Miss Manners on strapless wedding dresses

[Thipu1]

I have no objection to strapless Wedding dresses but, to me, they don't look comfortable.  However, they seem to be the norm these days.  Woe to the bride who wants straps or (gasp) sleeves.

When I was married in 1983, my dress was a lined, knee-length sheath of cotton lace with long, unlined lace sleeves.  It was comfortable, modest and cost 40 USD. 

We also had a modest reception but everybody had a good time and a good meal.  We were buying our co-op and figured that money was better spent on Mr. Mortgage. Our guests agreed.  One of the nicest compliments I've ever received was when niece told me she  modeled her Wedding after ours. 

I agree that the fashion for strapless Wedding dresses is market-driven.  These dresses usually require special foundation garments that add to the cost of an already expensive dress.  On 'Say Yes to the Dress', I've seen brides whose gowns cost more than the down-payment on our apartment. 

[LadyL]

I agree with the idea that if you wouldn't wear a tube top to church, why would you wear something that amounts to the same (lack of) coverage to what is arguably the most important religious ceremony of your life? It seems direspectful to me.

A tube top is much more informal than a structured, formal, strapless wedding gown. The convention of strapless gowns only being for parties faded out, to my knowledge, around the 60s or 70s. The idea of one's shoulders and arms being immodest is a matter of religious doctrine, and to a lesser extent taste, but I was always confused why arms and shoulders were considered sexual. Cleavage, sure, short skirt, sure, even bare midriff I get -  but I have never been titillated by someone's upper arms or collarbone  .

I will add that I also thought wedding dresses were boring and cookie cutter these days. However, I realized after dress shopping that most photos do not pick up the fine details of a dress (including the designer's own photos, which is why I completely overlooked my dress when I first saw a picture of it online but was stunned by it in person). My second runner up dress had an entire under layer of beautiful lace under a layer of sheerer material - the under layer is not visible in the online pictures but creates a very nice effect in person. Details like pleating, beading, ruching, etc. often don't show up in flash photos but in person distinguish the gowns from all the others.

[Thipu1]

There is no comparison between a tube top and the dress pictured. 

Yes, the dress has a plunging neckline but the V is very narrow.  It looks comfortable, elegant and perfectly suitable for a church Wedding in most major denominations. 

[Poppea]

I have no objection to strapless Wedding dresses but, to me, they don't look comfortable.  However, they seem to be the norm these days.  Woe to the bride who wants straps or (gasp) sleeves.

When I was married in 1983, my dress was a lined, knee-length sheath of cotton lace with long, unlined lace sleeves.  It was comfortable, modest and cost 40 USD. 

We also had a modest reception but everybody had a good time and a good meal.  We were buying our co-op and figured that money was better spent on Mr. Mortgage. Our guests agreed.  One of the nicest compliments I've ever received was when niece told me she  modeled her Wedding after ours. 

I agree that the fashion for strapless Wedding dresses is market-driven.  These dresses usually require special foundation garments that add to the cost of an already expensive dress.  On 'Say Yes to the Dress', I've seen brides whose gowns cost more than the down-payment on our apartment.

Your dress sounds very chic.  Simple yet elegant.

[Spring Water on Sundays]

Overall, I think strapless gowns in churches are tacky. For an outdoor wedding or another venue, sure if that's what the bride wants. I agree with the idea that if you wouldn't wear a tube top to church, why would you wear something that amounts to the same (lack of) coverage to what is arguably the most important religious ceremony of your life? It seems direspectful to me.

I also find strapless dresses completely boring anymore. It seems like everyone wears the same fit & flair/mermaid strapless dresses anymore, the only differences being details like lace or beading. Brides have become very cookie cutter in the last few years. I'd rather see a bride dressed like Duchess Catherine; at least she looked appropriate, pretty and respectful (regardless of whether you like her personally or not). Or a different color; wedding gowns do not have to be white...that's simply a fashion trend that no one is required to stick to. But these dull, white strapless gowns are just overdone.

I felt pretty in my flattering and simple strapless gown, my new husband found me beautiful in it, my parents (who paid for my gown) were beaming over their lovely daughter, and my pastor assured me, when I asked him, that the church had no rules, guidelines, or restrictions on bare shoulders. To whom was I being disrespectful?

[Yvaine]

There is no comparison between a tube top and the dress pictured. 

Yes, the dress has a plunging neckline but the V is very narrow.  It looks comfortable, elegant and perfectly suitable for a church Wedding in most major denominations.

Yeah, a tube top is revealing not just because of the cut but because they're usually (a) really unstructured and (b) made of really thin material.

And some of the "more covered up" dresses of the last few decades were actually pretty revealing too. I remember a lot of those puffed sleeve 80s gowns showed substantial cleavage. The Carolyn Bessette Kennedy dress mentioned above--my google-fu is failing me, but I think it was backless. Just like in regular clothes, styles come and go in terms of what is hidden and what is revealed. Next it might be cap sleeves but a short skirt, who knows.

[SiotehCat]

Would a well fitting tube top made of thicker material with a corset on top be acceptable then? I don't think it would.

I think that if one choose to wear a strapless dress, they should wear some kind of cover while in church.

[Sharnita]

A dress that has sleeves on top might "cover" as much as a child's sleeper on top but comparing the two strikes me as a bit absurd.  Comparing a strapless bridal gown to a tube top seems almost as pointless.

[Tabby Uprising]

Would a well fitting tube top made of thicker material with a corset on top be acceptable then? I don't think it would.

I think that if one choose to wear a strapless dress, they should wear some kind of cover while in church.

That should be left up to the church.

[Golden Phoenix]

She'd hate me. 

When we got married we couldn't afford a dress, or a reception, we barely afforded the flowers and i made all of that myself from a couple of bunches from the local florist.

I wore nice trousers, my best top and my best shoes. I put my hair half up and covered a small clip in roses and foliage and used that to hold my hair back.

Whole wedding cost: Less than £200. Including ceremony and rings.

Actually, I doubt she would hate it. What you describe is something she would believe was entirely appropriate. She's stated a few times about disliking over the top weddings and people going into debt for a wedding.

Yep. I never understood the going into debt for a wedding. But then I'm a geek that way. 

Me either. We stuck with what we could afford and the day meant just as much to us as if we had a big ceremony.

Though i must admit we're saving hard for a "Big White Vow Renewal" on our anniversary next year. We're booking a hall, having a buffet and disco and i'll wear a wedding dress. It's basically an anniversary party with extras since we didn't get to do the big fancy do the first time round. Should still cost us less than £600 which isn't bad at all.

FTR this is the dress i'll be wearing:

[LadyL]

Would a well fitting tube top made of thicker material with a corset on top be acceptable then? I don't think it would.

I think that if one choose to wear a strapless dress, they should wear some kind of cover while in church.

That should be left up to the church.

POD. Some religions require even more coverage than just shoulders and upper arms - some require sleeves covering the entire elbow, for example. There is no one rule about modesty that applies to all churches/houses of worship.

[Spring Water on Sundays]

Would a well fitting tube top made of thicker material with a corset on top be acceptable then? I don't think it would.

I think that if one choose to wear a strapless dress, they should wear some kind of cover while in church.

Even if the bride checks with the pastor/officiant beforehand and is assured there are no rules or guidelines regarding strapless gowns or bare shoulders?

[booklover03]

My wedding dress was strapless. I loved it.  My sister did not want strapless. She was uncomfortable with the idea and got a dress with capped sleeves. She looked beautiful. I tried on a lot of wedding gown and disliked the ones with sleeves. I couldn't move my arms very well and I felt very confined. Strapless worked well for me and my dh loved my gown. I even brought a picture to the minister doing our wedding and he said it was fine and we got married in a pretty conservative church. Different strokes for different folks.

[rose red]

A strapless dress can look modest, and a sleeved dress can look obscene.  It all depends on the cut, the shape of the woman, and what look the woman is really going for.  I never found shoulders and arms sexy or suggestive anyway.

[Yvaine]

Would a well fitting tube top made of thicker material with a corset on top be acceptable then? I don't think it would.

I think that if one choose to wear a strapless dress, they should wear some kind of cover while in church.

Even if the bride checks with the pastor/officiant beforehand and is assured there are no rules or guidelines regarding strapless gowns or bare shoulders?

This. I really think each church's modesty standards should be left up to that church--there's no universal rule that applies to all congregations, all denominations, all faiths.