(Fair warning, dear friends, this blog post plagiarizes from
various Facebook statuses and comments I’ve posted over the last year or so.)
WARNING WARNING: EPIC MODESTY RANT FOLLOWS.
A couple of weeks ago, my ten year old daughter came home
from Primary with a printed copy of this June
2011 article from The Friend (a LDS magazine for children), in which four year old Hannah learns about the immodesty of sundresses and the importance of covering up her shoulders.
Her FOUR YEAR OLD SHOULDERS.
(I still don't understand why her Grandma sent her that sundress. Doesn't she know four year olds shouldn't dress like harlots?)
Her FOUR YEAR OLD SHOULDERS.
(I still don't understand why her Grandma sent her that sundress. Doesn't she know four year olds shouldn't dress like harlots?)
I have been boiling ever since.
Because I do not want my girls learning at church that it is inappropriate for a four year old to show her shoulders. A four year old’s shoulder is
not a sexual object. And that is precisely what we are teaching our children when we hyper-focus on modesty in this way. We are sexualizing
our little girls, in the name of teaching them correct principles.
(I know some people think that Mormon children should abide by Mormon adult modesty standards because someday, as adults, if they choose to wear garments, they will need to cover their shoulders. This, they believe, avoids any future confusion over changing standards. I'm personally not on board with that. I don’t believe changing the standards of what is appropriate to wear at various ages is confusing or difficult for children. Different ages come with different responsibilities. We don't make five year old girls wear bras because someday they will have breasts and we don't want them to struggle with that. They wear bras when it is appropriate to wear them. Our children are not simple minded, they can grasp that concept. But I know that's a common feeling, and hey, different strokes. But age appropriateness is not what bothers me the most about all of this.)
I am really tired of the way in which we try to make women responsible, through their clothing choices, for the behavior, thoughts, and spirituality of men.
(I know some people think that Mormon children should abide by Mormon adult modesty standards because someday, as adults, if they choose to wear garments, they will need to cover their shoulders. This, they believe, avoids any future confusion over changing standards. I'm personally not on board with that. I don’t believe changing the standards of what is appropriate to wear at various ages is confusing or difficult for children. Different ages come with different responsibilities. We don't make five year old girls wear bras because someday they will have breasts and we don't want them to struggle with that. They wear bras when it is appropriate to wear them. Our children are not simple minded, they can grasp that concept. But I know that's a common feeling, and hey, different strokes. But age appropriateness is not what bothers me the most about all of this.)
I am really tired of the way in which we try to make women responsible, through their clothing choices, for the behavior, thoughts, and spirituality of men.
Last month a friend in my
old Highland ward told me that the YW in her ward decided that they should all
wear shorts and t-shirts over their swimming suits at girls camp, EVEN WHILE
SWIMMING, WHILE ENGAGING IN AN ATHLETIC ACTIVITY, so that they would not
"tempt" the adult priesthood men in attendance.
Read that again. They are so worried about tempting the fathers of their peers, that they felt uncomfortable, AT GIRLS CAMP, wearing swimsuits while swimming.
This is what we've taught them, that men are unable to control themselves, that the sight of girlish shoulders and thighs will present such a great temptation that even stalwart men will be tempted beyond all imagination.
And that this is the responsibility of the young women.
Read that again. They are so worried about tempting the fathers of their peers, that they felt uncomfortable, AT GIRLS CAMP, wearing swimsuits while swimming.
This is what we've taught them, that men are unable to control themselves, that the sight of girlish shoulders and thighs will present such a great temptation that even stalwart men will be tempted beyond all imagination.
And that this is the responsibility of the young women.
Most of you probably heard about the BYU
Idaho
testing center skinny jeans debacle and about the incident where
a random guy at BYU walked up to a
girl (dressed in a perfectly modest outfit) he didn’t know and handed her a
note explaining that he felt she should rethink her outfit because it was
basically a spiritual hardship for him to have to see her. We are teaching our young men that it is acceptable for them to police the clothing choices of our
young women.
To quote one of my FB friends,
"My issue is that there are guys who think it's fine (even a righteous
duty) to go up to a woman they don't even know and harass them about their
clothing choice." We are teaching them that it is acceptable to blame
young women for their own sexual (and normal) thoughts.
Maybe these young men need to
be taught not to leer at young women in public. Maybe they need to be taught to
mind their own business. Maybe they need to be taught that they actually do
have control over themselves and are responsible for their own thoughts and
actions.
Because how on earth are these guys going to function out in the real world? Because, guess what, they WILL encounter attractive, shapely young women out in the world and will have to find some way to deal with it. It reminds me of the recent incident where a group of Orthodox Jewish men in Israel spit on an 8 year old as she was walking to school because they felt her uniform wasn't modest enough.
I think this is the natural result of spending so many years emphasizing hyper-modesty (instead of actual modesty in thought and action), dress, and appearance. We've now hypersexualized our young women to the point that a young girl wearing a perfectly acceptable and non-sexual outfit gets harassed at a church school. What's next, burkas for everyone?
Guess what guys, if your son can't control himself when he sees my daughter's SHOULDER, that's on your son, not my daughter.
As my Uncle Alan said, “The
irony of this fixation on modesty is that it only heightens sexual tension and
desire. The more of the body you cover
in the name of modesty, the more area of the body you sexualize. Why did Victorian men “swoon” when they
happened to see a bit of ankle or wrist?
Only because it was hidden. I
think it was Mark Twain who wrote that nothing was ever made less tempting by
forbidding it.”
And you know what? If my sons are aroused by attractive young
women, well – that just means they are NORMAL.
They are biologically SUPPOSED TO BE.
Isn’t almost EVERYTHING arousing to teenage boys at one point or
another? They have to learn to deal with
it. We can’t build up a whole
institution of body shaming designed to help boys avoid lustful thoughts and
adolescent erections.
All of this
modesty fixation makes me want to grab my 9 and 10 year old daughters and run
screaming into the wilderness. Because this is not what I want them to learn.
If we go to
church at all (and for this and a wide variety of other reasons I am starting to wonder if we should) I want her to learn about service, and honesty, and loving
others, and goodness. I do not want them to learn a cute little head,
shoulders, knees and toes activity they can do to ensure they are appropriately
dressed.
(I kid you not, I witnessed this in primary last year - it consisted of “touch your head – is anything showing? Touch your toes, is anything showing?” I wanted to blurt out “do a cartwheel IS ANYTHING SHOWING? FOR SHAME FOR SHAME”).
I do not want them bringing home articles about sundresses. I do not want them learning that they are walking pornography.
(I kid you not, I witnessed this in primary last year - it consisted of “touch your head – is anything showing? Touch your toes, is anything showing?” I wanted to blurt out “do a cartwheel IS ANYTHING SHOWING? FOR SHAME FOR SHAME”).
I do not want them bringing home articles about sundresses. I do not want them learning that they are walking pornography.
I want our
religion to strengthen them, not shame them.
And I do not
feel like that is too much to ask.
For now, I
preview the primary lessons online. And when the lessons teach them to be
ashamed of their shoulders, we go hiking in the mountains, in shorts, and flex
our muscles and feel strong. When they come home feeling guilty about
tank tops, we talk about how some people have silly ideas about
shoulders, but God doesn’t actually care if your shoulders are showing. He made your shoulders for holding up your
arms and there is nothing shameful or sexual about them.
And then I go in my room and stomp
around and shake my head and ponder whether or not I want my kids learning this
fundamentalist craziness.
And I wear tank tops around the
neighborhood, out of spite.
(I KNOW. THE DEVIL
CLEARLY HAS ME IN HIS HOT FIERY GRIP.
You don’t need to leave a comment clarifying that.)
PS: Please do not
tell me to pray about this. If you think I haven't done that already, you are crazy. The fact that my answers don’t match up with the answers you expect me
to get doesn’t mean I’m doing it wrong, or that I’m full of sin. I know that is hard for some of you to wrap
your mind around. You can go ahead and
believe that, I don’t mind. Or you can pray
for me, that won’t hurt my feelings either.
You just can’t comment about it here. Also, please don’t tell me that
this isn’t a significant issue. It is significant to ME.
(Comments are now closed.)
(Comments are now closed.)
These types of issues are a significant part of why I had a crisis of faith and my family no longer attends church. I don't want my daughter to see herself as inferior in any way, she's going to get enough of that from society in general, I don't need her thinking it's from God. I also don't want my sons to think that girls are to blame for anything sexual or that sexuality is bed. Unfortunately (at least in the Mormon Belt)this is VERY prominent at church.
ReplyDeleteAmen and amen.
ReplyDeleteAmen. I couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteOH MY GOSH I COMPLETELY AGREE! My brother in law freaked out when I bought my then 3 month old niece a two piece swimsuit for her to wear to her first trip to the pool. He freaked out and said no daughter of his would wear a two piece suit and that was that. So my sister and I took her inside, got her dressed in her new suit and told him to shove it. A 3 month old is not sexy and will never be sexy. Nor will this affect the way she views her body because SHE IS THREE MONTHS OLD!
ReplyDeleteI like the way you are handling this. Go Sue go!
My modesty issue isn't so much about specific body parts, but about the whole "look." Does my kid look like a teenager in that outfit? Then no, we will not wear it. Does my kid look like a woman in those shoes? Then no, we will not wear it. And for my tall but super skinny 7YO, tank tops and sundresses often gap and show her nips. So no, we are not wearing those, for the most part.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as temple modesty in the future, I NEVER EVER EVER wore tank tops before I went to the temple, but I still had to get rid of some of my clothes. Such is life.
Exactly La Yen, I follow the same philosophy. I've had arguments with my hyper modest daughter about clothing. A few years ago she wanted a dress that had sleeves and went to her knee, so she deemed it modest. The fabric and the style were too grown-up looking and the ruching on the bust made it look like boobs. Trying to explain that it wasn't appropriate was frustrating. But trying to get her to wear a tank top while attending bike camp in 80 degree weather? Forget about it, she was not having it. It's taken a few years of deprogramming on my part to get her to be reasonable about these things. And she's only 11. It starts really early at church and I'm so over it.
DeleteThank you so much for writing this!
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I wonder what role you think that the suppression of male sexuality plays in this "modesty" debate. I wonder if normal male arousal (as you point out) weren't demonized, if this false issue of female modesty wouldn't disappear. It is very clear in all recent medical and psychological studies, that male (and female) masturbation is not only completely natural but healthy. If our boys (and men) were taught this then they wouldn't be focused on trying to control what arouses them, but rather feel empowered that they have the ability to satisfy themselves in a healthy way. This post seems to point to the way that the educated and informed LDS population is moving in terms of their feelings on the issue: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2012/08/my-official-stance-on-masturbation.html?fb_action_ids=10151105034667505&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
ReplyDeleteThis is a different issue altogether. No, I didn't look at your links; but, it seems like you are saying that if they are aroused by someone, to go home and masturbate. So, in essence, they are still placing blame on the woman and using her as an excuse to get a fix on their own. Weird.
DeleteI did wear sundresses up until I was endowed. And my sons and daughter all wore shorts and tank tops, even to school. That is appropriate dress for children when it is hot.
Since I have read that article, I'll say that Ashley isn't saying that if someone is aroused by someone they should go and masturbate, it's about the guilt that someone feels for masturbating at all. The article is about masturbation from the point-of-view of a Mormon Therapist, and in gist, this Mormon therapist is OK with masturbation. It's the guilt that someone fees for masturbating that the therapist does not agree with, because we have conditioned our youth and adults to believe masturbation is evil, not a natural way to regulate our sexual desires.
DeleteI believe Ashely is saying If The Church allowed masturbation, then men and woman would be allowed to alleviate their own sexual desires in a healthy way and then they would not tend to hyper-sexualize the environment, or people, around them.
Relevant story: My husband and I took a trip to the beach, and he found that he had been lingering longer on some of the bikini clad women than appropriate. We are open and talked about it. He mentioned that he was pretty sure it was because we hadn't been able to have sex, because this was at the end of a family trip, and thus his body was more easily aroused.
Ashley's point is similar, if we allowed masturbation, and encouraged it in a healthy manner, than it can be used to help regulate a person's sexual desire.
Masturbation is wrong. The prophet, our mouthpiece for the Lord, says it is a sexual sin, so it is. Just because a "Mormon" therapist thinks it's healthy doesn't make it acceptable to the Lord. I can't understand why people can't just control their appetites. Isn't that what having a body is about? Not doing everything that's around just because you can and it's "healthy"? actually learning to control yourself even though it's difficult is why we're here. (my two cents)
DeleteI don't know about you Anonymous but I've masturbated plenty of times without guilt, mostly because I wasn't raised to be ashamed of my body, It never got out of hand and happend seldom but I never felt like I needed to talk to my Bishop about it, I just moved on with my life. I wasn't raised in the church I'm a convert and I recently got married in the Temple. We have a very healthy relationship sexually and emotionally and I feel it's because I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of sex. Sex is the most natural part of being a son/daughter of God, if we can't experiment with ourselves instead of feeling ashamed how can we be comfortable enough with our spouses? I believe it's a lesson we all learn about "appetites" and what's appropriate and what isn't'.
DeleteI was at the YW camp slideshow last night, and as they were showing all the pictures of the girls in their swimming suits, I thought of all those girls in your old ward covering up in t-shirts. I looked at our girls and the men in those pictures, those good, kind men. Then I thanked God I lived in a sane stake where our girls could go swimming without worrying about anything other than how cold the water was. It worries me how easy it is to take that extra step though. To go from a wear attire appropriate to the activity mindset to a modesty police state. I just hope that teaching healthy principles at home will help if (when) my girls run into distorted principles taught by well-intentioned people.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this -- I share your exasperation, frustration, indignation, etc., etc. I don't have the gift of eloquently expressing my opinion - and very much appreciate when someone else does and I can say "DITTO what she said!" : )
ReplyDeleteAnd I loved your P.S. - there are many that want to dismiss this by deflecting it all back as a weakness in you (and in me). But it's not. Thank you for boldly stating your truth. I admire it greatly.
Thank you for putting this together in a way that (hopefully) makes clear the absurdity of all of this modesty rhetoric to those who still don't get it. Covering up more doesn't do anything except change the body part that is sexualized. When will the craziness stop??
ReplyDeleteThis perversion of the concept of modesty (which to me really has nothing to do with hemlines, sleeves and body parts) makes me livid. It makes me want to buy a bikini (actually, I did) just to defy the ridiculousness of it. And thank you for acknowledging that it's completely normal for teenage boys to get turned on by almost anything. My husband has told me tales about adolescent arousal that were hilariously awkward - he's the best man I know and if he says boys have no control over how they get "excited" then I believe him. Poor kids, we ride them WAY too hard. I ish the youth of the church were getting healthier messages.
ReplyDeleteI loathe the arguement that 4 year olds need to adhear to adult modesty standards because it will be easier to be modest as an adult. It doesn't make any sense. Adults don't get confused by changing standards. You make your choice one way or the other. Adults who convert don't have this confusion. They may not have been raised with our modesty standards, but they don't seem to have this problem those who teach 4 year olds that shoulders are bad seem to think chidlren will.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I agree with everything you wrote. I taught the modesty sharing time last month. The outline wanted us to discuss the standards listed in the For The Strength of the Youth pamphlet. I did not at all feel comfortable telling the primary children what they could and could not wear, especially since there are many girls that on any given Sunday are wearing a perfectly lovely and (in my opinion completely appropriate) sleeveless dress. Who am I to tell them that that is wrong? Especially when I don't think it is? So, I chose to focus on how what we wear affects how we act, basically that you wear nice clothes to church because it helps you behave more respectfully. I did a lot of searching around the internet and found many people's lesson outlines and many of them were just appalling, people using pictures of Disney princesses as examples of what is immodest and pictures of girls in knee-length, sleeved swimsuits as examples of what is.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as a mother of only sons, I cringe at the whole "boys aren't responsible for their own lusty thoughts because girls just need to cover more of their bodies" mentality. I want to teach my boys that they may have these thoughts, but if it's not appropriate to think them, they need to chase them out of their minds, not tell the girl they are in the wrong. But, unfortunately, what's often being taught to the girls doesn't reflect that.
I feel like there is way too much "these are the rules" going on in primary nowadays, and I don't like it. And unfortunately, some people seem to take it to the extreme when teaching their lessons. For example, this past week's sharing time was about viewing media that was pleasing to the lord. So, basically, watch and read things that make you feel good and happy. Some outlines I saw online (and these are ones people come up with themselves based on what is provided from the church) got into such nitty, gritty rules, and that's something I feel should be reserved for home.
"I feel like there is way too much "these are the rules" going on in primary nowadays, and I don't like it." YES. FMH recently had a post about how we are becoming a religion of checklists and rules, instead of a gospel of truth and love, and I totally agree.
DeletePreach it, sister!!! I agree 1000%!!!
ReplyDeleteAs a non-Mormon blog reader, I found this post fascinating. As an outsider looking in, it feels like you're breeding a message of body self hatred for young women at a time when they struggle with themselves already. I don't think it's ridiculous for you to make the choices for your own daughters' modesty {and the appropriate timing of teaching them} either.
ReplyDeleteEverything now days is a breeding ground for self hatred, male gaze, female gaze, television yadda yadda I think the people of our church are placing importance on things that aren't important, like having a 4 year old be modest.
DeleteMy daughter does wear shirts under her sundresses but it's more because her skin is very sensitive than that we're going for uber modesty. I think I've realized why we haven't been able to move back to Utah as much as I want to help my parents just from reading this post. I would definitely not be as nice as you are by stepping back. Sigh...
ReplyDeleteAlso, I seem to remember wearing tank tops & shorts (think 70's with it's uber short shorts although mine weren't that short) all the time. My dad was a bishop & didn't see anything wrong w/ it. Thanks for telling it like it is.
Yeah, I think things were a lot more relaxed back in the day. I was scrolling through the BYU archives, and one of the homecoming queens was wearing a sleeveless dress. The woman of the year had an off the shoulder dress. SCANDALOUS. But not really.
DeleteI really appreciate your thoughts! I"m a bit of a modesty person, but it is very helpful for me to read what you have experienced and your feelings about it. I have experienced NONE of what you have, I think, and I'm sure it's because I am so very, very far away from... well, from Utah. (or anywhere that has more than one 10 branches in an entire country). I only sort of disagree that covering the body in the name of modesty sexualizes it. I think that's a bit of reverse whateverism. My daughter doesn't show her super sexy (kidding) shoulders or wear short shorts, and I really don't think that makes all the boys wish they could see those shoulders. :) I think I understand what is meant by it, though.
ReplyDeleteMy comment may be a bit naive because I really live far from the mentality you describe. My thing is to really, really, really just do what you think is right and don't give much thought to how other people are doing it (once you're confident you're doing what is right for you). My daughter came back from the states and told me about how shocked she was at how some of the girls wore very immodest things to church. We had a long discussion on how you never hold somone to your own standards and assume they are making choices based on the things YOU think/believe/feel. We see people and we love them. Period. I wish modesty could be what I used to think it was: a personal choice based on ones own thoughts and feelings, and not a MAJOR STATEMENT TO THE WORLD OF HOW IN OR OUT OF TOUCH YOU ARE WITH WHAT IS RIGHT AND GOOD. And how much concern you have for the thoughts of those around you. Oh well.
This post really has been very helpful to me. I think you are quite right on most points :). And I assume you think it's okay that my daughter doesn't wear tank tops (because you're nice like that). For me this is a bit of a caffeine issue -- drink it if you want, don't if you don't want to but don't tell the other side they are evil/overzealous.
"And I assume you think it's okay that my daughter doesn't wear tank tops." Right on. I think if you want to make certain parenting choices for your daughter, that's awesome, and that's your right as a parent. What I don't want is other people teaching my daughter body shame and responsibility for other people's sexuality.
DeleteThank you. Exactly what I think of the whole "modesty" issue. If you want to see the logical conclusion of this kind of thinking, just look at the Arab world. Not the kind of society I want my granddaughters growing up in, that's for sure!
ReplyDeleteWell said Sue!!!
ReplyDeleteamen amen amen
ReplyDeleteI love this entire post. I don't think that it is a woman's (or a GIRL'S) job to control men's thoughts. I think we can teach our girls to respect their bodies, and dress in a way that reflects their character and spirit. I'm in my Primary Presidency now, and am very conscious of the things I'm teaching these young and impressionable minds.
ReplyDeleteI was going to share one of my own experiences with modesty, then remembered that I wrote a post about it a few years ago. It's easier to copy and paste. :o) http://amayzing-family.blogspot.com/2010/04/ive-got-it-covered.html
Thanks for being a strong voice and advocate for our daughters. And sons, for that matter.
Children should be taught at an early age about modesty. I have two boys and I'm teaching them to find a mate that dresses modestly. If a child learns early to cover up, it will be almost second nature. That's how I learned, and I didn't grow up LDS.
ReplyDeleteI have a daughter and two sons, and I respectfully hope that my daughter is never deemed not worthy to be a mate because she is wearing a tank top pre-temple.
DeleteSO MUCH LIKE.
DeleteI love this so much I want to be your sister wife.
ReplyDeleteThank you!!
I so agree with your comments. We had this discussion with the Young Woman during Personal Progress time and I was in the minority on the sleeveless issue. I want the choice to choose. Just like the world people in the church like to press and govern our every move. I want my free agency back!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd this happens in California too, not just Utah. I am sure it happens everywhere!!!!
My heart sank when I read the part about the girls at camp feeling like they needed to cover up for their fathers/leaders. How many of those girls are going to be distrustful of those good, faithful men now because they are not sure if those men can control their sexual desires around them? What is that going to do their feelings about men and future relationships with men? Aaack!
ReplyDeleteI think that girls should be modestly dressed (age appropriately, as you suggested). I don't think that a 4 year old's shoulders are scandalous and I don't think that teenagers (and adults) should wear bikinis. (Although, if I had my pre-baby body back, I'd be sorely tempted to, but that's my vanity speaking, which I think is part of why modesty is taught.) I agree with the comment above that children should not dress like teenagers and teenagers should not dress like adults. Boys are responsible for their own thoughts and girls should not be taught that it is their fault that boys can't keep their own thoughts clean.
A person's faith/religion/church experience is a very personal thing and I think that we forget that it is also and individual relationship each of us have with God. It is not right to judge others based on what their "take" is on it. We are free to worship as we see appropriate. I, personally, think that the LDS church will evolve. I think it is continually doing that, but it takes time because not everyone is open to the changes because they think that the church is the same "yesterday, today, and forever", which I do not think true. We've seen time and again when the church has changed policies/doctrine. The core Gospel is true and I think that people get that mixed up with the functioning of the Church. If you believe in the Gospel as the LDS church teaches it, then you believe that there are certain ordinances and expectations you must abide by in order to receive the fullest blessings. You must be baptized, go to the temple, you must take the sacrament and you must live your life in a manner worthy of these great blessings. The bare shoulders of a 4 year old are not going to keep her (or her parents) from receiving those blessings. These core things will not change, but just like us, I think the Church will continue to evolve. We must grow, learn, adapt, evolve, become better than we are. I think the Church will (and does) do the same. But it takes time and the circumstances have to be right.
Our responsibility is to make sure that our children understand the core Gospel and the requirements for receiving those ordinances and blessings. It is our job, as parents, to teach them according to the direction of the Spirit that we receive for our own families and to be examples to our own children of righteous, faithful saints as we understand it. We are not sheep. God gave us brains and blessed us with intelligence that He expects us to use. We are to pray and study (which I believe you have done) and come to a resolution through the Spirit. We shouldn't teach our 4 year olds that they are being naughty because they have a tank top on just because that is what is taught in Primary, which, by the way, is taught and led by people just like us, with their own strengths and weaknesses. We can't fault them for that. We can't expect them to always get it right because they are human. Even the Prophet is human.
I so admire how you critically think and pray about these issues and what they mean for your children and what you think is best going to help them succeed and become wonderful, bright, healthy, confident children. I have never really thought about things like modesty as you do and I'm so grateful that you share your thoughts with us all. It opens my eyes and helps me to think differently. It is a tricky world we live in with so many wolves in sheep's clothing. We should never follow blindly and always use that intelligence we've been blessed with.
i never taught my daughter about modesty, but she seems to have arrived with a a modesty-chip pre-implanted. age three she's picking out a gift for a friend's birthday. friend likes barbies...so we go to get a barbie. she looks at one after the other and tells me "mommy, barbie isn't modest. i don't want to get a barbie for her."
ReplyDeletewhat?!?!
where the heck did she learn that...it wasn't in nursery because her dad was the leader and i know he didn't mention it. and i was primary president. she's always been like this. so my challenge has been to teach her she's fine living by her own standards, but what is absolutely not okay is expecting anyone else to do so, nor is judging them for their choices. that's an ongoing lesson, but one that i think it absolutely essential (not just regarding modesty, but all aspects of life). being appalled at another's choices in matters of attire isn't an acceptable response. i want her to see the person and love the person and not worry about the rest. agency is such a beautiful thing.
and as for the boys and men. i agree with all you stated...despite having a molester brother and father who were active members when i was growing up. nothing i did/said/wore was responsible for the their actions. not one bit. it had nothing to do with me, really. we can't live life in fear of what might happen, what thoughts we might inspire in another. they're responsible for their own choices and they will be accountable for them one way or another. i teach my son to love himself and respect others, and help him see what that looks like and how it's manifest in his life. that is all.
please keep hanging on with church when you can. it needs your voice, sue! ♥
I think the extreme to which modesty has been taken is damaging. If you think a cap sleeve is going to prevent a 15 year old (or a 40 year old) boy from thinking impure thoughts, you are being lied to by the men in your life. Men think about sex. It's what we do and there is nothing wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteThe church clearly teaches that young women, and even kids, showing shoulders or wearing two piece bathing suits is immodest. Many of you on here seem to be members of the church, some in leadership positions, who think that these teachings are incorrect and even damaging. How do you reconcile this in your minds? We are taught that the church's teachings are perfect and from God and yet you say that this is wrong? Does this mean you do not believe the church is what it says it is? For the record, I don't believe the church is what it claims to be so I don't have a problem saying that this is one of their misguided teachings.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here but honestly wondering how members can disagree with teachings of the church but still testify that "the church is true."
We are a church built on asking hard questions and deciding for ourselves what is right. We may have lost that some over the years, but it's coming back. Thank goodness.
DeleteOh Sue, thank you for posting that. We had the same lesson (well, obviously) in Florida, and being the Primary Chorister I was singing with the nursery when my 3-year-old Sunbeam was called to the front of sharing time for critiquing of her sleeveless dress (put a cardigan over it, the Primary President said). I heard about it from another parent afterwards, and still see red when I think about it. And yeah, we had the same head-shoulders-knees-toes thing in a primary talk earlier that day.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I have done the thinking and praying, and my own conclusion is that the garment is a symbol of a covenant, NOT a proscriptive on forbidden parts of the body. And hence said 3-year-old is prancing around topless in the house right now because her negligent mother never managed to get a top on her after the PJ's came off this morning.
The primary president is unfortunately my facebook friend, though, so I mute my rants and thank heaven for like-minded individuals like you.
Joy, you are my hero for muting your rants. If someone had dragged my innocent little 3 year old was chastised for wearing a sleeveless dress, I would be on the warpath. I am seeing red for you.
DeleteAgreed. I have been thinking about this comment all day! If someone had done that to my child, I truly would have lost it.
DeleteWow. How awesome are you?
ReplyDeleteI was raised by a mother who believed in teaching complete modesty from about the age 3 onwards. I feel uncomfortable if the sleeves of my t-shirt are too short. I can't even bear to wear a knee length skirt in case it slips up when I sit down or something. In short: I have ISSUES.
I want better for my daughters, and I struggle between how I was raised and what feels right in my heart. Thank you for having the courage to express your beliefs so firmly, and so articulately. I've recently allowed my children to wear shorts that are not down to their knees and, gasp, sundresses, and I feel okay about it, but I know it makes my husband uncomfortable. After reading this post I feel like I can put my thoughts into words so much better. Thank you, Sue. This is something I've really been struggling with lately.
Brave and beautifully written. Thank you for this. I left the church a few years ago when my daughters started coming home with these messages. I want to raise strong, confident, unashamed girls and I fully believed I could not do so while raising them within the church. I miss it, but I feel I made the right decision. Thank you for so honestly and intelligently sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteAmen. I think a major side effect of teaching children about "modesty" is that they get introduced to sexuality WAY too early, and it makes it seem like other children (boys) and grown men leering at primary-aged girls is normal and expected. That just makes me feel sad and kind of icky. :(
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree. Americans are so mixed up and weird about stuff like this. I think it is so gross when I see little girls in sexy looking outfits. Little girls should be able to be little girls - period. They shouldn't feel like they should have to diet or be overly modest or concerned about their clothing in any way. And boys too (including my 3 sons) need to be taught to treat girls with respect and not try to dictate to them what they should wear or not wear. This isn't the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand though, we used to have a pair of teen girls at our (non-Mormon) church who used to dress is a very sexy, very revealing way, and I have to say, I rolled my eyes at them and thought a few uncharitable thoughts. Treating your body with a little respect is a good choice, but they weren't my children, so it wasn't my call. That's how I see it.
PS: The Olympics? Oh my good granny! I found out WAY more about both the male and female athletes than I ever wanted to know. Yikes! Whatever happened to track shorts and normal bathing suits? Guess that's gone the way of the dodo...
If I had an award to give out, I'd be handing it over for this post...
ReplyDeleteThank you! I'm really struggling right now with being in the church but not of the church. This gave me a lot to think (and pray) about as I continue to grapple with some issues.
ReplyDeletehttp://scorpionsojourn.blogspot.com/2012/02/begin-each-day-as-if-it-were-on-purpose.html
You are going to hear all kind of crap at church that has nothing to do with the gospel, that is the nature of a lay leadership. From folk doctrines to covering up normal bathing suits with extra layers, people are going to embellish their beliefs in bizarre ways.
ReplyDeleteTeach your children critical thinking skills, along with developing a personal relationship with the Lord, and 95% of these problems will be solved. I knew that if I ever heard anything at church that didn't sit right with me I could ask my parents. I was challenging primary teachers at age 8. These kind of "modesty" discussions, along with all sorts of other ones, never made an impact on me.
You know I like to dress well, and to wear things that look beautiful; that is a direct resort of instruction from my mother about choosing clothing that fits and flatters, as well as is appropriate for the occasion. "Modest" wasn't part of the discussion.
You are the front line on this and any other discussion. Your children will be encouraged by your attitude. They will grow to understand from your example that they do not need to take everything on the word of another, just as flawed, human. I love you to a million, but empower your kids, don't just remove them. I know you'd rather avoid the issue, but unless you confront it head-on when it counts, you're just perpetuating avoidance as a coping technique. STOP THE CYCLE, SUE.
(p.s. I agree with all your arguments, SO THERE.)
Thanks for this response and the reminder to BE a critical thinker and to TEACH critical thinking. Unfortunately, too often the approach is "submit, leave, or die" and critical thinking is NOT encouraged. I'm really struggling with this aspect of the church right now. The gospel is true. The church? Is true to the extent that its members get it right.
Delete"The church is true to the extent that members get it right."
Delete?
I believe it is the prophets and apostles who are teaching modesty as well. Do they not teach the doctrine of the church and gospel? It doesn't sound to me like anyone commenting here believes that the leadership of the church speaks for God.
I absolutely believe that the prophet and apostles speak for God. I also believe (and know) that men are called of God. MEN. Who are subject to their own beliefs, pride, weaknesses, and such. Unfortunately, they don't always get it right and the teachings get sidetracked or diluted. That's my own belief. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree.
DeleteOh, Anonymous, nice to meet you again.
DeleteOf course I, and probably most of the commenters here, support the church's leadership. However, there is a lot of gray area between the prophet, the apostles, and what gets repeated at the ground level.
I don't remember any prophet telling us that little girls in sleeveless dresses are immodest (feel free to contradict me on this point.)
I can't recall a single passage in the D&C that calls people wearing shorts above the knee to repentance. Everything I hear from the brethren is measured, thoughtful, and carefully communicated with love and open hearts. Contrast that to my young women leader who told us through sobs that we shouldn't call butts our butts because "butts are a piece of meat."
So much of what we encounter day to day has absolutely NOTHING to do with doctrine. I would hope that each of us has developed a relationship with the Lord that allows us to discern culture from doctrine, supporting our leadership while seeking our own confirmation.
That's fine that we don't agree.
DeleteWe are taught in church that the prophets and apostles will never lead the church astray. Yet, in this instance, we agree that they have. I'm just trying to make sense of it myself and find out how others reconcile that contradiction.
Anonymous, I don't know how you reconcile it.
DeleteI think about this a lot. In my more faithful moments, I recognize that if God leads this church, He necessarily works through humans. Humans are full of crap a lot of the time. We've had plenty of racist leaders. Previous prophets have said astoundingly hateful and ignorant things about other races. At the time the things they said were fairly normal. Now we look back on those things with embarrassment. We excuse it because those men were the product of their time and culture. (And I think that's how we'll look back at our current treatment of gays, but that's a whole nother post.) I guess IF you believe the church is led by God, then I guess you have to believe that the church was never seriously derailed by their imperfection/racism/bigotry, over the long-term. And prophets throughout scripture have behaved pretty badly in many cases.
In my less faithful moments I just think they aren't actually particularly inspired or called of God at all.
"Everything I hear from the brethren is measured, thoughtful, and carefully communicated with love and open hearts." Well obviously Carina, you have not been reading much Boyd K. Packer lately. WHAT.
DeleteThe only time, that I'm aware of, that the Prophet or First Presidency has addressed specific modesty guidelines is in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. Yes, they talk about the importance of being modest in dress and acts, but no specific guidelines have been laid out except for in that pamphlet. And that pamphlet is aimed at the youth aged 12 and up and NOT primary children. Most of the examples that people are speaking of here result from people putting their own spin on things. Thus, we are brought back the common phrase - "the gospel is perfect, the members are not". The Friend has started putting some modesty stuff in there (like the story Sue mentioned), but that isn't scripture. Again, it's just someone's experience/thoughts/opinions.
DeleteHAHAHA! I nearly put "Almost" on that response because of Packer's latest kerfuffle, but then I remembered a pretty great interview with a gay member of the church on Radio West where he explained that he reads love into Packer's statements for a number of reasons. It actually changed my thoughts on the statements. But I don't want to derail this discussion.
DeleteThis is hardly a gray area. We are not talking about the isolated rantings of an overzealous local leader. The modesty thing was an approved lesson in the manual for Primary. The manuals are all approved by the apostles. I have always been taught to teach from the manual so that we don't end up with false doctrines being spread. Now, I find myself in a position where I disagree with the manual. That's what I'm trying to understand. I'm an active member of the church but find myself questioning now what the church is teaching.
DeleteI agree with you Anonymous. There are many, many ways in which this mindset is institutionalized, including in the church approved curriculum.
DeleteI know that we like to say, "that's not the gospel, that's not canon" and therefore we don't have to believe it. I think that's splitting hairs. I don't care if it's in the official canon, it is included in the manuals and suggested lesson plans that are taught to our children. That's almost worse than if it was in the scriptures. If it was just in the scriptures, nobody would read it anyway. (Ha, I'm KIDDING, I'm KIDDING.) (Sort of.)
And a lot of the manuals are just awful. I'm glad they're online though, it lets me know exactly when it's time to go hiking. Because yes, I can teach my kids to think critically about what they're taught, but they're just kids. They absorb the culture around them. I'm not going to knowingly subject them to crazy talk lessons.
Oh carina. I love you much. What a great way to comment on this mess of a discussion.
DeleteThis has been a great, honest discussion. The fact that it doesn't conform to your particular world view doesn't make it a mess.
DeleteMost of the comments, even those dissenting, have been respectful and thoughtful. Nothing message about it.
DeleteCarina -- I think we might be mind-melded.
DeleteBUT IF YOU WEAR FLIP-FLOPS TO CHURCH YOU ARE GOING TO HELL.
ReplyDelete(I heard.)
ReplyDeleteKimberly, if your children wearing shorts that don't come to the knees or sundresses makes your husband uncomfortable, you need to find out why. Is it because he's afraid of what the neighbors will say (tell him to get over it), or because it makes HIM uncomfortable. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but after an experience a friend had with her ex-husband, that statement just jumped out at me. As for the blog post itself: Amen. There was a guy in my singles ward years ago who told my roommate that he couldn't be around her. Why? Because he'd talked it over with his mother and decided that my roommate dressed too provocatively and it made it too difficult to control himself. (Yeah, he still lived with mommy.) I admit that I, personally, think her blouses may have been a little tight (but hey, everyone has their own style), but for him to blame her for his inability to control himself was out of line. Yes, men think about sex a lot, but it NOT the female population's responsibility to to help them deal with it. Just like women can't blame men for all their hurt feelings/heightened emotional state. It's HORMONES, people. And they're totally normal. And your own personal responsibility, no one else's. I feel sorry for those young women who have had modesty (in the name of not putting ideas in a man's head) shoved down their throat to the point where they think they can't wear just their swimsuit to swim in. I had friends who were shocked when I bought a 2 piece swimsuit (a tankini). They told me "You said you'd never buy a 2 piece!" Um, no, I said I'd never buy a bikini. I (personally) don't feel they cover enough to make ME comfortable, and they certainly don't give enough support to 'the girls.' But the 2 tankinis I've purchased in my life cover far more than my one pieces ever did. People get too wrapped up in the letter of the law and need to stop making everyone who follows the spirit of the law in their own way feel bad for it. Like that guy from BYU who gave that note to the girl. I think he may need to have his eyes checked, because the poor girl he harassed was covered from head to toe. And it makes me sad that the editor of The Friend would accept and publish the story about 4 year old Hannah not being modest in a sleeveless sundress. Really?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that there is age appropriate (and activity appropriate) clothing. If we expected children of all ages to where clothes that are garment worthy, my one year old would be considered immodest 50% of the time. Is a one year old wearing a onsie considered immodest because he/she isn't wearing any pants? Of course not. And am I being immodest when I wear skinny jeans with long dress like shirts? Of course not. I didn't have to alter my garments in any way to be able to wear them. (This is all my opinion obviously. Others may feel differently)
ReplyDeleteI love LisAway's comment on how it's like the issue of caffeine. If your five year old is wearing a tank top and shorts that don't go to her knees, nobody has a right to scold HER or her parents. On the other hand, my sister in law wore shorts that were barely more than underwear until she got married at the age of 21. My mother in law (a stake president's wife) shrugged it off as "what kids wear these days". I don't agree with that but I try not to judge and I NEVER went up to her and told her what I felt she was doing wrong.
One of the great gifts we have from God is our agency. We get to choose our own actions (and what we wear) and so we need to let others do the same. We are also taught that it is very, VERY wrong to judge other people. Do you treat someone different because they smoke, drink coffee, don't attend any church, etc? NO! They are a child of the same loving God you are and you are no better than they are in His eyes.
I love the quote that says "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you."
I hate that these men feel like they can blame their weaknesses on innocent young women; the same way I hate when someone says to me, "You make me so mad!". I can never "make" someone mad. They did that all on their own! Take accountability for your actions people.
"He made your shoulders for holding up your arms and there is nothing shameful or sexual about them." Beautifully stated Sue. I think you are doing a fine job of raising your girls. I sometimes get worked up the same way you do about the stupid things people do in our church. I'm a lot like my dad in that way. He refuses to go to gospel doctrine because he can't stand listening to people argue over inconsequential things. He sits in the foyer and reads his scriptures instead. Despite my dad never doing his home teaching lessons (he believes in service, not preachy preachiness), skipping out on gospel doctrine, and often disagreeing with bishops and stake presidents, he is one of the best men alive. His testimony never wavers.
My little brother, who is on a mission, sent me an email after I asked him some doctrinal questions that were bothering me. He didn't answer a single one of my questions and instead just told me to "not sweat the small stuff". I found the dissertation and the answers I was looking for but I felt bad about making such a big deal about it. I think the same applies here. Tank tops? Small stuff. Grown men requiring the young women to swim fully clothed? Not so small stuff and totally totally wrong.
Sue,
ReplyDeleteI greatly appreciate what you've had to say. I've had issues with cultural attitudes of church members creeping into and being confused with doctrine for a while. My only thought, if I may be a bit blunt about it, is that these important discussions are best had in audiences who can lend an analytical but sympathetic ear (such as RS or priesthood, ward councils, stake activities, and youth organizations). This post has only been up for a few hours, but already there are comments like "I left the church when..." I feel that there are things that need to be worked on within the church community; but a public forum like this tends to remove the essential nuances of the conversation and opens up a lot of room for those who don't know the church to misunderstand (accidentally or deliberately) and for those who left the church to justify their actions.
That said, keep up the good work of finding ways we can remove cultural distractions from the core of the beautiful gospel we know!
I'm sorry Sam, I really appreciate how respectfully and kindly you phrased that but I don't agree. Talking to the bishop, YW presidency, etc., behind closed doors, accomplishes nothing. Sure, I could vent to the bishop, but his response will be entirely dependent upon his personal point of view, his age, his background, etc. He has no power to change anything. (And of course, neither do I - but at least I can be open about how I feel and let others know that they are not alone in thinking this is all crazy.)
DeleteThe church has plenty of widely viewed web spaces where they can and do present things from their perspective. This is my space, and my perspective, and I don't speak for the church, I speak for myself. I am not particularly concerned about people misunderstanding what I say here, I think I have been perfectly clear. This is a problem, and I'm tired of sweeping everything under the rug.
And people are not using the church "to justify their actions". It is precisely things like this that CAUSE people to leave the church. I should know, between histrocity issues, issues surrounding how we treat women and gays, modesty issues, etc., etc., etc., I've been contemplating it for a long time, but I keep holding on. By the edge of my fingernails, but still. I try.
"For those who left the church to justify their actions?"
DeleteWe don't need to justify our actions, if I may be a bit blunt. Also these issues do creep into our lives whether we are "members" or not. Say I had a little girl who attends a predominantly Mormon school, and she wears a tank top and then is called "immodest" by another child. That makes it everyone's issue. I read just the other day about a 4 year old who didn't want a sticker of Princess Jasmine because she 'wasn't modest.' 4 years old?! My mom used to get turned in to the bishop because she would wear her swimming suit with shorts covering it to do yardwork. So yeah, it's everyone's issue when you live in Utah.
To answer your statement seriously, sometimes those lesson manuals are ridiculous. Sometimes "church" literature is out there. Sometimes stupid crap gets published in the Friend. Sometimes I roll my eyes at the stories in the Ensign (not the teachings of brethren, but the editorial manipulations.) Like I said, the gospel is different and loving. Teaching children discernment allows them the capability to grown and maintain testimonies when they hear those outdated stories and personal takes that have nothing to do with the gospel. That stuff ISN'T in the scriptures, which is where our teachings should originate from. Anything that isn't from the canon is suspect.
ReplyDelete"This stuff isn't in the scriptures"? "Not the teachings of the brethren"? The Bible is full of anti-women themes, practices, and laws. The brethren, from early church to now, have also said hurtful, false, and degrading things about women, homosexuals, blacks, and others. I have moved from trying to see how the church can be right in the face of all its wrongs to looking at the world and determining what is right according to my conscience.
DeleteBURKAHS WILL SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS.
ReplyDeleteNo, THIS will solve all the problems:
Delete"A new trend of blurred glasses in streets of Israel is proving to be a strong weapon for ultra-Orthodox Jewish men who want to refrain from staring at women." http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-13/uk/33181491_1_ultra-orthodox-orthodox-jews-glasses
Ahahahahahahahaha!!!!
DeleteLOVE this. Love love love.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with this post. I wore tank tops through 6th or 7th grade, and shorts (not daisy dukes but still pretty short) through high school until my boyfriend made comments about them. I was so mortified--I had no idea boys "looked" at my legs.
ReplyDeleteMy beef with the pornography talk you linked to is that it is solely addressed to men. I wish the church would make the point that women have pornography problems, too, and it's not just romance novels. I also was up in arms about Sis. Dalton's "Guardians of Virtue" talk--young women are guardians of their OWN virtue and NO ONE ELSE'S. What kind of burden is that to put on a young woman--that she has to keep not only herself clean, but also all the young men of her acquaintance? We as women are not "guardians" of any virtue but our own.
I can't believe there was a Primary lesson on modesty where some teachers solely focused on dress. How sad that we've taken that beautiful, multi-faceted virtue and reduced it to cap sleeves and knee-length shorts.
Love love love this.
ReplyDeleteI am pleased as punch to not have to pass this shit onto my 3 year old daughter. Yay for no body shaming!
I read this post after seeing it posted on a friend's facebook wall, and it made me think. I agree that it's always wrong to tell girls they are responsible for the thoughts of anyone else or to make them feel badly about their bodies--they are wonderful gifts from God meant to make us powerful. While I think modesty can be (and sometimes is) taught in a sexualized, shaming way, my own experience at church and in my family has been one of respecting the gift of our bodies, being aware of (and to the extent possible, in control of) the messages we send with our bodies, and not using/abusing our bodies to get attention.
ReplyDeleteOur society/media/toys/etc. teaches girls very early--yes, even at 4 years old--that their best bet at getting attention from either gender is to sexualize their bodies by wearing less and showing more and dressing outrageously, and I don't feel it's inappropriate to try to counteract that message when they are young. I think it's our responsibility as parents to lovingly teach our children to dress in a way that shows respect for their bodies in a non-sexual way when they're young. Setting a standard for wearing sleeves (girls and boys) doesn't have to sexualize if it's about preparing to go to the temple someday, and wearing tank tops doesn't have to sexualize if it's not about being counter-cultural or getting sexual attention.
That said, the power of a body (male or female) includes sending messages about ourselves to the world with the way we dress, both sexual and otherwise. At some point, most girls *want* sexual attention, and everything in the world tells girls to use the way they dress their bodies to send the message that they want sexual attention *rather* than respect and love. Some girls get to this point later than others, some are more skilled at interpreting and sending these messages intentionally, and it's a parent's responsibility to help them send the generally socially-readable message (which will look different at different times and places) that they respect their bodies and themselves whether they notice their sexuality or not. Most of all, we need to teach that they and their bodies are wonderful, powerful, and good and give them plenty of good attention.
I get your frustrations. Most of us aren't very good at being parents or being church leaders or teachers--we don't do it because we're good at it. There are lots of mistakes, despite good intentions and lots of inspiration (that not everyone follows through on). And sometimes what's good for one family or ward doesn't work for another (like wearing clothes over bathing suits doesn't make any sense for most of us, thus it's not a church-wide policy). But I don't believe there's a systematic plan to shame girls about their bodies, and there is a concerted effort to help everyone respect and care for their bodies and spirits.
I'm a former member of the LDS church who lives in Sandy, Utah, and I wanted to thank you for how lovely and refreshing your blog post was to read. Even though I'm no longer a member, I really appreciate LDS feminist views and how the women of the church are so strong and outspoken these days, while still adhering to what they believe in.
ReplyDeleteAmen!! When did everything become a list of rules vs. gospel principals like faith, love, charity? Ugh.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting. I am 37 years old and it has taken me almost my whole life to get over the shame that I have felt about my body that I was taught as part of my religious beliefs. I would be angry at myself because it was my responsibility to make sure boys didn't have a reaction to the way my body looked. I would wish to be a boy. It is an awful thing to teach young girls that they are dirty and shameful and responsible for someone else's choices (and a reaction is a choice). I left the church after a church court with a general authority in attendance determined that my uncle who had molested me and several of my cousins was deemed not at fault, and of course we girls carried the fault and responsibility. There is nothing shameful about a shoulder, and there is nothing dirty with a knee cap. It is shameful when community does not believe in EACH individual (male or female) taking responsibility for their own actions. Stand in your power as a mother. Thank you for speaking your heart out loud.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your thoughts! I'm a newly resigned member primarily because I didn't want my children (my 6 year old daughter!) to be brought up how I was.
ReplyDeleteI read this, drafted a comment, then forgot to post (until now). But I really do love this. Thank you for posting. If we want change, we need to keep on speaking up. And this speak-up is well-said, passionate, and spot on. Keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow! There's some fire for the Internet today. To me it's not a big deal, but I can see your point. My daughter wears sleeveless dresses to church but I feel guilty about it--not because of modesty but because she'll see pictures of herself in these as a teenager and use them against me. But I hav to say, I don't think it's fair for you to say that all boys are taught that it's the girls fault. I teach my boys that they are responsible for their own actions and feelings. My husband and his five brothers were taught the same thing, and as young men's president he is teaching it right now to 25 teenage boys. I think modesty is important for men and women, as taught by the LDS church, and not as taught by the LDS people. We get it wrong sometimes, but God doesn't. If He doesn't want me to show my shoulders, then I won't.
ReplyDeleteSue! I'm one of many readers who feels like we're already friends because i've been reading your blog since the days when everyone thought Cordy was a real girl (p.s. I'd still love the novel form of that story!). I identify with so much of what you write, the funny and not, the lighthearted and heavy. This post in particular though caused a visceral reaction and I just had to comment with a whole hearted ditto and thank you! If you're hell bound for your noon traditional LDS views and for questioning the Church as a whole, then so am i...I'll save a table for you there and we can do dinner someday ;-)
ReplyDeleteI really get annoyed with the argument that we need to make our children dress like they're wearing garments now because otherwise they'll never learn to and they'll be confused. It's so dumb. I wasn't endowed until I was 27. Growing up with a non-member father and a mother who was never endowed, I never saw garments until I got married at 21 and my RM husband wore them. Let me tell you, I had absolutely no confusion about my wardrobe when I switched over to garments. Yeah, they were difficult to get used to and I had to get rid of some clothes, but for the most part I was smart enough, without ever seeing female garments before, to be able to cognitively assess the difference in how I had to dress post-endowment.
ReplyDeleteAMEN and GOOD FOR YOU.
ReplyDeleteBody shaming is terrible.
Love you, Sue. Love love love. Love this post as it articulates some of the struggles I have about modesty regarding the clothing of my 5 y. o. daughter. As a Christian raising a little girl in our culture I have debated whether to let her wear halter tops and tanks in public; but I think you summed it up so well w/ the illustration about the bra! Thanks!
ReplyDeletep.s. btw, I love your blog and wish you would post more often and/or write one of those books you talked about for a while; i'd buy it! As a non-Mormon living in Western North Carolina, some of the Utah/ Mormon stuff is over my head, but you're so funny! and clean! and a delight to read! "Ghetto Pinata"? Genius!
DeleteTotally agree! Next step--hijabs, or haboobs, or whatever those monstrosities are the women must wear under Muslim rule.
ReplyDeleteI don't like gratuitously sexy clothing on little girls--which is something you ought to write about--or anyone, but that is also another post.
Guys, get a grip, physically if they have to, and get over it. I have 3 sons and am teaching them self control, no matter what the women are wearing.
As for Primary/Mutual teaching this, perhaps you ought to volunteer to teach it next time and open up a discussion?
I disagree with you but accept your right to believe what you believe and do so without adding guilt or remorse to my belief. I hope you can show the same respect for mine.
ReplyDeleteWow. Thank you for making me pause and think. As an active, wife of the bishop, Latter-Day Saint woman, I now think about this issue a little differently. I've bookmarked the post and intend to go over it with my husband, 4 & 6 year old girls, as well as my 6 year old son. Bravo.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI always find it very interesting to hear about lessons taught in Utah or other parts of the states in primary and YW. I have yet here in Idaho to have such lessons taught to our youth. I do recall the story you were referring to, and I did feel it was a bit much. This coming from me, the mom who doesn't allow sundresses with out a t-shirt. We chose not to let our girls wear tank tops with out a shirt underneath or two piece swim suits. But that was our choice. We do not push that on others. I would never tell someone else that their child is immodest. Maybe to them it is more modest than they grew up. I have a girl that was in my class last year in primary, the skirts she wore I would never let my daughter wear, but she thinks she is modest and comments about covering your body all the time. Her skirts are just to short for my daughter. Part of it is also my daughter is already taller than her and all leg. So short on her would be ultra short on my daughter.
ReplyDeleteI am always so sad to hear that member's well meaning lessons are over the top and offend others often driving them away from the gospel. Modest or not that is not what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about.
Hang in there, you children know Your values and are learning to respect their bodies from an incredible mother. Just keep that up and keep the lines of communication open with them and they will be just fine in their feelings about their bodies!
Great blog post!! I wish more members thought this way.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a refreshing point of view. I had to teach the modestly lesson in primary last year, and I have to tell you, it was torture. The worst lesson that I have ever taught, because I felt like I couldn't use a single word in the Primary outline.
ReplyDeleteIt really irritates me that modesty has become as big of an issue as it has. Shouldn't it be simple? Shouldn't we simply be teaching our CHILDREN (the boys and the girls) to respect their bodies? To treat them as the miracles that they are? And shouldn't everything just follow that? Instead, we spend our time teaching them that they are bad because it's hot and they didn't want to wear a cardigan. Seriously.
Love this.
ReplyDeleteModesty is an easy topic to get overly judgemental about because it is "measurable". You can judge how many inches above the knee , or classify a tank top, a spaghetti strap, or a sun dress. It is much harder to make a judgement call on someone's kindness, service, honesty and goodness.
And covering your swimsuit because the adult men, (who are asked to come to the activity as a leader and example) might have bad thoughts about the girls? What a creepy thought to put in the girls' heads. Are boys ever asked to wear a t-shirt while they swim? What a silly idea.
First of all, let me say that I think you have some valid points, and I think I understand the source of your frustration and the intent of your (self-described) rant. However, there are some fundamental issues that I think need to be pointed out. You essentially have 4 major points in this post, and each has a major flaw.
ReplyDeleteOne at a time.
1. The “we are sexualizing our little girls, in the name of teaching them correct principles” point.
“Because I do not want my girls learning at church that it is inappropriate for a four year old to show her shoulders. A four year old’s shoulder is not a sexual object. And that is precisely what we are teaching our children when we hyper-focus on modesty in this way. We are sexualizing our little girls, in the name of teaching them correct principles.”
Now this whole section (and the outrage that goes with it) is based on a vital assumption: that the reason we teach the principle of modesty to anyone is because to be immodest is to “sexualize” ourselves.
In other words, you are saying the reason immodesty is “bad” is because it inappropriately shares the sexuality of our bodies with the world. You imply this assumption by arguing that “a four year old’s shoulder is not a sexual object” therefore, it doesn’t matter if it is shown.
This is absolutely a false assumption. Modesty is not only about protecting our sexuality. It’s about respecting our bodies, and the gift that represents. And those are not necessarily the same things.
Taking this faulty logic a step further, one could argue that as long as one was unattractive, it would be fine to show your body. “No one is going to think this is sexually appealing, so I'm covered (figuratively in this case)”.
2. Changing standards issue
“I know some people think that Mormon children should abide by Mormon adult modesty standards because someday, as adults, if they choose to wear garments, they will need to cover their shoulders. This, they believe, avoids any future confusion over changing standards. I'm personally not on board with that. I don’t believe changing the standards of what is appropriate to wear at various ages is confusing or difficult for children.”
I think you have some really good points here, and I don’t know if I really have an end all solution. I would like to concede this point because I haven’t had to deal with this myself yet, but I still think that there is a principle that does not change with age, maturity level, or wardrobe availability. But I'll leave it at that.
3. Women being responsible for the behavior (etc. etc.) of men.
“I am really tired of the way in which we try to make women responsible, through their clothing choices, for the behavior, thoughts, and spirituality of men.
“This is what we've taught them, that men are unable to control themselves, that the sight of girlish shoulders and thighs will present such a great temptation that even stalwart men will be tempted beyond all imagination. “
Now is where we really get into some deep water. Because this again, is based on a faulty assumption: that the reason to be modest is because, if we are not, then it will tempt others.
This, again, is a false premise to base everything on. While it is A reason (for those weird people who want to be somewhat considerate of the people around them), it is not THE reason. If the only two people on the planet were husband and wife, it would still be appropriate for both parties to obey the principle of modesty.
I do not believe it is appropriate to suggest that women have responsibility for the behaviors, thoughts, or spirituality of men. If this were the reason for modesty, I could see why it would be offensive. However, women do have responsibility for their own behavior, and the effects of that behavior.
And finally this leads to...
the next post because this was too long.
4. “We are teaching our young men that it is acceptable for them to police the clothing choices of our young women.”
ReplyDelete“To quote one of my FB friends, ‘My issue is that there are guys who think it's fine (even a righteous duty) to go up to a woman they don't even know and harass them about their clothing choice.’ We are teaching them that it is acceptable to blame young women for their own sexual (and normal) thoughts.
“Maybe these young men need to be taught not to leer at young women in public. Maybe they need to be taught to mind their own business. Maybe they need to be taught that they actually do have control over themselves and are responsible for their own thoughts and actions.”
Now, it will be hard to not seem like a total jerk here (if I haven’t already done that), but this isn’t quite right either.
Before I say anything else about this, I don’t think it’s appropriate for men/boys to harass women about their clothing choice. I don’t think men/boys should blame women for their sexual thoughts. I don’t think it is acceptable for men/boys to leer at young women in public. And obviously we all need to have greater control over ourselves.
Here is the problem though: there are certain times, places, and situations where it is not unreasonable to expect a certain level of conduct or dress (such as a church school, a church building, the temple, or someone’s home that maintains those standards). And when you violate that standard in those places, it is not necessarily inappropriate for someone to say something (note I’m not saying it is always appropriate either).
For example, if I was walking down the street in NYC and someone was talking on the phone near me, cursing up a storm, I wouldn’t say anything. But if that same someone came into my home and was dropping F-bombs left and right, I would ask that person to respectfully stop.
I imagine the same would be true in those other locations. If someone started cursing like a sailor in a BYU classroom, I’m sure someone would speak up. Same goes for a Sunday school class, and certainly the temple.
Why? Because it doesn’t match the standards of the time/place/situation. And people in those places shouldn’t have to be subjected to it. It isn’t about making that person responsible for our behavior, it is about respecting the people around you, and their right not to be bombarded with that kind of talk.
Modesty, I believe, is the same type of behavior, in the sense that it doesn't just affect yourself, but those around you against their will. Sure men could just have more control, but that's not the point here. And if you don't get that, then anything else I could say about this probably won't change that.
And last thing: modesty is not meant for just women or girls. The same principle applies to men, for the same reasons. So this whole article, while it does have some valid points, seems to me to miss the mark about what modesty actually is all about entirely.
Oh dear. Michael, I completely disagree with almost every facet of your argument, but I am trying to get my kids ready for bed. I will be back later to explain why I disagree with you. And for the record, this isn't an article, it's a blog post. Sorry, pet peeve. BLOG POST.
DeleteSlip of the fingers!
DeleteI look forward to your response.
:)
Michael...
DeleteModesty for men is nowhere NEAR what women in the church go through, and I think we all know that. How many lessons did you have on dressing modestly so you didn't tempt the young women? Zero. If you don't believe me go to LDS.org and read all the lessons for the YM and then go read all the lessons for the YW and see the imbalance. It is absolutely ridiculous to even suggest that men somehow are held to the same levels of "modesty." Have you been called "Walking pornography"? NO. And its RIDICULOUS to blame women for your inability to control your thoughts and actions.
Seriously, I'm embarrassed for you that you completely skip over the HORROR of teenage girls feeling fear of grown men being sexually attracted to them because they are wearing swimsuits in public. Does that mean you admit to be a dirty old man who leers at young women? Because otherwise I would think you would be just as horrified to read that and THAT would be the focus, not your lame excuses to justify not being able to control your dirty thoughts.
DeleteA few things:
Delete1. I agree that these topcis are stressed more with YW than they are with YM. And there are lots of reasons for that, I won't list them. But I do suggest that we are held to the same levels of "modesty". The principle is the same for both sexes.
2. It is ridiculous to blame women for an inability to control one's thoughts and actions. Where did I imply that it wasn't?
3. Your second comment shows why you chose to remain anonymous. Let's try to class this up a bit. Is the personal attack necessary?
I'm really tired and honestly don't want to engage with you because your posts are incredibly condescending, but I will try. You really don't seem to understand (and to be fair, I don't know how you could really understand unless you'd sat through years of lessons, activities, handouts, conferences, and musical numbers all aimed at teaching you to be ashamed of your body) what a huge thing this is. What the YM are taught is nothing at all like what the YW are taught, so no, you really don't get it.
Delete"Now this whole section (and the outrage that goes with it) is based on a vital assumption: that the reason we teach the principle of modesty to anyone is because to be immodest is to “sexualize” ourselves."
Wrong. I'm not saying that is the reason we teach it. I'm saying that is HOW we teach it. That is what we teach. Obviously, obviously, OBVIOUSLY, that is not why modesty is important. But that's the message we send, the way we currently teach it. In other words, WE ARE DOING IT WRONG. We definitely tell little girls and young women in our church that if they show their shoulders, kneecaps, etc., they are sending a sexual message to young men. That is not what modesty SHOULD be about, but that is what we have made it about.
"However, women do have responsibility for their own behavior, and the effects of that behavior."
What exactly, though, are the "effects of that behavior"? Hmmm. So what if Michael has a foot fetish and he is aroused by all of the sandal clad women in Sunday School? Should we ban sandals?
"Sure men could just have more control, but that's not the point here."
Actually, it is.
This is exactly the kind of culture that creates the acceptability for Muslim men to throw acid, verbally harass, and physically assault women who don't wear their headdress or traditional burquas, etc, in public.
ReplyDeleteThink that boy handing the BYU a girl a note verbally harassing her wasn't that big of a deal? That's just one step. If men get to a point where mentally and spiritually they feel it is their right to shame women for their choice of dress, it will only increase the amount of hostility they are allowed to use against women in "the name of God."
This kind of teaching teaches men that women are the problem, they are to be scorned, feared, looked down on and reviled. Men can control their thoughts and actions...no matter WHAT a woman is wearing. They can choose to look away, walk away, turn the page, turn the channel, turn off the computer, and walk out of the theater if they so choose. But what they CANNOT do is tell the woman SHE is the problem!!!
If a man or woman walks into a Church meeting naked, they are the problem. While an extreme example, it illustrates the principle.
DeleteI understand your points:
- Men shouldn't be harassing women because of their clothing
- No one should be "shamed" for their choice of dress
- Men need to control their thoughts and actions
All of these points are correct. None of them address the real issue.
Michael-
DeleteTo your point #1: " Modesty is not only about protecting our sexuality. It’s about respecting our bodies, and the gift that represents."
How does a primary age child wearing a tank top not show respect for their bodies? What is disrespectful about that? What do you even mean by that? If I choose a certain style of dress for MY body, than I AM showing respect for myself. If I allow myself to be shamed or coerced into wearing something that I am not comfortable in, then I AM NOT respecting myself.
It doesn't illustrate the point. At all. It's a ridiculously exaggerated example that you're using to prove a point but it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.
DeletePoint #2: You go on to say that the things that Sue points out as reasons for modesty are not the Real Reason or the most important reason, but you never say what you think the reason is. I can only assume you think the real reason is to show respect for your own body. Again, how do you define that if it has nothing to do with the reaction of others to your modesty?
DeleteSorry, i meant point #3 on that last one. As you said, you had no point in point #2.
DeleteYour Point#4 is irrelevant because #1 and #3 are incorrect.
DeleteAnd, we are not talking about public nudity. We are talking about Mormon defined modesty.(tank tops, shorts above the knee, exposed belly buttons, etc)
Ladies (and a few gentlemen), just be careful that YOU aren't allowing cap sleeves to disgruntled yourself away from classes/meetings/literature that 95% of the time invite the Spirit and teach our families good morals on how to bring happiness into our lives. Agree to disagree and then let it go. Getting into too much of a lather can easily lead you to places where you originally didn't intend to go.
ReplyDeleteGood idea. Let's all stop thinking! That would be fine if the church claimed to be 95% true.
Deletethis is crazy - i thought i was from another planet because i've felt this same way (well, maybe without some of your passion). my 4 yr old doesn't want to wear tanktops. i thought for sure it was because someone at church said something... she has all these cute strappy sundresses that are ADORABLE, and she wants to wear a sweater over them. we live in texas, where i don't dress her that way because i want her to show her skin, but because it's freaking hot. we dress for the weather (and sometimes) fashion here, so sue me. i'm still not sure if someone said something to her, or she learned something in her class? i am all for modesty. all for it. but i wore tanktops and shorts, and my mom taught me that i would know when something was immodest because i would be uncomfortable in it, and sure enough, i did.
ReplyDeletethank you for the point about different responsibilities come with different ages, i'd never thought about it that way before. all i'd ever heard from certain friends is if they can't wear it later, why wear it now? (and that's SO annoying. i mean, if that's how they feel, that's fine. but don't push that on my kids.)