No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!

[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

It's not upsetting people decline the invitation. It's upsetting people making up disingenuous excuses for doing so.

Why lie about PTO and babysitters? Just say you are declining an invitation to an event that does not accommodate you in the special way you want to be accommodated. Babysitters and PTO is a passive aggressive protest, nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth can hurt. Sorry.

[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.

So you have a few choices:

Only one parent travel and leave other home with kids

Have a friend or family member watch kids at home and you both travel

Take kids with you, hire a sitter for 5-6 hours at the hotel

RSVP no and send your regards


Pick one and move on

[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.

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

Truth can hurt. Sorry.

Not painful, just funny. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's not upsetting people decline the invitation. It's upsetting people making up disingenuous excuses for doing so.

Why lie about PTO and babysitters? Just say you are declining an invitation to an event that does not accommodate you in the special way you want to be accommodated. Babysitters and PTO is a passive aggressive protest, nothing more.

If you truly didn’t care, you would not care what reason was given for the decline. The fact is that you are upset that someone chose not to attend your wedding, and lashing out.

The position in this thread from child free wedding brides over and over is that they don’t care if anyone declines for any reason, but you are clearly showing you care a great deal. This is of course a common reaction from bridezillas in real life but we are apparently supposed to pretend otherwise here on DCUM, like some sort of mass delusion about narcissist brides must be preserved. You just accidentally let the mask slip, that’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Turns out adult-only gatherings are social gatherings.

Your truly anti-reality view of reality isn’t shared by anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's not upsetting people decline the invitation. It's upsetting people making up disingenuous excuses for doing so.

Why lie about PTO and babysitters? Just say you are declining an invitation to an event that does not accommodate you in the special way you want to be accommodated. Babysitters and PTO is a passive aggressive protest, nothing more.

Wow. I guess you cannot accept that you’re not so special that the money and time off required to attend your wedding may be more than it’s worth to some people. Babysitting costs are not an excuse - it’s the person telling you flat out that your wedding (as you have designed it) is not worth the expense to them.

[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.

Not really. I've seen "only the kids in wedding party invited" also seen "only immediate family kids (nieces/nephews of the bridge and groom), also seen only relatives kids.

If I don't know my coworkers kids why the hell would I invite them to my wedding?!?!? Or just maybe even if I do, if they are not some of my best friends, I have limits on numbers/kids cost as much as adults/etc. so yeah I get to decide who to invite.
Mans you as an invitee get to decide who"yes or no" for attendance based on the invite. You don't get to add guests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's not upsetting people decline the invitation. It's upsetting people making up disingenuous excuses for doing so.

Why lie about PTO and babysitters? Just say you are declining an invitation to an event that does not accommodate you in the special way you want to be accommodated. Babysitters and PTO is a passive aggressive protest, nothing more.

If you truly didn’t care, you would not care what reason was given for the decline. The fact is that you are upset that someone chose not to attend your wedding, and lashing out.

The position in this thread from child free wedding brides over and over is that they don’t care if anyone declines for any reason, but you are clearly showing you care a great deal. This is of course a common reaction from bridezillas in real life but we are apparently supposed to pretend otherwise here on DCUM, like some sort of mass delusion about narcissist brides must be preserved. You just accidentally let the mask slip, that’s all.

Sorry you couldn't attend the destination wedding in Côte d'Azur last Tuesday, PP, and that the bride has turned the family against you.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Turns out adult-only gatherings are social gatherings.

Your truly anti-reality view of reality isn’t shared by anyone.

the rabid insistence that weddings are properly “adults only” is more than a little creepy and weird. is it an R rated wedding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's not upsetting people decline the invitation. It's upsetting people making up disingenuous excuses for doing so.

Why lie about PTO and babysitters? Just say you are declining an invitation to an event that does not accommodate you in the special way you want to be accommodated. Babysitters and PTO is a passive aggressive protest, nothing more.

If you truly didn’t care, you would not care what reason was given for the decline. The fact is that you are upset that someone chose not to attend your wedding, and lashing out.

The position in this thread from child free wedding brides over and over is that they don’t care if anyone declines for any reason, but you are clearly showing you care a great deal. This is of course a common reaction from bridezillas in real life but we are apparently supposed to pretend otherwise here on DCUM, like some sort of mass delusion about narcissist brides must be preserved. You just accidentally let the mask slip, that’s all.

I'm not expressing this as a child free wedding bride. I'm expressing this as someone reading this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. It's fine to have an adults-only event. Nobody should get mad about it.

2. It's fine to decline to come to such an event for any reason at all, including childcare. Nobody should get mad about it.

3. If you think there must be a family reunion, then arrange one yourself. No other person owes it to you and is obligated to do it for you.

In the past #3 weddings and funerals were a natural way of getting family members together. Since most Americans don't get much time off. Why is that all of a sudden seen as a negative? If you get only two weeks off you would plan a family reunion?

If spending family time together is important to you in those two weeks then yes! Go for it. (We do, we rent a beach house and invite relatives.)

Yes the idea of spending time together changes when someone else has to pay for it.😆

So true! All these people who want a family reunion suddenly balk when it has to come out of THEIR wallet, not the couple getting married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really. I've seen "only the kids in wedding party invited" also seen "only immediate family kids (nieces/nephews of the bridge and groom), also seen only relatives kids.

If I don't know my coworkers kids why the hell would I invite them to my wedding?!?!? Or just maybe even if I do, if they are not some of my best friends, I have limits on numbers/kids cost as much as adults/etc. so yeah I get to decide who to invite.
Mans you as an invitee get to decide who"yes or no" for attendance based on the invite. You don't get to add guests

I can see it both ways. Why invite someone if you don’t see their family as a package deal? Inviting someone and not their kids (while inviting other kids) sort of implies that your wedding is some kind of exclusive event they will jump at the chance to be the B List for. OTOH if they are people you really want to celebrate with and you’re not asking them to fly out of town, I can see the justification. But TBH it remains tacky and shallow to me to invite someone to a wedding that they would have to go to significant cost to attend, but not invite the families. Same goes for a +1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not really. I've seen "only the kids in wedding party invited" also seen "only immediate family kids (nieces/nephews of the bridge and groom), also seen only relatives kids.

If I don't know my coworkers kids why the hell would I invite them to my wedding?!?!? Or just maybe even if I do, if they are not some of my best friends, I have limits on numbers/kids cost as much as adults/etc. so yeah I get to decide who to invite.
Mans you as an invitee get to decide who"yes or no" for attendance based on the invite. You don't get to add guests

I can see it both ways. Why invite someone if you don’t see their family as a package deal? Inviting someone and not their kids (while inviting other kids) sort of implies that your wedding is some kind of exclusive event they will jump at the chance to be the B List for. OTOH if they are people you really want to celebrate with and you’re not asking them to fly out of town, I can see the justification. But TBH it remains tacky and shallow to me to invite someone to a wedding that they would have to go to significant cost to attend, but not invite the families. Same goes for a +1.

By default, the vast majority of co-workers would be local. Sorry I’m not paying for your kids to come to my wedding when you live in Rockville. Like, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Turns out adult-only gatherings are social gatherings.

Your truly anti-reality view of reality isn’t shared by anyone.

the rabid insistence that weddings are properly “adults only” is more than a little creepy and weird. is it an R rated wedding?

That's the thing. I'm not insisting weddings be adults-only. I'm not insisting weddings be anything. The adult-only critics here are the ones insisting how people celebrate weddings.

And your pretending to not understand why people prefer child-free weddings - "is it an R rated wedding" - shows how disingenuous you are.