The choice of what clothing to wear is fraught with social judgement. This is true for women much, much, much more so than for men.
Clothing that covers more skin than locally typical, or conceals rather than reveals the shape of the body underneath is referred to as ‘modest’ in my neck of the woods. I find this term irksome, because it assigns a moral dimension to the clothing choice. Modesty is a virtue, after all, and its antonym, immodesty, is definitely no bueno.
So, are there any terms in use to describe such clothing or style of dress that don’t skew toward moral judgment? ‘Concealing’ vs. ‘Revealing’ are the best that come to my mind, but I’m wondering if there are better ones.
Maybe think of the issue this way: if you knew a man who always wore long pants and long-sleeved shirts buttoned up to the top, how would you describe his style of dress? If he always wore running shorts and a tank top, what term would be used then?
You reject my thesis that the terms ‘modesty’ and ‘immodesty’ have inseparable moral implications? It is not hard to find references to modesty being virtuous:
I don’t even consider them to be particularly descriptive. They are situation specific and personally dependent to the point of being meaningless. Any values you choose to apply are your business. Please don’t assume that you and I share such values.
If I was standing on the street corner, buck-ass naked except for a tiger striped G-string, would you call me “immodest”? Such labels say far more about you than they do about about me.
As I interpret the OP, what they or you think is moral is irrelevant to the question; it’s a matter of societal attitudes and values.
That said, it seems to me that, maybe, in order for there to be a value-neutral term for clothing that doesn’t reveal much, there would have to be a value-neutral reason for mentioning that someone’s clothing doesn’t reveal much, and I’m not sure what that would be, unless the person is dressing warmly in chilly weather.
No. But I don’t think shorts are appropriate in any office/store business setting. Yes, you can wear them to work and change into pants when you get there.
This is odd, because I think we are in agreement on all these points. That’s why I want to replace ‘modesty’ with a term that describes clothing styles without the whiff of moral judgement. I agree that ‘modest’ is not particularly descriptive except in reference to local norms.
If your objection is to my statement that modesty is a virtue, please replace that statement with ‘modesty, in common use, is considered virtuous rather than neutral or iniquitous’.
As a cashier, I do not set store policy. It’s “clean and what the men who own the store think is appropriate.” I just happen to agree with them that shorts are not appropriate on anyone (male or female) when working.
Searching for ‘modest clothing’ online reveals quite a few retailers that focus on loose clothing with long sleeves and long skirts, etc. So the clothes themselves are described as modest, not the people wearing them. Probably a lot of those sites are specifically trying to attract the business of people who do assign a moral dimension to styles of dress, so they use ‘modest’ intentionally. It would be nice to have a pithy way to describe such clothing that doesn’t connote ‘non-slut clothes’ or involve the phrase ‘loose fitting clothing that covers a lot of skin’.
Or maybe not. Language evolves, and words gain or lose connotations over time. It may be that the word “modest” when applied specifically to clothing has become just such a “value-neutral” term as you’re looking for.
The mere idea of talking about how someone is dressed and how it departs from what is locally typical is judgmental. Once you start down the road of that conversation, it really isn’t impossible to separate the moral judgement from a description of dress. Even “revealing” has a set of connotations, and is usually meant to mean “*too *revealing,” “slutty,” or at best “sexy.” Concealing can mean “self-conscious.”
The only way to describe clothing that doesn’t skew towards moral judgement is to not describe it. Or to use a completely objective description, like “a man who wore long pants and long-sleeved shirts with all buttons fastened.”
But that’s not a perfect fit, because dressing conservatively means that your attire is conventional, not daring or unusual or attention-grabbing, and doesn’t necessarily have to do with how much skin you’re showing. No one would call Lady Gaga’s meat dress “conservative” even if it covered her completely.