Jump to content
IGNORED

Hannah's New Dress


rward

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Recent Status Updates

    • Scrabblemaster

      Scrabblemaster

      I would have loved to start my jogging journey again but is cloudy and rainy and a little bit snowy. Damn it. Maybe I will start nevertheless. When I start in shitty weather I might continue in good weather.
      · 4 replies
    • indianabones

      indianabones

      While I may love cross country skiing, my tailbone does not.
      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      words of wisdom

      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      I joined for the snark and stayed for the insight.
      · 0 replies
    • Bluebirdbluebell

      Bluebirdbluebell

      Disgusted with Catholic Church over Cardinal Pell's funeral this week. It really reflects poorly on the church and should be a red flag to Catholics.
      · 0 replies
    • PennySycamore

      PennySycamore

      I've been away since about 10 PM on Monday evening.  My husband noticed that my speech was a bit slurred, called my daughter to see if she concurred and they both agreed that I needed to go to the hospital.  There I was taken back within minutes to be evaluated for a stroke.   My BP was sky-high. I. undressed and was helped into a hospital gown.  The PureWick did not work that night so when I had to go I just went.  (I do want a PureWick if I ever get urinary stress incontenence though and would need to wear diapers.). 
      I had a CT scan fairly early the next morning and it confirmed that I'd sufffered a mild stroke,  I had an MRI that afternoon which confirmed the both the mild stroke and no other damage and yet I had another CT scan -this time with a contrast medium injected.  I was allowed the Heart Healthy diet and my BP had dropped to 180/100.  They don'y want to drop the BP too rapidly so it has dropped enough to turn to Lisinipril to drop it further.
      After the ER. I was sent to the ICU and stayed until I was discharged this afternoon.  The staff were all really nice and my husband and two daughters were with me most of the time, helping out.  My oldest daughter's van was in the shop so I let her borrow the MINI since I knew she could drive a stick.  When she was visiting yesterday afternoon, her husband was in the ER waiting on a CT can and today, she was there when the speech pathologist was visiting.  She was able to get some good advice from her as her husband is currently unable to swallow.
      Anyway I'm home.  My dogs and the cat to see me home, especially my dachsie, were happy to see me home.
      A couple of things I learned:
      I need to teach my husband about loading the dishwasher.
      and 
      Jill would never be able to handle bedpans.
      · 11 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Fornicate.  Six more weeks of winter according to Phil.
      · 0 replies
    • Jinder Roles

      Jinder Roles

      Currently obsessed with Laura Mvula, a musical genius
      · 0 replies
    • Bluebirdbluebell

      Bluebirdbluebell

      I highly recommend Not the Good Girl's Youtube channel. She is making great documentaries about cults.
      · 0 replies
    • BlackberryGirl

      BlackberryGirl

      Ohh jeeze, GrandBerry6 just came to me, snuggled his face in my neck and barfed, all over me. In my neck, in my hair, on my face, down inside my nightie all over the front of my nightie. Ohh FUCK! Bath, washed hair, cleaned sofa. Good times, good times.
      · 3 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.