Modest Clothing for Larger Busts


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Cleavage will only show if the neckline is lower.

Yep. Noted:

You are right, a crew neck T-shirt or a turtleneck shouldn't show anything. So the issue isn't that shirts can't be found but more likely that they can't find shirts in the styles they like that don't end up showing more than they are comfortable with when a woman with a smaller bust could modestly sport such a shirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camisoles with a higher neckline

Not going to find it. Camisoles, by their nature are lower necked, with spaghetti straps and were made to be worn under sheer blouses, dresses. Plus Size Clothing, Lingerie, Accessories & Wide Width Shoes for Women; Big & Tall Clothing for Men at OneStopPlus.com

What your girlfriend is really looking for are Dickey's - DakotaMainStreet - shopkeeper to the HeartLand since 1852

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm with iggy. go to places made for larger women like lane bryant Plus Size Sweaters, Tops, Blouses & Tunics | Lane Bryant as iggy pointed out the sizes can be very different from regular stores so it's a good idea to go in the store and try some things on till you know what size you wear in their brand.

the problem i've run into is i'm between. i seem to be to big to find cute things in the "normal" stores but to skinny for the cute stuff at stores like lane bryant. oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going to find it. Camisoles, by their nature are lower necked, with spaghetti straps and were made to be worn under sheer blouses, dresses. Plus Size Clothing, Lingerie, Accessories & Wide Width Shoes for Women; Big & Tall Clothing for Men at OneStopPlus.com

What your girlfriend is really looking for are Dickey's - DakotaMainStreet - shopkeeper to the HeartLand since 1852

Ugh. My mom made me wear dickeys when I was in middle school. I refuse to wear them now due to the bad juju associated with them.

That said, I agree that they're what the OP's girlfriend is looking for. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mirancs8

That's the problem! My girlfriend wears shirts that aren't low v or scoop neck at all. She'll buy them as non-revealing as she can, but even the highest ones end up showing some boobage. She's been wanting some really high neck undertee's that were made specifically for women with larger breasts. Can anyone maybe even suggest some lds clothing stores? Like DownEast Basics and such

Ah yes my favorite issue in my life lol! I have a large chest and I buy high neck shirts that were modest only to wear it throughout the day and oompa... there was the "valley" coming out of the darkness into the light :eek:. I constantly am pulling up my shirt to cover it. But recently I was able to get some shirts that come all the way to my neck area and these have worked well. I got them at Walmart.

The problem is that yes you purchase it and it looks perfect on but as you wear it throughout the day your breast pull the shirt down and under your breast. That's the only way I can word it. It's VERY frustrating you men have NO IDEA :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like a lot of large-busted women who find that their shirts and blouses don't fit right actually need to get a better bra. Your bra will help with a lot of the correct position and holding in place. Go to a department store and get a real bra fitting -- it's a professional experience and nothing to be ashamed of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up much smaller chested than I am now, my mom and my sister are both much smaller than I am. Because of that I have always struggled with finding shirts that fit without showing off my chest. The problem often is that my mom will get me clothes as gifts and something that fits her modestly would not fit me modestly at all. Since I have become pregnant I have found that it is nearly impossible to find nice maternity shirts that aren't low cut. I mean I can understand that some of those shirts may be useful for nursing but really, do they have to be that low cut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they do, but the idea I seem to come across with maternity clothes is, "Well you got it so why not flaunt it." So almost all maternity shirts are the type that show off as much as they can. And when you are struggling to find shirts that fit a corporate dress standard as well as cover your expanding belly and stay modest at the same time it becomes quite annoying. You just can't wear your husband's tee shirts in that kind of a situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tarnished:

I want to thank you for your response because it reminded me to see this issues more from a sociological perspective than from an individual one.

Although individuals can choose, the social environment is powerful and shapes our thinking and behaviors.

Over the years I have often rolled my eyes when I have heard about larger breasted women having struggles -- and likewise with men in a private area – because I have felt that society (which ultimately means everyday people) clearly privilege larger breasts over smaller ones (and likewise on the make side) – the “if you got them, flaunt them” mentality. I realize that there can be problematic aspects of larger sexual attributes related to both women and men (and once wrote too much detail on the male forum regarding the problems and am grateful for a moderator for deleting my post). My point is I realize there are concerns. At the same time, however, I find it highly troubling when I hear about the struggles of larger busted women because our society promotes that larger bust are better than smaller one (likewise with men). One simply example of this – which I outlined in another post and no one seemed to care – is when we use the words “well-endowed” to refer to larger sexual attributes in both men and women. An endowment is a gift (and so often the chosen word in philanthropy). So when people say something like my wife (or husband) is well-endowed in essence we are saying they have gotten a gift, and implicitly if Christian it means from God.

I probable lay too much blame at the individual level. Your last post, Tarnished, helped me re-remember that societal forces are very strong and making choses much more difficult. We have a woman in our ward right now who is very large (naturally) up top and is pregnant for the first time and she told my wife just the other day how difficult it is to purchase modest maternity clothes.

Margin of Error:

Your post is a good question (post 10) regarding why only larger women purchasing larger garment tops. My answer – which is not a very good one – is that I have heard from a handful of women that this happens with women in the church. I have heard other women tell me that LDS women with larger breasts will purposely purchase larger garment tops so that more cleavage will show. I have not heard of women who are smaller or medium up top going this – but I have not asked. I suppose women who are smaller can do this also – I am not sure – but I will let the females voices at this site educate me on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious why you think only large breasted women would do this? Why couldn't a small breasted, or medium breasted woman do such a thing? And since was cleavage against modesty standards?

I'm with you MOE- cleavage has never been against modesty issues- exposing nearly all of the breast, now that is a modesty issue.

Tarnished:

<<snip>>

Margin of Error:

Your post is a good question (post 10) regarding why only larger women purchasing larger garment tops. My answer – which is not a very good one – is that I have heard from a handful of women that this happens with women in the church. I have heard other women tell me that LDS women with larger breasts will purposely purchase larger garment tops so that more cleavage will show. I have not heard of women who are smaller or medium up top going this – but I have not asked. I suppose women who are smaller can do this also – I am not sure – but I will let the females voices at this site educate me on this topic.

dash- the women who told you that are nuts! I am blessed with an ample chest- as is every woman in my immeadiate family (three sisters and my mother). I learned from them to purchase the tops that are for the amply endowed- not so I can show more cleavage, but for comfort. The style of top that are for the smaller chested women, are dang uncomfortable for us larger women- they squash us and that hurts. I also purchase the fuller tops that are longer- I like to have my tops tucked into the bottoms by more than an inch. Again comfort is my reason.

Just the thought that women do it for the showing of cleavage makes me laugh until I wet myself. What a stupid reason if it is true. ALL styles of tops are going to show cleavage- they were never made NOT to. Any woman with a B and larger cup is going to have cleavage. The only way to NOT show it is to wear turtle necks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iggy:

Thanks you for your post. Again, I am still trying to learn and figure this out. I need to listen to more voices and thoughts before I can even be in a position to evaluate propositions.

With that said, however, there are two propositions in your post that I find disturbing that can create social harm. First, it is OK to disagree with others thoughts, but making fun of other peoples perspective usually results in a prideful elevation of one person (or group) over another. These were real women who were expressing a real concern – so much so that they even went to the Bishop (one of my past wards had HUGE pride problems and one of the aspects of this was body image and vanity and there was much immodesty among the women, who were not very good examples to young women). If you have a difference of opinion, stating it is good, -- however, calling them “stupid” and outlining that is so ridicules you want to “wet yourself” shows no respect for others opinions. When I first heard such claims regarding purchasing larger garments for cleavage showing my initial response was to dismiss them and think that it was silly, but I have learned in life that listening to others – even when you have a difference of opinion – is respectful and helps all people to grow and develop. It is also a sign of higher ego development.

Second, I hope I can respectfully challenge you in your post. As I mentioned, the privileging of larger breasts is pervasive in society (which hurts women who are smaller because they feel “less than” and hurts women who are larger because it sexually exploits and objectifies them). The same thing applies to men related to sexual attributes. The word that your were “blessed” with an apply chest clearly suggests a privileging. To be blessed, according to dictionaries, is to be honored, beautified, delightful and is holy. Does this mean that women who are smaller up top are not blessed? And where does this blessing come from? And why not just say “I am larger up top” rather than being blessed?

With this said, however, I found your post to be educational regarding the issue of discomfort and can see this as one of the downsides of being larger up top. I would still like to hear more about the topic from other women and men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do these topics always get warped into this sort of discussion.. :glare:

You may be surprised that not all societies believe that "bigger is better". In Asia, the bigger the woman, the less desirable she is. Having a petite, small and thin body is considered beautiful. Especially in places like Korea and Japan. If you have any curve or are well endowed, it's nothing to be proud of. In addition — good luck to finding clothes in the store that will fit you! The sizes in Asia run extremely small.

Having said that, as long as it doesn't cause health problems and is somewhat proportionate to your body, it doesn't matter what size you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully realize that my purpose of visiting this site is different than most people. I think most people visit here for social networking (e.g., cracking a few jokes, having casual conversations, etc.). I visit here and pick a few topics and want to have an in-depth and serious conversation with Latter-Day Saints. I do not really care about having chit-chat on all sorts of issues, rather, I prefer to spend my time focus on one or two topics and have deeper conversation (although there are a few topics I social network on – in the sports section). Further, the topics I pick are one’s that I find harmful in society that seems acceptable among people and LDS – namely human sexuality, and in particular, the privileging of larger sexual attributes in both women and men and societies acceptance of violence (boxing and ultimate fighting as normative entertainment). To put it bluntly, I find it problematic that LDS accept these two societal norms to be acceptable and I like to have dialog and even debate on the subject.

I am not sure why people -- this time Dravin – have to constantly make statement ad hominem’s toward me. Is it not too difficult to see that I simply have a different reason to interact on this website? And if no one is interested in such topics that I chime into, you can remain silent rather than make questionable comments about my motives and character.

I think my last few comments make sense and would like to hear the thougths of others. But if you do not want to, just ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why people -- this time Dravin – have to constantly make statement ad hominem’s toward me. Is it not too difficult to see that I simply have a different reason to interact on this website? And if no one is interested in such topics that I chime into, you can remain silent rather than make questionable comments about my motives and character.

Or instead of trying to repeated interject this particular subject into more then one thread you could start a thread for the purpose of discussing the subject instead of vomiting it forth onto multiple threads. But come now Dash, if you aren't interested in my topic of how your topic is Don Quixotical why not remain silent?

You find it problematic that some LDS people have large sexual physical attributes

No, he finds it problematic that we 'think' people with large sexual physical attributes are loved/favored by God more. His conclusion is drawn with a methodology reminiscent of the jokes in the Amish Virus thread. Heaven forbid someone say they are blessed with a good family or endowed with good sense as what does that mean about how God views dimwitted orphans?

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wingnut:

Thanks for asking.

What I am simply trying to communicate is that our society gives status to larger sexual attributes. Dravin is fairly close in articulating what I think, he has one component of it correct: (1) there are people on this website who actually think that having larger sexual physical attributes is a blessing/favor by God, and (2) there are people who think they are better than others because of this. Some people are conscious of this and others are not-conscious, but use words/phrases that reveal this (e.g. the term “endowed” or “blessed”). Why else would people use words like “my wife was blessed (favored by God) up top” or “my husband is well-endowed (gifted from God)”

The result of this is the sexual objectification of women and men. The American Psychological Association has found this to be such a social problem that is has created a task force to help adolescents deal with these issues (see Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls). Likewise the American pediatric s Society has echoed this. If you read the APA task force document, you will easily see the common language of sexaulization in society – something that every LDS should oppose. At the core of my thinking is that LDS should be better people and nowhere in LDS culture – including LDS websites – should the privileging of sexual attributes or sexualization occurs.

I am also looking for good conversation related to this topic. That is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, because you only have one interpretation for the words "endow" or "bless," that means that everyone else thinks inappropriately?

Come now Wing, are you not willing to accept the singular narrow definition handed down by someone who doesn't seem to understand what a euphemism is and why it is used?

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully realize that my purpose of visiting this site is different than most people. I think most people visit here for social networking (e.g., cracking a few jokes, having casual conversations, etc.). I visit here and pick a few topics and want to have an in-depth and serious conversation with Latter-Day Saints. I do not really care about having chit-chat on all sorts of issues, rather, I prefer to spend my time focus on one or two topics and have deeper conversation (although there are a few topics I social network on – in the sports section). Further, the topics I pick are one’s that I find harmful in society that seems acceptable among people and LDS – namely human sexuality, and in particular, the privileging of larger sexual attributes in both women and men and societies acceptance of violence (boxing and ultimate fighting as normative entertainment). To put it bluntly, I find it problematic that LDS accept these two societal norms to be acceptable and I like to have dialog and even debate on the subject.

I am not sure why people -- this time Dravin – have to constantly make statement ad hominem’s toward me. Is it not too difficult to see that I simply have a different reason to interact on this website? And if no one is interested in such topics that I chime into, you can remain silent rather than make questionable comments about my motives and character.

I think my last few comments make sense and would like to hear the thougths of others. But if you do not want to, just ignore.

dash, this is a touch outdated...the following summary only covers the first 118 of your posts, and you've now reached a total of 129. But here goes:

In your first 188 posts, you have participated in a total of 25 threads. 10 of those fit into miscellaneous categories, 4 of those fit into sports categories, and the remaining 11 fit into sexuality categories. Upon further inspection, you find that 18 posts of yours are in the 10 miscellaneous categories, 52 are in the 4 sports categories, and 48 are in the 11 sexuality categories. Also of interest, of your 52 sports posts, 38 of them are relevant to ultimate fighting.

So, since the ultimate fighting thread died down, your posts have been overwhelmingly about sex and sexual anatomy (by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1). Rarely do you make any comment on any other post. As Dravin pointed out, most of your comments are not in threads that you started, but are interjected into other people's threads--often needlessly and resulting in a threadjack.

So yeah, it turns out that you are correct when you say that your activity on this thread is pretty much limited to sports and sexuality. Hmmm....a man that comes online to talk about sports and sex....explain to us why we're supposed to find that acceptable coming from you when it's one of the hallmark characteristics of an internet pervert elsewhere?

Also, I might point out that your conclusions are reached by straining language. You insist on divorcing speaker intent from message delivery. Not every cliche and euphemism in the world has religious undertones. Cliche is used by people to express and idea quickly without requiring much thought from the message's recipient(s). When you over analyze cliche, you come to ridiculous conclusions like you regularly do. But in the myriad attempts we've made here to point that out to you, you've rejected the notion in favor of a 'my-way-of-thinking-is-the-only-valid-way-of-thinking' posture. In the absence of logic and reasoned discussion, what else is there but ad-hominem?

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come now Wing, are you not willing to accept the singular narrow definition handed down by someone who doesn't seem to understand what a euphemism is and why it is used?

You're right, Dravin...what was I thinking? Clearly I need to re-evaluate my entire way of looking at life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dash, having children has always been considered an blessing, the ability to have children has always been seen as a gift from god. even in the scriptures it talks about women who are put out by their husbands for not having a child (never occurred to them it might be his problem not hers). it seems fairly simple to see the connection to the ability to have kids and the sexual organs. so yes referring to well formed sexual organs as an endowment isn't a far stretch. and yes some cultures believed that larger breasts were better for producing milk for babies so they would see large breasts as a gift from god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) there are people on this website who actually think that having larger sexual physical attributes is a blessing/favor by God

You claim using a euphemism is evidence of this but you have yet to demonstrate such. You use a literal interpretation of a figure of speech as your 'evidence'. Were you aware there is a fallacy termed for this? It's called the figure-of-speech fallacy, it is a type of verbal fallacy.

Honestly, your argument makes about as much sense as arguing that someone who uses a certain euphemism for masturbation is guilty of asphyxiating poultry.

So yeah, it turns out that you are correct when you say that your activity on this thread is pretty much limited to sports and sexuality. Hmmm....a man that comes online to talk about sports and sex....

... and complain about how LDS are overly focused on sexuality.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share