say yes to the stress
how not to ruin your marriage before it begins
Planning on getting married any time soon? If you want to keep up with the average American, you’d better start saving up. The average cost of a wedding in the U.S. soared to $30,000 in 2023, jumping by over $2000 over the previous year and wiping out a three-year decline that began with the COVID-19 pandemic. Let’s be perfectly clear: that’s more than half the current median income for a single person in America. And lest you forget that the people eloping in Vegas are being balanced out by the 250 couples a week whose weddings cost at least one million dollars — we’re here to remind you.
Extravagant weddings are nothing new, and stories of lavish ceremonies for the rich and wealthy likely date back as far as the institution of marriage itself. But in the age of Instagram and easy credit card signups, marketers have had great success convincing the 99% that they too should spare no expense on their special day, financial responsibility be damned. And from a certain point of view, it’s hard to blame people. Ostensibly, nobody wants to get married more than once, so this is their one and only chance to splurge on things that no ordinary person will ever buy again — fancy letterpress invitations, an abundance of flowers, centerpieces that look oh-so-adorable on Pinterest, catering to match the dietary requirements and preferences of everyone they know, and all the accoutrements they deem necessary to never forget that they are the specialist people ever on that day. And these couples have been swamped in a popular culture that tells them (almost from birth) that skimping out on a wedding day means you aren’t taking your relationship seriously: look no further than the perennial success of Say Yes to the Dress and its endless spinoffs.
Social media glamor aside, does spending more on the big day actually lead to a better marriage? Perhaps unsurprisingly to regular Pacific Dispatch readers, most evidence points to the contrary. While peer-reviewed research on the subject is somewhat hard to come by (it seems economics departments have better things to study what you should spend on your guests’ open bar), a handful of studies do exist. None find that couples who reported more expensive weddings tended to stay married longer or report higher satisfaction in their relationship. One even finds a significant negative correlation between spending and relationship metrics. Perhaps high spending can be a way to mask insecurity about the strength of the marriage? Alternatively, many see weddings as a goalpost to check off the life to-do list and may go into it with the wrong partner because the idea of having a wedding sounds like fun.
Marriage is the most significant commitment that most people will make in their lives, and if things do go south to the point one or both parties want out, it’s no longer as simple as breaking up. Legal costs of divorce and estate battles can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the increased cost of living alone after the fact. It’s little wonder that couples insecure about their future post marriage might try to assuage their worries with lavish spending on weddings and rings. A quick look at some statistics about divorce, however, put this strategy into serious doubt: between 40 and 50 percent of marriages in the U.S. are estimated to end in divorce, and financial problems were ranked within the top five in a NIH 2013 study of the causes of divorce, alongside issues such as substance abuse and infidelity. The statistics make overspending before a marriage has even begun seem like a recipe for disaster. We’re confident in saying that you shouldn’t feel bad if you don’t feel like burning tens of thousands of dollars on your wedding day.
Given the somewhat morose picture that this article has already painted of the expenses, stress, and consequences of marriage, some readers may be wondering why they should be getting married in the first place. It’s a fair question, and we should acknowledge off the bat that a significant driver of marriage has historically been social pressure. A classic anthropological textbook attempts to provide a cross-cultural definition of marriage as a union which allows the children of those within it to be acknowledged as legitimate in society. More broadly, married couples tend to have their relationship taken more seriously than those who are “only” dating or common-law: legal rights such as inheritance and hospital visitation, as well as spousal support after a separation, are often denied to or limited for unmarried couples.
This difference in rights was and continues to be a significant driver in the fight for same-sex marriage — in countries where the practice is not legal, same-sex couples are denied not only social recognition of the validity of their relationships, but also crucial material rights. Even the vocabulary used around relationships reinforces this hierarchy of seriousness: a divorce signifies a much more onerous and final process than a simple breakup. Similarly, we have the words widow and widower for those whose spouse has passed away, but there is no similar term if the deceased was a boyfriend, girlfriend, or life partner. And of course, not every reason to get married is purely practical or externally imposed: at the end of the day, marriage is a way to symbolize commitment to and care for the person you love. There’s nothing wrong with having your dream wedding. Just make sure it’s actually what you want, not what marketers and social media have convinced you you need.
If we’re going to talk about extravagance and excess in weddings, we should also talk about the phenomenon of the engagement ring. Before the iconic De Beers slogan, “A Diamond is Forever”, named “The Slogan of the Century”, the stone had been diminishing in popularity due to the Great Depression. That’s not considering De Beers’ monopoly and strategic manipulation of diamond supplies to make them seem rare, but that’s a whole nother article. By likening the strength and resilience of a diamond (which can cut through metal, stone, glass, concrete, and tooth enamel) to the longevity of a relationship, copywriter Frances Gerety changed the public perception of both diamonds and engagement rings in general; from this cultural shift also came the common belief that an engagement ring should cost as much as three months of the proposer’s income.
While the discourse around unethically sourced gemstones (e.g. “blood diamonds”) and the rise of lab-grown diamonds and diamond substitutes like moissanite has diminished the near-complete dominance of the diamond, words like cut, color, clarity, and carat are only used by the average person when wedding bells are on the horizon. And as a side-note, many people who buy expensive rings don’t insure them; of people with five to ten thousand dollar rings, about a third did not have jewelry-specific insurance coverage in 2020 (while renters’ and homeowners’ insurance can pay out for jewelry, there is typically a cap on how much they pay out unless an exception is negotiated ahead of time; and the very act of making a claim can raise your future rates the same way car accidents can make auto insurance more expensive).
Furthermore, drama around engagement and wedding rings deserves at least a brief mention: for example, who gets to keep an engagement ring if the engagement ends? In some states, the ring is considered a gift and belongs to the giftee; in others, it’s a conditional gift that must be returned if the condition is not met, i.e. if the marriage does not occur. Still others ask who was responsible for the relationship ending when deciding the fate of the expensive rock (though that could get into some murky territory). And what if the ring was a family heirloom? If there are multiple siblings who each want the heirloom ring, who gets it? Primogeniture has so few relics of its glory remaining in modern society but it does seem like a shaky premise upon which to base the bestowing of a treasured item. If the proposer whose family the heirloom ring comes from passes away, is the fiancé/e or spouse morally obligated to return it?
Speaking of families: they’re a huge part of the picture when it comes to weddings. This seems obvious when looking back at a time where marriage was either a representation of alliances or a tool to improve one’s socioeconomic status; but in modern times it can come as a shock just how many distant relations are suddenly part of the obligatory guest list. Reciprocity and exhibitionism (for lack of a better word) are the reasons why Cousin Freddie who saw you once when you were five absolutely must be invited; and if you have to disinvite your dear college friend who held your hair back as you threw up after a frat party, then so be it. In many cultures, marriage is still a tool of alliance, even as the default setting: for example, in India, “marriage” implies “arranged” and you have to specify a “love marriage.” Take a look at the Netflix show Indian Matchmaking (with a huge grain of salt, since it is a reality show after all) to understand a bit of the societal perspective. In most modern examples, an arranged marriage is not forced, but is sort of like having your partner put through the “meet the parents” test before they ever meet you.
Single men in your area, pre-approved by your parents! How romantic.
But there is a reason it persists. While many conservatives spout off about gay marriage ruining some sort of imagined “sanctity,” let’s be clear that there was never any real sanctity or romance to the endeavor throughout history. When matrimony was not a tool for alliance and social climbing among the elite with the byproduct of the suppression of the rights of women (see: dowry, coverture, bride kidnapping, and the permissibility of marital violence), it was frequently a topic of conversation with regard to interfaith, intercaste, interethnic, and interracial unions. There is evidence in history for the criminalization of premarital and extramarital sexual relations and the prevalance of child marriage, polygamy (usually polygyny), cousin marriage (even today, an estimated ten percent of marriages occur between first or second cousins), and even sibling marriage in rare cases. Marriage between blood relatives was not uncommon among royalty as a way to preserve bloodlines, often with disastrous genetic consequences (ever heard of the Habsburg jaw?).
One last fascinating point that we can’t find anywhere to smoothly slot in: primae noctis was a supposedly-legal-but-possibly-made-up right of medieval lords to basically call dibs on the first night with a woman after her wedding — you know, to get to know her (...biblically).
Without getting too much into the weeds of history, love marriage as the default is a relatively newish concept, and marriage itself is newish in the context of human history. It’s not surprising, then, that as one of the few social rituals that is still regarded as important and impactful (combined with the commercialization of love), marriages and by extension weddings become an opportunity to spend a shit-ton of money to achieve customized perfection.
Enter the bridezilla: a behemoth manifestation of cultural expectations, social and financial stress, and unrealistic expectations of champagne tastes on a beer budget. The archetype of the bride who becomes an unpleasant, ungrateful, demanding, and even objectively awful person in the lead-up to “the most important day of their life” is not without evidence (though of course the majority of brides do not behave in this manner and even in the throes of angst and worry are able to recognize their humanity and treat others with respect). Lots of money is at stake, lots of expectations from their social circle hang in the balance, and society places a lot of importance on this event for women in particular: cracking under pressure is understandable. One of the few meager upsides of the pandemic is that many couples realized they didn’t really care for an insanely expensive glorified party and didn’t need it to recognize and celebrate their relationship; ideally this trend will continue.
But in some cases, of course, the bridezilla designation is justified: child-free weddings have become increasingly common in recent years, and are a great way to enjoy the party without worrying about kids (for both the couple and the guests) — but an RSVP no by someone who can’t or won’t leave their children home with a babysitter or alternate caregiver is a reasonable response and should be accepted with grace. The same applies to people who cannot afford to go to (or justify using vacation days for) a destination wedding. But many couples become enraged at the idea that no one but themselves and perhaps their families think of them as the most important people of the day(s). Even without those limitations, costs for guests can include travel, childcare, dinner, outfits, and a registry gift (which can be outrageously expensive). A member of the bridal party may also be expected to shell out for bridesmaids dresses/groomsmen tuxedos or suits, hairdos, makeup, jewelry, matching shoes, bridal showers, bachelor/ette parties, and contributions to all of these costs for the bride or groom as well — not to mention that the choice of a particular theme may mean that they will never be able to rewear the outfit for another occasion.
Who pays for the wedding is another element that varies across cultures; but in modern Western society, it can range from being funded by the couple, funded by their parents, funded by donations by the guests (hopefully instead of a registry rather than supplementing a registry), or anywhere in between; the honeymoon falls into much the same category. When couples want more than they or their benefactors can realistically afford, or choose to spend on one day rather than save for more monumental purchases, things can get ugly. Add on the “wedding tax,” an extra charge by vendors for all events related to weddings for the drama and stress that usually comes with them, and suddenly the “buy the happy couple a drink!” Venmo stickers we see on the backs of cars don’t seem quite so outrageous — though they’re still tacky.
This manifesto has been our long-winded way of decrying the social expectations and subsequent financial decisions around weddings. Have the party you want or no party at all if that’s what you fancy — but expect things to go off plan, don’t freak out, and don’t fill a time of joy and anticipation with stress and debt. After all: it’s only one day (or maybe seven).