The Latest Parlor Update: Additions and Changes
As of 6/7/98

Prelude to a major update:
More Revealing Looks

A lovely guest bride-to-be, who is writing a paper on the sexual politics of bridal fashion (and underfashion) in fulfillment of a course assignment, sent me a request for an essay. As many of you know, I have strong opinions on this subject, and I thought you might enjoy reading my response, which is reproduced below.

Also, for those who enjoyed my cartoony bridal images, there's a (relatively) new page espeically for that genre! Go see Bridal Toonery!

Now, down to business...

The questions:

Is sex during the wedding night and honeymoon an act of love, beauty, fetishism or all three? Is the whole culture surrounded around an idea as wedding night as a kind of symbolic deflowering, or are we just sensual persons to begin with? What role does lingerie and the corset, garter, stockings and pumps play in our idea of feminine beauty related to the wedding night? Is it an excuse to view the bride as a scared prostitute, who is willed by some divine right to fulfill her husband's sexual cravings? Or from a feminist point of view can it empower the woman, making her an archetype of the goddess. Or is it time to deconstruct the sexist and un-PC traditions which have enslaved women ?

My response:

Support for this comes from the fact that whenever a thesis on women and clothing appears in modern publication, it contains the 'sexual politics' issue, and almost always concludes that clothing must have political meaning. This has more to do with 'political correctness' (a.k.a. peer pressure) within the academic community, than with originality. Example: When I was in a certain university department's program, there was enormous peer pressure to adopt a certain view. The professors - unwittingly or no - were engineering this, through course counseling, and through required or recommended reading.

Surely, an open-minded and mature student would see this happening, but not all do. It is easy to become a 'joiner' - as in religious conversion - because when one does, one gains a supportive community, who all agree with each other, in the main. Nowadays, it is not popular to hold an opinion such as: "Just because a woman chooses to affect romantic attitudes, wear frilly clothing, and adopt a non-full time approach to career, does not necessarily mean she is a pawn in a male-dominated society. It may just mean she enjoys a _chosen_ role." Try saying that in a room full of 'joiner' feminists, and listen to the emotional (and highly irrational) explosion you get in response.

The upshot: it is majority opinion that drives society. As Feynman says in the opening quote, there is no real, factual information available for a rational person to make up his or her mind. It is easy to read a book of opinion and adopt the author's view, because all of the hard work has been done for you. Nevertheless, it is essential to be critical, and to remain skeptical, although doing so results in a certain amount of discomfort, and a sense of things being somehow 'unfinished.' We all love closure, but cheap closure is a trap.

Not all the accusations of the feminists are to be ignored. Wherever there is smoke, there is almost certainly some fire. Women were, in fact, held out of jobs and power due both to prejudice and the desire of (not only) men to keep the status quo, and its reassuring sameness. There was a conservative 'joiner-myth' that women, for various reasons, were incapable of being trustworthy in positions of real responsibility. None of this was based on any real science, either. Women were indeed a threat in some men's imagination, but it has been shown that _any_ unsettling change in the status quo will produce resistance and anger. To drag feminine behavior and clothing into this issue, however, is to pull the train with the caboose. One cannot ignore the arguments about the repression of women, but one can - and should - question the reasoning, and especially the alledged meanings being offered by both parties to the issue. If you detect smoldering emotion, you may be detecting a wisp of buring envy or even foggy hatred. Arguments caused by strong emotion are quite often lacking in strong reasoning.

What will ultimately be discovered, I believe, is that we all are capable of playing multiple roles in life. Just because a woman finds it enjoyable to play a soft, feminine person in private life does not mean she is not capable of being assertive and protecting her rights in business life. It takes a mature person to handle this knowledge. Such maturity doesn't come from the women's rights studies courses at universities, nor does it come from any sort of group-joining.

Unfortunately, it only comes from experience, from honest, deep self-examination over a period of many years. The strongest, most mature human beings are the ones who form their own opinions, based upon empirical evidence, and have the courage to act upon them. These individuals are independent, reserved, but forthright. They can easily be seen as a threat by any group which has trouble categorizing them. They may hold some views that are from the 'liberal' camp, and other views that seem deeply 'conservative.' I suspect that what is really the case is that the mature individual discovers that the human world is incredibly complicated, that there are no easy answers or 'political solutions' to the problems of life.

So, finally, we come to weddings and roles. The majority of newlyweds are young people, who have not had the chance to undergo the self-actualization process, and are still forming opinions about roles and relationships. I believe that this accounts for many failed marriages, and unfortunately, children are involved in the mix, and may easily be scarred by it.

If I were asked for a recommendation, I would suggest two things. First, couples should have a lengthy engagement, and not rush headlong into wedlock. This enables the couple to spend time in close proximity, and work on constructing the dynamics of a relationship that must stand the test of time. It is every bit as important - and as time consuming - as the preparations for a space shuttle launch. It requires every bit as much diligence, for the mission to go as smoothly as reality will permit. Secondly, I'd recommend that both partners begin their chosen career, and experience the workings of their beliefs before entering into a union. To do this requires restraint, especially given the strong emotions of a newly-formed love relationship. Nevertheless, it is more likely to produce a stable union, and thus a better environment for child-rearing.

Against this background comes the rather trivial - by comparison - issue of gender roles and clothing. As I have mentioned, a mature individual can play a role without feeling trapped by it, or confusing it with their identity and personhood. If a bride wears a garter belt, why must it imply that she is a 'sacred prostitute'? She's a bride, and that's her choice. If it produces a strong response in her lover, and she is doing it in love, only the most propagandized persons would draw such a shallow conclusion about the choice.

Empowerment, a political notion, seems something of a joke, in the sense that the power of the individual is trivial next to the power of the state and large corporations (in the offices of which the word 'empowerment' ironically flies about like a politically correct shuttlecock.) The true power of the woman or man lies in their ability to live secure in selfhood, in a world-system that is increasingly depersonalizing. Individuality, therefore, seems to me far more important than taking alignment with a point of view or party, although it can brand a person as an 'outsider'.

There are no 'power clothes', only strong individuals. Certainly, clothing can enhance our best features, and get us noticed, but this is only something to attract attention. If there is no substance beneath the veneer, the weakness quickly shows though. (A woman with shoulder pads as wide as those of a linebacker seems to me as laughable as the aforesaid linebacker trying to 'pass' in drag as a woman.) Power comes from honesty, and not appearance, but like a good picture frame, clothing can make that power seem a lot more pleasing. It's a sort of balance, more than anything.

If the new bride, in her feminine gown, discovers a sort of personal power in her sexuality - the ability to stop an otherwise muscular male dead in his tracks - this is all well. More important is the need to know that this can also turn into a form of manipulation - passive dominance - that can be misused to the point that a relationship becomes twisted. (The same applies to the groom, who can easily choose to use force to dominate.) I'd recommend: dominate not at all, but combine your self-assurance, and become a powerful _couple_, administrating a family with restraint, wisdom, and above all, love.

It's a bit whimsical, but there is a sort of power in beauty and attractiveness. Notice how all heads turn at every wedding ceremony when the one in white walks the aisle. This is the occasion for the bride to relax and enjoy all the power she has to attract attention. It's her party - and the groom's - and she is, in her stage-role, the queen, completely overshadowing everyone, including the groom - for a few lovely moments. Ah, yes, the play's the thing...

Therefore, watch out: Here comes the blushing bride!

-Sylvia "Just say, 'I do!" Aster