Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: QUESTION FASHION Message-ID: Date: 9 Jun 91 19:26:00 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 31 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: + +The interesting question is what the standards should be when styles +are changing. A century ago, women never wore pants (with the +exception of George Sand :-)). But the style has changed, and now And a large number of non-european women in Asia. The last 'assembly' I went to while a at a 'Christian' collage(my stay there was very brief, 1 10-week quarter) had as the topic "Dress codes". The main point of the lecture was that one did not have to be as radical as had been advocated by a guest lecturer who had spoken at some point in time before(I must have missed it somehow). What this person had advocated for women was a very large gown which had a 'hoop' at the neck. The hoop was extended out to beyond the solders and the gown draped down to near the floor. I.e, removing any impression of the 'female' figure. The lecturer felt this would prevent 'lustful' looks being aimed at women, or women dressing to induce 'lustful' looks. Fortunately, the school lecturers where countering these statements with a form of attire which did allow the female figure to be discerned but did not promote the 'evil' lustfulness of 'secular' dress. I believe women were required to wear dresses to church. Since I was in the 'wrong' place, I skipped the church activities. However I was 'required' to attend 'chapel'. (There were little computer punch cards to be picked up at each session, at some point if one did not have enough attendences one got a summons to the dean's office to find out why). -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu