No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!

[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?

By age 12, a child has seen many books and movies featuring weddings and sees children in attendance and knows what a flower girl and bridesmaid are. They also haven't many friends and know they gave attended weddings.

It's a wedding, not a swinger party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

By age 12, a child has seen many books and movies featuring weddings and sees children in attendance and knows what a flower girl and bridesmaid are. They also haven't many friends and know they gave attended weddings.

It's a wedding, not a swinger party.

It's not a wedding for your 12 year old. Your 12 year old understands this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had a no kids allowed destination wedding at a $1000/night resort that was hours away from an airport. We had a 2 year old and had never left him overnight and no childcare options. SIL tried to paint this as an amazing opportunity to take a child free 'vacation' (all her close friends also had kids) but we didn't end up going so her only sibling wasn't there.

Your husband didn’t go alone? When it’s a sibling and your only sibling and your child is 2 and the other parent can manage for a few days solo, not going is pretty aggressive. Did you encourage him to go? Did his sister go to your wedding?

DP but neither DH nor I would have encouraged or nagged the other person to go. 1K a night and a bunch of PTO to fly to a destination wedding
w/ o spouse and kids would be a no go for us at that time in our life. It’s insanely rude to assume your guests are going to sacrifice their family vacation time and budget because you want a destination wedding. If you want a destination wedding by all means have one but the obligations to attend completely change when you choose this path.

How much pto do you need for 1 night? You are just making excuses to be upset because they didn't invite your precious little toddler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait. You believe that the brides in this single DCUM thread are representative of literally all brides in the United States?

No wonder you don’t understand statistics. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had a no kids allowed destination wedding at a $1000/night resort that was hours away from an airport. We had a 2 year old and had never left him overnight and no childcare options. SIL tried to paint this as an amazing opportunity to take a child free 'vacation' (all her close friends also had kids) but we didn't end up going so her only sibling wasn't there.

Your husband didn’t go alone? When it’s a sibling and your only sibling and your child is 2 and the other parent can manage for a few days solo, not going is pretty aggressive. Did you encourage him to go? Did his sister go to your wedding?

DP but neither DH nor I would have encouraged or nagged the other person to go. 1K a night and a bunch of PTO to fly to a destination wedding
w/ o spouse and kids would be a no go for us at that time in our life. It’s insanely rude to assume your guests are going to sacrifice their family vacation time and budget because you want a destination wedding. If you want a destination wedding by all means have one but the obligations to attend completely change when you choose this path.

How much pto do you need for 1 night? You are just making excuses to be upset because they didn't invite your precious little toddler.

Right. Is there an epidemic of people holding command performance destination weddings in the middle of the week, or something?

[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.

As we round the corner on FORTY PAGES of this thread, you cannot say with a straight face that “nobody is getting their nerves wracked over a wedding invitation.”

[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.

“I’m not a regular mom, I’m a cool mom.”

Why, have you never attended a wedding or a party solo, or gone on a girls’ trip and left your kids with your spouse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had a no kids allowed destination wedding at a $1000/night resort that was hours away from an airport. We had a 2 year old and had never left him overnight and no childcare options. SIL tried to paint this as an amazing opportunity to take a child free 'vacation' (all her close friends also had kids) but we didn't end up going so her only sibling wasn't there.

Your husband didn’t go alone? When it’s a sibling and your only sibling and your child is 2 and the other parent can manage for a few days solo, not going is pretty aggressive. Did you encourage him to go? Did his sister go to your wedding?

DP but neither DH nor I would have encouraged or nagged the other person to go. 1K a night and a bunch of PTO to fly to a destination wedding
w/ o spouse and kids would be a no go for us at that time in our life. It’s insanely rude to assume your guests are going to sacrifice their family vacation time and budget because you want a destination wedding. If you want a destination wedding by all means have one but the obligations to attend completely change when you choose this path.

How much pto do you need for 1 night? You are just making excuses to be upset because they didn't invite your precious little toddler.

We’ve been told over and over that all brides (excuse me, 99.9%) are perfectly happy and never, ever rude when someone declines to attend their wedding for any reason whatsoever. But you seem to be very upset that someone chose not to use PTO to go to your wedding here. Oh dear. I guess you are a special one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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,

I wouldn't expect kids to be invited to the WH since that has nothing to do with family.

I would expect children at family members anniversary parties for sure. I attended my grandparents 50th and various aunts and uncles anniversary dinners.

When people get married they are inviting more than family. Inviting family kids means you also need to allow you coworkers and college friends to bring their kids and that adds up quickly for a limited reception budget.

No it doesn't. Just like you don't have to invite your coworker's parents just because you invited your parents' parents, your cousin's parents, and your best friend's parents that helped raise you.

No way am I inviting some people’s kids and excluding others. That’s just wrong. Kid free wedding or kids are invited but it’s tacky to invite some and not others. (Wedding party being the exception.)

I think it's a very normal line to draw that children of family would be invited but not random acquaintances. Kids are people and like any other person, would be invited, or not invited, based on their relationship to the bride and groom.

Disagree, it’s like saying some people can bring a spouse and some people can’t.

I don’t care if you have a kid free wedding or not, but I think it’s bad manners to invite some and not all kids.

[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.

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

There is a very strong correlation between bridezillas/groomzillas demanding childfree weddings and their later bad parenting so I suppose it does track that the childfree wedding pushers would be more likely to have badly behaved children in their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait. You believe that the brides in this single DCUM thread are representative of literally all brides in the United States?

No wonder you don’t understand statistics. Wow.

No, but there's no reason to address them directly with complaints about other brides, as was done earlier in this thread -- and which sparked this sub-conversation.

Looks like you *can't* acknowledge this. Oh, well. It's illustrative, at least.

[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.

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

There is a very strong correlation between bridezillas/groomzillas demanding childfree weddings and their later bad parenting so I suppose it does track that the childfree wedding pushers would be more likely to have badly behaved children in their lives.

Such sane
much non-ranty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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,

I wouldn't expect kids to be invited to the WH since that has nothing to do with family.

I would expect children at family members anniversary parties for sure. I attended my grandparents 50th and various aunts and uncles anniversary dinners.

When people get married they are inviting more than family. Inviting family kids means you also need to allow you coworkers and college friends to bring their kids and that adds up quickly for a limited reception budget.

No it doesn't. Just like you don't have to invite your coworker's parents just because you invited your parents' parents, your cousin's parents, and your best friend's parents that helped raise you.

No way am I inviting some people’s kids and excluding others. That’s just wrong. Kid free wedding or kids are invited but it’s tacky to invite some and not others. (Wedding party being the exception.)

I think it's a very normal line to draw that children of family would be invited but not random acquaintances. Kids are people and like any other person, would be invited, or not invited, based on their relationship to the bride and groom.

Disagree, it’s like saying some people can bring a spouse and some people can’t.

I don’t care if you have a kid free wedding or not, but I think it’s bad manners to invite some and not all kids.

Um, we didn’t invite co-workers’ kids or college friends’ kids. Sorry not sorry. Only kids we were related to, and that was quite a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

By age 12, a child has seen many books and movies featuring weddings and sees children in attendance and knows what a flower girl and bridesmaid are. They also haven't many friends and know they gave attended weddings.

It's a wedding, not a swinger party.

It's not a wedding for your 12 year old. Your 12 year old understands this.

DP. your truly anti-social view of weddings isn’t shared by anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had a no kids allowed destination wedding at a $1000/night resort that was hours away from an airport. We had a 2 year old and had never left him overnight and no childcare options. SIL tried to paint this as an amazing opportunity to take a child free 'vacation' (all her close friends also had kids) but we didn't end up going so her only sibling wasn't there.

Your husband didn’t go alone? When it’s a sibling and your only sibling and your child is 2 and the other parent can manage for a few days solo, not going is pretty aggressive. Did you encourage him to go? Did his sister go to your wedding?

DP but neither DH nor I would have encouraged or nagged the other person to go. 1K a night and a bunch of PTO to fly to a destination wedding
w/ o spouse and kids would be a no go for us at that time in our life. It’s insanely rude to assume your guests are going to sacrifice their family vacation time and budget because you want a destination wedding. If you want a destination wedding by all means have one but the obligations to attend completely change when you choose this path.

How much pto do you need for 1 night? You are just making excuses to be upset because they didn't invite your precious little toddler.

We’ve been told over and over that all brides (excuse me, 99.9%) are perfectly happy and never, ever rude when someone declines to attend their wedding for any reason whatsoever. But you seem to be very upset that someone chose not to use PTO to go to your wedding here. Oh dear. I guess you are a special one.

DP. Who is needing to use "a bunch of PTO" to attend a wedding for one night on the weekend? Your story sounds whackadoo and made up, and both PP and I are calling you on it.

That's not saying you had to go. That's saying we think you are making this problem up.