brides magazine features an article about a PPD

cruffino · October 2013

I thought of this board when I got the new brides magazine. It features an article about a woman who had a PPD. They did it because her husband was not a citizen. They told some family but not all. She ends it by talking about all the wonderful things they learned during their first year of fake marriage. Barf.

arrippa · October 2013

Unfortunately, PPD are getting more popular. A week ago, my friend who is a make up artist was telling me that she has done quite a few of them.

cruffino · October 2013

I don't understand it. If you want to get married privately and then have a party later, go for it. But why lie to all the people you care about? That's what gets me, the dishonesty.

grumbledore · October 2013

I think it shows a general decline in standards to be honest. These people almost all get married early because they want to take advantage of some financial benefit. It's classless to say the least.

emmyg65 · October 2013

I think it's part of a larger trend where everyone thinks they deserve or need to have big, splashy weddings. So of course a bridal magazine is pushing this! I don't understand why people can't just have a small, low-key wedding and call it a day.

For example, my friends found out they were pregnant, and quickly got married in a small chapel with just family present and then went out to dinner. I thought that was a perfectly lovely wedding! But now they're planning a big, formal reception for a year or so later.

So you want to get married but need health insurance now? I totally get it. Just plan a simple, small wedding.

AlexisA01 · October 2013

What gets me is that people that have them think they are so entitled. I hate the lying that goes with it.

cowgirl8238 · October 2013

The word that describes this is entitlement! Everyone thinks they are entitled to get married quickly for the benefits/insurance/whatever and then turn around when they have some money and throw a PPD. Becuas everyone is entitled to a big flashy wedding with every person they ever met in attendance. This trend makes me wanna go punch something. I am planning for a wedding...one day where my friends and family are going to come and witness the marriage between my FI and I. One day where we have a reception with good food, alcohol, music and cake to thank everyone for coming. ONE DAY is all we need. Do I want to just be married and be done with it? YES. But I am waiting for my one day and will only have small intimate (non-wedding related) gatherings for anyone who misses it.

*Steps down from soap box* Rant Over

harper0813 · October 2013

My MIL is hoping my SIL will have one - SIL wants a private, intimate ceremony, and MIL desperately wants her to get married in front of MIL's entire extended family too. I'm trying to stay out of it.

thejucheidea · October 2013

idgi -- our wedding was super stressful, and while my husband and I really liked the ceremony I wrote and it was awesome having all of our friends and family there, if we'd decided to go courthouse, I wouldn't have been sad at all because he's the most important thing in this. We got married and now we're legally a family. I don't understand faking a stupid party.

annathy03 · October 2013

emmyg65 said:

I think it's part of a larger trend where everyone thinks they deserve or need to have big, splashy weddings. So of course a bridal magazine is pushing this! I don't understand why people can't just have a small, low-key wedding and call it a day.

For example, my friends found out they were pregnant, and quickly got married in a small chapel with just family present and then went out to dinner. I thought that was a perfectly lovely wedding! But now they're planning a big, formal reception for a year or so later.

So you want to get married but need health insurance now? I totally get it. Just plan a simple, small wedding.

UGH. Why can't people just throw an anniversary party? I understand wanting to celebrate with friends and family and fully support anniversary parties a year later when money isn't as tight, but there's no excuse for faking a ceremony.

southernbelle0915 · October 2013

Whether I personally agree with the concept or not (I don't), I totally understand why they ran an article like this... it's a money maker. They're tapping into a new customer base: people who are married but want to have a "wedding". They're in the business of making money from the wedding industry - selling magazines, selling ads, etc. They're planting the seed that "even if you're married, YOU CAN also have a 'wedding'!!!" That's business.

I'm just waiting for the next poster who justifies their PPD by saying, "well I saw it in Brides' magazine so it must be true!" *eyeroll*

XrebeccaX · October 2013

At dinner last night someone was telling me about going to a wedding and at the church, after the ceremony, the officiant said "Joe and Jane have a secret to share with you..." and then the couple proceeded to tell everyone they'd been married for a year already. AT THE CHURCH.

kitty8403 · October 2013

XrebeccaX said:

At dinner last night someone was telling me about going to a wedding and at the church, after the ceremony, the officiant said "Joe and Jane have a secret to share with you..." and then the couple proceeded to tell everyone they'd been married for a year already. AT THE CHURCH.

WOW. I've ended up at a PPD or two, but at least the couple had the decency to tell us they were married first.

cruffino · October 2013

southernbelle0915 said:

Whether I personally agree with the concept or not (I don't), I totally understand why they ran an article like this... it's a money maker. They're tapping into a new customer base: people who are married but want to have a "wedding". They're in the business of making money from the wedding industry - selling magazines, selling ads, etc. They're planting the seed that "even if you're married, YOU CAN also have a 'wedding'!!!" That's business.

I'm just waiting for the next poster who justifies their PPD by saying, "well I saw it in Brides' magazine so it must be true!" *eyeroll*

you hit the nail on the head there....MONEY!

wrigleyville · October 2013

XrebeccaX said:

At dinner last night someone was telling me about going to a wedding and at the church, after the ceremony, the officiant said "Joe and Jane have a secret to share with you..." and then the couple proceeded to tell everyone they'd been married for a year already. AT THE CHURCH.

Oh. My. God.

I would have been pissed. I probably would have kept my card in my purse and left right after the ceremony.

CLI242009 · October 2013

I don't like the dishonesty, but I do know that some couples don't say anything because their or some of the family, even community, won't accept that as being married.

Yes they are legally married, but some families that are religious enough won't accept a legal ceremony, you have to have the spiritual ceremony too. Reception isn't needed.

My FI's church, their previous priest would make couples live apart after announcing their engagement or if it was found out they just went to a JOP, the church didn't recognize them in the community as married, so there are some who have to do the ceremony part at least again. Basically if you wanted him to marry you, he didn't condone couples living together before they took their vows. So they either found a different church or they lived apart till the ceremony date.

The church has a new priest, he's not making us do that. He didn't ask, he didn't want to know lol

tabathafaye · October 2013

cruffino said:
I thought of this board when I got the new brides magazine.

So did I

APDSS22 · October 2013

CLI242009 said:

I don't like the dishonesty, but I do know that some couples don't say anything because their or some of the family, even community, won't accept that as being married.

Yes they are legally married, but some families that are religious enough won't accept a legal ceremony, you have to have the spiritual ceremony too. Reception isn't needed.

My FI's church, their previous priest would make couples live apart after announcing their engagement or if it was found out they just went to a JOP, the church didn't recognize them in the community as married, so there are some who have to do the ceremony part at least again. Basically if you wanted him to marry you, he didn't condone couples living together before they took their vows. So they either found a different church or they lived apart till the ceremony date.

The church has a new priest, he's not making us do that. He didn't ask, he didn't want to know lol

In the Catholic Church, if they wanted to appease their parents who don't accept them as married, they could try for a convalidation. Basically, an official blessing of the legal marriage by the priest. It's not pretending to be married again, it's just having your marriage recognized by the Church. Usually, it's a low-key, family-only event, very tasteful and etiquette-approved. Our priest asked us all the usual questions when we asked him to marry us, including if we were living together, which we were. Then he was like "cool, only one address to write down." The only thing different was that we had to fill out the cohabitation section of the FOCCUS, no big deal. You just have to find the right priest and the right church community for each couple.

mrs4everhart · November 2013

I won't be buying a copy of Brides magazine so I can't really comment on the article itself. That said, I can assume from the tone of the OP they must have taken a positive, or neutral at the very least, stand on what I doubt they referred to as a "PPD." I'm sure basic free market capitalism plays a huge role in this decision (as already discussed) but I also have to wonder: perhaps the editorial staff at Brides just doesn't find this way of doing things offensive? I've been a pretty ardent defender of people's choices of how they go about getting married, despite obvious objections from other posters. Maybe Brides is just as libertine in their opinions of the same? I'm certain one day etiquette will too forget this, much as it has with so many other premises that at one time were verboten. Maybe Brides wants to help turn the tide and be seen on the forefront of that change? It wasn't that long ago a Bridal magazine would have dared feature same-sex couples and their unions, and while I'm not comparing the two per se, it's a great example of editorial decision making changing with the times. I almost want to go buy a copy just to vote with my dollar but bridal magazines in general aren't my cup of tea.

Liatris2010 · November 2013

XrebeccaX said:

At dinner last night someone was telling me about going to a wedding and at the church, after the ceremony, the officiant said "Joe and Jane have a secret to share with you..." and then the couple proceeded to tell everyone they'd been married for a year already. AT THE CHURCH.

Did anyone show up to the reception? I think I would have just gone home, card and all.

cidefi · November 2013

What is a PPD?

cidefi · November 2013

Ok so now people aren't entitled to have a Pretty Princess Day? Everybody or at least most people want their wedding days to special and great. I mean I always thought wedding days were PPD's for the couple. I always thought we the guest were there to celebrate the couple. I guess I just really don't understand what a couple can do when they get married.

Viczaesar · November 2013

A Pretty Princess Day is when you pretend you're getting married when you're really not so that you can dress up like a princess and get lots of attention and gifts.

cidefi · November 2013

Oh ok thanks. Had the right name, wrong definition.

XrebeccaX · November 2013

The person who told me about it said everyone was kind of shocked but then they seemed to get over it and go along. Go along to get along, I'm sure; I can't imagine there weren't a few annoyed people.

PrettyGirlLost · November 2013

STBMrsEverhart said:

I won't be buying a copy of Brides magazine so I can't really comment on the article itself. That said, I can assume from the tone of the OP they must have taken a positive, or neutral at the very least, stand on what I doubt they referred to as a "PPD." I'm sure basic free market capitalism plays a huge role in this decision (as already discussed) but I also have to wonder: perhaps the editorial staff at Brides just doesn't find this way of doing things offensive? I've been a pretty ardent defender of people's choices of how they go about getting married, despite obvious objections from other posters. Maybe Brides is just as libertine in their opinions of the same? I'm certain one day etiquette will too forget this, much as it has with so many other premises that at one time were verboten. Maybe Brides wants to help turn the tide and be seen on the forefront of that change? It wasn't that long ago a Bridal magazine would have dared feature same-sex couples and their unions, and while I'm not comparing the two per se, it's a great example of editorial decision making changing with the times. I almost want to go buy a copy just to vote with my dollar but bridal magazines in general aren't my cup of tea.

No, they are just trying to make a buck, as is the entire wedding industry. So of course the editorial staff doesn't think it's a bad idea for couples who are already married to have a fake, re-do ceremony and spend more money to do it.

You are an ardent defender of PPD's because you are having one, and you refuse to try and understand the POV of posters on this forum when they explain why it is so rude.

ETA: Personally I think they are incredibly stupid and selfish, and often the choice of couples who choose not to wait in order to take advantage of government benefits, but as long as the couple is up front about the fact that they are already married, they don't bother me beyond thinking they are stupid, selfish, and impatient.

However, If I went to one thinking I was actually going to a wedding and then found out later I had been lied to, I'd be very pissed and might reconsider my relationship with the couple.

mrs4everhart · November 2013

PrettyGirlLost said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

I won't be buying a copy of Brides magazine so I can't really comment on the article itself. That said, I can assume from the tone of the OP they must have taken a positive, or neutral at the very least, stand on what I doubt they referred to as a "PPD." I'm sure basic free market capitalism plays a huge role in this decision (as already discussed) but I also have to wonder: perhaps the editorial staff at Brides just doesn't find this way of doing things offensive? I've been a pretty ardent defender of people's choices of how they go about getting married, despite obvious objections from other posters. Maybe Brides is just as libertine in their opinions of the same? I'm certain one day etiquette will too forget this, much as it has with so many other premises that at one time were verboten. Maybe Brides wants to help turn the tide and be seen on the forefront of that change? It wasn't that long ago a Bridal magazine would have dared feature same-sex couples and their unions, and while I'm not comparing the two per se, it's a great example of editorial decision making changing with the times. I almost want to go buy a copy just to vote with my dollar but bridal magazines in general aren't my cup of tea.

No, they are just trying to make a buck, as is the entire wedding industry. So of course the editorial staff doesn't think it's a bad idea for couples who are already married to have a fake, re-do ceremony and spend more money to do it.

You are an ardent defender of PPD's because you are having one, and you refuse to try and understand the POV of posters on this forum when they explain why it is so rude.

ETA: Personally I think they are incredibly stupid and selfish, and often the choice of couples who choose not to wait in order to take advantage of government benefits, but as long as the couple is up front about the fact that they are already married, they don't bother me beyond thinking they are stupid, selfish, and impatient.

However, If I went to one thinking I was actually going to a wedding and then found out later I had been lied to, I'd be very pissed and might reconsider my relationship with the couple.

Actually, @PrettyGirl, I have never once refused to understand the point of view of anyone else. I have merely stated the facts of my (or rather our, FI and I) situation in a pretty calm, factual manner. Many of you on here do not accept what we propose to do as you all site either wedding etiquette or project your own feelings of "if I were invited and I found out, etc." (or both). And all those things are just fine, up until the point that the only things any of you can say is something nasty or pointless (see also, tons and tons of stupid gifs). I personally can engage in discourse with people I do not agree with all day long without resorting to being an ass. I find the idea of being outright rude to people in the name of defending etiquette the height of hypocrisy and really, really funny. I wish instead of many of you whipping yourselves in to a lather over other people's breaches of etiquette you would stop, read, and realize, oh, hey, this person isn't refusing to see where I'm coming from but rather, he or she has made decisions based on circumstances larger than etiquette and perhaps has things of value greater than simple etiquette to share with people in similar situations. Etiquette is great, I really mean that, but there are things of larger importance at times. I am easily frustrated with most of the posters on here because I feel in your rush to remind me of this great failing of mine (that's how I'm describing what I get from it from you all, not what I'm considering it) none of you take the time to actually read what I've had to say. Example: I said above, "I'm sure basic free market capitalism plays a huge role in this decision (as already discussed)....." Then you started your comeback with, "No, they are just trying to make a buck, as is the entire wedding industry. So of course the editorial staff doesn't think it's a bad idea for couples who are already married to have a fake, re-do ceremony and spend more money to do it." Um, yea, I just said that in the sentence about free market capitalism. Obviously, all magazines are in the business of helping sell their advertisers' goods and services. But all publication's editorial departments are paid to push certain agendas, generally for some type of gain. I'm sure if Brides gets absolutely torched on this they will stop pushing said agenda for fear of loosing subscribers. In your rush to attempt to lecture me you partially agreed with me without even realizing it. Then you go on to state, "You are an ardent defender of PPD's because you are having one." Well, no, I was a libertine long before I even met my FI and that certainly would have always included a laissez faire attitude toward what you all have so eloquently named a "PPD" and all other things matrimony related. But thank you for making assumptions about me and automatically assuming the only things I defend I must be intimately involved in myself. That's not at all how I roll. I wouldn't be true to myself if I didn't try to offer assistance to those in similar positions as myself. So I will not sit back quietly while people are denigrated in the name of keeping it classy. I consider all the unhelpful commentary received no more than static. You can choose to be part of that or you can rise above, read, learn, understand, or just plain engage in civil disagreement which is fine too. More than likely I'll just be tuning in to yet another stupid gif, which I'm certain is exactly how etiquette experts would advise a person treat someone they don't agree with on the internet.

PrettyGirlLost · November 2013

STBMrsEverhart said:

Actually, @PrettyGirl, I have never once refused to understand the point of view of anyone else. I have never seen you acknowledge that what you are doing is perceived as rude by a lot of people, nor have I seen you say "Ok, I get the logic behind the reasoning of posters when they say PPD's are rude and why. If you have, I missed it. Or maybe you get what we are saying but haven't admitted it on the boards. Thee have been plenty of people that have said, "Hey, I know what I am doing is against etiquette and rude, and I get why it is considered rude, but I'm still doing it." You just seem to be very defensive and post really long posts trying to rationalize your choices to the E Board. "I have merely stated the facts of my (or rather our, FI and I) situation in a pretty calm, factual manner. Many of you on here do not accept what we propose to do as you all site either wedding etiquette Well, um, duh this is the etiquette board so if what you are doing is against etiquette then no, we aren't going to accept or validate those bad ideas. While you may be dead set in going through with something that is considered rude, other people who are lurking and reading the threads can learn from the discussions and might avoid an etiquette faux pas. or project your own feelings of "if I were invited and I found out, etc." (or both). And all those things are just fine, up until the point that the only things any of you can say is something nasty or pointless (see also, tons and tons of stupid gifs). I personally can engage in discourse with people I do not agree with all day long without resorting to being an ass. If the GIFs are that bothersome or offensive to you, I dunno what to tell you. They are part of the personality and culture of these boards. For the most part I think they are pretty harmless and entertaining. I find the idea of being outright rude to people in the name of defending etiquette the height of hypocrisy and really, really funny. I wish instead of many of you whipping yourselves in to a lather over other people's breaches of etiquette you would stop, read, and realize, oh, hey, this person isn't refusing to see where I'm coming from but rather, he or she has made decisions based on circumstances larger than etiquette and perhaps has things of value greater than simple etiquette to share with people in similar situations. But the point of this board is to educate people on what proper etiquette is so that they can be proper and gracious hosts. Many of the etiquette breaches people post about are easy to fix and even easier to avoid had posters come to this board and read a little before starting to put deposits on venues, caterers, etc. There's also a mindset that we are trying to convey here- that the comfort of your guests at your reception trumps your wedding vision and how your wedding day looks. A year, 5 years, 10 years later no one is going to remember your dress, centerpieces, or bouquets but they will remember how they were treated and if your wedding was a positive or negative experience for them. Etiquette is great, I really mean that, but there are things of larger importance at times. I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Etiquette should be of the greatest importance at all times.

I am easily frustrated with most of the posters on here because I feel in your rush to remind me of this great failing of mine (that's how I'm describing what I get from it from you all, not what I'm considering it) none of you take the time to actually read what I've had to say. Example: I said above, "I'm sure basic free market capitalism plays a huge role in this decision (as already discussed)....." Then you started your comeback with, "No, they are just trying to make a buck, as is the entire wedding industry. So of course the editorial staff doesn't think it's a bad idea for couples who are already married to have a fake, re-do ceremony and spend more money to do it." That was in response to this statement- "Maybe Brides wants to help turn the tide and be seen on the forefront of that change?" Um, yea, I just said that in the sentence about free market capitalism. Obviously, all magazines are in the business of helping sell their advertisers' goods and services. But all publication's editorial departments are paid to push certain agendas, generally for some type of gain. I'm sure if Brides gets absolutely torched on this they will stop pushing said agenda for fear of loosing subscribers. In your rush to attempt to lecture me you partially agreed with me without even realizing it. I wasn't lecturing you, and I know we are in agreement on that aspect. Then you go on to state, "You are an ardent defender of PPD's because you are having one." Well, no, I was a libertine long before I even met my FI and that certainly would have always included a laissez faire attitude toward what you all have so eloquently named a "PPD" and all other things matrimony related. But thank you for making assumptions about me and automatically assuming the only things I defend I must be intimately involved in myself. We don't know anything about you other than the information you post here, and you have spend a lot of time in that other thread defending your PPD, hence my statement. That's not at all how I roll. I wouldn't be true to myself if I didn't try to offer assistance to those in similar positions as myself. So I will not sit back quietly while people are denigrated in the name of keeping it classy. I don't think pointing out bad etiquette ideas on an etiquette board is denigration. I consider all the unhelpful commentary received no more than static. You can choose to be part of that or you can rise above, read, learn, understand, or just plain engage in civil disagreement which is fine too. I'm civilly in disagreement with you then. More than likely I'll just be tuning in to yet another stupid gif, which I'm certain is exactly how etiquette experts would advise a person treat someone they don't agree with on the internet.

thisismynickname2 · November 2013

I don't buy BRIDES but my FMIL gave me the copy. I read the article and was disgusted. The author bragged about their "secrets". A secret is me having a health scare or us having financial issues we don't want to talk about. They LIED--- and then went in a magazine to broadcast how proud they are of lying to everyone else? I saw this thread before reading the article and now that I've read it, I'm really disgusted about how proud they are of lying.

I wrote basically just that in a letter to the editors through their website and posted it on their Facebook page. Yes, I'm that annoyed.

PrettyGirlLost · November 2013

A friend got me a subscription when I became engaged, and I skimmed the article. It was a pretty typical PPD story- a couple wants to take advantage of some US government benefit, in this case US citizenship for DH, so the couple goes to the JOP.

That's great that her DH is now a US citizen, or a resident alien, and can now legally work in the US. What is not great and what is offensive to ppl who have a single ceremony at the JOP is that this couple felt that their JOP ceremony wasn't good enough or wasn't realty a wedding, lied to all of their friends and families, and then had a PPD at a later date.

What I don't get since I didn't read the article thoroughly is how they got away with the lie considering everybody should have known that DH couldn't legally work in the US unless he had a work visa or was a citizen/resident alien. . . and the easiest way to obtain that right and title is to marry a US citizen. Also, why didn't he apply for a work visa? I know from personal experience, easier said than done, but. . . ?

climbingsingle · November 2013

Someone gave me a copy of Brides magazine. I threw it in the garbage.

brides magazine features an article about a PPD

Re: brides magazine features an article about a PPD

Choose Another Board

Search Boards