SHORT SKIRTS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17524, 29 April 1925, Page 7

SHORT SKIRTS.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l think your correspondent M.J. has rather overstepped the bounds in regard to ministers and the short dress question. Ministers as a whole are not a bunch of namby-pamby citizens, who are afraid of seeing a girl's legs. f would like to point out to M..F. that ministers are men like himself, after all, ii with a somewhat different viewpoint in life. Afraid of Mother Nature, are they? Well, if it comes to that, who is not? She takes a lot of comprehending. As far as 11. G. Wells’s book. - The Dream/’ is concerned, let us hope that the time is far off when our descendants will play about in a sort of carefree Utopia over the half-forgotten ruins of our own present world —with nothing on. M.J. is too whole-handed in his criticisms and condemnations. 1 am. etc., DAYMAN. | Sir.-- 1 don't know whether your correspondent M.J. is in earnest when lie says that the short skirts of to-day, and the shorter skirts that arc promised in the future, are worn by women merelv to keep up with the fashion,s. i take it that the ministers who expressed | their opinions on the subject were referring only to those girls who think j that because a dress dour. to their ; knees was respectable when they were ten or twelve must be just as respectable when they are twenty or more. It is foolishness to taik of fashion as j being responsible; no decent girl is going to lose her modest)- fur the sake 1 of a fashion. And. sir. does M.J. mean i to insinuate that it is the fashion for j young women to appear in public with ; skirts to the knees? He is. out of touch J with fashion if he thinks that that is \ I so. But still it is being done. j. am j j glad to say. however, that there are | still some young women in the country j ; who have a little self-respect.—l am, j etc., HOMIE.