Back in May 2018, I blogged about a store in Second Life called Virtue. I decided it was time to revisit the store to see what’s new, and I’m really glad I did!
The proprietor, Abiela, is a devout Christian who believes that modesty does not mean being unfashionable. Her clothing is stylish, but never slutty! If you are tired of the countless stores on the grid selling nothing but skimpy, indecent clothing, Virtue is a truly refreshing change.
Just inside the entrance to the right are three free group gifts for various groups (the Third Life and MLM Frees & Offers groups are free to join, and the Mesh Avatar Appearance Maniacs group is L$50 to join):
And if you exit through the back of the main Virtue store and go into the right door of the smaller store behind it, you will find the group gifts and discount section. Abiela, the owner of Virtue, has been extremely generous with her group gifts—48 free gifts in total! (You will need to join the Virtue group to get these gifts, but joining the group is free.)
And that’s not all! Right next to the group gifts wall are some Midnight Mania, Mini-Mania, and Lucky Letter Boards for even more chances to snap up a fabulous freebie!
So let’s take a look at a few of the group gifts:
Here’s the SLURL to Virtue. Happy shopping!
First, let me thank you for this post — and your many other posts like it. You are providing a really invaluable service, and the more so because, as you suggest here, there are many women in SL who are, for a variety of possible reasons, uncomfortable wearing the sorts of revealing and/or sexualized clothing that tends to dominate fashion in Second Life. I would include myself among their number, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion or a sense of what is morally “appropriate” or not..
That said, I’d like to gently query your use of two terms in this article: “slutty” and “indecent.” To describe clothing as “revealing” or “skimpy,” or even “sexualized” is to make a descriptive statement about them: we can argue about what constitutes our precise definition for each of these terms, but they merely describe, and need not imply judgements.
To describe clothing as “slutty” or “indecent,” on the other hand, is to make a moral judgement rather than to provide an objective description of them. It is to suggest that the degree to which they are revealing represents a sort of moral failure on the part of either or both of the designers, and those who wear them. It imposes your moral standards, or those of this creator, upon even those who chose to represent themselves differently, according to THEIR own lights, standards, and moral definitions. And, in the case of “slutty” in particular, it implicitly “genders” that judgement, and makes an implicit statement about the limits and constraints some would like to see imposed upon women’s sexuality.
Abiela is absolutely within her rights to choose a particular moral standard to judge what people wear, as of course are you.
What neither of you have the right to do is to insistent upon the universal applicability of that standard to others who have a different understanding of public morality as it relates to clothing. You are welcome to believe that I am dressing inappropriately, or indecently, or (I suppose — I hate the term) “sluttily” if you don’t like what I am wearing, but when you CALL me a slut, or suggest that my clothing choices — how I choose to represent myself — are indecent, you are effectively imposing your moral standards on me, suggesting that my clothes are an index of a particular kind of sexual behaviour that you abhor, and implying that others should see me this way also.
Sorry for the long explanation, which I’m sure I could have made shorter, because I’m pretty sure that you didn’t quite intend your language to bear this kind of freight. And I hope you’ll accept this criticism in the spirit in which it was intended — as a gentle reminder that the words we use matter, rather than as a dressing down (so to speak).
Yes, and you were perfectly right to call me out on my use of the words “clutty” and “indecent”. I actually had a really hard time trying to find appropriate synonyms to describe the kind of clothing I had in mind! I promise I will do better going forward and thank you for your comment.
Our language, unfortunately, is replete with terms that reflect outdated ideas, so, yes, it can be hard to avoid inadvertently reinforcing relics of our social conditioning. I know I struggle with it all the time. Thanks for this acknowledgement, though. Be well, and keep fighting the good fight!
I completely agree. I choose to dress in a way that is I guess considered modest, but no one should ever belittle others for how they dress, how they believe and the list can go on indefinitely.
I don’t understand why her “devout Christianity” had to be included in a blog about fashion? It feels like pointing out her moral superiority was of the utmost importance. That really makes me personally less likely to support a creator because of the seemingly judgmental undertone of this article for others who dress differently, believe differently or live differently. That isn’t appealing. I’m sorry.