Dress controversy: Girls turned away from homecoming dance

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    I'm surprised the Principal is still employed out there.

    Talk about a failure of leadership! There have been multiple problems like this from that school, hitting the news. What gives out there, folks?

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    I'm surprised the Principal wasn't present at one of the biggest events of the school year.

  • joy Logan, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 8:42 p.m.

    Voice of Reason & sportsfan21

    AMEN! AMEN & AMEN !!!!!!

  • CT98 Saint George, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:23 p.m.

    WOW! The pictures on the facebook link in the article "HS Homecoming Massacre" of the girls in California are stunning. I realize that those are typical dresses in California but my goodness. I think the white dress in the center is actually a lingerie piece. The woman looked gorgeous in it and thats the very problem...I'm sorry but its tough to keep your thoughts clean when you see a woman in that white lingerie...er, I mean dress. I would challenge any red-blooded man to look at that photo and keep his thoughts straight.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    My first impression is that the dresses were OK. But after listening to Voice of Reason I agree with his principle of modesty. Why don't the boys show up in tuxedo tanktops and tuxedo shorts. Girls are showing up in something as revealing. Why doesn't our fashion permit that for the men?

    The reason is because men are aroused by the visual. Men like to look at women. It gives them a buzz. Fashion is encouraging women to dress so they can be looked at. We are going along with a cultural custom that objectifies women.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Oct. 3, 2012 9:21 p.m.

    What was the requirement for the boys attire?

    Wasn't this the same school who sent home a student wearing a perfectly acceptable shirt, short sleeve sweater and dress shoes last year?

  • moniker lewinsky Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 6:24 p.m.

    Knee caps are ruining everything!

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 6:01 p.m.

    The oppression of women in Utah continues its backsliding to the 1950s... Paranoia of "progressivism" has launched Utah into a deliberate REgressivism!

  • moniker lewinsky Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 3:18 p.m.

    VOR: Priesthood authority is not relevant to a conversation regarding what should happen on a secular level. Never has been; never will be. Since your LDS church gives so much lip service to the idea that a person (gay) can withstand "temptation", I would say that boys who see an attractive girl should also be able to withstand temptation. It is not your place to set standards for society. It is for you to set standards in your own home. Please get that straight. In a democracy, the minority should still have rights. If you don't agree now, you will the first time that 50.00001% percent of a group tries to take away your freedom to choose based on subjective values.
    Sportsfan21: The word "near" leaves room for interpretation. It simply does.

    If girls find it impossible to find an "appropriate" dress without traveling far and wide, the standard has been set too high. Parents who wish for more conservative standards are free to choose to implement them. It is not the place of secular organizations to cater to the most religiously conservative people in a group.

  • moniker lewinsky Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    It's good to have standards. If a school has standards that a parent feels are too "lax", that parent can apply more strict standards. Trust me I know. My mom and dad both quite enjoyed being a pain in my butt about these things while I was in High School. No, I don't anticipate putting my daughter through the same, but there will be limits.
    Conversely, if a school applies standards that go beyond what a large percentage of parents would choose, those parents' rights have been compromised. PUBLIC schools funded with tax dollars need to be more liberal. That doesn't mean individual parents have to be liberal. But when in doubt, more choices; not fewer. As a general rule, this is how we create societies where people get along and don't resent eachother.
    In short, standards regarding "morals" need to be applied to a lower common denominator. Not the lowest. But lower. I know this offends people who love to get all pious about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but it is what is fair.
    We don't all share the same standards. Please deal with it.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Oct. 3, 2012 6:03 a.m.

    Absolutely ridiculous.

    "LDS standards are for all not just LDS." Let's just put them in clothes to their ankles in Pennsylvania since there is an Amish population there. There will always be stricter or more loose standards somewhere. It's a public school. It isn't BYU. I find it crazy that this is all put on the girls. Near the knee means not mini. I hope the families are able to financial reimbursement for the dress and the tickets. Girls brought dresses, they changed the standards. Families should not be put out. They could have written knee length or longer before the dance. And that I would fight that as a parent. This is homecoming, how long are the cheerleaders skirts? Not strapless means there is something holding up the dress. So any strap would be fine. LDS or more conservative dress students may exceed the standards.

    The dress was fine with their parents.

    Maybe there should be no school dances? Maybe couples should just dress formal and have a nice meal and go dancing, like adults. Without so much intrusion from outsiders.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 8:06 p.m.


    Thank you for the kind response.

    Please consider this-

    Modesty is no more cultural than truth. What is true (such as the Word of Wisdom) doesn't change based on where you are from. Setting aside revealed truth for an occasion or social convenience isn't right. Nothing replaces what is right.

    I want to stress- my point here isn't criticizing others dress standards but defending the expectation of higher standards from others as virtuous.

    1) The more lenient we get, and the lower the standards go over time- the more the moral strength of young men and women is threatened- the harder it becomes to do what is right.

    2) Having a dress code is justifiable, even admirable when society standards decline.

    3) What's revealed on morality is given for the benefit of all mankind, not LDS members only. Nor is this imposing LDS beliefs on others as school boards are democratically controlled.

    The truth isn't overly strict, just something to strive for. Consider a ladder. The top isn't harsh, perhaps just far from someone's location. I'm not advocating "top or no deal", just moving in the right direction.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 3:05 p.m.

    Do what the Utah legislature would do...

    Do away with all dances!

    Problem solved.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Oct. 2, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    If the referee in a football game didn't call someone out of bounds and his excuse was "Well he was just a couple inches out of bounds," how well with that go over with the fans? A second look at the photos (instant replay)--none of the dresses came down to the knees. If the policy is that the hem come down to the knees then the girls were in defiance of the rule and the enforcers didn't have a choice but to tell them not to come in. But, we can still blame the school because it is obvious that if the girls think they were within the standards,the schools need to do a better job of teaching human anatomy.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    @ jzwillows
    So who made the rule you reference and was that rule carved in stone? Adults ignore stupid rules like the one in Salt Lake City against no idling. Kids will ignore stupid rules just like their parents.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 1:24 p.m.

    Mormon, conservative and father of two girls: This was a FAIL.

    The girls looked cute. Lighten up folks!!

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Oct. 2, 2012 11:33 a.m.


    You quoted me for something I didn't say. That was another poster.

  • Gram Cracker Price, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    mk, NO they could NOT wear those dresses to ALL churches.

  • Forgotten pilot Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    Reminds me of the time when we enrolled our son into BYU.
    The subject of dress standards came up.
    It all sounded pretty clear, but then the statement of the speaker made us laugh for quite a while.
    He said: *The problem lies, into the fact that girls do not know where there knees are*.

    On the other hand, not knowing the exact wording of the dress code in question, at this school, I must say that, what I read in the news article, may be not that clear. One could say, it is very unclear !

    For instance, "Dresses should be at or near knee length...."
    Near the knee, from which direction ??

    "Strapless dresses are prohibited unless a jacket or shawl is worn.... "
    What does strapless really mean, when there IS a strap, but that strap is about 1/4 inch wide ???

    "'Plunging' necklines are prohibited."
    Uhmmm ... , how far down can the *plunge* go ??

    What is really sad, is that this dress code was *created* by *educators* ??

    I learned a long time ago, from an LDS Leader:
    "Make sure that nobody misunderstands".

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 2, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    Re: LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    "One more reason to NOT let a Mormon near the white house."

    This isn't about Mormons. They don't even agree with the way this homecoming dance was batched. This story is about the mindless zero tolerance mentality of public school officials nationwide who act horrified if a 2nd grader comes to school with a PICTURE of a gun.

    And no, nothing in this story suggests that Mitt Romney or the Mormons were behind it or agree with it.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Oct. 2, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    @Sneaky Jimmy

    "Good bye Mitt. Wait until the MEDIA gets a hold of this. One more reason to NOT let a Mormon near the white house. Do people in Tooole even know how much damage they do to the image of Mormonism and the state of Utah by these idiotic attempts to make people behave the way they think they should."

    Although not a definitive reason for not being on Romney's side, I do worry about a LDS follower running the country. As this school situation shows, and many public policies in Utah such as weird liquor laws and so on .... LDS in official positions don't do well separating their beliefs with their policies. They tend to impose them on everyone else ... and if you can't separate church and state for the people at large .... you shouldn't be making rules or running the country.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Oct. 2, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    Two year old kids know where their knees are. What's the matter with high school kids that don't know where their own knees are? Just to be safe, wear it a little below the knee and then there is no problem. The trouble is that people keep pushing the limits until there is no limit. Then, some kids just won't go to dances because so many of the girls are dressed seductively. In some places, the decent kids are having their own alternative dances with stricter dress standards. The school is in a no win situation. If they enforce a dress code, they get complaints; if they don't have a dress code, they get complaints. Solution, don't have a homecoming dance or let someone else sponsor it.

  • vklssj RAMONA, CA
    Oct. 2, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    This article reminds me of the rule that my mother had for me when I was growing up. The rule was, the skirt had to "meet, greet, and say Hello to your knees." When it was back to school time, and I would try on skirts that I thought were okay, she would say something to the effect, "The skirt is waving from a distance!", or "your knees and that skirt aren't saying hello!"...Good memories. Miss you, Mom.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Oct. 2, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    Good bye Mitt. Wait until the MEDIA gets a hold of this. One more reason to NOT let a Mormon near the white house. Do people in Tooole even know how much damage they do to the image of Mormonism and the state of Utah by these idiotic attempts to make people behave the way they think they should. Just about every poster had a better idea for handling the dance then the school administration.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Oct. 2, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    Why is a public school this far infiltrated with LDS standards that it's imposing it on the students like this? Public schools .. repeat PUBLIC schools .. don't cater to any one religion's standards or beliefs. This is outrageous.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    Most everybody here on both sides of the issue are losing sight of the sad commentary on society that we are seeing here.

    For those that were in Highschool 15 years ago or more, think back to your school rules. People understood what the proper clothing was for a formal dance. Rules stating what styles were and were not acceptable were not needed.

    You should be asking yourselves, how did we get to a point where schools have to create and enforce rules governing what is and is not acceptable dress for a formal dance?

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Oct. 2, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    I think it is notable that the Homecoming Queen was not excepted from compliance and put on leggings to be in compliance. She obviously understood the process.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 2, 2012 6:41 a.m.

    Re: jzwillows willows, ca
    "Next year the students will take the rule seriously - or they can wine and stay home."

    No, next year these students won't whine and stay home because this "rule" will be scrapped. If this were an LDS seminary social that rule would be acceptable ..... but it wasn't.

    Want to place a bet on whether these same girls, wearing these same dresses, will be turned away from the school's apology dance?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 1:48 a.m.

    When I heard about this situation, I thought the girls must have been in very short tight miniskirts. Its amazIng these girls were denied going to their homecoming dance given that they were wearing the dresses being showed in these pictures. Fundamentalism (FLDS, Taliban etc.) is a human trait that many are susceptible to, not just those that are obvious fundamentalists.

  • bclady Spanish Fork, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 10:14 p.m.

    jzwillows said it right. The rules were clear, the students just did what they wanted. I think the part that is outrageous is that the principal caved in and even apologized....and now they want to hold another dance (who pays for that?) just so these rule breakers can go. How can people get so worked up about some dresses and girls who won't play by the rules? Why do they get to call the shots now? So wrong, I think.

  • PAC Phoenix, AZ
    Oct. 1, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    If you thing those dresses are bad...come to a High School dance in AZ. I would say they were very nice dresses.

  • Go West Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 9:33 p.m.

    One of the problems with this issue is that the dress code confusingly states that "dresses for formal dances should be at or near knee length." The problem with that is that formal wear is actually supposed to be a long gown. Knee length dresses are not formal, they are informal "cocktail" dresses. So, these girls were led to believe that they had to wear cocktail dresses to the "formal" dance. Would they have worn longer dresses if the writer of the dress code was more knowledgeable of fashion etiquette?

    Another problem is that it's hard to find appropriate dresses in the shops. The majority of what's on the rack is skimpy. When I was in school we had great choices. We could find dresses with sleeves (puffed, even), full skirts; modest and flattering.

    Three words: Learn to sew.

  • ldstexan Spring, TX
    Oct. 1, 2012 9:23 p.m.

    As a mother of 4 daughters and living in Texas, I wish I could have found dresses like these for my girls to wear. This is ridiculous for these kids to be turned away from their homecoming! Really people lighten up! My daughters wore strapless dresses to a couple of dances and they are all fine YW and have strong values! Now I know why I'm thankful to be living out of state!

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 9:01 p.m.

    @A Voice of Reason -- Yes, I saw your post after I had already posted mine. Sorry about the repeat after you had already responded to a similar post.
    Actually modesty is cultural. Modesty standards have changed dramatically in the past 100 years. No, those dresses would not have been modest 100 years ago, but neither would the most modest dress that went to that dance (most likely). Up until a certain point in time, women wore dresses to the floor. A dress to the knees would have been immodest. Showing your elbows would have been immodest. So yes, modesty standards do change depending on the culture of the people. (That's why we don't have our women wear burquas even though in some societies a woman who didn't wear one would be considered quite a tramp. To us it is ridiculous to think that a man would be justified in molesting a woman because she showed her face. To them a woman's face is an unbearable temptation -- similar to the temptation that knees are to our boys apparently.)

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 8:44 p.m.


    I suppose that a strapless cantilever dress with a hem line between the knee and the hip might have been a bit much. Hard to understand, though, what the fuss was about with 3 of the 5 dresses --- or all 5 dresses, if sleeveless is not considered problematical.

    What was the dress code at this event? Burkas? Nuns habits??

    Interesting to know what sort of dress code the boys have to wear. Could they attend in a short-sleeve shirt?

  • jzwillows willows, ca
    Oct. 1, 2012 8:35 p.m.

    The rule was that the dresses were to be to the knees. All of the dresses of the girls in the photos are clearly above the knees. If the monitors missed a few so what - they're human. So what's the problem - the students weren't allowed to break the rule? Sounds like a bunch of pampered children and coddling parents to me. Next year the students will take the rule seriously - or they can wine and stay home.

  • sportsfan21 OREM, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 8:28 p.m.

    At first I was sympathetic toward the girls who were turned away. Then I read the dress code. It says "at or near the knee," which seems subjective until you read the next line. "Slits should be no higher than the top of the knee." I think it's pretty obvious that since slits shouldn't be above the top of the knee, the length of any dress shouldn't either. I'm not saying they were immodest and I would probably support a change to the dress code, but it's not like this snuck up on anyone.

    They could have saved themselves the heartache if they had simply read and followed the rules rather than assume they wouldn't be enforced.

  • rmk South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 8:26 p.m.

    They could wear any of these dresses to church and nobody would say anything. The school officials should be ashamed

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 8:20 p.m.

    I guess my first post was too long. Anyway, it's time to punt the vice and virtue police and claim the freedom we put lip service to.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 8:20 p.m.


    I already clarified (more than amicably) that I was not blaming young women for actions of young men.

    Although it still remains true that adorning yourself in certain attire is still not appropriate or justified by social acceptance. All I'm saying is that young women SHOULDN'T ENCOURAGE such attraction by feeding it. If you can't even give the very basic amount of credit that my statement deserves then your own argument (as was KJB1s) is logically fallacious and a 'straw-man' argument.

    By your argument we should also adopt the trends. Were those dresses appropriate by the standards of modesty society accepted 100 years ago? No. Does that mean that modesty changed all the sudden? Again, a clear and definite 'No'. If we allow 'above the knee' then it will only rise further (and already has really).

    'Above the knee' isn't unreasonable or overly harsh. Only those who are guilty of accepting what is immoral right find the truth to be hard. The truth is that priesthood authorities (and the spirit also) speak to everyone, not just LDS youth.

    The only way to challenge a standard of modesty is by having a lower one.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 7:54 p.m.

    Modest standards for a dance in a public school is what I would expect from the administration (as a parent). That said, a standard that says "near the knee" is clearly too vague. I think the Principle at the high school is trying to improve the process and is handling it in a reasonable fashion. Everyone is learning something from the experience to help make the future better. Anyone who has ever made a mistake, hopefully has learned something from it and will try to not repeat the mistake going forward. Lets move on!

  • Caprice PROVIDENCE, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 7:18 p.m.

    From the pictures I have seen, I do not think any of the dresses appear too short or immodest. It would be different if they showed the girls' panties as they walked away from you. I honestly think this situation is far too extreme. I am actually pleased that shorter dresses are appropriate for school dances because they are a great deal less expensive. I do approve, however, of having a modest dress standard that is fairly enforced. Perhaps a pre-screening would be helpful. Above all, a written statement of the dress code to be followed needs to be sent to every parent so that their daughters are not put through this unnecessary humiliation. I personally think that a dress that is three inches or less above or the top of the knee is about right.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 7:02 p.m.

    @A Voice of Reason -- Yes, and that's the reason that women are required to wear burquas in some countries. At what point do we say that the responsibility is the boy's not to attack (your analogy is a lion going after meat) a woman because she's showing her knees. Should we require girls to wear dresses to their ankles because a boy may be tempted by a calf? I am all for dress standards at dances, but at a public high school, the standards do not need to be For the Strength of Youth standards. Those dresses shouldn't (and honestly most likely wouldn't) overly excite any boy and if they do, I can't imagine what that poor young man does when he goes to a swimming pool (or for that matter, walks down the street). Boys need to be held responsible for their own behavior and not treated as if they are helpless.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 7:00 p.m.


    Perhaps the country things Oregon is trendy, hip, appealing, or down to Earth. Maybe the popular opinion of the rest of this country and all your peers matters to you. There are more truthful and uplifting things that matter more to me.

    I will clarify something, but primarily for the sake of anyone else who may read my comment, not to argue it with you.

    I've never said that women control men's actions, nor was it implied in my statement. You inferred your own idea into my statement. Women have full control over what they wear and adorn their body with. Men make their own choices. But both can contribute to cause and effect. Denial of this is irrational. Otherwise, you would be justified putting your children in a lion's cage SOLELY based on being able to blame the lion and not yourself.

    No amount of social beliefs, trends, peer pressure, or perversion will negate the truth. I am a man. I have very real experience regarding how clothing can attract males. No other opinions or personal backgrounds lacking such experiences will ever negate my own experience. I have spoken the truth.

    -with respect

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 6:12 p.m.

    Wow. A new low, and we're not talking hemline here. I hope some of these young people get this stuff online nation wide. We're hyping all the good things associated with this state these days; let's not forget the utahliban. The world needs to know about them, too, and what motivates them.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Oct. 1, 2012 5:41 p.m.

    "The less modest the clothing, the more tempting sexual desires are for males." That's right, Voice. Why should men take responsibility for their own feelings and actions? Blame the women instead, with their shoulder and knees showing...

    Want to know why the rest of the country thinks Utah is a punchline? Look no further.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 5:19 p.m.

    The less modest the clothing, the more tempting sexual desires are for males. This is a fact. The fashion industry makes a living off this fact so I do not feel the need to dispute or argue it with anyone on here. People who think dangling meat in front of a lion is perfectly safe are in NO way ignorant. They are in denial! And when that denial gets bitten those who dangle are just as accountable as those who wanted the meat to begin with. Think I'm horrible for comparing women to meat? I'm doing to argue for their protection while others voicing their beliefs online do it for humor, reality, and to further their own justifications to feed their desires.

    The truth is, it is inappropriate and risky business and the entirety of the human race (meaning everyone with a sex drive) knows this to be true.

    Ridicule the modest and call them pioneers all you want, but upright LDS High School males still know that dresses which 'technically cover up' can still be immodest . Those who mock moral standards are defending what helps to ruin lives. That isn't overly harsh, it's reality.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 5:16 p.m.

    Isn't is nice that one us arm chair quarterbacks can opine that "them thar dresses is ok" or something along that line. Well, Golly Gomer! They need you at that edumacation facility. Imagine...in just a minute you were able to determine what the teachers couldn't. You are such the expert!

    Come on. The story is about miscommunication and power, not naked knees. Why not just let the children decide what to wear on their own? And who needs chaperones? These teens always make prudent decisions. Alcohol? Hey if it was good enough for Jesus then why not at the school dance? Lighten up folks!

    What? Oh...you DO understand the need for rules and standards when dealing with teens that teachers see 180 days out of the year and for more time than most of their parents see them. Every year this story plays out somewhere that this or that girl wasn't allowed into the dance because of her choice in a dress. To the degree that the school poorly applied their own standards an apology was issued. But there is no need to apologize for the existence of standards.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Oct. 1, 2012 4:50 p.m.

    @BYU Track Star

    Your comment is more than a little ironic considering you're a BYU fan.

    Oct. 1, 2012 4:31 p.m.

    Umm... really? I am an LDS father of two daughters, and even I think this was ridiculous. Lighten up, folks.

  • Winglish Lehi, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    High school teacher here- These girls look lovely and it is a crying shame that someone turned them away. The administrator in this situation should be ashamed of what happened on his watch. Unbelievable.

  • MormonDem Provo, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    Presumably they enforced these draconian rules to discourage teen promiscuity? Which begs the question: if these supposedly scantily-clad teens were turned away from a chaperoned school dance, where did they go and what did they do when they got there?

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 1, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    Its nice that the religious (school) police are out in force in Tooele. Burkas anyone?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 3:29 p.m.

    None of those dresses were inappropriate.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Oct. 1, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    Perhaps the next dance theme should be "Pioneer Day" so all the girls will come wearing prairie dresses and bonnets.

    The dresses looked fine.

    Lighten up people.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 2:55 p.m.

    I believe modesty is important but standards need to be applied fairly. If they are going to be strict in enforcement there needs to be a pre-approval event in the gym a week or so before the dance. A snapshot of the approved outfit would protect against anyone switching to a less appropriate outfit just because their name is on the list.

    Makes me wonder where the boys are in all this. Any standards they have to live up to?