There's something just... outdated about the way we traditionally think about commitment in relationships.
Take the way people use whether someone is wearing a wedding or engagement ring as a sign for whether they can approach someone. Firstly, even if someone is 100% single, there's no guarantee that they are interested in dating, would want to date you, or are happy to be approached right now. But also, not every person in a committed relationship is wearing a ring. People shouldn't have to be married or engaged for their relationship to be respected. But equally, women shouldn't have to buy fake engagement or wedding rings to try to avoid harrassment by men who don't respect the word 'no'.
There are plenty of people in relationships who aren't engaged or married - perhaps they intend to be, or perhaps they don't see marriage as something necessary for their relationship. and I find it rather insulting because it suggests that until someone has a ring on, they arent' really in a committed relationship and they might as well be 'fair game'. How about we don't assume anyone is single or interested, and we take time to respectfully get to know people a bit before we assume they want us? There's a lot more that can be said about some men assuming that every woman is available and interested- ideally we'd want a lot to change in how people interact with strangers.
I know that some peopel (usually men) complain about not being able to talk to women in public. But like... it's not your divine right to go up to everyone and hit on them regardless of whether they are receptive of your interest. Women don't just exist as NPCs in your life story, and they deserve to go about their lives without a constant stream of sexual harrassment from strangers.
Likewise the way some people celebrate bachelorette parties as a "last chance to have fun before you marry" - i.e. a "last night of freedom" where strippers or having sex with sex workers (or randoms) is considered fair game - at least, by one party in the relationship. Needless to say, if both parties in the relationship are OK with the above, then it's not a problem. But it's often a problem because no, both parties are NOT OK with a little external sex just before the wedding.
It's just... your last night of freedom isn't the night before you get married - it was the night before whenever you decided to commit to exclusively dating your current partner. I'm engaged, but the idea that something 'wouldn't count' right now because we're not hitched would be pretty laughable. So whilst I'm behind celebrating that a good friend is getting married, I don't believe in seeing it as a desperate send off and an end to freedom. Any freedoms you may 'lose' in marriage (like the freedom to sleep with anyone) are things you've agreed to long before then.
Maybe it made sense back when people didn't really date, and marriage followed a very brief and chaste courtship - because people's lives really did change after marriage when it meant they moved out of their parents' house, lived with their partner, had sex for the first time, and likely had kids not long after. In those circumstances, the night before your wedding was the end of an era. But now? For most couples? Not much changes.
It's also insulting to the marriage the couple are trying to build - the implication being that after you get married, your life is essentially over and you're 'tied' to one person. This is a choice people are making - if they are looking at their wedding with dread, they shouldn't be getting married! Or the notion that God forbid! you only get to sleep with one person! I never got the drama over this. I mean most people really aren't having a ton of sex even when they are single, and if they've been happy with whatever they share with their partner through the relationship, then marriage really doesn't change anything. If you decide to get married, marriage is just signing up to more of what you're already getting. It doesn't change your partner or make them better.