Wedding Standards

This one goes along with the last post so well that I decided to go ahead and post it right away…

Nothing says “come celebrate” like a list of rules about what you can wear and do when you come.

195 thoughts on “Wedding Standards”

      1. Well… if you really take this criticism to its logical/illogical conclusion, every restaurant with a “No Smoking” sign should also have a sign forbidding patrons from urinating in their food.

        People do have different expectations of what is appropriate and inappropriate at weddings, and the couple may well have friends for whom smoking, drinking, and wearing shorts would be permitted. And people do have a right to set guidelines for their own wedding, so a polite attempt to do so in advance does not, IMO, really deserve headshaking in response.

        1. …and I have a right to think they are whack jobs and not attend their wedding. Do you really think this will go over well with non-fundy who receives this? Do you think they may be trying to thin their list on purpose?

        1. @DD…Puhlease what kind of self-respecting God -fearing woman would dare to wear pants to a wedding!! πŸ˜‰ πŸ˜‰ πŸ˜‰

          ****My guess is depending on the Fundy level of the church, that you wouldn’t be denied admittance, but just glared and frowned upon and maybe some audible sighs πŸ™‚

        2. I think someone has failed to comprehend how low women wearing pants are looked upon in fundyland! πŸ™‚

          “Those” women are further below full blown atheists than the atheists are below your pastor. It’s not good. he he he he! πŸ™‚

    1. What this really sounds like is a preemptive attempt at making sure some family members don’t embarrass them.

      Uncle Billy Bob smokes so we have to let him know that is not appros at “God’s house.”

      and you know:
      Aunt Tilley was amply blessed and has a tendency to wear those low slung spaghetti strap tops, and your sister-in-law Tiffany wears those miniskirts.

      And cousin Cleatus will come with his parents since there will be food at the reception since he is always high on something…

      I just don’t want them to embarrass us in-front of the preacher and the church. This will be a good time for them to hear the Gospel while they are cleaned up as well.
      I’ll call the preacher to make sure he works in an altar call.”

      1. This is exactly what I was thinking. There is almost always an obligation to invite local family members, regardless of how “embarrassing” they can be. I personally don’t care whether my family members smoke outside the building or what they wear. Really, though, “Formal Dress” on the invitation ought to be good enough. This list of “Don’t be yourself” items is ridiculous.

    2. I know there are a lot of freaky weird people out there with some really weird fetishes, but shoulders? I’ve never heard any guy say, “Wow! Would you look at her shoulders?!? I don’t think I’ll be able to control myself.”

      1. Shoulders in an of themselves are not the problem. Shoulders are the anchor points for the “Over the shoulder boulder holders” so that there is no possibility for a wardrobe malfunction. The modesty requirement is that clothing should come to the collar bone andcover all supporting mechanisms. (bra, slips, bandaids and such)
        Shoulders are not necessarily the fetish but lend to the wandering eye that takes in the amount of free skin, open real estate, and continues down past the collar bone in search of any topographical surface changes that might hint of cleavage. πŸ˜‰

        1. “I love melons…” Frank Caliendo impersonating Bill Clinton.
          And Don, we know why you mentioned bandaids in that post…but even I think if it got that far it might be a little immodest…

        2. “topographical surfaces changes” hahahaha! Fundies – wanting their women to look like a straight board from head to toe in practice so as not to tempt men.

        3. Tiffundy, generally bandaids are used in cool weather settings. We wouldn’t want any outstanding… ummm, points of stumbling to arise. 😯

        4. Nipples, Don, they’re called nipples! Can we say that here? πŸ˜› And as far as controlled substances, I wouldn’t want to know what an LSD trip would be like at a fundie wedding but I don’t think it would go well… not that I know anything about LSD trips or anything, ahem… I’m just saying, it doesn’t sound like fun. πŸ™„

      2. Well, this isn’t a fetish persay, but when I was working out more, my trainer told me that you can tell I’ve been working out because of the toning around my shoulders. So some people have an eye for shoulders, I guess.

        But yeah, it’s not the shoulders so much as the skin around the shoulders.

    3. and of course the modesty rules are only for the ladies! Come on SFL gentlemen, time to rock out with our…

      I am going to have to search the bottom drawer for my banana hammock

  1. No controlled substances? So, no meds for you old farts on Prilosec, or you young farts on Prozac (this could get interesting), no creatine monohydrate for you bodybuilders, and apparently no Norwegian weddings, since lutfisk is made with sodium bicarbonate…

    1. hahaha on the Controlled substances.
      If they have a “Christian” School attached to the Church then there will be guys going through the parking lot looking in the vehicles to see if there are any “banned substances”, cd’s or music that is not approved, NIV bibles and such. πŸ™„

  2. Sad really, since I see most of these dictates imposed by fundy parents on their not-as-fundy kids (who, not being as independent, can’t just call the $hots on every aspect of their wedding).

    “Sure you can rent out the church parking lot for your reception! It’ll only be $50 (since we’re not paying for a reception hall for your “dancing”), a pound of flesh, and you’ll have to make the guests subscribe to a few ‘simple requests.'”

  3. This is exactly why my husband and I paid for our own wedding. Having complete control over every aspect of our ceremony was freeing, to say the least. My fundy mother was appalled, which made it even better.

    1. I was very close to having a justice of the peace do our wedding, until my MIL drummed up a retired fundie preacher. Still, I insisted on none of the sermon in the middle of my wedding crap and none of the cheesy, “this is a round ring symbolizing eternal love” crap. Poor dude almost didn’t know what to say… πŸ™‚

  4. *steps up on soapbox* Why is it every statement about modesty in the IFB is followed by a gazillion rules for women and no (with the occasional exception) rules for men!? I suppose I should be grateful, after all it was the cognitive dissonance I couldn’t shake when it came to the non-stop double standards of gender roles in the IFB that eventually led me out of the IFB. Still mad about the whole “biblical womanhood” thing though πŸ‘Ώ *steps off soapbox*

    1. The church in which I grew up did have rules for males, but they didn’t have anything to do with “modesty” or the appearance thereof. It seemed said rules were applied at the whim of the MOG and/or elders.

      I still don’t get why wearing anything more than a fish tie tack and a wedding band (or class ring if unmarried) sends a guy straight to hell…

    2. You beat me to this comment. Honest to pete, I am sooooo sick and tired of all dress standards being aimed at the women! Why is everything in fundyland about men, the songs are for the men, the brethren, so called generic male pronouns everywhere, but as soon as they start on standards it’s all about women? Here they say modest dress must be worn, but they spell out only to the women what this entails, nothing about what the man ought to wear. So if he wants to come in his jeans 3 sizes too big hanging around his butt with his underwear showing (if you’re lucky, and his butt crack showing if you are not) his modesty is up to his own interpretation, but the woman’s has to be spelled out, since women in fundyland are all a bunch of dimnits who can’t figure anything out without some male explaining it to them!

      AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!! πŸ‘Ώ

    3. here is one even better, why do we not allow boys to wear shorts to certain camps but girls can wear the culotte goucho things or whatever they are.
      That makes no sense to me.

      1. I’m with ya on that one! I worked at such a church. When my wife & I went bike riding, I had to wear long pants, but she couldn’t…she had to wear culottes. So…it was a sin if my legs were naked from the knees down, but OK if hers were; likewise, it was a sin if her legs were covered with slacks down to the ankles, but virtuous if mine were! If someone out there can make sense of this, pleas help!!! 😯

        1. Exactly! I have never figured this out. Culottes are so loose that sometimes you can’t tell the difference between them and a skirt so what’s wrong with wearing pants that are also loose? It’s ok for a woman to show her calves but not a man. I guess a man’s calves must be sexier than hers. That’s not exactly the first thing I notice about a man’s body but ooooookay. πŸ˜•

    4. Because the female body has been sexualized, then made taboo. Resulting in the need for it to be controlled.

      To every fundy man that fears and desires women the female body reminds him that he is not in control of his own body.

      Nothing parallel has been done to the male body.

      1. Uh huh. Muslims think the same way. And to them (as to many fundy preachers and men) it’s all the woman’s fault if the man has sexual thoughts about her. She never has sexual thoughts so why preach to men about dressing immodestly? What a load of hog slop. I remember once a man came to see his son be baptized and he was wearing shorts and an open shirt. He looked darn good to me. I sort of glanced and walked on by. That night the pastor said the man had apologized to him about not being dressed properly for church. The pastor said it didn’t matter how he was dressed, he was just glad he’d come. I know good and well if a woman had been dressed in shorts and a low cut blouse he wouldn’t have told her it was ok to dress how she pleased as long as she came. It just irks me no end that they can’t even accept the fact that if a man is attracted to a woman a woman is also attracted to a man and if one should be modest so should the other one. πŸ’‘

        1. I think that the fundy logic on women having sexual thoughts works like this:

          A fundy man would be horrified at the idea of being aroused by a man; therefore, it is not possible that women could be aroused by a man.

          Since the fundy man can’t/won’t/shouldn’t go there; neither can the woman.

          Of course, a woman being turned on by a man isn’t gay at all, but never forget sex is always about the man.

        2. This goes along with that load of crap that only men are visual creatures who are aroused by seeing sexy things, and women are just aroused by… I don’t know, cuddling or playing house or whatever.

    1. I winced at that sentence. They should have written, “No immodest clothing”, but my guess is that sounded too abrupt so they tried to make it sound more “friendly”.

      1. They must have taken some of the same classes I did in college. I remember in Elementary Ed, we had to make behavior lists for the kids making every item out as a positive instead of a negative. So “No immodest clothing” would be a negative whereas, “Modesty in clothing” would be positive… I am just guessing.

      2. They must have taken some of the same classes I did in college. I remember in Elementary Ed, we had to make behavior lists for the kids making every item out as a positive instead of a negative. So “No immodest clothing” would be a negative whereas, “Modesty in clothing” would be positive… I am just guessing on that.

        1. I’ve heard of that too, but it didn’t stop the happy couple from being negative about smoking and the use of any alcoholic beverage.

      3. Why not just “Dress modestly”? That’s no more negative than “Modesty of clothing is to be worn,” with the additional virtue that “Dress modestly” makes sense.

        1. Well, I think what they were saying is that clothing itself was optional. As long as people showed up with the MODESTY of clothing, then that was OK. So, like, you could go wrapped in TP…or giant leaves …or a sheet. See, that way you would be covered with the MODESTY that clothing affords without worrying about spilling punch on your Sunday best duds, nor would you have the hassle of having to do laundry when you got home. πŸ˜›

  5. Would it have been better to put that the appropriate dress would be formal? For a church wedding I see nothing wrong with this, now a wedding at the beach different clothes would apply. It’s their wedding, let them set the ground rules. This is one of those times where wisdom says dress accordinaly. A wedding is not some informal keg party.

      1. Joe, I went to a few weddings like in the past(well the keg was out back of the reception hall :cool:) and for the most part the wedding was the high point and the rest of the marriage was a very fast downhill ride from there.

    1. It is helpful to let guests know what kind of clothing is expected since our culture tends to be very informal. I don’t think “formal attire” would have worked here though, since their concern is women exposing too much skin which can still happen even in very formal clothes.

      Personally I think it would have been more gracious to say “Sunday morning church attire” without any specific comments about modesty and then just overlooked it if Cousin Susie wore a summer dress with spaghetti straps.

    2. It’s polite to have a line or two at most about the attire expected. “Formal,” “black-tie,” “casual,” etc. An entire paragraph/outline of standards is pushing it a bit. pastor’s wife is right, “Sunday Best” would have worked. Then again, some people consider Sunday Best to include slacks on women and blouses lower than 2-3 inches below the collar bone.

  6. Ok, I know I have told this story before, but it really really fits here. My wedding was a fundy wedding right down to the homemade wedding dress. My mom went to a lot of trouble to make sure nobody might have a good time at all. My dad however, set up a little bar in the trunk of his car and a few at a time would “go out to check on something in the parking lot” and little by little my reception party was getting drunk (all unknown to me until after it was all over with.) I became famous at that church as the one who had the “bad” wedding reception. My mom is still mad at my dad over that (even though he has been gone to heaven for years now.) HAHA! I CAUGHT GEORGE! He tried to leave the “n” off of heaven, making it “heave” which would have been really really funny. Probably why he let me catch him…

        1. LOL. I used to think that before I figured out the SFL inside jokes. ’cause Don was always talking to George.

      1. Don introduced us to George. He is the resident gremlin who takes your witty comment and fills it with placed poorly words, misspillid words and ungood grammar after you press the Submit button.

        Another of his favorite pranks is to attach the wrong smiley face to your comment.

        Example:
        “That is such a sad story. I will pray for you. :mrgreen:

      2. I think George is Jack Schaap’s nephew who, after attending HAC, died in a horrible accident and now haunts SFL commenters by changing their intended letters around.

        1. Actually george is a pooka who holds an honorary doctorate in Rectalcranial ectomology. He is the one to call when you see someone has become inmeshed in the throes of a Hancock maneuver. Often young preacher-boys will not properly apply Preparation KY-H hair gel before inserting them selves in the pastor’s posterior and they have to call on george to perform an emergency rectalcranialectomy. Especially if the pastor has made any sudden stops or didn’t properly signal a turn to the left or to the right. It can really get hairy if the insertee only put on a clip-on tie, leaving no way to break the seal. Vapor lock is extremely dangerous since you never know what will blow out of there if you have to blow the emergency relief valve.

          He just messes with us on SFL regarding spelling, grammar, and reply placement as his hobby. It’s hos way of unwinding after dealing with such a stressful work load. πŸ˜‰ πŸ˜€

        2. Don, that is hil-freaking-larious! (How’s that for a figure of speech a fundy would never use?) I especially liked the “blow the emergency relief valve!” Phew-wee! (Holds nose) πŸ˜†

  7. Bingo on the hypertext. And here I was complaining about the Comic Sans K.J.V. pulpit just the other day…

    “Modesty of clothing is to be worn” takes home the prize for most awkward sentence outside of college freshman papers.

  8. My relatives rented the church’s hall for my nephew’s birthday party. I was informed that I had to wear a dress because the party was on church property… I wore a sleeveless sun dress. Their song leader pretended like he didn’t know who I was and introduced himself to prove a point.

    Then, there’s my sister’s wedding. I was informed three months before the wedding that I would be a bridesmaid. (I have no doubts that this last minute decision was because my parents didn’t want me to embarrass them by wearing something un-fundy.) I never could find a bride’s maid dress that fit their standards. When my mom said she’d find someone to make me one, I bolted. Sorry mom, I’m not your dolly anymore… πŸ‘Ώ

    1. When I graduated from fundy high school, each of the girls (all 6 of us) were supposed to wear white floor-length gowns for the ceremony. I made my own (in home-ec class) and one of the moms saw it and said I couldn’t wear it because it was sleeveless (not STRAPLESS, just sleeveless) Such a ruckus ensued. I ended up borrowing my sister’s dress from the year before because it had sleeves.

  9. Darrell,
    Thank you for this idea! I appreciate it!

    I don’t know how I can include that in the invitation without adding an extra sheet. We already have a tract in the invitation and that has added to the postage. It’s a really cute tract about how standards are like the bride and Jesus is the groom. It’s too long to post here, but I will say that I couldn’t believe how perfect it was for a wedding invitation!
    It’s a shame that you even have to think about stating modesty standards for people nowadays. You’d think it would be common sense for skirts to come to or cover the knee (even when seated). Or for guys to keep their hair short enough to not be confused with an emergent church type of person.

    1. CMG, I assume that you have included a blank recipe card in each invitation so that the wedding guests can provide you with their best recipe of tuna casserole. Can I suggest that maybe you go with the modesty sheet instead? Then you can have the guests fill out the recipe cards while you’re having your wedding pictures taken. That way they will have something to do between the ceremony and the reception and won’t be tempted to engage in idle chatter or foolish games.

      1. That syntax is right up their with “all your base are belong” . . .

        Or the crazy translation of the instruction manual my son got with his foreignly manufactured soft air rifle.

        1. Wow. Totally georged the placement and the spelling on that one. Supposed to be up under the ‘modesty is to be worn” comments.

  10. “Modesty of clothing is to be worn.”

    So I could show up in my underwear (not explicitly forbidden, my being a guy and all that), and if anyone objects, I can just say, “Sure, I’m not wearing much clothing, but I put on the modesty of clothing.”

  11. Don’t you think most people that would come to their wedding know all this already? I despise fundy weddings. At least with the rest of the world, you can drink and dance at the reception.

  12. Best memories are from weddings of kids of Fundies. They almost always involve by-invitation-only after-parties and generous amounts of ABCD (alcohol, booze, champagne, and dancing). The last wedding I went to required two after-parties – the first had all the drinking and dancing, then once everyone’s BAC was back below the legal limit (around midnight) we realized we’d skipped dinner and were starving, so 25 of us crashed the nearest IHOP. The bride and groom, though, claimed they were “tired” and “needed to get up the next morning for [their] flight to Jamaica,” so they bailed on us. Psh. πŸ˜‰

    1. Haha I SO want to do that. Not crazy about having my guests actually drunk, but definitely want to provide a reception after the reception to dance a bit and have fun πŸ™‚

  13. That is one wedding I would be RSVPing “no” to.

    Of course, I suppose it is necessary to make sure the female guests are not wearing immodest clothing so that the groom won’t be lusting after cousin Susy in her strapless sheath dress instead of paying attention to the bride….

    1. *Enters big beefy guy wearing dress that is taller, heavier, and more muscled than any of the other men* “Hey, it’s a kilt, man, want to make something of it?!?” :mrgreen:

  14. I think it’s rather arrogant to assume that people have no idea how to properly dress for a wedding. Yes…we’ve all heard the “horror stories” of inappropriate wedding guests, but seriously…doesn’t MOST of the population know how to behave and dress appropriately for a wedding!? πŸ™„

    1. When I first glanced at this, I thought it said “Now get out there and have kids!”

      You can start on your wedding night. That seems to be how it often is among fundies.

  15. At the heart of these rules is the merit-based affection so popular in Fundystan. This couple would rather belittle relatives than love them unconditionally. If you have a dress code, that’s understandable at a wedding, but don’t blame it on God and act like you’re so holy because you do. Blech

    1. Yes!!!

      A stated dress code is fine, but their insert is in a way a passive-aggressive way to lecture people about what modesty REALLY is and what REALLY pleases God. It definitely comes across as arrogant and graceless.

  16. Oddly enough I have seen almost the exact same satndards given for a catholic wedding, and a non church going, liquor serving one.

    Go figure.

    Whatever floats boats.

    1. You’re saying that you’ve seen an insert put into the invitation telling people not to drink smoke, drink alcohol, or wear dresses above the knee at a Catholic and secular wedding?

      I’m going to call shenanigans. Either that or ‘almost the exact same’ means something really different to you.

        1. No. The question isn’t about whether someone will show up as if they’ve been hiking all day. Unless otherwise stated on the invite, it is common knowledge that wedding guest attire is formal attire.

          The issue is that this dress code rules out normal wedding guest attire for women. All of these formal “Guest of Wedding” dresses sold by Macy’s would not be okay at this fundy wedding: http://bit.ly/pcA6u1

        2. Chad Williams said, “Some people just want to have the atendees at their wedding looking presentable and not like they just came off the Appalachian Trail.”

          Bull Gipp. (to borrow Don’s term)
          πŸ™„

          That is a strawman. Very few people, if any, would ever come to a wedding dirty and sweaty. This rude invitation insert is not about avoiding Appalachian Trail hikers, it is about overcontrolling their friends and families choice of attire.

          A true-blue fundy would never be able to limit their request to merely “Black Tie Affair” or “Formal Attire”. Oh no, they must micromanage people much more than that.

          How could they avoid their cousin’s spaghetti strap formal without spelling out all the restrictions? And, you know, their wedding could implode if she dare show up wearing it. πŸ™„

  17. Non-fundies give the best gifts. They want them to come. They just want them to “conform” to their idea of what things should look like. Because MAN looketh on the outward appearance.

  18. I have a lot of Methodist and Baptist relatives and a lot of Mennonite and Quaker friends. In other words, I’ve been to plenty of weddings where there was no smoking and no alcohol. But I don’t think any wedding I’ve been invited to had a prissy little insert in the invitation about what you have to wear and what you can and can’t do.

    .
    .
    .
    Irrelevant addendum: “Modesty of clothing is to be worn”? Not “Wear modest clothing”? Is this the level of literacy that “Christian” schools are producing?

      1. 1. They are fundies, so it is highly doubtful that they went to public school.

        2. As a former but recent CA public school teacher and still a public school teacher, I would ask that you please refrain from blaming public schools aka public school teachers for everyone’s illiteracy. If ONLY i had THAT much power and influence.

    1. Dear C and A,

      I don’t think you would want someone like me at your wedding, judging by your rules. I do know a few Pharisees that may feel at home.

      Love (if you can love someone who drinks),

      Jesus

      PS Perhaps you can love the sinner and hate the sin??

        1. Green, as I’ve TOLD you before, Jesus wore black wing-tips.

          How am I so sure?
          We know that Jesus wore pants (per the emminent scholar Steven Anderson), and that Jesus had short hair (per the brilliant historian Jack Hyles), so it follows reasonably that Jesus completed the ensemble with black wing-tips. And black socks. And a striped necktie.

    1. My sister-in-law’s dress was a bit skimpy for the Greenville, SC fundy church where I was married. I didn’t care, but I think some of the “church folk” weren’t too pleased.

    2. The wife of one of the groomsmen, who brags about her designer wardrobe, was wearing a terry cloth dress with no shape that reminded me of something that I made in 4H in 1982. And my cousin’s wife was wearing jersey knit stretch pants with a striped t-shirt and white sneakers–that is all she ever wears to anything.

      So I remember two.

    3. Aunt M wore a pale blue chiffon with illusion net sleeves and TOTALLY showed up my husband’s grandma, who sat and fumed all evening in her blue chiffon, which was lumpy in comparison. A friend of husband’s wore a midnight blue V-neck dress and proceeded to throw her wedding ring out into the plantings. My MIL wore a gold and copper toned silk pants suit. My gal pals wore summer florals, several strapless. The bartenders wore black pants and shirts. I wore a spaghetti-strap dress with a cutaway hem and tiny silver sandals.

      Yeah, not a fundy wedding…can ya tell?

        1. How sweet are you?! That was nice of you to say. It was a hoot, if I do say so myself. My feeling on the gal who tossed her rings was that she was either really upset about her pending marital breakup or (more likely) in a pique about not being the center of attention for five minutes. I have no idea what happened to the rings. I was delighted to have a little drama thrown in…every wedding needs some little bit of chaos to be memorable.

        2. Sweet? Shoot, that is not an adjective often used to describe me! πŸ˜‰ But I sure know a good time when I hear one, and this wedding sounds like a blast! πŸ˜†

    4. As a matter of fact one of my cousins (who was not invited BTW; he just showed up with my uncle who was) came wearing a Harley Davidson tshirt and the rattiest pair of sweatpants I’d ever seen in public. I just rolled my eyes and decided to ignore him. It was the Bear’s and my day and I wasn’t going to let one sad idiot spoil it for me.

    5. My mother, yes, that would be the MOTB, came in WHITE LACE. What, you ask, brows politely raised, is not that reserved for the bride herself? People, the MOTB had more issues than Jack Hyles himself, who, BTW, officiated. Sigh. A trip through the wedding album is one shudder after another. I might add, though this will shock our little Simsy-Poo (NOT!) that it was NOT our first kiss. :mrgreen:

  19. I bit tangental, but here goes:

    Dear all fundies everywhere. It is OK TO HAVE FUN. Especially AT A WEDDING…of course, given the usual fundy courtship rituals, it is perhaps fitting that fundy weddings resemble a funeral more than a wedding…

  20. Fundy weddings really are such a nightmare:

    -Wedding invites like this

    -Friends who throw tearful tantrums refusing to wear the sleeveless bridesmaid dress a non-fundy but Christian bride picks out

    -Brides to be who fuss over the lack of sleeves on wedding gowns

    -Fundy leaders who remind us to keep things covered up at the wedding; just because the fashions of the world is revealing doesn’t mean good Christian ladies can let their standards go

    and on and on. I swear I spent half of last year praying for my single bridesmaid friends that they would be able to wear modest clothing for the wedding.

  21. Hmm…now I’m wondering how our wedding invitation came across. My husband and I are very laid back people and we don’t care to dress up. Since we were paying, an expensive dress was out of the question. Our invites included a note that our wedding would be outdoors and informal, a.k.a. jeans and t-shirts. I got married wearing my favorite Cure t-shirt while my husband wore U2. Most of our guests seemed to be ok with our “rule”. πŸ˜€

  22. What kills me is that they probably think that this is being a good testimony to their lost family members and… no, can’t really think of anyone else they would know who would be unsaved.

    All it shows me is that they have an unbalanced view of God and life.

    Or do they really have a problem in their church of people bringing controlled substances to events?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.