Modesty and Aesthetics - "Too Much Skin is Unflattering"

A few months back, one commenter here wondered why the people who value modesty are often religious.  Usually, but not always!  My appreciation of modesty is for aesthetic reasons as well as religious ones.  People with their exposed skin spilling out of their too-tight clothing look fairly gross to me.  It's distracting, the eye doesn't know where to land, the body gets broken up into little parts.  I prefer a sleeker covered look, to "keep my line," as it were.  Meg at All About Appearances, a blog about fashion and looking good, thinks so too:

"I’m only in my mid-20’s so I don’t consider myself 'old' by any means, but I have noticed that my tastes are changing as I mature a bit and I’m starting to understand the advice of 'the older and wiser.' I used to think that older people were prudes or just too conservative when it came to style, especially when it came to revealing clothes. Granted, I do still think that some people are just prudes, but looking around I’ve realized that showing too much skin is not sexy. It’s not even stylishly rebellious. It’s simply unflattering."

"I have nothing personal against skin - or even nudity. I have no problem with nudists (though not necessarily with nudity everywhere, I’ll admit). What I do have a problem is when women, especially younger girls, seem to think that the more skin they show, the sexier they are. I live in a college town where women seem to compete with each other on how much skin they can show. I’m not a mind reader, but it says to me that they are desperate for male attention. I’m sure not all are, but that’s the message, nonetheless. That’s also the message the guys I talk to get."

Agreed, a smooth line and covered body is far more flattering than pudgy rolls sticking out here and there!  Meg suggests that if you want to look sexy (not skanky):

"Wear clothes that are flattering - not just to reveal skin for it’s own sake. Buy clothes that fit your shape well, and they’ll show it off without you needing to bare all."

See, it's not just religious folks who appreciate modest dressing!

 

Comments

[Anna S]

I totally agree. I'm religious, but dressing modestly is much more flattering as well. And, those 'pudgy rolls' - well noticed!

[Bob V]

I don't believe the issue has come up explicitly on The Sartorialist, but a quick view shows that while there are some long legs every once in a while, most of the women featured are dressed "normally".

[Meg]

Thanks for the link and for getting the word out! I definitely agree that modesty is not just for people who are very religious.

[Gretchen]

So glad I found your blog through a link on the CBMW blog. I admire your insight and keen eye, as well as concise writing. As far as I'm concerned, major kudos goes to you and other women who are promoting these issues out there. Thanks for being who you are, and swimming upstream. I'll be back, for sure!

[Luthor Rex]

Can we be honest, for just one minute... please... for me?

Women dressing and acting like the common 'skank' / Girl Gone Wild / Desperate Housewife / call it what you want, is not dressing to look sexy.

In fact, the whole modern sex craze thing isn't about sex at all... it's about POWER.

For the men they will make themselves believe they are powerful by sleeping with a lot of women (when, in fact they don't even understand why Nature gave them such a drive).

For the women, they will feel powerful when they can command the attention of men and perhaps even command men themselves. Power over men, and power through men.

So long as this kind of culture is dominant, so long as men and women come together in an adversarial confrontation and the only option is to rule or be ruled; then love will not exist.

The culture that holds the value of dominate or be dominated is the culture that murdered love.

Teamwork and repsect are options too! But the current mythos would make you believe that such things don't or can't exist.

I'm not religious myself, but your movement does interest me for at least one reason: I don't want to live in a world where I can't trust the woman I'm sleeping next to.

[Ken]

Maybe this is just the fact I was born in 1955 and "oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC", but I'll take Early 1960s Audrey Hepburn fashion over Brittney & Paris & Bratz (Oh, My!).

[deb]

I agree. Modesty is not something that only the religious can appreciate. There is a certain logic in not exposing too much flesh.

I've often felt saddened by the fact that young women who are not overweight often appear chubby in some of the skin tight fashions that are in style today. The majority of these ladies would look more attractive in different types of clothing.

[Kim]

Yes I completely agree also! I personally just feel better about myself (and more comfortable) when at least my legs down to my knees are covered and my shoulders are covered. (Unless I'm working out or sleeping!)

[Luthor Rex]

Audrey Hepburn!

Oh I do so love her! It's funny too, because I don't think she's all that pretty. Some photos she actually looks rather... um... well not pretty. BUT! In everything I've seen, movie or interview or whatever, her force of personality overcame anything in regards to her looks.

[Emily]

I am interested in supporting women in the modest way of life because it's my belief that women, deep down, when they can quiet all of the voices in society that exhort them to forefront their most basic physical attributes as the key to confidence, respect and (euh, this word-gag me) 'empowerment', really do wish to be valued for their soul, rather than their physical attributes and their ability to elicit boners (I mean in the end that's a pretty easy game. And therefore... not very special nor lastingly flattering when you succeed). Gals with confidence in their own uniqueness and value beyond (but of course including!) sexual attractiveness tend to make modest clothing choices... it's not rocket science.

Labeling some women as skanks does not seem to me to be helpful to anyone. Even those women who dress immodestly and make a lot of noise about their rights to wear what they like and how (euh) empowered it makes them feel are often extremely ambivalent about it within themselves. The way to open someone up to the possibility of seeing more of themselves is not by denigrating them though. It's by... well, seeing more to them than the skimpy clothes they are costuming themselves in.

[Sam MT]

Question: For arguments sake, let's say we could all agree on one objective definition of "flattering" (in this post it sounds like you are using it to mean 'attractive'). Then, let's imagine that, using our objective definition, we found that extremely immodest clothes were far more "flattering" than modest clothes, i.e. slimming, curve defining, etc.

In such a case, would the majority of readers/posters on this blog advocate a switch to immodest clothing? My guess is no. So what is the point of this post, other than to appeal to the shallower side of some women?

[Mark La Roi]

It's a lot sexier to leave something to the imagination than to give it all away at a glance.

A fully covered but smartly fitted woman is a delight to the eye.

A glimpse of leg through a (not TOO highly of course) slit skirt is far more tantalizing than a pair of hot pants. The women who realize this are more dangerous too! Especially if they have the personality and smarts to back it up. ;)

[Ken]

A glimpse of leg through a (not TOO highly of course) slit skirt is far more tantalizing than a pair of hot pants.

This is called the "Theiss Titillation Theory", named after the costume designer of original Star Trek. It originated as a form of "beat the censors" back when TV Standards and Practices would not even let belly-buttons show; how do you costume an actress to look sexy & titillating when you have to cover up a lot of the parts that make it cheap & easy?

The basic idea was that a brief costume (showing lotsa skin) is not in itself sexy or titillating. However, if it looks like it might slip or you might accidentally see something more than it's showing, it suddenly becomes very titillating and sexy.

The idea was to show just enough to whet the viewer's imagination, showing skin in unusual places (such as the outside of the arms or hide-and-seek legs) to make the viewer wonder what else he might see if he just looked long enough. While keeping the Standards and Practices taboo areas under fabric.

[slorp]

whatever happened to women wearing pretty, modest, elegant clothes --- so sad that most settle for jeans or ugly dress pants

[Steve]

I'm so sick of hearing women that want modest clothing that can be considered sexy. "Modest" and "sexy" are oxymorons when used together to describe clothing. You wear modest clothing specifically because you don't want to be sexy, and vice versa. And it doesn't matter how much skin is covered. If it's too tight or in very bright colors, it's not modest.

[mary o'hayes]

Hi Steve, you're right. I almost wrote a comment to that point in the original post. I wish I did, as I'm also sick to death of girls/women getting the 24/7 pressure to be sexy and "hot."

I think it's great for people to dress to look attractive. But it's compromising our blog's message to talk about looking sexy by dressing modestly.

[Amanda]

Aesthetically, a well-cut and well-covering garment has an amazing ability to conceal figure flaws.

I've been profoundly pleased by the resurgence of the dress in modern women's wear. Lately, I've seen a number of quite attractive, modest styles available on the mass market.

I hope this may be an indicator of a societal return to civility. Has anyone noticed that wearing modest clothing actually CHANGES your behavior? Although I am not religious, I am well aware that many people designate me as "religiously observant" simply by virtue of my dress. Oddly enough, I find that the dress itself compels me to be less impatient, to refrain from rude behavior, and to be more open and friendly to others. And it seems to elicit automatic politeness from others, as well.

[Cindy]

Okay! I have a big problem with young ladies who in fact go to the Juniors section to buy clothing when they really should be buying in the ladies section of a department store. The clothes are way to revealing and if you are a double D and wear a low neck line on a shirt how does a person talking to you handle not looking at those things right in your face. Or maybe your clothes are way to tight. I agree that your eye doesn't really know where to look when you have all this gross show in front of you. Some women think that you are funny/gay when you look at the clothes they wear. I can help it, I am embarrassed and really don't know where to let my eyes fall, and wind up looking at the one thing I don't want to see. I am embarrassed that women have no more respect for themselves or for those around them than to dress in such a way of revealing too much skin and wearing too tight of clothing. Should you go to your boss and explain that you are offended by the dress of certain individuals?

[Becca]

"If it's too tight or in very bright colors, it's not modest."
I mostly agree with the tight part, but how are bright colors immodest? If that's true, then probably half the world would be considered immodest--think of Africa and the other countries around the world, not to mention the hippies in the seventies (okay, not all of those people are super, but still). How does that work?

"But it's compromising our blog's message to talk about looking sexy by dressing modestly."
Hey, Modest is Hottest (http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/bubba_09_photos/modestyfront.jpg; http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/bubba_09_photos/modestyback.jpg). Some people are more attracted to modesty than immodesty. I know I'd much rather have friends who wear pants (or longer skirts) and properly-fitting shirts than what a lot of girls wear nowadays, and I definitely don't want to see peoples' underwear.

"I'm also sick to death of girls/women getting the 24/7 pressure to be sexy and "hot." "
That I'm totally behind, and I feel like quoting BarlowGirl: "Clothes that fit are fine; won't show what's mine. Don't change my mind, I'll be fine." And "Looked so hot but caught a cold, and I was doing just what I was told to fit in." And don't forget "Was this shirt made for me or my doll?" It's ridiculous to try and conform to society's image of "hot," because society is goofy. 'Course, humans aren't close to perfect, so that's somewhat expected.

"A fully covered but smartly fitted woman is a delight to the eye."
Thank you for that. I've been a little worried about a couple of my shirts because they're semi-tight, but that comment makes me feel a little more comfortable with them. It's not like they're way revealing or anything, and I'm kinda skinny so "rolls" aren't that big of an issue, it was just that they were a bit tight and I wasn't sure if they were TOO tight. I don't think they are, so I can stop worrying now. ^^
Strangely enough, when I'm wearing the one shirt (a bright purple one that I LOVE and got on a church mission trip at the place we were staying--a Christian college--this summer that sports a really neat, meaningful phrase), I feel more confident. After I got it, I started standing up straighter--it made me focus more on my posture because I felt all grown up or something. Maybe the phrase made me go, "This is important, people need to see it, and I need to stand up straighter when I wear it!" or something. That's kinda cool.

"whatever happened to women wearing pretty, modest, elegant clothes --- so sad that most settle for jeans or ugly dress pants"
Times change. (Emergent Pluralism? No, wait. Androgyny.) I prefer pants to most "fancy" clothes--except my black, knee-length skirt that I like to twirl in. Recently, I even asked my dad why people have to wear certain clothing at work--it's all professional, and I don't like it. To me, as long as you can do your job well and your clothes don't reveal way too much, what you're wearing really shouldn't matter. I'd be totally fine if everybody wore jeans, as long as they did their jobs correctly. But that's sorta beside the point, so I'll stop now.