Hannah's New Dress

[rward]

Hannah's new dress, direct from the leadership of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), is a story featuring a 4 year old girl. http://www.lds.org/friend/2011/06/hanna ... s?lang=eng

Hannah ran to her room. A new dress was on her bed. It was white with red cherries on it. Red was her favorite color. But Hannah frowned.

“It doesn’t have any sleeves,†she said.

Mom went to Hannah’s closet. She pulled out a bright red T-shirt that matched the bright red cherries.

“You can wear this under the dress,†Mom said. “Then it will be modest.â€

That's right kids, a 4 year old girl should be concerned with showing her shoulders in public- it would be immodest!

I just . . . can't even.

[Hane]

I am old enough to remember when the Mormon modesty code didn't apply to people who didn't yet wear the "garments." No fuss about young girls exposing their shoulders.

On an ex-Mormon site, a guy wrote about seeing a bunch of teenaged girls in brightly flowered sundresses--with black Hanes tee shirts and black ankle-length leggings under them. He said it looked ridiculous, and I imagine it did.

This false modesty crap is absurd, IMHO, but wouldn't it just be more attractive to buy a dress with sleeves or wear a cute shrug over a sleeveless one?

[Hane]

And I could almost swear having seen an earlier version of this story in which Hannah proudly trooped out of her room in the sleeveless dress, only to be given a tee to wear under it. Way to slut-shame a four-year-old!

[rward]

And I could almost swear having seen an earlier version of this story in which Hannah proudly trooped out of her room in the sleeveless dress, only to be given a tee to wear under it. Way to slut-shame a four-year-old!

That actually makes more sense considering that the rest of the story involves Hannah attempting to get to the zoo as soon as possible by trying to skip breakfast, etc.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Poor child :( Four year olds should not be concerned about modesty at all.

[salex]

Hannah's new dress, direct from the leadership of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), is a story featuring a 4 year old girl. http://www.lds.org/friend/2011/06/hanna ... s?lang=eng

That's right kids, a 4 year old girl should be concerned with showing her shoulders in public- it would be immodest!

I just . . . can't even.

Ok, is mom doing emotional blanket training here to give her the dress before giving her the undershirt? Or giving her a dress she's not allowed to wear in the first place?

[Marianne]

This week, I went to the beach with two little boys aged 3 and 2 years old. They were naked all the day. I can't imagine the mom reaction if she had seen this !

[FJismyheadship]

My roomate is Mormon. She said the "Friend" magazines never made any sense. Even when she was a kid she was baffled. She started reading the "teen" ones when she was around nine cause they made more sense.

[Seal]

Ok, is mom doing emotional blanket training here to give her the dress before giving her the undershirt? Or giving her a dress she's not allowed to wear in the first place?

This^^ I totally agree. It's cruel to wave a pretty new dress in front of a 4 yo in hopes that she will be immediately disappointed that she can't have it. It's just like the blanket training IMO.

[RealityTVRN]

Wouldn't cherries defraud men? And bright red--that would draw their eyes to her SHOULDERS. At 4. Good grief.

ETA: I assume that the theory of modesty being so important is that men can't control their own sexual thoughts/urges? Or is it something different with Mormons?

[ADoyle90815]

Wouldn't cherries defraud men? And bright red--that would draw their eyes to her SHOULDERS. At 4. Good grief.

ETA: I assume that the theory of modesty being so important is that men can't control their own sexual thoughts/urges? Or is it something different with Mormons?

For Mormons, the idea of modesty is that men can't control themselves when they see females, but it's also because when Mormons go to the temple, they get garments that they have to wear for the rest of their lives, and to keep them covered. To keep them covered, Mormons can't wear anything sleeveless. It's one of the reasons I consider Mormonism to be a cult, as only a cult would regulate what type of underwear people can wear. In my opinion, if someone thinks a 4 year old or infant's shoulders are sexual, then that's a person who should never be around children at all.

[RealityTVRN]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I did know about the magical garments, but didn't put that with modesty. I agree, very cult-like.

[Claddagh]

Definitely creepy. Let kids be kids! There's enough shaming by these groups without having to make little kids self conscious.

[Shoes Grace]

Hannah's new dress, direct from the leadership of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), is a story featuring a 4 year old girl. http://www.lds.org/friend/2011/06/hanna ... s?lang=eng

That's right kids, a 4 year old girl should be concerned with showing her shoulders in public- it would be immodest!

I just . . . can't even.

Hahahahah. My mother used to buy me tank tops in the summers when I was in pre-school. I refused to wear them without a buttoned t-shirt, which I would button all the way to the collar button. I hated to go barefoot and refused sandals. When I was in Kindergarten, the teacher asked my parents to please stop sending me to school in dresses because I refused to sit down or play in a dress least anyone see my underwear.

By age 5, I was prude-ier than most of the fundies here (in that I considered a dress too immodest!). My folks could not understand where they got this weird little stick-in-the-mud, but let me go about my weirdness. I'm slightly better now, but still pretty naturally modest. I don't know why, I've not been abused or shamed or had my wardrobe dictated to me, it's just uncomfortable. And yeah, me and Hannah are probably the only two in the world, I just had to laugh.

[Always_Save]

i always have my little girl wear a t-shirt under her sleeveless dresses, because when she raises her arms, it shows everything. its not a huge deal or anything though, i did the same thing? i have her wear shorts too so she can climb trees or god knows what without showing off her underwear.

[Beammeup]

I hate this story and do not enforce the garment dress code on my little beammeups. They wear sleeveless things etc. I only addressed modesty as protecting our skin from the sun and keeping ourselves warm.

[hapamama]

That weird...

When my daughter was 4, I was more concerned about her flashing her undies in a dress than her showing her upper arms.

[tenth muse]

Have to start them young, obviously.

:(

[Miggy]

By four my daughter refused to wear dresses! or skirts! or anything pink! or anything with flowers! Very sad for me after having a couple of boys but it did mean modesty was never an issue.

[ILoveJellybeans]

When I was a child, until I was about 6 or 7, I insisted on dressing in the same way the Duggars dressed in old photos from before they were on TV. Pictures of me as a kid, I look like a fundie. At least this was before the rest of my siblings were born...

[Trynn]

When I was a kid, I often insisted on wearing long sleeved shirts under my dresses. Not for modesty reasons, but because in winter a short sleeved outfit was wrong, just like long sleeves in summer weren't right. There are pictures of me and yes, I looked ridiculous. So. I wonder if it's really modesty, at least from the point of view of the child. The fact that it is from the mother's is CREEPY.

[Anny Nym]

When I was 4 years old, I runned around naked in summer with the neighbourhoods´s kids in my age branch. We all wore Jelly sandals though ...

Oh glorious childhood days :mrgreen:

[bananacat]

i always have my little girl wear a t-shirt under her sleeveless dresses, because when she raises her arms, it shows everything. its not a huge deal or anything though, i did the same thing? i have her wear shorts too so she can climb trees or god knows what without showing off her underwear.

What could she possibly show when she lifts her arms? How old is she? If she hasn't even started puberty yet, there is literally nothing that she could possibly reveal on the top. Also, isn't the point of underwear to hide the stuff that can't be seen? So now kids have to cover the thing that is covering the thing that shouldn't be seen?

[2xx1xy1JD]

And I could almost swear having seen an earlier version of this story in which Hannah proudly trooped out of her room in the sleeveless dress, only to be given a tee to wear under it. Way to slut-shame a four-year-old!

I know a number of people with similar rules for their kids, and didn't have sleeveless stuff for my kids except for sports or extreme-heat-at-camp situations.

It's possible to have rules like that without "slut-shaming". The concept among the people that I know is that the rules are taught to kids for the purpose of education - they are too young to be responsible for violating a religious dress code, but if they develop the habit as kids, it will come more naturally to them as adults. As well, by teaching rules BEFORE kids hit puberty, it's presented in a way that is not about the child's own sexual development. Instead, it's presented as just a neutral rule: we wear shirts with sleeves.

As a mother of a daughter who went through precocious puberty, this was important to me. I was glad that we already had some basic clothing rules in place (sleeves, shirts long enough to cover tummy when arms raised). Things that were no big deal for other girls her age would look different on her, but there is no way that I would have wanted to suddenly call attention to that and embarrass her by suddenly slapping new rules in place.

I should also add that in my community, rules are for boys too. A 3 yr old girl in a knee-length skirt will be around 3 yr old boys who have started to wear religious items for boys, and both boys and girls wear shirts with sleeves, so it's more likely to be seen by the child as "I'm a big 3 yr old and can start doing things". Kids at 2-3 also tend to be very rule and routine oriented - it's part of how little kid brains function, and they can be pretty rigid. My oldest went through a period of wanting to wearing only dresses, because that's what her friends did, while my youngest even went through a phase where he always wanted to wear a suit and hat (we accidentally brainwashed him by leaving a movie in the DVD player). Neither of these rules came from me.

[Mama Mia]

I know a number of people with similar rules for their kids, and didn't have sleeveless stuff for my kids except for sports or extreme-heat-at-camp situations.

It's possible to have rules like that without "slut-shaming". The concept among the people that I know is that the rules are taught to kids for the purpose of education - they are too young to be responsible for violating a religious dress code, but if they develop the habit as kids, it will come more naturally to them as adults. As well, by teaching rules BEFORE kids hit puberty, it's presented in a way that is not about the child's own sexual development. Instead, it's presented as just a neutral rule: we wear shirts with sleeves.

As a mother of a daughter who went through precocious puberty, this was important to me. I was glad that we already had some basic clothing rules in place (sleeves, shirts long enough to cover tummy when arms raised). Things that were no big deal for other girls her age would look different on her, but there is no way that I would have wanted to suddenly call attention to that and embarrass her by suddenly slapping new rules in place.

I should also add that in my community, rules are for boys too. A 3 yr old girl in a knee-length skirt will be around 3 yr old boys who have started to wear religious items for boys, and both boys and girls wear shirts with sleeves, so it's more likely to be seen by the child as "I'm a big 3 yr old and can start doing things". Kids at 2-3 also tend to be very rule and routine oriented - it's part of how little kid brains function, and they can be pretty rigid. My oldest went through a period of wanting to wearing only dresses, because that's what her friends did, while my youngest even went through a phase where he always wanted to wear a suit and hat (we accidentally brainwashed him by leaving a movie in the DVD player). Neither of these rules came from me.

That explanation makes sense, thanks for explaining it. So true about little kids and their rigid clothing rules !

Each of mine when through some sort of clothing obsession....ranging from only wearing cowboy boots to only wearing shorts or dresses or fancy dresses with jeans underneath....that was an interesting look :lol:

As a kid I was very modest, while all the other little kids ran around half naked I would be worried about my underwear showing when I climbed on the jungle gym. Then my boobs came in early and I went through a phase of making sure everyone knew it. I'm sure I looked ridiculous walking around sticking my chest out in the clingiest shirts I could find :embarrassed: