Anonymous wrote:So many touchy posters who can’t handle hearing that yes, we think you had a wedding for the photo shoot with pretty clothes and not to launch a marriage with your family and community present. That is OK, it really is, but it is tiresome to have to play along. I love a frivolous party and there’s no need to invite my 16 yr old only cousin to that. Frivolous marriages, not so much.

Get a life!

Perhaps they are not "that close" to said 16 yo cousin. Or that cousin. Or perhaps they simply don't want you to attend, and know by not inviting your 16yo kid they can achieve that

Perhaps they simply want an adult only event for their one special day. Doesn't mean they are not invested in the marriage.

So many touchy posters who can’t handle hearing that yes, we think you had a wedding for the photo shoot with pretty clothes and not to launch a marriage with your family and community present. That is OK, it really is, but it is tiresome to have to play along. I love a frivolous party and there’s no need to invite my 16 yr old only cousin to that. Frivolous marriages, not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: No, that's what you said. This has to do with kids not me.

This has to do with you making decisions about events where you are not appointed as a decision-maker.

+1000

When it's YOUR wedding, YOU get to choose who to invite. If it's not, then you get to either RSVP Yes or No, but no additional comments are needed. You don't get to tell the host who they "should invite". That is rude.

My point isn't that people can't choose to invite who they want but why kids older than 10 are included in child-free

Because the people holding and paying for the event get to define then meaning of “child-free”.

This isn’t difficult to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: No, that's what you said. This has to do with kids not me.

This has to do with you making decisions about events where you are not appointed as a decision-maker.

+1000

When it's YOUR wedding, YOU get to choose who to invite. If it's not, then you get to either RSVP Yes or No, but no additional comments are needed. You don't get to tell the host who they "should invite". That is rude.

My point isn't that people can't choose to invite who they want but why kids older than 10 are included in child-free

Seriously?!?! doesn't matter what they call it. The person hosting the event (the Bride and Groom) get to decide at what age is the cutoff. Or in reality, whether they invite only 1st cousins or 2nd cousins or really only the cousins they actually care about, etc.

If the B/G don't want 13 yo at their wedding, that is their choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: No, that's what you said. This has to do with kids not me.

This has to do with you making decisions about events where you are not appointed as a decision-maker.

+1000

When it's YOUR wedding, YOU get to choose who to invite. If it's not, then you get to either RSVP Yes or No, but no additional comments are needed. You don't get to tell the host who they "should invite". That is rude.

My point isn't that people can't choose to invite who they want but why kids older than 10 are included in child-free

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: No, that's what you said. This has to do with kids not me.

This has to do with you making decisions about events where you are not appointed as a decision-maker.

+1000

When it's YOUR wedding, YOU get to choose who to invite. If it's not, then you get to either RSVP Yes or No, but no additional comments are needed. You don't get to tell the host who they "should invite". That is rude.

Anonymous wrote: No, that's what you said. This has to do with kids not me.

This has to do with you making decisions about events where you are not appointed as a decision-maker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

And having a kid free wedding and not paying for a bored teen to attend is a choice the bride/Groom get to make as well. Trust me, 99% of 15 yo would rather be at home, most are sitting on their phones some with headphones on the entire time.

IMO, you invite who you want to your wedding. If you want a 18+, then that is a great choice--it's your choice. And anyone who doesn't agree can feel free to simply reply "no" and stay home.

I don't get so many upset about teens not being allowed---you can easily leave them home/with friends for a weekend wedding. And if you don't want to, then reply NO

Teens aren't children.

If the B/G want a 18+ or 21+ wedding they are


How difficult is it to understand, the B/G get to pick. It's their wedding, they are hosting (or their parents are). When you host an event, you get to pick the guest list accordingly.
It's really a simple concept.

Cause as a teen it really makes no sense to exclude teens.

"as a teen" they should be capable of understanding the world doesn't revolve around them and not be butt hurt if they are not invited to an adult only wedding (they aren't an adult)

Okay if their capable of understanding the world around them, then they should be invited.

So you've decided that "capable of understanding the world around [you]" is the threshold for who other people should and should not invite to their weddings?

This would disqualify people like you from an invite. I actually support this.

No, that's what you said. This has to do with kids not me.

PP, And your proving my point again if you think that's the threshold then teens can get invited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

And having a kid free wedding and not paying for a bored teen to attend is a choice the bride/Groom get to make as well. Trust me, 99% of 15 yo would rather be at home, most are sitting on their phones some with headphones on the entire time.

IMO, you invite who you want to your wedding. If you want a 18+, then that is a great choice--it's your choice. And anyone who doesn't agree can feel free to simply reply "no" and stay home.

I don't get so many upset about teens not being allowed---you can easily leave them home/with friends for a weekend wedding. And if you don't want to, then reply NO

Teens aren't children.

If the B/G want a 18+ or 21+ wedding they are


How difficult is it to understand, the B/G get to pick. It's their wedding, they are hosting (or their parents are). When you host an event, you get to pick the guest list accordingly.
It's really a simple concept.

Cause as a teen it really makes no sense to exclude teens.

"as a teen" they should be capable of understanding the world doesn't revolve around them and not be butt hurt if they are not invited to an adult only wedding (they aren't an adult)

Okay if their capable of understanding the world around them, then they should be invited.

So you've decided that "capable of understanding the world around [you]" is the threshold for who other people should and should not invite to their weddings?

This would disqualify people like you from an invite. I actually support this.

No, that's what you said. This has to do with kids not me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

If this is core, these people are recklessly dramatic.

Therapist: "What's the trouble?"
DCUM: "I'm missing a CORE part of my childhood."
Therapist: "Food, clothing shelter? Nurturing caregivers? Safety? Security?"
DCUM: "I was not able to attend any weddings."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

And having a kid free wedding and not paying for a bored teen to attend is a choice the bride/Groom get to make as well. Trust me, 99% of 15 yo would rather be at home, most are sitting on their phones some with headphones on the entire time.

IMO, you invite who you want to your wedding. If you want a 18+, then that is a great choice--it's your choice. And anyone who doesn't agree can feel free to simply reply "no" and stay home.

I don't get so many upset about teens not being allowed---you can easily leave them home/with friends for a weekend wedding. And if you don't want to, then reply NO

Teens aren't children.

If the B/G want a 18+ or 21+ wedding they are


How difficult is it to understand, the B/G get to pick. It's their wedding, they are hosting (or their parents are). When you host an event, you get to pick the guest list accordingly.
It's really a simple concept.

Cause as a teen it really makes no sense to exclude teens.

"as a teen" they should be capable of understanding the world doesn't revolve around them and not be butt hurt if they are not invited to an adult only wedding (they aren't an adult)

Okay if their capable of understanding the world around them, then they should be invited.

So you've decided that "capable of understanding the world around [you]" is the threshold for who other people should and should not invite to their weddings?

This would disqualify people like you from an invite. I actually support this.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

And having a kid free wedding and not paying for a bored teen to attend is a choice the bride/Groom get to make as well. Trust me, 99% of 15 yo would rather be at home, most are sitting on their phones some with headphones on the entire time.

IMO, you invite who you want to your wedding. If you want a 18+, then that is a great choice--it's your choice. And anyone who doesn't agree can feel free to simply reply "no" and stay home.

I don't get so many upset about teens not being allowed---you can easily leave them home/with friends for a weekend wedding. And if you don't want to, then reply NO

Sorry you have duds for kids. My teens aren’t like that. They like getting dressed up, dancing, spending time with family, and, you know, just feeling included in life’s celebrations.

I’d rather have a bunch of teens at a wedding than a bunch of old people. I think there should be an upper age limit on wedding invitations. The 80-somethings who can’t hear or talk over the music and don’t dance anymore are no fun.

Exclude and include whomever you want from your wedding.

It's only the anti-child-free wedding side of this that will throw tantrums over what you just said.

Yup---the people who feel entitled to invite whomever they want to someone elses event.

Also, plenty of people get married without their 80 something aunts/uncles/grandparents in attendance, simply because they might be too stressed/too overwhelmed and too much work for their parents to help manage on the wedding day (think a grandparent who is in Assisted living or nursing care or memory care). The stress of attempting to have them around for a 10 hour day would detract for the B/G and one set of parents. So they send a live stream or video afterwards.
I have two relatives who had to do this for their kid's weddings---the day would have been too overwhelming for the grandparents, who would have needed to travel 4-5 hours to get to the wedding and who were both in advanced care (memory and nursing), so they were not able to attend.



But for a 80 yo who is capable of managing mostly themselves, they are rarely a disruptive person at a wedding....that's the difference between them and a 2 yo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

And having a kid free wedding and not paying for a bored teen to attend is a choice the bride/Groom get to make as well. Trust me, 99% of 15 yo would rather be at home, most are sitting on their phones some with headphones on the entire time.

IMO, you invite who you want to your wedding. If you want a 18+, then that is a great choice--it's your choice. And anyone who doesn't agree can feel free to simply reply "no" and stay home.

I don't get so many upset about teens not being allowed---you can easily leave them home/with friends for a weekend wedding. And if you don't want to, then reply NO

Teens aren't children.

If the B/G want a 18+ or 21+ wedding they are


How difficult is it to understand, the B/G get to pick. It's their wedding, they are hosting (or their parents are). When you host an event, you get to pick the guest list accordingly.
It's really a simple concept.

Cause as a teen it really makes no sense to exclude teens.

"as a teen" they should be capable of understanding the world doesn't revolve around them and not be butt hurt if they are not invited to an adult only wedding (they aren't an adult)

Okay if their capable of understanding the world around them, then they should be invited.

Not how things work. A 5 yo should also not get upset they are not invited, "you don't always get what you want" should be taught from an early age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

And having a kid free wedding and not paying for a bored teen to attend is a choice the bride/Groom get to make as well. Trust me, 99% of 15 yo would rather be at home, most are sitting on their phones some with headphones on the entire time.

IMO, you invite who you want to your wedding. If you want a 18+, then that is a great choice--it's your choice. And anyone who doesn't agree can feel free to simply reply "no" and stay home.

I don't get so many upset about teens not being allowed---you can easily leave them home/with friends for a weekend wedding. And if you don't want to, then reply NO

Teens aren't children.

If the B/G want a 18+ or 21+ wedding they are


How difficult is it to understand, the B/G get to pick. It's their wedding, they are hosting (or their parents are). When you host an event, you get to pick the guest list accordingly.
It's really a simple concept.

Cause as a teen it really makes no sense to exclude teens.

"as a teen" they should be capable of understanding the world doesn't revolve around them and not be butt hurt if they are not invited to an adult only wedding (they aren't an adult)

Okay if their capable of understanding the world around them, then they should be invited.

So you've decided that "capable of understanding the world around [you]" is the threshold for who other people should and should not invite to their weddings?

This would disqualify people like you from an invite. I actually support this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing with no kids rule is that where is the line? Not letting teens in is unfair.

The line is who the bride and groom choose to invite.
Maybe they think it's more fair to exclude "all teens" because there are 20 teens in the cohort and they can't pick and choose, and they can't have 20 extra places at the wedding for kids who, quite frankly, would probably rather be elsewhere.

Going to weddings is a core part of a lot of people's childhoods and excluding a 15 yr old for being a "kid" is extreme.

And having a kid free wedding and not paying for a bored teen to attend is a choice the bride/Groom get to make as well. Trust me, 99% of 15 yo would rather be at home, most are sitting on their phones some with headphones on the entire time.

IMO, you invite who you want to your wedding. If you want a 18+, then that is a great choice--it's your choice. And anyone who doesn't agree can feel free to simply reply "no" and stay home.

I don't get so many upset about teens not being allowed---you can easily leave them home/with friends for a weekend wedding. And if you don't want to, then reply NO

Sorry you have duds for kids. My teens aren’t like that. They like getting dressed up, dancing, spending time with family, and, you know, just feeling included in life’s celebrations.

I’d rather have a bunch of teens at a wedding than a bunch of old people. I think there should be an upper age limit on wedding invitations. The 80-somethings who can’t hear or talk over the music and don’t dance anymore are no fun.

Exclude and include whomever you want from your wedding.

It's only the anti-child-free wedding side of this that will throw tantrums over what you just said.