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

I'm just as fascinated at the man that would still chooses to marry his bride if they turned up in something hideous or totally inappropriate.

So, at a wedding you weren’t invited to, a bride you don’t know, wore a dress you didn’t like enough for you to to take the time to complain about it. Out of curiosity, what’s next on your to do list this weekend?

You've taken the time to complain about someone who's complaining about it, so pot, kettle......

Very low cut not appropriate imo.
However, my wedding dress was a strapless corset type one. The lady in the shop assured me it wouldn't fall down and show too much cleavage but it did!! Despite attempts by a couple of people during the day to tighten it for me it still went too low for my liking - although nowhere near my nipples!! Ruined the day for me really. Definitely would advise against that type of dress if you're reasonably well endowed!

Torn - nobody said that abusing anyone was okay.

The OP didn't say "What's more acceptable - abusing children or wearing a revealing wedding dress?"

And I can tell you that Christians are just as disgusted and horrified by clerical abuse as anyone else.

Priests are as human (and sometimes inhuman) as anyone else - they are people, and some people are horrible; and they are in positions of power and of trust - and there will always be people who abuse such positions. Your comment is derailing and has nothing to do with the thread.

Don't be such a mean girl. It's not nice.

I'm just as fascinated at the man that would still chooses to marry his bride if they turned up in something hideous or totally inappropriate
Prejudice much? Who said there was a man involved? Could be two ladies in this day and age! sorry just having fun with this silly thread - outrage over something none here even saw IRL!

Maybe the bride is an historian and knows that in Georgian times it was quite common to wear dresses that revealed your nipples.

Or maybe she had a panic attack in the car, did some deep breathing and released more than tension.

Or maybe the OPs friend is being a bit spiteful and exaggerating things and the OP is being mean and repeating malicious gossip.

If God made the boobs, he’s probably not bothered about them being shown
Based on that, God made dick, but I'm reasonably sure men don't whip them out and helicopter during a Sunday service.

The church should explain the dress code. I've never known a church do this for a wedding.
Churches have no problem marrying non-believers. They are happy to take in the income. Same with Christenings. They know full well the Godparents and parents and congregation for that matter have little intention of honouring the vows.

Are breasts deemed sexual by the church? There are other threads on here where countless women are yearning for them to be desexualised.
Perhaps it's only our sins that made them sexual.

Weddings, even church ones, are a celebration of sex.
"With my body I thee worship"
[Swoons]

Completely tacky.

BrieandChilli, the dress showed about the same amount of boob as the one you picture.

Ok maybe I am old fashioned but in a church!! Sorry but I don't think it is ok but then I don't really agree with getting married in a church if you never go to one

Maybe the bride is an historian and knows that in Georgian times it was quite common to wear dresses that revealed your nipples

Not in church it wasn't!

Really don't think it's anyone else's business. If you have faith, then you presumably believe the Lord created breasts?

Really don't know why people enjoy being sanctimonious about other people's bodies like this. I don't give an airborne fornication what you choose to wear, and I don't get why it matters.

Incidentally, I'm a Christian and I don't like wearing clothes that show much because I'm of the view that less is more. But that's my own opinion. I don't seek to inflict it on others.

Pretty sure there's stuff in the Bible about not judging and not bitching, too. I dunno. Snarking over someone else's sartorial decisions to prove your own Christian standards seems a tad arse backwards, really.

*Torn - nobody said that abusing anyone was okay.

The OP didn't say "What's more acceptable - abusing children or wearing a revealing wedding dress?"

And I can tell you that Christians are just as disgusted and horrified by clerical abuse as anyone else.

Priests are as human (and sometimes inhuman) as anyone else - they are people, and some people are horrible; and they are in positions of power and of trust - and there will always be people who abuse such positions. Your comment is derailing and has nothing to do with the thread.*

Indeed, but pouring scorn over a dress that nobody's seen seems ridiculous and I'm comparing it to the lack of scorn poured out at known abuses.

Not in church it wasn't!

There are reports of a wedding dress made of cloth of gold, so heavy it dragged the bodice to the waist. And this was a royal wedding (hence the fabric choices).

Pretty sure the current Pope spoke approvingly about women breastfeeding in Mass a few years ago, too. They're just... boobs.

Churches have no problem marrying non-believers. They are happy to take in the income. Same with Christenings. They know full well the Godparents and parents and congregation for that matter have little intention of honouring the vows.

Not quite Torn.

Because the Anglican church is the established Church of England, they HAVE to marry, you, christen your children, and bury you - they get no choice in the matter. If you are in their parish, then they have to do it.

(And it's bloody infuriating being told that your church isn't "pretty enough" because of "all them graves" and they'll go to another one in the parish. By all means, bugger off go to another one, but don't insult ours!)

I wouldn't but what does it matter really?

I DO like that dress that SONofabitch posted. Where it's nude material it would be black and that would be perfect. It's lovely!

Indeed, but pouring scorn over a dress that nobody's seen seems ridiculous and I'm comparing it to the lack of scorn poured out at known abuses.

Nobody asked about a particular dress - it was a general question - did we thing that a very, very low cut dress was appropriate for a church wedding. And people responded. Nobody has "poured scorn".

And the Church doesn't have a monopoly on child abusers. They're vile and contemptible in any and every walk of life.

Actual nipples on show? OK then...

I had my tits out in the front row of the church at DD’s christening. Breastfeeding. I didn’t get struck by a thunderbolt!

Have to admit, Lyingwitch - it is a lovely dress, and classy despite it's apparent sheerness. Clever materials and a smart girl with excellent posture wearing it. Still too low for my taste, but with a little bolero jacket (and perhaps a modesty panel in the skirt ) it's a lot less revealing than some I've seen.

And for those mentioning breastfeeding - entirely different - and you know it!

Only on MN are people so sanctimonious - tripping over themselves to say 'of course, it's fine!'

Of course it's not fine to have most of your tits on show. At best it will make your guests uncomfortable not to mention it probably looks pretty horrible and is all people will talk about afterwards.

YANBU. If it was really low barely covering nipples it is not appropriate for the Bride or their guests at church. The local priests reminds you when booking a wedding or christening.

My Dsis married in Spain in a Catholic church we all had to have shoulders covered during the mass.