Standards

Wedding Standards

195 Comments

This one goes along with the last post so well that I decided to go ahead and post it right away…

Nothing says “come celebrate” like a list of rules about what you can wear and do when you come.

195 thoughts on “Wedding Standards”

  1. No minimum age a child must be to attend?

    No maximum number of children your “quiver full” cousin can bring to the reception?

  2. This is a serious breach of etiquette. It is customary to specify the general style of dress, such as “casual” or “Sunday best.” It is thoughtful to add a line or two warning the guests about things they can’t do if they want to be admitted to the venue; I recall a clubhouse that would not relax its rule against denim even for a large wedding with lots of non-members. It is prudent to consider the needs of people with severe health issues; for example: “A member of the wedding has severe asthma; please do not wear strong scents or smoke on the grounds” (or whatever is known to trigger an attack). All of these are calculated to help the guests enjoy the wedding.

    This insert basically says, “We think you are a bunch of yahoos who are going to guzzle beer in the pews and leave lit cigarettes in the bathroom sinks, and we know all you women are a pack of sllllluts, so we’re going to forestall that.” If they really think that their chosen guests are that kind of people, they have two choices:

    1. Restrict the wedding to parishioners only, which may protect the bride and groom from being gossiped about in their own church, but probably won’t go over well with the extended family or circle of friends.
    2. Rent a bar and have the wedding there so their guests will be comfortable, because it isn’t the guests’ job to make the bride and groom look good to their authority figures.

    1. Agreed. But, self-righteousness itself is a serious breach of etiquette, and this bride and groom have more than enough of that to last them a lifetime, if their marriage holds out that long. For the life of me, I cannot believe they do not understand their roles as hosts to this event. Instead, they expect gifts to help them celebrate their new life together, after instructing their future guests on what the expected (!) behavior is. Totally, abysmally rude. 🙄

  3. I am absolutely positive that this note was intended for a specific unsaved family member(s) whom they were afraid would show up dressed in spaghetti straps.

    1. Special note to fundamentalists lurking here: Out here in the wicked, backslidden World, where flourishing a Jesus fish does not excuse asinine behavior, we handle it like this:

      1. Put a standard “No Smoking” sign in the church entryway. Available at any Wal-Mart next to the “For Sale” and “No Trespassing” signs.

      2. Mount a professionally painted “This is an Alcohol-Free Venue” sign at the door of the room where people have parties.

      3. Specify “Sunday best” on the invitations, and if somebody interprets that as “spaghetti straps are okay,” bite your tongue and pretend that nothing is wrong. That includes no passive aggressive drawing of attention to the bare shoulders in any way.

      1. Wait, so, it is WRONG of me to raise my eyebrows all the way into my hairline and keep shooting sidelong glances at the bare shoulders whenever I can catch the eye of another fundy attender? Shoot, Jenny, you are killing all the fun… 😉

  5. I agree with the previous poster….this was for some member of the family that they were afraid would show up in something that people would tsk tsk about.

    Lame! 🙄

  6. “Modesty of clothing is to be worn”. 😯 Huh?

    Is that kind of like “eye of newt”?

    I get that modest clothing should be worn (even that is a grammatical stretch), but how does one extract the modesty of clothing and then wear it? I suppose if someone rubbed a bunch of modest clothing all over themselves and then showed up naked, they could claim that they were wearing “modesty of clothing”…

  7. Gotta disagree with the comments. There is nothing in the original post to indicate that this was required by the venue. Since the incidents of Brittney, Lindsey and other “stars” many girls think it is sexy to wear dresses so short that if they sneeze they expose their (how shall we say this?) hoo hoo. A wedding is supposed to be about the bride and groom (and according to this announcement) and their vows to each other before God. Guests who intentionally draw attention away from that are the ones acting inappropriately.
    This doesn’t only relate to immodest dress. I think the elaborate hats in the last Royal wedding, or a Suit made of duct tape on a guest would also detract from the Bride and Groom and would be in poor taste.

Comments are closed.