Good-bye and Good Riddance to Hooker Chic

Am I dreaming? Are these really the 2013 runway fashions from notable designer Valentino? Is modesty making a comeback? Please tell me it's so!

Finally, it looks like we might say fare(not)well to the parade of hooker-chic attire that has been marketed to us women since the first peek-a-boo bras made their appearance on fashion runways in the early 90's.   We women who live in the "real" world never thought it would fly.  Fast forward a few years and while we are waiting for the bank teller to complete a transaction we are embarrassed at seeing her colorful bra underneath her lacy top or alone under her suit jacket.  What?!  I remember having to send home a bank teller I was training because she showed up at work with a skirt fully above her knees and fishnet stockings.  And we thought that was edgy.  Any cleavage showing was unacceptable and deemed highly unprofessional at that time.  Oh, how I miss those days.

I am so glad that I did not have to clothe daughters over the last ten years.  I truly pity my dear friends who wanted their girls to look fashionable and modest at the same time.  It was an exercise in fashion gymnastics avoiding the words splayed across the rear, or lingerie-esque tops for their ten year old.  And honestly, sleeves would be nice.  What was with all the spaghetti straps showing the bra straps underneath?  I think the low-point of hooker-chic was on full display during the half-time show for the 2013 NFL Superbowl with Beyonce's inappropriate show and attire--if it can be called that.  I was so thankful for Jackie Gingrich-Cushman's editorial which gave me a light at the end of the tunnel.  Do I see a little hint of Downton Abbey reflected in the calf-length dresses and overall gentility?

So maybe we're on the upswing. Maybe I will actually enjoy shopping for clothes again but it may take some time for these runway fashions to make it to mainstream America and eventually hit the clearance rack at Dillard's for me to ever be in vogue--or at least last-year's vogue--again.

Mail Bag: Speaking of Dresses

"Speaking of an all-dresses girl, why do some of you ladies wear only skirts or dresses? I have the conviction of modesty and am more comfortable in them but I searched scripture and found nothing that stated that it should be ONLY dresses ."

I'll answer for myself, having worn only dresses/skirts for 20+ years. As a brand new believer (not attending any particular church but visiting the Catholic since that's how I was raised) I distinctly remembering feeling more feminine (and I guess more "Christian") when I wore dresses or skirts. Something about it felt right which was a far cry from my pre-Christian way of life. (Drugs, promiscuity etc.) No real reason....just felt inclined.

The first church I began faithfully attending (in the 80's) was a fundamental, evangelical church. The families all homeschooled their children, were full-quiver advocates, were courtship-minded etc. Being single, this is where I was introduced to world of homeschooling, still in its infancy. Women generally wore dresses to church, but only occasionally throughout the week. I pretty much followed suit--dresses on Sunday, anything else the rest of the week. No reason, just a desire to dress for church.

A couple of years later, I began attending a "dresses only" type of church where I first heard teaching on it, and I think it resounded with why I initially felt inclined to wear skirts as a new believer. They used Deuteronomy 22:5 as the scriptural foundation which does not say "dresses" per se, but that a woman shouldn't wear that which "pertains to a man." Bifurcated clothing (pants, shorts) have been looked at historically, in our culture (Western, European), as men's attire. The same holds true for suit coats, ties etc., which are looked at also as men's clothing. Using modesty as a singular reason for wearing only dresses hasn't held much weight for me since there are many dresses which are revealing, tight, short, ostentatious, "flirty" etc. The reasoning shared with me behind the biblical injunction of Deut 22:5 had more to do with God desiring to differentiate between male and female. A man (transvestites, notwithstanding) will not wear a dress because that is feminine clothing designed for a woman, so by the same token, many women opt to not wear clothing which signifies masculinity (whether it be slacks, ties, suits, hardhats, gun belt whatever.....)

At the risk of using a genetic fallacy, it wasn't until women joined the workforce by the droves that they began wearing pants for safety reasons. We remember Rosie the Riveter as an iconic "woman in the workplace" doing her duty since the men had gone to war. Before that it was the cultural norm for women to wear dresses as a distinctive of their femininity and to reflect their office in life as mothers and wives.

The intriguing thing I found about dressing in a feminine way is the way it affects my behavior, attitude and mannerisms. Take a minute to watch a woman wearing slacks squat down to tie a child's shoelace--knees spread apart in a masculine pose, and then watch a woman in a dress do it. Or watch her squat to pick up toys from the floor. It seems that women wearing pants, shorts or capris have forgotten how to keep their knees together in a dignified and feminine pose.

I enjoy watching the poise of women who wear dresses juxtaposed with women who are wearing pants or shorts. It's fascinating to see how what we wear affects how we carry ourselves, how we sit and how we position ourselves so differently, whether one always wears dresses or not. I think that God, through this simple observation, taught me unequivocally that we define ourselves by what we wear.