EDIT: Saris are immodest only if the midriff is showing as the case would be with any other garment. It's the midriff exposure NOT the sari that is immodest. If you can wear a sari without your midriff exposed then good! do it! I can still wear a sari then; no more sadness.
ORIGINAL: In an earlier post I expressed my sadness for not having an excuse to wear a sari. At church today one of the brothers (the first bishop in India!) gave a talk about preparing for the temple. In it he explained how for Indian women in the church, although wearing a sari is something most women want to be able to do, especially once they are endowed, Indian LDS women cannot if they are to dress modestly.
For some reason it hadn't occurred to me that sari's were immodest. The choli (the top) is often short sleeved and not super low cut (therefore modest) and the pallu (the loose draped fabric) often covers up the front of the midriff so I didn't think much about it. For those who don't know, traditionally, sari's leave part of the midriff exposed. How much midriff exposure varies but there is almost always SOME.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe that wearing a traditional sari would be permissible if the midriff was covered. I have actually seen a women working in the temple wearing a completely white sari with her midriff completely covered. Perhaps she was wearing a shirt underneath, or perhaps the choli was made longer. It is not the style of the sari that is unacceptable as a way to dress it is the bare midriff.
I had imagined that you could wear a sari so that it covered your midriff but from how it was discussed I figured that it was more of a fashion faux pas to do that than to not wear one. Thank you for your comment! She must have looked lovely.
Post a Comment