What Is The Relationship Between Modesty And Clothing?

[Bryans_Saturdays]

Recently our seven year old daughter performed in her end-of-the season dance recital. All year she had worked hard in an after school class and this recital was a chance for us, and all of the other parents, to witness the fruits of our children’s labor.

It was a splendid and inspiring recital which I enjoyed immensely. Dancers of all ages performed, some so young they barely knew how to walk, some in their late teens, and every age in-between. For our daughter, it was her first chance to perform on stage in front of several hundred people.

On the drive home we were all abuzz with excitement. Amidst the energized comments and observations, however, a female member of our group (extended family member) remarked how uncomfortable she had felt during a few of the performances. Some of the older, teenage dancers, almost all of whom were female, wore costumes which included tight black pants and tops which showed bellybuttons and much of the their backs. She wondered out loud about how “inappropriate and immodest” some of the costumes had been, and questioned why the dance school would ask their girls to wear them.

This got me thinking… what, exactly, is the relationship between clothing and modesty? Were the outfits really immodest? What about my own daughter… when she is older and if she is still in dance, how would I feel about her wearing such an outfit?

My thoughts boil down to this: I fear that as a society and as a religion, we place too much emphasis on clothing and clothing alone when teaching modesty to our youth and children. I worry that we don’t place enough emphasis on being a modest person.

What is modesty, anyway? If we walked into any average teenage Sunday school class and asked the kids to give a definition of modesty, most of them would start by saying it means to choose clothing which does not show too much leg, arm, or mid-riff.

Let’s take it a step further. Play the word association game with yourself. Say the word “Modesty” and then note the first word that pops into your head. Be honest. Was it “clothing” or something like it?

Is this all there is to modesty? Does it, or does it not include the following as well: not drawing undue attention to yourself; avoiding loud laughter; treating everyone with respect; having good manors, saying ‘Please’ and ‘Thank you’; living within your means, not wearing too much jewelry, not wearing too much makeup; avoiding excessive tattoos; using clean and proper language, good personal hygiene, conducting yourself in a quiet, dignified, respectable manner?

It seems to me that if a person has or is approaching mastery of being a modest person, that modest dress will follow by nature. A modest person would have no desire to dress immodestly as a habit.

Should not the emphasis when teaching our youth, then, be on modesty as a personal trait, rather then mainly on modest dress?

Now, here’s the real kicker. When someone is a modest person, does it detract from their modesty to wear a revealing outfit at a dance recital? Granted, it would not be appropriate to wear to church on Sunday tight black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and tummy. But is wearing this outfit at a dance recital immodest?

The female which made the comment that began all of this would say, “Yes!”. As the conversation progressed she said that if her daughter was involved, she would have a conversation with the costume designers and ask them to design something more modest. If they refused, she would pull her daughter out.

My point of view is quit different. I think the level of modesty can not be determined simply by what the dancers are wearing. That is one ingredient, but certainly not the only. How are they dancing? Are there moves at all suggestive or sexual, or are they simply artistic? What is the music? Is it laced with inappropriate undertones, or is it wholesome and suitable for a true family environment? But most importantly, who is the person doing the dancing? Is he or she a modest person?

If all the ingredients are positive, then from my point of view, tight black pants and a sparkly shirt which shows back and tummy does not in and of itself constitute immodesty.

What do you think?

[babygirl]

i personal dance, and personaly yes there r things that r needed like the tighter pants other wise it might get in the way or not be able to move also in most Ballet they only have spagetie straped costumes or else the sleves get in the way of the arm move ments and such so yes some of it is nesisare but others like showing my tummy and to much back me personaly am not a fan of...my guidline has always been what i would wear swiming...they talk about modest swim wear and such so i compare it to that...but yes i agree we tend to focuse on modest as just clothing. people most sertinly can dance inmodestly and other things as well

[Guest Monica]

Yes, as a ballerina as well, I agree. Most costumes are tight or short to allow for proper movement. No matter how skimpy they may be, they are usually tasteful and pertinant to the preformace. Try doing a split in Levi's!

[pushka]

When I was 17, the stake was holding a Dance Festival, and I was asked to accompany another girl from my ward in a 'modern' dance. She was training to be a dancer at college, I wasn't a dancer by any stretch of the imagination, so she taught me the moves...

We chose to dress in black leotards and tights for the routine...the women in charge of us at the event made us wear a 'skirt' which consisted of a belt with different coloured chiffon scarves tied to it, in order to cover our hips...we were covered at the hips by the way, I suppose they were just afraid of showing our body shapes!!

Anyway, we went on to win that section of the Dance Festival, and I was more shocked that nobody took the lyrics of our chosen song - The Beatles - Come Together the wrong way!! It was my choice of song, as a tribute to John Lennon, who'd just been killed that year.

[lannesackman]

I totally agree that modesty is more then what you wear on your skin. Modesty starts in your heart and no matter what you are wearing you heart shows more. I used to wear tight jeans, midrift showing shirts, clevage hanging out type of clothes... I have really changed, I found the church, got baptised and eventually, with a couple of huge bumps in the road, I have started to become stronger in my faith. As I grow closer to God and more active in the gospel I have seen myself change. I no longer even own the midriff/clevage shirfs and my jeans are tasteful, not painted on. But it is more then my dress that has become modest, my music, the movies, the chat rooms, even my emails have become "nicer".

As for a dance costume... that is just what it is a costume. They are made that way for a reason and as long as it doesn't become the "norm" then I think it would be okay....only if my Daughter was comfortable in wearing it.

Good Question

Lindsay

[Bryans_Saturdays]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I'm glad to see I'm not alone in this thinking.

Tisha - your story of how you became a modest person ring so true! As we draw closer to God we become more modest, and then the clothing we choose to wear naturally falls in line.

Pushka, how ironic that a leader would make you cover your hips, but not even think twice about a song that blatantly advocates sex outside of marriage.

I fear that in the LDS church, we place way too much emphasis on modest dress, and not enough on all the other aspects of modesty.

In my opinion this is not a healthy way to teach modesty, as it focuses too much attention on our bodies and not enough on behavior, personal habits, and our overall spirituality. It is so lopsided that many youth today think that modesty is a flat, single dimension subject: clothing. In their minds, all you have to do is wear approved clothing, and then nothing else matters.

And the flip also really bothers me... anyone who wears a slightly revealing outfit for something as innocent as a dance recital must be an immodest person. Too many of us seem blind to the idea that a perfectly modest person may, when the occasion calls for it (dance recital, school play, day at the beach, etc.) show some skin and still remain a modest person. Fear of the human body is not modesty... it's just fear of the human body.

Bryan

[pushka]

Pushka, how ironic that a leader would make you cover your hips, but not even think twice about a song that blatantly advocates sex outside of marriage.

Bryan

Hi Bryan...You know there has been controversy over whether or not the song actually was blatantly advocating sex outside of marriage...or whether it was truly, as John Lennon stated, just a politically based song...the 'come together' referring to people all voting for the same person/policies...although this was an obviously ambiguous way of phrasing it! Very tongue in cheek.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Origins of the song:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Together

and here's a link to the actual lyrics of the song...do you see any overtly sexual phrases in it, apart from the words 'come together'?

http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20L...r%20Lyrics.html

(Scroll down the linked page for the lyrics)

I'm sorry if this takes the thread slightly off topic!!

Just a little extra snippet about the song Come Together being a political rallying song in favour of Timothy Leary and his campaign to become Governor of California, against Ronald Reagan:

'On the day his conviction was overturned Leary announced his candidacy for Governor of California, running against Ronald Reagan. His campaign slogan was 'Come together, join the party'. In May 1969 Leary joined John Lennon and Yoko Ono at their Montreal Bed-In and Lennon wrote Leary a campaign song called Come Together.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary

[Gwen]

i'm not saying i totaly disagree with what has been said, but the flip side is true. what you wear changes how you behave. the youth program focuses on all the aspects of modesty listed here and on clothes because clothes are important.

examples i've come across that make this evednet to me:

senior year in highschool there is a senior trip taken to orlando and to all the attractions there. one of the rules set out by the theme parks is what exactly they can and can not wear. they must wear skirts or dress slacks, blouses, the guys must wear slacks, button up shirts, dress shoes, etc. it was clearly explained that research had been done and the students behaved more appropriatly when dressed nicer and if they were to continue to open their attractions to that many high school students at one time it was to be strictly followed.

when attending a test taking skills seminar after high school the biggest tip was to get lots of rest and get up early. not to study and review but to groom, and pick out nice clothes. those that were properly groomed and dressed nicer felt better and thus scored better than those who threw on sweats and spent the morning reviewing the material.

in a movie i saw there was a girl and her friend shuffeling through her older sister's room and they found a black bra. the girl joking that a girl doesn't own black underclothes unless she secretly wants it to be seen. now it was a movie and a joke. but a little truth in every joke.

and recently durring my pregnancies, in almost every magazine i read (and even commented on by my dr) about late pregnancy making women feel unattractive and bad durring the day. the number one tip was to buy some sexy underwear and bra and wear it even if just to the grocery store, and if avaliable to even wear lingerie instead of undergarments. the result is to be said that even if wearing huge maternity clothes your knowing you are sexy underneath changes your entire outlook on the day and yourself.

so when i see panties for 8 yr olds that say "eye candy" across the butt, reguardless of the fact that no one will see it, it disgusts me. what messages are we sending to our young girls when they are making adult undergarments in child sizes? this does change how our girls see themselves, and thus how they will act. if we are modest ppl we will dress modestly, but when teaching modesty to our youth we must first dress the part, teach the principles, and pray they make the correct choices as the become of age. clothes do make a difference.

[Bryans_Saturdays]

i'm not saying i totaly disagree with what has been said, but the flip side is true. what you wear changes how you behave. the youth program focuses on all the aspects of modesty listed here and on clothes because clothes are important.

You are 100% correct! I hope you did not think I am in ANY way advocating immodest dress.

so when i see panties for 8 yr olds that say "eye candy" across the butt, reguardless of the fact that no one will see it, it disgusts me.

Rightly so! You will not catch my eight year old daughter in any of the skimpy jeans and t-shirts that are so popular these days.

if we are modest ppl we will dress modestly, but when teaching modesty to our youth we must first dress the part

Well said. And again, I hope you did not read anywhere in anything that has already been said that it's okay to ever dress immodestly. The point that I am trying to make is this: A dance outfit is not modest when worn to church on Sunday, but is perfectly modest when worn while performing at a dance recital.

Would you agree or disagree, ALmom?

Bryan

[Gwen]

i think dancer said it well in comparing it to swim wear, some is modest and some is not. the greater question is can the activity be carried out and still maintain the most modesty (or coverage) possible? a swim suit is not modest for the grocery store no matter how modest it is, however, some swim wear is immodest even on the beach. as for dancing i don't know where exactly the line is, i don't dance and can't claim to fully understand the necesisities of the clothing. i didn't think anyone was saying that immodest dress was ok, just wanted to make sure the other side was not missed. lol

i must say that i think it is interesting how in ice skating the outfits appear to cover compleatly but there is a lot of flesh toned materal leaving the apperance of skimpy clothing (as best i can tell from viewing lol, however these days it does seem to be shifting to actually not covering). is that modest or not? it is covered, but it leaves the impression, if they can cover with flesh toned why not other colors to not give the impression of few clothes? if modesty is more than the clothes themselves this too (flesh toned material for the purpose of leaveing the apperance of not being covered) must be critiqued. modest or immodest?

[Bryans_Saturdays]

a swim suit is not modest for the grocery store no matter how modest it is, however, some swim wear is immodest even on the beach.

Well said.

But, I guess I'm trying to go deeper then just "what is appropriate to wear for what occasion." To bring this thread back to the original intent:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have known some LDS girls and women who wear full length t-shirts over their modest one piece swim suits because it's more modest.

Q: Is this really being more modest, or is it just being insecure and silly?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I described in the original post, someone complained after a dance recital that the outfits were too tight and showed too much leg and mid-rif, and thus were not modest. And Almom makes a great point - during the Olympics the outfits worn by the figure skaters and gymnasts sure are tight and show a lot of skin. So...

Q: Does showing leg and mid-rif while performing a modest dance or figure skating routine or gymnsatics routine really constitute immodesty?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

True story: There were young woman in the ward in which I grew up who could not attend a swim event because their would be young men present, and the mom did not want the young men to see her daughter in a swim suit. This would not be modest.

True story: There is a mother in a ward in our stake who will not allow her tall, athletic teenage daughter to try out for the high school Volleyball team as the shorts and shirts they wear are too tight and reveal the form of their bodies. Softball is approved, as they wear 'normal' shorts and t-shirts which do not overly expose the forms of their body and do not expose skin which would be covered by the garments.

Q: Are these mothers correct in these choices? Do they have a good grasp of what modesty really is? Or - Are they way over reacting? Are they mistaking modesty for some sort of misguided fear of the human body?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Take a look at this photo: http://www.byucougars.com/Filing.jsp?ID=8131 Is this female student being immodest? She's showing an awful lot of leg, arm, and shoulder, and even some mid-rif. The mother's described above would not allow their daughter's to participate in track and field.

Q: What about the university that promotes such outfits? What about the church that owns the university?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, I'm trying to go deeper then just "what is appropriate to wear for what occasion." It seems to me that we, as a culture, have gone too far in our concerns over modest dress, to the point of being down-right afraid to admit that we are humans, that we have bodies, and that our bodies have sexual body parts.

In the name of modesty, some of us seem to fear ever wearing anything that may remind someone that these body parts exist.

Q: Is this healthy?

Bryan

P.S. Maybe the extreme Muslims have it right - when women go in public they should only wear burkas which cover absolutely everything, even the eyes.

[Gwen]

i'm not sure we ought to be blurring these lines.

i do beleive that a parent who inapproprately teaches their child, and girls tend to get it more, that their body is bad, or dirty, or ugly by the way they handle modesty is wrong. the swim party or atheletics things is on the verge of silliness and send very bad messages to the girls, and i would ask those parents if they allow their boys to also partake of these things. if the daughter shouldn't be in an normal chruch approved swim suit then should the boy be swimming with no shirt? anyway, not really important since i think the answer is obvious.

i think we can encourage our children to be modest, to wear and be covered as much as possible and reasonable for the activity, and to love and apreciate their bodies all at the same time. covering the body is not the same as saying there is something wrong with it. my concern is with the desire to dispell some of the inappropriate views some have that we may go to far the other way. look at the society we live in, everything is sexual, i don't think anyone is going to forget the parts or the desire exist. rice and tires are sold with sex on everyday tv comercials, my children are bombarded with messages that the body is for sexual gratification and nothing else. do i really want to help them rationalize inapropriate behavior? not that i would be doing so but by making the argument i present them with the ideas and the kids will take that a step further and create their own rational. is it really that big of a deal? just correct those that are so off base that few quotes from the general authorities will show the truth, and let the rest of it go. sometimes looking for the line turns into how far can i go, what can i get away with. that can be very dangerous. so what is the motive here, are we just looking for the line?

[Bryans_Saturdays]

so what is the motive here, are we just looking for the line?

Good question. I guess my motive is this...

I am worried that as members of the LDS religion, we have forgotten what the word "modesty" really means. We have pushed modest dress so heavily that we have come to think modesty is a flat, one dimensional, single topic subject: clothing.

I think modesty is about so much more. Clothing is one ingredient, but by far not the only. It's also about behaving with respect, not calling undue attention to yourself, not wearing too much makeup, not wearing too much jewelry, being polite, avoiding loud laughter, always making choices that will keep you in the company of the Holy Ghost, not using foul language, being a person of quiet dignity, reserve, and reverence. I could go on, but you get the idea.

When I think of modesty I think of Mary, the mother of Christ. "She kept all these things and pondered them in her heart." Mary did not run around yapping about the angel that had visited her. She did not go around telling the story to all of her girl friends, finishing with "... and the spirit was SOOO strong!" She was not a loud, obnoxious, outspoken young woman. She was soft, gently, humble, dignified, and most of all - respectful and reverent towards things that were special and sacred.

THIS is true modesty.

When someone is a modest person, modest attire will follow. And, when someone is a modest person, it does not unravel their modesty to show flesh which would normally be kept covered by garments when a safe, family-oriented, modest situation calls for it.

Clothing alone does not make a person modest or immodest. Yet I fear that too often this is the lesson we teach our youth.

Bryan

[CrimsonKairos]

covering the body is not the same as saying there is something wrong with it.

Precisely.

Clothing alone does not make a person modest or immodest. Yet I fear that too often this is the lesson we teach our youth.

You keep pointing out this "problem," but what solutions do you propose? Revising the young men/women's curriculum? Handing out pamphlets to parents? I think you have many valid points.

It just seems profitless to keep pointing to people's excessive focus on clothes, instead of just saying, "Hey people, remember that when you teach about modesty, you should include how you act, what you watch, how you talk, etc... and not just what you wear."

What you seem to be doing is this: "Hey people, remember that when you teach about modesty, you should include how you act, what you watch, how you talk, etc... Also, loosen up on standards for sporting events, plays, dance recitals, and stop being Victorian-extremists."

I understand that it might be upsetting to have people criticize what your daughter wore for her recital or what have you, but that doesn't mean you need to tell all of us that we're too obsessed with covering our bodies, or that by covering our bodies we're ashamed of them. That's simply not true. The opposite is usually true in fact...we cover our bodies because we value them and don't want to "cast our pearl before swine."

As for that picture of the BYU student in her "track outfit," this always cracks me up and ticks me off simultaneously. If you think you have to dress like that to run, then the problem is with your legs, not your clothes. That's just such crap. Anyone remember the Afghanistan female runner at the Olympics who wore pants and a long-sleeve shirt to perform? I thought that was awesome. Not that shorts are evil, but what that girl in the picture is wearing is not shorts...I don't have a name for it, but it's ridiculous. Tights for volleyball, tanktops for basketball...it's just crap.

People can be competitive while wearing more cloth than is currently the norm.

As for, "Why can guys go without shirts and girls can't wear tanktops," it's a ludicrous question. Everyone knows that guys get turned on by things that usually don't turn on girls. Guys usually have stronger sex drives than girls. Blah, blah, blah. All the stereotypes are true. Deal with it people. Yes, some people might be excessively obsessed with how much clothing is okay. I'd rather err on the side of too conservative than on the side of too liberal.

Women control the morality of society. Think about that.

Women control the morality of society.

Men are born with a strong desire to "multiply" and have a more carnal outlook on the world than women. There are exceptions, fine. The point still stands.

Women aren't born with the desire to dress skimpy and immodestly, or appear in pornographic magazines or movies. That's a decision.

Men's sex drives are largely determined by hormones.

Women's clothing choices are largely determined by fad and fashion.

Yes, men need to control their hormones and choose the right. I'm not excusing men at all. If I ever have any daughters, I'll be lovingly caressing a shotgun when their dates come pick them up.

What I'm pointing out is that it's a matter of nature versus culture.

Is it easier to ask men to alter their hormonal make-up, or ask women to alter their choice in clothing?

Both need to take an active part in preserving modesty and chastity in society. Sure.

But if we're getting down to nuts and bolts, it's rather ridiculous to tell guys not to get turned on by girls in swimsuits and "track uniforms."

I think it is reasonable to ask girls to be open to wearing a little more material when competing in sports or performing. How is that extreme or excessive?

[Guest ldschic2175]

Modesty is more than clothing but for the youth right now it's one of the bigger problems. Some of my friends that are members who dress immodestly also act very immodest but the ones who dress modest act much more modest. As a parent you can't MAKE them be modest. All you can do is be an example and let them choose. If your daughter wants to dance then let her just make sure she knows how she needs to act even though she looks sexy. Dress influences our behavior a lot.

I had a friend who was in dance and the shirts cut way down in the back. All she did was put on a black tank top underneath so it looked like it had a back. It was still sleeveless but it wasn't as exposed.

The teaching shouldn't come just from the leaders at church. Parents are also a part of it. Don't tell them the church is wrong but let them make their decision on what they want to an extent. With the emphasis on style in the youth right now how you dress is how you act. So if your daughter dresses like that out on the dance floor she's ok. Just let her know that's only for dance. Not for school or church.

[WANDERER]

I don't think anyone needs to fear a black bra...it is appropriate when wearing black clothing as white or beige shows up a mile away....as in a black leotard.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Yes of course modesty covers a lot more than just dress but that doesn't mean that we should compromise our standards when it comes to dress.

Why does a girl need to reveal her back and her midriff in order to dance? Why does a runner have to wear the skimpiest of knickers instead of shorts? The fact that this was BYU only serves to point out to me that people still have their agency and the church doesn't control people like puppets on a string.

When deciding if something is appropriate dress I think a good guideline is to ask yourself, "Would I be comfortable meeting the Saviour dressed like this?" If the answer is no then add a little more covering.

I also agree that how one dresses does help with behaviour. I've noticed with my children that if they are dressed smartly then they tend to sit up straighter, listen to what is being said and respond more politely than if they are dressed in their scruffs and just slouching around.

BTW it came as a complete surprise to me that "Come Together" is meant to be a sexual lyric. There are many songs nowadays which are blatantly sexual in content and others which contain offensive language but that song seems totally innocent to me.

[WANDERER]

I'm sure that in some parts of the world a flash of ankle can be deemed as enough of a reason to have impure thoughts (as it was once back in history)...there are lots of justifications...not covering your face, being unchaperoned, wearing lipstick or heels. No really, other cultures do think of this the same way as showing off cleavage. I

[Elgama]

I don't know about this - I do remember seeing the BYU ballroom dance troop in Aberdeen as a teen and being shocked - their costumes were completely revealing and the dancing suggestive. I had taken friends with me and I was very ashamed to see such a blatant show of immodesty. My friend who had spent 3 weeks at BYU said now you know why I hated it there. I am pretty relaxed about what is shown as long as the overall affect is modest, my daughter had sleeveless dresses last year but they weren't strappy and covered her knees.

I grew up around ballroom dancing (not very good myself but my Mums Great Aunts were) - it is not necessary to go as far as the dance troop did. Same for children - I went to a well renowned dance school (again I was lousy)- and except for itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini the outfits were by and large decent for the little ones.

I do think modesty covers your whole demeanor - but your clothes and dance styles are part of that. Self confidence, good manners, etc are all part of that - I would not be happy with Heavenly Father watching my daughter perform in something that was unnecessarily suggestive or revealing.

-Charley

[WillowTheWhisp]

My daughter had her High School Prom last year and we went all over the area looking for a decent prom dress which she would feel comfortable in but the were all backless off the shoulder numbers, very few even with straps. She just didn't want that. She knew she would not have felt comfortable in any of them. In the end she bought an Asian wedding outfit. (For those in America - here in UK Asian means Indian subcontinent.) It is beautiful. In two parts with a bodice and an ankle length skirt. The bodice has short sleeves.

In fact she liked it so much that when she was looking for something new to wear for the Gold and Green ball she went straight for an Asian wedding dress.

[cgrantreed]

I know that this was mentioned because after i posted it, I saw that people HAD actually mentioned it:-) I will post it again edited anyway. I hope to not sound like a fruitcake but having a 16 year old daughter that just forced her hand to get married to an 18 year old simply because she "could not wait to have sex with him"... I have to say this. The missing link in this is "society". Our views are SCREWED UP and its become a plague of maximum proportions.

The next time I see a guy looking at the tail end of a 11 year old because her sweat pants say "Hot" right across her butt or a junior high students chest because her shirt says "Baby Doll" across her boobs I am going to poke his friggen eyes out. Society is pushing the young and sweet, innocence is ok, as long as its covered in a piece of linen bull. My friend has a 14 year old daughter that looks like she is 20 and is BUILT like she is 20. Far too much bovine growth hormone or something. She is very beautiful but she likes to dress in societies idea of "modest" clothing because it covers the important parts. Its skin tight, uses design elements to bring the eye to inappropriate places and its purpose is to sell sex. He took her with him to work one day when school was out and when he hit the docks at one of the companies that he delivers to the guys at the docks ALL turned and stared, got all chin dropped and started drooling. He told them to tuck their tongues back in their mouths and let them know that she was only 14. Their response? " Jees... Doesn't hurt to look, I just can't touch". These are grown men. Now imagine what hormonally over driven boys are thinking. Most of the clothing that is popular now leaves nothing to the imagination and our kids are too young to be "sexy". Looking good and appropriate is important but sex is the last thing that we need to be worried about with our kids.

I agree with function in clothing for the arts and what not. I don't see a 5 year old in a tutu as a problem but things like ice skating body suits in flesh tones and elements to attract the eyes to places that your eyes should not be is still a problem. "Camel Toe" and "Whale Tail" are two things I don't want to hear in ANY conversation regarding my children. If you don't know the definition of either of those two terms then you are behind the curve and some guy is checking out your daughter. I can guarantee that your kids can explain them...

So. is modesty simply a clothing choice or is it an attitude that resonates through the entire lifestyle... I vote lifestyle, and clothing is the biggest part of it. No offense, I have seen current swimsuits. For the majority of us, they are fine. We are not the ones to worry about. I have seen some pretty decent suits. My girls were required to wear swim shorts over a one piece and that was appropriate but there is still not much to be left to the imagination. Why should that be a problem? Ask Satan why sex sells so well... and why the church says that pornography is an epidemic in our world. Modesty is far more proactive than simply putting a layer of material over some skin. I know its a sick way to have to look at the world but when the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the word modesty is a picture of modern media dress standard and the word "EASY" flashing across the screen.

Do we over sell the modesty thing? I don't think so. Its about protecting our kids, not limiting them. How can you resist sin if the element is almost forcing you to look at it. Some have the self control, most don't.

[WANDERER]

I can't see any problem with wearing a shirt over swimsuits...boys as well as girls...the sunsmart ones that help prevent nasty things like skin cancer A shirt that doesn't allow you to swim properly is modest, but not common sense. Is it worth half drowning over? That doesn't mean you can't wear it when you're not in the water.

(Yes I wore the tent shirts to my swimming lessons...just wasn't comfortable with wearing modest clothing and then not doing so...no one made me, no one commented on it and it wasn't problematic except for the fact that it wasn't helping my swimming stroke. Since wet things cling it probably wasn't all that modest either, so not a real solution if you're looking for one).

Not sure if shoulders are going to cause bad thoughts though.

[WillowTheWhisp]

A 13 year old girl, friend of my daughter, has a t-shirt with the slogan. "If you think this looks good on me" in large print then underneath in smaller lettering, "think how much better it would look on your bedroom floor." Oh yes it covers all the necessary body parts but what kind of a message is that sending out? Who designs a thing like that? But more to the point what mother buys a thing like that for a 13 year old?

[Fiannan]

A 13 year old girl, friend of my daughter, has a t-shirt with the slogan. "If you think this looks good on me" in large print then underneath in smaller lettering, "think how much better it would look on your bedroom floor." Oh yes it covers all the necessary body parts but what kind of a message is that sending out? Who designs a thing like that? But more to the point what mother buys a thing like that for a 13 year old?

A mother that buys shirts like this is part of the problem. So getting back to Bryan's original point -- who is teaching modesty in a better way, a mother who wears revealing clothes or buys it for her kids or a mother who takes her kids to a nudist resort for the weekend?

[hannahlouise]

i for one can do the splits in levis.

you could too if you tried hard enough.

modesty is not only taought in dress it is also taught in language, skin, and as well dress.