Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

http://ctr.sagepub.com/ How Clothes Make the Woman Immoral: Impressions Given Off by Sexualized Clothing
Beth Montemurro and Meghan M. Gillen Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 2013 31: 167 DOI: 10.1177/0887302X13493128 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/31/3/167

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Textile and Apparel Association

Additional services and information for Clothing and Textiles Research Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/31/3/167.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 24, 2013 What is This?

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Article
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3) 167-181 The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0887302X13493128 ctrj.sagepub.com

How Clothes Make the Woman Immoral: Impressions Given Off by Sexualized Clothing
Beth Montemurro1 and Meghan M. Gillen1

Abstract The goal of the present study was to examine clothing as a marker of womens sexuality. Ninety-five women in their 20s - 60s participated in in-depth interviews. Many women reported concern with sexual messages others might perceive from their clothing, and judged other womens clothing on the dimensions of authenticity, morality, and appropriateness. Self- and other- clothing judgments varied by the targets age, marital status, and parental status, and for other-judgments, by social class and generation. Results suggest that womens bodies are socially monitored and that sexual subjectivity is suppressed through the stigmatization of womens sexualized dress. Keywords dress, aging, sexuality, women, authenticity
If I have a turtleneck and big baggy pants on does that mean Im not sexual? We still equate sexuality with appearance, with dress, with your hairthe blonde, you know with the blonde and the big eyelashes. So [dressing sexy] is still equated with being a whore or being loose. Amanda, 39 years old

Clothing is a prop used to communicate information about identity (Goffman, 1959; Kwon, 1992; Lennon, Johnson, & Schulz, 1999). As Twigg (2007) noted, Clothing . . . mediates the relationship between the body and the social world, forming the vestimentary envelope that contains and makes manifest the body, offering a means whereby it is experienced, presented, and given meaning (p. 286). This information is not just about the wearer and their desired image; much of the way clothes convey meaning is in how they are read by others (Littrell & Berger, 19851986). In other words, clothes both give and give off impressions (Goffman, 1959). A woman who wears a short skirt may wish to give the impression that she is attractive, call attention to her legs, or show her fashion sense.

The Pennsylvania State University, Abington, PA, USA

Corresponding Author: Beth Montemurro, Division of Social Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, 1600 Woodland Road, Abington, PA 19001, USA. Email: eam15@psu.edu

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

168

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3)

However, the impression given off may be that she is looking to attract sexual attention or that she is easy. In this article, we examine the way clothes are used as markers of sexuality. By analyzing womens perceptions of dress as an expression of sexuality, we discuss the public nature of womens sexuality and the policing of womens bodies by means of explicit and implicit moral judgment. We look at womens attitudes about sexualized clothing in general as well as the ways women reported using clothes to accentuate or conceal their sexuality. Thus, we also explore the ideas of authenticity and identity in sexual expression. Womens clothes are critiqued not simply as a matter of style; rather, there is concern about clothes messages of sexual intentions as well. Our focus is on the impressions given off, the non-verbal, presumably unintentional kind over which individuals have only marginal control (Goffman, 1959, p. 4). Though actors use props like clothing to try to communicate an aspect of identity, they have little to say in how others interpret such presentations of self. With regard to clothing choice in particular, intention is often irrelevant in public, where people become viewable and prime for evaluation (Goffman, 1959; Lennon et al., 1999; Schultz, 2004). Thus, the right to display ones body as an authentic expression of sexuality through the use of revealing clothes is a very limited one, restricted more to theory than practice. In theory, a sexy and desirable woman is one who wears clothes that display or accentuate a toned and curvaceous body. In practice, a woman who dresses in such a manner is usually judged negatively for such presentation. For example, individuals perceive female victims of rape as more to blame (Lennon et al., 1999; Lewis & Johnson, 1989), and individuals high in rape myth acceptance see women as wanting sex more when they wear a short skirt as compared to a moderate or long skirt (Workman & Orr, 1996). Similarly, Johnson and Workman (1992) found that people are more likely to attribute the provocation of sexual harassment to women who wear provocative clothing. This is in spite of the fact that research fails to document the connection between sexualized dress and sexual assault (Lennon et al., 1999). The judgment and evaluation of impressions given off by womens clothing is indicative of the public nature of womens bodies and sexuality.

Clothing, Identity, and Sexuality

The ways in which clothes are interpreted as symbols of sexuality has not been explored in much depth. Clothes can signify class status and serve as identification of taste or wealth (Bourdieu, 1984; Storr, 2002; Veblen, 1899/1918). Clothes may also be used to communicate sexual orientation or perform gender in a nontraditional way (e.g., Bacon, 2009; Butler, 1990; Holliday, 1999, 2001; Rolley, 1993). For example, using video diaries, Holliday (1999) asked lesbian women and gay men about the ways they felt their clothes conveyed information about their identity and sexual orientation in both public and private settings. Comfort, class, and concern for contexts in which it was important for sexual identity to be read or not read dictated clothing choices. In line with this work (Bacon, 2009; Holliday, 1999), we view bodies as texts that are read and interpreted by others. Appropriate presentations of sexuality are also constrained by stage in the life course. Older women (Tally, 2006; Twigg, 2004, 2007), married women (Dempsey & Reichert, 2000), and mothers (Friedman, Weinberg, & Pines, 1998; Montemurro & Siefken, 2012), for example, are culturally desexualized, so dressing in a revealing way is viewed with suspicion and judgment. Older women receive the message (Twigg, 2007) and believe they should avoid wearing brightly colored or revealing apparel and choose their clothing with the intent of covering up perceived bodily flaws associated with aging (Clarke, Griffin, & Maliha, 2009). In addition to research on the importance of the context and identity of the wearer, there is work on how clothing may relate to womens sexual opportunities. For example, trends in womens fashion may reflect womens marital opportunities, with shorter skirts indicating more limited opportunities for marriage (Barber, 1999). There is also evidence that women prefer more suggestive clothing when fertility peaks at ovulation, although a number of factors moderated these links such

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Montemurro and Gillen

169

as sexual experience and relationship status (Durante, Li, & Haselton, 2008). Furthermore, men are quicker to approach women wearing more revealing clothing and are more likely to see these women as having greater sexual motives (Gueguen, 2011; Koukounas & Letch, 2001). Thus, womens dress may reflect their sexual desires and influence others perceptions of their sexual intent. These studies provide a solid foundation for the evaluation of womens clothing as a marker of sexuality. What is missing from this research is an understanding of the way women use clothes to express their sexuality and their concerns in so doing. Also, it is important to explore changing attitudes about womens sexual expression. So, in this article, we look at how women feel about their entitlement to wear sexualized clothing and their judgments of others who choose to dress in a provocative way.

Reading Clothes as Policing Womens Sexuality: A Feminist Interactionist Approach

We approach the sexualization of womens clothing with a feminist, interactionist perspective. That is, we look at the moral judgment of womens clothing choices as evidence of the repression of womens sexuality. To critically dismiss revelation of skin or the form of the body through low-cut or tightfitting clothing as an inauthentic or self-objectified expression of sexuality is to dismiss the power of the erotic (Lorde, 1984). As Lorde (1984) articulated, there is power in feeling connected to the sensual aspects of self and freedom in expressing and embodying sexuality in ways that counter hegemonic norms. When women embody their eroticism and claim it as emblematic of their feelings, they resist the plastic sensation of sexuality that has been imposed upon and used against them. Those who label women who wear short skirts or low-cut shirts as merely mirroring the dominant culture deny the possibility that such women may actually feel good about themselves and their bodies. This could be their aesthetic or means of showing their sexuality. Though this style may be inspired by the male gaze, evaluating women as moral or immoral based primarily on their clothes particularly unknown or abstract womensays much about cultural fears of womens bodies and sexuality. Dressing to show sexuality in a culture that labels women who do so as promiscuous needs to be considered as an act of resistance and an articulation of subjectivity. Girls and women resist sexual oppression in different ways, such as through language (Allen, 2003), by seeking or expressing sexual desire and sexual pleasure (Mudaly, 2012), or by wearing provocative clothes because they feel it is a true expression of their sexuality or way of signifying their identity (Wilkins, 2004). Research on women in the Goth subculture (Wilkins, 2004) noted that they intentionally dressed in a hypersexual manner, wearing corsets and fishnet stockings as a means of communicating their sexual subjectivity. These women saw this style of dress as a representation of their sexual desire and sexual self-confidence, not an invitation for sexual interaction. Although they were not entirely free from judgment about their wardrobe and sometimes received unwanted attention, women within this subculture dressed sexy as an indication of Goth identity and belonging, not sexual promiscuity. Although we recognize that dressing sexy can be an authentic expression of womens sexuality, we do not ignore the influence of the pornification of society (Sarracino & Scott, 2008) and the push for younger women to mirror mediated expressions of sexual attractiveness (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006). This too is an extension of the repression of womens sexuality. Women are encouraged to show their sexuality in this way to appeal to heterosexual men, not as a means of displaying their true sexuality. We look at these as competing ideologies. On one hand, (young) women are expected to look hot and dress sexy to charm men. In the college party scene, for example, party themes like pimps and hos or Playboy mansion call for women to wear hypersexualized outfits; women who do not are judged negatively (Armstrong et al., 2006). Women in this subculture can acquire erotic capital by conforming to expectations of sexual dress and thus be included in the party scene. On the other hand, women who dress hypersexually in other contexts or who fall outside the range of desirability are chastised for their appearance and may be labeled as promiscuous or

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

170

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3)

foolish. Thus, the balance between authentic embodied representation of sexuality and conformity to heteronormative standards for desirable appearance becomes quite complex and nearly impossible to manage. We add to the existing literature on womens dress by exploring the idea of authenticity of sexual expression and recognizing the possibility that provocative clothing may be used by women intentionally, as a tool to demonstrate sexual confidence. In addition to examining attitudes about womens clothing through a feminist lens, we use a symbolic interactionist perspective. That is, we look at how clothes function as a symbol of identity both in abstract terms and in direct social interactions. We analyze womens comments about clothes with attention paid to the way meaning shifts depending on both the item of clothing and the identity of the wearer. Using Goffmans (1959) concept of impressions given off, then, our focus is on how womens clothes are read and how judgmental observations about clothing choice function to police womens sexuality. It is important to look at the ways in which clothes are used as symbols of identity, given the ambiguity in reading intention in dress and the potential for misinterpretation (Lennon et al., 1999).

Method
Between September 2008 and July 2011, the first author conducted in-depth interviews with 95 women aged 2068. Participants were recruited primarily by snowball sampling. Additionally, women were recruited through fliers posted in colleges, health clubs, local markets, and senior centers. To be eligible to participate, women needed to be heterosexual and between the ages of 20 and 69. In order to have balanced numbers of women of different age groups, the sample was further stratified by age; 20 women in their 20s, 20 in their 30s, 19 in their 40s, 18 in their 50s, and 18 in their 60s were interviewed. Initially, the intention was to interview women of varied sexual orientations; however, the diversity of sexual development experiences as well as the existence of studies on sexual orientation and sexual development led to the decision to interview heterosexual women only. Two bisexual women were interviewed prior to deciding to focus on heterosexual women; during the interview, another two women said they did not see themselves as heterosexual. Thus, 91 women identified as heterosexual and 4 women as either bisexual or undefined. Interviews were conducted at locations convenient to participants such as their homes, the first authors home or office, public parks, or quiet coffee shops. Interviews averaged 100 min. As this was part of a larger study on womens sexuality through the life course, questions focused on womens attitudes about sexuality, as well as the ways their sexuality developed and changed during their lives. The last 65 women interviewed were paid $25 for their time, as a grant was awarded to support the research in the second year of data collection. Four of the interviews with women in their 20s were conducted by a research assistant. All but three of the participants lived in the Northeastern United States. Fifty percent were currently married, 25% were never married, 17% divorced, 5% separated, and 2% widowed. Fifty-two percent of women self-defined as middle class, 22% as working class, 24% as upper middle class, and 1% as upper class. Seventy-two percent of the women were White, 14% were African American, 10% Asian, 2% Hispanic, 2% Middle Eastern, and 1% biracial. Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed or transcribed by the interviewer. Transcripts were imported into Nvivo and analyzed for themes and patterns, using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Theory was built from, rather than being imposed upon, data. The first author began analysis by doing open coding and microanalysis. This process involved reading through the interview transcripts multiple times, labeling data with codes, and writing memos about emergent themes. It became evident that womens sexuality was very much defined by physical appearance. As coding progressed, and once the second author began working on the project, the authors read through data together, discussed possibilities for interpretation of comments, and

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Montemurro and Gillen

171

reached a consensus on how data should be organized. Both authors then went back through the data and analyzed all comments coded as the themes of physical appearance and clothing and developed subthemes within these nodes, with a focus primarily on clothing. Comments analyzed were primarily in response to the questions: In what ways do you think women show or express their sexuality, Do you think there is a right or wrong way to be sexual, Do you think the way women show their sexuality changes as they age, and related questions about the expression of sexuality. In addition to analyzing data based on codes, we summarized each interviewees comments, so that quotes were not interpreted independent of an interviewees larger narrative.

Results Impressions Given Off by Clothing

The main way interviewees defined contemporary womens sexual expression was in the way they dress. There was a general consensus that women use clothes to communicate sexual desire or attract sexual attention. Clothing was nearly always mentioned, along with body language and makeup, in response to a question about how women express or show sexuality. Womens discussion of the use of clothes in general and other womens clothes in particular ignited discussion of morality, authenticity of sexual expression, and the impression women convey with clothes. Women can give off an impression of either compliant or deviant sexuality (Schultz, 2005). The way others respond or the imagined reactions of others reveals which impression has been perceived. First, we describe womens thoughts about impressions given off by their own clothing and the consequent choices they make about what they wear, including how these choices vary by identity status. Next, we discuss judgment of impressions given off by other womens clothing including questions about wearers authenticity, morality, identity, and generation. Concerns About Ones Own Clothing. Women expressed concern over the appropriateness of their clothing choices given their stage in life, particularly their age, marital, and/or parental statuses. Womens self-monitoring lead to clothing choices that are evident of self-surveillance and obedience to patriarchy (Bartky, 2010). When women rejected clothes they liked or had enjoyed wearing in the past because they worried about the reactions of others, their behavior indicated their awareness of being watched and assessed. In other words, women viewed themselves with a looking glass-self perspective (Cooley, 1964); that is, they saw themselves through the eyes of others when they imagined how they looked. For some women, personal experiences and the reactions of others caused them to rethink their clothing choices. Sandra, 58, was reconsidering her wardrobe for age appropriateness. As she said:
I bought a pair of yellow high-heeled sandals at the beginning of the summer and I reallyI love strappy sandals. And then we went to this event . . . and like I was probably the only one over 50 in strappy sandals. And so Im thinking, maybe I have to give up the strappy sandals, you know? So Im thinking in the other direction that maybe the dress at this point is not a manifestation of sexuality, maybe its a manifestation of old sexuality. Maybe sexuality now is a housecoat, a moo-moo. I hope not but maybe it is, you know? And so Ive spent too much time thinking about before I could wear a negligee, I could put on a thong and [my husband] would think that was exciting. And now maybe I ought to wear flannel . . . . I dont know.

Though Sandra tried to maintain a light, joking tone in her discussion, it was evident that this transition seriously concerned her. She questioned whether or not it was appropriate to wear lingerie and seemed at a loss in trying to arouse her husbands interest if such traditional sexy clothing was not accessible to her anymore. Her assessment of the difference between sexuality and old sexuality

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

172

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3)

is important. What Sandra is saying is that the shift in the display of sexuality as women get older happens at an indeterminate time (Montemurro & Gillen, 2013; Twigg, 2004, 2007). She has no guide or benchmark to tell her that she has reached the point where sexuality becomes old sexuality, but it is clear that Sandra feels it looming. Camille also commented on age-appropriate clothing and avoiding certain clothes because they would give off an impression that she did not feel was true to herself. Recently divorced, 47, she said:
. . . if Im gonna be in the dating world again and all that, I know like I dont want to project myself as being something Im not, you know, like physically. I dont dress provocatively or anything . . . . Im not hesitant to be sexual with my partner, like Im very . . . comfortable and eager and all that . . . . Just I cant dress a certain way, its just not me. You know, whether I want to date or not Im not gonna be dressing a certain way and thats what I think is sexual, tooyour whole appearance and all that.

Camille described her concerns dating as an older woman and, like Sandra, felt flummoxed trying to determine how to show her sexual availability or interest without wearing sexy clothes. She knew she would not be comfortable wearing low-cut shirts or tight jeans. In both of these cases, there is a very narrow conception of sexual display and a strong reliance on physical aspects of sexuality rather than verbal communication. Actors rely on conventional props to convey an impression (Goffman, 1959). When those props no longer work or are deemed inappropriate due to status, the actor must find a new method to communicate. However, because sexuality is so linked to youth in Western culture, it becomes quite challenging for older women to create new methods of expression. Given the desexualization of older women (Montemurro & Gillen, 2013; Tally, 2006; Twigg, 2007) old sexuality may in fact be asexuality, and thus older women who feel sexual desire may feel inhibited by the lack of models or examples of older sexual expression. Marital status also impacted clothing choice for many women. Paula, 53, said that when she was single there were clothes she would not wear among married friends husbands. She commented:
I found that I had to watch if I was going to a party and I didnt have a date . . . . I was very careful what I wore because I knew that if I showed up in a slinky black, high-heeled dress and I was single . . . women can be tough . . . . I had that a couple of times, you know, my friend would say, So and so thought you were checking her husband out.

It is interesting that even among friends Paula expressed this concern. Friends are people she knows well and who presumably trust her, so here we can see the power of sexualized clothing and the presumed fear of the erotic. The slinky black dress and high heels are seen as worn by a woman who wants sexual attention. A woman who chooses to wear such clothing, particularly among married men, makes a grave faux pas with her implicit sexual invitation. She is a woman to be feared and from whom husbands should be kept away. In general, single women were less concerned about giving off an impression of sexual availability because often that was the impression they wanted to give, particularly in social contexts like bars or parties and among available men. However, many married women indicated they were concerned their clothing choices might be too revealing and send the wrong message about their interest and availability. Like Paulas worries about her dress around her friends husbands, many of the married women specifically stated that the clothes they wore to go out changed after they got married. Further, several women noted modifying their expressions of sexuality based on their husbands expressed or perceived preferences. For example, Nia, 29, explained:
I dont dress myself up too much unless Im going out with my husband. I mean I still dress nice but Ill take a second or a third look in the mirror or Ill ask his opinion of itif hes okay with it . . . . Or

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Montemurro and Gillen

173

sometimes . . . hell bring it to my attention. I mean its hard because, you know, youre going out, youre gonna look nice. I mean, people are gonna approach you, but you dont want to look like youre advertising.

Nia felt that wearing sexy clothes would be viewed as disrespectful to her husband and their relationship because it might solicit sexual interest from others. Tammy, 45, similarly spoke of her husbands worry about the impression given off by her nightclothes:
Ill come down in my pajamas and . . . [when my husband and kids leave] hell say, Dont come to the door when youre kissing us goodbye. I mean Im in my pajamas, so to him its I guess very sexual and very private, thatsyou know, he doesnt want the neighbors [to see that].

Finally, Jamie, 40, questioned married womens need to wear sexualized clothes. She said, Right now . . . my favorite clothes are sweat clothes because I already have my prom date . . . like I dont have to . . . go out and do the scenes, like go out to the bars and stuff. Jamies comments imply that women dress in alluring outfits when they want to attract someone; but when in a committed relationship, there is no need for such garments. In each of these cases, women reflected on the impression given off by certain outfits and in particular the idea that married women should not wearor at least not in publicsexualized clothing because it is a marker of sexual availability. And although women were asked if they thought there was a right way or wrong way to be sexual, most focused on the wrong way to show sexuality when talking about dress (and in general). Several partnered women said that they liked to wear moderately sexy clothes on dates with their spouse or a significant otherthat is, when their sexual expression was directed toward a specific person and not communicating general sexual availability. In this case, the impression given off is mediated by being with a man typically in an adult setting, so women do not need to fear judgment in the same way as if they were alone or with friends. Mothers were also worried about the messages others might receive, particularly their own children, if they wore revealing clothing. Elsewhere the first author noted the expectation for women with children to not show their sexuality (Montemurro & Siefken, 2012). Similar to married women, mothers are expected to curtail the display of flesh or the form of their body because it is assumed that they are not good, responsible mothers if they do so. For example, Amanda, 39, was concerned about her choice of underwear:
I remember when [my daughter] asked me why my underwear doesnt cover my butt cheeks and when is she going to start to be able to wear underwear like I have. So it doesit changes everything. So you do, you hesitate on just certain either clothes or things you say.

Cultural assumptions about mothers who show some degree of sexuality, particularly in front of their children, led women like Amanda to evaluate and ultimately alter their clothing. For such women, concerns seem to center on impressionability and children glimpsing aspects of their bodies they should not be able to see, mistakes that may deem them bad mothers. Furthermore, individuals are invested in their presentation of their true identity and do not want to come off as giving a false image of who they are or of being misread. So, though a married woman or mother might think she looks attractive in provocative clothes, she may be disinclined to wear them because they would give off an impression that is inconsistent with her expected sense of self. Like those who use clothes to convey or conceal their sexual orientation depending on the safety of the situation and the imagined reactions of others (Holliday, 1999), women who avoid wearing revealing clothing may do so because of concerns with being perceived as someone they are not or are not supposed to be. Women have a vested interest in expressing compliant sexuality (Schultz, 2005) because their reputation may otherwise be at risk.

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

174

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3)

Judging Other Womens Clothing. In addition to articulating concern over how others perceived what they wore, interviewees were quite vocal about the impressions given off by other womens outfits. When judging other womens clothing, the most common assumptions made were about authenticity, morality, and appropriateness. Regarding authenticity, some women questioned whether other womens suggestive clothing truly represented their sexuality. Kristen, 41, implied as much when she said:
I mean if you describe yourself [as a sexual person] and feel that way thats great. As long as youre not wearing six-inch heels and blouses cut down to your navel and telling us that way that youre a sexual person.

And Adena, 35, expressed disdain for women she called handkerchiefs because they wore skimpy tops no bigger than a bandana. She said:
I think you are just giving the wrong message about your sexuality . . . . The men that are going to be attracted to you maybe arent going to be good mates . . . . I dont like the way [those women] portray women in general. Im not going to say you have a responsibility to represent all women, but I see the handkerchief as kind of a worst way of objectifying women than even maybe prostitutes or strippers thats their job, thats what they do and thats on them. But youre on the street kind of dressing the same way, acting the same way.

Adena clearly attributed a sexual persona to women who wear revealing clothing and imagines they not only attract the wrong attention (a partner who is just interested in casual sex) but are also unaware of their own sexuality. Wearing this public mask is indicative of the lack of individuality and authenticity in presentation of self. In this case, merely the idea of a certain type of shirt, however small in imagination, triggers a dramatic reaction and strong opinion about its potential wearer. From these comments, it is clear that Adena and Kristen see women who wear provocative clothing as too overt to be authentic. They neither consider the possibility that this is a true means of conveying desire nor contemplate the point of view of a woman who dresses this way. Though neither opposed women being sexual, they could not conceive of an open expression of sexuality as sincere. In this sense, womens sexual subjectivity is suppressed. The ability to experience pleasure in ones body or to communicate sexual desire or confidence through the adornment of ones body (Martin, 1996) is denied. In the same way that journalists and spectators read soccer player Brandi Chastains removal of shirt and revelation of sports bra as an erotic striptease rather than as authentic display of jubilation at winning the World Cup (Schultz, 2004), sexualized clothing is quickly read and dismissed as tawdry and deserving of criticism. Although many women felt that sexy clothing conveyed a false image, there were a couple who felt that it might represent womens actual taste and preferences. Amy, in her mid-30s, questioned the assumption that women who dress sexy just want to have sex:
Its not like women dress like that just to have sex. Theyre just dressing like that, because maybe they just want to wear [those clothes]. But men think theyre like the sexual beings that theyre going to have sex with this woman thats dressed provocative.

Like Goth women who choose to wear vinyl dresses or high-heeled leather boots as a way of proudly showing their sexuality (Wilkins, 2004), Amy believed that women may dress sexy because it feels good to them. Although Amy was one of very few women who acknowledged such use of clothes as potentially authentic representations of sexuality, several others accepted sexualized clothing as long as it did not go too far. Many of these women suggested that women should wear

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Montemurro and Gillen

175

clothes like long dresses or well-fitted pantsuits that hint at their sexuality but do not reveal too much of their bodies. For example, Harriet, 68, noted, I guess what I agree with is a tease, more or less . . . . [T]oday some of the clothes . . . they have a postage stamp for a bathing suit. Well, you see it, and I justits a little too much. And Tammy, 45, said:
I would say you can be sexy in a long, beautiful dress. You can be sexy in a one-piece bathing suit. You dont have to like have half your anatomy flying out to be sexy . . . . My idea is to leave something to the imagination.

Tammy, Harriet, and several other women thus noted that clothes can be used as a way of expressing sexuality, as long as they do not show too much of womens bodies or appear to be soliciting sexual attention. Some women suggested that women should convey sensuality, rather than sexuality, because the latter comes across as desperate and unfeminine. Clothes served as a symbol of womens moral character; women who chose to wear sexier clothing were seen as having lower morals and values. Connie, 64, addressed this when she said, I always felt that suggestion about sex or sexuality is more of a turn-on . . . than when somebodys wearing something very low-cut or very short or very provocative, has it all on display and its almost like a porn film. Connies comment that provocatively dressed women are almost like a porn film is telling. Evidently, womens sexuality is perceived as something private to be revealed only to a partner and left as a mystery to others. Chloe, 24, not only agreed with Connie that dressing sexy is a bad choice but also provided analysis of such women. She stated:
Usually women that dress that way are more passive, maybe, in the sense that . . . they dont understand how its gonna affect men and how they view them . . . . Or even not being able to say no to a guy because if you . . . . typically women that dress that way people say that like they dont have as high a self-esteem or something.

Like other women, Chloe views this style of dress as inauthentic and a sign of low self-worth and na vete . Women who wear revealing clothing are assumed to have loose morals and be unaware of the effect they have on men. Delia, 60, was one of few women who challenged this idea. She said:
The first thing that they want to do is tag the woman, as some kind of moral judgment is attached to sexuality. So if she dresses in a way that shows her sexualityI was out last night and I heard someone say about the woman sitting next to me (I dont think they heard me hear what they said but) Oh, shes dressed like a whore. And she really wasnt, she was dressed in a way that was provocative but she was completely covered in any way that you would be at a bar listening to music. But the people who were looking at her had a lot to say about what that look actually meant.

The ease with which anonymous women become targets for labeling as whores based on what they wear did not go unnoticed by Delia. As with comments challenging the judgment of sexy clothes as inauthentic, here again, few women expressed concern over the general stigmatization of such women. More often interviewees blamed these anonymous women for making women look bad or encouraging mens predatory sexual behavior. Although women of all backgrounds and ages were judged when wearing revealing clothing, certain women were judged more harshly than others. Though few women said it explicitly, dressing in an overtly sexy way was often correlated with being lower class. As Bourdieu (1984) noted, people demonstrate class status by looking the right way and possessing the right things. Those who fail to do so have their taste, morality, and social worth questioned. Working-class womens provocative dress put them in jeopardy for negative labeling as bad girls. Alyssa, 51, noted that

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

176

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3)

bad girls in her high school were classified more by socioeconomic status and dress than actual sexual behavior. As she said, Its just more . . . how the good girls dress versus the bad girls dress and how I was raised . . . . I kind of always wanted my daughters to dress properly for that same reason. Though she questioned the validity of this classification, she noted its salience among her peers. A number of women suggested it is okay to wear sexy clothing if one does so in a classy way. Though few articulated specifically how this is accomplished, there was an undertone that provocative clothes and the women who wear them are cheap. Some women sympathized with this labeling and said things like, I think its hard for a lower class woman to be viewed as a sexual person . . . without seeming slutty . . . . Because I just think of the types of clothing they may wear, the words they may choose to communicate with. With this comment, Kristen noted that class limits sexual expression and that poorer women are more likely to be judged negatively when they wear suggestive clothing. One of the most often mentioned subthemes related to womens dress as a marker of sexuality was age appropriateness. Sandra, quoted discussing sexuality versus old sexuality, had good reason to be concerned about how others might evaluate her clothes. Many suggested that older women should avoid wearing provocative clothing because it is unattractive and because of the assumption of asexuality among older women (Twigg, 2004, 2007). Jane, 38, made the following observation:
I think as you get olderto meit looks really comical, almost sad, when a woman whos obviously entering middle age tries to look like shes a teenager. So I think its important in terms of presenting yourself to other people to be conscious of your age and not try to dress young and in that sense look like youre in a kind of sexual strata that youre not anymore.

And Faith, 52, said:

I think you should dress to complement your age. I mean I think women my age that would go out and try to put on some of the things that the girls in their 20s have on look ridiculous. Like Ill go out . . . . and I think some of the women that come in that are my agemaybe 40s or 50s and are single, they look like theyre on the prowl for someone because they are dressing in outfits that would look far more attractive on women in their 20s that have the physique to pull them off.

These comments say much more than women should wear what fits and is in fashion. What looks attractive is culturally constructed and so it is not just that tight tops do not look attractive on older women as much as it is that older bodies are less sexually appealing in American culture. Clothes are bodily adornmentsthey can highlight or downplay physical assets or flaws. We use clothes not only to display our bodies in a particular way but also to show who we are and, for most people, to conform. Older women who wear clothes that defy such expectations may be intentionally giving the impression that they do not wish to conform to such conventions. They may feel proud of or comfortable with their bodies and like displaying them with form-fitting or skimpy clothing. However, they are still subject to giving off a very different impression. Similarly, although most women were critical of the way contemporary younger women dressed, a couple suggested that single women in their 20s are in their prime years of attractiveness and should feel free to show off their bodies. Paula, 53, for example, said, I think if you have it, flaunt it, and theyre out there and theyre looking, so absolutely. Though Paula accepts younger womens sexual displays, she still reinforces the idea that only certain women, those who are conventionally appealing, should dress this way. In the previous section, we discussed married womens and mothers concerns about impressions given off by their own clothing. Interviewees made comments about this related to other women as well in response to questions regarding whether women should show their sexuality differently when

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Montemurro and Gillen

177

married or mothers. Heather, 46, suggested, I think if youre in a marriage, you know, theres nothing wrong in feeling good and pretty and attractive about yourself. But flaunting and acting in a manner that youre looking for attention, is disrespectful to your marriage. Mothers who wear revealing clothing were also judged as giving a bad impression and as being an embarrassment to their children (Montemurro & Siefken, 2012). Monica, 35, works at a college and describes an example of this:
It could be embarrassing . . . . We kind of snicker during orientation time where you have the moms coming with their prospective college student to the orientations and theyre like dressed inappropriately. I would say, as a mother, coming in with their childmaybe too much cleavagethat would be an example.

Mothers are often depicted as asexual, unless they are deemed exceptional and classified as sexy (Montemurro & Siefken, 2012). Mothers are expected to put their childrens needs above their own and those who wear shirts that reveal cleavage or otherwise display their bodies, are viewed as irresponsible. Interviewees suggested that mothers are responsible not only for the impressions their own clothes give off but also for their childrens clothing choices. Irina, 46, clearly held mothers responsible when their daughters wore revealing clothes. She said:
Well I can see teenage girls wearing too screaming clothes in the summer time and obviously their mother is there so they should have said something about it. I would not even picture my parents allowing me tonot that I wouldbut still that would be something my parents would never allow me to do.

Here, Irina suggests that women are guardians of sexualitynot only their own but also their childrens. Women are expected to not only dress cautiously so that they do not entice or excite men but also be sure their daughters dress appropriately so they are not labeled bad mothers.

Kids These Days: Impressions Given Off by Younger Women

Older women were often critical of the clothing that contemporary young women wear. Many believed that the current generations of younger women wear clothes that push the limits of acceptability and morality in ways that had not been done by previous generations. For instance, Hannah, 66, said:
I dont approve of it but the younger ones, they just show their body too much, you know? You go someplace and I mean theyreokay, maybe its a Saturday night and youre all decked outbut first of all theyre wearing heels that are this high, I dont know how they walk. Here, I probably sound like an old fuddy-duddy but I mean lately the skirts are, I mean theyre like up here, theyre not even mini. Mini was down here. Now theyre like right up to, if they bend over just a little bitI dont know what theyre wearing underneath.

Hannah, like other older women, believed that young women were doing themselves a disservice by looking too available for sex and making women in general look bad. Women like Hannah implied that such girls or women were participating in their own sexual objectification by adorning themselves in ways that revealed too much. In addition to lamenting the skimpy clothing of the current generation of teenagers and young women, older women suggested that showing sexuality in such a way was immature; instead, they advocated for tasteful displays of sexuality. Sara, 48, for example, said:
So many times some women feel they have to dress sexily . . . and I dont understand that. I mean maybe thats true, I guess, if youre going on a date or if youre single and you want to attract attention, but

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

178

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3)

I guess I dont understand why women feel the need to do that almost continuously, like its selfaffirming for them that they need to have that.

Rose, 65, agreed. She said, I think an older woman shows her sexuality by her confidence and by the way that she dressesconservatively, you can be very sexy when you dress conservatively, and its not as desperate as a younger woman. The imagined immaturity and desperation that Rose and Sara perceive is interesting and suggestive of changes both in fashion and the expression of sexuality. Because both came of age in a time where only bad girls dressed in a revealing way, they rejected the display of sexuality and instead insisted that one can be both conservative and sexually appealing. Brendas and Saras comments also seem to suggest an aging out of externally displayed sexuality to one that is more private and personal. Many of the older women implied that women who really feel sexual should communicate it in a quiet, understated way. Women are expected to police their own behavior and in so doing conform to patriarchal sexual scripts that desexualize women as they age and make it difficult for older women to feel entitled to sexual desire. A few older women, however, put this in perspective, noting the daring impressions given off by their generation and previous generations. Connie said:
I was a Baby Boomer and I want to say, again, we were the first group, dont wear the bras! . . . . I remember being comfortable with the fact that I was a woman and it was an okay time for women to be women and we werent as considered as much as a piece of the furniture as we used to be . . . . Short skirts and forget the bra, I mean why wear a bra? I was extremely pro-choice, pro-womens rights, that women have a right to make a choice about their own bodies.

Though Connie also believed showing less skin is more attractive, she rightly noted that fashions of the preceding generations pushed the limits at that time. What she does not mention is the counterculture aspect of the sexual revolution (Otnes & Pleck, 2003) and those who pushed the fashion limits. Those who resisted expectations for public sexual behavior and dress at that time, as now, were a relatively small group. However, this does not mean they should be dismissed. The problem is that when other women interpret such dress as indicative of lacking morality and authenticity, resistance becomes seen as conformity.

Discussion
Short skirts and low-cut tops give off impressions in actual social interactions and even in the abstract. Women who wear such clothes are automatically suspect; their morals and intentions are questioned and assumptions are made not only about their sexual inclinations but also their worthiness (Lennon et al., 1999). The presumption that a woman who dresses sexy is enticing or trying to solicit sexual attention from men is evident in womens concerns about their own clothing choices and in the judgment of other womens clothes as well. Many of the women interviewed for this study were concerned about the impressions given off by their own clothing, particularly women who were older, married, and mothers. Many interviewees were also quick to judge other womenwhether women in general or the current generation of younger womenwho dressed too sexy or who revealed too much of their bodies. We find that clothes are symbols or markers of sexuality and that sexual expression is tied to age and identity. Previous studies neglect the importance of age, social class, parental, and marital status in evaluating women in provocative clothing. Evaluations of sexualized dress depend on these demographic characteristics, with young single women least judged, in theory, for wearing suggestive garments. Still, in practice, women of older generations judged young women, objecting to their choices and changing norms of sexual expression. It is striking that very few women recognized or

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Montemurro and Gillen

179

accepted that sexualized clothing can be an authentic way of showing sexuality. Future research might focus on interviewing women who dress provocatively and understanding the impressions they intend to give. Womens sexuality has been closely controlled and regulated, in both overt and covert ways. Womens subordinate status and the emphasis on maintaining a culturally appropriate physical appearance facilitate womens cooperation with being controlled. Rather than being formally restricted as to how one should dress or show sexuality, women instead internalize these norms and regulate their behavior accordingly (Bartky, 2010). Twigg (2007) noted, Clothing, particularly for older women, is often embedded in moral prescriptions that act to police their bodies and entrench the microsocial order (p. 286). We argue that this is especially true of sexualized clothing and true for women of all ages, although some are more closely evaluated than others. The social order that is maintained here is a gender order and a power order. Women remain responsible for acting as guardians of sexuality, both in terms of their own sexuality, and for mothers, that of their children. This is not just about fashionthis is about the repression of womens sexuality and fear of the erotic. The message that women need to be careful in displaying or showing sexual interest in their clothing was perceived and reinforced by most women in the current study. Some women even modified their clothing choicesin some cases, against their actual desiresin order to conform to social expectations for womens dress. It is interesting that women in the present study rarely mentioned using clothes to show sexuality in the right way or their opinions about mens dress; this lack of attention to mens clothing is also evident in the research literature. This focus on womenand relative exclusion of menfrom empirical work and larger cultural discourse on clothing and sexuality suggests a cultural interest in maintaining surveillance over womens bodies. This study has several limitations. Most participants were White and in middle to high socioeconomic classes, limiting the generalizability of findings. Further, men were not included in the study. Future research should examine mens attitudes toward womens sexualized dress to determine whether their perceptions differ from those of women. Although the study was limited in these ways, it makes important contributions to the literature on perceptions of womens clothing. While previous work confirms individuals suspicion about the sexual intent of women who wear provocative clothing (Gueguen, 2011; Koukounas & Letch, 2001), most did so using survey or experimental research that provides little depth as to why people felt this way. Moreover, none of the existing studies addressed how women themselves feel about their own clothing choices and the reasons why they avoid or select particular garments as expressions of sexuality. Women are concerned about the impressions their clothes give off because they are well aware of the continued judgment and stigmatization of hypersexualized women. People want to be seen for who they are and want to be sure the impression they give off is consistent with the one they present. In our work, we add an interactionist interpretation to clothing; that is, we show how clothes are symbols with meaning both before they are worn, or on the hanger, and once they are put on, depending on who wears them. Short skirts and low-cut shirts, for example, convey promiscuity, immorality, or even foolishness when worn by the wrong person. The women interviewed carefully considered others perceptions when thinking about what to wear. Furthermore, results suggest that womens sexual subjectivity is constrained through clothing. Being a subject in sexual encounters or feeling pleasure in ones body requires confidence. When women learn that revealing clothes are emblematic of sexuality but are discouraged from wearing them under most circumstances, and when other ways to express sexuality are limited or unknown, womens sexual self-assurance is undermined. Even when short skirts are worn by the right women at the right time, there is a general awareness that one could be labeled as promiscuous. There is a difficulty, then, in imagining sexual dress as a form of either resistance or as a display of sexual subjectivity. Rather, it is seen as a symbol of immorality and

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

180

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 31(3)

inauthenticity. This emphasis on the form of womens sexual expression camouflages structural gender inequality by labeling individual women irresponsible or immoral for their expressions of sexuality. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Penn State Abington Career Development Professorship and the Rubin Fund.

References
Allen, L. (2003). Girls want sex, boys want love: Resisting dominant discourses of (hetero) sexuality. Sexualities, 6, 215236. Armstrong, E., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multi-level integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53, 483499. Bacon, J. (2009). Acting out in school. Feminism & Psychology, 19, 216220. Barber, N. (1999). Womens dress fashions as a function of reproductive strategy. Sex Roles, 40, 459471. Bartky, S. (2010). Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power. In R. Weitz (Ed.), The politics of womens bodies: Sexuality, appearance, and behavior (pp. 7697). New York, NY: Oxford. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London, England: Routledge. Clarke, L., Griffin, M., & Maliha, K. (2009). Bat wings, bunions, and turkey wattles: Body transgressions and older womens strategic clothing choices. Ageing & Society, 29, 709726. Cooley, C. (1964). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Schocken. Dempsey, J., & Reichert, T. (2000). Portrayal of married sex in the movies. Sexuality & Culture, 4, 2136. Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in womens choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 14511460. Friedman, A., Weinberg, H., & Pines, A. M. (1998). Sexuality and motherhood: Mutually exclusive in perception of women. Sex Roles, 38, 781800. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY: Aldine. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor. Gueguen, N. (2011). The effect of womens suggestive clothing on mens behavior and judgment: A field study. Psychological Reports, 109, 635638. Holliday, R. (1999). The comfort of identity. Sexualities, 2, 475491. Holliday, R. (2001). Fashioning the queer self. In J. Entwhistle & E. Wilson (Eds.), Body dressing (pp. 215231). Oxford, England: Berg. Johnson, K. P., & Workman, J. E. (1992). Clothing and attributions concerning sexual harassment. Home Economics Research Journal, 21, 160172. Koukounas, E., & Letch, N. M. (2001). Psychological correlates of perception of sexual intent in women. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 443456. Kwon, Y. H. (1992). Body consciousness, self-consciousness, and womens attitudes toward clothing practices. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 295307. Lennon, S. J., Johnson, K. K. P., & Schulz, T. L. (1999). Forging linkages between dress and law in the US, part I: Rape and sexual harassment. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 17, 144156.

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013

Montemurro and Gillen

181

Lewis, L., & Johnson, K. K. P. (1989). The effect of dress, cosmetics, sex of subject and causal inference on attribution of victim responsibility. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8, 2229. Littrell, M. A., & Berger, E. A. (19851986). Perceivers occupation and clients grooming: Influence on person perception. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 4, 4855. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister/outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Martin, K. A. (1996). Puberty, sexuality, and the self: Girls and boys at adolescence. New York, NY: Routledge. Montemurro, B., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). Wrinkles and sagging flesh: Exploring transformations in sexual body image. Journal of Women and Aging, 25, 333. Montemurro, B., & Siefken, J. M. (2012). MILFs and matrons: Images and realities of mothers sexuality. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 366388. Mudaly, R. (2012). Shattering and reassembling hypersexual moments: Girls indulging in the pursuit of pleasure. Sexualities, 15, 225242. Otnes, C., & Pleck, E. (2003). Cinderella dreams: The allure of the lavish wedding. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rolley, K. (1993). Love, desire, and the pursuit of the whole: Dress and the lesbian couple. In J. Ash & E. Wilson (Eds.), Chic thrills (pp. 3039). Berkeley: University of California Press. Sarracino, C., & Scott, K. (2008). The porning of America: The rise of porn culture, what it means, and where we go from here. Boston, MA: Beacon. Schultz, J. (2004). Discipline and push-up: Female bodies, femininity, and sexuality in popular representations of sports bras. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21, 185205. Schultz, J. (2005). Reading the catsuit: Serena Williams and the production of blackness at the 2002 US Open. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 29, 338357. Storr, M. (2002). Classy lingerie. Feminist Review, 71, 1828. Tally, M. (2006). She doesnt let age define her: Sexuality and motherhood in recent middle-age chick flicks. Sexuality & Culture, 10, 3355. Twigg, J. (2004). The body, gender, and age: Feminist insights in social gerontology. Journal of Ageing Studies, 18, 5973. Twigg, J. (2007). Clothing, age, and the body: A critical review. Ageing and Society, 27, 285305. Veblen, T. (1918). The theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Macmillan (Original work published 1899). Wilkins, A. (2004). So full of myself as a chick: Goth women, sexual independence, and gender egalitarianism. Gender & Society, 18, 328349. Workman, J. E., & Orr, R. L. (1996). Clothing, sex of subject, and rape myth acceptance as factors affecting attributions about an incident of acquaintance rape. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14, 276284.

Author Biographies
Beth Montemurro is an associate professor of sociology at Penn State Abington. She has published articles and a book on womens sexuality including the study of bachelorette parties, men exotic dancers, and images of sexual harassment on television. Her current research focuses on transitions and turning points in womens sexuality throughout the life course. Meghan M. Gillen is an assistant professor of psychology at Penn State Abington. Her research interests include appearance-related attitudes and behaviors during adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at NATIONAL INST OF FASHION TECH on August 1, 2013