Are Wedding Dresses Today Modest/Immodest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmjconder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our church allows modest only. My neighbor is getting married in July. Her and the bridesmaid dresses were bare shoulder. They had to add straps with caps to all the dresses. The brides actually is happy with the additions.
 
I think the strapless wedding dresses popular today are really immodest, not to mention unattractive, unbalanced-looking, and unflattering. Nothing looks worse than a bride constantly tugging on the bodice to keep herself from spilling out. Look how often the word “sexy” is used when describing these dresses. Where did this kooky idea come from, that you’re supposed to look sexy in a church wedding? Ugh. I think it’s disgusting. Save it for the honeymoon. Before I would wear one of those topless abominations, I would either 1) get a pattern and fabric and sew the dress myself, 2) buy a vintage dress, or 3) get a dress from a Renaissance costumer (made in white or off-white). All three of these options can be available for a very reasonable cost.
Click to expand...
I agree! I am hoping to sew my own wedding dress. Either that, or wear a family one, but I don’t think any of the family ones will fit.
 
psr13 said:
Straps cover skin. I don’t necessarily feel that is the location of skin that is immodest always. Sometimes it is the amount of skin. If dresses were made modestly, then they wouldn’t show cleavage even with straps. Mine doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Well, since straps are, well, straps and usually not quite an inch in width, do they really cover enough skin to make a difference? And where do you draw the line? You’re saying that too much skin is not modest, no matter where the skin is. Do you not show your arms? Are short wedding dresses that show your legs inappropriate? I guess it just starts to sound a bit much to me.
 
I don’t like the strapless dresses, especially for most women. My mom always said that if you didn’t have nice thin arms, the strapless dress didn’t look nice. She also told me that, back in the early fifties, they had May Crowning every year in her high school. One girl was chosen to dress in a bridal gown & veil to crown Mary. WEll, her senior year, she was it. She easily found a dress to borrow, but Sister who was in charge told her that (even though it had sleeves…the front was too low cut, and she had to have a jacket with it! ) My aunt had to make her a little jacket to cover up her upper chest skin, even though very little was showing (my mom was always very modest!) 😊 Another lady I know, who is 79, told me that the Msgr. at her parish (back in the 50’s, too) humiliated one bride by making her groom remove his suit jacket & made her wear it because it was felt that her dress was “too immodest”–how times have changed!

I can also say that I have been pretty careful even with my girls’ 1st Communion dresses…some of them, with little straps, etc. instead of sleeves aren’t appropriate to my mind, either.😦
 
My wife bought a dress for our wedding that had shoulders covered, but the bodice was a bit low. She simply took it to a seamstress, told them she wanted some solid lace added to that area, and the result was very nice. I have a photo of her in that dress in my dental operatory, and patients comment on how beautiful she looks in it. One teenager even complimented on how modest the dress was.

Now, it didn’t sell at the consignment shop, so we had to eat that loss, but I believe God blessed us for our efforts to be pure in heart.

Another thing we did was nix the garter belt. Instead, we had all the married couples at the reception come out onto the dance floor and dance while the DJ played music. Every minute or so, the DJ would say, “Okay, all of you married 1 year or less leave the dance floor.” Each time, he’d go higher (2 years, 3, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50), and more couples would leave the floor. Finally, there were three older couples left dancing, and the DJ started ticking off years one at a time until the last couple was left. He let them dance for a minute, called them to the mic to say their names and how long they’d been married. We then gave them the bouquet and had a photo taken with them. This took up the time of the garter belt and bouquet, but it also showed people that there are still couples staying married for life.
 
Another thing we did was nix the garter belt. Instead, we had all the married couples at the reception come out onto the dance floor and dance while the DJ played music. Every minute or so, the DJ would say, “Okay, all of you married 1 year or less leave the dance floor.” Each time, he’d go higher (2 years, 3, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50), and more couples would leave the floor. Finally, there were three older couples left dancing, and the DJ started ticking off years one at a time until the last couple was left. He let them dance for a minute, called them to the mic to say their names and how long they’d been married. We then gave them the bouquet and had a photo taken with them. This took up the time of the garter belt and bouquet, but it also showed people that there are still couples staying married for life.
Click to expand...
I LOVE this idea!
 
Windmill said:
Another thing we did was nix the garter belt. Instead, we had all the married couples at the reception come out onto the dance floor and dance while the DJ played music. Every minute or so, the DJ would say, “Okay, all of you married 1 year or less leave the dance floor.” Each time, he’d go higher (2 years, 3, 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50), and more couples would leave the floor. Finally, there were three older couples left dancing, and the DJ started ticking off years one at a time until the last couple was left. He let them dance for a minute, called them to the mic to say their names and how long they’d been married. We then gave them the bouquet and had a photo taken with them. This took up the time of the garter belt and bouquet, but it also showed people that there are still couples staying married for life.
Click to expand...
We did this as well at our wedding. 😃 We saw too many raunchy garter belt scenes at weddings, so we decided to nix it too, along with the bouquet toss. What I did was have a little bouquet made for the longest married couple left on the dance floor and that was their “prize”.
 
Sarabande said:
What a beautiful gown!!! Now why don’t they design gowns like that for the average gal? And why is it only royal couples I see who have gowns like this?
Click to expand...
That is a beautiful gown, and I wish more dresses like that were available for brides to buy. As to why only the royal brides seem to have gowns like this, here are a few of my hypotheses (only my opinions, mind you. 😉 ):
  1. The royal brides have the money to have any style of dress they want custom-made for them. They aren’t limited to the bridal stores which seem to have only one kind of dress anymore – revealing.
  2. Perhaps the royal brides have a sense of propriety missing in far too many other brides (or at least, must act as if they do).
  3. The royal brides probably don’t want their wedding pictures appearing in the tabloid press under a headline about how cheap and vulgar they looked for their wedding. :eek:
  4. Maybe the royal brides feel that “hot sexy mama” isn’t the correct look to be portraying on their wedding day. 😃
  5. The priests in their churches may be extra strict about standards of attire.
Now for the regular gals, the ones who can’t afford a complete, custom-made bridal gown, they have to get tough. If they want a modest dress, they should insist on buying only such a dress – no cleavage down to the pupik (that’s “belly button”), no “topless” dresses, and no “topless” dresses with a little frou-frou sewn on to make it look a tiny bit more covered up. The only way the bridal stores will carry modest gowns is if brides insist on them and threaten to walk out if they can’t find what they want. It’s scandalous that the only shops selling modest bridal attire seem to be those catering to LDS brides (if LDS brides can be modestly attired for temple weddings, why can’t Catholic brides be modestly attired for church weddings?)

If I were in the market for a wedding gown, I would either 1) sew it myself, 2) look for a vintage gown, or 3) buy a dress from a Renaissance Fair costumer (many of their dresses would make great wedding gowns, can be purchased in white or ivory, and don’t cost any more than other gowns – many cost a lot less).
 
When I went with my sister last month to help pick out her dress, I saw a few like that… I think perhaps they’re just starting to come back in style. There weren’t a whole bunch though.
 
I got married 15 years ago and found a dress with sort of cape sleeves that I really liked, although in retrospect, the neckline might have been a bit lower than it should have been. My challenge was finding a dress that did NOT have a train – there was NO WAY I was going to run around all day long trying not to trip over it!

One suggestion that might help in the modesty department, and also in the cost savings department: there is no law (civil or church law) that says wedding gowns or bridesmaid dresses MUST be purchased from bridal shops or catalogs. You are perfectly free to get non-wedding dresses in your desired colors or styles from any department store, or to have a dress made to your specifications.

If I were getting married today I would seriously consider getting my bridesmaid’s dresses from JC Penney or Macy’s or even (gasp) Wal-Mart – why not, if they look good, are modest, and are comfortable? There is also no law that says bridesmaid dresses have to match in color or style.
 
Another poster mentioned Quincenera dresses. While they may unfortunately be trending more toward the trashy “Hollywood starlet” styles, chances are many of them are still styled in a more modest manner given that they are supposed to be worn by 15-year-old girls. Would there be any reason why an Anglo bride couldn’t go to a dress shop in an Hispanic neighborhood or community, or go on the internet, and buy one to use as a wedding gown if she wanted to?
 
Would there be any reason why an Anglo bride couldn’t go to a dress shop in an Hispanic neighborhood or community, or go on the internet, and buy one to use as a wedding gown if she wanted to?
Click to expand...
No, assuming she could fit into one! 😉
 
“No, assuming she could fit into one.”

Well, I just went online out of curiosity and found a site called Quinceanera Mall … their gowns come in sizes from 0 to 28, many styles are available in white or off-white, and almost all of the strapless, halter or spaghetti-strap styles come with matching bolero jackets, shrugs or shawls (which solves the modesty-in-church problem). Many cost less than $500 also 🙂

If I were getting married today I would definitely check out this site.
 
Well, I just went online out of curiosity and found a site called Quinceanera Mall … their gowns come in sizes from 0 to 28, many styles are available in white or off-white, and almost all of the strapless, halter or spaghetti-strap styles come with matching bolero jackets, shrugs or shawls (which solves the modesty-in-church problem). Many cost less than $500 also
Click to expand...
If I were getting married today I would definitely check out this site.
Click to expand...
Oh, wow! Thanks for the tip–I had assumed that they would mostly be in little girl sizes. I’ll check out this kind of dress for my wedding. 🙂
 
Windmill said:
Another thing we did was nix the garter belt.
Click to expand...
Wow! Folks over in Texas really are racy! Garter belt??? :eek:

I’m just being bad here; this struck me as really funny.

I like very much the part about honoring the longest-married couple instead; I’ve seen that done once or twice.
 
sharmin said:
Well, since straps are, well, straps and usually not quite an inch in width, do they really cover enough skin to make a difference? And where do you draw the line? You’re saying that too much skin is not modest, no matter where the skin is. Do you not show your arms? Are short wedding dresses that show your legs inappropriate? I guess it just starts to sound a bit much to me.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t think just straps are modest. I’ve always been this way, and I don’t know why. Shirts and dresses must have sleeves for them to be modest to me. It’s different for other people. I show my arms, hand, face, neck, and skin below my knees. The other areas I would consider being in the showing too much skin category. My husband agrees with me on this. A short wedding dress is not immodest based on length if it covers the knees while sitting in my opinion. I may not think that a bride should neccesarily wear a short dress, but that again is personal preference. It may sound like a bit much to you, and my family may make fun of me for my opinion in this matter, but it is what I believe. However, I do believe that the wedding industry has pretty much forgotten that people with my beliefs still exist. It is why I had to get my dress from ebay.
 
jmjconder said:
I just came off a post regarding immodest dress at Mass. I was going to mention weddings dresses ~ however thought it called for its own post.

What do you think about the wedding dresses women are wearing these days? Every now and then I see a modest one ~ then I hear the rumblings from the guests on how old fashion she looked! A priest I know needs to see the dress prior to the marriage ceremony and if he deems it immodest ~ he offers the bride any one of several beautifully made caps (women from the parish sewed them) to wear during the ceremony.

So are bare shoulders/low cut/tight top acceptable during a Catholic wedding?
Click to expand...
No, I personally don’t think that dresses like this are appropriate for a Catholic wedding. Unfortunately most wedding dresses these days are designed such. Especially in the summer/springtime it’s ridiculously difficult to find any kind of modest (not to mention modestly priced!) wedding gown.

I’m getting married in my diocese’s cathedral on Nov. 7. After we were engaged, my fiance and I did a lot of research about this and discovered (As we had suspected) that the “traditional” lacy white wedding dress isn’t so traditional after all. It’s much more traditional for a Catholic bride to wear her “Sunday best” and have a modest ceremony or nuptial Mass.

So, I’ll be wearing my Sunday best on Nov. 7 and an ivory lace mantilla as a veil. 🙂
 
I got married a year ago and during last spring was in search of a dress. I really didn’t like any of the styles in shops and decided to get the dress made by a local seamstress. I just had to find a picture of something I liked. Let me tell you, it wasn’t easy. I’ve bought so many magazines, including Italian Vogue special bridal edition. They were all OTT and slutty. I finally found a picture of a dress worn by an Italian aristocrat at her wedding in Sicily. It was very simple, it had sleeves to the elbows, a V neck that was flattering but modest. I found georgeous silk, a creamy colour (not a fan of white). In the end it cost me much less than what a boutique dress would have cost and it was very pretty in its simplicity. I got many compliments 😃 My only regret was that I didn’t wear a veil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top