From a man's point of view it would be far better if women made a more comprehensive and sensible study of their individual needs in dress and did not blindly follow the decrees of fashion; if more women would realize that the garment suitable to a tall, slim figure, is utterly inappropriate to a stout, short one. When Sara Bernhardt invented the glove which was to give size and form to her thin and poorly shaped arm, she recognized the highest aim of fashion. When a woman is in need of a new hat or bonnet, a man's advice would be: "Hunt the tables until you find one which, in shape and trimming, is suitable and becoming to you. Never mind if it is not the very latest style; if it suits your face and figure, take it, and you will not be sorry."
In furnishing a room we understand that we should put in it only what makes the room look better—not what is simply pretty in itself; and if women would follow a similar plan in dress,—wear only what is becoming to them, and not wear things, simply because they think them pretty and fashionable, men would be better pleased. Man is attracted by a woman's beauty itself, and whether she has just the latest modes or not seldom interests him in the least. So the girl who would dress to please men, should, first of all, wear what will show off her natural attractiveness of face and figure to the best advantage; after that she may be as fashionable as possible.
Without doubt many girls attach too much importance to dress as a means of attracting the other sex. It is frequently the case that, when a young lady is invited to a social function, her first thought is, "What shall I wear?" Her second thought is, "What shall I wear?" This question is with her much of the time until she goes to the place where she is to be entertained; and as she enters the room her first thought is, "I wonder how I look." If, upon an examination of the other young ladies present, she concludes that she is as well dressed as anyone there, she experiences a feeling of restfulness and of satisfaction, and enjoys the evening. She imagines she must be an object of interest to the men, and to an extent she is.
Men like women to be "well groomed." They take in her whole appearance at a glance, and then pay but little further attention to the question of gowns, ribbons, slippers or sashes. They want to be entertained and amused. If the only preparation a young lady has made to render herself attractive and interesting is the care bestowed upon her personal appearance; if her resources for attracting consist only of a pretty face and a graceful figure in a pretty gown, she will never become famous for her conquests.
Simplicity and exquisitely fresh neatness and daintiness are to a man more attractive than any extravagance of fashion or costliness of material. No man was ever induced to propose to a girl by the splendor of her costume. Of course it would be absurd to assert that physical beauty is of no value, or that dress is of little importance. That girl who is born physically beautiful, is fortunate indeed, and any girl of common sense knows that an attractive gown or a becoming hat is of importance. The great thing for her to understand is that there must be something better under the becoming hat than a pretty face, for her own happiness, and if she would be very attractive to others.
Just as there are some persons who are said to be born magnetic, so some women are supposed to have a peculiarly attractive way of wearing clothes which defies imitation.
Said a writer in the Springfield Republican: "There is a subtle something which one cannot get on the microscopic slide, which refuses to be reduced to percentages, which baffles description, and that is the manner in which some women wear their clothes. Two girls with faces of equal value and garments of identical texture will fail to produce equivalent effects, because one has this indefinable quality, and the other has not. Consequently we often hear it said that some girls are more attractive in calico than others in richer material."
That there is a marked difference in the way different women wear their clothes, no one will deny, but because some girls look and appear to better advantage than others in the same material, is it necessary to regard it as beyond comprehension, or to declare that it "baffles description"? The writer did not go far enough in his description of the two girls. While their faces were of equal value, and their clothing was of the same material, there might be other differences which would account for the "indefinable quality." Possibly one was pleasing in manner and the other not. One was awkward in person and in speech, while the other was tactful and graceful. One was dull; the other interesting. The difference was one of physical and mental characteristics, and not a quality that "baffles description." Indeed it is a difference easily understood and analyzed.
If two girls have faces and forms of equal value, and are equally graceful, tactful and well mannered, their clothes, if of the same form and material, will be worn in much the same way, and will produce much the same effect.