Part of me kind of hopes all these speshul snowflakes are actually just one person making up multiple usernames. But sadly, that's an unrealistic hope and just proves that the world is going to hell in a handbasket...
I know this topic has long been discussed, but I ran into the same problem, however, my guest list is a little bigger. The problem came to cousins and some aunts/uncles wanting to bring their boyfriend/girlfriend. The invitations do not mention "you and a guest" or give a distinct option of a plus 1. We are on a budget, and we prefer to keep our guests to people we personally know. It may be considered rude, however, it really isn't up to anyone but the one making the guest list. Family should trump anything else, and if the invited guest is willing to put their "requirement" of bringing their boyfriend/girlfriend to your wedding before their relation to you, well that is RUDE. This is the one day you can make decisions without having to consider anyone elses happieness buy your own and your fiance.
I know this topic has long been discussed, but I ran into the same problem, however, my guest list is a little bigger. The problem came to cousins and some aunts/uncles wanting to bring their boyfriend/girlfriend. The invitations do not mention "you and a guest" or give a distinct option of a plus 1. We are on a budget, and we prefer to keep our guests to people we personally know. It may be considered rude, however, it really isn't up to anyone but the one making the guest list. Family should trump anything else, and if the invited guest is willing to put their "requirement" of bringing their boyfriend/girlfriend to your wedding before their relation to you, well that is RUDE. This is the one day you can make decisions without having to consider anyone elses happieness buy your own and your fiance.I didn't bother to read a fucking thing in this thread nor take heed to the advice given, even though it didn't validate my RUDE behavior.
FIFY.
*Note- No Special Snowflakes were harmed in the making of this post.*
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
I know this topic has long been discussed, but I ran into the same problem, however, my guest list is a little bigger. The problem came to cousins and some aunts/uncles wanting to bring their boyfriend/girlfriend. The invitations do not mention "you and a guest" or give a distinct option of a plus 1. We are on a budget, and we prefer to keep our guests to people we personally know. It may be considered rude, however, it really isn't up to anyone but the one making the guest list. Family should trump anything else, and if the invited guest is willing to put their "requirement" of bringing their boyfriend/girlfriend to your wedding before their relation to you, well that is RUDE. This is the one day you can make decisions without having to consider anyone elses happieness buy your own and your fiance.
Welcome to the etiquette board. You are absolutely right that, whenever a person receives an invitation listing only their name, then they are the only person invited. And no-one has any right to brow-beat their hostess into changing her guest list, even if they are family, even if they are from an older generation.
Standard etiquette does hold, however, that married couples must always be invited as a couple, to any purely social event (with the exception of gentlemen-only parties or ladies-only parties, of course.) Traditional etiquette also holds that if a hostess does invite just one member of a married couple and leaves the other off, that the person invited should politely decline the invitation. And since what you are celebrating at a wedding reception is somebody's marriage, it does make sense to respect people's marital commitment. Tradition extends that privilege even to couples who are only engaged to become married -- theirs is still a commitment, still marital -- just not yet legalized (I was going to say, "not yet consummated", but that has a double meaning and the second meaning nowadays takes place long before the enagagement in most cases.)
Of course, boyfriend-hood and girlfriend-hood are not marital commitments. They do not enjoy the same unquestioning inclusion in the rules of standard etiquette. But etiquette is really just the consensus of the society in which you live as to what are considered "polite" behaviours, and modern western society has chosen to accept non-marital cohabitation as a norm. So it has become another sign of commitment -- and there is a longstanding tradition in etiquette of simply accepting cohabiting couples as if what they appear to be (a married couple, since that is how they are living) -- were indeed what they actually are, and extending the "married couples" rule to them also. Hence the generally acknowledged standard of "married, engaged or living together" as being the couples who must be invited as a couple. Of course, you can always choose to invite people as a couple, but those are the categories that most often are sited as must-be-invited-together.
But that last category (couples treated as married because they live as if married) prompts another question: what about those who live as if they were engaged? People who have apparently pair-bonded, are always seen together, entertain together, make joint decisions; and yet do not seem inclined to announce their engagement any time soon? Shoud not the same rule be extended, and hostesses should treat them as if engaged because they live as if engaged? That certainly makes sense to me. It still does not cover off casual escorts, flavour-of-the week boyfriends that are on-again off-again, or recent romances that have not yet shown signs of functioning couple-like in society. It does require that the as-if-engaged couple actually do some functioning, frankly: entertaining together or attending social events together or, at an absolutely minimum, actually tellling the hostesses in their social circle that they now consider themselves a commied couple. Not "I've started seeing someone and he might just be Mr Right" but (to paraphrase Miss Manners) "actually, Cynthia and I always go out together" or words to that effect. Since many people are less overt, and some people feel sufficiently entitled and are sufficiently unconscious of the impermanence of their own affections that they think a week and a half is equivalent to "always", a hostess still has to use a measure of judgement and treat each case individually rather than applying un-nuanced black-and-white rulings.
Even in all those categories, of course: married, engaged, equivalent-to-married and equivalent-to-engaged, you still do not have to invite people you do not know. If you want to keep your party to people you know (as, indeed, you generally ought to do) and Auntie insists she always goes out with Hubert, whom you have never met, and whom she has no intention of introducing to you over coffee or dinner because she doesn't plan to make any social effort to introduce him to the rest of her family, but whose invitation she feels entitled to extort from you by bullying, then you simply choose not to invite Auntie, either. Rude and entitled people, on either side of the guest-host line, are often more appreciated in their absence.
I can't believe you actually managed to get it (almost, not entirely, but pretty close to) right this time. Well done! You're learning, and good for you!
I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'
I know this topic has long been discussed, but I ran into the same problem, however, my guest list is a little bigger. The problem came to cousins and some aunts/uncles wanting to bring their boyfriend/girlfriend. The invitations do not mention "you and a guest" or give a distinct option of a plus 1. We are on a budget, and we prefer to keep our guests to people we personally know. It may be considered rude, however, it really isn't up to anyone but the one making the guest list. Family should trump anything else, and if the invited guest is willing to put their "requirement" of bringing their boyfriend/girlfriend to your wedding before their relation to you, well that is RUDE. This is the one day you can make decisions without having to consider anyone elses happieness buy your own and your fiance.
Welcome to the etiquette board. You are absolutely right that, whenever a person receives an invitation listing only their name, then they are the only person invited. And no-one has any right to brow-beat their hostess into changing her guest list, even if they are family, even if they are from an older generation.
Standard etiquette does hold, however, that married couples must always be invited as a couple, to any purely social event (with the exception of gentlemen-only parties or ladies-only parties, of course.) Traditional etiquette also holds that if a hostess does invite just one member of a married couple and leaves the other off, that the person invited should politely decline the invitation. And since what you are celebrating at a wedding reception is somebody's marriage, it does make sense to respect people's marital commitment. Tradition extends that privilege even to couples who are only engaged to become married -- theirs is still a commitment, still marital -- just not yet legalized (I was going to say, "not yet consummated", but that has a double meaning and the second meaning nowadays takes place long before the enagagement in most cases.)
Of course, boyfriend-hood and girlfriend-hood are not marital commitments. They do not enjoy the same unquestioning inclusion in the rules of standard etiquette. But etiquette is really just the consensus of the society in which you live as to what are considered "polite" behaviours, and modern western society has chosen to accept non-marital cohabitation as a norm. So it has become another sign of commitment -- and there is a longstanding tradition in etiquette of simply accepting cohabiting couples as if what they appear to be (a married couple, since that is how they are living) -- were indeed what they actually are, and extending the "married couples" rule to them also. Hence the generally acknowledged standard of "married, engaged or living together" as being the couples who must be invited as a couple. Of course, you can always choose to invite people as a couple, but those are the categories that most often are sited as must-be-invited-together.
But that last category (couples treated as married because they live as if married) prompts another question: what about those who live as if they were engaged? People who have apparently pair-bonded, are always seen together, entertain together, make joint decisions; and yet do not seem inclined to announce their engagement any time soon? Shoud not the same rule be extended, and hostesses should treat them as if engaged because they live as if engaged? That certainly makes sense to me. It still does not cover off casual escorts, flavour-of-the week boyfriends that are on-again off-again, or recent romances that have not yet shown signs of functioning couple-like in society. It does require that the as-if-engaged couple actually do some functioning, frankly: entertaining together or attending social events together or, at an absolutely minimum, actually tellling the hostesses in their social circle that they now consider themselves a commied couple. Not "I've started seeing someone and he might just be Mr Right" but (to paraphrase Miss Manners) "actually, Cynthia and I always go out together" or words to that effect. Since many people are less overt, and some people feel sufficiently entitled and are sufficiently unconscious of the impermanence of their own affections that they think a week and a half is equivalent to "always", a hostess still has to use a measure of judgement and treat each case individually rather than applying un-nuanced black-and-white rulings.
Even in all those categories, of course: married, engaged, equivalent-to-married and equivalent-to-engaged, you still do not have to invite people you do not know. If you want to keep your party to people you know (as, indeed, you generally ought to do) and Auntie insists she always goes out with Hubert, whom you have never met, and whom she has no intention of introducing to you over coffee or dinner because she doesn't plan to make any social effort to introduce him to the rest of her family, but whose invitation she feels entitled to extort from you by bullying, then you simply choose not to invite Auntie, either. Rude and entitled people, on either side of the guest-host line, are often more appreciated in their absence.
If you could have written this with 10% as many words, people might read it and actually get something from it.
Married couples, or couples who live as if married, engaged couples, or couples who live as if engaged, is actually kind of a smart way of explaining why one should invite ALL couples who identify as couples.
A couple who lives as if engaged to me is just a couple that identifies as a social unit, so this is just a different way of saying the same thing most of us have been saying for 15 pages.
How is it that people keep showing up and saying that IT'S OK TO NOT INVITE SOs?????
This thread was on the home page.
Yeah, it was, under the wedding 911 section. I think that's why we've had an influx of snow the past 2-3 days.
Is it possible to get a thread closed around here? I noticed there are no mods, only KGs.
As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think General Stupidity is enough cause to warrant the closure of a thread. Maybe on WW, but I don't think TK should operate that way.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
How is it that people keep showing up and saying that IT'S OK TO NOT INVITE SOs?????
This thread was on the home page.
Yeah, it was, under the wedding 911 section. I think that's why we've had an influx of snow the past 2-3 days.
Is it possible to get a thread closed around here? I noticed there are no mods, only KGs.
As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think General Stupidity is enough cause to warrant the closure of a thread. Maybe on WW, but I don't think TK should operate that way.
Normally, I would say that, but this thread just goes on and on and on...
Oh, it just goes on and on and on. I throw my hands up in the air sometimes. (great, now that song's in my head)
How is it that people keep showing up and saying that IT'S OK TO NOT INVITE SOs?????
This thread was on the home page.
Yeah, it was, under the wedding 911 section. I think that's why we've had an influx of snow the past 2-3 days.
Is it possible to get a thread closed around here? I noticed there are no mods, only KGs.
As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think General Stupidity is enough cause to warrant the closure of a thread. Maybe on WW, but I don't think TK should operate that way.
Normally, I would say that, but this thread just goes on and on and on...
Oh, it just goes on and on and on. I throw my hands up in the air sometimes. (great, now that song's in my head)
Edit: forgot an apostrophe. Lame
I throw my hands up in the air sometimes, Saying AYO, I'm not inviting SO's! I want to celebrate and live my life, Because it's MY DAY, So I'll be rude, eh.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
I know this topic has long been discussed, but I ran into the same problem, however, my guest list is a little bigger. The problem came to cousins and some aunts/uncles wanting to bring their boyfriend/girlfriend. The invitations do not mention "you and a guest" or give a distinct option of a plus 1. We are on a budget, and we prefer to keep our guests to people we personally know. It may be considered rude, however, it really isn't up to anyone but the one making the guest list. Family should trump anything else, and if the invited guest is willing to put their "requirement" of bringing their boyfriend/girlfriend to your wedding before their relation to you, well that is RUDE. This is the one day you can make decisions without having to consider anyone elses happieness buy your own and your fiance.
If you could have written this with 10% as many words, people might read it and actually get something from it.
Married couples, or couples who live as if married, engaged couples, or couples who live as if engaged, is actually kind of a smart way of explaining why one should invite ALL couples who identify as couples.
A couple who lives as if engaged to me is just a couple that identifies as a social unit, so this is just a different way of saying the same thing most of us have been saying for 15 pages.
This exactly. I see long text, look and see that it's from ATB, and immediately scroll down. Too many words that are usually wrong.
I know this topic has long been discussed, but I ran into the same problem, however, my guest list is a little bigger.The problem came to cousins and some aunts/uncles wanting to bring their boyfriend/girlfriend. The invitations do not mention "you and a guest" or give a distinct option of a plus 1. We are on a budget, and we prefer to keep our guests to people we personally know. It may be considered rude, however, it really isn't up to anyone but the one making the guest list. Family should trump anything else, and if the invited guest is willing to put their "requirement" of bringing their boyfriend/girlfriend to your wedding before their relation to you, well that is RUDE. This is the one day you can make decisions without having to consider anyone elses happieness buy your own and your fiance.
To the bolded red: Newsflash......cousins, aunts, and uncles ARE family. You are treating your family in an incredibly rude manner. You are inviting guests to a reception to thank THEM for coming to your wedding. ALL decisions should revolve around treating them as properly as possible.
Perhaps I am having a comprehension fail, so someone please correct me if I am misinterpreting this incorrectly. @ATB said, "Even in all those categories, of course: married, engaged, equivalent-to-married and equivalent-to-engaged, you still do not have to invite people you do not know." Are you suggesting that if I do not know Uncle John's wife, I can exclude her from the invitation? That would be all sorts of wrong on too many levels to comprehend.
How is it that people keep showing up and saying that IT'S OK TO NOT INVITE SOs?????
Because they are all on that trendy new wedding diet- You know, the one where you only eat Waffles until your Most Beautiful, Perfect, Special Day!
Holla at Addie. . . .
I know this post was meant to be sarcastic but how awesome would it be if you could actually go on a waffle diet and not gain a bunch of weight? Mmmmm waffles.
How is it that people keep showing up and saying that IT'S OK TO NOT INVITE SOs?????
Because they are all on that trendy new wedding diet- You know, the one where you only eat Waffles until your Most Beautiful, Perfect, Special Day!
Holla at Addie. . . .
I know this post was meant to be sarcastic but how awesome would it be if you could actually go on a waffle diet and not gain a bunch of weight? Mmmmm waffles.
Well, I mean, you probably could eat just waffles and not gain a lot of weight, but you'd probably have to watch your waffle intake pretty carefully. I dunno, I'm kind of tempted now.
How is it that people keep showing up and saying that IT'S OK TO NOT INVITE SOs?????
Because they are all on that trendy new wedding diet- You know, the one where you only eat Waffles until your Most Beautiful, Perfect, Special Day!
Holla at Addie. . . .
I know this post was meant to be sarcastic but how awesome would it be if you could actually go on a waffle diet and not gain a bunch of weight? Mmmmm waffles.
Well, I mean, you probably could eat just waffles and not gain a lot of weight, but you'd probably have to watch your waffle intake pretty carefully. I dunno, I'm kind of tempted now.
That is true. You'd have to keep the toppings in check too. That's it I'm having waffles for dinner.
How is it that people keep showing up and saying that IT'S OK TO NOT INVITE SOs?????
Because they are all on that trendy new wedding diet- You know, the one where you only eat Waffles until your Most Beautiful, Perfect, Special Day!
Holla at Addie. . . .
I know this post was meant to be sarcastic but how awesome would it be if you could actually go on a waffle diet and not gain a bunch of weight? Mmmmm waffles.
Well, I mean, you probably could eat just waffles and not gain a lot of weight, but you'd probably have to watch your waffle intake pretty carefully. I dunno, I'm kind of tempted now.
That is true. You'd have to keep the toppings in check too. That's it I'm having waffles for dinner.
People are being really harsh in this post for no reason. TakerFan1 at the end of the day its your wedding. If someone is that petty to get upset and not come they don't need to be there. Period. I am not attached to my man, I can enjoy a family gathering without him and I HAVE BEFORE AND DIDN'T DIE. The key word you said was *intimate* If this was a huge 300 person wedding and no SO were allowed that would be different. There are certain people in my family that are NOT getting a plus one. If they don't like it that much not to come I don't want your negative energy at my wedding anyway. Sit down, talk to your family and let them know early enough to make a decision.
People are being really harsh in this post for no reason. TakerFan1 at the end of the day its your wedding. If someone is that petty to get upset and not come they don't need to be there. Period. I am not attached to my man, I can enjoy a family gathering without him and I HAVE BEFORE AND DIDN'T DIE. The key word you said was *intimate* If this was a huge 300 person wedding and no SO were allowed that would be different. There are certain people in my family that are NOT getting a plus one. If they don't like it that much not to come I don't want your negative energy at my wedding anyway. Sit down, talk to your family and let them know early enough to make a decision.
Clearly, you ........
Because if you did read, you would understand that no one was harsh. If posters were frustrated, aggravated, flabbergasted, and dumbfounded, the good reason is because first time posters such as yourself never seem to distinguish the difference between rude and polite. Welcome to Team Rude.
People are being really harsh in this post for no reason. TakerFan1 at the end of the day its your wedding. If someone is that petty to get upset and not come they don't need to be there. Period. I am not attached to my man, I can enjoy a family gathering without him and I HAVE BEFORE AND DIDN'T DIE. The key word you said was *intimate* If this was a huge 300 person wedding and no SO were allowed that would be different. There are certain people in my family that are NOT getting a plus one. If they don't like it that much not to come I don't want your negative energy at my wedding anyway. Sit down, talk to your family and let them know early enough to make a decision.
It's great that you can have a good time without your SO. I don't think anyone said they'd die if their SO was not invited. It is, however rude. You can invite single guests without a plus one. They are a single social unit and do not need to bring a guest. If someone has a significant other, that is a different beast. Social units should be invited together. If they say they're in a relationship, you need to respect that on the day you want them to celebrate yours. If you really don't want to respect your friends and family, don't invite them and elope. Then it can be all about you. If you don't respect them, don't expect them to give you all positive energy and rainbows. Acting in a rude manner has repercussions. Do not be surprised if people are less than enthusiastic about hanging out with you and your man after you diss them like that. This board is for people who don't want to treat their closest friends and family like crap, not special little princesses who think just because THEY wouldn't be offended, nobody else has the right to be.
I'm just blown away by the number of people who think it's perfectly ok to be unspeakably rude to people they claim to love. Family, friends, everyone is supposed to just look the other way and take it on the chin when their SO is blatantly insulted? WTF? My family and closest friends would call me out on that shit so fast my head would explode. Ain't no way I'd ever get away with that kind of thing, even if I wanted to. I mean, I LOVE these people. Why would I even for one moment consider being mean to them?
People are being really harsh in this post for no reason. TakerFan1 at the end of the day its your wedding. If someone is that petty to get upset and not come they don't need to be there. Period. I am not attached to my man, I can enjoy a family gathering without him and I HAVE BEFORE AND DIDN'T DIE. The key word you said was *intimate* If this was a huge 300 person wedding and no SO were allowed that would be different. There are certain people in my family that are NOT getting a plus one. If they don't like it that much not to come I don't want your negative energy at my wedding anyway. Sit down, talk to your family and let them know early enough to make a decision.
Re: How do I tell people that they don't get a plus one?
*Note- No Special Snowflakes were harmed in the making of this post.*
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
Holla at Addie. . . .
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
Saying AYO,
I'm not inviting SO's!
I want to celebrate and live my life,
Because it's MY DAY,
So I'll be rude, eh.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
It may be considered rude, however, it really isn't up to anyone but the one making the guest list. Family should trump anything else, and if the invited guest is willing to put their "requirement" of bringing their boyfriend/girlfriend to your wedding before their relation to you, well that is RUDE. This is the one day you can make decisions without having to consider anyone elses happieness buy your own and your fiance.
I know this post was meant to be sarcastic but how awesome would it be if you could actually go on a waffle diet and not gain a bunch of weight? Mmmmm waffles.