On Feb 7, 2006, at 21:09, Weronika Patena wrote:
I wore a backless dress when I got married,
Dahlink... I've only ever saw your dress from the front; you never sent
any photos of the back, though I assumed there was a substantial area
of the back exposed, since it was a halter dress.
If your dress was "backless" in the sense that the skirt started where
the lace on this one starts, then that's no more thand what a swimsuit
exposes. But, if your dress was backless all the way to _below_ your
butt (which, to all intents and purposes this one is), then I'm almost
sorry I made you that lace bracelet/cuff to go with it :)
Also, your dress had a stole (which I assume you wore for the
ceremony). In this dress, the lace on the back is the main feature;
it's not likely it would be covered with anything. Also, your wedding
was outside, and your dress was blue -- far less formal. This one,
being white, suggests a long trek down the church aisle on your
father's arm, with 300 or people more staring at your exposed behind as
you pass. Chances are, that at least half of those people would be in
your parents' generation, definitely making judgements (from the shape
of the butt to the propriety of exposing it, depending on the sex of
the viewer)...
I'm not offended or anything, just wanted to explain that I know
plenty of girls in
their right minds who could potentially get married in something like
this.
Then I'd question their "right minds" :) I would also wonder about how
the groom felt about the ribald jokes he'd be bound to receive from the
males of _your_ generation.
it depends on whether she's dressing provocatively on purpose, not on
whether
other people see her clothes as provocative.
There used to be a joke, which circulated in my youth, and it went
something like this:
"If one person tells you you're drunk, ignore it. If three people tell
you you're drunk, go sleep it off". Nobody lives in a vacuum; if 300
people are likely to think the worse of you because of what you do, and
if you do not consider their possible reaction, then you _are_
provocative on purpose (vide the recent and continuing hoopla about the
cartoons of Muhammad). Being provocative/offensive on purpose may be
worth it when one is defending an abiding principle; fighting over the
right to go bare-butt down the church aisle because it "feels good"
seems, to me, a frivolous pursuit.
Yours, off the stump for the night
--
Tamara P Duvall http://t-n-lace.net/
Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
