsexy. It is flabby upper arms that are unsexy. Very few women have good or nicely defined arms that merit wearing sleeveless or tank tops. Most women and men that wear tank tops, should not.

[Paperback Writer]

Paul McCartney understood this when he wrote, "Well, she was just 17, and you know what I mean."

If it were just Paul, the lyrics of "I saw Her Standing There" would have been "Well, she was just 17, never been a beauty queen". Perhaps John Lennon understood it better.

[jay santos]

Shoulders aren't inherently sexy/immodest. That was my point. In our culture we often assume that any clothing that reveals shoulders is immodest. There was a woman in our ward that used to jog with a tanktop and many of the sisters would gossip about her being immodest. I think our LDS obsession with bare shoulders is weird.

In the long run, the garment design dictates what we consider to be modest, hence the nutty stuff about shoulders. If they had not changed the garment design in 1930 or so to get rid of the design that went to the ankles and wrists, I wonder if we would be dressing like this now:

I don't disagree with anything. You're correlating the words sexy and immodest, which I misunderstood. Something can be modest and sexy, such as shoulders. It shouldn't be intended that a woman hide anything on her body that is sexy. Eyes can be sexy. etc.

[smokymountainrain]

Nothing cuter, IMO, than my 2 year old's chubby little arms in a sun dress. Yet there are multiple families in our ward that won't allow their toddlers to wear sleeveless outfits. Boggles my mind, but I don't see much harm (other than diminishing the cute potential of the kid) in it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't disagree with anything. You're correlating the words sexy and immodest, which I misunderstood. Something can be modest and sexy, such as shoulders. It shouldn't be intended that a woman hide anything on her body that is sexy. Eyes can be sexy. etc.

That makes sense. I should have used the word "modest".

[Walter Sobchak]

This is something my wife feels incredibly strongly about. [...] Any thoughts?

Yes, proceed with caution.

[SandYFan]

Yes, proceed with caution.

Believe me, I have done little but nod and agree with her so far.

[Pheidippides]

I have three girls. They wear whatever they feel comfortable in. I don't envision that changing as they get older.

Ditto. I reserve a veto right over anything especially egregious but I've never had to exercise it. Of course my oldest is just shy of 12, so there haven't been many opportunities yet.

Today she came down dressed for school in a very tight t-shirt and tight jeans. It would have fit the Mormon Authorized Pattern but was probably not compliant with the For Strength of Youth bit about tight clothing. I thought it made her look nice and told her so.

[marsupial]

Shoulders are not sexy at any age.

You haven't seen Danimal's shoulders. Rarr!

[Eddie]

I've only vetoed the clothing my daughters were wearing on a couple of occasions. (In full disclosure, their mom is probably more strict about it - meaning she has probably vetoed some stuff that I never saw.)

The only things that stand out are shirts that were a "favorite" at age 4, and which are now ratty threads that look ridiculous on an 8 year old who is trying to wear them. Or a "favorite" dress that used to go down to the knees at age 5, but is showing off panties at age 9.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ha.

[il Padrino Ute]

I've only vetoed the clothing my daughters were wearing on a couple of occasions. (In full disclosure, their mom is probably more strict about it - meaning she has probably vetoed some stuff that I never saw.)

The only things that stand out are shirts that were a "favorite" at age 4, and which are now ratty threads that look ridiculous on an 8 year old who is trying to wear them. Or a "favorite" dress that used to go down to the knees at age 5, but is showing off panties at age 9.

Ages 8 and 9 aren't much of a big deal for that apparel. Now, if they try to wear it when their ages 17 and 16, it would definitely be time to put your foot down.

[pellegrino]

Ditto. I reserve a veto right over anything especially egregious but I've never had to exercise it. Of course my oldest is just shy of 12, so there haven't been many opportunities yet.

Today she came down dressed for school in a very tight t-shirt and tight jeans. It would have fit the Mormon Authorized Pattern but was probably not compliant with the For Strength of Youth bit about tight clothing. I thought it made her look nice and told her so.

I would only veto something if it was obviously out of place for the context in which they were wearing it.