Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my experience with my brother's child-free wedding, I think the drama comes down to a difference of opinion on the point of a wedding.

I see weddings as a celebration with family and the people who matter most to you. It's a joining of two people into each other's families.

My brother and SIL see weddings as a big party to celebrate the couple.

I don't think either opinion is wrong, but people who think it's about family will often see "child-free" as selfishly excluding people who matter, and people who see it as a party for the couple will see "but my kids should be there" as selfishly making the couple's party about themselves.

This. Weddings used to be about families. In fact no friends were invited to weddings. It was parents, their siblings, grandparents and often community members. Parents paid and hosted. Weddings were held at local venues, so that everybody could attend. In a major way, wedding were not just about joining two families, but about procreation. Lots of kids at the wedding meant "good luck" for the couple.

Nowadays, as people marry later and pay themselves, the wedding is about the couple. All the destination weddings, elopement weddings etc. are about the couple and are not particularly comfortable for families to attend. It's common that not all aunts and uncles attend, if any. Friends are invited, because they're a large part of the couple's life. More moderns wedding will be child-free, because the couple is (most often) child-free and want to enjoy their big day. Also having kids is not a "compulsory" part of a marriage any more, hence there is no emphasis on kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their ridiculous. My Junior DD was not invited to my cousins wedding, I told her my daughter was not a child anymore and that I would not attend.

My deciding to attend a wedding is not conditioned on other adults being invited.

You might be codependent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their ridiculous. My Junior DD was not invited to my cousins wedding, I told her my daughter was not a child anymore and that I would not attend.

My deciding to attend a wedding is not conditioned on other adults being invited.

You might be codependent.

Anonymous wrote:Their ridiculous. My Junior DD was not invited to my cousins wedding, I told her my daughter was not a child anymore and that I would not attend.

Anonymous wrote:Their ridiculous. My Junior DD was not invited to my cousins wedding, I told her my daughter was not a child anymore and that I would not attend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my experience with my brother's child-free wedding, I think the drama comes down to a difference of opinion on the point of a wedding.

I see weddings as a celebration with family and the people who matter most to you. It's a joining of two people into each other's families.

My brother and SIL see weddings as a big party to celebrate the couple.

I don't think either opinion is wrong, but people who think it's about family will often see "child-free" as selfishly excluding people who matter, and people who see it as a party for the couple will see "but my kids should be there" as selfishly making the couple's party about themselves.

This. Weddings used to be about families. In fact no friends were invited to weddings. It was parents, their siblings, grandparents and often community members. Parents paid and hosted. Weddings were held at local venues, so that everybody could attend. In a major way, wedding were not just about joining two families, but about procreation. Lots of kids at the wedding meant "good luck" for the couple.

Nowadays, as people marry later and pay themselves, the wedding is about the couple. All the destination weddings, elopement weddings etc. are about the couple and are not particularly comfortable for families to attend. It's common that not all aunts and uncles attend, if any. Friends are invited, because they're a large part of the couple's life. More moderns wedding will be child-free, because the couple is (most often) child-free and want to enjoy their big day. Also having kids is not a "compulsory" part of a marriage any more, hence there is no emphasis on kids.

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.

Of course it's their right. But then they can't get upset if/when guests decline.

Yes. Of course.

The “upset” here overall isn’t coming from the child-free wedding respondents. The other side is upset.

I think it depends on who is RSVPing no. When my brother got married, I was in the wedding party. I couldn't NOT go. Even as it was, I had to book a hotel room at a different hotel with suites so my in-laws could come watch our baby for us while we attended and my SIL was upset that we weren't staying at their hotel, even after I explained that their hotel didn't have suites/adjoining rooms that we needed to make it possible for us to attend their wedding.

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: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.

Of course it's their right. But then they can't get upset if/when guests decline.

Yes. Of course.

The “upset” here overall isn’t coming from the child-free wedding respondents. The other side is upset.

I think it depends on who is RSVPing no. When my brother got married, I was in the wedding party. I couldn't NOT go. Even as it was, I had to book a hotel room at a different hotel with suites so my in-laws could come watch our baby for us while we attended and my SIL was upset that we weren't staying at their hotel, even after I explained that their hotel didn't have suites/adjoining rooms that we needed to make it possible for us to attend their wedding.

You could have declined to go. A proposal to be in a wedding party is not an obligation. If people are treating it as an obligation, they are simply wrong.

It’s her brother, fool. Presumably, she really wanted to be there. Not out of obligation, but out of love.

PP wanted to be there to avoid emotional manipulation.

Read PPs response, fool.

I'm the one with the brother, but I didn't post the reply about bad blood. I wanted to be at my brother's wedding and I was, but the child-free thing made it really difficult for me.

DP and I totally get it. Why your SIL remotely cared where you stayed is beyond me- that was the least of my concerns when getting married.

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: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.

Of course it's their right. But then they can't get upset if/when guests decline.

Yes. Of course.

The “upset” here overall isn’t coming from the child-free wedding respondents. The other side is upset.

I think it depends on who is RSVPing no. When my brother got married, I was in the wedding party. I couldn't NOT go. Even as it was, I had to book a hotel room at a different hotel with suites so my in-laws could come watch our baby for us while we attended and my SIL was upset that we weren't staying at their hotel, even after I explained that their hotel didn't have suites/adjoining rooms that we needed to make it possible for us to attend their wedding.

You could have declined to go. A proposal to be in a wedding party is not an obligation. If people are treating it as an obligation, they are simply wrong.

It’s her brother, fool. Presumably, she really wanted to be there. Not out of obligation, but out of love.

PP wanted to be there to avoid emotional manipulation.

Read PPs response, fool.

I'm the one with the brother, but I didn't post the reply about bad blood. I wanted to be at my brother's wedding and I was, but the child-free thing made it really difficult for me.

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: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.

Of course it's their right. But then they can't get upset if/when guests decline.

Yes. Of course.

The “upset” here overall isn’t coming from the child-free wedding respondents. The other side is upset.

I think it depends on who is RSVPing no. When my brother got married, I was in the wedding party. I couldn't NOT go. Even as it was, I had to book a hotel room at a different hotel with suites so my in-laws could come watch our baby for us while we attended and my SIL was upset that we weren't staying at their hotel, even after I explained that their hotel didn't have suites/adjoining rooms that we needed to make it possible for us to attend their wedding.

You could have declined to go. A proposal to be in a wedding party is not an obligation. If people are treating it as an obligation, they are simply wrong.

It’s her brother, fool. Presumably, she really wanted to be there. Not out of obligation, but out of love.

PP wanted to be there to avoid emotional manipulation.

Read PPs response, fool.

I'm the one with the brother, but I didn't post the reply about bad blood. I wanted to be at my brother's wedding and I was, but the child-free thing made it really difficult for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From my experience with my brother's child-free wedding, I think the drama comes down to a difference of opinion on the point of a wedding.

I see weddings as a celebration with family and the people who matter most to you. It's a joining of two people into each other's families.

My brother and SIL see weddings as a big party to celebrate the couple.

I don't think either opinion is wrong, but people who think it's about family will often see "child-free" as selfishly excluding people who matter, and people who see it as a party for the couple will see "but my kids should be there" as selfishly making the couple's party about themselves.

This. Weddings used to be about families. In fact no friends were invited to weddings. It was parents, their siblings, grandparents and often community members. Parents paid and hosted. Weddings were held at local venues, so that everybody could attend. In a major way, wedding were not just about joining two families, but about procreation. Lots of kids at the wedding meant "good luck" for the couple.

Nowadays, as people marry later and pay themselves, the wedding is about the couple. All the destination weddings, elopement weddings etc. are about the couple and are not particularly comfortable for families to attend. It's common that not all aunts and uncles attend, if any. Friends are invited, because they're a large part of the couple's life. More moderns wedding will be child-free, because the couple is (most often) child-free and want to enjoy their big day. Also having kids is not a "compulsory" part of a marriage any more, hence there is no emphasis on kids.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it's their right. But then they can't get upset if/when guests decline.

Yes. Of course.

The “upset” here overall isn’t coming from the child-free wedding respondents. The other side is upset.

I think it depends on who is RSVPing no. When my brother got married, I was in the wedding party. I couldn't NOT go. Even as it was, I had to book a hotel room at a different hotel with suites so my in-laws could come watch our baby for us while we attended and my SIL was upset that we weren't staying at their hotel, even after I explained that their hotel didn't have suites/adjoining rooms that we needed to make it possible for us to attend their wedding.

You could have declined to go. A proposal to be in a wedding party is not an obligation. If people are treating it as an obligation, they are simply wrong.

It’s her brother, fool. Presumably, she really wanted to be there. Not out of obligation, but out of love.

PP wanted to be there to avoid emotional manipulation.

Read PPs response, fool.

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.

Of course it's their right. But then they can't get upset if/when guests decline.

Yes. Of course.

The “upset” here overall isn’t coming from the child-free wedding respondents. The other side is upset.

I think it depends on who is RSVPing no. When my brother got married, I was in the wedding party. I couldn't NOT go. Even as it was, I had to book a hotel room at a different hotel with suites so my in-laws could come watch our baby for us while we attended and my SIL was upset that we weren't staying at their hotel, even after I explained that their hotel didn't have suites/adjoining rooms that we needed to make it possible for us to attend their wedding.

You could have declined to go. A proposal to be in a wedding party is not an obligation. If people are treating it as an obligation, they are simply wrong.

It’s her brother, fool. Presumably, she really wanted to be there. Not out of obligation, but out of love.

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.

Of course it's their right. But then they can't get upset if/when guests decline.

Yes. Of course.

The “upset” here overall isn’t coming from the child-free wedding respondents. The other side is upset.

I think it depends on who is RSVPing no. When my brother got married, I was in the wedding party. I couldn't NOT go. Even as it was, I had to book a hotel room at a different hotel with suites so my in-laws could come watch our baby for us while we attended and my SIL was upset that we weren't staying at their hotel, even after I explained that their hotel didn't have suites/adjoining rooms that we needed to make it possible for us to attend their wedding.

You could have declined to go. A proposal to be in a wedding party is not an obligation. If people are treating it as an obligation, they are simply wrong.