Username100108 said: (1) We are inviting the SO's we have met. Period.
(2) We have spoken face to face with the 2 guests who's SO's we have not met, and won't be inviting, and both have been very understanding of the situation. [...]
(3) We explained our finances to these people. [...]
(4) If something happens where someone RSVP's that they cannot make it, okay. we will let those 2 guests know it is okay for them to bring their SO's-We have said this to them.
1. Someone's SO is a part of their social unit regardless of whether you or any other random third party has met them.
2. It's gross and weird and rude to talk about who ISN'T invited to your wedding. Doing it face-to-face puts them in the even more awkward position of having to act like they're not bothered. Maybe your two friends really truly would've said something & really truly weren't offended. But most people would be offended. And most people don't speak up every time they're slighted. (Especially not to a bride with a "My Day" attitude.)
3. I will NEVER understand using finances as an excuse for rude behaviour. That doesn't make it better, it just tells them you value your money more than you value their relationship. Plenty of people with shoe-string budgets have hosted perfectly lovely inclusive weddings.
4. Why bother B-listing these people you don't care enough to invite in the first place? You'd be offering them a consolation prize and making it seem like the people who declined were just seat-warmers or props.
Also, H and I said I love you after three months and were engaged at 7 and married at 13. People can be in a relationship for under a year, not engaged, and still be in a very serious relationship. Judging a relationship based on an arbitrary length of time is silly.
Judging a relationship based on how long it's existed is complete bullshit but I can at least sort of understand that it's coming from a place of stupidly expecting love to be on a timeline.
What I can't comprehend AT ALL is judging a relationship based on whether or not a random person (bride) has met one of the partners. People don't wait to lock down a relationship status until after they've introduced their partner to every single one of their friends, that's not how relationships work??? I totally get not wanting to invite a stranger to your wedding, but if that stranger is your friend's SO they are no longer a stranger. Simple as that.
Judging a relationship based on how long it's existed is complete bullshit but I can at least sort of understand that it's coming from a place of stupidly expecting love to be on a timeline.
What I can't comprehend AT ALL is judging a relationship based on whether or not a random person (bride) has met one of the partners. People don't wait to lock down a relationship status until after they've introduced their partner to every single one of their friends, that's not how relationships work??? I totally get not wanting to invite a stranger to your wedding, but if that stranger is your friend's SO they are no longer a stranger. Simple as that.
We were engaged before either of us had met the other's parents. DH had not met a single one of my family. I had met his brother and cousin and that was only because they flew to us on vacation.
Our relationship escalated quickly and we lived a 4-5 hour plane ride from family.
What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests. Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated.
Our wedding is in May and at first I wanted a child free wedding, but then thought, if my family is willing to put their lives on hold, fly all the way here (i'm originally from CA) then I will find a way to make it work. The food or the flowers were definitely not more important than having family with or without kids at the wedding. I'm honored that they would put themselves out so much for me and my FI (whom most have never met!)
While kids and SO's aren't exactly in the same boat, it's still a day of celebration and I would want as much love surrounding us as possible.
So now I have some nice ferns instead of some beautiful floral arrangements at the end of each aisle. I'll live because the fern won't be living it up on the dance floor later! (I say "I" because FI could care less...lol)
And on the note, that the friends we're okay with their SO's not be invited, I'd play the part and say sure I was okay but in honesty would NOT be. What do you expect your friends to do? You've put them on the spot and they are giving you the answer they know you want to hear. Not very friendly of you.
Having a B-List is total BS, you either want them at the wedding or you don't. Not if someone can't make it then you're in. I mean seriously, how do you NOT see that as insulting??
Judging a relationship based on how long it's existed is complete bullshit but I can at least sort of understand that it's coming from a place of stupidly expecting love to be on a timeline.
What I can't comprehend AT ALL is judging a relationship based on whether or not a random person (bride) has met one of the partners. People don't wait to lock down a relationship status until after they've introduced their partner to every single one of their friends, that's not how relationships work??? I totally get not wanting to invite a stranger to your wedding, but if that stranger is your friend's SO they are no longer a stranger. Simple as that.
We were engaged before either of us had met the other's parents. DH had not met a single one of my family. I had met his brother and cousin and that was only because they flew to us on vacation.
Our relationship escalated quickly and we lived a 4-5 hour plane ride from family.
H & I had met each other's immediate families with the exception of my sister when we got engaged. The majority of our relationship was long distance while we were dating & engaged, so a lot of my friends didn't meet him until after we were engaged. Now that I think about it, 2 of my 3 bridesmaids didn't meet H until after we were engaged.
Jumping into the fray to agree with most PPs -- invite the SOs. That doesn't mean every single person gets a +1, but if your guest has an SO and you know that, then they should be allowed to bring them.
I speak here as somebody who was told once my SO (FI) could not be accommodated at a wedding due to a cap in numbers. We had been going out for 3 years at that point, and I was sad to leave him behind. It is not fun.
This is just more my random pondering than a real question. Reading various posts on TK where various couples have various "rules" about which SOs get invited, do children ever play a factor and get to be an "authorized exception"? (I'm being a little a lot tongue in cheek with the phrase authorized exception).
Like, "We're only inviting SOs who are already married or at least engaged. But we're making an exception for my second cousin because her and her b/f have a child together, so that fits our requirement of 'serious enough'."
This is just more my random pondering than a real question. Reading various posts on TK where various couples have various "rules" about which SOs get invited, do children ever play a factor and get to be an "authorized exception"? (I'm being a little a lot tongue in cheek with the phrase authorized exception).
Like, "We're only inviting SOs who are already married or at least engaged. But we're making an exception for my second cousin because her and her b/f have a child together, so that fits our requirement of 'serious enough'."
Or Living Together. Living Together almost always makes the cut for 'serious enough'. So heathens like me who shack up prior to marriage, totally get invited to Speshul Snowflake weddings together. But my uber-Christian friend, Emily, doesn't get to attend SS weddings with her boyfriend because they don't want to live in sin. Fair, right?
This is just more my random pondering than a real question. Reading various posts on TK where various couples have various "rules" about which SOs get invited, do children ever play a factor and get to be an "authorized exception"? (I'm being a little a lot tongue in cheek with the phrase authorized exception).
Like, "We're only inviting SOs who are already married or at least engaged. But we're making an exception for my second cousin because her and her b/f have a child together, so that fits our requirement of 'serious enough'."
Or Living Together. Living Together almost always makes the cut for 'serious enough'. So heathens like me who shack up prior to marriage, totally get invited to Speshul Snowflake weddings together. But my uber-Christian friend, Emily, doesn't get to attend SS weddings with her boyfriend because they don't want to live in sin. Fair, right?
YES!!! That's another one that oddly doesn't always seem to make the "exception" list.
I'm reminded of a stand-up comedian I heard who was talking about how he couldn't imagine ever getting a tattoo with a woman's name on it. He said, "I mean, I could see marrying a woman someday, maybe having a few kids. But a tattoo?!? That's so permanent!"
That's going to be my new made-up rule. If couples don't have tattoos with each other's names on it, they aren't "serious enough". Unfortunately, neither my H nor I have any tattoos...so I guess now we are just a fling.
Or Living Together. Living Together almost always makes the cut for 'serious enough'. So heathens like me who shack up prior to marriage, totally get invited to Speshul Snowflake weddings together. But my uber-Christian friend, Emily, doesn't get to attend SS weddings with her boyfriend because they don't want to live in sin. Fair, right?
YES!!! That's another one that oddly doesn't always seem to make the "exception" list.
I'm reminded of a stand-up comedian I heard who was talking about how he couldn't imagine ever getting a tattoo with a woman's name on it. He said, "I mean, I could see marrying a woman someday, maybe having a few kids. But a tattoo?!? That's so permanent!"
That's going to be my new made-up rule. If couples don't have tattoos with each other's names on it, they aren't "serious enough". Unfortunately, neither my H nor I have any tattoos...so I guess now we are just a fling.
What about matching tattoos? Or tattoos of each other's faces? That should count for something, right?
Or Living Together. Living Together almost always makes the cut for 'serious enough'. So heathens like me who shack up prior to marriage, totally get invited to Speshul Snowflake weddings together. But my uber-Christian friend, Emily, doesn't get to attend SS weddings with her boyfriend because they don't want to live in sin. Fair, right?
YES!!! That's another one that oddly doesn't always seem to make the "exception" list.
I'm reminded of a stand-up comedian I heard who was talking about how he couldn't imagine ever getting a tattoo with a woman's name on it. He said, "I mean, I could see marrying a woman someday, maybe having a few kids. But a tattoo?!? That's so permanent!"
That's going to be my new made-up rule. If couples don't have tattoos with each other's names on it, they aren't "serious enough". Unfortunately, neither my H nor I have any tattoos...so I guess now we are just a fling.
What about matching tattoos? Or tattoos of each other's faces? That should count for something, right?
I'll accept matching tattoos...but that is starting to get borderline. I mean what if it's just an infinity symbol to stand for their undying love? Nice gesture, but a little too generic for my taste.
Matching faces, though...I think that upgrades them to "super, super serious enough" levels.
I'll accept matching tattoos...but that is starting to get borderline. I mean what if it's just an infinity symbol to stand for their undying love? Nice gesture, but a little too generic for my taste.
Matching faces, though...I think that upgrades them to "super, super serious enough" levels.
This is just more my random pondering than a real question. Reading various posts on TK where various couples have various "rules" about which SOs get invited, do children ever play a factor and get to be an "authorized exception"? (I'm being a little a lot tongue in cheek with the phrase authorized exception).
Like, "We're only inviting SOs who are already married or at least engaged. But we're making an exception for my second cousin because her and her b/f have a child together, so that fits our requirement of 'serious enough'."
Or Living Together. Living Together almost always makes the cut for 'serious enough'. So heathens like me who shack up prior to marriage, totally get invited to Speshul Snowflake weddings together. But my uber-Christian friend, Emily, doesn't get to attend SS weddings with her boyfriend because they don't want to live in sin. Fair, right?
This bugs me so much, too! H and I didn't live together before we were married. Most of my friends didn't either. There are many people who don't for any number of reasons, not just because they're Christians. It doesn't make them any less serious.
So weird question. With those that have some timeline cutoff for "serious" relationships, what would you do if someone were one day short? One week? One month? What about if the have been together for 365 days but it's a leap year?
So weird question. With those that have some timeline cutoff for "serious" relationships, what would you do if someone were one day short? One week? One month? What about if the have been together for 365 days but it's a leap year?
I don't even know the date we met - HA!
What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests. Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated.
So weird question. With those that have some timeline cutoff for "serious" relationships, what would you do if someone were one day short? One week? One month? What about if the have been together for 365 days but it's a leap year?
When would I start? My husband and I took a 6 year break in between our dating time. Would we get backdated credit for previous time or have to start from the new date?! Madness! Chaos! Maybe these brides need spreadsheets to keep the "time together" straight for all potential invitees so they can make an informed decision.
What did you think would happen if you walked up to a group of internet strangers and told them to get shoehorned by their lady doc?~StageManager14
But seriously... if you're inviting your best friends and family to your wedding, don't you want to meet their SOs and wouldn't your wedding be a great opportunity to do so? Isn't it normal to care about your friends and their lives and want to be involved? If you care so little about a friend that you have no interest in meeting their SO and you'll tell them to their face that their relationship isn't important enough to you to merit an invitation, then why are you even inviting them? Save the money and don't spend it on friends you clearly care so little about.
My best friend and MOH lives out of state now. Due to schedules/finances we probably won't see each other until the wedding. Guess, what her SO is invited and I am SO EXCITED to meet him! He sounds lovely, sweet and like he treats her well. I wish I could meet him sooner! But alas, it'll have to be at my wedding (which, is almost 4x the $110 figure- fyi). Guess what? I'm ok with that! Because I couldn't imagine NOT inviting him simply because I hadn't met him. Horribly rude. And somehow, I'll still be able to wake up next to my hubby the next morning but BONUS I'll get to see my friends too, because I'll still have friends, because I didn't put my vision in front of their comfort.
Re: Refusing a Plus 1?
gif. I looooooooove this cute little owl!
And yeah, I'm on the "don't be an asshole" bandwagon too, mmmkay.
2. It's gross and weird and rude to talk about who ISN'T invited to your wedding. Doing it face-to-face puts them in the even more awkward position of having to act like they're not bothered. Maybe your two friends really truly would've said something & really truly weren't offended. But most people would be offended. And most people don't speak up every time they're slighted. (Especially not to a bride with a "My Day" attitude.)
3. I will NEVER understand using finances as an excuse for rude behaviour. That doesn't make it better, it just tells them you value your money more than you value their relationship. Plenty of people with shoe-string budgets have hosted perfectly lovely inclusive weddings.
4. Why bother B-listing these people you don't care enough to invite in the first place? You'd be offering them a consolation prize and making it seem like the people who declined were just seat-warmers or props.
Also, H and I said I love you after three months and were engaged at 7 and married at 13. People can be in a relationship for under a year, not engaged, and still be in a very serious relationship. Judging a relationship based on an arbitrary length of time is silly.
What I can't comprehend AT ALL is judging a relationship based on whether or not a random person (bride) has met one of the partners. People don't wait to lock down a relationship status until after they've introduced their partner to every single one of their friends, that's not how relationships work??? I totally get not wanting to invite a stranger to your wedding, but if that stranger is your friend's SO they are no longer a stranger. Simple as that.
Our relationship escalated quickly and we lived a 4-5 hour plane ride from family.
While kids and SO's aren't exactly in the same boat, it's still a day of celebration and I would want as much love surrounding us as possible.
So now I have some nice ferns instead of some beautiful floral arrangements at the end of each aisle. I'll live because the fern won't be living it up on the dance floor later! (I say "I" because FI could care less...lol)
And on the note, that the friends we're okay with their SO's not be invited, I'd play the part and say sure I was okay but in honesty would NOT be. What do you expect your friends to do? You've put them on the spot and they are giving you the answer they know you want to hear. Not very friendly of you.
Having a B-List is total BS, you either want them at the wedding or you don't. Not if someone can't make it then you're in. I mean seriously, how do you NOT see that as insulting??
Hell, H and I have been together nine years and I still have only met one of his mom's siblings (there's nine more) and one of H's grandmas.
Luckily our marriage has deemed me important enough to get an invitation to an upcoming family wedding this summer.
I speak here as somebody who was told once my SO (FI) could not be accommodated at a wedding due to a cap in numbers. We had been going out for 3 years at that point, and I was sad to leave him behind. It is not fun.
This is just more my random pondering than a real question. Reading various posts on TK where various couples have various "rules" about which SOs get invited, do children ever play a factor and get to be an "authorized exception"? (I'm being a little a lot tongue in cheek with the phrase authorized exception).
Like, "We're only inviting SOs who are already married or at least engaged. But we're making an exception for my second cousin because her and her b/f have a child together, so that fits our requirement of 'serious enough'."
YES!!! That's another one that oddly doesn't always seem to make the "exception" list.
I'm reminded of a stand-up comedian I heard who was talking about how he couldn't imagine ever getting a tattoo with a woman's name on it. He said, "I mean, I could see marrying a woman someday, maybe having a few kids. But a tattoo?!? That's so permanent!"
That's going to be my new made-up rule. If couples don't have tattoos with each other's names on it, they aren't "serious enough". Unfortunately, neither my H nor I have any tattoos...so I guess now we are just a fling.
I'll accept matching tattoos...but that is starting to get borderline. I mean what if it's just an infinity symbol to stand for their undying love? Nice gesture, but a little too generic for my taste.
Matching faces, though...I think that upgrades them to "super, super serious enough" levels.
Though thb we have more than enough racial slurz over here, we're probably set.
Eta: words, early etc
What Her Maj things of ragrets