Apologies to Billy Idol, but a recent article in the Washington Post about local weddings has me thinking in the abstract (I’m as far from the lavan as I have ever been) about wedding customs and how they change.
The article makes a number of interesting points. It starts by describing how non-desis have discovered the business opportunities involved in brown weddings, such as Sue Harmon who has two white mares specially reserved for baraat duty, or Foxchase Manor which has learned how to handle the havan without setting off all the fire alarms:
“The normal instinct is to blow out the fire when you’re done … But that creates this huge puff of smoke that’s actually much bigger than when the fire is lit. So the key is to keep the fire in a portable container, and then when you’re done, you carry it outside and close all the doors before blowing it out.” With an average of 80 South Asian weddings a year, the staff has had ample opportunity to perfect the technique, he added. [Link]
Still more interesting to me was a story of how other “ethnic” couples have adapted some aspects of desi ceremonies:
 |
|
Why wear white? |
South Asian vendors, meanwhile, are increasingly hearing from non-South Asian couples who want to borrow their customs. Caucasian couples who came across photos of Sood’s creations … have asked her to decorate their weddings in the same shades of maroon and gold. She’s even draped a mandap — the wedding canopy — with kente cloth for an African couple… [Link]
But the bit that really caught my attention was about how ABDs are wanting to have hybrid wedding ceremonies that incorporate aspects of the white weddings they grew up watching on television:
Perhaps most radical, however, is the growing use of whites and ivories in the decorations. “In Indian culture, white signifies mourning,” she said. “It used to be such a taboo for weddings. But now so many brides are demanding it.”
Priti Loungani-Malhotra, 32, a dressmaker based in Arlington County, has even designed a white version of the classic Indian wedding gown, with a mermaid-shaped lengha, or skirt, that would do Vera Wang proud. [Link]
I always thought precisely those two aspects of western weddings – the procession down the isle and the white dress / black tux were boring and dull compared to the circumambulation of holy objects (at least in some desi weddings) and bright red wedding garments. I know I’m a guy, and the long walk down the isle brings attention to the bride, but I just never liked it. For one thing, I don’t like the parts of either culture that view a woman as something to be given from one man (the father) to another (the husband).
How many of you would (or did) seize control of your wedding from your parents and create a wedding ceremony that incorporated aspects of both cultures? Are you all more enamoured of white wedding customs than I am?
[An aside] Incidentally, the whole white wedding thing comes from Queen Victoria who changed white from a color of royal mourning (as amongst many desis) to the color of the virgin bride:
Queen Victoria was not the first royal bride to wear a white wedding gown, but the first of the modern era. White had been a traditional color of royal mourning, and although not often utilized as such, white was not considered a suitable choice for a royal wedding. Victoria’s choice popularized the white gown as no other had before her. [Link]
hmmm, since many people on this board seem to be in the marriage way, how about trying to boycott blood/conflict diamond as engagement rings? one of my acquaintances could not find any stones which had a satisfactory record of provenance, so she chose to not buy an engagement ring altogether. if there’s enough demand for “fair trade diamonds,” an increasing number of retailers will be forced to be cognizant of where/how their supply originates. since weddings are an excuse for conspicuous consumption, we may as well try to consume responsibly (the best option is to scale down weddings, but often this may not be possible/desired). also in re pre-nups: i’d still feel queasy if someone asked me for one, and i know i’d have a hard time demanding one. check with me after the next bunch of lotto winners are announced though.
ah, naive portmanteau – there are definitely ways of getting around the pre-nup, specifically if it only deals with post-break-up scenarios. the key is to amass wealth during the marriage – bulk up the joint checking account, stockpile the jewelry (all non-conflicted, of course), and put aside some cash that will tide you over in the after-math.
runa, this is exactly the same logic my parents in the US have. and it’s not just a desi thing – plenty of non-desi americans would bitch if they were not invited to somebody’s child’s wedding, whether or not their own child had a wedding to which the other had been invited.
I haven’t read all the comments so sorry if this is redundant:
I’m not exactly enamoured but honestly, they are the only customs that come to mind when someone says wedding. I never harbored a fairytale, white wedding fantasy growing up but having attended only one Hindu ceremony, the “walk around the fire” bit just doesn’t stir any emotion in me either. Having said all that, what’s the difference, when I receive an invitation, I only go to the reception, most ceremonies of any kind bore me.
Just because parents want to have ownership of the wedding doesn’t have to mean they have ownership of the marriage. I don’t think there is anything wrong with parents wanting to celebrate their kids wedding with the rest of the family and friends. It is more of a social event. It doesn’t mean the couple can’t have their own lil private ceremony separate from the wedding. I personally like big weddings. It’s not just Indian. Italian Americans can have big weddings too. Some Jewish batmitzvahs are bigger than Indian weddings. If the parents want to invite everybody, make it clear they are in charge of the headahces, schedule an event or two limited to your own close set of friends while your parents have other stuff going on to distract the guests.
If i get married, my only request would be for everyone to have fun, and I should not be on some freaking podium for too long.
That’s different, if it’s voluntary, by all means. But it was their decision to make.
What kind of silly question is this? It’s like saying, “Oh really? you think the Jews in Nazi Germany should have not gone into the cool rooms in the concentration camps? Well what about the fact they were on those trains for so long?” You can’t defend a system by using situations that very system engenders as rationale.
Secondly, if the bride and groom cannot decide due to time constraints, the parents are equally held by those time constraints. If the bride and groom cannot come to an agreement because they just met.. then guess what… maybe they shouldn’t get married. If they can’t agree on what appetizer to serve, then how are they supposed to come to an agreement on things that actually matter in life.
portmantaeu, or opt for a different gem stone or none at all. Even “fair trade” mining tends to be dangerous and hugely environmentally devastating. A rising trend is in using antique rings (thus requiring no new expansion/use of the current precious metal/stone trade).
“How could you be so selfish and think of only yourself when deciding who to invite to your marriage?”
That makes me laugh, HMF. It sounds like a line out of Seinfeld, something George’s mother would have said.
Runa, do you think wedding traditions will change in India as the to-be brides and grooms become more and more independent financially?
Honestly I’m in control and I wish I had help and people to take over. It’s not that easy to plan a wedding and execute it. I would be lucky a family who wants to take charge, they obviously have more experience. Of course neither my family nor his is such a jerk that they’d do something without complete disregard to us.
But honestly I can see how after all the weddings they’ve been to and watched all their friend’s kids get married and I hate to say it shelled out $$$$ over the years they’d want some of that love, attention and dough coming the way of their kids as well.
I used to be one of those people vehemently against this and I still hate it. Wish I could go to city hall but this means so much to his parents I can’t take that away from them. They’ve waited for this their whole life. Really the wedding is for them, the marriage is for us.
My engagement party turned into a mini wedding of 75 people and I was so in over my head and annoyed thru the process and aggravated and a total difficult bytch leading up to it but you know what when the day arrived I realized how much hard work and effort his parents put into that day and how insanely happy they were it just melted my heart. I’d be heartless to deny them that.
Sometimes you gotta put yourself in their shoes. Yeah they will probably drive us crazy and screaming but they’ve earned this. It’s ok. In the grand scheme of things when it’s all over it doesn’t matter at all. It’s the marriage that matters.
HMF my friend life is neither that rigid nor that black and white. Everything requires flexibility and understanding and adjusting. If things were so easy it would make for a very boring life. You have all these people who want input trying to throw the biggest party of their lifetime. There are plenty of minor and ridiculous things couples argue on, and should, it shouldn’t be a dealbreaker for the larger issues. As long as you aren’t fighting over ethics, religion, your goals, dreams, kids and all the larger issues that bind a relationship it’s ok to argue whether you want aloo tikki or paneer tikki, its what makes it fun. No two people are suddenly supposed to agree just because they are getting married. That’s a silly expectation.
Voluntary relinquishing of control is a-okay.
I can understand this for a 5th year birthday party or something like that. But a marriage is something (ideally, anyway) entered into voluntarily by two mature, free thinking, adults. For parents to insist inviting someone because of some tit-for-tat reason undermines the purpose. It’s a new life beginning so to speak, not a game of chess played by the parents.
I don’t see this. I mean, i can see your point of, “it’s not a big deal, its just one day” but when that attitude transcends into the later components of the marriage (where to live, when and where to have children, etc.. etc.. it could be a problem)
No, but the converse should be true to some degree, that is, people who generally agree on major things should be the ones who get married.
HMF, If you are going to take a point I made and draw a parallel with Nazis I do not want to engage in discussion with you any more.
Bess,
Yes, definitely. And I do see this happening with friends and family members now.In the past for example, rarely did the couple pay for their own wedding whereas that is happening more and more now . And I guess that also will contribute to the couple calling the shots.
Truthfully, at some higher level, I do believe the arranged marriage system can in someways be considered a crime against humanity. The entire setup completely sublimates individualistic perspective, the extreme of course is forced marriages, child marriages, all that bs. but even in it’s current ‘modern’ forms, I’ve seen so many repressed feelings of resentment that have simply uncouthed themselves at the wrong time. Makes for a pretty f*cked up life if you ask me.
But I think you missed the larger point I was trying to make, here’s another example maybe less drastic: Lets say you install a new operating system on your computer. Say there is a setup procedure that you can run, then 3 steps later, it clears out “Sector A” on your hard drive that other Operating systems do not.
Now lets say someone criticizes this system and says, “hey why do you delete sector A”, you can’t reply with , “Well, what about the people who run the setup procedure?”
Obviously it’s not a direct parallel, but the idea is, you can’t use situations/examples to prove that a certain system is correct/ok/acceptable when you’re using preconditions that are connected to that very system. My point: get rid of the arranged marriage system, then you’ll get rid of the controlling/possessive attitude parents have toward the wedding.
Lets say you installed microsoft VISTA
Thanks Runa for your answer : ) I was thinking that might happen. I’ve often wondered how much India might change with the shift in financial power to the younger, to the middle classes, to women.
I don’t see it as tit for tat. I see it as asking to involve people that are important to them in an event that is important as well. You can’t simply disregard your parents feelings at the end of the day no matter how logical it may seem. No one is saying one has to give in and let them run amok but you can’t just dismiss their sentiments. And maturity and free thought process isn’t mutually exclusive to being part of a family unit of people you care about. By the way the needing to invite people who have invited them before translates to over $15K in pure cash at a lot of weddings I’ve been to recently. That’s a nice chunk for a couple just starting out.
Really you think this is exclusive to just Indian culture? I don’t know a single person of any race that that doesn’t have to deal with this. Parents have been giving us unsolicitated advice (often good) all our lives. You think they are going to suddenly stop because you are now 30 and married? All cultures/races experience the what can be perceived as nosy or simply anticipation on the part of parents when it comes to a marriage. Expectations aren’t mutually exclusive to desi rents.
Ah but you think only people who have arranged marriages have opinionated parents? 🙂 Come on now we are talking about desi parents here right?
You’re arguing a different point. The question isn’t whether children should involve parents or not. I’ve already said that the voluntary asking for advice is completely acceptable, and may even be benificial.
But the orignal statement I made (before invoking Godwin’s law) had an attitude of possession behind it, the attitude of “this is not your event, it’s ours, and we are doing it for you, and we know what’s best, etc.. etc..” And this attitude is a lot more applicable for a 5th year b-day party.
Ah, the pragmatist view. Well, if it’s truly tit for tat, then your folks would have spent an equal amt on other people’s gifts. It’s zero sum. Secondly, those parents who insist on inviting the world, usually insist on spending mucho dinero for the wedding too, it’ll usually eat into the profits. But could be a decent scam.
I dont think I was ever arguing exclusivity. But what I do think is exclusive is the idea that marriage is not for the primary benefit of the individuals involved, rather the benefit of the surrounding society. You wont find that stronger anywhere else (maybe in some muslim cultures)
Runa asked about the case of arranged partners as some kind of justification for the possessive attitude. I do think the attitudes of “this is our event you’re just along for the ride” is connected to the arranged system.
Re: 201 and 206
Engagement ring, sent by my mother, was my great-great-grandmother’s and had a pearl as the centrepiece (remember, diamonds are a recent innovation). Nice, family tradition and all that, but it’s rarely worn. Our wedding bands are simple airplane-grade titanium rings (we both do a lot of work with our hands where softer metals can get scratched easily, and I certainly don’t like anything heavy on my fingers).
Frankly, if I get married, I don’t want to be involved in planning a single detail. I hate that stuff. As long as my friends are all there, then the other parties (my parents, her parents, and her) can invite as many and whomever they want. Of course, in that case, both sets of parents have to foot the bill. Choice of venue, menu items, dresses and clothing choices, etc. don’t bother me one bit. Tell me what to wear, where to show up, and what rituals I have to do. Yes, I’d want to make sure my parents’ thoughts and preferences were heard (meaning that her parents don’t get to decide everything) and yes, I’d want an awesome DJ.
I hear you. I take it a step further, I don’t even wanna go. Just put a cardboard cutout of me with a fake hand that shakes up and down for people to shake, then prerecord the answers to the top 10 questions.
ha ha – i might not want to go to mine, either. i know one groom who was very much not into his, and very much made it evident. to ease the discomfort, we slipped him a wendy’s spicy chicken sandwich as his entree, and some vodka in his water glass (muslim wedding). it definitely helped.
speaking of the same groom, he and his wife ended up getting a divorce, but still remain quite good friends. interestingly, they never got a (state) legal marriage, only the religious ceremony, so parting turned out to be really simple from a legal perspective. they haven’t even gotten around to doing the talaq, which i guess they will if one wants to get married to another. they might not even do it then, since neither one is particualrly religious.
Ak – no worries and thanks.
HMF : if the parents are paying for the wedding then they get to decide who shows up and who does not. If the bride and groom are paying for it then they can decide. From my limited understanding most parents pay for the wedding in India. A wedding in India is a social event. Heaps of people show up. Several of my cousins had over 1000 guests and we are lower middle class. Was it expensive – yes. In many south indian weddings the food is not something to rave about – pretty simple stuff. My boss in Oz is getting married tomorrow and he hast not invited anyone from the office. In India this would be a social scandal!! Different cultures mate 🙂
I hate all the fuss that comes with weddings. I like to go to other people’s nice big weddings, but I would not like to have one like that for myself. Its such a pain, all those days, all those clothes, all that planning, all that waste!
See this is exactly the erroneous thinking I’m talking about. A wedding should not be a general social event, The socialness is connected with the bride and groom, as they are the ones who the event is supposed to be centered around. And don’t pull the money card, if they want to pay and use that as rationale for inviting heaps of people. Fine go do it, why do I have to be there then?
Ive found the people that do this are those rich pompous indian families, who’s only source of validation comes from throwing these bullshit lavish parties.
I gotta disagree with you dude. If the parents are paying, it’s only fair that they determine how it all goes. If the couple is paying, then it’s different. Although even there I would think you’d at least want to consider some of your parents’ wishes.
HMF : “A wedding should not be a general social event” – In India it is – I suspect it is the same for the diaspora as well (not been to a single diasporic wedding – so not sure). Folks often meet distant relatives during marriages. Marriages are also a medium through which family disputes are resolved. Desi families normally dont throw parties to invite their friends- they could not justify the ‘waste’. The marriage is the vehicle for a party. Your position is similar to a DBD sulking because the boss did not invite her for the wedding. As I said earlier – different cultures. There are many aspects of indian culture that must be fought against – not sure that this one of them. However you may have reasons to resent such tradition. Cheers.
I agree. Marriage customs and traditions vary from culture to culture, even with subsets of the culture. There is no “one” benchmark. The individualistic nature of weddings is a pretty modern event. There is no single path. Weddings at the end of the day have ALWAYS been about taking care of the guests who show up to bless the couple. Whether its 10 or a 1000, you take care of those that show up. My wedding had about 1500 and obviously I didn’t know everyone intimately. BUT, seeing how happy my other guests were, meeting people they hadn’t seen in a long time, or simply getting to know other folks in the family was fun and well worth it. People look forward to weddings (at least my experience with it) in an endearing manner. My wife’s grandfather was deathly sick and he managed to come (he died 3 days after the wedding) and his best friends, whom neither I nor my wife really knew, showed up. They sat together, talked, laughed, blessed us, etc. I was glad that they came and that one of his last memories was a bright wedding with lots of people and his closest friends around.
If the couple getting married doesn’t give a shit about that, well, that’s ok. No one has a ‘right’ to be present at any event if the primary folks don’t want them there, but from a cultural perspective, it is sort of being a dick. No laws are broken, but hopes of some who were looking to meet and greet loved ones they had not seen in ages do get dashed. Some may even be fond of you (relatives who met you in youth), but you may not remember. Their faces light up, because you can see they actually do love you, especially when they talk about things you did in your childhood. Memories were never cut in stone for you, but it’s as real for those that recall the day you did [insert activity here].
I fully support not inviting problem relatives or guests. If they’re going to cause trouble or heartache, the couple and/or the family should be strong enough to tell them to either zip if they come, while keeping the drama at bay, or not show up at all.
I guess I had what many of you would completely detest…. a big typical malayalee hindu wedding in india with my entire extended family and their friends and hundreds of people I didn’t know… and I loved it. I didn’t do anything; just picked my groom 🙂 and flew in from the US 2 weeks prior. Oh, I did also pick my sari. Not all of us grow up with wedding dreams in our heads; I had never fantasized about being a bride as child, and had no preconceived ideas about what it should be like other than I wanted it to be exactly like my cousins’ weddings, and out of my grandparents’home in Kerala. It was more important to me to have something traditional with no bells or whistles (I don’t mean in size, I mean in fancy additions to the usual short ceremony we have) and have my entire family involved and do things their way than to have creative control. My husband really didn’t care much either; we were practically living together anyway. So it was really for our parents, and I had no problems at all handing things over to them and my uncles, which was the way they wanted it. We all have wonderful memories of the end result. And as GujuDude said, it doesn’t have to be a bad thing to have the hoardes of relatives; they do love you, or they love your parents. I know I would feel attachment to my friends’ kids, even though I don’t see them every day, so I understand why my deceased grandfather’s best friend, who I was meeting for the first time, and who is very ill, traveled quite a distance to be at our wedding. I love that I am part of a culture that has value for vast and spreading networks even when they are difficult to maintain and may not benefit you directly all the time.
You missed my point, if all that matters is who’s paying, then why do I have to be there?
I know it is. but it shouldn’t be, you’ve gone right to the heart of the nonsense attitude and perception of weddings that needs to be uprooted. Marriage should never be a “vehicle” for a party, If people there are in dire need of social contact, then throw some parties on your own, Why pressure two young people into making a lifelong mistake in the process?
Family disputes are resolved? Go see a family therapist. To this end, I have no idea what you even mean, is it the festivus ‘airing of grievences’?
See this is both tender and depressing at the same time. Why did your wedding have to be the catalyst for this man to see his best friends? You might’ve been glad they came in this particular instance, as they had a deep familial connection, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But the attitude of, “oh my gardners ex wife’s brother invited me to his wedding, we have to invite them to yours”
No one is saying don’t take care of them, read the original post, the change should be to classify the event as one primarily for the persons involved, if that means the parents don’t contribute a dime, then so be it. It’s really the underlying attitude of ownership that needs to be cast away.
but it should always be a social service for ‘displaying’ all the unwed brown guys and gals out there…
though there is some fairness/tit-for-tat element involved here, isn’t it also having the courtesy – or joy – of involving in your own celebration those who chose to do the same with their familial celebrations? my parents have a rather large ‘core’ social circle, so that’s at least 100 people on the list without whom any of us could imagine a wedding or any other big event. and we aren’t all there just to be seen – i would genuinely be disappointed if i couldn’t be there to share in the event.
i think parents have some element of ownership over you at any point of life – a wedding seems like an easy way to allow them to project that ownership. of course, some ‘suggestions’ in this regard are non-negotiable, but others i would let my parents do as they please. having a child get married is a big event – prob. the biggest – and i think it’s only fair to yield on some points to their wishes, regardless of who is paying.
It can be a service for propogating polar bear digestive track information for all I care. But all that should be sublimated, to the central purpose that I stated many times earlier.
No. this is exactly the point I’m making. this element should be completely obliterated. If someone chose to invite me to their wedding out of a genuine bond that “I’m so much a part of their life and I should be present there,” then it’s only natural that I would do the same for them, not out of a tit-for-tat reason either. However, if someone’s parents invited my parents (because they liked them, or were trying to show off or whatever), and I got dragged to some wedding of a person I don’t know/care about, then I have no obligation to them.
But it erodes over time. I agree, for my 5th year birthday party, they could invite whoever the #($)@ they want. In fact, I’d say a marriage is the decisive point in time where their ownership over you takes a significant hit.
For someone who’s vehemently against marriage, your latest message reeks of conformity, like there was some kind of coup d’etat in OppositeLand.
HMF I’d be curious to hear your POV after you fall in love and embark on your own wedding planning. 🙂 No matter what we think, want, feel etc, the minute you have another person to consider as well as that person’s parents all bets are off. Theories are absolutely wonderful until you have to put them in practice. For me this has been the biggest lesson of my life in the past several months and I have ALWAYS lived my life on my terms. Now I have someone else and his feelings and desires to consider and I love him and absolutely think it’s important to do so.
touche. though, in OppositeLand, sometimes i have to play the role of the opposition party, just for kicks.
HMF, to emphasise, i do not believe in marriage. what i was arguing was for people who do believe in marriages, and weddings, that i can understand this line of reasoning, even if it is not my own personal belief. in that regard, if ownership significantly decreases at marriage time, why not make the wedding itself a final farewell gift to the parents – you can have your way at the wedding, so long as ownership from this point on becomes near-invisible? though, even for me, who would never feel the need for any wedding-type scenario, i know it is an inevitability, a compromise i will have to make for my parents and probably my partner, as well. in that situation, i have two options : still try to maintain an intimate environemnt and make it not conform to a typical wedding as much as possible, or since i don’t care about the whole thing anyway, allow my parents to do their own thing, though put down my foot where i have to do something that truly makes me feel uncomfortable (like my mother’s demand that i get married in india). but don’t take me out of OppositeLand just yet – i am fully capable of articulating, even arguing vehemently, positions in which i have no belief personally. i’ve seen enough friends getting married to understand the sentiments behind the dynamics of weddings, even if they are far from my own sentiments.
JOAT
No doubt, in life we always need to pick and choose our battles. Each and every one of my above assertions comes from a place of logic and common sense. However, I’m aware people will agree. At the very least, I plan to include a sheet of paper in my invitation called
“No Forced Attendees” where I basically state, “As I was forced to attend so many weddings against my own volition, I want none of my parent’s friends to force their children (If they’re above a certain age, say 16+). If those children voluntarily wish to come, they are by all means welcome, but under no circumstances will I be complicit in ‘show face’ attendence.”
If any woman or her parents objects to this, I would question their head being screwed on in the correct fashion.
AK47:
That can be the engagement ceremony. Seriously though, the point is missed once again. People can do whatever in gods great earth and fruit of the loom they want to do, as long as they make the decision to hand over the reigns. So I can give control to my parents, I can give them to transexual whig Eskimos, I can call up a group of ninjas in the southern tip of baja who are trained in the toad style of Thieu-Lam Kung Fu, the point is: it’s up to me (and her).
This is not a skill to be particularly proud of, in my book. It’s your job, and is the sole reason why I could never be a lawyer. I could never argue a position that I didn’t believe in, nor would I want to.
If you really don’t believe in it, you shouldn’t do it. Because you’ll do it half assed anyway. A friend of mine was not into any kind of rituals at all, his parents were, so when his parents visited he did this elaborate puja, getting a priest from the temple. but he took all the instructions half assed, the priest said, “why are you wasting my and your time if you don’t want to do this?”
As I said before, ceding some control of the wedding to your parents in terms of a guest list does not mean one has to concede control of the marriage to them. In fact, one does not even have to cede control of the ceremony itself. if you have parents who strongly believe in inviting everyone including Dunkin Donuts owner who once said “you have a very cute child”, then hash out a compromise. Take over total control of the wedding ceremony and let your parents host a wedding reception however they please. My friends(notIndian) did that and it worked out great. He had his wedding at an atrium which accomodated only 50 of us. It was done without any real ceremony, just a private lil thing. LAter that evening, they had a big ole reception where all the friends and relatives mingled.
However, if your parents insist on conducting the ceremony a certain way which is against your partner and your wishes (example: an overly long religious ceremony with all the accompanying fussy rituals throughout the day when that is something you are not comfortable with), that is something encroaching on your personal space.
Besides, I don’t think a bride and groom having control of their wedding automatically removes the potential vanity, superficiality, or control freak issues. I know there are some of my fellow trash-TV watchers lurking out there… how many times on Bridezillas do you see some woman in a white dress bellowing “IT’S MY DAY!!!!” This hardly seems like an improvement on a couple’s parents dictating how things are run.
Obviously neither of those situations is optimal. But I don’t object at all to a wedding as a social event or an excuse for a party – except to add that there’s a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. Whether it’s Mom and Dad or the couple who plans the wedding, if you take care of your guests and plan well, it can be a really awesome time for all. I was once “dragged” to the wedding of a distant cousin that was so much freakin’ fun we STILL talk about it years later. On the other hand, if you are just crassly showing off, we might also be talking about THAT for years to come…
not even sure hot to respond….
point noted, and i agree. but in many situations, it’s not so cut and dry as a demand or forced situation – brides and grooms just acquiesce because it’s easier than fighting over it.
oh, being a lawyer is not so bad, HMF – you could be a prosecutor! but, seriously, i believe that knowing the other person’s position in and out, and even trying to argue it, makes you stronger vis-a-vis your own position, since you’ve thought through all possible opposition points. plus, i feel i would be a terrible friend if i didn’t at least acknowledge how my friends approach marriage, even if i don’t agree with it.
yes, i would feel like i’m fronting. but like JOAT said, everything changes when you’re in the actual situation. plus, i believe in compromise – if this was so important to my partner, i would do it, and i would do it properly; otherwise i would be disrespecting him. on the other hand, i wouldn’t just go along meekly with all the preparations – at least for the ceremony, i would make sure my input is realised – after all, he should be willing to compromise to my views, as well.
btw JOAT – congratulations! i’m curious to know – what is the traditional saree worn at maharashtrian weddings – i thought it was paithani, but some of the comments here seem to go against that…
Knowing their position inside and out is one thing, trying to argue it is a completely different situation.
That’s counterintuitive. there’s no way you could do something properly, if you’re doing it solely to please someone else, even if it’s your “partner”
Thank you. Traditionally our mothers wore Paithanis (they are expensive and actually my parents had a simple ceremony and my mom didn’t wear one and instead wore a regular silk sari). The colors are yellow with some green if you want. We wear a yellow sari and green bangles so I’m getting my yellow sari with a green border and am wearing emeralds and pearls. Other traditional accessories that are a must are pearls, gajra in the hair and mandavlya . I’m planning on doing all of it. Why not 🙂
HMF with all due respect, that is the essence of ALL relationships. No single relationship has zero compromise, it wouldn’t work that way and ALL relationships require that we sometimes do things to make the partner happy. Even when you do compromise you do it with the other person in mind and it’s really not as grave as you make it sound.
This I understand, but those things done will never be done with the same energy and motivation as those with a personal interest/belief behind it. Secondly it depends how integral that particular activity (or lack therof) is to your belief system, as I said before, everyone must pick and choose their battles.
I think you missed the operative word in my statement:
“… if you’re doing it solely to please someone else,….”
sorry, wrong terminology. i would not outwardly seem indifferent or against it. i can still do it thus respectfully, even if i don’t believe in it.
and since HMF put partner in quotes, do you all have another suggestion? in the hypotheticals, i try to avoid husband (and even if there was a marriage, i would not like to use it) but partner is also not a moniker with which i am comfortable. any suggestions?
fair point. but it still doesn’t change the fact that i can articulate very well that in which i do not believe. particularly since i have heard all these POVs several times over from various friends.
Sorry, Ak, I’m a tough cookie, indifference is the emotion you’d likely have towards it, because you indeed are against it, but are doing completely at the request for someone else.
Now before you go comparing this to something like “donating a kidney” where once again you are doing something for the complete benefit of someone else, you agree that receiving a kidney would be good for them (and likewise yourself, if in the same position)
But with benefits based on ‘beliefs’ I’d say one might even question the actions’ benefits for others. For example, if I think paying $600 dollars for an iPhone is a waste of money, I’d that other people who I idenfity with, would also be wasting their money if they buy it.
By the way, don’t take this personally, but this is the problem I have with discussing things with lawyers. Because I never know if they truly believe the words they are saying or are they just engaging in mental masturbation, or playing ‘devils advocate’
this ignores the fact that at some point, the other person will likely be doing something else completely at my request (either in the wedding or elsewhere in our relationship). i don’t know, HMF, you seem like too tough of a cookie – i cannot be so rigid in my relationships. you are putting this wedding scenario in too strict of a bubble – the compromises made within the ceremony needs to be seen in the light of the compromises made thoughout the entirety of the relationship, by both parties. in that sense, i cannot be so rigid in every situation wherein i am asked to do something against my belief – the situation may/will reverse some day, and i must keep that in mind when deciding whether to compromise in the instance at hand.
no offense taken – we are just imposing upon others in the same way in which our professors imposed upon us! but i will almost always admit to the gripes shared by the general public against lawyers – oftentimes, they are mine as well. though, in all fairness, whatever position a lawyer is arguing for official purposes, you should not assume that it’s connected to their personal positions – this is oftentimes irrelevant to their legal posturing, and it’s not a luxury that most lawyers have. in any case, even though devil’s advocate has its advantages, i see your point. perhaps this, like the smiley face, should be a disclaimer in SM posts.
I would never want anyone to compromise a core belief at my request. It also depends on the chronic/repetitive nature of the activity. Is it a one time deal? sure I might more likely to do it, either way my point stands that if you don’t truly believe in the act, you’ll just be going through the emotions no matter how close you are to the person , or how lucidly you realize the situation may be reversed in the future.
If it’s a belief we’re so divergent on, and it’s a core belief that we believe worth fighting for, then we shouldn’t be engaging in any long term relationships in the first place. It’s best for everyone around.
I see a lot of back and forth here. You say you’re against marriage, or don’t believe in it, yet say you’d go through with it to please relevant people/partners around you? (and this compromise seems to be a fairly large one, much larger than say, if I dont like orange shirts, but wear one to a florida gators game because my gf is a huge fan, or whatever) And furthermore, you say you’d do it without any outward indifference? There’s a lot of ambiguity coming through.
They were all very old men that couldn’t travel very far. We managed to get my wife’s grandfather there in a private ambulance. His friends lived in near the wedding venue. Not that we knew he was going to die in a few days, but those old timers hadn’t seen each other in a long time due to heatlh and logistics. We were really happy to be a catalyst for these guys meeting each other and many others. The energy surrounding the event was positive, jovial, and drama free. A good time was had by all and that was important to us.
Another thing to note is what you or anyone else see their wedding as. I’ve been to small weddings where only close family/friends were around and people understood and it was communicated respectfully. For me and my family, keeping those social bonds is important. Also, there are different opportunities available to maitain/slot people in. For example, the wedding may not have more people, but the reception/party may. Or if there is a sangeet sandya/music night, you may invite some people over, but not for the main wedding itself. Or for some of my friends who I’m not close with but they’re great drinking buddies, so they were invited to the Bachelor party, but not the wedding itself.
I can understand the reaction against merely throwing someone a bone for inviting your family previously, but if large social networks are important to you, then one may want to think about how to keep that bond and the vehicle for it. It may not be the wedding itself, but due to time/situation constraints, weddings are commonly used as the most practical vehicle for it.
It’s a wedding so you’re also accomodating your significant other’s wishes, too. Once you’re married, you may understand – it’s the two of you. That in no way implies that you’re supposed to forsake your individuality, but decisions have impacts on both of you. As such, being reasonable, sensitive, and considerate is part of being in a healthy relationship.