Mormon Report: an Outlook on Fashion

Capped sleeves are ugly.

I don't care what anyone says, they are unflattering and they're an obvious mark of a Mormon. I mean, who else would willingly wear them? It's like an anemic tee-shirt. Or a timid tank top.

According to what I've read- and believe it or not, a fair amount of research goes into my posts- LDS women don't show their shoulders because they see it as being immodest.

Certainly, there are plenty of Mormon women who wear tanks. I've read the opinions of a few, who say they wear swimsuits, and wear tanks when they exercise, but when they are out in public, they want to appear "modest."

Since when is a tank top "immodest?" I've never understood this. Shoulders are not sexual organs. Neither are arms. So maybe, as one person on the world wide web put it, tanks show off skin, and showing anything off is being immodest.

So I guess if I squint my brain I can kind of see what they mean. But here is where I depart from their fashion advice- the same person claims that flashy clothes distract people from worshiping God. I'd say that God is running counter to his/her/its teachings if our entire purpose is to worship him/her/it.

By the way, I am basing my retorts off one source in particular- certainly, there are other opinions out there, but as this woman is an LDS fashion consultant, I figured her opinion is most representative of what Mormon women are following. Here's her list on types of immodesty- http://www.jenmagazine.com/living/

Her first item is when people "look rich." I have a massive problem with this particular qualm. According to her words, buying lots of stuff means that you obviously have self esteem issues. In fact, that's a big theme in all her complaints. All I have to say is this- have you seen the Temple? I live two blocks from it. It could give the Buckingham Palace a run for its money, at least form what I've seen on the outside. If that isn't "flashy," I don't know what flashy means. Here we have a group of people preaching austerity, and yet it seems like all the LDS buildings I've seen are palaces.

"Jen's" second example of immodesty is "look! I'm scary!" Yet again, she's judging the people who fall into this proclaimed category as somehow being spiritually lacking and having low self esteem. This group includes (apparently) gangsters, goths, emos, people with tattoos, piercings, etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure this one is a blanket group for everyone who isn't rich or the third one, sexy. I certainly fall into this category. According to her ideals, it is against their teachings to be intimidating. Naturally, I am an intense person. I can't really help it. So I'm screwed. But if it's wrong to look intimidating, what about missionaries? They walk around in suits, knock on people's doors, and carry Bibles. I'm thinking that is more intimidating than someone wearing a ratty tee shirt sitting at a coffee shop.

Our third example is about looking sexy. She brings up the whole idea that "media" has objectified women over the years. However, she turns around and claims that the proper goal of women is to get married and have a family. Isn't that more objectification in the opposite direction? So anyway, she claims that dressing "sexily" will scare away potential husbands, and will only attract men who are interested in sex. Well, what's wrong with sex? I know, I know, it makes everyone turn bright red and edge away, but seriously, why is it such a horrible thing to like sex? Why must your only goal in going out be snagging a husband? Why not snag a casual boyfriend? Why not snag nothing at all, and just be happy with the way you look? When a woman wears a low-cut shirt, why does it have to mean she's looking to attract a mate? Why can't it simply be because she likes the way she looks?

Her final example's pretty weak. It's about looking "cool." Her only real explanation is that it is immodest to show off the fact that you're "cool" or "fashionable." Okay?

This particular consultant claims that all of her listed types of immodesty are examples of ways people try to boost their self esteem and gain attention. But isn't it just as bad to judge the way others look? Isn't that drawing attention to yourself, too? When an older woman glares at me at the store because I'm wearing a tank top, the only one drawing attention to herself is the one narrowing her eyes and wrinkling her nose. I don't care how I look to other people. I don't get dressed in the morning thinking, "I need to intimidate someone," or "I want people to think I'm sexy." Yes, I show a fair amount of cleavage (have you seen my boobs? I have to wear a turtleneck to hide those) and yes, I wear tank tops. The only person I'm doing any of this for, though, is me. This is why the Mormon philosophy is flawed- it is passing judgement on people with the assumption that person got dressed only to be a spectacle. Of course, there are plenty of people who dress to impress; don't try and tell me that those missionaries buy those suits to be comfy while they work. Modesty isn't about clothes. My sister wears shorts and low-cut shirts, and she also has a pretty prudent attitude about sexuality. A person can wear turtlenecks and slacks and still be promiscuous. A lot of judgement goes into the LDS belief system, and a WHOLE lot of judgement goes into their attitude about clothes.

Clothes are just clothes. Hopefully, you cover the basics, but bearing shoulders does not an immodest woman make. Beyond that, let your character define your amount of modesty. And don't let people assume you dressed that way for them.

Oh, and Mormons? The Victorian Era called, they want their capped sleeves back.