"Immodest" Dance Outfits: Much Ado About Nothing?

[Elgama]

I just don't see anything wrong with wearing a dance outfit to dance. Wear what is appropriate for the occasion. Wearing a dance outfit to church would be immodest. So would wearing church clothes to dance in.

I would like you to defend your statement! :)

I would like to help him out - just because everyone does it doesn't mean we should. If your whispering says its OK thats fine you are your children's Mum for the reason you have the instincts to parent them, but I have the instincts as to how to keep my kids safe and for me unnecessary dance outfits in a pre-teen are not right for us.

I have had a lot of thought and progressed a lot in what modesty is, when President Hinckley caused my husband to have his lovely hair shorn off I was gutted took me time to get over, he has grown it on and off because at that point we had no strong testimony, same with white shirts etc however its something that the Ensign and General Conference seems to be concentrating harder on this year than in my previous 17 years of church membership. And for the first time I am really ready to take it in, this talk struck home to us from Dallin H Oaks talk:

What I said earlier about the importance of appropriate dress for those who receive the ordinance of the sacrament obviously applies with special force to the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood who officiate in any part of that sacred ordinance. All should be well-groomed and modestly dressed. There should be nothing about their personal appearance or actions that would call special attention to themselves or distract anyone present from full attention to the worship and covenant making that are the purpose of this sacred service.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland gave a valuable teaching on this subject in general conference 13 years ago. Since most of our current deacons were not even born when these words were last spoken here, I repeat them for their benefit and that of their parents and teachers: “May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions” (“This Do in Remembrance of Me,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 68).

Your question was which of you had the screwy idea about the dance class, answer is simply you both do and you both don't have the screwy idea because different things are important to different people, and that will be the case until we are all perfect, we are all just doing our best.

-Charley

[Janice]

I am not prudish we walk around home without clothes on, share baths have no lock on the bathroom, talk freely with my children about sex etc.

Sounds about like our house.

But I took my non member friends to see the BYU ballroom dance troop and I had a very hard time explaining away their outfits.... We are Latter Day Saints and just because everyone does it does not make it modest

Ok, here is where I start to scratch my thinker. I have heard lots of people tell me such-and-such is not modest, but I have yet to ever hear someone give me a good solid reason WHY. Can you help me out? Can you give me a logical, well thought out reason why the BYU Ballroom Dance Troop's outfits are not modest? Something more then "just because"?

If you are happy with them that is fine your daughter can attend but she has the right to make that decision for her daughters and you have the right to decide for yours, neither of you are wrong.

Thank you! I'm glad you said that. And I agree!

If you feel uncomfortable with an outfit, you have that right. Where I start to get my girdle up is when people say, "Those outfits are not modest." To which I would reply, "that's your opinion and you are entitled to it." But then they always seem to come back with, "How could ANY parent let their kids..." or "How could BYU let their students...."

Just because YOU think an outfit is not modest, does not mean the Universe must agree with you. Please don't measure me and all the other parents who let their kids wear these outfits by your home-made ruler.

That's just my $00.02.

And, I would love to hear your well thought out reason why the BYU Ballroom Dance' Team's outfits are not modest.

Janice

[Elgama]

Sounds about like our house.

Ok, here is where I start to scratch my thinker. I have heard lots of people tell me such-and-such is not modest, but I have yet to ever hear someone give me a good solid reason WHY. Can you help me out? Can you give me a logical, well thought out reason why the BYU Ballroom Dance Troop's outfits are not modest? Something more then "just because"?

It actually wasn't my opinion initially, and bare in mind it was 14 years ago, but my non member friends were shocked that Latter Day Saints would dress with skirts split upto the thigh, tight, one looked like it was paint on a naked body. I grew up around the British junior ballroom dancing champion and attended a previous heavily decorated champion's dance school, immodesty is not necessary. And again for a beginners general dance class its not necessary. If the level of skimpiness is not necessary I won't go with it, if its necessary for the activity fine.

Set back my missionary work with my friends a good many years. As Latter Day Saints we are asked not to indulge in fashion extremes, and the show which could have been a good missionary opportunity for our area turned out to be a disaster for anyone I know who took a friend.

I have not attended a performance since, it might have improved. For me what made it immodest was the wrong kind of impression we made of the Church and its members

-Charley

[Janice]

Your question was which of you had the screwy idea about the dance class, answer is simply you both do and you both don't have the screwy idea because different things are important to different people, and that will be the case until we are all perfect, we are all just doing our best.

-Charley

Ok, very good Charley. Thanks. I agree 100% with your quotes from Oaks and Holland. I am all about looking sharp, clean, and well dressed on Sundays. With ya 100%.

Still not sure how that translates into "unnecessary" dance outfits being unsafe and not right. How does "We should dress reverently on Sundays" translate into "We should not wear dance outfits on Saturday"? I question your logic, but I respect your right to draw your own conclusions.

My opinion, and this is ONLY my opinion, is that our society has some very strong (and unhealthy?) lingering hang-overs from the Victorian age, when views on modesty shifted to an absurd extreme. I think so much of what we, today, think of as modesty is nothing more then tradition about what is appropriate and what's not.

I have studied, searched, and read every quote on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I can find on modesty, and I have found absolutely nothing that would indicate it's inappropriate for kids to wear leotards while dancing. Nor have I seen anything to support the notion that the BYU's dance team's outfits, or the BYU cheerleaders outfits, or the BYU track and field's short shorts and skin tight sports bras, or the BYU female volleyball team's skin tight outfits.... (you get the idea) are in any way immodest.

It is my personal opinion that the hang-up's people have over these kinds of outfits are based on a traditional and cultural objection to recognizing that the human body has shapes, curves, and parts. Some people feel more comfortable cloaking the human body in robes that hide this fact, and that puzzles me. If they want to do it to themselves and their kids, they have that right. But when they cast a judgmental eye at others who do not see things like they do... that's when I can't seem to keep quiet.

Again... I have dig into the depths of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and found nothing to indicate leotards while dancing are wrong :) If I missed something, please do let me know!!!

Janice

[Janice]

Weird. It turned w-w-w-.-l-d-s-.-o-r-g into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. huh.

[Janice]

Set back my missionary work with my friends a good many years. As Latter Day Saints we are asked not to indulge in fashion extremes, and the show which could have been a good missionary opportunity for our area turned out to be a disaster for anyone I know who took a friend. -Charley

I am really not sure how to say this and not sound condescending. Please know that this is NOT my intent, but I have been told my dear friends that I can sound preachy and prideful when I am only stating my point of view. So, I ask forgiveness in advance.

I wish you and your friends could have looked past the clothing and saw the people and the dance talents they had worked so hard to develop. I wish you could have focused not on how much of their skin was showing, and not on how many of their curves were visible... but on who they were, the expressions on their faces, the level of their dance skills, and the beauty of their performance.

Janice

[Janice]

This is an article that caused me pause for thought... Outward Appearance—the Messages We Send

Fantastic article. I like it. And I agree with everything said. I also don't see how or where it tells us that taking dance lessons in leotards is wrong. I believe we can wear a leotard and still be humble, respectful, and reverent towards our bodies, ourselves, and our divine nature.

Janice

[Elgama]

I wish you and your friends could have looked past the clothing and saw the people and the dance talents they had worked so hard to develop. I wish you could have focused not on how much of their skin was showing, and not on how many of their curves were visible... but on who they were, the expressions on their faces, the level of their dance skills, and the beauty of their performance.

Janice

would have been much easier if they had dressed to show off their talents instead of their bodies.... I am very good at looking past the outward appearance BUT as a Latter Day Saint my friends expect me to behave modestly and dress modestly, I had told my friends about being chaste in thought, word and deed and the outfits they witnessed were not their idea of chaste and given we are in Scotland its hardly Mormon heartland so they are pretty broad with what they consider appropriate dress I would get away with showing a lot more flesh than I do. A tank top and short, shorts would not be considered immodest.

The outfits were immodest because they showed the people who are not LDS a bad view of the church.

-Charley

[Janice]

The outfits were immodest because they showed the people who are not LDS a bad view of the church. -Charley

Well, I wasn't there, so I'll have to take your word for it. I wonder.... who at BYU approved such immodest outfits? I hope they were properly ex-communicated

Ok, sorry for the sarcasm. That wasn't very modest of me.

Janice

[Wingnut]

Wingnut... I was with you all the way on your first post. Made me laugh!

What do you mean when you say, "I agree that it's a totally different situation at home. Personally, I would say that your children are at the age where they need to be more modest, even at home."

As for, "I also would be a little repulsed by the baking/cooking naked idea, just from a hygiene and sanitation standpoint." -- ROFL! I promise they wash their hands!!

When kids are little (like diapers little, which can be up to age four, sometimes), running around naked is one thing. When they get much older than that, they are capable of understanding anatomy and modesty. They should be practicing it. Also, with children of both genders, I would be more cautious about shared nudity. This is my personal opinion, and how I will raise my own family. I don't know what you teach your children, and I'm not intending to be judgmental. It's just my personal belief that they're old enough to not be running naked anymore.

As for the baking thing...their hands aren't what I was worried about. Naked cooking is just a little...unsanitary...to me.

Fiannan, do you always jump to weird conclusions?

Come now apple, do you really have to ask?

[Janice]

When kids are little (like diapers little, which can be up to age four, sometimes), running around naked is one thing. When they get much older than that, they are capable of understanding anatomy and modesty. They should be practicing it.

They should be practicing anatomy? Ha, ok, I know what you mean, even though I don't agree.

Also, with children of both genders, I would be more cautious about shared nudity. This is my personal opinion, and how I will raise my own family. I don't know what you teach your children, and I'm not intending to be judgmental. It's just my personal belief that they're old enough to not be running naked anymore.

Here again, I think this is a matter of tradition. We teach our kids to cover up once they reach a certain age, because our parents taught us the same, and their parents taught them the same... and back it goes. Like cutting the ends off a roast. But, to this I ask.... "Why?"

Honestly, where is the harm? I grew up in a home where naked bodies were not common, but they were also not naughty.... at any age. Seeing all families members of all genders as God created them was never shocking, horrible, embarrassing, funny, awful, etc etc etc (said a la The Kind and I). It's not like we hung out in the buff, but we also didn't hide at shower time, and we all shared the one-and-only bathroom we had in our house. This concept took my hubby some getting used to when our oldest started to become more aware, but he has thanked me 1,000 times (not 999, and not 1,001) for having opened his understanding to how unnecessary it is to hide from each other. I get a kick out of kids who positively FREAK at the idea of seeing their parents or grown siblings sans clothing. Chill already!

This is my personal opinion, and how I will raise my own family. I don't know what you teach your children, and I'm not intending to be judgmental. It's just my personal belief that they're old enough to make up their own mind about being naked anymore, and mature enough to handle it respectfully

Janice

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Here again, I think this is a matter of tradition.

And the tradition has changed radically in my own lifetime here in Utah and the church. In another thread, I just posted about how my mother would be considered a child pornographer under the current federal law because she took a pictures of her children nude (me in a bathtub, my brother in a horse trough).

My father went out for swimming at Granite High because his family couldn't afford football shoes. The swim team at least practiced in the nude (they may also have competed -- Dad didn't say). When I went to Granite (class of '58) boys' gym class was required to be nude in the swimming pool. My scout troop and priesthood quorums often swam in the nude.

It was no big deal. If you think about it, for us then your original one-button suit that you were born in was considered perfectly modest for swimming. Some of us still think that way.

[Fiannan]

We were only told her version of the story. I didn't have the opportunity to hear her supervisor's version.

I didn't get the feeling that he was passive-agressive when I heard her talk. I don't think she felt he was.

Fiannan, do you always jump to weird conclusions?

applepansy

Your description of the situation made it appear that she was asked not to take part in a Church function but she did not know why and when she (on her own) changed her way of dressing she was allowed to participate again. How is it jumping to a weird conclusion that it seems nobody gave her an explaination?

In my books if someone takes and action but lacks the conviction or strength to stand up for that decision and let a person know what the guidelines are then that person is a passive aggressive.

[applepansy]

Your description of the situation made it appear that she was asked not to take part in a Church function but she did not know why and when she (on her own) changed her way of dressing she was allowed to participate again. How is it jumping to a weird conclusion that it seems nobody gave her an explaination?

In my books if someone takes and action but lacks the conviction or strength to stand up for that decision and let a person know what the guidelines are then that person is a passive aggressive.

she was not a particpant in EFY as a youth. . .she was an employee. As an employee her employer had the right to expect a certain dress code.

[Janice]

And the tradition has changed radically in my own lifetime here in Utah and the church. In another thread, I just posted about how my mother would be considered a child pornographer under the current federal law because she took a pictures of her children nude (me in a bathtub, my brother in a horse trough).

My father went out for swimming at Granite High because his family couldn't afford football shoes. The swim team at least practiced in the nude (they may also have competed -- Dad didn't say). When I went to Granite (class of '58) boys' gym class was required to be nude in the swimming pool. My scout troop and priesthood quorums often swam in the nude.

It was no big deal. If you think about it, for us then your original one-button suit that you were born in was considered perfectly modest for swimming. Some of us still think that way.

Wow! Really? This makes me so sad. What has happened to us? I wish we could go back to these times and attitudes.

Janice

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Wow! Really?

Really. I would have mentioned that my scout troop and priesthood quorums went to Deseret Gym, owned and operated by the church, where swimsuits were not allowed (so that General Authorities probably swam nude as well), except that whenever I mention that someone usually soon closes the thread.

What has happened to us?

A lot of things. The advertising industry, the pornography industry, and some right-wing religious organizations have combined to promote the idea that all nudity must be sexual, whereas in the past (and for some of us now) it was obvious that it was not. The fact of child sexual abuse stopped being ignored. I don't know what happened in the public schools so that people don't shower anymore (you had to in my day or you failed PE), but I wonder if homophobia doesn't have something to do with it. And we have the same advertising industry and the entertainment industry trying to tell us that only some bodies are all right and the rest of us should wear sacks and stay out of public sight.

As I've said elsewhere, Satan can't have a body so he tries to make us ashamed of ours.

[Guest Alana]

I'm not in the know when it comes to dance outfits. Are the things they wear in practice required? for instance, could you wear something more modest if you wanted, or are they required? Are there dance places where leotard or other tight clothes aren't the norm?

[gabelpa]

Really. I would have mentioned that my scout troop and priesthood quorums went to Deseret Gym, owned and operated by the church, where swimsuits were not allowed (so that General Authorities probably swam nude as well), except that whenever I mention that someone usually soon closes the thread.

I tried to volunteer with the local scout troop, and it was a mixed gender troop (LDS Chrch is not affiliated with the Scouts in the UK). Couldn't deal with the other leaders. Would nude swimming have been appropriate with a mixed gender swim team, or a joint YM/YW activity?

Was there ever a time when you had mixed genders plus nudity?

Here's something else for consideration. When Adam and Eve received the knowledge of good and evil, the first thing they did was attempt to cover their nakedness, even though they were married and there was no one else around.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Who told them they were naked?

[applepansy]

Come now apple, do you really have to ask?

Big sigh. . . I guess I keep hoping he will see the errors of his ways.

LOL

applepansy

[Elgama]

Who told them they were naked?

Satan told them they were naked and caused them to hide, but Heavenly Father was the one that went on to create the clothing, confirming that what Satan had told them was correct, as often is the case Satan uses his own slant on truth to cause us to hide. How often do we see posts where someone has commited a sin, but is hiding from it and that is preventing repentance, in showing them they are sinning Satan is causing greater distance between them and Heavenly Father than if they were comfortable with their actions.

This matter is of such great importance to Heavenly Father that it is the first thing that is mentioned in Genesis after the fall. From this I personally learn that until we gain awareness it is wrong running around on the beach naked is fine, when you begin to understand its time to cover up. No matter how honest you are and relaxed most children go through a phase where they need to lock the door of the bathroom to clean their teeth, noone taught them that they are just ready for privacy.

As I stated the whole modesty thing has been a journey for me, I am very relaxed in my body, but I am also learning that drawing attention to myself through clothing is not modest, my clothes have always been very modest but right now I am querying the wisdom of my bright red tartan tights with my black dress, they do set me apart and are rather wonderful BUT its my tights that are getting the attention not my spirit. Over past few years I have stopped dying my hair a variety of colours its now long and brown.

-Charley

[Janice]

Satan told them they were naked and caused them to hide, but Heavenly Father was the one that went on to create the clothing

I've read this account carefully. Recently. Up to this point, you are on solid ground.

confirming that what Satan had told them was correct

This, however, is your personal interpretation. I don't think it can be supported with any hard scripture, modern or ancient. We are told God gave them clothing to cover their nakedness, and from this we all assume the reason why is because from this point forward, being naked was naughty.

The truth is we are never told why God created clothing for them, or why he wanted them to cover their nakedness. Our modern culture would lead us to believe it's because Heavenly Father now wanted them to be "modest" (quotes VERY intentional), even around each other, but I simply can't find any actual scripture to back that up, and I think it's purely a cultural belief.

Ie: We today always (falsely?) associate modesty first and foremost with clothing. God gave Adam and Eve clothing. Conclusion:Obviously, God loved them wanted them to be modest.

There is a latin name for that kind of faulty logic, but I don't recall it anymore. It's been WAY too long since that logic class my hubby took and I helped him study for.

I wonder... if we all lived back in, say, Roman times, the time of Christ, maybe before, when clothing was viewed not as a way to keep from being naked and embarrassed, but as a luxury, a protection from the elements. Many people could afford only rags, and things such as leather (animal skin) was only for the very rich indeed. I wonder if we might look at this same passage of scripture and think: Obviously, God loved them and wanted them to be warm and comfortable once they were out of The Garden

My point is, our culture has such a strong influence on how we draw our conclusions, and often we don't even realize it.

So, anywhoo, this is a long way away from dance leotards where this topic began, but I've enjoyed it anyhow. For the record, I like clothing, and when my kids wanna start wearing them, they will. But their mummy and daddy are not about to force them to put them on because culture and society tells us it's not right for them to be without.

I prefer to do my own thinking, and let them do the same, instead of conforming blindly to the wants of society

Janice!

Edited January 27, 2009 by Janice

[applepansy]

My point is, our culture has such a strong influence on how we draw our conclusions, and often we don't even realize it.

So, anywhoo, this is a long way away from dance leotards where this topic began, but I've enjoyed it anyhow. For the record, I like clothing, and when my kids wanna start wearing them, they will. But their mummy and daddy are not about to force them to put them on because culture and society tells us it's not right for them to be without.

I prefer to do my own thinking, and let them do the same, instead of conforming blindly to the wants of society

Janice, I agree with not letting culture and society dictate what happens in our homes. I also strongly believe we have our agency.

Having said that I would recommend you do a search at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the word "Modesty" and read what the Prophets and General Authorities have taught us about our responsibility to teach modesty in the home.

I'm not going to recommend specific talks. . .if you're interested you can choose the ones you feel are most pertinent to your family.

applepansy:)

[Elgama]

I have no issue with a sportsperson wearing what they need to succeed in their sport - I have a brother who was until recently very much at the top of his game in his chosen sport and only slightly below Olympic Standard. He is top seed in my country at one of his events and in the top 10 for the other 2. However he is not LDS but even so the clothes he wears for his out of season practice are more modest than those when he is training in earnest

However I fail to see why a pre-teen class cannot at least wear a cardigan over the leotard, which is what they do in my daughter's class, I am happy with that it covers the low back and she has a soft skirt. If she has the potential people think she is then she may have to decide her own level of modesty later.... I am not talented at any sports except maybe swimming and horseriding as I have Dyspraxia but my Mother sent me to some of the best dance schools available in my area, as young children we were given a uniform of a comfortable white dress, tights and shoes, my ballroom dancing classes did not include anything approaching lapdancing costumes. They are not required for practice in the early stages.

Best I can do for my daughter is make as many modest choices for her now as I can, and to set the example. When I go to an exercise class its in modest attire I can wear my garments with. Modesty is inextricably linked with the law of chastity, and respect for our body, for me that is much ado about a lot, and ultimately its about temple covenants. A recent addition to the YW values is virtue which for me modesty plays a huge part in

And whilst I know you were joking about the person responsible for the dance troop I went to see, if I was to go again at 32 with my children, I would have got up and left, and written a letter to the troop's director expressing my disappointment.

-Charley

Edited January 28, 2009 by Elgama

[Wingnut]

The advertising industry, the pornography industry, and some right-wing religious organizations have combined to promote the idea that all nudity must be sexual, whereas in the past (and for some of us now) it was obvious that it was not.

I don't think that all nudity is sexual. I just think that not all nudity is appropriate.

As I've said elsewhere, Satan can't have a body so he tries to make us ashamed of ours.

Interesting concept. I've never thought of that.