Am I the only one who thinks a big wedding is inappropriate for two people who have been living together? I think it would be tasteful to have the wedding performed privately, down at City Hall some day, and then announce the news in an invitation to a big party that occurs on another day and that specifies no gifts. There is no new household being set up, and you should be glad people want to take the time and make the effort to attend a party celebrating an existing relationship.
It seems to me that the idea of a big wedding ought to be about the beginning of the couple's life together. In fact, the really cool thing about a wedding back in the old days or for traditionalists these days is that the couple has not yet consummated the relationship. When that is the situation, there is an excitement and the reception takes on a wonderful glow: look, they're finally able to have sex and yet they are hanging out, dancing here with us! If this is not the case, how can the couple imagine they're putting on a show that justifies everyone watching and celebrating them for hours?
UPDATE: Interesting comments section! Let me just quote something I wrote, somewhere down in the thread:
Do I seem like a "social con"? I guess I've got my own distinct mix. I'd say I respect the genuine traditionalists, that I don't seek a traditionalist life for myself, and I tend to scoff at the fence-straddlers. People who live together and then want a big traditional wedding are very conspicuous fence straddlers. Be something! Stand for something! Think! That's my message.
Posts
37 comments:
"look, they're finally able to have sex and yet they are hanging out, dancing here with us!"
you said it! I've often been amazed at now narcisstic brides and grooms can be (asking over 500 "friends" to spend hard-to-come-by dollars on plane tickets and gifts for a couple who are already bickering about the garbage).
Of course, this one takes the cake.
On the other hand, I don't think they'd been living together for long. Is there some length of time that makes this ok? Why would it? Does anyone really need 28 attendants? 500+ guests? 8 bridal showers? It's hard to be close to that many people.
The whole story does make for great Southern Gothic images.
What I'd really like to know: did she just get tired of the bus trip when she hopped off in ABQ? It's a long way back and forth to Vegas and the route isn't exactly direct.
I'm sure she discovered that the real world is a lot more harsh than playing the starring role in a big wedding. It's even more harsh than the one she has now.
Eric: If tax consequences and the like were what mattered, why don't people throw huge parties and demand gifts when they incorporate their businesses?
And who are "the parties" involved when a big wedding is done? Just the couple? No, everyone who's invited is concerned. When you put on a big event and ask people to come, you need to be offering them something, not just serving your own interests.
Finally, you're asking me to base my opinions of what is appropriate on what people currently think. That's not my game at all. I'm trying to change opinion on this point.
Frankly, I think whether people marry or not (or have sex or not) is their own private business. I wouldn't attach government benefits to it, and I wouldn't expect other people to celebrate it. (This would solve the gay marriage issue, which I sense is at the core of your comment.)
Maybe we should give big parties to people who accomplish something substantial as a result of their coupling: like raising some good kids. But the fact that two people want to live together and have sex? What makes them so f***ing proud of themselves? I say it's ridiculous.
M. Jeeves: Yes, "narcissistic" is the word.
Tngirl: You've identified another way to give a bad wedding. I'd just say as a general rule for anyone giving any party: you've taken on the obligation to make other people happy. If you imagine you've summoned them over to make you happy, you're giving a rotten party. It's a difficult trick to enjoy your own party, if you take this basic advice seriously. But that's what it takes to be a great host/hostess. Good luck planning a great wedding.
"look, they're finally able to have sex and yet they are hanging out, dancing here with us!"
Funny you should say that, that's why my wife and I skipped out of the reception early before any official sendoff. We didn't even have one planned, frankly. But I would definitely reject an accusation like tngirl's that doing so was rude. Our guests were having so much fun that, by then, they did not miss us. And that was the idea: the wedding was for us; the reception was for them.
So there's a difference of opinion about whether the couple leaving early is bad, but here's what I'm seeing. Years ago, as Renee says, it was expected that the couple would leave early, because they hadn't had sex yet and the reception was really the party thrown by the parents. (There'd be some things the couple would have to do-- first dance, bite of cake, throw the bouquet.)
But now, the couple wants to be at the whole party and is even expected to be because it's more special than the sex at this point and because it's not the parents' party. This seems caused in part by the fact that the couple is older (parents out of the picture or unwilling to pay). But another social trend is that people aren't centered in the same town, so they've got to travel. Now it's a big expense and effort to show up, and they expect the couple to interact with them.
Do you think it's wrong for a person to have a birthday party on a day that isn't their actual birthday?
I'd tend to look at a wedding in this kind of situation as a party celebrating a couple's relationship. They just waited to make it "official." Lots of couples do this and to me it makes a lot of sense. Living with someone before you marry them makes sense to me. It's a good way to find out whether or not you are compatible with that person. A couple that lives together should want to bring all their friends together to celebrate just like any other couple. I think it would be weird if they had had their party when they moved in together. Having it when they get married seems to make much more sense to me.
Save money on the wedding and spend it on the honeymoon. This does not apply to those whose parents are paying for the wedding, although it could.
Frankly, I think whether people marry or not (or have sex or not) is their own private business. I wouldn't attach government benefits to it, and I wouldn't expect other people to celebrate it.
An interesting idea, Ann, I'll have to give that one some thought. I did read a proposal on dKos (some time back) that would give marriage to the church for each individual church or denomination to conduct and place civil unions under the auspices of the government to solemnize any kind of relationship.
I have wondered at the purpose of a wedding when two people have been living together already. Some of the comments have enlightened me. And, of course, there are those wonderful tax benefits, etc. to consider!
At my daughter's wedding, people grumbled because it took so long to get the post-wedding pictures done! They did this before the toast and cutting the cake.
tngirl:
It sounds as though it will be your first time to Wisconsin. As a Southerner, I can say that the folks up here are pretty nice; they have an accent and talk fast, but you'll get used to that ;^).
Danny: When I was writing this post, I felt like it was something from "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and the birthday thing your raise actually is. I think Larry David's position is that you have a three day window. But let me say that in reality no one in the history of the world has ever celebrated or even thought of celebrating his actual birthday. You're always looking back on a day in the past and remembering it. If you can find anyone who cares that it's the anniversary of that event -- other than your parents and your friends (while you're still a kid) -- you're lucky. But don't push it.
Anyway, about weddings, and responding to your point, Danny. I'm just saying that it's a different sort of event to get married when you're already living together and giving my taste tips for the occasion. You really used the expression "makes sense" a lot in you comment! But does a big traditional wedding "make sense" in this modern context. It may "make sense" that people still want the same celebration, but I'm saying it would be more tasteful to do something else. To me, it "makes sense" for people who feel motivated to do one thing to think through whether it's in good taste and will be a good experience for other people.
Dean: I've been making this point about de-linking government and marriage for years. I can't find my old post on the subject on the blog (because I've written about marriage so much). It's not going to happen, of course. But maybe some day taxing will be dramatically changed and the question of marriage will fall out automatically (e.g., flat tax, sales tax).
Funny you'd say people in Wisconsin talk fast! If you were coming from NYC, you'd say prepare to hear everyone tell you you're talking too fast.
I think my angle on this is much different from yours because I don't look at a "traditional wedding" as traditional. I look at it as a good excuse to have a party regardless of the party's similarity to other parties. A party for the sake of celebrating, not for the sake of tradition. To me, "tasteful" only comes into play with regard to the style, music, food and other trimmings at the party.
I suppose I'm no where close to being married yet. And if I were, I suppose the future Mrs. Noonan might be more concerned with tradition than I am. But I'm guessing that if/when I meet a young lady that is kind enough to marry me, I'd like to throw a big party for all of our friends and family no matter what the living situation happens to be.
Danny: A good party is a good party. Too often, weddings don't really cut it as parties, though. All I'm saying is that if the couple is already living together, they don't have an event that is intrinsically exciting.
Funny you'd say people in Wisconsin talk fast! If you were coming from NYC, you'd say prepare to hear everyone tell you you're talking too fast.
I was just speaking to the slow-talking southerner stereotype. I've heard some New Yorkers talk fast, but the fastest English speaker I ever heard was Australian.
Back to the point at hand. I think the bigger reason for the couple remaining at the reception is the fact that people have travelled far to get there and the couple probably wants to spend time with them before everyone departs. Like a high school or college reunion?
I remarried recently, after 18 years a bachelor. The illusion that a wedding and reception have anything to do with the couple is for the very young. What is happening is that the families are merging, and society is resorbing its errant ones. The couple may symbolize this, but are pawns for larger forces. Continuity, being strands in the social loom, assuming a position between photos of stilted but beaming dead black-and-white relatives and puzzled polychromatic little ring- and flower-bearers: you are being ensconced in your time and milieu. Something much more like an imprimatur than like a futuntur is stamped on you.
In the matter of gifts. We had just merged two medium-sized houses into a small big house, and in the process distended the coffers and bulged the spoilbanks of the county dump with load on load of American dreck accreted over decades. We told everyone, "No Gifts!" and this mostly worked. But we did get one gift repeatedly. I had told my new-wife-to-be that I wanted the reception staffed with off-duty Hooters waitresses and fed with a barbequed pig. Very sweetly she agreed about the pig, but told me the Hooters waitresses would have to wait for my third wife.
The pig was the hit of the season, the belle of the ball, wholly upstaging the late-middle-aged maridos. It was prepared traditionally, with an apple in the mouth, and candied cherries for eyes. Many of our friends are talented photographers, but it is a little like taking a reasonably good picture of a great beauty in her prime: how much talent does it take? The Pig was sensationally photogenic. Our one repeated wedding gift comprises a great sheaf, a whole electronic folder, of profile shots of The Pig.
JB: Do I seem like a "social con"? I guess I've got my own distinct mix. I'd say I respect the genuine traditionalists, that I don't seek a traditionalist life for myself, and I tend to scoff at the fence-straddlers. People who live together and then want a big traditional wedding are very conspicuous fence straddlers. Be something! Stand for something! Think! That's my message.
Lawrence: Let these friends who marry to have children have baby showers at the appropriate time. That's about the gifts. As to corporation-forming parties. Cool. I'm for marriage parties too. I'm for parties. But, damn, you've got to make good parties, that are good for the guests and don't imagine yourself to be a show in and of yourself.
No? At least among my friends, the attitude is that you live together until you want to have children, and then you get married. Among my friends, gifts would still be appropriate, because the fact that they are marrying suggests that they will be having children soon. And we all know what an economic strain having kids is.
That's what baby showers are for. Or do your friends forego those?
Deleted my last posts. I decided I must be misunderstanding you completely.
Mcg, you wrote (and deleted -- I don't see why) "uou began by criticizing 'sham' weddings by people who are already de facto married, and now you're suggesting that even the most traditional of weddings is ridiculous... So if they are, what's the big deal of having a sham version of one?"
That's a good and observant question. I'd say that weddings are romantic fantasy shows, not practical necessities. People in the traditional situation -- especially virgins -- look right putting on these displays. Others are miscast and should choose a different, better role. Hence my taste advice.
Some of the biggest and best parties I've been to have been wedding receptions for couples who lived together (or at a bare minimum, knew each other in the Biblical sense already). I tend to not obsess about the sex thing and instead focus on visiting with friends and relatives, and having a good time. If you can't have a good time because the bride and groom have slept together before, then that's kind of sad ...
Timothy: I could have a good time if it's a good party. And, again, I don't care what people's private sexual habits are. I just don't think a traditional wedding ceremony is intrinsically entertaining when the couple is already living together. And I think a big wedding ceremony (as opposed to a reception/party) is not in very good taste under the circumstances. Especially the bizarrely huge ceremony planned by the "runaway bride."
Paul: Oversized weddings are a cultural phenomenon worth criticizing. Why should noticing that something is "conventional" be the end of the discussion? But the expanding big weddings of today aren't even a convention. It's a new development. I guess I don't see your point at all, though I seem to detect a lot of defensiveness in your comment and in those of some of the other people who object to the point I made about good taste. I think people are defensive because they want everything they want including not to be criticized.
And, Paul, you're just not reading my comments competently. I've said about ten times that my point isn't about sexual morality and I don't care about what people do in private. At least do me the courtesy of reading what I've written before commenting.
I once had theopportunity to observe the mating rituals of the upper class south second hand (as a totally outside observer). I got to observe several frat parties as a commercial traveler.
The women were all looking for the best ride. i.e. for the most part love was secondary to the commercial transaction.
The men for the most part seemed like stupid sheep anxious to get fleeced.
RJ: I was referring to the reception where the couple is "out in under 20 minutes leaving guests who travelled far with gifts for those pure-hearted, toaster-less souls to wonder why they bothered." (Though others have commented to say that that is in fact traditional and appropriate.)
Warning! Reactionary Post!
At this point, there probably isn't much left to be said.
However, if you have been living together, a big wedding is unseemly. It's better to marry than not; put on a nice suit and hit the JP or county clerk's office. Go to vegas and get an elvis impersonator.
Generally speaking, I think that the wedding ceremony & reception is over rated. Focus on the marriage. That's what counts, not the party.
Boring: Why is that reactionary? I think the big wedding trend is retrograde -- completely post-feminism. It's quite hard to see whose interests are served other than the wedding industry itself.
As a parent my question is, do I need to pay for the wedding even though the 'happy couple' have been living together and the groom makes more money than we do? They say that they want a small wedding, but I'm still wondering about our obligation to the wedding.
Well....I live with my fiance and we do not have sex. We have lived with each other for 2 years. We are getting married in May 2008. When we moved in together we had to because of finances. When you are young and starting money is not growing off trees. Yes, we may sleep in the same bed, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE SEX.... I think that people judge way to much. You may not have a clue as to why they live toghter. We had no choice. We lived in New Orleans at the time of Hurricane Katrina. Our houses were flooded and rent went sky high. We had no option to consolidate households. Unless the bride and groom are walking around with a sign on their heads that says they are not virgins you should not judge them... Nobody likes being accused for something they have not done... Right?
In response to the first post. Why all the animosity for a couple that would like to celebrate their vows in style? Does it really seem all that unusual and distasteful for a couple who having been living together, even for years to want a big affair? You only get married once (well, hopefully), and it seems unfair to me to deny a couple a fancy wedding day simply because they've had sex, and have already started a life together. Most brides who have a big affair and don't live together have already slept together, and many more try out living together by spending weekends at their boyfriends/girlfriends house. Most of my friends who are living with their significant others and who have not yet been married are only doing so because they can't afford to get married. Does it not seem like those who can't afford to get married are perhaps the one's who are most deserving of gifts? Did they not already try to start their lives off together without any gifts? Please! Just think about what your celebrating when you go to a wedding where the bride and groom are seemingly doing things in the right order! What are the probabilities that the bride and groom have not yet slept together? Although, Im sure some don't sleep together before hand, its my consensus that most do. It would seem as though those who have lived together before hand are just as deserving of their big day as any other....so, stop patronizing them with your ideals that are unwarranted. They make you appear bitter towards anyone who would like to celebrate their union. Lets not forget that this IS the point of a wedding, and those who have not yet tied the knot, and are doing so before living together are just as guilty of celebrating an "existing relationship" than those who live together beforehand.
Weddings are marvelous if done carefully according to the budget. I know a couple that was nearly selling home one month after their wedding as a result to have pleased their guests almost to the maximum!
For those who think have money, you rather use 50% of the budget for the party and distribute the other 50% to the poor who is amongst you for almost every one will be pleased of that and will never forget your wedding other wise it is almost impossible to please children of Adam.
Do whatever you do to please your Creator.
I have been suddenly struck with the belief that the online masses should know what I think.
I think I understand the author's objection. Traditional weddings are fraught with symbolic meaning. The father gives away the bride. The bride takes the name of the husband. The bride wears white. And who is the guy at the front, who has the power to pronounce them "man and wife"? I forgot, someone remind me.
It's is distasteful because if the couple hasn't followed any of the traditions, yet has a traditional wedding proclaiming fidelity to these traditions, that's quite a bit of false advertising. It's like a man wearing a military-esqe uniform and asking that everyone call him captain, even though he has never served. There's nothing wrong with having a traditional wedding (or wearing a uniform). There's nothing wrong with asking people to play along. It's just distasteful to live non-traditionally for years, then run to tradition and pretend for a day, because traditional weddings are somehow more respectable. Don't be a fence-straddler. Traditions are either valid or invalid.
I don't quite agree with the author on this one. I think most traditionalists are happy to see that even non-traditionalist want traditional weddings, as an admission of the enduring social power of tradition. Even if they don't follow the rules, they recognize it as an ideal, an aspiration, or, at least, as a superior life-style brand.
To the traditionalist, a fence-straddler is preferable to someone on the other side.
Personally, I think most weddings today are just a case of one-upmanship...like the bride is saying, see? I got a M-A-N and you don't! Whether one lives together beforehand or not, I'd like to see weddings on a more tasteful and simple basis and not used as some declaration of social status.
Living together and having a big wedding are completely mutually exclusive. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
I suppose if you define weddings as the mark of a new life for the couple (physically), then I guess you would have a point.
But marriage (i.e weddings) are much more than that. They are a life-long commitment and a very large promise between two people. There are also many other meanings for wedding (such as tradition, legal status, etc..)
And what about couples that are too young, too old, previously married, and gay? Do they also do not deserve to have a big wedding?
"And what about couples that are too young, too old, previously married, and gay? Do they also do not deserve to have a big wedding?"
It's not really about what people deserve. I'm just talking about what sort of event is a good idea... is in good taste. All the couples you list there would come within my rule if the were not already living together.
I myself got married a few years after writing this post. It was my second marriage, and we were both in our 50s. We chose to get married together on a mountaintop with no one else there but us, which is a way you can get married in Colorado. I didn't want a wedding... didn't want the responsibility of making a lot of other people have a good time and so forth. I wasn't interested in spending my time like that and worrying about such things.
Weddings provide an opportunity for two individuals to publically acknowledge their love and commitment to one another. Marriage marks the beginning of two lives that will (hopefully) be together till eternity. Living together is quite a different thing. It is a private decision without written and spoken vows. It is valuable in and by itself for those individuals that want to get to know each other in a deep way prior to making the "forever" commitment. Living together does not need to cancel out, diminish, nor affect the size of a wedding. This is more about your morals than about two people making a "private adult arrangement. If some weddings are hardships for you, I humbly suggest that you do not attend. Send a respectful note along with a small gift wishing the couple well. It seems that this would be the most comfortable decision rather than attending and being annoyed. All the best.
Post a Comment