NOTE: This archive only contains Carolyn Hax columns through March 2011. Her more recent columns are located here.

Carolyn Hax

(Nick Galifianakis for The Washington Post)
  Enlarge Photo    

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Carolyn Hax
Friday, July 3, 2009

While I'm away, readers give the advice.

On the unintended consequences of the anti-bridezilla movement:

Brides just cannot win in this day and age. If we send out invitations to everyone, we're just demanding presents. If we keep a limited list, we're horrible, insensitive, selfish people who think we are better than the want-to-be-invitee. If we ask how people would feel about getting an invitation or not, then we're again horrible, insensitive, rotten people.

In any event, we're bridezillas who can't think beyond me, me, me. It pretty much made me want to elope.

I'd just like to ask people to get over their moral outrage with weddings. Why is it we can't just assume that an announcement is just because the couple would like you to know, not because the couple are demanding gifts? Why is it that an invitation has to be about the presents and not because, in a perfect world where people could travel at whim with no expense, we would have liked you to be there and wanted you to know that, even if we already know you'll have to decline?

And if you don't get an invitation, don't assume it's because you aren't good enough to make the cut. The couple may have known the event was too far away or may have thought you wouldn't be interested.

D.B.

Brides strike back, Part 2:

Please advise all those invited to expensive or tacky or even perfectly nice weddings they do not really wish to attend, that there is a standard, polite, one-size-fits-all response, which will work perfectly, as long as you are not secretly seeking a little drama in your life.

You simply RSVP that you will be unable to attend, and then send them a really lovely, even $5.50 possibly, congratulations card. Go crazy, get the one with the crunchy lace and the real ribbon bow and the see-through cover with sheer, scrolly sentiments on it.


CONTINUED     1        >

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity