4 ms·

I can't believe I'm about to defend a marketing slogan. "Most important" doesn't imply "best", in my opinion, I think it implies that this day has the most impa

I can't believe I'm about to defend a marketing slogan. "Most important" doesn't imply "best", in my opinion, I think it implies that this day has the most impact on your life, so make it a good one. Maybe future days will be better because of what happened on this day.

hrktb 8y ago
That’s still usually not the most important. For instance even if your partner is the best thing that ever happens to your life, the most important moment will be the proposal or whatever moment you recognize and mutually accept you need each other in your life. The wedding is the inking of the deal, the most important moment is when you agree to the deal in the first place (and I hope that’s way far before the wedding takes place). From there, the impact of the wedding is mostly memories, networking and social perception.
- test1235 8y ago
  it doesn't matter how you define it - the initial premise was that once you've decided that it the most important, then it's all downhill from there.
  - CocaKoala 8y ago
    You're conflating importance with quality. The day Bruce Wayne's parents died was the most important day of his life. It is most assuredly not the day he looks back on as the best day of his life.
- Ntrails 8y ago
  Saying that you will do a thing and doing a thing do not have equal merit. If I say I'm going to climb everest, you can be sure that the moment which is remembered is the one where I made it to the top (or failed to). Similarly the birth of a child, not the agreement to try and conceive, is the bit that matters. (Although I'll accept the getting pregnant somewhat) The act of marriage, of declaring in front of witnesses (friends/family) before the law that you bind yourself to another person in perpetuity is obviously the occasion that is important. Not when you decided to ask. Not when your partner said yes. When you do it. (The party afterwards is sheer madness etc etc)
  - hrktb 8y ago
    I agree with your point, to the extent that climbing a mountain or birthing a child have a clear end you can evaluate afterwards to mark if you did it or not. Mariage in theory only has a beginning, and in our times it’s mainly a promise (signing the paper or vowing in front of costumed people doesn’t mean that much more anymore). Some people stay together without ever marrying, other sign the papers and do a wedding afterward (a lot of churches will actualy require the papers to be done before), or never. So, if the question is “where did it start ?”, my answer would be at the point where both people agreed to be together. At that point you are effectively together, already doing what you are saying.
    - Ntrails 8y ago
      > signing the paper or vowing in front of costumed people doesn’t mean that much more anymore I fundamentally disagree with this. I think that lots of people view this thing very differently, and to some extent that's just cultural and based on their own views and experiences. (Basically, I'm going to go with agree to disagree because I think your view is valid albeit not one I ascribe to)
stevehawk 8y ago
I will say that at 37 years of age i believe my wedding was the most important party i have thrown in my life. With people giving up an entire weekend to fly in to a central location for my wife and I it seemed only fair to make sure everyone had a great time. It's pretty easy for a wedding and reception to be boring for your guests.
- gh02t 8y ago
  Heh, that's the conundrum about weddings. It's supposed to be about you and your spouse, but the people getting married end up spending all their time stressing out over keeping the guests entertained.
  - privacypoller 8y ago
    in my experience and I suspect most western countries it's about the bride, but the groom's role is largely ornamental. You are right about the amount of big-day work though; we had a huge spread of food and booze and I remember eating a couple of crackers and a single glass of wine over the entire evening. This was a very relaxed version of a wedding as well; too much glad-handling to actually have fun.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > the groom's role is largely ornamental. 15% of the weddings I've been to didn't have a groom
- ergothus 8y ago
  I can agree with your view, but would add that "fun" and "flawless" are not synonyms. Heck, charge the normal rate for things and I'd be able to afford more fun! I've had two weddings and attended many many more. 90+% of the time is completely forgotten. The rest is good or bad memories that are largely disconnected from the service/goods quality and the price. I've seen success with plastic cups and failures with crystal. (Interestingly, the vast majority of the "bad" events came from the wedding officiants, with photographers coming in at number 2, neither of which correlated to "quality")

hrktb 8y ago

That’s still usually not the most important. For instance even if your partner is the best thing that ever happens to your life, the most important moment will be the proposal or whatever moment you recognize and mutually accept you need each other in your life. The wedding is the inking of the deal, the most important moment is when you agree to the deal in the first place (and I hope that’s way far before the wedding takes place). From there, the impact of the wedding is mostly memories, networking and social perception.

test1235 8y ago
it doesn't matter how you define it - the initial premise was that once you've decided that it the most important, then it's all downhill from there.
- CocaKoala 8y ago
  You're conflating importance with quality. The day Bruce Wayne's parents died was the most important day of his life. It is most assuredly not the day he looks back on as the best day of his life.
Ntrails 8y ago
Saying that you will do a thing and doing a thing do not have equal merit. If I say I'm going to climb everest, you can be sure that the moment which is remembered is the one where I made it to the top (or failed to). Similarly the birth of a child, not the agreement to try and conceive, is the bit that matters. (Although I'll accept the getting pregnant somewhat) The act of marriage, of declaring in front of witnesses (friends/family) before the law that you bind yourself to another person in perpetuity is obviously the occasion that is important. Not when you decided to ask. Not when your partner said yes. When you do it. (The party afterwards is sheer madness etc etc)
- hrktb 8y ago
  I agree with your point, to the extent that climbing a mountain or birthing a child have a clear end you can evaluate afterwards to mark if you did it or not. Mariage in theory only has a beginning, and in our times it’s mainly a promise (signing the paper or vowing in front of costumed people doesn’t mean that much more anymore). Some people stay together without ever marrying, other sign the papers and do a wedding afterward (a lot of churches will actualy require the papers to be done before), or never. So, if the question is “where did it start ?”, my answer would be at the point where both people agreed to be together. At that point you are effectively together, already doing what you are saying.
  - Ntrails 8y ago
    > signing the paper or vowing in front of costumed people doesn’t mean that much more anymore I fundamentally disagree with this. I think that lots of people view this thing very differently, and to some extent that's just cultural and based on their own views and experiences. (Basically, I'm going to go with agree to disagree because I think your view is valid albeit not one I ascribe to)

stevehawk 8y ago

I will say that at 37 years of age i believe my wedding was the most important party i have thrown in my life. With people giving up an entire weekend to fly in to a central location for my wife and I it seemed only fair to make sure everyone had a great time. It's pretty easy for a wedding and reception to be boring for your guests.

gh02t 8y ago
Heh, that's the conundrum about weddings. It's supposed to be about you and your spouse, but the people getting married end up spending all their time stressing out over keeping the guests entertained.
- privacypoller 8y ago
  in my experience and I suspect most western countries it's about the bride, but the groom's role is largely ornamental. You are right about the amount of big-day work though; we had a huge spread of food and booze and I remember eating a couple of crackers and a single glass of wine over the entire evening. This was a very relaxed version of a wedding as well; too much glad-handling to actually have fun.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    > the groom's role is largely ornamental. 15% of the weddings I've been to didn't have a groom
ergothus 8y ago
I can agree with your view, but would add that "fun" and "flawless" are not synonyms. Heck, charge the normal rate for things and I'd be able to afford more fun! I've had two weddings and attended many many more. 90+% of the time is completely forgotten. The rest is good or bad memories that are largely disconnected from the service/goods quality and the price. I've seen success with plastic cups and failures with crystal. (Interestingly, the vast majority of the "bad" events came from the wedding officiants, with photographers coming in at number 2, neither of which correlated to "quality")