No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American culture is insane.

They either can’t separate themselves from children for one night or they’re so broke they can’t afford a babysitter for a few hours.

I have friends who drug their three little kids around even to adult poker nights.

It’s disgraceful.

Actually, most cultures around the world do not do childless weddings. When I’ve discussed this with international friends everyone finds the concept weird!

+1. It's the insane individualism of certain strains of American culture that even make this idea possible. In cultures that see weddings as communal-family events, of which there are still plenty in America just outside UMC circles in big cities. The idea of "it's your big day, do what you want!" or bristling at the idea that you might have an obligation to other people is a way of starting a "marriage" that leads to the results you can see down the hall in the relationships forum.

Okay, but just as it would be rude and kind of weird for an American to lambaste events in another culture for not being like they do it back home (and it's crass when clueless Americans do this), so it's pretty rude and weird to do it here.

I'm American. It doesn't take a foreigner to see the rot.

Things have changes. Maybe what is rot for you is an improvement for others -- opinions vary.

We tell them they don't owe anyone anything, and then they kill each other.

We tell them no one owes them anytime, and then they kill themselves.

Of course, maybe some see that as an improvement. Opinions vary.

You’re so incredibly, incredibly melodramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people who leave their kids all the time to go to work, other parties, the gym, etc, get so worked up against this.

I had no kids OTHER than family at my wedding. I did invite related kids. I am glad they were there. But I don't feel like it's offensive if relatives don't invite my kids.

Because they want to show off their kids to family/friends who don't see them all the time - whether they will admit to this reason or not.

"Show off" is an odd word choice; I don't think anyone is impressed by my eight year old. I do like when my kids get to see their family and friends, though. It helps build social bonds, which are important. I've never fought with anyone over kids at weddings, but I think weddings are better with kids.

Sounds like you want a family reunion. Plan and pay for one yourself.

I did. It was my wedding. Part of the purpose of a wedding, to normal, non-deranged people, is to see family and friends.

Oh, grow up.

This is funny, as if someone with a princess fantasy is more mature than someone who understands these rituals are meant to cement ties across generations and through the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

I think a lot of people see it more as one new family being created, not two families joined. How often do people hang out with their family and their in-laws all together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

I think a lot of people see it more as one new family being created, not two families joined. How often do people hang out with their family and their in-laws all together?

At least every year at Christmas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American culture is insane.

They either can’t separate themselves from children for one night or they’re so broke they can’t afford a babysitter for a few hours.

I have friends who drug their three little kids around even to adult poker nights.

It’s disgraceful.

Just to keep this idea grounded in reality, a babysitter for “a few hours” is from 4-12 for a local wedding. That’s eight hours, assume minimum $25/hour you’re looking at $200 just to leave the house. Thats low-tier wedding guest gift all by itself right there.

You don't literally have to stay until the end. Just go to the reception, have dinner, stay for a few dances, then go. People seem to be making this much harder than it has to be.

Ok great you’ve now made this a $150 cost to walk out the door. Good thing you’re here.

Find a sitter that doesn't cost $50 an hour. Go for 3 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

I think a lot of people see it more as one new family being created, not two families joined. How often do people hang out with their family and their in-laws all together?

At least every year at Christmas.

I have never ever had Christmas with my parents and in-laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s absolutely right. But I won’t be attending any weddings if my kids aren’t invited.

This alone is justification for having child-free wedding.

DP. How rude you are, to attack PP like that.

That was not an attack on PP.

An attack on PP would be: "PP if I were your close relative, I would consider divorcing and re-marrying my spouse to have another child-free wedding without you attending."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

Well, if you want to bow to old traditions, let's go back a little further and acknowledge that marriage has nothing to do with love and everything to do with feudal obligations, so maybe the reception should reflect those older traditions, too.

Or did you just want to cherry pick your personal preference and freeze it in time, like some platonic ideal of WEDDING (tm)? I guess we could go with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

What do you think the reception is?

DP. If I'm reading right, I think the reception is where we train the children to stay out of the Thunderdome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

Well, if you want to bow to old traditions, let's go back a little further and acknowledge that marriage has nothing to do with love and everything to do with feudal obligations, so maybe the reception should reflect those older traditions, too.

Or did you just want to cherry pick your personal preference and freeze it in time, like some platonic ideal of WEDDING (tm)? I guess we could go with that.

I wonder if that PP would prefer goats and cows being exchanged as dowry in this arranged marriage uniting the two families. Let's get back to basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American culture is insane.

They either can’t separate themselves from children for one night or they’re so broke they can’t afford a babysitter for a few hours.

I have friends who drug their three little kids around even to adult poker nights.

It’s disgraceful.

Just to keep this idea grounded in reality, a babysitter for “a few hours” is from 4-12 for a local wedding. That’s eight hours, assume minimum $25/hour you’re looking at $200 just to leave the house. Thats low-tier wedding guest gift all by itself right there.

You don't literally have to stay until the end. Just go to the reception, have dinner, stay for a few dances, then go. People seem to be making this much harder than it has to be.

Ok great you’ve now made this a $150 cost to walk out the door. Good thing you’re here.

Find a sitter that doesn't cost $50 an hour. Go for 3 hours.

Thanks I really enjoy it when invitations come with chores. Find a new babysitter, go for three hours (five with travel) you can keep minimizing all you want but the bottom line is: it’s an ask. You’re asking your guests to bear additional costs to attend your wedding that they don’t have to in order attend other weddings. Thats ok as long as you don’t say a word if they decline (which means no helpful hints about getting lower quality childcare to make sure you’re there for their party…)

Don’t want me spending your money to invite my kid? Don’t spend mine to get a babysitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American culture is insane.

They either can’t separate themselves from children for one night or they’re so broke they can’t afford a babysitter for a few hours.

I have friends who drug their three little kids around even to adult poker nights.

It’s disgraceful.

Just to keep this idea grounded in reality, a babysitter for “a few hours” is from 4-12 for a local wedding. That’s eight hours, assume minimum $25/hour you’re looking at $200 just to leave the house. Thats low-tier wedding guest gift all by itself right there.

You don't literally have to stay until the end. Just go to the reception, have dinner, stay for a few dances, then go. People seem to be making this much harder than it has to be.

Ok great you’ve now made this a $150 cost to walk out the door. Good thing you’re here.

Find a sitter that doesn't cost $50 an hour. Go for 3 hours.

Thanks I really enjoy it when invitations come with chores. Find a new babysitter, go for three hours (five with travel) you can keep minimizing all you want but the bottom line is: it’s an ask. You’re asking your guests to bear additional costs to attend your wedding that they don’t have to in order attend other weddings. Thats ok as long as you don’t say a word if they decline (which means no helpful hints about getting lower quality childcare to make sure you’re there for their party…)

Don’t want me spending your money to invite my kid? Don’t spend mine to get a babysitter.

No, just decline and wish them the best. Like a normal person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A wedding is and should be whatever the two people getting married want it to be. That said, they must be gracious if people decline to attend for any reason, including child care.

But no, "two families" are not getting married; two individuals are. So it's whatever they want. If you don't like it, decline. No one owes you a family reunion. If you want a family reunion, plan, pay for and host one. The end.

Your opinion is quite a shift and a result of an increasingly secular, selfish society. Yes, two families are being joined. The whole purpose was to have family, friends and congregants witness and support the union, not to throw a formal party.

Well, if you want to bow to old traditions, let's go back a little further and acknowledge that marriage has nothing to do with love and everything to do with feudal obligations, so maybe the reception should reflect those older traditions, too.

Or did you just want to cherry pick your personal preference and freeze it in time, like some platonic ideal of WEDDING (tm)? I guess we could go with that.

I wonder if that PP would prefer goats and cows being exchanged as dowry in this arranged marriage uniting the two families. Let's get back to basics.

You elite and unsufferable new generations, and your rejection of living in harmony with the goats and cows. All this newfangled rejection of our important traditions is why we have mass shootings and clan wars. You never heard of one clan fighting another before your stupid Instagrams.