Author: MASadmin

I hate the shiny shoes that you end up getting when you rent a tux. They remind me of the sleek, shiny, expensive, wastes of space that were the shoes I wore when I was in high school marching band those many years ago. They’re usually uncomfortable, have no trend, and, when I wear them, they make me feel like I’m 6 years old and I’m not able to dress myself. I’m 26 now and there is still room in the debate on whether I’m able to dress myself properly but, dog gone it, I’m not wearing those silly shoes on my wedding day. Rented shoes are for bowling and ice skating. I’m a grown up; I can afford my own shoes.

Plus, why let the bride have all the fun in choosing her own shoes? How many blog entries or wedding stories do you read about women find the perfect pair of shoes? Wedding photographers are taught that they HAVE to take a picture of the shoes. They’re second only to the dress in terms of bridal obsessions (or so it seems). And if they’re going to take it seriously, I might as well take it seriously too. I’ve already written about how I think Chucks at a wedding are overdone and not as cool as people think they are. But I don’t necessary hate all trends. I think they’re useful. And one trend that I’m enjoying quite a bit right now is the resurgence in oxford/vintage style shoes.

When a guy opens up GQ or Details or Men’s Vogue, we are told that we need to own at least several classic Italian or British made wing tips or oxford shoes. We bust out the Benjamins, invest in these shoes in our early twenties, make sure our feet never get fat, and just repair them when they wear out. Investing in shoes that will last decades is what we’re suppose to do. But I was never the kind of guy who, in his early 20s, could afford to spend 500 dollars on some shoes. In fact, I can barely afford that now and with a wedding coming up, I can’t justify to myself that extra cost (even though I would look pretty fly). So what do I do? I either head over to zappos and look for a sale or I raid Urban Outfitters.

To the Point Wingtip in brown $68

Bed Stu Stentorian Oxford in charcoal $78

UO Tonal Oxford in gray $78

They aren’t super formal, with fake leather, thin wood soles, but they fit rather well on anyone with a wide foot (which is my problem). They’re supped up casual and would go great in any type of wedding that’s less than black-tie. Comfortable, stylish, and affordable, they’re also the type of shoe you can wear to work, with a suit, with jeans, or whatever. With a one button suit, it would be perfect. But if you have to go up in style, they’re classy enough to work with whatever you’re given. They won’t work with an ultra formal tux with tails but, yeah, I’m not going to do that type of wedding anyways. I’m not a penguin.

If I didn’t already have my shoes for the wedding, Urban Outfitters would probably be where I’d go. I ended up, in December, buying a pair of Ted Baker Thyme oxfords in black. They’re the first “designer” piece of clothing I’ve ever purchased and I’m quite happy with them though the bottoms are pretty slick. That means it is easy for me to slide on asphalt. It also means that it’ll be easy for me to slide down the aisle at my church like I’m a figure skater. And it’ll mean I’ll bust out a mean moon walk on the dance floor. Booyah.

Mine are in black but they seem to be discontinued $135 (retail $210).

Sometimes, I can be pretty stupid. Knowing me, how could I not think about including buttons in my wedding until I saw this post???

First off, I love the photographs. I want to be able to take pictures like that. In fact, I want my wedding pictures to be like that. But I’m realistic and my budget can’t afford a photographer who is able to do that. Actually, I would probably steal the photographer’s camera when he wasn’t look and try to take pictures like that. And I’m not allowed to take pictures while I’m standing at the altar. I was told this by not only my fiancee but my brother and a few friends. They know me too well.

Secondly, if you’ve followed what I’ve written recently, you will realize that I find a lot of what that groom wore/did as pretty cheesy. “Here Comes Your Man”, Chucks, the rip off of CGBG on the buttons – yeah, I rolled my eyes when I first saw it. To me, it’s incredibly over done but this is the circle that I run in. All those things are popular in my social sphere so there is nothing “unbride” or different about it. In fact, it’s all mundane. In fact, the John Valtross Chuck Taylors and Tux is fairly anti what CBGB and punk is about. But I gotta say that the cut and fit of that tux is perfect. The skinny tie is fantastic. And he’s actually one of the few guys allowed to wear Chucks. Why? Because of the facial hair. He at least LIVES that part. That’s what makes it work for me.

But besides all that, it’s the button instead of a boutonniere that makes it for me. Why? Well, it’s pretty obvious really.

You see. I have a hat. It has buttons on it. Lots of buttons.

I don’t wear it much anymore. I moved on to a regular gray newscap (or a black mohawk when it’s cold out) but, for a long time, that red cap with buttons was one of my clothing signatures. It has spikes going down the center because, well, I’m balding and I can’t grow a mohawk so I try to make up for it anyway I can. All the buttons on there are either trendy internet cartoons, punk bands, or things my fiancee gave me. I would lose a button, replace it, and add stuff onto it. People liked it, some people said it reminded them of their grandma, but it was awesome. In fact, I wish I was wearing it right now.

So, of course, when I saw the buttons at the above wedding, I instantly wanted to make my own. I haven’t priced them yet, I have no idea what they’ll look like (I’d love to make it a cartoon version of our cake topper but that might be unrealistic) and I haven’t even seriously talked about it with my fiancee yet but BUTTONS. That is a good idea. I have to file this in the maybe pile.

Blog Tide released their top 100 wedding blogs and I’m not on it. Bah. That list knows nothing.

Actually, I’m not surprised. I don’t advertise, I don’t comment much on other sites, and my trackbacks have been banned from a few sites (seems that criticism amongst brides is considered a no). A lot of the sites on that list are DIY oriented blogs which means….something. I’m not sure. In fact, I wonder a lot about what a DIY wedding means. Sure, it stands for Do It Yourself, but the current movement stems from the late punk movement that gradually spread amongst the gen xers, into the bourgeoisie upper middle class culture, and is now THE thing to do. It’s always masked as a way to bring your personality and “uniqueness” to a wedding. And by not going through a vendor, you’re “doing your own thing”, fighting your own faux rebellion against the wedding industry, and being special. I’m kinda of tired with this idea of “special”.

Maybe I have a strange perspective on DIY being an old punk and mexican but why is this DIY movement and weddings pretty much restricted to one social and ethnic class? And why is it really not any form of rebellion? Making your own dollies, having a friend perform your ceremony, and using fake flowers instead of real ones isn’t rebellion. And I don’t think of it as inducing your personality and uniqueness into a wedding either. Unless you’re going to Vegas and entering a cookie cutter wedding machine, there is no such thing as a cookie cutter wedding. They all have the same structure, they might have the same big pieces and layout, but there is always something that is different or the puzzle pieces are put into a different order to make it, when analyzed at the detail level, different from others. And if you look at the big picture, a wedding, no matter how it looks or its reception, all looks just like every other one. So why is DIY a movement and why is it claimed that the only way to make your wedding “personal” is by arts and crafts? Isn’t that defining weddings to fit a mold which is what the DIY wedding movement is trying to “fight against” anyways?

It’s weird but maybe it has to do with how weddings are pushed on young women from an early age. As a guy, I don’t suffer that very much growing up. Sure, I get misguided into believing the White Knight Syndrome (or lazy bum and slob syndrome) but, all in all, I have it easy in certain ways. All I’m suppose to do is define my self worth through how much money I make and what job I do which isn’t that hard. I’m not suppose to plan my wedding out to the very details. At least, not until the big day itself. So I could see DIY as being a slight rebellion against prevailing social pressures but for the child who dreamed up her wedding as a little girl and now, older and wiser, is spending her time making napkin holders out making her different than when she was 5 years old? Maybe it just feels different. And maybe that’s good enough.

Feeling different and being different are two separate things. The first is something that anyone can do and most people seem to strive for. They chase after the second thing – the actual being different. The problem is that actually being different is not defined by the individual. It is defined by those around you and by the society you live in. DIY weddings strike me as those who are striving to feel different when, in reality, they’re not. They’re pushing the social boundaries that they believe enclose them even though those social pressures might not be real but might merely be a projection of what they themselves participate in their everyday lives. The actually being different is a different animal and isn’t necessarily as positive as the DIY wedding brides seem to think it is. Not hiring a DJ doesn’t make you part of column b. Not spending $20,000 dollars on your wedding (even though the average wedding numbers are mostly screwed up anyways since they come from a small sample set of brides based in the upper middle class of NYC) does not make you different. And striving for this idea of “personal” and “unique” in your wedding makes you just like everyone one else. But you know what does make your wedding different? Not wearing a strapless dress. I am never going to stop saying that.