Dressing for the Occasion: When is Allure a Fashion Slip?

There is a shirt in my closet that can change from sweetly modest to suggestively immodest in just a second. It has a high neck, short puckered sleeves, and a demure sort of look. The black silk fabric is printed with tiny dots and cute little cherries. It’s made by Marc Jacobs, and when I spotted it in a thrift shop – hanging sloppily with its little row of buttons down the front – I nearly danced a jig in the aisle. I wore it out that night. And I planned to wear it to work the next day.

While getting dressed for the office, however, I realized that (horrors!) I had actually worn the shirt backward the previous evening. The shirt’s buttons are meant to be worn in the back, something the thrift-store clerk was clearly not aware of. Trouble is, the front has a thin slit at the center. With the slit at my back, it didn’t really matter. But in the front, it could show off some skin, a little surprise décolletage, depending on the angle. Did the slit make the shirt immodest? Was it inappropriate for the office? (Not that it mattered. I was not going to pass up the opportunity to discuss the thrift-store find of the decade. A wildly immodest consideration, indeed.)

But the question my shirt dilemma raised is much larger: What makes a garment inappropriate and why? What gives us pause or makes us suspect that a shirt or an entire ensemble is too flashy – branding us “show-offs” – in a given setting or gathering? The answer lies in modesty.

The relationship between fashion and modesty appears to be straightforward, even immutable. Fashion is the constant enemy of modesty. The former seeks to attract attention, notice, and comment. The latter, by contrast, is the rejection of such theatrics. Modesty in dress is about turning oneself out with consideration for occasion, taste, and economy.

The tricky part is that clothing itself can serve the goals of modesty. The turning point is style, the personal use of clothing. Depending on the style, even the most modest-seeming garment can turn a schoolmarm into a sexpot. Consider a white button-down long-sleeved shirt. For a woman to wear one – with a pair of tan pants, let’s say – could be a modest, simple outfit. But when actress Jennifer Aniston appears in only a white shirt on the cover of Vanity Fair, as she did this past summer, the shirt takes on a different character entirely. Or take a school uniform: the length of a plaid skirt can go from appropriate to immodest with one extra flip of the waistband.

When individuals make choices about clothing, many smaller elements add up to a larger expression of self. The desire may be to blend in with the crowd, or to show off one’s toned calves. And the context can change everything; looks that are flashy or offensive in one neighborhood may be status quo in another. Ultimately, the understanding of what is appropriate must be learned. Communities and cultures create rules – written or unwritten – that dictate acceptable modes of dress. Modesty, though, cannot be imposed. It must come from within. And the expression of modesty in clothing involves choices that we have to make every day.

.....

The concept of modesty in dress is directly addressed in the Bible. In 1 Timothy 2:9 we find the instruction to come to a house of worship dressed in a manner that will not be a distraction to others. The King James Version conveys the message this way: “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.” This passage can be, and is, interpreted as strictly or loosely as the U.S. Constitution. How does that passage apply to, say, palazzo pants? And if someone offers a woman adornment, such as diamonds, she is not actually adorning herself. So should she refuse to wear them? (Please note that gemstones are not mentioned in the passage above. Anyway, they’d be a gift!)

A more stringent reading of this scriptural imperative has led to a category of merchandise known simply as “modest clothing,” sold on web sites such as modestapparelusa.com. What you’ll find for sale on these sites are garments with very specific features inspired by terms like “sobriety” and “shamefacedness.” Sleeves can be long or short, but they always exist; there are no sleeveless shirts. Skirts are long, with no slits. There are swimsuits that cover almost the entire body, like Victorian bathing suits. One of the most popular looks is a jumper with a turtleneck or a T-shirt underneath.

A piece of clothing, though, is just a piece of clothing. It does not become an expression of modesty or immodesty until it is worn. A long skirt paired with a long-sleeved shirt covers the body, but they must be worn with the intention of modesty. Consider the flowing, tiered skirts of yesteryear’s hippies, which were often worn with a loose, long-sleeved shirt in the same style. A woman in such an outfit would have most of her skin hidden, but this costume of the 1970s was intended to attract notice. Modesty was for fuddy-duddies, and even though the style wasn’t revealing, it challenged the existing culture of dress. Such outfits communicated inclusion in the youth-friendly counterculture, whose fashion message might be summed up as: “No sweater-sets and pearls for me.”

The modern world has continued to encourage such sartorial statements. In the process, however, simple, modest dress has fallen by the wayside. If popular culture and the woman-on-the-street are taken as guides, fashion today is about showing off as much of the body as possible. Jeans sit low on the hips to show off the waist and midriff. Tank tops and tube tops leave nothing to the imagination. Dresses with plunging necklines and backs are de rigueur on the red carpet and on city sidewalks. Tight is in; baggy is out.

Yes, there are retailers who focus on providing sensible – or as the British say “smart” – alternatives. And modest clothing web sites are serving a niche market. The world of fashion retail, however, does not cater to those tastes. Instead, it targets young women with reed-thin shapes who can wear tight jeans and show off their midsections. They’re the ones who spend money to keep up with the changes in fashion. As a result, for every Talbot’s, which offers more modest clothing options, there is an H &M, Express, Forever 21, or Mexx, which caters to the young.

Women who want to dress with modesty, taste, and propriety can find pieces of clothing at those shops. I’ve done it. (I’ve also found pieces for just the opposite considerations.) But my mother finds these stores bewildering. The shopping experience in these stores – the loud music, crowded racks, and pushy customers – is geared to customers who even while shopping want to feel that they are in “the place to be.”

It was not always this way. Modest dressing was dealt a blow in the middle of the twentieth century when fashion turned away from the woman and embraced the teenager. The change meant that a respectable look, with a suggestion of sexiness, gave way to a blatantly sexual look. The easiest way to see this shift is to look at the clothes women wore in the films of the 1940s and 50s. In Woman of the Year (1942), Katharine Hepburn plays a brassy newspaperwoman who dresses in sharp skirts and tailored jackets. She strides though the newsroom with pride and competence. Is she herself modest? Not really. She’s not a wilting flower, and she’s definitely not subtle. When Spencer Tracy leaves his hat at her apartment, she sends it back to him – in front of everyone in the office – in a giant hat box. But while she behaves in bold, attention-getting ways, her character’s mode of dress is never loud. In the film, she’s a head-turner because of her carriage and attitude, not because her skirt is too short.

Movies like this reflected real life.In 1942 Lauren Bacall married Humphrey Bogart. The bride wore a pale pink wool suit that exposed no skin, yet was cut so well that her feminine figure was unmistakable. The sleeves are long. The shoulders are strong, but the waist is accented with a leather belt. On her lapel is an enormous corsage. The ensemble is pure elegance and propriety. It is, in fact, modest. The hint of sexuality comes through because of her slim figure and womanly, mature mien, despite the fact that she was twenty years old at the time.

Ten years later Roman Holiday came to the screen. As a princess on a clandestine trip through the streets of Rome, Audrey Hepburn starts out wearing a long-sleeved white shirt buttoned demurely at the neck and a long skirt. By the end of the day, she rolls up the sleeves and opens the collar. The shirt is still sweet and youthful. It is not at all intended to be sexy. Her character’s look is about good taste, simplicity, and femininity.

Christian Dior’s “New Look” informed the slim silhouettes that Grace Kelly wore in the 1954 film Rear Window. Her full-skirted dresses expose the décolletage and nip the waist. Kelly’s character wears them, in fact, to attract the notice of her boyfriend, who is currently occupied with observing his neighbors. Technically, this is immodest. But how can so elegant a dress be considered thus? Her costumes are alluring, but not revealing. She’s not busting out of them, but by showing just the right amount of skin, she is unequivocally feminine and sexy in a womanly way.

What happened to all that refinement? The youthquake – the Beatles – Twiggy. From that crucible emerged the miniskirt, one of the least modest pieces of clothing that can still be worn in public. Miniskirts are immodest because they are intended to show off the legs. One has to have the shapely, toned legs of a near-adolescent to wear them. They attract the eye almost magnetically. And when worn without tights or stockings, they reveal a lot of skin.

As fashion continued to take inspiration from the youth culture, the exposure of skin became simply part of the program. The exposure of skin reached a high (or low) point in 2000 when the singer and actress Jennifer Lopez wore an obscenely low-cut green Versace dress to the Grammy Awards. She looked great, but she was no Kate Hepburn.

Even in these bare-it-all times there are settings in which covering up is expected. At times, the rules are clearly written. In some churches sleeveless shirts and shorts are not permitted, surely in keeping with what Timothy has to say in the Bible. At other times, the gravity of the situation has its own unwritten rules. Showing up in court tends to force even the most scantily clad celebrity into modest kit. Case in point: Female rapper Lil’ Kim traded her usual pasties and miniskirts for conservative pants suits when she appeared in court on perjury and conspiracy charges. (She was later convicted and sent to prison.)

Covering up by choice can be an expression of one’s character and personality. First Lady Laura Bush has taken a modest approach to her public role. Although she actively works on her favored causes, she has made sure the spotlight stays firmly on her husband. It makes a certain amount of sense that she has a modest style of dress. She rarely exposes anything below the neck or above the knee. Her gowns for the inaugural balls kept her shoulders and arms covered. In her everyday suits, she regularly wears jackets that close at the neck. These tasteful, quiet choices ensure that we will think of her for who she is and what she does – not for her flashy outfits or style mistakes.

Mrs. Bush has the ability to dress modestly without looking frumpy, a distinction that the modest clothing web sites don’t seem to understand. Much of the clothing sold on these sites is simply unflattering – almost deliberately so. Skirts have elastic waistbands that create unsightly bulges. The long pleated skirts are destined to make the wearer look as big as a house. Where’s the virtue in that?

Retailers like Putumayo, L.L. Bean, and Chico’s sell garments that are loose or amply cut, such as long skirts and loose jackets. But such brands also take into account the aesthetic considerations of color, line, and quality in cut and fabric. The colors are bright and pretty. The design is for comfort, but also for beauty, self-expression, and proper fit. Is it immodest to wear what is flattering? No. But choosing flattering garments becomes immodest only if the wearer intends to shock or flaunt.

Indeed, far sharper-looking clothing can be used in much more modest fashion than the plainest floor-length skirt from L.L. Bean. On Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., women staffers are prone to wearing suits – often pants suits – cut in boxy, minimally flattering shapes. These suits (think Ann Taylor) may be flashy in the eyes of a shopper at modestclothes.com. But what they ultimately communicate is modesty. The look is clean, put together, and largely intended to be ignored. The message is: “Pay attention to the congressman, not me.”

It’s easy to join the chorus of voices complaining that Washington, D.C. has no style. But it’s not an accurate accusation. There is a style. It’s just that the goal for staffers is to make their bosses look good. In terms of dress, the urge to focus attention on someone else rather than on oneself is the classic posture of modesty. It’s something that no one in an image-based city – New York or Los Angeles – can understand, which is perhaps why D.C. endures such ribbing.

Every so often, a senior or elected official in Washington will exercise some fashion leadership. At the moment, the standout is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. With her stylish, attractive presentation, Secretary Rice is clearly separate from the staffer mentality; she’s not aiming to pass the attention to her boss. She is the star. She is the one greeting foreign dignitaries, and so she dresses with an eye to what is sharp (but not too corporate) and attractive (but not frivolous). The look combines with her winning personality and intelligence to create a stunningly effective combination. Indeed, Secretary Rice has perfected the concept of power femininity.

Of course, one reason why both Secretary Rice and the First Lady have the wardrobes they do is that they can afford to. The bigger the budget, the better the cut and fabric – and the greater the options. But are the price tags of their garments, rather than the garments themselves, immodest? Mrs. Bush wears Oscar de la Renta. Secretary Rice wears Akris suits. Both labels are reliably elegant and sophisticated, qualities that don’t come cheap. That’s especially true in a fashion era that does not promote such ideas on a regular basis.

Can the modestly dressed nevertheless spend immodestly on their clothing? It depends on one’s perceptions about the value of fashion. You might believe that it is worthwhile for our elected representatives to dress well; or you might wish they would serve as models of frugality by wearing inexpensive clothing. However, neither Mrs. Bush nor Secretary Rice – even judged by biblical standards – appears guilty of indulging in “costly array.”

Why not? Because their clothing choices are based on their roles and needs. Spending to blend in with the Tony and Cherie Blairs of the world is appropriate. But if a highway toll-taker were to show up to work in the style of Mrs. Bush, she would appear showy, not to mention simply out of place. The buzz in the lunchroom isn’t that hard to imagine: “Who does she think she is?” “Where does she think she’s going?” Overdressing by mistake is one thing. But there’s something more deliberate about dressing “up” in comparison with one’s surroundings or one’s social circle. And spending lavishly on clothing for the purpose of turning heads falls into this category.

What of modesty in the rest of the world, especially in non-Western settings? Clothing that covers the body entirely can have different purposes in different countries. In a kimono, with a painted face for a tea ceremony, a Japanese geisha offers not a square of flesh. And yet, the costume is about maximizing allure. Made of exquisite fabrics and bright embroidery, kimonos suggest what they hide. While a geisha’s purpose may not always be intimacy, the idea is to entertain, to give men something to look at – or rather, something to imagine – wrapped in yards of fabric.

Also in the category of a total body covering is the Muslim burka, which is intended to serve a strict religious notion of modesty. For women who have been forced to wear veils or cover themselves completely, there are subtle ways of fighting against the restrictions imposed by full-body coverings. As any reader of Azar Nafisi’s memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran understands, women develop shrewd gestures of defiance – letting a piece of hair fall out, wearing the veil incorrectly, wearing nail polish, or donning brightly colored socks that can be seen from under their robes. Others in their culture might consider these small acts of personal rebellion immodest, but to the women themselves they are expressions of individuality and of the desire to demonstrate their own sense of style.

In the end, in order for modesty to be honest, it has to be an intentional choice. Religious groups with strict clothing rules can truly defeat fashion. The Amish and Orthodox Jews take themselves out of the style game completely. They reject modern costume and contemporary silhouettes in favor of simple, traditional clothing that clearly separates men and women. The rules limit the ways in which individuals express themselves through clothing, but in this case, it’s for a larger goal. Does that make for modest individuals? Maybe. Or maybe it just makes for a community of people who are wearing the same thing.

One does not have to reject fashion entirely to move beyond it. Other high-end designers use drape and cut to create a humble look, some inspired by ethnic costume. Eileen Fisher has hit on a commercially successful formula that is a combination of timelessness, loose fit, and simplicity. Designers like Yeohlee Tang and Eskandar are inspired by nomadic tribes and traditional robes. These clean ethnic looks are available for considerable sums of money. And one has to have fairly intellectual fashion tastes to acknowledge and reject fashion with these subtle pieces. These garments are modest when compared to, say, a pair of painted-on jeans. At the same time, though, the wearer wants the quality of the design and the rejection of fashion to be noticed, which is the opposite of modesty.

As with almost everything in fashion, modesty depends on external factors, such as where you’re going and who you’re with. It is also very much a matter of intent. Modesty in dress is a matter of choice, but it can also be mandated by secular or religious law – or even by mothers of teenage girls. Once acknowledged and embraced, however, modesty influences one’s style for life. And this makes it a lesson very much worth learning.

.....

Pia Catton is an editor at the New York Sun.