The Plunge Blog

A shockingly forward-thinking reader writes:

"Hi, my name's Russ, and I've been a reader of your site for about two months now.  I'm currently planning a wedding with my fiancee XXX for May 29th of next year, and your advice has been indispensable for talking to vendors and family alike.  However, I do have a question (admittedly tangential in nature) that I haven't seen covered on the forums, and I'd like to seek your wisdom on the matter.

XXX and I can't seem to agree on baby names.  We don't plan to have kids until we both get our PhDs (I will graduate this spring with a degree in physics and mathematics, she has a bachelor's in medieval history, and we plan to go to grad school together), which is good seeing as how no consensus is yet in sight.  I come from a strong (though nowhere near fundamentalist) Christian background, and so I want to give my boys strong names like Moses, or Gabriel, or Isaac, etc.  She wants to give them flowery names like Cyprian, or Roman, or Trajan - I think you get the idea.  Now, if we were communicating two thousand years ago and I happened to be a Roman centurion, those are all fine names, but I intend not to make my boys the object of scorn for the entirety of their childhood, which having been a small boy myself, I know to be a certainty.

We can both agree that we don't want our boys to have ubiquitous names like Mike or Steve or Dave - with no disrespect meant to Mikes, Steves, and Daves - and the litmus test here is that if you were a friend of my son, you wouldn't have to hear his last name too in order to identify him for who he is.  I have suggested a compromise that I name the boys and she names the girls, but she would not tolerate this; we are both stubborn to a fault.  My question is, then, do you see any possible strategy by which I can ensure that my son has a strong name while stopping short of making an ultimatum on XXX?  After all, that's how women work, not men.

~Russ"

 

Russ,

What, you don't want your son to be named Trajan? Or Cyprian? What's wrong with you, man? Lemme guess. You're probably also against what must be another of her suggestions: Percival. Percival is a terrific name for a boy. As a nickname you could call him Persey, which suggests both a women's purse and something else that rhymes with hussy. It's perfect.

Okay, okay, we'll take this a little more seriously. Fine. It's just that you caught us a little off guard; we always knew that The Plunge would one day expand to include baby names, marital troubles, buying a home, that kinda thing...we just didn't know it would come so soon.  So, thank you. You're helping us grow up.

Here's one easy solution: since you're both stubborn, you should agree to allow an impartial, outside party choose your name, and then you accept the decision without complaint. Fair's fair. Would you like us, The Plunge, to be that impartial party? You got it! We're in.

We humbly suggest 5 names that are at least as good as Trajan and Cyprian. And since your fiancée is a medieval scholar, we'll keep them all from the medieval timeframe:

1) Godfrey. Who wouldn't like that? Your frickin' son is a deity. Awesome. From thinkbabynames: "The boy's name Godfrey g(o)-df-rey, god-frey is pronounced GAHD-free. It is of Old German origin, and its meaning is "God-peace". A saint's name, popular during medieval times. The name of a valet in the 1936 comic film "My Man Godfrey."

2) Robin. How can you talk any shit to the man who kicked the Sheriff of Nottingham's ass? This one's a winner. From the same source: "The boy's name Robin r(o)-bin, also used as girl's name Robin, is pronounced RAH-bin. It is of English origin. Variant of Robert, in popular use as a boy's name since the medieval days of Robin Hood."

3) Tristan. Now we're getting somewhere. "The boy's name Tristan t-ris-tan, tr(i)-stan, also used as girl's name Tristan, is pronounced TRISS-tan. It is of Celtic origin. From a Celtic name. In Arthurian legend, Tristan (sometimes called Tristram) was a Knight of the Round Table and the tragic hero of the medieval tale "Tristan and Isolde". The tale has been retold in many poems and operas. This ancient name may derive from a Pictish original, Drostan, but the form was probably influenced by the French term "triste", meaning "sad". The name is popular in Spain."

4) Griffin. Dude. How cool would it be to have a son that's named after a mythical creature? If you go this route, just make sure you name his brother "Centaur" and his sister "Medusa."

5) Ladislas. Is it Legolas' brother from Lord of the Rings, is it a sneeze, or is it a topical cream for toe fungus? None of the above: it's your new baby boy!!! "The boy's name Ladislas l(a)-dis-las, lad(i)-slas is of Slavic origin, and its meaning is "glorious rule". Related to Vladislav. This was a royal name in medieval Hungary."

Now you have only one problem left: which of those 5 kick-ass names to choose? Luckily you can always pump out more babies.

IF, on the off chance, you're not madly in love with our names, perhaps it's time for our actual advice.

You consider the idea of giving her an "ultimatum." Don't do it. As you seem to grasp, that's not fair to her and it's way too early in the game. (Maybe you should get, you know, "married" before throwing down any gauntlets about baby names.)

And as for your compromise about you choosing the boy's name, her choosing the girl's? Meh. Good thing she spiked that idea. If you go that route, then you're guaranteeing at least one unhappy camper every single baby. Besides, frankly, we're not sure she'll do any better with the girl names. (Here's a quick list of girl medieval names your daughter might get slapped with: Gaynor, Jay, Ysabel, you get the idea.)

Here's what we really think: you're smart. She's smart. And you have plenty of time to figure this sucker out. There are over 39,728,387 million names in the English language. (Note: that's probably not true.) I challenge the two of you to come to consensus without resorting to ugly ultimatums. Believe it or not, you're actually in better shape then most couples. When there's a disagreement, usually one person wants a simple name (i.e. David) and the other person wants something more exotic (i.e. Percival.) You're both in agreement on the core issue: you want a non-ordinary name. You've already done the hard part.

Try this on for size. It's just one of many scenarios. You honor her study of medieval history but you pick a butch, non-pansy name. There are plenty that fit this bill. Just skimming the list from ThinkBabyNames/Medieval, we see the following non-normal names that wouldn't get your kid beaten up: Gavin, Randall, Kimball, Colin, Dante (Since both of you are scholars you'll appreciate this, plus, the name just sounds badass), Dawson, Bryce, Moses (incidentally, also popular in medieval times, possibly a compromise), Wolfe, and so on. We're not saying these names are perfect. But there's plenty like these from which to choose, and there are more than enough that will satisfy both your and her criteria.

Aaaaand the chipper wedding news continues!

Yesterday, we saw a groom get married, get plastered, then have the terrific idea of joy-riding on his motorcycle with his new bride, and then crash his bike and get arrested.

Today...something far more sober and serious. If you're looking for jokes, look elsewhere.

Over in Kuwait, details have emerged suggesting that a scorned ex-girlfriend attended a wedding...and then, in jealous rage, set a fire that killed over 40 people.

Tragic. Awful. And, well, let's face it, another damn good reason to think twice about inviting your ex-girlfriend. (A full list of Pros and Cons--and under what scenarios it's acceptable--here.)

From the LA Times:

At least 43 women and children died Saturday night when a fire broke out in a women's wedding tent, and now several local newspapers are reporting that the 23-year-old ex-wife of the groom may have started the fire in an act of revenge against her former husband and his new bride.

The headline of the Kuwait Times today read, "'Scorned' Woman Unleashed Fury." The accompanying article said authorities had arrested the suspect after her maids claimed to have seen her setting fire to the tent with kerosene.

So, when you're stressed with some petty issue involving your bride or your family or your guestlist... keep this in perspective and remember that most of your guests, probably, will live.

Once again, someone didn't read The Plunge. Once again, someone got hurt.

In this case the offender was a newlywed who, after his wedding, drank some booze, then drank some more, then, to celebrate, took his new wife on a motorcycle ride on wet roads. 

What could go wrong!

The dude crashed his bike, hurt his bride, and was arrested and slapped with a third-degree DWI.

Two things we can learn:

1) Behavior at your reception matters. You're not out of the woods just yet. Moderate. There's a time and place for getting piss-drunk. This isn't it. More here.

2) Transportation matters. Because, let's face it, you might just get piss-drunk.  Never, ever, ever, under any circumstance, put yourself in a position where you would drive after the wedding. More on wedding day transportation here.

From abcnews.com:

According to police, James and Taffie Olson, both 26, decided to take a motorcycle ride after their wedding on August 15.
...
James Olson was not hurt, but police said he had been drinking. Officers arrested Olson and booked him into the Stearns County Jail.

And, while we're on the subject, here's how to deal with a wedding-day hangover.

The Plunge readers have spoken. And they might surprise you.

First, let's start with the stereotypes: Men like breasts. Men like strippers. And men like getting lapdances just before they get married. Right?

I mean, The Hangover captures what every guy wants on his bachelor party, and Hollywood is never wrong. The media is never wrong. Gender stereotypes are never wrong. And certain men's magazines and websites (cough like this one cough) are never wrong.

Except... maybe if we're a little more honest, a little more realistic, it's time to realize, perhaps, that the era of "Stripper Bachelor Parties" is over. (Or, at least, it's over for a lot of guys.)

From a conflicted groom:

"First of all, love the site. I was just reading your article Drafting Your Team which right now is my biggest concern. We both have a lot of friends and are looking at up to 8 people on each side.  That being said, I STILL am having a tough time deciding on 8.  I probably have 12 people I would consider and could probably narrow that down to 10 easily without feeling regret, but then the last two cuts are what are getting me. The shortest amount of time I've known any of them too is like 8 years so they are all old friends, some go back 15-20 years. Any advice on this scenario?"

_______

You're right. It's not easy. It's rare in life that you're forced to make an explicit, public declaration that identifies your "best friends," and it's uncomfortable for everyone involved (except, I suppose, the guys you choose.)

And, for that matter, this problem has grown worse over time. In the old days, when grooms married at the average age of 21, you probably only had 3 or 4 really best-best friends. Now? If you're getting married at 35, say, chances are you have your best buds from high school, your best buds from college, your best buds from the first city you lived in out of college, and your best buds from where you live now. (This is my scenario, by the way.) Thanks to the growth of email, texting, Facebook, and fantasy football, our best friends tend to stay our best friends...so we accumulate more and more--without losing many--and suddenly you're stuck with 12.

This is a good problem to have. But it can be a bitch when you're picking your groomsmen.

You have 3 different ways to go:

1) Consider lowering your number of groomsmen, not raising it.

Counter-intuitive, yes, but hear us out. If you have 8 groomsmen, then Best Friends 9-12 might think to themselves, "Daaaaaammmn. I thought we were lifelong best friends, and I didn't even crack the top 8? Jesus." If you only have three groomsmen, on the other hand, then that's an easier pill to swallow.

If you go this route, another way to make it feel more objective is to appoint "ambassadors" from each era of friend-hood. So you can have three groomsmen: one from your high school era, one from the college era, and one from the current era (just as an example.)  

To make it feel even more objective? Think about choosing the friends who are not married. That way, you can argue (even if it's only in jest) that your groomsmen should be the guys who still have a chance of getting lucky at the wedding.

2) Use 8 groomsmen, and then make the other 2 ushers.

Hell, if necessary, you could even have 4 ushers. (It's been done.) Think of ushers as like Assistant Coaches in the NBA; they don't count against the salary cap, so if you're an owner with cash to burn, like Mark Cuban, why not have as many as possible to improve the team?

3) Even if it's laughable, go with tenure.

If you absolutely have to make a tough choice, then tenure is the only way that everyone will feel good about it.  And, if played off the right way, they'll even find it sort of funny. A few months ago I was with my old, old, old buddy Keith. We've been hetero-man-love friends for about 8 years. It was his birthday party, and he celebrated with his high school buddies. One of the guys from high school nodded toward me, skeptical, and asked Keith, "Who's the new guy?" We all had a pretty good laugh.

A reader writes us this long, painful, straight-from-the-bro-mance-heart:

"My best buddy and I have been best friends since elementary school, and we just happened to get engaged within a month of each other, and we each asked the other to be our best man. 

We had both talked about getting married sometime in the next two years but suddenly he and his fiancee chose a date two and a half months away, without talking to any of the people they had committed to their wedding party.  This was a huge inconvenience to quite a few people who already had concrete plans, not only myself (I was going out of town with my family and people were depending on us to be there), but also another groomsman who had out of town job orientation that week, and the fiancee's grandparents, who already had plane tickets for a date two weeks after their wedding, and other people. 

Since they had chosen their date just two days before, we all tried to talk them into having the wedding two weeks later, when everyone could be there.  But they said they didn't think so.  We were pretty persistent, me more than most, which might have been out of line.  I finally asked if we could work anything out because as much as I didn't want to let my family down, I also didn't want to let my best friend down. 

A reader writes us with a doozy:

"My wedding is less then three months away, and one of my groomsmen just quit on me. I have known this guy for over 20 years and he is exceptionally reliable. The big problem has been that he and my fiancé don't get along. I have attempted to be moderator throughout the whole thing. It finally came to a head last night.

Our Honeymoon is in Niagara Falls (cheesy I know). This groomsman and his wife upon learning were we were going decided that it would be fun to go up there for a stress relieving vacation (not at the same time mind you a few weeks ago); this upset my Fiancé greatly; she felt that this made our wedding not unique to us. This feeling actually stems from the fact that our reception is at the same reception hall that they got married at about a year ago; not in the same room but the same hall (this apparently angered his wife quite a bit). My Fiancé sent a message to the groomsmen telling him about her feelings to which he exploded, I was able to calm him down and I was even able to get him to agree to not post pictures on a social network we are all on.

Well their vacation came and went and his wife did indeed post pictures of their vacation causing my Fiancé to "unfriend them", when he texted me to ask what was up she responded that she unfriended him because she didn't want to see the photos and felt that they were rubbing our faces in it. Again the groomsman exploded this time telling me that that was it he is out of the wedding.

At this point I'm not sure what to do. We only have three goomsmen and three bridesmaids in our party. We have had to be very diplomatic in our choices of who is in the wedding party, we have several different groups of friends so to keep the piece we chose one from each (the ones we knew the longest) but this throws a huge upset in to the mix."

_____________________

Our response:

We all know the hoary old cliché about how old married couples never have sex. But what about when you're engaged? Does your sex life change?

On the one hand, theoretically, this should be one of the most sex-intensive periods of your life, not counting the hours by yourself when you were 13. On the other, you're potentially mired in stress over vendors, finances, family bickering, guest list drama--the usual wedding planning hell.

So we asked the grooms: is engaged sex life better or worse?

Of the 1,068 responders, 42% said that the sex life hasn't changed, 32% said it's gotten better, and an unfortunate, downtrodden group of 26% say it's gotten worse.

Our advice to the frustrated 26-percenters:

Have patience. Obvious advice? Yep. True nonetheless. As much as we riff on wedding-porn and bridezillas and all that junk, frankly, your woman is going through more shit than you can imagine. It's stressful. So it's your job to not just "stay out of her way," but to actively be supportive and, when possible, help take her mind off things.

To be even more blunt: think of sexual courtship the way you did when you first started dating. More flirting. More foreplay. More pleasing her without expecting to be pleased. (Yes, that.)  And remember, this is only a small, tiny sliver of your marriage... the stressful period will subside and things will return to normal. Probably.

Other thoughts on post-engagement sex? Fire away in Comments below.

A reader writes:

"We are getting married in September and have just asked all of our friends and family to be a part of the wedding party. We each have 7, so admittedly this is going to be a big wedding. Last week my fiancée's mom and aunt added her cousins as ushers to my wedding party. Nobody ever asked me, just informed me. I now have a platoon with 7 groomsmen and 2 ushers. I don't care about them being in it so much as principle.

Am I overreacting or do I have right to be pissed? It has already been done, so at this point I need to be the asshole and uninvite them if I don't want them in it. I am also worried about the precedent that this could set."

Yep. You have the right to be pissed.

Thanks for writing in.

-The Plunge

A reader writes:

"I have 3 best friends that I'm trying to decide on a best man.  All 3 of us go back to elementary school together and have grown up through the years.  I don't know how to choose one and not sure if I can, any one of them one be a great best man...would it be dumb to have 3 best men?"

Is it dumb to have three best men?

A little.

Then again, there are lots of things that are dumb at weddings. Just a very small sampling, in no particular order:

• The fact that the bride wears a "veil" even though you, and everyone in attendance, has seen her face at least 17,287 times.
• The fact that wedding communications, such as invitations, thank you notes, and RSVP cards, are on the cutting edge of 17th century technology.
• The fact that the typical wedding costs more than the typical car and typical flatscreen TV, combined.
• Cummerbunds
• No one blinks at spending $500 on wedding cake...for what amounts to a big-ass mixture of sugar, flour, and butter.

Having multiple best men is no dumber than all of that.

Do it.

A reader writes with some very common questions:

1. We're about 11 mos. away from the big day; I've looked at your timeline, but she reads TheKnot daily; not sure she's getting the point that not everything needs to be done NOW. We already have the venue, church and some of the services locked... can I just enjoy my summer?

She doesn't read TheKnot daily. She reads it hourly. When the lead story is "150+ Hot Hair Styles"--literally--it takes some time to chew through all of that essential wisdom. (Random aside: the first page of their hot hair styles is almost laugh-out-loud funny: check out how each style is wildly different and unique.)

Anyway. You're absolutely right. When people first glance at The Plunge, sometimes they get the wrong impression and think that we recommend avoiding everything, procrastinating, and letting your bride do all the work, playing Fredo to her Michael. Not at all. We recommend doing the big things as soon as you can. The venue, the date, the key services. Those are the key constraints. Once you have those locked down, you can fill in the rest later.

Enjoy your summer...with the exception of the guest list. This will be an ongoing discussion that will crop up from time to time like a dormant virus. (Yes, for those keeping score, we've now compared the guest list to both a virus and the global supply of crude oil.)

Next question?

2. I produce live concerts and sporting events professionally; it is exhausting to hear her family tell us [me] about timeline, vendors, costs - when I know I can do all these things better, cheaper, and faster.

...Your list of my duties was very helpful... but hearing her family discuss why we need to pick a dj 1 year in advance and why a local florist is better than hiring one of my designers to source flowers in LA [for 1/10th the price] is EXCRUCIATING... help? Should I just not care?

Careful. Your competence, paradoxically, might bite you in the ass. For better or worse, bridal families often assume that because you're a groom--and because grooms, of course, are drooling, lazy, bums--that you're unfamiliar with foreign concepts like "vendors" and "invoices" and "spreadsheets." That's not fair to you. But it is what it is, and remember...no one likes a know it all. So you're pinched between these two positions: 1) you want to show them that you actually have relevant industry experience and can probably plan the damn thing better than they can; and 2) you don't want to come off as a dick.

In the long run, guess which one is more important? If you try and win every battle you're likely to lose the war. Err on the side of being easy to work with, even if it means doing some things in a moronic fashion.  And when you do choose to push back, shower their idea with compliments and then suggest an alternative, sticking only to the facts.  Example: "That's a good thought, Katherine. I really like your idea of giving the cake vendor $5,000 in cash, upfront, even though they're based in Munich. Who doesn't love German cake!?! I wonder, though, if maybe this $500 option--in our neighborhood--might let us save a little money?"

Next?

3. She has a little brother - he'll be 21 when we wed - does he need to be at the bachelor party if he's in the wedding party? Is it common to do more than one bachelor event to spread the risk and split the crowd?

Yeah this one sucks. Your bachelor party should be a celebration with your very best friends, not a dude who might, for all you know, serve as bridal-espionage. And even if your bride and her brother are super-super-super cool and would never, ever think of "spying" on  you....still....that's in the back of your mind, which can sort of put a damper on the mood.  Even if you're not going to strip clubs, having your bride's family in attendance will handcuff the camaraderie.

Don't invite him.

You'll actually be doing the both of you a favor. Frankly, he probably doesn't want to attend anymore than  you want him in attendance--you're not the same age, he doesn't know your buddies, he doesn't want to see his future brother-in-law acting sloppy drunk, etc. If you can avoid it, don't even bring it up. If you're still squeamish?  Your official stance can be that you're not even really having a "bachelor party," per se, but that a few of your friends are taking you out for a good time. 

In a perfect world, your three groomsmen are your brother and your two very best friends from childhood. In this perfect world, all three of you, during your twenties, lived in a gleaming, 5,000-square feet rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan. Then you all married lingerie-models-turned-nuclear-physicists, bought mansions for pennies on the dollar, and then sired babies who don't cry.

Life isn't perfect. And sometimes your groomsmen aren't perfect. Sometimes there are issues. Like this real-life example.

A reader writes:

I don't want to sound like I am whining but it is 2 weeks out from my wedding and I am really ticked with my groomsmen. The reason being is I just had my bachelor party yesterday and the only people to show up were my best man and his girlfriend. We had planned to go paintballing for my bachelor party two or three months ago. I asked everyone what day everyone was available and made sure the day I picked fit everyone's schedule. At the time only one groomsman could not make it due to prior obligations but I figured 4/5 wasn't bad. One bailed on me to work overtime at his job, another bailed to take his wife out for her birthday since he attended another wedding on her birthday and "had" to make it up to her, and finally one flaked out without even calling. I later found out he slept till 2PM since he was out late the night before. I am really not sure what to do because I only have 2 weeks till the wedding and I want to kill all of them but my best man. Any ideas how to handle this without punching them in the throat when I see them next?

Oh my. We're sort of a loss for words. We only have 16 quick points:

1.    It's actually sadder, somehow, that your best man showed up with his  girlfriend. If the best man was the only person who showed, oddly, that would be less pathetic. Did he really think that his girlfriend would cheer you up?

2.    You shouldn't have been the one coordinating the schedule. That's the job of the best man. And he dropped the ball, big time.

3.    You're not whining. You're well within your rights to be pissed. If these are your "best" friends, we'd love to hear some stories about your worst.

4.    "Overtime at a job" is not a valid excuse to miss a bachelor party, especially if you're a groomsman.  Yes, money's tight. Yes, the extra hours help. But this is one of those times when you suck it up and support your friends, even if it means leaving an extra shift on the table. Shame on him.

5.    We have more sympathy for the groomsman who took his wife out for dinner on her birthday. But he's not off the hook. He should have been aware of the wife-obligation months and months in advance, suggesting an alternate date. He failed to do this. He failed you.

6.    Maybe you should make some new friends. This charming, unintentionally funny article describes that very process.

A reader writes:

"I'm getting married in March 2010. We have started planning the wedding, but I'm stuck with one decision. Who I should have as my best man. I have always had women as close friends and really don't have any men as a "best friend" status. I only have my younger brother and my female best friends husband as a close male friend. My brother and I do not have a close relationship and my friends husband is a friend but not that close to me. I'm only having these 2 on my side on the day. I don't know who to pick for that role. Please help!"

You need to get more friends.  How old are you? What's wrong with you? How can you have lived your entire life without developing more male friendships? Our advice is to make like Paul Rudd in I Love You Man, crash some football games and go make yourself a few buddies.

Kidding. If you're shaking in rage while reading that paragraph, good, it just confirms what should be obvious: your best friends are your best friends, regardless of gender.  Don't let wedding tradition trump your personal values and personal relationships.

Wedding norms have evolved and they're still evolving. What once was taboo is now commonplace. You can have women-best-men, men-maids-of-honor (as long as it's not Patrick Demsey in a hellish-looking movie that we refuse to watch), women groomsmen, etc. Unless your families are ultra-conservative, you have carte blanche to mix and match as you please.

So that's our first bit of advice: consider actually using women as groomspeople. It's not as weird as it sounds. Assuming your bride is cool with the idea, you can have them wear black dresses that blend in with the tuxes.

It sounds, though, like you're resigned to only using men. Fair enough. If that's the case--if you're choosing between your best friend's husband and your brother--go with the brother.  You're not that close to either dude, but one's family and one's not.

Here's another thing you can do. Minimize the importance of the whole "groomsmen" thing by focusing less on your actual groomsmen and more on groom events. Yes, we realize the phrase "groom events" is just about the cheesiest thing we've ever said on The Plunge, but, in this particular case, it gets you out of your jam.  You can have dinners, parties, and getaways wigh your very closest friends...regardless of whether they're male or female.

Best of luck, and remember that the "Best Man" label was created decades and decades (and centuries?) ago in an era before the NBA three-pointer. Times have changed. Go with your gut.

-The Plunge

A good rule of thumb: when you're looking for advice, wisdom, and strategies on how to get married, your role model shouldn't be an NBA player.

According to the New York Post, Richard Jefferson had last minute anxiety about the wedding, got cold feet, and then dumped fiancée Kesha Ni'Cole Nichols. After initial reports that he left his bride at the altar, Jefferson told the Post that he gave her the axe a few days ago.

"There was a lot of stress and tension in the relationship. We've been through a lot -- but we just couldn't continue," Jefferson told the Post.

The second best thing about this break-up?  (Best comes later.) ...He broke off the wedding over e-mail. E-mail!

Our speculation of what this e-mail might look like:

"Dear Kesha,

I love you. Know that always. But I just remembered something. Um....I'm an NBA player. In 2007 I averaged 22.7 points. Do you know how many guys do that? I don't either. But not a lot. I've been an All-Star. Actually I haven't but I should have been. Anyway. Here's the point. As an Almost-All-Star, I can walk into any bar I want, in any city, and sleep with any girl I want. Well not exactly. But I can sleep with a lot of girls. So we shouldn't get married. I would have told you in person, but I can't afford to fly anywhere. Wait that's not really true-I have millions of dollars. And I would have called you on the phone, but you know, I'm short on my anytime-minutes, and I didn't want to wake you up after 9pm. Wait, you're not asleep at 9? My bad. And I would have called off the wedding via Twitter, but I couldn't find my username and password. So I hope e-mail is okay."

Jefferson actually explained why he chose the curious medium of break-up, telling The Post, "Sometimes you might write an e-mail to get your thoughts down right."  Riiiiiigggght.

The best part? As a consolation prize, he's literally giving his not-bride a lump sum of money. A "six-figure" sum, according to The Post.

Can you imagine pulling that off, especially adjusted for your salary? Can you imagine saying to your fiancée (over e-mail), "Hey, the bad news is that we're not getting married. The good news is that I'm mailing you a check for $500 bucks. Go buy yourself something pretty and get yourself a new man!"

Of course, Richard Jefferson didn't really go through anything that different than most grooms feel on their wedding day. Having cold feet is normal. Ditching your bride is not. Here's how you should cope.

As you might have noticed, The Plunge is all about the painfully extended metaphor.  We frequently refer to executions, incarceration, and hell as code for getting married.

(For the benefit of some of our more prickly readers...this is a joke. If we actually thought marriage was hell, we'd probably launch a different website.)

So when we say that a wedding causes a "plane crash," 99 times out of 100, this is some rambling analogy about your guest list, rehearsal dinner, or best man speech.

This is that 1 time out of 100: the plane crash is an actual plane crash.

Over in Italy, via Telegraph.co.uk:

In a twist on the traditional throwing of the bouquet, a couple hired a small aeroplane to fly past their guests at Montioni park in Suvereto, near Livorno in western Tuscany, and drop the bride's bouquet to a line of women standing below, according to a report in Corriere della Sera.
 
But as the plane flew over the crowd on Saturday, the flowers were sucked back into the engine, causing it to catch fire and explode.
 
The small plane plunged into a field next to a hostel below. One passenger on the plane was seriously injured, but the pilot, Luciano Nannelli, and about 50 people who had been in the hostel escaped unscathed.

There seems to be only one real tragedy: no one caught this on video. But click here for the full story.