Ask why. You might not like the answer, but it's better than following along blindly!
I need to blurt and at the moment, I have nowhere else to do so, so I will just type it all out. First, I feel the need to clarify that I am aware that I am not being logical, although I am doing my best to remain reasonable. Therefore, the following is merely an expression of feelings and opinions based solely on my experience and assumptions - which may, in many ways, be wildly inaccurate and unreasonable, but I can't change them, (at least not before I've expressed them and had a chance to consider other's opinions) so here they are.
I have an issue with the concept of a "Buck's Night" and I can't work out what it is specifically that annoys me. (Not "annoys" - that's not quite the right word, nor does it frustrate or irk - lets say it kind of just buzzes in the back of my head.) Anyway, the "Buck's" is buzzing in the back of my head, and I suspect it is because I don't understand it. I had thought that the point of it was self-explanatory, but to be thorough, I think it is important to have a definition with which to work. I think it is supposed to be a celebration of the groom's last days/weeks of freedom before marriage. Now let us consult the authority on all things pondered on the web - the Wikipedia entry.... "Buck's party, or buck's night (Australia) is a party held for a bachelor shortly before he enters marriage, to make the most of his final opportunity to engage in activities a new wife or husband may not approve of, or merely to spend time bonding with his male friends (often in his wedding party afterwards.)"
It is very tempting for me to say "fair enough". However, to do so would be actually defeating the point of trying to work out why it is buzzing in the back of my head, so lets look at this closely.*** First, the wiki definition. I take issue with the fact that it is to make the most of a chance to engage in activities the parter (to whom they are already engaged) may not approve. Given that I believe respect to be an important factor upon which a relationship should be based, all of your partners needs, desires and wants should be considered. This does not equate to being accepted or fulfilled, but most certainly considered, therefore respected, and if necessary, negotiated. (Compromise is part of life for those who missed that lesson.) Therefore, if you are engaging in something because you won't get away with it later, that's not a really good basis for a relationship. In terms of my, somewhat less objective definition, the buck's night actually comes across more as a berevement - he's going to lose his freedom, better do something to mark the sacrifice. This, to me, actually puts a negative slant on the whole "impending marriage". And don't think that I'm just going to town on the boys - the hens nights are just as ridiculously based in my opinion. If there is any give, take and/or understanding in the relationship, there shouldn't be any "freedom" lost. Freedom to do what anyway? If they're having a bucks, they're already engaged, so the idea of one last fling I definitely don't accept as being reasonable. Freedom to go out and have a night with the girls/boys - there shouldn't be anything wrong with that before or after the marriage! Why turn it into something that has to happen because there will be "no further opportunity" to do so?
My conclusion is that I am overreacting. A bucks night is just a "rite of passage" and a harmless bit of fun, and girls can have their night too so there's no need to whinge. Or at least, that would be my conclusion if I decided I accepted what society foists upon me to accept. I can and do accept the idea that guys need their space and boy time as much as girls need their time. But the only difference I can really see between a boy bonding party and a bucks is that girls are politely asked to respect the idea of a boy's night together in the former, and expressly excluded from any involvement in the latter. Maybe that's why I'm touchy. I'm a control freak, I accept that. But I don't need to control this, and I know that. So maybe I'm just human - I don't like feeling automatically left out for being who I am.
I will, however, openly admit that much of my views are attributable to the fact that I have a fabulous and understanding boyfriend, with whom I have a very open and communication based relationship. (At the moment I talk, and he listens but we know this, and I am learning to listen and he is learning to talk :) As far as I am aware, there has not yet been a subject that we have been too uncomfortable to identify as needing to be addressed at some stage, and I feel that every opinion either one of us can offer the other is carefully considered and taken into account in all aspects of our (admittedly somewhat unusual and systematically complicated) decision making. Thus I am not in a position to see an official recognition of a relationship as a loss or negative, and my ideals are therefore strongly reflected in my opinions - that everyone is entitled to the happiness and wonderful relationship I have had the opportunity to experience. I know not everyone is as lucky, and some bachelors may indeed have need for 'berevement' - they're about to lose something that makes them autonomous and independent - something that makes them who they are and allows them to express themselves without a "leash".
Ultimately, I think I just needed to look slightly beyond what I was being told to to find my own thoughts on the matter. I think I found them. And more importantly, I think I managed to delve just a little further into looking at why I should accept something that is otherwise just culturally the 'norm'. It's good to examine the norm. How did it get there? What is it's purpose? What is it's favourite colour?... I digress.
Buck's parties are by nature, exclusive. They can have different reasons for being held - both celebration and berevement of impending nuptials, as well as culturally accepted bonding of an educational nature. There is nothing wrong with them as long as the buck is happy to spend the rest of his life with his betrothed, and accepts the reason he is celebrating.
End rant.
*** At this stage I think it is important to note that I have been led to believe that guys do not read this much into things. It is not the point of this 'blurt' to ascertain the merits or accuracy of such a statement, however I can say with some confidence that that is exactly what girls are designed to do: over-analyse. This is my over-analysis, deal with it.)
I have an issue with the concept of a "Buck's Night" and I can't work out what it is specifically that annoys me. (Not "annoys" - that's not quite the right word, nor does it frustrate or irk - lets say it kind of just buzzes in the back of my head.) Anyway, the "Buck's" is buzzing in the back of my head, and I suspect it is because I don't understand it. I had thought that the point of it was self-explanatory, but to be thorough, I think it is important to have a definition with which to work. I think it is supposed to be a celebration of the groom's last days/weeks of freedom before marriage. Now let us consult the authority on all things pondered on the web - the Wikipedia entry.... "Buck's party, or buck's night (Australia) is a party held for a bachelor shortly before he enters marriage, to make the most of his final opportunity to engage in activities a new wife or husband may not approve of, or merely to spend time bonding with his male friends (often in his wedding party afterwards.)"
It is very tempting for me to say "fair enough". However, to do so would be actually defeating the point of trying to work out why it is buzzing in the back of my head, so lets look at this closely.*** First, the wiki definition. I take issue with the fact that it is to make the most of a chance to engage in activities the parter (to whom they are already engaged) may not approve. Given that I believe respect to be an important factor upon which a relationship should be based, all of your partners needs, desires and wants should be considered. This does not equate to being accepted or fulfilled, but most certainly considered, therefore respected, and if necessary, negotiated. (Compromise is part of life for those who missed that lesson.) Therefore, if you are engaging in something because you won't get away with it later, that's not a really good basis for a relationship. In terms of my, somewhat less objective definition, the buck's night actually comes across more as a berevement - he's going to lose his freedom, better do something to mark the sacrifice. This, to me, actually puts a negative slant on the whole "impending marriage". And don't think that I'm just going to town on the boys - the hens nights are just as ridiculously based in my opinion. If there is any give, take and/or understanding in the relationship, there shouldn't be any "freedom" lost. Freedom to do what anyway? If they're having a bucks, they're already engaged, so the idea of one last fling I definitely don't accept as being reasonable. Freedom to go out and have a night with the girls/boys - there shouldn't be anything wrong with that before or after the marriage! Why turn it into something that has to happen because there will be "no further opportunity" to do so?
My conclusion is that I am overreacting. A bucks night is just a "rite of passage" and a harmless bit of fun, and girls can have their night too so there's no need to whinge. Or at least, that would be my conclusion if I decided I accepted what society foists upon me to accept. I can and do accept the idea that guys need their space and boy time as much as girls need their time. But the only difference I can really see between a boy bonding party and a bucks is that girls are politely asked to respect the idea of a boy's night together in the former, and expressly excluded from any involvement in the latter. Maybe that's why I'm touchy. I'm a control freak, I accept that. But I don't need to control this, and I know that. So maybe I'm just human - I don't like feeling automatically left out for being who I am.
I will, however, openly admit that much of my views are attributable to the fact that I have a fabulous and understanding boyfriend, with whom I have a very open and communication based relationship. (At the moment I talk, and he listens but we know this, and I am learning to listen and he is learning to talk :) As far as I am aware, there has not yet been a subject that we have been too uncomfortable to identify as needing to be addressed at some stage, and I feel that every opinion either one of us can offer the other is carefully considered and taken into account in all aspects of our (admittedly somewhat unusual and systematically complicated) decision making. Thus I am not in a position to see an official recognition of a relationship as a loss or negative, and my ideals are therefore strongly reflected in my opinions - that everyone is entitled to the happiness and wonderful relationship I have had the opportunity to experience. I know not everyone is as lucky, and some bachelors may indeed have need for 'berevement' - they're about to lose something that makes them autonomous and independent - something that makes them who they are and allows them to express themselves without a "leash".
Ultimately, I think I just needed to look slightly beyond what I was being told to to find my own thoughts on the matter. I think I found them. And more importantly, I think I managed to delve just a little further into looking at why I should accept something that is otherwise just culturally the 'norm'. It's good to examine the norm. How did it get there? What is it's purpose? What is it's favourite colour?... I digress.
Buck's parties are by nature, exclusive. They can have different reasons for being held - both celebration and berevement of impending nuptials, as well as culturally accepted bonding of an educational nature. There is nothing wrong with them as long as the buck is happy to spend the rest of his life with his betrothed, and accepts the reason he is celebrating.
End rant.
*** At this stage I think it is important to note that I have been led to believe that guys do not read this much into things. It is not the point of this 'blurt' to ascertain the merits or accuracy of such a statement, however I can say with some confidence that that is exactly what girls are designed to do: over-analyse. This is my over-analysis, deal with it.)
posted by Liga at 3:07 am
0 comments
