It was an exaggeration. Seriously, though, people really can't realistically be expected to budget for big groups of guests who claim to be in poly relationships. The space and money available to entertain so many people along with the one person in the group who is acquainted with the couple doesn't usually exist. So if that one person wants everyone else in the group invited along with him or her, I think they're going to get a reply of: Sorry, but if you're going to put us in an all-20-or-none situation, we're inviting none of you. I don't think anyone will agree to invite 17 or 18 strangers as opposed to just 1 or 2 so as not to "judge"-especially if that means that their budget and space won't allow for others to whom they are close to be invited.
Oh. Oh I see. So it's okay to be all offensive and ignorant because you were just "exaggerating."
Oh, BS. I was not being " ignorant." And I don't GAF if you were "offended" because I said that I think that if someone wants to claim that they're in a social unit with a large number of other people that the likelihood is that none of them are going to be invited because the average hosts of a wedding don't have the money or room to invite them all.
You're the one who's being "ignorant" because you seem to have no idea of what that word means, and throwing it around as a negative label is ignorant and offensive in itself. Use a dictionary before you go throwing words around as negative labels.
The likelihood of it being all or nothing being invited is fine and etiquette approved. That's how it works for all social units.
The problem is that the OP presented a three person poly relationship and somehow that turned into you not feeling it necessary to invite an entire social unit because someone was "claiming" to be poly and dating an entire city. Do you not see the problem with that exaggeration of yours? If you are unable to invite the entire social unit for budget reasons that's fine, but when you saysomeone is "claiming" to be in a relationship with 19 people it borders on being very judgy of non-monogamous relationships and thinking 1) they aren't valid or 2) only two (and not all) of the people in the unit are serious enough to warrant being called a social unit. That's why I said it was an ignorant attitude in that those sorts of comments suggested unfamiliarity with poly relationships.
What I said (for the umpteenth fucking time) was if a "social unit" has more people in it than the hosts can afford to host or have room for in their venue, the probability is that none will be invited, no matter how many people are in it.
You're coming across as "judgy" yourself here by throwing around the word "ignorant."
It was an exaggeration. Seriously, though, people really can't realistically be expected to budget for big groups of guests who claim to be in poly relationships. The space and money available to entertain so many people along with the one person in the group who is acquainted with the couple doesn't usually exist. So if that one person wants everyone else in the group invited along with him or her, I think they're going to get a reply of: Sorry, but if you're going to put us in an all-20-or-none situation, we're inviting none of you. I don't think anyone will agree to invite 17 or 18 strangers as opposed to just 1 or 2 so as not to "judge"-especially if that means that their budget and space won't allow for others to whom they are close to be invited.
Oh. Oh I see. So it's okay to be all offensive and ignorant because you were just "exaggerating."
Oh, BS. I was not being " ignorant." And I don't GAF if you were "offended" because I said that I think that if someone wants to claim that they're in a social unit with a large number of other people that the likelihood is that none of them are going to be invited because the average hosts of a wedding don't have the money or room to invite them all.
You're the one who's being "ignorant" because you seem to have no idea of what that word means, and throwing it around as a negative label is ignorant and offensive in itself. Use a dictionary before you go throwing words around as negative labels.
The likelihood of it being all or nothing being invited is fine and etiquette approved. That's how it works for all social units.
The problem is that the OP presented a three person poly relationship and somehow that turned into you not feeling it necessary to invite an entire social unit because someone was "claiming" to be poly and dating an entire city. Do you not see the problem with that exaggeration of yours? If you are unable to invite the entire social unit for budget reasons that's fine, but when you saysomeone is "claiming" to be in a relationship with 19 people it borders on being very judgy of non-monogamous relationships and thinking 1) they aren't valid or 2) only two (and not all) of the people in the unit are serious enough to warrant being called a social unit. That's why I said it was an ignorant attitude in that those sorts of comments suggested unfamiliarity with poly relationships.
What I said (for the umpteenth fucking time) was if a "social unit" has more people in it than the hosts can afford to host or have room for in their venue, the probability is that none will be invited, no matter how many people are in it.
You're coming across as "judgy" yourself here by throwing around the word "ignorant."
It was an exaggeration. Seriously, though, people really can't realistically be expected to budget for big groups of guests who claim to be in poly relationships. The space and money available to entertain so many people along with the one person in the group who is acquainted with the couple doesn't usually exist. So if that one person wants everyone else in the group invited along with him or her, I think they're going to get a reply of: Sorry, but if you're going to put us in an all-20-or-none situation, we're inviting none of you. I don't think anyone will agree to invite 17 or 18 strangers as opposed to just 1 or 2 so as not to "judge"-especially if that means that their budget and space won't allow for others to whom they are close to be invited.
Oh. Oh I see. So it's okay to be all offensive and ignorant because you were just "exaggerating."
Oh, BS. I was not being " ignorant." And I don't GAF if you were "offended" because I said that I think that if someone wants to claim that they're in a social unit with a large number of other people that the likelihood is that none of them are going to be invited because the average hosts of a wedding don't have the money or room to invite them all.
You're the one who's being "ignorant" because you seem to have no idea of what that word means, and throwing it around as a negative label is ignorant and offensive in itself. Use a dictionary before you go throwing words around as negative labels.
The likelihood of it being all or nothing being invited is fine and etiquette approved. That's how it works for all social units.
The problem is that the OP presented a three person poly relationship and somehow that turned into you not feeling it necessary to invite an entire social unit because someone was "claiming" to be poly and dating an entire city. Do you not see the problem with that exaggeration of yours? If you are unable to invite the entire social unit for budget reasons that's fine, but when you saysomeone is "claiming" to be in a relationship with 19 people it borders on being very judgy of non-monogamous relationships and thinking 1) they aren't valid or 2) only two (and not all) of the people in the unit are serious enough to warrant being called a social unit. That's why I said it was an ignorant attitude in that those sorts of comments suggested unfamiliarity with poly relationships.
What I said (for the umpteenth fucking time) was if a "social unit" has more people in it than the hosts can afford to host or have room for in their venue, the probability is that none will be invited, no matter how many people are in it.
You're coming across as "judgy" yourself here by throwing around the word "ignorant."
Generally, I agree with everything photokitty has said- you invite the social unit, however many that is. But MegEn1 did make a good point- Sister Wives are not in a romantic relationship with each other, they consider themselves to be like sisters (hence the name). However, Butterfly makes a good point about what IS a social unit- bringing up the two older ladies living together is a good example I think.
This is how I would answer this question, regardless of the social "set up"- invite guests to your wedding like you would invite them over to your home for a dinner party.
A) If OP were to invite Friend over to her house for dinner, would she invite BF A and B? Baring the violent outburst- yes, because the 3 present themselves together as a social unit.
B ) If you invite your friend Sally, you invite her husband.
C) Sister Wives is tricky- some events they all go together, other things they do separate (like dates). However, if I were friends with a sister wife and I invited her and her sister wives + husband for dinner, then I would expect to invite all of them to my wedding, not pick and choose which events I invited one or all to. However, if I had ONLY met the one wife (my friend), I think you could argue the point that the other wives are not HER social unit.
D) If I invited Betty and Gladys over for dinner together all the time, then I would invite them together to my wedding. However, if I often went out on social "dates" with Betty only (say for coffee, out to dinner), then I don't think it would be a requirement to invite Gladys (though it'd be nice).
E) You could argue that an adult (either single parent, or even married couple) is a social unit with their children, but I think there are MANY instances where you would invite your friend (the adult) but not his/her children to events you may host- thus clearing that they are not the social unit (they are a family unit).
Yes but they are in a romantic/sexual relationship with their Husband, so they are all his SO's so by that logic you'd have to invite him with each one of the Sister Wives.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
Jesus fuck. Why do people think that it's okay to judge the seriousness and/or validity of someone else's relationship EVER?
I find the fact that claims/claiming keeps being used is so absurdly offensive. i.e. "Just because someone CLAIMS to be in a poly relationship...", "Just because someone is CLAIMING to be a social unit with 19 people..." This implies that they are lying and/or you took it upon yourself to judge their relationship as invalid.
Re: Inviting a friend's SO who tried to start a fight with me?
What I said (for the umpteenth fucking time) was if a "social unit" has more people in it than the hosts can afford to host or have room for in their venue, the probability is that none will be invited, no matter how many people are in it.
You're coming across as "judgy" yourself here by throwing around the word "ignorant."
and I just said THAT IS ETIQUETTE APPROVED.
Sorry, fight's over.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."