Fashion: The Way of All Flesh

NOT so long ago, the woman with nothing to wear had a problem. Today, nothing is practically all she needs. With the new nude look in fashions, the flimsiest pretext of a dress will do--but only on a girl with a figure worth seeing through to and with nerve enough to let the world see through to it. If she has the right shape and attitude, she can get away with anything from a bra and gypsy waistcoat to a blouse woven wholly out of cobwebs. Guardians of morality may frown in disfavor, girl friends may shriek in outrage and envy and husbands may either approve (when the woman is somebody else's) or glare silently (if she is his own). Still, more and more women are wearing less and less these days. Come summer, they are likely to show even more explicitly that the newest way in fashion is the way of all flesh.

Second the Motion. The nude look has come and gone throughout history, from Eden to Egypt to Greece, to Rome, to France, to the U.S. today. The current manifestation began in 1964 when Designer Rudi Gernreich produced his infamous topless bathing suit. The Kremlin and the Vatican denounced it; most American women were completely unprepared (or unequipped) to wear it. In defense, Gernreich explained his purpose: "By exaggerating a new freedom of the body now, I hope to make the moderate, right degree of freedom more acceptable in the future." Yves St. Laurent seconded the motion two years later with his show-and-tell dresses. With body stockings available to control the unruly flesh and provide a modicum of modesty, women who had snickered at Gernreich thought again, and looked to the future. It came sooner than even Gernreich had expected, though the new nudity, as he explains it, "is a natural development growing out of all the loosening up, the re-evaluation of values that's going on. There is now an honesty hangup, and part of this is not hiding the body--it stands for freedom."

Some bodies, of course, are better off concealed. Designers are unanimous in warning anyone with so much as an extra pound of flesh to stick to the old shirtdress. Steven Brody, one of the innovators of the Cadoro breastplate (see color pages), recalls with disdain an overendowed woman in a see-through blouse: "It was not appetizing. There she was, just bouncing along. Flippety flop." Designer Jon Haggins, himself a slim, trim 165 Ibs., adds that "our customer has to be between 19 and 35, with a firm body, not absolutely flat and not busty either."

Paraphernalia's Guy Paulin is more socially demanding; in his clothes, he wants to see a girl "of typical good family, a little hollow-chested. She can wear a slightly vulgar dress since she exhales good family through every pore of her body." For Designer Leo Narducci, it is not so much a specific size or class of woman who can wear his clothes as it is a certain type, one who "is sure of herself, who thinks of sex more openly. If a guy isn't agreeable to her, she'll find someone else. She's not concerned about nudity. She has a body and she knows it."

Horizontal Cleavage. Ah, yes, but does the rest of the world? If not, a woman can get the news out in any number of ways. There is body jewelry --breastplates made of metal or leather, or vests put together from chains of plastic or pearls. Or the see-through blouse, with a bra of the same fabric but lined (and therefore opaque) to keep the blouse a blurb instead of the advertisement it becomes when worn over nothing. Then there are see-through pants (under them, a matching opaque bikini bottom) and cleavage: vertical in skirts slit all the way up to the waist, horizontal in boleros that cut a wide swath through the midriff and barely remember to cover the breasts.

Just as the ladies who wear them must be the right shape, so must nude fashions be worn at the right time and place. None of the outfits will do for an evening at the opera, not even backstage, nor are they likely to show up at a restaurant or on the crosstown bus. The idea is not to shock the general public but to dress with taste among friends --at intime dinners and small cocktail parties--in clothes that do not fudge the fact that the wearer is a woman, but leave a certain something to the imagination.

Transparent and Purple. "Mystery is the important thing," says Ethel Scull, Pop-art patron and wife of the owner of a fleet of New York City taxicabs. "I'll never, never wear a see-through without a body stocking," she insists, remembering the passing pedestrian who had one look through her first one before "his glasses fell off." Model Penelope Tree substitutes a satin bra for the body stocking, refusing to go without anything. "It's hard enough getting people to pay attention to what you're saying," she says, "without focusing their attention on your bosom."

No matter what they are wearing underneath, women from coast to coast are buying the nude look. In Cambridge, Mass., the buyer for a new shop, True International, reports a dizzy business in see-through shirts. "We can sell anything that is transparent and purple," she says. New Yorkers do not care what color it is: tissue-thin voile shirts are turning up like daffodils all over the city. In Washington, D.C., a lady reporter turned heads at the White House correspondents' dinner with a bare-midriff, see-through pajama set. Being diplomatic (or missing the point), George Romney asked: "Who is the blonde with all the hair?" In San Francisco, where openwork-crochet tunics are favorite items, one girl showed up at the Bachelor's Ball with a midriff bare but for a large aquamarine. A customer at Dallas' Orchid Shop last week paid for her lace see-through minidress, then carefully ripped out the lining. "What's the use of getting a see-through," she asked, "if you can't see through it?"

Radar Screen. For wearers and spectators alike, the nude look presents certain problems. "If you run while wearing see-throughs," says Penelope Tree, "you have to be careful. You could overflow like warm Camembert cheese." There are the oglers, against whom Mrs. Scull protects herself by taking off her glasses: "That way, being nearsighted, I can't see people's reactions." And there are those for whom ogling is not enough. Photographer Susan Greenburg-Wood wore her first see-through to a Lincoln Center benefit in Manhattan; all was well until intermission, when suddenly, she recalls, "one woman actually came over and lifted up my blouse."

For men, the big question is where to look, and how? Furtive, sideways glances lend a guilty, not to say downright criminal, flavor to the sport; besides, they are unrewarding. A clear-eyed body stare can be misinterpreted. Sweeping the scene like a radar antenna is not a bad approach provided that the sweeper does not mind being pegged as slightly insane. A really sharp spectator will look the girl straight in the eye and natter on into the night about urban renewal, air pollution and go-go mutual funds. Sooner or later, he will bore her into looking away long enough for him to look down --and see through.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.