"Immodest" Dance Outfits: Much Ado About Nothing?

[Wingnut]

I have been trying very, very hard to not slander any individuals. I honestly hope, in all that I've said in this thread, that I have never once attacked or insulted a person themselves. If I have, or if someone feels that I have, I offer my sincere apology. This was never my intent.

I have no problem going after someone's ideas or point of views, and I honestly enjoy it when people do the same to me, as it gives me the oppirtunity to re-examine and possibly correct my current thinking (a la Ben and working out in Garments). I positively enjoy it when someone points out a flaw in my thinking, as it allows me to become better.

Perhaps I am wrong, but Miss HaldfWay's post, I felt, was a direct attack on me. "Let her have her irrationalities.... let her be and do the best she can be and do right now.... We all stumble along..."

How else was I to have taken this?

Janice

Perhaps she was speaking to you, not about you, the way you took it. "Her" and "her irrationalities" are probably references to your friend who didn't like the dance costumes.

[Janice]

Perhaps she was speaking to you, not about you, the way you took it. "Her" and "her irrationalities" are probably references to your friend who didn't like the dance costumes.

You know what, I honestly did not even think of that. I hope you are right, and I thank you for pointing that out.

(But either way, I still would have worded it differently. )

Janice

[ruthiechan]

You know what, I honestly did not even think of that. I hope you are right, and I thank you for pointing that out.

(But either way, I still would have worded it differently. )

Janice

Seriously? Because that's totally how I read it. I was completely confused as to why you were taking Misshalfway's post so personally. I was assuming that you had become all hyper sensitive to anyone posting anything in this thread.

[BenRaines]

My daughters all attended prom dance, I have three, each wore a modest dress that would easily have covered garments, if they had had them at that age.

My wife made the dresses. One was a beautiful red sequined dress. After that she said no more sequined dresses. The other two were just as beautiful. Some day when I have the time I will post the pictures, just so you know they were not peasant dresses to a formal.

Ben Raines

[MarginOfError]

Live and let live. Let her have her irrationalities. You probably have yours hidden somewhere. :) Just let her be and do the best she can be and do right now today. And then you do the same. We do more for healing and helping to heal each other thru this kind of tolerance and long suffering than we do in dropping our jaws in horror when we see anothers weakness. You live the best way for you. We all stumble along and sometimes we stumble along in front of one another. Deal in kindness and then move on doing your thing in peace.

I certainly hope we are all judged in the same manner that MissHalfway has judged. This has to be one of the least judgmental posts I’ve ever read. When read in its entirety, it states, “we all have our irrationalities. So let it be.” It makes no sense to gripe about one person’s irrationalities when we all have irrationalities of our own.

Take for example this classic example: liberals want to defend freedom of choice by maintaining legal abortions, but at the same time, they want to restrict freedom by requiring the rich to pay more taxes in order to help those who struggle financially. Conservatives, on the other hand, want the freedom to do whatever the please with their money, but are adamant about restricting the freedom of a woman to choose whether or not she may have an abortion. Both arguments are inconsistent. Both arguments are irrational. But that’s the point; people are irrational. What good is it for one irrational person to judge another irrational person?

The message of MissHalfway’s post was that we do much more for each other by looking beyond our irrationalities than by focusing on them.

Wingnut and Pam have their irrationalities—they intend to clothe their children as they hope their children will dress upon adulthood. By teaching this form of modesty they bring the risks of embarrassment about their bodies when exposed; sexuality being unnecessarily tied to nudity; and discomfort upon seeing immodest dress from others.

Janice has her irrationalities—she encourages her children to view their bodies in non-sexual ways, as something natural and beautiful; there is modesty at home and modesty away; there is modesty as a child and modesty as a youth and modesty as an adult. This philosophy brings with it the risks of poor social understanding of modesty. Her kids are at greater risk of putting others at discomfort with the level of comfort they have with their bodies. These kids will be at greater risk of finding themselves subject to inappropriate thoughts from others about them because of their perception of morality.

Both styles of teaching modesty to children come with pitfalls. But it isn’t the style that matters as much as the ability of the parents to openly discuss and reconcile with their children any inconsistencies the children my find in their parents’ thinking. It really comes down to what set of challenges do the parents feel best suited to face.

What it all boils down to is this—you’re all women, and you’re all being irrational! So what’s new?

[applepansy]

I certainly hope we are all judged in the same manner that MissHalfway has judged. This has to be one of the least judgmental posts I’ve ever read. When read in its entirety, it states, “we all have our irrationalities. So let it be.” It makes no sense to gripe about one person’s irrationalities when we all have irrationalities of our own.

Take for example this classic example: liberals want to defend freedom of choice by maintaining legal abortions, but at the same time, they want to restrict freedom by requiring the rich to pay more taxes in order to help those who struggle financially. Conservatives, on the other hand, want the freedom to do whatever the please with their money, but are adamant about restricting the freedom of a woman to choose whether or not she may have an abortion. Both arguments are inconsistent. Both arguments are irrational. But that’s the point; people are irrational. What good is it for one irrational person to judge another irrational person?

The message of MissHalfway’s post was that we do much more for each other by looking beyond our irrationalities than by focusing on them.

Wingnut and Pam have their irrationalities—they intend to clothe their children as they hope their children will dress upon adulthood. By teaching this form of modesty they bring the risks of embarrassment about their bodies when exposed; sexuality being unnecessarily tied to nudity; and discomfort upon seeing immodest dress from others.

Janice has her irrationalities—she encourages her children to view their bodies in non-sexual ways, as something natural and beautiful; there is modesty at home and modesty away; there is modesty as a child and modesty as a youth and modesty as an adult. This philosophy brings with it the risks of poor social understanding of modesty. Her kids are at greater risk of putting others at discomfort with the level of comfort they have with their bodies. These kids will be at greater risk of finding themselves subject to inappropriate thoughts from others about them because of their perception of morality.

Both styles of teaching modesty to children come with pitfalls. But it isn’t the style that matters as much as the ability of the parents to openly discuss and reconcile with their children any inconsistencies the children my find in their parents’ thinking. It really comes down to what set of challenges do the parents feel best suited to face.

What it all boils down to is this—you’re all women, and you’re all being irrational! So what’s new?

thank you MOE. That was Great!

applepansy

[Wingnut]

What it all boils down to is this—you’re all women, and you’re all being irrational! So what’s new?

I'm not sure how JD and Ben feel about that accusation...

[Janice]

My daughters all attended prom dance, I have three, each wore a modest dress that would easily have covered garments, if they had had them at that age.

My wife made the dresses. One was a beautiful red sequined dress. After that she said no more sequined dresses. The other two were just as beautiful. Some day when I have the time I will post the pictures, just so you know they were not peasant dresses to a formal.

Ben Raines

Wonderful! I would love to see the photos.

I hope nobody has misunderstood what I have been saying all along. When dressed, dress modestly. I have never advocated immodest clothing. In fact, I am a huge proponent of it!! I am opposed to skimpy clothing, halter tops, mini skirts, too-short-t-shirts, skin-tight leather pants (or any kind of skin tight pants), and anything else like unto it. When my girls go to prom their dresses will be beautiful and will highlight who they are and not what their bodies look like.

Here's my only point:

Modesty is about who you are. How you dress is just one small faction, but we seem to have made it the ONLY faction, and I fear we have become obsessive about clothing. Modesty is not about bodies only. It's about how we live, how we act, how we treat others, and yes, how we dress. By hyper-focusing only on the body aspect, views and ideas get warped and unhealthy.

Going way back to the start of this thread, I personally feel that a mom who recoils at the idea of her daughter wearing a leotard to dance because she feels it's not modest has allowed herself to become too wrapped up in the clothing / body aspect of modesty, and has completely lost sight of the bigger picture.

Good manners, polite language, clean & tidy appearance, humility, reverence, good listening skills, avoiding loud laughter... all of these are part of modesty, and when a young girl who is well versed in all (or most) of these practices goes to a dance studio and wears a leotard, I personally do not feel it is even remotely immodest.

Phew! I hope that's simple enough to keep people from jumping all over me!

Janice

[Wingnut]

I hope nobody has misunderstood what I have been saying all along. When dressed, dress modestly. I have never advocated immodest clothing. In fact, I am a huge proponent of it!!

I'm glad we cleared up that you are not an advocate of immodest clothing, but a proponent of it. I always feel better after my head explodes.

[Janice]

I'm glad we cleared up that you are not an advocate of immodest clothing, but a proponent of it. I always feel better after my head explodes.

Indeed! You sound like one of my students who catches me in a mistake. I always reward them with bonus points... more if they can be clever in how they make use of my mistake.

To be clear, I am a proponent of modest clothing!

Janice

[pam]

I have never heard or read this principle taught by a G.A. Sure, they teach us to dress modestly, as they should. And I agree 100% with all of their teachings on dressing modestly. But I have NEVER heard them say we need to do so because not doing so will cause others to have impure thoughts. The only people I have ever heard espousing this idiot notion is over-zealous, phobia-driven young women leaders... the same leaders who teach that girls should wear a t-shirt over their one-piece swim suits so as not to ensnare some poor boy and cause him to sin by seeing the shape of the girl's body.

I'm sitting here catching up on today's comments just really in total shock. I mean really in total shock. I have heard talk after talk after talk from Church leaders about how we should dress modestly. That how we dress affects the thoughts of others around us. From a human nature standpoint...I find it rather naive to think otherwise. I'm extremely offended by the comment "idiot notion is over-zealous, phobia-driven young women leaders.

Right now I stand and applaud those over zealous, phobia driven young women leaders on what they HAVE taught my daughter about modesty and how dressing inappropriately can give the wrong impression to the young men in my daughters life.

May we have many many many many more young women leaders like them.

Edited January 29, 2009 by pam

[pam]

Right now those comments are starting to become rather derogatory towards what the Church teaches and about it's members that serve as leaders. In whatever capacity of leadership they serve. Even as young women leaders.

Edited January 29, 2009 by pam

[Connie]

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Modesty: Reverence for the Lord

a few quotes from above article (please note that this article was written by a member of the quorum of the 12, Robert D. Hales):

"Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us.

Of course, modesty is not new. It was taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. “Unto Adam … and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21; see also Moses 4:27). Like Adam and Eve, we have been taught that our bodies are formed in the likeness of God and are therefore sacred.

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“… The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:16–17).

Our bodies are the temples of our spirits. Additionally, our bodies are the means by which we can bring souls from the presence of God to their mortal state. When we recognize our bodies as the gifts they are and when we understand the missions they help us fulfill, we protect and honor them by how we act and dress.

In everyday living, immodest clothing such as short shorts, miniskirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire are not appropriate. Men and women—including young men and young women—should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low cut in the front or back or revealing in any other manner. Tight pants, tight shirts, excessively baggy clothing, wrinkled apparel, and unkempt hair are not appropriate. All should avoid extremes in clothing, hairstyle, and other aspects of appearance. We should always be neat and clean, avoiding sloppiness or inappropriate casualness.1

Modesty is at the center of being pure and chaste, both in thought and deed. Thus, because it guides and influences our thoughts, behavior, and decisions, modesty is at the core of our character. Our clothing is more than just covering for our bodies; it reflects who we are and what we want to be, both here in mortality and in the eternities that will follow."

"what we wear will influence the behavior of others toward us"

LDS.org - Family Chapter Detail - Chastity and Modesty

from above (i found this interesting):

"We can measure our standards of modesty by asking ourselves: How would I feel about my clothing if I knew the prophet were to visit in my home? Is my clothing a good example of what a Latter-day Saint girl or woman should wear? We should practice modesty within our own homes. Even small children should be modestly dressed and taught about modesty.

We are responsible for the effect our dress standards have on others. Anything that causes improper thoughts or sets a bad example before others is not modest. It is especially important that we teach young girls not to wear clothes that would encourage young men to have improper thoughts. "

Edited January 29, 2009 by Connie

[pam]

Thank you thank you thank you Connie.

[Connie]

Thank you thank you thank you Connie.

You are very, very welcome!

[Fiannan]

I abhor this theory. I despise it. I view it as the pinnacle of false modesty doctrine. I will never teach my girls that their bodies, by simply existing, will cause boys to have impure thoughts. What a splendid way to teach them to fear their own bodies. What a fantastic way to teach them to fear the thoughts of boys.

I hung my head in sadness, when, a few months ago, we did a youth temple trip and I watched as a handful of young women in the ward opted out of the trip because they were afraid the young men would be "looking them up" as they came out of the font dripping wet with the jump suits clinging to their bodies. So out of fear of the young men and the possible impure thoughts they might cause them to have towards their bodies, they opted to not go to the temple. This horrible, awful teaching poisons the minds of our girls.

When we teach our girls this terrible principle, we also teach them the flip side of the same idea: If you want to yield power over boys, just show a little skin.

Not in my family. Ick.

Janice

I have to agree with this -- we can't take the human body and completely sexualize it or else then we might as well join our Afghan cousins and dress our females in burkas.

Even nudity has to be kept in context. Who knows what was considered modest and immodest in the days of the Bible? We do read that when King David was praising God and dancing everyone could see...well, everything. When one of his wives jumped on his case for acting like a commoner (we know the apostles fished in the nude so perhaps in a hot climate Hebrews may have done labor naked) by exposing his nude body God punished her with not being able to have children -- reminds me of when the sister of Moses criticized him for taking an Ethiopian wife she was cursed with leprosy for a period of time.

One would doubt in such a culture just a naked body was eroticized. And one could note that in much of Europe nudity, or partial nudity, is not seen as a ticket for sex and one finds less freaky stuff in those countries than one finds in the more repressed USA.

As for the issue of exercise I generally prefer to run with my garmets on but on a hot day I may go running or mountain biking with just shorts. No big deal I think. And I have never objected when friends have posted pics on Facebook when we were running in the snow at Suzdal. Russia sub zero temps or when swimming in a public fountain in the summer in Europe. Nor would I freak out if my daughter wanted to take ballet, figure skating or dance that might mean outfits that might make a few individuals upset. I teach my family to be modest in thoughts and deeds and I don't think that means we have to wear burkas or even the hajib when swimming or dancing or other physical activities.

[Truegrits]

and I don't think that means we have to wear burkas or even the hajib when swimming or dancing or other physical activities.

I do not think any one posting in this thread has espoused the wish to dress themselves, or their children, in this manner or to this extreme.

To compare our modesty standards to those who do wear burkhas, or clothing that totally covers, is just ridiculous!

[FunkyTown]

I do not think any one posting in this thread has espoused the wish to dress themselves, or their children, in this manner or to this extreme.

To compare our modesty standards to those who do wear burkhas, or clothing that totally covers, is just ridiculous!

Au contraire, mon frere! I would like to come right out now and say: I advocate the wearing of burkhas and Hajibs. Anyone who doesn't is a sinner: Male or female.

Sinner.

[Fiannan]

I do not think any one posting in this thread has espoused the wish to dress themselves, or their children, in this manner or to this extreme.

To compare our modesty standards to those who do wear burkhas, or clothing that totally covers, is just ridiculous!

No, and that's good, but the purpose in making reference to the hajib and burka is to illustrate that modesty is to a great degree cultural. Those of us whose ancestors came from Europe (not the British Isles) in the 18th. and 19th. Centuries might take note that women in those nations wore a scarf that was pretty much the same as a hajib. And the clothing worn in the 19th. Century in Utah looked almost identical to what FLDS women wear today. I have said it many times that if you transported all the women who come to our services on Sunday back to the 1850s they would be seen as immodest and probably arrested for public indecency.

Now I am not one to go to the mall without a shirt or have my duaghters go without clothing at the public beach (although where I live in the summer they are young enough that absolutely nobody would take objection). However, I am also not averse to letting them wear dance outfits or swim suits if they choose to be part of an organized training. Again, I am pretty conservative about the context of the situation. If my wife wears shorts and a bra when doing yard work that's pretty much the norm and when it's hot it's no big deal. On the other hand a few years back I was bike riding with a friend in rural China and it was hot so she took her shirt off (she was wearing a bra I will add) and she thought I was being prudish when I suggested she shouldn't do that. When she rode by a bunch of Chinese men eating lunch, and every one of them turned their heads, she admitted I was right and she put her shirt back on.

Again, there are appropriate times and places (and appropriate attire) for whatever activites we are engaging in.

[rameumptom]

There are cultural aspects to modesty, but there are also spiritual aspects of it. Just because a culture accepts nudity, does not make it right.

The Lord's servants have set a standard for us that we can find in the Youth guidelines, and elsewhere. We also have modesty standards built into the temple recommend questions for those who are endowed. For the Church, the goal is to get members, endowed or not, to dress as if they were wearing garments, to dress as if they were holy, to dress as if God were in the room.

In our ward and many other stakes and wards, the standard for the youth is to wear clothing that would cover garments. Why? Because we expect them to someday wear them, and wear them properly. It isn't a Burkha that is being expected of any members. But we are to ensure modesty and safety in dress and behavior.

The lax beliefs in Europe and in many places in the USA and elsewhere, are leading to huge problems in sexual sins. Such sins are now viewed as normal, rather than as taking people to hell in a hand basket. The day will come when we will all stand before God, and the wicked will wish they could be buried in a pile of rocks, away from God's glory and holiness. I would imagine that those who appear before Him in slinky outfits will not be comfortable in God's presence. And we shouldn't pretend that it is okay, either.

It is one thing to have a fine line between what members accept and don't accept as proper behavior. It is another thing when huge variations are accepted/rejected by members of the Church. Isaiah warned about the daughters of Zion (members) being wickedly dressed:

Isaiah 3:16 Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts.

18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,

19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,

21 The rings, and nose jewels,

22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,

23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

Perhaps some humility should be displayed now, before God has to impose it?

[MorningStar]

Well, you never know what might've happened to her or someone in her family that made her extra sensitive. I would let it go and not let it get in the way of being friends.

[Fiannan]

Rameumptom. those scriptures condemn the showing off of expensive objects and indicate these women were trying to create class distinctions -- something Joseph Smith and the scriptures condemned.

The context has nothing to do with the modesty debate here. In fact, those scriptues if applied today would be condemning people for buying expensive designer handbags, jeans and coats as well as driving expensive cars.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Rameumptom. those scriptures condemn the showing off of expensive objects and indicate these women were trying to create class distinctions -- something Joseph Smith and the scriptures condemned.

The context has nothing to do with the modesty debate here. In fact, those scriptues if applied today would be condemning people for buying expensive designer handbags, jeans and coats as well as driving expensive cars.

I think those scriptures and your examples are certainly at the core of what I'd call immodesty. When I first found out what CTR rings were, I was shocked (really) at how immodest most (if not all) of them are.

Think about a modest home, a modest car, a modest lifestyle. Of modest means. A modest diet.

IMHO, for some people, modesty has been drastically reduced to a small portion (modest portion?) of its real meaning.

[Fiannan]

I think those scriptures and your examples are certainly at the core of what I'd call immodesty. When I first found out what CTR rings were, I was shocked (really) at how immodest most (if not all) of them are.

Think about a modest home, a modest car, a modest lifestyle. Of modest means. A modest diet.

IMHO, for some people, modesty has been drastically reduced to a small portion (modest portion?) of its real meaning.

Great I am not the only one who thinks that (when an item is intended to portray a religious theme) anything that is not purely simple in appearance and mineral content is...

Furthermore, if we wear items that are to show off our class then we are immodest. Isaiah did not mention anything about people showing off too much skin -- besides, he ministered in the nude for a period of time (check out Chapter 20).

Edited January 30, 2009 by Fiannan

[rameumptom]

My point in giving Isaiah's warning is it IS about immodesty. Immodest dress can go many directions, including tons of rich silks, or barely anything there. It is all an issue of being out of step/tune with God.

The Book of Mormon mentions the righteous people wearing modest clothing that was made, which was comely, but not over the top.

Today, part of the immodesty of clothing comes in the form of overdisplaying the body.

Isaiah being nude was not due to being immodest, but due to the work he was performing for God. Not all clothing is immodest, and not all nudity is immodest. It isn't a cultural thing, but a spiritual thing: Does God approve of how I am dressed/undressed?