Giving gifts can sometimes be a guessing game, especially when you really feel the obligation to give something that the recipient could use and perhaps needs (i.e., you don’t want to give gifts that will end up in the bride’s and groom’s basement).  Also, wedding gifts should be things that both the bride and groom can use. 

Recently, I came across a potential gift that could be useful for the wedding registry and could be given to both the bride and groom… ultra soft towels.  The towels that I’m referring to are called “Micro Cotton.”  They absorb water very fast and dry very fast as well.  Also, they don’t give off lint the first few weeks when you use them and… the softness lasts.  These can come in handy especially after a warm bubble bath.

Seating arrangements at wedding receptions tend to always have couples sit together at tables with other couples.  The arrangements often go like this: elders together, family together, young couples together, and then… singles together.

I’m not sure why there’s this “singles” table rule.  Ok, I understand that when you seat people, you seat them together in accordance with common interests, age, etc.  But, why is there this unspoken rule that singles should sit together?  What if there are no common denominators other than the single status?  Sure, the idea for this is to allow singles to meet, chat with other singles, ”hit it off,” and hopefully become a couple… because that’s what a wedding reception is about right? Celebrating (and even encouraging) ”couple” status.  This singles table rule presupposes that every single person at the table wants to be “coupled.”  But what if that’s not the case?  What if the single person has friends from the couples table and would have preferred spending the night with his/ her friends?  After all, a wedding reception is about having fun, right?

Being put at a singles table could make one feel obliged to befriend, converse, and “hook-up” with persons they may not want to associate with.  This could make one feel awkward and even offended because it ”singles” them out as being “single.”  

Like everything else in Chinatown, you can really get a bargain.  This applies to wedding cakes also.  My friend got a two-layer (15″, 17″) round wedding cake for a fraction of the price she could have gotten elsewhere ($250).  The cakes come in various fruit flavors and fresh butter cream.  Yes, butter cream!!  Not bad if you’re on a tight budget, right?  

Food at wedding receptions should taste good.  This simple concept should never be forgotten.  This should hold true for wedding cakes as well.

However, it appears that nowadays, couples go all out choosing a wedding cake that looks extravagant and delicately decorated while forgetting about the real purpose of the cake, which is not decoration but is meant to be eaten.  I’ve seen couples spend over $1,500 on a cake, and you kinda wonder what they’re thinking.  These cakes would be packed with layers and layers of fine crafted flowers of all sorts and fondant satin icing that makes the cake have a sharp glossy look (and is used presumably to help the cake keep its shape since using butter cream would be too soft and the decorations wouldn’t hold).  With the ”fla-fla” on the cake, I can’t image cutting that cake because it just looks… well sooo beautiful (it appears to me that most couples order such expensive cakes mainly to display the “wow” factor so common in today’s culture where each wedding has to surpass previous ones).  Not only that, I can’t image eating such cakes because I just don’t like the taste of fondant icing (which is hard icing and which most cakes will be topped with)… because to me, cake icing should be made of soft buttery cream, and not hard candy-like tasting molasse.

Aside from the fact that most couples go for the “look” when they choose a wedding cake, these cakes are often overpriced.  I guess it’s because it takes so much time and talent to craft each design on the cake.  To me, at the end of the day, you’re going to have to eat the cake because cakes are desserts - and desserts are meant to be eaten.  So, if it is made to be eaten, taste should be the overriding factor.  Don’t you agree?

What does it mean to receive and accept an engagement ring?  Does acceptance of the ring mean it is a gift from the guy to the girl?  Or is acceptance of the ring conditional on the requirement that you consent to the marriage?  I recently read that a man is suing his ex-fiancee to get his $64k ring back after she broke off the engagement.

In my mind, the word “engagement” is synomous with the word “commitment.”  A ring, in my mind, is a symbol of the commitment between the couple.  In non-western cultures, other symbols or approaches are used to get engaged  (i.e., this could include the guy’s family giving gifts to the bride-to-be’s family and asking for their acceptance).  So, when a guy decides to be commited to a girl and gives her a ring, this should simply mean he has given her a “gift” of his commitment.  And, when a girl decides to accept his gift and reciprocates her commitment, that constitutes the engagement phase.  There is no requirement that a ring be given in order for an engagement to exist.  Therefore, when a guy gives a girl a ring, that ring is simply a gift, no more no less. 

So, to me, a gift is a gift.  In legal terms, a gift should have no conditions attached to it; if it does, it would not be a gift.  So, once a donor gifts the gift, he no longer has ownership over it.  In summary, I think that it’s crazy to pursue legal actions to get a gift back once you’ve already gifted it to someone (even though it may be an expensive gift… such as a $64k ring… albeit this sounds to me like the gift was used to buy love instead of showing love).  Notwithstanding the above, as a kind gesture, if you’ve changed your mind about a guy and the gift is that expensive, you should give back the ring out of courtesy.