Discussion in 'FLDS Raids and Related Items' started by Sally, Jul 3, 2008.
Good. Now maybe they won't qualify for welfare and food stamps.
Teen Princess Dress
That is definately keeping with the bible
That made me almost vomit, RINO!
What about "Perk and Perky Teenage Bride Dress" ? You soooo know they have those.
I think it is nice that they value modesty and that it is not what someone looks like that counts. I also like that the women are being industrial working.
I think that when everyone is to look alike this in itself is the value they place on looks.
I agree, and I think that all the media hoopla about their clothes/hair, just gave them an idea for a new way to make $$$$.
You are joking, right???
Who besides the FLDS do they honestly think will buy this clothing?????
No, I'm not joking. Step aside from the specific abuse and problems of today. The FLDS religion came from a culture that values modesty and sees people for who they are. I think that same feeling and respect has been past forward for generations. I honestly prefer those not so flattering prarie dresses to the g-strings I see in the mall for the 8- 10 year olds.
I do think that in certain FLDS groups, I think that the clothing has become a method of control, but I do think that the members do appreciate it for its simplicity and purity. Other FLDS group and offshoots still value modesty and simplicity, but wear more traditional clothes such as jeans.
I have the same respect for the prarie dresses that I have for the traditional muslim clothes worn for modesty. The clothes have a good purpose.
If there is control used behind the clothing, that is an entirely different issue. The clothes alone are not the problem.
I might buy the dresses (if they were walmart prices) for my 2-3 year old girls. Once the girls are older than that, I think I will opt for something else.
In the YFZ Ranch, which is primarily whom we are discussing, yes it very definitely was used for a Stepford wife-like control. They were allowed no freedom of dress or hairstyle, other than to select a pastel color. They were forced to wear these dresses with long underwear outside in 110 degree weather! Surely that's not what you want for your daughters? I agree many fashions for girls at the mall are too revealing, I won't dress my 7-year-old up like a 16-year-old, so we don't buy them, it's that simple. But you can find clothes for 2 & 3-year-olds at the mall that are age appropriate. Try Gymboree and Children's Place for starters. They are two of my favorites, well-made clothes too!
I would never give my financial support to a cult like this that disguises itself as a religion, you can't just brush the abuse aside.
There are LOTS of religions which have dress restrictions for women - in some Assembly Of God churches the women wear no pants (only dresses), no cosmetics and they do not cut their hair and wear it "up" only after marriage. The Duggar Family (of 19 kids, Quiverfull fame) believes in modest dress for women - no pants, long skirts, little make-up etc. A LOT of fundamentalist Christian families (not LDS) embrace what they calll "modest" dress for women and there are many places online to purchase such clothing - including swimsuits. Some religions require it (both Christian and Muslim) and in other cases it is a personal belief. The LDS (and FLDS) church also requires the special underwear - in the LDS church it is only when you are married - or get "Temple Membership" that you are required to wear it - and it does restrict clothing styles - can't even wear sleeveless or tank tops or above the knee shorts while wearing it - and a traditional swimsuit is pretty much out of the question. Even religions who don't have mandated clothing requirements push "modest" attire for women - MANY Church Camps require one piece "modest" swimsuits or that the girls wear clothing OVER the swimsuit, and require shorts that fall less than 4" above the top of the knee cap and shirts be "regular" plain mens style T-shirts with sleeves 10" long or longer and high necks and sleepwear be pajamas with pants. ALL the kids cannot bring clothes or shoes with words, graphics or "offensive" logos on them.
While MOST women do not feel it is necessary to dress themselves and their their female children in clothing from 1890 and wear special religious long-underwear COVERED by leggings to be properly "faithful" it is far from rare to encounter women whose clothing choices are mandated by their faith - even in the Christian predominated good-ol USA. The Amish, Mennonite, Assembly Of God, LDS, and many independent Christian Churches ALL have clothing restrictions - some more rigid than others, but ALL focused mainly on attire and appearance for females being restricted to some degree.
I will look, I used to have some links filed of several websites selling "modest" clothing for teenagers. It can be lucrative as most of it is custom-made.
The FLDS Ladies have some competition out there
I think its a good thing to value modesty so dont really have an issue with the clothes except I think they could be a little more modern I guess in their design.
Good! Then maybe the FLDS won't profit so much from them.
i would, if they made womens clothing. i remember as a child wanting to be laura in little house. i loved the clothing. this is similar. id love to see my little niece in one of these dresses, too.
when life sends you lemons, make lemonade...
No polyester for this girl yuck! I figured they'd be using 100% cotton & I would be interested in some long sleeve shirts.
Where I live 100% cotton rocks.
I had a good laugh looking at some of those links.
I have no problem with encouraging modesty among our young ladies, I run it in to the ground with my teen daughter.
I guess the real prpoblem I am having when I look at these garmets is I quickly think of those individuals who suffered abuse so to me its kind of icky. I feel like if money is being made on this its money the women and girls will probably never see, they will probably do all the work associated with it and the men folk will reap the benefits.
Just my opinion, not meaning to step on toes or anything.
You ever notice how ALL the clothing restrictions - no matter where in the world or what the reason for it - always seem to focus on only women? My complaint is that in every case it is MEN deciding how WOMEN should dress. Never is it women deciding how other women should dress, always men deciding how women should dress.
Attire 2000 years ago in the Middle-East or the Holy Land is hardly applicable to modern life - any more than stoning adulterers and giving a widow to her father-in-law or brother-in-law as another wife (Biblical) is. Both "Holy Books" (Qur'an and Bible) dictate moral, humble behavior - which later was interpreted to mean many other things - all the way to women covering every part of their body in a loose sack in public. None of that is in the texts, it's merely an interpretation of words written in/for a society in a much different world 2000 or more years ago.
Attire should be an individual choice based on ones own beliefs and moral code. If an adult woman decided to dress in a garment that covers her head to toe, great, so long as it was her own decision to do so, not some male figurehead's mandate. Children should dress in a way that pleases their PARENTS, again, not a mandate from someone else. It's a given that if the parents prefer modest attire, they will dress their children in a modest way until that child is 18. Regardless, as long as they are "covered" minimally, it really shouldn't matter what a person wears because it isn't OUR DECISION. We can disapprove but we really shouldn't try to legislate attire for other people because we don't like it.
America was founded to escape religious tyranny and state-mandated religion. That includes freedom from mandated attire based on ANY religion/faith. Anytime we think about trying to legislate morality (including what people wear) remember that the 1st step to Theocracy and Tyranny is to control what people wear - those yellow "Star of David" badges in Hitler's Germany were part of a much larger plan for "State" control of people's minds and lives.
Separate names with a comma.