4 ms·

The answer is definitely brides. 5k is "cheap for a wedding dress," and 8k is "cheap for a venue." Why must these things be so expensive? You might as well ask

The answer is definitely brides. 5k is "cheap for a wedding dress," and 8k is "cheap for a venue." Why must these things be so expensive? You might as well ask why engagement rings are so expensive, or why dowries used to (and in some places still do) exist. The parties involved see this as an existential purchase, not a practical purchase. The cost and and sacrifice you must give up is a reflection of the value of the bride. Skimping on a cost or a service is seen as an admission that the bride lacks value.

diminoten 8y ago
This is a pretty sexist way to look at it...
- slothtrop 8y ago
  I don't think it's far from the truth however. Consider the contrived societal expectation, devised by De Beers, to spend 1 month's salary on a ring. You can get an elegant diamond ring for far less, but we make a virtue out of spending in excess here and that extends to the wedding. It's not that men aren't complicit in this, but the more socially desirable the bride, and you know what that means, the more pressure there is to spend.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    That's just... completely untrue, and is definitely sexist. By the way, that De Beers campaign was marketed at the men, not the women, so it's men that are falling for that rule just as much, if not more, than women are demanding it. Putting the cost of weddings at the feet of the brides is ridiculous. For reference, I'm getting married in April, and it's been my wonderful bride who has kept costs way down, compared to my wild spending ideas.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      It was marketed towards both. Men to go out and buy the rings, women not to accept rings 'beneath them'. Advertising is absolutely just straight up sexist in a lot of cases, and people (speaking in the broad strokes that you have to when talking about complete populations) eat that up. I definitely know someone who got turned down because the ring he bought her wasn't expensive enough. Personally I think he dodged a bullet, but that's neither here nor there there. Advertisers use sexist advertising because it works. https://youtu.be/85HT4Om6JT4 https://youtu.be/85HT4Om6JT4
- everdrive 8y ago
  I don't know that it's sexist. I'm not claiming that women are inferior to men. I am claiming that as far as I can tell, there is a difference between how men and women view the importance of a costly wedding. It's possible that you think this is a sexist idea. I don't, and I think it's just a value judgement. (ie, a preference)
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Why must these things be so expensive?" It's absurd and repulsive. It's like we took only a single generation to forget how it was done for 3000 years across most cultures. Yes, the elite always had big weddings, but most people didn't. My grandparents and their peers: you go to the Church with family and friends, and then there's a reception at the cottage (considerably more people come by to say hi) where the ladies have sandwiches made. Uncles and aunts play music, people dance a little bit and then go home. It's another negative aspect of cultural secularization that people don't even realize is happening because they have no context. One day, after weddings have been corporatized, it's possible future generations think that getting married a 'The Starbucks (of weddings)' is normal as well! Some of them will invent words like 'holistic' and 'organic' to buck the trend, when they don't even realize is what they mean to say is: "old timey, tradition wedding". Which just doesn't sound very cool or progressive ...
SiempreViernes 8y ago
> the bride lacks value 0_0 Wow, brides don't even get awarded a pronoun by you?! In a more humanistic universe, the traditions around marriage means the wedding celebration is generally considered the most important party you ever arrange, so costs are expected to be greater. Anecdotally, american culture also seems to use wedding spending as a straight up status indicator, comparable to having an expensive care. A notion that is undoubtedly supported by the industry that has much to gain by getting prices as inflated as possible.
- everdrive 8y ago
  I don't assign value to people via pronouns, and I genuinely apologize if I gave the impression I was devaluing anyone.
- rchaud 8y ago
  > american culture also seems to use wedding spending as a straight up status indicator While there are many things that seem to be specific to US consumer culture, weddings historically have often been about aggregating wealth and power (rather than formalizing love-based relationships) and it's not like those families stop to consider how vulgar displays of wealth make them look.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Also: I think dowries are unrelated, in fact the opposite. Dowries existed in a time where women were not valued, because taking them on might be seen as an expense. So men got some 'free stuff' in addition. Also, to be fair, men got the inheritance, so a dowry could be viewed as a kind of inheritance for the bride as well. As far as 'cost and perception' - my feeling is that this is mostly not being driven by the groom's need to sacrifice, rather by bride's need to have 'perfect weddings'. Personal experiences are not entirely scientific, but I've been to probably a couple of dozen weddings and in 100% of the cases, the grooms were not hugely interested in the organization, and were a little wary of all the spending. The brides were keen and eager to plan, to make the experience whatever they were. Marriage magazines etc. cater almost exclusively to women, for example.

diminoten 8y ago

This is a pretty sexist way to look at it...

slothtrop 8y ago
I don't think it's far from the truth however. Consider the contrived societal expectation, devised by De Beers, to spend 1 month's salary on a ring. You can get an elegant diamond ring for far less, but we make a virtue out of spending in excess here and that extends to the wedding. It's not that men aren't complicit in this, but the more socially desirable the bride, and you know what that means, the more pressure there is to spend.
- diminoten 8y ago
  That's just... completely untrue, and is definitely sexist. By the way, that De Beers campaign was marketed at the men, not the women, so it's men that are falling for that rule just as much, if not more, than women are demanding it. Putting the cost of weddings at the feet of the brides is ridiculous. For reference, I'm getting married in April, and it's been my wonderful bride who has kept costs way down, compared to my wild spending ideas.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    It was marketed towards both. Men to go out and buy the rings, women not to accept rings 'beneath them'. Advertising is absolutely just straight up sexist in a lot of cases, and people (speaking in the broad strokes that you have to when talking about complete populations) eat that up. I definitely know someone who got turned down because the ring he bought her wasn't expensive enough. Personally I think he dodged a bullet, but that's neither here nor there there. Advertisers use sexist advertising because it works. https://youtu.be/85HT4Om6JT4 https://youtu.be/85HT4Om6JT4
everdrive 8y ago
I don't know that it's sexist. I'm not claiming that women are inferior to men. I am claiming that as far as I can tell, there is a difference between how men and women view the importance of a costly wedding. It's possible that you think this is a sexist idea. I don't, and I think it's just a value judgement. (ie, a preference)

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"Why must these things be so expensive?" It's absurd and repulsive. It's like we took only a single generation to forget how it was done for 3000 years across most cultures. Yes, the elite always had big weddings, but most people didn't. My grandparents and their peers: you go to the Church with family and friends, and then there's a reception at the cottage (considerably more people come by to say hi) where the ladies have sandwiches made. Uncles and aunts play music, people dance a little bit and then go home. It's another negative aspect of cultural secularization that people don't even realize is happening because they have no context. One day, after weddings have been corporatized, it's possible future generations think that getting married a 'The Starbucks (of weddings)' is normal as well! Some of them will invent words like 'holistic' and 'organic' to buck the trend, when they don't even realize is what they mean to say is: "old timey, tradition wedding". Which just doesn't sound very cool or progressive ...

SiempreViernes 8y ago

> the bride lacks value 0_0 Wow, brides don't even get awarded a pronoun by you?! In a more humanistic universe, the traditions around marriage means the wedding celebration is generally considered the most important party you ever arrange, so costs are expected to be greater. Anecdotally, american culture also seems to use wedding spending as a straight up status indicator, comparable to having an expensive care. A notion that is undoubtedly supported by the industry that has much to gain by getting prices as inflated as possible.

everdrive 8y ago
I don't assign value to people via pronouns, and I genuinely apologize if I gave the impression I was devaluing anyone.
rchaud 8y ago
> american culture also seems to use wedding spending as a straight up status indicator While there are many things that seem to be specific to US consumer culture, weddings historically have often been about aggregating wealth and power (rather than formalizing love-based relationships) and it's not like those families stop to consider how vulgar displays of wealth make them look.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Also: I think dowries are unrelated, in fact the opposite. Dowries existed in a time where women were not valued, because taking them on might be seen as an expense. So men got some 'free stuff' in addition. Also, to be fair, men got the inheritance, so a dowry could be viewed as a kind of inheritance for the bride as well. As far as 'cost and perception' - my feeling is that this is mostly not being driven by the groom's need to sacrifice, rather by bride's need to have 'perfect weddings'. Personal experiences are not entirely scientific, but I've been to probably a couple of dozen weddings and in 100% of the cases, the grooms were not hugely interested in the organization, and were a little wary of all the spending. The brides were keen and eager to plan, to make the experience whatever they were. Marriage magazines etc. cater almost exclusively to women, for example.