At what age do SO invites become necessary?

redoryx

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^]

I'm still so confused because you seem to still be implying that there has to be some big grand gesture or announcement. Does making it Facebook Official count?

plainjane0415

PrettyGirlLost said:

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.

@PrettyGirlLost, I you.  This is so true, and it's because of things like Pinterest and such that make them feel that their wedding has to be a five star production in order for them to be married. Along with all of  the "it's your special day!" "do whatever you want!" mentality. It's such crap and I'm so sick of seeing it everywhere. You want to have a wedding? Cool, but you have to properly host your guests, and make them feel welcome.  Which includes inviting SO's.  There's no way around that.

MGP

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^]

Are you out of your mind?  There are TONS of people who decide not to live together, have a child, or get engaged that are still as committed and stable as the ones that decide to do that.  Who died and made YOU the resident expert on this?  Every couple has their own timeline and it is not ANYONE BUT THE COUPLE'S place to judge what is serious and what is not.  

Exhibit A - my husband and I were exclusive and committed after a few weeks of dating.  He knew he wanted to marry me after a few months, and we dated for about 18 months before he proposed because he wanted to - gasp - be financially responsible and pay cash for the ring.  He also didn't move into my house until 3 months after we were engaged because he couldn't break his lease.

Exhibit B - my stepbrother moves, well, faster with his relationships.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  He has had 3 girlfriends move in with him in the last 18 months.  Girlfriend #1 split after a week because she moved cross country with him and missed her family.  Girlfriend #2 moved in after two weeks and moved out after two months.  Girlfriend #3 moved in after two months and is still there.  When he comes to see us I literally have no idea who he is bringing and you know what?  IT DOESN'T MATTER.  I am welcoming and gracious no matter who it is because it's not my place to decide how to treat people based on the length of their relationship with someone.

So according to your busted logic the 18 months my husband and I were together before getting engaged counts as nothing, but my stepbrother and his girlfriend are socially acceptable enough to warrant a wedding invite as a social until because they decided to move in together after literally days.

Between the asshat earlier in the thread that passes judgment on who qualifies as an adult and now this mess, I am truly shaking my head at this.  Fucking unbelievable.

wrigleyville

She reminds me of Kristin. I'm having flashbacks.