Printable View
Nay, nay, nay. I'm normally about here on the continuum:
TRADITIONALIST <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - OCS - - > ICONOCLAST
...when it comes to stuff like religion and holidays and thank-you cards and asking for your bride's hand in marriage. But give me a classic, fairly modest wedding dress over something from the Frederick's of Hollywood Bridal Collection any day of the century.
You know, none of these are even that immodest. As I really can't bring myself to care what other people do at their weddings, I voted yea.
I don't see anything wrong with sexy wedding dressed, per se - however, I'd prefer for them to be classy as well as sexy - the first two dresses pictured her seem a bit too racy for me to accept as being classy, and so I'm not all that comfortable with them. The third dress is a bit more borderline - and could be classy, or otherwise, depending on the bride's body language. The fourth does strike me as classy, as well as sexy, and I'd approve it wholeheartedly
What about for yourself or your bride?Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
It's one thing to look beautiful on one's wedding day. It's another thing to deliberately tart oneself up. What's the impulse here, for the groom to show off to his great aunts and cousins what a hottie he bagged? Ugh, far be it from me to act traditionalist but on what is sort of a big day, it seems like at least a little minimal level of decorum is in order. If anyone actually does walk down the aisle with her entire legs bare, I would say it's tacky and trashy in the extreme.
I deliberately put various levels of revealing, because I was thinking about it as a concept, vs. just putting one SUPER sexy dress up that most people probably would never consider, you know?Quote:
Originally posted by OtakuLoki
P.S.: The fourth dress is actually quite pretty and if the sheerness were just toned down a little I wouldn't find it problematic. Formal attire for women can involve a certain amount of sheer fabric -- but by common convention, in our culture, it doesn't normally involve legs showing.
Actually, for that matter, dress number 2 is quite nice too, just, you know, a little too hookery for a wedding. Dress number 3 is a hot mess.
Quote:
Originally posted by OtakuLoki
Here is where I confess that I looked at the first two, then started scrolling. :fail:Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
The last one is actually nice, and would be very nice if I couldn't see skin tone around the midriff.
Or, at least at a wedding, any thing between the tops of your boobs and your knees. Arms/shoulders are a different story.Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
I could easily see myself in an above-the-knee wedding dress, but not a mini-skirt or a "hey here are my boobs!" top since I don't wear those even in my day-to-day life.Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
Maybe I'm just extra feminist today but using the words "tart" "trashy" and "tacky" to describe some relatively modest clothing is unsettling to me. What is it about the social context of a wedding that makes people so prudish?Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
I think it looks cheap and trashy, but if you want to look like a hooker on your wedding day, that's your own business.
Well, aside from that nauseating trend a couple years ago for "formal shorts" (ugh) I don't think you really ever see much leg except maybe some chance ankle or possibly a tasteful slit in formalwear. Not that I know anything about fashion but I'm pretty sure formal attire for women (as opposed to cocktail dresses) is usually taken to mean floor-length. But I could be wrong about that. Arms and cleavage are fine, calves are not. Obviously just convention, and convention changes, but I don't think that one's really changed yet.
I guess I don't see what it has to do with feminism. If a guy wore really tight pants and a shirt unbuttoned down to his waist, I think people might find that equally inappropriate. Whether or not that is prudish or uptight is another issue.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
I think it's trashy when celebrities (or celebrity-wannabes) wear miniskirts to the Oscars too.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
So conventions may change, at which time a shorter dress would not be tacky and trashy, but until they do (and I'm pretty sure conventions change by way of ....... people wearing clothes that don't fit the current style) you are going to call shorter dresses tacky and trashy?Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
FWIW, I would think of those top two dresses as inappropriate for almost any public setting. I would think the same of any men's outfit that showed similar amounts of skin. (Besides, who would even do that, Magnum PI?)Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
A miniskirt in the front with a big poofy train in the back and a transparent bodice screams "hooker fantasy wear" to me. It looks like a "Sexxxy Bride" Halloween costume.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
I still voted yes on the poll. Most wedding-wear looks silly to me in one way or another.
This. A thousand times this. I've been subjected to looking at more catalogs and websites featuring wedding dresses than any man not accused of terrorism should have to be, and while most of them are "nice" all of them are about as practical as a solid gold toliet. They don't look comfortable, they're not made out of realistic fabrics, they're nothing but fantasy stitched together with what mostly look like broken chandeliers and parts of window dressings from French resturants and they cost as much as my first two cars put together.Quote:
Originally posted by Orual
My own has selected herself a dress that is in fact rather pretty, but based on the length of the thing it appears to offer insurance that were you to wake up on your wedding day and find yourself to have somehow grown to the size of Lebron James you'd still be good to go. Of course suddenly finding yourself 5 feet taller is something that all brides should worry about, which is why you should employ a team of tailors to be on call at all times up to and including six months past your wedding date at the fairly normal price of $5000 a day plus food and lodging. It also features a chest decoration that is slightly reminiscent of Darth Vader's chest panel were it to have been designed by malaria crazed Liberace.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? I don't remember anymore. I hate wedding dresses.
I'm suddenly glad this is neither artifex's nor my first marriage. :hist:
I'm saying while I recognize that there's a convention is, in large part, arbitrary -- i.e. cleavage is fine in formalwear, but ankles are verboten, I don't feel morally obligated to pretend it doesn't exist or try to be above it. Unless it's something that's oppressive. I don't buy that covering your legs up for your wedding day is oppressive. And I don't feel obliged to ignore the attitude being communicated by a bride who decides to sex up her wedding ceremony.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
I had the marvelous duty of holding my sister's dress up while she peed at her wedding reception. And it wasn't even that fancy of a dress.Quote:
Originally posted by Cluricaun
It was at that moment that 'formal wedding gown' went onto my No Way In Hell List. Clothing that prevents one from using the facilities independently is clothing that should not be worn.
I need a drink.
Anyway, going back and thinking about it with some distance between my own hell and the actual topic I think that you can most likely pull off something a bit racier than the norm if it suits your personality and you don't look like the Michelin Man.
Eh, whatever floats somebody's boat. I really don't care. A wedding is a ritual for giving two people legitimate sexual access to one another. If a bride had a crazy fertility cult dress with her naked breasts pushed up and out I'd say, "Huh. Groovy."
Where do they sell these dresses, just out of curiosity.
I dunno; there are all sorts of people in polyamorous or sexually open relationships who nonetheless marry their spouse in order to set that one relationship apart from all the other people who have legitimate sexual access to them.Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul
(Granted, those people are more likely to go with something resembling your fertility cult dress than the Stephanie Seymour look OR the Queen Elizabeth look.) :lol:
My sister was annoyed when she looked at wedding dresses that they were all "boob tubey", strapless, as was the style o' the time. My mother made her a more "conservative" wedding dress that I think looked great, based on a design from the 1960's. However, it is the bride's prerogative to dress whatever way she wants. Having said that, some dresses will attract internet scorn and ridicule. For example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__m4wg-nDAM...er+Wedding.jpg
http://tackyweddings.files.wordpress...t-married3.jpg
http://tackyweddings.files.wordpress...ing-breast.jpg
This is actually from a Russian wedding and is a pretty popular style there. I've seen a lot "let yer boobs hang out" Russian wedding dresses and find them...intriguing.Quote:
Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí
The first and third look goofy and Madison Ave, Music Video or Hollywood to me, the second one seems to extreme and more like something for the first night together. The fourth one actually looks pretty and I see nothing too weird about it. The ones AG posted look very trashy.
I did not vote.
Changed my mind. This one's pure class.Quote:
Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí
FTFYQuote:
Originally posted by Exy
Well, like I said, I figured that the first ones were a bit over the top. Most people I know wouldn't wear them only cause they just aren't their style. I included the last one specifically because it's more of a traditional gown with a bit of racy flair to it.Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
Just think, on the SDMB you could get banned for that.Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul
Well, I did compromise the integrity of the board.Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
That biker one isn't too far out of the ordinary for biker folk, and the one where the tits are hanging out is a masterpiece of fashion which should be picked up stateside as soon as possible.
I think the long-in-back, short-in-front thing is ugly as hell. I think it's kinda trashy in that it seems to be gratuitous leg-showing with no eye whatever for doing so in an attractive manner. It's like the mullet of skirts. (And, having read the other thread, I think "trashy" is absolutely a concept that spans genders.)
The third one is still skirt-mullet, but pulls it off better; the shoulders are asymmetrical too. I think the last one could be lovely if the bodice had backing fabric.
I guess the thing is, those dresses don't fall into what I consider sexy. Something in satin that knows where to cling and where to drape, that promises rather than throws itself at you - that would say "sexy" to me. Which is a personal aesthetic, but I also think that brand of sexy would go over better at an event where your grandma is going to be. I think the dress I've bought for our wedding is actually pretty sexy, but I hope to look lovely, rather than hot, in it.
"The mullet of skirts." Apropos on so many levels. If you coined that, you're a genius. :DQuote:
Originally posted by artifex
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you'll probably still look hot in it. :fail:Quote:
I guess the thing is, those dresses don't fall into what I consider sexy. Something in satin that knows where to cling and where to drape, that promises rather than throws itself at you - that would say "sexy" to me. Which is a personal aesthetic, but I also think that brand of sexy would go over better at an event where your grandma is going to be. I think the dress I've bought for our wedding is actually pretty sexy, but I hope to look lovely, rather than hot, in it.
I vote yea. I won't be the one in the dress, and as far as I'm concerned my hypothetical bride can wear a gorilla suit if she wants to so long as she shows up, and her vows are sincere. Everything but the vows are pointless fluff anyway.
I've struggled with the notion of "acceptable" clothes for quite a number of years now and, for the longest time, had very strong opinions on what is appropriate attrie for a given scenario and what is completely unacceptable. However, I've come to the realization that I am all for people choosing to wear what they want to wear, irrespective of the "appropriateness" or the circumstances. If a bride wants to wear a sparkly tube top, a thong, and 4-inch clear heels into a church for her wedding day, so be it. The most important thing for me is that when people express themselves in such a manner, they are conveying critical information to us about who they are and what they stand for. This is information that I consider to be invaluable in helping to determine what kind of person that is and whether or not I want to have anything to do with that person.
So I say wear the sexy dress! Or the conservative dress. Or the clown costume. Or just show up completely naked. More power to you!
I completely agree with you that clothes send a very powerful message. But, I think I'm not getting how your opinion has changed. Are you saying that you used to think that some clothes are inappropriate for certain occasions, and shouldn't be worn, and now you think it's fine to wear whatever clothes you want, as long as you are aware that it's sending a message? If so, it's still true that down deep you think there are certain things that are appropriate and certain things that aren't, right?Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
(Don't think I'm trying to bust your chops, please...I'm of a similar mindset as you overall.)
Well, even assuming this is true, it doesn't at all follow that your interpretation of the "message" is the same one the bride (or whoever) intended to send. And I'm still not totally convinced that everyone dresses with the opinions with other people in mind, and not simply to please themselves.Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
If you are concerned about "who they are and what they stand for" you could always, you know, judge them on their words and actions instead of the monumentally unimportant data point of what they wear.
How you choose to look is an action, and a statement, and it's the opposite of "monumentally unimportant." This is true whether you're dressing "to please yourself" or to make an impression on others. Try wearing a fursuit to your next court date, or a bikini to your next job interview, if you don't believe me. Clothing and grooming give other people their first exposure to you, and they say volumes about what you think of yourself, as well as what you think of the place and occasion in which you find yourself.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
Fair question. No offense taken. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahfeena
Back in the day, I was firmly of the belief that certain places and situations required a particular manner of attire and behavior and that all unsuitable manners of dress and behavior should be prohibited. To my mind, getting along in society is difficult enough without certain elements making things more difficult or intolerable for everyone else. Nowadays, while I will still quietly sit in judgment of a person based on their personal comportment compared to my personal opinion of what is appropriate, and adjust my opinion of that person accordingly, I'm also actually in favor of people exercising their right to dress in whatever fashion they deem acceptable, to better facilitate my being all judgmental on everyone's ass.
This makes the world a better place in a number of ways: Everyone gets to do their own thing based on their own views and beliefs; the world is provided with instant, public information on the nature of each individual's views and beliefs; I more easily get to identify those people with whom I'd like to associate and those with whom I would not; everyone is far less stressed about villifying people for wearing the wrong thing at the wrong time. Everyone wins!
So to sum up, no my deep down opinions on what is appropriate attire have not really changed. However, I have not only stopped actively campaigning to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing Speedos on fat dudes, jeans at the office, baggy, full-length pants on baseball players, and mullets on anyone, I have actually begun to actively encourage people to style themselves in the manner they see fit, so I know exactly who I'm dealing with at a glance. :)
This.Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
Whether or not a person dresses with what other people will think in mind is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they will. For example, I know for fact that I get a better response from the workers at my job site when I look a little bit scruffy than I do when I get cleaned up and shave -- the blue collar folks swinging the tools relate to me better if I dress more to their level than if I dress up like an executive. All I'm really saying is that I support people in their fashion statements, whether or not they were intending to make a statement, because it does reveal something about who you are. I mean, why wait to listen for someone to start talking if I can see from a distance, just based on what they're wearing, that that isn't the sort of person I'd want to speak to? And if I have judged that person wrong, well, that's my loss, isn't it?
That just seems like a fairly shallow and petty reason to decide whether or not to associate with someone. But if it works for you, then more power to you, I guess.
But those examples are so beyond the bounds of what is normal, that the people doing those things must be completely socially disconnected. Some posters in this thread are talking judging people because they have married in a dress that exposes a bit more leg than usual. I think that is worlds apart.Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
Uh, ok. Thanks for providing an example of a certain kind of mindset, I guess.Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
Then ignore my examples and focus on my point; i.e. that clothing is important and it does make a statement. If you choose to dress for yourself and don't give a damn what anyone else thinks, well, that's a statement too, and people do pick up on it.Quote:
Originally posted by Myrnalene
This again.Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
In my experience, if someone dresses like a hobo, they're either a hobo or a wildly eccentric billionaire. Either way, they're not really my kinda people. Likewise, if I see someone dressed up all skanky, they might not actually be a skank, but the underlying message sent by the clothes is one that suggests this isn't the sort of person I have any interest in. Maybe that's shallow and petty. Or maybe it's just the same kind of read everyone instinctively does on everyone else, all the time, whether they're aware of it or not...Quote:
Originally posted by Taumpy