Wedding planner needed

OK, so who wants to plan my wedding?

Job one is, I suppose, to locate a bride. I’m guessing that there must be someone out there who is: female, single, similarly inept at sorting this kind of thing out, vaguely regretting that ineptitude, reasonably cuddly, quite nice and who’d probably be fairly good at being one or two people’s mum in a few years’ time.

My problem with society’s normal ways for men and women to meet is that they’re very good at helping each side to find out a load of almost-irrelevant things about the other: what they look like, what they drink, whether they dare to dance, whether they’re any good at doing so, etc… I suppose you also learn what they like to talk about, but I have to question how useful that is if you’re looking for someone to spend your life with: surely anyone’s going to be out of material after a couple of months; it’d be better to save their amusing anecdotes for later.

OK, so maybe I don’t really mean everything in that last paragraph (which bits I mean I leave to you to work out), but I think the underlying point has something to it.

Anyway, if any of my readers have a plan; or better, a candidate; let me know…

9 Responses to “Wedding planner needed”

  1. Sally

    I’ll do it! You will have to submit to my own unique vision of heterosexuality entails though. Also, I’m not sure how much I’d care about the longevity of the match, it’s all about the piss-up, really.

    Reply
  2. Sally

    There was a missing “what” somewhere in that comment. Have fun fitting it into the right sentence!

    Reply
  3. Phil Willoughby

    I would have thought you’d be more able than most women to tell heterosexual women apart from homosexual ones. In those tacky online tests, I get the same score (50%) as random selection for identifying gay men from photos; but my accuracy at picking out gay women is up at 80% or so.

    Reply
  4. Sally

    I was talking about the heterosexual paradigm, rather than individuals’ sexual orientation.

    Anyway, my gaydar’s crap.

    Reply
  5. Paul

    I can immediately tell which of those criteria you really mean. You can immediately tell everything you need to know about a woman by what she drinks!

    Reply
  6. Ian

    At risk of making the tone slightly serious, I wouldn’t worry. The entertaining bits you take into marriage are usually anecdotes related to previous dalliances with other women (don’t use these), jokes (women don’t get them), tales of previous achievements in the sporting arena (ditto), and the in-jokes from the other blokes you normally go down the pub with (which no-one else, male or female, will understand).

    What comes from marriage is the entertaining anecdotes and subjects to talk about.

    My recommendation: hitch up with someone who doesn’t bore the sh*t out of you and won’t offend you to look at. That way, anything better than that and you’ll wake up feeling happy.

    Your future partner needs to be female if the long-term plan is for them to be a mother. They’ll need to be male if you can’t decorate to anything larger than a 3-bit colour palette (e.g. ‘lilac’ isn’t really a colour, it’s just light purple).

    Reply
  7. Jenny

    So I’m going to follow Ian’s seriousness here …

    I am not convinced by your assertion that things like what someone drinks, whether they dance and whether they’re good at dancing are irrelevant to marriage, or long-term relationships.

    To be sure, it’s probably more important to a relationship that you have similar long-term expectations, that you share a lifestyle that lets you spend time together, that you have habits, hobbies and friends in common, etc. But little things are also important. Sharing a taste in drinks, enjoying dancing together, these are vitally important cements or else little niggling potential-bones-of-contention.

    However, mostly I look at this post and think you’ve missed the point of the “dating” scene and “getting to know you” bits.

    I know … oh, dozens of men who, on paper, would be ideal for me (were I in fact wanting a relationship at the moment, which, to be fair, I’m not). But many of them … simply don’t appeal. And I entirely refuse to believe the “When Harry Met Sally” or similar theories, that tell me all men find all (or almost all) women attractive. Ergo, I believe, you could very easily find someone “perfect” on paper who doesn’t work in person.

    So why not *start* – the human conventional way – by finding someone who has some kind of “zing” or “chemistry” or whatever you want to call it, and then finding out whether you want the same things out of life. After all, you want to find someone you’ll enjoy spending time talking trivial things and doing inconsequential things with – better find out if that’s possible *before* making any kind of commitment rather than after, no?

    For myself – and I suspect for you, and indeed most geeks – dating’s not really the way forward. My money’s on the “meet lots of people, make lots of friends, a relationship will pop up when you least expect it” methodology.

    Ergo – as per some older comments on some later post on this blog – go get dancing lessons!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>