Frustration with necklines

[Renee]

Is anyone else bothered by how low-cut so many of today's shirts and dresses are?? Even the vintage-inspired ones? I've seen so many pretty vintage-inspired clothing pieces in the stores and online lately, but the necklines are just ridiculously low. Surely designers could raise things up just a bit, so that one false move doesn't expose everything from the clavicle to the belly-button.

One can have just so many button-up puff-sleeved blouses before rebellion sets in! LOL!

 

[imoldfashioned]

Yes! I feel like I have to wear a camisole with everything lately just to stay decent. What’s the deal with the styles lately?

 

[Paisley]

With regular fashion showing a lot of skin and underwear, I sometimes wonder how hookers distinguish themselves.

 

[KittyT]

Yes. I wear tank tops under a lot of items I own. I don't really mind low necklines that much... I just tape them in place with fashion tape

 

[Lady Day]

Well, my theory on this is that the new crop of shirts are to be worn with camis beneath, and also this trend of longer shirts not showing of the middle anymore is compensating for all the low rise the girls have yet to replace with natural waist clothes.

So you have this frilly top (belted, mind you) with a long almost skirt length 'wife beater' t shirt beneath thats super tight to cover their muffin top. Oh if these girls only knew of a comfortable shaper

LD

 

[LizzieMaine]

I remember reading an interview with some designer or other who said that, in so many words, his whole philosophy of design was one of creating the illusion that the garment could fall off at any moment. Evidently he has plenty of disciples.

 

[ssubialdea]

paisley, very funny lol

 

[Katie Brookes]

Yes! I feel like I have to wear a camisole with everything lately just to stay decent. What’s the deal with the styles lately?

i think the layering is the problem... everything is made to be layered... have you seen the mannequins in Abercrombie or Urban Ourfitters? they always have like 5 shirts on! makes up for the cheap flimsy see-thru fabric it is all made from. wearing a beater under things seems to be the popular answer to this, but i refuse to let beaters enter my outside-the-gym wardrobe.

MY big question with all the cheap fabric and poorly constructed clothes comes with all the pairs of white pants i've ever tried on that are always less than opaque... what are they thinking? but then again i know girls who wear two pairs of pants, one over the other. no kidding.

i am not a fan of layering.

 

[Joie DeVive]

With regular fashion showing a lot of skin and underwear, I sometimes wonder how hookers distinguish themselves.

That is just too funny, and too true.

There are a couple of teen clothing stores in the mall that I call Hookers R Us. lol

 

[pigeon toe]

Ugh. I haven't had a problem with low necklines in my clothing, but with sheerness. Nearly everything I own is sheer, even print tops, so I wear a tank under everything. Or, even worse, it's cut just a wee bit short, to the point where if I don't stay completely still, my hips and tummy are exposed, and I just hate that!

I just don't understand clothing manufacturers. Period.

 

[Adelaidey]

I too loathe the almost-too-short look of many tops, pidgeontoe.... So whenever longer tops are in style, I snap them up...

But along the low-cut topic... I love v-necklines, and square and scoop necklines, and I feel uncomfortable in really high necks (you couldn't pay me to wear a turtleneck!), I draw the line when... *ahem*... 'the girls' are put on display too much... then I feel like I'm about to fall out of the shirt at any moment. Eek!

 

[Lady Day]

I love a plunging V neck with an oxford beneath, and Ive always had a hard time finding those. I still do, the ones in 'style' now are as all you ladies have said, so sheer that they are like tissue paper :rage:

One bay Ill be able to make my own, and Ill be happy


LD

 

[gluegungeisha]

Agh, I hear ya!

I just bought a really cute repro blouse on sale when I was in Portland, but the neckline goes right down to the cleavage! I bought it because I liked the print, but what's the point of that if everyone who sees you in it (without a cami) won't be looking at it?

 

[Paisley]

I too loathe the almost-too-short look of many tops, pidgeontoe.... So whenever longer tops are in style, I snap them up...

But along the low-cut topic... I love v-necklines, and square and scoop necklines, and I feel uncomfortable in really high necks (you couldn't pay me to wear a turtleneck!), I draw the line when... *ahem*... 'the girls' are put on display too much... then I feel like I'm about to fall out of the shirt at any moment. Eek!

Me, too, except that I'd just be showing off what I don't have. lol

 

[NicolettaRose]

Is anyone else bothered by how low-cut so many of today's shirts and dresses are?? Even the vintage-inspired ones? I've seen so many pretty vintage-inspired clothing pieces in the stores and online lately, but the necklines are just ridiculously low. Surely designers could raise things up just a bit, so that one false move doesn't expose everything from the clavicle to the belly-button.

One can have just so many button-up puff-sleeved blouses before rebellion sets in! LOL!

I don't think low necklines are a problem ( take a look at my avatar hehe), I think a low neckline can be sexy and fun at the right time and place. I mean obviously you arn't going to wear the dress to church, but you can wear something with a low neckline out at night, or in the day if you want to feel a little sexy/girly. I have some fifties dresses that have pretty low necklines, so I don't think that it was a problem with just todays clothing. If you look at clothing historically, a lot of them had pretty low necklines, just look at some of the dresses of the 18th century, they were practically poping out of their gowns. Even the Victorian evening gowns of the 1880's had pretty low necklines.

 

[NicolettaRose]

i think the layering is the problem... everything is made to be layered... have you seen the mannequins in Abercrombie or Urban Ourfitters? they always have like 5 shirts on! makes up for the cheap flimsy see-thru fabric it is all made from. wearing a beater under things seems to be the popular answer to this, but i refuse to let beaters enter my outside-the-gym wardrobe.

MY big question with all the cheap fabric and poorly constructed clothes comes with all the pairs of white pants i've ever tried on that are always less than opaque... what are they thinking? but then again i know girls who wear two pairs of pants, one over the other. no kidding.

i am not a fan of layering.

I love layering! I layer a girly beater in a nice color from jcrew, or a pretty cami under most of my vintage dresses, especially if they are sheer. I also wear them at night as a pajama top with cropped pants. Girly beaters are a staple of my wardrobe, the men had the right idea when the layered with them!

They do this layering affect, not so you'd actually wear it, but more for show.

The clothing from Abercrombie and Fitch is actually, though most people don't think, of pretty good quality. Like Jcrew, They use a lot of natrual fibers like cotton, wool and cashmere, they are one of the few stores left that do this. They have been around a very long time, my grandfather remembers going to Abercrombie and Fitch in the 1930's on 5th Ave in New York.

 

[ShortClara]

I think the sheer cotton camis/ tees are an effective way to make more money. You HAVE to buy 2 or 3 to make "the look" instead of just one garment. Genius really.

And I do agree there's a time and place for the really low V, but it does take a medium to small bust to look good in it I think. The smaller the book, the less hookerey it can be. The crazy necklines just make it harder to find everyday dresses.

 

[Lady Day]

I don't think low necklines are a problem ( take a look at my avatar hehe), I think a low neckline can be sexy and fun at the right time and place. I mean obviously you arn't going to wear the dress to church, but you can wear something with a low neckline out at night, or in the day if you want to feel a little sexy/girly. I have some fifties dresses that have pretty low necklines, so I don't think that it was a problem with just todays clothing. If you look at clothing historically, a lot of them had pretty low necklines, just look at some of the dresses of the 18th century, they were practically poping out of their gowns. Even the Victorian evening gowns of the 1880's had pretty low necklines.

I dont think anyone is arguing about low necklines of the past. Those options were always avaliable, with alternatives as exually avaliable. Now, with all the 'trendy' stores giving the majority of offerings, you see all the same things, with little (or super expensive) alternative offered for something else. So there are X variations of the same thing in relativity the same style, as opposed to more options/styles/ what have you to choose from.

LD

 

[Renee]

I think a low neckline can be sexy and fun at the right time and place.

I do, too ... but I'm not sure an office situation (or in my case, working at a public libary) is the appropriate place for a low "sexy" neckline.

The problem I'm having with so many of the new offerings is that exceptionally low necklines seem to be standard. It's not something found just in "evening wear", it's in the common t-shirt offerings.

And while I realize that layering is in style, most of the layering camis I've found are just as low-cut as the shirts I'm supposed to layer them under. I did find a "modesty" site which offered higher-cut camisoles, but they were exceptionally long to cover the skin exposed by low-cut jeans. ~sigh~

 

[Paisley]

Hanes makes some v-neck t-shirts that aren't too low-cut.