the Proper Dress

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Some of the things I notice about sissies is the overdone frilliness and the dress that is overly full and always lets the panties show. As an LG I find this disturbing. So for the other LG's it is time for a dress tutorial

The most important thing about a proper dress or skirt when I was little and up until the 1970's, no matter how short; even a babydoll, was that it did not let the panties show under ordinary circumstances and very short dresses and skirts were put on a girl as either punishment; to maker her like a baby, or "chastity training" to teach her how to carry herself in a ladylike manner. If a girl had a habit of not being careful, or was even of the sort that said "I can make me dress go THIS high", a pair of rubber panties, which were probably toddler size or "super baby" size was put over her panties or put on her without panties or with a diaper, until she got the message. Mama did not want her, at age 17 or even 19, coming home with a "little surprise" and "sanitary panties" for that time of the month were often made of rubber or had rubber in the crotch in case your napkin either let go or was not up to the task. At any rate dresses & skirts were of a "proper" length

[CuddlyMonster]

Learn some thing new every day.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

What part of you says "girl", or "early 1950's"? So you would not nor could you know. I have been LGsince about 1952

[BabyJune]

Most of my dresses are short but not immodestly short. Under the shorter ones, I have panty covers or wear tights/leggings. I even have a white pair of "bloomers." Of course I'm always home alone, so who really cares? Well, it's the principle of the whole thing, I guess. If I'm wearing only a diaper and waterproof pants underneath like I do in the warmer weather, then that probably isn't inappropriate because babies often have a diaper showing from underneath a dress.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

In the 1950's, even for babies, diapers did not show; they were considered underwear and the parent that allowed them to show was considered slovenly or trollopy and we did not have bloomers and panty covers were extremly rare and part of the reason for very short dresses was to teach little girls, diapered or not, how to "carry" themselves in a ladylike manner or for punishment. tights came much later. and mostly as a kind of fancy dress thing

Part of girl training at about 8-1/2 was to stand you against a wall, balance a book on your head and you had to learn to walk with it balanced

[BabyGizmo]

But, While you may hold onto the idea of what the fifties hold, Some little girls or sissy boys live in 2013, and things have changed.

One of the reasons baby dresses leave the diaper slightly exposed or JUST hiddden is so that when it is wet or messy, it become plainly evident, and the parents can change them. It also lends itself to being easy to change, as there is less dress to bunch up on the go, less chance of getting dirty and less chance of tripping your baby as they learn to walk.

[BabyGizmo]

What part of you says "girl", or "early 1950's"? So you would not nor could you know. I have been LGsince about 1952

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Well, when I see someone listed as a "Boy" commenting on girls' matters it is a bit disturbing since it is of no concern. It is also about crdibility in gender-specific matters and having a "feel" for those kinds of things, which is why I said that I could design and create an LB equivalent of RUFFLES & RIBBONS GIRLS' HOME but would not do so, but would be willing to lend a hand to someone who did. Also my remark served as a clear, firm reminder that there was a time before you were born and that one could not be expected to know certain things and there is no dishonor in not knowing those things. A first post belongs in Newbie Nursery and a wise newbie does not get into the middle of a discussion. Also if your remark adds nothing then do not say anything

And yes, I AM an elitist. anyone who knows "good", "better" and "best"; read "who has a life which was not spent in a wicker basket" wants the last, and is therefore, an elitist. If I were not, then I'd be perfectly happy at some second or third-rate ABDL site. As an elitist, I know by their works those who do more and better than I, and I tip my tiara to them and am glad to have them about because they have done things that make here better: It is about the track record

And your attempts to lecture me connote an attempt at superiority. Do you know what preaching anti-elitism makes you?

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

But, While you may hold onto the idea of what the fifties hold, Some little girls or sissy boys live in 2013, and things have changed.

One of the reasons baby dresses leave the diaper slightly exposed or JUST hiddden is so that when it is wet or messy, it become plainly evident, and the parents can change them. It also lends itself to being easy to change, as there is less dress to bunch up on the go, less chance of getting dirty and less chance of tripping your baby as they learn to walk.

[BabyGizmo]

I am far from being an Anti-Elitist. In fact, I believe in being the absolute best you can be. However, I came into here because i Saw something of dresses, and i thought id check it out. I love dresses, and I personally have a few of my own, though ones you would call "Wrong" .

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

First, those in the know pay zero attention to the ratings since they are easily manipulated and often are. So that is off the table right away

Second please note my remark to Cuddlymonster "nor could you know". However, once you insert yourself into something, that this is your first post does not grant you any exceptions: Key words "insert yourself". Remind me to tall the story of "There's no such thing as 'Serbo-Croatian'". I was 19, I never did THAT kind of thing again

As you say society is lazy, that does not mean that that laziness should be catered to, nor can be catered to without serious undesirable consequences

Just because "Times change" does not mean that one way, either old or new, was or is not factually better than the other. the 1950's were pre-welfare stat, so if 17 year old Janie came home with a little surprise. since she was still a minor as well, Guess who was going to have to look after that surprise. In 1963 you could count on at most 5 girls in the high school graduation being pregnant. Now look at the figures. That is learend at a young age and the standard quote was "That comes from the home"

By explaining that boys, even today, are not put in dresses, you explain how come a "Boy" has no business commenting on them. It adds nothing to the discussion except distraction. I would not comment on the virtues of the Xbox vs PS4, or Tena slip vs Bambino Teddies, because I know nothing about them so all I would be doing is calling attention to myself and someone more knowledgeable would be within their rights to do a bit of a tune on me. It would be called "embarrassing yourself"

The "Times change" argument is specious, No matter what the majority believes or does, does not change things like 1+1=2 and if the majority deviates from sound principles or practices. "Experience keeps a dear school but fools learn in no other". Also "it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". There are better and worse. You either understand that or pay the price. Two things that have been practically shouted from the rooftops for the last 35 years: The great majority of rich are first-generation. the habits of the rich are markedly very different from the habits of the poor. It also explains the growth of the numbers of the poor. In this case the old ways were factually better (as measured by teenage pregnancy and non-divorce, non-death single-parent households (seen as a predictor of lower SES for the offspring for over 30 years). the new ways also include the TV/computer babysitter and daycare as a normal part of childhood http://www.dailydiapers.com/board/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=273&showentry=2803 like the exposed diaper (underwear) which is unique to girl babies, these are a product of the "Society is lazy", which once you grant the fact that this is a result of laziness, you automatically and tacitly grant as a fact that those who are lazy are less worthy than those who are not because of the consequences that laziness invites. Just to show how seriously that was taken; in 1962 this was a news report in Southern New England: A toddler was found wondering around in the wee hours of the morning and the news report made special mention of his attire; "a t-shirt and blue 'rubber pants'". in the mid 1980's DPF repeatedly cautioned members not to go out in exposed diapers, regaling us with tales of arrests made of persons who did so. Also note BabyJune has a sense of "modesty". Result: as to if or what is in fact better, whether or not "Times Change" is irrelevant and often "new" means "never ever worked" and the argument is used to evade by distraction and creating a straw man to knock down, discussion of the merits of an idea or practice, which IS the important discussion, and is most usually the tactic of the dishonest or shallow

Now, can wer please get back on topic

[Katelyn Ann]

Historically baby cloths have been made around ease of access...

[Joanne_chan]

Like a few others I'm not that keen on immodesty in 'actual' children never mind that around adults dressing as little girls simply because it is slovenly and disrespectful.

Speaking personally, I take pride in my appearance, how I present on those occasions I have to be groan up and when I'm with other little girls who may include those who were born and raised as such so I do not flash my panties with immodest skirts or through picking things up incorrectly as if I want to advertise my behind to all.

I had deportment classes when I was younger which isn't easy if like me you have Cerebal Palsy but I but everything I had in to doing my best at it in order to carry myself the best I can. I see no wrong in having decent standards and advocating the same.