Wedding question - midwestern thing?

[Anonymous]

Good grief, have a light dinner at 530. Not that hard and not that outrageous a time to be eating either. Who wants to go to an event that STARTS at 8 pm just so you can have your precious evening meal at 630 instead of eating a bit earlier. This day is about the bride and groom. Not you and your dinner schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just do things differently in the Midwest. It is a regoinal thing. I married into a family there and there are always these little differences and quirks and things when we visit out there. It's just different strokes for different folks.

Nope. The well off in the midwest do throw sit down dinner and dancing receptions.

PP here. You'll notice that I did not mention anything in my post about weddings at all. I just said "they do things differently in the Midwest." I am aware that there are differences within the Midwest. Family members who live in Chicago, for example, do throw sit-down dinner and dancing receptions, but the things I was referreing to in my post above had nothign to do with weddings, but with day-to-day differences in general.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing that seems a shame to me, unless the posters who are saying that super early dinner is very common in the midwest. The dessert reception idea seems like a very good idea - people can enjoy themselves and eat tons of sweets and the hosts don't have to break the bank. Frankly, I have never really enjoyed the dinners at weddings that much, even the expensive ones. And if the event isn't going to last for multiple hours, you can stil have a pretty good time for an hour or so without booze and dancing.
But by having it too early, it seems like it detracts a little bit from a novel and fun thing. Of course guests should grab a sandwich before the wedding and go ahead and have a good time anyway, but it just seems like it would have been better for the hosts to think it through and make things more convenient for their guests by leaving time to get their own food ahead of the wedding without having to eat super early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good grief, have a light dinner at 530. Not that hard and not that outrageous a time to be eating either. Who wants to go to an event that STARTS at 8 pm just so you can have your precious evening meal at 630 instead of eating a bit earlier. This day is about the bride and groom. Not you and your dinner schedule.

How long do you think the event will last, beginning at 6:30? Lights will be out by 10 pm at the absolute latest. How boring is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes the wedding less of an event and shorter, because people aren't going to stay from 6:30 until midnight without eating dinner.

Why? You eat beforehand, not after.

I'm not hungry for dinner at 4:30. You have to get your hair, makeup, etc. done and travel to the church, so it's not like you can start eating at 5:30 and be at the ceremony at 6:30.

why can't you eat dinner with your hair and makeup done? Do them at 4 and eat at 5. It's not rocket science.

Gee, I don't know. Why would I put lipstick on before I ate? I just think the bride and groom could have been more considerate of their guests. In reality, most midwestern punch and cookies receptions, those without live music, don't last long, so it's not a big deal.

Can't you put on lipstick after you eat? Or touch it up? Or would that take you an hour too? You have to be one of the more high-maintenance individuals I've ever heard of, expecting people to schedule their weddings around your beauty regimen. which I doubt works all that well anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me want to move back to the Midwest.

This thread makes me want to continue to stay far away from the Midwest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also grew up in the midwest, where we ate at 5 PM every night. Thinking back I'm not sure how that worked out, but I know my dad left for work at around 6, so he probably worked a 7-3 shift, getting him home around 4:00. (Rush hour there is nothing compared to here, but because he's blind, he rode the equivalent of Metro Access, making his trip take MUCH longer than it could have if he drove). Mom ran a daycare out of our house until she went back to school to get her RN, then she worked 11p to 7a or 3p to 11p. When she worked those shifts, dinner was waiting for us in the oven.

I was going to write that depending on where in the midwest you were going, there might not be alcohol or dancing at the reception, even if a full meal were served... shocking, I know ... but I see dancing will be a part of the dessert reception, so there will probably also be alcohol.

But I do need to defend my friends/relatives that didn't have dancing or alcohol at their receptions - it wasn't an economic decision, but rather a religious one. Their churches frown on these...

They also are less likely than east coasters to have guests flying in from all over the world. I kinda wanted our friend who flew home from Moscow for 3 days to have a wonderful time to look forward to. Dessert wouldn't have cut it.

True. They are less also likely than East Coasters to have friends who would judge them or think their wedding was less important or special or worth attending because it was a simple church+cake+punch affair.

I really think it's sad that the thing people are focusing on here, as guests, is how much food and entertainment they're going to get. Or when they'll apply their lipstick. The wedding is about a commitment and a ceremony and celebrating your friends, and the party is just the trapping. Or at least that's the way I was raised. So I would happily travel five hours to be part of that commitment, and my decision would be *entirely* unaffected by what they were going to feed me (or not). I would expect my friends to feel the same way; otherwise, I would not be friends with them. OP, I like your follow-up response. I think you have exactly the right attitude to enjoy this wedding, and I can see why this couple is friends with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be flying out for a wedding in the midwest in a couple months. I just received the invitation: ceremony is at 6:30pm followed by a "dessert reception" and dancing. Is this a midwest thing?

Must be. I went to a midwestern wedding (Texas) about 2 years ago and there was no real reception - just the ceremony and then a dinner followed by one bride/groom dance and a parents dance. But no get-down and party reception or anything, no rented facility.

Texas isn't "midwest"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States

THANK YOU! I was just going to post the same thing. Texas is either south or southwest, depending on which part of the state you are in. Wisconsin is upper midwest, as are Minnesota, Michigan and the Dakotas. True midwest is the buckle of the Bible belt: Indiana and southern Illinois through Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa etc. Ohio too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also grew up in the midwest, where we ate at 5 PM every night. Thinking back I'm not sure how that worked out, but I know my dad left for work at around 6, so he probably worked a 7-3 shift, getting him home around 4:00. (Rush hour there is nothing compared to here, but because he's blind, he rode the equivalent of Metro Access, making his trip take MUCH longer than it could have if he drove). Mom ran a daycare out of our house until she went back to school to get her RN, then she worked 11p to 7a or 3p to 11p. When she worked those shifts, dinner was waiting for us in the oven.

I was going to write that depending on where in the midwest you were going, there might not be alcohol or dancing at the reception, even if a full meal were served... shocking, I know ... but I see dancing will be a part of the dessert reception, so there will probably also be alcohol.

But I do need to defend my friends/relatives that didn't have dancing or alcohol at their receptions - it wasn't an economic decision, but rather a religious one. Their churches frown on these...

They also are less likely than east coasters to have guests flying in from all over the world. I kinda wanted our friend who flew home from Moscow for 3 days to have a wonderful time to look forward to. Dessert wouldn't have cut it.

Well, no one in the Midwest is as important as you so they don't have to worry about hosting dignitaries from Moscow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me want to move back to the Midwest.

This thread makes me want to continue to stay far away from the Midwest.

Good. We don't want you there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me want to move back to the Midwest.

This thread makes me want to continue to stay far away from the Midwest.

This thread makes me wonder, why are we talking about the Midwest?

(I believe OP already got the info)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But I do need to defend my friends/relatives that didn't have dancing or alcohol at their receptions - it wasn't an economic decision, but rather a religious one. Their churches frown on these...

Time to get a new church. Or none at all.

[Anonymous]

This thread reminds me of the bridesmaid who said her friends were having their wedding around dinner time, but only serving fruit and veggie trays from Giant because the food budget was $100, and there would be no alcohol. And bride and groom thought everyone would dance late into the night.
I was kind of hoping OP was the recipient of that invite. st

[Anonymous]

When in Rome...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me want to move back to the Midwest.

This thread makes me want to continue to stay far away from the Midwest.

Good. We don't want you there.

You're the one on DCUM, snoozeville. Maybe you should head over to Shit Kicker Country Moms (and Dads!)