The mark-up on those dresses is criminal. When you see you can get that kind of elaborage dress, new, tailored to your exact size, for under 200 USD on Ebay.
That being said, back when I was still overweight, I tried on wedding dresses for my wedding and I felt like a pretentious meringue in every one. And that was when I wasn’t even pregnant yet. In the end, I married in the courthouse, five months pregnant, in these office clothes. My only allowance for festivity was that I bought my husband a new tie to match my belly band. My new mother in law didn’t quite get the " casual" part of the dresscode and dressed so lovely that the judge of the peace adressed her initially as the bride. Here’s is the picture(warning: takes about 30 seconds to load)
All that being said, and now that I lost 80 pounds and look like this. I think I like a wedding dress that covers up more, and is sleek simple and a bit retro. This would be my ideal, and I could wear it afterwards, too.
Just popped in to express my thankfulness that at least we’re not seeing so much anymore of the Dread Butt Bow and the Dread Bath-Towel Neckline (i.e., strapless bodice cut straight and unadorned across the front).
But I too am getting pretty tired of strapless gowns in general, even the ones with prettier curvier necklines. Miss Manners, as usual, nailed it in her comment:
I tend to agree that the sartorial message of the typical bridal gown these days is not so much “Wow, I’m getting MARRIED!” but more “Look what a hot sexy chick I am!”
I thought that the word in the salons was supposed to be that Kate Middleton’s dress was going to revive the fashion for wedding gowns with sleeves, but apparently it hasn’t had that much impact.
I didn’t go crazy over any of the gowns in the link, although I thought the mantilla-style veil draped over a high headdress was impressive.
Mmm, I dunno. Yes, a strapless dress with a tight bodice complete with lining, ruching, decoration, etc. and a heavy satin skirt complete with crinoline, lining, beading, lace, etc. is going to be somewhat cooler than a sleeved dress with a tight bodice complete with lining, ruching, decoration, etc. and a heavy satin skirt complete with crinoline, lining, beading, lace, etc.
But neither of them is going to be all that comfortable outdoors in hot weather, and the strapless one just means that your shoulders and arms will get sunburned.
If you really want a wedding dress that’s relatively cool and comfortable to wear in the heat, it should be made of a lighter breathable fabric with fewer layers and less built-in structure, and be more on the loose-and-flowing than tight-and-molded end of the spectrum. Consequently, of course, it will tend to look less formal, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be pretty.
It’s the bride’s choice to wear whatever makes her feel happy, comfortable and beautiful at her wedding, whether that’s a strapless full skirted gown or a set of surgical scrubs. The implication that if a dress lookss attractive and shows a woman’s figure that she’s trying to “catch a man” is basely offensive. Women reinforcing the privilege of the male gaze and using that to shame other women? Not acceptable.
Beyong that, no one is obligated to follow “traditions” especially if they’re not their traditions, and the majority of people have absolutely no tradition of wearing debutante gowns of any style.
Judith can stick a sock in it. There’s nothing mannerly about being a snob or a priss.
I love the funny capefor that dress! I’m no so crazy about the dress, but that back is exactly what I visualized Galadriel wearing in The Lord of the Rings.
This one surprised me with how much I liked it.It’s positively modern, and that’s not usually my thing. I think the curves salvage it, making it retain a certain romanticism that resonates with me.
Everything else I…well, I’d wear it if you paid me, but I wouldn’t be posting the pics on Facebook… Not my taste in dresses at all.
Meh. This one is the only one I like much of the ones to pick. I agree with the disdain for the strapless dresses. My poor cousin wore one for her wedding a few years ago. I thought she looked ridiculous in it. Those, IMO are one style that really does only look good on a couple particular body types, and either hers isn’t one, or it was just tailored badly. In any case, her boobs were spilling over the top in the front, and she had a bad case of back fat in the rear. She was spilling over both coming and going, and it wasn’t pretty.
I kinda liked the first Marchesa dress, minus the hemline. I really would like to avoid a strapless dress, but it’s hard to find anything else in Korea.
I told the bridal salon ladies that I did NOT want a strapless dress, and then they all spent fifteen minutes telling me what I wanted. Yes, I know you can shit a sleeve onto anything - I don’t want a dress that was built as a strapless dress! Anyway, by requiring that they NOT bring me any strapless dresses I got the most individual and interesting ones they had, by default. So there.
Those models pretty much show the only body type that looks good in a strapless dress - they have zero body fat, so they don’t get the bulges of flesh over the dress.
Hazel, could you have a dress made by a seamstress there? I seem to recall someone saying that having a dress made in China was a fraction of the price - maybe that applies to Korea, too.
There there, no need to get your knickers in a twist. Miss Manners was just making the perfectly reasonable observation that strapless gowns are traditionally more daring and explicitly sexy-looking than other styles. And that daring, explicitly sexy clothing is traditionally worn by women who are out partying (the “husband-hunting debutante” reference simply alludes to the fact that the sexy dresses in this case are in the conventional deb color of white), rather than by women participating in a serious and legally binding public ritual of personal and familial partnership.
There’s nothing offensive about pointing out that showing bare skin on the torso, and particularly on the breasts, is conventionally interpreted in Western society as being sexually provocative. (I note the specific cultural context here because such conventions aren’t universal: for example, the traditional Indian sari is considered in Indian society a very modest garment despite the fact that it leaves some of the midriff and back exposed, which is perceived as no more daring than exposing, say, the forearms and ankles in our culture.)
So let’s not be mealy-mouthed about this. You’re using “looks attractive and shows a woman’s figure” as a coy euphemism for “bares half the skin of a woman’s torso, including a significant amount of her tits”. There are plenty of ways that a dress can look attractive and show a woman’s figure without uncovering its surface in ways that, like it or not, are conventional sartorial code in our culture for deliberate sexual allurement.
Sure, it’s absolutely a bride’s privilege to wear a gown whose style sends a sartorial message of deliberate sexual allurement if that’s what she wants. But feminist solidarity does not require us to pretend that the sartorial message isn’t there, or that recognizing different levels of implied sexual provocativeness in different bridal clothing styles is somehow tantamount to misogynistic “shaming”.
The “reinforcing the privilege of the male gaze” is happening in the designer’s studio where the boob-baring dress is created and in the advertising photos where it’s marketed, not in the words of the onlooker who opines “that dress looks rather unsuitably sexy for a wedding ceremony”.
Since this seems to be a receptive audience to this comment — when I got married (the first time) in 1986, I was stunned to find out All About Wedding Gowns, which was a foreign country to me. I thought you could pick out, literally, any style you wanted. I (foolish of me, I know) had no idea there would be current trends in wedding gowns. They are ALL old fashioned (thought I)! No one wears gowns, except for the few that cling to the deb/cotillion scene.
Silly girl that I was, I had announced for years that my dress was going to be straight out of the late Victorian era with a bustle and a parasol. I was 25 years ahead of the steampunk movement. Today I could probably find someone to make me one, given the Etsyfication of the world, but all I had back in the 80s was a seamstress and a Butterick book. I did find something a little off the beaten path, and dammit I did wear a hat, but that’s it.
Ah yes, 1986, the heyday of the Princess Di years in bridal gown style. Yeah, there’s never been a way to get a bridal gown style totally independent of current fashion; even custom dressmaking options are subject to what’s available in patterns and fabrics.
One other caveat of strapless/sleeveless dresses - a number of churches do not allow strapless/sleeveless dresses in the church. It’s best to check with the minister or the church coordinator if this is the case.
I have to ask why anybody would show this? Either that is the most unflattering dress ever or the model has the worst boob job ever. Was that seriously the best picture they could get of that dress?
