RSVPs and Plus Ones - Help!

NYCBruin · July 2013

@daisy18 also, just to clarify:

According to your philosophy, if someone has had sex in the past, but is opposed to premarital sex for whatever reason then they can't be in a serious committed relationship?

My head hurts.

daisey18 · July 2013

@misshart00

Unless you got married immediately after your husband proposed- yes, you WERE in a serious relationship the second he asked you to marry him and you said yes. If you are not engaged, or married- or living together for people who are not religious and are unsure of marriage, you are not n a significant relationship yet.

I do not understand why the majority here is so dense over WHY only married, engaged, or living together couples count as SO's to anyone outside their non-committed relationship.

Especially people who claim to be saving/ have saved their virginity for RELIGIOUS reasons.

If you understand that sex is a sacred act, you should certainly understand the reason why people whose relationship is not sacred in any way yet are NOT in a significant relationship.

If anyone wants to hang out with me and eat cupcakes in this hole I'm sure you think I'm digging for myself, come on down! I think you are mostly awesome. Just silly and way too defensive over the status of "boyfriend" and "girlfriend".

daisey18 · July 2013

@NYCBruin,

Yes, they can be in a serious relationship! That relationship is called an engagement! If they are not engaged or married or living together, it is only a serious relationship to them-not to me, or the law, or their clergy- just to them.

KatWAG · July 2013

wittykitty14 said:

NYCBruin said:

@misshart00,

I know you were asking BarbLovesDave, but may I answer that rhetorical question too?

NO. Unless they are under 25 and virgins, NO. If an unmarried couple is not sleeping together, then they are NOT a serious "couple".
Congratulations! You just won the "most offensive comment I read on TK today!"

Honestly, I think that this is the worst thing I've EVER read on TK.

No way, CMG's comment on the fetus funeral was way more offensive. This comment is more illogical

NYCBruin · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@NYCBruin,
Yes, they can be in a serious relationship! That relationship is called an engagement! If they are not engaged or married or living together, it is only a serious relationship to them-not to me, or the law, or their clergy- just to them.

But before they are engaged, it's not a serious relationship? But the people who are living together are in a serious relationship (even if they think it's just "casual")?

I don't get it!!!!!!!!

Viczaesar · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@misshart00
Unless you got married immediately after your husband proposed- yes, you WERE in a serious relationship the second he asked you to marry him and you said yes. If you are not engaged, or married- or living together for people who are not religious and are unsure of marriage, you are not n a significant relationship yet.
I do not understand why the majority here is so dense over WHY only married, engaged, or living together couples count as SO's to anyone outside their non-committed relationship.
Especially people who claim to be saving/ have saved their virginity for RELIGIOUS reasons.
If you understand that sex is a sacred act, you should certainly understand the reason why people whose relationship is not sacred in any way yet are NOT in a significant relationship.
If anyone wants to hang out with me and eat cupcakes in this hole I'm sure you think I'm digging for myself, come on down! I think you are mostly awesome. Just silly and way too defensive over the status of "boyfriend" and "girlfriend".

You do realize that not everybody defines their relationship by the amount of sex they have or don't have, yes?

daisey18 · July 2013

@ NYCBruin

Damn, now I have to go look for this "Parky" persons antics- I was stuck in court all day.

Who the hell moves in with their boyfriend or girlfriend if it is "just casual" ? Do people do that now? Shit, I always got married- and am getting married again- because I refuse to "live together" with someone I am intimate with and love....

@ Addie- Friendship isn't a philosophy- it's a real thing I would think because of your fathers marriages, you'd get my logic perfectly fine. If I really love someone- I'm marrying them!

I've had plenty of boyfriends whom I was intimate with whom I did NOT love- I just liked their company. We were in "exclusive" relationships- aka, let's not date or fuck other people while we're doing this "boyfriend/girlfriend" shit, K? Exclusivity does not equal commitment- it just equals respect, and usually the possibility of future commitment. It is a step for when you aren't sure yet if this is someone who will be significant one day. Usually a short step for people like myself . There is a new generational trend to let that step stretch out for years- but the new trend doesn't make that nebulous arrangement equal to a marriage or engagement or living together situation.

jerkyanne · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@misshart00,

I know you were asking BarbLovesDave, but may I answer that rhetorical question too?
NO. Unless they are under 25 and virgins, NO. If an unmarried couple is not sleeping together, then they are NOT a serious "couple".

Just...wow...

NYCBruin · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@ NYCBruin
Damn, now I have to go look for this "Parky" persons antics- I was stuck in court all day.

Who the hell moves in with their boyfriend or girlfriend if it is "just casual" ? Do people do that now? Shit, I always got married- and am getting married again- because I refuse to "live together" with someone I am intimate with and love....
@ Addie- Friendship isn't a philosophy- it's a real thing I would think because of your fathers marriages, you'd get my logic perfectly fine. If I really love someone- I'm marrying them!
I've had plenty of boyfriends whom I was intimate with whom I did NOT love- I just liked their company. We were in "exclusive" relationships- aka, let's not date or fuck other people while we're doing this "boyfriend/girlfriend" shit, K? Exclusivity does not equal commitment- it just equals respect, and usually the possibility of future commitment. It is a step for when you aren't sure yet if this is someone who will be significant one day. Usually a short step for people like myself . There is a new generational trend to let that step stretch out for years- but the new trend doesn't make that nebulous arrangement equal to a marriage or engagement or living together situation.

This may come as a shock to you, but some people don't view love/marriage/relationships the same way you do.

I'll give you a minute to process that...

Yes, some people move in together with no intention of staying with the person. Living in NYC I know a lot of people who move in together when it's casual because let's face it, "THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH."

daisey18 · July 2013

@Viczaesar,

I gave you a love it for your GIF. I love it, even though it was to mock me.

Seriously, everyone always adds GIFS, and my old ass self is always wondering- how do they do that? That's amazing! I will never learn how to do that. It isn't as amazing as when people use app's to write on their own photos though- that shit is MAGIC !

AddieCake · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@ Addie- Friendship isn't a philosophy- it's a real thing I would think because of your fathers marriages, you'd get my logic perfectly fine. If I really love someone- I'm marrying them!

That doesn't make your case at all and is still ridiculous. You have said that people who are not having sex are not in a serious relationship. So if someone dates someone for several years before becoming engaged or married and are not having sex, you believe they are not yet in a serious relationship despite the fact that they may have been dating for years. That's just asinine. The number of times my father has been married is irrelevant to this discussion.

daisey18 · July 2013

@ AddieL73

I truly meant no offense.

Again, I think people are not getting that regardless of whether or not people are having sex- if they are not engaged, married, or living together, it is not a serious relationship to anyone but them.I understand that you find my opinion asinine, and I'm cool with that. But please understand that I was not trying to offend anyone here by stating my honest opinion.

AlexisA01 · July 2013

i guess until I say I do I'm not in a serious relationship. SMH

daisey18 · July 2013

NYCBruin- if you are living together with someone for conveniance- that is not an SO.

The "living together" exception to the married/ engaged rule is, in my illogical though it may be view- for people who

Cannot get married for legal reasons.

Cannot get married for benefits reasons- this applies to many senior citizens

Cannot get married because one has a legal spouse who is incapacitated [alzheimers, etc]

Does not believe in the covenant of marriage, for legal or moral reasons, but has committed to and provided for their partners long term protection.

Splitting the bills isn't the same as setting up life insurance, power of attorney, joint financial accounts, etc.

Living with someone you have no plans on staying with for life is not the same as living with someone you CAN"T marry but couldn't live without.

PrettyGirlLost · July 2013

What the everloving fuck is wrong with TK this week? Did everyone drink BSC water?

I mean, there are some really insane/moronic comments floating around this board. . .

banana468 · July 2013

No no @daisey18, Maybe in your head this is what makes sense to you but you're flat out wrong.

DH and I were friends for 5 years BEFORE we started dating. We were serious immediately once we chose to start dating and certainly were serious long before DH got down on one knee and proposed 2.5 years later.

If you only invited of us to your wedding with that bullshit justification, your wedding message from us would have been eff you.

PrettyGirlLost · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@NYCBruin,
Well, you're very easily offended then, aren't ya?

For everyone hollering "religion"- yeah, if you aren't having sex because of your religion, then GET MARRIED. If you are not married or engaged and you are saving yourself for marriage- then your relationship is NOT significant yet.
If you are an asexual, and you are not engaged or married- you are in a significant relationship. It's called FRIENDSHIP! Sorry, there's no etiquette rule that someone has to invite you and your platonic friend.
The homosexual argument is odd- everyone here has said that any homosexual couple who ARE LIVING TOGETHER should be treated as a social unit, regardless of fricking state laws.
If you have a boyfriend or a girlfriend, and you do not live together,and are not engaged, - that's exactly what you have- a FRIEND.
As to my original comment, let me expand- if you are newly dating someone, and, let me repeat myself here- OVER 25 And NOT VIRGIN-if you do not feel comfortable enough with this person to have sex with them yet- it is NOT a serious relationship!

You are so closed-minded and judgmental with regards to what a relationship is that it is mind-bottling.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lekqok952v1qbbpaoo1_500.jpg

Your judgement of religious couples is astoundingly offensive.

How old are you? I suspect you are young, because your worldview that sex alone defines the seriousness of a relationship is immature. I hope you begin to realize that there is more to a serious and successful relationship than screwing.

ETA: I saw your comment where you refer to yourself as old, so there goes my theory!

PrettyGirlLost · July 2013

NYCBruin said:

@daisy18 also, just to clarify:

According to your philosophy, if someone has had sex in the past, but is opposed to premarital sex for whatever reason then they can't be in a serious committed relationship?

My head hurts.

How about if they were having sex or even married, and then suffer a debilitating injury or illness that leaves them unable to have sex? Wonder what she would say about that?

daisey18 · July 2013

@banana468

Personally, to MY wedding- I would invite you! I wouldn't split up a long term dating couple. But this thread started with the standard "You can't judge the seriousness of others relationships" stuff, when a bride asked if she had to invite some ones brand new girlfriend.

I have a hard time understanding why it is deemed okay to invite a single friend with no current date alone, but why a friend who has been dating someone for less than 3 months DOES get an invite for their new friend- doesn't seem fair to me at all.

I would never-have never- invited a single friend with no plus one. Because I know all of my single friends can certainly find a date or a friend to accompany them. And if I have to invite Jane's husband who gets on my nerves , I might as well tell Julie to bring someone too.

But if someone isn't going to give every single friend a plus one, I'm all for NOT inviting Steve's new girlfriend of 2 weeks.

Really though- I think not giving single friends plus ones SUCKS.

PrettyGirlLost · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@banana468
Personally, to MY wedding- I would invite you! I wouldn't split up a long term dating couple. But this thread started with the standard "You can't judge the seriousness of others relationships" stuff, when a bride asked if she had to invite some ones brand new girlfriend.
I have a hard time understanding why it is deemed okay to invite a single friend with no current date alone, but why a friend who has been dating someone for less than 3 months DOES get an invite for their new friend- doesn't seem fair to me at all.
I would never-have never- invited a single friend with no plus one. Because I know all of my single friends can certainly find a date or a friend to accompany them. And if I have to invite Jane's husband who gets on my nerves , I might as well tell Julie to bring someone too.

But if someone isn't going to give every single friend a plus one, I'm all for NOT inviting Steve's new girlfriend of 2 weeks.
Really though- I think not giving single friends plus ones SUCKS.

This is a very nice and noble sentiment, but it just doesn't jive logically with your previous statements.

Why does it suck to not give a single friend the option of bringing a totally rando date or platonic friend to a wedding, yet you think it's ridic to invite Steve's new GF of 2 weeks?

daisey18 · July 2013

@ PrettyGirlLost

It may not jive logically to you- but it is completely logical to me, and it is my honest opinion, and I have not tried to be offensive to anyone in any way. I have been referred to as stupid, moronic, and offensive- for stating my opinion in a polite way. I will not be responding to this thread anymore- but seriously, people need to stop trying to pick other posters apart just because they have different opinions.

Anastasia517 · July 2013

Daisey, question:

When I first went away to university, I lived with my boyfriend during the school year. Under that logic, we would be invited together. However, we then didn't live together for two years immediately after that because he went to school in a different city. Does this mean we would no longer be invited together, or because we HAD lived together does that make it okay? If not, does it mean that we would be re-invited together after we moved in together again (when we had been together right around 4 years)? How about the month when we lived together in those two years apart because of a house-selling situation? One month of couple-dom in the midst of singleness?

Was I in a relationship, then not, then in one again because of school?

(Edited to clarify something.)

daisey18 · July 2013

@ Anastasia517

I hate when I am writing something out and then someone flounces

So I will answer your question:

Of course you were always in a relationship, but

According to the entire etiquette idea of , "You don't have to give single guests dates, you only have to invite significant others", then your relationship did not count as a significant other. You were not engaged or married, and you were living together for convenience.

If I, personally, was inviting you to MY wedding- I would invite you together as a couple. But I would not consider you as "Significant Others". It would be more of a "Social Unit" thing.

Significant other = spouse or spousal equevilant .

Single = unmarried.

that's that

PrettyGirlLost · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@ PrettyGirlLost
It may not jive logically to you- but it is completely logical to me, and it is my honest opinion, and I have not tried to be offensive to anyone in any way. I have been referred to as stupid, moronic, and offensive- for stating my opinion in a polite way. I will not be responding to this thread anymore- but seriously, people need to stop trying to pick other posters apart just because they have different opinions.

Your very 1st post did not come across as polite at all. It might not have been your intended tone, but we all perceived it as harsh. Which is why I think you received the intense backlash that you did.

PrettyGirlLost · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@ Anastasia517
I hate when I am writing something out and then someone flounces
So I will answer your question:
Of course you were always in a relationship, but

According to the entire etiquette idea of , "You don't have to give single guests dates, you only have to invite significant others", then your relationship did not count as a significant other. You were not engaged or married, and you were living together for convenience.
If I, personally, was inviting you to MY wedding- I would invite you together as a couple. But I would not consider you as "Significant Others". It would be more of a "Social Unit" thing.
Significant other = spouse or spousal equevilant .
Single = unmarried.

that's that

Ok, now this is all making more sense. You are using a very outdated view of relationships. While I don't agree with it at all, had I read this post as your 1st post and not your actual 1st post, I don't think I would have reacted as strongly.

wittykitty14 · July 2013

What. The. Hell. I can't believe this is still going on. This is the scenario in my head right now.

"Hey, I'd love to introduce you to my boyfriend sometime! We've been talking about marriage, so I think it's time you meet him!"

"Your boyfriend? Are you guys fucking?"

"...........No, we're waiting."

"Well, he's not actually your boyfriend then. But yeah, I'll meet him."

How does that make sense AT ALL?

NYCBruin · July 2013

daisey18 said:

NYCBruin- if you are living together with someone for conveniance- that is not an SO.
The "living together" exception to the married/ engaged rule is, in my illogical though it may be view- for people who
             Cannot get married for legal reasons.
            Cannot get married for benefits reasons- this applies to many senior citizens
        Cannot get married because one has a legal spouse who is incapacitated [alzheimers, etc]
             Does not believe in the covenant of marriage, for legal or moral reasons, but has committed to and provided for their partners long term protection.
Splitting the bills isn't the same as setting up life insurance, power of attorney, joint financial accounts, etc.
Living with someone you have no plans on staying with for life is not the same as living with someone you CAN"T marry but couldn't live without.

You would have no idea whether the couple intended to get married or not, though. If a couple is dating and moves in together, it appears that you view that as "well they must be super serious and thus need to be invited together." Except that makes no sense. There are lots of reasons a couple may move in together (they plan on getting married some day, one person has just moved to the other person's city, they want to save on rent, etc), and frankly their reason(s) are none of your business. But when you start playing the "well they live together so they must be serious and this couple doesn't live together so they must not be serious" it becomes very rude.

Several posters here have indicated that they were very serious with their FI/husband right away. Other people date someone for years and don't consider it that serious. The point is that there isn't a good way to decide how "serious" a relationship is. That is why we tell brides they should invite guests with their SO (based on the guest's definition-if they say they are a couple, then they are invited as a couple).

There was a time where couples didn't date very long before getting engaged. In those days, yes, whether a couple was engaged or not was a good measure of whether they were serious or not. But that just isn't the case anymore. Treating engagements or living together as the only measure of whether a couple is serious or not is dated and likely to offend your guests.

NYCBruin · July 2013

Also you must be the only person outside of the IRS that considers someone "single" unless they are married.

blueobsidian · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@ NYCBruin
Damn, now I have to go look for this "Parky" persons antics- I was stuck in court all day.

Who the hell moves in with their boyfriend or girlfriend if it is "just casual" ? Do people do that now? Shit, I always got married- and am getting married again- because I refuse to "live together" with someone I am intimate with and love....
@ Addie- Friendship isn't a philosophy- it's a real thing I would think because of your fathers marriages, you'd get my logic perfectly fine. If I really love someone- I'm marrying them!
I've had plenty of boyfriends whom I was intimate with whom I did NOT love- I just liked their company. We were in "exclusive" relationships- aka, let's not date or fuck other people while we're doing this "boyfriend/girlfriend" shit, K? Exclusivity does not equal commitment- it just equals respect, and usually the possibility of future commitment. It is a step for when you aren't sure yet if this is someone who will be significant one day. Usually a short step for people like myself . There is a new generational trend to let that step stretch out for years- but the new trend doesn't make that nebulous arrangement equal to a marriage or engagement or living together situation.

Does anyone else find the bolded completely offensive to the idea of marriage? Some of us are NOT going to get married every time we're in a serious relationship. It's a lifelong commitment. You "always got married" when you were serious about someone? How about waiting until you find a person that you want to keep that commitment with instead of trying on marriage like it's something casual?

lovesclimbing · July 2013

daisey18 said:

@NYCBruin,
Well, you're very easily offended then, aren't ya?

For everyone hollering "religion"- yeah, if you aren't having sex because of your religion, then GET MARRIED. If you are not married or engaged and you are saving yourself for marriage- then your relationship is NOT significant yet.
If you are an asexual, and you are not engaged or married- you are in a significant relationship. It's called FRIENDSHIP! Sorry, there's no etiquette rule that someone has to invite you and your platonic friend.
The homosexual argument is odd- everyone here has said that any homosexual couple who ARE LIVING TOGETHER should be treated as a social unit, regardless of fricking state laws.
If you have a boyfriend or a girlfriend, and you do not live together,and are not engaged, - that's exactly what you have- a FRIEND.
As to my original comment, let me expand- if you are newly dating someone, and, let me repeat myself here- OVER 25 And NOT VIRGIN-if you do not feel comfortable enough with this person to have sex with them yet- it is NOT a serious relationship!

To the first bolded: there are many many people who are not having sex who are choosing not to get married yet for various reason. My sister, for example, and her BF will probably get married in the near future but not until they both finish college. They are not yet engaged. Their are literally hundreds of other reasons why people might wait to get married. Saying they need to "get married" is not as easy as it sounds when finances, living situations, jobs and a host of other reasons can be prohibitive to getting married for a few months or years.

To the second bolded: most people who choose to wait for religious reasons DO want to have sex with the person they're seriously dating and they would be totally comfortable having sex with that person. The reason they DON'T have sex is because they believe in waiting until marriage.

RSVPs and Plus Ones - Help!

Re: RSVPs and Plus Ones - Help!

Choose Another Board

Search Boards