No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!

[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.

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.

That gaping narcissism is an outcome of extensive social media use is not particularly up for debate. It is well-documented.

You are just avoiding reality.

thank god we have you to set us straight
imagine if people had to figure this out without you

[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.

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.

That gaping narcissism is an outcome of extensive social media use is not particularly up for debate. It is well-documented.

You are just avoiding reality.

What kind of company do you keep where all these brides are gaping narcissists looking garish at their wedding? Do you get all your information on American weddings from Bridezillas or have you actually been to such a wedding recently? And, why did you go if you were there to just disrespect the bride and groom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Yes, and what I see is the insults are primarily flowing from the people who want child free weddings. Which is perhaps telling.

I say that as someone who does not object to a choice to have one, that’s the business of the couple. But on this thread, they’re the ones throwing the most insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is getting their nerves wracked over a wedding invitation, but leaving my small children for 2-3 days was nerve-wracking for me at times. I don't think that is unusual. And it's funny to me that you're now bashing people who you deem not sufficiently fun and secure while making lots of assumptions to fit your narrative. Can you think outside of your own experience? This is where we get back to that original problem - I'm supposed to respect your choice to have a child-free wedding, but you also want to judge me harshly because I then decline an out of state childfree wedding.

Also, the "not a summons" line is tired.

DP

wrong read

DP. Several people have posted their experiences of people doing exactly that.

Those are not the people in this thread, though, so addressing the people in this thread with that complaint is pretty off-target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Yes, and what I see is the insults are primarily flowing from the people who want child free weddings. Which is perhaps telling.

I say that as someone who does not object to a choice to have one, that’s the business of the couple. But on this thread, they’re the ones throwing the most insults.

Oh yes, all those rant-free arguments against people having the wedding they chose for themselves. Such sane and sober posts, agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That gaping narcissism is an outcome of extensive social media use is not particularly up for debate. It is well-documented.

You are just avoiding reality.

What kind of company do you keep where all these brides are gaping narcissists looking garish at their wedding? Do you get all your information on American weddings from Bridezillas or have you actually been to such a wedding recently? And, why did you go if you were there to just disrespect the bride and groom?

What are you talking about? We are talking about societal trends, not individuals. Try to keep up.

Do you disagree that zoomers/millennials have significantly higher rates of depression and mental illness as compared to prior generations? Do you disagree that social media usage is associated with much higher rates of narcissism, and also depression? Do you disagree that millennials/zoomers face unsteady economic conditions that boomers in particular did not face?

Do you think those facts are entirely unrelated to how those generations engage in milestone events like weddings? Or do you think weddings exist somehow outside of the rest of society?

[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.

Exactly! Weddings are not as much fun for the parents with their kids running around. Who wouldn't want to hire a sitter and actually enjoy the night without having to ensure your kid doesn't run wild (especially when there are other kids who are left to run around wild, it's harder to control your own kid)

[Anonymous]

^^

DP. Sane, sober. Polite, measured calm. Definitely not the crazy pants wedding lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^

DP. Sane, sober. Polite, measured calm. Definitely not the crazy pants wedding lady.

PS: That was for the post above, the one from the woman who thinks people kill each other because they didn't et to fall asleep at weddings as children.

[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.

Plus do these people never leave their kids with a sitter?!?!? That is not healthy---and if you cannot afford the sitter, do you not have friends who you swap with for baby sitting? By time my kids were 2-3, we had a great group of friends, and we did just that. As long as everyone gives and takes similar amounts it works well.

[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.

So for the last time, it is totally okay to say "No" and not attend. It's an invite, not a court summons. Doesn't matter why, if you cannot attend, just say no. And 99.99% of brides do not make you "feel bad for declining"

[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.

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.

So what you are saying is "the bride got her wedding the way she wanted it, because it is her and her grooms day". So she wanted it with kids, and that is her (and every bride/groom) choice. And also your choice to spend $3K to attend or not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Yes, and what I see is the insults are primarily flowing from the people who want child free weddings. Which is perhaps telling.

I say that as someone who does not object to a choice to have one, that’s the business of the couple. But on this thread, they’re the ones throwing the most insults.

The insults are flowing in both directions.

And it's not child-free wedding people telling others what to do with their wedding. That is exclusive to the other side.

[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.

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.

So for the last time, it is totally okay to say "No" and not attend. It's an invite, not a court summons. Doesn't matter why, if you cannot attend, just say no. And 99.99% of brides do not make you "feel bad for declining"

DP. Moreover, nobody in this thread has written you should feel bad for declining. These are not the people to criticize for that bad behavior, and it is bad behavior when it happens.

[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.

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.

So for the last time, it is totally okay to say "No" and not attend. It's an invite, not a court summons. Doesn't matter why, if you cannot attend, just say no. And 99.99% of brides do not make you "feel bad for declining"

Weird stat. How on earth could you know this? It comes across as bizarrely defensive.