Do Layers Actually Make it Modest?
One of the things that we have seen in our Quick Reviews is that many women will layer a shirt under another shirt to make the outer shirt modest. We’ve had some discussion back and forth about whether this actually helps modesty, or hurts it.
In the Quick Review of this image, we all agreed that the white under-layer of this image turned an outfit that was pretty modest into something that draws all the attention to the bust. While nothing is shown, there’s no question where the eye will go.
The question is, does the fact that the item attracts the attention to the bust make the outfit immodest?
Turns out we’re not the only ones asking this question.
Boutique Narelle, another site that talks about modesty, goes into great detail on this very topic, diving into the Rebelution Survey to get men’s opinions. In their post, The Big Neckline Question, they display a variety of images trying to figure out what makes something modest.
One of the interesting things they point out is, if a guy believes an under layer to be underwear, that is a situation that may cause them to stumble. I would have to agree. There’s something weird for a guy—especially an unmarried guy—about underwear and things that are not supposed to be seen.
In the case of the photo it rated a 3.81—or over the borderline into the modest territory—by our reviewers.
I admit, it’s difficult. You can have everything covered and still present a problem. The thing is, just like a lot of these things, you need to remember that you’re dressing for God, and there will always be someone that will have a problem with some area of attire.
Do your best, find modest feminine clothing, and pray for the guys that they will have their hearts, and their eyes, in the right place.
Loading ...
One solution is to layer with a boat-neck (also called “ballet” neckline) or crew-neck tshirt. Target sells ultra-light versions of both in 3/4 and cap sleeves. A 3/4 sleeve boatneck creates an elegant look under a polo top or sleeveless empire waist tunic.
I don’t understand how any guy could assume that the white undergarment in this photo is underwear. It is very clearly a tshirt of some kind. If the red top was worn without the white tshirt, it would definitely be immodest.
I agree with Jo. Would we rather she not be wearing the t-shirt? Would a man’s eye be drawn more to the area with or without that t-shirt? A man who thinks that is underwear is making an assumption and I think this issue gets into completely unmanageable territory if women are expected to anticipate and dress according to various men’s assumptions. There are reactions women can reasonably expect men to have to things they wear and reactions that are just a bit beyond the pale. The outfit is better with the t-shirt that it would be without.
.-= tracey´s last blog ..let’s pretend =-.
Maybe the tank would be better if it were a dark or like color?
Natasha
Natasha Atkerson´s last post ..Demures- Buy 1 Get 1 50 OFF!
That’s what I was thinking, too…
I was thinking if you layered like colors under shirts, it may draw less attention to the areas you are trying to cover. It also helps if the top layer opening doesn’t plunge TOO low in the first place.
Yes, a darker colored or similar shade of camisole is best. This kind of does draw the eye to the bust. I think, however, that the main problem here is not the camisole, it’s the shirt itself. It’s about a size too small, and it seems like just a tad bigger and the problem might be solved even WITH the white camisole remaining.
I agree that a darker colored or red undershirt would help, but also that the red shirt is too tight. The white camisole is also too low, in my opinion. Not a lot is showing, but there’s a suggestion of it there. So all in all not modest. Maybe the girl was trying to be modest, since certainly it would be *more* immodest without the camisole, but…there are still some issues.
#Feb2011NCARating
I’ve never thought of this. I generally try to layer with similar colors with outfits like the one above. Something to think about though….
#Feb2011NCARating
The shirt is too small. If it were the correct size it could be buttoned (it has buttons) and worn correctly. And no undershirt would be needed. As it is it draws the eye right to the breast and therefore I would rank it immodest.
If a shirt needs an undershirt why wear it or purchase it?
Here in Texas during the summer one layer is enough.
Wearing moisture wicking underlayers like the ones Apricot offers is actually very doable in hot weather. Just ask our soldiers overseas, they wear polyester t shirts with pretty high necks, under poly cotton mixed long sleeves, with body armor thrown on top, in 140 degree temperatures. You really do get used to it.
Wearing an undershirt will also prevent skin from peeking through, if there are any gaps between the button holes. (Which CAN happen even if your shirt is modest.) I wear undershirts all of the time and as long as they are thinner, they don’t add too much warmth. I quite often wear button up blouses and sometimes those tend to gap. An undershirt can also prevent skin from showing when you’re bending over if your outer shirt isn’t quite long enough to prevent it.
Anything tight in that area is going to draw attention to that area. Just the same as if one wears very tight jeans. The shirt is simply too tight.
Kim Harris´s last post ..Girls's Modest Dress Size 7- Lovely Lime
If the layers are body-hugging, even layers over layers of such garments will reveal the shape of the wearer. Is revealing the shape of the wearer considered modest? If it is not, then layers made of lycra/spandex which the gymnasts, ballerinas, skaters wear defeat the purpose of modesty. Ever wonder why these body-hugging shells are so popular today? Are they actually garments of modesty? Lycra-spandex have made their way into today’s maternity wear, jeans, and day-to-day apparel. Has this changed your view on modesty?
I think that you can have internal layers that are body-hugging, but external layers should not be. I view an appropriate body-hugging layer as something that covers cleavage on an otherwise low cut top, or perhaps a body-suit that would make sure things weren’t displayed while bending over. As far as maternity wear, I think it’s good for the "panel" portion, but not for the rest.
Body-hugging layers are ideally for internal wear, like underwear. Unfortunately, underwear today is being worn as outerwear, even if it is being layered under another garment, but it is visible. In the Jewish point of view, this is not modest. When I say Jewish, I mean from the Orthodox Jewish Rabbis who speak from authority, not from what you see other Jewish women wear today.
In addition, many outerwear today are made from the same material as innerwear, and they are clingy. Therefore, wearing layers of clingy material ends up showing off the body’s silhouette, which defeats the purpose of Jewish modesty. Everything from regular wear, to nursing, to maternity wear today is made from similar clingy material, unfortunately. The “panel” portion is fine if it’s hidden under a loose top, so as not to reveal the shape of the tummy. I’m only speaking from the Jewish point of view, of course.
There’s an article on my blog, that talks about the modest fit from Jewish and other religion’s POV.
http://modestanytime.blogspot.com/2012/03/modest-fit.html