Quantcast

Times Weddings by the Numbers

2005_09_04_weddings.jpg

And while we're on the topic of income disparity, it's once again time to take a look at this weeks Weddings and Celebrations in the Times. Drum-roll please:

Total Straight Weddings Listed: 34
Total Homosexual Weddings Listed: 0

Average Age of Brides: 31.35
Average Age of Bridegrooms: 34.64
Oldest Bride: 49
Oldest Groom: 59
Average Age Difference: 3.4 years
Biggest Age Difference: 16 years

Number of Native New Yorkers (State): 20
Number of Non-Native New Yorkers: 48
Number of Weddings Held Instate: 14
Number of Weddings Held Out of State: 20

Number of Harvard Graduates: 8
Number of Columbia Graduates: 5
Number of NYU Graduates: 4
Number of SUNY Geneseo Graduates: 3
Number of Yale Graduates: 2
Number of Non-College Graduates: 1
Craziest Degree: Certified Master of Wine by the Institute of Masters of Wine in London
Number of people who work for Law & Order: SVU who were Married: 2

Number of Weddings Without Photos: 12
Number of Photos of just the Bride: 1
Number of Grooms Wearing Glasses in Photos: 4
Number of Brides Wearing Glasses in Photos: 0
Number of No Teeth Smiles in Photos: 6 (4 Grooms, 2 Brides)

Anyone notice anything else interesting in the Weddings this week?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • i don't

    marriage is for robots!!!

  • jim

    I feel oppressed by the idea of marriage.

  • Not a "homosexual"

    As I said, it was a small thing; I was only asking them to consider using a term that most of the media adopted long ago and explaining why. Gothamist is free to do as it chooses. It was only a suggestion. The fact that you have to resort to cursing and screeching about "political correctness" (the oldest trick in the book to try to shut up people who point out the impact language can have on how marginalized groups are treated) is pretty pathetic.

  • bittersweet

    It seems

    like

    The Times

    needed

    to fill

    space,

    judging

    from the

    long,

    dull accounts

    of doomed

    passive-aggressive

    courtships.

    (I formatted the previous sentence so that it would appear as a very long column. Somehow the line breaks dissolve in this text program. Damn it!)

  • REALITY CHECK

    It's ironic that Echanis is swearing up a storm about being too PC, yet he is censoring himself for some unknown reason, because Gothamist doesn't censor messageboard swearing. Here's proof; repeat after me: Fucking asshole, Goddamn shit.

  • Echanis

    Oh for christ...now "homosexual" is offensive? F*cking-a ridiculous at this point. G*ddamn PC sh*t like this is why noone takes moderate liberals seriously at this point. Keep obsessing over semantics while the right wing keep winning elections, that's right....

  • guy

    It was a very B-list wedding weekend. No major socialites' kiddies getting hitched on the "last weekend" of the summer. There were the typical heaps of lawyers, doctors, and soon-to-be's tying the knot, but none of the kids of A-list executives, etc.

  • girl from ipanema

    It might be interesting to do a breakdown by ethnicity, although that might be difficult without making (possibly incorrect) assumptions based on photos or names.

  • jack

    what are you kidding me? have you gotten your "PC" tattoo across your forehead yet?

  • Not a "homosexual"

    Hey, this is just a small thing, but would you guys consider referring to "same-sex weddings" or using some term other than "homosexual"?

    As GLAAD puts it in their media guide:

    --

    Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay and lesbian people, couples and relationships.

    --

    "Homosexual" is the term the right wing looooves to use, because it's cold and clinical and helps them frame their case that gay and lesbian people are somehow diseased or disordered. Very few legitimate mainstream publications use it anymore in the context you're using it here. You're not calling the other couples "heterosexual," so why call the gay and lesbian couple "homosexual"?

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com