This blog/website can hopefully be a resource for writings on modesty. So I plan to occasionally link to the essays I've come across that discuss modesty. This article by Regina Schmiedicke (published in Februrary 1999) discusses the lost connection between modesty and feminity, a theme that Wendy Shalit wrote about in her book. Regina views women as having a special role in society, and she believes that modest dressing "befits the dignity and vocation of women." Regina also takes to task the Catholic women who pay no heed to dressing modestly, noting that their outer clothing does not match their inner religious convictions. A few of her key ideas:
"In our fragmented society, scanty clothing has somehow become associated with women's social progress-as if the "right" to wear less indicated that we are moving up in the world. But my casual overview of history leads me to almost the opposite conclusion. It seems to me that in most cultures, the more clothing a person wears, the more important that person tends to be in society."
"At a time when some men are learning to respect women as their equals, too many women are debasing themselves in men's eyes by the way they dress. Women will complain about the lack of knights in shining armor, but it hasn't occurred to many of them that they are scarcely dressing like the chaste ladies of the days of chivalry."
Regina recounts Pope Pius XII's Rules from the 1940's: "Below the knee, halfway down the arm, and two finger widths below the collarbone," referring to skirt length, sleeve length and neckline. She lists all the advantages to following these rules:
"In a dress that incorporates the Pope's Rules, a woman can cross her legs, stretch, bend down to pick up a pencil, or curl up with her legs beneath her without fussing with her hemline. She can squat down to talk to a small child, sit Indian-style, or lie down on the floor to watch a movie without worrying about undue exposure. In a skirt that is long enough and full enough, a woman can climb trees, ride horseback, even be flipped over a man's back while swing dancing-without being immodest. "
I'm not advocating that we all follow Pope Pius's rules, but there are advantages! I enjoyed her article, and suggest that you read the whole thing.
Also would love to read writings on modesty from other religious perspectives.
This brings to mind the great Miuccia Prada quote from her GQ interview:
"With women, the more unhappy they are, the more undressed they are. This is true. Dignity’s another very important part of this. Sex and the City is the opposite of dignity. You have to have dignity for your body—this is with men and women. You need to have dignity towards how you are, how you dress, how you behave. Very important. Men are always much more dignified than most women."
I can't say that I agree with her on men always being much more dignified than women. I personally don't think the Abercrombie t-shirt, pants-about-to-fall-off and 3-day's growth look is dignified and it is becoming more common. I fear that as women have given up on their dignified dress, the men have followed suit. I have given up on most contemporary fashion and have taken up sewing vintage. Vintage fashion is usually far more dignified and stylish than what's available in the stores now.
Posted by: Mary B. | March 15, 2006 at 01:56 PM
It's true about how more clothing indicates a higher social status, even in ours. How many layers does business attire have? Even in casual clothing, the better dressed usually layer a shirt or jacket over a tank or tee. If you are dressed for physical labor, we all understand that comfort rules, but would you really expect our leaders to show up for work in sleeveless tanks and short shorts just because it's hot outside? Thank goodness for the latest, more modest fashion choices I have noticed in the stores recently. Now's the time to stock up on the long skirts, ladies!
Posted by: spudmomof6 | March 15, 2006 at 02:35 PM
I had read Regina's article a few years ago and had forgotten about some of the great points she makes. I also love that she references Pope Pius XII. I think his advice is very wise -- thought sometimes hard to uphold. But still it is nice to have a measuring stick out there -- even if you often fall short. Literally. Thanks, Mary.
Posted by: Alexandra Foley | March 15, 2006 at 03:46 PM
Here's the thing: aesthetically, I absolutely agree. I'm tired of exposed midriffs and the back of thongs and bra straps under tank tops. Heck, I'd banish the flipflop if I could. I, like Mary B., prefer the stright lines and demure styles of vintage clothing, especially from the 1930s through 1960s.
But.
Regina's article seems to imply that it is fair to base valuations of a woman's CHARACTER (please forgive my capital letters - lack of HTML formatting makes it difficult to emphasize things) upon the clothing she wears. And I simply don't see how anyone could condone that. More pointedly, I think that this is related to how she has misperceived "women's social progress" - feminism has never been about raising hemlines. Rather, I think it's clear that feminism insisted that no woman should be judged on the basis of how she dressed (a more daring position when the sight of a woman in pants could provoke stares and nasty rumors), even if she chose to present herself in less than modest attire.
I think it's this quote that bothers me the most:
"At a time when some men are learning to respect women as their equals, too many women are debasing themselves in men's eyes by the way they dress." I agree that the skimpiness of today's clothing may demonstrate a lack of self-confidence, of inner peace, in a way. However, I'm innately repulsed by the idea that it's OKAY for a man to lose respect for a woman based on her attire, especially since the skimpy attire in question is usually designed to appeal to men's more prurient fantasies/tastes. I suppose I'm wondering how you all see these issues. Do you feel that there is something at odds between a woman dressing modestly as a sign of self-respect, and a woman feeling that she must dress modestly in order to gain men's respect?
Posted by: verbify | March 15, 2006 at 05:33 PM
Verbify, you are definitely on to something. I can't speak for Regina, but for me modesty is about self-respect. Do women who project self-respect tend to attract a different sort of man? Yes, but I see this as more of a fringe benefit, and not the motivating factor.
Posted by: Wendy Shalit | March 15, 2006 at 06:55 PM
I agree that you're making an interesting point, Verbify. I have worn my fair share of modest and less modest clothing over the years, but in my mind it's never okay for a man to degrade or disrespect a woman because of the way she's dressed. He may want to avert his eyes, but he should never lose sight of the person under the clothes (or lack of clothes).
This does not mean that a gentleman or gentle man as I like to say, will be interested in her romantically.
Posted by: Erin P | March 15, 2006 at 08:57 PM
Verbify, you wrote:
"Do you feel that there is something at odds between a woman dressing modestly as a sign of self-respect, and a woman feeling that she must dress modestly in order to gain men's respect?"
Not really.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're asking by saying women dress modestly to get men's respect is the underlying idea that our self-respect comes from others' respect for us, rather than ourselves. Yeah, there is something ironic about that. In theory, people deserve respect just for being people and we should be able to wear whatever we want and still be respected, and our self-worth is not dependent on others' opinions. I also cringe at the idea that it is OK for a man to lose respect for a woman due to her outfit. But, isn't that what happens?
How you present yourself is a HUGE communication tool. So dress like you respect yourself, and others are more likely to respect you as well. There is no dichotomy in that idea.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't care what clothes people wore and would get to know them before deciding anything about their personality/morals/whatever. But let's live in reality and admit that's not what anybody does. Even those willing to suspend judgement on a person still make judgements based on the initial impression.
We use fashion to express ourselves. That's the point of it; if what we were saying with our clothes wasn't important, malls would go out of business and we'd all wear mis-matching t-shirts and shorts, or whatever is most comfortable.
I have no problem feeling like I "must" dress modestly to get respect from guys, because like it or not, revealing clothing reads "easy" or at least "insecure" to both men and women. I tend to respect guys who wear clean, unwrinkled clothes more than those who look like they still need their mommy to dress them or do their laundry. It may not be right or fair, and certainly everyone deserves a second look below the surface, but our image says something about us. Giving people a glimpse at our personality through our clothes can be as much a tool as a hindrance. So why not dress to gain respect?
Posted by: Traci | March 16, 2006 at 01:05 PM
Actually, Traci, I was specifically speaking to the idea that women must dress to earn men's respect. The idea to which I was reacting - "At a time when some men are learning to respect women as their equals, too many women are debasing themselves in men's eyes by the way they dress" (from Regina's article) - to me implies that a woman's worth, no matter how intelligent, well-spoken, humorous, or *equal* she is, will always be predicated in no small part upon how she dresses. Given the hypersexualization of the female form, the same cannot be said for men, if only because a man would basically have to wear a mesh t-shirt and boxer briefs to work before his attire could be seen as inappropriate in the same way that a bit of cleavage or a bare shoulder on a woman is. And as I noted above, although I have personal opinions about what is appropriate (and I will admit to those culturally influenced first impressions to which you referred), I would never convert those opinions into standards and impose them onto someone else (because, after all, that's how we got the corset). Moreover, the more a woman's dress is tied to her worth as a human being, the more I see the outline of that old defense of rape - you know the one, where the woman was wearing a short skirt and was therefore asking for it. Yes, I realize that when we're talking about the Pope and shirtsleeve lengths, we're a far cry from justifying rape. However, there's no denying that it's the same line of thought - just further down the line.
In end though, personal sensibilities aside, if my repeated viewings of Erin Brokovich have taught me anything, it's this: Women who defy the still-very-much-in-existence- mandate that "good girls cover up" by demonstrating that they are capable, smart, witty, and strong individuals - i.e., women who have enough self-confidence to be smart *and* sexual in a world that tells them to pick one or the other, women who choose to bare parts of their bodies not to titillate or to cave to societal pressure, but because they are confident in who they are, and because they know that the body they inhabit is an indispensible part of the "Me" - deserve quite a bit of respect.
Posted by: verbify | March 16, 2006 at 01:48 PM
verbify, can you clarify the 'good girls cover up' dichotomy a bit more? You set up those who are smart vs. those who are sexual; is the implication that someone who covers up cannot be sexual/is not sexual?
Maybe I misunderstood, but isn't it possible to be a sexual being without having that sexuality be public, for all to see?
Posted by: Wendy Shalit | March 16, 2006 at 02:49 PM
Wendy,
That wasn't at all what I intended to say, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. In fact, I was saying the opposite - that our society at large tends to force women into either the "smart" or "sexy/sexual" category, without regard for the fact that a woman can be both. The example I was using - Erin Brokovich - was an example of a woman whose public persona was sexual, and she therefore had to *prove* herself to be intelligent, capable, etc. I would absolutely agree that society places analogous expectations on smart girls - there's an assumption that a girl with glasses and a long skirt is a prude, and it's an expectation that's equally unfair (I think that the portrayal of Hillary Clinton as emasculating and frigid is a good example). It's because we were specifically talking about women feeling the need to cover up in order to gain men's respect that I focused on the flip side of the coin. (And, ultimately, I think it's possible that the Erin Brokoviches of the world face a slightly steeper uphill battle.)
Posted by: verbify | March 16, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Got it, thanks for clarifying.
Posted by: Wendy Shalit | March 16, 2006 at 03:34 PM
I completely agree with everything you said, Verbify. And well said, by the way.
My point was, miserable standard as it may be, people ARE judged by their appearance. And there should be a certain amount of submission to that fact when picking out what to wear. The judgements made can be positive--a woman who dresses attractively, whether showing skin or not, shows she knows she is attractive, on many levels.
No one wants to be trapped by another's opinion of themselves, nor should be, but unless you live in a bubble, your general reputation will affect your life. And reputation comes from other people's judgements.
Making judgements about a person's character based on appearance is a horrible practice, as it does lend itself to false beliefs, like the "asking for it" defense you mentioned. I'm not encouraging people to judge based on appearance, only noting that it happens, and ignoring that fact can have consequences.
Posted by: Traci | March 16, 2006 at 03:40 PM
You're right, Traci. I once had a professor who said, "Even a philosopher has to ride the bus." So, yeah, we can debate it until we're blue (or our fingers fall off at the joints), but we still have to get dressed tomorrow morning. I do think, however, that there is something to be said for attempting to change attitudes. There are ninety different ways a woman can dress which provoke the epithet "easy," but not a single outfit I can think of that would result in a man getting called a "slut." And I'm not sure if the solution to this disparity is imposing even *more* rules upon what a woman can or should wear.
Posted by: verbify | March 16, 2006 at 05:19 PM
Hmmm, Verbify, you have a point, sort of. Men don't get called sluts, even when they are promiscuous (Magic Johnson, Joe Namath, for example). They are called cads and jerks.
But what are the implications of that? For millenia, men have been willing to pay women to have sex. Women rarely have to do that. There are many more prostitutes than gigolos in the world. There's defniitely a double standard, but I think it's related to biology. I think that ignoring this inherent inequality is wishful thinking. Promiscuity is not an admirable trait in either sex, but women have more to lose by being promiscuous than men do. Thems the breaks.
Regarding Erin Brokovitch, if you want to display a sexual persona, then that's how people will see you. Heterosexual men don't run around making public exhibition of their bodies (in our culture, anyway). Why should a heterosexual woman run around in low-cut shirts and then be surprised that she's ogled?
You want to be taken seriously, wear a suit. That's true for men and women both.
Posted by: Mary O | March 16, 2006 at 11:58 PM
("They are called cads and jerks." ...and studs.)
I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your comment, because it was exquisitely layered. First, I suppose, I'm actually quite intrigued by your response, if only because you made the same leap from choice of outfit to sexual style/choice/life that I was bemoaning. By starting your comment with a discussion of promiscuity and historical sexual practices, you go beyond your initial premise - an acceptable one, that exposed skin could lead one's thoughts to sex - to the idea that one can tell something about a woman's sexual history or practices by looking at how much cleavage she's showing. As Wendy noted, it's a dangerous proposition for women who dress modestly as well, because such a binary view leads to assumptions that these women are frigid or, at the very least, nonsexual.
My second observation is your qualifier of "heterosexual" here: "Heterosexual men don't run around making public exhibition of their bodies..." You also qualify your next sentence with regard to "heterosexual women." Why the qualification? At the very least, it seems to me that a lesbian who wears a plunging neckline should be similarly "[un]surprised when she's ogled."
Lastly, I think that your parting statement, that those of us who want respect should wear business suits, was well intended. Nonetheless, to me it smacks of classism that, while certainly implicated by discussions of modest dress, is slightly beyond the purview of your original post. I'm not criticizing you for broadening the discussion; I'm just asking whether that was your intent. I don't want to grab hold of a throwaway remark and make a federal case out of it.
Posted by: verbify | March 17, 2006 at 03:58 PM
Verbify, First of all, I really enjoy your comments, you are clearly a thinker, someone who loves ideas and arguing about them. I disagree with some of them (OK, a lot of them), but I like that critical/ questioning mindset. Also you are brave to comment here when you are usually in the minority opinion. You liven things up!
Anyway, regarding what one wears: you may be as pure as the driven snow, but if you're wearing trashy clothes, few people will get beyond the clothes. Traci commented along these lines. Doesn't really matter to me if that's good or bad that people think this way. We see people, we make judgements about them.
I definitely meant to say hetero for the men, since more homosexual men do strut their physical assets. Probably wasn't necessary to qualify hetero for women. (But I did go to Smith College, and believe me, lesbians are generally not known for their fashion sense.)
Finally, the suit. I used "suit" as a short hand for conservative dress. It sounded crisper to say it that way.
When I worked in Boston as a library aid in the mid-80's, I did actually wear a suit to work. Women working in downtown offices didn't wear pants even then! Now I work in an engineering company in a suit. So what is considered conservative attire definitely changes.
Thanks again for all your challenging ideas.
Posted by: Mary O'Hayes | March 17, 2006 at 05:32 PM
Hi,
Interesting post here, and I'm typing this comment before I got to finish reading all the comments (I've yet to read the last 4). But I wanted to point out something that happens often in my country. Here we have a means of public transportation called the "jeepney" which you board from the back and then decide whether you'll take a seat on the right or on the left side. The passengers on the left face those on the right (there are about 9 or 10 on each side.
As you can probably imagine, wearing a short skirt in a jeepney makes men either rejoice, cringe in discomfort or look out the window. Also, some women have had to contend with maniacal moves by audacious men (presumably as a consequence of the flesh-baring attire which accentuates their physical assets).
Sometimes, when I'm seated beside such a woman and see her fidget and adjust her skirt every 2 mins and flash dagger looks at a guy (or become visibly uncomfortable) who's giving her and her limbs admiring glances, I'm puzzled and somewhat amused.
Of course, she is not me, but if I didn't want other people looking at my legs and if I didn't want to keep adjusting my outfit, I wouldn't wear a miniskirt (and I wouldn't buy one). Sorry if this sounds simplistic and if I seem to be mocking girls for their fashion choices which are different from mine. I really am not mocking them but my statement may come off as ridiculing them.
What I'm thinking is that probably a genuine concern for others besides ourselves would be a good guiding principle, too, when choosing what to wear. I am grateful whenever another person demonstrates concern for me, whether through a sympathetic smile when needed, the courtesy of asking if it's ok with me that he smokes, or any other gesture -- big or seemingly insignificant. Bottom line is, the gesture helps me in my struggle to be a better person and a more faithful Christian.
Hence, in return I try to be the same to others. If I wore a tube and a micromini, I doubt it if I'd be instrumental in helping men attain more virtue everytime they look at me. =(
For some reason, I'm having difficulty expressing this last idea of mine. However, I remember reading a contribution at Modesty Zone called "Confessions of an ex-hoochie mama" which illustrates the point more clearly. Maybe you guys want to check it out sometime.
It's so good to get to drop by this blog again and read all your ideas!
Posted by: sunnyday | March 18, 2006 at 01:34 AM
Hmmmm....
This is an interesting comment thread and I've enjoyed reading through it, but I do think a rather large point is being entirely missed here.
Let me describe how I dress. I do not wear sexy clothing. I do not wear plunging necklines, midriff baring shirts, knee exposing skirts, stilletto heels or anything of the sort. The clothing I wear is comfortable, well fitting and well made. I love Lands End stuff, the Gap, High Sierra, LL Bean and so on and so forth. While I'm at it, I should probably also throw in that I'm short, petite and often described as "cute".
And yet I'm constantly criticized over what I wear. Why? Because it's not feminine. I wear pants. I don't wear skirts at all. I don't wear pretty flowery prints. I wear short heeled boots. And I've lost count of how many people (men, mostly) tell me I should dress up (trust me, I'm not dressing shabby down say in jeans and sweatshirts although admittedly this is what I'm wearing at the moment while typing away, but I digress).
In any case, my personal dress meets every possible criteria of modesty and yet many people do not seem to find it acceptable. Therefore it seems to me that "dressing modestly" or even "dressing femininely" is not simply a case of covering oneself up decently. I think many people fail to realize the underlying assumptions yoked to "modesty" that extend far beyond the surface presentation. It includes many more issues of being feminine, being conformist, meeting others' expectations, deferring to others' judgement, refraining from being challenging or threatening in any way,
In particular notice: She leaves it uncovered, she's a tramp. She covers it up, she's a dyke.
I know this one woman whose first husband made her cover up from collar to ankles and half the time refused to let her leave the house. Her current husband in contrast has her dress up in what could be charitably called trashy. I note in particular that she's doing the same thing all along: dressing to please her husband.
Which is why I think it's very important for women to dress how they please. If that's the way advocated here, that's great. If it's the way I like, that's great too. If it's a page out of Madonna's book, splendid. I think the important thing is for each woman to use her own judgement, comfort level, and what works for her, and everyone (men and women) needs to respect that. Or really, we're just little children running around seeking approval from others.
Regards,
BEG
Posted by: BEG | March 18, 2006 at 01:36 AM
Just a question for BEG - are there any limits at all? According to your last statement, if we all dress to please ourselves and ourselves alone, then people who wish to go around in public stark naked should just do so, and nobody should even notice or think anything of it.
It sounds very noble to say everyone should dress according to their comfort level, but the reality is, at some point, somewhere, there needs to be a limit, because there are those people out there who have a comfort level that would permit them to go totally nude all the time.
Stating that people should be able to dress to their own comfort level and shouldn't have to adhere to any standards other than their comfort level is the same as the old "let it all hang out" attitude of the 1960's. It leads to dress styles that are more and more extreme, to the point where styles are beyond the real comfort level of most people, but they wear them because they're fashionable or because there is truly nothing else available. It seems odd now, but during the early 1970's, there were truly NO dresses available without a micromini skirt length. None. Zilch. Even dresses made for older women. If you didn't sew for yourself or hire a seamstress, the only skirts and dresses available stopped about half an inch short of your crotch. Most women are simply not comfortable with that, and women retreated into the hideous polyester pantsuits that were the other fashion option of the time though most of them weren't particularly happy about the awful fabrics and ugly colors available either.
The sad fact about humanity is that, if you dress in a way that makes you blatantly stand out, whether you're a woman and your dress is unusually masculine or a man and your dress is unusually feminine, or you show a great deal more skin than the people around you, you are going to attract attention to yourself. If you dress in a way that attracts attention to yourself, you shouldn't be surprised when people notice. And short of Utopia, people will notice things that look different - it's hard wired into the human brain, and it isn't something that people can change (that's not to say that people can't adapt their behavior to where they don't stare or make comments, both of which I consider unforgivable, no matter how a person is dressed).
As my father said the day I wore a very striking and attractive but attention getting hat on the street when I was a teenager, and got uncomfortable with all the looks I was getting, "if you don't want people to look at you, don't dress in a way that asks them to look at you - and if you do dress in such a way, don't be offended if you get looks".
It's great to dress the way you want, but you can't dictate how other people are going to react to it.
Posted by: TF | March 18, 2006 at 07:38 PM
You did miss my point.
Dress non-descriptly, get called a dyke.
Dress like a woman, but covered up and get called either a bitch or frigid.
Dress in a burkha in this country and get called quite a number of things.
Dress in any way that is the slightest way imaginably provocative, and get called a slut. Nota bene: dressing as in point number two above in certain other countries falls into that category.
There's something rather wrong with all that. And since I cannot dress in such a way as to eliminate comments, and after thinking on it, it's not my problem what other people think. So I dress to please myself, the way I like, the way that is comfortable for me, and ignore all the commentary.
I found it very interesting your reply went straight to the "oh if you dress like a slut people will see you as one." Did you pause at all to see what it is that I do wear? Why on earth use the specter of public nudity to put my comments down?
Posted by: BEG | March 19, 2006 at 02:17 PM
"I found it very interesting your reply went straight to the "oh if you dress like a slut people will see you as one." Did you pause at all to see what it is that I do wear? Why on earth use the specter of public nudity to put my comments down?"
Firstly, I had no intention of "putting your comments down" by invoking the spectre of public nudity, as you say. I also, at no point, said "if you dress like a slut people will see you as one". My intention was to ask you if there was a limit to dressing to please oneself, and I used some examples, including the fact that there are some people out there who have actively campaigned for public nudity, who would basically stop at nothing.
It is regrettable that you run into so many people who see fit to comment on your mode of dress. This is behavior which is unforgivable, but which has become more or less socially acceptable, probably because of the popularity of "talk about anything and everything" television and radio shows. It used to be considered the height of rudeness to comment unfavorably on someone's attire. In fact, the first little white lie children used to be instructed in telling was to compliment people wearing atrocious clothing/hats.
Things must have changed a great deal since I left America eight years ago, because I have, perforce, in my forty-six years, had to dress very nondescriptly, yet no-one ever called me a dyke. I have dressed both covered up and provacatively too, and was never called a bitch or a slut and nobody has ever called me frigid. I'm rather surprised that someone is encountering such constant commentary on what sounds like a fairly middle of the road style of dressing. What sort of environment are you encountering such frequent remarks about your attire, or do you hear such comments on other people's attire?
My point, which also seems to have been missed, is that when it is said that people should dress to please only themselves, and the devil take those who comment, there must still be some limitation applied, because otherwise, there is always someone who will be more than glad to take such things to extremes.
I did not assume for one second that you dress like a slut, and I did read your description of what you wear. If people are remarking on that, maybe you need a new circle of friends and acquaintances. The only answer I can find to what seems to be a lot of commentary on your attire is that people might think from the simplicity of your clothing that you are depriving yourself for some reason. That was the sole comment I ever received when my clothing was, due to extreme poverty, very basic. People in my case were simply concerned. Their remarks weren't particularly welcome, because they only emphasized what was already a very painful and difficult situation, but it was well meant, and I judged the remarks as concern rather than criticism.
Posted by: TF | March 20, 2006 at 01:44 AM
I haven't read everyones responses yet...so many! And I'm a little late to the runner conversation...but I thoughts I'd add...
Mary I love this quote!!
"With women, the more unhappy they are, the more undressed they are. This is true. Dignity’s another very important part of this...You have to have dignity for your body—this is with men and women. You need to have dignity towards how you are, how you dress, how you behave..."
This subject makes me boil!!! I fear for this world because it seems to be getting worse and worse...women identify themselves with their bodies, and that is what they become - bodies. For me this is not about dress standards, its not even a discussion about freedom of choice for clothing. It is one of how one views oneself/feels about oneself, how they identify with themselves and related to one another. And at the moment our world treats women as sexual objects, and women seem to view themselves as such.
This is about women and how we are treated still in this world. Really, do men get the same attention/criticism over dress?? Do they care??!! Hardly! Once again, this is about how women are viewed and treated in the world...something which feminists used to fight against...a huge loss because women have joined the cause.
Posted by: Molly | March 22, 2006 at 07:11 AM
Good afternoon. I have read all the comments and wish to add one of my own. First let me say that I am a person who believes that the Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God. I do not have any regard for any human being's opinion about what sort of attire is modest or not modest, feminine or not feminine, because the standards are set forth perfectly clearly in the Bible. I find that debating about what is appropriately feminine and appropriately modest attire for a woman, with someone who does not believe the Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God, makes about as much sense as arguing about the spelling of a word with someone who does not recognize the authority of the dictionary. I do not wish to argue; I wish to point out that there are advantages to adhering to the Biblical standards of modesty and femininity in dress.
The first advantage is that of knowing that one is being obedient to the Word of God, but besides that most important advantage I wanted to point out that there are others: Once I began dressing in this way I was pleasantly surprised by how comfortable it is. I do not have a single thing in my closet that is not completely comfortable. I never have to yank at my clothes to make sure this or that part of me is appropriately covered. Once I have completed dressing in the morning I never have to give another thought to my clothes, and I can work all day and engage in liesure activities in complete comfort.
Another advantage is that a beautiful dress is the best camouflage in the world for all sorts of little (or perhaps not so little) figure flaws. Few bodies are perfectly proportioned, but in the right dress any woman can look her best.
I also noticed that once I stopped cutting my hair and went to wearing only dresses and skirts, and silk scarves, that people stopped mistaking me for a man (this used to happen sometimes because I am extremely tall and I do not have particularly delicate features). In fact, I presently could not be mistaken for a man even at a distance of more than 200 yards although, because of chemotherapy, I do not currently have any hair!
Another thing I noticed was that my husband, who actually is an unbeliever, began to treat me more gently. In fact, almost all the men I encountered began to treat me more gently. I use the term "more gently" because this is the best way to describe the difference in the way I am treated. I would have to say that most of the people who have apparently taken offense at my mode of dress have been women, yet most women have been too polite to make any statements at all about the way I dress. The ones who seem to be the most uncomfortable don't say anything at all. They tend to put on a sort of "deer in the headlights" look and walk past me as quickly as they can.
On the whole I have found dressing according to Biblical standards of modesty and femininity to be a blessing, and I would recommend that all women seriously consider it.
Posted by: Mary K. | March 25, 2006 at 06:25 PM
You say not everyone should uphold to these standards....BUT they should, for there are far to many reasons why the Pope listed them! Look at what our society has turned into, it is HORRIBLE.
Posted by: Blythe | April 17, 2006 at 05:43 PM