Wedding Pet Peeves, Part 1 -- The Absence of a +1

Friends,

I know most people love weddings.  I don't want this blog series to in any way crush those people's dreams.  Insofar as weddings celebrate marriage, I affirm them.  But to make the world a better place in the future, I feel compelled to point out those aspects of some weddings that make them terrible.

As for my qualification to critique weddings, I have none.  I'm just a guy with some opinions.  But I have been to tons of weddings (and been a groomsman in many of them), so my opinions have at least been forged by repetition and experience.



Pet Peeve #1 -- Forcing me to go alone
This one doesn't involve garters

Weddings were simpler at the innocent age of 20.  I was surrounded at all times by a mob of other fun-loving 20-year-olds, so weddings were teeming with peers who were having fun, talking, dancing, and being single.

Fast forward 6 years, and things are different.  Weddings are now a place where a bunch of my peers, all in married couple pairs, get together to tell the new bride and groom, "Welcome to the club!"  One or two mid-to-late-20s unmarried abominations are allowed in to eat the scraps from the table.

I hope it's obvious that I'm joking for effect, but the point remains -- I'm now in the minority as a single person, and that is relevant when it comes to attending an event that focuses solely on romance/love/marriage. 

Not to make things too depressing, but the internal voice during weddings that I attend alone has shifted from
"I'm excited to get married someday!!"
to
"I hope to get married someday."
to
"Am I going to get married?!  I freaking better get married!! Oh my gosh, what if I never get married?!!"

And yet, all this could be avoided so simply.  Adding literally two characters to the RSVP card can redeem the entire event...

Having a date at the wedding makes all the difference.  It means having someone to drive with to and from the wedding.  Someone to talk to during the unbearably long wait before the reception.  Someone to dance with during the 3 otherwise painfully awkward slow songs.

I realize the decision to deny dates is a financial one.  I don't have a solution outside of investing in a money tree.  But I will say that it's not as if you have to offer every single person a +1.  If there's a huge community of people coming who all know each other, the singletons should be fine.  But if someone on the invite list won't know anyone, or will probably only know married people, it's a different story.


Other people's opinions
Specifically, my friend's and yours

One of my friends, in a text that helped inspire this post, vented, "I'd rather not get an invite than get a solo one...  People who do that have never gone stag to a wedding."

What do you think about going solo to a wedding?  Will/have you forced others to go dateless?

Jon

(Re)arranging marriage

Friends,

The summer blogging hiatus has sadly continued.  I think in a couple weeks I'll be in a normal schedule and regular tangents will resume.  But for now, I bring you a topic so outdated, so laughable, that I'm hoping it can generate some interesting conversation.

Yeah, I'm talking about arranged marriages

A friend of mine recently mused about something that has made me think a lot about ye olde arranged marriage.  He works for the same company that I do and, as a guy who's been married for about 20 years, has the ability to muse about such things aloud.  He said:

"If they had a marriage-arranging service at [the upcoming conference for the 5,000 employees who work for our missionary organization in the US], I wonder how many people would seriously consider it."

To my surprise, he got a far-off look in his eyes that indicated he actually was wondering about it.  He was making the unthinkable suggestion that not 1 or 2, but many of these missionaries would sign up for some sort of arranged marriage.  Taking ideas seriously is somewhat contagious, I think, because I started thinking... why is that so crazy?


Arranged marriage vs. American marriage

Another married friend of mine was on hand for that comment, and the reason he offered for the old system's success is that parents know their 18-year-olds better than the 18-year-olds know themselves.  It's an interesting thought, and I'm not sure what I make of it.  But it's not the argument I would make.

My main positive thought about arranged marriages is how the basis of the union is so much more unselfish than the basis of typical modern marriages.  When your marriage is arranged, your motivation for stepping into that commitment has to be family.  So, you sacrifice and you compromise and you do what you can to make it work.

But nowadays when we date and look for our soulmates (or whatever it is people do), what's our motivation?  As I look around at the people I know  (95% of whom are married or engaged) -- and when I look at myself in my own forays into romance -- I see people who are trying to be happy.  This seems normal and human, but think about entering a relationship with your own happiness as the ultimate goal!

Does this person's appearance please me?
Does this person's sense of humor make me laugh?
Does spending time with this person make me happy?
Et cetera.

Because this is the goal of dating and these questions are the criteria for success, it's no surprise what happens in half of American marriages.  When I don't feel happy anymore, the marriage is over.

Conclusion: if anything can be said for arranged marriages (and I'm not sure anything can), it's that the system naturally places commitment and family as the foundation of the relationship, whereas the default cultural foundation is one's own happiness.


Let the sparks fly. Or at the very least, someone please comment

Let me end by saying that I'm not actually pushing for a resurgence of arranged marriages.  I just wanted to provoke thought and conversation.

Thoughts?
Questions?
Stories?
Et cetera.

Jon