INDECOROUS DRESS.

Marlborough Express, Volume LIII, Issue 195, 20 August 1919, Page 6

INDECOROUS DRESS.

COMMENT IN ENGLAND

LONDON, May 31. In the course of n trial at the Old Bailey Court this week, Mr Justice DWliiig made the remark that the women of to-day "differed by the width of heaven from what their mothers were." Allowing for the Judge's spacious exaggeration, there is much truth in his comparison. There arc plenty of women who smoke and swagger, and live in restaurants. It is their great pleasure to be in the limelight. Their mothers used to dress to go out; some of the women of to-day are the most pleased with their dress when fckere is the least of it. Bare arms,

bare backs, bare bosoms, skirts but little lower than the knee, and perforated stockings—such an economy of clothes would have shocked our grandmothers. Some men are pretty hardy, and can stand a good deal; but if women could hear what is said of their immodesty by many of their male friends, and the epithets applied to them in the club smoke-rooms, the most brazen of them would wince under such criticism. Several leading women have realised something of the discredit which the modern "outrageous dress" is bringing upon their sex, and are not mincing their words of disapproval in the public prints. The Duchess of Somerset remarks that while the nude is often beautiful in sculpture no one wants to see undressed women without make or

shape in our streets and theatres. But she adds that it is onty the minority who seek to attract attention. "These poor women must put on odd clothes, and dress themselves like Red Indians, or peacocks, on the principle that fine feathers make fine birds."

The Marchioness of Townshend writes that "women's dress to-day is almost immoral in its inadequacy." The outlandish clothes of some women do not dazzle the beholder; they provoke ridicule. "What/ she asks, "is the present fashion trying to express, when it builds dresses from nearly up to the knee, almost transparent, and with no shoulder straps?" Tho smart sets who frequent our big restaurants come under the lash of Lady Hastings. She says they may be often seen, almost naked women, sitting at tables with ogling, coarse-minded men. Skirts are short, tight, and transparent, and apparently no underclothes are worn. The spectacle is suggestive of prurient thoughts. In the day time it is almost as bad, for some of the women wear evening dress and in the evening they wear virtually nothing at all. Lady Hastings suggests that such "creatures" should be handed over to the East End "donahs" to be tarred and feathered. Another writer proposes that the weakminded votaries of indecent fashion should be given to understand that, so far from making * themselves attractive to men, women who appear to be trying to reach the limit of denudition succeed only in disgusting those whom they would please and in repelling those whom they would attract. But'l i*ead in the' newspapers that the women of Paris "go one better" or worse— than the fast set in London. Now that the warm weather has come the split skirt has come more than ever into use, even to the height of the thigh, and the limb has no better concealment that can be provided by a very light fleshing. This fashion has not yet reached London. One need not be a Jeremiah to disapprove of much that is nowadays to be seen in women's dresses; buj; some of them are certainly very disgusting. I notice that one woman writer upon fashions, discussing the coming meeting at Ascot, says:—"London is going to make a stand against the audacities of dress which have of late shocked so many serious-minded persons." She adds: "Ascot will maintain the pre-war < traditions which gave that race meeting the name of the really best dressed assemblage in the world." The same writer excuses . the introduction of rirrtous dress by pointing out that five fash ionless years have absorbed the old regime. Everything is changed; and everything is very costly."