Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

So, having a wedding is now for narcissists? Seems like some people won't be happy unless it's just an open house block party for all ages.

Back in the day, marriages were based on political alliances, not on romantic feelings. I'm pretty sure that ditching these traditions is what gave us Columbine.

We are all bound tight by tradition. When will people learn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

So, having a wedding is now for narcissists? Seems like some people won't be happy unless it's just an open house block party for all ages.

Back in the day, marriages were based on political alliances, not on romantic feelings. I'm pretty sure that ditching these traditions is what gave us Columbine.

We are all bound tight by tradition. When will people learn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

So, having a wedding is now for narcissists? Seems like some people won't be happy unless it's just an open house block party for all ages.

Back in the day, marriages were based on political alliances, not on romantic feelings. I'm pretty sure that ditching these traditions is what gave us Columbine.

We are all bound tight by tradition. When will people learn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

So, having a wedding is now for narcissists? Seems like some people won't be happy unless it's just an open house block party for all ages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Odd. I read this thread exactly the opposite. Funny how people can have such opposite experiences in reading. I am fine with child free weddings, by the way, but have to say that in this thread the worst behavior and posts are coming from child free brides.

I'm not talking about bad behaviour, there is plenty of that on both sides. But the pro-choice/pro-dowhatyouwant people are not calling millions of people "ugly" and whatever else you or pp used as personal insults. Almost all of them say just to decline if you can't attend. It's the anti-choice/onlydoyourweddinghowIsay people are trying to control and dictate how other people live their life. It's weird. Just let people celebrate how they want.

I have not and would not use a single personal insult, I am fine with child free weddings, but this is a bizarrely one-sided reading of this thread. I don’t get the deliberate blindness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If, like, you get invited to dinner at a White House occupied by a President you like, you gonna pi$$ and moan because the kids can't go too?
If you get invited to an anniversary dinner, do you ask if the kids can come?
If yes, just stay home until the kids are in the military or college,

I wouldn't expect kids to be invited to the WH since that has nothing to do with family.

I would expect children at family members anniversary parties for sure. I attended my grandparents 50th and various aunts and uncles anniversary dinners.

When people get married they are inviting more than family. Inviting family kids means you also need to allow you coworkers and college friends to bring their kids and that adds up quickly for a limited reception budget.

No it doesn't. Just like you don't have to invite your coworker's parents just because you invited your parents' parents, your cousin's parents, and your best friend's parents that helped raise you.

No way am I inviting some people’s kids and excluding others. That’s just wrong. Kid free wedding or kids are invited but it’s tacky to invite some and not others. (Wedding party being the exception.)

I think it's a very normal line to draw that children of family would be invited but not random acquaintances. Kids are people and like any other person, would be invited, or not invited, based on their relationship to the bride and groom.

Disagree, it’s like saying some people can bring a spouse and some people can’t.

I don’t care if you have a kid free wedding or not, but I think it’s bad manners to invite some and not all kids.

Not really. I've seen "only the kids in wedding party invited" also seen "only immediate family kids (nieces/nephews of the bridge and groom), also seen only relatives kids.

If I don't know my coworkers kids why the hell would I invite them to my wedding?!?!? Or just maybe even if I do, if they are not some of my best friends, I have limits on numbers/kids cost as much as adults/etc. so yeah I get to decide who to invite.
Mans you as an invitee get to decide who"yes or no" for attendance based on the invite. You don't get to add guests

Just because you get to decide doesn’t mean I don’t get to decide that you’re being tacky and rude. I already made an exception for kids in the wedding party. But telling your coworker he can’t bring his kids just to have him shop up and see all your nephews and nieces? Yeah, not cool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Someone suggested “gaping narcissist” earlier and I’m good with that. It’s gender neutral too, so also covers grooms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

+1. Its pretty obvious the ones married before 2010 are the ones still using the term “bridezilla.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If, like, you get invited to dinner at a White House occupied by a President you like, you gonna pi$$ and moan because the kids can't go too?
If you get invited to an anniversary dinner, do you ask if the kids can come?
If yes, just stay home until the kids are in the military or college,

I wouldn't expect kids to be invited to the WH since that has nothing to do with family.

I would expect children at family members anniversary parties for sure. I attended my grandparents 50th and various aunts and uncles anniversary dinners.

When people get married they are inviting more than family. Inviting family kids means you also need to allow you coworkers and college friends to bring their kids and that adds up quickly for a limited reception budget.

No it doesn't. Just like you don't have to invite your coworker's parents just because you invited your parents' parents, your cousin's parents, and your best friend's parents that helped raise you.

No way am I inviting some people’s kids and excluding others. That’s just wrong. Kid free wedding or kids are invited but it’s tacky to invite some and not others. (Wedding party being the exception.)

I think it's a very normal line to draw that children of family would be invited but not random acquaintances. Kids are people and like any other person, would be invited, or not invited, based on their relationship to the bride and groom.

Disagree, it’s like saying some people can bring a spouse and some people can’t.

I don’t care if you have a kid free wedding or not, but I think it’s bad manners to invite some and not all kids.

Not really. I've seen "only the kids in wedding party invited" also seen "only immediate family kids (nieces/nephews of the bridge and groom), also seen only relatives kids.

If I don't know my coworkers kids why the hell would I invite them to my wedding?!?!? Or just maybe even if I do, if they are not some of my best friends, I have limits on numbers/kids cost as much as adults/etc. so yeah I get to decide who to invite.
Mans you as an invitee get to decide who"yes or no" for attendance based on the invite. You don't get to add guests

Just because you get to decide doesn’t mean I don’t get to decide that you’re being tacky and rude. I already made an exception for kids in the wedding party. But telling your coworker he can’t bring his kids just to have him shop up and see all your nephews and nieces? Yeah, not cool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If, like, you get invited to dinner at a White House occupied by a President you like, you gonna pi$$ and moan because the kids can't go too?
If you get invited to an anniversary dinner, do you ask if the kids can come?
If yes, just stay home until the kids are in the military or college,

I wouldn't expect kids to be invited to the WH since that has nothing to do with family.

I would expect children at family members anniversary parties for sure. I attended my grandparents 50th and various aunts and uncles anniversary dinners.

When people get married they are inviting more than family. Inviting family kids means you also need to allow you coworkers and college friends to bring their kids and that adds up quickly for a limited reception budget.

No it doesn't. Just like you don't have to invite your coworker's parents just because you invited your parents' parents, your cousin's parents, and your best friend's parents that helped raise you.

No way am I inviting some people’s kids and excluding others. That’s just wrong. Kid free wedding or kids are invited but it’s tacky to invite some and not others. (Wedding party being the exception.)

I think it's a very normal line to draw that children of family would be invited but not random acquaintances. Kids are people and like any other person, would be invited, or not invited, based on their relationship to the bride and groom.

Disagree, it’s like saying some people can bring a spouse and some people can’t.

I don’t care if you have a kid free wedding or not, but I think it’s bad manners to invite some and not all kids.

Not really. I've seen "only the kids in wedding party invited" also seen "only immediate family kids (nieces/nephews of the bridge and groom), also seen only relatives kids.

If I don't know my coworkers kids why the hell would I invite them to my wedding?!?!? Or just maybe even if I do, if they are not some of my best friends, I have limits on numbers/kids cost as much as adults/etc. so yeah I get to decide who to invite.
Mans you as an invitee get to decide who"yes or no" for attendance based on the invite. You don't get to add guests

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American culture is insane.

They either can’t separate themselves from children for one night or they’re so broke they can’t afford a babysitter for a few hours.

I have friends who drug their three little kids around even to adult poker nights.

It’s disgraceful.

Just to keep this idea grounded in reality, a babysitter for “a few hours” is from 4-12 for a local wedding. That’s eight hours, assume minimum $25/hour you’re looking at $200 just to leave the house. Thats low-tier wedding guest gift all by itself right there.

You don't literally have to stay until the end. Just go to the reception, have dinner, stay for a few dances, then go. People seem to be making this much harder than it has to be.

Ok great you’ve now made this a $150 cost to walk out the door. Good thing you’re here.

Find a sitter that doesn't cost $50 an hour. Go for 3 hours.

Thanks I really enjoy it when invitations come with chores. Find a new babysitter, go for three hours (five with travel) you can keep minimizing all you want but the bottom line is: it’s an ask. You’re asking your guests to bear additional costs to attend your wedding that they don’t have to in order attend other weddings. Thats ok as long as you don’t say a word if they decline (which means no helpful hints about getting lower quality childcare to make sure you’re there for their party…)

Don’t want me spending your money to invite my kid? Don’t spend mine to get a babysitter.

So for the last time, it is totally okay to say "No" and not attend. It's an invite, not a court summons. Doesn't matter why, if you cannot attend, just say no. And 99.99% of brides do not make you "feel bad for declining"

Weird stat. How on earth could you know this? It comes across as bizarrely defensive.

DP. Okay. So how about acknowledging that 100% of the childfree wedding brides here aren't saying you should feel bad for not going. Someone, if not you, seems to be addressing us as if we are, and that is not bizarre to be defensive about.

Yes! I haven't seen a single person who had/supports childfree weddings say that you should not decline if you aren't able to attend. It's ONLY the anti-childfree wedding people who are bent out of shape about someone elses event.

There is a pro-childfree-wedding poster just a page ago who is very upset that someone chose not to go because of issues of babysitting and cost and accused that poster of lying about her reasons for declining. Are you even reading the same thread?

That was me. I never said I was "very upset". I said "It's upsetting...".

I understand why though you need to exaggerate since the child free wedding haters are the upset ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Odd. I read this thread exactly the opposite. Funny how people can have such opposite experiences in reading. I am fine with child free weddings, by the way, but have to say that in this thread the worst behavior and posts are coming from child free brides.

I'm not talking about bad behaviour, there is plenty of that on both sides. But the pro-choice/pro-dowhatyouwant people are not calling millions of people "ugly" and whatever else you or pp used as personal insults. Almost all of them say just to decline if you can't attend. It's the anti-choice/onlydoyourweddinghowIsay people are trying to control and dictate how other people live their life. It's weird. Just let people celebrate how they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

100%. They keep lashing out at everyone in these made up scenarios and calling people bridezillas as if most of the people here haven't already been married years. This isn't some retro version of The Knot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So besides a few people saying they know/heard of a bridezilla complaining they didn't attend their wedding, almost exclusively all the hate on this thread is coming from parents who hate childfree weddings. Nonstop insults, insinuating they are mentally ill or bad people, yikes. It really makes the parents pushing for their children to be included look entitled, petty and rude.

Yep. Pretty much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had a no kids allowed destination wedding at a $1000/night resort that was hours away from an airport. We had a 2 year old and had never left him overnight and no childcare options. SIL tried to paint this as an amazing opportunity to take a child free 'vacation' (all her close friends also had kids) but we didn't end up going so her only sibling wasn't there.

Your husband didn’t go alone? When it’s a sibling and your only sibling and your child is 2 and the other parent can manage for a few days solo, not going is pretty aggressive. Did you encourage him to go? Did his sister go to your wedding?

DP but neither DH nor I would have encouraged or nagged the other person to go. 1K a night and a bunch of PTO to fly to a destination wedding
w/ o spouse and kids would be a no go for us at that time in our life. It’s insanely rude to assume your guests are going to sacrifice their family vacation time and budget because you want a destination wedding. If you want a destination wedding by all means have one but the obligations to attend completely change when you choose this path.

How much pto do you need for 1 night? You are just making excuses to be upset because they didn't invite your precious little toddler.

We’ve been told over and over that all brides (excuse me, 99.9%) are perfectly happy and never, ever rude when someone declines to attend their wedding for any reason whatsoever. But you seem to be very upset that someone chose not to use PTO to go to your wedding here. Oh dear. I guess you are a special one.

DP

It's not upsetting people decline the invitation. It's upsetting people making up disingenuous excuses for doing so.

Why lie about PTO and babysitters? Just say you are declining an invitation to an event that does not accommodate you in the special way you want to be accommodated. Babysitters and PTO is a passive aggressive protest, nothing more.

Wow. I guess you cannot accept that you’re not so special that the money and time off required to attend your wedding may be more than it’s worth to some people. Babysitting costs are not an excuse - it’s the person telling you flat out that your wedding (as you have designed it) is not worth the expense to them.