Weddings are typically invite-only, yes: although there's a tradition that if people get married in a church, any member of the church can attend the wedding (but not reception, unless invited). But there's quite a bit of "look, we're getting married" that isn't in private or invite-only: wedding photographs are often taken in public parks, with the people being photographed in standardized wedding clothes. Wedding planning often becomes a major topic of conversation, even with people who aren't invited (and might not care to be), notably co-workers who find themselves overhearing lengthy conversations about catering, flowers, et cetera. It's also a lot bigger deal, socially and emotionally, to say "No thanks, I don't want to go to your wedding" than to decline most other invitations.
I'm only aware of one case of people who invited their friends to a social event and then revealed, after everyone had arrived, that it was their wedding. As far as I know, everyone there thought it was cool: after all, they liked their host enough to have accepted her invitation to a party. But if they hadn't, it would have been a lot harder to walk out than it would be to decline an invitation, claiming other commitments. (I think the reason for surprising the guests was so that they wouldn't feel the need to buy gifts.)
Well weddings are their own beast. They have their own subsets of rules, which are full of their own inconsistencies. Issues come up with them that dont occur with anywhere else in society. To use an example that will bring this conversation full circle: Miss Manners once had to tell a lady who was to be a "Best Man" that it was wrong of the Groom to insist that she cross dress for the occasion :-)
I can say this though -- the societal norms are full of double standards that piss me off. The people on the short end of the sticks can react in two different ways when it comes to pushing for consistency:
1) Assert their "right" to do whatever the other guys are "allowed" to do.
2) Assert no "right" whatsoever until such time that the other guys youre dealing with assert theirs. Then follow suit in kind to whatever extent they do.
My problem with #1 is that the "short end" person does this based upon what he/she PERCEIVES the rules to be. If the "long end" person he/she is asserting *at* didn't have the same perception of the rules, (or more likely, no thought out conception of the rules) at best then the message will be lost, and at worst, it's polarizing someone against you who wasn't before.
#1 also smacks of chip on shoulder. I don't know anyone who was ever swayed by such a tactic. #2 may make people think just a little, which I assume is the goal.
(no subject)
I'm only aware of one case of people who invited their friends to a social event and then revealed, after everyone had arrived, that it was their wedding. As far as I know, everyone there thought it was cool: after all, they liked their host enough to have accepted her invitation to a party. But if they hadn't, it would have been a lot harder to walk out than it would be to decline an invitation, claiming other commitments. (I think the reason for surprising the guests was so that they wouldn't feel the need to buy gifts.)
(no subject)
I can say this though -- the societal norms are full of double standards that piss me off. The people on the short end of the sticks can react in two different ways when it comes to pushing for consistency:
1) Assert their "right" to do whatever the other guys are "allowed" to do.
2) Assert no "right" whatsoever until such time that the other guys youre dealing with assert theirs. Then follow suit in kind to whatever extent they do.
My problem with #1 is that the "short end" person does this based upon what he/she PERCEIVES the rules to be. If the "long end" person he/she is asserting *at* didn't have the same perception of the rules, (or more likely, no thought out conception of the rules) at best then the message will be lost, and at worst, it's polarizing someone against you who wasn't before.
#1 also smacks of chip on shoulder. I don't know anyone who was ever swayed by such a tactic. #2 may make people think just a little, which I assume is the goal.