When did sleeves for teen girls, girls, young girls, toddler girls, and baby girls become mandatory?
Mother said, "Hannah, you don't want to wear your sleeveless dress to the zoo and turn on the bus driver, all the boys on the bus, the male zoo employees, or the male animals at the zoo. That would make Jesus cry, and then you couldn't take the sacrament, and we couldn't be a forever family."
Ex-Sister Sinful Shoulders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is wrong with these people?!!!
They are obsessed with sex. They must control nearly every aspect of it. Just look at polygamy. Modesty must be the only way to control or prevent the lust for mounting whatever female is closest at hand.
By making issue of the display of a 4 year old girls shoulders, all this story is doing is sexualizing toddlers. It is disgusting and perverted. This is probably worse than some of the articles I've read in the Ensign, just because most mormons won't get (or will consciously or unconsciously block out) the underlying message of sexualizing children by zealously making them dress modestly.
This is as bad as the one post by someone here, I wish I could remember the poster or the name of the thread. The person was making and sending simple, white, sleeveless dresses for children in Africa and the mormon women helping insisted on adding sleeves, decorations, and BOM verses and quotes to the dresses instead of following the instructions, because the women was making them for an organization that had to follow certain standards.
These things are only an issue when society keeps reinforcing the issue. There is nothing inherently sexual about shoulders, the area above the knees, or someone's lower back. Mormons reinforce the cultural mores of the Victorian Era, and like everything in the church, it will change arbitrarily over time and pretend like it was always that way. Garment hem lines will slowly move up the leg and up the shoulder, etc.
I could have been the grandmother in this story as a few years back I bought an adorable blue sundress for my adorable 3-year- old granddaughter, not aware of the silly rules of must-have-sleeves. The gift was met with a rather cold reception, I was clueless as to why, and made the decision that I would not buy clothing for gifts for this particular family.
Mormonism makes me more than crazy....it makes me angry and angrier still at how the children, ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN, are treated, indoctrinated and abused in the cult.
Yesterday, I spent the better part of the day with a TBM family. Some of the interaction made me feel that I was being judged right and left, all done very subtlely. I was determined to not let it get me down, and it worked quite well. But, I must say when I arrived home I thought to myself how much more FUN it is to be around 'normal' people who do not have all the hang-ups of TBM's. It gets unpleasant to hear the constant judging of others that goes on for those who do not meet the so-called-moron-standards.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2015 10:49AM by presleynfactsrock.
You know how in the bible, Jesus said that if a man looked on a woman with lust, he had already sinned? He didn't say the woman he looked at had sinned for giving him something to lust after. What was originally meant by modest clothing was that it wasn't made of expensive cloth and draped with jewels. That instead of flaunting your wealth in your clothing you instead should dress simply and use your wealth to help the poor. Never was it ever about shaming women for revealing their bodies.
I have to repeat my story on this thread. Daughter is 15 with beautiful long legs. Wears Bermuda shorts to school, boy named Jacob tells her that her shorts are immodest... In Utah Valley, being called immodest is a Strong insult along the lines of being called a bitch. Mind you, we're talking about FRESHMEN in high school; she's a soccer player, musical theater, choir, on the honor roll. Great kid, who's learning the art of "witty assertiveness"! Her reply to said boy, "If you can't handle looking at 3 inches of my legs.. SHUT YOUR EYES"
When did modesty become so important? Was it before, after or during the practice of polygamy? The Joseph Smith years.
Women & modesty. For years it's been the leaders of the Quorum of the 15 who perpetrate this concept and place women as the temptress, seductive, overly sexual and sinfully guilty of destroying the church by wearing immodest clothing. It's interesting women continue to be associated with their bodies in ways that men are not. And, as a result of this unique association, women’s identities are also uniquely tied to their bodies in a manner that men’s identities are not. Shame has always been a great behavior technique to modify our thinking, but to the detriment of the women in the LDS faith. Campaign slogans; "Modesty is hottest" is sending out a mixed signal to women everywhere who don't know their own church history. Do you think Emma approved of the immodest behavior of her husband? But, now the women in the church are the taking the heat for the huge birth rate with single mothers and divorced women. It all started by not wearing a red shirt underneath a girls dress?! I could never understand the modesty issue in the church when so many evils were going unrecognized or ignored.
Colorado City, Hildale, Salt Lake City and all other surrounding communities who profess to follow the teachings of Joe Smith to the letter and practice polygamy believe in modesty. Once again, the leaders dress the women and young girls in MODEST garb because of their sinful nature. It's incredibly sad how off base people have gone thanks to the teachings of one man. Main stream Mormonism is no different as they continue to teach the young girls their bodies should be covered, shoulders especially. Modesty has nothing to do with a healthy self concept of oneself, self esteem, happiness in your own skin and has everything to do with following and obeying rules, rules of morality which should not be forced upon anyone.
Who said this?-- "Teach them correct principles and they will govern themselves.?"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2015 12:36PM by frackenmess.
Wow. So at the same time we’re complaining about women being sexually attractive to men, we’re also commenting with a term that completely connotes a woman’s sexual attractiveness to men. All in a three word sentence.
Insanity. Which way is it? I never cease to be amazed.
Stories like this drive me crazy. I sat through a Primary sharing time once where the topic was modesty for girls. Girls ages 3-8 were told to cover their shoulders and only wear dresses and shorts that come to the knees. My daughter sat there in a sundress while the girls were being lectured.
My daughter has taken dance lessons in Utah County for several years and the costumes for the recitals usually cover the top of the shoulders, but are sleeveless. There are always a couple of girls in her class whose parents require the wearing of a bulky t-shirt under the dance costume. It looks ridiculous in the class picture and they stand out (in a bad way) at the performance. It can't be comfortable to dance with a t-shirt under your costume either.
This year, all of the dance costumes have some sort of sleeve. I guess the teacher was tired of the bulky t-shirt look too.
That was quite the conundrum for that poor dance teacher. One could consider letting the t-shirt kids look silly and out of place and not caving to the Mormons. But then you kind of wreck to show for the other kids, because dance is all about having a coordinated look, and it’s about having the performance be as good as it can possibly be.
The teacher probably made the right choice here, but it’s still sad to see the Mormons win here by influencing everybody else into conforming to their standards, just because they’re willing to be abrasive and wreck things for you until you cave into their system.
If that wasn’t kids and their important little show, I would have never caved into them, because that’s exactly how they get their way. But, because it was little kids, the teacher obviously made the right choice. It’s like my neighbors in a way … either you conform, or we’ll torch the whole place down and be martyrs, but you’ll go down with us. My attitude to my neighbors is, ‘fine, torch it all down then, how does that feel now, cause I’m still not conforming!’
But these were kids, so I understand her choice here.
I agree with your statements. But, I wasn't referring to protecting the mo-girls. I was talikng about not wrecking the show for all the other normal girls. A ruined show, is a ruined show for everybody else. She was maybe protecting the show from being sullied for the rest of the non-no girls, that's what I implied. Although, we don't know what the teacher was really thinking.
I don't fall for shame conformity myself, nuh-uh, no way. Teach my kids not to either.
But I was referring to protecting the non-mo girls, not the mo-girls.