Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

This makes no sense. If the couple is stopped for funds and does a quaint or small affair you give less money versus someone that does not need it you give more?

Yes. I am not funding their future. I am giving according to what they put in their wedding cost and of course my relationship with them.

Gift giving is a complicated cultural and social phenomenon. I give only what will be appropriately reciprocated. If the person is too poor or too cheap, then I have to give what the poor person can easily reciprocate or what the cheap person has the heart to spend..


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-does-sociology-teach-us-about-gift-giving-180948181/#:~:text=Mauss%20identified%20three%20obligations%20associated,which%20demonstrates%20the%20recipient's%20integrity.

great for you. I won't be letting Smithsonian magazine tell me how much society thinks I should give someone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

This makes no sense. If the couple is stopped for funds and does a quaint or small affair you give less money versus someone that does not need it you give more?

Yes. I am not funding their future. I am giving according to what they put in their wedding cost and of course my relationship with them.

Gift giving is a complicated cultural and social phenomenon. I give only what will be appropriately reciprocated. If the person is too poor or too cheap, then I have to give what the poor person can easily reciprocate or what the cheap person has the heart to spend..


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-does-sociology-teach-us-about-gift-giving-180948181/#:~:text=Mauss%20identified%20three%20obligations%20associated,which%20demonstrates%20the%20recipient's%20integrity.

Your relationship with the couple and the amount you can afford to give should be the only calculus into the amount you give. Who gives a flip about how much the crappy chicken Chesapeake and chocolate fountain cost?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

This makes no sense. If the couple is stopped for funds and does a quaint or small affair you give less money versus someone that does not need it you give more?

Yes. I am not funding their future. I am giving according to what they put in their wedding cost and of course my relationship with them.

Gift giving is a complicated cultural and social phenomenon. I give only what will be appropriately reciprocated. If the person is too poor or too cheap, then I have to give what the poor person can easily reciprocate or what the cheap person has the heart to spend..


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-does-sociology-teach-us-about-gift-giving-180948181/#:~:text=Mauss%20identified%20three%20obligations%20associated,which%20demonstrates%20the%20recipient's%20integrity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

This makes no sense. If the couple is stopped for funds and does a quaint or small affair you give less money versus someone that does not need it you give more?

Yes. I am not funding their future. I am giving according to what they put in their wedding cost and of course my relationship with them.

Gift giving is a complicated cultural and social phenomenon. I give only what will be appropriately reciprocated. If the person is too poor or too cheap, then I have to give what the poor person can easily reciprocate or what the cheap person has the heart to spend..


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-does-sociology-teach-us-about-gift-giving-180948181/#:~:text=Mauss%20identified%20three%20obligations%20associated,which%20demonstrates%20the%20recipient's%20integrity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

This makes no sense. If the couple is stopped for funds and does a quaint or small affair you give less money versus someone that does not need it you give more?

Anonymous wrote:Explanations optional.

No-kids weddings
No +1 weddings
Destination weddings
Dry weddings
No open bar weddings
Weddings of couples who ask for cash

Anonymous wrote:Explanations optional.

No-kids weddings
No +1 weddings
Destination weddings
Dry weddings
No open bar weddings
Weddings of couples who ask for cash

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the hate for no kids weddings on this site. All etiquette experts say no kid weddings are absolutely fine, while many of the other items are faux pas.

I’m 45 and have been to a lot of weddings, and I think only two ever invited kids. Every other wedding I’ve attended is no kids.

I understand that sometimes people can’t attend a wedding if it’s no kids, because they don’t have childcare in a different city. No judgment if you can’t attend. DH and I have done some trade off weddings where only one of us attended because getting childcare was too much drama. It’s fine. We’ve also flown in family to watch the kids while we’ve gone out of town for weddings. And we’ve also used the hotel arranged babysitter for some weddings. All of these are fine options.

But for people who are like unilaterally writing off no kids weddings…. I feel sorry for them. They often refuse to separate from their kids, have never had a babysitter, or are highly anxious. It’s one thing to decline a no kid wedding because you’re unable to make it work (or you’re not close enough to the couple to put a ton of effort into making it work). But it’s another thing to refuse to make it work.

+1.
The weddings without kids are generally better anyways (food/alcohol/entertainment). If you can't leave your kid for a few hours do everyone else a favor and stay home

+2

+3

No one cares about your kid as much as you.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the hate for no kids weddings on this site. All etiquette experts say no kid weddings are absolutely fine, while many of the other items are faux pas.

I’m 45 and have been to a lot of weddings, and I think only two ever invited kids. Every other wedding I’ve attended is no kids.

I understand that sometimes people can’t attend a wedding if it’s no kids, because they don’t have childcare in a different city. No judgment if you can’t attend. DH and I have done some trade off weddings where only one of us attended because getting childcare was too much drama. It’s fine. We’ve also flown in family to watch the kids while we’ve gone out of town for weddings. And we’ve also used the hotel arranged babysitter for some weddings. All of these are fine options.

But for people who are like unilaterally writing off no kids weddings…. I feel sorry for them. They often refuse to separate from their kids, have never had a babysitter, or are highly anxious. It’s one thing to decline a no kid wedding because you’re unable to make it work (or you’re not close enough to the couple to put a ton of effort into making it work). But it’s another thing to refuse to make it work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst: No +1, destination wedding. Couples will often say they don’t want random people at their wedding but offer plus ones for spouses and significant others they’ve never met. Just give all adults a plus one.

Also bad: No open bar — don’t host a party you can’t afford. Along those lines I would add an expectation that gifts cover the per person cost for the wedding.

Neutral: No kids, dry wedding, asking for cash gifts

Isn't a dry wedding worse than no open bar? At least there's alcohol!

No way! I don’t care if I drink or not. I’d prefer it, but if the couple doesnt drink or can’t afford to pay for the alcohol, then a dry wedding is fine. What’s NOT fine is asking your guests to pay for things at YOUR PARTY

I agree. All this shade on dry weddings is awful. Many people don’t drink - for religious or addiction or health reasons. I am delighted to share their big day with them while also being respectful of their culture or individual preferences. Can people *really* not go one night without booze??? (And I drink a lot - so I’m not a teetotaler)

I agree that cash bar is way worse than dry wedding. You don't host a party and then have your guests pay for food/drinks!! The only thing worse is doing a potluck where guests BRING FOOD as well!

What if the people getting married are poor, but they want to share their joy and exchange of vows with friends and loved ones?
The level of snobbery and entitlement on this forum is thru the roof.

The only way to share the joy is to invite your friends to a party then ask them to pay for it? You must be the type to not provide food at kids parties. The worst.

The PP was saying that people complaining about dry weddings are the worst. She was not talking about cash bar weddings.

No she wasn't. We're both saying the guests don't pay for the food drinks. Then PP said it was snobby because poor people apparently can't pay for food/drinks (which isn't even true). It's the cheapskates who aren't even poor who do this kind of thing.

actually PP said nothing about the food.

Anonymous wrote:None actually.

People can have any kind of wedding and guests can choose not to attend. I also always give a check as a wedding gift and if the wedding is very tacky and cheap,I will give less money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Worst: No +1, destination wedding. Couples will often say they don’t want random people at their wedding but offer plus ones for spouses and significant others they’ve never met. Just give all adults a plus one.

Also bad: No open bar — don’t host a party you can’t afford. Along those lines I would add an expectation that gifts cover the per person cost for the wedding.

Neutral: No kids, dry wedding, asking for cash gifts

Isn't a dry wedding worse than no open bar? At least there's alcohol!

No way! I don’t care if I drink or not. I’d prefer it, but if the couple doesnt drink or can’t afford to pay for the alcohol, then a dry wedding is fine. What’s NOT fine is asking your guests to pay for things at YOUR PARTY

I agree. All this shade on dry weddings is awful. Many people don’t drink - for religious or addiction or health reasons. I am delighted to share their big day with them while also being respectful of their culture or individual preferences. Can people *really* not go one night without booze??? (And I drink a lot - so I’m not a teetotaler)

I agree that cash bar is way worse than dry wedding. You don't host a party and then have your guests pay for food/drinks!! The only thing worse is doing a potluck where guests BRING FOOD as well!

What if the people getting married are poor, but they want to share their joy and exchange of vows with friends and loved ones?
The level of snobbery and entitlement on this forum is thru the roof.

The only way to share the joy is to invite your friends to a party then ask them to pay for it? You must be the type to not provide food at kids parties. The worst.

The PP was saying that people complaining about dry weddings are the worst. She was not talking about cash bar weddings.

No she wasn't. We're both saying the guests don't pay for the food drinks. Then PP said it was snobby because poor people apparently can't pay for food/drinks (which isn't even true). It's the cheapskates who aren't even poor who do this kind of thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty of destination wedding (hours away) but gave +1, +2, accommodated friends of family with champagne toast but cash bar.
we had to budget but splurged with everything else big time.

So you splurged on everything except the one thing guests actually look forward to at weddings? What in the world were you thinking?

+1

SMH

In what world is "free alcohol" the one thing guests look forward to at weddings? You do realize you can get drunk for a pretty low price quite literally any time you want, correct?