Anonymous wrote:What I find amazing after 58 pages of responses is honestly it really doesn’t even matter. I got married 25 years ago. Heck I can’t even remember what kids or if any where there. I know my brother brought is kids. I’m not even sure who was there adult wise anymore. And half of the guests might be dead. People really need to start to see the big picture again that most of the time all their non sense on who can come and can’t come just doesn’t matter.
It’s just not important in the big picture.
It’s a wedding. The more the merrier. Little
Kids having fun. Makes for a nice celebration really.
But hey you do you and don’t invite families to a new family celebration and see who celebrates you moving forward.
If you don't remember who was there period, it doesnt seem to matter to exclude kids either. You won't remember in 25 years (nor will your 12 year old) so who cares?
People get very upset about this issue because it is supposed to represent family togetherness and someone joining the family. Excluding kids from the mix seems small-minded and goes against their values. Of course it makes people upset. It's a major change. Do it if you want (no one said that you couldn't) but you don't get to decide how other people feel so stop trying to make people like the choice you made. It's not your call.
Anonymous wrote:What I find amazing after 58 pages of responses is honestly it really doesn’t even matter. I got married 25 years ago. Heck I can’t even remember what kids or if any where there. I know my brother brought is kids. I’m not even sure who was there adult wise anymore. And half of the guests might be dead. People really need to start to see the big picture again that most of the time all their non sense on who can come and can’t come just doesn’t matter.
It’s just not important in the big picture.
It’s a wedding. The more the merrier. Little
Kids having fun. Makes for a nice celebration really.
But hey you do you and don’t invite families to a new family celebration and see who celebrates you moving forward.
If you don't remember who was there period, it doesnt seem to matter to exclude kids either. You won't remember in 25 years (nor will your 12 year old) so who cares?
People get very upset about this issue because it is supposed to represent family togetherness and someone joining the family. Excluding kids from the mix seems small-minded and goes against their values. Of course it makes people upset. It's a major change. Do it if you want (no one said that you couldn't) but you don't get to decide how other people feel so stop trying to make people like the choice you made. It's not your call.
No, it's not. They are mad that it poses a child care problem for them. They can't or won't find someone to watch their kids. It's the same when there is a snow day or any other day off. It's a childcare problem, not faux family values.
Anonymous wrote:We just received a save the date for a friend, who was a bridesmaid in our wedding. They have said no kids outside of the children of their immediate family.
She is getting married a bit later and did IVF to have her own child as she was worried she might not find someone. The person she is marrying is divorced and has two kids of his own.
I think that since they are older, a lot of their invitees have families with kids. So I can see how it could cause the attendance number to increase a lot. However, at the same time, it now means that anyone who comes will have to arrange childcare-they are having the wedding in a state they are from with likely many guests traveling from out of state.
I really want to go but this wrinkle makes it a lot harder and more complicated. We have no family locally and would have to fly someone in from out of state to stay with our kids so we could attend.
It is what it is. They want to have the wedding where they are from and presumably have local friends and family. They realize not everyone can make it but they extended the invite anyway just in case you can find a way to make it work. Nobody expects 100% turnout at a wedding.
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.
Indian weddings too. Kids, grandparents, great grandparents...every person is invited and catered to.
Isn’t that amazing and so kind, that extremely wealthy Indians and people of all races who enjoy their money on the backs of others can afford to “cater to” hundreds of people? Wow, I am so impressed by this. It’s so very gracious, to enjoy your wealth and be so visibly opulent to impress people in the name of love and family.
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.
+1
Most marriages are actually healthier when the couple gets to enjoy some time WITHOUT their kids. So date night, attending weddings or a show, or going out to dinner or spending a night away in a hotel are all healthy things that normal couples do without their kids at times. I'd argue someone who is capable of spending a few Hours without their kids and together as a couple is most likely happier as a married couple than ones who don't prioritize doing that from time to time
Good lord, my husband and I have plenty of date nights. Being invited to a family wedding, without half of our family, is insulting and I don't choose to go out of town and leave my kids behind for that sort of insult. So we decline. I dont need your patronizing "you know, we are so excited to give you an opportunity for a weekend away alone!" because we do take weekends away alone, to a location of our choosing, at a convenient time of year for us, not to Tulsa on a Sunday/Monday in August.
Grow up. Your kids not being invited is not an insult. So if someone has a cousin with 8 kids, all 10 people have to be invited and paid for???
You are crazy.
Granted, I haven’t read through 60 pages of this thread, but has anybody mentioned cost?
We were child free, and looking back there wasn’t anybody there with young families (I think the youngest “child” of people invited would have been around 17, and he was included). If there was somebody with a young baby, sure they could bring the baby. But we paid ourselves and limited the guest list due to cost. If I had to choose between friend A and a different friend’s two elementary school kids for example, I’d be clear on no kids and invite Friend A.
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.
Indian weddings too. Kids, grandparents, great grandparents...every person is invited and catered to.
Isn’t that amazing and so kind, that extremely wealthy Indians and people of all races who enjoy their money on the backs of others can afford to “cater to” hundreds of people? Wow, I am so impressed by this. It’s so very gracious, to enjoy your wealth and be so visibly opulent to impress people in the name of love and family.
+1. I value being able to pick my own spouse than having a wedding that won't let my 2nd cousins down that they can't bring their kids.
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.
Indian weddings too. Kids, grandparents, great grandparents...every person is invited and catered to.
Isn’t that amazing and so kind, that extremely wealthy Indians and people of all races who enjoy their money on the backs of others can afford to “cater to” hundreds of people? Wow, I am so impressed by this. It’s so very gracious, to enjoy your wealth and be so visibly opulent to impress people in the name of love and family.
I think that people who do not have young children are really underestimate the headache and complication of trying to find someone to watch your children when you're traveling out of town.
We went to a wedding when my daughter was 8 months old in cabada. The bride and groom gave us recommendations for out of town babysitting. The babysitter that the service sent us was 3 ants short of a picnic and left plastic bags in our daughter's crib. I have never hired a babysitter from a service again
Anonymous wrote:What I find amazing after 58 pages of responses is honestly it really doesn’t even matter. I got married 25 years ago. Heck I can’t even remember what kids or if any where there. I know my brother brought is kids. I’m not even sure who was there adult wise anymore. And half of the guests might be dead. People really need to start to see the big picture again that most of the time all their non sense on who can come and can’t come just doesn’t matter.
It’s just not important in the big picture.
It’s a wedding. The more the merrier. Little
Kids having fun. Makes for a nice celebration really.
But hey you do you and don’t invite families to a new family celebration and see who celebrates you moving forward.
If you don't remember who was there period, it doesnt seem to matter to exclude kids either. You won't remember in 25 years (nor will your 12 year old) so who cares?
People get very upset about this issue because it is supposed to represent family togetherness and someone joining the family. Excluding kids from the mix seems small-minded and goes against their values. Of course it makes people upset. It's a major change. Do it if you want (no one said that you couldn't) but you don't get to decide how other people feel so stop trying to make people like the choice you made. It's not your call.
The "it's a family event" posters could be representatives of the wedding industry lobby advocating for larger wedding attendance. You'd never know the difference.
"We are spending 5/10/20/50k on a wedding because 'family togetherness'."
-Said no couple ever
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.
Indian weddings too. Kids, grandparents, great grandparents...every person is invited and catered to.
Isn’t that amazing and so kind, that extremely wealthy Indians and people of all races who enjoy their money on the backs of others can afford to “cater to” hundreds of people? Wow, I am so impressed by this. It’s so very gracious, to enjoy your wealth and be so visibly opulent to impress people in the name of love and family.
WTF
Did you not know that the Age of Elitism is over? Did you not realize that conspicuous consumption is no longer impressive? Catch up.
Anonymous wrote:I think it brings up a lot of complicated feelings. Weddings have always been traditionally family event with two families coming together and a new family starting. But a few years ago, there was a change to make everything perfect, Instagram worthy and aspirational so out with imperfect kids. I also think it goes hand-in-hand with parents, not parenting their kids which is a huge incentive to not have kids at a wedding.
Personally, I would rather have kids at my wedding, then have a perfect wedding, and I would definitely rather be inclusive of kids than lose and alienate family members.
Likewise family members should understand when a couple chooses to only have an adult only ceremony and not break relationships because they can’t bring their kids
I think this is so insightful! So many parents don’t stop their children anymore when they start to break or deface things or grab at decorations to toy with. The permissiveness is inexplicable and rude. If the bride and groom could feel reasonably confident that their venue wouldn’t be totally trashed by the kids they knew, they’d invite them. Heartbreaking and disrespectful
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}