How do I tell people that they don't get a plus one?

jenna8984

True!! I haven't seen that movie since it came out 15 years ago so I don't really remember it! 

lightningsnow

jenna8984 said:

True!! I haven't seen that movie since it came out 15 years ago so I don't really remember it! 

Lol, my BF got me obsessed with it so I watched it as many times as I could. I just told him the other day we needed to watch it again.

But yes, swears are what you can expect in a normal MA/NE conversation.

chibiyui

lightningsnow

chibiyui said:

You are my new best friend!!!

huskypuppy14

I missed all the Boston talk because I was at the Red Sox game today!

As someone from Connecticut, I do not have an accent. My FI grew up in metro west and he does not have an accent, though his mother does. People from Southie, Dorchester and some surrounding towns have accents, not everyone who grew up in Boston. 

Also, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are from Cambridge and they are acting when they portray those characters with the thick Boston accents in their movies. Their normal speaking is never that thick. 

hannahj0

I was invited to a wedding last summer and my fiancé was not. I was not offended in the least. The bride had never met my SO and I knew I would be there with all of my college girlfriends and would have a good time whether he was there or not. With that said, a few other girls were a little shocked their long time boyfriends weren't invited. I made sure to invite people with their SO who I knew was in a relationship. Anyone who was single at the time of me planning my guest list, received a STD and invitation without a guest/+1. I'm sure OP at least thought of her guest list as she was looking for venues. People can't be expected to completely change their plans and budget for someone's new relationship. If aunts and uncles had boyfriends/girlfriends from the get go, then yes I agree, they should be invited ..but if planning process is well on its way and now they are in a new relationship, you just have to tell them there is budget in place and a max # of people allowed at venue.

EverAfer

Took forever to read through 18 pages, but I must add I love Mt. Monadnock, it used to be less than an hour drive for me. Made it easy to visit every season and you can 360° views.

phira

@laurynm84 Ahhh!! Two of my friends were there too! I hear it was a lot of fun (9th inning non-withstanding).

I do not have a Boston accent. My parents are both originally from the DMV area and grew up in Metrowest, so they're pretty accentless. I missed a lot of New England vocabulary (we'd go to McDonald's and Burger King, where a drink made of ice cream is called a milkshake nationally), but somehow, I ended up with one ridiculously New Englandly accented word. I pronounce the word "room" weirdly (same with broom, but it's not as noticeable). I don't draw out the oooooo sound, so it's more like "ruhm" or like I took the vowels out entirely but still drew out the word (r--m).

My partner is from Boston, and both of his parents are from Boston (West Roxbury). He had a Boston accent as a kid, and his parents have very strong accents. He doesn't have an accent anymore, although when he gets a little drunk, it pops back out.

Also: REVERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAIa4CXBhG8

perdonami

Well, this is a very active thread! I hope we are encouraging and offering supportive advice to the OP and any other future bride who may have the same question. 

Viczaesar

perdonami said:

Well, this is a very active thread! I hope we are encouraging and offering supportive advice to the OP and any other future bride who may have the same question. 

happywiggle

laurynm84 said: I missed all the Boston talk because I was at the Red Sox game today!
As someone Connecticut, I do not have an accent. My FI grew up in metro west and he does not have an accent, though his mother does. People from Southie, Dorchester and some surrounding towns have accents, not everyone who grew up in Boston. 
Also, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are from Cambridge and they are acting when they portray those characters with the thick Boston accents in their movies. Their normal speaking is never that thick. 
=---------------EDIT FUCKING QUOTE BOX--------------------
So, you're one the ones who made me have fun on my commute home from work because they were late to the game (I work either 5:30-2p or 6a-2:30p)... jkjkjk

happywiggle

Aw man, no one likes my driver's comment *pretends to pout* 

Quotes aren't working for me today, apparently, and I'm too lazy to go back... to whomever said they went to speech for not pronouncing r's, I had to go to speech class for a few years because I couldn't pronounce "sk" at the end of the word (like ask; it always came out as axe). To this day, I still can't say a double t in the middle of a word; button always comes out as buddin. 

My future kids will be going to speech class if they ever get a lazy tongue

crunchymamaof2

grumbledore said:

JellyBean52513 said:

I'm from NY and get poked fun at all the time at work for my hard, upstate-NY 'a'. Also, I hate the Boston accent. No respect for the letter 'r'. Andplusalso, those things are called roundabouts, and that sugary crap is called pop. 

It's a rotary dammit.

YES! But at least those in jersey seem to know their shapes.....

crunchymamaof2

hannahj0 said:

I was invited to a wedding last summer and my fiancé was not. I was not offended in the least. The bride had never met my SO and I knew I would be there with all of my college girlfriends and would have a good time whether he was there or not. With that said, a few other girls were a little shocked their long time boyfriends weren't invited. I made sure to invite people with their SO who I knew was in a relationship. Anyone who was single at the time of me planning my guest list, received a STD and invitation without a guest/+1. I'm sure OP at least thought of her guest list as she was looking for venues. People can't be expected to completely change their plans and budget for someone's new relationship. If aunts and uncles had boyfriends/girlfriends from the get go, then yes I agree, they should be invited ..but if planning process is well on its way and now they are in a new relationship, you just have to tell them there is budget in place and a max # of people allowed at venue.

I think the original discussion ended a few pages ago. Just sayin'.

grumbledore

acove2006 said:

grumbledore said:

JellyBean52513 said:

I'm from NY and get poked fun at all the time at work for my hard, upstate-NY 'a'. Also, I hate the Boston accent. No respect for the letter 'r'. Andplusalso, those things are called roundabouts, and that sugary crap is called pop. 

It's a rotary dammit.

YES! But at least those in jersey seem to know their shapes.....

True, could be worse.

Pandemonia

So if a rotary is a roundabout, what do you peeps call the thing in the back garden that you hang your washing out on? Only that's a rotary. 

crunchymamaof2

Pandemonia said:

So if a rotary is a roundabout, what do you peeps call the thing in the back garden that you hang your washing out on? Only that's a rotary. 

A clothesline?

JellyBean52513

Cookie Pusher said:

JellyBean52513 said:

I'm from NY and get poked fun at all the time at work for my hard, upstate-NY 'a'. Also, I hate the Boston accent. No respect for the letter 'r'. Andplusalso, those things are called roundabouts, and that sugary crap is called pop. 

Nope. In Jersey, those are circles and soda. And FFS, why can't anyone with out-of-state plates negotiate a circle around here if you all have them?!

ETA: I've lived in northern NJ for most of my life, and I apparently have a very generic, mid-western sounding accent. At least that's what people tell me when I'm making collections calls. lol

Nobody in MA with an MA plate can navigate them either.

@jenna8984 I don't do the Canadian thing, I'm not that far upstate lol and ok everyone, I concede on pop! That really is just a west-of-Syracuse thing. But I still hold onto it lol

jenna8984

acove2006 said:

Pandemonia said:

So if a rotary is a roundabout, what do you peeps call the thing in the back garden that you hang your washing out on? Only that's a rotary. 

A clothesline?

Yea I haven't seen one of these since my grandparent's house and it was just a clothesline lol 

happywiggle

Pandemonia said:

So if a rotary is a roundabout, what do you peeps call the thing in the back garden that you hang your washing out on? Only that's a rotary. 

It's a clothesline. Always has been, always will

APDSS22

hannahj0 said:

I was invited to a wedding last summer and my fiancé was not. I was not offended in the least. The bride had never met my SO and I knew I would be there with all of my college girlfriends and would have a good time whether he was there or not. With that said, a few other girls were a little shocked their long time boyfriends weren't invited. I made sure to invite people with their SO who I knew was in a relationship. Anyone who was single at the time of me planning my guest list, received a STD and invitation without a guest/+1. I'm sure OP at least thought of her guest list as she was looking for venues. People can't be expected to completely change their plans and budget for someone's new relationship. If aunts and uncles had boyfriends/girlfriends from the get go, then yes I agree, they should be invited ..but if planning process is well on its way and now they are in a new relationship, you just have to tell them there is budget in place and a max # of people allowed at venue.

I was engaged for 2 1/2 years.  So, by your logic, anyone who got in a relationship in that time didn't really count!  *rolls eyes*  You can't have a "firm number" on your guest list when you start planning.  That would be ridiculous.  You don't have a firm number when you send out STDs.  (You must invite everyone you sent an STD to, but you shouldn't send an STD to your whole guest list in case of fluctuation.  STDs are meant to be sent to people who will need advanced notice because of travel arrangements and your closest friends and family as a keepsake.)  The more people lock themselves in at the beginning of planning, the more trouble they have later on in the planning because all sorts of things can change in a year.  People meet and get married inside of a year.  Would you not invite someone's husband to your wedding because they weren't dating when you started planning?  Why would a gf/bf/domestic partner/fiance/fiancee be any different?  To your guest it's a significant relationship so it should be to you as well.

You have a firm number when you put the invites in the mail. 

What we were telling the lurkers who watch threads like these was that when you start planning, you shouldn't be hitting maximum capacity for the venue before accounting for people to start a significant relationship between the time you throw down money for a venue and invites being sent out.  Therefore, a handful of people starting new relationships on your guest list should not warrant a complete change of plans.  OP will probably have to, at this point, be rude and tell people they are welcome, but their significant other is not simply because she chose not to plan properly.  Between STDs at 9 months to a year out and invitations at 6-8 weeks out from the wedding, A LOT of change is possible in a guest list from the forming and breaking of relationships.  It's still rude to only invite half of a social unit.

Pandemonia

Yes but we have two kinds of clothesline. Clothesline and rotaries. For some quite obscure reason we seem to find it necessary to differentiate between the two. 

phira

I didn't realize a rotary was anything besides a really fun way to mess with non-New England drivers OR a kind of phone. Learning!

Simply Fated

When I hear/see rotary I just think of the phone.

huskypuppy14

amrhodes23 No we were in the ball park by 11:45 so it was not me (and we took the T).

happywiggle

laurynm84 said:

amrhodes23 No we were in the ball park by 11:45 so it was not me (and we took the T).

Aw, shucks. I guess I'll just have to blame it on all the crazy drivers haha

RebeccaB88

I thought rotary was a social and charitable organization where people met for lunch and listened to other people speak about important things. And it's clothesline and roundabout, dammit.

classyduck

classyduck said:

About 9 pages later, and I'm still dismayed that people have so distorted ATB's original words of "What is actually needed, is nuance."

And indeed, as @grumbledore says, this is just another way of saying that "A couple who lives as if engaged...is just a couple that identifies as a social unit, so this is just a different way of saying the same thing". Several PPs have said words to this effect as well.

So what is the big deal? ATB argues for nuance. Personally, I take this to mean that the hosts exercise nuanced consideration of whether or not a couple regards themselves a social unit. If they do, you invite them both. If not, it's up to the host. Nuance is important exactly BECAUSE relationships today are so diverse. Live-in or not, there is no cut and dry definition of who qualifies as a social unit. But, the criteria still lies with the GUEST. Judgement of their "coupled status" is not being passed by the host. If the guests consider themselves a social unit, there's your answer. The nuance comes only in assessing the couple's regard of their own status.

There isn't a big deal.  It's really, really easy to ask your family and friends if they are seeing anybody prior to finalizing your guest list and mailing out STDs or Invitations.

Ok. So, this was like 4 pages back and I'm sorry I don't have any Boston anecdotes for you all. But since accents have absolutely nothing at all to do with this thread, I don't feel particularly guilty replying with content that actually pertains to the OP. Sorry for being a stick-in-the-mud, but the OT discussion in this thread was really obnoxious for someone who was actually interested in the posted topic.

With respect to "what is the big deal"... I suppose what I meant was, in some instances, I feel like people here were just arguing semantics. I think, to some extent, there was agreement in the outcome, but the getting there was under dispute. And that is just unproductive. Let's not argue something we actually agree on in the end.

ATB used a 5 minute old relationship as her example. I can say, when I was "official" with my now fiance for 5 minutes, I didn't consider us a social unit yet. It took about a month and a half before I would have taken offense to us not being considered as such. Now, for other couples... maybe friends for years who have started to date... it might be different. This is where, as I see it, nuance comes in to play.

But the good news is, the bridal couple doesn't have to be the one to evaluate that. It is just up to the guest couple. It is the responsibility of the bridal couple to find out how their guests consider themselves.

"Seeing somebody" is vague. If someone had asked me in January of last year, I would have said yes, as I was dating fiance at that time. But, if they had asked me about my relationship status as a social unit, to be invited to weddings and such, I would have had reservations. In fact, assessing how a couple views their relationship status is inherently difficult, which is why I appreciate the distinction that nuance is needed. But let's be clear, the criteria should probably be how the couple views their own status, if we are trying to avoid any offense.

crunchymamaof2

classyduck said:

classyduck said:

About 9 pages later, and I'm still dismayed that people have so distorted ATB's original words of "What is actually needed, is nuance."

And indeed, as @grumbledore says, this is just another way of saying that "A couple who lives as if engaged...is just a couple that identifies as a social unit, so this is just a different way of saying the same thing". Several PPs have said words to this effect as well.

So what is the big deal? ATB argues for nuance. Personally, I take this to mean that the hosts exercise nuanced consideration of whether or not a couple regards themselves a social unit. If they do, you invite them both. If not, it's up to the host. Nuance is important exactly BECAUSE relationships today are so diverse. Live-in or not, there is no cut and dry definition of who qualifies as a social unit. But, the criteria still lies with the GUEST. Judgement of their "coupled status" is not being passed by the host. If the guests consider themselves a social unit, there's your answer. The nuance comes only in assessing the couple's regard of their own status.

There isn't a big deal.  It's really, really easy to ask your family and friends if they are seeing anybody prior to finalizing your guest list and mailing out STDs or Invitations.

Ok. So, this was like 4 pages back and I'm sorry I don't have any Boston anecdotes for you all. But since accents have absolutely nothing at all to do with this thread, I don't feel particularly guilty replying with content that actually pertains to the OP. Sorry for being a stick-in-the-mud, but the OT discussion in this thread was really obnoxious for someone who was actually interested in the posted topic.

With respect to "what is the big deal"... I suppose what I meant was, in some instances, I feel like people here were just arguing semantics. I think, to some extent, there was agreement in the outcome, but the getting there was under dispute. And that is just unproductive. Let's not argue something we actually agree on in the end.

ATB used a 5 minute old relationship as her example. I can say, when I was "official" with my now fiance for 5 minutes, I didn't consider us a social unit yet. It took about a month and a half before I would have taken offense to us not being considered as such. Now, for other couples... maybe friends for years who have started to date... it might be different. This is where, as I see it, nuance comes in to play.

But the good news is, the bridal couple doesn't have to be the one to evaluate that. It is just up to the guest couple. It is the responsibility of the bridal couple to find out how their guests consider themselves.

"Seeing somebody" is vague. If someone had asked me in January of last year, I would have said yes, as I was dating fiance at that time. But, if they had asked me about my relationship status as a social unit, to be invited to weddings and such, I would have had reservations. In fact, assessing how a couple views their relationship status is inherently difficult, which is why I appreciate the distinction that nuance is needed. But let's be clear, the criteria should probably be how the couple views their own status, if we are trying to avoid any offense.

Now you're just arguing for arguments sake. The nanosecond two people decide to become official they become a social unit. You don't consider "seeing someone" to mean being a couple. So if someone asked you if you were seeing someone for he sake of their wedding all you'd have to say is "I'm not official with anyone"!or "I've been casually seeing John but it's not anything serious right now." Easy.

If two people consider themselves to be a couple (regardless of the wording they may use, like seeing each other/dating/involved/engaged/monogamous/exclusive/etc etc) then that is how they should be considerd by the hosts. If this relationship begins before your invitations are sent out the. They are to be invited together. It's not a difficult concept and there's really no gray area. Ok, you don't consider yourself to be exclusive with john but you do give his name when the bride asks you if you're seeing someone. She outs his name on your invitation. What's the big deal? You don't have to bring him but at least the bride was trying to p do right by you.

classyduck

acove2006 said:

Now you're just arguing for arguments sake. The nanosecond two people decide to become official they become a social unit. You don't consider "seeing someone" to mean being a couple. So if someone asked you if you were seeing someone for he sake of their wedding all you'd have to say is "I'm not official with anyone"!or "I've been casually seeing John but it's not anything serious right now." Easy.

If two people consider themselves to be a couple (regardless of the wording they may use, like seeing each other/dating/involved/engaged/monogamous/exclusive/etc etc) then that is how they should be considerd by the hosts. If this relationship begins before your invitations are sent out the. They are to be invited together. It's not a difficult concept and there's really no gray area. Ok, you don't consider yourself to be exclusive with john but you do give his name when the bride asks you if you're seeing someone. She outs his name on your invitation. What's the big deal? You don't have to bring him but at least the bride was trying to p do right by you.

No, I'm not arguing just for the sake of arguing. As I tried to explain in another thread, if I seem like I'm arguing it is just that I'm trying to pick apart the "why" of etiquette, because the better I understand it, the more able I am to generalize it and apply it to other situations.

You are exactly right about my consideration of "seeing someone" as not being official. I was seeing my fiance before we were "official". So, I felt like this phrase clouded the discussion and I wanted to clarify it. My apologies I'm being too nit-picky. My intentions are sincere in wishing for understanding.

Your second paragraph seems to paraphrase what I was saying, I don't disagree at all.The only gray area that exists is whether or not a relationship has started, which can be difficult to judge to an outside observer. But as you and I have said, just ask.