Christian Modesty Message Causing Women To Be Ashamed

[Toothfairy]

This is why I love Sheila.

How Christian Modesty Got Off Base

The Christian modesty movement gets its starting premise from this statement by Jesus:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:28)

 (NIV)

So lust is a really big deal! And if that’s true, then women should do what they can to reduce the chances of lust, right?

Well, let’s take a look at this for a moment. Why did Jesus say this? Basically, in those days if a Pharisee saw a woman coming down the street, they would avert their eyes and walk to the other side of the street. Women were seen as temptresses, as evil, as shameful.

And Jesus put the burden right back on the Pharisees: “It’s not her fault if you lust. Lust is YOUR problem.â€

Jesus was trying to remove shame from women and replace it with righteous sorrow for sin. That’s a good thing.

And yet what have we done?

We’ve placed the burden back on the girl again when we start making rules for how women should dress.

I’ve sat through events aimed at preteen girls which told them how many inches below the clavicle their shirts can be. I’ve been at homeschooling track meetings where girls were given measurements about what they should wear to track meets, and I’ve seen some families requiring their daughters to run the 1 km race in a long “Little House on the Prairie†skirt. And I wonder: What does this do to the girls?

I asked that question on Facebook last week, and one woman wrote this:

I grew up covering my body and its curves to help men not sin. We had to wear skirts and dresses to the ankle (at least that’s what we preferred: that allowed to to play Little House on the Prairie and hide my unshaven legs.) sleeves couldn’t be shorter then four inches off the shoulder. The neck line had to fit two fingers from the pit of the throat. Anything that cut deeper into the chest was immodest and “oh my gosh! Fix your shirt!†Nothing could be tight so as draw attention to the chest or hips. We weren’t even allowed to wear smooth fitting skirts-they all had to have enough gathering at the top to just flow over the body and not stick to it. How ridiculous we must have looked to others when we played homeschool baseball or basketball on the driveway. At fourteen my mother accused me of looking at my father with a sexual eye and told me that all men only want “one thing:sex†and that it was on their minds all the time. The way I dressed would help them not to sin.

I know that is an extreme example, but I have seen it in real life. And I think even when Christian modesty isn’t enforced to that extreme, it still has some negative repercussions, like these:

Legalistic Standards for Modesty Teach Girls Their Bodies Are Dangerous

If your body can cause someone to sin, then your body is a source of shame. It’s something dangerous, lust-inducing, almost sinful, in and of itself. If the mere sight of your curves can cause someone else to err, then your curves must somehow be bad.

I know this is not the intention when people teach modesty. I’ve heard of the “secret keeper†approach which says that what you have is lovely, but it’s just yours, and it isn’t to be shared, and I think that approach can work. But often it’s laced with the message that if you don’t keep the secret, you lead others into sin.

What happens, then, if someone really does sin? Let’s say that you’re date raped, or someone says some derogatory things about your body. You now believe that it is your fault because you’ve grown up thinking that men cannot resist seeing curves, and so if they act inappropriately, it must be because they saw too many of your curves. It puts the burden for sin in the wrong place. And if women start feeling shameful of their curves, as if their body is the enemy, how in the world are they supposed to start liking their bodies and being comfortable sharing their bodies with their husbands once they get married? If you’ve been taught from the time you’re small to worry about your body, it’s really difficult to start seeing it as a good thing that can bring you and  your husband pleasure. The very fact that he wants pleasure from your body seems somehow twisted already.

When I was a teenager I worked in a Christian bookstore. A woman who had only recently become a Christian worked there part-time. She was 30, single, and drop-dead gorgeous. She could have been a Victoria Secret model. She dressed very fashionably, but also very modestly. No cleavage, lots of turtlenecks (it’s Canada, after all), and nothing too tight. Yet week after week the elders would sit her down and tell her that she needed to dress more modestly because men were lusting after her. Her clothes were not the problem–it was her beauty, and she could do nothing about that. They were calling her beauty sinful. She finally just went to another church.

Legalistic Christian Modesty Teaches Girls that Boys “Only Want One Thingâ€

The Christian modesty message also says that boys are basically helpless to withstand this onslaught of seeing girls’ curves. All guys, including all older men, will lust if they see you. I’m not sure how that message is supposed to make women like men. We're doing the same thing. But let’s face it: If a guy will fall into lust because he sees a girl with a V-neck T-shirt on (even if there’s no cleavage), what in the world is he going to do if he walks through the mall?

Legalistic Christian Modesty is Just That: Legalistic

We’re told in 1 Timothy 2:9:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

Dressing modestly is important. But notice that the text does not define what decency and propriety is. When we start to define it rigidly, then we are becoming legalistic. What is modest in one culture is not modest in another. There aren’t absolutes. When I was in Kenya, showing cleavage was less offensive than showing bare shoulders (though the children’s home where we were didn’t show either). Things vary by culture. The spirit is important: we all should be modest. How that is lived out, though, is ultimately up to the individual, and should not be imposed, or else you are adding to Scripture.

It’s interesting, but one of my friends pointed out that in the Old Testament, the dress that was criticized was unisex. It was very clear: men should look like men; women should look like women. Women have curves, and I think that’s okay.

 Let’s Change the Message!1. Point to God, not rules.

Whatever we do, we are to do it to the glory of God. So when we dress, we should be glorifying to God. Teach young people, both guys and girls, to ask themselves that question: am I portraying myself as a child of God? If everybody asked themselves that question, a lot of problems would go away anyway. And having girls dress modestly for the wrong reasons doesn’t glorify God. He cares about the heart, not the outward appearance.

2. Don’t give a double standard.

Dress codes are fine, especially at teenage events, I think. Most schools have dress codes (no spaghetti straps, no low-rise jeans, etc.). But if you have a dress code, it should be focused on both guys and girls, not just girls. So say something like, “Girls, no string bikinies, guys, no speedos. When out of the water, T-shirts should be worn by all at all times.â€

 3. Allow for beauty

Another woman on Facebook wrote this:

I too was taught that it was my responsibility to dress so that guys didn’t lust after me. Even if I dressed modestly but looked pretty that was a problem because when a much older guy made unwanted physical and verbal advances toward me it was my fault. After all, how could I blame him? I was told that If I wasn’t “so pretty†or if I wasn’t “so fun to be around†then none of this would happen. It was hard because I was never really taught how to enjoy my body. Things were either unflattering / too big or were “too sexy.†The line between the two extremes was not explained… I developed my own style and have loosened up, but even after a year of marriage, I still struggle with knowing how to be sexy at home and what is too sexy for out in public.

So many households and churches talk so much against what clothes to wear that they never talk about how to be beautiful. Most girls yearn to be beautiful. Let’s start talking about how all of us are fearfully and wonderfully made; how the urge to be beautiful for women is universal and God-given; and then show girls how beauty doesn’t need to mean sexy. You can be totally lovely without twerking, so to speak. Beauty is not the enemy, and we need to acknowledge that girls want to be beautiful, and guide them about how to be truly beautiful

tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2014/10/chrisitan-modesty-message-make-girls-ashamed-of-their-bodies/

[Miggy]

This is such a great article. I love the reference to modesty being a regional thing. It's spring now so my daughter and her friends are all wearing tshirts and shorts. The boys don't notice them. However, if the Duggar or Bates girls/ladies came to visit, with their make up, jewellery, styled hair, fancy nails, etc. I think the boys would be watching them pretty closely. I'm not suggesting the girls should dress differently - we would just tell the boys to "keep it in their pants". I wish their parents and pastors would teach them (1) modesty is not just about clothes, (2) modesty is relative to the society you are in and (3) lust is the problem of the person doing the lusting.

[DGayle]

I was raised to think that modesty is dressing in any way that makes you stick out and draws attention. I think a lot of people mix up modesty with covering everything up. What fundies wear in the US is very immodest for women in other parts of the world. So it really does depend on where you are.

[browncoatslytherin]

i'm really loving this article as well. growing up, there were a lot of standards to hold to. for a while, it was skirts/dresses/frumpers only (when we were ati/borderline). that got loosened to pants, but then - especially when i was a teen - those were regulated heavy. i absolutely could not wear any pants where you could see my belly button if i lifted my shirt (and i have a high belly button). so i was shamed into wearing mom jeans a lot of the times. i really wanted to wear flare-type jeans that were especially popular, but most of them were "too tight" and came "too low" and were "too long" (my mum didn't want the pant legs dragging...but with my height, petite pants are too short and average pants are just a little too long, so it was dragging hems or showing socks. i'm sure you can guess which she chose)...even though they weren't really tight, and i was always wearing longer shirts so even if the jeans came beneath my belly button, it wouldn't have showed! (i was lucky that i did find a pair here and there that fit my parents' stringent standards) and by that time, we were in wisconsin, so my dress code was jeans and sweatshirts cuz it was cold a lot of the time, and even in the summer my t-shirts were not in any way immodest. i didn't even wear tank tops because i was conscientious about my weight and i didn't like my arms. i didn't like anything that fit tightly because i didn't want to show my belly fat or arm fat or anything like that.

but no, that belly button can't be seen if the shirt is lifted up. that's bad! *eye roll*

it was also demoralizing, because before i found pants that fit the standards, i knew how unflattering the mom jeans were, but i couldn't do much about it. i eventually just bought baggy man jeans and said fuck it. they weren't the best, but at least they weren't mom jeans. fuck, man. by the time i enrolled in high school, i had gotten some pairs that fit that standard, and thank fuck. i'm glad i went to the small christian school that i did, cuz even though i'm sure some people talked about me behind my back regarding my less than spectacular fashion, it was far less than what i would have gotten had i gone to a public school.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Sheila rocks, and so does her daughter.

I like the idea of seeing modesty as something that reflects on how you see yourself, rather than focusing on how it affects men (and men specifically).

[MamaJunebug]

I like the idea of seeing modesty as something that reflects on how you see yourself, rather than focusing on how it affects men (and men specifically).

I'm with you on that, 2xx1xy1JD, but there's more.

Look at the religions that - at their extremes - insist on hyper-covering of the female form: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. All theologies that began in the harsh and unforgiving desert regions. And there is so much war and brute force from their ancient histories. The stories of mayhem and violence are aplenty in all their holy books, IIRC.

So I've figured that it's somewhat logical that they went bananas over coverings. Hide yo' females, and decrease the chances that one will turn up pregnant with a baby that isn't from an approved father after a particularly horrible invasion of the camp.

Which, in 2014, should not be a concern anywhere in the world. But I digress.

The theologies also send males a viciously mixed message: it's wrong to feel sexual stimulation, however when you're overcome and do violence to an unwilling woman, it's her fault because you couldn't control your fists and superior body strength and you attacked her.

Frank Schaeffer sums it up in his essay "God vs. Women."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-sch ... 58576.html

(Link unbroken as it's to HuffPo)

It's been a while since I read the entire essay, and to my discredit I'm not rereading it before posting this. But if I were to continue in Frank's style, I'd say [the religions claim that] God hates not only feminine bodily fluids but also those from males, including semen. Thus, the autonomic response that precedes the appearance of semen is something hateful and to be avoided.

ExceptOfCourseInTheHolyMarriageChamberAndThatGoesForHoweverManyWivesAGuyHas......

My takeaway point: Dressing modestly is a state of common sense. In the USA culture (the only one I know), it's customary to see bare legs, bare arms, bare shoulders. Avoid, in daytime and in public, exposing most of the breasts (this should go for men, too, but that's yet another digression).

Avoid exposing the buttocks. I mean, really: unless you are a red baboon, there's no social nor reproductive need!

If you want to be modest - that is, you don't want to draw attention to yourself - dress as the folks around you dress. And if by chance they show lots of breast and buttock, be rebellious and cover your own, but enjoy letting your young legs and firm upper arms show, while they still are young and firm.

If you really want to be really modest - that is, if you want to enjoy others' company and to serve the higher good - get into a mindset that says, "I'm gonna cover my nakedness [as BigMJB might've put it] and go serve the Lord."

Substitute anything you like for "the Lord" if you don't believe in such. If you're serving the Lord/the greater good by farming, dress so that you're safe and protected from bugs, sharp and/or poisonous leaves and machinery.

If you're serving by helping your folks with little kids, forget about flowy skirts that will just hamper your ability to creep and crawl around.

If you're serving by mowing your lawn to keep the 'hood looking nice, BY ALL MEANS wear at least a tanktop t-shirt to make the streets safe. Can I tell you how many times I've glimpsed some hairy moobs and overflowing hairy abdomen and nearly hit the wrong pedal or swerved in revulsion?

But hey, at least I didn't get stimulated. :roll:

[bluehydrangea]

This article really gets to the root of the notion that women dressing "immodestly" causes lust from men, and that men supposedly can't control those urges, which I don't think a lot of people realize. When I was a student at in IFB school, hearing in chapel that the women in our community who wore shirts and tank tops were "the worst sinners there are", I didn't really think about it in terms of lust. I was too young to understand that. But as I got older and went to public school, I continued to feel extremely self-conscious when not wearing a modest dress or skirt...and now that I look back on it, I don't even think I knew why, I just knew immodest clothes were wrong.

Now that I'm a young adult, I know that men who are lustful creeps will openly "lust" after you no matter how you present yourself. I've been catcalled in baggy workout gear while walking through the Wal-Mart parking lot with my husband, for heaven's sake. Meanwhile, men who are intelligent enough to restrain themselves or -- gasp -- are not "filled with lust" at all will leave women alone. I agree with another poster who said that modesty is in many ways how you see and present yourself, regardless of what's covered and what's not. A woman who can put together a decent outfit, knows what flatters her but knows that she doesn't need to show eeeeeverything to look "good"...I think there's modesty in that.

[louisa05]

2. Don’t give a double standard.

Dress codes are fine, especially at teenage events, I think. Most schools have dress codes (no spaghetti straps, no low-rise jeans, etc.). But if you have a dress code, it should be focused on both guys and girls, not just girls. So say something like, “Girls, no string bikinies, guys, no speedos. When out of the water, T-shirts should be worn by all at all times.â€

 

That will be the day. Confirmation meeting for parents at my parish last night included brief discussion of the dress code for the event itself next spring.

Boys: dress pants, shirt, tie. This took 30 seconds to discuss.

Girls: Dress or skirt to the knee or lower hemline. Nothing sleeveless. No cutouts. Not low cut and absolutely no cleavage (all but one of the girls in my class can only dream of having any at this point, so okay, then...). No low back. No off the shoulder. Not too tight. No pencil skirts. Take care that colors are not too flamboyant but it doesn't have to be white like First Communion. No heels that are too high and probably not "colored shoes" but shoes must not be too informal--no flip flops that make noise for example. The Archbishop Emeritus is coming and he doesn't really like open toed shoes in church, so that is something to think about but it isn't required... I seriously thought it was going to go on all night.

Part of me wants one of the boys to show up next April in matching bright red shirt and pants accented with sneakers that light up when he walks and a Batman tie.

I'm also not sure that I, as a teacher, own a dress or skirt and top ensemble that meets this dress code.

[2xx1xy1JD]

MamaJunebug: I read the article. I agree with some points, and quibble with some others.

One point that is very true, though, is that it's the feeling of being at war with your basic physical responses that is behind a lot of fundamentalist rage against women.

It took me a long time to realize this. If you think that modesty is about preventing sex between people outside of marriage, some rules seem bizarre and totally over-the-top, because you don't suddenly go from wearing bike shorts to having sex with random strangers.

If, however, men have been taught that it's not just actual sex that needs to be avoided, but that even thinking about sex or whacking off is sinful, it's a different story. That's what some fundamentalists in all 3 religions are teaching men. It's a rule that's almost impossible for most men to follow. So, the guys get frustrated and pissed off because they can't seem to avoid sinning, and they blame this on temptation. In their minds, just thinking about having sex can land them hell, so whenever they see a woman, they start thinking that she'll lead them straight to hell, even if she doesn't do anything, simply by being there.

Louisa - here's the dress code from my kids' school:

Boys: Kippah; long pants or baggy shorts that cover the knee; tops with long or short sleeves.

Girls: Knee-length dress or skirt, long pants, mid-calf capris or baggy shorts; tops with long or short sleeves (no tank tops).

Not identical, but close enough that I appreciate that it's aimed at respectful clothes for both genders. The school is air conditioned and in Canada, so the kids aren't going to drop from heat exhaustion if they don't get tank tops and shorter shorts. My rules are looser for summer vacation.

[louisa05]

Louisa - here's the dress code from my kids' school:

Boys: Kippah; long pants or baggy shorts that cover the knee; tops with long or short sleeves.

Girls: Knee-length dress or skirt, long pants, mid-calf capris or baggy shorts; tops with long or short sleeves (no tank tops).

Not identical, but close enough that I appreciate that it's aimed at respectful clothes for both genders. The school is air conditioned and in Canada, so the kids aren't going to drop from heat exhaustion if they don't get tank tops and shorter shorts. My rules are looser for summer vacation.

Perfectly reasonable. I would have been fine with the boys' code being as is and the girls being told to wear a dress or skirt to the knee or below and nothing sleeveless. It was when she started on cuts, colors and heel height and specific types of shoes that we fell into double standard land. And, of course, the words "modest" and "distracting" were thrown out. Because if girls wear the wrong thing they automatically become "distracting". I think my hypothetical boy in head to toe bright red with light up shoes would be a far bigger distraction at a confirmation mass than a girl in a pencil skirt. But maybe that's just me. And it isn't as if dress shirts for men and teenage boys don't come in bright colors or no one makes Batman ties--but we didn't have to hear a lecture about appropriate colors for boys or issue a ban on super hero (or any other) ties.

[It'sFunToRun]

Perfectly reasonable. I would have been fine with the boys' code being as is and the girls being told to wear a dress or skirt to the knee or below and nothing sleeveless. It was when she started on cuts, colors and heel height and specific types of shoes that we fell into double standard land. And, of course, the words "modest" and "distracting" were thrown out. Because if girls wear the wrong thing they automatically become "distracting". I think my hypothetical boy in head to toe bright red with light up shoes would be a far bigger distraction at a confirmation mass than a girl in a pencil skirt. But maybe that's just me. And it isn't as if dress shirts for men and teenage boys don't come in bright colors or no one makes Batman ties--but we didn't have to hear a lecture about appropriate colors for boys or issue a ban on super hero (or any other) ties.

Get one of the boys you teach to arrive in dress pants, shirt, tie, and a sombrero. That'll teach 'em ;)

[louisa05]

Get one of the boys you teach to arrive in dress pants, shirt, tie, and a sombrero. That'll teach 'em ;)

I have one that is very likely to show up in a Batman tie. And another who would wear a sombrero if he found one. I'm sure that the spring will come when a boy will turn up in something "distracting" to the assembled congregation. But I doubt the uber-conservative director of religious education will learn from that. A fellow teacher sitting next to me last night has a daughter who will be confirmed this spring and whispered to me that perhaps our director would prefer that we just put burkas on the girls.

These are eighth graders and a bit of guidance as to what is appropriate is needed but it should apply equally to both genders.

And guidance does not just apply to clothing. I've got a girl holding out on choosing a sponsor because maybe, just maybe, she can get Taylor Swift. To my knowledge, Taylor misses on the requirement of being a baptized and confirmed practicing Catholic, but try explaining that to a 13 year old fangirl (whose parents did not bother to be at the meeting, so they aren't any help in this).

[It'sFunToRun]

I have one that is very likely to show up in a Batman tie. And another who would wear a sombrero if he found one. I'm sure that the spring will come when a boy will turn up in something "distracting" to the assembled congregation. But I doubt the uber-conservative director of religious education will learn from that. A fellow teacher sitting next to me last night has a daughter who will be confirmed this spring and whispered to me that perhaps our director would prefer that we just put burkas on the girls.

These are eighth graders and a bit of guidance as to what is appropriate is needed but it should apply equally to both genders.

And guidance does not just apply to clothing. I've got a girl holding out on choosing a sponsor because maybe, just maybe, she can get Taylor Swift. To my knowledge, Taylor misses on the requirement of being a baptized and confirmed practicing Catholic, but try explaining that to a 13 year old fangirl (whose parents did not bother to be at the meeting, so they aren't any help in this).

If I could talk to the boys class, next year the boys requirements would look like this:

No batman ties, no going barefoot, no flip flops, no shoes that light up when you walk, no dress shoes that you spray painted orange. No pulling your dress pants up to your rib cage so that they look like capris and you look like the dancing grandpa from six flags, no dress pants three sizes too big so that they fall down and expose your "I love you mom" boxers, no wearing skirts over your dress pants. No giant pimp necklaces with the dollar sign, no fluffy pink scarfs, no purple nail polish, no rings. Leave your pet snake at home. No pirate eye patches, no orange lipstick, no temporary tatoos on your fucking neck, no shaving one of your eyebrows the day before confirmation, no dying your hair green, no mohawks, and, for the love of G-d, no hats!!!

[Miggy]

That will be the day. Confirmation meeting for parents at my parish last night included brief discussion of the dress code for the event itself next spring.

Boys: dress pants, shirt, tie. This took 30 seconds to discuss.

Girls: Dress or skirt to the knee or lower hemline. Nothing sleeveless. No cutouts. Not low cut and absolutely no cleavage (all but one of the girls in my class can only dream of having any at this point, so okay, then...). No low back. No off the shoulder. Not too tight. No pencil skirts. Take care that colors are not too flamboyant but it doesn't have to be white like First Communion. No heels that are too high and probably not "colored shoes" but shoes must not be too informal--no flip flops that make noise for example. The Archbishop Emeritus is coming and he doesn't really like open toed shoes in church, so that is something to think about but it isn't required... I seriously thought it was going to go on all night.

Part of me wants one of the boys to show up next April in matching bright red shirt and pants accented with sneakers that light up when he walks and a Batman tie.

I'm also not sure that I, as a teacher, own a dress or skirt and top ensemble that meets this dress code.

I showed this to my 15yo daughter. She normally wears a uniform to school but she says that on special days, when they are allowed to wear casual, the rule is "No butts. No bellies. No boobs." I think that's a pretty good dress code for a teen age girl. For a really special occasion, such as an end of year formal, the same rule applies. They trust the girls to make sensible decisions about shoes and other details and it seems to happen.

[RosyDaisy]

A big point being missed is the definition of lust. Admiring someone who is attractive isn't lust. Lust is a desire to have that person.

[DGayle]

Since being covered is what matters, look how modest this thing is!

[ADoyle90815]

That will be the day. Confirmation meeting for parents at my parish last night included brief discussion of the dress code for the event itself next spring.

Boys: dress pants, shirt, tie. This took 30 seconds to discuss.

Girls: Dress or skirt to the knee or lower hemline. Nothing sleeveless. No cutouts. Not low cut and absolutely no cleavage (all but one of the girls in my class can only dream of having any at this point, so okay, then...). No low back. No off the shoulder. Not too tight. No pencil skirts. Take care that colors are not too flamboyant but it doesn't have to be white like First Communion. No heels that are too high and probably not "colored shoes" but shoes must not be too informal--no flip flops that make noise for example. The Archbishop Emeritus is coming and he doesn't really like open toed shoes in church, so that is something to think about but it isn't required... I seriously thought it was going to go on all night.

Part of me wants one of the boys to show up next April in matching bright red shirt and pants accented with sneakers that light up when he walks and a Batman tie.

I'm also not sure that I, as a teacher, own a dress or skirt and top ensemble that meets this dress code.

Better yet, have the boys wear tap shoes, as that's something my dad and uncles once did when they were growing up in a Catholic family. As you can imagine, my grandpa was pretty mad at their stunt because of the noise they made during Communion. This was one of the funny stories that got told around the time my grandpa died.

[louisa05]

Better yet, have the boys wear tap shoes, as that's something my dad and uncles once did when they were growing up in a Catholic family. As you can imagine, my grandpa was pretty mad at their stunt because of the noise they made during Communion. This was one of the funny stories that got told around the time my grandpa died.

That is hilarious. And would prove the point part of me would like to make: boys can wear things that are disruptive. Far more disruptive than a girl's bare shoulders, in fact.

[calimojo]

who is sheila?

[Firiel]

who is sheila?

She's a fairly conservative Christian relationship blogger who promotes complementarianism but is sane about it and understands nuance and balance. She and Lori have gotten into it a time or two, and Sheila always schools her. But she's classy about it. Way classier than I would be.

She tends to be an example here about how we don't willy-nilly snark on all Christians or even all conservative Christians. The hive vagina tends to like Sheila even if we don't always agree with her.

[formergothardite]

who is sheila?

Lorken's nemesis. :twisted: Seriously, Lori and Ken hate her. :lol: She may be a conservative Christian who believes in wives being submissive, but she makes them look like fools.

[Hane]

And guidance does not just apply to clothing. I've got a girl holding out on choosing a sponsor because maybe, just maybe, she can get Taylor Swift. To my knowledge, Taylor misses on the requirement of being a baptized and confirmed practicing Catholic, but try explaining that to a 13 year old fangirl (whose parents did not bother to be at the meeting, so they aren't any help in this).

When I was a practicing Catholic, the DRE of my daughter's Confirmation class said, 're Confirmation names, "Nothing like Madonna." I had to.point out to him that Madonna is a legit Catholic girl's name, and filled the saint's name requirement, the pop star notwithstanding.

Re Taylor Swift: My niece and nephew were sad that I couldn't be their Confirmation sponsor, despite my 55 years of Catholicism, because I bailed to be a UU.

Back to dress codes: My niece's First Communion class was told "no sleeveless dresses," and she'd wanted to wear the white flower girl dress I'd made her for my daughter's wedding. So I made a little lace-trimmed bolero to wear over the sleeveless dress. When we got to church, the aisles were packed with little girls in white sleeveless dresses. What the idiot (male) DRE had meant was,"no spaghetti straps." Sheesh.

[It'sFunToRun]

When I was a practicing Catholic, the DRE of my daughter's Confirmation class said, 're Confirmation names, "Nothing like Madonna." I had to.point out to him that Madonna is a legit Catholic girl's name, and filled the saint's name requirement, the pop star notwithstanding.

Re Taylor Swift: My niece and nephew were sad that I couldn't be their Confirmation sponsor, despite my 55 years of Catholicism, because I bailed to be a UU.

Back to dress codes: My niece's First Communion class was told "no sleeveless dresses," and she'd wanted to wear the white flower girl dress I'd made her for my daughter's wedding. So I made a little lace-trimmed bolero to wear over the sleeveless dress. When we got to church, the aisles were packed with little girls in white sleeveless dresses. What the idiot (male) DRE had meant was,"no spaghetti straps." Sheesh.

Is there anything else like "Madonna"?

[quiversR4hunting]

I showed this to my 15yo daughter. She normally wears a uniform to school but she says that on special days, when they are allowed to wear casual, the rule is "No butts. No bellies. No boobs." I think that's a pretty good dress code for a teen age girl. For a really special occasion, such as an end of year formal, the same rule applies. They trust the girls to make sensible decisions about shoes and other details and it seems to happen.

(Bold) That is a good rule for boys and girls! I have seen more boys underwear because pants are slung low like a prisoner looking for a date and ugh the ripped out t-shirts to work out that are ripped all the way to the shirt hem- :ew:

[EmiGirl]

Lorken's nemesis. :twisted: Seriously, Lori and Ken hate her. :lol: She may be a conservative Christian who believes in wives being submissive, but she makes them look like fools.

Not to mention cabinet man thinks she's going to Hell.