At what age do SO invites become necessary?

[Deleted User]

chibiyui

Just don't invite your cousins.

Done.

kaitlynmichelle

The "no ring no bring" rule offends me.  H and I were together 9 years before I got a ring.  His cousin pulled that rule out for his wedding, at which point we were at 7.5 years and he had known his now wife for 6 months when they got engaged.  I was originally quite excited for them, but not so much when we got an invite for just H (that was delivered to his parents house that was across the country and he hadn't lived at for 5 years). MIL actually called them up and tried to politely inquire about this, as none of her three sons had their girlfriends invited.  The bride said that only family were being invited, and I wasn't family after that long because I didn't have a ring.  They would only extend the girls an invitation if we were engaged as a minimum. We didn't send a card or a gift and I haven't spoken to them since.  

We're also high school sweethearts, so the weddings we got solo invites to in university because our relationship "wouldn't last" make me laugh now.  Sure, at 17 no one had to invite my BF to their wedding.  But comments like that always irritated me.  

Don't treat people like shit because they aren't living together/engaged/married.  

apromise22

My perspective: One way to ensure I will have a good time at my wedding is to know that my guests are having a good time. An easy way to achieve this is to let everyone bring their SO--they will always have someone to talk, dance, and have fun with. For me, it also means letting single guests bring a +1 if they will know few people at the wedding. 

And yes, this means there are (several) friends I won't be able to invite, due to inviting various SOs and plus ones. But it's worth it to me since it'll help my guests have a good time (and by extension, help me have a good time). 

Plus, I would never invite a friend or relative to a party and tell them that their SO is not invited. A wedding is no different.

rcher912

So, I'm realizing now that my FI's estranged brother, who will be invited to the wedding with his two children (one of whom is FI's goddaughter), should absolutely be allowed to bring his current GF. We just met this woman at FMIL's funeral last month, and, because of the estrangement, had no idea he was dating at all.

She's also apparently got two children, whose names I really didn't catch. I barely caught her name.

Do I have to invite the kids? Besides BIL's 2 kids, it's a no-kids wedding.

JCbride2015

rcher920 said:

So, I'm realizing now that my FI's estranged brother, who will be invited to the wedding with his two children (one of whom is FI's goddaughter), should absolutely be allowed to bring his current GF. We just met this woman at FMIL's funeral last month, and, because of the estrangement, had no idea he was dating at all.

She's also apparently got two children, whose names I really didn't catch. I barely caught her name.

Do I have to invite the kids? Besides BIL's 2 kids, it's a no-kids wedding.

I would invite his GF but not her kids.

lovegood90

rcher920 said:

So, I'm realizing now that my FI's estranged brother, who will be invited to the wedding with his two children (one of whom is FI's goddaughter), should absolutely be allowed to bring his current GF. We just met this woman at FMIL's funeral last month, and, because of the estrangement, had no idea he was dating at all.

She's also apparently got two children, whose names I really didn't catch. I barely caught her name.

Do I have to invite the kids? Besides BIL's 2 kids, it's a no-kids wedding.

You need to invite her but it's not mandatory you invite her kids.

WinstonsGirl

rcher920 said:

So, I'm realizing now that my FI's estranged brother, who will be invited to the wedding with his two children (one of whom is FI's goddaughter), should absolutely be allowed to bring his current GF. We just met this woman at FMIL's funeral last month, and, because of the estrangement, had no idea he was dating at all.

She's also apparently got two children, whose names I really didn't catch. I barely caught her name.

Do I have to invite the kids? Besides BIL's 2 kids, it's a no-kids wedding.

You don't have to invite her kids, but she needs to be named on the invite.  

I really hate the living together/engaged/married argument.  I've said it before, but my Uncle has been dating his GF for over 20 years now.  They don't live together and never will.  His Ex threatened custody if he got married so they never did, and even though his kid is an adult now, they're happy in their situation, so won't change it.  She is invited to all family events, weddings, etc.  She is a part of our family and their dating status doesn't change that.  I dare anyone to tell them they're not serious

rcher912

Thanks, all, I think that's totally fair. I was just afraid the kid thing was going to balloon far past what I had expected.

FI and I dated for about 10 years before we moved in together (started dating young, then wanted to wait until we could buy a house before moving in together) - so I definitely agree with all posters about being a little offended any time family would say we weren't serious. Wanting to buy a house isn't serious?! There was no ring, because I didn't want one until we had those finances under control, among other things.

JCbride2015

rcher920 said:

Thanks, all, I think that's totally fair. I was just afraid the kid thing was going to balloon far past what I had expected.

FI and I dated for about 10 years before we moved in together (started dating young, then wanted to wait until we could buy a house before moving in together) - so I definitely agree with all posters about being a little offended any time family would say we weren't serious. Wanting to buy a house isn't serious?! There was no ring, because I didn't want one until we had those finances under control, among other things.

Samesies, basically.  We dated for about 5 years before living together, then we were long-distance for a year while I started law school, then finally got engaged after almost 10 years together when I transferred schools and was able to move back in.  Anybody during my first year of law school who downplayed my relationship because "Your boyfriend is all the way in NJ?" got major evil eye from me.

ETA: and about 3 years into our relationship, he was invited (on his parents' invitation) without me to a family wedding.  We were both offended and it was particularly hurtful to me.

rcher912

JCbride2015 said:

rcher920 said:

Thanks, all, I think that's totally fair. I was just afraid the kid thing was going to balloon far past what I had expected.

FI and I dated for about 10 years before we moved in together (started dating young, then wanted to wait until we could buy a house before moving in together) - so I definitely agree with all posters about being a little offended any time family would say we weren't serious. Wanting to buy a house isn't serious?! There was no ring, because I didn't want one until we had those finances under control, among other things.

Samesies, basically.  We dated for about 5 years before living together, then we were long-distance for a year while I started law school, then finally got engaged after almost 10 years together when I transferred schools and was able to move back in.  Anybody during my first year of law school who downplayed my relationship because "Your boyfriend is all the way in NJ?" got major evil eye from me.

ETA: and about 3 years into our relationship, he was invited (on his parents' invitation) without me to a family wedding.  We were both offended and it was particularly hurtful to me.

THIS. I had a new coworker once snark on me when I was upset we'd be traveling for work over my then-boyfriend's 30th birthday, without realizing we'd been together almost the 10 years. 18 months later, engaged, and living together, and I've only just gotten over it lol

LtPowers

It has nothing to do with age. The rule is established social unit. Certainly any couple who is married, affianced, living together, or parenting as a couple qualifies. But that doesn't mean that a couple who doesn't meet any of those four conditions is therefore not an established social unit.

While taking care not to exclude long-term partners simply because they don't share an address, likewise one mustn't feel obligated to invite "significant others" just because they are currently dating family members.

Powers  &8^]

Viczaesar

LtPowers said:

It has nothing to do with age. The rule is established social unit. Certainly any couple who is married, affianced, living together, or parenting as a couple qualifies. But that doesn't mean that a couple who doesn't meet any of those four conditions is therefore not an established social unit.

While taking care not to exclude long-term partners simply because they don't share an address, likewise one mustn't feel obligated to invite "significant others" just because they are currently dating family members.

Powers  &8^]

No.

slothiegal

LtPowers said:

It has nothing to do with age. The rule is established social unit. Certainly any couple who is married, affianced, living together, or parenting as a couple qualifies. But that doesn't mean that a couple who doesn't meet any of those four conditions is therefore not an established social unit.

While taking care not to exclude long-term partners simply because they don't share an address, likewise one mustn't feel obligated to invite "significant others" just because they are currently dating family members.

Powers  &8^]

Wait what?  Am I high or do your paragraphs completely contradict each other?

wrigleyville

LtPowers said:

It has nothing to do with age. The rule is established social unit. Certainly any couple who is married, affianced, living together, or parenting as a couple qualifies. But that doesn't mean that a couple who doesn't meet any of those four conditions is therefore not an established social unit.

While taking care not to exclude long-term partners simply because they don't share an address, likewise one mustn't feel obligated to invite "significant others" just because they are currently dating family members.

Powers  &8^]

You're contradicting yourself. What on earth are you trying to say?

southernbelle0915

LtPowers said:

It has nothing to do with age. The rule is established social unit. Certainly any couple who is married, affianced, living together, or parenting as a couple qualifies. But that doesn't mean that a couple who doesn't meet any of those four conditions is therefore not an established social unit.

While taking care not to exclude long-term partners simply because they don't share an address, likewise one mustn't feel obligated to invite "significant others" just because they are currently dating family members.

Powers  &8^]

Here's is how this reads:

"The sky is blue.

The sky is actually purple."

Please explain...

LtPowers

Perhaps we have a different definition of "significant other".

Again, the rule is that established social units may not be broken up, with only one invited. The question is what constitutes an established social unit. Traditionally, it was the affianced and the married only, but that's been expanded to include those who have set up housekeeping together, or those who are parenting together while in a relationship.

Beyond that it gets trickier. I suppose it's possible that there might be couples out there who have no kids, don't live together, are not engaged... yet have been a "couple" so long that everyone treats them as a single social unit. I would think such cases fairly rare; they are certainly extremely rare in the case of teenagers.

My intent was to convey that there's no obligation to invite a teenager's (or anyone else's) current boyfriend or girlfriend just because they're currently dating. The obligation only exists where the couple is well established as a social unit, either through duration or circumstance. I was assuming, since the number of teenagers in such relationships is very small, that the original post did not involve such a relationship.

Powers  &8^]

huskypuppy14

LtPowers said:

Perhaps we have a different definition of "significant other".

Again, the rule is that established social units may not be broken up, with only one invited. The question is what constitutes an established social unit. Traditionally, it was the affianced and the married only, but that's been expanded to include those who have set up housekeeping together, or those who are parenting together while consider themselves in a relationship.

Beyond that it gets trickier. I suppose it's possible that there might be couples out there who have no kids, don't live together, are not engaged... yet have been a "couple" so long that everyone treats them as a single social unit. I would think such cases fairly rare; they are certainly extremely rare in the case of teenagers.

My intent was to convey that there's no obligation to invite a teenager's (or anyone else's) current boyfriend or girlfriend just because they're currently dating. The obligation only exists where the couple is well established as a social unit, either through duration or circumstance. I was assuming, since the number of teenagers in such relationships is very small, that the original post did not involve such a relationship.

Powers  &8^]

FTFY

We are not talking about people under 18.

LtPowers

huskypuppy14 said:

We are not talking about people under 18.

I believe we are. The opening poster asked: "I would think inviting the 'girlfriend' of a nine-year-old is excessive, but what about a 17-year-old? 15? 12?"

I responded that it's not age that's important, but the degree of relationship -- whether the relationship constitutes an established social unit or not. I further clarified that teenagers are unlikely to be in such a relationship.

Powers  &8^]

huskypuppy14

LtPowers said:

huskypuppy14 said:

We are not talking about people under 18.

I believe we are. The opening poster asked: "I would think inviting the 'girlfriend' of a nine-year-old is excessive, but what about a 17-year-old? 15? 12?"

I responded that it's not age that's important, but the degree of relationship -- whether the relationship constitutes an established social unit or not. I further clarified that teenagers are unlikely to be in such a relationship.

Powers  &8^]

I forgot what the original  question was. However, I think many of us agree that it is required to invite SO of those aged 18 and older. Under 18 is at the discretion of the host.

For those older than 18, it is not up to you (or me or the hosts) to determine the "degree of the relationship". It's up to those in the relationship.

levioosa

FFS people, it's not that hard.  You don't get to determine what constitutes a "social unit."  If a couple considers themselves to be in a relationship, they are a social unit and you invite them together, or not at all.  It is not necessary to invite SO's of individuals under 18, but it is considerate.  JFC.  

Also, I was with my ex for six years.  I didn't get an invite to his roommates wedding.  They had been going out six months and we had been going out for four years at that point.  They pulled the "no ring no bring" rule.  It was a total bitch move on their part.  I'm not saying that our relationship was more valid, but what they pulled was pretty BS.  

bethsmiles

LtPowers said:

Perhaps we have a different definition of "significant other".

Again, the rule is that established social units may not be broken up, with only one invited. The question is what constitutes an established social unit. Traditionally, it was the affianced and the married only, but that's been expanded to include those who have set up housekeeping together, or those who are parenting together while in a relationship.

Beyond that it gets trickier. I suppose it's possible that there might be couples out there who have no kids, don't live together, are not engaged... yet have been a "couple" so long that everyone treats them as a single social unit. I would think such cases fairly rare; they are certainly extremely rare in the case of teenagers.

My intent was to convey that there's no obligation to invite a teenager's (or anyone else's) current boyfriend or girlfriend just because they're currently dating. The obligation only exists where the couple is well established as a social unit, either through duration or circumstance. I was assuming, since the number of teenagers in such relationships is very small, that the original post did not involve such a relationship.

Powers  &8^]

It's really not that rare. My SO and I have been together 6 years and don't live together. We went to a friends wedding this summer who had been with his now wife for 10 years before getting engaged/married and they didn't live together. My brother and his SO have been together for 3 years and don't live together and aren't engaged/married. And that's just three I can think of without even trying. It's really not that unheard of.

And besides, there are couples who have been together a very short amount of time who are just as committed/serious as a couple whose been together much longer.

Honestly, life is just so much easier if you get off your fucking high horse and stop trying to figure out the validity of other people's relationships for them. Then all you have to do is ask if your guest is dating someone and bam you add that person to the guest list. It's really not that hard.

Viczaesar

LtPowers said:

Perhaps we have a different definition of "significant other".

Again, the rule is that established social units may not be broken up, with only one invited. The question is what constitutes an established social unit. Traditionally, it was the affianced and the married only, but that's been expanded to include those who have set up housekeeping together, or those who are parenting together while in a relationship.

Beyond that it gets trickier. I suppose it's possible that there might be couples out there who have no kids, don't live together, are not engaged... yet have been a "couple" so long that everyone treats them as a single social unit. I would think such cases fairly rare; they are certainly extremely rare in the case of teenagers.

My intent was to convey that there's no obligation to invite a teenager's (or anyone else's) current boyfriend or girlfriend just because they're currently dating. The obligation only exists where the couple is well established as a social unit, either through duration or circumstance. I was assuming, since the number of teenagers in such relationships is very small, that the original post did not involve such a relationship.

Powers  &8^]

Once again, no.

redoryx

LtPowers said:

Perhaps we have a different definition of "significant other".

Again, the rule is that established social units may not be broken up, with only one invited. The question is what constitutes an established social unit. Traditionally, it was the affianced and the married only, but that's been expanded to include those who have set up housekeeping together, or those who are parenting together while in a relationship.

Beyond that it gets trickier. I suppose it's possible that there might be couples out there who have no kids, don't live together, are not engaged... yet have been a "couple" so long that everyone treats them as a single social unit. I would think such cases fairly rare; they are certainly extremely rare in the case of teenagers.

My intent was to convey that there's no obligation to invite a teenager's (or anyone else's) current boyfriend or girlfriend just because they're currently dating. The obligation only exists where the couple is well established as a social unit, either through duration or circumstance. I was assuming, since the number of teenagers in such relationships is very small, that the original post did not involve such a relationship.

Powers  &8^]

I don't have kids, have never lived with someone I was dating, and have never been engaged. Sooooo none of my relationships -- previous or current -- count? They are, what, men I just happened to hang out with and go out to eat with and sleep in the same bed with?

It's not for the host to decide if a "couple" has been together "long enough" to consider them a social unit. That's for the couple in question to decide. If they present themselves as a social unit, they are.

LtPowers

redoryx said:

If they present themselves as a social unit, they are.

Well, yes, that's rather been my point.

Traditionally, the way one presented oneself as part of a social unit was by setting a date to get married. In modern times that has been expanded to include deciding to live together (for the benefit of those couples who cannot or will not marry).

And even Miss Manners gives leave for other couples to simply come forward and announce that they attend events as a couple. That would be sufficient.

Sufficient, but it is also necessary. As you note, no host should be making assumptions; it must be based on how the couple has presented themselves. So therefore it is incumbent upon the couple to announce their social-unit status either verbally or through the taking of specific unifying actions.

Absent that announcement (either verbally or in deed), the host may presume the relationship to not fall into the category of obligate-invitation. This applies regardless of the age of those involved. Of course, the host certainly may choose to invite a more casual romantic partner, but it wouldn't be rude not to.

Powers  &8^]

thespeshulestsnowflake

LtPowers said:

redoryx said:

If they present themselves as a social unit, they are.

Well, yes, that's rather been my point.

Traditionally, the way one presented oneself as part of a social unit was by setting a date to get married. In modern times that has been expanded to include deciding to live together (for the benefit of those couples who cannot or will not marry).

And even Miss Manners gives leave for other couples to simply come forward and announce that they attend events as a couple. That would be sufficient.

Sufficient, but it is also necessary. As you note, no host should be making assumptions; it must be based on how the couple has presented themselves. So therefore it is incumbent upon the couple to announce their social-unit status either verbally or through the taking of specific unifying actions.

Absent that announcement (either verbally or in deed), the host may presume the relationship to not fall into the category of obligate-invitation. This applies regardless of the age of those involved. Of course, the host certainly may choose to invite a more casual romantic partner, but it wouldn't be rude not to.

Powers  &8^]

Or instead of assuming, the host could try this newfangled thing called asking. Pick up a phone, text message, Facebook message, none of these things are quite that difficult.

levioosa

LtPowers said:

redoryx said:

If they present themselves as a social unit, they are.

Well, yes, that's rather been my point.

Traditionally, the way one presented oneself as part of a social unit was by setting a date to get married. In modern times that has been expanded to include deciding to live together (for the benefit of those couples who cannot or will not marry).

And even Miss Manners gives leave for other couples to simply come forward and announce that they attend events as a couple. That would be sufficient.

Sufficient, but it is also necessary. As you note, no host should be making assumptions; it must be based on how the couple has presented themselves. So therefore it is incumbent upon the couple to announce their social-unit status either verbally or through the taking of specific unifying actions.

Absent that announcement (either verbally or in deed), the host may presume the relationship to not fall into the category of obligate-invitation. This applies regardless of the age of those involved. Of course, the host certainly may choose to invite a more casual romantic partner, but it wouldn't be rude not to.

Powers  &8^]

Except that Miss Manners defines a social unit not by marriage or living conditions, but by the definition of the couple themselves.....

So you're still wrong.  A couple who considers themselves to be in a social unit must be invited together, or not at all. 

PrettyGirlLost

StarryNight97 said:

*DISCLAIMER*  I acknowledge that I'm stomping all over what many of you consider proper etiquette.  Do not read if you are easily offended.

I was interested in the forum post because I have a large family with many cousins, and if I let everyone bring a SO it would spiral out of control.  To my surprise, this was discussing dates for people UNDER 18.  The term Significant Other is for people who have been dating a while and have become a staple at family events (hence the word significant).   I would certainly NOT invite any "SO" for anyone under 18.  

In fact, someone mentioned the term "No Ring, No Bring" to me, and I actually kinda like that.  

I don't know if its a New York thing (we get married late 20's early 30s with our wedding costs ranking #1 and #2*) or maybe just the size of my wedding, but my guest list, without unmarried cousin's SO's and second cousin's SO's is already 350+. My portion of that is 90% family.  I had to cut FRIENDS and COWORKERS to one table each to fit my family so I'm having a real issue with people here posting that it's rude to not invite a mid twenties second cousin's boyfriend (hypothetical).

I'm only posting in case there was anyone in the same boat as me and doesn't want to feel obligated to invite someone just because they are dating someone that you are related to. 

Don't feel bad.  I'll be that person that didn't invite the "SO" to the wedding.  

I am letting friends and coworkers bring a significant other so I do have a heart. Additionally I have been to weddings where the SO was not invited and I didn't mind at all - it was a small wedding and I understand that some people have cost restrictions.  

If this discussion was over 1 or 2 people, then yes I would invite them, but I certainly wouldn't lose sleep or call anyone rude for not inviting them.

For the record, if I invite first and second cousin's SO's (for unmarried cousins above 18) its an additional 25 people, which is another 2 centerpieces, 25 favors and about $4,000.

(my dad is one of 8 and my oldest uncle has 7 kids all of whom are married with kids just younger than me, so do the math)

TLDR version: Do what YOU want.  It's your wedding.  You already have a ton of people to please (ahem, Future MIL) so do what pleases you.

P.S. Unmarried cousins are also getting grouped with their parents invitation-wise.  When my cousin got married earlier this year, I got grouped in with my parents invitation and I was ENGAGED 3 months before he was even engaged.  I was not offended.

Why can't there be a little more empathy and less pettiness?

*http://www.xogroupinc.com/press-releases-home/2014-press-releases/2014-03-27-real-weddings-study-average-cost-of-wedding.aspx

You lost me here, because I dated my DH for almost 11 years before we got engaged. . . that's longer than anyone in our circle of friends has known their spouses, let alone been married.

Then I read the rest of it and yeah. . . lots of excuses and poor planning.  You aren't obligated to invite 2nd cousins, you know.

mikenberger

Nice to know some people refuse to crawl out from the rock they've been under.

PrettyGirlLost

mikenberger said:

Nice to know some people refuse to crawl out from the rock they've been under.

The real issue seems to be that couples don't know how to fucking plan, budget, or host a proper wedding.  They want these huge, blow out, fancy affairs but can't actually afford their vision or refuse to prolong their engagement so they can actually afford their vision, and so they go pouring through the etiquette tomes searching for justification to cut people off of their guest list so they can afford their designer dresses and over priced venues.