Love him or loathe him, Bernard Manning was the undisputed master of the calculated insult.
He greeted female journalists who came to call in his vest and underpants and then sat with his legs apart throughout the interviews. He understood that this was extremely rude behaviour, unsettling and embarrassing for those on the receiving end. It was a deliberate gesture of contempt. I was reminded of the late Bernard Manning the other day at a church service in a neighbouring village: the middle-aged man passing the collection plate was dressed in shorts and sandals, exposing a thick pelt of springy red hair from thigh to toe.
In the bench in front, a slim, elegant woman in her 50s displayed her thong through the fabric of a tightfitting white linen shift dress: and in the opposite pew, a young mother revealed a bare back plus acres of ample cleavage in a plunging halterneck top.
It seemed I couldn't rest my gaze without it landing on somebody's almost-exposed bosom or bum. Unlike those of Bernard Manning's generation, people now seem to have no idea that dressing immodestly is rude in that it makes other people uncomfortable and disregards their feelings.
The indecent exposure at the village church wasn't an isolated incident.
In the supermarket the other day with my seven-year-old son, I was confronted by an elderly man wearing what appeared to be a pair of swimming trunks made of tight red Lycra, a purse belt slung around his hips. I would class this as the kind of anti-social behaviour that recently earned a pensioner in Eastbourne an ASBO for parading in public in a skimpy ladies' thong. It isn't just a country thing either. I went to a branch of a fashionable clothes store in Oxford in search of a tunic top I'd seen in a magazine.
Britney Spears is renowned for her revealing fashion sense
They had sold out but called over an assistant who was wearing one so that I could see it and, if I liked it, place an order. In the magazine, the top, which was slashed to the navel, had been worn over a vest.
The shop assistant, aged about 17, had dispensed with all underwear save a lilac lace half-cup bra which pushed up and thrust together her breasts and revealed, nestling between them, a huge, rather angry-looking spot.
This immodesty is not confined to a particular social class.
A friend who is a doctor remarked that he's noticed increasingly that a lot of female junior doctors flush with their first decent pay cheques will report for duty in inappropriate clothing: designer outfits with plunging necklines and short skirts.
He even had an example of a young woman, on her first night-shift as a senior house officer, who turned up in an Audrey Hepburn-style little black dress and heels.
As her immediate superior, he knew that her first job that night was to catheterise a clinically obese man on the renal ward.
Because what she was wearing was so inappropriate he almost didn't ask her to do the job then decided that perhaps she might learn an important lesson.
The patient was in a chair so she had to get down on her hands and knees in her cocktail dress to fit the device. I have even overheard in the lifts at the BBC scantily clad young people bewailing the fact that 'no one seems to take me seriously'.
And they have no idea why? Of course, it is the social setting that turns a pair of high heels, a diving neckline or a pair of shorts from the acceptable to the immodest. Bernard Manning's vest and underpants were just fine in the privacy of his bedroom in the company of Vera, his wife.
But what is good for a hot date, or a party where everyone is similarly clad, is all wrong in the office or in the supermarket or, worst of all, in the formal surroundings of a church.
So when did we stop understanding when to dress modestly?
The answer is very recently, according to Professor Aileen Ribeiro, an expert on the history of dress at the Courtauld Institute of Art in London, who says that in the past the rules on appropriate dress were widely understood. She says that plunging necklines for women and tight trousers for men have been recognised as sexually provocative since the Middle Ages.
But in previous generations, church and society dictated what was allowed. 'Many people no longer know what is appropriate unless it is written down,' she says. 'Hence our anxiety over what to wear on a formal occasion when instructions are not given. 'And when it comes to your village church service, the churches are often so desperate for churchgoers that they don't say what they think the rules should be. If they did there would be complaints
What does it say about the spirit of the age?
Professor Ribeiro sees the willingness to expose too much flesh in all the wrong settings as a sign of indifference, a lack of sensitivity.
And I agree that to go to church in shorts or with your knickers on show is symptomatic of an 'If it's fine with me, then to hell with you' approach to life. It's the kind of attitude that leads so many people to bawl down their mobile phones on the train or to turn up their iPods so that everyone has to endure the infuriating sizzle of leaking sound.
It seems to be more pronounced in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. Wander towards the entrance of St Peter's Basilica in Rome with bare arms and the security men will tell you in no uncertain terms to cover them.
In the final chapter of her book Dress And Morality, Professor Ribeiro adds an interesting thought that many people do believe that a display of too much flesh is immodest, even though they may not say it for fear of being thought old-fashioned.
So perhaps I should take a leaf from Bernard Manning's book and start being a little more up front in my opinions. Next time I am confronted by shorts or a thong in church, I may lean across and say as he might have done 'Do us a favour, love. Put it away.'
By WINIFRED ROBINSON: The femail
He greeted female journalists who came to call in his vest and underpants and then sat with his legs apart throughout the interviews. He understood that this was extremely rude behaviour, unsettling and embarrassing for those on the receiving end. It was a deliberate gesture of contempt. I was reminded of the late Bernard Manning the other day at a church service in a neighbouring village: the middle-aged man passing the collection plate was dressed in shorts and sandals, exposing a thick pelt of springy red hair from thigh to toe.
In the bench in front, a slim, elegant woman in her 50s displayed her thong through the fabric of a tightfitting white linen shift dress: and in the opposite pew, a young mother revealed a bare back plus acres of ample cleavage in a plunging halterneck top.
It seemed I couldn't rest my gaze without it landing on somebody's almost-exposed bosom or bum. Unlike those of Bernard Manning's generation, people now seem to have no idea that dressing immodestly is rude in that it makes other people uncomfortable and disregards their feelings.
The indecent exposure at the village church wasn't an isolated incident.
In the supermarket the other day with my seven-year-old son, I was confronted by an elderly man wearing what appeared to be a pair of swimming trunks made of tight red Lycra, a purse belt slung around his hips. I would class this as the kind of anti-social behaviour that recently earned a pensioner in Eastbourne an ASBO for parading in public in a skimpy ladies' thong. It isn't just a country thing either. I went to a branch of a fashionable clothes store in Oxford in search of a tunic top I'd seen in a magazine.
Britney Spears is renowned for her revealing fashion sense
They had sold out but called over an assistant who was wearing one so that I could see it and, if I liked it, place an order. In the magazine, the top, which was slashed to the navel, had been worn over a vest.
The shop assistant, aged about 17, had dispensed with all underwear save a lilac lace half-cup bra which pushed up and thrust together her breasts and revealed, nestling between them, a huge, rather angry-looking spot.
This immodesty is not confined to a particular social class.
A friend who is a doctor remarked that he's noticed increasingly that a lot of female junior doctors flush with their first decent pay cheques will report for duty in inappropriate clothing: designer outfits with plunging necklines and short skirts.
He even had an example of a young woman, on her first night-shift as a senior house officer, who turned up in an Audrey Hepburn-style little black dress and heels.
As her immediate superior, he knew that her first job that night was to catheterise a clinically obese man on the renal ward.
Because what she was wearing was so inappropriate he almost didn't ask her to do the job then decided that perhaps she might learn an important lesson.
The patient was in a chair so she had to get down on her hands and knees in her cocktail dress to fit the device. I have even overheard in the lifts at the BBC scantily clad young people bewailing the fact that 'no one seems to take me seriously'.
And they have no idea why? Of course, it is the social setting that turns a pair of high heels, a diving neckline or a pair of shorts from the acceptable to the immodest. Bernard Manning's vest and underpants were just fine in the privacy of his bedroom in the company of Vera, his wife.
But what is good for a hot date, or a party where everyone is similarly clad, is all wrong in the office or in the supermarket or, worst of all, in the formal surroundings of a church.
So when did we stop understanding when to dress modestly?
The answer is very recently, according to Professor Aileen Ribeiro, an expert on the history of dress at the Courtauld Institute of Art in London, who says that in the past the rules on appropriate dress were widely understood. She says that plunging necklines for women and tight trousers for men have been recognised as sexually provocative since the Middle Ages.
But in previous generations, church and society dictated what was allowed. 'Many people no longer know what is appropriate unless it is written down,' she says. 'Hence our anxiety over what to wear on a formal occasion when instructions are not given. 'And when it comes to your village church service, the churches are often so desperate for churchgoers that they don't say what they think the rules should be. If they did there would be complaints
What does it say about the spirit of the age?
Professor Ribeiro sees the willingness to expose too much flesh in all the wrong settings as a sign of indifference, a lack of sensitivity.
And I agree that to go to church in shorts or with your knickers on show is symptomatic of an 'If it's fine with me, then to hell with you' approach to life. It's the kind of attitude that leads so many people to bawl down their mobile phones on the train or to turn up their iPods so that everyone has to endure the infuriating sizzle of leaking sound.
It seems to be more pronounced in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. Wander towards the entrance of St Peter's Basilica in Rome with bare arms and the security men will tell you in no uncertain terms to cover them.
In the final chapter of her book Dress And Morality, Professor Ribeiro adds an interesting thought that many people do believe that a display of too much flesh is immodest, even though they may not say it for fear of being thought old-fashioned.
So perhaps I should take a leaf from Bernard Manning's book and start being a little more up front in my opinions. Next time I am confronted by shorts or a thong in church, I may lean across and say as he might have done 'Do us a favour, love. Put it away.'
By WINIFRED ROBINSON: The femail
That being said, I think that if you want to show leg/cleavage/ etc. then pick ONE focus point, as others have mentioned. It's the same concept in makeup (discounting runway makeup haha, which is exaggerated). If you do a sexy, smoky eye, that should be your focus, so pairing it with red lips, and heavy blush IMO isn't a good idea. I think it's really unflattering, and trashy when some women (and worse, young girls) feel the need to expose themselves and wear clothing that is so skimpy/miniscule that they might as well be walking around naked. Above all, if you exude confidence and classiness, then whatever you are wearing will look good.
