I rarely go to the mall since the stores there are almost always the type that bore me. Endless rows of store after stores selling mainly nothing but clothes and shoes is purgatory to me. There is even a mall in my town that doesn’t even have bookstore within it – oh the horror! Though now it seems that just walking around is a near occasion of sin. The displays in clothing stores have moved into rated R and above territory. There have been reports of the infamous lingerie store that even placed some mannequin in basically sexual positions. Complaints to the store about this not being appropriate are meet with reply letters that basically said we are sorry for offending you but too bad. Why so people support these stores considering that it is risque business?
Of course the choice of clothes that people wear while walking around the mall is not that much more modest. Even worse are the clothes some choose to go to Mass with. I constantly amazes me how either someone can wear the most revealing clothes to Mass or to wear something that would not be out of place just lounging around recreationally. It seems every Sunday is casual Sunday or dress down Sunday. Judging by the clothes available at the mall maybe it is just the lack of appropriate selection. Instead of just ranting I have come across a business idea that I am hoping to take nationwide to help address this need.
Yes Victorian Secrets! Where parts of your body are actually secret.
It is appropriate though to bring up one of the Old Oligarch’s posts on modesty.
Surely some indoctrinated woman will parrot the feminist come-back to my position: "What’s next? The burqa?" But the real perspective is this: The burqa and the bikini are polar extremes of the same fundamental error. Both styles of clothing deny the human dignity of the wearer. Virtue is a mean between the extremes. The modest woman, the woman with self-respect, wears neither the ostentatious bikini nor the humiliating burqa. Both the bikini and the burqa deny our Christian belief in the equal spiritual dignity of man and woman. Both manners of dress encourage onlookers to view the woman as subordinate to men in one way or another.
The burqa denies the Christian belief in the equal spiritual dignity of a woman because it obscures her face, which is the gateway to the heart and to the mind. A woman in a burqa is not permitted to publicly manifest the visible features most proper to her nature as a rational and emotive being — features which are the most proper to her as a human being. (Aristotle, for example, says that no animal has a prosopon, lit., a countenance, but only a man or a woman.)
The bikini likewise denies her equal spiritual dignity because it places primary emphasis on her body, and in such a way that it encourages others to objectify her body as a sexual plaything, not as a temple of Holy Spirit or as a magnificent creature of goodly design. Yes, I really mean a plaything. How so? Everyone who wants to, gets to enjoy it, regardless of their number, often in public, with no more personal involvement than the private satisfaction of one’s own frivolous desire. That’s a plaything. Indeed, some playthings are more jealously guarded.
23 comments
This is too funny ….. My mom started a Victorian Fashion Show lecture business at age 65, several years ago ….. her shows have drawn big crowds and have helped churches and other organizations raise funds ….. I have to show her this one because two years ago, my daughter had to present to her 4th grade classmates a little bio about herself and family. During her presentation she mentioned that her Grandma did “Victorian Fashion” shows.
Later in the lunchroom a male classmate commented to my daughter and his friends that he found it hard to see a Grandma wearing Victoria Secrets clothing!! My daughter said she was laughing inside all day …. as did my mom upon hearing the statement.
Oh mah! Get me a swooning chair! That was just too funny for mah delicate condition!! (said with a little southern and lace hankie in hand)
Jeff, I agree completely with what I know is your direction in this post.
But of course, I have to have some fun and be a bit of a thorn: the Victorian corset and bustle were specifically designed to accentuate (actually, caricature) those body parts and direct the eye towards those features. So I wouldn’t fully embrace the Victorian look. Besides… too much whale bone and metal for me. Ouch.
Yeah, I’m with Teresa on the corset stuff. And I’m trying to picture myself chasing my two-year-old, change a diaper or pull weeds in one of those long, ruffled skirts, and it’s just not working. I have a sneaky feeling the “serving class” of women in those days didn’t quite wear what those manniquins are… Thank heavens for blue jeans.
Well, I’m not certain I agree about the necessity of dressing up on Sunday. I, personally, will do it, but that’s because I sing in a choir and it’s required of me, but I don’t think it should be mandatory for everyone. Maybe it’s just me.
Anyway, if you’re really doing Victorian, then the men in the store should be wearing different suits. Tuxedos would actually work rather nicely…
I can’t go to work on the subway without seeing about 5 or 6 ads with women dressed in the skimpiest lingerie.
Margaret, the women in my family were of the working poor sort, so they didn’t wear those full-length whalebone corsets. However, as there were no brassiers at that point, the lace-up undergarments served a function. Personally, I think I would be wearing the yoked dresses of the farmer’s wife. (Or of the sort you sometimes see in the school photographs of the 1890s.)
If you think going to the mall is bad, try going to high school five days a week.
*shudder* I can’t wait until I graduate.
There’s a big conversation on this topic going on over at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping (fifty comments…maybe more).
Anyways, in terms of the victorian fashions… I like that they are distinctly feminine, I wouldn’t say that they are modest though. The bust is definitely accentuated.
I can remember when going to Sunday mass required reverence in dress and demeanor. Boys wore “shined” shoes and combed their hair–or their mothers did so forcefully; and most men came dressed almost always in suits. Then Camelot occurred with the ever boyish, Victoria’s Secret President himself. Just at the same time that there were some priests examining the Playboy philosophy.
Now, it’s often hard to tell the difference between a group at a Cubs game and those attending Sunday mass. And there are some women who definitely should never, ever wear jeans, slacks or pants outside of their home. Ever.
There are two exceptions to frequent disrespectful dress at mass. Those Sunday masses at St. John Cantius in Chicago (one of the Tridentine parishes) where the priests demand modest attire that is gladly accepted and all are dressed each Sunday as if it was Easter. The families are young and mostly large and their children conduct themselves with reverence. And women cover their heads even if with a small mantilla or lace.
And then the Polish masses that are at many parishes. First, these masses are jammed with people alomost entirely dressed in the finery befitting the wedding garment of which Jesus spoke. Then, people actually sing, and sing well without much of the twaddle of Haugen, Haas and Joncas, et al. And they listen intently to homilies that often go beyond the normal 10-15 minutes.
It’s a stunning experience to contrast either of the latter examples with the often bouncy, fatuous atmosphere that occurs within the congregations at other American Catholic churches.
This will and is changing slowly as priests themselves are required to dress with the dignity befitting their office and vocation and not as if they were on the gold course or at the clubhouse bar.
I’m ok with the dresses as long as we can keep the neckline. 🙂 (Not the ugly dark gray one, though.)
But I am not going to wear the funky hats.
I have some questions about the Old Oligarch quote:
What about a man’s speedo? Is that immodest and objectifying?
What about societies where woman have gone about topless? Or a culture where men and women have traditionally gone to public baths together?
What about men and women at a nude beach? Are they being immodest and denying human dignity? Or does the bikini’s error exist in it being a tease?
I would _so_ shop at Victorian Secreats. Seriously. Gals really crave that kind of stuff and it’s so hard to find. I make my own Victorian inspired fashions and I have gotten complimented on them every time I go out.
I was thinking, if I took an ace bandage and wrapped it around me from under my arm pits down to my ankles I might look pretty good. But as with any under garment from the day, and even now, what do you do when mother nature calls. Can you get it back on by your self? can you hook everything back the way you found it? You almost wish you had a catheter.
John H
I’m not sure what your criteria are that determine which women ought never, ever be seen in public wearing pants etc. I don’t know if I am one of them, but if so – too bad. I can’t stand wearing dresses – except for special occasions – it’s merely a matter of comfort for me. Plus there’s the fact that I like to wear runners and tracksuits mostly so I can easily chase after my very active toddlers.
I’m all for modesty in dress for both male and female and I am so thoroughly sick to death of seeing all the fashion victims leaving far too little to the imagination. On the other hand, when men start telling me (or other women) we oughtn’t wear pants in public… I get a bit.. twitchy.
David
I object to speedos. It’s kind of like on that one Seinfeld episode, you know… “bad naked”?
Although, naked would much more preferable to speedos.
Notice to all men who wear speedos: Take them off!
🙂
Louise:
I have no formal criteria, except for the tensile strength of the material worn in relation to the size of the wearer.
And, most importantly, whether that woman would wear the same outfit to a formal meeting with Laura/George Bush, Hilary/Bill clinton or to her daughter’s or son’s wedding. If the answer to the latter examples are no, then she should not wear those clothes to Sunday mass and NEVER EVER as a extraondinary minister.
John– not to shatter any stereotypes or anything, but I bring my young, large family to Mass every sunday at the local, non-Tridentine parish. The boys all wear dress shirts and slacks, dark socks and black dress shoes. The girls all wear nice dresses or skirts with their maryjanes or older-girl equivalent. In other words, we wear our “Sunday Best” to Mass. People go out of their way to tell us how nice it is to see well-dressed, well-behaved children at Mass. Yes, it does stand out, and yes, it’s a lot of work, but I hope that in our own small way we are bearing witness to the value of the Mass and the joys of a large family.
I however, do not cover my head as it is no longer required of us by the Church, and pretty much live in bluejeans the rest of the week.
David C, speedos are immodest and vomit-inducing. It is most definitely objectifying. On a bad physical specimen, it reduces the man to an object of derision. On a good physical specimen, it reduces the man to an object to be ogled – in fact, it tends to send the message, “Please, feel free to look at my… object!”
On a serious note, I’m from a culture that traditionally has parents and children nude in the sauna. I can honestly say that there are cut-offs based on age. If my 2-year-old nephew came running into the sauna, there isn’t going to be an uproar. About the age of 8 the boys tend to get a little shy about themselves (and others, too). And when we use the sauna on Lake Superior, we all wear bathing suits because there are strangers walking along the beach and it would be immodest (and rude) to have grandma run by naked on her way into the lake!
Among my Japanese friends, it’s the same. All the little kids might take a bath with mom and dad, but they grow out of it. Public bathhouses, like public saunas, tend to separate the sexes.
I hope that helps.
Um, is it too late to point out to Christopher Ignatius that Victorian Gentlemen found the Tuxedo to be revoltingly scandalous?
John –
And there are some women who definitely should never, ever wear jeans, slacks or pants outside of their home. Ever.
Try to take this in. I’ll speak slowly.
I dress with first regard to decency and practicality. Whether you or any other person admires my appearance is a matter of no interest to me whatever. If it covers the body modestly and doesn’t get in the way of my work, I don’t care if the outfit doesn’t appeal to your aesthetic notions. Your assertion is like that of the woman to whom Lincoln observed that he couldn’t help being homely. “Well,” she said, “you might have stayed home.” The proper response to her would have been, “And why do you suppose you have a right never to see anything you don’t think beautiful, to the extent that entitles you to circumscribe my freedom?” A modestly-dressed mother in jeans might ask the same question.
I agree that when I go to a mall I can never find anything pretty and modest. The clothes are awful. Women need to dress more like ladies, especially for Mass. Pants are really mens’ attire, not womens’. Padre Pio said that women should not wear pants, nor skirts that are too short. And he is a great saint, so I think that he knows what he is talking about. Pants and miniskirts are not modest, and I don’t think that they even look attractive.
Hi, I found your post funny. I came in off Mike’s blog. Nice to meet you.
Amanda:
You beat me to it. I was going to say that Padre Pio wouldn’t even let women into the confessional unless they were wearing modest skirts (meaning it went 8 inches BELOW the knee, no slit, not tight). They even put a sign on the door outside requesting that if women were coming to go to Confession, that they should dress accordingly.
MY sister is in my high school’s freshmen women’s choir, and when the director was telling the class about his previous job. They didn’t have robes, so he made them wear ankle length skirts.
All the girls except my sister reacted exactly the same way: “Oh my [blasphemy deleted], EW!”
Comments are closed.