attire shows her standards and social position, her demeanor towards specific issues and relations with individuals. As Moll claims, “marriage is nevertheless a slashing and changing, where a lady looses one head, and has a more regrettable ith place” (Dekker and Middleton, 1955 2.2.41-43). Dressing in drag of Moll is used to depict the person’s battle against specific normal practices; when she dismisses putting on something else and the style of conduct, she needs to point at the equivalent places of people in the public arena. At the same time, her camouflage permits Moll to turn into a piece of different social classes and to notice life from various positions. As per Howard (1994), such way of behaving and mask uncover ladies’ dismissal of the man centric framework and male control. The difference in clothing was considered as the difference in the customary orientation division, and in the event that a lady wore male garments, she was remembered to double-cross her own tendency. Jean Howard (1988) makes reference to an old maid Dorothy Clayton who was captured, in light of the fact that “in spite of all genuineness and womanhood [she] ordinarily approaches the City clothed in man’s clothing” (p.420). In this unique situation, the seventeenth century show mirrors that the wear of male garments was related with female sexuality. Moll’s male clothing is viewed by individuals as an indication of her disappointment, that is the reason society censures this female in different wrongdoings, like prostitution and burglary. Hence, clothing possesses a significant situation in the show of that period, as it permits the writers to reveal a few get-togethers and relations between sexes. Specifically, the show shows that society of the seventeenth century viewed clothing as a device that could state social and orientation standards, and, assuming an individual dismissed the laid out standards for dress, he/she was remembered to go against to other normal practices, like marriage. As Catherine Belsey (1985) puts it, “Marriage becomes in the sixteenth and seventeenth hundreds of years the site of a dumbfounding battle to make a confidential domain and to assume command over it in light of a legitimate concern for a public decent” (p.130). Thus, such individual was rejected from society, since he/she didn’t follow the fitting style of life. As per Howard (1991), “[she] questions that [in the public theatre] just ladies’ virtue or ladies’ notorieties were in danger… The actual act of playgoing set ladies in places possibly disrupting to male centric control” (p.72). Pointing at the significance of clothing, Dekker and Middleton (1955) verifiably censure wrong belief systems of society towards sexual orientations. As per the writers, changes of attire show different social and social changes: “Presently in the hour of spruceness, our plays follow the delightfulness of our pieces of clothing” (Dekker and Middleton, 1955 2.6-7). Toward the start of the play Dekker and Middleton (1955) show that Mary Fitzallard, another female person, is “camouflaged like a sempster” (1.1.16), her straightforward clothing uncovers her having a place with a low class, despite the fact that Mary’s mask is pointed toward accomplishing a specific objective. As Mary understands that normal practices keep her from wedding an individual she cherishes, she chooses to change her clothing. Each time when Moll and Mary put on something else, they weight on the meaning of attire in the public arena they live. Their attire shows their way of life and qualities of character, all the while it uncovers absurdity of those individuals who are distracted with the laid out style guidelines. Sir Alexander can’t grasp Moll’s wear of male garments; he thinks about that such activity annihilates the conventional division of sexual orientations. His assessment of Moll is for the most part founded on her attire, he distinguishes this female person with her apparel, neglecting to understand her actual self.