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:Somewhere along the generations, parents started lugging their kids everywhere. In the 20th century parents left kids with family and went to places like Hawaii on their own, lol.

somewhere along the generations, weddings morphed from simple and affordable family affairs to the bride’s opportunity to cosplay Cinderella at great expense.

You are so, so butthurt that your children aren’t the center of anyone else’s universe. You should probably see a professional about that.

We see you, bridezilla, with your cringey overly rehearsed first dance, your unflattering dress, cliched photographs, and boring reception that you obviously put more thought into the chair back bows than whether your guests would have a good time.

Just proving the point that it's the guests who have all the anger that their kids aren't allowed.

I’m not angry - I just think you’re absurd and sad.

So you insult people's clothing? You're more than a little unhinged trying to go for the jugular. It's not very effective because it exposes your crazy. Just click the regrets box. It's really easy.

when a wedding becomes all about the bride, then yes, the external trappings become ridiculous and a bit pathetic.

The wedding is literally the bride and grooms day (and in reality, more brides care about the specifics, so more about the bride in many cases). You too can have your day, if you ever find someone to marry. If you cannot handle your kids not being front and center for a day, the issue is you

[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.

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.

I've been to one wedding near where I live. The rest are all over the country. No way to swap babysitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Okay. So how about acknowledging that 100% of the childfree wedding brides here aren't saying you should feel bad for not going. Someone, if not you, seems to be addressing us as if we are, and that is not bizarre to be defensive about.

[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.

no, it's a reflection of how they have witnessed family (and/or friends) kids not being parented and allowed to run wild at events. And the bride/groom deciding they don't want a bunch of kids running around because their parents refuse to parent.
You can choose to have kids running wild at your wedding or any event, but many do not want a 3 yo ruining things because mom and dad refuse to control them

[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.

But many are complaining they need to take their 12 yo with them for a wedding. Who has a 12 yo that doesn't have friends at home who would watch the kid? The 12 yo friends don't want a weekend sleepover, and you reciprocate another weekend (for fun or because the parents want to go away for a few nights)? Once our kids were 7/8 and started sleepovers with friends, I could do just that. And nope, we didnt' have family nearby, but we had plenty of friends and our kids had friends.

[Anonymous]

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.

Oh please.

This isn't about the cost of a babysitter. If the wedding couple provided a babysitter, the anti-choice camp here would still complain.

This is about selfishness and control. It's about controlling how others choose to live in order to accommodate themselves.

[Anonymous]

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.

This 1000%.

Or learn to find a sitter in a different city for your kids for 4-5 hours.

Lots of solutions, all depends upon what you are willing to spend. But look for solutions, and going alone is totally normal, especially for parents with smaller kids for a wedding not nearby

[Anonymous]

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.

But it is TRUE. You are NOT required to attend. It's a damn invite. You get to respond "yes or no". The bride and groom do not care which, because they are grown adults and recognize you may not be able to attend.

And no B/G do not routinely judge people harshly for responding NO.

[Anonymous]

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.

But many are complaining they need to take their 12 yo with them for a wedding. Who has a 12 yo that doesn't have friends at home who would watch the kid? The 12 yo friends don't want a weekend sleepover, and you reciprocate another weekend (for fun or because the parents want to go away for a few nights)? Once our kids were 7/8 and started sleepovers with friends, I could do just that. And nope, we didnt' have family nearby, but we had plenty of friends and our kids had friends.

That wasn't how I read it at all. The kids aren't just an accessory and a transaction that you have to figure out logistically. The 12 year old is a real person, with feelings, who may also want to attend the wedding, especially if it's a girl, and at that age would not cause disruptions. I found it especially awful when posters described cases where the bride had the kids in the wedding party, or involved the kids in planning and showed them lots of pictures, then didn't invite them because of some arbitrary age cutoff. That's not a nice thing to do to anyone.

[Anonymous]

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.

But many are complaining they need to take their 12 yo with them for a wedding. Who has a 12 yo that doesn't have friends at home who would watch the kid? The 12 yo friends don't want a weekend sleepover, and you reciprocate another weekend (for fun or because the parents want to go away for a few nights)? Once our kids were 7/8 and started sleepovers with friends, I could do just that. And nope, we didnt' have family nearby, but we had plenty of friends and our kids had friends.

That wasn't how I read it at all. The kids aren't just an accessory and a transaction that you have to figure out logistically. The 12 year old is a real person, with feelings, who may also want to attend the wedding, especially if it's a girl, and at that age would not cause disruptions. I found it especially awful when posters described cases where the bride had the kids in the wedding party, or involved the kids in planning and showed them lots of pictures, then didn't invite them because of some arbitrary age cutoff. That's not a nice thing to do to anyone.

All real people with feelings don't get invited to many things for a variety of reasons.

12 year old girls are not special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You think the handful of weddings you go to are indicative of a trend? What I'm saying is your idea of weddings does not match my experience at all. For it to be a trend others must have to see it. Otherwise it's anecdotes. Try using data to back up your assumptions about weddings.

[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.

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.

I've been to one wedding near where I live. The rest are all over the country. No way to swap babysitting.

This is why you want the family reunion/wedding. You moved away from everyone and feel disconnected. If you cared about family that much you would stick close to home near your family.

[Anonymous]

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.

But many are complaining they need to take their 12 yo with them for a wedding. Who has a 12 yo that doesn't have friends at home who would watch the kid? The 12 yo friends don't want a weekend sleepover, and you reciprocate another weekend (for fun or because the parents want to go away for a few nights)? Once our kids were 7/8 and started sleepovers with friends, I could do just that. And nope, we didnt' have family nearby, but we had plenty of friends and our kids had friends.

That wasn't how I read it at all. The kids aren't just an accessory and a transaction that you have to figure out logistically. The 12 year old is a real person, with feelings, who may also want to attend the wedding, especially if it's a girl, and at that age would not cause disruptions. I found it especially awful when posters described cases where the bride had the kids in the wedding party, or involved the kids in planning and showed them lots of pictures, then didn't invite them because of some arbitrary age cutoff. That's not a nice thing to do to anyone.

My 12yo would not get her feelings hurt if my cousin invited DH and me (yes that is the correct grammar) to a wedding and did not invite her. My 9yo also would not have hurt feelings. They don’t even get their feelings hurt if they don’t get invited to every sleepover or birthday party because we’ve raised them properly and they know not everything is for or about them, and that’s OK.

[Anonymous]

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.

But many are complaining they need to take their 12 yo with them for a wedding. Who has a 12 yo that doesn't have friends at home who would watch the kid? The 12 yo friends don't want a weekend sleepover, and you reciprocate another weekend (for fun or because the parents want to go away for a few nights)? Once our kids were 7/8 and started sleepovers with friends, I could do just that. And nope, we didnt' have family nearby, but we had plenty of friends and our kids had friends.

That wasn't how I read it at all. The kids aren't just an accessory and a transaction that you have to figure out logistically. The 12 year old is a real person, with feelings, who may also want to attend the wedding, especially if it's a girl, and at that age would not cause disruptions. I found it especially awful when posters described cases where the bride had the kids in the wedding party, or involved the kids in planning and showed them lots of pictures, then didn't invite them because of some arbitrary age cutoff. That's not a nice thing to do to anyone.

My 12yo would not get her feelings hurt if my cousin invited DH and me (yes that is the correct grammar) to a wedding and did not invite her. My 9yo also would not have hurt feelings. They don’t even get their feelings hurt if they don’t get invited to every sleepover or birthday party because we’ve raised them properly and they know not everything is for or about them, and that’s OK.

12 yo only gets upset when mom puts it in her head that there was an expectation she should have gone and it was a personal insult that she wasn't invited. Why else would a 12yo presume she was going to an adult party?

[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.

But many are complaining they need to take their 12 yo with them for a wedding. Who has a 12 yo that doesn't have friends at home who would watch the kid? The 12 yo friends don't want a weekend sleepover, and you reciprocate another weekend (for fun or because the parents want to go away for a few nights)? Once our kids were 7/8 and started sleepovers with friends, I could do just that. And nope, we didnt' have family nearby, but we had plenty of friends and our kids had friends.

That wasn't how I read it at all. The kids aren't just an accessory and a transaction that you have to figure out logistically. The 12 year old is a real person, with feelings, who may also want to attend the wedding, especially if it's a girl, and at that age would not cause disruptions. I found it especially awful when posters described cases where the bride had the kids in the wedding party, or involved the kids in planning and showed them lots of pictures, then didn't invite them because of some arbitrary age cutoff. That's not a nice thing to do to anyone.

My 12yo would not get her feelings hurt if my cousin invited DH and me (yes that is the correct grammar) to a wedding and did not invite her. My 9yo also would not have hurt feelings. They don’t even get their feelings hurt if they don’t get invited to every sleepover or birthday party because we’ve raised them properly and they know not everything is for or about them, and that’s OK.

12 yo only gets upset when mom puts it in her head that there was an expectation she should have gone and it was a personal insult that she wasn't invited. Why else would a 12yo presume she was going to an adult party?

+1

These parents weaponize their children.