Daughter's fashion choices signal return of modesty

By KARIN RONNOW, Chronicle Columnist

I will never forget the day this summer when I was shopping with my 18-year-old daughter and she said, "Not that shirt, it's too short. No more belly shirts."

"Yes, finally!" I thought, and did a little dance in my head.

And just like that, the nearly naked-even-in-winter stage was over. Within a few months she had gone out and, with her own money, bought a pair of sheepskin winter boots to replace her flip flops, and a pair of plain old Levis with a traditional fit.

This transition away from clothes that screamed, "Look at me!" toward some more practical choices appeased the maternal critic in me. But as I looked around, I realized it wasn't just my daughter -- the whole fashion industry was making a slow shift toward modesty.

And this swing of the pendulum appears to finally be hitting Montana.

"In entertainment and advertising, there is a growing consensus that the consumers' appetite for blatant sexuality is abating," the New York Times reported last year.

Teenage girls increasingly look down on peers who show too much skin or parade their bodies around, according to people who get paid to spot these trends. One group of girls in Gilbert, Ariz., weary of spaghetti straps and low-hung jeans, have even formed an organization called Youth for Modesty.

So why now? Well, fashion historians say a shift toward conservative, more traditional dress is typical in times of great economic and social insecurity. It makes people feel safe.

Also, the fashion industry thrives on constantly reinventing itself and it's just that time again. By dictating what's hot and what's not, the industry drives people to spend money and accumulate more stuff. (It's also what is contributing to full-to-overflowing resale shops and landfills bulging with our castoffs.)

The trend could also be a reflection of girls and women no longer finding those "skanky" outfits -- as my daughter now calls them -- novel. Perhaps they are, ahem, growing up.

Whatever the reason, I'm relieved. I found the nearly naked trend demeaning. I'm still idealistic enough to believe girls and women should be respected and valued for their brains, their skills, their unique contributions - not what they look like.

But we all have to wear clothes and, intended or not, what we wear does reveal something about who we are. Whether it's Gucci or the Gap, Birkenstocks or Blahniks, boutique or big-box store, there's a message there.

And that is why people are willing to invest vast amounts of time and money on clothes.

Personally, I'm more inclined to form-follows-function clothing - warm, presentable, comfortable - than haute couture. I get anxious and self-conscious just thinking about my "personal style." I just don't want to look stupid.

My daughter, on the other hand, is imaginative and thrifty. She can spend an hour in a resale shop, unearth an old sweater, jeans or a skirt, give it a personalized twist and, voila, she shrugs off conformity and expresses her creativity.

But she noted that most young girls don't go that route. Instead they mimic what they see celebrities wearing in magazines and on TV. The fact that the celebrities are often much older and are in the business of drawing attention to themselves doesn't dilute the power of suggestion.

Maybe that's why it's so remarkable to learn that even the Material Girl, the icon of rebellious fashion for years, is switching gears.

"Madonna, whose skimpy corsets and projectile bras once made her a standard-bearer of kinky chic, has taken to wearing buttoned-up tweeds and writing children's books," according to the Times story.

Whether that's middle-age maturity or the influence of the prim and proper English, who knows? Who cares? At least it's progress.

Karin Ronnow is at kronnow@dailychronicle.com

Reader Comments