Snarky Brides

I DO ReDo

2»

Re: I DO ReDo

  • raissyraisraissyrais London member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    Vegas wedding here. Elvis was not involved.

    This was our chapel:

    image

    Vegas weddings can be beautiful. It's not all drive-thrus and Elvis.

    That's gorgeous! :) 
    Seriously, that is beautiful!!
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • MagicInk said:
    After actually getting married I've been thinking about re-do's more often.

    There was a moment when my wife was signing our marriage certificate and I looked over at her and it hit me. She's my wife. Right now she is signing legally binding paperwork that makes her mine, and I'm going to sign the same paperwork that makes me her's. Forever. We're promising forever. We're signing legally binding paperwork that says we are united. That as far as the government is concerned we are legal spouses. And I remember the wave of emotion that washed over. Just the feeling of absolute fucking joy that she was mine forever and ever.

    I could re-do our wedding 50 times but I will never again have that moment. I cannot understand for the life of me, having now been there, how anyone can think the legal part doesn't matter. Or doesn't carry emotion. Or whatever the fuck the reason is for a re-do. 

    My wedding was great. I'm sure shit went wrong. Shit usually goes wrong, that's how life works. But damn it at the end of the day we legally promised to be together forever. She got to be my legal wife. How can anything else matter?
    I think the entire above statement is very heartfelt and lovely. I think it's rad that you and your wife were able to get married (legally) in your home state and didn't have to travel to do so, because that's just a bunch of BS. 

    With regards to the bolded, I think that's awesome too. To have a moment or moments in one's life that profound are rare and special and amazing. And I 100% stand behind anyone feeling the way you did when you and your wife signed your marriage license. My natural tendency to not judge anyone else's marital arrangement(s) extends equally to this though. Feelings, true, legitimate feelings cannot be conjured and generally cannot (or should not, at least) be applied "on cue." The day we signed our marriage license, it wasn't that it "didn't matter" it just did not have a similar emotional impact on us as it did for you. I think that's totally fair. There were moments of our wedding ceremony that had those types of emotions for us. For me, personally, I think all married couples get to determine the moments, practices, benchmarks, whatever you want to call it, for themselves, that "matter." And by matter, I mean the moments that had a profound or moving reaction for them, not in a flippant or practical sense....

    But I think it really drove home for me why I have such a visceral, albeit opposite, reaction. I don't have any expectation about or rights to define anyone else's feelings about their wedding/marriage as I think anyone should have about mine. 

    I've raised the question many times on here that if "all that really matters is the paper" why does anyone need a secular ceremony (or a dress, or a cake, etc.)? 

    At any rate, I still don't care about corporate America sending anyone to Vegas for any reason. Including re-doing a wedding the B&G (B&B/G&G) felt badly about. Good for them. Because life really should be filled with as many moments like the one you described as it possibly can. 


    Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to 100% do the quote thing correctly. I'm still trying to figure out formatting and stuff here..


    Way to kill the warm and fuzzy feeling I just got from reading that marriage description.

    Also, if you don't get some overwhelming feeling of love on the day of your wedding, you're probably doing something wrong. Yes, I'm hardcore judging if you DON'T get a feeling like that. That's what the whole day is for. You know, marrying the love of your life, and what-not.

    To the bolded. You don't NEED a secular ceremony to have a "wedding" and be considered "married". I thought that's pretty clear here. Just signing the certificate and getting legally married to another person is all you need. 

    There's a difference between doing things your own way/being tasteful about it, and just being rude or distasteful about it. Redoing a wedding because some aspect of it wasn't good enough for you (never mind the fact you got married to the love of your life), is definitely the wrong way. You get called a "special snowflake" if you're clearly being rude/distasteful or going against etiquette. 

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
  • MagicInk said:
    After actually getting married I've been thinking about re-do's more often.

    There was a moment when my wife was signing our marriage certificate and I looked over at her and it hit me. She's my wife. Right now she is signing legally binding paperwork that makes her mine, and I'm going to sign the same paperwork that makes me her's. Forever. We're promising forever. We're signing legally binding paperwork that says we are united. That as far as the government is concerned we are legal spouses. And I remember the wave of emotion that washed over. Just the feeling of absolute fucking joy that she was mine forever and ever.

    I could re-do our wedding 50 times but I will never again have that moment. I cannot understand for the life of me, having now been there, how anyone can think the legal part doesn't matter. Or doesn't carry emotion. Or whatever the fuck the reason is for a re-do. 

    My wedding was great. I'm sure shit went wrong. Shit usually goes wrong, that's how life works. But damn it at the end of the day we legally promised to be together forever. She got to be my legal wife. How can anything else matter?
    I think the entire above statement is very heartfelt and lovely. I think it's rad that you and your wife were able to get married (legally) in your home state and didn't have to travel to do so, because that's just a bunch of BS. 

    With regards to the bolded, I think that's awesome too. To have a moment or moments in one's life that profound are rare and special and amazing. And I 100% stand behind anyone feeling the way you did when you and your wife signed your marriage license. My natural tendency to not judge anyone else's marital arrangement(s) extends equally to this though. Feelings, true, legitimate feelings cannot be conjured and generally cannot (or should not, at least) be applied "on cue." The day we signed our marriage license, it wasn't that it "didn't matter" it just did not have a similar emotional impact on us as it did for you. I think that's totally fair. There were moments of our wedding ceremony that had those types of emotions for us. For me, personally, I think all married couples get to determine the moments, practices, benchmarks, whatever you want to call it, for themselves, that "matter." And by matter, I mean the moments that had a profound or moving reaction for them, not in a flippant or practical sense....

    But I think it really drove home for me why I have such a visceral, albeit opposite, reaction. I don't have any expectation about or rights to define anyone else's feelings about their wedding/marriage as I think anyone should have about mine. 

    I've raised the question many times on here that if "all that really matters is the paper" why does anyone need a secular ceremony (or a dress, or a cake, etc.)? 

    At any rate, I still don't care about corporate America sending anyone to Vegas for any reason. Including re-doing a wedding the B&G (B&B/G&G) felt badly about. Good for them. Because life really should be filled with as many moments like the one you described as it possibly can. 


    Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to 100% do the quote thing correctly. I'm still trying to figure out formatting and stuff here..


    Way to kill the warm and fuzzy feeling I just got from reading that marriage description.

    Also, if you don't get some overwhelming feeling of love on the day of your wedding, you're probably doing something wrong. Yes, I'm hardcore judging if you DON'T get a feeling like that. That's what the whole day is for. You know, marrying the love of your life, and what-not. Get ready to judge then, because we signed our license prior to having a wedding ceremony and neither of us had any overwhelming emotions the day we signed our license. It was a pretty average Tuesday actually. The day we had our ceremony (the only day we consider, refer to or think of as our wedding day) we were overflowing with emotions. Shit, I ugly cried at points and I'm not generally a crier! My point was different people should have the right to get emotional about different things, if they are so inclined, without judgement from others. I'm psyched that MagicInk had a profound emotional experience while she and her wife signed their license. I'm psyched I had a similar response at my wedding ceremony, and I'm okay with the fact that the marriage license signing we felt pretty neutral about the whole thing. Different people, different experiences, different outlook, all okay in my book.

    To the bolded. You don't NEED a secular ceremony to have a "wedding" and be considered "married". I thought that's pretty clear here. Just signing the certificate and getting legally married to another person is all you need. Kind of my point. Except no one has been able to explain to my satisfaction why it's not "Pretty Princess" superfluousness for anyone to get dressed up all fancy and have a big party just to sign a license if the license is the only thing that really "matters." If that fact is considered true (which I've always considered debatable) then ALL brides (and their spouses by extension) are trying to play Princess For A Day. 

    There's a difference between doing things your own way/being tasteful about it, and just being rude or distasteful about it. Redoing a wedding because some aspect of it wasn't good enough for you (never mind the fact you got married to the love of your life), is definitely the wrong way. You get called a "special snowflake" if you're clearly being rude/distasteful or going against etiquette. Adjectives like rude, tasteful, distasteful are rather subjective imo. There's all sorts of things I find rude and distasteful that many would find perfectly okay, and vice-versa. 

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    EunoiaPhoenix
  • larrygagalarrygaga Czechoslovakia member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
  • beethery said:
    It'll never be explained to your satisfaction because to do that would be to include dishonesty/lying by omission in getting married.

    The soup is done. Stop stirring.

    You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying. 

    It cannot be explained to me to my satisfaction why it's not a Pretty Princess Day when two people get married the standard, traditional way, if all that "matters" is signing the license. 

    Pretend we live in a world where no one, for any reason, ever signed their license separately from their ceremony, so we can stop the discussion that in the opinion of some one is right and one is wrong. Remove weddings like mine from the equation for a moment, because they do not have any bearing on what I'm asking.

    I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. 

    No one can explain it to me, because there are no legitimate reasons and very few people will ever just come out and say, "because I'm shallow and really want a pretty, poofy dress and people fawning over us and flowers and this and that and blah, blah, blah." 

    I'll never get it. Sounds like some people just want to make it sound like some things should only be reserved for those who agree with the majority and others just have to "suck it up" because the specific circumstances in their lives differ from the rest of the heard. Gaff that. You suck up the things you have no choice over, you figure out the things you do.

    It's no more or no less superfluous, "look at me" garbage for either group. That's a fact. 


    SarahWinsEunoiaPhoenix
  • beetherybeethery So sayeth the fuckin' Pope. member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    I am not going to read all that because it's the same fucking yammering you do all the time to incite argument. I don't fucking care. I do not care about you, or your constant need for shit-stirring. Find an overflowing toilet, and plunge your fucking hand in. Twirl it around, shit-stirrer.

    I am done with your shit and it is going to be such a happy fucking day when you are gone.
    --

    I'm the fuck out.

    image
    ashley8918
  • beethery said:
    I am not going to read all that because it's the same fucking yammering you do all the time to incite argument. I don't fucking care. I do not care about you, or your constant need for shit-stirring. Find an overflowing toilet, and plunge your fucking hand in. Twirl it around, shit-stirrer.

    I am done with your shit and it is going to be such a happy fucking day when you are gone.
    All that eloquence and I still don't have the answer to my question. It's a shame that so many are unable to have civil discourse with those with whom they disagree. That's okay though, I have all the answers I'll ever need. 
    SarahWins
  • beetherybeethery So sayeth the fuckin' Pope. member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited December 2014
    I fucking detest you, seriously.

    You want an answer that validates lying by omission and includes the 'not feeling married' because you didn't have to have a spoken ceremony by an outside officiant. You ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT HERE. You'll get it from other thirsty snowflakes who love the idiotic crusade you're on for validating LYING BY OMISSION.

    The fucking paper said you were married. You were already fucking married. YOU. WERE. ALREADY. MARRIED.

    But that was not good enough because you didn't get weepy over it. Tough motherfucking titties. YOU WERE MARRIED NO MATTER WHO CRIED.


    God fucking dammit.


    I don't care that the answer is not satisfying to you because your opinion is fucking irrelevant. I keep suggesting that you start a wedding re-do forum. You'll get a huge following of other thirsty people who are into the same shit. You can advertise, make money, and I will be so fucking happy for you. For real.
    --

    I'm the fuck out.

    image
    wrigleyvilleamelishaashley8918
  • beethery said:
    I fucking detest you, seriously. Feeling's almost mutual. But I'm not sure I'm quite as passionate about disliking you. I'm pretty indifferent actually. But you really should block me. It would make the most sense.

    You want an answer that validates lying by omission and includes the 'not feeling married' because you didn't have to have a spoken ceremony by an outside officiant. You ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT HERE. You'll get it from other thirsty snowflakes who love the idiotic crusade you're on for validating LYING BY OMISSION. As I said, the question CAN be answered without any other type of wedding being brought in for consideration. One is not necessary for the other. You're either opposed to answering it on its face, or you don't understand the question. 

    The fucking paper said you were married. You were already fucking married. YOU. WERE. ALREADY. MARRIED. 

    But that was not good enough because you didn't get weepy over it. Tough motherfucking titties. YOU WERE MARRIED NO MATTER WHO CRIED.  I don't think crying or profound feelings are requiste either way. But I'm thankful and happy we were neutral signing our license and moved at our ceremony. It just served to reiterate for us we did the right thing. 


    God fucking dammit.


    I don't care that the answer is not satisfying to you because your opinion is fucking irrelevant. You didn't answer anything. You just keep repeating the same tired bullshit regarding my wedding, which doesn't answer the question I've posed. I keep suggesting that you start a wedding re-do forum. You'll get a huge following of other thirsty people who are into the same shit. You can advertise, make money, and I will be so fucking happy for you. For real. I've already explained I don't have the time for a blog. I would consider it if I did. Instead I can pop in anytime I want here and add wisdom, opinion or experience when and where relevant. Or "shit stir" as you put it, I just see it as basic dissent from the masses. 

  • mikenbergermikenberger In a f'n cornfield member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer


    beethery said:

    I fucking detest you, seriously. Feeling's almost mutual. But I'm not sure I'm quite as passionate about disliking you. I'm pretty indifferent actually. But you really should block me. It would make the most sense.

    You want an answer that validates lying by omission and includes the 'not feeling married' because you didn't have to have a spoken ceremony by an outside officiant. You ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT HERE. You'll get it from other thirsty snowflakes who love the idiotic crusade you're on for validating LYING BY OMISSION. As I said, the question CAN be answered without any other type of wedding being brought in for consideration. One is not necessary for the other. You're either opposed to answering it on its face, or you don't understand the question. 

    The fucking paper said you were married. You were already fucking married. YOU. WERE. ALREADY. MARRIED. 

    But that was not good enough because you didn't get weepy over it. Tough motherfucking titties. YOU WERE MARRIED NO MATTER WHO CRIED.  I don't think crying or profound feelings are requiste either way. But I'm thankful and happy we were neutral signing our license and moved at our ceremony. It just served to reiterate for us we did the right thing. 


    God fucking dammit.


    I don't care that the answer is not satisfying to you because your opinion is fucking irrelevant. You didn't answer anything. You just keep repeating the same tired bullshit regarding my wedding, which doesn't answer the question I've posed. I keep suggesting that you start a wedding re-do forum. You'll get a huge following of other thirsty people who are into the same shit. You can advertise, make money, and I will be so fucking happy for you. For real. I've already explained I don't have the time for a blog. I would consider it if I did. Instead I can pop in anytime I want here and add wisdom, opinion or experience when and where relevant. Or "shit stir" as you put it, I just see it as basic dissent from the masses. 




    Please don't block each other. Watching this is a pretty good show. I'd still put $20 on B.

    image
    carrie0924
  • beethery said:
    I fucking detest you, seriously. Feeling's almost mutual. But I'm not sure I'm quite as passionate about disliking you. I'm pretty indifferent actually. But you really should block me. It would make the most sense.

    You want an answer that validates lying by omission and includes the 'not feeling married' because you didn't have to have a spoken ceremony by an outside officiant. You ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT HERE. You'll get it from other thirsty snowflakes who love the idiotic crusade you're on for validating LYING BY OMISSION. As I said, the question CAN be answered without any other type of wedding being brought in for consideration. One is not necessary for the other. You're either opposed to answering it on its face, or you don't understand the question. 

    The fucking paper said you were married. You were already fucking married. YOU. WERE. ALREADY. MARRIED. 

    But that was not good enough because you didn't get weepy over it. Tough motherfucking titties. YOU WERE MARRIED NO MATTER WHO CRIED.  I don't think crying or profound feelings are requiste either way. But I'm thankful and happy we were neutral signing our license and moved at our ceremony. It just served to reiterate for us we did the right thing. 


    God fucking dammit.


    I don't care that the answer is not satisfying to you because your opinion is fucking irrelevant. You didn't answer anything. You just keep repeating the same tired bullshit regarding my wedding, which doesn't answer the question I've posed. I keep suggesting that you start a wedding re-do forum. You'll get a huge following of other thirsty people who are into the same shit. You can advertise, make money, and I will be so fucking happy for you. For real. I've already explained I don't have the time for a blog. I would consider it if I did. Instead I can pop in anytime I want here and add wisdom, opinion or experience when and where relevant. Or "shit stir" as you put it, I just see it as basic dissent from the masses. 

    Please don't block each other. Watching this is a pretty good show. I'd still put $20 on B.
    I don't have any intention of blocking anyone. Or getting all perturbed. I'm a grown woman and it takes a lot to actually piss me off, and even then my big girl pants are on and I'm always ready for whatever comes my way. I'm sure beethery is furiously combing google images to mine for attempted wit. I just don't care much at this point because no one is ever going to answer my very legitimate question, my husband is actually home with me instead of work, I'm sipping an awesome whiskey barrel casked Saison and I'm about to spark up in front of my fireplace. Life is as perfect as it could get at the moment. Waiting for answering that are never coming sounds a waste of my night. Deuces.
  • beetherybeethery So sayeth the fuckin' Pope. member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited December 2014
    I had a fucking perfect jack-off hand gif and now I can't find it. Balls.
    --

    I'm the fuck out.

    image
    mikenbergerashley8918fieryredsam
  • thisismynickname2thisismynickname2 City By The Lake member
    5000 Comments Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    ________________________________


  • "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "


    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like.

    "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer.

    And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    SarahWinsaleighbaker
  • MobKazMobKaz Chicago suburbs member
    Tenth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers

    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like. "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer. And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate. The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough. It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?
    "Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses......."       That sounds to me like the definition of a destination charade.........the only difference is that one is also deceitful.
  • MobKaz said:






    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "


    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like.

    "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer.

    And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.

    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate.

    The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough.

    It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?


    "Just because something is or has become
    custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose
    attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter
    tosses......."       That sounds to me like the definition of a destination charade.........the only difference is that one is also deceitful.


    I don't have any qualms openly stating both my first wedding to my ex and my DW to my husband were both superfluous and unnecessary. I have no qualms stating I have no issues with it. If I pay for something I will always get what I want, period. I'm not telling anyone else whatever they're planning is unnecessary or pretty, pretty anything. I'm not condescending and believe people are entitled to whatever they can afford. Therein lies the difference.
  • MobKazMobKaz Chicago suburbs member
    Tenth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers

    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like. "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer. And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate. The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough. It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?
    "Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses......."       That sounds to me like the definition of a destination charade.........the only difference is that one is also deceitful.
    I don't have any qualms openly stating both my first wedding to my ex and my DW to my husband were both superfluous and unnecessary. I have no qualms stating I have no issues with it. If I pay for something I will always get what I want, period. I'm not telling anyone else whatever they're planning is unnecessary or pretty, pretty anything. I'm not condescending and believe people are entitled to whatever they can afford. Therein lies the difference.
    The difference lies in truth.
    MairePoppyesstee33
  • larrygagalarrygaga Czechoslovakia member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    MobKaz said:

    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like. "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer. And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate. The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough. It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?
    "Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses......."       That sounds to me like the definition of a destination charade.........the only difference is that one is also deceitful.
    I don't have any qualms openly stating both my first wedding to my ex and my DW to my husband were both superfluous and unnecessary. I have no qualms stating I have no issues with it. If I pay for something I will always get what I want, period. I'm not telling anyone else whatever they're planning is unnecessary or pretty, pretty anything. I'm not condescending and believe people are entitled to whatever they can afford. Therein lies the difference.
    The difference lies in truth.
    image
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    MobKazbeetherycarrie0924
  • larrygaga said:
    image
    90% of the reason I even read the forums is for the gifs. Comedy gold. I don't even have a clue what this particular thread was about in the first place anymore. I just scan for the gifs.
    larrygagaashley8918fieryredsam
  • "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like. "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer. And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate. The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough. It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?
    @Jells2dot0, thank you for actually trying to answer my question. I've always boiled the debate down to this in my mind, so I'm glad to get a rational response for a change. 

    While reading your hypothetical about the birthday thing, I was reminded immediately of a party I threw back in 2002.

    When my ex-husband and I were first dating he and I would occasionally commiserate about having winter birthdays (he actually shares a birthday with his baby brother ten days before Christmas, 17 years apart (he got really fucked over during the birthday lottery). 

    Being ten years his junior and thinking 35 was a "milestone" birthday I planned a surprise 35th birthday party for him in the middle of July. He was shocked to say the least, our guests had a great time, it was properly hosted (and then some). All in all I would call it a helluva success.

    So, after my quick trip down Memory Lane, it occurred to me just how deeply a fundamental difference my opinion is from what can be found here. 

    When you say the words, "people are afforded choices" what I hear is, "people are entitled to" (anything they foot the bill for). 

    I don't have any issues with people choosing all the trappings of traditional weddings. I take issues with anyone attempting to make the whole thing yet another topic where some become the haves and some the have-nots over something as tremendously shallow and flufftastic as the modern wedding experience. 



  • MobKaz said:

    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like. "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer. And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate. The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough. It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?
    "Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses......."       That sounds to me like the definition of a destination charade.........the only difference is that one is also deceitful.
    I don't have any qualms openly stating both my first wedding to my ex and my DW to my husband were both superfluous and unnecessary. I have no qualms stating I have no issues with it. If I pay for something I will always get what I want, period. I'm not telling anyone else whatever they're planning is unnecessary or pretty, pretty anything. I'm not condescending and believe people are entitled to whatever they can afford. Therein lies the difference.
    The difference lies in truth.
    I can't possibly have to remind you yet again that we don't feel separated from the truth in any way. 
  • "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like. "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer. And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate. The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough. It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?
    @Jells2dot0, thank you for actually trying to answer my question. I've always boiled the debate down to this in my mind, so I'm glad to get a rational response for a change. 

    While reading your hypothetical about the birthday thing, I was reminded immediately of a party I threw back in 2002.

    When my ex-husband and I were first dating he and I would occasionally commiserate about having winter birthdays (he actually shares a birthday with his baby brother ten days before Christmas, 17 years apart (he got really fucked over during the birthday lottery). 

    Being ten years his junior and thinking 35 was a "milestone" birthday I planned a surprise 35th birthday party for him in the middle of July. He was shocked to say the least, our guests had a great time, it was properly hosted (and then some). All in all I would call it a helluva success.

    So, after my quick trip down Memory Lane, it occurred to me just how deeply a fundamental difference my opinion is from what can be found here. 

    When you say the words, "people are afforded choices" what I hear is, "people are entitled to" (anything they foot the bill for). 

    I don't have any issues with people choosing all the trappings of traditional weddings. I take issues with anyone attempting to make the whole thing yet another topic where some become the haves and some the have-nots over something as tremendously shallow and flufftastic as the modern wedding experience. 



    For some reason, my internet browser is not working properly, so sorry for not being able to bold. About your "surprise" 35th party- the thing that sets it apart from what I was mentioning is that it wasn't a re-do. You decided to have a party to celebrate an event. And it was celebrated with everyone ONCE. You didn't throw the party and then a few months or years later decide it wasn't what you really wanted to do. As for the "people are afforded choices" I did NOT mean people are entitled. In fact, I firmly believe that people are NOT entitled to big, fancy weddings. If you have the privilege of having one, then great. But, the point is that most of us get to choose how we celebrate our legal marriage and most people choose to have something more than just the paper signing. Some people choose to just sign the paper. Whatever the case, the event only happens once. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it.

     







    esstee33
  • MobKazMobKaz Chicago suburbs member
    Tenth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    MobKaz said:

    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "

    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like. "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer. And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.
    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate. The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough. It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?
    "Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses......."       That sounds to me like the definition of a destination charade.........the only difference is that one is also deceitful.
    I don't have any qualms openly stating both my first wedding to my ex and my DW to my husband were both superfluous and unnecessary. I have no qualms stating I have no issues with it. If I pay for something I will always get what I want, period. I'm not telling anyone else whatever they're planning is unnecessary or pretty, pretty anything. I'm not condescending and believe people are entitled to whatever they can afford. Therein lies the difference.
    The difference lies in truth.
    I can't possibly have to remind you yet again that we don't feel separated from the truth in any way. 
    Sadly, your propensity to deceive people is something for which I need no reminder. I, and many women on these boards know all too well that integrity and honesty are also superfluous and unnecessary in your world with your rules. You have made it clear that you go for whatever you want, at whatever cost to friends and family.
    esstee33
  • MobKaz said:




    MobKaz said:



    MobKaz said:






    "I'd still like to know why the dress, dances, cakes, etc. are not considered superfluous, gratuitous, grandiose bullshit, that are completely unnecessary and done only to draw attention to the couple of honor, if the one and only important aspect is signing the license. "


    Answer: history. Using British wedding traditions as an example--- http://weddingdetails.com/lore-tradition/england/

    Licenses and "banns", church ceremony...This stuff's been going on for hundreds of years. 
    Just because something is or has become custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter tosses, and the like.

    "Custom" and "tradition" carry about as much legitimacy as "because I said so" as an answer.

    And it doesn't explain why it's boiled down to unneeded fluff for some but completely necessary for others.

    It is unnecessary and completely gratuitous. However, people are afforded choices as to how they want to mark the occasion of becoming legally wed. All that is needed is the license and some people stick with only that. Others add on to it, by inviting guests, wearing a poofy gown, or hiring a band. None of it is needed to make a marriage work, but it's a nice added touch to celebrate.

    The difference between doing what I described above and what we call a PPD is that the former is making the choice while planning that specific event- the legal marriage. The latter is deciding to redo your initial choices because the first set was not good enough.

    It's similar to a birthday party. nothing is really required to celebrate a birthday except being born. But, some like to invite family over, have cake, sing a song, or maybe go out to dinner or take a vacation. Let's say it's your birthday and you don't really do anything special and you decide a month later that it wasn't up to snuff. So, you decide to throw a birthday party with a huge cake and invite over the whole family. It's not your birthday anymore so it seems pointless, silly, and selfish, right?


    "Just because something is or has become
    custom or tradition doesn't mean it's not superfluous, grandiose
    attention seeking or unnecessary. Just look at money dances, garter
    tosses......."       That sounds to me like the definition of a destination charade.........the only difference is that one is also deceitful.
    I don't have any qualms openly stating both my first wedding to my ex and my DW to my husband were both superfluous and unnecessary. I have no qualms stating I have no issues with it. If I pay for something I will always get what I want, period. I'm not telling anyone else whatever they're planning is unnecessary or pretty, pretty anything. I'm not condescending and believe people are entitled to whatever they can afford. Therein lies the difference.

    The difference lies in truth.



    I can't possibly have to remind you yet again that we don't feel separated from the truth in any way. 


    Sadly, your propensity to deceive people is something for which I need no reminder. I, and many women on these boards know all too well that integrity and honesty are also superfluous and unnecessary in your world with your rules. You have made it clear that you go for whatever you want, at whatever cost to friends and family.


    I'm on mobile so I can't bold what I'd like to but just in general, @mobkaz, you have such a way of making this all sound so nefarious and dramatic.

    I read that and instantly conjured the image of a soap opera villainess. Or the cartoon bad guy with the criminal element mustache. And then I smiled and laughed. Because nothing about our wedding was nearly that deep, dark, serious melodrama as the above sounded.

    We weighed the pros and cons and when the good far outweighed the bad, we acted. Not at all the "stop at nothing, let them eat cake, walk on the backs of the downtrodden in my spike heels wickedness" you dramatically infer, but I enjoyed the daydream of twirling the ends of my creepy mustache all the same. Thanks for that!
  • larrygagalarrygaga Czechoslovakia member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    So is everyone mad at this girl because she had a PPD and lied about it? I don't remember her. I also didn't read this thread very deeply.


    I think PPD's are fine if everyone knows what it is. As long as I get free booze and food I'm happy.



    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    carrie0924SBminialeighbakerEunoiaPhoenix
  • Yeah, my wedding wasn't perfect- which is exactly why I wouldn't want a redo! Why would I want to go through all of that stress and drama again? As the planning started to get away from us, DH suggested that maybe we renew our vows in a few years so we could get exactly what we want. But now that we are married- that is the last thing I want. We accomplished what we set out to that day: we got married. So why would I want to recreate all of the insanity and disappointment when we only get to do that once?

    No thank you!
    image
    esstee33
  • larrygaga said:
    So is everyone mad at this girl because she had a PPD and lied about it? I don't remember her. I also didn't read this thread very deeply.


    I think PPD's are fine if everyone knows what it is. As long as I get free booze and food I'm happy.



    Yep- going to a PPD next October. Couple actually got married at the court house the day before our wedding when the groom was in town. Do I care? Nope. They had their reasons to do a court house marriage and they don't hide the fact that they are legally married. I'm really looking forward to officially celebrating with them. They were polite and quiet about their marriage during our wedding, so we didn't get to celebrate with them at the time. 
    image
    MairePoppyaleighbaker
  • Having just watched a PPD play out where the Bride and Groom made a big fuss about their "legal" wedding on FB (posted pictures, changed names legally and on FB) over a year ago and then spent the last year carrying on about their PPD after a "reproposal" and acting to one and all as if their existing union didn't make their marriage legit until last week when they got their PPD with all the full trappings, I'm way over the deception and need to feel like a redo is something they are entitled too.  

    I watched them deal with justifying to those who asked for clarification on their marital status countless times.  I dare say they posted about it so much as a way to delude themselves.

    I'm definitely not a fan of deception or PPD.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards