Excluding immediate family

Jen4948

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

adk19 said:

MandyMost said:

Don't exclude anyone from your wedding that you're not willing to cut off entirely from your life. It's fine to invite or not invite anyone you want, but you can't expect them to not take it as a slight. Just own your decision, whatever it is, and don't be surprised if your relationship with someone you didn't invite doesn't recover.

But as others have said, don't finalize your guest list until the invites go out. Just make sure to book a venue big enough to invite everyone you think you might invite, and then finalize the guest list before invites go out. 

By this logic everyone who elopes or has a private ceremony is cutting off everyone they know from their lives.  I don't believe that is a valid leap.  Sometimes you just don't want to invite someone, I don't see why that should completely end the relationship.

Excluding a sibling from an elopement where everyone is excluded is very different than excluding a sibling from an event that includes the rest of the family.

Surely you can see how singling out one sibling could be a relationship ending move. 

If that particular sibling has treated the OP in a toxic way, then ending the relationship may not be a bad thing. "Relationships" =/= "lie down and be a doormat for abuse by B/GFs of siblings who won't require their B/GFs to treat their family members with respect."

I never said the relationship needed to be salvaged, only that excluding the sibling could ruin it. Ultimately, it isn't OP's decision to make. The point is that deciding to exclude a sibling from one's wedding is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and it shouldn't be reactionary. 

But I'll go ahead and go on record and say that cutting a sister out of your life over her (decidedly shitastic) behavior on one cruise is pretty short sighted.  Based on what the OP said about the sister's engagement not being "real" despite she and her FI announcing it, it sounds like bad behavior isn't one sided here.  

But we don't know that the stepsister's behavior happened only on that one cruise.  The OP didn't say, but it might have been going on all along.  And even if it happened only that one time, it's still a red flag that needs to be addressed before she is invited to join the family again.  It needs to be made clear to her that behavior like that won't be tolerated ever again, and will result in her not being invited to future family events. 

Yes, the FI is the one who needs to make that clear to her as far as the wedding goes, but it should not just be shrugged off and the OP blamed for "not one sided behavior here" because you don't know what the OP's behavior was like on that cruise.

Oh please. You know full well that if this were just an example of a pattern, OP would have included it in the OP.

I don't know why you are assuming that I'm saying it should just be shrugged off. I'm saying it's short sighted to end the relationship over an isolated incident. Not ending a relationship =/= ignoring bad behavior. By your logic, saying we shouldn't execute shoplifters means we shouldn't punish them. 

The whole thing should be addressed by OP's FI, ideally in a clear-the-air conversation in which sister's engagement is acknowledged along with her bad behavior, and not one that threatens the wedding invitation. 

The bolded is a bullshit stretch that in no way applies to what I said.  Where the fuck did you pull that out of?

I agree with your last paragraph, but if the sister and her FI refuse to take responsibility for their actions and make clear that they're not going to respect the feelings of the family members they went out of their way to hurt, then neither should be invited.  They've made clear that they don't give a fuck about their "relationships" with the family, so there wouldn't be any "relationship" with them worth inviting them to the wedding over.  It would be a consequence of their desire to be rude, hostile, and threatening-and they'd deserve not to be invited.

It's called an analogy. 

It's still BS and has no logic to it at all.

Let me try to break this down for you. I said that ending a relationship with a sibling over one act of bad behavior is excessive. You decided that meant the bad behavior should be totally ignored.

Applying the same logic, if I had said that shoplifters should not be executed, you would decide that I mean they shouldn't be punished at all.

You are taking the position that if I say don't use the nuclear option, it means don't do anything. If you really can't see how the analogy works, I can't help you. 

There is no logic in comparing executing shoplifters to whether or not to invite someone who has behaved badly to a wedding.  This is like comparing apples and oranges.

PS.  I did not ask for your help and don't need it.

[Deleted User]

MandyMost said:

adk19 said:

MandyMost said:

adk19 said:

MandyMost said:

Don't exclude anyone from your wedding that you're not willing to cut off entirely from your life. It's fine to invite or not invite anyone you want, but you can't expect them to not take it as a slight. Just own your decision, whatever it is, and don't be surprised if your relationship with someone you didn't invite doesn't recover.

But as others have said, don't finalize your guest list until the invites go out. Just make sure to book a venue big enough to invite everyone you think you might invite, and then finalize the guest list before invites go out. 

By this logic everyone who elopes or has a private ceremony is cutting off everyone they know from their lives.  I don't believe that is a valid leap.  Sometimes you just don't want to invite someone, I don't see why that should completely end the relationship.

I didn't say you ARE cutting off the people you don't invite, but I do believe that you should be prepared for people to take it personally. Clearly the smaller the wedding the less personal people should take not being invited. But some people will be offended at not being invited, even if you did elope. If it is crucial for you to keep a relationship with someone, then you should consider what it means to not invite that person.  Hopefully someone who you care about, and who cares about you, will understand reasons why you didn't invite them to something. But not everyone is rational.

If you have a toxic relationship and are willing to let that relationship go, definitely don't invite them! But if you're not ready to let the relationship go, you should really consider inviting them to your wedding.

So, just because my mother will take it personally if I elope means that I should do something I don't want to do and have guests at my wedding?  It is crucial to me to keep a relationship with my mother, therefore I must invite her.  

I want to elope.  Just me and him on a beach somewhere; spend $20 on dry cleaning and whatever for a license, maybe throw $100 at a photography student for half an hour to capture the event.  My mother will be sad, so I must invite my mom and dad.  If I invite MY parents, I have to invite HIS parents.  If we invite our parents, we need to inform our siblings and invite them and their spouses.  Our families have now heard about this so I'll have to include some super close cousins and he'll have to include some super close aunts and uncles.  Since we're now inviting people, we might as well included our BFFs.  We have to host everyone we invite to something after the ceremony so we're now buying lunch or appetizers for 20 people.  So much for a casual elopement on the beach, all because I'm concerned about whether someone will take not being invited to something personally and cut me out of their life.  Sounds reasonable.

You just summarized the reason why a lot of people don't elope. They know it would make their friends/family sad, and they choose to keep their friends/family happy and give up on their dream of eloping. 

If you know eloping would hurt your mother and you choose to do it anyway, then you need to own that choice and what it means, including if it means damaging your relationship with your mother. That's all I'm saying.

And I stand by the idea that you have to accept that people may be hurt if they're not invited to your wedding, and you need to accept the potential consequences. Will a coworker or friendly acquaintance be hurt if they're not invited? Maybe. Do you care? Probably not, since you're not very close with them. Will your aunts and uncles care if you're not inviting any aunts and uncles? Maybe. Do you care? Maybe. Are you willing to have your aunts and uncles pissed off so you can have a smaller wedding you want? Maybe. I don't know. You have to make that decision. And will one sibling be mad if you invite all the other siblings but not them. Probably. How mad? I don't know, but maybe very mad. Maybe it will permanently damage your relationship. Are you OK with that? I don't know, that's up to you. These are the things you have to ask yourself when you make your guest list.

But really, this is not very different than any other decision! If you moved across the country your family might be hurt. But you have to make the choice that's right for you--keep them happy and stay in your hometown, or live your own life and move across the country. But if you choose the latter, you have to accept you may never be as close with your family again. That's life. 

That's not what you originally said.  You said not inviting someone means they are being cut from my life, therefore I should invite them.  Now you're saying, IF you know it will hurt your mom, THEN you should invite her.

My parents eloped, I know they'd understand if I did.  I'm sure our family would be bummed, but they also know us and would understand that we do our own thing and don't really care what people think about our decisions as long as they're good for us.  So, no, in my personal case, I can absolutely elope.  I was just arguing your original point which seemed to be, if you don't invite someone you're close to, you're cutting them out of your life.

MyNameIsNot

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

adk19 said:

MandyMost said:

Don't exclude anyone from your wedding that you're not willing to cut off entirely from your life. It's fine to invite or not invite anyone you want, but you can't expect them to not take it as a slight. Just own your decision, whatever it is, and don't be surprised if your relationship with someone you didn't invite doesn't recover.

But as others have said, don't finalize your guest list until the invites go out. Just make sure to book a venue big enough to invite everyone you think you might invite, and then finalize the guest list before invites go out. 

By this logic everyone who elopes or has a private ceremony is cutting off everyone they know from their lives.  I don't believe that is a valid leap.  Sometimes you just don't want to invite someone, I don't see why that should completely end the relationship.

Excluding a sibling from an elopement where everyone is excluded is very different than excluding a sibling from an event that includes the rest of the family.

Surely you can see how singling out one sibling could be a relationship ending move. 

If that particular sibling has treated the OP in a toxic way, then ending the relationship may not be a bad thing. "Relationships" =/= "lie down and be a doormat for abuse by B/GFs of siblings who won't require their B/GFs to treat their family members with respect."

I never said the relationship needed to be salvaged, only that excluding the sibling could ruin it. Ultimately, it isn't OP's decision to make. The point is that deciding to exclude a sibling from one's wedding is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and it shouldn't be reactionary. 

But I'll go ahead and go on record and say that cutting a sister out of your life over her (decidedly shitastic) behavior on one cruise is pretty short sighted.  Based on what the OP said about the sister's engagement not being "real" despite she and her FI announcing it, it sounds like bad behavior isn't one sided here.  

But we don't know that the stepsister's behavior happened only on that one cruise.  The OP didn't say, but it might have been going on all along.  And even if it happened only that one time, it's still a red flag that needs to be addressed before she is invited to join the family again.  It needs to be made clear to her that behavior like that won't be tolerated ever again, and will result in her not being invited to future family events. 

Yes, the FI is the one who needs to make that clear to her as far as the wedding goes, but it should not just be shrugged off and the OP blamed for "not one sided behavior here" because you don't know what the OP's behavior was like on that cruise.

Oh please. You know full well that if this were just an example of a pattern, OP would have included it in the OP.

I don't know why you are assuming that I'm saying it should just be shrugged off. I'm saying it's short sighted to end the relationship over an isolated incident. Not ending a relationship =/= ignoring bad behavior. By your logic, saying we shouldn't execute shoplifters means we shouldn't punish them. 

The whole thing should be addressed by OP's FI, ideally in a clear-the-air conversation in which sister's engagement is acknowledged along with her bad behavior, and not one that threatens the wedding invitation. 

The bolded is a bullshit stretch that in no way applies to what I said.  Where the fuck did you pull that out of?

I agree with your last paragraph, but if the sister and her FI refuse to take responsibility for their actions and make clear that they're not going to respect the feelings of the family members they went out of their way to hurt, then neither should be invited.  They've made clear that they don't give a fuck about their "relationships" with the family, so there wouldn't be any "relationship" with them worth inviting them to the wedding over.  It would be a consequence of their desire to be rude, hostile, and threatening-and they'd deserve not to be invited.

It's called an analogy. 

It's still BS and has no logic to it at all.

Let me try to break this down for you. I said that ending a relationship with a sibling over one act of bad behavior is excessive. You decided that meant the bad behavior should be totally ignored.

Applying the same logic, if I had said that shoplifters should not be executed, you would decide that I mean they shouldn't be punished at all.

You are taking the position that if I say don't use the nuclear option, it means don't do anything. If you really can't see how the analogy works, I can't help you. 

There is no logic in comparing executing shoplifters to whether or not to invite someone who has behaved badly to a wedding.  This is like comparing apples and oranges.

PS.  I did not ask for your help and don't need it.

I can't tell if you're being obtuse, or if you honestly can't grasp the basic logic of an analogy. 

Either way, this has gone on long enough. I'm done. 

Jen4948

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

Jen4948 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

adk19 said:

MandyMost said:

Don't exclude anyone from your wedding that you're not willing to cut off entirely from your life. It's fine to invite or not invite anyone you want, but you can't expect them to not take it as a slight. Just own your decision, whatever it is, and don't be surprised if your relationship with someone you didn't invite doesn't recover.

But as others have said, don't finalize your guest list until the invites go out. Just make sure to book a venue big enough to invite everyone you think you might invite, and then finalize the guest list before invites go out. 

By this logic everyone who elopes or has a private ceremony is cutting off everyone they know from their lives.  I don't believe that is a valid leap.  Sometimes you just don't want to invite someone, I don't see why that should completely end the relationship.

Excluding a sibling from an elopement where everyone is excluded is very different than excluding a sibling from an event that includes the rest of the family.

Surely you can see how singling out one sibling could be a relationship ending move. 

If that particular sibling has treated the OP in a toxic way, then ending the relationship may not be a bad thing. "Relationships" =/= "lie down and be a doormat for abuse by B/GFs of siblings who won't require their B/GFs to treat their family members with respect."

I never said the relationship needed to be salvaged, only that excluding the sibling could ruin it. Ultimately, it isn't OP's decision to make. The point is that deciding to exclude a sibling from one's wedding is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and it shouldn't be reactionary. 

But I'll go ahead and go on record and say that cutting a sister out of your life over her (decidedly shitastic) behavior on one cruise is pretty short sighted.  Based on what the OP said about the sister's engagement not being "real" despite she and her FI announcing it, it sounds like bad behavior isn't one sided here.  

But we don't know that the stepsister's behavior happened only on that one cruise.  The OP didn't say, but it might have been going on all along.  And even if it happened only that one time, it's still a red flag that needs to be addressed before she is invited to join the family again.  It needs to be made clear to her that behavior like that won't be tolerated ever again, and will result in her not being invited to future family events. 

Yes, the FI is the one who needs to make that clear to her as far as the wedding goes, but it should not just be shrugged off and the OP blamed for "not one sided behavior here" because you don't know what the OP's behavior was like on that cruise.

Oh please. You know full well that if this were just an example of a pattern, OP would have included it in the OP.

I don't know why you are assuming that I'm saying it should just be shrugged off. I'm saying it's short sighted to end the relationship over an isolated incident. Not ending a relationship =/= ignoring bad behavior. By your logic, saying we shouldn't execute shoplifters means we shouldn't punish them. 

The whole thing should be addressed by OP's FI, ideally in a clear-the-air conversation in which sister's engagement is acknowledged along with her bad behavior, and not one that threatens the wedding invitation. 

The bolded is a bullshit stretch that in no way applies to what I said.  Where the fuck did you pull that out of?

I agree with your last paragraph, but if the sister and her FI refuse to take responsibility for their actions and make clear that they're not going to respect the feelings of the family members they went out of their way to hurt, then neither should be invited.  They've made clear that they don't give a fuck about their "relationships" with the family, so there wouldn't be any "relationship" with them worth inviting them to the wedding over.  It would be a consequence of their desire to be rude, hostile, and threatening-and they'd deserve not to be invited.

It's called an analogy. 

It's still BS and has no logic to it at all.

Let me try to break this down for you. I said that ending a relationship with a sibling over one act of bad behavior is excessive. You decided that meant the bad behavior should be totally ignored.

Applying the same logic, if I had said that shoplifters should not be executed, you would decide that I mean they shouldn't be punished at all.

You are taking the position that if I say don't use the nuclear option, it means don't do anything. If you really can't see how the analogy works, I can't help you. 

There is no logic in comparing executing shoplifters to whether or not to invite someone who has behaved badly to a wedding.  This is like comparing apples and oranges.

PS.  I did not ask for your help and don't need it.

I can't tell if you're being obtuse, or if you honestly can't grasp the basic logic of an analogy. 

Either way, this has gone on long enough. I'm done. 

Ta-ta.  You're the one being obtuse, because your "analogy" has no logic to it whatsoever.