person’s character; regardless of her mask, her female character is clear all through the play. Moll’s male garments just increase her solidarity and opportunity, accordingly her attire shows her standards and social position, her disposition towards specific issues and relations with individuals. As Moll claims, “marriage is nevertheless a hacking and changing, where a lady looses one head, and has a more terrible 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 accepted 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 eye. All the while, her camouflage permits Moll to turn into a piece of different social classes and to notice life from various positions. As indicated by Howard (1994), such way of behaving and mask uncover ladies’ dismissal of the man centric framework and male control. The difference in attire 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 temperament. Jean Howard (1988) makes reference to an old maid Dorothy Clayton who was captured, in light of the fact that “in opposition to all genuineness and womanhood [she] usually approaches the City clothed in man’s clothing” (p.420). In this unique circumstance, 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 violations, like prostitution and burglary. Accordingly, 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 sexual orientations. Specifically, the show shows that society of the seventeenth century viewed attire as a device that could declare 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 perplexing 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 prohibited from society, since he/she didn’t follow the suitable 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 agitating to male centric control” (p.72). Pointing at the significance of clothing, Dekker and Middleton (1955) verifiably condemn wrong philosophies of society towards sexual orientations. As per the writers, changes of attire exhibit different social and social changes: “Presently in the hour of spruceness, our plays follow the superbness of our articles 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 “masked like a sempster” (1.1.16), her straightforward clothing uncovers her having a place with a low class, in spite of the fact that Mary’s camouflage 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 clothing in the public arena they live. Their attire shows their way of life and attributes of character, at the same time it reveals stupidity of those individuals who are engrossed with the laid out design norms. Sir Alexander can’t grasp Moll’s wear