Wedding Etiquette Forum

Family Drama!

124

Answers

  • No one said that cake and punch is what should be expected with a DW. Not one person said that. In fact, I clearly said, in so many words, the exact opposite -- that a FULL reception is what you should do for a DW. I then said anything beyond that is extra and you, as a guest, should not expect it, nor should you feel "hurt" or somehow disvalued if it doesn't happen.
  • No one said that cake and punch is what should be expected with a DW. Not one person said that. In fact, I clearly said, in so many words, the exact opposite -- that a FULL reception is what you should do for a DW. I then said anything beyond that is extra and you, as a guest, should not expect it, nor should you feel "hurt" or somehow disvalued if it doesn't happen.

    My point was that you also said that no one should expect more than what's required by etiquette. And a cake and punch reception following a wedding occurring after the lunch hour and before dinner is perfectly acceptable according to etiquette.

    So why wouldn't it hold that a couple could hold a DW wedding and then simply serve them cake and punch which would be OK for the time of day?
  • banana468 said:
    No one said that cake and punch is what should be expected with a DW. Not one person said that. In fact, I clearly said, in so many words, the exact opposite -- that a FULL reception is what you should do for a DW. I then said anything beyond that is extra and you, as a guest, should not expect it, nor should you feel "hurt" or somehow disvalued if it doesn't happen.
    My point was that you also said that no one should expect more than what's required by etiquette. And a cake and punch reception following a wedding occurring after the lunch hour and before dinner is perfectly acceptable according to etiquette. So why wouldn't it hold that a couple could hold a DW wedding and then simply serve them cake and punch which would be OK for the time of day?
    As a guest, you shouldn't expect more than cake and punch, but the couple should serve more than cake and punch. Clear enough for you? The reception should be a real reception. That's it. Beyond that, it's all extra. This whole conversation makes me wonder how many DWs you've been to.

  • banana468 said:

    No one said that cake and punch is what should be expected with a DW. Not one person said that. In fact, I clearly said, in so many words, the exact opposite -- that a FULL reception is what you should do for a DW. I then said anything beyond that is extra and you, as a guest, should not expect it, nor should you feel "hurt" or somehow disvalued if it doesn't happen.

    My point was that you also said that no one should expect more than what's required by etiquette. And a cake and punch reception following a wedding occurring after the lunch hour and before dinner is perfectly acceptable according to etiquette.

    So why wouldn't it hold that a couple could hold a DW wedding and then simply serve them cake and punch which would be OK for the time of day?

    As a guest, you shouldn't expect more than cake and punch, but the couple should serve more than cake and punch. Clear enough for you? The reception should be a real reception. That's it. Beyond that, it's all extra. This whole conversation makes me wonder how many DWs you've been to.


    It makes me wonder if you're paying attention to what you're saying.

    A guest shouldn't expect more than cake and punch but the hosts should serve more than cake and punch when it's a DW.

    But when you're asking all your guests to give up their entire weekend the couple are required to feed a meal but the guests shouldn't expect more than cake and punch.

    Yup. Got it.
  • Oh for goodness sakes.
  • Oh for goodness sakes.

    Exactly. At some point there's a general consensus here that a DW means the guests get a meal. But today the debate makes me feel like I have 8 heads for thinking that a DW means an entire weekend devoted to the wedding/couple and therefore they should host more than just one meal.
  • huskypuppy14huskypuppy14 Boston Suburbs member
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    Eh, I know what banana is saying. I've been to a few DW (none out of the country though) where 90%+ had to travel. They all had events throughout the weekend. Not always a dinner, but there was some sort of gathering the night before. There was a schedule of activities, that all guests were invited to, and usually included brunch the next day. All of these were obviously fully hosted receptions.

    I do think a DW should not be a cake and punch reception, but other than that, you don't have to do extra activities, but it's common to do so.
    image
    image

    image


  • Eh, I know what banana is saying. I've been to a few DW (none out of the country though) where 90%+ had to travel. They all had events throughout the weekend. Not always a dinner, but there was some sort of gathering the night before. There was a schedule of activities, that all guests were invited to, and usually included brunch the next day. All of these were obviously fully hosted receptions.

    I do think a DW should not be a cake and punch reception, but other than that, you don't have to do extra activities, but it's common to do so.
    Being common is completely different than going to the wedding expecting more and saying that you'd feel that you weren't valued if you don't get it.
    SP29PrettyGirlLost
  • huskypuppy14huskypuppy14 Boston Suburbs member
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    Eh, I know what banana is saying. I've been to a few DW (none out of the country though) where 90%+ had to travel. They all had events throughout the weekend. Not always a dinner, but there was some sort of gathering the night before. There was a schedule of activities, that all guests were invited to, and usually included brunch the next day. All of these were obviously fully hosted receptions.

    I do think a DW should not be a cake and punch reception, but other than that, you don't have to do extra activities, but it's common to do so.
    Being common is completely different than going to the wedding expecting more and saying that you'd feel that you weren't valued if you don't get it.
    It's all about treating your guests as you would like to be treated. No you don't have to have an extra activity at a DW, but it's common and courteous to do so! That's all. 

    You know what's also common, to change you name from the knottie numbers default. You don't have to but it's courteous to do so. Especially if you are going to be posting a lot.

    image
    image
    image

    image


    banana468lyndausvi
  • I understand that I'm arguing like I'm on the debate team and I'm not an ungracious person. Seriously.

    I think that there are a lot of couples who try to turn their wedding into some kind of vacation weekend. And when they do that, I think they should step it up a bit. Again, it's just about taking care to show your guests that you appreciate that they gave up an entire weekend in the name of you tying the knot.

    huskypuppy14sparklepants41OliveOilsMomPrettyGirlLost
  • Eh, I know what banana is saying. I've been to a few DW (none out of the country though) where 90%+ had to travel. They all had events throughout the weekend. Not always a dinner, but there was some sort of gathering the night before. There was a schedule of activities, that all guests were invited to, and usually included brunch the next day. All of these were obviously fully hosted receptions.

    I do think a DW should not be a cake and punch reception, but other than that, you don't have to do extra activities, but it's common to do so.
    Being common is completely different than going to the wedding expecting more and saying that you'd feel that you weren't valued if you don't get it.
    It's all about treating your guests as you would like to be treated. No you don't have to have an extra activity at a DW, but it's common and courteous to do so! That's all. 

    You know what's also common, to change you name from the knottie numbers default. You don't have to but it's courteous to do so. Especially if you are going to be posting a lot.

    image
    Better?
    huskypuppy14
  • I think my brain just started melting out of my ear. 

    DWs, IMO, should include a full-meal reception. That is all I would expect, and nothing more.

    Plus, personally, if I had to take time off and fly to some distant locale, I'd rather plan my own time than be invited (read: expected) to attend brunches and other get-togethers for the wedding.

    And I've seen this said again and again on here: invitations are not summons! It's easy, just don't go.
    Jen4948PrettyGirlLost
  • abcdevonn said:
    I think my brain just started melting out of my ear. 

    DWs, IMO, should include a full-meal reception. That is all I would expect, and nothing more.

    Plus, personally, if I had to take time off and fly to some distant locale, I'd rather plan my own time than be invited (read: expected) to attend brunches and other get-togethers for the wedding.

    And I've seen this said again and again on here: invitations are not summons! It's easy, just don't go.
    I feel like your last two sentences contradict each other.   You'd rather plan your own time than be invited to attend other get-togethers but if you don't like it, just don't go.
  • I don't see how they contradict each other.

    If I chose to go to a DW, I would not expect anything other than a full dinner reception, and I would prefer as few extra events as possible. Because if I chose to go to a DW, I'd rather have my own time to do what I want without being expected to attend other wedding-related events.

    The second part is not related to that. I am saying, if going to a DW is so much of an effort that you expect extra events to make up for your effort, then just don't go. 

    At this point in my life I wouldn't go to a DW. I can't afford it, and if I am traveling somewhere I would prefer it to be on my own terms. I'd rather just send a gift. If, at some point, I am invited to a DW and I choose to go, I wouldn't expect anything extra.

    Does that make more sense?
  • Ok, I'll throw this out there:

    FI is in North Texas.  Fi's family is scattered between 5 and 6 hours away from by car, still in TX.  My family in NY/NJ.  I am in England.  So where can I have a wedding that it isn't a DW?  50%+ of the guests, including the bride and groom, have to travel. We're paying for it ourselves and hosting what we can afford, which is dinner at a nice restaurant, open bar.  I'm flying in from the UK to save the burden on my guests in that direction, but there's a big gap between FI, his family, and mine.  So are people going to side-eye this jetlagged bride?
  • Ok, I'll throw this out there:

    FI is in North Texas.  Fi's family is scattered between 5 and 6 hours away from by car, still in TX.  My family in NY/NJ.  I am in England.  So where can I have a wedding that it isn't a DW?  50%+ of the guests, including the bride and groom, have to travel. We're paying for it ourselves and hosting what we can afford, which is dinner at a nice restaurant, open bar.  I'm flying in from the UK to save the burden on my guests in that direction, but there's a big gap between FI, his family, and mine.  So are people going to side-eye this jetlagged bride?
    If they do, they weren't worthy of ever being invited, so I wouldn't care. Frankly, anyone entitled enough to attend a wedding -- any wedding -- and expect anything more than ceremony and reception is too much of a spoiled snot to give two thoughts to.
    SP29
  • Ok, I'll throw this out there:

    FI is in North Texas.  Fi's family is scattered between 5 and 6 hours away from by car, still in TX.  My family in NY/NJ.  I am in England.  So where can I have a wedding that it isn't a DW?  50%+ of the guests, including the bride and groom, have to travel. We're paying for it ourselves and hosting what we can afford, which is dinner at a nice restaurant, open bar.  I'm flying in from the UK to save the burden on my guests in that direction, but there's a big gap between FI, his family, and mine.  So are people going to side-eye this jetlagged bride?
    I don't think so.   You're picking a location to help with the travel costs to your guests.

    My point and tirade was referring to weddings where the couple are purposefully picking a DW because they want their guests to vacation with them.   We've seen them on here and I'm on other boards with people who are talking about having to spend a weekend camping in the woods because that's what the couple want.  And there are couples who have had weddings in locations like the Caribbean because it would be great to have everyone there for a beach vacation long weekend.  Intent has a lot to do with it.
  • SP29SP29 member
    Sixth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    banana468 said:
    Ok, I'll throw this out there:

    FI is in North Texas.  Fi's family is scattered between 5 and 6 hours away from by car, still in TX.  My family in NY/NJ.  I am in England.  So where can I have a wedding that it isn't a DW?  50%+ of the guests, including the bride and groom, have to travel. We're paying for it ourselves and hosting what we can afford, which is dinner at a nice restaurant, open bar.  I'm flying in from the UK to save the burden on my guests in that direction, but there's a big gap between FI, his family, and mine.  So are people going to side-eye this jetlagged bride?
    I don't think so.   You're picking a location to help with the travel costs to your guests.

    My point and tirade was referring to weddings where the couple are purposefully picking a DW because they want their guests to vacation with them.   We've seen them on here and I'm on other boards with people who are talking about having to spend a weekend camping in the woods because that's what the couple want.  And there are couples who have had weddings in locations like the Caribbean because it would be great to have everyone there for a beach vacation long weekend.  Intent has a lot to do with it.
    I'm still in the camp that while the B&G should consider the type of reception they are hosting, nothing further is needed beyond the ceremony and reception. Whenever I have traveled for a wedding, I have never expected pre and post events- I suspect the B&G are busy prior, and want to spend time together after.

    Banana- I see what you're saying about the "beach vacation long weekend"- but I also think that is kind of weird (the concept of turning your wedding day into a weekend or week long partayy with everybody). And even if I did go, I wouldn't spend my entire time at the beach, I'd go with DH and do the things we'd like to do with *our* vacation.

    So, I stand by, if I'm invited to a DW and DH and I decide we have the funds and would like to take a vacation that involves a wedding we'll do it- expecting nothing more than a ceremony and reception, because the rest of the time is our vacation. If not, we'll decline- and that is always the caveat to a DW- more declines.


    PrettyGirlLost
  • I think that's fine.

    I haven't seen too many long weekend weddings but they seem to come up from time to time either in conversation or on other boards.

    And they work both ways.   Ex: I have a family member who surprised a friend when he said that he had no intention of attending her cruise ship wedding and he had no desire to give up his vacation time to be there for it.  She was honestly surprised and it took more people telling her this to *get* that people don't really want to do this.

    When DH and I have gone to family weddings that require an overnight, I'm not expecting more than the reception.    
  • banana468 said:
    I think that's fine.

    I haven't seen too many long weekend weddings but they seem to come up from time to time either in conversation or on other boards.

    And they work both ways.   Ex: I have a family member who surprised a friend when he said that he had no intention of attending her cruise ship wedding and he had no desire to give up his vacation time to be there for it.  She was honestly surprised and it took more people telling her this to *get* that people don't really want to do this.

    When DH and I have gone to family weddings that require an overnight, I'm not expecting more than the reception.    
    Perhaps what surprised the bride was in the way it was conveyed. A simple decline is sufficient. If he went into it the way you did when relaying the story, that isn't exactly tactful.
  • banana468 said:
    I think that's fine.

    I haven't seen too many long weekend weddings but they seem to come up from time to time either in conversation or on other boards.

    And they work both ways.   Ex: I have a family member who surprised a friend when he said that he had no intention of attending her cruise ship wedding and he had no desire to give up his vacation time to be there for it.  She was honestly surprised and it took more people telling her this to *get* that people don't really want to do this.

    When DH and I have gone to family weddings that require an overnight, I'm not expecting more than the reception.    
    Perhaps what surprised the bride was in the way it was conveyed. A simple decline is sufficient. If he went into it the way you did when relaying the story, that isn't exactly tactful.
    It was a coworker who was talking wedding plans.  She bounced the idea off the family member asking if he'd be there.   He made it clear that if she wanted him there, she wouldn't ask him to get on a cruise because he and his wife weren't going to give up their limited vacation time for it.   She was surprised because it took a bit to realize that not everyone was as excited to see her get  married as she was.   So the cruise became the honeymoon and the wedding was a local event.



  • MrsMack10612MrsMack10612 The Witch City member
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Answer
    Reading through all of this I think the thing that those who are "against" @banana468 are missing is she is talking about the spirit (which she said once) vs. the letter of the law.  

    Even if a wedding invitation is not a summons, if you as a couple are choosing a pricey DW you do have a certain expectation that your guests are going to shell out the time/money to attend (unless of course you've planned intentionally to be sure people decline).  So the couple does have an expectation of people spending that time/money; therefore, it is not unreasonable as a guest to expect the couple to go above and beyond.

     

    Maggie0829OliveOilsMom
  • Reading through all of this I think the thing that those who are "against" @banana468 are missing is she is talking about the spirit (which she said once) vs. the letter of the law.  

    Even if a wedding invitation is not a summons, if you as a couple are choosing a pricey DW you do have a certain expectation that your guests are going to shell out the time/money to attend (unless of course you've planned intentionally to be sure people decline).  So the couple does have an expectation of people spending that time/money; therefore, it is not unreasonable as a guest to expect the couple to go above and beyond.

    Reading through all of this I think the thing that those who are "against" @banana468 are missing is she is talking about the spirit (which she said once) vs. the letter of the law.  

    Even if a wedding invitation is not a summons, if you as a couple are choosing a pricey DW you do have a certain expectation that your guests are going to shell out the time/money to attend (unless of course you've planned intentionally to be sure people decline).  So the couple does have an expectation of people spending that time/money; therefore, it is not unreasonable as a guest to expect the couple to go above and beyond.
    I do get that, I just personally don't think it's true. If it wasn't something I just genuinely wanted to do (attend the wedding, that is), then I would decline. By saying "yes" to a DW, you understand you will be shelling out some (potentially) big bucks. Other than a full meal at the reception, I don't have any expectations that differ from a local wedding. FTR, I am not a fan of DWs because of the expense it puts on guests who decide to attend. But I don't think guests have a right to expect more just because they pay more. That's a decision you make as a guest. 
    snowywinterSP29PrettyGirlLost
  • MrsMack10612MrsMack10612 The Witch City member
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Answer
    abcdevonn said:
    Reading through all of this I think the thing that those who are "against" @banana468 are missing is she is talking about the spirit (which she said once) vs. the letter of the law.  

    Even if a wedding invitation is not a summons, if you as a couple are choosing a pricey DW you do have a certain expectation that your guests are going to shell out the time/money to attend (unless of course you've planned intentionally to be sure people decline).  So the couple does have an expectation of people spending that time/money; therefore, it is not unreasonable as a guest to expect the couple to go above and beyond.

    Reading through all of this I think the thing that those who are "against" @banana468 are missing is she is talking about the spirit (which she said once) vs. the letter of the law.  

    Even if a wedding invitation is not a summons, if you as a couple are choosing a pricey DW you do have a certain expectation that your guests are going to shell out the time/money to attend (unless of course you've planned intentionally to be sure people decline).  So the couple does have an expectation of people spending that time/money; therefore, it is not unreasonable as a guest to expect the couple to go above and beyond.
    I do get that, I just personally don't think it's true. If it wasn't something I just genuinely wanted to do (attend the wedding, that is), then I would decline. By saying "yes" to a DW, you understand you will be shelling out some (potentially) big bucks. Other than a full meal at the reception, I don't have any expectations that differ from a local wedding. FTR, I am not a fan of DWs because of the expense it puts on guests who decide to attend. But I don't think guests have a right to expect more just because they pay more. That's a decision you make as a guest. 
    I guess my question then is why is ok for the couple to expect more from their guests, but not provide more?  Again, understanding that no one is required to go to a DW (or any wedding for that matter), but the couple has to know that this is potentially more expensive for their guests.


     

    Maggie0829banana468
  • edited July 2015
    abcdevonn said:
    Reading through all of this I think the thing that those who are "against" @banana468 are missing is she is talking about the spirit (which she said once) vs. the letter of the law.  

    Even if a wedding invitation is not a summons, if you as a couple are choosing a pricey DW you do have a certain expectation that your guests are going to shell out the time/money to attend (unless of course you've planned intentionally to be sure people decline).  So the couple does have an expectation of people spending that time/money; therefore, it is not unreasonable as a guest to expect the couple to go above and beyond.

    Reading through all of this I think the thing that those who are "against" @banana468 are missing is she is talking about the spirit (which she said once) vs. the letter of the law.  

    Even if a wedding invitation is not a summons, if you as a couple are choosing a pricey DW you do have a certain expectation that your guests are going to shell out the time/money to attend (unless of course you've planned intentionally to be sure people decline).  So the couple does have an expectation of people spending that time/money; therefore, it is not unreasonable as a guest to expect the couple to go above and beyond.
    I do get that, I just personally don't think it's true. If it wasn't something I just genuinely wanted to do (attend the wedding, that is), then I would decline. By saying "yes" to a DW, you understand you will be shelling out some (potentially) big bucks. Other than a full meal at the reception, I don't have any expectations that differ from a local wedding. FTR, I am not a fan of DWs because of the expense it puts on guests who decide to attend. But I don't think guests have a right to expect more just because they pay more. That's a decision you make as a guest. 
    I guess my question then is why is ok for the couple to expect more from their guests, but not provide more?  Again, understanding that no one is required to go to a DW (or any wedding for that matter), but the couple has to know that this is potentially more expensive for their guests.


    Right, I don't really think it's a great decision on the couple's part. As I said, I'm not a fan.

    ETA: For clarification, I'm not a fan of DWs as in...let's get married in Punta Cana, because why not!? DWs that are in an area where the couple lives, or requires travel for some portion of the guests but isn't a "this is pretty"-type destination are different, to me.
    SP29
  • MrsMack10612MrsMack10612 The Witch City member
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Answer
    @abcdevonn - (I've tagged you rather than all those boxes).

    You said you're not a fan, but you also seem clear that you don't think the couple needs to go above & beyond because it's a DW.

    My question is why is it ok for the couple to expect more out of their guests (time, money, travel, etc.)but they guests are not allowed to expect more from the hosts, per the above.

    And I say the couple is expecting more because you invite people expecting the will attend, as such expecting to spend more time/money to attend your wedding (generally speaking of course).

     

  • @MrsMack10612 Because the guests can say "Sorry, I am not able to attend." 

    I don't know how to make my opinion more clear, really. 

    Couples who pick DWs should realize their decision will likely inconvenience people. They should also understand that they will likely have more declines than a local wedding, because of the expense to their guests. If they CAN afford to host extra events, more power to them, but I don't guests should expect it.

    Guests who choose to attend DWs know what they are in for when they accept the invitation, because the invitation itself gives you enough information to let you know how much the trip will likely cost you. If, as a guest, you've taken that into consideration and still choose to attend, then that is YOUR decision. Guests obviously can't pick where the wedding is held, or what the wedding entails, but they CAN pick whether or not to go.

    I feel like this is like deciding to go to any party that isn't nearby. If someone invites you to come to their house for a party that is 4 hours away, and you accept, you know you're going to pay more in gas, potentially need to find somewhere to stay (or stay with the host), etc. You don't get to expect that the party host will do more for you just because you've traveled further, because you're already said "I understand the expenses of my decision and I'm still deciding to go anyway."
    SP29STARMOON44
  • MrsMack10612MrsMack10612 The Witch City member
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Love Its 1000 Comments First Answer
    edited July 2015
    abcdevonn said:
    @MrsMack10612 Because the guests can say "Sorry, I am not able to attend." 

    I don't know how to make my opinion more clear, really. 

    Couples who pick DWs should realize their decision will likely inconvenience people. They should also understand that they will likely have more declines than a local wedding, because of the expense to their guests. If they CAN afford to host extra events, more power to them, but I don't guests should expect it.

    Guests who choose to attend DWs know what they are in for when they accept the invitation, because the invitation itself gives you enough information to let you know how much the trip will likely cost you. If, as a guest, you've taken that into consideration and still choose to attend, then that is YOUR decision. Guests obviously can't pick where the wedding is held, or what the wedding entails, but they CAN pick whether or not to go.

    I feel like this is like deciding to go to any party that isn't nearby. If someone invites you to come to their house for a party that is 4 hours away, and you accept, you know you're going to pay more in gas, potentially need to find somewhere to stay (or stay with the host), etc. You don't get to expect that the party host will do more for you just because you've traveled further, because you're already said "I understand the expenses of my decision and I'm still deciding to go anyway."
    I get all that, I know invitations can be declined.  But, and maybe I'm not explaining clearly.

    The mere act of sending an invitation to someone for an expensive DW is showing an expectation that they will spend more.  The couple is in fact expecting more out of their guests. You don't send invitations expecting people to say no.  

    I'm trying to figure out why, in the general sense, it is OK for the couple to have that higher expectation from their guests, but not OK for the guests to have a higher expectation of how they will be hosted. 

    ETA:  The ability to decline an invitation does not negate the expectations on the behalf of the couple.

     

    Maggie0829banana468southernbelle0915
  • @abcdevonn - (I've tagged you rather than all those boxes).

    You said you're not a fan, but you also seem clear that you don't think the couple needs to go above & beyond because it's a DW.

    My question is why is it ok for the couple to expect more out of their guests (time, money, travel, etc.)but they guests are not allowed to expect more from the hosts, per the above.

    And I say the couple is expecting more because you invite people expecting the will attend, as such expecting to spend more time/money to attend your wedding (generally speaking of course).

    No, the couple invites people they want to celebrate with hoping people will come, but there should not be any expectation from the couple's side that people will actually go. 
    Anniversary
  • edited July 2015
    abcdevonn said:
    @MrsMack10612 Because the guests can say "Sorry, I am not able to attend." 

    I don't know how to make my opinion more clear, really. 

    Couples who pick DWs should realize their decision will likely inconvenience people. They should also understand that they will likely have more declines than a local wedding, because of the expense to their guests. If they CAN afford to host extra events, more power to them, but I don't guests should expect it.

    Guests who choose to attend DWs know what they are in for when they accept the invitation, because the invitation itself gives you enough information to let you know how much the trip will likely cost you. If, as a guest, you've taken that into consideration and still choose to attend, then that is YOUR decision. Guests obviously can't pick where the wedding is held, or what the wedding entails, but they CAN pick whether or not to go.

    I feel like this is like deciding to go to any party that isn't nearby. If someone invites you to come to their house for a party that is 4 hours away, and you accept, you know you're going to pay more in gas, potentially need to find somewhere to stay (or stay with the host), etc. You don't get to expect that the party host will do more for you just because you've traveled further, because you're already said "I understand the expenses of my decision and I'm still deciding to go anyway."
    I get all that, I know invitations can be declined.  But, and maybe I'm not explaining clearly.

    The mere act of sending an invitation to someone for an expensive DW is showing an expectation that they will spend more.  The couple is in fact expecting more out of their guests. You don't send invitations expecting people to say no.  

    I'm trying to figure out why, in the general sense, it is OK for the couple to have that higher expectation from their guests, but not OK for the guests to have a higher expectation of how they will be hosted. 


    ETF: Boxes, of course


    I guess I don't really know. I personally don't think it is okay to expect people to shell out a bunch of money to come see me walk down the aisle. I wouldn't tell someone they shouldn't have a DW, but I would certainly like them to consider how it will affect their guests. Despite my personal opinions, it is acceptable, in the culture that we (at least I) live in. I can't tell you why this has become acceptable, except that it probably has a lot to do with the wedding industry itself and the fact that the wedding world makes people feel like they are entitled to make *~*all their dreams come true *~*. 
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards