Modesty Tests for Eight-Year-Old Girls

[slh12280]

Visual virginity? :shock:

I was just about comment on that. What does that even mean?

[deelaem]

These people are fucked in the head, I feel seriously sick. If you are getting turned on by a child then YOU are the one with issues. They cry about teenagers growing up too young and they're the ones who are sexualising children. A child should never have to worry about modesty.

My thoughts exactly. Now I have to go take a 1 hour shower with a scrub brush after reading this filth.

[kayray]

Nothing wrong with that, but I would apply it equally to boys and girls. However, there's something much more sinister going on with this underwear test. Did you notice that they are obsessed with making sure the underpants can't be seen through clothing? It's not just that the underwear isn't sticking out; it's that you shouldn't be able to see the outline or the seams of the panties. I can't think of any reason a sane person should be worrying about whether or not they can see the panty line of an eight-year-old girl.

I remember in junior high school when, one day, the principal came down with a rule that no bra straps could ever show (this was a mainstream public school). Like if they poked out from under shirts or tank tops. The solution for many girls? Remove their bras altogether. Problem solved! They did have a "no showing belly" rule too but girls would cut it pretty close with that one.

I find it bizarre that they frame it all in a way like "could Grandpa see your panties" and "bellies are intoxicating to men" (really? I mean, my husband really enjoys watching talented belly dancers with ample bellies, but we are talking about adult women there who even I enjoy watching, not children!). They can be told it is not appropriate to show their panties without adding in fearing Grandpa seeing them, or without telling them they are just future helpmeets so they need to save it for their husband. It DOES sound like there is an expectation that all men are perverts and it is the responsibility of the girls to ensure the men do not give in to their perversions.

[synchroswimr]

Some of it I don't have a problem with, but it is the way it is presented. Barf.

On the future cleavage, my boss was telling me about her brother's experience in boot camp when their bunk check was perfect so they got busted for "future dust."

[BoomerLynn]

This is just bizarre. How many 8 year olds even know what "intoxicating" even means? Wouldn't a simple "Don't show your underwear (or belly, etc), it's inappropriate," suffice?

[TXDuck]

This is just bizarre. How many 8 year olds even know what "intoxicating" even means? Wouldn't a simple "Don't show your underwear (or belly, etc), it's inappropriate," suffice?

Granted, I'm not a fundie or even fundie-lyte, but "it's not appropriate" has worked quite well for us. Of course, I think it's inappropriate to begin with to talk to an 8 year old about what he/she should "save" for their future spouse.

[BoomerLynn]

Granted, I'm not a fundie or even fundie-lyte, but "it's not appropriate" has worked quite well for us. Of course, I think it's inappropriate to begin with to talk to an 8 year old about what he/she should "save" for their future spouse.

Always worked for me too. And I agree completely that it is inappropriate to tell an 8 year old what should be "saved" for a future spouse. I don't know about these girls but getting married wasn't even on my radar at that age, beyond the usual "Someday I'll get married, have kids, and be a doctor or whatever" type of stuff. AT 8 years old I was more concerened with playing with my friends and watching cartoons. It just seems like such a burden to place on a child.

[maybeizfundie]

FTR, I agree that these things are obnoxious for so many reasons. Way too detailed, to start with, for 8 year olds. And yes, "it's inappopriate" works just fine for most of these. Just the whole style and presentation irritates me. Especially the "truth or bare" title. bleah.

However, the way I am reading it seems to be a little different. I don't think they're saying 8 year olds *are* sexual temptations, or that grandpa will be turned on by seeing undies (although it's a really weird example to give, for all that). The purupose of the group is to teach, so that young girls know these things and practice them *before* sexuality enters the picture. IOW, getting used to the no-belly-baring while it's not really an issue.

I don't think they're saying that 8 year olds are highly sexual temptresses. It's like the one comment I read years and years ago about modesty, and this one lady saying she'd never put her baby girl in "bifurcated clothing" (pants, pajamas, etc) because then the baby would be used to "wearing pants" and not want to be dresses/skirts only when she got older. I think that's pretty silly, but I think that's the idea rather than the way it's primarily being interpreted here.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Some of it I don't have a problem with, but it is the way it is presented. Barf.

On the future cleavage, my boss was telling me about her brother's experience in boot camp when their bunk check was perfect so they got busted for "future dust."

Same here - the content of some of the tests I don't mind so much (best to discover potential plumber butt before other people are laughing at you for it, and "wear white undies with white pants" seems like usual fashion advice - IF you're crazy enough to buy white pants as a kid) but the way it's presented is just yuck.

Separately from that this is the first I've heard of "sit criss cross applesauce." The only English word I knew for that (from elementary school days LONG ago) was "sit Indian style" but now that I think about it I suppose that phrase is problematic now. Is "criss cross applesauce" a well-known usual thing?

[QAF_Rocks]

Same here - the content of some of the tests I don't mind so much (best to discover potential plumber butt before other people are laughing at you for it, and "wear white undies with white pants" seems like usual fashion advice - IF you're crazy enough to buy white pants as a kid) but the way it's presented is just yuck.

Yes, I don't think all the advice is bad either, but it's the reason for the advice that's creepy. They're not worried that it might be embarrassing to have underwear showing. These evangelicals are entirely focused on the sexual element. People shouldn't be able to see these little girls' underwear because they might be turned on by it.

Separately from that this is the first I've heard of "sit criss cross applesauce." The only English word I knew for that (from elementary school days LONG ago) was "sit Indian style" but now that I think about it I suppose that phrase is problematic now. Is "criss cross applesauce" a well-known usual thing?

I believe so. I remember "Indian style" from my childhood, but it's obviously inappropriate now. I've also heard teachers use "sit cross-legged" instead.

[TXDuck]

However, the way I am reading it seems to be a little different. I don't think they're saying 8 year olds *are* sexual temptations, or that grandpa will be turned on by seeing undies (although it's a really weird example to give, for all that). The purupose of the group is to teach, so that young girls know these things and practice them *before* sexuality enters the picture. IOW, getting used to the no-belly-baring while it's not really an issue.

I agree that isn't what they're going for. However, in deciding to phrase many statements the way they did, the site did manage to sexualize young girls. After all, what, other than sexuality, is the implication of intoxicating bellies? You can manage to get kids used to dressing appropriately well before puberty happens without ever once mentioning future spouses, intoxicating body parts, or "visual virginity", whatever the hell that means. While it wasn't the site's intention (I'm being generous here), they did sexualize young girls with their own language.

[Guest Anonymous]

Separately from that this is the first I've heard of "sit criss cross applesauce." The only English word I knew for that (from elementary school days LONG ago) was "sit Indian style" but now that I think about it I suppose that phrase is problematic now. Is "criss cross applesauce" a well-known usual thing?

I have several friends that are in early childhood education and they all say it. When I was a kid in the eighties I didn't really hear it but it seems extremely common now (in my region.)

[QAF_Rocks]

I agree that isn't what they're going for. However, in deciding to phrase many statements the way they did, the site did manage to sexualize young girls. After all, what, other than sexuality, is the implication of intoxicating bellies? You can manage to get kids used to dressing appropriately well before puberty happens without ever once mentioning future spouses, intoxicating body parts, or "visual virginity", whatever the hell that means. While it wasn't the site's intention (I'm being generous here), they did sexualize young girls with their own language.

Yup, it's two sides of the same coin. This site is sexualizing children just as surely as little girl jeans with the word "juicy" splashed across the backside.

No one seriously believes that eight-year-olds are sexual temptresses. It's that they have the potential to grow up to be sexual temptresses, so these fundies want to train them early that their bodies are wicked and enticing and must be hidden from view, lest they cause Christian men to "stumble." Because in this world, sexual thoughts and feelings are bad, bad things that must be prevented until one is safely ensconced in a heterosexual marriage.

Like other types of indoctrination in the evangelical world, the motive is "Get 'em young!"

[TXDuck]

Like other types of indoctrination in the evangelical world, the motive is "Get 'em young!"

Yep. And if it's inappropriate (and it is) for secular sources to sexualize young children, it is equally inappropriate, if not more so, to sexualize young children in the name of religion.

[IceTwinkie]

Hell, in pools here in Germany, I see lots of young girls wearing speedo bottoms and that's it. Most girls are androgynous at this age;

This kind of reminds me of my sister when we were kids. We lived in Arizona at the time and from the ages of about 5 to 8 she insisted in running around in just her bikini bottoms or shorts during the summer. There are several pictures of us with the neighborhood kids, in the pool, neighborhood bbq etc, and there is my sister in all of her "semi nude" glory. The thing is, she started to develop quite early but she never had any of body issues that a lot of girls seem to develop, she was and is still very comfortable with her body.

On another note, my cousin is fundie-lite. About a year ago we were talking and she told me about how proud she was of her one daughter, who was all of 7 at the time, how proud she was because one of her little friends came over to play and her daughter told her she couldn't play with her until she went home and changed because she was not dressed modestly. I asked my cousin what on earth could a 7 year old be wearing that would be considered immodest. From what I got from her description she was wearing one of those little spaghetti strap half tops with a ruffle on the bottom that exposed her navel. I laughed my a** off and told my cousin that that was utterly ridiculous.

[freejoytoo]

When I was little I would play quite happily in skirts and dresses without shorts underneath because it doesn't matter if a child shows their underwear - hell, if it was hot, I would take most of my clothes off and it STILL DIDN'T MATTER. I was barely aware of modesty. The only time I ever thought about it when I was eight or nine and my mum wouldn't let me wear a mini skirt to the park because she said it was inappropriate. I think I only got body conscious when I was about eleven or twelve.

[formergothardite]

My seven year old ran around playing in a sprinkler wearing just her underwear yesterday when we stopped by a friends house and her kids were playing in it. The seven year old boy wasn't intoxicated.

[Kitten]

And the boys have to worry about being visual virgins???

I can see it now...

"James, do you have anything to confess discuss with Mom and Dad?"

"Well, it's horrible, it's terrible, I don't think I can say it out loud."

"Son, you know we are always waiting to catch you in a sin here for you, no matter what it is."

"I...I...I'm NO LONGER A VIRGIN! I saw my two-year-old sister's belly today!"

"To the reeducation ALERT camp with you! Shave his head!!!!"

[Terrie]

I think the "criss-cross applesauce" thing is just meant to be a fun rhyme way of describing it, since "Indian style" is not appropriate. Sort of like saying "Upsey-Daisy." I'm with everyone that you can discuss "appropriate" dress without going into modesty nonsense. Of course, I'm someone who doesn't think excessive amounts of Pink Princess Crap are appropriate for young girls.

[snarkykitty]

Ugh. Reminds me of my mother's ridiculous modesty standards. I stopped wearing a slip (those awful non-breathable undergarments) under my school uniform in sixth grade because it just made that polyester uniform all the more confining. My mother was "horrified" but I remember that at some point, I just flat out refused.

Going through puberty was awful, because my mother made me feel like it was something to be embarrassed about. I grew up hating and being ashamed of my body, and to this day, still have issues. Here's to another generation of girls thinking that there is something wrong with them just for having an X chromosome! :x

[Hisey]

I have an 8 year old. I just dropped her off at camp. I can assure you that the LAST thing on her sweet mind is showing off her body, or the fact that her little tummy might be "intoxicating" to some sicko.

Actually, on the way to camp, we did have a brief discussion about modesty, completely initiated by her. At her big sister's school, the trend is to wear these little tiny short-shorts. My girls know I don't like these, but I don't make a big fuss over it. Anyhow, on the way to camp, my eight-year old said, "I hope when I get to middle school the styles have changed and girls don't wear those little shorts anymore."

She said that because she is at the age where she is trying to please me. Her mommy. She doesn't care what she wears. She rarely thinks about what she looks like. She just wants her mom to approve of her and love her. Moms are very powerful at this age. How sick, how distorted, if I used my power to convince her that her body was "intoxicating" and should be covered up.

[ADoyle90815]

Here's another example, using Disney Princesses as an example of "modesty" from a Mormon mommy blog.

postpartumprogression.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/when-i-dress-modestly-i-respect-my-body-as-a-gift-from-god/

[freejoytoo]

Wow that blog is racist. The Native Americans and Asian clothes are automatically immodest!

[RachelB]

I'm surprised that they ask girls to test their skirts / shorts sitting cross-legged. Isn't that a hoyden-ish posture? I mean, shouldn't they have learned by age 8 to cross their wee legs at the ankle like ladies? :naughty:

[darkplumaged]

I'm surprised that they ask girls to test their skirts / shorts sitting cross-legged. Isn't that a hoyden-ish posture? I mean, shouldn't they have learned by age 8 to cross their wee legs at the ankle like ladies? :naughty:

Kids who go to eeeevil school often have to sit cross-legged on the floor for story time, assemblies, etc., so I guess they figured it "made sense" to test skirts and shorts in that position.

Amid all the other questions about this modesty nonsense--why is the onus being placed on children to make sure they're modestly dressed? If an eight-year-old's parents are concerned about modesty, they shouldn't buy "immodest" items for her in the first place. It's not as if eight-year-olds are driving themselves to the mall and sneaking crop tops and short shorts into the house.