18

2011December 13

Modest or Not?Your tights are bright & your dress is short, is this look modest, or not?

Modest fashion, modest fashion blog, modest mormon clothing, red tights, layering tunic,

Thanks to MIH at Poppy in NY

Not one piece of skin is showing, aside from the unopened button at the top of this cheeky smock shaped silk dress by MIH at Poppy. Over a pair of punchy red tights, the look definitely makes a statement. This is where the real modesty debate comes into play. Does covered mean modest? Does winter layering make this dress feel appropriate to your modesty standards?

Tell us how you feel about this look, and your opinion on strategic layering.

www.JustLikeMolly.com
Share it.
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Bookmark on Del.icio.us
  • Print
  • Share by Email
Other options you'd like to see?
Just let us know.

Related Tags., , ,

This page is protected by COPYSCAPE.
Please do not plagiarize.

Comments

Heather1 year ago I just do not think tights with a short skirt or dress is modest... so I'll say not
Allison1 year ago sure you can't see much skin, but that's not the only aim in being modest, is it? truly modest, that is. i'm saying not.
Just Like Molly via Facebook1 year ago We agree- our editors wouldn't classify this as modest, but it's amazing to see that 51% think it is so far. Don't forget to share this with your friends to see what they think ♥
Elizabeth Sherrill Schulte via Facebook1 year ago It's not. Anything skin tight is not outerwear. It's underwear. It goes under something else.
Allison Cook Zubal via Facebook1 year ago I would be very interested to know why this is not modest to some people.
Tammy Sitterud via Facebook1 year ago If the dress was a bit longer I would say yes. As it is, no
Tessa1 year ago Are spray-painted legs modest? In my opinion, an extra layer of skin doesn't make a short skirt more modest. Definitely not.
Allison Cook Zubal via Facebook1 year ago I think it's very modest. All skin is covered and the dress is long enough it covers the back side. I find this very modest and cute. It covers all the most important parts.
Andrea Patrícia1 year ago It's not. her thighs are showing. "Anything skin tight is not outerwear. It's underwear. It goes under something else."(2)
Ginny1 year ago It wouldn't be appropriate for all occasions, church or the office for example, but would be fine for social occasions -- for a younger woman with a nice figure. Sadly when modesty is being considered, charity frequently flies out the window.
Mary Mary1 year ago I say not. Leaves too much to someone's imagination, or rather may incite another's imagination. Why would we do this to men we love and care about. We need to help them to walk in virtue, instead of make it more difficult
starlaf1 year ago on that model I would definitely say yes. To me its not about leggings or not leggings it's more about who wears them and how. If there were more curves or another different top I would probably think otherwise. And that thing about "incite another's imagination", if this outfit on this model does that, that man has a problem, and anyway, what about accountability? They are responsible for their own thoughts. And this outfit is nothing compared with what you may find out there
Karma1 year ago Love it. I didn't realize it was tights though when I first looked at it... I would prefer leggings myself. I would feel naked in a dress that short with just tights underneath. However, I think the outfit is adorable, and wouldn't classify it as immodest.
Mayra1 year ago if the dress were closer to the knee and the tights were skinny jeans then it would be modest.
RBC1 year ago I saw a girl in my ward do this sort of look....except the tights weren't 100% opaque. You can guess how that turned out!
Talia1 year ago Modest all the way! In fact I have almost that exact same ensemble I wear frequently and get complimented every time. It covers my G's and they aren't hanging out the back of my jeans like so many other wear. there is no tucking pulling, or adjusting that goes into wearing something like this. It's cute, comfortable, and chic. Just because it doesn't come from the buckle(bleh)and have rhinestones covering it and isn't 3 sizes to small and doesn't have a layered shirt showing off back fat and bra lines doesn't make it immodest
Brooke1 year ago I would say not. I have small children and have to bend over frequently. I don't know that my backside would be adequately covered if I was wearing a dress that short. :/ I think if it were a few inches longer you could say yes. :)
Avalon Pennie De Witt via Facebook1 year ago Too short.

Comments for this article are now closed.

Close
Email this Article

Send it.

Your email is being sent...