Cash Bars - Everything you need to know in one place

AroundTheBlock

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

APDSS22

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

But even you can't argue that it would be rude for a bride and groom to provide a fully stocked open bar with professional bartenders and have the guests not pay anything, even if they are used to a cash bar.

abbyj700

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

Wow...I have no words for the pretentiousness that is oozing form this post...

classyduck

abbyj700 said:

Wow...I have no words for the pretentiousness that is oozing form this post...

Ad hominem.

Not trying to be overly cheeky, but even if it is pretentious, I'm interested to hear responses...

AllOnOneDay

I'm in the upper class, Euro centric culture, blah blah blah. I'm having a (mostly) proper black tie wedding and reception. I come to Etiquette to get help on questions because, yes black tie has it's own pretentious set of standards.

Etiquette is etiquette. Miss Manners has the basics. Follow basic etiquette, most of the wedding drama is done.

However, current tradition in some areas or cultures doesn't follow etiquette. Be that acceptable or not. I've been to weddings with cash bars. I've gotten flat out wasted - poor etiquette on my part I'll openly admit - and I've drank only water. In my early to mid 20s, the cash bar was pretty normal at friend's weddings. I still like most of those people, some are close enough to be invited to my wedding. I'm not having a cash bar so I look better. I'm inviting them because I live these people, and I'm hosting the reception as was drilled into my head.

If you want to read that your traditional cash bar/dollar dance/registry card is fine - ask in culture and traditions. Not in etiquette.

classyduck

AllOnOneDay said:

I'm in the upper class, Euro centric culture, blah blah blah. I'm having a (mostly) proper black tie wedding and reception. I come to Etiquette to get help on questions because, yes black tie has it's own pretentious set of standards. Etiquette is etiquette. Miss Manners has the basics. Follow basic etiquette, most of the wedding drama is done. However, current tradition in some areas or cultures doesn't follow etiquette. Be that acceptable or not. I've been to weddings with cash bars. I've gotten flat out wasted - poor etiquette on my part I'll openly admit - and I've drank only water. In my early to mid 20s, the cash bar was pretty normal at friend's weddings. I still like most of those people, some are close enough to be invited to my wedding. I'm not having a cash bar so I look better. I'm inviting them because I live these people, and I'm hosting the reception as was drilled into my head. If you want to read that your traditional cash bar/dollar dance/registry card is fine - ask in culture and traditions. Not in etiquette.

This is a pretty solid argument. But, in several cases, I've found questions asked of etiquette are really questions of practicality, etc.

How do you respond to etiquette matters such as the fact that the RSVP card is *technically* rude? Or, perhaps, that some people might find the"Mrs." instead of first name rude (I'm not an accessory to my husband, I'm a person, etc.). Etiquette evolves. When do we allow for that evolutionary change in etiquette?

To offer my own perspective, I plan to host an open bar. I DO think that is the most polite thing to do, no question. But so, clearly, does @aroundtheblock. Yet she acknowledges the very real reaction that some may have of "WHAT? I don't want beer, I want a gin tonic! I have money, why can't I buy it?" If you are familiar enough with your audience to know that this reaction would be typical, I have to say, her argument for providing a self-paid option, in addition to a hosted option for beverages, makes sense.

I recently read a thread where the bride was upset because her FI didn't want to pay for the meals of their guests at a restaurant they planned to go to after the ceremony at a destination wedding (a few hours drive). She recognized this as poor etiquette, and came here for advice. Several knotties suggested that she contact the restaurant and work out a more affordable menu. So, how is a limited menu, when other menu items are available if you are willing to pay for them, ok, but a limited cash bar is not?

All these comments are inteneded to be as respectful as possible. I hope noobies and lurkers don't accept my unvetted advice without scrutiny.

AllOnOneDay

RSVP - That's one of the parts that violates black tie. We're including the card with a preaddressed, stamped envelope, and the card will include a website to RSVP. But, both are needed to an extent. DF has a last name that's difficult to spell, so it's nicer to our guests to make it easier to return their acceptance or declination if the envelope is ready. Website is because we do have a good 1/3 - 1/2 of our potential guests who are international. Mail can take extended amounts of time to get from us to them, then them to us. Website helps.

Thus, early Save The Dates, early invitations, and a website are an accepted reality for us. All these are more work for us, but are helpful (early notice, VIPs already have general dates, save the dates are going out twice, one at a year out with general, then probably around 8 months out with more confirmed information, web RSVP) or nice (the last name fun - I'm taking his name and have still messed up!)

Part of the change I see as families, even if all in one country, wind up not living close to each other. Add in many do get international, simple concepts become harder due to extended time frame.

As for titles - I see the change relating to employment ability. My mother wasn't that old, but she grew up in a very different era. She couldn't wear slacks to school ever and took penmanship and home economics. I wore jeans and took STEM classes. She was expected to be a SAHM, which she did like. My decision to be a SAHM got many comments about wasting my talents. I don't think the fact that Mom was denied an education at my level was right, but I don't consider the idea that raising a child is wasteful to be right either. Personally, as of now, I prefer Ms as I'm 32, so Miss feels too young and I'm not a Mrs.

But, all of it becomes the same - simple etiquette is your guests aren't put out to indulge your wishes. But, making your wedding and reception pleasant and nice for your guests goes against the "It's MY day and I can do as I please" mentality.

But I admit I'm odd, I'm not the best at strict etiquette. My big part is being a good host, which has served me well enough. My Mom was a very Southern lady, I was presented to society amid much eye rolling, so she made sure my siblings and I had polite manners. It's why I've been the "young" delegate to national conventions (political) who is pushed in front of the camera or taken to a reporter for interviews because it's known I will speak well, so our party looks civilized. But, I am a total Daddy's Little Girl even at 32. He's not blue collar only because his collar is filthy. He's medically retired military and now works in a foundry and is a proud Union member. Yet his working class status has never meant he disagreed with my Mom on how one treats guests.

artbyallie

RSVP cards are a much trickier subject than cash bars. They have become an accepted part of etiquette because people simply don't keep stationary and respond via personal note any longer, which is what etiquette says they should do.

kitsunegari89

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

LOL SRSLY? AAAAHAHAHA

pinkshorts27

classyduck said:

AllOnOneDay said:

I'm in the upper class, Euro centric culture, blah blah blah. I'm having a (mostly) proper black tie wedding and reception. I come to Etiquette to get help on questions because, yes black tie has it's own pretentious set of standards. Etiquette is etiquette. Miss Manners has the basics. Follow basic etiquette, most of the wedding drama is done. However, current tradition in some areas or cultures doesn't follow etiquette. Be that acceptable or not. I've been to weddings with cash bars. I've gotten flat out wasted - poor etiquette on my part I'll openly admit - and I've drank only water. In my early to mid 20s, the cash bar was pretty normal at friend's weddings. I still like most of those people, some are close enough to be invited to my wedding. I'm not having a cash bar so I look better. I'm inviting them because I live these people, and I'm hosting the reception as was drilled into my head. If you want to read that your traditional cash bar/dollar dance/registry card is fine - ask in culture and traditions. Not in etiquette.

This is a pretty solid argument. But, in several cases, I've found questions asked of etiquette are really questions of practicality, etc.

How do you respond to etiquette matters such as the fact that the RSVP card is *technically* rude? Or, perhaps, that some people might find the"Mrs." instead of first name rude (I'm not an accessory to my husband, I'm a person, etc.). Etiquette evolves. When do we allow for that evolutionary change in etiquette?

To offer my own perspective, I plan to host an open bar. I DO think that is the most polite thing to do, no question. But so, clearly, does @aroundtheblock. Yet she acknowledges the very real reaction that some may have of "WHAT? I don't want beer, I want a gin tonic! I have money, why can't I buy it?" If you are familiar enough with your audience to know that this reaction would be typical, I have to say, her argument for providing a self-paid option, in addition to a hosted option for beverages, makes sense.

I recently read a thread where the bride was upset because her FI didn't want to pay for the meals of their guests at a restaurant they planned to go to after the ceremony at a destination wedding (a few hours drive). She recognized this as poor etiquette, and came here for advice. Several knotties suggested that she contact the restaurant and work out a more affordable menu. So, how is a limited menu, when other menu items are available if you are willing to pay for them, ok, but a limited cash bar is not?

All these comments are inteneded to be as respectful as possible. I hope noobies and lurkers don't accept my unvetted advice without scrutiny.

1st bold: It is rude as a guest to not accept what the hosts serve and try to buy something better. I would never show up to a fancy dinner meal at someone's house and say "Oh damn, you only have white wine, let me run down to the liquor store and grab a bottle of red and vodka" If I don't like the white wine they offer, then of course I would just ask for water or tea or something else they offered. So any guests that bought outside of what the host is offering is actually being rude and saying "what you are offering isn't good enough". This is of course assuming that the host offers at least some generic drinks that most people can drink (water!). Now if the host didn't even offer water, then of course I would encourage guests to buy water or even whatever they wanted at that point. 

2nd bold: I'm sure that people here would not encourage allowing guests to upgrade their meals.  A limited selection was of course encouraged, but this is what happens at most receptions. Guests get to pick between 2-4 options. It makes it easier for the chefs and more affordable for the couple. I think most of the old-timers on this board (I'm not an old-timer!) would agree that encouraging/allowing the option for guests to upgrade their meal for a fee would be rude. 

NYCBruin

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

I would prefer to eat lobster at a wedding rather than chicken (and would even be willing to pay extra for a meal of my choosing), but it would be incredibly rude and presumptuous for me to say something to the hosts about it, it screams "I'm too good/rich for what you're offering" the same way as the statement "I don't like beer, but I'd be willing to pay extra for my gin and tonic" does.  

A wedding is a hosted party, not a free for all at a restaurant.  Hosts are not obliged to offer a limitless list of food and beverage options and guests who think the offerings are not adequate are being ungrateful.  It's a huge insult to the hosts of a party to suggest that the offerings are not good enough for you and even ruder to suggest that you would be willing to pay to upgrade them.  To do so insults the the time and energy the host put into planning and makes an unkind suggestion about his or her financial state.

iloveotters2014

What about at a rehearsal dinner? At our wedding we will have the option of beer wine and 2 signature drinks for our guests at no charge (we are closing the rest of the bar so our guests have no confusion), but we are struggling with what to do at the rehearsal dinner. The couple of places we are looking at include coffee, tea, water, and soda in the per person price but it's up to us what we want to do for alcohol. We were thinking about just purchasing a few bottles of wine for each table and then having whoever wants to come over after to our house for some more wine and beer and to hang out before the big day. Is this ok to do?

AroundTheBlock

magee2011 said:

What about at a rehearsal dinner? At our wedding we will have the option of beer wine and 2 signature drinks for our guests at no charge (we are closing the rest of the bar so our guests have no confusion), but we are struggling with what to do at the rehearsal dinner. The couple of places we are looking at include coffee, tea, water, and soda in the per person price but it's up to us what we want to do for alcohol. We were thinking about just purchasing a few bottles of wine for each table and then having whoever wants to come over after to our house for some more wine and beer and to hang out before the big day. Is this ok to do?

Good manners are the same whether you are having a rehearsal dinner, or a wedding dinner, or a just-because dinner. What you have described: offering food and drink at your own expense, followed by offering more refreshments at your home afterward, is perfectly correct. There is absolutely no rule, in standard etiquette or outside of it, that requires you to offer your guests unlimited choice of refreshment.

KitKat4979

I tried to double check that I'm not repeating something before commenting but there's just.. so... much... @_@ @grumbledore, you may want to add that for the budget conscious, Sam's Club and Costco sell a lot of alcohol for very reasonable prices and they legally cannot require a membership to buy it. So anyone can go in and buy alcohol. That's what we are planning on doing for my brothers wedding

jaytee919

after reading 23 pages of this I'm amazed at the fact that some of you have enough time on your hands to keep up with the posts & quote each other so you can continue to bicker back and forth. 

Maggie0829

after reading 23 pages of this I'm amazed at the fact that some of you have enough time on your hands to keep up with the posts & quote each other so you can continue to bicker back and forth. 

Just like you had enough time to read all 23 pages and then post about how the other posters have enough time on their hands to continue to bicker back and forth.

jaytee919

after reading 23 pages of this I'm amazed at the fact that some of you have enough time on your hands to keep up with the posts & quote each other so you can continue to bicker back and forth. 

Just like you had enough time to read all 23 pages and then post about how the other posters have enough time on their hands to continue to bicker back and forth.

Skim through and read, yes I had enough time for that. Definitely not enough time to nit pick and bicker like a child. Way to prove my point...enough said.

Maggie0829

jaytee919 said:

after reading 23 pages of this I'm amazed at the fact that some of you have enough time on your hands to keep up with the posts & quote each other so you can continue to bicker back and forth. 

Just like you had enough time to read all 23 pages and then post about how the other posters have enough time on their hands to continue to bicker back and forth.

Skim through and read, yes I had enough time for that. Definitely not enough time to nit pick and bicker like a child. Way to prove my point...enough said.

You do realize this is a discussion forum right?  The whole point is to discuss things back and forth for any length of time posters feel like it.  You may feel that it was nit picky and bickering but to those that posted probably felt they points they wanted to make.

I just don't understand why you felt the need to comment in the first place.  If you didn't like the discussion then just close the thread.  Commenting the way you did and basically telling all the posters that they "have too much time on their hands" like you don't (which you do since you read the whole thread and then commented) just makes you look like a child, not them.

abbyj700

@jaytee919 - why post on an internet forum to tell others that they have way too much time on their hands if they are posting on a forum? What exactly does that do for you? Even if what you said was true - does it make you somehow feel better about yourself to try to put down others?

MobKaz

In light of recent threads, I find it curious she has come from the Las Vegas board.

Jen4948

jaytee919 said:

after reading 23 pages of this I'm amazed at the fact that some of you have enough time on your hands to keep up with the posts & quote each other so you can continue to bicker back and forth. 

Just like you had enough time to read all 23 pages and then post about how the other posters have enough time on their hands to continue to bicker back and forth.

Skim through and read, yes I had enough time for that. Definitely not enough time to nit pick and bicker like a child. Way to prove my point...enough said.

Do I hear the sound of a pot calling a kettle black?

AllOnOneDay

Complaining about nit picking, then nit picking to prove a point.

I do love when snowflakes visit etiquette. The snowflakes that are drama llamas are even better.

No, I really have nothing more to do with my time. DD had lunch, dishes are washed, she's napping and laundry is going. So I'm sitting on my well padded posterior, eating bon-bons and reading the internet. The bon-bons are actually wintergreen Lifesavers.

jaytee919

@mobkaz yes, I've posted on the las vegas board once. .. Your point. This has become laughable.

NYCBruin

@jaytee919

classyduck

NYCBruin said:

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

I would prefer to eat lobster at a wedding rather than chicken (and would even be willing to pay extra for a meal of my choosing), but it would be incredibly rude and presumptuous for me to say something to the hosts about it, it screams "I'm too good/rich for what you're offering" the same way as the statement "I don't like beer, but I'd be willing to pay extra for my gin and tonic" does.  

A wedding is a hosted party, not a free for all at a restaurant.  Hosts are not obliged to offer a limitless list of food and beverage options and guests who think the offerings are not adequate are being ungrateful.  It's a huge insult to the hosts of a party to suggest that the offerings are not good enough for you and even ruder to suggest that you would be willing to pay to upgrade them.  To do so insults the the time and energy the host put into planning and makes an unkind suggestion about his or her financial state.

I totally see what you are saying, and agree with you 100%. But isn't this a criticism of the guests' etiquette, and not the host's? As such, I don't see how this addresses the concern that the host is being rude by offering something that the guests wish for -- even if they are technically being rude by accepting it?

NYCBruin

classyduck said:

NYCBruin said:

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

I would prefer to eat lobster at a wedding rather than chicken (and would even be willing to pay extra for a meal of my choosing), but it would be incredibly rude and presumptuous for me to say something to the hosts about it, it screams "I'm too good/rich for what you're offering" the same way as the statement "I don't like beer, but I'd be willing to pay extra for my gin and tonic" does.  

A wedding is a hosted party, not a free for all at a restaurant.  Hosts are not obliged to offer a limitless list of food and beverage options and guests who think the offerings are not adequate are being ungrateful.  It's a huge insult to the hosts of a party to suggest that the offerings are not good enough for you and even ruder to suggest that you would be willing to pay to upgrade them.  To do so insults the the time and energy the host put into planning and makes an unkind suggestion about his or her financial state.

I totally see what you are saying, and agree with you 100%. But isn't this a criticism of the guests' etiquette, and not the host's? As such, I don't see how this addresses the concern that the host is being rude by offering something that the guests wish for -- even if they are technically being rude by accepting it?

Cash bars are rude for the countless reasons listed on this thread.  Guests rudely requesting that the host do something rude by having a cash bar does not suddenly make a cash bar not rude.

Jen4948

classyduck said:

NYCBruin said:

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

I would prefer to eat lobster at a wedding rather than chicken (and would even be willing to pay extra for a meal of my choosing), but it would be incredibly rude and presumptuous for me to say something to the hosts about it, it screams "I'm too good/rich for what you're offering" the same way as the statement "I don't like beer, but I'd be willing to pay extra for my gin and tonic" does.  

A wedding is a hosted party, not a free for all at a restaurant.  Hosts are not obliged to offer a limitless list of food and beverage options and guests who think the offerings are not adequate are being ungrateful.  It's a huge insult to the hosts of a party to suggest that the offerings are not good enough for you and even ruder to suggest that you would be willing to pay to upgrade them.  To do so insults the the time and energy the host put into planning and makes an unkind suggestion about his or her financial state.

I totally see what you are saying, and agree with you 100%. But isn't this a criticism of the guests' etiquette, and not the host's? As such, I don't see how this addresses the concern that the host is being rude by offering something that the guests wish for -- even if they are technically being rude by accepting it?

It is rude for guests to expect anything specific from their hosts in the way of hospitality-even if the guests expect to pay for it.  That includes alcohol.  The fact that the guests want it when the hosts are not providing it does not make it polite for them to go out and buy it.

crunchymamaof2

classyduck said:

NYCBruin said:

AroundTheBlock said:

I would never give a party with a cash bar. But then, I am an overly-confident, experienced, relatively well-to-do old hostess entertaining in a social circle where cocktails are not all that popular. I normally offer tea, coffee and punch at an afternoon tea -- and a sparkling rose for a really special tea like a wedding reception; vermouth or dry sherry as aperatifs before dinner, sherry with the soup course, white wine with the fish course, red wine with the roast and salad courses, pinot noir with dessert, and port and liqueurs after dinner; punch, beer and soft drinks during an evening of dancing; -- all of which, even a dinner with five different wines, is less costly than mixed drinks made by a professional bartender.

The thing is, I recognize that there really are people who would like to spend the evening drinking martinis and singapore slings; and who feel deprived if they do not have their preferred form of alcohol throughout an evening of dancing. I do expect my guests to suck it up and be grateful for what I have provided, but I accept the fact that I am placing a limitation on them that they do have to suck up. I have talked in real life to enough different wedding guests to know that many, many people would prefer to be able to buy their drinks than go without. In fact, many would prefer to buy their drinks than have them provided by the bride and groom who are that much younger and less well-established than themselves. In many social circles still today, weddings are seen as something the community does to support the new couple, and for guests to "open their wallets" is seen as the norm. In fact, many of those older farm folk and urban blue-collar workers are more likely to be offended by the bride's imperious declarations that their kindly-meant assumptions are "incredibly rude and tacky" than by the thought of opening their as they have done at every other wedding in their family for the past two hundred years.

There really are different expectations in different social circles. They aren't just regional differences, they are differences by economic class (which exists in America even though it is politically correct to pretend it doesn't) and by ethnic and cultural background. Standard etiquette is pretty much upper-middle-class eastern-urban white anglo-saxon early-immigrant cultural tradition; standardized over time by its adoption into diplomatic and other official praxis. Standard etiquette is a great go-to at weddings where you may be merging two different cultural assumption-sets and need something that both sides can recognize. Regardless of cultural background, everyone ought to have a basic grounding in standard etiquette so that they can at least recognize when it is being followed and accept it whether they like it or not -- as I expect those Tom-Collins-less guests at my dinner parties to accept it.

But standard etiquette is not the be-all and end-all of all social circles. If the bride's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the groom's family assumption is that cash bars are the norm, and the couple's friends all think that cash bars are the norm and that they would rather pay for drinks than stick to beer -- then no, you are not being rude to provide all your guests with an option that they would prefer to have.

I would prefer to eat lobster at a wedding rather than chicken (and would even be willing to pay extra for a meal of my choosing), but it would be incredibly rude and presumptuous for me to say something to the hosts about it, it screams "I'm too good/rich for what you're offering" the same way as the statement "I don't like beer, but I'd be willing to pay extra for my gin and tonic" does.  

A wedding is a hosted party, not a free for all at a restaurant.  Hosts are not obliged to offer a limitless list of food and beverage options and guests who think the offerings are not adequate are being ungrateful.  It's a huge insult to the hosts of a party to suggest that the offerings are not good enough for you and even ruder to suggest that you would be willing to pay to upgrade them.  To do so insults the the time and energy the host put into planning and makes an unkind suggestion about his or her financial state.

I totally see what you are saying, and agree with you 100%. But isn't this a criticism of the guests' etiquette, and not the host's? As such, I don't see how this addresses the concern that the host is being rude by offering something that the guests wish for -- even if they are technically being rude by accepting it?

Two wrongs don't make a right

kmmssg

While I am on a Miss Manners roll, this is from page 266, from Miss Manners guide to a surprisingly dignified wedding: (can't copy and paste).

Dear Miss Manners:  Do you think it is appropriate to have a full or partial cash bar at a wedding reception? Some co-workers and I were wondering if it would be rude to ask your guests to pay for a drink or whether today's economy warrants such actions.

Gentle Reader:  Miss Manners is going to take to drink herself if she keeps having to listen to that argument.  No, you cannot use the economy as an excuse for the extreme rudeness of charging your own guests for their refreshment.  

Have you never heard of the blessed poor who share what little they have, while vile and greedy people who begrudge sharing are accursed?  If you can't afford liquor at your wedding reception, serve tea or punch.  If you can't afford that, serve water.  But serve it graciously."

Any more questions?

classyduck

acove2006 said:

Two wrongs don't make a right

The etiquette of the guests is irrelevant to the question at hand.

@kmmssg, I agree that not providing drinks is rude! But the excerpt you provided does not address the scenario I'm seeking clarification on, which is essentially, a limited cash bar.

Just FYI, for my wedding, I plan on hosting an open bar. Top-shelf liquor will not be available, but that is the bit that is troubling me. I can't afford it... but how discourteous is it REALLY to not provide it, and also "forbid" my guests from paying for it, if they want it? Would it really be rude to include it as a cash "option"? I have to say, @AroundTheBlock 's argument makes sense to me, with respect to my situation.