Alternative Weddings - When Is It Too Far?

[bopper]

I've been to one potluck wedding. My oldest cousin on my dad's side. I didn't think anything of it. I was 13 and it was just like any other family get together for me. My dad said that is how they did weddings for the longest time up there (Butler, Pa in the country for those interested). Only recently has it started that the HC pays for everything. Typically, the HC provided the basics such as entrees, meats, cheeses, and family would provide the side dishes and desserts. Thats just how it was.

I think if "that is how it is" and everybody is used to it, then it is fine.  What's not fine is when you host everybody for your wedding, but when attending other's weddings you have to bring a dish.

[blarg314]

I think a wedding can be potluck if it's the *hosts* who are providing the potluck - say the family and close friends gets together and decides to do this for the bride and groom. Requesting food or money in an invitation for an ceremony held in someone's honour (wedding, birthday, retirement party, anniversary party) is tacky.

Costumes - fine as long as you don't *require* people to dress up as pirates, or whatever - if someone wants to come dressed in a suit, then that's fine.

Regarding alternate themed - I would say that it is up to the bride and groom, but the alternative part should be clear from the invitation, and it shouldn't be held against an invitee if they decide not to attend something they would find uncomfortable. For example, if they decide to have a sunrise hike up the mountain and get married at the top, then frailer or older/younger members will probably decline the invitation.

One example this reminded me of was the graveyard goth wedding described in the Etiquette Hell archives (wedding performed in a graveyard at midnight, goth wear). In that case I would find the ceremony offensive and decline to attend, not because of the goth part, but because I find using people's mortal remains to add ambience to your party to be disgusting.

[Venus193]

Despite 8 years in the SCA I only ever attended one wedding ceremony there.  Most people in this organization have families who are aware of these activities although I have no stats on the incidence of mundanes willing to go medieval (or whatever) for this occasion.

Most SCA members have their official weddings in mundane mode with a second "ceremony" in the SCA.  The latter isn't legal, as the clergy are impersonated by SCA members who could be cab drivers in mundane life. However, the ones I knew wouldn't perform this ceremony for any couple who wasn't at least engaged in the mundane world.

I only knew one couple whose official wedding was also their medieval.  Only about half the guests dressed for the occasion.

[twinkletoes]

I'm with everyone else.  I think some of the DIY stuff is blown way out of proportion and becomes "get your friends to work for free."  Especially if the happy couple words the "request" in such a way that the guests feel obligated to help out.  I'm all for making one's own favors or invitations or floral arrangements, etc. (provided you have the skillz - I've seen invitations that were obviously DIY and looked *awful*).  But one shouldn't expect one's guests to help out - it's a nice surprise if they do, but it shouldn't be an obligation.

I'm fine with themes, as long as they don't take over the wedding.  I think it's silly, though, when the happy couple dresses up as certain characters to say their vows - it looks like fan fiction gone wild, and I can't take them seriously.  I think it's kind to say something to the effect of "you're welcome to wear costumes pertaining to such-and-such theme, but you aren't obligated to do so."  It's no fun if the theme is, say, "dress in Elizabethan garb" and guests are berated for wearing earlier Tudor-era inspired clothing (although if your guests are mostly / all in a historical group, that might be a different kettle of fish...).

[snowflake]

Well I have nothing against themes.  I actually went on a well-known wedding site and scoped out their "different weddings" board because when Hubby and I first got engaged we thought of having a traditional wedding with a few twists.

The wedding board was SCARY.  There were lots of posts along the lines of, "If I can't find psychadelic hula-hoops to pass out as favors then my LIFE IS RUINED!  By the way I'm so much better than everyone else because I'm passing out something UNIQUE!"  or "I want people to toast with martinis NOT champagne.  How do I trick someone else into paying for this?"

People planning alternative weddings sometimes think that by having an alternative wedding they're automatically avoiding the scariness that comes with the Great White.  But the same sort of problems apply: you can be fixated on the party and not the marraige; you can turn into a frightening Bridezilla still; you can over-spend;  you can over-tax everyone else;  you can still show unrestrained greed. 

I think as long as you aren't using your "theme" as a license to get away with behavior that would be RIGHT OUT for a great white wedding, then you arent' going to far.

[Sophia]

I am the only one whose first thought is "What a mess" when reading "toasting with martinis? 

Martinis slosh over the side so easily even without clinking them together.  My personal rule is, "Stop drinking when you can't keep the martini in the glass."

[evilbeagle]

LOL, Sophia, I thought the same thing. As much as I love a good drink, toasting with martinis is a bit OTT. That's just the quickest road to the floor.

[Auntie Venom]

I like themes, but underthemes tick me off...

[Aquigoth]

I like themes, but underthemes tick me off...

Well of course. It's trashy to let your underthemes show in public.

[schweinsty]

Just as long as you don't get swept around and planted one on the forehead at the reception. .

[Auntie Venom]

Only when I get in on drugging the bride....

[Changing1]

I go with the "How will this seem when we look back on it in 20 years?"  Potluck is ALWAYS tacky!

[blarg314]

People planning alternative weddings sometimes think that by having an alternative wedding they're automatically avoiding the scariness that comes with the Great White.  But the same sort of problems apply: you can be fixated on the party and not the marraige; you can turn into a frightening Bridezilla still; you can over-spend;  you can over-tax everyone else;  you can still show unrestrained greed. 

This is a good point. If you are obsessing on the ceremony to the  exclusion of preparing for the coming marriage or considering the comfort of the guests, then it has gone to far, whether it's a BWW or a non-traditional ceremony.
 

[Ohmeomy]

I go with the "How will this seem when we look back on it in 20 years?"  Potluck is ALWAYS tacky!

I agree with you but you will probably get flamed for saying it!  I can hear it now; what if they're autistic, what if it's all they can afford, what is SO wrong with potluck?  For me if it was a choice between potluck and nothing because of money, it would be a ceremony with parents only, no reception.

[jimithing]

I go with the "How will this seem when we look back on it in 20 years?"  Potluck is ALWAYS tacky!

I agree with you but you will probably get flamed for saying it!  I can hear it now; what if they're autistic, what if it's all they can afford, what is SO wrong with potluck?  For me if it was a choice between potluck and nothing because of money, it would be a ceremony with parents only, no reception.

If you get flamed, then so do I, because ITA.  I don't think that a potluck wedding is every acceptable, unless it's only immediate family, and they put on the wedding.