Tuesday 16 August 2005

Yet another silly fashion observation

Bear with me once again. :) Occasional lapses into the realm of silly are quite necessary to the spiritual life and any other, a fact sadly neglected since the demise of the miracle play and 'boy bishop.' I am in the midst of having a marvellous laugh at the concept of Wait Wear, of which I'd seen mention on another site. (Don't miss it - it should be your best laugh in weeks.) Apparently, many of the young interpret chastity in quite another manner than was traditional. Not that anything about lapses in chastity is new - but I do not recall, in my youth, that the version of not having sex that is ... similar to that used by Bill Clinton was considered particularly pure. Many of my generation - post-contraception, pre-AIDS - laid everything but the Channel Tunnel, but at least called a bonk a bonk.

"Wait Wear" is a selection of knickers with a message. What a fool I am... here I would have thought that women who were silly enough to think it appropriate to broadcast chastity (don't read my words here with uplifted eyebrows - see the Wait Wear site first) would equally broadcast such ... messages. Innocent that I am, I would have thought that those trying to be chaste would not have had anyone reading their underpants in the first place.

My love for fashion is no secret, even if my own sense is totally centred on personal style (which I'm sure, in my case, some would think weird - I know not all women my age would cherish the tie-dye velvet I'm wearing in the photograph.) My sense of justice also reminds me that comments from the middle-aged on the fashions popular with youth, which never were accurate, are particularly inappropriate from those of my generation. (I suppose I could sub-title this post "brought to you by the makers of 'evening hot pants.') Yet I have noticed a very recent and apparently popular trend, I'm sure encouraged by the fashion industry, that has me exceedingly puzzled. Though I doubt advertisements for this style use the phrasing that I shall employ, why is it suddenly considered attractive, and presumably alluring, for young women to walk the streets in their underwear? I saw a group of pretty young things this week, wearing underwear for a blouse and making certain that observers also had a clear view of their thongs.

This does not happen to be an expression of outraged modesty. Modest I am indeed - and I'm romantic enough to think that modesty would have the potential to be quite alluring properly used, not that I would have that goal. :) It is a sigh from an outraged fashion sense.

I am far from being any authority on things romantic, and such knowledge as I may possess is purely theoretical. It is my theory that silks and laces for lingerie could have great potential for making a woman feel more attractive, sensual, whatever. (Oh, good heavens, don't shake your head so! There is more than one meaning of sensual - and the sensual is important in any life. For those of us in 'anchorholds,' it centred on classical music, paintings, and aromatherapy baths.) I have the idea that such items as a pretty chemise can, in the appropriate circumstances, be quite valuable in the manner in which presenting a gift is all the more delightful when it is in lovely wrapping. (I have a vaguer sense that the male will have the exact same attitude towards the gift wrapping that people have towards the wrappings on other gifts, and use precisely the same action, but am not qualified to expound.)

Somehow, the gift wrapping loses its appeal when it is ten for a penny. The present then is placed on a level with the free samples of cheap bath gel that are passed out in front of stores.

I weep for this generation. It is not their morality that brings the tears, but the sad conviction that they have no style. ;)

No comments: