Thread: I don't want to go to your wedding Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005713
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Here’s the thing. I don’t think you actually want to be married. I think you want to play the princess for a day in a (knowing you, very ugly) big poofy dress and big floaty veil and twinkly tiara, and have your family all fawn over you and get to be the centre of attention. Also you don’t like your job and you want a meal ticket. And word is (I share a pillow with your fiancé’s witness) that the groom doesn’t really want to get married either. He’s just turning up to make you happy and because he’s a coward who figures that marrying you is the easy way out (hint: it isn’t). It’s all going to end in tears. Have you noticed that he’s not actually interested in putting you before his children? I have. On the subject of his children, the Girl AKA Walking Adolescent Angst is going to spend all day next Saturday wearing a pretty dress and scowling like Medusa. She’s going to ruin your photos. The Boy will be as clingy and annoying as he usually is.
I thought you’d put this shindig together too fast to be a proper Bridezilla, but that thing where you advised us a mere week before the big do that we were all supposed to wear a special colour? Not going to happen. I’ve already bought an outfit, by way of a silver lining for having to turn up (an excuse for new clothes!), I don’t have time to go shopping again, and I’ll be damned if I’m paying for anything else. Anyway, we’ll probably all have to wrap in horse blankets because you’re getting married in Normandy in September and it’s going to be bloody freezing. Also it would be a good idea if you and the groom could agree on what time your wedding’s happening exactly. The groom’s witness has been given two conflicting pieces of information and if he’s not there you can’t get married (which might not be such a bad thing in the long run, but I assume you’ll be upset).
Your hen party could have been worse. At least your witness is quite classy. Didn’t know that she and you were that close, but I suppose you chose from a limited field, taken how you’ve been alienating all your friends lately. (Like K, for example. By the by, did you know K’s getting married as well? The difference is that she actually looks radiant and happy and in love. See? I don’t have a problem with all weddings. It’s just yours I don’t want to go to.) And yes I bought you a present, because I have good manners and having agreed to go, I play the game. Although most of your friends didn’t bother, so I could have saved my money. Maybe they don’t really like you either. But you note that I didn’t buy you a sexy present or lacy undies? That’s because I know perfectly well that you’ve already slept together and your smalls hold no secrets for your betrothed. I actually don’t give a monkey’s about that – your problem – but I would really, really appreciate it if you stopped playing the Good Little Evangelical and pretending to be a blushing virgin. Hypocrite.
I’m deeply bummed that the world didn’t end last Saturday. I could have got out of going. You’d better be serving a very nice dinner.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Wow! Saucer of milk for table three please!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Perhaps a nice, temporary, infectious (but not fatal) malady could be acquired (or reported to be acquired ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)?
IJ
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
la vie en rouge--
"Don't mince words, Bones! Tell me what you *really* think!"--J.T. Kirk.
Sounds awful. I'm guessing skipping the whole thing isn't an option. Wishing the couple whatever's best about going ahead or cancelling.
And may you find a way to cope.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Yeesh.
I'm going to wait for the film adaptation.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
So don't fucking go. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Nothing to be done. People have to be stupid. (God knows we can see this in American politics.)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I'm reminded of Mr. Punch's advice to persons about to embark upon matrimony:
'Don't.'
IJ
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Have you noticed that he’s not actually interested in putting you before his children?
I should hope he isn't. Children are for life.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
"I'm terribly sorry, but I promised myself I'd straighten out my sock drawer that day. So I won't be able to attend."
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Have you noticed that he’s not actually interested in putting you before his children?
I should hope he isn't. Children are for life.
Whether (second) spouses or children come first is certainly a topic which one could discuss and opinions will vary. My only point is that Bride is deceiving herself about her relationship. She wants to come first and she’s not going to.
Why are we going? Essentially because Groom is (or rather was – he’s become a whole lot less fun since being coupled up ) one of my husband’s best friends and we don’t want to burn our bridges with him entirely. Which we would if we told him we weren’t going to his wedding.
(BTW, I didn’t bring it up earlier, but can I just mention how pleased I am that my spellchecker recognises the word “bridezilla”?)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Have you noticed that he’s not actually interested in putting you before his children?
I should hope he isn't. Children are for life.
Whether (second) spouses or children come first is certainly a topic which one could discuss and opinions will vary.
Not for long.
Prior to my 2nd marriage my (never married) husband-to-be was briefly concerned that (when asked) I made clear that daughter would always come first. He consulted with two married friends: "is it normal for your wife to put your kids first?". One, a new father with a brand-new baby, pondered the question for a brief moment. The other-- having been a father for several years with a couple of toddlers-- laughed at them both, mocking the new father for not realizing that "you were #2 before the epidural wore off".
The subject never came up again. We've been married for 28 years now and have a newly empty nest. I adore my better half but kids are still first. Well, except they've now been supplanted by granddaughter...
It's the way of life. Get used to it.
[ 25. September 2017, 15:03: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
I also hate weddings. Always held in the scorching summer heat. I am actually impressed to hear that the one discussed in the OP is being done in a chilly locale.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Also it would be a good idea if you and the groom could agree on what time your wedding’s happening exactly. The groom’s witness has been given two conflicting pieces of information and if he’s not there you can’t get married (which might not be such a bad thing in the long run, but I assume you’ll be upset).
I am aware of at least one wedding in it was somehow arranged that the bride believed the starting time was half an hour earlier than everyone else, in the hope that this way there was at least a chance the ceremony would start on time ...
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Dear xxxx
Sorry I can't make it to your sham of a wedding. I will book some time in three months for the divorce party.
I hope you found someone who can make a dress that makes you look good. That would be an achievement - have you considered these people or similar? And I gather your make up providers are very high class.
Anyhow, do let me know if you need anything. So I can do my manic laughing, you fucking loser.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
I'm sure that comes/came as a massive relief to any of your friends or family who are/were planning their wedding.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Prior to my 2nd marriage my (never married) husband-to-be was briefly concerned that (when asked) I made clear that daughter would always come first. He consulted with two married friends: "is it normal for your wife to put your kids first?". One, a new father with a brand-new baby, pondered the question for a brief moment. The other-- having been a father for several years with a couple of toddlers-- laughed at them both, mocking the new father for not realizing that "you were #2 before the epidural wore off".
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
Hahahahaha
Yes, the man and woman decide to get married, he gives her a $5000 ring, she gives him a big kiss. She decides they're going to have a huge wedding with a rented hall, a catered dinner, a band and a $8000 dress; and her father is going to pay for it. She and her mother plan every last detail and make every decision with any ideas from the groom quickly laughed to the ground.
The big day comes and somewhere in between her grand entrance and the embarrassing vows she's written for the two of them, the pastor might be permitted to say the line, "Who gives this woman in marriage?" to the father. It's about as literal in meaning as her white dress. That's the sum total of your awful patriarchy.
[ 25. September 2017, 21:45: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Oh Twilight, you're trying to teach a pig to sing. Might as well give up now.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Why are we going? Essentially because Groom is (or rather was – he’s become a whole lot less fun since being coupled up ) one of my husband’s best friends and we don’t want to burn our bridges with him entirely. Which we would if we told him we weren’t going to his wedding.
Told him? Pshaw. Tell him you're going and then have a breakdown (of the automotive variety) motoring through the bleak and empty countryside to get to Normandy.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I know perfectly well that you’ve already slept together and your smalls hold no secrets for your betrothed.
What are "smalls"?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
I'm sure that comes/came as a massive relief to any of your friends or family who are/were planning their wedding.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Next Leo will be telling us that PIV sex is always a product of Patriarchy, and is always de facto rape. I've heard that before from ultrafeminists. It must be true.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What are "smalls"?
Underwear.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Isn't this why people get drunk at weddings and then go shout rude things in each other's faces?
I once went to a Macedonian/Greek wedding. It was huge, there must have been 200 people there. They had two bands, one played Macedonian music and the other Greek music. There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night. My wife and I left at the first available opportunity (our signature style), and in my imagination there was a massive fight just after the whiskey ran out. The couple, about 10 years later, are happily married with two kids. Who says mixed marriages can't work.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
Mixed marriages do work, though my father was uneasy about me marrying an American, almost 45 years ago. It worked, though.
The story is a familiar one. I've been to some happy funerals and some gruesome weddings of the kind predicted here. Funerals hardly ever turn out badly months or years after the event.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Ensure your outfit includes a nice warm shrug (and possibly woolly socks).
Other than that, there's always remarking audibly from the back of the church: 'I've had them both, and they were both lousy'.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
That's a lot of hours spent doing something you don't want to....
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Welcome to the wonderful world of adulting.
la vie en rouge, I can perfectly understand both why you don't want to go to this wedding and why you feel like you have to, but is it wise to vent your feelings about it in a public forum?
[ 26. September 2017, 09:56: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
I suppose more women than not feel that Forward in Faith and similar outfits have to more to do with patriarchy than weddings have. Do you refuse to attend conservative Anglo-Catholic Mass?
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night.
I can't get over this. To someone like my husband who can't resist anything free, such a set-up could prove deadly.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
la vie en rouge, I can perfectly understand both why you don't want to go to this wedding and why you feel like you have to, but is it wise to vent your feelings about it in a public forum?
I doubt the bridezilla is spending her time scanning obscure english-language relgious bulletin boards.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Have you noticed that he’s not actually interested in putting you before his children? [...]
I would really, really appreciate it if you stopped playing the Good Little Evangelical and pretending to be a blushing virgin. Hypocrite.
Shouldn't the kids come first, if he already has some?
And if the couple end up divorced they won't be 'Good Little Evangelicals' any more, so it's all good, isn't it?
But I can understand not wanting to go to someone else's wedding. I avoided one myself, recently. Mostly by being on another continent.
[ 26. September 2017, 11:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
I'm quite good at developing migraines after the service and before the party. That way one goes to the wedding but avoids most of the unpleasantness (leaving more time to tidy one's sock drawer).
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
Hahahahaha
Yes, the man and woman decide to get married, he gives her a $5000 ring, she gives him a big kiss. She decides they're going to have a huge wedding with a rented hall, a catered dinner, a band and a $8000 dress; and her father is going to pay for it. She and her mother plan every last detail and make every decision with any ideas from the groom quickly laughed to the ground.
The big day comes and somewhere in between her grand entrance and the embarrassing vows she's written for the two of them, the pastor might be permitted to say the line, "Who gives this woman in marriage?" to the father. It's about as literal in meaning as her white dress. That's the sum total of your awful patriarchy.
"and her father is going to pay for it"
Actually, isn't that bit about her father paying for it pretty rooted in patriarchy, ie. he's paying the other father to take a female child off of his hands, female offspring being generally viewed as a burden on the family finances and resources. That's always been how I've understood the tradition.
Now yes, if you mean "the bride's father as opposed to the bride's mother", then the man is getting the worst of it(since he's the one spending the cash, but has little say in how it's used). But insofar as a particular wedding follows the practice of the bride's family(as opposed to the groom's family) having to make the financial sacrifice, I'd say it's a pretty deep bow to the traditional devaluation of females.
[ 26. September 2017, 12:28: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Nowadays the 'happy' couple quite often foot the bill themselves. And the tradition of the bride's family paying for the wedding reception (in the UK, the groom is supposed to pay any costs associated with the wedding ceremony; licence/banns, minister's fee etc.) is not universal.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
I think most of the weddings I'm involved in these days the couples are paying their own way - often, but not always with help from parents on either side. Equal vows, equal words at the exchange of rings. The bride is usually (but not always) accompanied up the aisle by her father, but it is her choice (made in private before the rehearsal) whether I ask "Who brings* this woman to be married to this man?". No words are provided at that point for the bringer** to say.
[* not the BCP's "giveth" - although **the giver - even in the BCP - in the BCP could be "a friend" - no gender specified. Father still seems to be the default option, but I've seen mothers, sons and daughters as well as male father-alternatives, as well as couples coming in together arm in arm.]
It can be argued that mutual promises of lifelong commitment are inherently patriarchal. They seem, however, to be popular not only between mixed sex couples, but also for same sex couples - so I suspect that there is more to it than a mere hangover from patriarchy.
Of course there are other more patriarchal cultural accretions to weddings which I'm not very fond of - but they are not of the essence of the marriage, and very rarely an accurate reflection of the couple's self understanding and are just done because "that's how weddings are" with little or no thought to their semiotics.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Nowadays the 'happy' couple quite often foot the bill themselves. And the tradition of the bride's family paying for the wedding reception (in the UK, the groom is supposed to pay any costs associated with the wedding ceremony; licence/banns, minister's fee etc.) is not universal.
Yeah, I know, but Twilight's example included the bride's father paying for it, as an example of a non-patriarchal practice.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
The rest of you are reading leo wrong. He is protesting the sexism inherent in pirate weddings.
I have not yet subscribed to the theory that Shipmate #1458 is actually a collective of bored art students, but goddamn do his typos cheer me up.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The art students would have said something interesting by now.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Posting a lot without saying anything interesting is an art form in itself. Many aspire, but few achieve it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
I suppose more women than not feel that Forward in Faith and similar outfits have to more to do with patriarchy than weddings have. Do you refuse to attend conservative Anglo-Catholic Mass?
Went to one last week but don't often - an exception because a friend of mine was being inducted to his new parish - indeed, I left my previous church when it joined F in F.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Next Leo will be telling us that PIV sex is always a product of Patriarchy, and is always de facto rape. I've heard that before from ultrafeminists. It must be true.
No - but if you listen to what Jesus says about 'family'....
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Went to one last week but don't often - an exception because a friend of mine was being inducted to his new parish - indeed, I left my previous church when it joined F in F.
So you don't go to your friends' weddings, because patriarchy, but will go to your friend's induction into a F in F parish, because somehow less patriarchy?
You are, of course, free to attend or not as you choose, but this seems a bit inconsistent. Unless it's just that the friend who was inducted into the F in F parish is closer to you than the people who invite you to weddings, and you'll make an exception to either your wedding or your F in F rule for close friends only.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Ensure your outfit includes a nice warm shrug
Let's hope it's a Gallic shrug.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I wonder how many members of the clergy have been tempted to start a thread like this after leading the marriage preparation course ...
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
The rest of you are reading leo wrong. He is protesting the sexism inherent in pirate weddings.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Leo, it's clear you just don't like weddings, and use Patriarchy to pin your dislike upon, so you can pretend your avoidance of them is for moral reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Now yes, if you mean "the bride's father as opposed to the bride's mother", then the man is getting the worst of it(since he's the one spending the cash, but has little say in how it's used). But insofar as a particular wedding follows the practice of the bride's family(as opposed to the groom's family) having to make the financial sacrifice, I'd say it's a pretty deep bow to the traditional devaluation of females.
And in a culture where the husband pays a "bride price" to the father of the bride, that's patriarchy too. So, bride's family pays groom's family, patriarchy. Groom's family pays bride's family, patriarchy. When do they get to cancel out?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And in a culture where the husband pays a "bride price" to the father of the bride, that's patriarchy too. So, bride's family pays groom's family, patriarchy. Groom's family pays bride's family, patriarchy. When do they get to cancel out?
I'm really confused about where you're going with this, and perhaps that means I'm too tired, but just in case: Yes, both of those are patriarchal. In both cases, the power is (at least on paper) vested in the menfolk of the two families. It doesn't matter whether I buy your daughter or you pay me to take her off your hands - both are patriarchal.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night. My wife and I left at the first available opportunity (our signature style) ...
There was a bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table and you guys bailed?!? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night. My wife and I left at the first available opportunity (our signature style) ...
There was a bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table and you guys bailed?!?
Maybe the simontoads preferred a single malt? At any rate, that would have kept me there for a while.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
Hahahahaha
Yes, the man and woman decide to get married, he gives her a $5000 ring, she gives him a big kiss. She decides they're going to have a huge wedding with a rented hall, a catered dinner, a band and a $8000 dress; and her father is going to pay for it. She and her mother plan every last detail and make every decision with any ideas from the groom quickly laughed to the ground.
The big day comes and somewhere in between her grand entrance and the embarrassing vows she's written for the two of them, the pastor might be permitted to say the line, "Who gives this woman in marriage?" to the father. It's about as literal in meaning as her white dress. That's the sum total of your awful patriarchy.
You two are so right together...! It would make a great movie, you know, the ones where they seethe with hatred for each other, right up until the point they realise they're in love...
Seriously, though: While I'm plenty prepared to believe that weddings can perpetrate patriarchy, and may, sometimes, approximate Twilight's caricature, I have not, in my whole life, attended a wedding that is anything like what she describes. It's obviously a fairly traumatic and scarring experience. If it helps at all to restore your faith in humanity, Twilight, I had an $800* ring, a $600 dress, no band, 100 people to a buffet dinner, made all decisions (apart from dress) in concert with fiancee, with $1000 dollars provided by each set of parents and the rest coming from our own pockets. We were graduate students at the time, so the pockets weren't very deep. (I know, anecdata...)
I wore a white dress, which I had a 'literal' right to do, according to your styling. Though I'd have worn blue if I felt like it - or purple, or whatever. The whole virginity thing isn't important to me now, but it was at the time. And you'd better freaking believe no-one asked my father if he was giving me away! I had lived 600 miles away from 'home' for five years by that point - I was well and truly off his hands. Nor did anyone ceremonially unveil me, seeing as I'm not a painting, or a slab of granite, or a piece of merchandise (yeah, I see the patriarchy in that bit).
*That's NZD we're talking about - edging ever closer to parity with yours but at about 50 USC at the time I married.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
My DIL had a £30 dress off eBay - she looked amazing, as did her bridesmaids with dresses of the same price.
Here she is.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I've never understood the idea of really expensive weddings--or the insanely expensive ones some celebs and rich people have.
IMHO, have a simple, creatively-inexpensive wedding. If you can't afford an expensive wedding, then you'll save yourself a lot of debt and interest. If you do have money, then put the surplus towards a house, or in certificates of deposit, or in a retirement account. Even give some to charity.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Boogie: quote:
My DIL had a £30 dress off eBay - she looked amazing, as did her bridesmaids with dresses of the same price.
Well, if we're playing 'who had the least expensive wedding dress', mine cost £25. Wait... that was 28 years ago, so allowing for inflation your daughter-in-law still wins.
As you were.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
We have a family saying about weddings: If they're your friends you invite them to your wedding - all of it, not just part - and if they're you're friends they'll be happy to be there and for a cup of tea after, and a bun would be a bonus.
While giving people something more than a cuppa and a bun, we held firm to this when my late-lamented and I tied the knot: dress from provincial French dress shop cost c£30; clothing for groom and sons £250; cake was homemaid and iced by friend; flowers, including posy for bride, etc, came to £80; musicians were free because all friends; catering was done by us (with a little help from Waitrose and local wine merchant); reception venue was friends' garden with tables and chairs borrowed from parish hall. Total cost of wedding £1,350.
I've already given the children the wedding talk: get married at civilised time, have good buffet lunch reception, tea dance if you like, bu**er off by 7pm. There is no such thing as a "perfect wedding" and the one ingredient which has to be perfect is the person - after that its all just frills.
LVeR Go to the wedding, have as much fun as you can, make notes so that if/when it breaks up you can help with distraught party with a vivious critique of the occasion and point out the omens which foretold disaster.
[ 27. September 2017, 11:01: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Also it would be a good idea if you and the groom could agree on what time your wedding’s happening exactly. The groom’s witness has been given two conflicting pieces of information and if he’s not there you can’t get married (which might not be such a bad thing in the long run, but I assume you’ll be upset).
I am aware of at least one wedding in it was somehow arranged that the bride believed the starting time was half an hour earlier than everyone else, in the hope that this way there was at least a chance the ceremony would start on time ...
I always, casually, ask couples to remind me what time they are going to be married a month before the service, having learned the hard way that if they make changes to their plans they don't always see fit to keep the clergy (and therefore by extension the choir, organist and other people whose services they are, casually, taking for granted) in the loop.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
For our wedding we used a (very) large building with plenty of seating and a musical instrument built in as some sort of fixture. It involved a lot of metal parts that stuck up in front of the back wall.
We dressed in clothes and demanded that everyone else dress in clothes as well. With the exception of me, everyone picked out the clothes they wore. I experienced the fact that my clothes choices were not to be mine alone from then on in life.
As to people not coming, we had a pretty strict policy. If they came, they were there. If they did not come, they were not there. There was no in between as the GoPro Wedding Cam® had not yet been invented.
Bless your heart, if you don't want to go to the damn wedding, don't go to the damn wedding.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Tortuf--
Bravo!
So you had your wedding in an old movie theater, complete with pipe organ?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Nowadays the 'happy' couple quite often foot the bill themselves. And the tradition of the bride's family paying for the wedding reception (in the UK, the groom is supposed to pay any costs associated with the wedding ceremony; licence/banns, minister's fee etc.) is not universal.
The tradition here is that the groom's parents host the rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding, the groom pays for costs of the wedding—license, honorarium for clergy, fees for musicians, etc.—and the bride's parents pay for flowers at the wedding (which many churches limit to one or two arrangements) and the reception after the wedding. As others have said, this is often not followed anymore, particularly if the spouses to be are already out working.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
You have a rehearsal dinner the night before? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You obviously take weddings much more seriously than we do...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The bride is usually (but not always) accompanied up the aisle by her father, but it is her choice (made in private before the rehearsal) whether I ask "Who brings* this woman to be married to this man?". No words are provided at that point for the bringer** to say.
[* not the BCP's "giveth" - although **the giver - even in the BCP - in the BCP could be "a friend" - no gender specified. Father still seems to be the default option, but I've seen mothers, sons and daughters as well as male father-alternatives, as well as couples coming in together arm in arm.]
I've always liked the Jewish tradition of the groom being escorted in by both of his parents and the bride being escorted in by both of her parents.
[ 27. September 2017, 11:39: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You have a rehearsal dinner the night before?
Yes, that's standard here. It's not for everyone who'll be at the wedding. The guest list is normally the wedding party and anyone else who will have been at the rehearsal (clergy, musicians, etc., all with spouses/dates), the extended families on both sides and close friends of the might-as-well-be-family variety.
[ 27. September 2017, 11:48: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I made my older daughter's dress. The materials cost $110. I wanted to do it because it was the last time I would dress her, and I wanted to do it myself.
I couldn't make my younger daughter's dress because of health problems.
Their father was already dead at the time they got married. I told my older daughter that if anyone was going to give her away, I insisted that I be the one, since he couldn't be there. She decided not to have anyone give her away.
At my younger daughter's wedding, I escorted her down the aisle and then took my seat. When the priest asked, "Who gives this man and woman to each other?" the groom's parents and I said, "I do." I think there's a very good symbolism to this. It's the parents' statement that they are butting out.
Moo
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, the American tradition of the rehearsal dinner was forged in the fires of harsh necessity. It ensures that all members of the wedding party are there and in reasonable condition. Having a family party the night before gives grandparents, aunts, cousins etc. something to do -- they'd dine together anyway if they're from out of town. And having the wedding participants there gives everybody a chance to know each other (prevents the meeting of the groom at the altar kind of thing so beloved in Gothic novels: "Oh my God, Serena, Susie is marrying ... a Scotsman!"). The rowdier members of the party go to bed more or less sober, always a good thing.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I can see why you do it... but over here the only people who are actually *required* to attend the wedding rehearsal are the bride and groom and the vicar/minister. Unless you're having one of these elaborate 'Hello!'-inspired bashes and the bridesmaids have to do some fancy footwork, but in most weddings all they have to do is march up the aisle on the way in and form an orderly queue on the way out. And we're British; queuing comes quite naturally to us.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Sometimes it's not just the bridesmaids who trip the light fantastic....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsbVL4dJtbk
I'll get me coat.
IJ
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Went to one last week but don't often - an exception because a friend of mine was being inducted to his new parish - indeed, I left my previous church when it joined F in F.
So you don't go to your friends' weddings, because patriarchy, but will go to your friend's induction into a F in F parish, because somehow less patriarchy?
You are, of course, free to attend or not as you choose, but this seems a bit inconsistent. Unless it's just that the friend who was inducted into the F in F parish is closer to you than the people who invite you to weddings, and you'll make an exception to either your wedding or your F in F rule for close friends only.
My friend has never been member of FinF nor SSC but is devoted to the sort of inner city challenge presents.
Plus I know very few married or marrying people - our generation seem happy just to cohabit. My church hardly ever does weddings.
[ 27. September 2017, 14:11: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I worked on the wedding team with our Altar Guild, and the number of startling calamities that can befall is very, very great. The great flaw of the wedding rehearsal dinner is that if there's food poisoning the entire event is in peril. I helped at a wedding where there was something tainted the night before, and all the participants were nauseous. I set a steel wastepaper basket behind the altar, so that if anyone hurled they could use it. The wedding was on a Saturday afternoon, and there was no possibility at all of having the sanctuary carpeting shampooed before Sunday services.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Leo, it's clear you just don't like weddings, and use Patriarchy to pin your dislike upon, so you can pretend your avoidance of them is for moral reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Now yes, if you mean "the bride's father as opposed to the bride's mother", then the man is getting the worst of it(since he's the one spending the cash, but has little say in how it's used). But insofar as a particular wedding follows the practice of the bride's family(as opposed to the groom's family) having to make the financial sacrifice, I'd say it's a pretty deep bow to the traditional devaluation of females.
And in a culture where the husband pays a "bride price" to the father of the bride, that's patriarchy too. So, bride's family pays groom's family, patriarchy. Groom's family pays bride's family, patriarchy. When do they get to cancel out?
Well, just because the opposite practice can be used for patriarchal ends, doesn't mean that the other one is any less patriarchal.
Paying a family to make take a woman off your hands is patriarchal. So is buying a woman like she's just another piece of property. Twilight used the former practice as her example, so that's the one I went with.
And I'm not sure how the two forms of transaction could "cancel each other out", unless they were both being done within the same family, which seems unlikely. Suffice to say that alternative, egalitarian approaches, involving no formulation of the bride as the subject of an economic transaction, do exist, the most popular likely being both families or both partners splitting the costs right down the middle.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here she is.
Nope, not unless your DIL is an error message (which I sincerely doubt).
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Plus I know very few married or marrying people - our generation seem happy just to cohabit.
More likely it's just you and your small circle of friends making a virtue out of a necessity by saying you don't want to marry.
quote:
My church hardly ever does weddings.
If your attitude is typical of the place, then that doesn't surprise me in the least.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Boogie: quote:
My DIL had a £30 dress off eBay - she looked amazing, as did her bridesmaids with dresses of the same price.
Well, if we're playing 'who had the least expensive wedding dress', mine cost £25. Wait... that was 28 years ago, so allowing for inflation your daughter-in-law still wins.
As you were.
This seems like the start of a Four Yorkshiremen sketch ...
'Luxury. I were married in a white bin bag wi' holes cut out for t' arms, and my mates gathered up t' soot out of t' blast furnace to use as confetti.'
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
<mock indignation> Who are you calling a man?!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
'You 'ad a white bin bag? Paradise! We used t'dream of 'aving white bin bags...'
(Perhaps we ought to adjourn to the Circus. I'll get me coat).
IJ
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
The flash mob in church seemed a little off to me, the reception hall is the place to dance.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Imagine how annoyed the OP would be if they had to pony up to attend a wedding.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
I remember reading somewhere about the Scots custom of the paying wedding, but didn't come up with much from Auntie Google apart from this:
Marriage customs, in common with those attendant on funerals, were formerly of an extravagant and peculiar character. When country couples were about to marry, all manner of contributions were showered upon them by their neighbours and friends. In olden times, it was customary for those who intended being present at the marriage to bestow a Penny Scots on the youthful pair; hence originated the term of Penny, or Paying Wedding.
With some allowance for inflation, it could still work.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I can see why you do it... but over here the only people who are actually *required* to attend the wedding rehearsal are the bride and groom and the vicar/minister.
In Nonconformist churches, it's also helpful to have the "Authorised Person" if that's not the Minister, to clear up the paperwork.
I like, if possible, to have the Best Man, Bridesmaids, Giver-away of the bride (if there is one) and Ushers ... the rehearsal is always a bit of a hoot, but it ensures that everything goes OK on the Big Day.
And I prefer to have the rehearsal two or thre days before the wedding.
[ 28. September 2017, 06:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Boogie: quote:
My DIL had a £30 dress off eBay - she looked amazing, as did her bridesmaids with dresses of the same price.
Well, if we're playing 'who had the least expensive wedding dress', mine cost £25. Wait... that was 28 years ago, so allowing for inflation your daughter-in-law still wins.
As you were.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
I remember reading somewhere about the Scots custom of the paying wedding...
One of George Macdonald's novels, set in early nineteenth century Scotland, has a scene where the peasant bride's family sets up a paying bar in their house to raise money to give the newlyweds a start. This was described as a traditional way of doing things
Moo
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The best way to get all the participants there several days in advance is to have a Destination Wedding. Which then opens an entirely new can of horrors. My sister had not one, but two.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I can see why you do it... but over here the only people who are actually *required* to attend the wedding rehearsal are the bride and groom and the vicar/minister.
In Nonconformist churches, it's also helpful to have the "Authorised Person" if that's not the Minister, to clear up the paperwork.
I like, if possible, to have the Best Man, Bridesmaids, Giver-away of the bride (if there is one) and Ushers ... the rehearsal is always a bit of a hoot, but it ensures that everything goes OK on the Big Day.
And I prefer to have the rehearsal two or thre days before the wedding.
Having a family style rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding might cut down on morning-after-the-stag-party disasters. Or not, if the groom and groomsmen are determined party-ers and take it on the road after the rehearsal dinner.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
When my father heard the costs of my 3 cousins' weddings he turned to me and said, "Feel free to elope."
Huia
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
After my sister's wedding, I had to promise my father that he could wear whatever clothes he wanted to mine and for shoes, if he wanted slippers then I was happy.
Jengie
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Plus I know very few married or marrying people - our generation seem happy just to cohabit.
More likely it's just you and your small circle of friends making a virtue out of a necessity by saying you don't want to marry.
quote:
My church hardly ever does weddings.
If your attitude is typical of the place, then that doesn't surprise me in the least.
We're in the top 40% attendance-wise.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Went to one last week but don't often - an exception because a friend of mine was being inducted to his new parish - indeed, I left my previous church when it joined F in F.
So you don't go to your friends' weddings, because patriarchy, but will go to your friend's induction into a F in F parish, because somehow less patriarchy?
You are, of course, free to attend or not as you choose, but this seems a bit inconsistent. Unless it's just that the friend who was inducted into the F in F parish is closer to you than the people who invite you to weddings, and you'll make an exception to either your wedding or your F in F rule for close friends only.
Actually, the comparison of Forward in Faith to patriarchy isn’t right.
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
They’re not against women’s ministry but against women’s presbyteral ministry – priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
A slight tangent/
Bit of a whiff of defunct quadruped around here, but I don't think I've ever heard of F-in-F being described in quite those terms!
Our former priest (F-in-F) once told me that he had no problem with Wimmin, as long as they kept their pinafores on, and stayed in the kitchen. He did not say this within earshot of his Lovely Wife..
IJ
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They’re not against women’s ministry but against women’s presbyteral ministry – priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
Either they also don't want women making the tea, cleaning the floors, or performing any other service roles, or I call bullshit on this idea. Priests are servants, but not all servants are priests.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the Orthodox church I am told that only priests are allowed to go into the sanctuary behind the altar rail. I assume this means they do their own vacuuming, plumbing repair, etc.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Actually, the comparison of Forward in Faith to patriarchy isn’t right.
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
They’re not against women’s ministry but against women’s presbyteral ministry – priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
Are you serious? I don't know whether to
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
or
Huia
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Claims to hate patriarchy.
States that women are unsuited to leadership positions in the church.
Fails to see the problem.
That's our leo! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
There does seem to be a large element of cognitive dissonance in leo's stance here. It sounds to me as though he fears Girl Cooties, though.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
They’re not against women’s ministry but against women’s presbyteral ministry – priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
So...
(Male) priests have a lower status than women, because priests are servants.
The priests serve everyone, including women.
Women's gifts/callings include household management.
Household management includes managing servants, tradesfolk, etc.
Therefore...
Women can fire priests, as needed.
And, to borrow from "Jurassic Park", woman inherits the earth!
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Disco flash mobs are ok, but I've become fond of Hamilton start Lin Manual Miranda's wedding reception surprise
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
There does seem to be a large element of cognitive dissonance in leo's stance here. It sounds to me as though he fears Girl Cooties, though.
I was quoting the views of Fin F, not my own views.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Claims to hate patriarchy.
States that women are unsuited to leadership positions in the church.
Fails to see the problem.
That's our leo!
Read for understanding, not to bolster your own prejudice.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
When my father heard the costs of my 3 cousins' weddings he turned to me and said, "Feel free to elope."
Huia
My father said that to me several times while I was growing up. My mother never mentioned weddings to me one way or another, although, as I learned later, she had lots of plans in her head.
When I actually did elope they were really angry.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
My late Father, on the day before my first wedding, said 'It's not too late to change your mind, boy!'.
I often wondered subsequently what he had seen that I hadn't...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
IJ
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
When I was a bank teller, I said that to a very nervous groom to be who I was waiting on. Everyone thought I was awful for saying that, but they didn't know how often I had wished someone had said that to me on the big day.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
When my father heard the costs of my 3 cousins' weddings he turned to me and said, "Feel free to elope."
Huia
My father said that to me several times while I was growing up. My mother never mentioned weddings to me one way or another, although, as I learned later, she had lots of plans in her head.
When I actually did elope they were really angry.
As it turned out I neither got married or eloped, but I know my Mother would have been very hurt and angry at an elopement. She was upset enough went I had my B.A just sent to me in the post, rather than at the capping ceremony. To buy her off I promised that I would have my next degree conferred in person - not intending to undertake further study. She had the last laugh though, because when I completed my Masters she reminded me of my promise.
Huia
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
She was upset enough went I had my B.A just sent to me in the post, rather than at the capping ceremony.
I wasn't planning to attend any of my graduations. I didn't even graduate from my undergraduate institution until quite some time after I was qualified to do so, I was that unbothered about the paperwork. But my mother got wind of this idea, and now her walls are resplendent with my begowned photos. I'm happy that she's happy...
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I did not attend my graduation when I received my Bachelors (the only degree I've received). But I borrowed a friend's cap and gown and had her take a picture of me to send to my grandmother.
(I got the idea to do that from a friend who had graduated from a university in Ohio, near Kent State, in June of 1970. Her school wasn't directly affected by the shooting, but cancelled graduation ceremonies to be on the safe side, or possibly to share in the mourning. My own graduation was a few years later, and not in Ohio.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the Orthodox church I am told that only priests are allowed to go into the sanctuary behind the altar rail. I assume this means they do their own vacuuming, plumbing repair, etc.
No one is allowed in the altar who does not have a purpose for being there. Since women are not clergy they don't have that reason to be there. Some of the more girl-cooties-fearing Orthodox don't even let them clean. You can be sure that a women's monastery, the nuns will be cleaning in the altar.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Actually, the comparison of Forward in Faith to patriarchy isn’t right.
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
They’re not against women’s ministry but against women’s presbyteral ministry – priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
That's not what those of us looking in see - and that's not what women in those circles tell me they experience. It's all a boys club with clear misogynist tendencies and expressions
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
Regarding my own graduations from Universities unnamed, I would not have bothered with the fuss and feathers of the ceremony, Canada Post being good enough for me. But when Mother heard of my plans, or lack of them, for my BA, she burst into tears, me having successfully dodged graduation ceremonies at high school, and I had to go through with it, despite having a stinking cold.
I was wiser at my Master's graduation, and resignedly invited her along, but instead of having her cooing over the whole thing at a restaurant dinner, I insisted on a private dinner at the house I lived in, figuring that Mother would be distracted by two toddlers and a baby obviously to be (my friend was in the 7th month of her third pregnancy - they went on to have SEVEN children). That went well ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
It irritates hell out of me when men assume they know what my gifts and callings are because I am a woman. It is true that there are differences between men as a group and women as a group, but there is a huge amount of overlap.
Very few women have the physical strength to be piano-movers, but if a woman has the strength and wants to do it, there is no reason why she shouldn't.
When I was in college, some of the male students told me I had the mind of a man. They thought they were paying me a compliment, but they were actually telling me I was a freak. I don't have the mind of a man; I have the mind of an intelligent woman.
Moo
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
It irritates hell out of me when men assume they know what my gifts and callings are because I am a woman. It is true that there are differences between men as a group and women as a group, but there is a huge amount of overlap.
Very few women have the physical strength to be piano-movers, but if a woman has the strength and wants to do it, there is no reason why she shouldn't.
When I was in college, some of the male students told me I had the mind of a man. They thought they were paying me a compliment, but they were actually telling me I was a freak. I don't have the mind of a man; I have the mind of an intelligent woman.
Moo
That's when you need that female piano mover to smack the smug off his face
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hate weddings - patriarrchy - so don 't go to any.
Hahahahaha
Yes, the man and woman decide to get married, he gives her a $5000 ring, she gives him a big kiss. She decides they're going to have a huge wedding with a rented hall, a catered dinner, a band and a $8000 dress; and her father is going to pay for it. She and her mother plan every last detail and make every decision with any ideas from the groom quickly laughed to the ground.
The big day comes and somewhere in between her grand entrance and the embarrassing vows she's written for the two of them, the pastor might be permitted to say the line, "Who gives this woman in marriage?" to the father. It's about as literal in meaning as her white dress. That's the sum total of your awful patriarchy.
You two are so right together...! It would make a great movie, you know, the ones where they seethe with hatred for each other, right up until the point they realise they're in love...
Seriously, though: While I'm plenty prepared to believe that weddings can perpetrate patriarchy, and may, sometimes, approximate Twilight's caricature, I have not, in my whole life, attended a wedding that is anything like what she describes. It's obviously a fairly traumatic and scarring experience. If it helps at all to restore your faith in humanity, Twilight, I had an $800* ring, a $600 dress, no band, 100 people to a buffet dinner, made all decisions (apart from dress) in concert with fiancee, with $1000 dollars provided by each set of parents and the rest coming from our own pockets. We were graduate students at the time, so the pockets weren't very deep. (I know, anecdata...)
I wore a white dress, which I had a 'literal' right to do, according to your styling. Though I'd have worn blue if I felt like it - or purple, or whatever. The whole virginity thing isn't important to me now, but it was at the time. And you'd better freaking believe no-one asked my father if he was giving me away! I had lived 600 miles away from 'home' for five years by that point - I was well and truly off his hands. Nor did anyone ceremonially unveil me, seeing as I'm not a painting, or a slab of granite, or a piece of merchandise (yeah, I see the patriarchy in that bit).
*That's NZD we're talking about - edging ever closer to parity with yours but at about 50 USC at the time I married.
The kind I described is the kind my husband's eight sisters had and the kind my cousin and her daughters had, but then they're all millionaires.
I, on the other hand eloped the first time and had a church wedding the second time, where I wore a blue dress that cost $19.99 and had 30 guests to a sit down dinner paid for by me with my minimum wage salary.
I'm also the only woman I know who has been married twice and never had an engagement ring of any kind -- and not because I said I didn't want one.
My point to Leo (and you) being that I've experienced all kinds of weddings and still don't see the horrid example of patriarchy in them. In fact what I see is just the opposite. A woman-thing done her way in the majority of cases, whether it be opulent or simple.
[ 30. September 2017, 16:52: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It irritates hell out of me when men assume they know what my gifts and callings are because I am a woman. ...
Ahh-men, and thank you, Moo.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A vast swathe of humanity would benefit from meeting my daughter. She's a US Army major. After she's done with you, you will know what a woman can do. And if you didn't vote against Obamacare, you might even have the medical attention you'll need.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Actually, the comparison of Forward in Faith to patriarchy isn’t right.
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
They’re not against women’s ministry but against women’s presbyteral ministry – priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
That's not what those of us looking in see - and that's not what women in those circles tell me they experience. It's all a boys club with clear misogynist tendencies and expressions
I recently chatted with a local A-C vicar. He is very much in favour of women's ministry. He was a curate when the first ordination of women took place in this Diocese and his vicar actually banned him from attending! Fortunately he stuck up two fingers at said vicar (metaphorically I think) and went anyway.
[ 30. September 2017, 17:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
It irritates hell out of me when men assume they know what my gifts and callings are because I am a woman. It is true that there are differences between men as a group and women as a group, but there is a huge amount of overlap.
Very few women have the physical strength to be piano-movers, but if a woman has the strength and wants to do it, there is no reason why she shouldn't.
When I was in college, some of the male students told me I had the mind of a man. They thought they were paying me a compliment, but they were actually telling me I was a freak. I don't have the mind of a man; I have the mind of an intelligent woman.
Moo
I said' the vast majority of Xians' - over half of those are women.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
They follow the vast majority of Christians in seeing women’s gifts and callings as distinctive.
I said' the vast majority of Xians' - over half of those are women.
Are you trying to argue that women can't be sexist? Or are you just too massively idiotic to realize that the statement is fundamental sexist, and that anybody who believes it is themselves sexist by definition?
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Women's and men's roles are shaped by society. This impacts the way women's and men's vocations are seen and understood. I get highly worried that with some the ordination of women is seen as fixing all the injustices in the current situation. It then becomes an excuse for not looking at the ways their own behaviour limits and restricts the roles others may take within the church.
Jengie
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo
I said' the vast majority of Xians' - over half of those are women.
Are you saying that the vast majority of Christian women believe that there is no overlap between the gifts and callings of women and the gifts and callings of men? AFAIK I don't know any Christian women who believe this.
Moo
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo
I said' the vast majority of Xians' - over half of those are women.
Are you saying that the vast majority of Christian women believe that there is no overlap between the gifts and callings of women and the gifts and callings of men? AFAIK I don't know any Christian women who believe this.
Moo
The vast majority of Xians are RC and Orthodox.
These churches teach that women cannot be ordained.
Over 50% s these churche’ members are women.
So, yes. There are women who oppose the OOW
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The vast majority of Xians are RC and Orthodox.
These churches teach that women cannot be ordained.
Over 50% s these churche’ members are women.
So, yes. There are women who oppose the OOW
Correlation is not causation.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Over 50% s these churche’ members are women.
I estimate 50% of married people are women.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The vast majority of Xians are RC and Orthodox.
These churches teach that women cannot be ordained.
Over 50% s these churche’ members are women.
So, yes. There are women who oppose the OOW
You take it for granted that all RC and Orthodox women agree with their church in this matter.
Moo
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are women who oppose the OOW
...and every last one of them is sexist. Just like you, you giant logic-resistant bubo.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The vast majority of Xians are RC and Orthodox.
These churches teach that women cannot be ordained.
Over 50% s these churche’ members are women.
So, yes. There are women who oppose the OOW
I know plenty of RC women who agree with their church's line that priests must be male. None of them would say anything at all like this earlier quote from you:
quote:
priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
but would instead talk about the priest standing in persona Christi and about how maleness was part of that.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night. My wife and I left at the first available opportunity (our signature style) ...
There was a bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table and you guys bailed?!?
My piss has a nicer colour and probably a better flavour.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Go ahead, do a taste test.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW to Cod:
Go ahead, do a taste test.
On the rocks, or straight up?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Wow. This thread really went off (as in a party going off) didn't it.
I've tried to resist posting this, but I have terrible impulse control. Whenever I see this thread pop up as "I don't want to go ..." I am driven to sing the Elvis Costello song 'I don't want to go to Chelsea.'
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Oh, my dear God. I think exactly the same thing every time I see the title.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I always think of the song that begins, "Please Mr.Custer, I don't wanna go."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are women who oppose the OOW
...and every last one of them is sexist. Just like you, you giant logic-resistant bubo.
How am I sexist just because I explain somone else's view?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The vast majority of Xians are RC and Orthodox.
These churches teach that women cannot be ordained.
Over 50% s these churche’ members are women.
So, yes. There are women who oppose the OOW
I know plenty of RC women who agree with their church's line that priests must be male. None of them would say anything at all like this earlier quote from you:
quote:
priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
but would instead talk about the priest standing in persona Christi and about how maleness was part of that.
Nor should they - F in F is Anglican, RCs aren't.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
It's probably best not to try to explain someone else's view, especially with this particular Dead Horse!
A couple of relatively young women at Our Place are opposed to OOW (on theological grounds, AIUI). I respect their views, though I cannot understand them or share them, and I believe they respect mine in return. That said, we carry on together with being The Church in our parish.
IJ
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Getting back to the subject of weddings, I see that the collapse of Monarch Airlines in the UK has affected one couple planning to get married in Gran Canaria, according to BBC News:
quote:
Alan Jee was due to get married in Gran Canaria on Saturday and arrived at Gatwick airport with 30 members of his family.
"I have spent £12,000 on my wedding and now I can't even go and get married," he said. "I am gutted, absolutely gutted, and my missus is in tears, an emotional wreck."
A shame, yes, of course - but the Marriage is more important than the Wedding, no? Hopefully, they'll survive the ordeal, perhaps going through a less-expensive ceremony here, and then live happily ever after.
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Getting back to the subject of weddings
I approve and endorse this message.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Destination weddings are full of the most awful peril. It is tons easier and cheaper, always, to get married in the church near your home. The notion of going to St. Lucia, or Napa (where my sister had hers) is madness.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yes, the daughter of one of my former crewmates went to some Foreign Part to get married, at enormous expense of £££.
My crewmate came back with tales of a beach too windy for the ceremony to be held thereupon, raw sewage coming out of the hotel taps, faulty paperwork that wasn't accepted in the UK as proof of marriage, etc. etc.
I'm happy to report, however, that the happy couple rose to the occasion, and are still together (with about 6 kidz now, I believe)!
IJ
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Destination weddings are full of the most awful peril.
I'd argue that it's a wedding that is orders of magnitude more perilous than any destination.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
So now I'm thinking of a new trend of Extreme Weddings.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So now I'm thinking of a new trend of Extreme Weddings.
New?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Most of those aren't extreme, they're themed. Extreme is zip-wiring over an active volcano.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The vast majority of Xians are RC and Orthodox.
These churches teach that women cannot be ordained.
Over 50% s these churche’ members are women.
So, yes. There are women who oppose the OOW
I know plenty of RC women who agree with their church's line that priests must be male. None of them would say anything at all like this earlier quote from you:
quote:
priests are servants – F in F don’t want to reduced women to the status of servants.
but would instead talk about the priest standing in persona Christi and about how maleness was part of that.
The official Roman Catholic line speaks of priest as servant.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Perhaps you missed my subtle direction earlier. Weddings, please, and their related enormities. Pretty certain the role of priests belongs on a different board.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I assisted backstage at a colossal wedding at our church, some years ago. Five bridesmaids, plus the bride, gathered in one of the rooms to dress. Alas, they had each brought a bottle. Six different horrible liqueurs, creme de menthe, Bailey's Irish cream, and so on. They passed these around and around and then tossed the empties into the wastepaper basket. Just imagining the witch's brew in their tummies makes me queasy. I was able to get them lined up to reel down the aisle, but the Lord alone knows what the reception was like. After that (the sight of the wastepaper basket was enough!) we got a no-liquor policy on the church campus.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Hopefully they saved the ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
for the reception (or the wedding-night bed.... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
).
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
They didn't do it on the sanctuary carpet, which is all I cared about. We have wall-to-wall around the altar area, to hide the panel in the floor that covers the immersion baptism pool.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Most of those aren't extreme, they're themed. Extreme is zip-wiring over an active volcano.
Back in the '60/'70s, IIRC, when marriage practices in the US were loosening up, there was a couple who had a sky-diving wedding--as in, their clergy jumped with them, and the vows were done in mid-air. I presume their witnesses were also there.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Now that's what I'm talking about.
Next stop, Pamplona.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Vis-a-vis brides or grooms who are intoxicated: in the UK being drunk during the ceremony can be grounds for annulment with the reasoning that excess alcohol can bring the whole issue of true/informed consent into question.
In layman's terms: if you absolutely MUST have a drink before your wedding, are you sure the wedding is the right thing for you?
30 years ago the vicar of the parish where I worked refused to marry a couple because the groom was clearly smashed and incoherent.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I wish this couple had gone for Pamplona. It would have added some atmosphere.
I went. It was cold. Also watching endless montages of someone else’s family photos is not my idea of thrilling entertainment (at least four videos – they’ve now all melded into one dreary fuzz – of a good ten minutes each). The only bit that broke through the monotony with a helping of distinct annoyance was in the series “my girlfriends” where bizarrely none of the people shown were actually close enough friends to be in the room on her wedding day. And then up pops a photo of Bridezilla and assorted other guests of the female persuasion at MY wedding. She’s offended all her own friends so my friends were called on to sub. The photo went by rather quickly so I’m not 100% sure, but I think there was at least one person on there she’s no longer speaking to. I was Cross™.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
But was the dinner good?
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
At my church the clergy have a rule: the marriage license has to be there. This rule was promulgated after some awful incident that was before my time, thank God, so I don't know the details. No license, no ceremony.
And thus at a wedding a few years ago, when the groom reported that he had left the license on the kitchen table, the rector stuck in his toes and refused to budge, even in the face of a churchful of guests and the entire bridal party. However, the reception was going to be in the undercroft. So the solution was simple -- everyone went downstairs and ate and drank and partied, having a wonderful time. The groom had to get into his car and drive back through traffic to fetch the license. He returned with the proper document, the happy congregation piled back upstairs into the pews, and the reception concluded with the actual ceremony. Everyone happy except, possibly, the groom, but one must hope that he had compensations.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At my church the clergy have a rule: the marriage license has to be there. This rule was promulgated after some awful incident that was before my time, thank God, so I don't know the details. No license, no ceremony.
I've always made sure we have it at least by the time of the wedding rehearsal, if not sooner.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But was the dinner good?
IJ
So-so. The starter was average; main course actually rather pleasant; cheese and dessert not bad but nothing special and I don’t really like pièce montée (French choux pastry dessert traditionally served at weddings – very common but I am far from alone in finding it too sweet and rich for the end of a large meal).
The wine was not bad either but I am am present under doctor’s orders and thus couldn’t survive the interminable slide show by drinking myself into a stupor.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Actually, living in France, and not being allowed to drink wine, sounds like a form of Purgatory, so you have my deepest sympathy.
IJ
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I really mean that, BTW. My sister lives in France, and one of the pleasures of visiting her is trying yet more of the local vintages (she's down in the bottom-right hand corner, in Aude).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I'm thinking of spending a year in France. Oh, and here's an exceptionally hellacious wedding. "Bonds was overseeing the wedding at a Chantilly park, while the 35-year-old victim, Tyonne Johns, of the District, was catering it. Afterward, the pair and members of the wedding party got into a verbal argument over chairs while cleaning up. It ended with Bonds stabbing Johns with a three-inch pocket knife." He's been acquitted, however.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
The only bit that broke through the monotony with a helping of distinct annoyance was in the series “my girlfriends”
For a great moment I thought we were talking about illustrations for the Groom's speech. Now that would have style.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
The only bit that broke through the monotony with a helping of distinct annoyance was in the series “my girlfriends”
For a great moment I thought we were talking about illustrations for the Groom's speech. Now that would have style.
Nah. The groom was a definite side-show to the Bride’s Big Day™. We had dinner a couple of days ago with someone else who was also there and he agreed that in order of visibility, the cast was made up of (1) Bridezilla (2) Bridezilla’s large Southern family and trailing way behind (3) Groom. Groom’s family were made so invisible as to be hardly worth a mention. Essentially there was a groom because Bridezilla couldn’t have a wedding without one.
That said, apparently marrying oneself is now a thing. Why do I suspect most of the people doing it are women?
[ 06. October 2017, 07:58: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
That said, apparently marrying oneself is now a thing. Why do I suspect most of the people doing it are women?
Poor thing couldn't find a frog.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
That said, apparently marrying oneself is now a thing. Why do I suspect most of the people doing it are women?
More men are happy to self-cohabitate WBOC. They don't need a fancy ceremony to self-love. They have that well in hand.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
boom-tish
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I'm waiting for the Guardian article on it, how it's the coming thing etc.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm preaching at a wedding tomorrow. Should I get LVER to come and "mystery guest" it?
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Are they having a pièce montée?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I have no idea: my responsibilities stop at the lectern!
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
In that case I shall have to decline just in case. Two of the sweet claggy suckers in the space of a week is more than I can stand.
(Pièce montée is a bit like the French equivalent of turkey at a British Christmas dinner. Everyone insists on having it despite the fact that almost no one actually likes it.)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I am off to a wedding I don't particularly want to go to tomorrow.
I no longer drink, and I have no assurances that there will be dancing at the reception. I cannot even.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I am off to a wedding I don't particularly want to go to tomorrow.
I no longer drink, and I have no assurances that there will be dancing at the reception. I cannot even.
Enjoy the slideshow.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
(Pièce montée is a bit like the French equivalent of turkey at a British Christmas dinner. Everyone insists on having it despite the fact that almost no one actually likes it.)
I like turkey.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Depends on the pièce montée, LVER: a croquembouche can be lovely and despite looking pretty spectacular is really very easy to make.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Enjoy the slideshow.
Is France the only country in which a slideshow of the bride and groom growing up to the theme of The Persuaders is practically mandatory at the reception?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Good free-range turkey is very enjoyable, very adaptable to a wide ranges of dishes and cuisines.
As to the croquembouche - very popular here as it's easy to serve, proportions easily variable and makes an acceptable end to a meal.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Enjoy the slideshow.
Is France the only country in which a slideshow of the bride and groom growing up to the theme of The Persuaders is practically mandatory at the reception?
The theme may vary.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is France the only country in which a slideshow of the bride and groom growing up to the theme of The Persuaders is practically mandatory at the reception?
May it please God to stay so.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Enjoy the slideshow.
Is France the only country in which a slideshow of the bride and groom growing up to the theme of The Persuaders is practically mandatory at the reception?
Is that what Sioni meant? Is that really a thing? I have never seen such a thing. I hope never to see such a thing.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
The last wedding I went to there were Morris dancers: I don't think the music was the Persuaders...
I do however now have that as an ear worm, which feels pretty hellish.
M.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Is France the only country in which a slideshow of the bride and groom growing up to the theme of The Persuaders is practically mandatory at the reception?
Eerrghh. Not seen that, but I did attend a 'humanist celebration' at which two pretty glass jars of different (rather vibrantly) coloured sand were poured into one.
Beside being a rather eloquent demonstration of entropy, it also struck me as a compact and timely treatise on the futility of compromise; the eurky mix being an outcome no-one really wanted.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is France the only country in which a slideshow of the bride and groom growing up to the theme of The Persuaders is practically mandatory at the reception?
May it please God to stay so.
Particularly awkward when there's a large age gap so you end up with a photo of a 30 something guy next to a toddler
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Video with Persuaders theme: tick
Pièce montée: tick
But a good time was had by all.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I am off to a wedding I don't particularly want to go to tomorrow.
I no longer drink, and I have no assurances that there will be dancing at the reception. I cannot even.
In my college days, went to the Southern Baptist wedding of a high school friend. Well, bride's sister was a friend. I was mostly there for drinks and dancing. Mostly dancing.
First sign things were going off the rails: minister sped through "love is patient, love is kind" en route to "wives, submit to your husbands." Slowed waaaaayyyy down there.
Next sign: no dance floor. That's okay, I assume we'll just move some tables aside once the Obligatory Concrete Wedding Cake* is cleared away.
Next next sign: groom's fraternity brothers assemble for a presentation to the bride. "Whenever one of us did something special, we'd give him a bottle of cream soda. So now, Andromache, we'd like to welcome you . . ."
And they all file up with bottles of cream soda. I turn to Sister.
"Cream soda's a euphemism, right?"
"It was a Baptist fraternity. That's cream soda."
" . . . Baptists don't dance, either?"
"Nope."
*And la Vie, I'll trade you you piece montée for an American three-tiered wedding cake. In order to support the weight of the upper tiers, the lower ones have to be sufficiently strong, it has to look Perfect for sitting out during the soft jazz photo montage (and prior setup), the fondant decorations can't show the slightest sign of damage or deterioration during transit, setup, or waiting . . . meaning you get something built more for structural integrity than taste. Dry, tough, and bland interior with rock hard icing. You're supposed to save a tier and "enjoy" it on anniversaries—and it's a sort of cake that doesn't taste any worse after a year or two in the freezer.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
We have 'Wedding Cakes' like that in Ukland.
Very expensive £££ too.
After a year or two, you can collect various bits together, and build a shed that will survive the onslaughts of cockroaches and/or a nuclear holocaust.
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You're welcome.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
If it's by Huntley & Palmers, it will indeed still be edible.
Well, the CAKE bit, anyway - not too sure about the icing...
IJ
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
The tradition here is to keep the top tier of the wedding cake for the first christening. Our cake was 5 1/2 years old before our first-born was christened. The icing had to be re-done, but the cake itself was fine. I've eaten older wedding-turned-christening cakes than that.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
A couple I knew saved the top tier of their cake for their First Anniversary. They lived in a small apartment with a tiny refrigerator and a freezer just big enough to hold the tier of cake. So for a year, they could never buy frozen groceries in advance of eating them, nor could they freeze leftovers. The First Anniversary came along -- the top tier had been made of Styrofoam.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
Keeping tiers in the UK works pretty well because they tend to be fruitcake which keeps better because you feed it with ALCOHOL.
Are the frozen tiers in US cakes maybe sponge?
My Mum was tasked with re-icing a friend's wedding cake (baked by her Gran) for her daughter's christening. It turned out to be booze-less and therefore green and mouldy One mercy dash to the supermarket for a half dozen Dundee cakes and no one was the wiser.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
"It was a Baptist fraternity. That's cream soda."
" . . . Baptists don't dance, either?"
"Nope."
I once went to a Baptist wedding (or it might have been free evangelical - I forget) where pretty much everyone was a Believer...except the best man.
Come the best man's speech, he starts with a few bland compliments to the bridesmaids, as you do, and then...
quote:
Anyway, a bloke goes into a greengrocers, and behind the counter is this woman with enormous tits.
Cue utter silence, tumbleweed in the aisles, and frantic stifled gasps of manic laughter from those of us around a slightly less up-tight table. I'll give you the rest of the joke, 'cos it's a good one.
quote:
So he says, 'I'd like a pound of tits / I mean a pound of oranges please', and the woman hands him a bag of oranges.
Later that night he's in the pub with a couple of mates. 'A weird thing happened this morning - I was in the greengrocers and I tried to ask for a pound of oranges. But instead, I asked for a pound of tits!' [yes folks. If it were possible, the silence deepens each time the fateful word is uttered].
One of his mates pipes up. 'You know that's what's called a Freudian Slip.'
'What's one of them, then?'
'It's when you say what's really on your mind, instead of what you thought you were going to say'.
At this, the second drinker pricks up his ears.
'Funny that - that happened to me just this morning. I was sitting at breakfast with the missus, and I went to ask her to pass the salt. But instead, I said "I hate yer, yer bitch, you've ruined me life"'.
He kept going, too. What a pro.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I was the Best Man.
At a Baptist wedding.
Fortunately, not that one...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Most seemly and edifying.....not!!
IJ
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well if we're into anecdotes... I was once at a wedding performed by a pastor who was really more of an evangelist.
Guests were greeted at the venue by a giveaway gospel of John. The reading was the story of the woman at the well in John 4, and the pastor took as his text verse 18:
quote:
you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband
The fact that he somehow went on from this to deliver an evangelistic message instead of doing anything remotely related to the occasion was probably a relative mercy, but guests could clearly be seen eyeing up escape routes.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well if we're into anecdotes... I was once at a wedding performed by a pastor who was really more of an evangelist.
Guests were greeted at the venue by a giveaway gospel of John. The reading was the story of the woman at the well in John 4, and the pastor took as his text verse 18:
quote:
you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband
The fact that he somehow went on from this to deliver an evangelistic message instead of doing anything remotely related to the occasion was probably a relative mercy, but guests could clearly be seen eyeing up escape routes.
There's an excuse for that: he should have cited 1 John 4:18 (ie, the first epistle, not the Gospel) which reads "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Not my anecdote but...
Organist friend was asked to play for nuptials in a hospital chapel and was happy to oblige, although found the fact that the chapel was in the basement betwixt the morgue and the boiler room a tad off-putting (vibrations when the boiler kicked in made the candles on the altar shudder).
Anyway, come the happy day this ancient looking cleric appears, leaning heavily on a stick, fiddling with his hearing aids and giving every appearance of being Mr Chips' older brother.
Service starts: bride enters, first hymn; then cleric booms out Man, that is born of a woman, hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery. At which point the best man (never was a chap so well-titled) leant over, wrenched Prayer Book from the hands of cleric, swiftly found the Order for the Solemnisation of Matrimony, and handed it back.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I once went to a Baptist wedding (or it might have been free evangelical - I forget) where pretty much everyone was a Believer...except the best man.
Come the best man's speech, he starts with a few bland compliments to the bridesmaids, as you do, and then...
I'm surprised the groom in question didn't know his best man well enough to think he might tell a 'funny story' of this type ... and warn him against doing so.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not convinced that the average bride, Christian or otherwise, would find this joke hilarious. Still, maybe it gave the couple a tale to tell at boozy dinner parties many years later. OTOH, if the joke turned out to be prophetic, who'd want to remember it?
[ 09. October 2017, 19:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re saving tier of wedding cake:
I don't know what the current trends are. But it used to be common for the top tier to be small, and inhabited by standing figures representing the bride and groom. (Some made of sugar or fondant, and some maybe made of plastic.)
That tier would be wrapped up, and kept in the couple's freezer until their first anniversary. Then it would be either completely eaten, or partly eaten and the rest saved for future anniversaries.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
I had a traditional (yummy) fruitcake for the top layer, and pound cake for the part that was consumed at the time. The top layer, being well fortified, thus kept very well.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
My wedding cake was a sheet cake (chocolate!), so there were no tiers (cake, fruitcake, or Styrofoam) to preserve.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know what the current trends are. But it used to be common for the top tier to be small, and inhabited by standing figures representing the bride and groom. (Some made of sugar or fondant, and some maybe made of plastic.)
I know we had tiers, and I think there were three of them, although I'd have to go and look at the photographs to check. One of the ladies from Mrs. C's church made a custom cake topper to look like us, which we still have. (A different church lady made the cake.)
I don't know whether we saved some of the cake or not - but it certainly didn't go in our freezer because we didn't have one. It's entirely possible we ate it for Christmas.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Well, if we're going to talk about cake - count me in.
Instead of a singular wedding cake, I arranged for my favourite restaurant in the universe to provide my favourite dessert in the universe - a chocolate cheesecake (no longer available!!!). It was such an intense gustatory experience that it felt like the chocolate bypassed the usual absorption methods and went straight through the soft palate and into your brain. I assume that it was equal parts cocoa, cheesecake, and cocaine (perhaps explaining why it is no longer offered).
Note to self: family is overdue for a visit to Victoria.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
My Mum made our wedding cake, my Dad iced it and I made the sugar flowers. We had three cakes directly on top of each other, smallest on top, no pillars - most unusual in 1979 🙂
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Are the frozen tiers in US cakes maybe sponge?
Yes, traditionally a white cake (no egg yolks), though I have been to numerous weddings (including my own) where the consistency of the cake was closer to a pound cake than a standard white cake.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
My father-in-law would have preferred one of these or one of these, but as he got married in the 1950s he was forced to eat cake.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Wow. How glad I am that I'm not likely ever to be married (again).
Trying to choose between PORK PIE and CHEESE....
Mmmmm......[drooly smiley]
IJ
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Are the frozen tiers in US cakes maybe sponge?
Not so much "sponge cake" but "washing up sponge."
I've yet to see a bit of fruitcake in an American cake. Then again, we traditionally think of fruitcake as only for Christmas, obligatory (compare British attitudes on turkey), and booze-free. Think there might be room for improvement.
(There was much rejoicing when one musician friend skipped the cake and did pie and cheesecake on tiers. No structural integrity to maintain! No overengineered cake batter! Hooray!)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Are the frozen tiers in US cakes maybe sponge?
Not so much "sponge cake" but "washing up sponge."
I've yet to see a bit of fruitcake in an American cake. Then again, we traditionally think of fruitcake as only for Christmas, obligatory (compare British attitudes on turkey), and booze-free. Think there might be room for improvement.
Americans Do. Not. Like. Fruitcake. With or without the booze, it is disgusting. I'd have to drink a whole lotta booze upfront to get soused enough to eat it. There is a whole genre of jokes about the horrors of fruitcake, and the theory that there is actually only one fruitcake in the world that keeps getting passed around, being regifted from one recipient to another.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Y'all weird.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's probably because they fail to feed it with booze. A good fruitcake will put you over the limit after a slice.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Karl, that depends upon just how thick the slices are.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
No structural integrity to maintain! No overengineered cake batter!
This and other comments about what goes into holding up a multi-tiered cake make me think none of you has paid much attention when one was cut. Bakers poke dowels into the lower levels and place a cake board beneath each tier; they don't rely on the cake on lower levels to support the rest.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
A good fruit cake should not only last the impending apocalypse, it should be able to provide shelter from the same to those hiding under its sultanaly eaves.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
A couple I knew saved the top tier of their cake for their First Anniversary. They lived in a small apartment with a tiny refrigerator and a freezer just big enough to hold the tier of cake. So for a year, they could never buy frozen groceries in advance of eating them, nor could they freeze leftovers. The First Anniversary came along -- the top tier had been made of Styrofoam.
Could have been angel food cake. There is no difference really, in terms of texture and flavour.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
A good fruit cake should...last the impending apocalypse
Up the road here an elderly pair of brothers packed up the motorbike and bicycle shop their dad had started in the 30s, about 10 years ago (Just looked it up. 18 years ago. Hmmm). They found a fruitcake in a tin in the cellar. 'We think our Mum made it around the end of the war'.
I had a sniff. It smelt OK to me.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I think Captain Scott's fruitcake holds the current (currant?) record...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's probably because they fail to feed it with booze. A good fruitcake will put you over the limit after a slice.
A waste of good booze.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Americans Do. Not. Like. Fruitcake.
Speak for your west-coast self, cliffdweller. My mother's fruitcake—her grandmother's or great-grandmother's recipe—was awesome.
The problem is that most Americans have never had decent fruitcake. Much of what passes for fruitcake here is to fruitcake as Taco Bell is to Mexican cuisine.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
No structural integrity to maintain! No overengineered cake batter!
This and other comments about what goes into holding up a multi-tiered cake make me think none of you has paid much attention when one was cut. Bakers poke dowels into the lower levels and place a cake board beneath each tier; they don't rely on the cake on lower levels to support the rest.
I don't think the half-rate bakers were paying attention either.
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think Captain Scott's fruitcake holds the current (currant?) record...
We finally finished off our wedding cake a couple of years ago, 8 years after the event. It was still lovely, although I think the tier we ate after 5 years was at its optimum booze/moisture ratio. We didn't freeze it, just wrapped tightly in foil and kept in an airtight container.
Fruitcake is the food of the gods. Along with Marmite, obviously.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think Captain Scott's fruitcake holds the current (currant?) record...
We finally finished off our wedding cake a couple of years ago, 8 years after the event. It was still lovely, although I think the tier we ate after 5 years was at its optimum booze/moisture ratio. We didn't freeze it, just wrapped tightly in foil and kept in an airtight container.
Fruitcake is the food of the gods. Along with Marmite, obviously.
Proof we live in a fallen world; you were absolutely and completely correct until the penultimate word where you revealed your fallen, corrupt and totally depraved soul.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Fruitcake is the food of the gods. Along with Marmite, obviously.
Yeah, the gods
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I just feel so immensely sad for y'all since clearly you have never experienced the wonderment of truly good cake as God intends it to be if you think fruitcake is at all an acceptable substitute... ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes, I, too, loathe fruitcake. Partly because of the particular fruit, I think. Is it citron? That would explain it. I hate that in other baked goods, too. And, if it's an alcohol-marinated cake, I can't have it, because I don't drink.
Now, a nice carrot cake/bread, or date, or banana, or zucchini, or pumpkin...yum! And, of course, dark chocolate cake.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, I, too, loathe fruitcake. Partly because of the particular fruit, I think. Is it citron? That would explain it. I hate that in other baked goods, too. And, if it's an alcohol-marinated cake, I can't have it, because I don't drink.
You don't have to put citron in fruit cake if you don't want to. Often I don't - just various kinds of raisins, and candied orange and lemon peel. I'm not much of a fan of glacé cherries. But whilst you can make a fruit cake without the booze, it's a pale imitation of the real thing.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
You don't have to 'feed' a fruitcake with booze post cooking, you use it before so you get the benefits but the alcohol is evaporated off during baking.
For a Christmas cake I always soak the dried fruit (sultanas, raisins, currants, chopped dates) in a mixture of barley wine and rum for a week before making the cake. You end up with a moist cake but without any risk of being over the limit to drive. (Of course, one can do both: soak the fruit and feed the cake!)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, the gods
Think I found me a new avatar.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Now, a nice carrot cake/bread, or date, or banana, or zucchini, or pumpkin...yum!
We had carrot cake for our wedding - a sheet cake, so no mechanical engineering involved. I don't remember if we kept a piece for later - I'm not sure there was any left.
But I am quite glad it wasn't fruitcake instead, as when my wife went to give me a bite she crammed the whole piece into my mouth. I ended up on the floor - a combination of laughing and gasping for breath - but finally managed to work through it enough to breathe. The same quantity of fruitcake could have been fatal.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Okay, so now I'm going to ask:
What the hell is this thing of the bride and groom feeding each other cake? Because it's not cute, it's grotesque. Stop it.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What the hell is this thing of the bride and groom feeding each other cake?
It's a metaphor for how awkwardly intertwined their lives are about to become, and how pathetically unaware they are about the intricacies of sharing life. It's insight into their 30.8% chance of failure.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so now I'm going to ask:
What the hell is this thing of the bride and groom feeding each other cake? Because it's not cute, it's grotesque. Stop it.
Even worse is when they feel a need to smear the icing all over each other's faces. (After the bride probably spent an hour or so getting her make-up just right.)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
IMO that’s into “You need to get a room” territory.
[ 19. October 2017, 22:46: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Presumably, if the wedding planning has been at all effective, they already have a room.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
It's a metaphor for how awkwardly intertwined their lives are about to become, and how pathetically unaware they are about the intricacies of sharing life. It's insight into their 30.8% chance of failure.
I like it.
And is that 30.8%, their chance of divorce? The remaining 69.2% are happy, successful marriages not at all held together by responsibility, inertia and tired, sad resignation?
I reckon their chance of lasting happiness (based on unscientific sampling of the up-to-fifteen men who I trust to talk frankly to me about such things) is less than 10%. Much less, unless they stop humiliating each other at meal times.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so now I'm going to ask:
What the hell is this thing of the bride and groom feeding each other cake? Because it's not cute, it's grotesque. Stop it.
This is a transatlantic thing, right? I have only ever seen this in US films.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
It's a metaphor for how awkwardly intertwined their lives are about to become, and how pathetically unaware they are about the intricacies of sharing life. It's insight into their 30.8% chance of failure.
I like it.
And is that 30.8%, their chance of divorce? The remaining 69.2% are happy, successful marriages not at all held together by responsibility, inertia and tired, sad resignation?
I reckon their chance of lasting happiness (based on unscientific sampling of the up-to-fifteen men who I trust to talk frankly to me about such things) is less than 10%. Much less, unless they stop humiliating each other at meal times.
I'd agree with your 10% number overall. My parents weren't too convinced, either. It's too early to say how it will work out, of course, but we're in the "happy, successful" stage and haven't reached "tired, sad resignation" yet. But it's only been 33 years...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so now I'm going to ask:
What the hell is this thing of the bride and groom feeding each other cake? Because it's not cute, it's grotesque. Stop it.
This is a transatlantic thing, right? I have only ever seen this in US films.
I think maybe it's like each having a wine glass, wrapping their arms around each other, and each drinking from the other's glass.
Either that, or they're exhausted and nervous, and don't know what they're doing.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so now I'm going to ask:
What the hell is this thing of the bride and groom feeding each other cake? Because it's not cute, it's grotesque. Stop it.
Yuk
I’m glad to say I’ve never seen such a thing.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
"I'm glad to say I've never even *seen* a spade!"
--"The Importance Of Being Earnest"
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I just feel so immensely sad for y'all since clearly you have never experienced the wonderment of truly good cake as God intends it to be if you think fruitcake is at all an acceptable substitute...
Substitute? Nay, not a substitute. I simply embrace the wide diversity of all of God’s cakes.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Except those ghastly sickly cupcakes, more icing than cake and an abomination unto the Lord.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so now I'm going to ask:
What the hell is this thing of the bride and groom feeding each other cake? Because it's not cute, it's grotesque. Stop it.
This is a transatlantic thing, right? I have only ever seen this in US films.
I think maybe it's like each having a wine glass, wrapping their arms around each other, and each drinking from the other's glass.
Either that, or they're exhausted and nervous, and don't know what they're doing.
The normal feeding is very much an American tradition, and yes, not unlike the drinking champagne with entwined arms (which is also sometimes featured in American wedding receptions, tho not as frequently as the cake-eating thing). Both my weddings involved the cake-feeding-- and since it was the good, non-fruitcake kind of cake, happily so. Don't think I've ever been to a wedding w/o it.
The smashing the cake in your new spouse's face is a newer innovation, doesn't really seem to have anything to do with being hammered, and it's definitely not erotic. It's just a sort of prank, but one that always seems mean-spirited. Sometimes they'll even tease like they're offering a bite, then wait til the last minute & spouse's face is close to do the smashing. I suppose some people like it, but I would have been really hurt had DH done this.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
As I said.
Grotesque.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Cake feeding??? WHY?
I could understand it if the bride (or groom) had the dominant hand in plaster (or similar) but otherwise it strikes me as infantile and weird.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
As cliffdweller said, it’s pretty ubiquitous at American weddings. I’ve always heard that it symbolizes a commitment to provide for one another. (That symbolism is, of course, obscured beyond recognition by shoving the cake in one another’s faces.)
I’ll confess—I found it to be a rather light-heartedly sweet and intimate moment.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As cliffdweller said, it’s pretty ubiquitous at American weddings. I’ve always heard that it symbolizes a commitment to provide for one another.
Given that I find most American cake to be overly sweet and superficial, but lacking in substance, this is really quite a splendid metaphor. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Given that I find most American cake to be overly sweet and superficial, but lacking in substance, this is really quite a splendid metaphor.
Ha! Can’t really argue, especially if one is talking about the typical white cake wedding cake. That does seem that be slowly changing though.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
We have white wedding cakes. Except they are iced fruit cakes. And are lovely.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Given that I find most American cake to be overly sweet and superficial, but lacking in substance, this is really quite a splendid metaphor.
Ha! Can’t really argue, especially if one is talking about the typical white cake wedding cake. That does seem that be slowly changing though.
I had a chocolate cake - over 40 years ago. I didn't think of myself as a trendsetter; I just don't like the over-sweet "vanilla" cakes at most weddings and rarely even eat them. Many years ago I had an English boss whose non-English bride made him an authentic English wedding cake -- delicious!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I had a chocolate cake - over 40 years ago. I didn't think of myself as a trendsetter; I just don't like the over-sweet "vanilla" cakes at most weddings and rarely even eat them.
Ah, the memories. In these parts, the groom's cake, which is served at the rehearsal dinner, is traditionally chocolate cake with chocolate icing. That engendered quite the discussion when my parents and I were meeting with the chef to plan the menu for our rehearsal dinner, the gist of which boiled down to:
My mother: The groom's cake has to be chocolate. It’s always a chocolate cake.
Me: But I'm the groom and I don't like chocolate cake.*
We had chocolate cake.
Meanwhile, our wedding cake was more akin to a pound cake than a standard white cake.
* Yeah, I know, I’m weird. Definitely something I could post in the unpopular opinions thread.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We have white wedding cakes. Except they are iced fruit cakes. And are lovely.
I'm sure they are, as I like fruit cake.
But I don’t mean a white wedding cake; I mean what on this side of the pond is called “white cake”—a cake made with no egg yolks and with cake flour instead of all-purpose flour. Like this.
[ 21. October 2017, 18:49: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Each layer of our cake was a different flavor-- delightful! Something for everyone. Yet not a bit of candied fruit in sight, thank the Lord.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We have white wedding cakes. Except they are iced fruit cakes. And are lovely.
I'm sure they are, as I like fruit cake.
But I don’t mean a white wedding cake; I mean what on this side of the pond is called “white cake”—a cake made with no egg yolks and with cake flour instead of all-purpose flour. Like this.
Oh dear Lord can you do nothing right?
That pallid over-sweetened abomination deserves only scorn. Now this is a cake of tradition, substance and indeed, actual flavour. And none of this arsing around with egg whites. Slap the ingredients in the bowl, spin them up, decant into a couple of well-greased tins and we're 25 minutes away from Heaven.
White cake indeed. Ghost cake, more like.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh dear Lord can you do nothing right?
That pallid over-sweetened abomination deserves only scorn.
Only from witlings or the ignorant. A good white cake—which, sadly, all too often is not what one encounters at weddings—is divine: light, moist, not particularly sweet, and a perfect vehicle for a good icing and/or filling.
I enjoy eating, and baking, a wide variety of kinds of cakes—most of which can be made well or not so well. But I guess if you think only one kind of cake fits all needs and occasions, or if you can only get one kind of cake right, then Delia Smith’s yellow cake recipe is as serviceable as any and better than many.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It is not 'yellow' cake. It is the colour of honest-to-god eggs. It is golden, in the way a goddess is. Not like that daywalker pseudofoodstuff you appear to be championing.
As my national food judge mother would say: "Not according to schedule."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is not 'yellow' cake. It is the colour of honest-to-god eggs. It is golden, in the way a goddess is. Not like that daywalker pseudofoodstuff you appear to be championing.
As my national food judge mother would say: "Not according to schedule."
Is that “shedule”?
We call it yellow cake, because that’s what it is, including in the picture in the recipe to which you linked. (At least “yellow” is just as accurate for that color as “golden.”). Any huffing and puffing to the contrary isn’t likely to change that or get us to start calling it golden cake.
Most people here also do not call it “sponge.” A sponge is what you clean dishes or the bathroom with. Not an appetizing connection.
As for what I’m “championing,” I’m merely asserting that yellow cake—the most common type of cake here, and feel free to call it golden sponge if doing so prevents an aneurysm—is really good, that white cake can also be really good and is particularly appropriate for some occasions, the fruit cake can also be really good and is particularly appropriate for some occasions, etc., etc., etc. for many other kinds of cake. Not sure why that’s such a startling assertion.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
A good sponge should have its own flavour. It is a thing in its own right.
Your 'white cake' is a vehicle in the same way a rice cake is: a pointless carrier of more interesting comestibles. You may as well ice polystyrene blocks for all that it matters.
Also, 'sweet' is not a flavour.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, 'sweet' is not a flavour.
Sweet is a characteristic and fits the way most appear to be using it.
And eggs are not honest to any god. They are a compromise between good and evil. Good in what they do for baking, evil when eaten for themselves.
There is a reason they smell of sulpher.
[ 21. October 2017, 22:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A good sponge should have its own flavour. It is a thing in its own right.
Your 'white cake' is a vehicle in the same way a rice cake is: a pointless carrier of more interesting comestibles. You may as well ice polystyrene blocks for all that it matters.
Having had both rice cakes (horrid things) and white cake—something I assume you cannot claim since you appeared to think that by “white cake” I meant a cake that is iced with white icing—I feel no hesitancy in saying that I not only disagree with your opinion, but that you are simply wrong.
But don't worry—however worked up you want to get about it, I’m certainly not going to force you to eat any white cake against your will. More for the rest of us.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, 'sweet' is not a flavour.
Sweet is a characteristic and fits the way most appear to be using it.
And eggs are not honest to any god. They are a compromise between good and evil. Good in what they do for baking, evil when eaten for themselves.
There is a reason they smell of sulpher.
Tomorrow, I'm going to make egg and chips. And I'm going to enjoy every last, gooey, joyous mouthful.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Having had both rice cakes (horrid things) and white cake—something I assume you cannot claim since you appeared to think that by “white cake” I meant a cake that is iced with white icing—I feel no hesitancy in saying that I not only disagree with your opinion, but that you are simply wrong.
Ah, one of those idiots who insists I have to have tried something to know whether or not I would like it.
Over this side of the Atlantic a vehicle is something you drive, not something you eat. You may keep you faux food to yourself.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, 'sweet' is not a flavour.
Sweet is a characteristic and fits the way most appear to be using it.
And eggs are not honest to any god. They are a compromise between good and evil. Good in what they do for baking, evil when eaten for themselves.
There is a reason they smell of sulpher.
Tomorrow, I'm going to make egg and chips. And I'm going to enjoy every last, gooey, joyous mouthful.
Illustrating why you moderate here.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ah, one of those idiots who insists I have to have tried something to know whether or not I would like it.
Nah, not really. More like one of those people who thinks that when you’ve never tasted a particular food (and didn’t even know what it was until a few hours ago), and yet to take it on yourself to school others on what that food tastes like, you look like an idiot.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
*cracks open jar of lutfisk*
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
In some areas, particularly the American South, two cakes are presented at weddings. The more traditional tiered cake is the bride's cake, and a second flavor choice is called the "groom's cake". This tradition was brought over from England by early American colonists, who considered the white-iced "Bride's Cake" too light for masculinity. The groom's cake was usually a dark, liquor-soaked fruitcake, particularly in Virginia. Today groom's cakes are usually chocolate, although the groom often choose another of his favorite flavors. The groom's cake is usually decorated or shaped as something significant to him, such as a hobby item, sports team or symbol of his occupation. The movie Steel Magnolias features a red velvet groom's cake in the shape of a giant armadillo. The groom's cake is served at the reception as a second flavor choice for the guests, although in some regions it is served at the rehearsal dinner.
(Wiki)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Thanks, Boogie. FWIW, though, “Steel Magnolias” is the only time I’ve seen a groom’s cake at the wedding reception. In North Carolina, at least, the tradition is to have it at the rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding, as noted at the end of the article.
[ 22. October 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I have had the misfortune to taste US white "cake"
The thing I remember most about that particular wedding (apart from the effort required not to spit out the offending sickly horror) is that every flat surface was laden with plates bearing slices of the "cake" uneaten.
IMO wedding cake should be fruit: but if you're having more than one tier then you can have a sponge for those who prefer. The top tier is traditionally kept (icing having been removed) in an air-tight container ready to be re-iced for the tea following the baptism of the first child.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I have had the misfortune to taste US white "cake"
As I think I readily acknowledged upthread, the white cake typically served at weddings is to good white cake as Taco Bell is to good Mexican cuisine. Indeed, that seems to be the case with most wedding cakes here—the emphasis on how the cake looks, coupled with things like needing to make the cake days in advance, makes for pretty bad cake. Add in fondant or bad icing, and the cake typically isn’t good, regardless of what kind it is. That’s just the sad reality here. In my experience, people here have very low expectations of how wedding cake will taste and are pleasantly surprised if it’s good. That’s regardless of what kind of cake it is.
quote:
The thing I remember most about that particular wedding (apart from the effort required not to spit out the offending sickly horror) is that every flat surface was laden with plates bearing slices of the "cake" uneaten.
IMO wedding cake should be fruit. . . .
If that were served here, you wouldn’t need to worry about plates all over the room with partially eaten cake, because hardly anyone would get a plate to start with. As has been said, Americans like me who like fruitcake are a rare bread. Most Americans detest it. Couple that with the fact the fruitcake is firmly tethered to Christmas and Christmas only, and fruitcake at a wedding here just ain’t never gonna happen.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
There are good white cakes in the world. Like dining on a cloud, they are.
You will not find them at weddings. Or the rubber chicken circuit. Or any reception.
Clouds are ephemeral. A moment in the sun, and they fade. They are creatures of but a moment, passing in the wind.
Reception cakes? Eff it. Need that made a day in advance, preferably two, covered in a half inch of custom icing, extra piping, and the slogan they ordered.
You know what's easy to mix and pour, lasts forever unchanging, and can support the weight of all that preserving icing?
Concrete.
And, if we're talking about the straws in wedding cake—well, prestressed, reinforced concrete.
You'll never find a wedding cake worth eating at a modern Outdo the Neighbors wedding. The small, simple, and homemade—like some aunt's cloud out of the oven—just isn't going to fit in at a formal, over-the-top Do. So concrete monuments it is.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
That’s why fruit cakes are needed - substantial and very tasty.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
And you can make them in advance. Sometimes a century in advance.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
We call white cake angel cake in the UK. It doesn't keep well, so isn't a great cake to use for a wedding cake that needs decorating. It is fat free and is often served with fruit and maybe cream. It's not the easiest cake to make as it relies on whisked egg whites for its structure.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
That’s why fruit cakes are needed - substantial and very tasty.
I agree on the tasty part. But for whatever reason, the vast majority of Americans don’t. I don’t know why, but it is what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
We call white cake angel cake in the UK.
Right, we call that angel food cake. But it’s not the same thing as white cake. Looking around the allrecipes.co.uk site, this (vanilla sponge) is what we would call white cake.
[ 23. October 2017, 11:32: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I love how this thread has devolved into Cake Wars.
I may be all alone on this thread, but most of my fellow 'mericans are with me in steadfastly opposing the culinary horror that is fruit cake (or really anything that involves candied fruit) and a devout supporter of lovely sweet white cake with lots of sugary frosting.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I have been through the peculiar (and utterly expensive) ordeal of marrying a daughter off, and nowadays wedding cake providers will supply you with a menu of cake flavors to choose from. The clever ones offer tasting parties, so that the bride and her bridesmaids can make an occasion of it. My daughter selected some variation of chocolate, her favorite.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I love how this thread has devolved into Cake Wars.
I may be all alone on this thread, but most of my fellow 'mericans are with me in steadfastly opposing the culinary horror that is fruit cake (or really anything that involves candied fruit) and a devout supporter of lovely sweet white cake with lots of sugary frosting.
This 'merican won't touch the hideous white cake with lots of sugary frosting.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I think I know the problem. Somebody said "no sight of candied fruit". My brain did a double take. Well if candied peel is the problem just don't have it. Plenty of fruitcakes don't. Then I started to wonder if Americans make fruit cake with all candied fruit. The vast majority (and if you exclude candied peel, all) the fruit in the UK is dried. This is important as to get the moisture level we soak or feed, not in sugar syrup but in alcoholic beverages, fresh orange or lemon juice or tea. We would not consider this candied fruit cake on a par with something like this Christmas cake.
Jengie
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
with lots of sugary frosting.
But that is *not* cake. The whole point of cake is the actual cake, not what the cake is a 'vehicle' for.
You may as well ice an actual car for all the attention that gets paid to the cake. Or serve plates of icing. I have observed, even in my own home, the marzipan and fondant icing removed and left on the side of the plate, so better to enjoy the actual cake (which I've also lovingly crafted from raw ingredients which may include glace cherries and candied orange peel. And brandy. Quite a lot of brandy).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The whole point of cake is the actual cake, not what the cake is a 'vehicle' for.
Inaccurate. The whole cake is the whole point. And this includes the icing, for those cakes that are meant to be iced. That some remove the icing indicates either an inferior icing or a personal preference.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
most of my fellow 'mericans are with me in steadfastly opposing the culinary horror that is fruit cake (or really anything that involves candied fruit)
I've had US store-bought candied peel, and it's a ghastly sickly concoction soaked in corn syrup. You don't taste the fruit at all - just the sweetness.
I took to making my own (it's not difficult - just tedious and time-consuming) in order to get something I wanted to bake with.
But on average, American and British tastes differ. Americans, in general, like things much sweeter than Brits do. I find the majority of American bread uneatable because of its sweetness (this is true of cheap packaged supermarket loaves, expensive artisan bakery creations, and everything in between). You can get away with it as toast with jam, but it's really strange in a cheese sandwich. I don't think I've ever had bread in the UK that tastes sweet.
So I'm not surprised that fruit cake doesn't satisfy the average American taste bud, nor that a people who consider marshmallows baked on top of sweet potatoes a suitable vegetable also like sweet fluff in cake form. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I am also quite tickled that a thread that started off on the subject of weddings and their associated horrors has spent more than two pages on the subject of cake.
If you don't like fruitcake, I don't think you've tried a good one. Good grief, I served fruitcake to French people at my wedding, with all their legendary gastronomic snobbery, and they liked it. It was a good one. (One of the lighter recipes, because a French wedding meal is enormous. This was my original complaint about pièce montée - much too sweet for the end of a very big and heavy meal.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I move we rush the ceremony bit and get onto the important part, The Testing of the Wedding Cake. That, like an augury, will determine the success or failure of the marriage.
Any couple that doesn't serve an apocalypse-proof fruit cake will be clearly doomed. (Though a three-wheel cheese might rescue the situation)
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
(Philistine)
I've never understood the appeal of cheese after a meal. Fruit, yes. Some sickly sweet dessert, oh god, yes [pardonne-moi, la vie en rouge]. But cheese? Clearly missing something.
(/Philistine)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
(Philistine)
I've never understood the appeal of cheese after a meal. Fruit, yes. Some sickly sweet dessert, oh god, yes [pardonne-moi, la vie en rouge]. But cheese? Clearly missing something.
(/Philistine)
Because cheese is the single finest foodstuff in existence.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
And cheese (preferably a good Wensleydale) on fruitcake combines the two to utter perfection.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I move we rush the ceremony bit and get onto the important part, The Testing of the Wedding Cake.
Taste testing, or something like this?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because cheese is the single finest foodstuff in existence.
Wrong. CHOCOLATE is. Cheese and bread are tied for second. German bread, that is. Various other breads make a close third.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
(Philistine)
I've never understood the appeal of cheese after a meal. Fruit, yes. Some sickly sweet dessert, oh god, yes [pardonne-moi, la vie en rouge]. But cheese? Clearly missing something.
(/Philistine)
You really don't need these complicated meals that I am sure people only pretend to like. For a simple, happy life, well aged cheese, a fresh baguette and cheap red wine are all I need. For special occasions, which I am sure could include weddings, there are variations, such as Stilton and a good ale, or Shropshire blue and an Islay whisky.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
For a simple, happy life, well aged cheese, a fresh baguette and cheap red wine are all I need.
Let's qualify that "cheap" just a little: there is a minimum quality below which you really don't want to dip. Whether the "cheap" wine falls above or below that line rather depends on where you are.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because cheese is the single finest foodstuff in existence.
Wrong. CHOCOLATE is. Cheese and bread are tied for second. German bread, that is. Various other breads make a close third.
Nope. If I never ate chocolate again it'd be a formidable hardship, and I'd expect a good few millenia off of Purgatory for it, but giving up cheese should be enough to pluck a soul from Hell itself.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
For a simple, happy life, well aged cheese, a fresh baguette and cheap red wine are all I need.
Let's qualify that "cheap" just a little: there is a minimum quality below which you really don't want to dip. Whether the "cheap" wine falls above or below that line rather depends on where you are.
Sooner cheap wine than rubbish beer. Cheap wine is still wine. Rubbish beer (often no cheaper, weirdly) is fizzy widdle.
Assuming the wine is red, of course. White, God alone knows.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
You will get my soft white wedding cake with piles of icing when you pry it from my cold, dead hand
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
No, cliffdweller, it's fine - I don't actually want your white wedding cake. In fact, you can have my share of it as well.
People who think cheap red wine is drinkable have obviously *never* tasted genuine French vin ordinaire. Mislabelled paint-stripper.
[ 24. October 2017, 14:18: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
No, hang on. Traditionally, you serve the good stuff first, then bring out the paint stripper. It's in the Bible so it must be the right way to do it.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
(Philistine)
I've never understood the appeal of cheese after a meal. Fruit, yes. Some sickly sweet dessert, oh god, yes [pardonne-moi, la vie en rouge]. But cheese? Clearly missing something.
(/Philistine)
I've been reading a couple of novels ranging through the period of late 1800s to 1920s, in England. And noticed significant references to an apparently 'normal' habit of having omelettes served after dessert, cheese in preference to oyster!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Doc Tor: quote:
Traditionally, you serve the good stuff first, then bring out the paint stripper. It's in the Bible so it must be the right way to do it.
But the whole point of that story was that Jesus gave the good stuff to people who were too drunk to notice, so that means that you should serve the worst wine first.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Doc Tor: quote:
Traditionally, you serve the good stuff first, then bring out the paint stripper. It's in the Bible so it must be the right way to do it.
But the whole point of that story was that Jesus gave the good stuff to people who were too drunk to notice, so that means that you should serve the worst wine first.
Only if Jesus and His Mother are among the guests.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Doc Tor: quote:
Traditionally, you serve the good stuff first, then bring out the paint stripper. It's in the Bible so it must be the right way to do it.
But the whole point of that story was that Jesus gave the good stuff to people who were too drunk to notice, so that means that you should serve the worst wine first.
Only if Jesus and His Mother are among the guests.
No, no, quite the reverse-- when Jesus is there we save the best for last. Jesus always brings the good stuff.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Doc Tor: quote:
Traditionally, you serve the good stuff first, then bring out the paint stripper. It's in the Bible so it must be the right way to do it.
But the whole point of that story was that Jesus gave the good stuff to people who were too drunk to notice, so that means that you should serve the worst wine first.
Ah, but they did notice. Not just because it was a reverse of the usual, but because the vintage that Jesus served was better than the good stuff the steward knew that he'd served first.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Well, I was assuming the steward was the only one who was still sober...
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
For a simple, happy life, well aged cheese, a fresh baguette and cheap red wine are all I need.
Let's qualify that "cheap" just a little: there is a minimum quality below which you really don't want to dip. Whether the "cheap" wine falls above or below that line rather depends on where you are.
We could probably have a new thread on this topic... However, I do have strong feelings about cheap wine and am not convinced that there's a strong correlation between price and quality. Extreme cheapness is grounds for suspicion, of course, but long ago, it was buying and drinking wine that finally made me understand the meaning of the law of diminishing returns.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because cheese is the single finest foodstuff in existence.
Wrong. CHOCOLATE is. Cheese and bread are tied for second. German bread, that is. Various other breads make a close third.
Yes, re chocolate. Very dark, possibly Ghirardellis's, or some sourish Belgian stuff. 2nd would be thin-crust, "kitchen sink" (some of everything) pizza--and, in a favorite American tradition, cold and leftover for breakfast!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Re German bread: Do you mean black bread (schwarz broet), the really heavy stuff in square loaves? It's good; but it's hard to eat much, because it's so heavy.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
the best cheese is much better than the best chocolate.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Concerning bread, elaboration is necessary.
There's a time for pumpernickel, a time for baguettes, a time for wuppertaler a time for sourdough, a time for brioche a time for ciabatta, a time for whole wheat and a time for rye.
There's a time for unleavened breads, naan naan naan; a time for large pita breads, naan naan naan; and a time for a tortilla baked in the sun.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
(Philistine)
I've never understood the appeal of cheese after a meal. Fruit, yes. Some sickly sweet dessert, oh god, yes [pardonne-moi, la vie en rouge]. But cheese? Clearly missing something.
(/Philistine)
Because cheese is the single finest foodstuff in existence.
Seconded. Dorset Blue Vinney, a good Wensleydale, Pont l'Eveque and that French one with the straw down the middle rolled in ash. Just don't have too much.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm reasonably certain that there's no such thing as "too much cheese".
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
There is definitely such a thing as too much fondue, but on the plus side it gives you some very spacey dreams.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re German bread: Do you mean black bread (schwarz broet), the really heavy stuff in square loaves?
and Semmeln oder Brötchen, Landbrot, Fünfkornbrot, Katenbrot....
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
the best cheese is much better than the best chocolate.
Ordinarily, I would be arraigning your stay in the looney bin, but Cheese and Bread are so very good that your MISTAKE in the order of importance can be overlooked.
For now.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm reasonably certain that there's no such thing as "too much cheese".
Well, there are the stages of eating cheese.
Eating cheese
Having eaten too much cheese
Eating more cheese
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It's a marathon, not a sprint.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's a marathon, not a sprint.
No, that's a chocolate bar, not cheese.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm reasonably certain that there's no such thing as "too much cheese".
There's a quality bar. The late and much missed ken wrote a diatribe against "mild cheddar" illustrating this.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
the best cheese is much better than the best chocolate.
People have been shot for less than this.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
cliffdweller--
But simontoad's disdain for chocolate means there's more left for *us*!
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
oh no. There's a time and a place for chocolate. It's just that you can only do so much with it
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
oh no. There's a time and a place for chocolate. It's just that you can only do so much with it
There’s your problem. Most of us just eat it.
Not gonna ask what you do...
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
(Philistine)
I've never understood the appeal of cheese after a meal. Fruit, yes. Some sickly sweet dessert, oh god, yes [pardonne-moi, la vie en rouge]. But cheese? Clearly missing something.
(/Philistine)
Because cheese is the single finest foodstuff in existence.
Seconded. Dorset Blue Vinney, a good Wensleydale, Pont l'Eveque and that French one with the straw down the middle rolled in ash. Just don't have too much.
Ah, Pont l'Eveque... Haven't found any for a while, but I love it. There is something of a miracle, a holy mystery about it. How can something that smells so much like a toilet needing to be cleaned taste so heavenly? Nobody ever said that about chocolate.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
There is something of a miracle, a holy mystery about it. How can something that smells so much like a toilet needing to be cleaned taste so heavenly?
The smell is a surprising thing, not a good thing
quote:
Nobody ever said that about chocolate.
And you further prove my point. As if it needed proving.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re scent of cheese:
Saw one of Rick Steves' travel shows, where he went to France. He talked to a French woman about cheese, and she said a particular one "smells like the feet of angels". (Rather dramatically.)
I'm not sure how one would know that. Is that a particularly French way of speaking, or just hers? Or did she wash angels' socks?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
oh no. There's a time and a place for chocolate. It's just that you can only do so much with it
There’s your problem. Most of us just eat it.
Not gonna ask what you do...
Well, there are non-dessert and non-beverage uses, like Latin America mole' sauce.
And then there are...interesting...non-food uses (Time).
Best of all, the original TV MacGyver put it to an interesting use. (Pilot episode, 4th paragraph.) I don't know if that MacGyverism would work as is. In the original series, they left something out of any potentially dangerous MacGyverism, so that it wouldn't work.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm reasonably certain that there's no such thing as "too much cheese".
There's a quality bar. The late and much missed ken wrote a diatribe against "mild cheddar" illustrating this.
Doc Tor was talking about cheese.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's a marathon, not a sprint.
True. If you sprint it, then stage 2 can result in a particularly unpleasant illustration of how cottage cheese is made.
[ 26. October 2017, 10:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
cliffdweller: quote:
People have been shot for less than this.
Now, now. I know this is Hell, but let's be charitable here. Simontoad has clearly *never* tasted the Best Chocolate.
I find it difficult to choose between chocolate and cheese... but then, I don't have to!
[ 26. October 2017, 11:11: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
But there is a special place in hell reserved for the inventer of "American Cheese"
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
That is not cheese, that is extruded plastic.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That is not cheese, that is extruded plastic.
No, no, no, no. Plastic is useful. And probably contains more actual cheese.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
oh no. There's a time and a place for chocolate. It's just that you can only do so much with it
There’s your problem. Most of us just eat it.
Not gonna ask what you do...
Well, there are non-dessert and non-beverage uses, like Latin America mole' sauce.
Still food and not all mole recipes include chocolate.
quote:
And then there are...interesting...non-food uses (Time).
Save for the Slip ‘n’ Slide and hamster bait, What isn't edible?
quote:
Best of all, the original TV MacGyver put it to an interesting use. (Pilot episode, 4th paragraph.) I don't know if that MacGyverism would work as is. In the original series, they left something out of any potentially dangerous MacGyverism, so that it wouldn't work.
Waste of chocolate. He had enough hair to absorb any quantity of acid.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
cliffdweller--
But simontoad's disdain for chocolate means there's more left for *us*!
Oooh! Good point! Like when we tell our 2 year olds that cake is really nasty, we love you so we won't make you try it...
So, oh, yeah, we were wrong, don't bother with chocolate it's horrid, not worth the effort-- here's a bit of cheddar for you cuz I love you so much...
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Most seemly and edifying.....not!!
IJ
I attended a Baptist wedding where the minister invited the couple to exchange vowels. As near as I could tell, I was the only one that found it amusing. This was in the backwoods of the Missouri Ozarks.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But there is a special place in hell reserved for the inventer of "American Cheese"
It is a blight upon our nation. Pity us.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But there is a special place in hell reserved for the inventer of "American Cheese"
At least some of it is named "Cheesefood" which implies that it isn't cheese.
I'm not sure it's food either.
Posted by Fredegund (# 17952) on
:
Dorothy L Sayers wrote of "that impassive pale substance known to the English as 'cheese' unqualified". Presumably a relation?
Whose Body - in case anyone wants to look it up.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But there is a special place in hell reserved for the inventer of "American Cheese"
At least some of it is named "Cheesefood" which implies that it isn't cheese.
I'm not sure it's food either.
”American Processed Cheesefood Product,” to be precise. And they happily advertise that it’s made with “real milk.”
No. Just no.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
cliffdweller: quote:
People have been shot for less than this.
Now, now. I know this is Hell, but let's be charitable here. Simontoad has clearly *never* tasted the Best Chocolate.
I find it difficult to choose between chocolate and cheese... but then, I don't have to!
I once purchased chocolate from the best chocolate shop in Brugge. We knew it was the best because it didn't have chocolate shaped like penises and breasts in the window. Seriously, there were these wonderful-looking shops all over the place, but they had this fetish for genitalia.
Look, chocolate is pretty great. It's just that you can only go so far with it. You play with the elements and you can achieve wonderful results. But people do so much more with cheese, in terms of variety of flavor and style. Its just no contest. The cheese platter in a silver service restaurant will net you a much richer food experience than anything else on the desert menu.
I was talking with a friend about this issue, and they reminded me of Chinese Chocolate. That trumps American cheese I reckon, even of the spray-on variety.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I just went and put this argument to my wife in the loungeroom. First, she just yelled "chocolate", then as I developed the argument she flipped me the bird. Then when I said the thing about silver service restaurants she returned to her book and said "Don't be absurd."
My wife is a pretty inactive member of the ship, but she won't let me disclose her user handle, as she doesn't want her reputation tarnished.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I should probably confess that I am in love with your wife.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm in love with simontoad.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Look, chocolate is pretty great. It's just that you can only go so far with it.
Honestly, with all preferences aside, you know not of what you speak. The best chocolate will not be found in the gold standard establishments of yesteryear, not in the famous places. At best, those are merely good. The best, the innovations, take happen in the small places that push the boundaries. Not for the sake of pushing boundaries, but the sake of finding what is on the other side.
Those that do not merely shove a "flavour" inside the bon bon, but those who match the type chocolate with the essence of fruit and spice. Those who do not blend for homogeneity, but who exalt the single bean.
The masterpieces will be found in a small, seaside California village, a side street in a British city, in a French market, far away from the tourist crowds.
In fillings that make the tongue dance, in pastry creations that bring the senses to life.
And in savoury dishes like a Oaxacan mole sauce, a rich Texas chilli or a spice rub for a slow-roasted pork.
The reality of Chocolate is far more than your tiny imagination can conjure.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Look, chocolate is pretty great. It's just that you can only go so far with it.
Honestly, with all preferences aside, you know not of what you speak. The best chocolate will not be found in the gold standard establishments of yesteryear, not in the famous places. At best, those are merely good. The best, the innovations, take happen in the small places that push the boundaries. Not for the sake of pushing boundaries, but the sake of finding what is on the other side.
Those that do not merely shove a "flavour" inside the bon bon, but those who match the type chocolate with the essence of fruit and spice. Those who do not blend for homogeneity, but who exalt the single bean.
The masterpieces will be found in a small, seaside California village, a side street in a British city, in a French market, far away from the tourist crowds.
In fillings that make the tongue dance, in pastry creations that bring the senses to life.
And in savoury dishes like a Oaxacan mole sauce, a rich Texas chilli or a spice rub for a slow-roasted pork.
The reality of Chocolate is far more than your tiny imagination can conjure.
True. There is (or at any rate was) such a shop in Tours on the Rue Colbert. It's not far from the Musee de Gemmail a must-see for glass enthusiasts.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Oh! Innovation is much overrated lil Buddha ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I blush for my wife and myself ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh! Innovation is much overrated lil Buddha
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
“do so much more” = innovation, so why do you praise it in one post and deride it in this one?
Oh, I’m so sorry, my fault for using large words. Small words for small minds, lilB, and they might better comprehend. Doh! Understand. Argh!
Must make Small word, so him know what me say.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
lil Buddha has much knowledge. I will sit at your feet and learn from the master.
In particular... the name of the small seaside California establishment...?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Oh lilB. I'm only arguing the subject semi-seriously, as my sequential posts indicate. After all, there's no accounting for taste: vis. Dr Pepper and Cherry Cola.
What are you doing?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Defending the honour of Chocolate!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
But you're doing it wrong. Let the poor deluded fool continue to believe that the best chocolate is to be found in tourist shops in Belgium. That leaves more of the good stuff for us true chocolate aficionados.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
If any of you idiots try to bribe me with cheese, I'll ban the fucking lot of you.
Chocolate, motherfuckers.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
If any of you idiots try to bribe me with cheese, I'll ban the fucking lot of you.
Chocolate, motherfuckers.
Just for you RooK ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
If any of you idiots try to bribe me with cheese, I'll ban the fucking lot of you.
Chocolate, motherfuckers.
Just for you RooK
You. Yes, you, lassie. Go and stand in the corner. Now. And have a good hard think about what you just did.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
*stands in corner and thinks*
This for you Karl
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, Hell is the right place for those last two abominations.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think someone ought to be writing out "I must not mix cheese and chocolate" a thousand times before she goes home.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My DIL had a £30 dress off eBay - she looked amazing, as did her bridesmaids with dresses of the same price.
Here she is.
Eager to see the pics, Boogie, but denied entrance to the site.
[ 01. November 2017, 21:16: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Chocolate, no. But then again, this
(probably considered an abomination by my compatriots, never lasted long enough when brought back from the UK to find out)
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
fruit and cheese, the stuff of life.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
fruit and cheese, the stuff of life.
But not together. Is evil.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There are some amazing mixtures of fruit and cheese: apples with decent cheddar and/or Wensleydale, grapes with brie, figs and feta, pears and Stilton, ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Doesn't work for me. Just spoils the cheese. Don't hold with mixing sweet and savoury; the result always jars my taste buds.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
It occurs to me that we've inadvertently wandered into rich metaphorical territory describing marriage. Well done, freaks.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But there is a special place in hell reserved for the inventer of "American Cheese"
If you want to experience something really hellish, you should try St. Louis-style pizza, topped with an abominable substance called "provel" that makes Velveeta look like the stuff of cheesy dreams. It sticks to the teeth and to the hard palate; it annoys the natives when I ask them whether provel is a member of the wax family or the plastic family.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
There's a chain mexican fast food place that puts Parmesan or something approaching that on its shells. Truly awful.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night.
I can't get over this. To someone like my husband who can't resist anything free, such a set-up could prove deadly.
At the Chinese wedding I most recently attended in Toronto, the table had full bottles of Chivas, Canadian Club, and Hennessy cognac-- I stuck to the Moet et Chandon, and had that bottle to myself. There were several businessmen from China at the table (I was at least seated with the bride's cousin, a very pleasant nephrologist from Nanaimo, so I could at least converse, my Cantonese being as bad as my mandarin) consuming the bottles' contents uncut in tumblers. There were no fights, but the volume level rose considerably. The bride's father, having paid for it all (300 guests), gave me an ecological tote bag with five bottles as I left.
I won't even mention the Palestinian wedding I attended in North York two years ago, where each table was provided with a bottle of arak, as well as one of Lebanese brandy, so that we could toast each other during the long speeches. As with the Chinese wedding, no fights, but the dancing was most animated, the grannies kicking up their heels with the rest of them. For some reason, my table featured the two lesbian lawyers with whom the bride had maintained a running relationship for a few years. The arak, I should mention, was powerful stuff and loosened tongues remarkably.
Protestant weddings in the Ottawa valley are dry, of course, and one has to go out behind the church hall where cousin Garnet and the others are pouring rye from mickeys (small bottles of a size which can fit in a jacket pocket) into their cups of coffee-- it's not that bad with egg salad sandwiches. Anglican weddings, where wine can be found on the table, are deemed as godless and decadent, and the bride clearly no better than she ought to be.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
brilliant, the whole lot of it.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Augustine, it reminds me of the joke about a recently deceased who goes to heaven, and St Peter is showing him around (I won't go through the entire joke), and in each room a group is doing something that had been forbidden them in this life. The Jews are having a fantastic pig roast, in another room the Baptists are dancing up a storm, etc. Then St Peter shows him another room where there are a group of people sitting in a circle in silence, doing nothing. "Who are they?" "Them? Oh, they're the Anglicans."
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
We were at a dinner concert put on by some Anglicans a year or two ago, and one of them at our table conceded, "We'd all be Presbyterian if it wasn't for the music".
Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night.
I went to an Armenian wedding long ago (in Los Angeles), and for about every 8 people, there was (good) white wine, red wine, good whiskey & good gin. As soon as a bottle was empty, it was replaced.
The bride's mother had spent the previous day making the meal - the lamb tasted like filet mignon.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Meconopsis:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was a full bottle of Johnny Walker Red on each table at the start of the night.
I went to an Armenian wedding long ago (in Los Angeles), and for about every 8 people, there was (good) white wine, red wine, good whiskey & good gin. As soon as a bottle was empty, it was replaced.
The bride's mother had spent the previous day making the meal - the lamb tasted like filet mignon.
With all that hooch, boiled cardboard would have tasted good.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Meconopsis:
... the lamb tasted like filet mignon.
I'd prefer it tasting like lamb!
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
Lamb is the food of the gods. Along with olives and red wine. I didn't really appreciate lamb till I lived in Germany, where you need to go to an American steak house or Middle Eastern restaurant to get it. In Yorkshire, where I grew up, we had it so often that I hardly noticed it. Sad.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0