There are so many uses of the word modesty. One definition, of course, relates to personal humility, a la not Toad, as in the programme offered up for his house re-warming party ('Other songs will be sung during the evening by the Composer'), in anticipation of reading which I chortle over with glee, because I just received my very own copy for Christmas, and I'm now reading the delightful book aloud to Michael.
But another use, obviously, relates to clothing, and I was recently pondering whether there is any universal standard by which we can determine what is and is not appropriate wear. Even the most conservative dressers today would have been considered shockingly disreputable a hundred years ago, so we must grant some leeway for current culture, but we can't get too far down that path, or we end up with no standards at all, based on prevailing trends.
The most annoying standard of modesty, in my opinion, is the purely anatomical one, which measures certain landmarks on the body and dictates modesty according to the coverage. What makes this particularly irksome is the fact that different body sizes end up apportioning certain landmarks rather differently, and what may be passable for one person may look totally inappropriate on another. Or vice versa. The knees as the determining factor for hem length is of course the preferred measuring rod for skirts, and the knees' only saving grace, as far as I can see, is the geographical monopoly they have on the legs. A hem that hits just below the knee, to satisfy rigorous modesty requirements, smacks of drab Eighties business suits, and doesn't really flatter many figures. Yet without that rule, we're left with an arbitrary 'Not too short,' which can't get too specific without sounding ridiculous. ('Two inches above the knee' is a whole lot higher up the leg on a petite person than on a tall one.) What a bother. And yet, short skirts (within reason) can be worn very classily by the right person, while certain long skirts can push the envelope.
I wonder whether there is any final universal rule on what is modest. Probably not, since so much of what is appropriate depends on cultural connotations. So a real standard for modesty would probably consist of an individual custom fit rule, which combines the answers to the following questions, rather like a personality quiz, to deliver up a personally tailored rule for each person:
1) What is your intention in dressing like that? (i.e. What attitude do you hope to inspire in your on-lookers?)
2) What is your attitude as you wear that? (i.e. How well are you carrying it off?)
3) Do you realise what message that colour/style conveys in this society?
Of course, the trouble with that system is that it presupposes taste, discernment, intelligence, and good intentions on the part of the wearer. So I don't think they'll be reforming the dress code at strict places anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Modesty, especially for women, is totally a heart attitude. This is one of the best tools I've seen and used:
http://www.sovgracemin.org/pdf/teaching/modesty_heart_check.pdf
Ok, that didn't quite post correctly. Here is the link broken up so you can see the whole thing.
http://www.sovgracemin.org/pdf/teaching/
modesty_heart_check.pdf
I've tried to comment a few times, but it always degenerated into a rant. Suffice it to say that I've thought along the same lines you have, and agree with Janice above that it's very much an attitude as well as appearance. And also that strict "modest dress" seems to penalize women for what is actually the man's problem. There.
-- SJ
Oh, bother, now I'm all curious about that rant-length comment. You should just let yourself go, and then post it on your blog.
Janice, that's a great brochure. I especially like the reasonableness of it - i.e., if slits or v-necks can be too revealing, be aware of it and take care, not 'Oh, slits and v-necks must be wrong.'
Always throws a wrench into legalism when you consider that different societies/cultures have different standards. In certain periods you had half your breasts showing in some kind of push-up arrangement but couldn't show your ankles or you were "immodest." And then there are those cultures where women wear no tops but are quite modest on the bottom. It really does come down to the heart and unfortunately that leaves us unable to judge anyone else's dress. (And that can be really tough.)--rlr
I don't know, Rachelle... Certainly we can't look at someone's dress and comprehend the heart and relationship with God (not that I've EVER heard of ANY system which says otherwise). But as you pointed out, every culture has standards of modesty, ours included. From any given outfit, you can draw conclusions about somebody's intentions... if not the wearer, then the designer.
I guess what I'm saying is that while there may not be a clear-cut Scriptural basis, there's still a valid cultural basis for evaluating clothes. I get irritated when people take our culture and force it into Scripture, though.
And is there a Scriptural basis for modest dress? I'd like to think so, and that it's something more than just "what your culture thinks is right." But then that brings us back to Rose's original post, so I present everyone with a full circle and retire.
-- SJ
P.S. I might reveal, by my comments, that I haven't yet seen Janice's link; when I do, it might answer some of my questions.
Post a Comment