Showing posts with label modesty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modesty. Show all posts

Friday, February 6, 2015

Utah girl gets nearly booted from school dance for "naughty" dress, then gets cyberbullied by students. How do we teach our kids to give bullies the middle finger?

I just couldn't leave the whole Lone Peak High School "dress" controversy alone. I wrote an article about it via Divorced Moms.

Becoming Bully Proof: How To Help Our Children Get A Thick Skin
by Lizzy Smith                    
February 06, 2015
Share on Tumblr
gabi.jpgI live in Utah, a very conservative bastion of religious conservatives. A few weeks ago, a girl named Gabi made national headlines because some chaperons at a Lone Peak High School dance determined that she was dressed immodestly (she was showing too much shoulder) and she could either wear a coat or go home. (Gabi is pictured to the right wearing the dress and shoes in question. Seriously, I want that dress!!! But I digress.) Feeling humiliated in front of her date and not wanting to go home, she went out to her car and wore a winter coat throughout the entire dance, finally covered enough to satisfy the gatekeepers. Someone at the dance took a photo and posted it on a social media site and it went viral.

The next thing you know, Gabi was on local news programs, and then many national news outlets, including People magazine. In this heavily religious community, many defended the chaperons' decisions, noting that school rules required that straps be at least two inches in width and where was a ruler showing that those straps truly were two inches wide? And rules are rules, thank goodness for modesty because there needs to be standards and immodest girls tempt boys and lead to all the problems in the world. Others pointed out that Gabi looked beautiful and it was outrageous that a dress like this one would get anyone barred from a school activity.
Lone Peak dancers.jpg
A week later, my boyfriend and I went to that same high school for a basketball game. I wasn't even thinking about "dance-gate." About 30-minutes into the game, I noticed several girls who were dressed in 1950's-style dresses showing lots of shoulders and back. I started laughing and pointed it out, "Look, protestors for that girl who got kicked out of the dance." We laughed and thought it bold, awesome and creative.

And then I realized that those girls weren't protestors. They were the dance team of Lone Peak High School wearing school-approved attire that was far more "immodest" than Abby's dress. Wow. If there is one thing that gets under my skin like no other, it's hypocrisy-- especially on the heels of "the great Lone Peak High School controversy." And one in which its principal, Rhonda Bromley, defended that decision. (Honestly, I think the dancers' dresses are fine, and I think Gabi's dress is beautiful, demure and beyond ok for a high school dance, too.)

I took to Facebook and posted the photos I took at the basketball game. Most of my friends and followers thought the entire episode nuts. Yet some thought that the dancers were ok (it was a "sporting event") and Gabi a rule-breaker and her mother ought to be blamed for allowing her daughter to wear a dress like that.

I eventually started private messaging Gabi's mother, who I did not know prior to this first contact. She shared with me that Gabi was being bullied from some students. Gabi was called her a media-whore who just wanted attention, to get famous, and get on TV and in magazines. Gabi felt shamed and awful about the whole thing and so did her mom.

Lovely. I love religious piety (not).

Which got me to thinking about bullying. Growing up, there were students who were bullied. Some kids, for whatever reason, were picked on, beat up and teased. Oftentimes, there was no apparent reason behind it other than, well, "luck." And during seventh grade, I felt a little of that, too. I somehow lost almost all of my friends (I don't even know why) and spent a very lonely year almost alone, trying to hide in the bathrooms at lunch because my only friend, Virginia, might not have been at school that day. It was awful. But at least back then, in order to bully someone, you had to do it in person, usually with an audience watching. These days, thanks to social media, it's easy to anonymously bully. Plus, it's easy to say things in the cyber-world that one might never have the guts to say in person. I think bullying is intense and getting worse.

My then 13-year old daughter was the target of bullying last summer. I allowed her to get a second ear piercing and that, apparently, was not ok in these parts. She got anonymous messages on AskFM accusing her of being bad and not loving Jesus. Some told her no boy would ever like her and she was ugly and stupid because of that piercing. It was disturbing and disgusting.

Keep reading...

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Making Waves In Mormonville

I've decided that I'm done being silent. I am so tired of life in Mormon-ville that is so ultra conservative and not say something. I think a different opinion is sorely needed. (Before I go all negative, just know that I am grateful to live in Mormonville. I love the clean environment, the general kindness and innocence, and the desire to be better and do better. That said, some things are crazy and I just gotta share because I feel like it.) Anyhooo.... Here is the latest:

  • There was a girl at Lone Peak High School in Alpine, Utah who wore a "controversial" dress because it didn't have enough sleeves on in. She was told to either cover it up or go home. She spent the entire dance wearing a winter coat. This story made national headlines. A week later, William and I went to a Lone Peak basketball game and in walks several girls wearing back-baring dresses. Turns out, they were part of the high school dance team. Let's see, Hypocrites, one girl can't get in to a basketball game wearing the first dress pictured below because it's immodest (oh don't even get me started!) but it's perfectly ok for the girls in the photo below it to wear this while gyrating on the dance floor in front of a captive audience during half time at a basketball game. Wow.

 
 
  • Yesterday, I had a two-hour chat with a fellow cancer survivor. She was diagnosed just a few months ago. She is very conservative Mormon and she was lamenting to me that she asked her Bishop to release her from her calling (a calling is a more formal volunteer commitment for the church) because she wasn't feeling well. She is, after all, undergoing some heavy-duty treatment. She wondered where his compassion was. When she asked to be released, he said, "we'll talk about it" and then pretty much blew her off. I told her that she needed to take care of herself, no apologies, no debating it, no guilt. So it was ok to call up her bishop and say, "I'm not doing this calling anymore. I'm sick, I can't" and that's it. Same with the fact that her family was called a few weeks ago and asked to help clean the church. That's right, instead of paying for a cleaning service the church requires that each group of wards that meet in a particular building clean it once a week for free. The result is that the church saves loads of money and, depending on how well families feel like cleaning up and scrubbing, they can be really clean or super filthy. Anyway she felt bad that she physically couldn't clean. In which case I said that from here on out, when asked (or told) that it was her family's turn to help clean, she simply say no. End of story. If someone doesn't like it, in one ear and out the next. Who cares? She's fighting for her life, that's numero uno priority. Nothing else matters. I also told her that I drink coffee liberally, which is against the Mormon Word of Wisdom. Apparently in Utah, many who drink coffee for medicinal purposes get a prescription from their doctor and show it to their bishops so they are approved coffee drinkers. I've heard of this but what can I say? (after I'm left speechless) I'm 47 years old and I'm not getting a note to show my bishop. That's what's great about the whole "take care of myself, no apologies or excuses" thing. When one is battling illnesses and side effects, that's all that matters.
  • A friend of mine posted this disturbing article on Facebook and touted it as making strong arguments AGAINST gay marriage. (see below) After reading it, I decided that it had zero arguments against gay marriage and, instead, really makes arguments against divorce, adoption, adoption by single parents, anyone who doesn't offer their children a home with the original mom and dad in the picture (including causes of death, military service, and the like). Instead of being silent, I responded. As a divorced mom, I can attest that children are far better served in single homes and in homes of committed and loving gay couples than in "some" intact families. The ideal of original mom and dad raising only their biological children and those parents being good and faithful and amazing to each other and their family, is an ideal achieved by very few, from the beginning of time. If you're going to argue against gay marriage, at least make an argument that is logical.
Dear Justice Kennedy,

June is nigh, and with it will come your ruling on the most contentious political issue of our time: marriage.

I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.

It’s very difficult to speak about this subject, because I love my mom. Most of us children with gay parents do. We also love their partner(s). You don’t hear much from us because, as far as the media are concerned, it’s impossible that we could both love our gay parent(s) and oppose gay marriage. Many are of the opinion I should not exist. But I do, and I’m not the only one.

This debate, at its core, is about one thing.

It’s about children.

The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicized. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration.

Government Should Promote the Well-being of Children
Children are the reason government has any stake in this discussion at all. Congress was spot on in 1996 when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating:
At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.
There is no difference between the value and worth of heterosexual and homosexual persons. We all deserve equal protection and opportunity in academe, housing, employment, and medical care, because we are all humans created in the image of God.

However, when it comes to procreation and child-rearing, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are wholly unequal and should be treated differently for the sake of the children.

When two adults who cannot procreate want to raise children together, where do those babies come from? Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this.

Whether by adoption, divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents.

Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivize, or promote.

The Voices of the Children
When you emphasized how important the voices of children with gay parents are, you probably anticipated a different response. You might have expected that the children of same-sex unions would have nothing but glowing things to say about how their family is “just like everyone else’s.” Perhaps you expected them to tell you that the only scar on their otherwise idyllic life is that their two moms or two dads could not be legally married. If the children of these unions were all happy and well-adjusted, it would make it easier for you to deliver the feel-good ruling that would be so popular.
I identify with the instinct of those children to be protective of their gay parent. In fact, I’ve done it myself. I remember how many times I repeated my speech: “I’m so happy that my parents got divorced so that I could know all of you wonderful women.” I quaffed the praise and savored the accolades. The women in my mother’s circle swooned at my maturity, my worldliness. I said it over and over, and with every refrain my performance improved. It was what all the adults in my life wanted to hear. I could have been the public service announcement for gay parenting.

I cringe when I think of it now, because it was a lie. My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner and friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and my dad loving me under the same roof. This should come as no surprise to anyone who is willing to remove the politically correct lens that we all seem to have over our eyes.

Kids want their mother and father to love them, and to love each other. I have no bitterness toward either of my parents. On the contrary, I am grateful for a close relationship with them both and for the role they play in my children’s lives. But loving my parents and looking critically at the impact of family breakdown are not mutually exclusive.

Now that I am a parent, I see clearly the beautiful differences my husband and I bring to our family. I see the wholeness and health that my children receive because they have both of their parents living with and loving them. I see how important the role of their father is and how irreplaceable I am as their mother. We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right.

The Missing Parent
I am not saying that being same-sex attracted makes one incapable of parenting. My mother was an exceptional parent, and much of what I do well as a mother is a reflection of how she loved and nurtured me. This is about the missing parent.

Talk to any child with gay parents, especially those old enough to reflect on their experiences. If you ask a child raised by a lesbian couple if they love their two moms, you’ll probably get a resounding “yes!” Ask about their father, and you are in for either painful silence, a confession of gut-wrenching longing, or the recognition that they have a father that they wish they could see more often. The one thing that you will not hear is indifference.

What is your experience with children who have divorced parents, or are the offspring of third-party reproduction, or the victims of abandonment? Do they not care about their missing parent? Do those children claim to have never had a sleepless night wondering why their parents left, what they look like, or if they love their child? Of course not. We are made to know, and be known by, both of our parents. When one is absent, that absence leaves a lifelong gaping wound.

The opposition will clamor on about studies where the researchers concluded that children in same-sex households allegedly fared “even better!” than those from intact biological homes. Leave aside the methodological problems with such studies and just think for a moment.

If it is undisputed social science that children suffer greatly when they are abandoned by their biological parents, when their parents divorce, when one parent dies, or when they are donor-conceived, then how can it be possible that they are miraculously turning out “even better!” when raised in same-sex-headed households? Every child raised by “two moms” or “two dads” came to that household via one of those four traumatic methods. Does being raised under the rainbow miraculously wipe away all the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents? The more likely explanation is that researchers are feeling the same pressure as the rest of us feel to prove that they love their gay friends.

Children Have the Right to Be Loved by Their Mother and Father
Like most Americans, I am for adults having the freedom to live as they please. I unequivocally oppose criminalizing gay relationships. But defining marriage correctly criminalizes nothing. And the government’s interest in marriage is about the children that only male-female relationships can produce. Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. It moves us well beyond our “live and let live” philosophy into the land where our society promotes a family structure where children will always suffer loss. It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child.

Have we really arrived at a time when we are considering institutionalizing the stripping of a child’s natural right to a mother and a father in order to validate the emotions of adults?

Justice Kennedy, I have long admired your consistency when ruling on the well-being of children, and I implore you to stay the course. I truly believe you are invested in the equal protection of all citizens, and it is your sworn duty to uphold that protection for the most vulnerable among us. The bonds with one’s natural parents deserve to be protected. Do not fall prey to the false narrative that adult feelings should trump children’s rights. The onus must be on adults to conform to the needs of children, not the other way around.

This is not about being against anyone. This is about what I am for. I am for children! I want all children to have the love of their mother and their father. Being for children also makes me for LGBT youth. They deserve all the physical, social, and emotional benefits of being raised by their mother and father as well. But I fear that, in the case before you, we are at the mercy of loud, organized, well-funded adults who have nearly everyone in this country running scared.

Six adult children of gay parents are willing to stand against the bluster of the gay lobby and submit amicus briefs for your consideration in this case. I ask that you please read them. We are just the tip of the iceberg of children currently being raised in gay households. When they come of age, many will wonder why the separation from one parent who desperately mattered to them was celebrated as a “triumph of civil rights,” and they will turn to this generation for an answer.

What should we tell them?

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Why this Mormon mom wears (gasp) tank tops

I am so done with this absurd, over-the-top obsession with "modesty" (modesty as defined by Mormons), that I have to write a blog post devoted to the topic. (Yep, according to devout Mormons, what I'm wearing in the above photo is immodest and I'm a brazen hussy.) In the Mormon faith, if you take out temple endowments, one is supposed to wear garments, an under-the-clothes version of underwear that is similar to a T-shirt with sleeves and panties that go down almost to the knees. To cover up those garments, a devout Mormon will wear clothes that don't include tank tops or shorts/skirts above the knee.

But the Mormon church isn't stopping there. Even if one does not wear garments, they are preaching to the youth in the church that they should dress as if they are wearing garments, starting as young as a baby. That means no sundresses or, well, shorts above the knee.

Like the dress in this photo? BAD! Throw a T-shirt under it and THEN the child can wear it. (eek)

Apparently if one (well, mostly women, because modesty is somehow placed at the feet of girls and women) dresses covered enough to satisfy the Mormon Modesty Police, then men won't have naughty thoughts, and there won't be rape, unmarried pregnancies, infidelity and everything else.

What makes me White Hot Mad is that one of the reasons young children are being taught that they should cover up is to help boys and men control their thoughts. After all, men have such horrible thoughts all day long that the only way they can stay pure and good is if we girls and women don't show shoulders and knees. Because, as we all know, as long as we cover those scandalous body parts, men are great all of a sudden, thoughts are pure, everyone is modest, everyone in the world is happy, and, well, there you have it.

Following the logic? Yah, me either. It's so ridiculous that I can't even handle it. And my 14-year old daughter gets this message in church and extra curricular activities endlessly and I am so incredibly OVER IT.

Here are some facts: Boys and men have sexual thoughts all day long. For boys in puberty, they are getting erections and aroused non stop. It is normal and nothing at all to be ashamed of. And if I had a son, I would tell him that if he wasn't having sexual thoughts all day long, we'll get him therapy. The next fact is that we must train boys (and men) to control their behavior. Because even if he is aroused, he can't grope a girl, masturbate in public, or try to have sex with a girl against her will. It really is that simple. Boys are going to get aroused by shoulders, kneecaps, a hot girl, an unattractive girl, a smile, eyes, the shape of a neckline, toes and, well, a lamp post.

That's right-- the girl wearing these shoes will turn on scores of men so let's stop wearing flipflops and painting toes, too, you know-- to help the guys out.

What makes the Mormon church's teachings interesting, however, is that they say that impure thoughts are just as bad as impure behavior (really now). So control your thoughts. And girls need to help those boys to control their thoughts. And if a boy does have impure thoughts, let's find a girl to blame it on. (Oh if it were only that simple.)

Wow. Dangerous, if you ask me. What The Hell. What is really sad is that some people believe this. And the result is that our daughters and sons are developing some really unhealthy attitudes towards bodies, sex, and behavior.

The latest is written by a blogger, Veronica Partridge, who writes that she won't be wearing leggings anymore because her husband gets turned on by women wearing leggings and yoga pants in public. Seriously, in case you don't believe me, here is a snippet:
If it is difficult for my husband who loves, honors, and respects me to keep his eyes focused ahead, then how much more difficult could it be for a man that may not have the same self-control? Sure, if a man wants to look, they are going to look, but why entice them? Is it possible that the thin, form-fitting yoga pants or leggings could make a married (or sinlge) man look at a woman in a way he should only look at his wife.
And at that moment, I made a personal vow to myself and to my husband. I will no longer wear thin, form-fitting yoga pants or leggings in public. The only time I feel (for myself) it is acceptable to wear them, is if I am in the comfort of my own home or if I am wearing a shirt long enough to cover my rear end. I also want to set the best example of how to dress for my daughter. I want her to know, her value is not in the way her body looks or how she dresses, but in the character and personality God has given her. I have been following the vow I made to myself for the past couple of weeks  now and though it may be difficult to find an outfit at times, my conscience is clear and I feel I am honoring God and my husband in the way I dress.

To Veronica, I gotta ask: What are you going to do when a man tells you that your hair really turns him on. Or your eyes. Or that top you're wearing. Or toes (lots of men have toe fetishes, you know, and there is an entire cottage industry devoted to toe fetishes).

If every day I looked in the mirror and asked myself what I'm wearing that could possible turn some guy on, and then try and try and try to keep modifying my outfit, well, that would be one very frustrating endeavor. Sheesh-- let's just throw on a burqa and be done with it.

Better!

Oh, wait, women fully covered get raped, too. And men still have a desire to have sex with, and impregnate, burqa-wearing women. Why is that? Because sex and a sexual desire is natural, covered or not.

But let's go back to leggings. I wear leggings all the dang time. In fact, I'm wearing leggings in the photo below, and so is my daughter. I think they are cute and stylish, go with everything, and they are so comfy. And, really, they're about as sexy as, well, a pair of jeans or most other item of clothing.



Regardless, we don't teach our daughters that they are responsible for the behavior of others. In my humble opinion, we teach our children that they communicate to the world who they are by how they present themselves. I'm not a fan of allowing kids to dress like hookers, and trust me, I've seen some pretty shocking girls dressed in ways that I would never allow. Like butt cheeks hanging out of shorts, having the ability to see panties from the front of a girls' shorts, and boobs hanging out everywhere. But modesty and dressing tastesfully has far more to do with not wearing leggings, showing a shoulder, or a kneecap. Modesty and tastefulness has to do with how you present yourself, how you behave, dressing appropriately for the occasion, hair color and style, accessories... It's a package. So if you really want to "go there," then be modest in all you do.

But modesty aside, just know that men are going to be finding all kinds of women attractive and a turn-on all day long for all kinds of reasons. And, really, it's not my (or my daughters') responsibility to obsess over how we can curtail it. Now if a guy gropes me or wips out his penis and starts fondling himself in front of me, I'm calling the authorities!

If one more well-meaning Mormon church leader tells my daughters that they need to cover up because of boys, I'm calling him or her out on it. This has to stop.

Friday, April 11, 2014

It's gettin' mighty judgmental in Mormonville


I live in glorious Utah County, home of the most conservative Mormon population on the planet. While much of the time, this is a fabulous thing, sometimes it's not. The Mormon church sponsors Girl's Camp every summer. Stakes (several Mormon congregations wrap up to a stake) organize a five day retreat for girls age 13 to 18. Morgan went two years ago here in Utah. Last summer, she went to Girls Camp in Long Beach with my BFF's daughter, Devynn. And this year, Morgan has decided she won't be going at all. We'll actually be in Europe during Girls Camp but she wouldn't go if she could. The drama between girls of this age is just ridiculous. And in Utah, the drama caused by nonsensical "standards" is just out of control and, in my opinion, downright stupid. So we opt out. These standards include the dangers of showing a kneecap or shoulder or, heaven forbid, having a second ear piercing. Are you flippin' kidding me?

So I have a few Girls Camp stories told to me by other girls in our neighborhood.

  • N went to Girls Camp last year. They were all sleeping in tents and N went to shower and when she started making her way back to her tent, she could hear the girls in the tent next to hers talking about her. She sat down outside the tent and just listened to them. They said things like she was a bad example because she had an extra ear piercing. She didn't go to Sacrament meeting often enough (Sacrament meeting is the main meeting, equivalent to Mass) so she shouldn't be at Girls Camp. Oh, gosh, girls, how about church is for everyone, not just the (self righteous) people? How about a second ear piercing has absolutely nothing to do with character and behavior? Needless to say, N isn't going to Girls Camp this summer. To her face, these girls are super nice. They even drop off brownies and cookies and the like all the time. They stop by her house almost weekly to see if she needs a ride to Young Women's activities. But behind her back, it's a whole other story. The Bishop lives across the street. His daughter is one of the ringleaders of this gaggle of girls that talk behind N's back. But yet she goes over to N's house in the mornings before school and changes out of the tops and shorts she leaves the house wearing in favor of something she likes better but doesn't pass the standards of her very conservative parents. Wow-- in a few years I wonder what else this girl will be doing behind her parents' backs if she isn't doing it already. 
  • C went to girls camp a day after it started. Prior to that, she was on a family vacation at the beach where she Instagramed photos of herself wearing a two-piece swimsuit. When she got to girls camp and got to her assigned tent, the girls had staged and intervention of sorts. They were gravely concerned over her swimsuit and reminded C that she was being a very bad example and on the road to apostasy. C left the tent for a while to calm down. When she returned, several of the girls had moved out of the tent, refusing to sleep in the same place as C. C called her mom to get her immediately because she wasn't about to stay another minute with those girls.
  • D went to girls camp and one of the girls is a true Mean Girl who has targeted D. The entire week was spent talking behind D's back, ignoring her and, when no one was looking, pointing fingers at D, laughing at her, and making those "knowing looks" between the other girls. D isn't going either.

Really? Is this what the (well meaning) Young Women's advisors are teaching these girls? Girls across the country and across faiths and backgrounds can be evil. It is a tough age and girls are a nightmare. But when you're teaching endlessly to judge each other based on (in my opinion) things that are so unimportant in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't helpful. Instead of talking about the Big Stuff, like cyber safety, abuse, the dangers of drugs and alcohol, teen sex, bullying, they spend oodles of time talking about dress codes. If only the biggest thing that I, as a parent, need to worry about it shorts that don't hit the kneecap. I mean, seriously, WTF.

I discussed this with one of our Young Women's advisors. She said, "Well, one things leads to bigger things." Um, no.... For real? I mean please tell me where these people come from? If there is something extreme, like a 14 year old girl who is wearing hoochie shorts, has 10 ear piercings and loads of tattoos and only wears dark goth clothing, then maybe there s something else Very Big goig on with that child and someone should try to find out what. Is she being abused, bullied, struggling with depression... what? It's not about "that girl is so unrighteous let's SHUN HER."



About a year ago, our stake hosted a Standards Night on a Tuesday eve for the young women and their mothers at the Stake Center, Sunday dress required. Morgan and I showed up a few minutes late and had to sit in the second row in front of the speaker, which had we sat anywhere else, I would have walked out 20 minutes into the whole thing. Instead of talking about all kinds of "standards", it was a one hour forty minute lecture on the church's version of "modesty." It was horrifying, long and totally inappropriate. Some of the highlights of this train wreck:

1. A video of boys just off their mission where they were asked such doozies as "What do you think of a girl who dresses immodestly" and "Would you date a girl who doesn't dress modestly?" and "What would you like to tell a girl about how she should dress?" I kid you not. I think my mouth was hitting the floor. Offensive, no? If my girls ever dated one of these self righteous boys, I would have her kidnapped and sent to a convent in Italy for five years. What parents are raising boys with such a mindset that they'd even participate in an interview like this?
2. A woman who sobbed through a good portion of her presentation as she described finding a modest prom dress for her daughter and then, thanks to her prayers to God, was able to find the exact same matching shoes online. "Girls," she cried. "The Lord wants you to look modest and beautiful and God provided a direct answer to my prayers to help my daughter dress modestly." I wanted to slap this woman. So let's see... first STOP sniveling. Second, God cares more about your daughter's shoes than, say, the children in the Ivory Coast who are being kidnapped from their families (oftentimes after their families are murdered or had their arms chopped off), given loads of drugs and a machine gun and told to go kill other people in the war for... who knows why they're fighting...? And third, your physical appearance is of the utmost concern to God because Jesus taught that during his ministry... ? Holy flipping hell.
3. Another woman talked about how skinny jeans and any pants with embellishments on the pockets were immodest and they shouldn't be wearing them. Thanks, Lady, for making that decision for ME, the mother. And thanks for telling all these girls that half of their mothers are little hussies because we wear skinny jeans. I mean, seriously, what right does this woman have to make authoritative statements about that anyway, I mean, if that's her OPINION, hey to each their own, but say that!
4. A man talked about how they didn't watch beach volleyball on TV because those women dressed way to immodestly and they just didn't need to see it. They also stopped getting the Victoria's Secret catalog in their home because it just wasn't appropriate either.

It went on and on and on. Morgan and I were kicking each other under the pews. Add to that, I was hungry and the AC vent was right above my head and I was FREEZING. If it wasn't for the fact that it was so dang cold I would've thought we were sitting in Hell.

I know the Mormon church means well. The way you present yourself to the world conveys a huge message. If you want to convey that you're a girl looking for a good time, there's ways to dress accordingly. If you want to convey that you're troubled, you can do that, too. How about teaching those messages? Dressing appropriately for the occasion and for your body type. Besides, "modesty" encompasses a whole lot more than kneecaps and shoulders, duh. But somehow, in this wacky culture, that's what it has boiled down to.

When it comes to church activities, hey, it's their club and they get to set the rules. If there's a dress code, no problem, Communicate what that is and make no apologies, no excuses, and no exceptions if you want. But beyond that, the church does NOT get to try and dictate what my daughters or, even worse, what I wear. That's MY job as their parent and I do NOT appreciate the overstepping of bounds.


 
My dad, bless his heart, is as conservative Mormon as they come. When we first moved to Utah and we were living with them, my dad and I were going to walk to my uncle's home, which is about five blocks away. I was wearing denim shorts that hit my knee and a sleeveless top that actually came up almost to my collarbone. Did I mention it was, like, 150 degrees outside? My dad asked that I get a sweater and wear it before we left the house because I was showing (gasp) my shoulders. Um, let's get this straight, dad.i.love.you.so.very.much, not only no, but Hell No. I made a decision that second that I didn't care one twit what my neighbors thought about my clothing choices, or the clothes that my daughters wore. While I hardly dress like a hooker, I do wear shorts that are far shorter than the knee and I wear tank tops and sleeveless sundresses almost every day. And so do my daughters. I have no idea if I offend my neighbors but if I do, it really isn't my problem.

I wish that there was far more time spent (and believing) that the most important things to teach in church are Christ-like attributes, like love, kindness, acceptance and forgiveness. And to teach of Christ's ministry and other stories from the Bible. Teaching how to be good people-- honesty and morals, repentance and FORGIVENESS. To foster a welcoming community.

A few days ago, William and I took the girls to the This is The Place park. It is an area where the Mormon pioneers settled in Salt Lake City. Those people were amazing. Talk about having each other's backs. They had a very tough journey to get to Salt Lake and when they did, the support they had for one another was unimaginable. Total love, acceptance, and support. Resilient, strong, faithful. I wish we were more of that Mormon and less of some of the stuff I sometimes see out here. Well, I can't change that, I can only strive for teaching my daughters by example something different. (Eek-- after reading this post, I suppose I'm being really judgmental myself. Well, touché. See? I own my faults!)

I love Utah, I really do. But there's a few things that I find so completely nuts and harmful that I cannot and will not be silent about it. And this is one of them. These modesty lessons I find so completely harmful that I'm going to harp on it. Maybe if a few saner voices start speaking up, it'll help.