Femagination » Marriage

Something Old, Something New: Body Art for Weddings

Ellen Keim — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:44:56 +0000

One way to celebrate your wedding day and to make a really unique fashion statement is through the use of body art. The reason I called this post “Something Old, Something New” is because body art for weddings has been around for centuries, but is a relatively new concept for modern-day brides who are not from any particular religious traditoin. The three main options are mehndi, body painting, and tattoos, both temporary and permanent.

Mehndi

Mehndi is the application of henna in elaborate designs which last anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. The most common areas for mehndi designs are the feet and the hands because the designs last the longest in those areas. But they can be, and often are, applied anywhere on the body. And mehndi is not just for the bride; the bridegroom can be decorated as well.

The use of mehndi for weddings and other special occasions is traditional in Southeast Asian ethnicities, among others, and probably dates back to ancient India. Many Muslims employ mehndi practices because they were used in the day of the Prophet Mohammad. The designs, which can take many hours to set, are applied ceremoniously in special gatherings of women, much like a modern-day bachelorette party.

The designs themselves can be as simple or as complicated as you want them. Often symbols of love, union and harmony or the names of the bride and groom are incorporated into the designs. If you’re interested in a mehndi design for your wedding, the best place to look for a mehndi artist is among ethnic communities, such as Southeast Asians, Somalis, or Muslims in general. You may have to advertise for their services.

Body painting

Body painting is another option. It’s more versatile than mehndi color-wise (henna creates a red-brown coloration–be cautious about black colors as they often use dangerous dyes) but also more difficult to employ because it has to be done the day of the wedding. The designs can be anything you want and in any colors, although if you want small, intricate designs, you might be better off to go with mehndi. One of the nicest uses of body painting I’ve seen was a fairly simple design in white (and possibly another accent colot) painted on the forehead in a kind of bindi design. (Sorry I couldn’t find an illustration; it was in a book I no longer have.)

Body painters may be a little easier to find than mehndi artists, but you may also need to advertise for one. Consider using a student from a local art school. Body painting supplies can be ordered from the Internet. One suggestion I ran across was to have a body/face painter at the reception, especially if there are going to be a lot of children there. But more than likely, you’ll want to keep this effect for yourself.

Tattoos

If you’re very daring–and ready to make the commitment–a permanent tattoo can be the way to go. I would go with something discrete that fits in with your wedding dress. You’ll want to get it done in enough time for it to heal completely before the wedding (and honeymoon). But another way to go is a temporary tattoo. I found an especially nice source on the Internet called I Do Tattoos. They only have a few designs but they’re all tasteful and their color is blue (there’s your “something blue”). The cost is $36 and includes a folio of the tattoo for memory-keeping.

Visit Mehendi World for everything you might want to know about mendhi.

The Pregnant Bride

Ellen Keim — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:07:32 +0000

Yesterday I raised some questions about getting pregnant before marrying. I cited some statistics about how many parents are avoiding marriage and how many babies are being born out of wedlock. I also questioned whether it was the most responsible thing to do. Having written all that, however, I have to admit that pregnant brides are becoming more prevalent and accepted. Also, if I had to choose, I’d rather see a woman get married while she’s pregnant than wait until after the baby’s born. Not all brides-to-be agree with me, but I think it’s sweet, and also symbolic of one important reason to get married: to give a child a safe and secure environment in which to be raised.

First off is a video about Destination Maternity‘s bridal fashions for pregnant brides and bridesmaids.

The main thing to keep in mind when choosing a wedding gown is that your shape is going to change, sometimes dramatically, the closer you get to your wedding (and due) date. If you can get a fast turnaround on a custom gown and your wedding isn’t too far off, you can get away with a fitted gown, like the one shown in this video.

The empire-waisted gown pictured to the right is from U.K based Tiffany Rose, which has several maternity gowns at reasonable prices. Also check out this article from the Daily Mail (U.K.) for more pictures and statistics.

A particularly exciting (and eco-friendly) source for maternity (and other special occasion) gowns is Jessica Iverson Couture. Check out the 2010 Collection here. [Note: Don't assume that an empire-waist will fit you all through the pregnancy. You get larger around your diaphragm, too, because of the baby pushing up. So take that into account and consider elastic!]

Another thing to keep in mind is your shoes. You definitely want them to be comfortable; high heels are probably out. You also have to take into account that your shoe size may change as you progress in your pregnancy because of swelling. Some brides (not even pregnant ones) change into comfortable shoes like flats or even tennis shoes (in white!) for the reception.

Looking for a cake-topper that reflects your situation? Check out Magic Mud for custom-made wedding toppers such as the one pictured here.

Then there are the beverages. There should always be another option than alcohol for those who don’t or can’t drink–like the bride. The bachelorette party will need to be alcohol-free as well. And not too rambunctious!

As for the wedding and baby showers: You could simply have the wedding shower now and the baby shower later. But that depends on how close you are to delivering. If both are imminent, you might want to combine them for a little different twist.

Babies Before (Or Instead Of) Marriage: What’s Your Opinion?

Ellen Keim — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:04:14 +0000

Does it matter when Baby comes?

The just-released State of Our Unions report tells us that the percentage of kids born outside of marriage rose from 18% to 40% just since 1980. Not only that, but the number of kids whose parents are “just living together” rose from just under half a million to over 2.5 million during that same period. But that doesn’t mean that marriage is on its way out. The same report states that among high school seniors, 71% of boys and 82% of girls said that “having a good marriage and family life is extremely important” to them. But at the same time, over half also said “having a child without being married is experimenting with a worthwhile lifestyle or not affecting anyone else.” (Except for the child, of course.)

In data collected by The National Campaign, 47% of 18 to 24-year-olds say they expect to marry and have a baby with their current partner, but not necessarily in that order. Certainly, the example set by celebrities is that it’s almost the norm to have one or more children–or at least getting pregnant–before marrying (if they even marry at all). Are young people today following the lead of those who are in the public eye, or are the celebrities merely mirroring the changing norms of society? Or is it a little of both?

It might sound like I’m disapproving. And I am, a little. I can understand an unplanned pregnancy precipitating a wedding. I can even accept a woman having a baby when she doesn’t have an ongoing relationship with the father. But if you’re going to get married anyway, why have your baby before the wedding? Wouldn’t you rather be husband and wife before you’re father and mother?

I recognize that it’s partly my age that contributes to my attitude. It’s amazing to me that just a few short decades ago it was still considered to be aberrant (and immoral) to have a baby out of wedlock. All the girls I knew in high school who had babies got married first. To do otherwise was unthinkable. And to not get married at all–to raise the child alone–wasn’t even considered to be an option, at least not where I came from.

And yet, even though I’m a product of my era and my socioeconomic class, I have to say that my views have changed about single motherhood. That’s partly because of my own experience: I was a single mother because of divorce for at least half of my children’s growing up years. I also have a daughter who got pregnant (by chance, not by choice) but who chose to have the baby and raise him by herself. I now believe that a child’s happiness does not depend on having both parents living together with the child. My hangup is about parents who are together choosing to stay single. What kind of message does that send to a child?

But if a child can handle being raised by one (unmarried) parent, why can’t he or she handle being raised by two parents who aren’t married? I agree that it’s the commitment that counts, not the marriage license. Children are a lot more resilient than we give them credit for. They can tell when a relationship is or isn’t working, regardless of whether or not their parents are married. In fact, you could argue that it’s easier on children when their parents don’t have to go through a divorce if or when they split do up.

On thing I’m very glad about is that children who are born out of wedlock or whose parents don’t live together are no longer branded as “illegitimate” or “products of broken homes.” It’s not their fault how they came into the world or what their parents do after they’re here. I don’t believe that such children are at a disadvantage, I just question why their parents wouldn’t want to do all that they could to make their situation as normal as possible.

What do you think of parents who put off marriage, sometimes permanently? Do you think a child is harmed by his or her parents’ not being married, or not marrying until after he or she is born? Do you think that parents owe it to their children to make it legal (unless they’re not together in the first place)? Do you think divorce is more harmful than a break-up of unmarried parents?

Valentine’s Day

Ellen Keim — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:11:23 +0000

I remember making valentines for my mother when I was in grade school. (Funny how we never made them for our dads.) I also remember making out valentines for every kid in my class. And getting one from every kid in the class. And I remember aching for valentines from the boys I loved. One in particular. All through grade school I loved Larry Heckner. In the sixth grade I wrote VO-CAB-U-LARY on the front of my vocabulary notebook as a kind of code. Only my best friend knew why I’d written it that way. (Do you remember that, Martha?)

But these days I could care less about valentines. And it’s not sour grapes; I have romance in my life, thank you very much. My kids think that my husband and I are weird because we never do anything to celebrate our relationship. We never go on dates; we barely even celebrate our anniversary. (One year we celebrated our anniversary by rearranging the furniture in our living room. And we were quite pleased with ourselves afterwards, too.)

I would rather have someone tell me they love me every day than get a card or gift on Valentine’s Day. And my husband does that to a “T.” He’s always kissing and hugging me and saying he loves me and thinks I’m beautiful. (He laughs at my jokes, too.) I’ve had other husbands who never forgot a special occasion, but they were also never affectionate (unless they wanted sex). I wouldn’t trade the attention I get daily for a Valentine any time.

In other words, for me, every day is Valentine’s Day.

Is “A Marriage Agreement” Still Needed?

Ellen Keim — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:52:41 +0000

The 50-50 Split?

In 1970 Alix Kates Shulman wrote an essay titled “A Marriage Agreement” and instantly became one of the voices of the burgeoning Women’s Liberation Movement. She was ten years into her second marriage when she came up with a set of rules that she and her husband agreed upon to make their relationship more equitable. At the time the idea of sharing housekeeping and child rearing on a 50-50 basis “was so outrageous that the piece appeared in many magazines including New York, Ms., Redbook and Life, which gave it a six-page spread, and was attacked by Norman Mailer, S.I. Hayakawa, and Russell Baker, among others.” (p.163, Alix Kates Shulman, Women on Divorce .)

In the essay, Shulman wrote that “Before we made our agreement I had never been able to find the time to [write]. Over the past two years I’ve written three children’s books, a biography and a novel and edited a collection of writings. Without our agreement I would never have been able to do this.”

Ironically (or inevitably?), Shulman’s marriage ended after 25 years. Was it the 50-50 split that did it? There are those who would have us believe that Shulman’s feminist principles are what doomed her marriage. After all, before the feminist movement, women were happy unselfishly giving up their lives to take care of home and family. Weren’t they?

These days it is a given that women have the right to pursue their interests–as long as it doesn’t interfere with their responsibilities at home. This is what conservatives and traditionalists (read: “anti-feminists”) would have us believe. And yet most women, even if they don’t identify as feminists, know that they’re not being treated fairly. Why shouldn’t their husbands and boyfriends shoulder as much of the chores as they do? Why should women be the only ones who are blamed if the house isn’t a home and the children aren’t well-adjusted?

Even among couples who attempt to share the responsibilities of marriage equally, the housekeeping and child rearing rests more on the woman’s shoulders than it does on the man’s, even though both are out earning a living. Many young women have expressed their anger with Second Wave feminists’ assurances that a woman can have it all. They’d be glad, they profess, to be back in the home full-time, if only to relieve the pressure of having to work and take care of the home and children anyway. Lisa Belkin called this the “Opt-Out Revolution” in a 2003 New York Times article of the same name. Apparently, young women who were groomed for careers are opting out to stay home with their children.

It’s not clear how much of a phenomenon this is. But what is clear is that something has got to give. These young mothers will find their opportunities limited when and if they return to the workforce. Their Social Security benefits will be less than their husbands’ because they didn’t work as much over their life spans. And that’s not even taking into account the talents that go unused when women eschew careers for home-making.

[Let me say here that there is nothing wrong with being a homemaker--unless the homemaker in question wants more out of life. If her partner really loves her, he (or she) should make it possible for her to explore all her options. No woman should have to take on more than her share of the household and familial duties.]

Shulman writes today:

“["A Marriage Contract's"] limited success is hardly surprising, given the economic, social, and psychological arrangements that continue to impede equality, in marriage and out…Probably not until the polity is more child- and woman-friendly, not until men and women are equally valued – economically and otherwise – not until free or low-cost quality childcare is universally available, will the ideal of equality in marriage be other than radical.” (Shulman’s complete remarks here.)

Does Feminism Cause Divorce?

Ellen Keim — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:48:10 +0000

I’ve never had a problem with marriage. In fact, I marry too easily. If I’m in a serious and exclusive relationship and the guy wants to marry me, I concur. And so I find myself married once again.

[That's not entirely true. I had to convince my first husband to marry me. But we were only 20 and now I can understand his reluctance. I should have been reluctant, too. But instead, I was pressuring him. I had just become a feminist the year before, but I didn't then and still don't think that being a feminist means you can't be married.]

I’ve always married—or agreed to marry—rather precipitously. My first husband and I started dating in November and married the following July (much to my parents’ consternation—we didn’t inform them that we were getting married until two months before the wedding date). My second marriage occurred six months after my first divorce. I was single for four years after that, but only because my third husband wasn’t free to marry until then because of a protracted divorce. And my fourth, present and last husband and I had to wait three years for his fiance visa to come through.

Now that I reconsider, I have to admit that the man’s desire to marry might just have had a lot to do with my own openness to it. I never once said, “I’m not ready. Let’s wait a while.” The times when the marriages didn’t happen right away were because of outside forces, not my own reluctance. I’ve just never been cautious about getting married. And I have three divorces to show for it.

Just as I have always been open to marrying, I have also been open to divorcing. Not that I married with the idea in the back of my head that if it didn’t work out we could always get a divorce. No, instead, against all evidence to the contrary, I believed that each marriage was going to be my last. It’s just that I seemed incapable of anticipating what things might cause problems and eventually lead to a divorce.

Even so, I didn’t divorce at the first sign of trouble. There has always been a long period of problems—and counseling and soul-searching—before I’ve asked for a divorce.

Some people could look at my life and say that my being a feminist has contributed to the break-ups of my marriages. If they mean that I’m strong enough to leave when things get bad, I suppose it has. But I prefer that to staying in a marriage and suffering for the rest of my life just because I’m afraid of going it alone. I realize that there are many things that keep two people together, but I’d like to think that mutual misery isn’t one of them.

If anything, I think feminism would have prevented all my divorces. If I’d been strong enough I wouldn’t have married for the wrong reasons. Because I was afraid no one else would want me. Because I was afraid I couldn’t raise my children alone. Because I didn’t have enough money. Because I liked being wanted.

If I’d been a strong enough feminist, I would have waited for what I really wanted in a husband. I would have insisted on someone who loved me for myself and not just as someone to stand by and take care of him. It isn’t a readiness to divorce that breaks down marriages. It’s marrying the wrong person for the wrong reasons in the first place.

Unfortunately, being a feminist doesn’t protect a woman from making mistakes. There are many unforeseen roads ahead in every marriage. You can’t anticipate what will happen. You can’t always be sure that your motives for marrying—or staying married—are pure. All you can do is make as sure as you can that you are honest with yourself about who you are and what you want out of life.

And pray.

Feminist Weddings

Ellen Keim — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:36:29 +0000

How can you tell if you’re at a feminist wedding?

No, that’s not a joke, although there’s probably a joke in there somewhere. (I’m lousy at telling jokes.) But seriously, what makes a wedding feminist? If the father doesn’t give away the bride? If the bride keeps her last name and is introduced that way? If the bride’s vows leave out the obedience bit?

Those are all places to start, I suppose. And they are typical answers that Second Wave feminists would have given back in the day. Actually, they may even have gone a step further and advised women to skip the marriage part altogether. After all, isn’t marriage just a construct of a patriarchal system?

Traditionally, yes. But today’s feminists are rethinking marriage and coming up with some new ideas. Marriage can be a contract between equals. It doesn’t have to signify “ownership,” even ownership of each other. It may be purely a statement, a public declaration that this relationship is exclusive (unless it’s an open marriage; that’s a subject for another post). It can be a celebration of your love for one another. But most people also want marriage–and the wedding–to be a reflection of their values and beliefs.

So if one or both of you are feminists, then you are often seen as part of a counter-culture. You don’t exist in the mainstream of society. So it makes sense that your wedding will also be “off the beaten path.” But in what ways?

First of all, economically. Not buying (literally) into a wedding with all the bells and whistles shows that you have not been sucked in by the wedding industry. The average cost of a wedding today is in the $20,000 range. This is because most people plan their weddings according to a template: there have to be engraved invitations, a rehearsal dinner, the ceremony, a bridal gown, tuxedos, bridesmaids and groomsmen, rings, wedding cake, reception, flowers, place cards, favors, gifts for the bridal party, a professional photographer, something old, new, borrowed, blue–the list is endless.

Second, philosophically. A counter-cultural wedding is an “examined” wedding. That is, everything is scrutinized for its appropriateness. The bride and groom don’t just accept all the traditons, but pick and choose which ones are most meaningful for them. They don’t just do everything for the sake of appearances, or because everyone else does it, or because it’s always been done that way. (That’s a misconception anyway: weddings are constantly changed. Did you know, for instance, that it wasn’t until after the Civil War that brides began to wear white?)

The feminist wedding therefore will reveal a feminist philosophy on the part of the bride and (hopefully) the groom. But feminists are not all alike. Some like the idea of their fathers giving them away, some prefer both parents giving them away, some don’t want anyone giving them away–or “taking” them for that matter (because they are, and want to remain, their own persons.) Some like the symbolism of two becoming one for eternity, some want to downplay that symbolism by not having rings or not lighting a wedding candle together.

For more tips on how to have a feminist wedding, click here.

For how to have a reasonably priced wedding, click here.

I Could Have Used Feminism…(Part Two)

Ellen Keim — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:10:17 +0000

Feminist Buttons 1968 - 1972

I could have used feminism…

when my first marriage ended in divorce and I was faced with raising four daughters alone.
when I moved back in with my parents instead of getting my own place.
when my ex got the child support reduced and I didn’t fight it.
when I thought that remarrying would solve all my problems.
when I decided against going back to school after my remarriage because I thought I didn’t need it.
when I took another shit job instead of trying to make it as a writer, which is what I really wanted to do.
when my new husband became abusive and I still didn’t get out of the marriage for another three years.
when I became a single mother again (even though this time we had our own home).
when the father of my kids stopped paying child support.
when I was sexually and psychologically harassed at work.
when I got pathologically dependent on a new boyfriend.
when I thought again that getting married would solve all my problems.
when I stayed in my toxic job even though the abuse continued (for a total of 16 years).
as my children matured and I needed to give them a role model.
when my parents died and I became the matriarch of the family.