Waxing Worse And Worse
About a year and a half ago I wrote an article which appeared in this journal ("Topless Bikinis" — Our Sick Society, GG, Feb. 28, 1963). In that article I quoted verbatim a piece which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle of Jan. 3, 1963. The piece was entitled "The 'Trend' To One-Piece Bikinis," by Jean Sprain Wilson, AP. I would like to quote here a portion of that article:
"Nudity at the beach has barely gotten started, California designer Rudi Gernreich says — just as everyone has assumed the bikini had gone about as far as scantiness could go.
"Within five years, Gernreich says, ladies will not wear tops to bathing suits. (emphasis mine — KAS) The prediction brings strong reactions..."
I would now like to quote an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, Friday, June 12, 1964. The headlines read: "A Boom In Nude Look" with the follow front page article.
Nudity Is Here
(Associated Press)
New York — The nude deal in fashion scored a breakthrough yesterday. And nobody was more surprised than the designers, most of whom thought it was still five to ten years away.
"The action at the press and buyers' showings centered on a topless ladies' bathing suit model that left nothing to the imagination, and sheer bodiced dresses that were almost eye-catching.
"It's incredible," said Rudi Gernreich of California, after a hectic day of taking orders for his topless swimsuit from such stores as Neiman-Marcus, Altman's, Hess Bros., Lord and Taylor, and Henri Bendel.
"Equally pleased at the flood of orders for his see-through dresses was Bill Smith, designer for Roban's fashion house.
"Only the filmiest layer of flesh-colored marquisette " for figure control" separates the net surface of the blouse from the bare truth.
"Smith said prudish resistance to semi-nudity is gone because it has now been handled tastefully and with elegance." (Brother! If this isn't the height of effrontery! — KAS)
Forecast
"Designer Gernreich originally predicted that the bare-chested, look would find acceptance on the beach in another three or four years.
"Only to demonstrate how such a swimsuit might look, Gernreich created one. It appeared in a national magazine, back view, and in a trade publication, front view (copies are rare).
"Buyers took a look at it yesterday and wanted it right now.
Timely
"They feel that since the suit is here," Gernreich said, "they should probably have it for their customers. The time is right for it, I guess." (What a pitiful commentary on our society! — KAS)
"But Gernreich still expects his design to appear only at private pools and on sundecks.
"Smith, too, figures his see-through dress will be worn by ladies only on very private occasions — at first, that is. (" . . . evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse . . . " — II Tim. 3:13 — KAS)
"Gerry Stutz, president of Henri Bendel, ordered some of the topless suits and reflected: "I suppose I'm still in a European mood. The Europeans are very sensible. They never confuse bareness with sin." — End.
NOTE: Did you get that last statement? — " The Europeans are very sensible. They never confuse bareness with sin." The unmitigated gall of some people never ceases to amaze me! There are so many ungodly men (and women) in this country who are bent on pulling this nation down into the gutter under the guise of SOPHISTICATION! Notice the statement of Bill Smith, designer of the see-through dress: "Smith said prudish resistance (emphasis mine — KAS) to semi-nudity is gone "Because it has now been handled tastefully and with elegance." Where did anyone ever get the idea that nudity — however handled — is anything but ungodly, immoral, obscene, indecent, lustful, lewd and lascivious? Sin, however you dress it up, is still sin! It sort of reminds me of the stupid statement of a British chorus girl who was performing in a nightclub bare-chested and who sought to justify the same with the statement: "Only people with nasty minds will object!" How ridiculous can you get? Man has had that "nasty mind" since Adam and Eve — and knowledge of right and wrong. It is reminiscent also of the statement of Carole Tregoff (I believe that is the correct spelling), in the famed Los Angeles murder trial of recent time, when she and her doctor-paramour were on trial for the murder of the Doctor's wife. She said of their clandestine affair that "...it was not a cheap, sordid affair at all," but that "...it was beautiful.." Again, where did anyone ever get the idea that adultery is anything but cheap and sordid? It makes no difference whether it is practiced by the rich and stately, or by the poor and dirty, it is still sin, still cheap, still sordid, and still wrong! This stupid idea I would like to quote one more article which appeared in the Fresno Bee, Wed., June 17, 1964:
Style Shocks Sf Clergy
"SAN FRANCISCO — AP — Topless swim suits for women made a small scale debut in San Francisco over the week-end.
"The reaction was immediate:
"Clergymen labeled the latest low in high fashion as "nakedness" and "almost perversion."
"The San Francisco Police Department figuratively scratched its head and wondered aloud what it would do when the first adventuresome (I can think of more appropriate terms — KAS) lass shows up topless on a public beach,
"The shop owner who introduced the half a bikini to San Francisco, Nasimo Sargis, groped for words:
"It's — it's unbelievable," she said. "There's no middle of the stream . . . it's shock or 'wow!" "
"The first dozen suits were snapped up immediately, Miss Sargis said, and another 14 ordered for immediate delivery.
"Mostly to men," she said, "for their wives. Or at least that's what they said."
"Another downtown San Francisco shop placed the suits on sale yesterday.
"Held up by two narrow straps which cross in front and back, the suits were denounced by the clergy as an invitation to lust, a return to paganism, a corruptor of morals and "not very nice."
"Just two straps closer to the moral decay in America," declared the Rev. Jacob Belling of Oakland's Neighborhood Church.
"I'm a prude," said the Rev. Marshall Mines of the Southern Baptist Convention. "If such a suit should come anywhere within my sphere of influence I'd strongly oppose it."
"Nakedness and paganism go hand in hand," warned Dr. Cecil J. Lowry of the Oakland Revival Tabernacle.
"I haven't given it any thought," said the Rev. C. H. Wells of the Church of Christ, "but I don't think it would be very nice . " (that's the understatement of the year' — KAS) that ungodly, immoral things are alright when handled "tastefully and with elegance" — is straight from Satan himself! Make no mistake about it! The Apostle Paul said:
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (II Cor. 11:14, 15)
"It's probably designed to be provocative," added the Rev. James Roamer of the Lincoln Park Baptist Church, ("probably?" — what else?-KAS) "and in this sense might pose a threat to the public morals... (might post a threat?? — KAS) but nudity apart from lustful purpose is not sinful."
"What Do The Police Say?
"A touchy, legal subject," said Assistant Police Chief Alfred Arnaud. "Nudity isn't illegal unless it's lewd. This'll have to be settled when they show up on the beaches — and' I guess they will."
"Captain Daniel W. Keily of the Taraval Station — responsible for policing the city beaches — observed that when the first woman appears in the suit "the main police problem will be the riot that occurs. The size of the riot probably depends on how well she's endowed."
"They will be taboo at public pools, however, city officials said.
"Gale Hiett, Miss San Francisco of 1963 and now a dancer in a North Beach night-club-restaurant, came to the defense of the suits:
"I think it's a great idea — but I wouldn't have the nerve to do it."
"From show conscious Hollywood far to the south came a dissent.
"These suits are terrible," said stripteaser Jennie Lee, president of the Exotic Dancers League of America. "They'll put exotic dancers out of business. Who'd pay money to go to a theater?" — End.
NOTE: All of this just makes one sick to the stomach! And to add to the nauseous distress of decent people, is the knowledge (inescapably noticeable in the foregoing articles, news broadcasts, etc.) that so many of our fellow citizens think all of this is hilariously funny! I fail to see any humor in such ungodly goings-on!
Yea, verily, I fear that morally our great nation is waxing worse and worse!
— 1510 Aspen St., Selma, California