First, creative loss. When one partner’s vision dominates by default, half of the aesthetic, experiential and cultural potential remains unexplored. The celebration may be refined, but it lacks dimensionality.

Second, emotional imbalance. One partner becomes the carrier of decisions, doubts and creative pressure. The other becomes a passenger. This imbalance often surfaces later — sometimes on the wedding day itself.

Third, narrative flattening. Weddings become visually cohesive but emotionally predictable, shaped by familiar references rather than personal authorship.

Interestingly, in same-sex weddings, this framework collapses entirely. Without preassigned roles, couples — and planners — must intentionally design a collaborative process. The result is often more nuanced, layered and truthful.

Not because the couples are different.

But because the process finally is.

The marginalisation of the groom’s role is not the result of disinterest; it is the product of habit.

For decades, wedding media has spoken almost exclusively to women. Editorials, inspiration platforms, vendor language and even planning methodologies subtly reinforce the idea that aesthetics belong to the bride, while the groom’s role is logistical, financial or symbolic.

This cultural framing produces several consequences that quietly undermine the quality of weddings themselves.