Am I unreasonable?
 

Just wanted an opinion to see what other people think of this topic.

Tomorrow I'm not sending my little girl to kindergarten because her class is having a pajama day. I don't want her to get the message that it's OK to fraternize with unrelated boys while everyone is wearing intimate apparel (pajamas). Someday she'll be 16 and I definately don't want her to have that message then. So instead of sending her to school, I'm going to take the family to a museum.

What are your thoughts? Does my opinion make sense or am I being unreasonable. I'm curious as to what your thoughts are?

My thoughts are that I really hope this is a joke.

I think that "intimate apparel" is a fairly subjective term. There's a big difference between flannel pajamas and a T-shirt and lingerie. I had plenty of male friends in high school who saw me in my "pajamas" (loose pajama bottoms or sweats) and I don't think this is inappropriate at all. I didn't associate this as "intimate apparel." In fact, it was the opposite of sexy. I was being downright grungy.

I don't know that sending your daughter to kindergarten in pink flannel pajamas with cupcakes on them is going to naturally result in a 16-year-old girl being around a boy in her bra and panties. I don't think that pajamas are inherently "intimate apparel" and that any sensible 16-year-old can tell the difference.

Reminds me of a Clayton Bigsby (Chapelle) quote: "If anyone is going to have sex with my sister, IT'S GOING TO BE ME!"

I've said it from the beginning: Burning Bright is another CG poster playing the part of clueless mullah. Nice try BB, but you'll have to do better.

BB sent me a PM saying it's not a joke. But I hope you're right. Otherwise I feel REALLY bad for his/her kids. Yikes.

My thoughts are that it sort of hurts when you yank my chain so forcefully and there is no payoff at the end.

I think I better define intimate. From the following:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimate

I use the first definition:

1. associated in close personal relations: an intimate friend.

Depends. Are there nekked statues at the museum? Dioramas with Indians in loincloths?

Dinosaur bones.

Tools of the devil, designed to lead men astray from the true doctrines of god.

Ok, this is what I get for asking this board a serious question. Thanks a lot.

My thought is that you should be way more concerned with the lack of quality of education your daughter is receiving at this charlatan institution. Pajama Day? Where is the focus on academia and theory? What about the socratic method?

If you go the museum route, may I suggest you take your children to the Museum of Sex? it is on 5th avenue in manhattan and is quite interesting. That would be far better than Pajama Day.

You're joking but I actually agree with you, in part. Where is the focus on academia? Where's the professionalism?

Sorry, I just assumed you must be joking with such an absurd question.

I am not joking. It really is on 5th Avenue.

Let's assume, for a moment, that you're serious. In that case, I think you're over the top about this and should back off. There will be enough times that a kid will feel like the oddball out as amormon growing up without adding somethign from kindergarten as benign as pajama days. Besides, using your defintiion, why will the fact that she is wearing pjs mean she is necessarily acting as though any boy was an intimate friend? Not bloody likely in Kindergarten.

Agree, in addition you're putting ridiculously high emphasis on modesty and weirdness to law of chastity issues and no doubt on the road to creating an awkwardness in your kids towards opposite sex and sex in general that will likely lead to lack of confidence in those areas and polarize them into becoming extremes: either sex addicts or non-sexual frigid to the point of wrecking their marriage relationships. :)

Save your ammunition for when they want her to get involved in "understanding the lesbian lifestyle". Then pull her out and you won't be seen as someone who screams foul over every little thing.

Why would my kid feel like an oddball because they're Mormon? Being LDS is awesome. Isn't it the non-mormons that feel like oddballs?

I must say, that most of you are pretty out of touch with mainstream America. I found a poll on the MSNBC website that showed 61% of Americans think pajamas at school are inapropriate. I realize it's a non-scientific poll so who knows what the actual percentages are.

Who would thought that Cougar Guard would be such a hotbed of liberalism and permissiveness. Cougar Board, maybe, but not Cougar Guard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9428590/

Wow just when I thought you might actually be serious.

I live in a predominately LDS area and have predominately LDS friends and family.

This should not be interpreted to mean that I don't have close, non-LDS friends. I do.

DId you read the article? If so, you are obviously joking about this whole topic. If not, you should and then get a grip.

So in your world "inappropriate" means dangerously intimate? I guess any employer that requires his/her employees to dress in suits must do so only because anything less would make work seem like an orgy.

It may be the case that 61% of Americans find pajamas at school inappropriate, but I don't think their reasoning is the same as yours. My parents didn't let me wear pajamas at school, but it was because it looks bad and sloppy. They didn't want me portraying the image that I don't care.

You, on the other hand, believe that pajamas are going to corrupt your 5-year-old into thinking that pajamas mean you should have intimate relations with nonrelated males?

No, refer to the definition I posted of "intimate". Intimate refers to that which is familiar or close.

I think there are several valid reasons to be against wearing pajamas at school. I don't want my daughter to have her boundaries lowered so that when she's 16 she thinks it's OK to hang out with guy friends or boyfriends while they are in their pajamas or underwear.

We're trying to teach her to be a lady and ladies do not wear pajamas to school or work or any other public place.

This makes no sense, though. Why do you refer to pajamas as "intimate apparel" if you only are saying that it involves being familiar or close? Are you just saying you don't want her to associate pajamas with being around boys who aren't related to her in a casual way? And if that's what you want to say, what's the problem with that?

And am I crazy in construing "intimate apparel" to typically mean lingerie and the like?

There's a huge difference between pajamas and underwear! I don't understand how you consider them synonymous!

It's becoming obvious you're trolling. I just don't get what's getting you off with it though. That's why people still think you're being serious because we're not getting the humor.

So he is being flip? I can't tell. Some people really are just weird like this.

There are several valid reasons to be against wearing pajamas to school.

The University of Illinois State said, after a new dress code was instituted at the school and evaluated, that "professionalism exhibited in the class led to a better learning environment, students being better prepared for class, and students being more respectful of one another."

http://www2.cob.ilstu.edu/lsshowe/pr...%20rev_MKT.doc

Makes sense to me. One of many good reasons to ban pajamas at school.

Either way, it is a fruitless exercise. if he is joking, then there is no reason to argue. if he is serious, nothing you say will change his mind.

The only real tragedy here in all of this is that he will likley never take his kids to the Museum of Sex on 5th Avenue. Will someone please think of the children?

I have to say, this museum of which you speak does sound rather fascinating...

You do realize that all those reasons you stated have nothing to do with your original premise? Your objection clearly had to do with sexual relations of some degree between your daughter an unrelated males. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the point that it would be especially bad once she is 16.

I'd also like to point out that even if it were objectively true that wearing pajamas has all those disadvantages, one can be against something without advocating that it be banned.

All the girls in my stake are encouraged to wear pajama pants at girls camp (and this is a real camp, not one of those make crafts and sing cumbaya things, where we hiked this summer for 24+ miles over 5 days/4 nights and camped under the stars every night). They are comfortable, cool and light. So are we teaching the girls not to be ladies? COme on man, you want to help in school? pay attention to curriculum and lobby to try to prevent teachers from wasting classes showing movies of questionabel educational value or somethig like that. Pajama day at Kindergarten is a windmill and you are Don Q.

Look, the articel you cited said that PJs shouldn't be worn on a regular basis and contrasted that to Pajama Day which happneed rarely. Get it?

It's on 5th Avenue.

And you frequent?