No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do kids actually WANT to attend most weddings like this? Usually the weddings that are mostly or only adults are boring at best and miserable at worst for a kid.

No, they don't. Their socially inept parents just need them there so they don't have to talk to other adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have become so narcissistic. I guess I can understand it for people in their 20s. I got married at 25 and thought my wedding was a big deal (but didn’t exclude kids). Now, pushing 50, I have more perspective. The chances to have the whole family/loved ones all together are few and far between. And nobody cares about a wedding being “perfect” - they won’t even remember it after a week. The fact that people don’t want children to “ruin” their day is sad. That just isn’t what it’s about.

For most of us the exclusion of children is not because of the desire for a perfect wedding. For most of us, it destroys the reception budget. Keep pretending there is no cost per plate.

PP you are responding to. That's fair. I personally would still prioritize nieces and nephews, young cousins, etc. over other guests I wasn't as close with, or change something else about the wedding to find room in the budget, but everyone has a right to do what they prefer.

In a way, excluding children transfers the expense to the guests in many cases. You don't have to cover their cost per plate, but the parents then have to arrange for childcare, which for out-of-town weddings is pricy and nerve-wracking. Unfortunately, many of us don't have relatives nearby who can keep our kids for a weekend. Another result of modern life in the United States.

[Anonymous]

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.

The purpose is to throw a formal party, if that's what the couple decides.

It's not selfish. Your opinion about "society" is the result of you selfishly spinning a narrative that suits your own self-interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have become so narcissistic. I guess I can understand it for people in their 20s. I got married at 25 and thought my wedding was a big deal (but didn’t exclude kids). Now, pushing 50, I have more perspective. The chances to have the whole family/loved ones all together are few and far between. And nobody cares about a wedding being “perfect” - they won’t even remember it after a week. The fact that people don’t want children to “ruin” their day is sad. That just isn’t what it’s about.

For most of us the exclusion of children is not because of the desire for a perfect wedding. For most of us, it destroys the reception budget. Keep pretending there is no cost per plate.

PP you are responding to. That's fair. I personally would still prioritize nieces and nephews, young cousins, etc. over other guests I wasn't as close with, or change something else about the wedding to find room in the budget, but everyone has a right to do what they prefer.

In a way, excluding children transfers the expense to the guests in many cases. You don't have to cover their cost per plate, but the parents then have to arrange for childcare, which for out-of-town weddings is pricy and nerve-wracking. Unfortunately, many of us don't have relatives nearby who can keep our kids for a weekend. Another result of modern life in the United States.

Yes, things change. Brides and grooms aren't entitled to guests, and parents aren't entitled to the free dinner and social time with their children. We can all make our own choices and move on without all the insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People have become so narcissistic. I guess I can understand it for people in their 20s. I got married at 25 and thought my wedding was a big deal (but didn’t exclude kids). Now, pushing 50, I have more perspective. The chances to have the whole family/loved ones all together are few and far between. And nobody cares about a wedding being “perfect” - they won’t even remember it after a week. The fact that people don’t want children to “ruin” their day is sad. That just isn’t what it’s about.

For most of us the exclusion of children is not because of the desire for a perfect wedding. For most of us, it destroys the reception budget. Keep pretending there is no cost per plate.

PP you are responding to. That's fair. I personally would still prioritize nieces and nephews, young cousins, etc. over other guests I wasn't as close with, or change something else about the wedding to find room in the budget, but everyone has a right to do what they prefer.

In a way, excluding children transfers the expense to the guests in many cases. You don't have to cover their cost per plate, but the parents then have to arrange for childcare, which for out-of-town weddings is pricy and nerve-wracking. Unfortunately, many of us don't have relatives nearby who can keep our kids for a weekend. Another result of modern life in the United States.

It’s a party. RSVP yes or no. It’s not that deep. No need to have “wracked” nerves over a wedding invitation. It is an invitation, not a summons.

And by the way, some of us are fun and secure enough to go to a wedding on our own and leave our spouse home with the kids. I have a former grad school friend who got married in another state. I left DH home with the kids, went by myself, and celebrated not only the groom (my friend) and bride, but I got to catch up with other grad school friends, and meet new people. Don’t be insecure that you can’t operate socially without your spouse. If it is your cousin getting married, go and enjoy kid-free time with your family! When else will you be able to free-wheel a bit with your cousins and siblings? If it is DH’s co-worker getting married, he can go and have a great time with colleagues. Normalize being a secure person who has fun without your spouse and kids ALL the time.

[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.

So- I mostly agree with you. I think “the way things used to be” regarding weddings was better.

But we are dealing in reality here. Weddings have changed, whether we like it or not.

DP. I agree. I think the increase in child free weddings is directly correlated to how miserable zoomers and millennials are, and that has to with two things: the malignant narcissism of social media and the economic uncertainties they face.

I think in general that child free weddings are a reflection of the couple’s pain and misery. The endless striving for perfect pictures for social media, the gaping narcissism, the bridezilla/couplezilla behaviors, this is all unhappiness at work. Add to that solid, real, and often unacknowledged (and often gaslit) financial stress, and you get the result.

It is unfortunate, but I also think that it’s out of line to have anyone challenge or push back on the couples. They’ll have to sort this out themselves.

Whew. Yes, it is definitely the zoomers and millennials having small weddings who are the problem here.

Egads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

You don't get to define the purpose of a celebration.

Do you listen to yourself?

Weddings are sociologically speaking a cultural ritual with certain functions - if you can’t grasp that then you’re just dumb and should not be opining.

Until they aren't. As a sociological matter, many wedding rituals are misogynistic and patriarchal. We need not be bound to sociologically defined weddings provided by you.

"you’re just dumb"

And you are arrogant. I know this, because I get to define arrogance. See how you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No idea why people are saying this is a ,pdern effect of instagram. I got married 25 years ago. No kid. In fact, no photographer (at the reception). Just a photographer at the ceremony and for posed photos (this was a long time ago, no one even thought to be photo documenting the evpntire day, because for what purpose?)

When we got married, all of our like aged friends had no kid weddings. Since then, I think every friend wedding I’ve been to is no kids. But we run in circles of highly educated small families in big cities. I think the only weddings I’ve been to with kids are my cousins, and our two nephews. They are smaller town, lower education families. At the last one, some little kid in the immediate family fell within two minutes of getting to the reception (he was horse playing on his chair) and put a total damper on the first hour of the party because he was wailing at the top of his lungs for an hour and bleeding everywhere, so a bunch of immediate family were attending to him, which heavily interfered in the family photos they were trying to take. I didn’t care, but man not much fun. We brought our own son to that wedding (we live in town and he was invited) and honestly it kind of sucked because he didn’t know the other kids and was bored so we left by 10. We otherwise would have stayed late and danced with all the 20 somethings.

Huh. I can assure that my family of educated doctors, lawyers, and professors always has kids at weddings. We're Italian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So- I mostly agree with you. I think “the way things used to be” regarding weddings was better.

But we are dealing in reality here. Weddings have changed, whether we like it or not.

DP. I agree. I think the increase in child free weddings is directly correlated to how miserable zoomers and millennials are, and that has to with two things: the malignant narcissism of social media and the economic uncertainties they face.

I think in general that child free weddings are a reflection of the couple’s pain and misery. The endless striving for perfect pictures for social media, the gaping narcissism, the bridezilla/couplezilla behaviors, this is all unhappiness at work. Add to that solid, real, and often unacknowledged (and often gaslit) financial stress, and you get the result.

It is unfortunate, but I also think that it’s out of line to have anyone challenge or push back on the couples. They’ll have to sort this out themselves.

Whew. Yes, it is definitely the zoomers and millennials having small weddings who are the problem here.

Egads.

They are the ones who are suffering, true. It’s not really up for debate how unhappy they are as groups. Rates of mental illness, depression, etc are very high.

You can mock them if you want, but they are really struggling and unhappy. I think it’s ridiculous how as a society we pretend that zoomers/millennials aren’t under significant financial and emotional stress as a group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

You don't get to define the purpose of a celebration.

Do you listen to yourself?

Weddings are sociologically speaking a cultural ritual with certain functions - if you can’t grasp that then you’re just dumb and should not be opining.

Until they aren't. As a sociological matter, many wedding rituals are misogynistic and patriarchal. We need not be bound to sociologically defined weddings provided by you.

"you’re just dumb"

And you are arrogant. I know this, because I get to define arrogance. See how you sound?

and yet bridezillas cling to the misogynistic outer trappings, and none of the actual positive attributes…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So- I mostly agree with you. I think “the way things used to be” regarding weddings was better.

But we are dealing in reality here. Weddings have changed, whether we like it or not.

DP. I agree. I think the increase in child free weddings is directly correlated to how miserable zoomers and millennials are, and that has to with two things: the malignant narcissism of social media and the economic uncertainties they face.

I think in general that child free weddings are a reflection of the couple’s pain and misery. The endless striving for perfect pictures for social media, the gaping narcissism, the bridezilla/couplezilla behaviors, this is all unhappiness at work. Add to that solid, real, and often unacknowledged (and often gaslit) financial stress, and you get the result.

It is unfortunate, but I also think that it’s out of line to have anyone challenge or push back on the couples. They’ll have to sort this out themselves.

Whew. Yes, it is definitely the zoomers and millennials having small weddings who are the problem here.

Egads.

They are the ones who are suffering, true. It’s not really up for debate how unhappy they are as groups. Rates of mental illness, depression, etc are very high.

You can mock them if you want, but they are really struggling and unhappy. I think it’s ridiculous how as a society we pretend that zoomers/millennials aren’t under significant financial and emotional stress as a group.

Yeah maybe we should do more criticizing of their choices publicly, even throw in some insults like "gaping narcissism." That's going to help for sure.

How lucky young people are to have you setting standards for society, bravura.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So- I mostly agree with you. I think “the way things used to be” regarding weddings was better.

But we are dealing in reality here. Weddings have changed, whether we like it or not.

DP. I agree. I think the increase in child free weddings is directly correlated to how miserable zoomers and millennials are, and that has to with two things: the malignant narcissism of social media and the economic uncertainties they face.

I think in general that child free weddings are a reflection of the couple’s pain and misery. The endless striving for perfect pictures for social media, the gaping narcissism, the bridezilla/couplezilla behaviors, this is all unhappiness at work. Add to that solid, real, and often unacknowledged (and often gaslit) financial stress, and you get the result.

It is unfortunate, but I also think that it’s out of line to have anyone challenge or push back on the couples. They’ll have to sort this out themselves.

Whew. Yes, it is definitely the zoomers and millennials having small weddings who are the problem here.

Egads.

They are the ones who are suffering, true. It’s not really up for debate how unhappy they are as groups. Rates of mental illness, depression, etc are very high.

You can mock them if you want, but they are really struggling and unhappy. I think it’s ridiculous how as a society we pretend that zoomers/millennials aren’t under significant financial and emotional stress as a group.

Yeah maybe we should do more criticizing of their choices publicly, even throw in some insults like "gaping narcissism." That's going to help for sure.

How lucky young people are to have you setting standards for society, bravura.

It’s becoming more clear why people are cutting out toxic relatives. Who needs some relative you and your fiance never see sneering at you during your first dance because hers grandkids, distant cousins of the groom, weren’t invited.

[Anonymous]

What we really need is more of people like you berating others publicly. The insults are so chef's kiss

Doing the lords work there

[Anonymous]

If, like, you get invited to dinner at a White House occupied by a President you like, you gonna pi$$ and moan because the kids can't go too?
If you get invited to an anniversary dinner, do you ask if the kids can come?
If yes, just stay home until the kids are in the military or college,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What do you think the reception is?

Celebrations serve the purpose of creating bonds between people - so the reception ritual (including alcohol often) is part of the overall function of the wedding to create ties between the two families and within the families. Otherwise people would not go to great expense to attend these events.

I recently spent 2 precious vacation days and $3000 I cannot spare to attend a young relative’s wedding, in large part because I knew the entire family would be there, even though I’m not super close to this relative (much younger half sister). Would I have gone to that expense just to go to say, her birthday party or a Mardi Gras party? obviously not. And guess what - the bride was openly joyful and proud that in fact the wedding also served as a family reunion, getting us all into the same place for the first time in maybe a decade.

You don't get to define the purpose of a celebration.

Do you listen to yourself?

Weddings are sociologically speaking a cultural ritual with certain functions - if you can’t grasp that then you’re just dumb and should not be opining.

Until they aren't. As a sociological matter, many wedding rituals are misogynistic and patriarchal. We need not be bound to sociologically defined weddings provided by you.

"you’re just dumb"

And you are arrogant. I know this, because I get to define arrogance. See how you sound?

and yet bridezillas cling to the misogynistic outer trappings, and none of the actual positive attributes…

We can resist misogyny, and resist dictating how other people choose to celebrate their wedding.