Inviting Guest's Boyfriend or Girlfriend?

AnnoymouseBride124

Help!

 

I am about to send out my save the dates. A few of my fiancé's friends are dating right now. Should I include their girlfriend's name on the invite? I ask because I am not sure if they are going to still be together when the wedding rolls around. Should I send it out now with their name and if they break up by invitation time change it to plus one? Thanks girls!

PrettyGirlLost

katemachugh317 said:

Help!

 

I am about to send out my save the dates. A few of my fiancé's friends are dating right now. Should I include their girlfriend's name on the invite? I ask because I am not sure if they are going to still be together when the wedding rolls around. Should I send it out now with their name and if they break up by invitation time change it to plus one? Thanks girls!

Yes, you address the invitation to the SO by name.

Maggie0829

STDs can be addressed to just the main guest.  For instance if Bob and Jane are dating and Bob would get an invite regardless of if he is still with Jane when the wedding comes about then address the STD to just Bob.  Now if both Bob and Jane would be invited regardless of if they are together or not then send both Bob and Jane a STD.

Maggie0829

Oh sorry, I thought you were asking about the STDs not the invites.

For the invites you invite the SO by name.

If for some reason the couple breaks up prior to invites going out it is up to you to decide if you wish to extend that person a plus one.  If you don't want to then you just address the invite to that one person.  If you do then you put "and Guest" on the invite.

lovegood90

If your guests consider themselves to be in a relationship (whether they have a girlfriend/boyfriend, are engaged, or have a husband/wife), their significant other must be invited by name on the invite.

JellyBean52513

katemachugh317 said:

Help!

 

I am about to send out my save the dates. A few of my fiancé's friends are dating right now. Should I include their girlfriend's name on the invite? I ask because I am not sure if they are going to still be together when the wedding rolls around. Should I send it out now with their name and if they break up by invitation time change it to plus one? Thanks girls!

I hate to be the guy who responds with an asshole-ish comment, but the above bolded statement is not the right mindset to have when approaching this type of situation. Technically, you don't even know that you and your FI will still be together by the time your wedding date rolls around, but I bet you'd be offended if someone else questioned your longevity this way. You probably would still have been offended if this happened before you got engaged and were just "dating," right?

Don't concern yourself with the what-ifs of other people's relationships. If you are that much on the rocks about it, simply don't send a STD. STDs aren't required, I personally think they're a waste of paper and money. If you're intent on sending them to these couples whose futures are a mystery, just address it to the person you know in the couple as PP suggested.

photokitty

You do not have to included SOs on STDs. If they live together I would definitely include the SO.

Should you choose to included the SO and they break up before formal invites are mailed you are not obligated to invite the former SO.

When invites go out you must invite all SOs, boyfriends and girlfriends, by name on the invites.

levioosa

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

LtPowers

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.) Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.

Powers  &8^]

southernbelle0915

LtPowers said:

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.) Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.

Powers  &8^]

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

dcbride86

southernbelle0915 said:

LtPowers said:

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.) Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.

Powers  &8^]

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

This is exactly what I did.  And I also called or texted my friends if I didn't know about their relationship status.  If you're close enough to invite them to your wedding, you're close enough to ask them if they're in a relationship, and to include their SO on the invite.

LtPowers

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers  &8^]

dcbride86

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers  &8^]

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

LtPowers

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

southernbelle0915

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers  &8^]

Sorry, but again......No.

The "signals" you mention are subjective and up to interpretation. In other words, you are suggesting that the hosts judge the seriousness of the couple's relationship based on these "signals". 

The whole point is that a host shouldn't judge. Hosts should just ask the guest directly "Are you in a relationship? Can I get the name of your SO to include him/her on the invitation." That way, the GUEST is telling you if s/he wants to be invited with their SO. Versus the bride/groom taking it upon themselves to judge everyone's relationship. 

If the hosts don't include someone's SO because they didn't see any "signals", they've sent the message to the guest that "I don't think your relationship is serious or important." If the guest thinks their relationship is serious and important, the host has offended them and hurt feelings. How's that for etiquette?

redoryx

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

OR people are private and don't go around announcing that but if asked will indeed confirm that yes, so and so is their boyfriend or girlfriend. 

southernbelle0915

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

I invited 220 people to my wedding. To think that I knew the ins and outs of every single guest's relationship is pretty unreasonable. I invited cousins I see once a year. Often, I'll find out they're in relationships several months after it happens.

The polite thing to do is to contact guests and ask. That way, you've made sure you don't offend anyone. You know what they say about ASSuming.

LtPowers

redoryx said:

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

OR people are private and don't go around announcing that but if asked will indeed confirm that yes, so and so is their boyfriend or girlfriend. 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. If they're so private about their relationship that they are never invited anywhere together, then why would they change that for your wedding? (And how could they expect you to know?) And if they are regularly invited places together, then their social unit status is clear and not as private as you suggest.

redoryx

LtPowers said:

redoryx said:

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

OR people are private and don't go around announcing that but if asked will indeed confirm that yes, so and so is their boyfriend or girlfriend. 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. If they're so private about their relationship that they are never invited anywhere together, then why would they change that for your wedding? (And how could they expect you to know?) And if they are regularly invited places together, then their social unit status is clear and not as private as you suggest.

I'm so fucking confused right now. If a couple attends events together as a social unit then there is no need to question whether or not they are in a relationship. So I guess I'm not sure what you meant earlier when you said "if it's questionable enough that you need to ask" then they actually aren't in a relationship. 

WhatawagSBNy

southernbelle0915 said:

LtPowers said:

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.) Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.

Powers  &8^]

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

-------------
Living together, like being engaged or married, guarantees they are a social unit. Those who live separately but have been together for a long enough period of time for others to routinely treat them as a couple, are also always considered a social unit, usually referred to as a couple of long standing or an established couple.

Although a lot of knotties insist that any pair who feel committed to one another even if together for a week or a month should be treated automatically as a social unit, this is not the established custom or correct etiquette in this society now.

Miss Manners and other accepted etiquette sources make it clear :
It is always nice to invite new couples who feel committed to one another, space and finances permitting, but there is no social fault in not inviting both members of new couples.

redoryx

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.) Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.

Powers  &8^]

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

------------- Living together, like being engaged or married, guarantees they are a social unit. Those who live separately but have been together for a long enough period of time for others to routinely treat them as a couple, are also always considered a social unit, usually referred to as a couple of long standing or an established couple. Although a lot of knotties insist that any pair who feel committed to one another even if together for a week or a month should be treated automatically as a social unit, this is not the established custom or correct etiquette in this society now. Miss Manners and other accepted etiquette sources make it clear : It is always nice to invite new couples who feel committed to one another, space and finances permitting, but there is no social fault in not inviting both members of new couples.

Please stop. 

Look, it's not up to a host to determine what is "long enough" and it's SUPER RUDE of a couple getting married to say "We want you to celebrate our love and relationship but you need to do it without the person you are in a relationship with." 

dcbride86

LtPowers said:

redoryx said:

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

OR people are private and don't go around announcing that but if asked will indeed confirm that yes, so and so is their boyfriend or girlfriend. 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. If they're so private about their relationship that they are never invited anywhere together, then why would they change that for your wedding? (And how could they expect you to know?) And if they are regularly invited places together, then their social unit status is clear and not as private as you suggest.

Maybe you just haven't been to any events with them where they could show they are a social unit, and they don't announce it on FB.  FI and I weren't "in a relationship" on FB until we were engaged, and didn't do much to announce our relationship status online.

 

Again - asking is the best way.  It's not that difficult.

slothiegal

LtPowers said:

redoryx said:

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

OR people are private and don't go around announcing that but if asked will indeed confirm that yes, so and so is their boyfriend or girlfriend. 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. If they're so private about their relationship that they are never invited anywhere together, then why would they change that for your wedding? (And how could they expect you to know?) And if they are regularly invited places together, then their social unit status is clear and not as private as you suggest.

No.  

Example: H and I were in the same group of friends for about six months before we started dating.  When we finally crossed the line from "friends" to "boyfriend/girlfriend", lots of people didn't know for awhile.  Neither one of us is big on PDA, there was no big proclamation of "WE'RE DATING!", we were regularly at the same social events because we ran in the same circle.  It wasn't that we were actively trying to keep it "private"; it just wasn't something we felt the need to announce.  If people weren't sure and needed to know (ie, my cousin was doing his wedding invitations during this period), then they simply acted like an adult and said, "Hey, slothiegirl, are you and slothieguy together?  Yes?  Cool."  Not too difficult.

climbingsingle

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

Completely disagree. One of my husband's friends started dating someone about 6 weeks before the wedding. Hardly enough time to establish someone as a "social unit" to the world. And I'm glad I asked, because she moved in about a week later. 

I also have a cousin that I don't see very often and that lives in another state. I had heard from family members that she possibly was seeing someone. Without seeing her regularly, how would I have known if I didn't ask? 

PrettyGirlLost

LtPowers said:

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. How hard is it to call or FB your guest and ask them about their relationship status?  Oh wait, it;s not hard at all!  I did this for all of my guests. . . I had to contact people to get their mailing addresses anyways.  The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.)   The most precise metric is to friging ask your friends and family, 'hey, are you dating anyone?"  Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.  Which is flat out asinine.  I dated my DH for 11 years before we got engaged- that's longer than any of our married friends have even known their now spouses and waaaaay longer than any of their own marriages.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.  Which is why you ask them!

Powers  &8^]

This "issue" about SO's and determining who is in a relationship so that you can invite their SO's is a huge, fat, non-issue.

You pick up the phone, you send an email, you write a FB PM and you ask your friends and family if they are seeing anyone.  Period.  Not hard.

PrettyGirlLost

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.) Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.

Powers  &8^]

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

------------- Living together, like being engaged or married, guarantees they are a social unit. Those who live separately but have been together for a long enough period of time for others to routinely treat them as a couple, are also always considered a social unit, usually referred to as a couple of long standing or an established couple. Although a lot of knotties insist that any pair who feel committed to one another even if together for a week or a month should be treated automatically as a social unit, this is not the established custom or correct etiquette in this society now.   Um, actually it is the custom and etiquette norm to invite people as a couple, regardless of the length of time the couple has been together.  If a couple considers themselves in a serious, committed relationship, then the bride and groom need to respect that, period.  We all recognize that Miss Manner's or whomever else suggests as you do is actually rude on this one and not adapting with the times.   Miss Manners and other accepted etiquette sources make it clear : It is always nice to invite new couples who feel committed to one another, space and finances permitting, but there is no social fault in not inviting both members of new couples.

dcbride86

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

levioosa said:

PPs have it covered.  SOs are addressed by name on the invite, and length of relationship (1 day together or 45 years) doesn't matter as long as they consider themselves to be in a committed relationship.  "Yes, this is my GF/BF" = invite. 

If I may...

Whether a couple considers themselves to be in a committed relationship is difficult for outsiders to divine. The more precise metric is whether the couple behaves as, and is treated as, a social unit. That generally means being married, being engaged, living together, entertaining together, and/or attending social events together. (I realize that last one results in a bit of a circular definition.) Most etiquette experts don't consider simply dating exclusively to be sufficient evidence of a couple's unitary status.

Often it's best to err on the side of caution, of course. While not all couples that are exclusively dating consider themselves a single social unit, many do; and while it's best if they make that clear to their friends and relations, many do not.

Powers  &8^]

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

------------- Living together, like being engaged or married, guarantees they are a social unit. Those who live separately but have been together for a long enough period of time for others to routinely treat them as a couple, are also always considered a social unit, usually referred to as a couple of long standing or an established couple. Although a lot of knotties insist that any pair who feel committed to one another even if together for a week or a month should be treated automatically as a social unit, this is not the established custom or correct etiquette in this society now. Miss Manners and other accepted etiquette sources make it clear : It is always nice to invite new couples who feel committed to one another, space and finances permitting, but there is no social fault in not inviting both members of new couples.

I think what that means is that if, AFTER you have already sent invites out, a guest starts a relationship, you may choose whether or not to accommodate this SO, since you could not have known about it prior to invitations being sent.  Any SO that exists at the time invites are sent should be invited by name

levioosa

slothiegal said:

LtPowers said:

redoryx said:

LtPowers said:

dcbride86 said:

Simply asking your guest is much easier than trying to determine whether they're a social unit based on whether they host as a couple or whatever.  Just ask your guest if you're unsure.

Well, of course it's always gracious to ask. But in general, if it's questionable enough that one has to ask to be sure, then it's unlikely the couple is actually a social unit.

Powers  &8^]

OR people are private and don't go around announcing that but if asked will indeed confirm that yes, so and so is their boyfriend or girlfriend. 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. If they're so private about their relationship that they are never invited anywhere together, then why would they change that for your wedding? (And how could they expect you to know?) And if they are regularly invited places together, then their social unit status is clear and not as private as you suggest.

No.  

Example: H and I were in the same group of friends for about six months before we started dating.  When we finally crossed the line from "friends" to "boyfriend/girlfriend", lots of people didn't know for awhile.  Neither one of us is big on PDA, there was no big proclamation of "WE'RE DATING!", we were regularly at the same social events because we ran in the same circle.  It wasn't that we were actively trying to keep it "private"; it just wasn't something we felt the need to announce.  If people weren't sure and needed to know (ie, my cousin was doing his wedding invitations during this period), then they simply acted like an adult and said, "Hey, slothiegirl, are you and slothieguy together?  Yes?  Cool."  Not too difficult.

Yeah, SO and I were very private about our early relationship.  Most of our friends didn't know for almost seven months that we were together, committed, and exclusive.  We worked together (it wasn't against the HR rules, but we didn't feel like dealing with the crap and teasing that would come with letting people know--our work was full of high schoolers, literally and figuratively).  Our families knew, and a few of our closest friends.  That was it.  We didn't tell anyone until I quit, and people were so surprised because we didn't even interact at work.  But if we had told them, they would have been convinced we were showing each other favoritism, and our boss would have scheduled us for requested days off out of spite.  When coworkers asked us if we were seeing someone, we just replied, "oh, we're seeing people," and left it at that.  But if one of our friends had been planning a wedding and called us, we would have 'fessed up.   

WhatawagSBNy

@PrettyGirlLost‌ says : We all recognize that Miss Manner's or whomever else suggests as you do is actually rude on this one and not adapting with the times


We all recognize??????? No, you do not represent everyone on the knot. There are many traditionalists who still believe Miss Manners is right. And a whole lot of people agree with you.

flantastic

WhatawagSBNy said:

@PrettyGirlLost‌ says : We all recognize that Miss Manner's or whomever else suggests as you do is actually rude on this one and not adapting with the times We all recognize??????? No, you do not represent everyone on the knot. There are many traditionalists who still believe Miss Manners is right. And a whole lot of people agree with you.

Mostly people who have a stick up their ass about "social events" and believe that everyone should be hosting dinner parties. Like the people who think $650 pewter cake plates are the best wedding gift ever because of all the dinner parties and cookie parties.

PrettyGirlLost

WhatawagSBNy said:

@PrettyGirlLost‌ says : We all recognize that Miss Manner's or whomever else suggests as you do is actually rude on this one and not adapting with the times We all recognize??????? No, you do not represent everyone on the knot. There are many traditionalists who still believe Miss Manners is right. And a whole lot of people agree with you.

Yes.  We do.  I'm not talking just about here on TK.  I'm talking about pretty much everyone I know outside of TK who has hosted weddings, attended weddings, etc.  We're all excercising common sense.

Aside from you and a few other ppl here, I don't know anyone nor have ever heard of anyone following Miss manners to the point of perpetuating outdated and rude "etiquette" norms.