Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

So- I mostly agree with you. I think “the way things used to be” regarding weddings was better.

But we are dealing in reality here. Weddings have changed, whether we like it or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere along the generations, parents started lugging their kids everywhere. In the 20th century parents left kids with family and went to places like Hawaii on their own, lol.

somewhere along the generations, weddings morphed from simple and affordable family affairs to the bride’s opportunity to cosplay Cinderella at great expense.

You are so, so butthurt that your children aren’t the center of anyone else’s universe. You should probably see a professional about that.

We see you, bridezilla, with your cringey overly rehearsed first dance, your unflattering dress, cliched photographs, and boring reception that you obviously put more thought into the chair back bows than whether your guests would have a good time.

Just proving the point that it's the guests who have all the anger that their kids aren't allowed.

I’m not angry - I just think you’re absurd and sad.

So you insult people's clothing? You're more than a little unhinged trying to go for the jugular. It's not very effective because it exposes your crazy. Just click the regrets box. It's really easy.

when a wedding becomes all about the bride, then yes, the external trappings become ridiculous and a bit pathetic.

You have a lot of pent up misogyny around weddings. Sad.

I think the wedding industry that pushes the “it’s my dayyyy to be pretty!” is very misogynistic.

You can't let a bride have a day to look her best? Are you really that small and petty?

most brides who are obsessed with things like ensuring the spotlight is only on them during their first dance don’t actually look pretty. They look garish and pathetic. Sorry to break it to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere along the generations, parents started lugging their kids everywhere. In the 20th century parents left kids with family and went to places like Hawaii on their own, lol.

somewhere along the generations, weddings morphed from simple and affordable family affairs to the bride’s opportunity to cosplay Cinderella at great expense.

You are so, so butthurt that your children aren’t the center of anyone else’s universe. You should probably see a professional about that.

We see you, bridezilla, with your cringey overly rehearsed first dance, your unflattering dress, cliched photographs, and boring reception that you obviously put more thought into the chair back bows than whether your guests would have a good time.

Just proving the point that it's the guests who have all the anger that their kids aren't allowed.

I’m not angry - I just think you’re absurd and sad.

So you insult people's clothing? You're more than a little unhinged trying to go for the jugular. It's not very effective because it exposes your crazy. Just click the regrets box. It's really easy.

when a wedding becomes all about the bride, then yes, the external trappings become ridiculous and a bit pathetic.

You have a lot of pent up misogyny around weddings. Sad.

I think the wedding industry that pushes the “it’s my dayyyy to be pretty!” is very misogynistic.

You can't let a bride have a day to look her best? Are you really that small and petty?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

DP. Sure, and it sounds like you agree wither the couple's decisions, and everybody involved was happy. Great!

Does everyone else have to do the same as you, or can they make different decisions? That's the problem.

I have relatives who believe a major holiday should be celebrated on the eve by ritual monsters striding through the street and "beating" children with branches and sticks, threatening to take naughty children straight to hell, and a lot of public alcohol consumption. Our elders *love* this community bonding experience.

Now do I get to be justified in criticizing you for not threatening your children this way?

True, thinking weddings are an occasion to joyfully bond with family is exactly like beating children. Exactly!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

DP. Sure, and it sounds like you agree wither the couple's decisions, and everybody involved was happy. Great!

Does everyone else have to do the same as you, or can they make different decisions? That's the problem.

I have relatives who believe a major holiday should be celebrated on the eve by ritual monsters striding through the street and "beating" children with branches and sticks, threatening to take naughty children straight to hell, and a lot of public alcohol consumption. Our elders *love* this community bonding experience.

Now do I get to be justified in criticizing you for not threatening your children this way?

True, thinking weddings are an occasion to joyfully bond with family is exactly like beating children. Exactly!

If it's all about the family why are so many friends, coworkers and neighbors involve? It's not strictly a family affair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere along the generations, parents started lugging their kids everywhere. In the 20th century parents left kids with family and went to places like Hawaii on their own, lol.

somewhere along the generations, weddings morphed from simple and affordable family affairs to the bride’s opportunity to cosplay Cinderella at great expense.

You are so, so butthurt that your children aren’t the center of anyone else’s universe. You should probably see a professional about that.

We see you, bridezilla, with your cringey overly rehearsed first dance, your unflattering dress, cliched photographs, and boring reception that you obviously put more thought into the chair back bows than whether your guests would have a good time.

Just proving the point that it's the guests who have all the anger that their kids aren't allowed.

I’m not angry - I just think you’re absurd and sad.

So you insult people's clothing? You're more than a little unhinged trying to go for the jugular. It's not very effective because it exposes your crazy. Just click the regrets box. It's really easy.

when a wedding becomes all about the bride, then yes, the external trappings become ridiculous and a bit pathetic.

You have a lot of pent up misogyny around weddings. Sad.

I think the wedding industry that pushes the “it’s my dayyyy to be pretty!” is very misogynistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

DP. Sure, and it sounds like you agree wither the couple's decisions, and everybody involved was happy. Great!

Does everyone else have to do the same as you, or can they make different decisions? That's the problem.

I have relatives who believe a major holiday should be celebrated on the eve by ritual monsters striding through the street and "beating" children with branches and sticks, threatening to take naughty children straight to hell, and a lot of public alcohol consumption. Our elders *love* this community bonding experience.

Now do I get to be justified in criticizing you for not threatening your children this way?

True, thinking weddings are an occasion to joyfully bond with family is exactly like beating children. Exactly!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere along the generations, parents started lugging their kids everywhere. In the 20th century parents left kids with family and went to places like Hawaii on their own, lol.

somewhere along the generations, weddings morphed from simple and affordable family affairs to the bride’s opportunity to cosplay Cinderella at great expense.

You are so, so butthurt that your children aren’t the center of anyone else’s universe. You should probably see a professional about that.

We see you, bridezilla, with your cringey overly rehearsed first dance, your unflattering dress, cliched photographs, and boring reception that you obviously put more thought into the chair back bows than whether your guests would have a good time.

Just proving the point that it's the guests who have all the anger that their kids aren't allowed.

I’m not angry - I just think you’re absurd and sad.

So you insult people's clothing? You're more than a little unhinged trying to go for the jugular. It's not very effective because it exposes your crazy. Just click the regrets box. It's really easy.

when a wedding becomes all about the bride, then yes, the external trappings become ridiculous and a bit pathetic.

You have a lot of pent up misogyny around weddings. Sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

DP. Sure, and it sounds like you agree wither the couple's decisions, and everybody involved was happy. Great!

Does everyone else have to do the same as you, or can they make different decisions? That's the problem.

I have relatives who believe a major holiday should be celebrated on the eve by ritual monsters striding through the street and "beating" children with branches and sticks, threatening to take naughty children straight to hell, and a lot of public alcohol consumption. Our elders *love* this community bonding experience.

Now do I get to be justified in criticizing you for not threatening your children this way?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere along the generations, parents started lugging their kids everywhere. In the 20th century parents left kids with family and went to places like Hawaii on their own, lol.

somewhere along the generations, weddings morphed from simple and affordable family affairs to the bride’s opportunity to cosplay Cinderella at great expense.

You are so, so butthurt that your children aren’t the center of anyone else’s universe. You should probably see a professional about that.

We see you, bridezilla, with your cringey overly rehearsed first dance, your unflattering dress, cliched photographs, and boring reception that you obviously put more thought into the chair back bows than whether your guests would have a good time.

Just proving the point that it's the guests who have all the anger that their kids aren't allowed.

I’m not angry - I just think you’re absurd and sad.

So you insult people's clothing? You're more than a little unhinged trying to go for the jugular. It's not very effective because it exposes your crazy. Just click the regrets box. It's really easy.

when a wedding becomes all about the bride, then yes, the external trappings become ridiculous and a bit pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere along the generations, parents started lugging their kids everywhere. In the 20th century parents left kids with family and went to places like Hawaii on their own, lol.

somewhere along the generations, weddings morphed from simple and affordable family affairs to the bride’s opportunity to cosplay Cinderella at great expense.

You are so, so butthurt that your children aren’t the center of anyone else’s universe. You should probably see a professional about that.

We see you, bridezilla, with your cringey overly rehearsed first dance, your unflattering dress, cliched photographs, and boring reception that you obviously put more thought into the chair back bows than whether your guests would have a good time.

Just proving the point that it's the guests who have all the anger that their kids aren't allowed.

I’m not angry - I just think you’re absurd and sad.

So you insult people's clothing? You're more than a little unhinged trying to go for the jugular. It's not very effective because it exposes your crazy. Just click the regrets box. It's really easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

You don't get to define the purpose of a celebration.

Do you listen to yourself?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.