Hoops-A Suggestion

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 18, 1866

Hoops—A Suggestion.

As a body, Seventh-day Adventists have taken their stand against hoops. It is so understood by the world, whose argus eyes are ever upon us. And whenever any of our sisters appear with this article of fashion upon them, for it is not easily concealed, observers know that they are taking a course which, if not contrary to their own principles, is at least contrary to the principles of the people with whom they are connected.

Hoops are objectionable, to say nothing of the great size at which they were formerly worn, because of the mortifying and immodest exposures to which they render the wearer liable. It is on this ground that they are condemned by the Testimonies. On the same grounds the Resolution on Dress, lately passed by the Battle Creek church, and adopted by many other churches, condemned them.

But some may say, Small hoops are not liable to the charge of immodest exposure. In this they mistake. It is impossible to wear hoops—skeletons—as at present constructed, containing the number of springs that they do, and attached together in the manner that they are, however much we may reduce the circumference, without being liable, on all occasions, to such exposures as genuine modesty must ever seek to shun. It has been tried. Some of the members of the church of Battle Creek have tried and are trying it; and if they are not conscious of the fact, involuntary observers feel thoroughly so. We say therefore that the wearing of skeletons, we care not how small, is contrary to the Testimonies, and a square violation of the Resolution upon that point of dress, passed by the church here, and recommended by the General Conference, at its last session, to all our people. We know that in every place more or less of them are worn; but it has been a difficult subject to approach, till a remedy could be proposed.

The question comes up, What can be done? Cords as formerly manufactured have gone out of use, and cannot now be obtained. Besides if they could be, corded skirts are more or less objectionable on account of their weight. And rawhide cords are too much like fair-weather friends, differing not much in their effect from the most approved steel on all pleasant days, but entirely collapsing on all moist ones. Then what shall be worn? Shall our sisters go around, as has been expressed with more force than dignity, looking like blankets on bean-poles or hens in a shower? Many who would not for anything do wrong are greatly perplexed over this question. And we do not wonder at it. We recognize the difficulty; we would give it due consideration; and, if possible, we would do something toward removing it.

We therefore suggest, on the authority of some of the sisters in this place, that a few steel springs inserted in a skirt, in the same manner that cords are inserted, will be found to possess all the advantages of hoops, with none of their objections.

A hundred voices may perhaps exclaim, What is the difference between this and hoops? We will tell you what the difference is, as we view it.

1. The material, in itself considered, is not to be taken into the account. The objection to steel hoops is not because they are steel, but because of their effect. And if any other material would have the same effect, it would be equally objectionable. Hence if steel can be used so as not to have the effect that now follows it as made up into hoops, there can be no objection to so using it.

2. If a person should go to work and put as many springs into a skirt as there are in a skeleton, we admit there would not be so much difference between the two. But on this point we would be very explicit: Four springs at most, are sufficient for one skirt, inserted of course at suitable distances apart. A skirt constructed in this manner, when it meets an obstacle in front, will not kick up behind; and in passing through a narrow place, it will not attempt to get ahead of the wearer by efforts to go over her head. There is not enough stiffness and elasticity about it, to make it go through all those evolutions, which are performed, regardless of female modesty, by all hoops. And yet there is enough elasticity about it, to properly support the dress. These facts being true in regard to a skirt so constructed, it differs in toto from hoops, and would seem to be free from all objections, neither contrary to the Testimonies nor a violation of the resolution on dress before referred to.

Do you ask how you shall obtain the springs? Buy a skeleton, and rip it to pieces as soon as possible. Then use the springs, reducing them to a moderate circumference, putting, as before suggested, not over four in a skirt. Thus worn, they are no more liable to break than in their original form; and the skeleton will in this way go a great deal further, and in the aggregate last a great deal longer, than it otherwise would.

We trust that this suggestion will be tried, before hoops are longer worn; and we believe it will be found an effectual remedy for the embarrassments and difficulties that have heretofore attended this question.