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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When did I say you did? I was simply having a laugh at the ridiculousness of everyone on here who has said thus and thus is acceptable and this or that is not. As if anyone owes anyone else an excuse, a reason, a justification that needs to be “accepted.” I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend. Oh well. I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand or like my decisions.

But as I said, there is clearly a market for this type of reply card. Money to be made, people!

You quoted me so I assumed you were implying as much.

But that's the thing. Nobody is saying the invitee owes anyone an excuse. At least nowhere near the extent we see the other side dictating what is and is not acceptable in terns of people planning their own wedding.

People are saying couples owe it to family, society, and 12 year olds with dreams of attending a wedding to invite children to weddings.

I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend.

Then that is silly. Nobody should be telling you that you owe them attendance, or that you owe them a wedding with children invited.

That's not precisely what I was trying to say about five pages ago, fwiw. I think weddings used to be bonding experiences for young cousins when I was growing up. Losing that because people want nicer Instagram pictures to post, if that's really why this generation is doing it, is really to bad from my perspective. I have some great memories of those times. It's a shame to me that young people aren't valuing those experiences for kids to hang out together. If that's what you want, I can arrange for babysitting or not according to how much I value you in the family tbh. It does inform my opinion of you and makes me think maybe you're caught up more with appearances and more inclined to make the event all about you instead about the larger family. You're allowed to think me some sort of judgemental oldster, but I'm allowed to make that judgement of your selfishness etc, also.

Hey oldster, what was the average cost of those weddings back in the 70s/80s that you are referring to? Oh, that’s right, a fraction of what a wedding costs today. You sound as dim as the Boomers who go on and on about how they own a home (they bought for $85,000) and they just don’t understand why young people can’t afford a home these days, they’re probably poor because they buy Starbucks. Weddings are astronomically pricier these days, so no, not everyone and their kids can be invited.

Well we did our wedding 30+ years ago at a church. Since we had to pay ourselves and were young and poor, we also held the reception at the church fellowship hall. Hired a church member who ran a catering business to provide the food, and donated to the church to have several of the "women of the church" help with serving the food.
Since it was at a church, there was no dancing, alcohol, etc. It was a 2 hour luncheon/cut the cake and we were done. Then we paid the janitor fee.
So our wedding, including the rehearsal dinner (also at the church fellowship hall, so no alcohol yet again) was about $4K total for 120 people.

But most people are not willing to do that type of wedding and reception
But it can still be done for under $8K

I don’t know anyone who has had that kind of wedding, and I sure would rather get a sitter and go to a fun wedding with alcohol and good food and dancing.

But the point is that some of the wedding expenses these days are over the top because the couple wants amazing photos. The venue has to look amazing, for the photos. The food has to look amazing, for the photos. But It doesn’t really need to be that expensive to be fun. We got married fifteen years ago for about $18K for ~150 people with an open bar, dancing (just a DJ not a band) and it was lovely. A friend’s wedding that happened before us cost $40K with a live band the bride loved very much and a choice of three desserts. Great, if you can afford it! Both weddings allowed kids.

No work friend thinks your invitation includes their kids and no work friend with a live brain will bring their kids to your wedding. I have never gone to a wedding where I saw kids at the work friend table. Someone raised that as a strawman earlier and it’s laughable. Nobody does this unless you work with complete idiots. Similarly, no work friend will be offended if you spell out for them that their kids are not invited. They know the drill.

The point of inviting kids is so that the kids can hang out together and get to know one another, and have family experiences together. Because weddings are about family, and not just about you.

So invite kids or don’t, your choice. We’ll just secretly judge you.

I had kids at my wedding, which was 11 years ago, so calm down. That said, it was fun and worthwhile for people to travel to, not some church basement lame-fest.

Sounds like what you are describing is a *family reunion.* Why are you so cheap? If family is actually important to you, you’ll plan and pay for a family reunion. My family does that every few years, so do my ILs. You can rent a beach house if you want people to pay their own way. Why are you so cheap as to expect brides and grooms to foot the bill so you can have a freebie family reunion?

Oh wait, talk is cheap and you don’t value family so much that you hold reunions; if it was a priority, you would host reunions. And you don’t. You piggyback on other people’s weddings. (And funerals, from the sound of you.)

I am PP you are responding to, and I guess I AM too cheap to pay for a family reunion, because weddings do mostly still perform this function for us and I need to save the money for my teenagers going to college. So, sick burn I guess?

My point above is that weddings can cost different amounts and your costs will range depending on what you value. If your wedding is so fancy and expensive that having kids at it would ruin the experience for you, you are valuing different things than my extended family does. You can do that, that’s your choice. I will just judge you a bit. Not sure why some of you are so mad at me for that. These are your choices so you should be happy to stand by them.

It’s a little funny to me because the bride and groom are most likely childless when making these decisions and yet also the likeliest people in the room to experience schadenfreude over the exclusion of kids because chances are they are the likeliest people in the room to be having kids in a few years. So, the folks who were anti children for their OWN wedding will then often get to experience exclusionary kid policies for the next eighteen years, which seems only fitting to me. If they could have just exercised their imagination a bit, they might have seen why inviting kids might be nice and ultimately beneficial for them. It’s always funny to get the baby shower invite of someone who had a child free wedding two years later, like clockwork. Wait so NOW you value children? Okay my dude.

(I actually do have some great memories from being at wakes when I was a kid, before services started off in a side room, while my cousins and I all grappled in our heads with the very dead body in the room next door. That sort of thing brought us together in a weird way. Family, man.)

So, is holding a full reunion-level bash for people too expensive, or not expensive? It's too much for you to pay for, so you want the Zoomer kids to expand their celebration and take the hit for you?

Not inviting kids seems to be more of a new trend that people are choosing because … reasons. Traditionally, kids are generally invited to weddings, so inviting them isn’t really an “expansion” — rather, NOT inviting kids is a new cut and a change to how families got together in the past. If newlyweds want to cut kids out of their wedding events, that’s largely a change from what used to happen and a change to many family dynamics where kids were a natural, accepted part of the celebration. Which is what people are remarking on.

So you've decided it's too expensive for you to do, and so you want to go back to having their generation shoulder it for you. Got it.

[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:

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.

Yes! I haven't seen a single person who had/supports childfree weddings say that you should not decline if you aren't able to attend. It's ONLY the anti-childfree wedding people who are bent out of shape about someone elses event.

There is a pro-childfree-wedding poster just a page ago who is very upset that someone chose not to go because of issues of babysitting and cost and accused that poster of lying about her reasons for declining. Are you even reading the same thread?

That was me. I never said I was "very upset". I said "It's upsetting...".

I understand why though you need to exaggerate since the child free wedding haters are the upset ones.

Was the below you? It sure sounds very upset to me, and you even say you are upset. It is certainly not emotionally balanced, at least.

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.

You aren’t entitled to demand attendance from guests or know their reasons, no matter how much of a temper tantrum you throw.

Nowhere did I demand attendance. I was being critical of the reasons provided for declining.

I can understand why would would mistake that for an emotionally unbalanced temper tantrum since you didn't understand what you read.

I'm Pro---whatever type of wedding you want. But the bride (or anyone else) should not be discussing/being critical of the reasons provided for declining. There is not reason for the bride to expect or be given "an excuse" other than "so sorry, we won't be able to make it. Hope you have an amazing day! "

You can be critical of the reason if the reason is "Not enough PTO", and the invitee is unemployed. You can be critical of the reason if the reason is "No babysitter", and the invitee hires a babysitter to another wedding for that period of time. You can be critical of the nephew who was disingenuous about the 21+ venue requirement.

You don't need to be critical. But it is warranted to be critical of dishonesty.

Nah, only the nephew who lied about the 21+ for your 17/19/20 kids.

All the others, well they obviuosly were not as close as you thought. The fact they hired a babysitter for someone else's wedding should not concern you. But if it does, then distance yourself accordingly.
And anyone who is unemployed who says not enough PTO is likely embarrassed they are unemployed and quite likely cannot afford to attend your wedding. They might be on a very tight budget to you know, live until they are employed again. So yeah, attending a wedding that is an hour away might not be in the budget

OP:

"A good friend had an adults only wedding and now her husband doesn’t speak to his sister because she was angry she could not bring her 12 year old (his sister lived an hour away from the venue) and has never recovered from the slight. His other sister actually brought her child in protest of the wedding being adults only. "

People will breakup a family over a child-free wedding; but it is inconceivable (to you) people would be dishonest about why they are not attending a child-free wedding.

Because you do not need to provide a reason for not attending. Don't give crazy family members access to attempt to control you.

And yes, if you have crazy family like that, then go ahead and lie. I don't care. But I also wouldn't worry about what crazy family like that think about me. I wouldn't care or want to spend time with them.

Couples preferring a child free wedding are "crazy"?

That's an overly dramatic exaggeration. It might be considered a departure from traditional norms, a departure which is debatable among reasonable people. "Crazy" is an exaggeration.

I did not say people who want "child free wedding" are crazy. Far from it! I fully support whatever type of wedding the B/G want.

I'm stating if you have crazy family who has to have a reason for why you cannot attend and then harasses you (with calls from the mom, MIL, Aunties, etc), they are crazy and you simply do not need to bother yourself with them. We cut toxic people out of our lives and certainly do NOT give them any way to bother us. Hence why it's okay to lie about the reason. Or simply just state, "sorry we cannot attend" and don't give any more details

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the bridal couple don't actually like you parents all that much, let slone want your kids to come.

I imagine that is how the parents feel, and that's what leads to the breakup of families as described in the OP. There's just no rational reason for excluding a 12 year old niece so naturally it leads to hurt feelings.

No rational reason? A perfectly valid one would be that the budget doesn’t allow for everyone’s kids to be invited so they made a no kid rule to be fair to all.

No one is suggesting every kid in the world needs to be invited. Wedding guest invites are based on whom the couple wants to share their day with and how close they are with the guests. A niece or nephew is a close relationship, so to exclude them because of an age cutoff is bizarre, especially at an age where they are clearly going to be able to sit quietly and behave. Kids are just people like anyone else, and like anyone else, you make those determinations based on whether you want to invite that person, not based on that entire class of people. You invite your siblings' kids and your own grandparents, not your coworkers' kids and your college roommates' grandparents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When did I say you did? I was simply having a laugh at the ridiculousness of everyone on here who has said thus and thus is acceptable and this or that is not. As if anyone owes anyone else an excuse, a reason, a justification that needs to be “accepted.” I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend. Oh well. I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand or like my decisions.

But as I said, there is clearly a market for this type of reply card. Money to be made, people!

You quoted me so I assumed you were implying as much.

But that's the thing. Nobody is saying the invitee owes anyone an excuse. At least nowhere near the extent we see the other side dictating what is and is not acceptable in terns of people planning their own wedding.

People are saying couples owe it to family, society, and 12 year olds with dreams of attending a wedding to invite children to weddings.

I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend.

Then that is silly. Nobody should be telling you that you owe them attendance, or that you owe them a wedding with children invited.

That's not precisely what I was trying to say about five pages ago, fwiw. I think weddings used to be bonding experiences for young cousins when I was growing up. Losing that because people want nicer Instagram pictures to post, if that's really why this generation is doing it, is really to bad from my perspective. I have some great memories of those times. It's a shame to me that young people aren't valuing those experiences for kids to hang out together. If that's what you want, I can arrange for babysitting or not according to how much I value you in the family tbh. It does inform my opinion of you and makes me think maybe you're caught up more with appearances and more inclined to make the event all about you instead about the larger family. You're allowed to think me some sort of judgemental oldster, but I'm allowed to make that judgement of your selfishness etc, also.

Hey oldster, what was the average cost of those weddings back in the 70s/80s that you are referring to? Oh, that’s right, a fraction of what a wedding costs today. You sound as dim as the Boomers who go on and on about how they own a home (they bought for $85,000) and they just don’t understand why young people can’t afford a home these days, they’re probably poor because they buy Starbucks. Weddings are astronomically pricier these days, so no, not everyone and their kids can be invited.

Well we did our wedding 30+ years ago at a church. Since we had to pay ourselves and were young and poor, we also held the reception at the church fellowship hall. Hired a church member who ran a catering business to provide the food, and donated to the church to have several of the "women of the church" help with serving the food.
Since it was at a church, there was no dancing, alcohol, etc. It was a 2 hour luncheon/cut the cake and we were done. Then we paid the janitor fee.
So our wedding, including the rehearsal dinner (also at the church fellowship hall, so no alcohol yet again) was about $4K total for 120 people.

But most people are not willing to do that type of wedding and reception
But it can still be done for under $8K

I don’t know anyone who has had that kind of wedding, and I sure would rather get a sitter and go to a fun wedding with alcohol and good food and dancing.

But the point is that some of the wedding expenses these days are over the top because the couple wants amazing photos. The venue has to look amazing, for the photos. The food has to look amazing, for the photos. But It doesn’t really need to be that expensive to be fun. We got married fifteen years ago for about $18K for ~150 people with an open bar, dancing (just a DJ not a band) and it was lovely. A friend’s wedding that happened before us cost $40K with a live band the bride loved very much and a choice of three desserts. Great, if you can afford it! Both weddings allowed kids.

No work friend thinks your invitation includes their kids and no work friend with a live brain will bring their kids to your wedding. I have never gone to a wedding where I saw kids at the work friend table. Someone raised that as a strawman earlier and it’s laughable. Nobody does this unless you work with complete idiots. Similarly, no work friend will be offended if you spell out for them that their kids are not invited. They know the drill.

The point of inviting kids is so that the kids can hang out together and get to know one another, and have family experiences together. Because weddings are about family, and not just about you.

So invite kids or don’t, your choice. We’ll just secretly judge you.

Been around kids lately? They will probably all be on their devices ignoring each other. Not playing Red River like you remember in the days of yore.

NP. My kids aren’t allowed to have devices at dinners or events, so no, they aren’t on devices during wedding receptions and family reunions and dinners and play dates. We aren’t rude, and my kids do play games and have a childhood.

Well your kids are not the norm. Most kids aged 2+ are on devices all the time, especially at weddings/events like that, and especially kids 10+ who have their own device.

Fact is the ceremony, speeches, and many parts of the wedding are boring to most kids (despite what you think as a parent). Most want to be running around with their cousins/friends, not sitting still at a table. That is why many do not want kids---they want people who can behave (and even if your 12 yo "can behave" they don't want to have kids there, so that is their choice. Your choice is to say Yes or No for attending and be done with it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When did I say you did? I was simply having a laugh at the ridiculousness of everyone on here who has said thus and thus is acceptable and this or that is not. As if anyone owes anyone else an excuse, a reason, a justification that needs to be “accepted.” I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend. Oh well. I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand or like my decisions.

But as I said, there is clearly a market for this type of reply card. Money to be made, people!

You quoted me so I assumed you were implying as much.

But that's the thing. Nobody is saying the invitee owes anyone an excuse. At least nowhere near the extent we see the other side dictating what is and is not acceptable in terns of people planning their own wedding.

People are saying couples owe it to family, society, and 12 year olds with dreams of attending a wedding to invite children to weddings.

I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend.

Then that is silly. Nobody should be telling you that you owe them attendance, or that you owe them a wedding with children invited.

That's not precisely what I was trying to say about five pages ago, fwiw. I think weddings used to be bonding experiences for young cousins when I was growing up. Losing that because people want nicer Instagram pictures to post, if that's really why this generation is doing it, is really to bad from my perspective. I have some great memories of those times. It's a shame to me that young people aren't valuing those experiences for kids to hang out together. If that's what you want, I can arrange for babysitting or not according to how much I value you in the family tbh. It does inform my opinion of you and makes me think maybe you're caught up more with appearances and more inclined to make the event all about you instead about the larger family. You're allowed to think me some sort of judgemental oldster, but I'm allowed to make that judgement of your selfishness etc, also.

Hey oldster, what was the average cost of those weddings back in the 70s/80s that you are referring to? Oh, that’s right, a fraction of what a wedding costs today. You sound as dim as the Boomers who go on and on about how they own a home (they bought for $85,000) and they just don’t understand why young people can’t afford a home these days, they’re probably poor because they buy Starbucks. Weddings are astronomically pricier these days, so no, not everyone and their kids can be invited.

Well we did our wedding 30+ years ago at a church. Since we had to pay ourselves and were young and poor, we also held the reception at the church fellowship hall. Hired a church member who ran a catering business to provide the food, and donated to the church to have several of the "women of the church" help with serving the food.
Since it was at a church, there was no dancing, alcohol, etc. It was a 2 hour luncheon/cut the cake and we were done. Then we paid the janitor fee.
So our wedding, including the rehearsal dinner (also at the church fellowship hall, so no alcohol yet again) was about $4K total for 120 people.

But most people are not willing to do that type of wedding and reception
But it can still be done for under $8K

I don’t know anyone who has had that kind of wedding, and I sure would rather get a sitter and go to a fun wedding with alcohol and good food and dancing.

But the point is that some of the wedding expenses these days are over the top because the couple wants amazing photos. The venue has to look amazing, for the photos. The food has to look amazing, for the photos. But It doesn’t really need to be that expensive to be fun. We got married fifteen years ago for about $18K for ~150 people with an open bar, dancing (just a DJ not a band) and it was lovely. A friend’s wedding that happened before us cost $40K with a live band the bride loved very much and a choice of three desserts. Great, if you can afford it! Both weddings allowed kids.

No work friend thinks your invitation includes their kids and no work friend with a live brain will bring their kids to your wedding. I have never gone to a wedding where I saw kids at the work friend table. Someone raised that as a strawman earlier and it’s laughable. Nobody does this unless you work with complete idiots. Similarly, no work friend will be offended if you spell out for them that their kids are not invited. They know the drill.

The point of inviting kids is so that the kids can hang out together and get to know one another, and have family experiences together. Because weddings are about family, and not just about you.

So invite kids or don’t, your choice. We’ll just secretly judge you.

I had kids at my wedding, which was 11 years ago, so calm down. That said, it was fun and worthwhile for people to travel to, not some church basement lame-fest.

Sounds like what you are describing is a *family reunion.* Why are you so cheap? If family is actually important to you, you’ll plan and pay for a family reunion. My family does that every few years, so do my ILs. You can rent a beach house if you want people to pay their own way. Why are you so cheap as to expect brides and grooms to foot the bill so you can have a freebie family reunion?

Oh wait, talk is cheap and you don’t value family so much that you hold reunions; if it was a priority, you would host reunions. And you don’t. You piggyback on other people’s weddings. (And funerals, from the sound of you.)

I am PP you are responding to, and I guess I AM too cheap to pay for a family reunion, because weddings do mostly still perform this function for us and I need to save the money for my teenagers going to college. So, sick burn I guess?

My point above is that weddings can cost different amounts and your costs will range depending on what you value. If your wedding is so fancy and expensive that having kids at it would ruin the experience for you, you are valuing different things than my extended family does. You can do that, that’s your choice. I will just judge you a bit. Not sure why some of you are so mad at me for that. These are your choices so you should be happy to stand by them.

It’s a little funny to me because the bride and groom are most likely childless when making these decisions and yet also the likeliest people in the room to experience schadenfreude over the exclusion of kids because chances are they are the likeliest people in the room to be having kids in a few years. So, the folks who were anti children for their OWN wedding will then often get to experience exclusionary kid policies for the next eighteen years, which seems only fitting to me. If they could have just exercised their imagination a bit, they might have seen why inviting kids might be nice and ultimately beneficial for them. It’s always funny to get the baby shower invite of someone who had a child free wedding two years later, like clockwork. Wait so NOW you value children? Okay my dude.

(I actually do have some great memories from being at wakes when I was a kid, before services started off in a side room, while my cousins and I all grappled in our heads with the very dead body in the room next door. That sort of thing brought us together in a weird way. Family, man.)

So, is holding a full reunion-level bash for people too expensive, or not expensive? It's too much for you to pay for, so you want the Zoomer kids to expand their celebration and take the hit for you?

Not inviting kids seems to be more of a new trend that people are choosing because … reasons. Traditionally, kids are generally invited to weddings, so inviting them isn’t really an “expansion” — rather, NOT inviting kids is a new cut and a change to how families got together in the past. If newlyweds want to cut kids out of their wedding events, that’s largely a change from what used to happen and a change to many family dynamics where kids were a natural, accepted part of the celebration. Which is what people are remarking on.

I don’t think it’s a trend. I had a no kid wedding twenty years ago and it wasn’t uncommon then.

If no kid weddings aren’t happening more now due to Instagram perfection demands etc, I absolutely have no problem with them as an idea. I thought folks were saying they’re more prevalent. If it’s the same 5-10% of people doing this for whatever reason (maybe more in richer circles), please carry on. Like, I will still judge you, but I don’t think you’re ripping apart the fabric of society or anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worst incident of first dance crashing by kids I ever saw was at a dear friend's wedding. These kids were much younger cousins, and they had been terrorizing all the lead up parties to the wedding so I was already familiar with them.

My friend's dad was dying of ALS and was in a wheelchair but she was just so glad her dad could be at her wedding and danced with him in his wheelchair, for the last time. And these brats ran around them the whole time. Her dad died a few months later. I hate that those kids ruined that for her but she was forced to invite them.

And this is precisely why many have No Kids weddings. It is not cute or acceptable for kids to do that. Unfortunately, many parents think it is cute and acceptable (hence why the kids are allowed to behave that way). As you mentioned, you witnessed this at many pre-wedding events---so it's not just a one time thing, it is how those kids are (and allowed to be brats).

So nope, even if they are cousins, them misbehaving is not appropriate, and that is why they won't be invited many times (smartly)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When did I say you did? I was simply having a laugh at the ridiculousness of everyone on here who has said thus and thus is acceptable and this or that is not. As if anyone owes anyone else an excuse, a reason, a justification that needs to be “accepted.” I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend. Oh well. I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand or like my decisions.

But as I said, there is clearly a market for this type of reply card. Money to be made, people!

You quoted me so I assumed you were implying as much.

But that's the thing. Nobody is saying the invitee owes anyone an excuse. At least nowhere near the extent we see the other side dictating what is and is not acceptable in terns of people planning their own wedding.

People are saying couples owe it to family, society, and 12 year olds with dreams of attending a wedding to invite children to weddings.

I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend.

Then that is silly. Nobody should be telling you that you owe them attendance, or that you owe them a wedding with children invited.

That's not precisely what I was trying to say about five pages ago, fwiw. I think weddings used to be bonding experiences for young cousins when I was growing up. Losing that because people want nicer Instagram pictures to post, if that's really why this generation is doing it, is really to bad from my perspective. I have some great memories of those times. It's a shame to me that young people aren't valuing those experiences for kids to hang out together. If that's what you want, I can arrange for babysitting or not according to how much I value you in the family tbh. It does inform my opinion of you and makes me think maybe you're caught up more with appearances and more inclined to make the event all about you instead about the larger family. You're allowed to think me some sort of judgemental oldster, but I'm allowed to make that judgement of your selfishness etc, also.

Hey oldster, what was the average cost of those weddings back in the 70s/80s that you are referring to? Oh, that’s right, a fraction of what a wedding costs today. You sound as dim as the Boomers who go on and on about how they own a home (they bought for $85,000) and they just don’t understand why young people can’t afford a home these days, they’re probably poor because they buy Starbucks. Weddings are astronomically pricier these days, so no, not everyone and their kids can be invited.

Well we did our wedding 30+ years ago at a church. Since we had to pay ourselves and were young and poor, we also held the reception at the church fellowship hall. Hired a church member who ran a catering business to provide the food, and donated to the church to have several of the "women of the church" help with serving the food.
Since it was at a church, there was no dancing, alcohol, etc. It was a 2 hour luncheon/cut the cake and we were done. Then we paid the janitor fee.
So our wedding, including the rehearsal dinner (also at the church fellowship hall, so no alcohol yet again) was about $4K total for 120 people.

But most people are not willing to do that type of wedding and reception
But it can still be done for under $8K

I don’t know anyone who has had that kind of wedding, and I sure would rather get a sitter and go to a fun wedding with alcohol and good food and dancing.

But the point is that some of the wedding expenses these days are over the top because the couple wants amazing photos. The venue has to look amazing, for the photos. The food has to look amazing, for the photos. But It doesn’t really need to be that expensive to be fun. We got married fifteen years ago for about $18K for ~150 people with an open bar, dancing (just a DJ not a band) and it was lovely. A friend’s wedding that happened before us cost $40K with a live band the bride loved very much and a choice of three desserts. Great, if you can afford it! Both weddings allowed kids.

No work friend thinks your invitation includes their kids and no work friend with a live brain will bring their kids to your wedding. I have never gone to a wedding where I saw kids at the work friend table. Someone raised that as a strawman earlier and it’s laughable. Nobody does this unless you work with complete idiots. Similarly, no work friend will be offended if you spell out for them that their kids are not invited. They know the drill.

The point of inviting kids is so that the kids can hang out together and get to know one another, and have family experiences together. Because weddings are about family, and not just about you.

So invite kids or don’t, your choice. We’ll just secretly judge you.

Been around kids lately? They will probably all be on their devices ignoring each other. Not playing Red River like you remember in the days of yore.

NP. My kids aren’t allowed to have devices at dinners or events, so no, they aren’t on devices during wedding receptions and family reunions and dinners and play dates. We aren’t rude, and my kids do play games and have a childhood.

That’s fine but you know many parents don’t share that philosophy. So your kids won’t have anyone to talk to and will be begging you to leave.

Maybe your family has different rules and allows children to behave this way, which is why you think it would happen, but this is not what has taken place at family weddings I’ve attended.

Awesome for you. But it does happen with many kids, and all it takes is one family of 1+ kids to ruin a wedding (or any other event). Hence why many exclude kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a man invited his sister to his wedding but left out his 12yo niece/nephew, their child?
That’s rude.

I’ve been invited to
Adult only weddings by friends without kids. It doesn’t make me angry but sometimes I don’t go.
To be invited to a siblings wedding though, but my tween isn’t invited, that burns.

Yeah- i mean, an uncle is a close relationship? just b/c someone is a child doesnt mean you can be rude to them and it is rude to not invite such a close family member to your wedding b.c they are 12. That is the issue. Not inviting your own nieces/nepohews makes you a certain type of person and its the kind of person i actively cut out of my life. and im not a kid obsessed person or even one of these weird "family is everything" people. I mean what is going down at this wedding that a 12 year old cant be there?? are they stripping?? i mean there is always the after party when the "olds" take their leave, id think that siblings and their kids would take off then so the couple can party with their friends at that time.

Why can't your 12 yo have a fun time with their "uncle" 364 days of the year?
while I personally wouldn't exclude nieces and nephews, I can understand why some people would want just adult only. Because IMO, the 12 yo would get bored if they were the only Under 18. And my 12 yo were never so self centered to not understand "this is an adult only event so that means you dont' get to attend".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When did I say you did? I was simply having a laugh at the ridiculousness of everyone on here who has said thus and thus is acceptable and this or that is not. As if anyone owes anyone else an excuse, a reason, a justification that needs to be “accepted.” I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend. Oh well. I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand or like my decisions.

But as I said, there is clearly a market for this type of reply card. Money to be made, people!

You quoted me so I assumed you were implying as much.

But that's the thing. Nobody is saying the invitee owes anyone an excuse. At least nowhere near the extent we see the other side dictating what is and is not acceptable in terns of people planning their own wedding.

People are saying couples owe it to family, society, and 12 year olds with dreams of attending a wedding to invite children to weddings.

I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend.

Then that is silly. Nobody should be telling you that you owe them attendance, or that you owe them a wedding with children invited.

That's not precisely what I was trying to say about five pages ago, fwiw. I think weddings used to be bonding experiences for young cousins when I was growing up. Losing that because people want nicer Instagram pictures to post, if that's really why this generation is doing it, is really to bad from my perspective. I have some great memories of those times. It's a shame to me that young people aren't valuing those experiences for kids to hang out together. If that's what you want, I can arrange for babysitting or not according to how much I value you in the family tbh. It does inform my opinion of you and makes me think maybe you're caught up more with appearances and more inclined to make the event all about you instead about the larger family. You're allowed to think me some sort of judgemental oldster, but I'm allowed to make that judgement of your selfishness etc, also.

Hey oldster, what was the average cost of those weddings back in the 70s/80s that you are referring to? Oh, that’s right, a fraction of what a wedding costs today. You sound as dim as the Boomers who go on and on about how they own a home (they bought for $85,000) and they just don’t understand why young people can’t afford a home these days, they’re probably poor because they buy Starbucks. Weddings are astronomically pricier these days, so no, not everyone and their kids can be invited.

Well we did our wedding 30+ years ago at a church. Since we had to pay ourselves and were young and poor, we also held the reception at the church fellowship hall. Hired a church member who ran a catering business to provide the food, and donated to the church to have several of the "women of the church" help with serving the food.
Since it was at a church, there was no dancing, alcohol, etc. It was a 2 hour luncheon/cut the cake and we were done. Then we paid the janitor fee.
So our wedding, including the rehearsal dinner (also at the church fellowship hall, so no alcohol yet again) was about $4K total for 120 people.

But most people are not willing to do that type of wedding and reception
But it can still be done for under $8K

I don’t know anyone who has had that kind of wedding, and I sure would rather get a sitter and go to a fun wedding with alcohol and good food and dancing.

But the point is that some of the wedding expenses these days are over the top because the couple wants amazing photos. The venue has to look amazing, for the photos. The food has to look amazing, for the photos. But It doesn’t really need to be that expensive to be fun. We got married fifteen years ago for about $18K for ~150 people with an open bar, dancing (just a DJ not a band) and it was lovely. A friend’s wedding that happened before us cost $40K with a live band the bride loved very much and a choice of three desserts. Great, if you can afford it! Both weddings allowed kids.

No work friend thinks your invitation includes their kids and no work friend with a live brain will bring their kids to your wedding. I have never gone to a wedding where I saw kids at the work friend table. Someone raised that as a strawman earlier and it’s laughable. Nobody does this unless you work with complete idiots. Similarly, no work friend will be offended if you spell out for them that their kids are not invited. They know the drill.

The point of inviting kids is so that the kids can hang out together and get to know one another, and have family experiences together. Because weddings are about family, and not just about you.

So invite kids or don’t, your choice. We’ll just secretly judge you.

I had kids at my wedding, which was 11 years ago, so calm down. That said, it was fun and worthwhile for people to travel to, not some church basement lame-fest.

Sounds like what you are describing is a *family reunion.* Why are you so cheap? If family is actually important to you, you’ll plan and pay for a family reunion. My family does that every few years, so do my ILs. You can rent a beach house if you want people to pay their own way. Why are you so cheap as to expect brides and grooms to foot the bill so you can have a freebie family reunion?

Oh wait, talk is cheap and you don’t value family so much that you hold reunions; if it was a priority, you would host reunions. And you don’t. You piggyback on other people’s weddings. (And funerals, from the sound of you.)

I am PP you are responding to, and I guess I AM too cheap to pay for a family reunion, because weddings do mostly still perform this function for us and I need to save the money for my teenagers going to college. So, sick burn I guess?

My point above is that weddings can cost different amounts and your costs will range depending on what you value. If your wedding is so fancy and expensive that having kids at it would ruin the experience for you, you are valuing different things than my extended family does. You can do that, that’s your choice. I will just judge you a bit. Not sure why some of you are so mad at me for that. These are your choices so you should be happy to stand by them.

It’s a little funny to me because the bride and groom are most likely childless when making these decisions and yet also the likeliest people in the room to experience schadenfreude over the exclusion of kids because chances are they are the likeliest people in the room to be having kids in a few years. So, the folks who were anti children for their OWN wedding will then often get to experience exclusionary kid policies for the next eighteen years, which seems only fitting to me. If they could have just exercised their imagination a bit, they might have seen why inviting kids might be nice and ultimately beneficial for them. It’s always funny to get the baby shower invite of someone who had a child free wedding two years later, like clockwork. Wait so NOW you value children? Okay my dude.

(I actually do have some great memories from being at wakes when I was a kid, before services started off in a side room, while my cousins and I all grappled in our heads with the very dead body in the room next door. That sort of thing brought us together in a weird way. Family, man.)

OMG---they value kids too, just not at adult events---they chose to have an adult only wedding. That is totally fine. It's their wedding.

If it bothers you so much, just don't attend. And skip the baby shower and everything else as you don't seem like a very nice person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the bridal couple don't actually like you parents all that much, let slone want your kids to come.

I imagine that is how the parents feel, and that's what leads to the breakup of families as described in the OP. There's just no rational reason for excluding a 12 year old niece so naturally it leads to hurt feelings.

Yes, there is. And if you are willing to end a family relationship over your 12 yo NOT being invited to an ADULTS only event, then you are the one with the issues.
And good luck with the teen years with a spoiled brat like that

[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?

Exactly.

[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.

It actually is. Cope. DP.

[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.

Oh, honey. It was t the truth and it “hurt” no one. Are you still in middle school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I know. So weird, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s sad because weddings used to be occasions where family got together and you would then have those memories of hanging out with your younger cousins on the back of the dance floor and laughing over uncle tom’s disco moves or whatever. It’s sad to get rid of that so you can have perfect pictures etc. It’s more selfish to make the event all about you instead of about the family. Of course it’s your wedding and you’re paying for it, but people are paying you back in part with all of your crazy registry gifts. It’s always been understood to me that weddings are about family, and not just about the happy couple. If it’s just about YOU then don’t invite anyone and just go off and have a giant fancy vacation together with all that money. It’s sad.

You sound very childish. It’s sad.