Okay, kitty cats! I got this photo from several of you today asking for my opinion. The dresses are from British designer Camelle Ilona Daley, House of Ilona, a clergy collection for “fashion conscious ministers.”
Click to enlarge.
Wow, huh?
Body-conscious clergy dresses! And, I’d say, done very well. My first reaction to this photo (aside from giggling at the thought of three ordained Charlie’s Angels and to be irritated that White Girl gets to be in front, of course) was to be aware of my discomfort with how fitted and sexy these dresses are. But that’s really my problem, I think, as a woman who was raised in a traditional era but who looks toward a future of transformed public image of women clergy that moves beyond patriarchal control and expectations. Actually, I look forward to a world of transformed attitude toward women’s bodies, where we are not regarded as objects, as chattel, as booty to be kidnapped from schools and used as slaves for sick men. I look forward to a society where woman aren’t raped every day, aren’t told that it’s their fault when they’re attacked, and aren’t subject to constant harassment and judgment and objectification.
Until then, we have fun dresses to look at!
I think these are beautifully made, and I like that the styles are different enough to offer options for a variety of body types. The fact that I sat up straight in my desk chair and thought to myself, “Well my goodness, that’s a lot of boobage for a clergy woman to show!” is not a negative reflection on these designs. It’s a reflection on my own upbringing in a generation that equates “Female religious” with unspoken expectations of de-sexed modesty, chastity and unthreatening frumpiness. But I don’t know. Is that front dress so tight that it might be distracting, or is that just me being sexist? On one hand, we have to acknowledge the world we live in. No one wants to be regarded in her community of ministry as “Reverend Bachongas,” as that doesn’t serve anyone’s mission. On the other hand, it’s a cute dress and maybe we need to let the kind of gal who can wear these dresses beautifully wear it beautifully and say no more about it. What do you think?
I love the shoes and hose, though. Just perfect, as is hair and make-up.
Here’s more from the House of Ilona:
Funky! Interesting!
Garish and costumey!
But overall, I think the House of Ilona has a lot of beautiful garments for sale, and I welcome the broader conversation that her curve-hugging designs will provoke. Here is the place to have that conversation. Let’s hear from you, pigeons!
Honestly…the thing that popped out at me first was the short hem of the front dress… although it does fit rather snugly at the top as well.
The front dress is no tighter than the one on the left (rear); it just shows more leg and forearm. I think it would be fine if the hemline came to the knee.
I dunno. I looked at the picture before I read any of your post, and my immediate thought was, “Why are those flight attendants wearing collars?”
General lip-pursing. Sign. Guess I’ll just put on my Gunne Sax and look at my prom photos from 1979.
While the lady in the front with the short sleeves looks very flight attendant-esque, it could also be read as 1950s (1940s?) nurse. But having short sleeves as an options is important. I for one appreciate that the models (I looked at the website) are not all flat chested and the clothing obviously allows for bust. So much clothing that actually COVERS the bust area is cut too small to fit larger chested women; it’s nice to see that the designer recognizes this and accommodates.
I’ve followed them for a couple of years. I really like the idea of a clergy dress. Now that there are so many jersey and knit clergy blouses I didn’t think twice about the fit.
As a 20-something lady minister with similar proportions to the model in the front, minus about six or seven inches in height, I find that “structured, fitted” garments that actually fit my body (in other words, are not either too tight around the chest or so big as to look boxy) fit me just about like that dress does. If I wear something much looser, then I look sloppy, but at least the chest area is less “pronounced,” which I feel is just my way of justifying resorting to frump because of all the societally induced body hangups you mentioned. The other unfortunate side effect of wearing non-fitted shirts is that they “drape” off my chest if the waist isn’t fitted, which leaves me looking even more top heavy and box-like. (Didn’t Dolly Parton say something about that once? About a super fitted choir robe she wore in Joyful Noise? “If it wasn’t cinched around my waist I’d look like a walking box” or something like that.)
My solution has been to buy dresses that fit me about like the one in the picture, and then wear a cardigan, blazer, or a nice wrap type thing … not necessarily to hide what’s going on upstairs, but to make the overall effect something less along the lines of OMG BOOBS.
PS, the green frilly sleeved House of Ilona shirt would be great for someone who decided to do ministry at Steampunk Conventions and Comic Cons, and I think I may have just found my calling.
I’m 29 and I thought many of the same things you did, PB. A little too fitted for my taste. But I’m in a call where I can pretty much forgo the collar 95% of the time, so maybe I don’t fully recognize the need for better-fitting clergy apparel.
My first thought was “Wow! I love the one with the peplum! Wonder if it comes in my size.” The tight fit in the bust didn’t register.
After reading your post, I went back and looked again. The fit is no different from most of the dresses out there we would purchase for other occasions – structured and streamlined. I still didn’t think boobage first, I still admired the fit. Of course I’m excessively large busted and as Leslie points out, if my shirts aren’t fitted or cinched at the waist, it looks like I’m wearing a bag. So, pretty much for me, the girl are noticeably there and I’ve just gotten over it. But then I’m over 50 and overweight and the guys aren’t exactly whistling on the streets anymore..
No one mentioned that the woman in the front has her hands in her pocket! Pockets! On women’s dress clothes! That may be the most revolutionary thing about these dresses. Wonder what a mic pack would do to the fit?
Speaking as someone who also has 1979 prom pictures: The 3/4 and knee length dresses look classy and appropriate, to my eye. One could add a cardigan or jacket. I have admired these clergy dresses for a while, but purchasing one would be a bit of a splurge. I also haven’t figured out yet from the website if they are hand/machine-washable or if they require dry cleaning.
As someone who is minimal up top, I thought the front dress would be fine. If I was as, er, amply blessed as that woman, I would go with something a tad less form fitting I think. Love the a-line of the dress.
I lust after these dresses. As a person with an athletic build (and not overly much boobage), the more tailored, structured looks just look trimmer. If I get things made too loosely, the musculature of my body makes me look much heavier than I really am. Like the commentor above, I frequently add a cardigan. (In fact, today, I’m wearing one of my least favorite pairs of pants and wishing I had more shirt dresses!)
It is otherwise so difficult to find dresses that are an appropriate length that look well with a collar. I have to rule out SO many dresses because they are just too dang short for a clergy person.
The only hope I have is that House of Ilona will make these in Grey, as well!
On the question of clothes that are form-fitting over the breasts: Don’t you find that the clergy collar inherently creates a problem for large-breasted women, because narrowing the line at the neck emphasizes the line at the breasts. This is why a lot of large-breasted women in general who don’t want to emphasize that part of their bodies wear deep v-necks (whether over another layer or not) or jewel-necks rather than turtlenecks. I don’t know what the answer is, except to wear an open-neck blazer over the dress. That, of course, detracts from the elegant cut of the dress.
nsv – yes. I am ‘blessed’ up top too and have to bear this in mind.
I bought the first version of the dress in front two years ago, and I have the Mark 2 as well. This one is lined (although with the same or a very similar material, and it would be better if it were a bit more sheer, to help the dress skim the hips a bit more) and has pockets.
The only problem with the pockets is they are right on hips, meaning unless you are very skinny there (yeah! aren’t we all?) even if it fits well everywhere else, the pockets tend to gape or pull open, making your hips look even wider. In the end I took out the back darts for a little more give, and that helped.
I’ve also found it’s a little loose in the upper chest (above the breasts) and collar for me (I’m a UK14) and sort of hangs forward a bit, so the next time I’m in town I’m going to get it altered to fix that; hopefully just means taking it in a bit along the zip at the back.
I’m glad I bought it, but I slightly wonder if, for the price, I’d be better with something bespoke. But then again, I’m not sure anyone would know what I’m talking about!
My fiancé shared this picture. The response he got from the guys he watches soccer matches with was along the lines of “Oooh, err, vicar!” An old boyfriend of mine said he’d “sit up and listen to the sermon.” Sisters, what should we make of that?
Is a clergy dress professional-looking enough? I’m not sure I’d wear one unless I also wore a structured jacket. BTW, I thought the one in front was a bit too “stewardess-like” and begged for a creatively tied airline scarf. And as one of my woman friends noted, the peplum “hides a multitude of sins.” I’d go for the dress on the left.
I have the wondrous combination of a small frame, slope-y and small shoulders, and ample boobage. I have to wear fitted clothes or else I look like I’m a child playing dress up. I think I would try the front dress, as long as it came to my knee. I like them.
Um, no. These look like uniforms to me — or, in the case of the one on the right, a uniform with an odd peplum. I used work in medicine and remember when my colleagues in nursing switched from impractical–and, frankly, demeaning–white dresses to the much more practical and egalitarian scrubs the rest of us used. That nursing tended then, as now, to be dominated by women is not immaterial here. Creating black uniforms for clergy women seems like a step backward to me. There are much better and less frumpy clothing options available to us these days.
I think the dress at the front looks like it’s juuuuuuust this side of too small. If it was an eensy bit more eased I think it would be fine in the bust. Make a wee bit longer and you’re good.
I have the three quarters longer dress, and the shorter one….both are lovely. However I admit
I would feel uncomfortable in wearing the short one without a suitable jacket. The longer one without the peplum is smart, and I love wearing it. Not been brave enough to order the peplum one!!!