Genuinely don’t understand why people get worked up about weddings

[Anonymous]

I love weddings. I love weddings with kids, without kids, destination weddings, small weddings, big weddings, love them. Have had fun at every wedding I have attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids were invited to my wedding, so I have no dog in the fight.

I’ve been to weddings where my whole family was invited. Some where only DH and I were invited. Heck, I’ve been to a wedding where only I was invited, with no plus one.

I’ve never viewed any invitation as rude. Weddings often have budgets, and I get that. Also, even though “vibe” wasn’t a big deal to me, I can see where some people want an adults only vibe. Whatever, it’s their wedding.

If I want to go and it works for me, I go. With or without my kids, with or without DH. Sometimes we have to decline. OK.

But why do people act so freaking offended? Go, don’t go, whatever you need or want to do. And yeah, maybe some relative will be offended—that’s their choice, not my problem. Whatever.

Weddings, by the way, aren’t family reunions. So if you want a family reunion, plan for and pay for one yourself.

Actually, it is a HUGE family reunion. Your thinking is informed by your culture. My culture prioritizes family in weddings.

Not OP. A Family reunion is a family reunion. A wedding is a wedding.

What kind of family reunion also includes your spouse's extended family, college friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are expensive as are babysitters.

do you never leave your kids, ever? do you go to work? to the doctor's office? to church where you leave them in the nursery? shopping? to the gym? I'm calling BS that you NEVER leave your child EVER, unless you are some weirdo attachment parenting type.

Never been to church. I don't go to the gym. I quit my job as my income wasn't high enough to make it work working with child care. I took them shopping or waited till my husband got home. They'd go to doctors with me or dad would flex his schedule. And, if we go out to eat, etc. of course they come with us for family time. I'd rather put that money in their college fund. No family help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since we're talking about this, I'll just go ahead and say that in my experience, adult-only weddings are only done in that narrow tranche of middle-class social climbers who think it somehow makes their event more "elegant" and "distinguished". The wealthy, particularly Old Money, couldn't care less about how they're perceived and just invite everyone at whatever family estate or large venue they want. And the working class also couldn't care less about how they're perceived, and invite everyone as well - it's just that the venues are much less costly. Maybe it's a community hall or a backyard, and that's perfectly lovely as well.

I really don't think adult-only weddings are the norm in the US. And they're certainly not the norm in most other countries, which have more inclusive family values.

The Old Money sycophants have shown up to tell us what's what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we're talking about this, I'll just go ahead and say that in my experience, adult-only weddings are only done in that narrow tranche of middle-class social climbers who think it somehow makes their event more "elegant" and "distinguished". The wealthy, particularly Old Money, couldn't care less about how they're perceived and just invite everyone at whatever family estate or large venue they want. And the working class also couldn't care less about how they're perceived, and invite everyone as well - it's just that the venues are much less costly. Maybe it's a community hall or a backyard, and that's perfectly lovely as well.

I really don't think adult-only weddings are the norm in the US. And they're certainly not the norm in most other countries, which have more inclusive family values.

The Old Money sycophants have shown up to tell us what's what.

Not really, they made the point that everyone invites kids except a small number of super uptight snobby wannabes. The larger point also includes that money isn't the reason why kids are not included. It's often the excuse... but that's different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we're talking about this, I'll just go ahead and say that in my experience, adult-only weddings are only done in that narrow tranche of middle-class social climbers who think it somehow makes their event more "elegant" and "distinguished". The wealthy, particularly Old Money, couldn't care less about how they're perceived and just invite everyone at whatever family estate or large venue they want. And the working class also couldn't care less about how they're perceived, and invite everyone as well - it's just that the venues are much less costly. Maybe it's a community hall or a backyard, and that's perfectly lovely as well.

I really don't think adult-only weddings are the norm in the US. And they're certainly not the norm in most other countries, which have more inclusive family values.

The Old Money sycophants have shown up to tell us what's what.

Not really, they made the point that everyone invites kids except a small number of super uptight snobby wannabes. The larger point also includes that money isn't the reason why kids are not included. It's often the excuse... but that's different.

I don't separate my friends by class but I have been invited to plenty of kid-free weddings. And nobody has ever said it was because of money, but that's probably because I would never think to question my host about the guest list.

[Anonymous]

I will explain this to you. Because people go through phases where they get all riled up about things. Sometimes those phases are decades long. Because some people grow up having to fight for every little thing they get, and they are just used to fighting for everything they want or think they should have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since we're talking about this, I'll just go ahead and say that in my experience, adult-only weddings are only done in that narrow tranche of middle-class social climbers who think it somehow makes their event more "elegant" and "distinguished". The wealthy, particularly Old Money, couldn't care less about how they're perceived and just invite everyone at whatever family estate or large venue they want. And the working class also couldn't care less about how they're perceived, and invite everyone as well - it's just that the venues are much less costly. Maybe it's a community hall or a backyard, and that's perfectly lovely as well.

I really don't think adult-only weddings are the norm in the US. And they're certainly not the norm in most other countries, which have more inclusive family values.

I was one of the PPs and was trying to make the same point. Once you have to rent a wedding venue instead of owning it, it becomes a matter of space and finances. if you own a large estate, you don't care who comes, and if you have it in your backyard, you also don't care. But if you have to rent a hotel/restaurant/do a destination... yes, it becomes a different animal. I'm multicultural and in some countries it's actually a fight to have FRIENDS invited as the elders consider the wedding a family affair. But things of course change as people marry later and pay for their own weddings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we're talking about this, I'll just go ahead and say that in my experience, adult-only weddings are only done in that narrow tranche of middle-class social climbers who think it somehow makes their event more "elegant" and "distinguished". The wealthy, particularly Old Money, couldn't care less about how they're perceived and just invite everyone at whatever family estate or large venue they want. And the working class also couldn't care less about how they're perceived, and invite everyone as well - it's just that the venues are much less costly. Maybe it's a community hall or a backyard, and that's perfectly lovely as well.

I really don't think adult-only weddings are the norm in the US. And they're certainly not the norm in most other countries, which have more inclusive family values.

I was one of the PPs and was trying to make the same point. Once you have to rent a wedding venue instead of owning it, it becomes a matter of space and finances. if you own a large estate, you don't care who comes, and if you have it in your backyard, you also don't care. But if you have to rent a hotel/restaurant/do a destination... yes, it becomes a different animal. I'm multicultural and in some countries it's actually a fight to have FRIENDS invited as the elders consider the wedding a family affair. But things of course change as people marry later and pay for their own weddings.

This isn't the same point at all, the PP you're quoting is saying people don't invite kids because they want to look "elegant."

I agree with you though- people like the family castle poster can invite whoever they want, whereas I understand someone having a reception at a hotel ballroom may have different space and economic considerations.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's about Old Money or social climbing explicitly.

I think it's about the wedding fantasy that gets sold to brides about the perfect shower and the perfect dress and the perfect flowers and the perfect cake. It's really easy to get caught up in the photo op cosplay of wedding, and within that fantasy, kids are either a prop or a major complication. The same people say they want to "enjoy being married for a while" before having kids. I think that very charitably speaking, they are attached to the party, and kids don't really fit into that vignette.

It's kind of the first of many ways that we socially shame women for making decisions about how to include children in their relational lives. People get defensive about their own choices. They get judgmental about other people's choices. They feel rejected and act out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we're talking about this, I'll just go ahead and say that in my experience, adult-only weddings are only done in that narrow tranche of middle-class social climbers who think it somehow makes their event more "elegant" and "distinguished". The wealthy, particularly Old Money, couldn't care less about how they're perceived and just invite everyone at whatever family estate or large venue they want. And the working class also couldn't care less about how they're perceived, and invite everyone as well - it's just that the venues are much less costly. Maybe it's a community hall or a backyard, and that's perfectly lovely as well.

I really don't think adult-only weddings are the norm in the US. And they're certainly not the norm in most other countries, which have more inclusive family values.

I was one of the PPs and was trying to make the same point. Once you have to rent a wedding venue instead of owning it, it becomes a matter of space and finances. if you own a large estate, you don't care who comes, and if you have it in your backyard, you also don't care. But if you have to rent a hotel/restaurant/do a destination... yes, it becomes a different animal. I'm multicultural and in some countries it's actually a fight to have FRIENDS invited as the elders consider the wedding a family affair. But things of course change as people marry later and pay for their own weddings.

This isn't the same point at all, the PP you're quoting is saying people don't invite kids because they want to look "elegant."

I agree with you though- people like the family castle poster can invite whoever they want, whereas I understand someone having a reception at a hotel ballroom may have different space and economic considerations.

Ha ha, you're right. I also disagree that the "middle class" who rents are just going for "elegant". For example if they're renting a hotel ballroom, they want elegant, but they also have no other place to hold a wedding party. I mean if you're going to rent, you rather do elegant than run down. I think it's very common for young professionals who live in apartments in big cities to rent their wedding venues and I definitely wouldn't call them social climbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's about Old Money or social climbing explicitly.

I think it's about the wedding fantasy that gets sold to brides about the perfect shower and the perfect dress and the perfect flowers and the perfect cake. It's really easy to get caught up in the photo op cosplay of wedding, and within that fantasy, kids are either a prop or a major complication. The same people say they want to "enjoy being married for a while" before having kids. I think that very charitably speaking, they are attached to the party, and kids don't really fit into that vignette.

It's kind of the first of many ways that we socially shame women for making decisions about how to include children in their relational lives. People get defensive about their own choices. They get judgmental about other people's choices. They feel rejected and act out.

Sure, and then the reality is that people nowadays may not want to have kids at all. It's an option, which was not on the table not too long ago. If you want to stay childless, why would you invite kids to your wedding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's about Old Money or social climbing explicitly.

I think it's about the wedding fantasy that gets sold to brides about the perfect shower and the perfect dress and the perfect flowers and the perfect cake. It's really easy to get caught up in the photo op cosplay of wedding, and within that fantasy, kids are either a prop or a major complication. The same people say they want to "enjoy being married for a while" before having kids. I think that very charitably speaking, they are attached to the party, and kids don't really fit into that vignette.

It's kind of the first of many ways that we socially shame women for making decisions about how to include children in their relational lives. People get defensive about their own choices. They get judgmental about other people's choices. They feel rejected and act out.

Sure, and then the reality is that people nowadays may not want to have kids at all. It's an option, which was not on the table not too long ago. If you want to stay childless, why would you invite kids to your wedding?

I think it would be a mistake to assume this correlation though. My brother and his wife don't have or want children. They invited my kids and our sister's kids to their wedding. They like kids. They just don't want any of their own. I actually DID have a child free wedding, because it was at night, at a bar. People who couldn't figure out a plan for their kids didn't come. It didn't change how I felt about them. I have 2 kids of my own, shockingly to your correlation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the most part I don’t get it either. The only time I was annoyed was when my daughter was asked to be a flower girl, but later we were told she couldn’t come to the adult only reception. Felt a little like she was being used as a prop for cute photos. Every other wedding has been fine, we don’t go if it doesn’t work for us.

Wow that is rude

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids were invited to my wedding, so I have no dog in the fight.

I’ve been to weddings where my whole family was invited. Some where only DH and I were invited. Heck, I’ve been to a wedding where only I was invited, with no plus one.

I’ve never viewed any invitation as rude. Weddings often have budgets, and I get that. Also, even though “vibe” wasn’t a big deal to me, I can see where some people want an adults only vibe. Whatever, it’s their wedding.

If I want to go and it works for me, I go. With or without my kids, with or without DH. Sometimes we have to decline. OK.

But why do people act so freaking offended? Go, don’t go, whatever you need or want to do. And yeah, maybe some relative will be offended—that’s their choice, not my problem. Whatever.

Weddings, by the way, aren’t family reunions. So if you want a family reunion, plan for and pay for one yourself.

I agree. I would never go to one without my babies when I was breastfeeding, but I was never offended that someone will ask not to bring kids. I would just politely decline and send them a gift. A wedding is not that big of a deal so they won't care if I miss it. The one friend who wanted me to be there at all cost called and told me I can bring the baby even though no kids were allowed for others.