Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, that’s not how babysitters work.
They don’t sit on call waiting for wedding invitations for their clients.

So someone with a babysitter for wedding A might very well not have a babysitter for wedding B.

It was an either/or proposition. If a babysitter is available for a weekend during which 2 events are held, the availability of the babysitter would not matter depending on the event you choose.

Anonymous wrote: And? Someone might like the bride and groom better for wedding A. Would you rather be told “I don’t want to spend $1000 on your wedding but I was really happy to spend $1000 on Sally?”. Is that “honesty” really what you want?

Why would you need to be dishonest about telling people you cannot afford to attend an adults-only wedding? "I cannot afford wedding A; the childcare costs are not in our budget. I can afford wedding B; it allows children thus no childcare expenses."

If someone criticizes you for genuinely not being able to afford something they are planning, they are in the wrong.

You misread. Nowhere did I say anyone couldn’t afford the $1000– they just don’t want to spend it on you and they were happy to spend it on someone else. Isn’t it kinder for them to say to you that they just oh shucks don’t have a sitter? Do you really want that much honesty?

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,

The belief that your wedding is of similar importance to a state dinner is actually a really good summation of the problem of modern brides and grooms.

DP Maybe people do regard their wedding as similar importance to state dinners.

Why is that a problem "of modern brides and grooms"?
Why is that a problem at all?
It's not a problem for me. It's not my business.

That's just a question. It's also not a problem for me that other people like you find it problematic.

Because state dinners have certain restrictions and rules which are reasonable when dealing with heads of state and comically self-important when dealing with wedding. See: showing up hours early, confiscating cell phones, etc.

Once you’re already of the belief that your guests should be treated like the enemy, you get into beliefs like “declining because you don’t want to hire a babysitter is passive aggressive” instead of “I guess I’m not a $500 gift-tier friend”

I've been to many many "child free" weddings. None of the brides/grooms were -Zillas. they simply wanted a wedding without the interruptions of whiny, bratty kids, kids who would be bored with a 3-4 course dinner and the typical events of a wedding ceremony, and reception. If you cannot attend without your kids, then you simply RSVP No and send your regrets. None of them "question people why they cannot attend" Now, I have also attended some where the Bride/Groom have "no kids" but do offer to provide baby sitting services in a nearby hotel room/suite/ballroom. IMO, most of the kids who attend those are having way more fun than they would in the adult wedding and reception. But it is not on the B/G to provide babysitting services. You are the parent. If you really want to attend the wedding, you will find a way to manage your kids and attend. If you cannot, then you send your regrets. Just like you do with anything in life that your kids are not invited to.

Like seriously, do you take your kids with you to work, bring them into a Board meeting with the CEO/Execs/etc because they are sick or it's a day off work?
I highly doubt you do that. Then again, those of you who cannot separate from your kids for a short time period or pay a sitter, most likely are not in board meetings, but you likely have the equivalent in your work life.

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:

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.

Was the below you? It sure sounds very upset to me, and you even say you are upset. It is certainly not emotionally balanced, at least.

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.

You aren’t entitled to demand attendance from guests or know their reasons, no matter how much of a temper tantrum you throw.

Nowhere did I demand attendance. I was being critical of the reasons provided for declining.

I can understand why would would mistake that for an emotionally unbalanced temper tantrum since you didn't understand what you read.

I'm Pro---whatever type of wedding you want. But the bride (or anyone else) should not be discussing/being critical of the reasons provided for declining. There is not reason for the bride to expect or be given "an excuse" other than "so sorry, we won't be able to make it. Hope you have an amazing day! "

You can be critical of the reason if the reason is "Not enough PTO", and the invitee is unemployed. You can be critical of the reason if the reason is "No babysitter", and the invitee hires a babysitter to another wedding for that period of time. You can be critical of the nephew who was disingenuous about the 21+ venue requirement.

You don't need to be critical. But it is warranted to be critical of dishonesty.

Nah, only the nephew who lied about the 21+ for your 17/19/20 kids.

All the others, well they obviuosly were not as close as you thought. The fact they hired a babysitter for someone else's wedding should not concern you. But if it does, then distance yourself accordingly.
And anyone who is unemployed who says not enough PTO is likely embarrassed they are unemployed and quite likely cannot afford to attend your wedding. They might be on a very tight budget to you know, live until they are employed again. So yeah, attending a wedding that is an hour away might not be in the budget

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: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.

Isn’t that…any event anyone ever declines?

I’m declining your MLM party because it doesn’t accommodate my special wish not to be sold Mary Kay products.

I’m declining your happy hour because it doesn’t accommodate my special wish not to be around your odious boyfriend.

And I’m declining your wedding because it doesn’t accommodate my wish not to spend an extra $200 on you.

I don’t see why the latter is any different than the former two?

We are in agreement. You just said the reasons you are declining by providing examples. We agree.

So why is it “disingenuous and passive aggressive” to say no to your wedding? Is it disingenuous and passive aggressive to decline your other invites that don’t suit me?

That's not what I wrote. "[People] making up disingenuous excuses" is what I wrote. It's not disingenuous and passive aggressive to decline an invitation to a child-free wedding. Commenters on these topics often will exaggerate the effort needed to attend a child-free wedding. If you can't attend for whatever reason or don't want to, that's fine.


So many people have latched on to that statement about disingenuous excuses. People are literally cancelling families over others choosing a child-free wedding. But yeah lets take me to task for criticizing people whom I believe are basing excuses on exaggerated circumstances.

NP. Ohhh noooo, did people “latch on” to words you wrote?

Yes. Several people are obsessing over it. I'm beginning to think it means there's more truth to it.

Keep backtracking and deflecting! You’re like a reality star who blames “the edit” for the audience not liking their words and behavior.

Anonymous wrote:My nephew asked my husband to officiate at his wedding, shortly after he became engaged (1.5 years before the wedding) and two months before the wedding told us our kids could not come because the venue insisted on 21 and over. Our kids were 17, 19, and 20 and we had spent every tg, Xmas, and July 4 and Labor Day with them since my kids were born. They were essentially adults; responsible and all in college.

It turned out that our nephew lied to us, and under 21 were allowed. It was just his and his fiancée’s decision. My kids and I did not attend the wedding and the relationship is permanently fractured. Our nephew texted my kids a few weeks after the wedding that he was “sorry about the way things worked out”, which to me, is a total lack of accepting responsibility. I have to assume that the kids and I just are not as important to them as I had thought and hoped.

His parents supported his decision to exclude our kids (in spite of asking my husband to officiate) and later did not blink when we told them their son was lying about the venue imposing the 21+ rule, although they claimed to be surprised. They told us “all of his friends’ weddings have been 21+.”

I think if a couple decides on a 21+ wedding, it is absolutely their prerogative but they should be honest with their invitees and accept the consequences. It’s pretty straightforward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, that’s not how babysitters work.
They don’t sit on call waiting for wedding invitations for their clients.

So someone with a babysitter for wedding A might very well not have a babysitter for wedding B.

It was an either/or proposition. If a babysitter is available for a weekend during which 2 events are held, the availability of the babysitter would not matter depending on the event you choose.

Anonymous wrote: And? Someone might like the bride and groom better for wedding A. Would you rather be told “I don’t want to spend $1000 on your wedding but I was really happy to spend $1000 on Sally?”. Is that “honesty” really what you want?

Why would you need to be dishonest about telling people you cannot afford to attend an adults-only wedding? "I cannot afford wedding A; the childcare costs are not in our budget. I can afford wedding B; it allows children thus no childcare expenses."

If someone criticizes you for genuinely not being able to afford something they are planning, they are in the wrong.

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,

The belief that your wedding is of similar importance to a state dinner is actually a really good summation of the problem of modern brides and grooms.

DP Maybe people do regard their wedding as similar importance to state dinners.

Why is that a problem "of modern brides and grooms"?
Why is that a problem at all?
It's not a problem for me. It's not my business.

That's just a question. It's also not a problem for me that other people like you find it problematic.

Because state dinners have certain restrictions and rules which are reasonable when dealing with heads of state and comically self-important when dealing with wedding. See: showing up hours early, confiscating cell phones, etc.

Once you’re already of the belief that your guests should be treated like the enemy, you get into beliefs like “declining because you don’t want to hire a babysitter is passive aggressive” instead of “I guess I’m not a $500 gift-tier friend”

I've been to many many "child free" weddings. None of the brides/grooms were -Zillas. they simply wanted a wedding without the interruptions of whiny, bratty kids, kids who would be bored with a 3-4 course dinner and the typical events of a wedding ceremony, and reception. If you cannot attend without your kids, then you simply RSVP No and send your regrets. None of them "question people why they cannot attend" Now, I have also attended some where the Bride/Groom have "no kids" but do offer to provide baby sitting services in a nearby hotel room/suite/ballroom. IMO, most of the kids who attend those are having way more fun than they would in the adult wedding and reception. But it is not on the B/G to provide babysitting services. You are the parent. If you really want to attend the wedding, you will find a way to manage your kids and attend. If you cannot, then you send your regrets. Just like you do with anything in life that your kids are not invited to.

Like seriously, do you take your kids with you to work, bring them into a Board meeting with the CEO/Execs/etc because they are sick or it's a day off work?
I highly doubt you do that. Then again, those of you who cannot separate from your kids for a short time period or pay a sitter, most likely are not in board meetings, but you likely have the equivalent in your work life.

Read just a post or two above you where normal wedding excuses are carefully dissected for “dishonesty” so they can be criticized.

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:

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.

Was the below you? It sure sounds very upset to me, and you even say you are upset. It is certainly not emotionally balanced, at least.

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.

You aren’t entitled to demand attendance from guests or know their reasons, no matter how much of a temper tantrum you throw.

Nowhere did I demand attendance. I was being critical of the reasons provided for declining.

I can understand why would would mistake that for an emotionally unbalanced temper tantrum since you didn't understand what you read.

I'm Pro---whatever type of wedding you want. But the bride (or anyone else) should not be discussing/being critical of the reasons provided for declining. There is not reason for the bride to expect or be given "an excuse" other than "so sorry, we won't be able to make it. Hope you have an amazing day! "

You can be critical of the reason if the reason is "Not enough PTO", and the invitee is unemployed. You can be critical of the reason if the reason is "No babysitter", and the invitee hires a babysitter to another wedding for that period of time. You can be critical of the nephew who was disingenuous about the 21+ venue requirement.

You don't need to be critical. But it is warranted to be critical of dishonesty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When did I say you did? I was simply having a laugh at the ridiculousness of everyone on here who has said thus and thus is acceptable and this or that is not. As if anyone owes anyone else an excuse, a reason, a justification that needs to be “accepted.” I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend. Oh well. I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand or like my decisions.

But as I said, there is clearly a market for this type of reply card. Money to be made, people!

You quoted me so I assumed you were implying as much.

But that's the thing. Nobody is saying the invitee owes anyone an excuse. At least nowhere near the extent we see the other side dictating what is and is not acceptable in terns of people planning their own wedding.

People are saying couples owe it to family, society, and 12 year olds with dreams of attending a wedding to invite children to weddings.

I’ve turned down invitations and I’ve learned that some people were upset I did not attend.

Then that is silly. Nobody should be telling you that you owe them attendance, or that you owe them a wedding with children invited.

That's not precisely what I was trying to say about five pages ago, fwiw. I think weddings used to be bonding experiences for young cousins when I was growing up. Losing that because people want nicer Instagram pictures to post, if that's really why this generation is doing it, is really to bad from my perspective. I have some great memories of those times. It's a shame to me that young people aren't valuing those experiences for kids to hang out together. If that's what you want, I can arrange for babysitting or not according to how much I value you in the family tbh. It does inform my opinion of you and makes me think maybe you're caught up more with appearances and more inclined to make the event all about you instead about the larger family. You're allowed to think me some sort of judgemental oldster, but I'm allowed to make that judgement of your selfishness etc, also.

Hey oldster, what was the average cost of those weddings back in the 70s/80s that you are referring to? Oh, that’s right, a fraction of what a wedding costs today. You sound as dim as the Boomers who go on and on about how they own a home (they bought for $85,000) and they just don’t understand why young people can’t afford a home these days, they’re probably poor because they buy Starbucks. Weddings are astronomically pricier these days, so no, not everyone and their kids can be invited.

Anonymous wrote:
No, that’s not how babysitters work.
They don’t sit on call waiting for wedding invitations for their clients.

So someone with a babysitter for wedding A might very well not have a babysitter for wedding B.

Anonymous wrote: And? Someone might like the bride and groom better for wedding A. Would you rather be told “I don’t want to spend $1000 on your wedding but I was really happy to spend $1000 on Sally?”. Is that “honesty” really what you want?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn’t that…any event anyone ever declines?

I’m declining your MLM party because it doesn’t accommodate my special wish not to be sold Mary Kay products.

I’m declining your happy hour because it doesn’t accommodate my special wish not to be around your odious boyfriend.

And I’m declining your wedding because it doesn’t accommodate my wish not to spend an extra $200 on you.

I don’t see why the latter is any different than the former two?

We are in agreement. You just said the reasons you are declining by providing examples. We agree.

So why is it “disingenuous and passive aggressive” to say no to your wedding? Is it disingenuous and passive aggressive to decline your other invites that don’t suit me?

That's not what I wrote. "[People] making up disingenuous excuses" is what I wrote. It's not disingenuous and passive aggressive to decline an invitation to a child-free wedding. Commenters on these topics often will exaggerate the effort needed to attend a child-free wedding. If you can't attend for whatever reason or don't want to, that's fine.


So many people have latched on to that statement about disingenuous excuses. People are literally cancelling families over others choosing a child-free wedding. But yeah let’s take me to task for criticizing people whom I believe are basing excuses on exaggerated circumstances.

You STILL don’t get it. The expense and inconvenience to find a babysitter for a child-free wedding is considerable, and also stressful for a mom if the kids are little and she works full time. It’s not an exaggeration if someone says they are skipping your wedding because it is childfree and you don’t want to incur the expense/stress of it. It’s a statement that given the bride has made clear how she values your family, you accordingly are willing to expend less on her wedding. It’s a cost-benefit analysis and the fact that you exclude her kids greatly lessens the benefits.

Anonymous wrote:My nephew asked my husband to officiate at his wedding, shortly after he became engaged (1.5 years before the wedding) and two months before the wedding told us our kids could not come because the venue insisted on 21 and over. Our kids were 17, 19, and 20 and we had spent every tg, Xmas, and July 4 and Labor Day with them since my kids were born. They were essentially adults; responsible and all in college.

It turned out that our nephew lied to us, and under 21 were allowed. It was just his and his fiancée’s decision. My kids and I did not attend the wedding and the relationship is permanently fractured. Our nephew texted my kids a few weeks after the wedding that he was “sorry about the way things worked out”, which to me, is a total lack of accepting responsibility. I have to assume that the kids and I just are not as important to them as I had thought and hoped.

His parents supported his decision to exclude our kids (in spite of asking my husband to officiate) and later did not blink when we told them their son was lying about the venue imposing the 21+ rule, although they claimed to be surprised. They told us “all of his friends’ weddings have been 21+.”

I think if a couple decides on a 21+ wedding, it is absolutely their prerogative but they should be honest with their invitees and accept the consequences. It’s pretty straightforward.

Anonymous wrote:I did feel bad for some of my friends who got married later in the groups when our peers already had kids— the Caribbean bachelorette parties and child free (or very child-limited) weddings their friends got just weren’t possible if they wanted everyone to show up.

Most of them adapted with the times— hired a local babysitter and chose a venue that would serve kids some pizzas. Total cost for kids probably $350, all the friend groups came and partied all night.

And a couple sulked. Tons of social media about how many thousands they’re spent on weddings and bachelorette’s for their “friends” and how “real” friends made each other a priority and etc. but all the social media in the world didn’t get them the weddings they wanted. Somehow when it was time for baby shower they were surprised no one was lining up to host…

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,

The belief that your wedding is of similar importance to a state dinner is actually a really good summation of the problem of modern brides and grooms.

DP Maybe people do regard their wedding as similar importance to state dinners.

Why is that a problem "of modern brides and grooms"?
Why is that a problem at all?
It's not a problem for me. It's not my business.

That's just a question. It's also not a problem for me that other people like you find it problematic.

Because state dinners have certain restrictions and rules which are reasonable when dealing with heads of state and comically self-important when dealing with wedding. See: showing up hours early, confiscating cell phones, etc.

Once you’re already of the belief that your guests should be treated like the enemy, you get into beliefs like “declining because you don’t want to hire a babysitter is passive aggressive” instead of “I guess I’m not a $500 gift-tier friend”

I've been to many many "child free" weddings. None of the brides/grooms were -Zillas. they simply wanted a wedding without the interruptions of whiny, bratty kids, kids who would be bored with a 3-4 course dinner and the typical events of a wedding ceremony, and reception. If you cannot attend without your kids, then you simply RSVP No and send your regrets. None of them "question people why they cannot attend" Now, I have also attended some where the Bride/Groom have "no kids" but do offer to provide baby sitting services in a nearby hotel room/suite/ballroom. IMO, most of the kids who attend those are having way more fun than they would in the adult wedding and reception. But it is not on the B/G to provide babysitting services. You are the parent. If you really want to attend the wedding, you will find a way to manage your kids and attend. If you cannot, then you send your regrets. Just like you do with anything in life that your kids are not invited to.

Like seriously, do you take your kids with you to work, bring them into a Board meeting with the CEO/Execs/etc because they are sick or it's a day off work?
I highly doubt you do that. Then again, those of you who cannot separate from your kids for a short time period or pay a sitter, most likely are not in board meetings, but you likely have the equivalent in your work life.

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,

The belief that your wedding is of similar importance to a state dinner is actually a really good summation of the problem of modern brides and grooms.

DP Maybe people do regard their wedding as similar importance to state dinners.

Why is that a problem "of modern brides and grooms"?
Why is that a problem at all?
It's not a problem for me. It's not my business.

That's just a question. It's also not a problem for me that other people like you find it problematic.

Because state dinners have certain restrictions and rules which are reasonable when dealing with heads of state and comically self-important when dealing with wedding. See: showing up hours early, confiscating cell phones, etc.

Once you’re already of the belief that your guests should be treated like the enemy, you get into beliefs like “declining because you don’t want to hire a babysitter is passive aggressive” instead of “I guess I’m not a $500 gift-tier friend”