The Pirates of Penzance

Caitlin modeling her two costumes for this weekend's musical. Thanks to my friends who helped put these outfits together, including Chocolot, who lent the nightgown, and Elephant's Child, who sewed the skirt and sleep bonnet for us. (Wow, EC, that's the second time I have linked to you in as many days. Are you feeling important?)

A third friend from my church choir lent the blouse, but she doesn't have a blog so I will just have to give her a shout out: Thanks, Judy!

Ladies Wearing Hats

Jane, take note.

This afternoon at church my daughter and I attended a "Daughters' Tea." It was a lovely time. The theme was the many different "hats" that we as women and girls wear in our daily lives and how no mattter what "hat" we may have on at any given moment, each of us is above all a daughter of our Heavenly Father.

To bring that theme to life, a woman in our congregation who because of her love of hats is affectionately known as the "hat lady" shared her own large collection of hats for the afternoon. As each lady or girl arrived she was invited to select a hat from the vast array of possibilities. Mirrors were provided to assist with the selection process and once adorned, each of the attendees was invited to have her picture taken either alone or in a group with friends or family. Then all sat down for tea.

And tea it was. Yours Truly stupidly approached the drink table, cup in hand, looking for the coffee carafe, only to be informed that coffee was not on the menu today. Duh. I settled for a cup of mango passionfruit tea. It was delicious.

But while coffee was not on the menu, all sorts of other things were:

There were sandwiches and cream puffs and fruit and truffles. Did I mention cream puffs?

A few more pictures of the fun:

Suzanne

Sophie (Suzanne's daughter)

Ruthie and her mom Carol

Ladies wearing hats while eating






Francesca and Katie (sister of Sophie)







Ina providing background music

Ruthie (with milk, not tea, in that cup)

Lily and Alayna

Caitlin

I am hat-challenged. My head is too big for most hats. But I looked and looked until even I found one that fit well enough for me to suffer a few hours in it. Sorry, no picture. It was not publishable. Trust me.

(By the way, if you don't mind, could you refrain from telling my other tea party friends where I was today? I'm not sure they would understand. They have different ideas about what to do with tea.)

A Sad Tale

The Carrie Prejean episode says much about this country, and most of it is not good. There is so much in this story that is sad, and there is plenty of blame to go around. I have previously shared my thoughts about the elevation of Miss Prejean to some sort of hero status. A few other observations now come to mind:

1) It is despicable the way Miss Prejean was attacked for sharing her honest opinion about gay marriage. The venom and hatred from some quarters has been shocking. But the conservative Christians who latched on to her to promote their own agenda also bear responsibility for this mess. They did not consider whether Carrie was prepared to become their poster child or how it might affect her personally to do so. And now as some unseemly photos from her past have emerged many of them are deserting her. Talk about fair weather friends.

2) I see in Carrie's story another example of something I have been puzzled about for a long time, namely how many Christian women today see no contradiction between their faith and the suggestiveness of their clothing. That Carrie, a Christian, doesn't think twice about displaying her nearly nude body on national television in a sexually provocative way makes no sense to me. But it also makes no sense to me how frequently I see young women in my own community dress in a way that I don't think any female should, and for church, no less! The bare midriffs, cleavage, stiletto heels, skin tight pants, coy messages written on chests and rears, and dresses that look like baby doll nightgowns leave me speechless. And their conservative Christian parents don't seem to have a problem with it. Call me an old-fashioned prude, but if I were to suggest to my daughter that she wear some of the things that we routinely see on some of her peers, she would look at me like I had lost my mind. She would be extremely uncomfortable dressing that way and calling such attention to herself, and it's not because of any Victorian-minded training she has received from her parents but because her own humility and modesty would prevent her doing so.

3) It was clear from her rather inarticulate answer ("opposite" marriage?) on the Miss USA pageant that Miss Prejean was not prepared for all this attention. If the Christian community had any sense at all, and if they really cared about her as a fellow Christian, they would have immediately circled the wagons in protection of her after the radical press started going after her. Carrie's friends and family should have advised her to lie low and let others speak for her. She should have issued a press release saying in effect that she stands by her answer. And then she should have voiced her desire to move on with her life and speak no more of it. Instead, the Sean Hannity's of the world decided to squeeze some ratings and a few more soundbites out of her. So they set her up for continued silly statements about how her career goal is to become a "motivational speaker" and encourage young women to stand up for themselves and their views. And to think that children used to want to be firemen and nurses and teachers and doctors. Now it's "motivational speakers" and "community organizers."

I'm sorry if I'm being excessively grumpy. By the way, for those who may not have heard, the President has opted to skip any observance (beyond signing the standard proclamation) of the National Day of Prayer today. But of course. Our country is in such excellent shape. And besides, we have Obama at the helm, and he is going to take care of everything. What could there possibly be to pray about?

Easter Dress

Jane blogged about her Easter dress, so I thought I would, too. I purchased it mail order from Coldwater Creek a few weeks ago with a gift certificate that our adult choir gave me for Christmas. (Thanks again, choir!!) Here's the description from the website: "Graceful, fluid and flurried with soft dots. This willowy dress flows from a sculpted bodice with raised waist and softly gathered sash caught by a covered buckle. Invisible back zip. Lined bodice. Rayon, dry clean."


What do you think?

Look What I Found!

It's for my daughter and it looks adorable on her. I stumbled on it yesterday in the junior department at Target. My photo doesn't really do it justice. Here's a better one:

If you are a mother of a pre-teen or teenage girl, you know that finding modest, pretty, feminine clothing for your daughter is not easy these days. My daughter is only 12 but is tall for her age and is already making the transition from girls' to junior sizes. It is frustrating trying to shop for her in the current fashion climate, because these days the young women's dress racks seem littered with things like this . . .

. . . and this.

They are either too revealing or downright ugly. So I was pleasantly surprised yesterday to discover what I would describe as simply a pretty, classic dress. It is from the Isaac Mizrahi line and only cost $34.99.

Thank you, Target!

VBS

No, this is not a post about Vacation Bible School, but about Visible Bra Straps. One the one hand they seem to be the fashion statement of the moment for females of all ages. In fact, you can now just buy the straps, all by themselves. Yet a web search can pull up plenty of people who, like me, don't get it.

I did some more thinking about this yesterday when one of my piano students--a teenage girl--showed up for her lesson displaying no less than three different bra straps under her tank top. I found myself thinking that she must be very uncomfortable wearing three bras under there! But having done a little more research, I now wonder if she was not wearing three bras at all but simply attaching extra straps for the sake of adornment. By the way, the student in question is a lovely and beautiful young lady with a great fashion sense, and seeing her sport this style makes me wonder if I am just being a fuddy-duddy. Because she is just one of a number of young ladies I know being raised in Christian homes with wholesome values and standards of behavior who nevertheless make this same fashion choice.

I was led to think about this some more yesterday when another of my piano students, a much younger one (age 7), showed up wearing a tank top with adjustable spaghetti straps. Looking at her shirt, it struck me that due to the adjustable feature, her straps looked a lot like bra straps. So then it occurred to me that maybe what my older student was wearing under her tank top was not multiple bras but multiple shirts with bra-like straps.

Musing over all this, then, I found myself wondering if my problem with the VBS style is not so much that it is revealing--my student was wearing a tank top, after all--but that the straps look like bra straps, which in my mind are not supposed to be shown. But what is it that makes them look like bra straps? Is it just that they have that adjustable slider feature? Well, what's so wrong with that? Would I have the same reaction if someone wore a tank top with a spaghetti-strap t-shirt (and no adjustable feature) underneath it? If my 7-year-old student's shirt has the adjustable feature, it is clearly not something that is limited only to bra strap use, right? And what's wrong with it anyway? Isn't it there just to assure a good fit, whether it's on a bra or a shirt?

I'm probably overthinking this. But as I look at the females out there who wear this style, it does strike me that it is possible to wear it in an aesthetically pleasing way and possible to wear it in a trashy way, and my piano student was definitely modeling the former. It's not a style I would choose for myself, nor would I allow my daughter to wear it (I am quite sure she wouldn't want to anyway). But maybe those of us who don't care for the style should simply count our blessings: after all, an easy alternative to VBS would be no B at all!

Out of Step

I guess I'm just an Old Fogey. I see it everywhere and have for years now, but I still don't get it.

I'm talking about the intentional display of bra straps by many of my gender. When I was younger, a peek-a-boo bra strip was a fashion faux pas, one that I did everything possible to avoid, from wearing strapless bras (ouch) to pinning my bra straps to the inside of my tank tops. But now it seems we have shifted 180 degrees in the other direction, turning bra straps into a fashion accessory, so much so that many of the bras I see worn these days are designed with coordinated colors and decorative accents that are obviously intended to be seen. In addition, the revealing of straps seems to be a completely respectable fashion choice by girls and women of all ages in any setting, because I see them everywhere, including in church on Sunday morning.

Am I missing something here? Because to me there is just something inappropriate about intentionally revealing what is basically a piece of underwear. I don't like it when I see young men walking around with their underwear poking out above their pants; why is it any more proper for a girl to show her bra? It's one thing to have it slip out accidentally; it's another to make a conscious choice to do so. To me there will always be an element of titillation involved in such a display, and while it is a natural part of femininity to take steps to enhance one's appearance, it is another thing to overtly tempt or tease. And while I realize that the bra strap fashion might not even reveal as much skin as some other things that could be worn, I still think the style has its root in an effort to be "naughty" by showing a part of one's attire that historically was not intended to be shown.

Just call me Queen Victoria.

Fashion Rant

What is the deal with fashion designers these days? Do they have a sadistic streak? Or are people really buying the stuff they put out?

My daughter needs a few new items of clothing. She is 12 years old, thin and tall for her age, placing her in that awkward zone between girls' and junior sizes. Size 16 pants are often too short, but junior and misses sizes are too full-figured (and often not suitable for a 12-year-old . . . heck, come to think of it, they're often not suitable for me). So it's hard to find a good fit.

Right now I am looking at dresses for her. I used to have some success buying them through Ebay, where it is still possible to find beautiful, girlish styles (at reasonable prices) with brand names like Bonnie Jean and Rare Editions. But now that my daughter is reaching the top of the girls' size range I hesitate to buy without first having her try something on (or having the option to return, which you usually don't get with secondhand stuff on Ebay). So I have been visiting the girls' and junior departments at a few of our local department stores. The problem is, I can't find anything I would want to buy for her, even if we could find the right fit. It's just all so yucky! (Sorry for the vocabulary lapse, but I honestly can't think of any word that better reflects my reaction.) Everything looks like it came from Goldie Hawn's closet on the old Laugh-In television show.

And the junior and misses departments are no better. Thank goodness I'm not in the market for a new dress for myself right now. I just hope my closet holds out until designers (and consumers) come to their senses and remember the definition of the word "pretty."

Indecent Exposure

According to a recent article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Atlanta City Council is considering an amendment to the city's indecency laws that would make certain currently popular fashion trends illegal and thus punishable by fine. The common denominator among targeted styles is the revealing of the wearer's underwear: specific practices mentioned are excessively baggy pants (intended to reveal the boxer shorts or thongs underneath), sport bras worn as tops, and the showing of one's bra straps.

As one who often cringes at the sight of all the trends mentioned in the article (as well as some that are not), I find myself applauding this proposal and watching with interest to see if it succeeds in passing. (I would, however, encourage the proposal's sponsor to add ridiculously low-cut pants and excessive midriff-baring to his list of infractions.) But not surprisingly, opponents are already lining up to fight the measure. Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, has stated that the law will not withstand a court challenge. If you're thinking that such a challenge would hinge on freedom of speech (expressed through one's clothing), think again. Instead, Seagraves says that the primary basis for fighting the law would be that it is discriminatory because it unfairly targets black youth.

Huh? I understand that overly baggy pants can be traced to rap culture, but I'm not sure the other styles being targeted share that origin. And even if they do, the time when rap culture was limited to the black population has long since passed. I live, work, and attend church in a predominately white, affluent Chicago suburb, and I commonly see people of all ethnicities and ages wearing many of the offending styles. (Truth be told, I don't see a lot of males in my age group wearing baggy pants, but I do see a surprising number of women my age & older wearing outfits that in my opinion they in particular have no business wearing.)

I'm curious to hear what others think of this attempt by members of the Atlanta City Council to legislate some decency and modesty among the residents of their city. Does it have any hope of succeeding? If the measure passes, it is enforceable? Or is the whole thing a waste of time? Certainly it is reasonable for our government to make laws requiring decency in dress and behavior--we have all kinds of rules against nudity, indecent exposure, public intoxication and disturbing of the peace--but is it realistic to start specifying what types of dress are acceptable?

I tend to think that to a certain extent the answer is yes. Underwear is underwear--it is not meant to be revealed, and I don't think I should have to avert my gaze to avoid seeing that of another person. But I am more conservative than most people. So I would be interested to hear what you think.