Can Someone Please Explain Why We continue this ridiculous custom...

[Anonymous]

I hope my daughters have very small weddings. My ideal is a very beautiful, tiny wedding. Still have the flowers, dress, photographer, but have the reception at a restaurant room. Or a destination wedding. I had to have a larger wedding than I wanted because we had so many family members, but my kids have no cousins and only one aunt. DH and I had 15+ cousins each.

I think most parents throw a wedding because they have always dreamed about seeing their child marry.

[Anonymous]

Mostly, I think we don't continue the tradition. There's not great data here, but The Knot found that only slightly more than half of weddings were paid for all or mostly by parents, and presumably some of those were paid for by the groom's family: https://www.theknot.com/content/wedding-data-insights/real-weddings-study

We have one daughter and we'll probably pay if she gets married and wants us to, but we'd do the same for a son. That wouldn't be because of tradition, but for the same reasons we'd help her with college or buying a house or going on a vacation: we've got the money and we love her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have daughters. No sons. We’ve paid for three very nice weddings (mid 5 figures and up) without expecting anything from the grooms’ families and have been fine with it.

OP here. WHY are you okay with it? That's my question. Dig deep here if you can. I understand its history, but why would you continue a tradition so out of touch with the realities of today? Are you afraid of looking cheap? And fwiw, we have the means to pay for the wedding (mid 5 figures and up), but we'll give exactly as much as the groom's family will. My daughter is not an offering to the other family.

Do you only have one child? I had a lovely wedding, but my inlaws only paid $300 for the rehearsal dinner food. We hadn't known they'd pay anything so we had done a very inexpensive rehearsal dinner where we cooked everything ourselves (we were 24 and broke). If my parents had only paid $300 I would have been hurt because they paid $X for my sibling's wedding. It was my inlaws though, so I couldn't say anything. My inlaws did pay 40k or so for their DD's wedding. Frankly $300 hadn't covered their plate at my wedding and was less than most of my aunts and uncles gave.

[Anonymous]

We saved a pile of money by not having a big or fancy wedding. Immediate family only. Married at the small chapel at our church. No fancy clothes to rent or buy, just wore our Sunday best. Immediate family went out for a meal together afterwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brides paying for weddings was from the days when women did not work and the husband was responsible for all the financial load after the wedding.

This.

ZERO reason for bride’s family to pay for the wedding. ZERO. ZE-RO. And grooms’ parents who don’t pay their fair share are cheap free-riders.

But you don't think the bride's family should pay. (Thanks for repeating "zero." I was baffled about what you meant until the hyphen showed up)

You sounding a bridezilla who's having trouble shaking down your future in-laws. Honey, just elope.

[Anonymous]

Husband comes from an ethnic group where guests and family give large cash gifts. We were given more than our wedding cost.

[Anonymous]

Selective feminism is really confusing. If two adults are getting married, they should pool their resources and do a wedding within their budget, as simple or as extravagant as they can comfortably afford. Both sets of parents and grandparents can contribute as little to as much as they can comfortably offer. Gender shouldn’t play a role at all.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t know this was a thing people were still doing.

[Anonymous]

The only reason why so many of you care so much is because you're cheap.

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe in spending on weddings. It makes sense if wealthy but is as dumb as a luxury car if not. We had a great tiny wedding we paid for ourselves.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people split cost or opt out and keep it simple. In the cases where bride's family paid, the bride was the one who even wanted a wedding. The guy wanted to elope. I actually don't know one guy who really wanted a big wedding. Some female friends only had it to please their parents in which case, let the parents pay because it's their party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have daughters. No sons. We’ve paid for three very nice weddings (mid 5 figures and up) without expecting anything from the grooms’ families and have been fine with it.

OP here. WHY are you okay with it? That's my question. Dig deep here if you can. I understand its history, but why would you continue a tradition so out of touch with the realities of today? Are you afraid of looking cheap? And fwiw, we have the means to pay for the wedding (mid 5 figures and up), but we'll give exactly as much as the groom's family will. My daughter is not an offering to the other family.

Do you only have one child? I had a lovely wedding, but my inlaws only paid $300 for the rehearsal dinner food. We hadn't known they'd pay anything so we had done a very inexpensive rehearsal dinner where we cooked everything ourselves (we were 24 and broke). If my parents had only paid $300 I would have been hurt because they paid $X for my sibling's wedding. It was my inlaws though, so I couldn't say anything. My inlaws did pay 40k or so for their DD's wedding. Frankly $300 hadn't covered their plate at my wedding and was less than most of my aunts and uncles gave.

Your in-laws sound like the type who are only capable of loving their daughters. Apparently people want and cherish their daughters but are disappointed with sons and treat them accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have daughters. No sons. We’ve paid for three very nice weddings (mid 5 figures and up) without expecting anything from the grooms’ families and have been fine with it.

OP here. WHY are you okay with it? That's my question. Dig deep here if you can. I understand its history, but why would you continue a tradition so out of touch with the realities of today? Are you afraid of looking cheap? And fwiw, we have the means to pay for the wedding (mid 5 figures and up), but we'll give exactly as much as the groom's family will. My daughter is not an offering to the other family.

Did the bride to be contribute equally financially while dating? Did the bride to be expect a wedding ring to be bought for her?

I think people who still have a brides family pays are more likely to have more traditional gender roles and you would see where the man has paid for more / had to buy expensive jewelry etc. there would be evidence of previous traditional customs also being followed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of you is "offended" by the custom because you're feminists. You're offended because you either have daughters and don't feel like paying or because your own parents didn't pay for you.

Personally don't care about the feminist or not angle at all. Nobody should have to pay for something (anything) they don't want to pay for because (insert whatever pressure of any kind). Your comment about "parents didn't pay for you" is gross and classist. Many people cannot afford to pay for weddings, and if they go into some debt or financial trouble over a totally optional, unnecessary thing due to societal pressure, it's a very sad thing.