Wedding fashion woes
September 13, 2010 10:07 AM   Subscribe

Late September - 2pm wedding in a Catholic church (although I'm not 100% certain it's a true Catholic ceremony), with reception at 4:30pm. Is this outfit okay to wear?

I just recently lost some weight and have no dresses that fit me! I haven't had to shop for wedding clothes in a while, so I'm at a loss. It didn't say whether it was formal/semi-formal/etc on the invite, but I would assume at least semi, judged by the type of invite.

Tried on a ton in the mall yesterday and hated most of them... except this one.

If I paired it with tights similar to these and boots like these, would that be appropriate for a wedding at that time?

I really really like the ensemble and am comfortable in it, but I'm not sure if it's too "trendy"? I don't want to piss anyone off!

Thanks!

posted by shoppingforsanity to Clothing, Beauty, & Fashion (73 answers total)
 
I think you might do better with a complete opaque tight (particularly if the dress is as short on you as it is on the model) and a daintier shoe, the boot is a little on the casual side for a wedding.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:10 AM on September 13, 2010 [6 favorites]


It's cute. Short and not digging the printed tights at all (too clubby) but cute.

Maybe pair it down with a different hose and put on heels? Religion isn't the issue here, I would say more about club vs class. The dress is beautiful, the accessorizing it I'm not crazy about.
posted by stormpooper at 10:10 AM on September 13, 2010


Agreed. No patterned tights and different footwear. I could live with the boots, though, if you wore opaque or at least non-patterned tights.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 10:13 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Agreed. The patterned tights would not be good. What about just black with a pair of mary janes?
posted by two lights above the sea at 10:16 AM on September 13, 2010


Thanks for the answers... how about tights like these and sandals like these but without the beads... both of which I already own so I wouldn't have to go out trying to find new stuff again (I really hate shopping!).
posted by shoppingforsanity at 10:17 AM on September 13, 2010


Absolutely no way on the tights, the boots wouldn't be too casual if you had an opaque tight and a nice shrug/cardi to contrast and dress the outfit up, but I'd scratch both the tights and the boots and get a nice stacked heel in a Mary Jane style and an opaque (grey) tight and some nice bangles for your wrists.

Also, if it's in a Catholic church, it's going to be a Catholic ceremony, no doubt. Just a question to if it will be a full mass (with communion procession) or just the wedding ceremony and a few readings.
posted by banannafish at 10:18 AM on September 13, 2010


Another vote for a different pair of hose and shoes. I suggest nude or sheer black hose and plain heels.
posted by needled at 10:19 AM on September 13, 2010


I like the leggings/kitten heel combo much better.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:20 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


I see you're more on the trend/different side. I think perhaps if you want to go a tad more funky, perhaps opaque or sheer grey tights. I think the black is a little heavy (if you're going for the magenta dress).

Are you doing black or magenta dress? That may help with the accessories (personally I think the magenta is different/cool)
posted by stormpooper at 10:22 AM on September 13, 2010


Yeah, it's the magenta/fuschia one that I would get. And yeah, I'm more comfortable in funky than "classic" wedding attire - flower prints and ruffles and what-not.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 10:25 AM on September 13, 2010


Leggings/sandals are too casual for a semi-formal wedding, I think. I love the dress, but I agree with wearing opaque tights and mary janes or pumps (no boots).
posted by pised at 10:25 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


Is it that short on you? Then I'm going to say no, unless you are wearing it as a top with a skirt. I'm not usually a fuddy duddy about things like this, and might feel differently if it were an outside summer wedding. But that dress is *really* short on that model.
posted by bluedaisy at 10:26 AM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


Hm, maybe I'll try out grey opaque with mary jane style shoes... black shoes? Never really thought of grey tights...

bluedaisy - it extends to about the length of my arms to the fingertips when it's on.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 10:31 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think the dress is cute, and with plain opaque tights, the boots could be fine. Do you want to dance in them? No to the leggings and sandals--you don't want to look at photos 5 years down the line and wonder what you were thinking.

I like the lace tights with a plainer shoe. You don't have to dress like a nun, but you don't want to be the wacky friend.
posted by Ideefixe at 10:32 AM on September 13, 2010


Yeah, I was going to say exactly what bluedaisy did. As shown it's too short. The model's having to stand funny just to keep from flashing panties. In a church, especially with all the standing and sitting involved, you could end up revealing way more than you ever wanted to.
posted by katemonster at 10:33 AM on September 13, 2010


I have to agree that the skirt is too short. The leggings would help with the length issue but then I'm afraid the outfit would be too casual. I really think you should go with something else.
posted by TooFewShoes at 10:37 AM on September 13, 2010


Blech on the footless tights and thong sandals. Even with the heel, that's way too casual.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 10:44 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


As a dude with little fashion sense but lots of opinions anyway, the dress is way too short and combined with the boots and tights would be more appropriate for going out with your friends and crusing guys than it would be for a wedding.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 10:47 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


If the dress were knee length, it would be fine. I like it, even short, but think that it might not be great at a Catholic wedding. I agree with others that the fancy hose and boots don't really work in this situation and that opaque leggings and pumps/mary jane's would help.

It isn't the length in relationship to your arms but the length in relationship to your legs/knees that is relevant to it working for this wedding.

Have you thought about getting one of your old dresses tailored to fit you? I know that it is kind of wonderful to get to shop for new clothing after losing weight, but if you're having a hard time finding something that works, perhaps it would be worth it to retailor something you already have in your closet.

The nice thing is that you no longer have to wear ruffles or florals to a wedding. I recently had to go to one and spent some time shopping at Loehman's and came out with something okay. Lord and Taylor is also good for a good variety of formal stuff at a reasonable price.

Good luck finding something comfortable, enjoyable and awesome to wear and I hope the wedding is lots of fun.
posted by sciencegeek at 10:50 AM on September 13, 2010


I concur with too short. Maybe with opaque tights and flats or mary janes it might be OK. here is the thing - if it draws attention to you and you are not the bride; it's likely not the right thing to wear. I too hate flowers, ruffles & pastels but at weddings and funerals I'd rather blend in than risk attention or being distracting.
posted by pointystick at 10:51 AM on September 13, 2010


Let me just say that I refuse to buy something for a wedding that I will never wear again... so if I can also "dress it down" and wear it to out with friends and cruise for guys as well, that's all the better ;)

So... to "dress it up" for a wedding, I can add opaque, sleek, full length tights (that don't show skin) and a mary-jane style shoe?

Again, it's a daytime wedding, not evening. I'm not sure short is such a huge issue as long as shoulders are covered in the church (check). I was just at a loss as to what to do about the bottom half - ha!
posted by shoppingforsanity at 10:54 AM on September 13, 2010


I'm also going to agree with too short for a Catholic ceremony. You don't want to be that girl.

You can change into it for the reception, but I'd highly recommend finding something longer for the ceremony itself, as there will be standing, sitting, and kneeling going on.
posted by snickerdoodle at 11:00 AM on September 13, 2010


So much of this is going to depend on what everyone else is likely to be wearing, and only you can judge that. I've been to a lot of Catholic weddings where there has been plenty of room for funky fashion choices among friends and (younger) family, though there's always someone who'll be talked about afterwards on account of a somewhat striking ensemble, and it's best not to be that person.

So I'll go with the consensus: plain tights, and if you're worried about giving everyone a flash of your bits, the dress is too short. I'm in two minds about the boots: I've seen people carry off knee-highs, but not necessarily with a lightweight dress, because it can unbalance things to the point where people are just staring at your thighs. So: I'd suggest something like this Dr Martens Mary Jane.
posted by holgate at 11:01 AM on September 13, 2010


It's not a matter of dressing up and dressing down -- that dress is too short for a wedding, period, and it's ESPECIALLY too short for a wedding in a church.
posted by yarly at 11:01 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


it extends to about the length of my arms to the fingertips when it's on.

That sounds like it's about mid-thigh on you. Honestly, I think that's way too short for a wedding. The dress is also sheer, right? With a slip underneath? I think between the color, the length, and the sheerness, that's a whole lot of Sexy Club Outfit for a daytime wedding in a church - opaque tights and conservative shoes are not going to fix that.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 11:05 AM on September 13, 2010


I think the dress is adorable (I kind of want it for myself now)! I do agree with pretty much everyone that it is very short and needs opaque tights (not footless!) to be appropriate for a wedding. A pump or mary jane shoe would be good, or even a pretty ballet flat, which would a) be comfortable (which based on the low heels on those boots I gather you might be going for?) and b) make the dress look less short. Wearing some nice jewelry will dress the ensemble up to wedding level.

As a general note, a lot of people (well, mostly women)seem to struggle to distinguish work-dressy from church-dressy from club-dressy, and I have seen lots of wedding outfits go awry because of that confusion. I think wedding outfits can be a teeny bit more fun than standard church outfits, but still need to stay classy.
posted by naoko at 11:06 AM on September 13, 2010 [4 favorites]


Oh, but I would recommend sitting down in the dress and making sure you're still ok with the length in a seated position.
posted by naoko at 11:08 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


bluedaisy - it extends to about the length of my arms to the fingertips when it's on.

How many of us just stood up and checked where that dress would fall on us? I did. On me, with my admittedly short arms, that is waaaaaaay too short.

I'm not sure short is such a huge issue as long as shoulders are covered in the church (check). I was just at a loss as to what to do about the bottom half - ha!

The church is also concerned that your bottom half is covered, which it will not be in that dress.
posted by crankylex at 11:11 AM on September 13, 2010 [4 favorites]


I'd highly recommend finding something longer for the ceremony itself, as there will be standing, sitting, and kneeling going on.

If it's just the ceremony and not the full Nuptial Mass, there's not going to be much (if any) kneeling, and you can always sit instead. That said, looking at the dress again, it's more of a "change at the reception" deal; I'd wonder if you could combine it with a black skirt at the church, making the dress work more like a chemise, but that might also make it look as if you were going skirtless at the reception...
posted by holgate at 11:17 AM on September 13, 2010


I'm tall, with long arms (but shorter than usual legs for my heigh for some reason - bah). It comes to mid-thigh on me and definitely covers all my 'bits' :lol

Ballet flats - even better! Like I said, I'm tall, so I think heels of any sort would draw even more attention.

It's just I really can't stand most of the 'in style' dresses that all the stores have these days. The patterns and colors just make my head hurt.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 11:20 AM on September 13, 2010


Yeah, nthing everybody else, this dress is way too revealing for a Catholic Church. It's not so much "shoulders covered" as it is "modestly dressed". The only way I can see you getting away with this is if you treated this as a tunic, paired with plain black or grey slacks and some sort of jacket/wrap. NOT leggings, footed or footless. It will come across as being too casual.
posted by LN at 11:21 AM on September 13, 2010


I'm not sure short is such a huge issue as long as shoulders are covered in the church (check)

Yes, yes it is.

I'm about as irreligious as they come but if you're voluntarily entering a Catholic Church you should conform to reasonable standards of propriety for religious ceremonies held at Catholic Churches. You should wear something which extends at least to your knees.

Wearing something as short as you indicate is disrespectful.
posted by Justinian at 11:22 AM on September 13, 2010


It comes to mid-thigh on me and definitely covers all my 'bits' :lol

To be absolutely clear, "mid-thigh" is not reasonable for a Catholic Church.
posted by Justinian at 11:22 AM on September 13, 2010


I'm also on the way, way too short crowd. It's a really cute dress, and if it were longer it would be fine, but it's not longer. If it were a ceremony with a justice of the peace, also fine, but it's a religious ceremony in a church. Pairing it with pants and a wrap for the ceremony and then opaque tights for the reception might work, or just find a pair of plain black pants or a plain black skirt -- always useful -- and then switch entirely for the reception.
posted by jeather at 11:25 AM on September 13, 2010


That dress is cute, but my first thought was "definitely too short." It looks like something you'd wear to go out in, rather than something you'd wear to a something even semi-formal. Just because it looks dressed-up" doesn't mean it's the right kind of dressed-up.

Imo it's better to look a little frumpy at a wedding than inappropriate. I don't think you could go wrong with a knee-length skirt/slacks + a decent looking blouse -- that shouldn't involve buying anything new. You could always change into that dress for the reception.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:26 AM on September 13, 2010


Let me also say that this wedding is in Los Angeles, between 2 people in the film industry, so take that for what it's worth... another reason why I'm having a hard time deciding - I know there will definitely be some 'trendy' stand-out outfits... as long as mine's not the "worst" I'll feel comfortable with it!
posted by shoppingforsanity at 11:26 AM on September 13, 2010


bluedaisy - it extends to about the length of my arms to the fingertips when it's on.

Way too short for a church wedding, doesn't matter the time of day. Seriously, pair it with a black pencil skirt or something. Leggings, blech. It isn't about covering skin--that skirt is too short no matter what's on your legs. It's so bright, too. Are you young? You might be able to get away with this if you are about 22, but, again, don't show up the bride.

It is cute, I agree, but but simply not appropriate. You should be aiming to have a dress that goes to pretty close to your knees. For what it's worth, a simple skirt and blouse would be fine too. You don't necessarily need a dress.
posted by bluedaisy at 11:27 AM on September 13, 2010


I did think about pairing it with some nice skinny slacks, but wouldn't that look more casual than tights would?
posted by shoppingforsanity at 11:28 AM on September 13, 2010


I agree with the other posters that the dress is too short, even if paired with opaque tights. I love the dress, but it's not appropriate for the venue. Also, keep in mind that if this is a Catholic wedding, you may be sitting, standing, and kneeling (many people choose to kneel even if they aren't participating in the prayer).

If you decide to go ahead & wear it, pair it with a flat shoe, not a heel, and some simple jewelry. It's an afternoon wedding - a short dress, heels and flashy jewelry just don't work.
posted by pecanpies at 11:38 AM on September 13, 2010


I do want to say I appreciate ALL the replies... I like to talk it out with people and none of my friends live nearby anymore - so thank goodness for the internet ;) Fashion is my downfall.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 11:39 AM on September 13, 2010


In general, if you are going to a church wedding and you are concerned about pissing someone off, you should probably revise your outfit to be on the safe side. I feel you about being more comfortable in the funky zone, but maybe a church wedding is not the best place to express yourself sartorially.

I think the bright color + short = not super appropriate choice. (Not sure if the thong sandals are still on the table, but I think showing feet does not help dress it up.)

You might fare better with something else in your closet that is not a dress. Do you have a skirt/blouse that looks nice and still fits?
posted by *s at 11:40 AM on September 13, 2010


I did think about pairing it with some nice skinny slacks, but wouldn't that look more casual than tights would?

Not if they are dressy black skinny slacks. This sounds like a much better option by a long shot. Wearing it as a blouse instead of a dress does not make it too casual. Actually, this sounds lovely. Then have fun with shoes and accessories.

(But, don't tuck your pants into boots, which would be more casual. Wear shoes.)
posted by bluedaisy at 11:41 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Lapsed NYC Catholic here... that dress is adorable. I love both the idea of pairing it with lacy tights & boots as well as the leggings and sandals and I envy your fashion sense because I would never think of either of those combinations on my own. However. That dress is not, in any way, acceptable for a Catholic church setting. You might wear it, and others might wear outfits even more risque, but that does not change the fact that is extremely disrespectful to the church as an institution, and to any attendant at that wedding that values their faith in any serious way. It seems like you are pretty set on wearing it though, so good luck, have lots of fun and I hope the embers of hell don't burn too much in the afterlife.
Just kidding about that last part :)
posted by bahama mama at 11:45 AM on September 13, 2010


3rd-ing (I think!) wear the dress over pants. Not skinny pants, but straight- or wide-legged, nice black pants. With heels or dressy flats.
posted by DestinationUnknown at 11:45 AM on September 13, 2010


Depending on your age, I think that your second choices of the black 3/4 leggings with the low heeled sandals are perfect. They are exactly what I would picture for a wedding when paired with that dress. If you are over 30, solid black tights (with feet) might be more appropriate but it is obviously up to you. Contrary to what might be acceptable in the business world, in my opinion it is perfectly fine to wear leggings to a wedding, especially during the day. As long as your skin is covered, I don't think that the dress is inappropriate.

Remember that you can always appear more or less formal through your hair/make-up/jewelry if you're into that kind of thing. Since it's during the day, I would humbly suggest light make-up and some classy silver accessories. Maybe stick with a black purse. Straighten your hair reaaaalllly straight for a chic look, or put it in an up-do.

Above all, wear what is comfortable to you and have fun. Most people will only care what the bridal party is wearing.

Sources?: I was the maid of honor in my best friend's wedding a week ago, and thus my life was consumed by such issues for several days. :)
posted by delicate_dahlias at 11:58 AM on September 13, 2010


Also: This?
posted by delicate_dahlias at 12:05 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


I did think about pairing it with some nice skinny slacks, but wouldn't that look more casual than tights would?

I don't think it would look more casual -- actually that sounds perfect.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:08 PM on September 13, 2010


(Though I agree if you have normal black slacks that would be better. I might be picturing different skinny slacks in my head.)
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:09 PM on September 13, 2010


I am Catholic. (Very lapsed, but still go to a bunch of Catholic weddings and to regular Mass sometimes to appease grandparents.) I'd totally wear that to a Catholic wedding. (If I were young and skinny enough, that is.) If it were that short and tight, then no, but I don't think a loose dress that's short is bad at all, especially with opaque tights. In fact, in 1972, my VERY CONSERVATIVE mother wore a dress at least that short to my Baptism without stockings. And my grandmother wore a mini to my parents wedding in 1970. I have only really been to New Orleans Catholic churches, so maybe it's different elsewhere. (My step sister wore a skin tight white crotch-length mini to my mother and her father's wedding in a Catholic Church. Don't do that.) If you can sit in it without revealing anything, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I would pick opaque tights and the first pair of boots. That seems really cute to me.
posted by artychoke at 12:18 PM on September 13, 2010


That dress is awesome and I just ordered it for myself in black, yays! However, I would not wear it to a church for any reason at all, much less a religious ceremony.

If you are really tall, maybe go for some wide-legged loose pants underneath and low heels. Otherwise, skinny dress trousers and wicked stilettos.
posted by elizardbits at 12:26 PM on September 13, 2010


I think the dress is great - if you're concerned about the length, you could layer a very thin, slim stretchy black skirt under it to add to the length, and sheer black tights under that. as long as the skirt under is tighter than the dress, it would work fine - and once you're out of the church and onto the party, you can slip off the skirt and show off your legs.
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 12:36 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


To be absolutely clear, "mid-thigh" is not reasonable for a Catholic Church.

That really, really depends. As I've commented before in similar threads, there are lots of different cultural strands to Catholicism, and like artychoke's example, not all of them take their cues from Boston and Chicago. That said, not many of them take their cues from New Orleans.
posted by holgate at 12:43 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


The dress is Really Short for a church wedding, and I cannot see wearing black tights and/or boots in LA in September. Also, it is generally considered poor taste to wear black to a daytime wedding. And for a church wedding, you want knee to tea-length. (guidelines, here, might help you. And I actually like the purple sheath dress pictured)

But I think the problem you are having is that you associate churches with pastels, ruffles and lace, which is not at all a given.

If you want to buy something you can wear again, a simple sheath is much more flexible, forgiving and easily accessorized. You could go with any solid color and you would be fine for the wedding, as well as being able to dance, sit, stand and bend over if you have to without embarrassing yourself.

If you simply must have this dress, you'll want lightweight slacks or leggings and the kitten heel to go with it, but you will be far too casual for the church ceremony, if okay for the reception.
posted by misha at 12:46 PM on September 13, 2010


Have you mentioned your age here? I don't see it off-hand but I think it makes a big difference in what's appropriate. If you're 22 (like some said above) and are still mainly shopping in the juniors section than I think this would be an easier thing to carry off. It does seem very short and very bright to me....but everything in the Nordstrom Juniors "Wedding and Special Event" section seems to be a similar length.

Speaking as someone who wore a VERY short and VERY bright red dress to a high school friends wedding when I was 26 or so...be very careful. My dress was too short, too bright and I ended up feeling like a topic of conversation, not like a guest at a party. I still cringe about it.

Anyway, solid color tights and ballet flats are both good ways to dial it down a notch because the color is spectacular. Here's a picture of another short dress with opaque tights and the boots (which looks very cute) but I think the flats or Mary Janes would be more appropriate for a wedding. Also, here are two other dresses from the same designer that seem to be in a similar theme but provide a bit more coverage DRESS 1 and DRESS 2 and another cute one from Nordstrom DRESS 3.

Good luck because I hate shopping too!
posted by victoriab at 1:41 PM on September 13, 2010


I'm 30.

Fine, now I'm even more confused than I was to begin with - ha!

The only skirts I own that fit are a long taffeta one in a shimmery blue color (long like ball-gown long) and a white cotton "tea length" one. I don't think either would work.

I'm the definition of your classic "jeans and t-shirt" girl.

I do have one black, strapless "party dress" that comes to about knee length that fits and has a nice flared look... but I always thought black in the daytime was a no-no.
posted by shoppingforsanity at 2:16 PM on September 13, 2010


Given the choice, I'd break the no-black-dresses rule before the no-short-skirts rule. Can you dress it down with a cardigan or shawl, and really simple hair/makeup/accessories?
posted by snickerdoodle at 2:29 PM on September 13, 2010


I think black at weddings is okay nowadays, with a nice sweater/shrug or, even better, colorful shawl/wrap around your shoulders. In fact, I recently went to a wedding and wore a knee-length, sleeveless black dress with a bright purple scarf-wrap thing, and was surprised at how my outfit totally fit in.

So, I say go for the black dress, and get a nice scarfy thing to wear over it.
posted by bluedaisy at 2:32 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Strapless at church? No, I'm afraid not. Black is fine, strapless is not.

If it's a choice between strapless and a teeny bit too short, I'd go with the short dress and wear tights.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 2:42 PM on September 13, 2010


Most websites (1, 2, 3) about what to wear at a wedding agree that black is a no-no and strapless is okay but you have to wear a sweater/shawl during the church part. Link number 3 actually has a photo gallery of what they consider appropriate semi-formal daytime wedding wear.

Based on this, I'd buy your original cute pink dress and wear it with the black pants everyone suggested. This is the best of both worlds...a dress you'll wear again on another occasion but enough coverage to feel comfortable on this occasion. Also, you can't ever have too many pairs of cool black pants...another great investment!
posted by victoriab at 3:19 PM on September 13, 2010


crankylex: How many of us just stood up and checked where that dress would fall on us? I did. On me, with my admittedly short arms, that is waaaaaaay too short.

Ha! I had JUST finished sitting down when I read this comment. :-)

I agree with those who are saying that the dress is too short for a church wedding. Even with opaque tights I'd be wary.

I was under the impression that black dress + coloured shrug/wrap was OK for a daytime wedding nowadays (it's certainly a look I've seen before), but judging from this thread it looks like it is not as cut and dried as I had thought. if you don't want to go that route, why not nice pants + pretty top like in victoriab's 3rd link above? Then you'll have an outfit you can wear again.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 3:29 PM on September 13, 2010


Too short for a church wedding, especially if you're an adult and not a teen or early 20s person who gets a little slack for maybe not knowing better.

Honestly, instead of the whole tights (opaque tights with that dress are a little youthful for a 30-year-old at a church wedding, sorry [I'm on the other side of 25, so not being ageist or whatever]) or pants thing, I would just look at finding a longer dress. It shouldn't be too hard to find a knee-length dress or skirt and top set. People have posted some good suggestions above.
posted by ishotjr at 4:40 PM on September 13, 2010


Okay, I think instead of thinking in terms of finding a dress that you can wear clubbing later, you have to think in terms of a dress you can wear to similar occasions in the future. So scratch the idea of trying to make this too-short dress work for a church wedding, and instead focus on finding a dress that you can wear to this wedding and other occasions of similar formality. Some great suggestions have been provided above.
posted by needled at 4:47 PM on September 13, 2010


Also, if it's in a Catholic church, it's going to be a Catholic ceremony, no doubt.

Yeah, but there are Catholic ceremonies and there are Catholic ceremonies. My cousin was married in a Catholic church, but it was a really abbreviated service, nothing like the full-on total all-out Mass wedding I'd also been to some years back. I'd say that if the wedding's at 2:30 and the reception's at 4, you're looking at the more relaxed kind.

That said -- that dress is a bit on the short side, and the dress and tights combo doesn't quite say..."wedding." Think of it this way -- the bride is supposed to be the center of attention, so anything that's really attention-getting is not cricket. And dress-and-tights is kind of attention-getty.

Pants and pretty top works. That's what my Mother wore to my cousin's wedding. And the black dress is fine if it's summery -- you could get a brightly-colored wrap to accessorize it so it's not so "omg it's BLACK" and that will help too.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:51 PM on September 13, 2010


You poor thing. I'm laughing at all the contradictory advice. But now I really want to help you find a dress and am really curious as to what you will wear.

Do you like this, in pink or blue?

Here's one in purple that's a wee bit short but could work.

(Those are both a lot less than your dress.)
posted by bluedaisy at 4:54 PM on September 13, 2010


Here's another really pretty dress from J Crew. And another. Both on sale in some colors!

They have a whole category called "Weddings and Parties."
posted by bluedaisy at 4:58 PM on September 13, 2010


I feel sorry for me too ;) Ha! I could be a little less picky I guess... Here's why I really liked that original dress...

1) sleeves, but nice flow-y ones (hides my arms but cuts down the need to buy a separate shawl/bolero)

2) colorful but not TOO bright (it's less bright in person that it is in the photo)

3) very nice soft fabric in an interesting cut/design

I wish it were longer :(

All the wedding-typical dresses (including those that you linked to, bluedaisy - but thanks so much!) don't really meet the criteria... I have found some that meet my criteria while scouring the internets, but they are like $350 and over and I just can't justify that :(

What I find even more hilarious is that in some of those wedding attire suggestion sites, they say "no black" and then they link to dresses with black and pants that are black, etc. I guess what that really means is... it doesn't matter THAT much as long as you don't go TOO crazy.

How about:

- my sleeveless black party dress - it's similar to this one but it's a different material - not taffeta-ish at all - more like a brushed acrylic with vertical stitching and a peek of lace at the bottom, if that makes sense? (knee-length)

- a nice bright-ish colored bolero jacket (if I can find one)

- a ribbon at the waist the same color as the jacket

- nice black ballet slippers (and bare legs to keep it a little 'dressed down')
posted by shoppingforsanity at 5:33 PM on September 13, 2010


Depending on the size of the bolero, I'm not sure if you need the ribbon, but otherwise, you have my Recovering Catholic seal of approval.
posted by Devika at 6:42 PM on September 13, 2010


What I find even more hilarious is that in some of those wedding attire suggestion sites, they say "no black" and then they link to dresses with black and pants that are black, etc. I guess what that really means is... it doesn't matter THAT much as long as you don't go TOO crazy.

What they also mean by "no black" at a wedding is "try not to dress COMPLETELY IN black." Dresses WITH black or black WITH another color is fine; it's just the "Hi, I'm Wednesday Addams, thank you for inviting me to your wedding" thing they're warning you against.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:07 PM on September 13, 2010


Sounds great, with or without the ribbon. Good luck--and please update the post to let us know what you finally ended up with!
posted by bluedaisy at 8:28 PM on September 13, 2010


Will do - thanks everyone!
posted by shoppingforsanity at 10:01 PM on September 13, 2010


Just remembered I never let you guys & gals know what I decided to wear ;) If anyone's still out there, here it is:

This dress (Yes, I know I said I wanted to keep away from flowers and keep it under $300... but I tried this on and just fell in love with it - the cut is EXCELLENT for my body shape... and you know how that goes...)

With these shoes - (And can I just say that Zappos ROCKS... I ordered these at 10pm with 1-day shipping, and they had arrived by 2pm the next day! I'm a customer for life.)

It was a success! Thanks again for all your input!
posted by shoppingforsanity at 10:13 PM on November 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


That is a very cute dress in both the colours. And the shoes are great. Glad you came back to tell us how it all turned out (and that it was a success)!
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:35 PM on November 14, 2010


Oh, that dress was perfect. (And I may be bookmarking that exact site because I also really like the green one.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:26 AM on November 15, 2010


« Older My usual method of de-stinking...   |  Rebranding filter: We are red... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.