Wedding question - midwestern thing?

[Anonymous]

At least they told you upfront, unlike the bride from a thread a few months ago who is planning to spend $100 total for food for 250 guests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The Wedding PowerBar, wrapped in perfect off-white. It's coming!

aka Coconut Larabar.

[Anonymous]

Where you flying all that way for the food?

It's still Xmas without the presents. It could be a lovely wedding, if you embrace the spirit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this on Four Weddings. The other 3 bride guests ordered pizza because they needed 'real' food. I wouldn't consider it a big deal. Just make sure to eat a good meal before going.

yup I was just thinking about that episode!

[Anonymous]

The idea of a dessert reception sounds awesome to me, hopefully they will have a bunch of good sweets. The timing does sound off, though. It would be better to start the wedding later to leave the guests time to get dinner beforehand on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Where you flying all that way for the food?

It's still Xmas without the presents. It could be a lovely wedding, if you embrace the spirit.

I agree, although, the timing should probably have been pushed back. Oh well. Enjoy it and wish them well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it is an economy thing.

People are trying to find creative and fun ways to celebrate with their loved ones without going broke, going in debt or taking all their parents' money.

That's great, however they should not schedule their fun, creative event at dinnertime if they are not planning on serving dinner. If it started at 2pm or 8pm, that would be a wonderful event, but scheduling a dinnertime event with no dinner is thoughtless and shows a lack of understanding about what it means to be a good host.

[Anonymous]

Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

Finally, a little perspective.

OP, eat early and grab a late snack later.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone can afford a full meal for guests, and guess what: they're still allowed to have a wedding. Enjoy the fun of eating 3 pieces of cake and champagne for dinner and wish them well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

The timing of the event is the problem. Where are the parents of the bride and groom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

The timing of the event is the problem. Where are the parents of the bride and groom?

What does that have to do with anything?

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."

The timing of the event is the problem. Where are the parents of the bride and groom?

What does that have to do with anything?

Um, sorry I was opaque. I meant, why didn't the parents of the bride and groom suggest a 4 pm or 8 pm wedding to the happy couple to avoid the meal issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.

How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?