by Vanessa Cort

SINCE damaged denim swept the world of fashion in the last decade, the notion of what constitutes appropriate dress has been upturned.

Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s, now referred to as the baby boomers, know of a standard of dress that required clothing worn outside the home to be neat, unfaded and certainly not shabby.

What we wore was placed in categories – formal, casual, work, church and even what some of us referred to as ‘home clothes.’

Now this is all changing and ‘ripped’ denim has become the ‘order of the day’, worn to every occasion but the strictly formal.

Invariably any discussion on clothing and fashion leads to talk about women and what they wear. Certain religions and groups require women to dress in a particular way, often in full-length dresses or long skirts and head coverings, like the Muslim hijab.

But in the wider international community, where there are no such strictures regarding dress, women generally wear what they please.

However, there have always been broad guidelines on what is appropriate dress for certain places and occasions. Now, many argue that these lines have become blurred and, in many instances, simply ignored.

And this applies even to the somewhat sober advice given to women by Fibre2Fashion, “As a woman it is advisable you understand your body shape have a consciousness of what you wear and how it makes you feel”.

In a recently aired Dr. Phil television programme, there was lively debate on what was considered proper dress for women, depending on the occasion.

Opinions were many and varied and centred around provocative dress, with some arguing that revealing clothing is now becoming too prevalent and should not be encouraged because of its effect on men.

It was felt that this type of clothing invited the lecherous attention of men and could even lead to sexual assault.

Others roundly criticized this view saying that women should be free to wear whatever they chose and the choice should not be determined by how it would affect men.

Certainly, over the years, women’s clothing has become more daring and what was worn only by celebrities and international models on fashion catwalks is now being ‘sported’ by women of all shapes and sizes throughout society.

Perhaps one of the most significant changes to women’s clothing came in 1964 when British designer, Mary Quant, created the mini-skirt.

When it first appeared, controversy followed as many objected to hemlines moving from knee-length or below the knee to mid-thigh and even shorter with the advent of the micro-mini.

Contrado UK says, “The iconic history of the mini-skirt is anything but short and sweet, with rebellion, sex and sixties hedonism at its core”. While the shock waves of the ‘mini’ have long since dissipated, other revealing forms of dress are now raising eyebrows and causing consternation.

But it strikes me that much of this scanty dressing is similarly fuelled by rebellion and deliberately intended to shock, as women assert their independence of thought, which naturally extends to what we wear.

While I feel that, particularly in the work place and places of worship, women should dress appropriately as a mark of respect for their colleagues and fellow worshippers, I certainly do not agree that a woman’s mode of dress should be determined by its effect on men.

And Chloe Gray, a writer for Life magazine asked the question, “Why is women’s clothing still being policed?” giving several examples of countries where this is still happening.

At the root of it all seems to be how men react to certain styles worn by women. This is a ‘slippery slope’ that can actually lead to women being blamed for sexual assault.

What we, in all societies, should be teaching our male children is how to control their urges and how to behave around women, regardless of how they dress.