Thestandardofreputabilityrequiresthatdressshouldshowwastefulexpenditure；butallwastefulnessisoffensivetonativetaste。Thepsychologicallawhasalreadybeenpointedoutthatallmen——andwomenperhapseveninahigherdegreeabhorfutility，whetherofeffortorofexpenditure——muchasNaturewasoncesaidtoabhoravacuum。Buttheprincipleofconspicuouswasterequiresanobviouslyfutileexpenditure；andtheresultingconspicuousexpensivenessofdressisthereforeintrinsicallyugly。Hencewefindthatinallinnovationsindress，eachaddedoraltereddetailstrivestoavoidcondemnationbyshowingsomeostensiblepurpose，atthesametimethattherequirementofconspicuouswastepreventsthepurposefulnessoftheseinnovationsfrombecominganythingmorethanasomewhattransparentpretense。Eveninitsfreestflights，fashionrarelyifevergetsawayfromasimulationofsomeostensibleuse。Theostensibleusefulnessofthefashionabledetailsofdress，however，isalwayssotransparentamake-believe，andtheirsubstantialfutilitypresentlyforcesitselfsobaldlyuponourattentionastobecomeunbearable，andthenwetakerefugeinanewstyle。Butthenewstylemustconformtotherequirementofreputablewastefulnessandfutility。Itsfutilitypresentlybecomesasodiousasthatofitspredecessor；andtheonlyremedywhichthelawofwasteallowsusistoseekreliefinsomenewconstruction，equallyfutileandequallyuntenable。Hencetheessentialuglinessandtheunceasingchangeoffashionableattire。
　　Havingsoexplainedthephenomenonofshiftingfashions，thenextthingistomaketheexplanationtallywitheverydayfacts。
　　Amongtheseeverydayfactsisthewell-knownlikingwhichallmenhaveforthestylesthatareinvogueatanygiventime。Anewstylecomesintovogueandremainsinfavorforaseason，and，atleastsolongasitisanovelty，peopleverygenerallyfindthenewstyleattractive。Theprevailingfashionisfelttobebeautiful。Thisisduepartlytothereliefitaffordsinbeingdifferentfromwhatwentbeforeit，partlytoitsbeingreputable。Asindicatedinthelastchapter，thecanonofreputabilitytosomeextentshapesourtastes，sothatunderitsguidanceanythingwillbeacceptedasbecominguntilitsnoveltywearsoff，oruntilthewarrantofreputabilityistransferredtoanewandnovelstructureservingthesamegeneralpurpose。Thattheallegedbeauty，or“loveliness，“ofthestylesinvogueatanygiventimeistransientandspuriousonlyisattestedbythefactthatnoneofthemanyshiftingfashionswillbearthetestoftime。Whenseenintheperspectiveofhalf-a-dozenyearsormore，thebestofourfashionsstrikeusasgrotesque，ifnotunsightly。Ourtransientattachmenttowhateverhappenstobethelatestrestsonotherthanaestheticgrounds，andlastsonlyuntilourabidingaestheticsensehashadtimetoassertitselfandrejectthislatestindigestiblecontrivance。
　　Theprocessofdevelopinganaestheticnauseatakesmoreorlesstime；thelengthoftimerequiredinanygivencasebeinginverselyasthedegreeofintrinsicodiousnessofthestyleinquestion。Thistimerelationbetweenodiousnessandinstabilityinfashionsaffordsgroundfortheinferencethatthemorerapidlythestylessucceedanddisplaceoneanother，themoreoffensivetheyaretosoundtaste。Thepresumption，therefore，isthatthefartherthecommunity，especiallythewealthyclassesofthecommunity，developinwealthandmobilityandintherangeoftheirhumancontact，themoreimperativelywillthelawofconspicuouswasteassertitselfinmattersofdress，themorewillthesenseofbeautytendtofallintoabeyanceorbeoverbornebythecanonofpecuniaryreputability，themorerapidlywillfashionsshiftandchange，andthemoregrotesqueandintolerablewillbethevaryingstylesthatsuccessivelycomeintovogue。
　　Thereremainsatleastonepointinthistheoryofdressyettobediscussed。Mostofwhathasbeensaidappliestomen’sattireaswellastothatofwomen；althoughinmoderntimesitappliesatnearlyallpointswithgreaterforcetothatofwomen。
　　Butatonepointthedressofwomendifferssubstantiallyfromthatofmen。Inwoman’sdressthereisobviouslygreaterinsistenceonsuchfeaturesastestifytothewearer’sexemptionfromorincapacityforallvulgarlyproductiveemployment。Thischaracteristicofwoman’sapparelisofinterest，notonlyascompletingthetheoryofdress，butalsoasconfirmingwhathasalreadybeensaidoftheeconomicstatusofwomen，bothinthepastandinthepresent。
　　Ashasbeenseeninthediscussionofwoman’sstatusundertheheadsofVicariousLeisureandVicariousConsumption，ithasinthecourseofeconomicdevelopmentbecometheofficeofthewomantoconsumevicariouslyfortheheadofthehousehold；andherappareliscontrivedwiththisobjectinview。Ithascomeaboutthatobviouslyproductivelaborisinapeculiardegreederogatorytorespectablewomen，andthereforespecialpainsshouldbetakenintheconstructionofwomen’sdress，toimpressuponthebeholderthefactoftenindeedafictionthatthewearerdoesnotandcannothabituallyengageinusefulwork。
　　Proprietyrequiresrespectablewomentoabstainmoreconsistentlyfromusefuleffortandtomakemoreofashowofleisurethanthemenofthesamesocialclasses。Itgratespainfullyonournervestocontemplatethenecessityofanywell-bredwoman’searningalivelihoodbyusefulwork。Itisnot“woman’ssphere。“Hersphereiswithinthehousehold，whichsheshould“beautify，“andofwhichsheshouldbethe“chiefornament。“Themaleheadofthehouseholdisnotcurrentlyspokenofasitsornament。Thisfeaturetakeninconjunctionwiththeotherfactthatproprietyrequiresmoreunremittingattentiontoexpensivedisplayinthedressandotherparaphernaliaofwomen，goestoenforcetheviewalreadyimpliedinwhathasgonebefore。Byvirtueofitsdescentfromapatriarchalpast，oursocialsystemmakesitthewoman’sfunctioninanespecialdegreetoputinevidenceherhousehold’sabilitytopay。Accordingtothemoderncivilizedschemeoflife，thegoodnameofthehouseholdtowhichshebelongsshouldbethespecialcareofthewoman；andthesystemofhonorificexpenditureandconspicuousleisurebywhichthisgoodnameischieflysustainedisthereforethewoman’ssphere。Intheidealscheme，asittendstorealizeitselfinthelifeofthehigherpecuniaryclasses，thisattentiontoconspicuouswasteofsubstanceandeffortshouldnormallybethesoleeconomicfunctionofthewoman。
　　Atthestageofeconomicdevelopmentatwhichthewomenwerestillinthefullsensethepropertyofthemen，theperformanceofconspicuousleisureandconsumptioncametobepartoftheservicesrequiredofthem。Thewomenbeingnottheirownmasters，obviousexpenditureandleisureontheirpartwouldredoundtothecreditoftheirmasterratherthantotheirowncredit；andthereforethemoreexpensiveandthemoreobviouslyunproductivethewomenofthehouseholdare，themorecreditableandmoreeffectiveforthepurposeofreputabilityofthehouseholdoritsheadwilltheirlifebe。Somuchsothatthewomenhavebeenrequirednotonlytoaffordevidenceofalifeofleisure，buteventodisablethemselvesforusefulactivity。
　　Itisatthispointthatthedressofmenfallsshortofthatofwomen，andforsufficientreason。Conspicuouswasteandconspicuousleisurearereputablebecausetheyareevidenceofpecuniarystrength；pecuniarystrengthisreputableorhonorificbecause，inthelastanalysis，itarguessuccessandsuperiorforce；thereforetheevidenceofwasteandleisureputforthbyanyindividualinhisownbehalfcannotconsistentlytakesuchaformorbecarriedtosuchapitchastoargueincapacityormarkeddiscomfortonhispart；astheexhibitionwouldinthatcaseshownotsuperiorforce，butinferiority，andsodefeatitsownpurpose。So，then，whereverwastefulexpenditureandtheshowofabstentionfromeffortisnormally。oronanaverage，carriedtotheextentofshowingobviousdiscomfortorvoluntarilyinducedphysicaldisability。theretheimmediateinferenceisthattheindividualinquestiondoesnotperformthiswastefulexpenditureandundergothisdisabilityforherownpersonalgaininpecuniaryrepute，butinbehalfofsomeoneelsetowhomshestandsinarelationofeconomicdependence；arelationwhichinthelastanalysismust，ineconomictheory，reduceitselftoarelationofservitude。
　　Toapplythisgeneralizationtowomen’sdress，andputthematterinconcreteterms:thehighheel，theskirt，theimpracticablebonnet，thecorset，andthegeneraldisregardofthewearer’scomfortwhichisanobviousfeatureofallcivilizedwomen’sapparel，aresomanyitemsofevidencetotheeffectthatinthemoderncivilizedschemeoflifethewomanisstill，intheory，theeconomicdependentoftheman——that，perhapsinahighlyidealizedsense，shestillistheman’schattel。Thehomelyreasonforallthisconspicuousleisureandattireonthepartofwomenliesinthefactthattheyareservantstowhom，inthedifferentiationofeconomicfunctions，hasbeendelegatedtheofficeofputtinginevidencetheirmaster’sabilitytopay。
　　Thereisamarkedsimilarityintheserespectsbetweentheapparelofwomenandthatofdomesticservants，especiallyliveriedservants。Inboththereisaveryelaborateshowofunnecessaryexpensiveness，andinbothcasesthereisalsoanotabledisregardofthephysicalcomfortofthewearer。Buttheattireoftheladygoesfartherinitselaborateinsistenceontheidleness，ifnotonthephysicalinfirmityofthewearer，thandoesthatofthedomestic。Andthisisasitshouldbe；forintheory，accordingtotheidealschemeofthepecuniaryculture，theladyofthehouseisthechiefmenialofthehousehold。
　　Besidesservants，currentlyrecognizedassuch，thereisatleastoneotherclassofpersonswhosegarbassimilatesthemtotheclassofservantsandshowsmanyofthefeaturesthatgotomakeupthewomanlinessofwoman’sdress。Thisisthepriestlyclass。Priestlyvestmentsshow，inaccentuatedform，allthefeaturesthathavebeenshowntobeevidenceofaservilestatusandavicariouslife。Evenmorestrikinglythantheeverydayhabitofthepriest，thevestments，properlysocalled，areornate，grotesque，inconvenient，and，atleastostensibly，comfortlesstothepointofdistress。Thepriestisatthesametimeexpectedtorefrainfromusefuleffortand，whenbeforethepubliceye，topresentanimpassivelydisconsolatecountenance，verymuchafterthemannerofawell-traineddomesticservant。
　　Theshavenfaceofthepriestisafurtheritemtothesameeffect。Thisassimilationofthepriestlyclasstotheclassofbodyservants，indemeanorandapparel，isduetothesimilarityofthetwoclassesasregardseconomicfunction。Ineconomictheory，thepriestisabodyservant，constructivelyinattendanceuponthepersonofthedivinitywhoseliveryhewears。
　　Hisliveryisofaveryexpensivecharacter，asitshouldbeinordertosetforthinabeseemingmannerthedignityofhisexaltedmaster；butitiscontrivedtoshowthatthewearingofitcontributeslittleornothingtothephysicalcomfortofthewearer，foritisanitemofvicariousconsumption，andthereputewhichaccruesfromitsconsumptionistobeimputedtotheabsentmaster，nottotheservant。
　　Thelineofdemarcationbetweenthedressofwomen，priests，andservants，ontheonehand，andofmen，ontheotherhand，isnotalwaysconsistentlyobservedinpractice，butitwillscarcelybedisputedthatitisalwayspresentinamoreorlessdefinitewayinthepopularhabitsofthought。Thereareofcoursealsofreemen，andnotafewofthem，who，intheirblindzealforfaultlessreputableattire，transgressthetheoreticallinebetweenman’sandwoman’sdress，totheextentofarrayingthemselvesinapparelthatisobviouslydesignedtovexthemortalframe；buteveryonerecognizeswithouthesitationthatsuchapparelformenisadeparturefromthenormal。Weareinthehabitofsayingthatsuchdressis“effeminate“；andonesometimeshearstheremarkthatsuchorsuchanexquisitelyattiredgentlemanisaswelldressedasafootman。
　　Certainapparentdiscrepanciesunderthistheoryofdressmeritamoredetailedexamination，especiallyastheymarkamoreorlessevidenttrendinthelaterandmaturerdevelopmentofdress。Thevogueofthecorsetoffersanapparentexceptionfromtheruleofwhichithasherebeencitedasanillustration。A
　　closerexamination，however，willshowthatthisapparentexceptionisreallyaverificationoftherulethatthevogueofanygivenelementorfeatureindressrestsonitsutilityasanevidenceofpecuniarystanding。Itiswellknownthatintheindustriallymoreadvancedcommunitiesthecorsetisemployedonlywithincertainfairlywelldefinedsocialstrata。Thewomenofthepoorerclasses，especiallyoftheruralpopulation，donothabituallyuseit，exceptasaholidayluxury。Amongtheseclassesthewomenhavetoworkhard，anditavailsthemlittleinthewayofapretenseofleisuretosocrucifythefleshineverydaylife。Theholidayuseofthecontrivanceisduetoimitationofahigher-classcanonofdecency。Upwardsfromthislowlevelofindigenceandmanuallabor，thecorsetwasuntilwithinagenerationortwonearlyindispensabletoasociallyblamelessstandingforallwomen，includingthewealthiestandmostreputable。Thisruleheldsolongastherestillwasnolargeclassofpeoplewealthyenoughtobeabovetheimputationofanynecessityformanuallaborandatthesametimelargeenoughtoformaself-sufficient，isolatedsocialbodywhosemasswouldaffordafoundationforspecialrulesofconductwithintheclass，enforcedbythecurrentopinionoftheclassalone。Butnowtherehasgrownupalargeenoughleisureclasspossessedofsuchwealththatanyaspersiononthescoreofenforcedmanualemploymentwouldbeidleandharmlesscalumny；andthecorsethasthereforeinlargemeasurefallenintodisusewithinthisclass。