I'm not a fan of the idea even though it seems to be popular but I find it interesting that there is a theory that there is a submissive quality to it.
According to the book "Curious Customs'' via Dear Abby, it starts with the groom helping the bride's hand, a symbolic demonstration of male control. She accepts this gesture and, as a further proof of her submissiveness, performs the second step of the ritual, offering him the first bite of cake, the gustatory equivalent of her body, which he will have the right to "partake of''' later.
In the third step, the master-servant relationship is temporarily upset, as the bride mischievously pushes the cake into her new husband's face. Significantly, this act of revolt is performed in a childish fashion, and the groom is able to endure it without losing face because it ironically demonstrates his superiority: His bride is an imp needing supervision.''
The bride then wipes the goo apologetically from his face. This brings the play back to the beginning as she is once again obedient to his wiser judgment.
I doubt most couples who smash the cake see it as a submissive act but I thought it was an interesting theory.
Your thoughts?
FD
It just seems silly to me, not romantic or solemn or fun or any of the things I wanted my wedding celebration to be. God, I feel old sometimes!
ReplyDeleteMeow, I totally agree. We spent all that money and I spent all those hours getting beauti-fied. No way I wanted cake smashed on me right then! We did it nice, so my brother yelled, "Push her IN the cake!" LOL!
ReplyDeleteMy husband is from India so when we got married, we did a nondenominational Christian ceremony (the regular one) and a traditional Hindu ceremony as well. At the reception, we fed each other cake, but didn't shove it in each others faces.
ReplyDeleteThe Hindu ceremony was VERY submissive, with us walking circles around a fire seven times, me one step behind him to signify me following him in every respect. And lots of talk about leading and obeying and respect, like the American one, but way longer than one line of it.
There is one part where we are both standing, and we have to sit. The tradition goes that once the Hindu priest says to sit, the first person who sits gets to have the control of the marriage. So they sort of rush to sit and then laugh about whoever wins or doesn't. I barely knew about this ahead of time and when we got there and they explained it, and he said for us to sit: we both just paused, looked over at each other, and slowly sat at the same time. It was completely unplanned but also awesome. I still let him tell me what to do...but only in bed :)
If I spend 80$ or so to get my makeup done professionally for my wedding there better not be anything smashed into my face until we are safely ensconced in the honeymoon suite....
ReplyDeleteNever heard of that, sounds like a very silly and a waste of a good cake.
ReplyDeleteLove,
Ronnie
xx
Sorry FD, meant to say 'sounds like a very silly tradition.'
ReplyDeleteLove,
Ronnie
xx
I was just at my niece's wedding yesterday and there was not smashing of wedding cake. Why ruin a beautiful day (not to mention a very expensive dress) by doing something like this?
ReplyDeleteWhen we got married almost 24 years ago we promised not to do the cake smashing either. We don't regret it to this day.
heather1
I agree, it is a silly tradition.
ReplyDeleteI've married twice and didn't do it either time.
My children didn't do it at their weddings.
As far as being a submissive act.. it really doesn't seem very meaningful to me.
Interesting history...but yes rather silly. We didn't do it...I think Grant might have spanked me if I tried! :) Sara
ReplyDeleteDaddy and I didn't do the "cake smash", lol!
ReplyDeleteMy temper has cooled off considerable from when I was younger, but Daddy has said to me that if he would've done that to me on our wedding day and knowing my temper, we probably would've gotten an annulment;)!
Kitty
Dont think its the thing to do, silly, it definitely doesnt seem like submissive behaviour to me
ReplyDeleteblossom x