Category Archives: Not the Knot

The Knot’s “Crazy” Colors Break My Brain

Before I got sidetracked by actually offensive wedding website content, I started out my last blog post about this week’s Knot newsletter.

The Knot’s newsletter, per usual, also offended me. But only because things that don’t make any sense offend me.

This week the Knot is showcasing “20 ‘crazy’ color combos that actually work.”  CRAZY, you guys.  Like for people who see colors as numbers, these colors are the square roots of negative integers!

The slideshow header reads, “There are certain colors that we all know match: black and white, blue and silver or purple and gold.”  Wait… what?

Purple and gold?  REALLY?

[Colour Lovers]

Let’s ask two of the most hated men in sports:1



Well, I guess Minnesota based/originating2 sports franchises can’t be wrong, right?  So I’m just going to take the Knot’s word for it that purple and gold are one of the classic color pairings.

Let’s move on to the color combinations that are crazy… crazy like a FOX… a fox that ate a box of crayons!

Crazy color combo #3: Peppermint and Aqua

Peppermint is a green leafy plant.


Peppermint on the Knot, however, is red. I guess because of candy canes? No matter.  Point is: Red and light blue is about as crazy a combination as peanut butter and honey.  Like, it’s not the most traditional palette in the world, but in the world of weddings, it’s nothing we haven’t seen before.

Crazy Color Combo # 8: Gray and Lemon

Again, this color combination is so popular over the last few years’ of hip weddings it is pretty absurd to post it in 2011 as some kind of outre suggestion.  Plus I’m 95% sure we talked about gray and yellow as symbolically paired in a high school English lit class.  I think they were paired to represent despair, though.  So maybe it would be an usual selection for a wedding scheme.  If not for… you know… it being a huge fad.

Crazy Color Combo # 10: Eggplant and Gobstopper Pink

Also known as pink and purple. Which you’ve probably never seen together. As long as you’ve never set foot in the Girl Ghetto Aisle of a Toys R Us.


Crazy Color Combo # 17: Chocolate and Vanilla


Color Combo # 20: Bubblegum and Grassy Green

The inspiration board for this pairing shows a lot of flowers. I wonder why.

Well, I don’t know about you guys, but my mind is BLOWN.  Those crazy color combos are changing the way I think about the world.  What if what I think “red” is has nothing to do with how you see it? What if neither of us is right? What if nothing exists outside of our perceptions? Dude… I am TRIPPING.

1I’m from Pittsburgh. I know from reviled athletes.
2So I just fact-checked this, and I guess the Lakers grew out of a defunct NBL team in Detroit? But I had never even heard of the NBL before this very moment.  And I don’t know how to re-write this sentence to make it make sense.  Look, point is, purple and gold are important to Minnesota for some reason.  I don’t really want to deny them, because they are so nice up there and they have such awesome accents.


Judge Not

Something I edited out of yesterday’s post [Lower your eyebrows! I edit my crazy blog screeds. Some.] was the notion that the trend toward having bridal attendants select their own formalwear is, I suspect, not entirely motivated by convenience, respect, or even aesthetics.  I think a really good reason to let your attendants pick their own clothes that no one cops to is covering your own ass.  If you didn’t pick the dress, you can’t be judged if it is—gasp!—tacky.  And I think we’re all looking for one less reason to be judged.

Sarah wrote a great post [all of Sarah’s posts are great] about wedding insecurity, about those scary concerns that we’re ruining our own weddings, making choices which confuse our guests or executing these choices in less-than-perfect ways which will disappoint our guests.

I think we all worry about this sort of thing, especially because of the common narrative in wedding culture that our guests are not so much our family and friends as they are a mass of Professional Wedding Critics.  The Knot’s newsletter this week leads off with “What are your guests really thinking? Are they judging your dress? Do they hate the food?” [This is a direct quotation, people.]

In reality, I think most wedding guests’ thoughts go something like, “Oh, this is nice, they look so happy. Where is the bar?”

But according to the Knot, wedding guests have common complaints, most of which start with the word “You.”  Meaning “the bride.”  Your guests aren’t just here to judge the wedding, they’re here to judge YOU.  Because everything in the wedding is a reflection of the bride, right?  [What is this “groom” of which you speak?]

In the narrative where wedding guests are an army of Waldorfs and Statlers, bridesmaid dresses are a common target:  “I can’t believe she picked that color.” “That fabric looks so cheap.”  “She obviously was trying to make her friends look dumpy so she would look better in comparison.”

These comments all sound so familiar, even though I’m not sure I’ve ever heard them in real life.  I mean, on the one hand, I get it: stiff polyester satin isn’t most lovely fabric, strapless dresses present bra challenges not every woman can handle, and then there are those mythical bridesmaid frocks that give dresses a bad name:

[via Unique Vintage]

[Although, truthfully, my dream is to be in the wedding of someone who wants to put her bridesmaids in a dress like that hot pink number.  I desperately want the excuse to wear something like that and look effin’ hot in it.]

In real life, bridesmaids dresses are rarely if ever that offensive, but they still have this reputation as a cruel punishment brides inflict on their friends.  Maybe this is just because haters gonna hate [t-shirt HT to Lexi].  But it also adds fuel to the raging fire of bridal insecurity, insecurity which retailers and advertisers are here to remind us can only be quelled by dollah dollah bills.

I’ve Made a Huge Mistake

This week, the Knot has a helpful list of the “worst” or “most common” (depending on what link you click) wedding planning mistakes a bride can make.

Second on the list is a mistake so dreadful I feel obligated to bring it to your attention.

This mistake is worse than putting the wrong date on your invitations.  Worse than saying the wrong name at the altar.  Worse than signing up for the Knot’s newsletter!

Fellow brides, no matter what you do, DO NOT “read aloud to your fiancé… from bridal magazines.

“Look, we know it’s not the Stone Age, and there are plenty of guys out there who want to see their wedding as an event that reflects their style too (or at least one that isn’t dripping with pink froufrou). But there’s likely to be a limit to your fiance’s ability to cope with an infinite array of invitation choices.”

Fiancés hate weddings.  That’s why they get engaged.  To get that shit over with, so they can live the rest of their lives without dreading their wedding.  [Fiancés are also ALL dudes, by the way. Or have you forgotten your heteronormativity French?]

But the only thing they hate more than weddings is PINK FROUFROU.  What is pink froufrou, you ask? A contagious skin rash? A  mildewy residue that stubbornly sticks to shower grout?  A communist kitty cat?  No! Worse than all these things.  Pink frou frou is girl stuff.

Fiancés will tolerate exposure to wedding planning only to the extent necessary to protect against pink froufrou.  You may have your heart set on fuchsia unicorns frolicking through nests of puce tulle as centerpieces, because you are a girl and girls like that crap.  Well, be ready for your dude to nix that in favor of some stainless steel wrapped in black leather wrapped in bacon wrapped in Xboxes.  [You should accept that style choice, because it is his day too.  Don’t be a Bridezilla.]

But don’t think that because your fiancé put his foot down on the centerpieces that he actually cares enough to listen when you talk to him.  Especially when you are reading aloud from a bridal magazine. [Like your local edition of the Knot in print!  Only $4.99, at newsstands everywhere!]  That’s like using your mouth as a weaponized estrogen launcher.

I read one, just one, tip on how to soften square tables by matching chairs to chargers, and now Collin has testicular cancer.

Don’t make my mistake.  Listen to the Knot.  Only speak of weddings when spoken to.  And while you’re at it, try not to be such a girl.

Toward a Unified Theory of Automatic Disqualification for First Dance Songs

This week The Knot offers “10 New First Dance Songs.” The first is a Sam Cooke song. Sam Cooke died in 1964, so you can tell that The Knot is operating under a wonky definition of “new.” But per usual, defying logic is only the beginning of The Knot’s offensiveness.

The second song suggestion is the Mamas and the Papas recording of “Dream a Little Dream of Me.”

Ok.  So, Mama Cass sings lead vocal on that track, and I just Wiki’d it and the single was released under her name alone in the UK, but… uh… you know what the Mamas and the Papas make me think about immediately?  RAPE AND INCEST.  Why, why why, whywhywhywhywhywhywhywhy, why why WHY is The Knot recommending anyone have their first wedding dance to a song by the Mamas and the Papas when we only learned last fall that Papa John raped his daughter a bunch of times?  Why don’t they at least attempt to bill the song as by Mama Cass to avoid that association by their readers?  [And honestly I don’t think that would be good enough for me.  If they recommended “How Do You Talk to an Angel” I would think about Jamie Walters’ 90210 character Ray Pruit being a loose reworking of his character on the Aaron Spelling-produced series The Heights, and about how Michelle Phillips played one of the Brenda replacements’ moms on Nine Oh, and then think about John Phillips, and then think about rape and incest, and probably decide that alone disqualifies “How Do You Talk to an Angel.”]

Ok.  So, to repeat: any song that employs a YouTube embed with John Phillips’ face in the background? UNACCEPTABLE WEDDING SONG.

I am working on a Unified Theory of Automatic Disqualifications for First Dance Songs.  For example, no songs that prominently feature a first name different than your own.  (So Bob Dylan’s “Sara,” even though it sounds like marriage more than any other recording ever in history, is eliminated if you are named Robin).  Also, no songs about real-life relationships that are unsavory in their beginnings or endings (So no Bob Dylan’s “Sara” for anyone, and also no Eric Clapton nor George Harrison songs about Pattie Boyd).

I have a third rule (applied above), but it is trickier: no songs by people who committed violence against women.  In application of this rule, I assume allegations are true.  I started to write a paragraph here about all the songs that disqualifies, but it is REDACTED because I started to WORRY ABOUT GETTING SUED by someone who according to him never beat anyone whose name rhymes with Schmaryl Schmannah.  [And I also started to worry about offending people who used or are using Lennon/McCartney songs.]

My third rule is pretty tough.  It also requires due diligence that you look up if someone allegedly beat women.  For example, when I started writing this entry, I knew that Sam Cooke was killed when he was young, but it wasn’t until I fact checked the year of his death to make a more specific  joke in the third sentence of this post that I read some more details about his death and realized he’s disqualified too.  When you cut out the misogynist musicians, you cut out a lot of tunes.  It’s like that killer third prong of the Bechdel Test.  No one said feminism would be easy.

On Friendors

This week’s inbox poison from The Knot is the “Top 10 Wedding Planning Myths,” the first of which is “hiring friends is the same as hiring wedding vendors.”  In the busting of this myth, The Knot warn that no matter how brilliant and talented your friends may seem, they are inexperienced with the delicate field of weddings and therefore will be one of your lifelong wedding regrets.

Does “shut up” go without saying?

Although honestly, and I can’t believe I’m about to say this, The Knot is right.  Hiring friends is not the same as hiring wedding vendors.  Allow me to mythbust:

1. Friends are generally more affordable than wedding vendors. Sometimes even free!

2. Friends are more pleasant to be around than wedding vendors. Personally, I prefer having a close friend hang out with me for hours on my wedding day, using his familiar photography catch phrases of “this is nothing!” (for test shots) and “Laa!” (to force natural smiles) than some stranger who might, for example, always try to shoot me from my right so you can’t see the scar on my eyebrow.  Because Stranger doesn’t know I like the scar on my eyebrow, and frankly I don’t want to have to put a scar-representation clause in my contract.

3. Friends care more about you than do wedding vendors. Wedding vendors want to avoid breach of contract and want to secure a nice tip and good word of mouth.  Your friends want to be a part of what makes your wedding wonderful. That sounds more valuable to me.

So we’re trying to use friendors as much as we can (almost definitely for photography, probably for ceremony music, but we have a lot of negotiating ahead).  I’m really not concerned about “not getting the same results.”  What does give me pause about hiring friends is I want them to enjoy our wedding instead of feeling on the clock.  If I wrote for the Knot, and I needed to soullessly terrify brides into hiring wedding professionals, I would definitely emphasize that concern.  [Dear The Knot, please see “contact” on the right margin to inquire about my freelancing rates when the time comes for next quarter’s wedding myth column.  Kisses!]

How about you? Are you using any friendors?  Have you any doubts?

P.S. I really enjoyed this post a few weeks back on A Cupcake Wedding, poking fun at how friendors are not necessarily available to all, nevertheless emphasizing that if you are so blessed as to have friends with wedding-adaptable talents, take advantage of it!

Three Forces That Will Try To Take Over Your Wedding

I don’t know if you guys get The Knot Newsletter, but it includes totally helpful, not at all anxiety-mongering articles like 10 Planning Questions You Didn’t Know To Ask (sample question: “Do I really need someone to hold my dress when I pee?” Which, as asked, sounds like a question you DID know to ask, but let’s not get too nitpicky this early in the entry).

Yesterday the Knot dropped another fear bomb into my inbox:  The 5 People Who Will Try to Take Over Your Wedding.

Holy shit!  I hadn’t even begun to think about wedding taker-overers!  And there are so many threats out there, just biding their time before they can assume total control of my wedding.

MY DAY.  BECOMING THEIRS. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We brides must be ever-vigilant!  The Knot covered such “wedding hijackers” as modest bridesmaids (with no respect for the Pantone color of the year), know-it-all in-laws (with their experience and their advice and their hyphens), social networking butterflies (they might invite “Tom from MySpace!”  Oh, topical humor), guests who offer free services (ewww, free!), and guests with children (heaven forfend!).

This list is barely scratching the surface of the evil forces plotting to take over your wedding. Here are three more Wedding Invaders to watch out for:

1. The Borg

Really, you should worry about all alien species invading your wedding.  But the Borg are particularly scary, because, I don’t know if you’ve heard this, but resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated!  Your wedding will be part of the collective.  You will be Bridecutus of Borg.  The cybernetic bits coming out of your skull are definitely going to make it hard to put on your headpiece, your waxy pale skin that will not look good in a white dress, and just forget about the heart-wrenching personalized vows you wrote, because you’re part of a hive mind now.

Continue reading