you're tacky and I hate you

See this?

This is an engagement picture. Mine, specifically. I've long considered posting it as my blog photo before, because it just screams MORMON CHILD BRIDE. I mean seriously, look at it. I look 12. Spouse looks 13. We don't even look legal. Am I sure this isn't a 9th grade Promotion Dance photo?

But I haven't ever posted it, partially because of fear. I'm a little afraid my photo breaks a bazillion Engagement Photo rules. Such rules are popping up all over the internet these days. I'm pretty sure that, according to these edicts, my photo might be tacky. I'm sure I'm "headlocking" Dan, that it looks like he might be giving me a piggy back ride (he isn't, but whatever,) or that I may be inadvertently "ring flashing."

Whatever. If my engagement picture is wrong, I don't want to be right. If my engagement photo is tacky, I don't want to be un-tacky.

Plus, we all know I have my own rules for engagement photos: no exacerbating gender stereotypes.

Recently, however, I have changed my mind about the Rules of Engagement. I do not care if there is straddling. I do not care if there is blatant and obnoxious ring-flashage. I do not care if your picture involves a make-out scene so passionate that old people blush. I'm even willing to give up my beef with gendered photos (If you want to set back feminism 50 years, FINE, FINE.)

I no longer care about these things.

What caused my change of heart, you ask? I will tell you. I recently stumbled across an engagement photo in which the soon-to-be- bride *donned a mini-skirt, and sat down in such a manner that allowed me (and everyone else she sent her announcement to,) to see right up her skirt. Cute Victoria's Secret panties,** sweetie! I think I used to own that pair!

And that is the only rule I maintain now. No Visible Underwear. Ever.

I love lowering my standards, don't you?

* I KNOW! I KNOW! Clearly this woman has no friends, no mother, a blind or otherwise functionally-impaired significant other, a mother-in-law who hates her, and a photographer who secretly lusts after her future-spouse.

** I hate that word, but I suppose it had to be said.

ps, I no longer have access to the picture, so you will just have to trust me. Plus, posting other people's engagement photos w/o their permission might land me in blog purgatory...


NIKOL said...

I think the real tragedy is that you didn't link to photos of the offending engagement photo. Of course, by saying that, it sort of makes me sound like I'm interested in looking at another woman's underwear. So...carry on.

Kris said...

Please tell me you're posting the undie flashing photo. Please? Pretty please?

The Boob Nazi said...

Can we see this picture? I need a good laugh today.

Michelle said...

1. some people's children!!

2. i think the photo rules are based on the couple. hence the reason that cheesy to some people, your engagement perfectly fits Y.O.U. which is all that matters.

Nemesis said...

No. Noooooooooo.

Please tell me you are making this up.


Hilary said...

Wow, that's pretty, um, unfortunate. Or tasteless. Or something.

The best I've ever seen is of a couple licking each others' tongues and the invite asking for generous cash donations only, no gifts.

I apparently do not know tacky enough people!

April said...

First off? You're right about Spouseman; he totally looks 12. The glasses help... a little bit. Second? I am not ashamed to admit that I would love to see the undie-flashing photo. Not because I enjoy looking at other women's underwear, but because I enjoy scoffing at others stupidity. It's evil, but true.

dalene said...

I hate that word also, but you're right. In that case, it absolutely had to be said.


Kris said...

I just found a photo that might one-up your undie photo. http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2009/07/25/deeply-denim/

I find it DEEPLY disturbing.

Mrs. Clark said...

You ought to see the engagement photo we got today. The guy looks dorky under the best of circumstances, and this pic is more unflattering than usual (he is a re-enactor friend of my GH). The announcement is grammatically incorrect, i.e. So-and-so and so-and-so would like to announce their engagement, which took place on (date) at the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France...

Obviously, they're not MCBs; they're in their late 30s. But "would like to announce?" Why not just announce? I also dislike the "We'd like to welcome you to church today..." If you'd like to, why don't you just do it?

Anyway, I love the engagement pic. You are so photogenic! And while you do look young, you don't look junior high.

And I hate the p word too.

MrsM said...

Reason #329 I am glad we eloped-no engagement pictures, "wrong" or otherwise, to be used for future humiliation!

Lindsey said...

this wins! i love it steph...man, what is this world coming to?

cathy said...

Thank you for articulating something that's been bothering me for awhile. Photos of people in pseudo-sexual positions. Photos of people kissing. Wedding announcements that include 9 photos, because apparently, they're just too beautiful for just one. Or, on a related note, going to a wedding reception that has 47 separate, framed wedding shots of the bride and groom. What in the hell are they going to do with 47 framed pictures of themselves?
As for the "we would like to..." verbage, it is, I suppose, I more gentle way of saying things. But for once I'd like to sit in church and have someone say, "Welcome to church!" or "Thank you for passing the sacrament." Gah.

Jen said...

Bahahaha. I love your tacky photo because mine is just like it, except my glasses (and actual age) make me look older.

I accidentally took a family photo and did that to my sister in law's underthings. Luckily since I took it, I cropped that out.

My only rule, aside from the no visible undies thing, is it shouldn't look like a watch advertisements. Ring advertisements are okay. No watches.

Adventures In China said...

I love the word panties, so I love this entry.

I'm a 36 year old single Mormon girl who lives overseas and missed out on all of this.