Modesty in children

[Eddie]

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.

When I say "showing panties" I mean - standing up with her arms hanging at her side this dress was no better than a long shirt.

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

And this is the right context. Wear it around the house? Whatever. But not to school, church, or really in public in general. (I think my wife worries that people will think she is an orphan who only has worn-out holey clothes that are too small for her.)

[wuapinmon]

A very good mantra but I envision a scenario in which her comfort and your own for her might not be in harmony. Again, based upon your mantra, it's her decision to make and her comfort we're talking about, but I do think comfort can have cultural and parental limits. You probably disagree and that's ok.

Speaking seriously, we will ask her if her clothing is modest or not, and then let her decide so long as she doesn't look ridiculous. I have told her she can't wear certain shorts (no child will ever wear shorts with words on the buttocks in this house) outside the house. However, she has purchased some stuff that I think is probably not ok with most church members, that we've let her decide on. I do not, however, allow her to wear makeup yet unless she asks first. Mostly because it's expensive, but partly because she has the rest of her life to be an adult, and I don't like little girls trying to look like women.

[Blueintheface]

Speaking seriously, we will ask her if her clothing is modest or not, and then let her decide so long as she doesn't look ridiculous. I have told her she can't wear certain shorts (no child will ever wear shorts with words on the buttocks in this house) outside the house. However, she has purchased some stuff that I think is probably not ok with most church members, that we've let her decide on. I do not, however, allow her to wear makeup yet unless she asks first. Mostly because it's expensive, but partly because she has the rest of her life to be an adult, and I don't like little girls trying to look like women.

We have done the same in the past (ask her if her clothing is modest or not). Now at age 12-going-on-17 we ask but get the eye-roll in response usually. Make-up is another difficult subject but so far we've been able to limit it to some eyeliner and lip gloss. Last night she asked for a second ear-piercing, again because a friend at the dinner table had one.

Without discounting our own shortcomings, I think we may have just been selected to parent a child with an inherent need to express herself and constantly test boundaries. We love that about her as both my wife and I have spent a good deal of our lives living as wallflowers with limited expressive personality traits, but we're naturally concerned this behavior may stretch beyond just modesty and make-up. Contrast that with my brother's girls (13 & 10), both of whom are quite content remaining little girls. They come over nearly every weekend and the 3 of them spend most of that time playing Barbies, House, etc. My daughter pretends at first to act like she's too old for such things but that quickly melts away and they have a lot of fun just being kids. The next day though her friends come over (she as the Alpha of her group of 4) and it's back to texting, make-up, changing outfits, etc.

It's a tough age and she's getting yanked in all directions.

[wuapinmon]

We have done the same in the past (ask her if her clothing is modest or not). Now at age 12-going-on-17 we ask but get the eye-roll in response usually. Make-up is another difficult subject but so far we've been able to limit it to some eyeliner and lip gloss. Last night she asked for a second ear-piercing, again because a friend at the dinner table had one.

Without discounting our own shortcomings, I think we may have just been selected to parent a child with an inherent need to express herself and constantly test boundaries. We love that about her as both my wife and I have spent a good deal of our lives living as wallflowers with limited expressive personality traits, but we're naturally concerned this behavior may stretch beyond just modesty and make-up. Contrast that with my brother's girls (13 & 10), both of whom are quite content remaining little girls. They come over nearly every weekend and the 3 of them spend most of that time playing Barbies, House, etc. My daughter pretends at first to act like she's too old for such things but that quickly melts away and they have a lot of fun just being kids. The next day though her friends come over (she as the Alpha of her group of 4) and it's back to texting, make-up, changing outfits, etc.

It's a tough age and she's getting yanked in all directions.

Is it just me or has childhood lost a couple of years to adolescence since we were kids? My daughter is 11 next week, and she will only play with her little sister and dolls if she's on restriction from electronics.

[Blueintheface]

Is it just me or has childhood lost a couple of years to adolescence since we were kids? My daughter is 11 next week, and she will only play with her little sister and dolls if she's on restriction from electronics.

It's not just you. My daughter is bored 12 seconds into anything that doesn't involve extreme visual stimulus. Ask Art to post the pic of his boys on vacation. Priceless!

[woot]

Is it just me or has childhood lost a couple of years to adolescence since we were kids? My daughter is 11 next week, and she will only play with her little sister and dolls if she's on restriction from electronics.

It literally has. Well, maybe not quite 2 years, but the average age at menarche has been steadily decreasing for decades, and it's not slowing yet.

[Northwestcoug]

Anybody read the Friend article in question? I can't believe this made it through the editorial process:

Lexie casually waved her hand. “It’s not a big deal. I mean, that modesty rule only really matters when you’re older.”

Stacey began to feel a little hopeful. Maybe Lexie was right. It wasn’t like it was that immodest. Besides, the wall of shirts she stood in front of had only a few modest shirts, and none of them were very cute. It would take more time to find a shirt that looked good and had sleeves.

Stacey was about to pick up the shirt to try it on when she noticed she felt uncomfortable. She knew what she was about to do wasn’t right and that the Holy Ghost was warning her not to do it. She knew that dressing modestly was an important way of respecting her body and being a good example.

I didn't realize it was the holy ghost's business to shame and sexualize prepubescent children.

[pellegrino]

It literally has. Well, maybe not quite 2 years, but the average age at menarche has been steadily decreasing for decades, and it's not slowing yet.

why is that, woot?

[Indy Coug]

why is that, woot?

The culprit I've heard is the hormones we feed milk cows, but I'm not vouching for the veracity of that claim.

[Mrs. Funk]

why is that, woot?

The theories vary, but the most logical explanation seems to be combination of environment, genetics, and exposure to parabens.

[pellegrino]

The culprit I've heard is the hormones we feed milk cows, but I'm not vouching for the veracity of that claim.

I've heard that too, but I believe it's overstated, especially because most dairies have moved away from using rBST to boost milk production.

[Pheidippides]

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

Bingo. You don't wear cut-offs to a wedding reception, for example, unless you live in Kentucky or Arkansas.

[clackamascoug]

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.

Interesting things about "I Saw Her Standing There."

PBW'er as usual comes through in the clutch about something arcane as a line in a 50 year old song. Amazing.


Composition [edit]

The song was a Lennon and McCartney collaboration based on McCartney's initial idea^[1]. Originally titled "Seventeen", the song was apparently conceived by McCartney while driving home from a Beatles' concert in Southport, Lancashire ^[2] as a modern take on the traditional song As I Roved Out, a version of Seventeen Come Sunday that he had heard in Liverpool in 1960.^[3]The song was later completed at his Forthlin Road home with Lennon.^[1] McCartney later described in Beat Instrumental how he went about the song's composition: "Here’s one example of a bit I pinched from someone: I used the bass riff from 'Talkin’ About You' by Chuck Berry in 'I Saw Her Standing There'. I played exactly the same notes as he did and it fitted our number perfectly. Even now, when I tell people, I find few of them believe me; therefore, I maintain that a bass riff hasn’t got to be original".^[4] The lyrics were written on a Liverpool Institute exercise book. Remember, a book by McCartney's brother Mike McCartney, includes a photograph of Lennon and McCartney writing the song while strumming guitars and reading the exercise book. It was typical of how Lennon and McCartney would work in partnership, as McCartney later commented: "I had 'She was just seventeen,' and then 'never been a beauty queen'. When I showed it to John, he screamed with laughter, and said 'You're joking about that line, aren't you?'"^[2] "It was one of the first times he ever went 'What? Must change that...'"^[5] The songwriting credit on the Please Please Me liner notes is "McCartney–Lennon" which differs from the more familiar "Lennon–McCartney" that appears on subsequent releases.^[6]
Recording [edit]

The song was recorded at EMI Studios on 11 February 1963, as part of the marathon recording session that produced 10 of the 14 songs on Please Please Me.^[7] The Beatles were not present for the mixing session on 25 February 1963.^[8] It was not common practice for bands to be present at such sessions at that time.
On the album, the song starts with a rousing "One, two, three, four!" count-in by McCartney. Usually, these count-ins are edited off the final audio mix. However, record producer George Martin wanted to create the effect that the album was a live performance: "I had been up to the Cavern and I’d seen what they could do, I knew their repertoire, and I said 'Lets record every song you’ve got, come down to the studios and we’ll just whistle through them in a day'".^[9] Martin took the count-in from take 9, which was considered 'especially spirited'^[5] and spliced it onto take 1.^[10] Music journalist Richard Williams suggested that this dramatic introduction to their debut album was just as stirring as Elvis Presley's "Well, it's one for the money, two for the show…" on his opening track, "Blue Suede Shoes", for his debut album seven years earlier.^[11] In addition it also made the point that the Beatles were a performing band as, at that time, they opened their live set with this song.^[12] On the first American release of the song, issued on Vee Jay Records, the count was edited out—but the "Four!" is still audible.
The full take 9 version of the song appears on the Free as a Bird CD single as a B side, released for the first time.

[woot]

I've heard that too, but I believe it's overstated, especially because most dairies have moved away from using rBST to boost milk production.

Nobody knows, really. It seems to be associated with better nutrition (well, increased calories, at least), obesity, and increased stature (across populations, not in the same individuals). It also has been demonstrated to be affected by PCB and/or PBB intake (I forget if it was both or just one that was confirmed; this is pretty far from what I normally study), but it's hard to think that that's the main driver of the trend. Environmental estrogens or pseudo-estrogens of all kinds (including PCB and PBB) have been implicated, but I don't know how well-studied most of them are. I would guess it's multi-factorial; I do worry a bit that even if the influence of better nutrition wanes (we can't get too much more fed than we already are), that whatever portion is caused by more sinister influences might continue to chip away.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Another blog article:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/1...ss-immodestly/

For the last 50 years church’s teaching about modesty has connected exposed flesh with sexual temptation. Leaders have repeatedly discussed the effect women’s clothing choices have on men’s desires and counseled women to avoid revealing clothing. Unfortunately the connection between exposed flesh and sexual temptation has become so rooted in some quarters that all uncovered shoulders are considered immodest. Let’s be clear about this. The Mormon Church teaches little girls are immodest if they expose their shoulders because exposed shoulders have been linked to sexual temptation in the Mormon Church.