Anonymous wrote:"My family would probably eat a large mid-afternoon meal in this scenario and then go to the wedding. And then drive-through Subway on the way home. We wouldn't even really snark or comment on it at all. It's just what happens sometimes. People's lives there are about accommodating and seeing their friends, so people don't get so up-in-arms about "inconveniences." "
That's why wedding guests spend $25 or $50 on gifts there - they still have to feed themselves afterwards! If I attended a 6:30 wedding that had no meal, I'd last until maybe 8 until I would need to leave to eat dinner somewhere.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."
+1
You people sound like such snobs. Not everyone has the money to serve a full dinner at their wedding. And 6:30 on a Saturday isn't all that early. It's not like people are coming straight from work.
Anonymous wrote:Now, I don't know where in the Midwest OP's wedding is. Maybe in that location this is tacky and horrible to guests. I'm just offering my perspective that in some locations, this is just not a big deal.
She TOLD you it was in the Midwest - doesn't that answer this question?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.
How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?
They get to leave early because they are All. Just. So. Nice!
Unlike us dickweeds on the coasts.
Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.
How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?
My father stopped work at 5, was home at 5:15 and dinner was served at 5:30 every day of my childhood. It is a totally different lifestyle in a small midwestern city.
Now, I don't know where in the Midwest OP's wedding is. Maybe in that location this is tacky and horrible to guests. I'm just offering my perspective that in some locations, this is just not a big deal.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.
How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?
My father stopped work at 5, was home at 5:15 and dinner was served at 5:30 every day of my childhood. It is a totally different lifestyle in a small midwestern city.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.
How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, in my small-town part of the Midwest, everyone is strapped for cash, so this is the norm. Usually the weddings are afternoon affairs so everyone can go home/to a restaurant to eat dinner in between. The timing on this one is indeed unfortunate. But in my part of the Midwest, people would comment that it was unfortunate timing, but not get up-in-arms that it is cheap and tacky. Because it is a wedding and a happy affair, and there is nothing wrong with "cheap."
The timing of the event is the problem. Where are the parents of the bride and groom?
What does that have to do with anything?
Um, sorry I was opaque. I meant, why didn't the parents of the bride and groom suggest a 4 pm or 8 pm wedding to the happy couple to avoid the meal issue?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.
How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.
How is that possible? Don't people in the midwest work an 8 hour day, plus time for lunch and a commute, even if it is a short one?
Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with the timing? It is normal to eat dinner at 5 or 5:30 in the midwest. I live in the midwest and my dinner parties all start at 4:30 or 5. It's nice and everyone else does the same.