Is it appropriate to wear a very very low cut wedding dress?

[mydogisthebest]

A friend has posted photos of a wedding she went to yesterday. When I saw photos of the bride I actually felt quite shocked.

Her wedding dress was so low cut you could actually see part of her nipples. She was bursting out of the dress and it looked about 3 sizes too small.

It was a church wedding and I feel it was really inappropriate to wear such a dress. A non church wedding would not have been so bad although the dress would still have looked tacky

Actually I don't think anyone has the right to call a woman a flappy-fannied trollop, no matter their clothing choices. People shouldn't speak in such a misogynist and horrible way, and they shouldn't slut-shame and denigrate. It's part of rape culture that they do, in fact, because revealing clothes translating into hateful, disgusted language about any woman scaffolds that stuff.

I didn't use the expression "flappy-fannied trollope". That is your own.

But you are entitled to your opinion of me, just as I am entitled to my opinion of other people. I don't actually call people these names, you know. And actually, except on this site, I don't even think them - but some people do. I can't remember which post stimulated my comment, but it was something like "What would people think if someone wore this type of wedding dress?" My answer was what "people" would think - not what I would think - though in some instances I might . . .

And there is a difference between revealing clothes in setting A, and revealing clothes in setting B. And if you truly think that the context doesn't matter, you're an idiot!

Would you like your DP (say) to receive an intimate examination by a doctor with her boobs hanging out of her top? Or your child to be taught by a teacher in a "mankini"?

And if you look at the clothing worn by women and girls who are raped, very few of them were wearing what might be termed even minimally provocative clothing

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/powerful-art-exhibit-powerfully-answers-the-question-what-were-you-wearing_us_59baddd2e4b02da0e1405d2a

Rape is a crime of power - not sex. The power comes from forcing a sexual act on a woman (or man) who doesn't appear to be "up-for-it".

I do not subscribe to the opinion that anyone should be allowed to wear anything they want in any setting "if they are happy with themselves" - not if it offends other people or makes them uncomfortable. Respect works two ways - if you want to be respected, you have to behave in a way which is respectful to others - not grovelling, just courteous.

Take your political agenda away from me, please. There are many very unpleasant comments made in jest on these threads - mine was one of them. It may be in bad taste, and it may not meet your definition of "humour", but the same can be said about many others, regarding both men and women.

I don't like promiscuity, because I think it is destructive to the individual - male of female, gay or straight; but a person's private life is their own, and as long as it doesn't affect me they can get on with it. TBH - I'm not remotely interested in what people get up to in bed, as long as they are consenting adults. That is their business, not mine.

I've been a christian most my life and I've never heard of any rules about what women should wear in or out of a church. What's with the mass pearl clutching?

I think the way you dress for a particular occasion should show respect and consideration. That’s what I taught my sons so as to instil in them some sort of dress sense. For example, if you are invited to somebody’s house for a meal you don’t turn up in your scruffiest clothes; the way you choose to dress shows respect for your host and for the occasion. On that basis, I think a very revealing wedding dress lacks respect for the decorum required in a church and consideration for the guests you invite. To say ‘my wedding, I’ll wear what I like’ is analogous to inconsiderate neighbours who say ‘my garden, I’ll make as much noise as I like’. Of course a bride wants to look her best on her wedding day, but a sense of proportion is required, surely.

I have found my view difficult to express and it probably hasn’t come out exactly as I intended, but I hope the gist makes sense.

Ah, apologies. It was slack. The meaning of your misogyny, however, remains. You hear about a woman in a low-cut dress, and you instantly assume she sleeps around to the point you invoke that disgusting belief that it would affect her vaginal muscles adversely.

And Trollope is an author. The hate-term for a woman who enjoys sex is trollop.

Thanks, but you don't need to lecture me on what the root causes of rape are. I'm fully aware clothing isn't at issue on victim selection. I've studied this at degree level, and I could cite statistics from peer reviewed studies - I don't need your google skills to convince me. What is at issue is the disgusting way some people refer to, treat, and discuss women, and your own statements are pretty clearly in black and white. Rape is a crime of hate and violence against women, and the sort of statements you have made here scaffold that cultural landscape. They contribute to it and enable it. As many, many of the peer reviewed studies also show.

I'm a Quaker, and we believe everyone has the Light in them. Everyone. No matter what they choose to wear, or do, or say. I just think that if you seek to put yourself forwards as a suitable spiritual director, then you should take a look at the way you have conducted yourself on here, because you've not really shown much sign of that Light in your own posts.

The hate-term for a woman who enjoys sex is trollop

Thank you. I'll try to remember that.

Come on. This is not about slut shaming or anything remotely like that.

It is generally accepted in contemporary Western societies that you do not publicly display your most visible sexual attributes in most social events - your bum, your penis, your vulva, your pubic hair, your nipples in the case of women because they are more sexualised than men's nipples (although men don't usually go barechested in most social events either).

That said, the bride probably looked ridiculous, but mainly because she had poured herself into a dress that was far too small for her. It's not the end of the world. Just ridiculous.

Her wedding dress was so low cut you could actually see part of her nipples. She was bursting out of the dress and it looked about 3 sizes too small.

^Obviously the bride is happy to be a laughing stock. You can’t buy class or taste.

TornFromTheInside Mon 30-Jul-18 18:14:47
Still curious - why are breasts with or without nipples showing so taboo?
Are they sexual? and if so, in whose eyes?

Well in my eyes they are and in the eyes of a lot of people who enjoy their breasts kissed, licked etc - bizarre!

And cares not a jot whether some people think I'm judgy or not - your breasts hanging out in a church is common as muck IMO and disrespectful.

Well in my eyes they are and in the eyes of a lot of people who enjoy their breasts kissed, licked etc - bizarre!

It's not so bizarre - there are other threads on here where women are calling for them not to be sexualised because they want to be able to go topless as they please without people saying 'not in front of the children' or 'inappropriate'.

*TornFromTheInside Tue 31-Jul-18 00:07:50
Well in my eyes they are and in the eyes of a lot of people who enjoy their breasts kissed, licked etc - bizarre!

It's not so bizarre - there are other threads on here where women are calling for them not to be sexualised because they want to be able to go topless as they please without people saying 'not in front of the children' or 'inappropriate'*

Really? I don't know what kind of 'people' you come across but thankfully most of the male members in my circle can differentiate between a breast feeding woman and somebody on the beach topless

These men don't 'sexualise' the breasts of most women on the beach I'm sure - I've seen women aged 90+ topless on the beach - believe me! nothing sexual about it lol!

Finally - some women can 'call' for what they want - ridiculous that breasts shouldn't be seen as sexual in some circumstances - we have to be thankful that 'most' normal people can differentiate

Really? I don't know what kind of 'people' you come across but thankfully most of the male members in my circle can differentiate between a breast feeding woman and somebody on the beach topless

I repeat, these are calls from women on this her site. I never mentioned men or friends or people I come across.

*here

*TornFromTheInside Tue 31-Jul-18 00:35:53
Really? I don't know what kind of 'people' you come across but thankfully most of the male members in my circle can differentiate between a breast feeding woman and somebody on the beach topless

I repeat, these are calls from women on this her site. I never mentioned men or friends or people I come across.*

Well in that case that woman is just bat shit crazy - Thankfully

SchadenfreudePersonified. Well said.

I agree completely re wearing such a tacky wedding dress and especially for a church wedding, when nowadays that suggests a religious belief as there's other wedding venue options!
But it seems wearing an incredibly brassy and tacky wedding dress is the accepted norm and there'll be little support here!

"I've been a christian most my life and I've never heard of any rules about what women should wear in or out of a church."

I'm surprised by this. You've never been to a country where tourists are asked to cover shoulders and not go into a church in shorts? Sometimes it's not made explicit, but local people will be offended. You've never heard of older women wanting to wear hats in church (and men taking them off)? You've never heard the expression 'Sunday best' for people who dressed up for church.

Surely if God is everywhere she's already seen us naked, having a poo, pinching grapes in Morrison's, and having sex. Why dress up?

I don’t like to see it but each to their own

Surely if God is everywhere she's already seen us naked, having a poo, pinching grapes in Morrison's, and having sex. Why dress up?

To take that to its fullest extent Goldenbug, we shouldn't even bat an eye at public sex, but rightly we find it distasteful and inappropriate.

Sometimes there are things that we know instinctively are not "right" (for want of a better term, but find it hard to explain why - especially in the face of people shouting about their "rights" and "what makes them feel good so they should be able to do it".)

Rights come with responsibilities. And who is to say why my "rights" should be more important than yours, or vice versa? We all have to live together in this increasing crowded world, and this can only be done peaceably by respecting boundaries.

Whether we like it or not, we are judged on what we do and wear - and rightly so, otherwise EVERYTHING would be acceptable - and I mean EVERYTHING! Peadophilia, bestiality, whatever - because if it makes Person A feel happy - well, that's their "right" isn't it?

I judge people, you judge people, we all judge other people - even perfectstorm is happily judging me, and the light or lack of, inside me - Quaker or not. That is because setting limits is the only way we can have decency and order.

And I am not talking about "shaming" ( though many of us do things we should be ashamed of) but about setting standards that enable people to interact with each other without embarrassment or discomfort. If someone's extreme behaviour causes other people to feel embarrased or upset, then it is wrong.

On here, I eff and blind like a navvy, as do many of us - however, I'll bet that very few of us swear like that publicly - why? Because we know if would make other people feel dreadful - and and ironically, although I can let rip on here, and read sweary posts on here, in real life I hate to hear it! Hypocritical? Maybe - but that's how it is.

Out of interest if the groom had only worn underpants and a shirt would that have been ok?

If people can wear what they want, where they want etc then surely it would be fine? Would guests not have been at the very least surprised?

I think that a groom in a church wearing underpants or even shorts would be wrong. There may not be written down rules about what to wear in a church but surely common sense and decency decree certain items not to be suitable?

What about bikinis? They ok to wear in church or even walking down the street?

Maybe I am old fashioned but some posters seem to want to go out of their way to show how modern and liberal thinking they are

My MIL was shocked I chose not to wear a veil!!!

I think people should dress appropriately for their environment and maybe consider the comfort of those around them. Personally, I don't want to see someone's boobs, while I'm going about my business.

I've been a christian most my life and I've never heard of any rules about what women should wear in or out of a church

I find that very hard to believe. What type of christian? I'm not a christian but its not something obscure, its common knowledge.

Try going to Italy and going into the Duomo in Florence (or any other church with people checking who's going in) with your shoulders uncovered, you won't get in. There are scarf/shawl sellers outside making a packet because of it. Try it at the Vatican, or wearing short shorts. Same for men, no vest tops etc. As I said before, on entering a mosque you would cover your head and remove your shoes, wouldn't you?

It's a church. I don't believe in any of that stuff, any religion at all. I have no respect for religion in itself. But I have respect for the people who do believe, and I follow their rules to show that respect. It's just common decency.
It being your wedding doesn't exclude you from it.

In the UK most evangelical, modern thinking churches have no dress code. Come as you are. Most folks wouldnt wear fishnets and high heels, but jeans or sometimes a short, possibly revealing skirt is worn by a teenager or young woman etc. Everybody has their own standards.

A more traditional church might frown upon some attire... usually a conservative congregation expecting to dress up for church (I.e. make a slight effort for church)

I've never known a dress code be imposed. I would imagine something explicit would be dealt with politely.

This bride though, I just cannot imagine she was explicitly dressed. Poorly fitted, yes. A tad buxom, yes. Possibly the victim of nipple slip, yes. But that is a very different scenario to deliberately provocative or sexual attire.
Are we really expected to believe this bride elected to be sexually explicit on her wedding day?
If she didn't elect to be so, then must we be so critical of her and assume she has no respect? Poor taste is not a lack of respect. Neither is the misfortune of an ill-fitted dress.

I agree that it was probably not intended but the dress was unfortunately too tight or slipped.

Regarding a choice to reveal yourself....I liked the question earlier about if it would be okay for a man to go a round in his pants or to get married without a shirt on - well, I guess we would all be surprised to see that, unless it was on a beach and even then we might be a little surprised. It isn't the social norm to go to aw ending of any type without a shirt on, with your nipples out or in your pants. Clearly there is unlikely to be a rule written down which says this cannot happen and it could be that one or two people might want to do this, and whether anyone would object or actively stop them is unclear, but it wouldn't be the social norm.

Is this a question about having fre choice to do what you like and about having to conform to what society or perhaps an organisation like the Church wants/expects?

Firstly, I actually think that most younger Church goers wouldn't be too bothered about what people wore to Church on a Sunday and wouldn't have very rigid views about exactly what should be worn by a bride. Those Church goers, like the rest of society might have a sense of social norms and that usually a bride doesn't reveal all of her boobs or a groom doesn't get married in his pants, but I do t think their expectations would be stricter than anyone elses.....in fact, those who do t usually go to Church might have a stronger sense of certain things being acceptable or less acceptable, because they are not in Church so often so feel more sensitive to there possibly being conventions that they want to fit in with....and have an idea that there is a certain thing the Church expects/frowns on, when actually there isn't.

Regarding dressing appropriately generally, rather than in church - well again, there are social conventions for all kinds of settings, from the workplace, to the beach, to the gym. Some people will take a more rigid view of these and think certain things are or aren't appropriate whilst others will be more laid back, within limits. There will be ways a few people might dress which would surprise most people as they are far outside the social norms. Whether this surprise would amount to deciding it is 'inappropriate' so some tutting, or actively complaining is another thing. And whether someone will get away with their unusual dressing also depends - it could be that in some situations, an official person might complain about a form of dress - so some shopping centres require shirts to be worn and if someone isn't wearing a shirt, might find they are approached by a security guard and asked to put a shirt on or leave. I don't know if anyone has ever been asked at their wedding in Church or anywhere to change what they are wearing by an official.

In the end, there are social norms and within them, there is always a range. Most people will consider a strapless dress or a bit of cleavage normal and fine, but the question is how revealing is still considered normal and fine? What about big slits up the leg revealing the thigh or very short dresses revealing almost everything.....might be the norm and socially acceptable in some groups and not in others.

So in short, there isn't a concrete answer to this. Clothing is one of those areas where social norms apply, but these differ and have ranges and people's attitude towards steps outside the se norms also differ from surprise, to disgust, to taking action.