Chit Chat

Potlucks Suck.

13

Re: Potlucks Suck.

  • I think this thread has just made me extremely confused because why does a social gathering automatically have to include a full dinner AND drinks if you can't afford it? Most of my social gatherings that are at a friend's house are really just light refreshments. Or people just grab some dinner for themselves and we just bring it and hang out and eat together and then do whatever. Maybe we're just trashy? Is that like a personal potluck or something? I think my issue with potluck is the expectation that I have to do something and then I worry if it's good enough lol. 

    Also, I should have added quotations to the thread title, as I'm not saying all potlucks on this planet and in history have all sucked, no exceptions. "Potlucks Suck" is literally the name of the title" ;)


    Daisypath Anniversary tickers Daisypath Anniversary tickers



    SP29
  • thisismynickname2thisismynickname2 City By The Lake member
    5000 Comments Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    You know what else.

    Some people just love to host. Period. They enjoy it. Me, I like it, but not all the time. I'd rather meet people at a restaurant (and pay our own respective ways) than have a party. 

    But come on, the Dear Abby-type columns are full of people worried about reciprocity. People who host all the time get crabby when their guests don't reciprocate. People who can't afford to host get worried about their inability to reciprocate and start declining invitations. I think this was alluded to before in someone else's post, but when everything is hosted, there are all sorts of other social power plays that go on. 

    I was once even asked by a guy who quasi-hosts twice-yearly parties (by that I mean, he and his wife provide most of the stuff but people still bring dip and booze) why we don't have parties. I said we don't have room for parties and changed the subject, because I did feel like he was judging us for never having people over. 

    Fuck this shit, this thread really reminds me why my crowd primarily finds other ways to hang out! 


    ________________________________


    spockforprez
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    So based on this post, do some of you find any type of BYOB get together rude?
    We have a group of about 20 people that are all friends and like to hang out. We also all like to drink. We're all broke 20-somethings, and only my husband and I and one other couple are the only ones in the group who don't either live with our parents or in an apartment, so the get togethers usually end up being at one of our places. These are usually later at night parties, no food, but they are always BYOB. If the hosts were to fully host all of the alcohol, it would easily end up being over $500, and none of us could afford that. We would never be able to all hang out as a group in these circumstances.
    So, are our parties "rude" because we don't fully host them?

    (side note- this has been the same way for multiple years, and everyone involved agrees this is fine. I am also not condoning BYOB weddings, as this is a completely different situation. We had a full open bar at our wedding :)
    For me it depends on the situation and how I'm invited.

    In your case, it seems like your place is just a venue.  That's cool.

    When I lived in the islands every Sunday was spent at our friends' condos.  2 couples lived next door to each other.   It was pretty much an open house between the 2 units.  It wasn't a hosted event.  Their place was just a venue.

      DH and the guys would plan the meal.  Shop for the food and booze and pretty much DH cooked everything.    

      There would be between 8-25 people depending on the time of year.  Football season was always the busiest.  Both couples had Direct TV.  So we would have 3-4 TV between the 2 places to watch the games.   Us girls just watched football.  We didn't plan,shop or cook.  Ha.    The other guests were pretty much just guests.  They would bring some booze, but not always.  
      


    Sometimes one of those couples would invite us to dinner at their home. Or they decided to have a gathering for whatever reason.  This was completely hosted.  It wasn't our long standing Sunday night dinner event.  They wanted to host their friends and did so.






    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 based on this post, do some of you find any type of BYOB get together rude?
    We have a group of about 20 people that are all friends and like to hang out. We also all like to drink. We're all broke 20-somethings, and only my husband and I and one other couple are the only ones in the group who don't either live with our parents or in an apartment, so the get togethers usually end up being at one of our places. These are usually later at night parties, no food, but they are always BYOB. If the hosts were to fully host all of the alcohol, it would easily end up being over $500, and none of us could afford that. We would never be able to all hang out as a group in these circumstances.
    So, are our parties "rude" because we don't fully host them?

    (side note- this has been the same way for multiple years, and everyone involved agrees this is fine. I am also not condoning BYOB weddings, as this is a completely different situation. We had a full open bar at our wedding :)
    BYOB are great. Not everyone drinks, nor does everyone want a certain kind of drink. Typically with out group, the host has some to offer but people bring some and everyone kinda shares.
    cowgirl8238
  • So based on this post, do some of you find any type of BYOB get together rude?
    We have a group of about 20 people that are all friends and like to hang out. We also all like to drink. We're all broke 20-somethings, and only my husband and I and one other couple are the only ones in the group who don't either live with our parents or in an apartment, so the get togethers usually end up being at one of our places. These are usually later at night parties, no food, but they are always BYOB. If the hosts were to fully host all of the alcohol, it would easily end up being over $500, and none of us could afford that. We would never be able to all hang out as a group in these circumstances.
    So, are our parties "rude" because we don't fully host them?

    (side note- this has been the same way for multiple years, and everyone involved agrees this is fine. I am also not condoning BYOB weddings, as this is a completely different situation. We had a full open bar at our wedding :)
    Depends on the context. If it's you saying (which is what it sounds like to me) "hey we're hanging out drinking tonight, come by if you're interested" no I wouldn't expect that you were providing booze for anyone. If on the other hand you said "I'm throwing a party X night to celebrate Y event, please come. And oh by the way bring your own alcohol, too", yes I'd think that was rude.

    This is one way to socialize. There are many others. The suggestion that hating potlucks because they're elitist and the only way poor people can socialize was, IMO, ridiculous. There are a TON of ways to see friends/socialize without dinner/hosting. But when you do invite people to a dinner party/hosting an event it's not cool, IMO, to then tell people to bring something.
    climbingsingleSP29
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    I've always wanted to do one of those. . .what do you call em when each course is at a different house?

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


    short+sassy
  • I've always wanted to do one of those. . .what do you call em when each course is at a different house?
    A progressive dinner!  I have always wanted to do one of those, too!  (How far away are you?  lol)
    PrettyGirlLostshort+sassycowgirl8238
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    I've always wanted to do one of those. . .what do you call em when each course is at a different house?
    A progressive dinner!  I have always wanted to do one of those, too!  (How far away are you?  lol)
    I'm in PA ><

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


  • BYOB is actually preferred in my eyes (unless it's a wedding of course). I don't really drink and most alcohol sets off my acid reflux. I like beer, maybe some white wine and absolutely no hard liquor. H on the other hand, is a really heavy drinker and I'd rather he just get his own bottles of whatever and share it.


    Daisypath Anniversary tickers Daisypath Anniversary tickers




  • BYOB are great. Not everyone drinks, nor does everyone want a certain kind of drink. Typically with out group, the host has some to offer but people bring some and everyone kinda shares.
    I don't know these people you speak of.
    One of my friends hasn't drank in almost 5 yrs and I rarely drink lol
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    You know what else.

    Some people just love to host. Period. They enjoy it. Me, I like it, but not all the time. I'd rather meet people at a restaurant (and pay our own respective ways) than have a party. 

    But come on, the Dear Abby-type columns are full of people worried about reciprocity. People who host all the time get crabby when their guests don't reciprocate. People who can't afford to host get worried about their inability to reciprocate and start declining invitations. I think this was alluded to before in someone else's post, but when everything is hosted, there are all sorts of other social power plays that go on. 

    I was once even asked by a guy who quasi-hosts twice-yearly parties (by that I mean, he and his wife provide most of the stuff but people still bring dip and booze) why we don't have parties. I said we don't have room for parties and changed the subject, because I did feel like he was judging us for never having people over. 

    Fuck this shit, this thread really reminds me why my crowd primarily finds other ways to hang out! 


    yep.

    We have actually been told from people they would love to have us over, but they are afraid to cook for DH.

    The boy eat Taco Bell for god's sake.   But that doesn't matter, people's own fear means they will never host us.     :/






    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. 
  • lyndausvi said:
    You know what else.

    Some people just love to host. Period. They enjoy it. Me, I like it, but not all the time. I'd rather meet people at a restaurant (and pay our own respective ways) than have a party. 

    But come on, the Dear Abby-type columns are full of people worried about reciprocity. People who host all the time get crabby when their guests don't reciprocate. People who can't afford to host get worried about their inability to reciprocate and start declining invitations. I think this was alluded to before in someone else's post, but when everything is hosted, there are all sorts of other social power plays that go on. 

    I was once even asked by a guy who quasi-hosts twice-yearly parties (by that I mean, he and his wife provide most of the stuff but people still bring dip and booze) why we don't have parties. I said we don't have room for parties and changed the subject, because I did feel like he was judging us for never having people over. 

    Fuck this shit, this thread really reminds me why my crowd primarily finds other ways to hang out! 


    yep.

    We have actually been told from people they would love to have us over, but they are afraid to cook for DH.

    The boy eat Taco Bell for god's sake.   But that doesn't matter, people's own fear means they will never host us.     :/
    A friend of H's is a chef and his father even worked in the White House. I almost had an anxiety attack just picking out a restaurant to go to when we all met up in San Francisco. I've learned that while chefs are trained to create top quality food, they are people and don't necessarily want or expect top of the line, posh meals 24/7.


    Daisypath Anniversary tickers Daisypath Anniversary tickers



  • hellohkb said:
    I think this thread has just made me extremely confused because why does a social gathering automatically have to include a full dinner AND drinks if you can't afford it? Most of my social gatherings that are at a friend's house are really just light refreshments. Or people just grab some dinner for themselves and we just bring it and hang out and eat together and then do whatever. Maybe we're just trashy? Is that like a personal potluck or something? I think my issue with potluck is the expectation that I have to do something and then I worry if it's good enough lol. 

    Also, I should have added quotations to the thread title, as I'm not saying all potlucks on this planet and in history have all sucked, no exceptions. "Potlucks Suck" is literally the name of the title" ;)
    Exactly.

    If you want to host guests, you don't NEED to host them for dinner. Invite them over after dinner and provide a few snacks (like chips or popcorn!) and drinks.

    As for alcohol, I view it the same as food. If it's a hosted event, alcohol should be too. If it's a potluck- OK event, then BYOB is fine.

    We do a fair number of coordinated dinners too. Still, the hosts provide the mains and the guests bring a app, side or dessert.
    hellohkbOurWildKingdomDrillSergeantCatcowgirl8238
  • eileenrob said:
    I don't mind an organized potluck. Where the host/whoever's idea it was/person in charge (this could be one person or 2-3 people) lists what's needed.  Appetizers, entrees, sides, desserts, beverages...and everyone attending selects or is assigned something.  So that im not faced with a huge dessert table at dinner time. 
    I also think a potluck is appropriate for a casual family gathering at someone's home, and it's definitely great in an office setting.  A big event like a wedding- gross.  DH's family always goes the potluck route, even at holidays, whereas my own family doesn't.  Even when I have people over, I just host them myself, although I've never had more than 30 guests.
    This. I only go to potlucks at a couple of people's houses because I know there won't be 3 potato salads. I personally don't host potlucks, but I'm super type A and don't like random things gumming up the works.
    PrettyGirlLost
  • DrillSergeantCatDrillSergeantCat Oklahoma City, OK member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer
    All this talk of potlucks really has me craving the sausage queso a former co-worker used to make.
    PrettyGirlLostthisismynickname2
  • emmaaaemmaaa North Carolina mod
    Moderator 2500 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary
    edited September 2016
    I like potlucks. Our group of friends usually get together about every other month and use someone's house as a "venue"  (as someone else mentioned). Honestly, it usually ends up being at our house because no one else volunteers. And while it is technically a potluck and BYOB (or something to share), we try to coordinate or have a theme. We have done southern foods, tacos/fajitas, italian, etc and everyone lets the group know "hey I'm bringing green beans and a dessert" so there aren't repeats.

    However, if someone asks if we want to come to their house for x event or party, I usually expect everything we need to be hosted but I will still see if they need me to bring anything.

    For example, for DH's college graduation, I threw him a surprise cookout and invited all of his family, my family, and friends. I provided hamburgers and hotdogs, buns, chips, sides, dessert, lemonade, tea, and water for 35 people. Yeah, it cost a lot of money for me because I was new in my full time job, DH had just graduated and been a full time student and only worked part time, but I planned in advance for it. Had I not been able to afford to host that many people I would probably just have invited his family or took DH out to dinner and told people to meet us for dinner or drinks afterwards if they wanted.

    I think the difference is a potluck is a casual social gathering and a group of friends or family uses someone else's house as the location (we do this for our big get togethers with friends or Holidays with family) and a hosted meal is a formal invitation (invitation can be by phone/text/email or paper) to an event or party.

    ETA: Re: poor people should have less friends:

    No one says you have to host ALL of your friends at the same time. You can have 40 friends and only host one or two couples at a time. The other people are still your friends but nowhere in the handbook of friendship does it state that you have to have someone over for dinner to be friends. you could just as easily meet for dinner.

    charlotte989875cowgirl8238kimmiinthemitten
  • As someone who said that I lean on the side of "it's classist" to hate on potlucks, I'll expand a bit more on that. 
    Not everyone lives anywhere near a museum. That's also not something you do with a large group unless it's a school field trip or vacation tour group. There's no consistency in the US what museums are paid entry and which are donation. Free hours may be when parents have to work. Libraries are only open during business hours and driving to one on a Saturday may mean gas money a family doesn't have. Going to a park for anything more than an hour probably requires snacks and drinks for kids. Sports events require entry fees professionally and for your kids to play you have to pay. Adults have to pay to be in leagues. Having any more than a few people over to watch a movie, again, requires some amount of hosting like popcorn and lemonade.

    There are some seriously poverty-stricken people that do not have easy access to the "free" stuff we all talk about. Are they banned from socializing in big groups because heaven forbid they have a potluck? Every single weekend I run or ride my bike on Chicago's lakefront and there are huge groups of people setting up folding tables and putting out chips and whatnot. Just by observation, you can tell all the adults are bringing elements of whatever's going on those tables while the kids run around with soccer balls. There are people in my city who won't even leave their own homes for fear of being shot. Heaven forbid someone brings over a yellow cake with canned frosting for a child's birthday when the mom working 3 jobs can barely pay the rent.

    So look, you can hate them yourself, not go when invited, and never put the burden of one on your own friends and family. And we all here can agree a wedding should never be potluck. But let's check our privilege that the pleasure of true hosting on whatever random Saturday we please is not something that everyone can do.

    Okay, so 1) I don't think I, or anyone else said people shouldn't socialize in groups because they shouldn't have a potluck. And I have no issue with the event you describe, people coming together with food to be shared an a neutral location. But 2) the same argument you use to explain why movie nights or park with snacks are not feasible for some people, can be used against the exact same scenario you describe above. If you don't have money for popcorn and lemonade, do you have money for a yellow sheet cake or chips/snacks/shared meal? I just don't get the argument that people can't have a movie night but can have a potluck because of money, the costs there aren't substantially different.

    I don't particularly like potlucks, but I'm not going to turn up my nose at an invitation, nor am I going to say no one should have them because I don't like them. If I invite someone to my house for dinner, I'm never going to ask them to bring anything because I have offered to host and that is what I'm going to do. There are many ways to socialize and I think what some of us are arguing here is that when one offers to host a meal (one of many ways to socialize) we find it inappropriate to ask people to contribute (financially or otherwise). There are other ways to socialize (parks, picnics, etc.) where the etiquette of who is in charge/is there a hostess is very different.
    hellohkb
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer

    There are many ways to socialize and I think what some of us are arguing here is that when one offers to host a meal (one of many ways to socialize) we find it inappropriate to ask people to contribute (financially or otherwise). There are other ways to socialize (parks, picnics, etc.) where the etiquette of who is in charge/is there a hostess is very different.

    I think others are saying that they move in circles that don't really give a shit about etiquette.all.the.time- that just getting together with friends is more important, and sometimes that means it's a potluck for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons could be financial and another could be that they, host and guests, actually enjoy potlucks.

    You (general) don't have to like potlucks.  You can even hate them!  That's your choice.  Everyone chooses what offends them, or annoys them, or puts them out, etc.  Everyone chooses what to participate in, or not.


    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


    DrillSergeantCatOurWildKingdom
  • As someone who said that I lean on the side of "it's classist" to hate on potlucks, I'll expand a bit more on that. 
    Not everyone lives anywhere near a museum. That's also not something you do with a large group unless it's a school field trip or vacation tour group. There's no consistency in the US what museums are paid entry and which are donation. Free hours may be when parents have to work. Libraries are only open during business hours and driving to one on a Saturday may mean gas money a family doesn't have. Going to a park for anything more than an hour probably requires snacks and drinks for kids. Sports events require entry fees professionally and for your kids to play you have to pay. Adults have to pay to be in leagues. Having any more than a few people over to watch a movie, again, requires some amount of hosting like popcorn and lemonade.

    There are some seriously poverty-stricken people that do not have easy access to the "free" stuff we all talk about. Are they banned from socializing in big groups because heaven forbid they have a potluck? Every single weekend I run or ride my bike on Chicago's lakefront and there are huge groups of people setting up folding tables and putting out chips and whatnot. Just by observation, you can tell all the adults are bringing elements of whatever's going on those tables while the kids run around with soccer balls. There are people in my city who won't even leave their own homes for fear of being shot. Heaven forbid someone brings over a yellow cake with canned frosting for a child's birthday when the mom working 3 jobs can barely pay the rent.

    So look, you can hate them yourself, not go when invited, and never put the burden of one on your own friends and family. And we all here can agree a wedding should never be potluck. But let's check our privilege that the pleasure of true hosting on whatever random Saturday we please is not something that everyone can do.

    Okay, so 1) I don't think I, or anyone else said people shouldn't socialize in groups because they shouldn't have a potluck. And I have no issue with the event you describe, people coming together with food to be shared an a neutral location. But 2) the same argument you use to explain why movie nights or park with snacks are not feasible for some people, can be used against the exact same scenario you describe above. If you don't have money for popcorn and lemonade, do you have money for a yellow sheet cake or chips/snacks/shared meal? I just don't get the argument that people can't have a movie night but can have a potluck because of money, the costs there aren't substantially different.

    I don't particularly like potlucks, but I'm not going to turn up my nose at an invitation, nor am I going to say no one should have them because I don't like them. If I invite someone to my house for dinner, I'm never going to ask them to bring anything because I have offered to host and that is what I'm going to do. There are many ways to socialize and I think what some of us are arguing here is that when one offers to host a meal (one of many ways to socialize) we find it inappropriate to ask people to contribute (financially or otherwise). There are other ways to socialize (parks, picnics, etc.) where the etiquette of who is in charge/is there a hostess is very different.
    The cost may be comparable, but one is an "extra" and the other is a necessity. Even poor people have to eat meals.  There's no way around it.  But movies and popcorn and lemonade are additional expenses above and beyond the required daily expenditures. 

    Say the family was going to spend $8 on a pot roast, $2 on a head of lettuce, $1 on salad dressing, $2 on bread, and $2 on some potatoes,  for dinner that night.  But instead, they put $15 of ingredients into one large potluck item that everyone can eat.  They are still out the same amount of money and they still get a meal.  If they spend that same $15 on movies and popcorn and lemonade, you still need dinner later.
    kimmiinthemitten
  • As someone who said that I lean on the side of "it's classist" to hate on potlucks, I'll expand a bit more on that. 
    Not everyone lives anywhere near a museum. That's also not something you do with a large group unless it's a school field trip or vacation tour group. There's no consistency in the US what museums are paid entry and which are donation. Free hours may be when parents have to work. Libraries are only open during business hours and driving to one on a Saturday may mean gas money a family doesn't have. Going to a park for anything more than an hour probably requires snacks and drinks for kids. Sports events require entry fees professionally and for your kids to play you have to pay. Adults have to pay to be in leagues. Having any more than a few people over to watch a movie, again, requires some amount of hosting like popcorn and lemonade.

    There are some seriously poverty-stricken people that do not have easy access to the "free" stuff we all talk about. Are they banned from socializing in big groups because heaven forbid they have a potluck? Every single weekend I run or ride my bike on Chicago's lakefront and there are huge groups of people setting up folding tables and putting out chips and whatnot. Just by observation, you can tell all the adults are bringing elements of whatever's going on those tables while the kids run around with soccer balls. There are people in my city who won't even leave their own homes for fear of being shot. Heaven forbid someone brings over a yellow cake with canned frosting for a child's birthday when the mom working 3 jobs can barely pay the rent.

    So look, you can hate them yourself, not go when invited, and never put the burden of one on your own friends and family. And we all here can agree a wedding should never be potluck. But let's check our privilege that the pleasure of true hosting on whatever random Saturday we please is not something that everyone can do.

    Okay, so 1) I don't think I, or anyone else said people shouldn't socialize in groups because they shouldn't have a potluck. And I have no issue with the event you describe, people coming together with food to be shared an a neutral location. But 2) the same argument you use to explain why movie nights or park with snacks are not feasible for some people, can be used against the exact same scenario you describe above. If you don't have money for popcorn and lemonade, do you have money for a yellow sheet cake or chips/snacks/shared meal? I just don't get the argument that people can't have a movie night but can have a potluck because of money, the costs there aren't substantially different.

    I don't particularly like potlucks, but I'm not going to turn up my nose at an invitation, nor am I going to say no one should have them because I don't like them. If I invite someone to my house for dinner, I'm never going to ask them to bring anything because I have offered to host and that is what I'm going to do. There are many ways to socialize and I think what some of us are arguing here is that when one offers to host a meal (one of many ways to socialize) we find it inappropriate to ask people to contribute (financially or otherwise). There are other ways to socialize (parks, picnics, etc.) where the etiquette of who is in charge/is there a hostess is very different.
    The cost may be comparable, but one is an "extra" and the other is a necessity. Even poor people have to eat meals.  There's no way around it.  But movies and popcorn and lemonade are additional expenses above and beyond the required daily expenditures. 

    Say the family was going to spend $8 on a pot roast, $2 on a head of lettuce, $1 on salad dressing, $2 on bread, and $2 on some potatoes,  for dinner that night.  But instead, they put $15 of ingredients into one large potluck item that everyone can eat.  They are still out the same amount of money and they still get a meal.  If they spend that same $15 on movies and popcorn and lemonade, you still need dinner later.
    But if you're cooking for a family of four that is different than cooking a meal for a potluck which involves many more people than that family of four. Unless you're just taking enough for your own family, which I've never seen at a potluck.


    There are many ways to socialize and I think what some of us are arguing here is that when one offers to host a meal (one of many ways to socialize) we find it inappropriate to ask people to contribute (financially or otherwise). There are other ways to socialize (parks, picnics, etc.) where the etiquette of who is in charge/is there a hostess is very different.

    I think others are saying that they move in circles that don't really give a shit about etiquette.all.the.time- that just getting together with friends is more important, and sometimes that means it's a potluck for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons could be financial and another could be that they, host and guests, actually enjoy potlucks.

    You (general) don't have to like potlucks.  You can even hate them!  That's your choice.  Everyone chooses what offends them, or annoys them, or puts them out, etc.  Everyone chooses what to participate in, or not.


    I'm fine with that, but then why not argue that?  Instead of saying potlucks (and the people that dislike them) are elitist. Unless you're also saying adhering to etiquette is inherently elitist.

     Not caring about etiquette is one thing, but saying breaking etiquette isn't rude is another. It is, you just don't care about that, and that's okay.
  • PrettyGirlLostPrettyGirlLost A Land Filled with Unicorns and Cat Hair member
    5000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer



    There are many ways to socialize and I think what some of us are arguing here is that when one offers to host a meal (one of many ways to socialize) we find it inappropriate to ask people to contribute (financially or otherwise). There are other ways to socialize (parks, picnics, etc.) where the etiquette of who is in charge/is there a hostess is very different.

    I think others are saying that they move in circles that don't really give a shit about etiquette.all.the.time- that just getting together with friends is more important, and sometimes that means it's a potluck for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons could be financial and another could be that they, host and guests, actually enjoy potlucks.

    You (general) don't have to like potlucks.  You can even hate them!  That's your choice.  Everyone chooses what offends them, or annoys them, or puts them out, etc.  Everyone chooses what to participate in, or not.


    I'm fine with that, but then why not argue that?  Instead of saying potlucks (and the people that dislike them) are elitist. Unless you're also saying adhering to etiquette is inherently elitist.

     Not caring about etiquette is one thing, but saying breaking etiquette isn't rude is another. It is, you just don't care about that, and that's okay.
    Except that potlucks are not rude and they aren't breaking etiquette.

    People are organizing them and attending them with the full knowledge that this is a casual event, not a formal, hosted event like a wedding.  No one said potluck wedding receptions were ok.

    "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."


    DrillSergeantCatSTARMOON44OliveOilsMomKahlyla
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards