As I have mentioned before, I like to check out the engagement/wedding announcements in the Sunday New York Times. The Times now tries to be more democratic in the announcements they choose to publish; people don't have to be famous, or have a famous lineage, or be ungodly wealthy, or have an ungodly wealthy lineage to have their announcements published in the Times. And because of the goal to be more inclusive and friendly, the Times chooses announcements that sometimes include all sorts of things that wouldn't have been included in the past, things like previous marriages, how couples met and so on.
But a wedding announcement in today's paper may just have crossed the TMI line.
The bride is forty, the groom is fifty-two, and they have a seven-month old daughter. From the announcement:
Their decision to have a child as soon as they could fit perfectly with their adventurous spirit. "Our priority was to have a child, because D's biological clock was ticking," said Mr. G, who had an earlier vasectomy reversed so that he could father a child.
Well, alrighty, then.
Thanks for sharing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Emily Post is rolling in her grave.
They must have read your precious post and got scared.
OMG!!!!
And that has to do with a wedding announcement how? You are correct - TMI.
I thought people PAID for those announcements, which I guess makes the process even that much more democratic. I read one a few months back that said (I'm paraphrasing), "After a one night stand, the two went their separate ways, hooking up seven months later and finding love at second sight."
Nice.
Post a Comment