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:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

Ah, we finally get to the crux of the issue. You had no control over YOUR wedding, so you feel the need to dictate how everyone elses is. It's tragic you had no say for your wedding (hopefully you at least picked the person!), but you really have no say on how others celebrate their marriage.

This is precisely how many Asian families function. The parents have had their lives dictated by their parents. So it's now finally turn for them to control their own kids. It's actually kind of sad when you think about it.

I see it with relatives (ILs side) and it's hilarious to me, because we are polite about it, but we don't allow anyone to make decisions for us (obviuosly my spouse feels the same way as they made the decision to deal with marrying outside the culture so when you do that, you know you are in for a lot of confrontation from many relatives).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

yeah and it wasn't "too long ago" that weddings were arranged and dowry's were paid for the women.
Most of us would prefer not to go back to that time.


Hint: You are entitled to your thoughts for your wedding and are free to invite every kid you have ever met if that makes you happy. But you are NOT entitled to define what a wedding is for a society or anyone else. It's not "narcissistic" for a couple getting married to want to plan and have the wedding they want. They typically are the ones paying for it nowadays (and even if they are not paying, it is their wedding, and normal adults/parents do not feel entitled to control their kids)
If you are offended, you are able to respond "no" and move on.

The person who sounds offended here is you. I just pointed out that there are other models of what a wedding is and that, of the ones that exist, the "it's my special day" model is the most narcissistic.

DP. And yet somehow topped by the narcissism of "you owe me a family reunion at your wedding, because it's too expensive and complicated for me to set up myself."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see both sides.

My dds were actually IN the wedding as flower girls and still weren't allowed to attend the reception. They were older too, well behaved, and super excited for the bride. Mostly they just like all the romantic, princess things. They definitely left the wedding crying. Bride didn't want kids ruining the reception vibe.

+1. Didn't read beyond the first page but this happened to us, too. They wanted DS to be the ring bearer and be in the photos but didn't want him at the reception. They also wanted me to be MOH and host the wedding and engagement showers-- and conveniently left out the "no kids at reception" part until after I'd accepted the role.

In that case, IMO, as soon as you found out, I would have informed them I couldn't be MOH and handle the other responsibilities. I might consider allowing DS to be ring bearer and just leave with the entire family after the ceremony. Or I might hire a sitter for DS. But no way would I hots the wedding and engagement showers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

yeah and it wasn't "too long ago" that weddings were arranged and dowry's were paid for the women.
Most of us would prefer not to go back to that time.


Hint: You are entitled to your thoughts for your wedding and are free to invite every kid you have ever met if that makes you happy. But you are NOT entitled to define what a wedding is for a society or anyone else. It's not "narcissistic" for a couple getting married to want to plan and have the wedding they want. They typically are the ones paying for it nowadays (and even if they are not paying, it is their wedding, and normal adults/parents do not feel entitled to control their kids)
If you are offended, you are able to respond "no" and move on.

The person who sounds offended here is you. I just pointed out that there are other models of what a wedding is and that, of the ones that exist, the "it's my special day" model is the most narcissistic.

No, it's you who sounds like a control freak.

Allowing the couple getting married to choose and make the day about them is not "narcissistic". It literally is their day.

Yeah it wasn't like that 100 years ago. But heck, 100 years ago women couldn't vote. Even 50 years ago, women could not have a Credit card without a husband signing for it or daddy (if not married). So yes things were different, but that doesn't make them a good thing or "right".

Once again, you are free to envision whatever the hell type of wedding you want for your wedding. You can even do it for your kids, if they are so inclined to allow you to be "in control". But for normal people, a wedding is defined by the couple getting married. It's not about what other people want or think is right. Those others can choose for their own wedding when the time comes.

And just like a birthday party is about the birthday kid (or person). Nothing wrong with that. If you have issues with that or a wedding being about the couple, it's you who has issues and needs to adjust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

That's too bad. Dh and I planned ours, and paid for it. Kids were included. If another couple decides "no kids" I'm fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

That's too bad. Dh and I planned ours, and paid for it. Kids were included. If another couple decides "no kids" I'm fine with that.

Because you are a normal, sane person who recognizes that every couple gets to choose what they want. If the guests don't like it, they just rsvp "no" and move on.

Apparently there are plenty of Non-sane people though

[Anonymous]

That's too bad. Dh and I planned ours, and paid for it. Kids were included. If another couple decides "no kids" I'm fine with that.

Totally normal. And invitees can decide to attend or not, for whatever reason.

[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:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Oh, so you didn’t take RSVPs for your wedding, and you don’t take RSVPs for your kids’ birthday parties? Got it. Because those days are not special and your would-be guests owe you no response, no attention, and no communication. If you expect them to, you are a narcissist. Your kid is not special on his birthday, it would be narcissistic of him to think he is. Got it.

We "took RSVPs" to let out of town guests know about the wedding, but anyone who wanted to come was free to do so. We had a few people show up without RSVPing.

So you don’t do RSVPs for your children’s birthday parties? Yes or no. This is a yes or no question.

What do you mean? We invite people. Sometimes they respond, sometimes they don't, but we don't insist on it.

Hope nobody sings Happy Birthday to the child. Only narcissists do that. It's a party for the family and community. Not the time for your spawn to shine.

+1 That's essentially these same people on the DCUM Expectant Postpartum forum:

The birth of a baby is an important event shared traditionally with family and community. If you are not comfortable with family and community deciding your postpartum birth plan, you are a narcissist. Preventing family from being present during or the week after birth? That was tradition. Narcissist mother. I the MIL/Grandmother/ETC get a say because family and community and tradition. Narcissist generation. Narcissist mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

yeah and it wasn't "too long ago" that weddings were arranged and dowry's were paid for the women.
Most of us would prefer not to go back to that time.


Hint: You are entitled to your thoughts for your wedding and are free to invite every kid you have ever met if that makes you happy. But you are NOT entitled to define what a wedding is for a society or anyone else. It's not "narcissistic" for a couple getting married to want to plan and have the wedding they want. They typically are the ones paying for it nowadays (and even if they are not paying, it is their wedding, and normal adults/parents do not feel entitled to control their kids)
If you are offended, you are able to respond "no" and move on.

The person who sounds offended here is you. I just pointed out that there are other models of what a wedding is and that, of the ones that exist, the "it's my special day" model is the most narcissistic.

Nah, you're just pissed that the mee-maws of yore controlled your entire wedding and you want to do the same to everyone else now. Nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

Ah, we finally get to the crux of the issue. You had no control over YOUR wedding, so you feel the need to dictate how everyone elses is. It's tragic you had no say for your wedding (hopefully you at least picked the person!), but you really have no say on how others celebrate their marriage.

This is precisely how many Asian families function. The parents have had their lives dictated by their parents. So it's now finally turn for them to control their own kids. It's actually kind of sad when you think about it.

I see it with relatives (ILs side) and it's hilarious to me, because we are polite about it, but we don't allow anyone to make decisions for us (obviuosly my spouse feels the same way as they made the decision to deal with marrying outside the culture so when you do that, you know you are in for a lot of confrontation from many relatives).

Yes, such a vicious circle! "My MIL was nasty to me, now I get to be nasty to my DIL, yay!" it's so bizarre.

[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:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

The narcissists are the angry parents.

Thinking your wedding is a special day all about you is inherently narcissistic. You might think that narcissism is justified, but it's a simple fact that having a party to celebrate yourself where you prioritize what you want is self centered.

Well, that is literally what a wedding is. It's about a couple joining together for a life together. And shockingly (to only you, not anyone else) is that why yes, it is about the bride and groom and what they envision for their wedding day. When you get married, you also get to choose what you want for your day. Same for everyone else.

This is what YOU think a wedding is. It's not a universal belief, and it's a narcissistic one. It's about ME or US, not the community or the family.

The alternative is perhaps considered old fashioned, but it wasn't that long ago that brides and grooms did effectively no planning for their weddings. Weddings were set by family and local traditions. That's how my wedding was.

Ah, we finally get to the crux of the issue. You had no control over YOUR wedding, so you feel the need to dictate how everyone elses is. It's tragic you had no say for your wedding (hopefully you at least picked the person!), but you really have no say on how others celebrate their marriage.

This is precisely how many Asian families function. The parents have had their lives dictated by their parents. So it's now finally turn for them to control their own kids. It's actually kind of sad when you think about it.

I see it with relatives (ILs side) and it's hilarious to me, because we are polite about it, but we don't allow anyone to make decisions for us (obviuosly my spouse feels the same way as they made the decision to deal with marrying outside the culture so when you do that, you know you are in for a lot of confrontation from many relatives).

Yes, such a vicious circle! "My MIL was nasty to me, now I get to be nasty to my DIL, yay!" it's so bizarre.

I think much of it stems from Arranged marriages. Think about it---if you were put into an arranged marriage, you didn't get the chance to choose--so your "chance to choose" is for your own kids (or so you think). Not healthy IMO. Ironically, the "arranged" marriages in my DH family---two ended in divorce (one a divorce where the Spouse's family is intertwined with the family due to many marriages like this across the 2 families--I do have to say it's highly entertaining at times, but miserable for the kids of these marriages who have to deal with their parents and aunts/uncles being related and pissed off at the others at a toddler level), the other the sibling is miserable and most likely abused on many levels by the Spouse but nobody can convince her to leave. So the 2 marriages where the kids decided to find their spouse themselves are the ones that have lasted 30+ years and both are happy (myself included).

[Anonymous]

I’m laughing at the poster who insists that you should only politely decline and not give a reason like childcare, PTO or expenses etc. Rude people who demand or expect your attendance on their terms will not let you off with a polite so sorry we can’t attend. The type of person who hears I can’t come because I don’t have childcare and immediately thinks back to when the person attended a different wedding at a different time so they are enraged at the decline is not the sort to graciously just accept a decline without reason.

The bride if she’s pushy and self absorbed will view any decline as a statement that SHE is not as important. Well Polly, you are indeed not as important to your cousin as their nuclear family, their career and their household finances. No one should have to sacrifice for a silly wedding. Destination on child free weddings make this situation more likely.

The other factor going on is the mother of the bride and now even mother of the groom. The guest list is the opening event of future granny wars, an ongoing battle with older women wielding passive aggressive barbs to one up the other granny, FB is the scoreboard. The aunts aren’t just being flying monkeys for the wedding party, they want their side filled!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But yeah, I wanted it to be a grown-up affair (e.g., open bar, live band). I didn't understand the kid thing.

At Italian weddings they always have these things plus lots of kids.

+1 Indian weddings too

Ha. My cousins huge Indian wedding did not allow my kids to attend. We don’t really talk much anymore anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Person who keeps responding rapid-fire to several posts in a row: Go touch grass. Nobody is taking your child-free wedding from you. Some people will judge you the worse for it. Others won’t care. That is called life. People disagree. You will have to accept that, but you will be the better for it when you do. Go outside and take a deep breath, and walk away. I think at the rate you are going, you are going to give yourself a coronary.

There isn't just one person responding. I've responded in line with some others. You're the one with your panties in a knot so step off.

[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:

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.

Are you divorced or unhappy in your marriage now?

Dp. I had a child-free wedding mid 90s and it was very common. I'm still married as are my coworkers who did the same. How gross to assume that because we choose differently from you and your provincial friends that we are less family oriented and more likely to be divorced. You're kind of dumb and very narrow minded.