The two-dress wedding trend and precisely everything that's wrong with it.

When it comes to weddings, there are a number of things that don’t make sense.

Why does a bride wear white – an archaic symbol of her virginity – when she’s been living with her partner for 10 years and might even share a few kids with him?

Why is the ridiculously enormous cake  – which cost a week’s salary – served after the guests have already shovelled down their dessert? Why is there a need for dessert at all?

And why do (some) people who can’t sing or dance suddenly decide that on one of the most stressful days of their lives they’d like to ‘perform’ in front of all their friends and family? But the latest trend, which seems to have emerged under our very noses without any of us stopping to question it, is perhaps the most bizarre of all.

How much should a wedding dress cost? We take this question to the streets. Post continues below.

Why on earth do brides now need TWO wedding dresses?

Not one dress, that will cost them on average around $2,000 and they’ll wear for maybe 12 hours.  But two. 

This is capitalism at its finest.

Just when a wedding involved the cost of a venue, a celebrant, flowers, hair, make up, a photographer, a videographer, a DJ, catering, alcohol, a cake, party favours, a goddamn lolly buffet, invitations to the engagement party, the wedding, and then a follow up thank you card, a wedding planner, THE RINGS, perhaps bridesmaids dresses, a honeymoon and the most expensive dress you’ve ever purchased – we’ve decided to add yet another unnecessary thing for brides to worry about.

In the mid 20th century, multiple dresses were something you would see at an aristocratic wedding, and the second would normally come out just as the bride was setting off on her honeymoon. The royals did it. The elite did it.

In recent years, brides who have opted for two dresses rather than one include Meghan Markle, Hailey Baldwin, Ellie Goulding (she had five), Katherine Schwarzenegger, Priyanka Chopra, Kaley Cuoco and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Basically, if you look at any celebrity who has had a wedding in the last two years, she no doubt had at the very least two (designer) gowns. It's become almost a competition to see who can have the most dress changes at one event.

While the first is often quintessentially bridal, the second tends to be simpler and less conservative.

And as their pictures have been splashed across the tabloids, the trend has been adopted by the masses, becoming more and more of a convention.

It's no longer the 'Going Away Dress' but the 'Cutting The Cake Dress', and it's become as much a part of the wedding as the first dance.

And look.

If someone wants to wear two dresses, go for it. It's your money. It's your day.

If Jennifer Lopez wants to wear 14 dresses, then all power to her.

Women can do whatever the hell they want.

But it's time to take a closer look at the mechanics of a culture that is putting unrelenting pressure on women to need more and more and more on their wedding day. And, make no mistake, it is women. Men, you might have noticed, are not packing multiple suits for the big day.

We criticise women for being 'bridezillas' while also putting an absurd amount of pressure on them - demanding they look better than they ever have. The mid-event dress change feels like an extension of that.

In 2016, IBISWorld estimated that Australia's bridal industry is worth $300 million a year, which, to an outside observer, looks obscene.

The point is, an additional dress for a reception is about as necessary as midnight blue bows on the back of 93 chair; that is, not very.

There's no mandate that says you must change before greeting guests at your reception.

One dress does the job just fine.

What do you think of the two-dress trend? Tell us in a comment below.