Probably depends a lot on what you’re used to. The accidents and misfortunes I had trying to do anything but stand around and look bored in long skirts would fill a short slapstick movie.

why are these dresses white?

Easiest to get clean without damaging them, I would think. I got stains out of white sturdy cotton or linnen that would have been forever in any other kind of cloth. Of course, unless you do not mind how you look, you’ll have to get into fresh clothes at least once a day, and the coloured sleeves and ribbons on those dresses might be a problem.

If you don’t like dragging the kids to the mall (and who does?) you can always try Garanimals online. (Maybe they’re still sold in stores too, but I’m not sure. it’s pretty straightforward; Monkey tops go with Monkey bottoms, Panda tops go with Panda bottoms*, etc. Yeah, the girls’ selections tend to run heavily to the yellow and pink, but hey, there’s no reason why girls can’t wear the boys’ Monkey and Lion stuff.

*No obscene jokes from the peanut gallery, please.

I’ve hiked in jeans and I’ve hiked in long loose skirts, and the skirts were much easier to get around in. In fact, I’ve found that modest clothing generally is a lot easier to get around in than the non-modest kind, though I’ve worn both varieties. However, I must say that I get the idea that purveyors of modest clothing you point to here are not so much in the business of providing clothing that is modest as of providing clothing that is “modest”, if you see what I mean. These gowns–at least the two that are shown here–are meant more to convey the idea of modesty than to perform the chore of hiding a kid’s body from an invasive gaze.

Why do I think this? Well, a couple of reasons. First, these girls are shown in clothing that would not restrict their movements at all were they running or hiking. If the girls in the picture were running or hiking, what they’ve got on would be less restrictive than jeans. (Understand that I’m not talking here about a long or strenuous run or hike.) But they’re not doing either of those things in this photo. Instead, they look like they’re going to try to do one of the things they can’t do very well in the clothes they’ve got on, which is: climb trees. (Maybe they’re just considering it, or maybe they’ve considered it and given up.) If those girls try to climb that tree in those dresses, they will very soon find that they are revealing far more than they would if they were wearing tube tops and shorts.

Second: why are these dresses white? It’s their whiteness far more than their cut which renders them impractical. In fact I can’t help thinking the little girl who’s actually perched in the tree stands a good chance of having to clean herself up when she gets a chance, which would not be the case if her dress were gray, brown, or green. The girls are barefoot and situated in the outdoors, but they can’t do very much, barefoot and in the outdoors, because of the clothes they’re wearing. They can’t climb the tree they’re hovering around because of the cut of their clothing and because of its color. They can’t loll around on the ground, not because of the cut of their dresses, but because their dresses are white and they’ll get their dresses dirty if they do that. And they can’t gallop around, not for any significant distance, because of their bare feet.

IOW, these kids are shown in a position and a situation which would make the casual observer think that they were going to play, but a very little thought will show the same observer that they can’t play, not in the outfits they’ve got on. There are lots of physical activities which can be performed in “gunny-sack” dresses, but since these are gleaming-white gunny-sack dresses, all those physical activities are out. The two gowns that are displayed here look like playclothes, at first glance, but they can’t be used as playclothes, for various reasons. Would it be going too far to add that, in an exactly similar way, they look modest but aren’t?

(Tracksuits now, those are modest…but they carry with them connotations, racial and otherwise, which may not render them acceptable to the ‘modest clothing’ crowd. But I don’t know that to be true–just guessing.)

BTW–can’t help thinking of that old canard according to which men are allowed to dress in an instrumental manner whereas women are expected to dress in a way which signals their social position (age, class status, virgin or not, and the like). I can’t help thinking of that old canard because these two girls, as I see it, are not so much dressed innocently as dressed to look innocent…& there is a difference.

“This is either incredibly hilarious or horrifyingly depressing. Please tell me you guys are a parody. Please.

Assuming you are women who do this and this is serious, how can you have a blog if you think women should be illiterate? How can you hold protests and talk about sperm if you don’t think a women should speak out about what she believes and be at all interested in sex?

The best way to explain this would be to just say you’re a hypocrite. Or that this really is a parody site and someone is pulling my leg.

A tangent, but somewhat related. Ever hear about those people who thinks that men are are wild animals at heart and just need a good woman to tame them? Following this logic, why are they leaders if they are clearly unstable? Why aren’t men the ones locked up in the kitchens and taking care of children while women, who are unaffected no matter their relationship status, making laws and running our governments?

Let me stress that I do not think that any man or woman has certain qualities just because of what’s between their legs. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. All deserve equal rights and treatment.

That’s the message behind ‘love thy neighbor’. And no one can argue that. There’s a reason that it’s the only rule known as “golden.” ”

Yay run on sentences! lol

We are big on roughhousing, body slams on the bed are routine in our house, as is wrestling, and toting each other around over our shoulders. Seeing this, then discovering that your parents have a more intimate form of “wrestling,” takes a lot of the curiosity away, which is what leads to a lot of bad sexual decisions.

Bingo! I heard that there was a custom in Japan where anyone who went to see the Emperor would be required to change into extra-long pants which were impossible to run in so that they couldn’t kill him and get away successfully.

Men can only change themselves and their own beliefs about women.

“The lightbulb has to WANT to change.”

My cousin use to scoff at her parents highly sexual (and admittedly devoid of any other connection) relationship, saying “I don’t want sex; I’d rather have a good, long conversation.”

My mothers’ advice in this area was along that line.

“You can’t just fuck them, you have to be able to talk to them afterwards.”

is for parents not to hide their perfectly healthy sex life.

Discretion is more advisable. I would say that parents shouldn’t hide their physical affection from their children to some extend, as a way of modeling behavior. I had a girlfriend who never saw her parents
do more than hold hands, if even that, and along with being raised Catholic probably contributed to some of her complexes.

I’m glad Andrea piped up — if talking and sharing intellectual energy weren’t hot, I probably never would have had any sex at all.

Perhaps I am strange, but I find talking and sharing intellectual energy far hotter than physical attractiveness.

Another key thing in teaching your children about sex, is for parents not to hide their perfectly healthy sex life.

Understanding that sex is an intimate part of healthy adult relationships, is crucial to being more sexually secure.

The flip side of that, of course, is that just because you can have sex, doesn’t mean you should have sex.