Brides should know that they already have a man. They don't have to use their wedding to attract a date for Saturday night. They've supposedly secured one for the foreseeable future.

Thus, it's hard to figure how the fashion trend of "naked dressing," lamentable even at nightclubs, has invaded the precincts of ancient social custom. Displaying one's privates — or underwear — in public started as a fashion trend pushed by attention-hungry celebrities. Now it's walking down the aisle.

The traditional bridal dress is white for its association with purity, innocence and, yes, virginity. OK, things change.

Brides still claim the white for its symbolic value, but many push other boundaries that were brick-walled in the past. Strapless dresses are common. Whereas brides traditionally had their arms modestly covered to the wrists, sleeveless has become a norm. And the frontiers of cleavage display are continually being tested.

Suffice it to say, brides have the right to dress seductively even at a ceremony crafted to broadcast that that she is no longer available. It's their show. And if they want to entertain the congregation by letting it see her skimpy panties through sheer fabric, well, I don't have a vote here.

There's another possible explanation. One motive for dressing in this revealing manner could be to flatter the groom, to show the guys in the pews what they are missing.

It should be clear that I'm limiting this discussion to heterosexual pairings. Same-sex couples have their own rules.

Am I being unfair? I don't think so. Judgmental? Definitely.

At Studio 54, the late '70s disco of wild abandon, there actually was a dress code — though it took up only one line. Women could get as naked as they liked. Men, however, were not allowed to take out their "members" for display, if you get my drift.

I know this because my husband, before becoming a plumber, was one of Studio's bartenders. "I couldn't enforce this rule," Craig recalls, "but I could inform those who did."

Craig, as you might imagine, has seen it all, and remains generally nonjudgmental on matters of provocative dress by women. Yet he was taken aback last week when, walking down a big city street in broad daylight, he passed a young woman who had wholeheartedly embraced the naked dressing aesthetic.

Reader advisory: What follows may prove unsuitable for readers of delicate sensibilities. (Bravo to you who still have them.)

"She had this see-through top," Craig said. "You could see her nipples. You could see her areolas. You could see the bumps on her areolas. And they were down to here. She was strutting like how great she was. Thinking everyone was staring at her, which they were."

Pronovias, the Barcelona-based bridal fashion house, ginned up quite a bit of press when it introduced naked dressing for brides. Of special note was its bridal jumpsuit made of lace with floral appliques strategically placed over the crotch.

Bear in mind that Pronovias was an international luxury bridal brand, not a grubby adult sex shop. It had stores in the high-rent areas of Paris, Beverly Hills, Houston, Miami, London and New York. Their dresses started at $2,000 and ran to over $10,000. (I use past tense because Pronovias filed for bankruptcy about six months ago.)

We live in contradictory times. Some feminists argue women shouldn't be viewed through the "male gaze." Some say women should be free to reveal as much of their beautiful bodies as they choose. And some express both views simultaneously in an unsuccessful attempt to square the circle. "How dare you gaze at my naked body."

The bride isn't blushing, but the congregants may be.

Follow Froma Harrop on X @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at [email protected]. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Vadim Paripa at Unsplash