Wedding offenses: rank according to badness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

This makes no sense. If the couple is stopped for funds and does a quaint or small affair you give less money versus someone that does not need it you give more?

Yes. I am not funding their future. I am giving according to what they put in their wedding cost and of course my relationship with them.

Gift giving is a complicated cultural and social phenomenon. I give only what will be appropriately reciprocated. If the person is too poor or too cheap, then I have to give what the poor person can easily reciprocate or what the cheap person has the heart to spend..


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-does-sociology-teach-us-about-gift-giving-180948181/#:~:text=Mauss%20identified%20three%20obligations%20associated,which%20demonstrates%20the%20recipient's%20integrity.

Your relationship with the couple and the amount you can afford to give should be the only calculus into the amount you give. Who gives a flip about how much the crappy chicken Chesapeake and chocolate fountain cost?

Affordability, Relationship and hospitality- all three are important. I have only gone to one crappy wedding in my life. I wised up quickly after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

This makes no sense. If the couple is stopped for funds and does a quaint or small affair you give less money versus someone that does not need it you give more?

Yes. It will be humiliating to them if they have a backyard wedding with cake and punch and I give a check for a thousand bucks. Especially if they are not family.

If they were family and were strapped for funds,I would throw them a party. Small and quaint does not mean cheap and tacky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explanations optional.

No-kids weddings
No +1 weddings
Destination weddings
Dry weddings
No open bar weddings
Weddings of couples who ask for cash

The worst is cash only bar. Followed by no +1 for married, engaged people or family and friends.

[Anonymous]

No +1 weddings
No open bar weddings
Dry weddings
Destination weddings
No-kids weddings
Weddings of couples who ask for cash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explanations optional.

No-kids weddings
No +1 weddings
Destination weddings
Dry weddings
No open bar weddings
Weddings of couples who ask for cash

1. Fine, just don't complain when people choose not to go.
2. Strange if you know a guest is in a relationship
3. Just elope
4. I'm okay with it. I've been to one. The groom's sister was in her first year of recovery.
5. I've been to a lot of weddings where every guest was given however many drink tickets. After that it was a cash bar. It never bothered me.
6. I give cash anyway, but it is tacky to ask.

The worst to me is no meal for guests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explanations optional.

No-kids weddings
No +1 weddings
Destination weddings
Dry weddings
No open bar weddings
Weddings of couples who ask for cash

1. Fine, just don't complain when people choose not to go.
2. Strange if you know a guest is in a relationship
3. Just elope
4. I'm okay with it. I've been to one. The groom's sister was in her first year of recovery.
5. I've been to a lot of weddings where every guest was given however many drink tickets. After that it was a cash bar. It never bothered me.
6. I give cash anyway, but it is tacky to ask.

The worst to me is no meal for guests.

same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the f is a potluck wedding?
I would decline the s!!! out of that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biggest offenses

No children allowed. This is sad. Weddings are for celebrating vows with family and friends.

Registry takes you to a website that the bride and groom will accept cash only gifts. This is tacky and gauche and a money grab. Many people will give cash gifts voluntarily but demanding cash only gifts is beyond tacky.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worst offense for me is a combination of a destination wedding and the ask for money along with the destination wedding (or even a registry). If you’re already asking people to spend a ton of money to go to your wedding, that should be the gift. Asking people to get you stuff on top of it? Super tacky and entitled.

This is the best post in the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst: No +1, destination wedding. Couples will often say they don’t want random people at their wedding but offer plus ones for spouses and significant others they’ve never met. Just give all adults a plus one.

Also bad: No open bar — don’t host a party you can’t afford. Along those lines I would add an expectation that gifts cover the per person cost for the wedding.

Neutral: No kids, dry wedding, asking for cash gifts

Isn't a dry wedding worse than no open bar? At least there's alcohol!

No way! I don’t care if I drink or not. I’d prefer it, but if the couple doesnt drink or can’t afford to pay for the alcohol, then a dry wedding is fine. What’s NOT fine is asking your guests to pay for things at YOUR PARTY

I agree. All this shade on dry weddings is awful. Many people don’t drink - for religious or addiction or health reasons. I am delighted to share their big day with them while also being respectful of their culture or individual preferences. Can people *really* not go one night without booze??? (And I drink a lot - so I’m not a teetotaler)

I agree that cash bar is way worse than dry wedding. You don't host a party and then have your guests pay for food/drinks!! The only thing worse is doing a potluck where guests BRING FOOD as well!

What if the people getting married are poor, but they want to share their joy and exchange of vows with friends and loved ones?
The level of snobbery and entitlement on this forum is thru the roof.

You have the wedding you can afford. If it's a backyard bbq and your immediate family or select close friends cook the food, fine. But don't ask every guest to bring something potluck style. I would even be fine with a cake and punch reception in the church basement if that's all you can do. My point is, don't make guests pay for your party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised so many posters are offended by destination weddings. I have never been to one but I thought people typically kept them smaller and didn’t expect everyone to attend. It’s not like you’re required to go, it’s just an invitation.

I don't really get it either, unless all of your friends and family live in the same area, it's going to be a destination wedding for some people even if that destination is your hometown. I'm in DC and almost all of the weddings I have attended have required travel.

I think there's a big difference between traveling to a wedding and a destination wedding. My niece lives in Austin and is getting married next year in...Austin. My SIL referred to it as a destination wedding. Sorry- a destination wedding would be if she is getting married in a completely random place like Cabo.

+1

Exactly! Why do some people want to make the meaning something it is not? It basically means "random place" - more than an hour plane ride, no ties, etc. It does NOT mean "somewhere the rude guest complains about". LOL.

I'd rather go to Cabo on a cheap flight than travel to middle of nowhere Oregon that's like, trains, planes and automobiles into the country to get to the wedding destination. I care primarily about accessibility and ease of travel more than the "connection" to a place. You live in Los Angeles, your families are in New Hampshire and Atlanta and you want to get married in Chicago? Have at it, that's an easy trip for me. You're from rural Maine? Ehhh....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst: No +1, destination wedding. Couples will often say they don’t want random people at their wedding but offer plus ones for spouses and significant others they’ve never met. Just give all adults a plus one.

Also bad: No open bar — don’t host a party you can’t afford. Along those lines I would add an expectation that gifts cover the per person cost for the wedding.

Neutral: No kids, dry wedding, asking for cash gifts

Isn't a dry wedding worse than no open bar? At least there's alcohol!

No way! I don’t care if I drink or not. I’d prefer it, but if the couple doesnt drink or can’t afford to pay for the alcohol, then a dry wedding is fine. What’s NOT fine is asking your guests to pay for things at YOUR PARTY

I agree. All this shade on dry weddings is awful. Many people don’t drink - for religious or addiction or health reasons. I am delighted to share their big day with them while also being respectful of their culture or individual preferences. Can people *really* not go one night without booze??? (And I drink a lot - so I’m not a teetotaler)

I agree that cash bar is way worse than dry wedding. You don't host a party and then have your guests pay for food/drinks!! The only thing worse is doing a potluck where guests BRING FOOD as well!

What if the people getting married are poor, but they want to share their joy and exchange of vows with friends and loved ones?
The level of snobbery and entitlement on this forum is thru the roof.

The only way to share the joy is to invite your friends to a party then ask them to pay for it? You must be the type to not provide food at kids parties. The worst.

The PP was saying that people complaining about dry weddings are the worst. She was not talking about cash bar weddings.

No she wasn't. We're both saying the guests don't pay for the food drinks. Then PP said it was snobby because poor people apparently can't pay for food/drinks (which isn't even true). It's the cheapskates who aren't even poor who do this kind of thing.

Exactly, that's why PP was being called out. If you can afford to splash out on 80k "luxury" accommodations or buy a 7k wedding dress, you can pick up a bar tab. To not do so and expect your guests to arrive and pay cash is VERY trashy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the hate for no kids weddings on this site. All etiquette experts say no kid weddings are absolutely fine, while many of the other items are faux pas.

I’m 45 and have been to a lot of weddings, and I think only two ever invited kids. Every other wedding I’ve attended is no kids.

I understand that sometimes people can’t attend a wedding if it’s no kids, because they don’t have childcare in a different city. No judgment if you can’t attend. DH and I have done some trade off weddings where only one of us attended because getting childcare was too much drama. It’s fine. We’ve also flown in family to watch the kids while we’ve gone out of town for weddings. And we’ve also used the hotel arranged babysitter for some weddings. All of these are fine options.

But for people who are like unilaterally writing off no kids weddings…. I feel sorry for them. They often refuse to separate from their kids, have never had a babysitter, or are highly anxious. It’s one thing to decline a no kid wedding because you’re unable to make it work (or you’re not close enough to the couple to put a ton of effort into making it work). But it’s another thing to refuse to make it work.

+1.
The weddings without kids are generally better anyways (food/alcohol/entertainment). If you can't leave your kid for a few hours do everyone else a favor and stay home

+2

+3

No one cares about your kid as much as you.

+4

+5 or whatever it is. I have kids, I want a night out goddamnit! Not to be watching my kids or anyone else's. Heck, I'll go to a destination wedding with no kids because that sounds like an awesome 4 days. It might be cultural. Weddings for us are for the bride and groom, they are not family reunions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biggest offenses

No children allowed. This is sad. Weddings are for celebrating vows with family and friends.

Registry takes you to a website that the bride and groom will accept cash only gifts. This is tacky and gauche and a money grab. Many people will give cash gifts voluntarily but demanding cash only gifts is beyond tacky.

Nope.

+1. HARD nope on that one. Had we had kids invited it would have been about 120 adults and 30 kids. No way.

[Anonymous]

Is it tacky for only beer and wine to be open bar?