#63839 - Dress code

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/63839/

In light of this and this, I can't help but find this question incredibly depressing.

[UnluckyStuntman]

Katya, I really liked that first article - thanks for sharing the link. My mother was also quite the hippy when I was small, so nudity wasn't a big deal in my house growing up and we were taught to love and respect our bodies, not to be ashamed of them. I had quite the collection of sun dresses (of which none had sleeves) and spent my summers running amok mostly nude with my siblings and neighbors. Things changed though when I was probably around ten or eleven, and suddenly showing my shoulders was no longer okay. Sometime during high school the modesty rules were extended to include my thighs. I remember being completely baffled by the whole ordeal, and to be honest, it still doesn't make sense to me. I can see how being naked in public would cause problems (especially at my age), but I don't believe my shoulders or thighs are terribly offensive, if at all. I'd rather just wear something comfortable, without agonizing over the sleeve length or if people can see the top of my kneecap.

[Marduk]

I, for one, am offended by both your shoulders and thighs. Also, if you can wear sun dresses in public, then SO CAN I.

[UnluckyStuntman]

Marduk, you would look lovely in a sun dress. I don't think any of mine would fit you, but if you find one you like, you are welcome to borrow one of my fancy hats to complete the look.

On a side note, I was reading through the comments of the first article and found this one, which I thought was very interesting: (comment #10, for those who are interested)

"I think one problem we have is that we believe that garments equate with modesty, and we reverse-engineer that into what we think kids should wear. In fact, garments represent a covenant that our kids haven’t made yet. Modesty is important, but dressing as if we were wearing garments is not the same as dressing modestly. That is, it’s neither necessary nor sufficient–a person could be perfectly modest wearing something that wouldn’t cover garments, and a person could be entirely immodest while wearing something that wouldn’t show a hint of his or her garments."

[Marduk]

Best part of both articles: the first comment to the second post. Everyone's new word of the day: "engay."

[bobtheenchantedone]

I fully support Marduk's right to wear any dress he chooses.

[Sky Bones]

My daughter wore a sleeveless sundress to church today, and I thought she looked dang cute. So did a few other people who commented on it.

[TheBlackSheep]

Marduk, if you think Unlucky Stuntman would judge you for wearing a dress... You've come to the wrong place. Just saying.

[TheAnswerIs42]

You know, the topic of modesty in children came up in RS last week. They pointed out that training them began when they were born, and complimented one of the ladies who was standing up and bouncing her infant on how modestly her 6 month old was dressed. And all I could think was, so what? My three year old is wearing a tank top today. (We're home sick from church.) Currently, my standards for her consist of "did it cost 50 cents at a garage sale" and "does it not have stains all over it". She is not aware of what she is wearing very much, and certainly that baby didn't have a clue. Why on earth does it matter if I see a newborn's shoulder in public?

Now, obviously, there has to be a change made someday before going through the temple. So the question is just when. My RS obviously felt that it would be best to never have a change, and just train 'em young. I had a boyfriend in college who thought it was terrible when a girl had to change her whole wardrobe to go through, and to a certain extent I can see that. The day after you go in isn't the time to change everything. I think that YW need to dress modestly - using that term in the "not distracting the crap out of YM hormones and potraying themselves as sex objects" definition, not nessesarily the crisp definition. But a 6 month old? Really?

[Laser Jock]

Am I the only one who thinks the second By Common Consent post that Katya linked to made no sense? (Not hating on you, Katya, but I really don't see how Karen H.'s post demonstrated what she was apparently trying to demonstrate.)

[Yarjka]

Am I the only one who thinks the second By Common Consent post that Katya linked to made no sense? (Not hating on you, Katya, but I really don't see how Karen H.'s post demonstrated what she was apparently trying to demonstrate.)

I agree with you. I love the first article, though. Some great points there.

My daughter has worn sundresses to church without anyone saying anything except "Oh, she's adorable" or "Oh, she's so cute." Of course, she's only 14 months old.

[Whistler]

@LJ, yeah, the Karen H. article is baffling to me. Is it sincere? Is it tongue-and-cheek? I wonder the same of the comments. I liked the other article though. I have some shorts I need to get rid of, but I find myself having to consciously check my judge-o-meter when I meet someone in a tank top. Thinking things like "it is comfortable and I don't actually find it scandalous" help. Not something I'd wear myself outside, but that's okay.

Also, agreed on the modesty-is-somewhat-irrelevant for babies. Maybe when kids turn 13 they should ditch sleeveless? Eh, rather than have some arbitrary rule, it seems like families should help their children decide/understand the issue.

[Rifka]

I think the idea a lot of Mormons have about modesty has to do with preparation. Everything we do in the church in our early years prepares us to receive the blessings of the temple and worship there-- baptism, scripture study, etc. For me, modesty is another part of that preparation. Yes, it's probably true that a 2 or 3 year old doesn't pay much attention to what they wear. But, at what point do you draw the line. Won't it be harder to change wardrobes and explain that suddenly kids should wear more modest clothes when they haven't been doing it all along? Frankly, I can't think of many 13 year olds that would appreciate or even listen to their parents telling them they have to change their wardrobe styles. Teenage years are turbulent enough as it is-- that's one battle I would rather avoid by teaching my kids to dress "modestly all along. My personal feeling is that once they are old enough to walk, that's a good time to try to start paying more attention to things like shorts to the knee and shirts with clothes, etc. I can understand not doing it when babies are still crawling around because longer clothes get in their way and hamper them crawling. Once mobility isn't an issue, though, I see no reason not to start teaching them. After all, we don't tell kids they can drink beer or look at pornography right up until they go to the temple because they haven't made covenants yet. (I'm not meaning to equate wearing a tank top to looking at pornography-- I'm just using extreme examples to make my point.)

I noticed that in the book "A Holy Temple," by Boyd K. Packer, he says that "Only clothing that is immodest or extreme in style would be incompatible with wearing the garment. Any member of the Church, whether he or she has been to the temple or not, would in proper spirit want to avoid extreme or revealing fashions." (pg 75) In other words, members of the church should dress modestly whether they have been to the temple or not, and only immodest or extreme styles would not be compatible with wearing the garment. So, if we want to be modest, whether we have received temple ordinances or not, we should avoid clothing that wouldn't cover garments if we had them. That's pretty strong wording coming from an apostle.

Also, I think it's interesting that the author of the first article was a woman. I have never seen an article like that written by a man. I'd be interested to see if any men have written in saying similar things (since generally one of the main arguments for modesty is to avoid giving men improper thoughts). And, the fact that she has been a member of the church for 9 years and hasn't yet been to the temple concerns me. It sounds like she has more to worry about than others commenting on her clothes.

[Rifka]

oops-- that should have said "shirts with sleeves" in the first paragraph, not "shirts with clothes." I need to spell-check before I hit Submit.

[NerdGirl]

I wore sleeveless tops and shorts that didn't come to my knees up until I graduated from high school. I didn't wear overly revealing tank tops and shorts, but I did wear stuff that wouldn't have covered temple garments because I had not yet made those covenants. Then I went to BYU and signed the honor code, so I stopped wearing them. Then I was endowed when I was 19 because I had a strong spiritual prompting that I need to do so. Even thought at that time I had been following the BYU dress code, there were still some shirts with sleeves I could no longer wear on their own (and there were also shirts that had what I thought would be too-short sleeves that ended up being fine). When my parents taught me about the temple as a child, they taught me that I would have the opportunity to make very scared covenants with God there and that I would be given the blessing of wearing the temple garment as a result of having made those covenants. I knew that the garment was knee length and covered the shoulders, but I was never taught (and do not believe) that the main purpose of the temple garment is to ensure modesty.

I know a lot of people who believe that ensuring modesty is the one and only purpose of wearing the garment, and I think that focusing on that to exclusion of all else causes them to miss out on the real blessings of wearing it. Without getting too personal or talking about things that are very sacred, I will just say that to me the garment represents God's constant presence in my life and my constant access to the atonement of Jesus Christ. I agree that there is a high probability that you will be dressed modestly if you are wearing something that would cover temple garments (if we define modesty as not wearing revealing clothing, which I think is an incomplete definition), but it is still possible to wear revealing clothing over temple garments. And I think that modesty includes wearing clothing that is appropriate for the occasion (like not wearing a fancy white dress to someone else's wedding) in addition to wearing clothing that is not revealing.

My definition of modesty is that what I am wearing should not take the focus away from what I have to say or who I am as a person. I think that if we really teach kids why they are preparing to go to the temple, and they see it is a privilege and a blessing to go and make covenants with God, then having to change their wardrobe to do so is not a big deal. And you usually don't have to give away all the clothes you own and start over. You can still wear tank tops under cardigans, and you can wear undershirts under things that don't quite have the right neckline to cover your garment tops. No "whole new wardrobe" required.

If teens understand that in the future if they choose to go to the temple they will no longer be able to wear sleeveless shirts and if they are taught to dress in ways that show that they respect themselves, then I don't think it is a problem for them to wear things that wouldn't cover garments. There are plenty of shirts with sleeves that still wouldn't cover garment tops but that no one would probably think were immodest if they didn't see garments hanging out of them (a lot of boatneck and square neck tops are like that), and if you wear shorts or skirts that come to your knees they still sometimes show your garments when you sit down. So you might still need to make wardrobe changes even if you only wear things that are knee length and have sleeves. It's sometimes hard to tell what will cover garments until you are actually wearing them. I just don't see the point of requiring kids to cover up what is for them imaginary underwear. It's much more important to teach them to dress in ways that show that they respect themselves.

[Dead Cat]

And on page 208 of the Gospel Principles manual...

[Yarjka]

Also, I think it's interesting that the author of the first article was a woman. I have never seen an article like that written by a man. I'd be interested to see if any men have written in saying similar things (since generally one of the main arguments for modesty is to avoid giving men improper thoughts).

I've never written an article like that, but I am a man and I do agree with her. But I don't generally get turned on by women's shoulders or legs. Some men do, I get that. But I get turned on by women's faces, so should all women cover their faces to protect me?

And, the fact that she has been a member of the church for 9 years and hasn't yet been to the temple concerns me. It sounds like she has more to worry about than others commenting on her clothes.

Really? I think she has been to the temple: see this post. I'm actually confused why you think she hasn't been to the temple. But in any case, I don't see why her not having been to the temple would permit you to judge her worthiness.

[Katya]

Am I the only one who thinks the second By Common Consent post that Katya linked to made no sense? (Not hating on you, Katya, but I really don't see how Karen H.'s post demonstrated what she was apparently trying to demonstrate.)

I agree with you. I love the first article, though. Some great points there.

The second article is part of a larger discussion on regulating what women wear. Sorry if it doesn't quite make sense out of context. (Some of the comments may relate more closely to the topic at hand, though.)

[Katya]

And, the fact that she has been a member of the church for 9 years and hasn't yet been to the temple concerns me. It sounds like she has more to worry about than others commenting on her clothes.

Wow. This comment pretty much proves my point on how quick we are to rush to superficial judgment.

[bobtheenchantedone]

The other Sunday my sister and I had to run home for something after sacrament meeting. We arrived back too late to join Sunday School, or at least we would feel awkward coming in for the last 1/4 of the lesson, so we stayed outside and had a lesson on modesty.

She made her prom dress out of duct tape and will tell anyone who will listen how jealous she is of the girls who don't have strict dress codes at their schools. (She goes to Provo High, right in the center of Mormonville.) Because of this dress code she had to make the skirt longer than she wanted to and add awkward sleeves to the bodice. Adding sleeves is pretty easy with a regular dress, but not so much when the dress is made out of duct tape.

In our lesson (or rather, discussion) of modesty, we came to one main conclusion: shoulders are not evil. Neither of us see anything wrong with wearing a tank top in public. It would have thick straps, and would not be too low-cut, and would not be too short, but it would show off shoulders. And we're perfectly fine with that. While we realize that would not be appropriate for someone who had been through the temple, we have not been through the temple.

I also see nothing wrong with my three-year-old sister dressing in a little bubble (covers the underwear, but none of the legs) or even going topless on occasion; she's only three! We are still teaching her modesty, though, by making sure she keeps her underwear covered and telling her it is not appropriate to lift up her skirt or strip in public.

This is one of those things that I look at in a line-upon-line manner. Start with the basics, and as they grow older slowly teach and require more and more. And then, once they are old enough, they can make their own decisions.