Totally legit question, other posts have me curious....

mrs4everhart

I totally get why hosting one's own shower is considered rude, as it's an event solely dedicated to gift giving. But why is it rude to throw one's own bachelorette for example? Another post got me wondering, not asking for personal party throwing reasons. People host their own weddings, which seems far more dramatic than a group of girlfriends going out to dinner and drinking (or whatever's on the agenda). 

WinstonsGirl

I think a lot of people still see it as AWish.  It's a big look at me party, and they often involve dinner, drinks and other things out where it's expected that the Bride doesn't pay.  In my circles, it's not considered rude, but I can see how others could see it as such.

And remember, the reception, which is the expensive part is a thank you to your guests for coming to the wedding, so really you're hosting and throwing a party for them

CMGragain

Bachelorette parties are a relatively new idea.  They didn't exist when I was a bride in 1976.  DH didn't have a bachelor party.  He wasn't interested.  Doesn't drink and thinks the girls on "The Block" (Baltimore) are depressing.
The rule is that you do not throw a party in honor of yourself.
It is fine to host your own wedding, but when you write the invitation, you write it in the indirect form, so that you are not obviously taking the credit for it.  "The pleasure of your company is requested...", not "Bride and Groom invite you to their wedding",

KittyKaty20

In my neck of the woods, presents are usually given. At the very least, the bride doesn't pay for drinks/eats/club admissions.

And it IS a party that typically wouldn't occur if there was no impending wedding...otherwise, it's not a Bachelorette Party, it's Saturday night with the girls.

mrs4everhart

@WinstonsGirl, I can see where the paying for the bride part could raise hackles in the self-hosted bachelorette scenario for sure. There just doesn't seem to be any great cut and dry "rules" where these things are concerned. So it always makes me genuinely curious when discussions of non-gift giving parties are brought up. 

mrs4everhart

@KittyKat20 - your circle regards bachelorette parties as gift giving events? Can I ask what type of gifts are given? Housewares? Monetary?  I'd probably give a VS gift card if it crossed my mind to give a gift at a bachelorette party for lack of better direction!

KittyKaty20

It's usually lingerie or liquor. It doesn't always happen, but more often than not, gifts have been given if the event starts at a home, restaurant, or hotel. I should note that this was more common at bachelorette parties for people in their 20s.

But my MOH asked for my sizes, and I gave them, but I still don't expect anything beyond a trip to Buffalo Wild Wings. Because BWW is amazing.

Blue_Bird

CMGragain is correct. You don't host a party in honor of yourself. A wedding is not a party. It is a serious occasion where couples exchange wedding vows. The reception (the part couples, or sometimes parents, host) is the thank you to your guests who witnessed the wedding ceremony. It isn't a party for you.

Ven&Radio

It's tacky to host a party for yourself where the people you invite may feel obligated to bring gifts or pay your share of the bill. However, if you wanted to invite your friends out for like a "girls night" (everyone pays their own share, no gifts), I don't see why that would be an issue.

AddieCake

Because it says, "Hey, everybody come celebrate me! Come congratulate me! We're gonna get together and celebrate me!"

AddieCake

I got lingerie at my bachelorette party.

TheGrimReaper

Yeah we do gifts for bachelorettes, too.  Lingerie, alcohol, makeup, etc.

climbingsingle

It's tacky to host a party in your honor. 

Almost every bachelorette party I've attended included gifts (lingerie, booze). 

jenniferurs

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest.

If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

antoto

I totally agree with PPs, but then I also remember that people totally throw their own birthday parties.  Interesting point, OP.

I would never have thrown my own bach, but that's mostly because I was busy planning a wedding and just didn't have any darn time to plan anything else! Haha  It also just wasn't THAT important to me.  My MOHs decided to throw me one and it was such a great time, but if they had decided not to I'm not sure I would have missed it.

MrsAitch

WinstonsGirl said:

I think a lot of people still see it as AWish.  It's a big look at me party, and they often involve dinner, drinks and other things out where it's expected that the Bride doesn't pay.  In my circles, it's not considered rude, but I can see how others could see it as such.

And remember, the reception, which is the expensive part is a thank you to your guests for coming to the wedding, so really you're hosting and throwing a party for them

I am dying to know what does AW or AWish mean?

cowgirl8238

@MrsAitch AW mean Attention Whore.

NYCBruin

antoto said:

I totally agree with PPs, but then I also remember that people totally throw their own birthday parties.  Interesting point, OP.

I would never have thrown my own bach, but that's mostly because I was busy planning a wedding and just didn't have any darn time to plan anything else! Haha  It also just wasn't THAT important to me.  My MOHs decided to throw me one and it was such a great time, but if they had decided not to I'm not sure I would have missed it.

A lot of people consider it in bad form to throw your own birthday party as well.  You should really never throw a party in honor of yourself.

mrs4everhart

jenniferurs said:

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest. If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

I agree with this. In my mind, a wedding reception has always been an after-party, period. I was raised to throw a well-hosted party, so I guess that's why it's never really occurred to me to differentiate who, exactly, the reception is honoring. I'm ok with people looking at wedding receptions from the POV of a thank you for their guests if that means they will host the party properly. But if we're going to pretend said party is solely for the sake of thanking wedding attendees, by all means, let's gaff the spotlight dances, speeches regaling the B&G, so on and so forth, because that doesn't really make me feel thanked. Oh right, it's a little bit of both in truth! 

As far as the bachelorette party thing goes, thank you to all who weighed in. I don't remember having a bachelorette party for my first wedding. I think I went out to dinner with my BP but it was super informal, no gifts, etc. The attention whore idea really doesn't occur to me, it's just not something I focus on. I guess that's why I don't care if people throw their own bday or engagement parties. But yea, I can totally see where people could get miffed about someone throwing a party in their own honor then expecting to have their dinner/drinks/whatever paid for by others. What bugs me about so much of these types of things is that what can be perceived as rude so often boils down to money. But then talking about money is rude. It's circular logic at its finest! Like wedding gifts: they're not mandatory, but everyone knows most people will give one, but if you don't want any gifts you still can't say so, because you can't mention gifts, because that would be rude, but you can register for gifts in case someone wants to give you a gift, but you can't announce where you're registered..... It's maddening!   

AddieCake

jenniferurs said:

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest. If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

Because it is still PART of the wedding. The wedding extends into the reception and has those elements, but the BULK of the reception is about your guests. Doing a couple dances and cutting some cake barely takes any time at all. The majority of the reception involves taking care of your guests, not showcasing yourself.

Liatris2010

Typically the dance floor is "opened" by the hosts dancing, so the bride dances with her father or the bride and groom dance together, and now the dance floor is open and everyone can join in. I think too many spotlight dances are AWish, even at a wedding.

KittyKaty20

AddieL73 said:

I got lingerie at my bachelorette party.

Why didn't they give you cake?!!

KittyKaty20

Blue_Bird said:

CMGragain is correct. You don't host a party in honor of yourself. A wedding is not a party. It is a serious occasion where couples exchange wedding vows. The reception (the part couples, or sometimes parents, host) is the thank you to your guests who witnessed the wedding ceremony. It isn't a party for you.

jenniferurs said:

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest. If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

The reception IS a party to honor the Bride & Groom.

Historically, the wedding/reception was hosted by the B&G's families or communities. It is a more recent occurrence that the couple is paying for their own wedding/reception.

So, this is kind of one hold-out for tradition. Although, if a couple decides to get married in a smaller/more intimate setting without a ton of guests present, a reception with all of the "look at us, we're amazing" hoopla is RIGHTLY considered unacceptable. 

AroundTheBlock

jenniferurs said:

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest. If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

You are thinking very logically here and making some pertinent honest observations.

There has been a tendency on this board to argue that throwing a party is attention-whoring. That has diminished over the last few years, to the point where most posters will agree that it is "okay" to throw a "just-because" party, as long as you throw it at a time and place and in such a way that it doesn't seem like a wedding-related party to them. I think we need a little more funtional description about what is okay when, and a little less subjectivity.

The bottom line is, that giving a party is called "giving" because it is a generous thing to do: as hostess you are taking on the responsibility (and the effort and expense) of sheltering, feeding, and entertaining your guests. Hospitality is nearly universally considered a virtue. Etiquette does require of mature members of society that they take part in the give-and-take of entertaining one another; and it does NOT require that you discontinue participation in that exchange for the umpteen months in between your engagement announcement and your wedding reception. Feeding and entertaining people is a nice thing to do.

On the other hand, inviting people over to be an audience to your amateur grandstanding and to proffer tribute, under the pretence of their being your guests, is everything that hospitality is not. But here is where many wedding receptions go off the etiquette rails. Because weddings were traditionally held by the bride's kinswomen, with the bride and groom as guests of honour, many traditions that people think of as "wedding etiquette" are actually acceptable guest-of-honour behaviour and really quite unacceptable in a host and hostess.

In fact, the very sins that most posters decry when taking place at a "Pretty Princess Day" are equally bad form when committed by the hosts at a wedding reception or any other party: boring your guests with a long display of ceremonial that has no actual legal or social or spiritual force, dressing in such a way as to show up all your guests and make clear their subordinate status, being absent and not greeting your guests as they arrive so that you can make a "Grand Entrance" or leaving before you have bid each guest goodnight, restricting your guests to the edges of the dance floor while you monopolize it with numerous amateur "spotlight dances", inflicting long tedious toasts on your yawning guests. Hosts can offer these options to their guests of honour with (relative) impunity but to claim these things for themselves takes a lot of chutzpa.

The mitigating factor of course, is that guests actually want to witness some of these "traditions". That puts you on the horns of Samuel Well's dilemma: "You may be right and the others wrong but that does not alter the case. Convince them, if you can, and bring them to your pitch, but never disrupt even a low accord." As hostess, you have to use your judgement and walk the precipice between making as many of your guests as possible happy, and tumbling over the edge into self-indulgence.

MGP

I am NEVER laid back about things like this, but think there are so many other gross misconducts in the etiquette spectrum than someone initiating plans for their own birthday. I have received many "hey guys please come celebrate my birthday at X restaurant on Y date at Z time" and never batted an eye. In fact, I have done that for my own birthday (with a very small number of close knit friends). If that makes me an AW I will accept that. . Not exactly sure why I feel differently, possibly because everyone has a birthday and not everyone has the opportunity to be a bride/graduate/mother to be/situation to make them a guest of honor. Now if someone sent invites, made a registry, expected others to pick up their tab, and had a general "come celebrate meeeeeee" attitude for their own birthday I would give some major side eye.

NYCBruin

MGP said:

I am NEVER laid back about things like this, but think there are so many other gross misconducts in the etiquette spectrum than someone initiating plans for their own birthday. I have received many "hey guys please come celebrate my birthday at X restaurant on Y date at Z time" and never batted an eye. In fact, I have done that for my own birthday (with a very small number of close knit friends). If that makes me an AW I will accept that. . Not exactly sure why I feel differently, possibly because everyone has a birthday and not everyone has the opportunity to be a bride/graduate/mother to be/situation to make them a guest of honor. Now if someone sent invites, made a registry, expected others to pick up their tab, and had a general "come celebrate meeeeeee" attitude for their own birthday I would give some major side eye.

When I refer to a birthday party, I mean an actual formal party not a casual "hey I'm going here for dinner/drinks for my birthday if you want to join."

PrettyGirlLost

AroundTheBlock said:

jenniferurs said:

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest. If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

You are thinking very logically here and making some pertinent honest observations.

There has been a tendency on this board to argue that throwing a party is attention-whoring. That has diminished over the last few years, to the point where most posters will agree that it is "okay" to throw a "just-because" party, as long as you throw it at a time and place and in such a way that it doesn't seem like a wedding-related party to them. I think we need a little more funtional description about what is okay when, and a little less subjectivity.

The bottom line is, that giving a party is called "giving" because it is a generous thing to do: as hostess you are taking on the responsibility (and the effort and expense) of sheltering, feeding, and entertaining your guests. Hospitality is nearly universally considered a virtue. Etiquette does require of mature members of society that they take part in the give-and-take of entertaining one another; and it does NOT require that you discontinue participation in that exchange for the umpteen months in between your engagement announcement and your wedding reception. Feeding and entertaining people is a nice thing to do.

On the other hand, inviting people over to be an audience to your amateur grandstanding and to proffer tribute, under the pretence of their being your guests, is everything that hospitality is not. But here is where many wedding receptions go off the etiquette rails. Because weddings were traditionally held by the bride's kinswomen, with the bride and groom as guests of honour, many traditions that people think of as "wedding etiquette" are actually acceptable guest-of-honour behaviour and really quite unacceptable in a host and hostess.

In fact, the very sins that most posters decry when taking place at a "Pretty Princess Day" are equally bad form when committed by the hosts at a wedding reception or any other party: boring your guests with a long display of ceremonial that has no actual legal or social or spiritual force, dressing in such a way as to show up all your guests and make clear their subordinate status, being absent and not greeting your guests as they arrive so that you can make a "Grand Entrance" or leaving before you have bid each guest goodnight, restricting your guests to the edges of the dance floor while you monopolize it with numerous amateur "spotlight dances", inflicting long tedious toasts on your yawning guests. Hosts can offer these options to their guests of honour with (relative) impunity but to claim these things for themselves takes a lot of chutzpa.

The mitigating factor of course, is that guests actually want to witness some of these "traditions". That puts you on the horns of Samuel Well's dilemma: "You may be right and the others wrong but that does not alter the case. Convince them, if you can, and bring them to your pitch, but never disrupt even a low accord." As hostess, you have to use your judgement and walk the precipice between making as many of your guests as possible happy, and tumbling over the edge into self-indulgence.

So now it's rude to pay for your own damn wedding and reception?! Huh?

And if you pay for your own reception you can't wear a wedding gown since that would show up your guests, you can't have a spotlight dance or two, can't cut the cake, no one can offer and give a toast in your honor, etc?

mrs4everhart

PrettyGirlLost said:

AroundTheBlock said:

jenniferurs said:

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest. If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

You are thinking very logically here and making some pertinent honest observations.

There has been a tendency on this board to argue that throwing a party is attention-whoring. That has diminished over the last few years, to the point where most posters will agree that it is "okay" to throw a "just-because" party, as long as you throw it at a time and place and in such a way that it doesn't seem like a wedding-related party to them. I think we need a little more funtional description about what is okay when, and a little less subjectivity.

The bottom line is, that giving a party is called "giving" because it is a generous thing to do: as hostess you are taking on the responsibility (and the effort and expense) of sheltering, feeding, and entertaining your guests. Hospitality is nearly universally considered a virtue. Etiquette does require of mature members of society that they take part in the give-and-take of entertaining one another; and it does NOT require that you discontinue participation in that exchange for the umpteen months in between your engagement announcement and your wedding reception. Feeding and entertaining people is a nice thing to do.

On the other hand, inviting people over to be an audience to your amateur grandstanding and to proffer tribute, under the pretence of their being your guests, is everything that hospitality is not. But here is where many wedding receptions go off the etiquette rails. Because weddings were traditionally held by the bride's kinswomen, with the bride and groom as guests of honour, many traditions that people think of as "wedding etiquette" are actually acceptable guest-of-honour behaviour and really quite unacceptable in a host and hostess.

In fact, the very sins that most posters decry when taking place at a "Pretty Princess Day" are equally bad form when committed by the hosts at a wedding reception or any other party: boring your guests with a long display of ceremonial that has no actual legal or social or spiritual force, dressing in such a way as to show up all your guests and make clear their subordinate status, being absent and not greeting your guests as they arrive so that you can make a "Grand Entrance" or leaving before you have bid each guest goodnight, restricting your guests to the edges of the dance floor while you monopolize it with numerous amateur "spotlight dances", inflicting long tedious toasts on your yawning guests. Hosts can offer these options to their guests of honour with (relative) impunity but to claim these things for themselves takes a lot of chutzpa.

The mitigating factor of course, is that guests actually want to witness some of these "traditions". That puts you on the horns of Samuel Well's dilemma: "You may be right and the others wrong but that does not alter the case. Convince them, if you can, and bring them to your pitch, but never disrupt even a low accord." As hostess, you have to use your judgement and walk the precipice between making as many of your guests as possible happy, and tumbling over the edge into self-indulgence.

So now it's rude to pay for your own damn wedding and reception?! Huh?

And if you pay for your own reception you can't wear a wedding gown since that would show up your guests, you can't have a spotlight dance or two, can't cut the cake, no one can offer and give a toast in your honor, etc?

I don't think she meant it is rude to pay for one's own wedding. What I take the above to mean is that whoever hosts the reception really should dictate the possible behaviors of the B&G. @AroundTheBlock please correct me if my paraphrasing is incorrect.

If the B&G are paying they become the hosts. Hosting a party, assumably to thank guests for attending an earlier wedding ceremony, then means the party attendees are the guests of honor, not the B&G. Spotlighting the hosts, instead of the guests, could be seen as rude. In the same way that throwing any other party in one's own honor could be seen as rude. If the reception is truly a thank you party being hosted by the B&G for the guests, how is drawing attention to the newly married couple a benefit to the guests or a display of being thanked? 

If the reception is hosted by someone else (let's just say the Bride's parents to keep things easy) the B&G can then be viewed as the honored guests and it is then alright to honor them by serving them first, cutting the cake, so on and so forth. As long as things don't get out of hand and gratuitous, that's just awkward no matter what.

In this day in age it is very common for the B&G to pay for their wedding themselves and still want the trappings of what they see as important traditions (cake cutting, special dances, etc.). It sounds advisable using the logic above that they (a) keep it to a dull roar to avoid being ostentatious and (b) perhaps keep in mind that as times have changed (and who hosts has increasingly included the B&G) etiquette has relaxed to allow more leeway on spotlight activities, but that it shouldn't be completely ignored that the relaxing has indeed occurred.  

Edited because typing is not my forte this evening.

PrettyGirlLost

STBMrsEverhart said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

AroundTheBlock said:

jenniferurs said:

I still find the concept that the reception is thrown in honor of the guests, and not the bride and groom, to be a little dishonest.

If it's not in honor of the bride and groom, why is there a first dance or parent dances or toasts or cake cutting or blah blah blah? I don't frequently go to someone else's birthday party and make everyone stand around and watch me dance with my SO/father, nor do I have people give toasts about me. I don't know, it just seems pretty obvious to me that the reception is still a party to honor the bride and groom and that the "for the guests" argument is a convenient distinction that doesn't really make much sense.

You are thinking very logically here and making some pertinent honest observations.

There has been a tendency on this board to argue that throwing a party is attention-whoring. That has diminished over the last few years, to the point where most posters will agree that it is "okay" to throw a "just-because" party, as long as you throw it at a time and place and in such a way that it doesn't seem like a wedding-related party to them. I think we need a little more funtional description about what is okay when, and a little less subjectivity.

The bottom line is, that giving a party is called "giving" because it is a generous thing to do: as hostess you are taking on the responsibility (and the effort and expense) of sheltering, feeding, and entertaining your guests. Hospitality is nearly universally considered a virtue. Etiquette does require of mature members of society that they take part in the give-and-take of entertaining one another; and it does NOT require that you discontinue participation in that exchange for the umpteen months in between your engagement announcement and your wedding reception. Feeding and entertaining people is a nice thing to do.

On the other hand, inviting people over to be an audience to your amateur grandstanding and to proffer tribute, under the pretence of their being your guests, is everything that hospitality is not. But here is where many wedding receptions go off the etiquette rails. Because weddings were traditionally held by the bride's kinswomen, with the bride and groom as guests of honour, many traditions that people think of as "wedding etiquette" are actually acceptable guest-of-honour behaviour and really quite unacceptable in a host and hostess.

In fact, the very sins that most posters decry when taking place at a "Pretty Princess Day" are equally bad form when committed by the hosts at a wedding reception or any other party: boring your guests with a long display of ceremonial that has no actual legal or social or spiritual force, dressing in such a way as to show up all your guests and make clear their subordinate status, being absent and not greeting your guests as they arrive so that you can make a "Grand Entrance" or leaving before you have bid each guest goodnight, restricting your guests to the edges of the dance floor while you monopolize it with numerous amateur "spotlight dances", inflicting long tedious toasts on your yawning guests. Hosts can offer these options to their guests of honour with (relative) impunity but to claim these things for themselves takes a lot of chutzpa.

The mitigating factor of course, is that guests actually want to witness some of these "traditions". That puts you on the horns of Samuel Well's dilemma: "You may be right and the others wrong but that does not alter the case.
Convince them, if you can, and bring them to your pitch, but never disrupt even a low accord." As hostess, you have to use your judgement and walk the precipice between making as many of your guests as possible happy, and tumbling over the edge into self-indulgence.

So now it's rude to pay for your own damn wedding and reception?! Huh?

And if you pay for your own reception you can't wear a wedding gown since that would show up your guests, you can't have a spotlight dance or two, can't cut the cake, no one can offer and give a toast in your honor, etc?





I don't think she meant it is rude to pay for one's own wedding. What I take the above to mean is that whoever hosts the reception really should dictate the possible behaviors of the B&G. @AroundTheBlock please correct me if my paraphrasing is incorrect.

If the B&G are paying they become the hosts. Hosting a party, assumably to thank guests for attending an earlier wedding ceremony, then means the party attendees are the guests of honor, not the B&G. Spotlighting the hosts, instead of the guests, could be seen as rude. In the same way that throwing any other party in one's own honor could be seen as rude. If the reception is truly a thank you party being hosted by the B&G for the guests, how is drawing attention to the newly married couple a benefit to the guests or a display of being thanked? 

If the reception is hosted by someone else (let's just say the Bride's parents to keep things easy) the B&G can then be viewed as the honored guests and it is then alright to honor them by serving them first, cutting the cake, so on and so forth. As long as things don't get out of hand and gratuitous, that's just awkward no matter what.

In this day in age it is very common for the B&G to pay for their wedding themselves and still want the trappings of what they see as important traditions (cake cutting, special dances, etc.). It sounds advisable using the logic above that they (a) keep it to a dull roar to avoid being ostentatious and (b) perhaps keep in mind that as times have changed (and who hosts has increasingly included the B&G) etiquette has relaxed to allow more leeway on spotlight activities, but that it shouldn't be completely ignored that the relaxing has indeed occurred.  

Edited because typing is not my forte this evening.

There is one cake cutting event and 3 spotlight dances. . . And in my experience the father daughter and mother-son dances are often combined. But all 3 dances are usually pretty short. The cake cutting and dances take up maybe 10 minutes total out of a 4-6 hour reception, and wedding guests know these things are going to happen.

I don't see how any of that can be considered ostentatious.

I think this is a case of changing times. . . It's 2014 not 1814, and more and more couples are paying for their own weddings so they are going to be both the guests of honor and the hosts.

AroundTheBlock

PrettyGirlLost should have said: It's 2014 not 1814, and more and more couples are hosting their own weddings so those who understand hospitality and good manners are going to be the hosts instead of being the guests of honor.

You cannot be your own "guest", and certainly not your own "guest of honour". And who pays is not something that should be made public.

Amyzen83

AroundTheBlock said:

PrettyGirlLost should have said: It's 2014 not 1814, and more and more couples are hosting their own weddings so those who understand hospitality and good manners are going to be the hosts instead of being the guests of honor.

You cannot be your own "guest", and certainly not your own "guest of honour". And who pays is not something that should be made public.

I agree that who pays shouldn't be public knowledge but that's why most wedding invites have something along the lines of join the families of so and so and so and so ... It's to indicate that bride and groom are in fact guests of honor but who pays doesn't matter at this point. Just sayin'