Of course what teens are wearing -- and what they spend on those clothes -- is always a hot topic, for all of the obvious reasons. But Eileen Putnam's recent article on CNN.com starts out going for flash (the title is Mom shocked by teen's modest clothing) and then goes on to detail a myriad of conclusions which one could argue are both illogical and self-conflicting.

The article opens with this assertion: "A shocking trend is gaining ground in teen dressing: modesty." Putnam then gives an example from her own life, where her daughter chose to wear a a strapless dress with a cardigan on top.

Apparently, I am supposed to find this shocking. Unfortunately for Putnam, I pretty much just find this to be strategic planning for the likelihood of strong air conditioning. But okay -- let's pretend I'm shocked. I'm shocked! Tell me more!

Putnam goes on to edify with this:

Layering. The economic downturn. Traction from an entrenched parents' backlash against highly sexualized looks for their daughters. Oh, and fashion's do-or-die need to throw something new at the gigantic but fickle teen/tween market as quickly as you can say "MySpace" or "Facebook."

Now, I don't want to nitpick, really, but that's a whole bunch of different ideas, there. And while I understand (sort of) layering being related to the concept of making-old-new in a world of fickle trends, that is neither new nor (in my opinion) related to economics.

The Next Rich Girl shares my confusion:

I'm not convinced that layering is saving anyone any money (doesn't layering just mean that you need to buy twice as many clothes in order to form a complete outfit?), but is it true that a trend to more modest clothing is connected to the economy?

And that's the second sticking point, for me: A downturn in the economy is related to dressing more conservatively?

Salon's Judy Berman informs me that it's an old cliche, that when the economy is bleak, hemlines do indeed fall. But in her retort The hemline effect, she takes issue with the assertion that less-modest clothing is truly linked to the laundry list of problems Putnam lists:

While I acknowledge that the standards of physical perfection offered by fashion magazines and pop stars can make teen girls feel inadequate (believe me, I've been there), I also think it's dangerous to imply that young women who wear miniskirts are automatically on the road to self-hatred or mental illness. Is it so audacious to suggest that wearing a dress with a plunging neckline may sometimes reflect the self-confidence of a teenager unafraid to wear a bold outfit, rather than a slavish desire to emulate celebrities?

I have to agree that the brush seems awfully broad. And then Berman goes on to note that she certainly hasn't seen a decrease in revealing clothing, and she wonders if Putnam is perhaps engaging in some wishful thinking.

The part I found most baffling, though, is that the original article goes on and on, making the point about modesty being "back," and then near the end there's this:

Covered up can mean put-together (think "Gossip Girl") or disheveled (a bit of Mary-Kate-and-Ashley grunge meets Amy Winehouse). And even that look can have sexual connotations.

"It's the one-night-stand look," Meyerson said. As in the disheveled morning after, clothes with a slept-in feel.

Ummmm... what? Teens are suddenly being so modest that parents are "shocked," but by the way, a leading retail forecaster is calling it the "one-night-stand look?"

Jess in Ohio finds the entire article somewhat suspect, but in particular can't resist a jab at Meyerson's observation:

Just make sure that your teen isn't wearing the wrong kind of layered, supposedly modest getup though, or they'll risk looking like Amy Winehouse... or like they just had a one night stand.

"It's the one-night-stand look," Meyerson said. As in the disheveled morning after, clothes with a slept-in feel.

Makes you want to run out and buy a twin set doesn’t it?

And Tee of Curious Villager is prompted to quip:

The "one night stand" thing is pretty icky, but if I had to choose, I'll take it over the "ready to give it out for free in a bathroom stall look".

So I'm pretty much left scratching my head. Is it more modest, or isn't it? Is it related to the economy, or not? Is it universal, or just the author's personal experience?

In the meantime, Erica at This Is How We Do It thinks the emphasis on trend-following is missing the point:

So, I was reading [Putnam's CNN article] and realized that the ol saying still goes:

MODEST IS HOTTEST

[...]

So glad that the article points out that girls follow the "trends in media", and not their conscience or dignity, or even faith for that matter. No! Heaven forbid...we must follow the trends in the media.

Thank you, Miley Cyrus for finally putting a cardigan on so I could have a reason to dress modest.

At the end of my reading, the only thing I found shocking was that I'm supposed to be shocked. And that, as it turns out, holds absolutely no sway on what my daughter chooses to wear or how I view her wardrobe choices. Go figure.

BlogHer Contributing Editor Mir also blogs about issues parental and otherwise at Woulda Coulda Shoulda, and about the joys of mindful retail therapy at Want Not.