A couple weeks ago on Bridezillas, there was a bride who insisted on a fantasy wedding cake (which was going to be paid with by someone else’s food stamps until the baker informed them that would be illegal!) featuring the concepts of castles and under the sea. So it was for aquatic royalty, apparently. Alas, I can’t seem to find a picture of the specific cake online, but one thing the baker added – seemingly of her own volition – was real, live fish.
Fear not, though! For I have found other illustrations of what this looks like:
Okay, I admit this melting blue icing and guppy creation isn’t the best illustration I found. Let’s be fair. Here’s another that is far better made, and actually includes some apparatus dedicated to keeping those poor fishies alive through the reception, unlike the one on Bridezillas which wound up with a sadly ironic illustration of the relationship well before the cake was cut:
Even with the better organization and decoration of the second cake, I’m going to have to go with Hate on this one. I frankly disapprove of using living creatures as pure decoration. Also, there is far too high a likelihood of the poor creatures suffocating because even though they breathe under water, fishes still need oxygen to live.
What about you? Do you find it exploitive and icky? Harmless fun? Painfully unappetizing? Tell me what you think!
Definitely icky. Never would have consented to that sort of construction back when I did wedding cakes for hire. Nope!
Now, a silly cake using suspended Sweedish fish? Perhaps. But ixnay on the life ishfay!
Ooh, Jenn, I like the idea of the Sweedish fish! Or gummi sharks. Those would be cool, too.
No, I’d go with icky there. In the same way that I wouldn’t stick a real bird in a gilded cage in a cake. Must be frightening at the least and life threatening at worst, and that isn’t the way I’d want *my* marriage represented!
I agree.. i definitely not a fan of the fishy cake!