Anti-Bridal

Not that the sentiment ever really faded, but there's been a sudden resurrection of my inate distaste for the institution of marriage and, more specifially, the commercialized elements that have come to represent it: weddings and engagement rings.

I've become so cynical against the whole idea that it has actually become difficult to discern between discussing the issues with the societal expectation as a whole, or really picking at the details that are the essence of a happy coupling. I guess I should clarify that I don't necessarily see myself getting married, so a lot of this discussion is closely intertwined with a general anti-marriage philosophy. I'm sure you're aware of the feminist arguments against the institution of marriage (home-maker!) so, although I'm not specifically a feminist and my ideas do differ a bit, I really want to focus on some different things. Basically, this is a hypothetical discussion- IF I found myself engaged to Mr. Right-For-Me.

THE RING
I don't want an engagement ring. I refuse to allow my fiance to spend "three months salary" on a piece of jewelry to impress my friends. Fuck that. I've long been aware that the sole purpose of the rock is a physical representation of your fiance's wealth (or faked wealth, which is even worse) and a symbolic promise of the social status you hope to enter with the marriage. I don't like jewelry, and I especially don't like jewelry whose specific purpose is to impress others. If my fiance wants to shell out $5,000 when he asks me to marry him (a dollar amount which, by the way, is for me (and should be) completely irrelevent to the actual question at hand!), I'd get much greater happiness out of something that I want, not what society wants. It's our marriage, and we should have the freedom to symbolize our love how we see fit- even if (God forbid) it's not through materialistic preoccupations. And beyond all that anti-consumer theory, there's the disturbing realization that an engagement ring officially marks a woman as "taken"- as "belonging" to someone- only the beginning of the status, later intensified by taking this same man's last name while sacrificing your own (or rather, your father's.) Third, I'm not ignorant to the reality of the diamond business. Not only are they not as rare as they're marketed, but the industry is tainted with ecological destruction and inhumane working conditions. Why would I promote the continuation of something that I know is wrong? Why would I ignore the problems simply because I need to have 2 carats? What's the justification of knowingly contributing to an international issue simply because I can? I don't want an engagement ring. Buy me a horse, but don't insult me with a Little Blue Box. I'm not against wedding bands, because they are worn by both the husband and the wife. But the pretty little engagement piece is not for me.

THE VEIL
Oh, the importance of being chaste. This little number dates back to when women were literally property exchanged between the hands of their fathers and those of their husbands-to-be. The promise of a girl's worth was in her virginity, and the veil represented that. Furthermore, it served to symbolize her blinded perception of the event- an oblivious acquiesce to social standards that continues today. We continue to celebrate weddings with the moment that a bride is "given away" to her husband- a moment made Kodak when her father momentarily lifts her veil to kiss her cheek, followed by a possible handshake with the groom. A true business deal, no?

THE LAST NAME
My name is my identity, just as his is for him. I will not sacrifice my existence in this world as it has been for 20-some years simply because I said "I do." For a long time I justified this thought with the ambition to make something of my name- make it mean more than a signature, and therefore be worth saving. But fuck that. If a guy can keep his name simply because he has a penis - and never has to prove himself beyond that -then why shouldn't I? I get to keep my name because it's mine, and I like it.