Modesty Part 2

In the last few days I have come across a really good blog that shows some sewing skills and draping skills. The lady who blogs uses vintage design (mostly from the 50's) for all the outfits she sews.

Her post on a recent project seems to have sparked a lot of interest in a discussion / commenting of modesty in general. So, her post on modesty is seen from a feminist point of view and does not take into account that the survey she slates are not commands, but statements that men / boys reacted to. I think the most revealing results are the open questions that the boys / men answered which show the actual heart of Christian men and their struggles.

The one criticism that came through strongly on the sewing blog comment section,  was that women were not asked the same questions as well as questions about men's attire. I think that is a valid point, but when we think about it, women will dress modestly if men don't accept immodesty as a standard and vice versa.

What I read recently in Dr James Dobson's book "Bringing up Girls" is that girls think they are in control when they get the attention of the boys and then sleep with them, because they feel loved. However, the cycle continues if this happens more than once and the more it happens, the less loved the girl feels. The reason for this is, the boys get what they want without commitment and girls get nothing except pain. Dr Dobson makes the point that this is the worst form of male power, even though girls think that they actually are empowered.

Gertie confuses modesty with morality and religious superiority. This is something even Christians do. We can come across as being more spiritual, more moral or even show our superiority by the way we act, but in essence that is not the main point. Gertie argues that modesty is linked to religion and culture and she is correct, but at the end of the day, the question remains: Are we more moral when we can dress the way we want and even go without or entice men's minds to lust after us? Is modesty only one-sided and placed as an oppression on women? I have addressed this issue before.

I think Gertie misses the point of modesty in general - it's not only women who need to dress modestly to protect the visual minds of men, but also men need to dress modestly to curb the imaginations of their female friends. It goes both ways and mutual respect is at the heart of it - "love your neighbour as yourself" and "treat every older woman as if she were your mother and every younger woman as if she were your sister". No wonder that Gertie finds the underlying ideas disturbing, partly I think because they are religious in nature and partly because only men took part in the survey. I think her last point:

[...] that doesn't give any of us the right to demean other women for choosing to show more skin. And, above all, we deserve respectful treatment from men no matter how we're dressed.

 is on judgmental attitudes in all of us. As Christians we need to be really careful of that no matter whether it is on dress styles or on beliefs or on lifestyles.

Blue

Second-last post in the series "All the colours of the Rainbow"
We all have had the blues, right? Funny how blue in the English language is associated with feeling depressed or "down", when blue skies imply sunshine and a happy day.
Being of German descent, I cannot resist giving the meaning for being blue in German: drunk. The Afrikaans combines the two states into "dronkverdriet" (drunken depression), but does not associate that state of affairs with being blue.

There is a German kiddies song that goes:

Blau, blau, blau sind alle

   meine Kleider,

Blau, blau, blau ist alles, was ich hab.

Darum lieb ich alles, was so blau ist,

Weil mein Schatz ein Seemann,

   Seemann ist. 

Blue, blue, blue are all

   my clothes

Blue, blue, blue is all that I have

So I love anything that's blue

because my love is a sailor,

   a sailor.

On a more serious note: the sky above is blue, and sometimes the lakes and rivers reflect the blueness to then also be drawn / photographed as blue. (Case in point - pictures taken from deviantart profile: alexandru1988 - go to his profile for some awe inspiring work)

In the Bible, blue and scarlet are often used in conjunction. I have discussed this already in the post on scarlet and actually noticed that scarlet, purple and blue are mentioned as one and the same colour, or at least quite close to each other in shade and intensity. I think, that there is quite a difference between what we would call indigo (purplish blue - think denim) and blue and scarlet (reddish), but in biblical times the shades probably depended on the kinds of dye and the concentration used in the solution. Also, perhaps how much the fabric was "bleached" in the sun or eventually worn - time fades the colours and leaves a redder tint rather than a blue one.

The point remains though, that scarlet, blue and indigo (purple) are all royal colours and were extremely expensive. In the references given you will see that blue and scarlet are mentioned in the garments of the priests as well, setting them apart from the rest of the population. Mostly fine linen was used to be dyed in these colours, making the priestly garments even more expensive.

Finally, as Christians, we are called to be a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) and in that sense set apart for service to God, showing by our dress that we belong to him by not conforming to the world. This does not mean we are to be dressed in scarlet and indigo, but that we show by our differences that we belong to someone else.

Modesty

After the book review, I felt I needed to do a post on modesty, since there seems to be a confusion (even amongst Christians) what that entails. I could say that it is "anything that does not offend someone else", but what does that look like? Mostly it is culture related. For example, in most African cultures it is unacceptable for a woman to (a) wear pants and (b) expose her knees when wearing a skirt.

So, what does modesty really look like in a society where states of undress are acceptable and leave nothing for the imagination?

My thinking centres on the following passage: (Romans 14:13-23)

¹³Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. ¹⁴As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. ¹⁵If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. ¹⁶Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. ¹⁷For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, ¹⁸because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
 ¹⁹Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. ²⁰Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. ²¹It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
 ²²So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 Now, for those of you who are confused why I chose this passage - here is my thinking...
Firstly, let me say that I do not equate eating and drinking with wearing clothes as a disputable matter (Romans14:1), but the principle of not being a stumbling block to fellow brothers (and sister) still applies.
Secondly, in the 21st century, what we see as acceptable in one country might not be acceptable in another and this continues to be an issue, especially for missionaries who want to make a stand for Christ.

Down to the nitty-gritty:
According to the Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-day Saints) Modesty is:

Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest, we do not draw undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to "honor God with your [our] body." (1 Corinthians 6:20b)

Two very helpful sites explain the concept - the first discusses guidelines for men and women and the second is partly a discussion of a book and partly really helpful biblical passages.

Now for the visual people.... Pictures taken from the Pure Fashion website

 Picture 1 - Critique: I like the lady's outfit, but two things bother me: 1) the buttons down the front, which, when walking can pop off and 2) the skirt is a bit tight and does not lend itself to walking very well.

Picture2: I like both outfits very much, but for an African context the skirt may be too short. This may be quite conservative in the United States, but still quite daring in other parts of the world.

Picture 3: this is more like it.

Picture 4: I really like this one too. The layered look works very well and the drooped hem of the skirt is a nice change.

Picture 5: also very nice - pants are 3/4 and perhaps not everyone's cup of tea - acceptable in Western countries, but again, not all over the world.

I have not come across anything for the African market (local stores), but the rest of the world thinks that we are quite conservative anyway. Still, the changes are quite obvious to me when I reflect on the 80's and compare them to today's fashions. Apart from dropped waistlines on skirts and pants, the tops and skirts get shorter and shorter and most clothing got tighter.

If we continue to apply the principle of not being a stumbling block to others, we are going to do fine as long as we can critically examine our outfits ourselves, or ask others to help us with it if we don't feel we can exercise our own judgment.

Dress and Morality (Rebeiro, A. 2003. Oxford: Berg Publishers)

In this book, Riberio discusses the relationship between dress, dress codes, the state of society and how the church through the ages preached against immoral dress. A the receiving end of reprimand were the upper class with the luxuries they could afford, but the peasantry did not escape, because anyone caught in the dress of the upper class was imprisoned and or fined.

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.

Leather

After the little side-track about sub-cultures Part one and two, I cannot bypass leather and leather products (a little overdue). Doing a plain google search yielded a few results concerning leather trade fairs in South Africa, although they do include other things as well. Also, you can get links from shoes and related accessories, to biker clothes, to lingerie (hmmmm sub-cultures again)

Did you know that the first garments in the Bible were made from animal skin?  Seriously - after the fig leaves, God provides Adam and Eve with skins as clothes (for protection and warmth I' assuming). Unfortunately for the poor animals...

Now tanning the leather is quite the smelly process - always was and always will be I suppose - since the hides arrive stiff and (usually) salted at the tannery, where they are soaked to remove the preservative and then scoured and pounded to remove any excess flesh and fat. At this point also the skin would be scraped clean of any hair. In ancient times, the skins would then be soaked in urine or painted with alkaline lime and then putrefied in a salt solution for several months. Oh yukky! After this process, they would be pounded with dung - just read the rest for yourself on Wikipedia.  I think that tanneries today have not lost much of the stink. I have lived down the road from one for five years, and can vouch for the fact that when the wind came from the wrong direction you rather fled the house....

Now thinking of tanning and leather products, one can argue the fact that poor animals are used from awful conditions to give us mink coats and other fur, where PETA will lead the way for animal rights. The main objections are about the fur trade, since environmental matters as well as slaughtering practices gave rise to outcries. My honest opinion is that humans were meant to rule over the animals, but not exploit them, so I'm torn between support for PETA and very much for fur and leather. I think there are ethical issues that we need to consider, but I'm not going to discuss them here. Having grown up in an environment where you would hunt for meat and use almost every single bit of flesh (and hide) for usage, I can understand that people would be up in arms if animals are bred to provide fur and kept in cages that are way too small.

I suppose there is a difference between fur and hide (leather), but when considering the wear one can get out of real leather shoes or the horrible PVC stuff, I'd rather wear something for a long time and get what my money is worth, rather than paying less, but having to replace things in a much shorter period of time. With fur it is slightly different, because no matter how the fur was treated, eventually the hair will fall off.

What I'm rally trying to say is that all things can be used in moderation.

Style

Ok, So I have a fashion crisis.... I see these beautiful things in the shop, try them on, and this is the result: (Please excuse the lighting, it's taken in the change rooms that have diffused light, for whatever reason). Jeans are mine, I tried on just the tops/dress.

So, in essence, I'm not a super model and I don't think I want to be, but style is important. You does have to wear things according to what suits you and your body type. In the first picture, there are several reasons why the outfit doesn't work, one being, that the jeans are too flared at the bottom, distracting from the shape of the dress. I think it would have worked better with tights, but then again, am I willing to wear them? It's also about modesty now, isn't it?

The second outfit works better, because the waist is accentuated and not flared.

This brings me to how critical we look at ourselves. How do we view our bodies and compare them to what we see in magazines. Sometimes our self-image changes from day to day. This day may have been not a great day for me and looking at pictures now makes me realise that both outfits don't look that bad actually. Just changing a mindset makes all the difference in the world. Isn't this exactly what the Bible teaches by taking every thought captive.....?

Branding

Developing a following in the fashion industry depends on the image that the brand portrays. This means that the brand name will evoke a certain image in the person's mind and thus, if they can and want to identify with it, they will usually support the brand. If they have been part of the brand since the beginning and then the brand re-invents itself, they still have the choice to continue following, or to switch. Usually switching comes at a cost tot he consumer, because they will now need to find another brand that will stand for what they themselves believe and stand for.

Is this not the same as worshiping? Even the experts agree in an article I read from the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, (Fashion retailing and the bottom line by Robin Pentecost and Lynda Andrews) - yes, read that first surname again ;) The following was mentioned from research conducted by Redden and Steiner(2000) - reference to follow below:

Redden and Steiner (2000) [... suggest] that fanatical behaviour retains aspects of normal behaviour, based on the degree of enthusiasm, excietment, passion and commitment and /or extremes to which an individual is prepared to go to consume an identified product or service. Researching branding, they suggest behaviours such as loyalty or worshiping potentially denote a fanatical consumer. thus, higher degrees of fanship can relate to higher degrees of consumption. We argue that fans portray distinctive behaivour that means they are not necessarily fashion leaders but very enthusiastic fashion followers.

(Redden and Steiner published in Journal of Consumer Marketing Volume 17 issue 4 pages 322-337: Fanatical Consumers: towards a framework for research.)

So, what does that mean for the general Christian? Can we still be fashionable or do we need to walk around like our grannies? What do we make of the consumerism and branding of shops we like and go to? Where do we draw the line? If their advertising starts offending us, or if we cannot wear anything in the store? I think we really need to think about this more, especially when we look at advertisements.

I think this post will link up nicely with another one I have planned for future, discussing modesty.