There are a number of things I agree with in the book, but I also have some concerns. I will discuss the things I agree with first and then move on to my concerns. This post will also need a follow-up in terms of what constitutes modesty.
In each era, from Greco/Roman times, through the Middle Ages, right down to modern day, conspicuous consumption raised and raises eyebrows. Until the early 20th century, this was a prerogative of the rich, the upper class and royalty, but increasingly it has become part of the youth and youth culture, and even the middle class today cannot escape it.
The church during the ages commented mainly on the luxury of fabrics, like silk and lace or Quaker's linen, as well as the exposure or enhancing of parts of the body. (yes, men also enhanced their bodies, either by stuffing the doublet or hose (pants) or by wearing a codpiece). Sometimes kings were forced to implement sumptuary laws to limit the amount of fabrics used or the types of fabrics that different levels of society could wear. These only ever worked for a time, or were never enforced, because no one new what to do with offenders. When they did work, tailors and women were the main offenders and were ridiculed / shamed by parading them through the streets. The most recent sumptuary laws were enforced during WW II, where fabric was limited. Again, women were the recipients and eventually all outfits started to look like uniforms. No wonder then, that the "New Look" by Christian Dior found many takers.
Any exposure of the body was equated with loose morals and prostitution. In additions, any clothes handed down from masters to servants could be seen as an act of sexual advancement. Especially if this involved garments of silk or, even worse, undergarments.
Men usually were reprimanded for looking too feminine or wearing tight-fitting clothes. At times it became difficult to distinguish between males and females, especially when long hair and wigs, make-up and patches were the fashion for men.
During the 19th century, when cycling became a mode of transport the roles reversed and women adopted the knee-length breeches and general male attire. Trousers have been part of men's attire from the middle ages and any woman wearing them in public - right up to WW I stood a chance of being attested and fined.
Already in 1931, the idea that women brought calamity on themselves by "provocative" dress was voiced by a person named T.I.W:
Remember, the girl who dresses in an alluring way cannot condemn anyone but herself if the lure of her dress brings her treatment which is usually accorded to women of questionable morals. (Rebeiro 2003:157) (quoted from "Modest Apparel. An earnest Word to Christian Women")This idea is obviously carried over to modern times, when women are abused and raped. We still hear the complaint and accusation of the offender "She asked for it".
In addition, men often aggravated the problem of immorality by condoning the way women dressed, especially during the 1700's, when prostitution was rife, this played itself out in a major way. Even though women of the upper class wore revealing evening gowns and possessed many dresses, Knot-Rab in "Nothing to you, or Mind Your Own business" speaks to men:
We talk of morality - practice the vices, - make the rules for your ladies, but none for ourselves. (Rebeiro 2003:132)I'm jumping around on the time-line a bit, but from the clinging dresses with wide sleeves and long trains of the Middle Ages, to the tight-lacing of the 19th century, women bore the brunt of the accusations for being immoral. Men did not escape and were ridiculed for excsses in jewelery, slashing, stuffing, over-exaggerating and tight fitting garments. In later stages they were shamed for leaving the doublet and trousers unbuttoned and many times for looking too feminine. By the mid-18th century, male fashion had stabilised and only sub-cultures like the macaroni, the dandy, English "aesthetic dress" of the late 19th century and then the hippies, Teddy boys etc. were satirically depicted in Punch and elsewhere.
Now all these points are valid, but what I don't agree with in the book is the way that Christianity is depicted. Rebeiro makes Christianity out to be too prescriptive and restricting on dress and condemning those who dress immorally or luxuriously. It seems that the author agrees with popular culture that the less people are prescribed what to wear, the more they will decide for themselves what is appropriate. In addition the point is made time and again that preaching advocates a life of poverty and humility and discomfort - because excess breeds vanity.
In as much as this is the popular opinion, the clergy were not exempt form conspicuous consumption. In the days when the church was rich and could afford many things, greed often came into play amongst its members. It just goes to show that man is fallen and prone to the world's vices. Also, the church should be a voice of reason in society, whether in dress or rational thought and morals. Lose that voice and you lose morality. Popular culture would have you believe that the less interference and prescription comes from the church the freer society becomes to choose and the more moral they become. Quite the opposite is true unfortunately. Rebeiro touches on this in the Postscript a bit, but she does not achknowledge that the disappearance of the church's voice may have something to do with it.
My other concern is that the reason why women have been at the receiving end of condemnation stems from the fact that Eve was the first to sin and then tempt Adam successfully. Obviously this idea has been taken to the extreme as to lay all immorality and sexual temptation at the foot of women, forgetting that Adam sinned as much as Eve. This idea can get out of hand very quickly: only seeing how women have sinned and keep seeing men as superior and purer, where they are just as fallen and sinful as women.
Don't get me wrong, I think that women are very powerful in the kind of hold that their temptations and exhibitionism have on men. As Billy Graham said in 1955:
It is as bad as murder to entice others into immorality. Many of you women have dressed in such a way as to bring impure thoughts to the minds of men. (Rebeiro 2003:164 - quoted from P. Binder, The Peacock's Tail, 1958:343)I think, though the problem goes both ways and the underlying problem is not necessarily immorality, but sinfulness and sinful desires. The quote above may have been taken a little out of context, but he does have a point.
What Rebeiro also says, is that no-one can pin-point what "moral" dress should look like. Many of the people asked, said that it constitutes dress that is offensive to the greater society, but could not give guidelines on what that should and should not include. Most would agree that exposure of genitals (for men) and breasts (for women) would definitely be considered immoral, but nothing was said beyond that.
I will discuss this issue further in another post on modesty. As much as that sounds prescriptive and limiting, there are certain guidelines that can be followed today.
