By Elizabeth Prata
The answer is no. But I’ll get to that shortly. See what I did there?
I wrote about modesty in general earlier today, here. This is a little addendum.
Daisy Dukes were coined back in the late 1970s when the actress playing the character Daisy Duke in the TV show The Dukes of Hazzard sported short-shorts. The style became synonymous with her character, hence, the name of the garment stuck.
The shorts were worn to accentuate actress Catherine Bach’s long legs.
Daisy Duke shorts are shorts with no inseam. It’s a garment that accentuates her behind (and barely or doesn’t even cover it entirely) and also the place where her legs meet.
Initially, producers of the TV show battled with higher up executives over the length of these shorts. Producers knew a gold mine when they saw it, but the executives were hesitant because the shorts were so immodest. Eventually, a compromise was cut: the actress playing Daisy Duke, Catherine Bach, would be allowed to wear them but must also wear pantyhose under them so ‘nothing was accidentally shown.’ THAT should tell you how short these shorts were. Any garment that tiny which needed hosiery to keep the girl bits in place and hidden, is too short.
Hence, Daisy Dukes are a no-go for Christian women and there shouldn’t even be an argument for wearing them. They are not modest. Girls, young women, and wives & moms should avoid these kinds of garments that flash the private parts. However, the pastor’s blog below shows that the battle rages among his youth group, and some married women professing a Christian faith even argue FOR wearing them. Seems crazy, but it’s true. So these modesty limits must be mentioned.
This pastor in Fayetteville, NC wrote about the effect these style of Daisy Duke shorts were having on his youth group:
As styles change, as fabrics go in and out of style, the length of shorts also changes—going up or down the leg. Presently, the ‘daisy duke’ shorts from Dukes of Hazzard are the rage. We have seen them on campus for VBS. Teenage girls are wearing them to youth group. These are short shorts. These shorts basically have no inseam (the seam on the inside of the leg of a pair of shorts or pants [Webster]); or an inseam of 1 or 2 inches—which is then folded up virtually eliminating the inseam. These shorts intentionally draw attention to a lady’s legs and the angle that is formed where the legs separate. These shorts are immodest. There is no debate or argument concerning the immodesty of these shorts. Christian women are NOT to wear these shorts (1 Timothy 2:9). A lady then adds a form fitting tank top to a pair of “daisy duke” shorts and you have one immodest woman or teenage girl. She comes to youth group or VBS where movement and lots of different activities occur, and she (perhaps unintentionally) presents herself as an object of lust because of the amount of flesh (human skin) she reveals. This is especially true if she bends over to pick up a ball, a child in the nursery hallway or a piece of trash.
So here is my question: How many inches of fabric must be added to the length of the inseam of a pair of ‘Daisy Duke’ shorts to make them modest? Dads or husbands: are you ok with adding 2 inches of length and calling them modest? Let me challenge you to take a pair of your daughter’s shorts, lay them on the ironing board and measure the inseam. Is a 3 inch inseam enough? Take your index finger and thumb and estimate 3 inches and ask yourself: “Is that enough? Will that provide sufficient covering so that the angle where the legs separate is not accentuated and enough fabric remains to cover the bottom when my daughter bends over?” Husbands and dads of daughters: are you ignoring the issue because ‘happy wife (or daughter) means happy life’? Ask yourself: what is the minimum acceptable inseam for a pair of shorts to be modest? Find a pair of shorts that you know are modest and measure the inseam on those shorts—that is your personal minimum acceptable inseam. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but clearly we can establish some guidelines. What is an acceptable inseam that makes a pair of shorts modest?
This opinion piece from Froma Harrop I’ve excerpted from the Marietta Times has some strong words about modesty. Mrs. Harrop is a progressive, liberal, Jewish woman. She is not of the Christian faith and even she sees an issue with these shorts and calls them immodest.
The “distressed” versions — with rips and ragged hems — are often called Daisy Dukes, after a sexy character who wore them in “The Dukes of Hazzard” TV series (backstory to follow). They’re not a great look even beside a swimming pool, but girls are wearing them on downtown streets.
No matter how fine the girl’s character or perfect her figure, the effect is trashy, hollering sexual availability.
Women interested in being taken seriously should dress in a way that moves the public’s attention north of the crotch. That does not preclude body-skimming outfits that reveal a female form, which, well done, can be quite sensual because they suggest rather than shout. The line here gets thin at times, but parents shouldn’t want their daughter to flash “skank” in neon.
Well, next time you see a young couple where the girl is in short shorts, note what the boy is wearing. Odds are that his sexual parts are nicely covered. The issue is female dignity...
Ladies, when you dress for church think about how you want to present yourself to the Lord. The time in church is worship, and what you choose to adorn yourself in is part of that worship. Same goes for work, and for everyday errands and running around town. You definitely do not want ‘skank’ to become part of the vocabulary about you because your body hosts the Holy Spirit. And your daughters are watching…