Are we wrong for not allowing the kids to attend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of my close friends had a wedding last year in another city and did not allow my 13 year old to attend. I was deeply offended and it has essentially ended the friendship. This is a child the bride has known since birth. We shared many other important events together. My DD cried when she found out she was excluded. Flying cross-country without my DD, losing a weekend of time with her, etc. was annoying. I am in my mid-40s and my DH and I have no desire to have a drinking-heavy night on the town type experience.

So, OP, you do what you want, but realize there will probably be consequences.

Then she was not that close of a friend in reality if you cannot understand that she chose to have a wedding of 18+.
I don't need to have "heavy drinking" to enjoy an adults only wedding and I can enjoy a wedding without my teen in tow

PP you quoted here. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all rule for this. I have attended other weddings that were for adults only, left my DD at home, and didn't mind or get upset at all. But this was one of my (supposed) best friends! We had been sharing events like weddings, birthdays, funerals, holidays for 25 years. And when I got to her "no kids" wedding attended by 300+ people and saw that she did actually invite a handful of children - just not mine - I realized I must have totally misunderstood how close we were.

A bride not including kids they don't know very well, yeah, that seems fine. But excluding someone you've been close with for years, you should expect blowback.

Did you enjoy yourself more without having to worry what your kid was doing?

The PP's child was 13 years old, so, doubtful.

No, I didn't. Having to find childcare for the entire weekend was a challenge and I was bummed to fly to a "destination" without her because she really would have enjoyed it and it sucked to use up one of my few free weekends not getting to be with her. She would have had a lot of fun at the wedding.

Then you just say no. And take your kid on vacation. This isn't hard since you don't really care about the wedding on its own.

+1 That's exactly the way read it. It was all about the PP and her DD, not about celebrating a friend's wedding. It's clear the PP pleasure was diminished because her DD wasn't there. That's on the PP, not the bride and groom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a way you might be doing that 12 year old a huge favor. 12 years old in a room filled with adults they mostly don't know is not REALLY going to be a celebration for them, anyway, imho. I mean, I can understand the parents feeling upset and wronged, etc., but in reality the kid might have more fun at home.

Okay. Tell yourself that. If the 12 year old didn't want to come she wouldn't. Not inviting her is an insult, not a favor.

Is anyone supposed to feel bad that a 12 yr old is insulted they didn't get invited to an adult party? I mean, she's not an adult. We aren't equals and I don't need a 12 year who isn't my child dictating my wedding choices. Thems the breaks. I'm pretty sure said child has had birthday parties that didn't always include me either, and that's perfectly fine by me.

I support your right to have a childfree wedding but this sentiment is not helping your argument. 12 year olds are people, people at a tender age at that. I can completely understand how an event for adults 18+ would not include a 12 year old, but for me your statement really validates the perspective of the person offended that you excluded her tween. It’s almost like you don’t care about her family. Oh, wait…..

My relationship is primarily with the parents, not the kids. The kids also aren't invited to adult book club meetings, nights out, mom's weekends away, and many other things that are adults only. Our relationship isn't remotely the same. The kids would be invited to the backyard BBQ or pizza and movie night. But if your very special 12 yr old isn't asked to be in the wedding as a jr bridesmaid or flower girl, then no, they really aren't all that important, and that should have been obvious before the invitation arrived.

Grandma in law is also not invited to any of those events, or to your bachelorette party, and yet it would be offensive not to invite her to a milestone life event like the wedding. The 12 year old is a valuable member of this family, that’s why they all think it’s a travesty.

So you agree that not all parties include every one every time? Good to know. Value isn't assigned by how many events you get invited to as seen with Grandma In Law.

That’s correct not all parties include everyone but there is significance to events.

It’s not offensive to not include your out of state sibling to your kid’s birthday annual party or your weekly book club, but it is offensive to exclude them from a family Thanksgiving dinner. It is bizarre that this has to be explained.

That's just your opinion. In a kids mind the wedding is pretty low in priority. I never have Thanksgiving with my out of state sibling. We don't even think to invite each other to our separate dinners. You sound like a nut pretending that your made up on the fly rules are adhered to by anyone other than yourself.

Thanks for clarifying, it seems you don't have any family bonds so your opinion is a fringe one not mine. OP's DH's family is both local and close enough to be invited to a very small and intimate wedding.

You also seem to have a weird take on 12 year olds, you consider them to have the comprehension and importance of a pet. Every single kid i have met from first grade on up has been ecstatic about an upcoming wedding of someone they have a relationship with. Yes they are hurt when mom's bff, that they consider an aunt, excludes them (as someone mentioned upthread).

So cut to the chase and say these relationships are not important to me, because that's the message you are sending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you invite people with kids you invite the kids.

Nope. I had a kid-free wedding. No kids under age 12. My first cousin was 12 and attended. Friends with kids? No way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm from a culture that welcomes kids at weddings, even small ones. The entire point of getting married is to have kids, otherwise you could just live together for ever without getting married. Kids are a cute delight, and everyone's happy to see them. They are a symbol of hope and guiding light into the future.


But you're the bride and you can invite whoever you want.

I was a bride once. Kids are not a cute delight.

[Anonymous]

My mother’s aunt got so drunk she threw up under her groups table at my wedding.

Adults can sometimes not be a cute delight either.

I think we only had one young kid at our wedding (the few others were teens) and they crashed out at 9pm on a chair cover on the floor but otherwise were way less disruptive than the vomit-aunt.


OP, all that said it’s your wedding. People will get over it eventually. As parents it’s might be nice to have an adults night he out and hire a sitter (and maybe you offer to split to keep the peace if it’s within your budget?). Or not. It’s your deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a way you might be doing that 12 year old a huge favor. 12 years old in a room filled with adults they mostly don't know is not REALLY going to be a celebration for them, anyway, imho. I mean, I can understand the parents feeling upset and wronged, etc., but in reality the kid might have more fun at home.

Okay. Tell yourself that. If the 12 year old didn't want to come she wouldn't. Not inviting her is an insult, not a favor.

Is anyone supposed to feel bad that a 12 yr old is insulted they didn't get invited to an adult party? I mean, she's not an adult. We aren't equals and I don't need a 12 year who isn't my child dictating my wedding choices. Thems the breaks. I'm pretty sure said child has had birthday parties that didn't always include me either, and that's perfectly fine by me.

I support your right to have a childfree wedding but this sentiment is not helping your argument. 12 year olds are people, people at a tender age at that. I can completely understand how an event for adults 18+ would not include a 12 year old, but for me your statement really validates the perspective of the person offended that you excluded her tween. It’s almost like you don’t care about her family. Oh, wait…..

My relationship is primarily with the parents, not the kids. The kids also aren't invited to adult book club meetings, nights out, mom's weekends away, and many other things that are adults only. Our relationship isn't remotely the same. The kids would be invited to the backyard BBQ or pizza and movie night. But if your very special 12 yr old isn't asked to be in the wedding as a jr bridesmaid or flower girl, then no, they really aren't all that important, and that should have been obvious before the invitation arrived.

Grandma in law is also not invited to any of those events, or to your bachelorette party, and yet it would be offensive not to invite her to a milestone life event like the wedding. The 12 year old is a valuable member of this family, that’s why they all think it’s a travesty.

So you agree that not all parties include every one every time? Good to know. Value isn't assigned by how many events you get invited to as seen with Grandma In Law.

That’s correct not all parties include everyone but there is significance to events.

It’s not offensive to not include your out of state sibling to your kid’s birthday annual party or your weekly book club, but it is offensive to exclude them from a family Thanksgiving dinner. It is bizarre that this has to be explained.

What is offensive is in the eye of the beholder. The people hosting the event are in charge of how they want to celebrate their milestone. Maybe they want just nuclear family, maybe just parents, maybe everyone with whom they share a drop of blood, maybe everyone they've ever met, maybe it is meant to be a quiet adult affair, or maybe they want a wild rumpus. The point is that it is their milestone, their celebration, and their budget. Gracious people -- invited or not invited -- respect their wishes and make their own decisions about whether or not to attend. Not gracious people choose to take offense because they think their own wishes come before the people whose celebration it is, and look for ways to retaliate. The fact that OP has a family that includes such ungracious people doesn't mean she needs to sacrifice her own milestone to unreasonable demands -- and appeasement of ungracious people usually just sets a precedent for continuing and increasing demands. When it's not your celebration, the right thing to do is to let it be. When it is your celebration, you'll get to invite whoever you wish.

This is a really excellent post. Nicely stated, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can do whatever you want but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to these decisions. If it’s more important to you to keep it kids only, then do so but it may impact your relationship with your family and only you know if that’s worth it.

Yes. I know Anglo-Saxons are very into child-free weddings (British, Americans, etc), because apparently they can't fathom having elegant, sophisticated affairs with mini-people... but really it makes them look like constipated try-hards. Continental Europe does weddings with kids very well, so do Asian cultures, and we're not talking backyard wedding with barbecue.

But if that's above what you can muster, well, your guests will just have to make a choice.

You say Asian cultures do fine at weddings, but I was at a wedding two weeks ago where most of the guests were Asian and the kids were a problem. The older ones were fine, but the toddlers were allowed to run wild and touch and play with everything (like the cake and the champagne wall). They knocked over several decor items and one peed in an artificial flower arrangement. True, the parents were not upset, but I'm sure the rental companies whose items were damaged felt differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm from a culture that welcomes kids at weddings, even small ones. The entire point of getting married is to have kids, otherwise you could just live together for ever without getting married. Kids are a cute delight, and everyone's happy to see them. They are a symbol of hope and guiding light into the future.

But you're the bride and you can invite whoever you want.

Tell me more about the bolded. If a couple's child tragically dies are they supposed to crank out a replacement child? If a couple has infertility issues and can't have kids should they get divorced? What if a couple doesn't want kids but needs to get married to get the other's health insurance - is that okay? What if a couple gets married and THEN changes their minds and they don't want kids after all - do they have to go ahead and have some or should they just get a hasty divorce?

The people who say the only point of getting married is to have kids don't like their spouses and would rather be divorced.

OK, so what's your explanation for some form of marriage cross-culturally existing in every society? I mean, it seems kind of funny that this is basically a universal human institution, isn't it?

Yes, but marriage is not longer solely for procreation. Many people marry because they meet someone, fall in love and want to spend their lives together. Many also want kids. But it isn't the sole point of marriage. It might be some people's sole point, but that isn't universally the sole point.

It’s the point of the institution of marriage. Now it may not be the sole point of individual couples getting married but it is the reason why the institution of marriage exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think that not inviting a 12 year old family member is bordering on insane.

I have a 12 year old niece who would be bored, interrupting conversations, rolling her eyes, sighing with exaggeration and repeatedly asking when they were leaving. Twelve year olds aren't always lovely to be around.

Clearly she isn’t being raised properly. Kids should be forced to sit and have conversations with adults every now and then so that they can learn to interact with other members of society.

[Anonymous]

Both my husband and I are Indian and in our culture no one would dream of having a "no kids" wedding. However, after living in the US for several years and having attended several no kid weddings, we have come to appreciate such events.
The first time we were invited to a no kids wedding, I'll admit I was perplexed. But I got over it. We had a great time at that wedding - it was a fancy, intimate affair at a winery, and we enjoyed a night away from our then 2 - year old. After that we didn't think twice about such invitations.

All this to say, people have strong feelings, but in my experience, they get over it. Do what works for you, and don't sway in the wind based on others' opinions, preferences and expectations.

If some people decide to hold a grudge, shruggy. That's their problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm from a culture that welcomes kids at weddings, even small ones. The entire point of getting married is to have kids, otherwise you could just live together for ever without getting married. Kids are a cute delight, and everyone's happy to see them. They are a symbol of hope and guiding light into the future.

But you're the bride and you can invite whoever you want.

Tell me more about the bolded. If a couple's child tragically dies are they supposed to crank out a replacement child? If a couple has infertility issues and can't have kids should they get divorced? What if a couple doesn't want kids but needs to get married to get the other's health insurance - is that okay? What if a couple gets married and THEN changes their minds and they don't want kids after all - do they have to go ahead and have some or should they just get a hasty divorce?

The people who say the only point of getting married is to have kids don't like their spouses and would rather be divorced.

OK, so what's your explanation for some form of marriage cross-culturally existing in every society? I mean, it seems kind of funny that this is basically a universal human institution, isn't it?

Yes, but marriage is not longer solely for procreation. Many people marry because they meet someone, fall in love and want to spend their lives together. Many also want kids. But it isn't the sole point of marriage. It might be some people's sole point, but that isn't universally the sole point.

It’s the point of the institution of marriage. Now it may not be the sole point of individual couples getting married but it is the reason why the institution of marriage exists.

<yawn> 🥱

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you invite people with kids you invite the kids.

That’s utterly ridiculous. By extension, you’re basically saying that kids are invited to anything their parents are, which any reasonable person knows is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you invite people with kids you invite the kids.

No, you don't. The people with children. Ha two choices: get a sitter or do not attend.