Inviting Guest's Boyfriend or Girlfriend?

[Deleted User] · February 2015

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."

PrettyGirlLost · February 2015

futuremrshistorian said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."

This.

It's really, really, fucking simple, people- if you don't know if someone on your guest list is dating someone, you ask them.

It's common sense and common courtesy. Doesn't take an etiquette book to be able to figure this out.

slothiegal · February 2015

futuremrshistorian said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."

aka.....preach it, gurl.

VulgarGirl · February 2015

I totally asked people what their relationship status was if I did not know. It was a lot easier then looking for signs and trying to judge the relationship myself.

Also it meant I didn't have to define other's relationships for them.

[Deleted User] · February 2015

I have a cousin I didn't even know was dating someone until he changed his status to "engaged" on facebook. Now, if I had sent out invitations to my wedding in the weeks prior to him making it "facebook official", I would have definitely called him up, "Yo Cuz, you dating anyone? I'm sending out wedding invitations and I want to make sure I invite your special someone (I probably would word it like that because I don't want to assume he's dating a woman and not a man) to the wedding." I have no idea if they travel together, if they host events together, or if they attend social functions together because he lives in Minnesota and I live in Illinois.

WhatawagSBNy · February 2015

futuremrshistorian said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."

****************
Assuming you have not deliberately hidden his existence and never let his name cross your lips, anyone you have contact with SHOULD have recognized how serious this is for you within the first few months, and consider you an established couple.

Not being seen together because of distance or other barrier, like war, is not the same as 2 people living close who have only just begun to date, and have not been considered a couple YET. Something that changes when they continue to see each other, and people see them as a couple.

flantastic · February 2015

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."
**************** Assuming you have not deliberately hidden his existence and never let his name cross your lips, anyone you have contact with SHOULD have recognized how serious this is for you within the first few months, and consider you an established couple. Not being seen together because of distance or other barrier, like war, is not the same as 2 people living close who have only just begun to date, and have not been considered a couple YET. Something that changes when they continue to see each other, and people see them as a couple.

We get it. You think that whether or not a person is in a relationship is entirely based on the judgment of others. This is BS.

manateehugger · February 2015

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."
**************** Assuming you have not deliberately hidden his existence and never let his name cross your lips, anyone you have contact with SHOULD have recognized how serious this is for you within the first few months, and consider you an established couple. Not being seen together because of distance or other barrier, like war, is not the same as 2 people living close who have only just begun to date, and have not been considered a couple YET. Something that changes when they continue to see each other, and people see them as a couple.

You're proving her point, which is that your "signals" are bogus. If someone considers themselves to be in a relationship, they are in a relationship. And as a proper host and decent friend, one should err on the side of caution. Or you know, just pick up a phone and say, "Hey, are you and X exclusive?" or "Are you dating anyone special? Want to make sure we get his/her name on the invitation if so!"

It's not that fucking hard. Stop looking for "signals," and be a decent person capable of communication. I would have rather paid for a plate for a random flavor of the month than accidentally excluded a SO.

H and I didn't live together until 3 months before our wedding for personal reasons (none of which are anyone else's business thank you very much), we don't live together now, we do not travel together (thank you, US Army), we don't entertain, or do most of your "signals." And that's been the case for years, long before we married. I sure as hell still considered myself to be in a relationship for that time. I don't give a damn if other people didn't see us as a couple then (even now people like to hint our marriage is lacking because we're apart), WE saw ourselves as a couple. That's the only thing a host needs to know.

[Deleted User] · February 2015

I was going to respond, and then @manateehugger said everything I needed to say.

I didn't quote because epic quote tree length, but going to take issue again with the bit I've bolded below. Anyone I have contact with has no business knowing anything about my relationship. My point is that if someone knows me well enough to invite me to their wedding, they know me well enough to either 1) know that I'm dating someone OR, at the very least 2) be comfortable ASKING me if I'm dating someone so that they can invite him as well.

My parents are a good example here. Approximately 3 weeks after Mr. H and I started seeing each other, my family had a big event. They made ZERO assumptions about the quality or "real" nature of my relationship. They said, "Hey, we're having this big family event...do you want us to invite him?" And I said, "Oh, thank you, that's very nice of you." Because it was. (They also my brother-in-law, my other sister's serious boyfriend, and my 17-year-old brother's high school flavor of the month. Because they're good people)

"Assuming you have not deliberately hidden his existence and never let his name cross your lips, anyone you have contact with SHOULD have recognized how serious this is for you within the first few months, and consider you an established couple. Not being seen together because of distance or other barrier, like war, is not the same as 2 people living close who have only just begun to date, and have not been considered a couple YET. Something that changes when they continue to see each other, and people see them as a couple."

PrettyGirlLost · February 2015

". . .and have not been considered a couple YET. . . ."

You keep missing the point, Wag.

Couple implies two, therefore it's not for anyone else outside the couple to validate their couple status. If two people consider themselves to be a couple, then they are a couple. Period. No signs, signals, divinations, etc needed.

Dreamergirl8812 · February 2015

For my wedding, I just had my friends and their SOs participate in a series of trials and tribulations to see if they could possibly be considered a social unit. First was just a basic round of the Newlywed Game. If you can't name you SO's favorite 80s movie, you simply aren't a social unit.

Second, they had to run around San Diego in an Amazing Race style contest. Unfortunately, one of the husbands died. He just didn't have the chops to be in my wedding. So sad.

Lastly was an intricately laid trap which ended with a decision and a gun. Each SO had to decide if they would sacrifice themselves for their SO. Any who faltered simply didn't get to come to my wedding.

But don't worry, the gun wasn't really loaded!

redoryx · February 2015

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."
**************** Assuming you have not deliberately hidden his existence and never let his name cross your lips, anyone you have contact with SHOULD have recognized how serious this is for you within the first few months, and consider you an established couple. Not being seen together because of distance or other barrier, like war, is not the same as 2 people living close who have only just begun to date, and have not been considered a couple YET. Something that changes when they continue to see each other, and people see them as a couple.

You're still really really REALLY not getting it.

YOU don't get to decide if a couple is a couple or if a couple is serious enough to be considered a couple. Only the people in the relationship get to decide that and they don't need to send out signals to make it so.

My SO and I work in the same industry and often attend networking events. The first time we attended one after we'd starting dating and had agreed we were a couple and all that jazz you seem to put so much stock in, he arrived before me because he works a different schedule. When I got there, I said a quick hello, ordered a drink, and started chatting with my friends who I only ever see at these events. He and I kind of hovered around each other but for the most part he talked to his friends and I talked to mine. The fact that we didn't feel it necessary to stand up on top of the bar and shout OH HEY SO WE'RE DATING YOU GUYS doesn't make us any less of a couple nor did it mean we were deliberately hiding anything.

levioosa · February 2015

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."
**************** Assuming you have not deliberately hidden his existence and never let his name cross your lips, anyone you have contact with SHOULD have recognized how serious this is for you within the first few months, and consider you an established couple. Not being seen together because of distance or other barrier, like war, is not the same as 2 people living close who have only just begun to date, and have not been considered a couple YET. Something that changes when they continue to see each other, and people see them as a couple.

Seriously? Did you not read my post either? You don't get to dictate or judge someone's relationship based on the signs you want to see to validate it. Only a few very close people knew SO and were going out and serious the first 6-7 months. Just because our more casual friends weren't aware and we didn't broadcast it doesn't mean that we weren't official and committed.

JellyBean52513 · February 2015

Are we really still having this discussion? I don't understand, what's the GD problem?

Look, @LtPowers, and anybody else who seems to have an issue with this, it's VERY simple: etiquette is all about making people comfortable. People in relationships are generally more comfortable being invited to social events together, especially weddings.

There is no secret formula to determining whether or not two people are a "couple" in the sense of whether or not they're deserving an invite together. In fact, there is ONE simple solution to this dilemma:

"Hey Friend, are you dating anyone? If so, I want to make sure they're invited to the wedding and that I spell their name right."

That's it. Any further qualifications you try to put on the relationship--i.e., how long they've been dating, are they truly a couple, are they serious enough, etc.--makes you a judgmental asshole. Simple as that.

[Deleted User] · February 2015

Has anyone experienced/heard of people asking for +1s (especially as a follow-up to the "Are you in a relationship" question)?

For example: "Jane, are you in a relationship? If so, can you tell me the spelling of SoandSo's last name so I can print it correctly on the invitation?"

"Oh, abcdevonn, I'm not, but I can still get a plus one, right?"

I'm just curious in a general way. I do, definitely think one should ask about relationship status rather than assuming, though. It can just get unnecessarily sticky.

ETA: Clarity

lovegood90 · February 2015

abcdevonn said:

Has anyone experienced/heard of people asking for +1s (especially as a follow-up to the "Are you in a relationship" question)?

For example: "Jane, are you in a relationship? If so, can you tell me the spelling of SoandSo's last name so I can print it correctly on the invitation?"
"Oh, abcdevonn, I'm not, but I can still get a plus one, right?"

I'm just curious in a general way. I do, definitely think one should ask about relationship status rather than assuming, though. It can just get unnecessarily sticky.

ETA: Clarity

I don't think this is a strange question because lots of people don't like going to weddings alone. Also, if someone has to travel far to a wedding, it's nice to give them a travel companion. That being said, as long as the person is truly single, this is at your discretion.

PrettyGirlLost · February 2015

abcdevonn said:

Has anyone experienced/heard of people asking for +1s (especially as a follow-up to the "Are you in a relationship" question)?

For example: "Jane, are you in a relationship? If so, can you tell me the spelling of SoandSo's last name so I can print it correctly on the invitation?"
"Oh, abcdevonn, I'm not, but I can still get a plus one, right?"

I'm just curious in a general way. I do, definitely think one should ask about relationship status rather than assuming, though. It can just get unnecessarily sticky.

ETA: Clarity

The only way it get's unnecessarily sticky is if you let it get that way. There's no reason to feel uncomfortable telling a truly single guest that you're sorry, but you can't accommodate Plus 1's.

[Deleted User] · February 2015

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

Has anyone experienced/heard of people asking for +1s (especially as a follow-up to the "Are you in a relationship" question)?

For example: "Jane, are you in a relationship? If so, can you tell me the spelling of SoandSo's last name so I can print it correctly on the invitation?"
"Oh, abcdevonn, I'm not, but I can still get a plus one, right?"

I'm just curious in a general way. I do, definitely think one should ask about relationship status rather than assuming, though. It can just get unnecessarily sticky.

ETA: Clarity

The only way it get's unnecessarily sticky is if you let it get that way. There's no reason to feel uncomfortable telling a truly single guest that you're sorry, but you can't accommodate Plus 1's.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant it can get sticky if you don't ask if someone is in a relationship and just guess, as was vaguely suggested before.

PrettyGirlLost · February 2015

abcdevonn said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

abcdevonn said:

Has anyone experienced/heard of people asking for +1s (especially as a follow-up to the "Are you in a relationship" question)?

For example: "Jane, are you in a relationship? If so, can you tell me the spelling of SoandSo's last name so I can print it correctly on the invitation?"
"Oh, abcdevonn, I'm not, but I can still get a plus one, right?"

I'm just curious in a general way. I do, definitely think one should ask about relationship status rather than assuming, though. It can just get unnecessarily sticky.

ETA: Clarity

The only way it get's unnecessarily sticky is if you let it get that way. There's no reason to feel uncomfortable telling a truly single guest that you're sorry, but you can't accommodate Plus 1's.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant it can get sticky if you don't ask if someone is in a relationship and just guess, as was vaguely suggested before.

Ooooh, yeah, absolutely!

huskypuppy14 · February 2015

abcdevonn said:

Has anyone experienced/heard of people asking for +1s (especially as a follow-up to the "Are you in a relationship" question)?

For example: "Jane, are you in a relationship? If so, can you tell me the spelling of SoandSo's last name so I can print it correctly on the invitation?"
"Oh, abcdevonn, I'm not, but I can still get a plus one, right?"

I'm just curious in a general way. I do, definitely think one should ask about relationship status rather than assuming, though. It can just get unnecessarily sticky.

ETA: Clarity

I gave everyone a plus one, so it wasn't an issue with my wedding.

A friend who got married 6 years ago sent an email to everyone asking if they were in a relationship, and mentioned that they would of course invite your SO but if you were not in a relationship, they were not giving plus ones. I didn't have a problem with that (I didn't have a SO at the time).

JellyBean52513 · February 2015

abcdevonn said:

Has anyone experienced/heard of people asking for +1s (especially as a follow-up to the "Are you in a relationship" question)?

For example: "Jane, are you in a relationship? If so, can you tell me the spelling of SoandSo's last name so I can print it correctly on the invitation?"
"Oh, abcdevonn, I'm not, but I can still get a plus one, right?"

I'm just curious in a general way. I do, definitely think one should ask about relationship status rather than assuming, though. It can just get unnecessarily sticky.

ETA: Clarity

I can definitely see how this can get awkward, because in that person's mind, you were already prepared to invite someone along with them if they WERE dating, so why can't they bring someone along regardless of who it is.

I would handle this situation by saying something to the effect of:

A) "If we still have room capacity-wise after all guests and their SOs are accounted for, I will definitely let you know that you're welcome to bring someone with you. For now, we just want to make sure we account for all significant others of our guests because it's really rude to invite one half of a couple and we don't want to offend anybody." <- if I were planning to give +1s to single guests

"Unfortunately we aren't really able to extend a +1 to our single guests, as we're already doing everything we can to accommodate peoples' SOs since it's really rude to invite only one half of a couple and we don't want to offend anybody. If every single one of our guests is in a relationship, obviously we'll figure something out, but otherwise we aren't able to extend +1s." <- if I wasn't planning to give +!s to single guests

themosthappy91 · February 2015

WhatawagSBNy said:

LtPowers said:

southernbelle0915 said:

No. "no ring, no bring" is not a thing. And some serious couples may not live together for religious reasons. It's not for you to judge.

OP - common sense is to invite someone's SO. If you call up Sally and she says "I have a boyfriend", you shouldn't say "well how serious are you? Do you live together? Do you attend social events together? Do you entertain together?" A gracious host would just say, "That's wonderful, what is Tom's last name so I can include him on the invitation?"

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize for not being clearer.

My point is that there are certain signals that a couple is a social unit, and thus needing to be invited together. Those signals are, in general (and circularly), behaving as and being treated as a social unit, in that when they entertain, they tend to entertain together; when they travel, they tend to travel together; when they attend social events, they tend to attend together. I included the more formalized statuses simply in the interests of completeness, not to imply that they were requirements.

My only point was that simply dating, whether exclusively or not, is not a sufficient signal that the couple wishes to be treated as a social unit. If they wish to be treated as a social unit, then they should act like one, which means doing those things that social units do. If they do not, or if the status is too recent for word to have propagated, then they at least need to let their relations know that they wish to be invited together to events.

No one is suggesting hosts must give their guests a third-degree interrogation about their romantic relationships. That's the point of the social unit rule in the first place: to absolve hosts from needing to inquire whether a guest's relationship is sufficiently committed as to require an invite for the other partner. With the social unit rule, hosts need only observe whether the couple is behaving as and is treated as a social unit.

Consider this: If you set the rule that all dating relationships must be treated as social units, then that makes it incumbent on you to determine whether or not any of your guests are in fact in such a relationship. That would require more of an interrogation process than the rule I've described does.

Powers &8^]

I'm taking issue with the bolded, because it rubs me the wrong way. My SO and I don't live together, we don't entertain together, we don't travel together, and we aren't invited to social events [think game nights or dinner with friends or Superbowl parties] together. Why? Because for the better part of the last 2 years, he's been deployed, and our relationship has been very private. So no, we don't send out some magical signs that we're a social unit. Most casual acquaintances think I'm single. But I did just receive a wedding invitation addressed only to me, from someone who should have known better, and I was really, really, really upset. It doesn't matter that my mom and sisters and nephew will also be at this wedding; I'm a part of a social unit, and the other half of that unit didn't get invited.

I shouldn't have to fight for recognition of my "social unit". If you know someone well enough to invite them to your wedding, I would think you know them well enough to want them to be comfortable. And therefore you should feel comfortable asking them some version of "How do you spell your SO's name? I want make sure I get it right on your invitation."
**************** Assuming you have not deliberately hidden his existence and never let his name cross your lips, anyone you have contact with SHOULD have recognized how serious this is for you within the first few months, and consider you an established couple. Not being seen together because of distance or other barrier, like war, is not the same as 2 people living close who have only just begun to date, and have not been considered a couple YET. Something that changes when they continue to see each other, and people see them as a couple.

I'm sorry but this is so rude. You are a couple whenever you decide you are a couple. I would be SO insulted if someone else deigned to decide for me when I was allowed to be considered a "real" couple. And quite frankly, as the many people who have raised extenuating circumstances (deployment, separate social circles, general desire for privacy) have already made apparent, your whole "looking for signals" proposal would never actually work.

The bottom line is, you can say all you want and even believe in your mind that you have this great magical checklist of factors that can indicate to you if someone "should be considered part of a couple", but as you can see from this thread there are a lot of people who would be super offended by that. And the point of etiquette is to make people comfortable, so what you are suggesting is bad etiquette.

lightningsnow · February 2015

@WhatawagSBNy and @LtPowers My current BF and I have been together almost six years. We pretty much decided we were a couple after date 2 or 3 which was about two weeks into our dating. We knew we were the ones for each other almost immediately. Both of your points about "signals" are BS! Most of the people we knew had figured out we were a couple since we worked with each other. But even then, they never judged the length.

A month or so later, we went to my cousin's Jack and Jill and wedding together. Again, no judgement from my family there about how serious. In fact at the Jack and Jill, my family joked about how much they loved my BF that if we ever broke up, they'd disown me and take my BF as their family.

So a giant FU to that whole signals BS.

wrigleyville · February 2015

Back to the original discussion, I addressed my STDs to both members of the couple, even if they weren't living together. Since STD = invitation, I wanted it to be clear the SO was invited.

For example, when H and I were dating but not living together, if I had received an STD for a wedding addressed just to me and not both of us, I would assume he hadn't been invited (and I would have thought, "How rude!")

thespeshulestsnowflake · February 2015

lightningsnow said:

@WhatawagSBNy and @LtPowers My current BF and I have been together almost six years. We pretty much decided we were a couple after date 2 or 3 which was about two weeks into our dating. We knew we were the ones for each other almost immediately. Both of your points about "signals" are BS! Most of the people we knew had figured out we were a couple since we worked with each other. But even then, they never judged the length.

A month or so later, we went to my cousin's Jack and Jill and wedding together. Again, no judgement from my family there about how serious. In fact at the Jack and Jill, my family joked about how much they loved my BF that if we ever broke up, they'd disown me and take my BF as their family.

So a giant FU to that whole signals BS.

This. BF and I had our first date in July, decided after a few dates we were a couple. We work at the same company and didn't advertise it to everyone. Most people we work with didn't know we were a couple until the winter holiday party. Some people knew, the ones we were friends with figured it out after a few months, but others did not. No one at the holiday party came up to us and said, "Oh you guys have only been together for six months, your relationship does not count. This party is for single people or couples only, one of you needs to leave."

LtPowers · February 2015

lightningsnow said:

@WhatawagSBNy and @LtPowers My current BF and I have been together almost six years. We pretty much decided we were a couple after date 2 or 3 which was about two weeks into our dating. We knew we were the ones for each other almost immediately. Both of your points about "signals" are BS! Most of the people we knew had figured out we were a couple since we worked with each other. But even then, they never judged the length.

A month or so later, we went to my cousin's Jack and Jill and wedding together. Again, no judgement from my family there about how serious. In fact at the Jack and Jill, my family joked about how much they loved my BF that if we ever broke up, they'd disown me and take my BF as their family.

So a giant FU to that whole signals BS.

I'm afraid I must not have been very clear because my point simply isn't getting across. Lots of respondents seem to be conflating things people have said in the past (e.g., "No ring, no bring", or "judg[ing] the length" of a relationship) with the points I've been trying to make, leading to straw-man arguments against things I've never said.

A lot of posters here say that anyone who has been dating for any length of time must be invited as if they are a single social unit, lest fire and brimstone rain down on the offending host. This is simply incorrect. No etiquette expert I'm aware of would phrase any such requirement as a simple dating relationship. The rule is "social unit", period.

So how is a social unit determined? It's determined BY THE COUPLE IN QUESTION. I've never stated otherwise. They, and only they, have the right to determine when they consider themselves to be in an established enough relationship that they should always be invited to events as a couple.

(N.B.: By saying "established", I'm not implying that there's a specific length of time that must pass.)

There are certain signs that obviate the need to ask. Married couples, engaged couples, couples keeping house -- all are clearly social units and must be invited together. When I have mentioned these statuses, it is not to imply that they are necessary components, merely sufficient ones. It is also sufficient if the couple has been observed acting as a couple -- traveling together, socializing together, etc.

Now it is also true that sometimes it's necessary to ask. We often invite people to whom we are not particularly close, or those for whom distance or modesty have prevented familiarity with relationship statuses.

The point of disagreement seems to come down to how does one ask, and where one draws the line based on the answer. If the question is asked, "Are you seeing anyone?" and the answer is, "Oh, I've been out a few times with Johnny," that is not really an answer that requires Johnny to get an invitation. If the question is asked, "Is there anyone special in your life whom I should invite," then that's directly addressing the status of "social unit"; if the answer is yes, then the couple is, prima facie, a social unit and must be invited together.

The intent of the etiquette rule is to avoid breaking up "established couples" (that's Miss Manners' phrase, not mine; and again, "established" doesn't mean there's a set time period involved). It's basically up to the couple in question if they consider themselves "established". But if you are extending the rule to include non-established couples (that is, couples who don't consider themselves established), then that is excessive and unnecessary.

Powers &8^]

PrettyGirlLost · February 2015

LtPowers said:

lightningsnow said:

@WhatawagSBNy and @LtPowers My current BF and I have been together almost six years. We pretty much decided we were a couple after date 2 or 3 which was about two weeks into our dating. We knew we were the ones for each other almost immediately. Both of your points about "signals" are BS! Most of the people we knew had figured out we were a couple since we worked with each other. But even then, they never judged the length.

A month or so later, we went to my cousin's Jack and Jill and wedding together. Again, no judgement from my family there about how serious. In fact at the Jack and Jill, my family joked about how much they loved my BF that if we ever broke up, they'd disown me and take my BF as their family.

So a giant FU to that whole signals BS.

I'm afraid I must not have been very clear because my point simply isn't getting across. Lots of respondents seem to be conflating things people have said in the past (e.g., "No ring, no bring", or "judg[ing] the length" of a relationship) with the points I've been trying to make, leading to straw-man arguments against things I've never said.

A lot of posters here say that anyone who has been dating for any length of time must be invited as if they are a single social unit, lest fire and brimstone rain down on the offending host. This is simply incorrect. No etiquette expert I'm aware of would phrase any such requirement as a simple dating relationship. The rule is "social unit", period. If you are dating someone then you ARE in a social unit! What the hell else would it be? This just makes no sense.

So how is a social unit determined? It's determined BY THE COUPLE IN QUESTION. I've never stated otherwise. They, and only they, have the right to determine when they consider themselves to be in an established enough relationship that they should always be invited to events as a couple.

(N.B.: By saying "established", I'm not implying that there's a specific length of time that must pass.)

There are certain signs that obviate the need to ask. Married couples, engaged couples, couples keeping house -- all are clearly social units and must be invited together. When I have mentioned these statuses, it is not to imply that they are necessary components, merely sufficient ones. It is also sufficient if the couple has been observed acting as a couple -- traveling together, socializing together, etc.

Now it is also true that sometimes it's necessary to ask. We often invite people to whom we are not particularly close, or those for whom distance or modesty have prevented familiarity with relationship statuses.

The point of disagreement seems to come down to how does one ask, and where one draws the line based on the answer. If the question is asked, "Are you seeing anyone?" and the answer is, "Oh, I've been out a few times with Johnny," that is not really an answer that requires Johnny to get an invitation. So then you follow up that answer with, "Ok, well are you and Johnny dating? Do you consider him your SO?" Again, THIS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT!!!! If the question is asked, "Is there anyone special in your life whom I should invite," then that's directly addressing the status of "social unit"; if the answer is yes, then the couple is, prima facie, a social unit and must be invited together.

The intent of the etiquette rule is to avoid breaking up "established couples" (that's Miss Manners' phrase, not mine; and again, "established" doesn't mean there's a set time period involved). It's basically up to the couple in question if they consider themselves "established". But if you are extending the rule to include non-established couples (that is, couples who don't consider themselves established), then that is excessive and unnecessary.

Powers &8^]

I think we are all saying the same thing now. And this is seriously such an easy thing to figure out, I don't understand why we have 2 threads dedicated to this topic right now.

Prior to inviting a guest to your wedding, you contact the guest personally and ASK THEM if they are in a relationship.

If they say YES, you invite that guest with their SO by name on the invitation.

If they say NO it's your prerogative whether or not you give them a Plus 1.

If they don't give you a clear answer, ask for clarification.

Maggie0829 · February 2015

LtPowers said:

lightningsnow said:

@WhatawagSBNy and @LtPowers My current BF and I have been together almost six years. We pretty much decided we were a couple after date 2 or 3 which was about two weeks into our dating. We knew we were the ones for each other almost immediately. Both of your points about "signals" are BS! Most of the people we knew had figured out we were a couple since we worked with each other. But even then, they never judged the length.

A month or so later, we went to my cousin's Jack and Jill and wedding together. Again, no judgement from my family there about how serious. In fact at the Jack and Jill, my family joked about how much they loved my BF that if we ever broke up, they'd disown me and take my BF as their family.

So a giant FU to that whole signals BS.

I'm afraid I must not have been very clear because my point simply isn't getting across. Lots of respondents seem to be conflating things people have said in the past (e.g., "No ring, no bring", or "judg[ing] the length" of a relationship) with the points I've been trying to make, leading to straw-man arguments against things I've never said.

A lot of posters here say that anyone who has been dating for any length of time must be invited as if they are a single social unit, lest fire and brimstone rain down on the offending host. This is simply incorrect. No etiquette expert I'm aware of would phrase any such requirement as a simple dating relationship. The rule is "social unit", period.

So how is a social unit determined? It's determined BY THE COUPLE IN QUESTION. I've never stated otherwise. They, and only they, have the right to determine when they consider themselves to be in an established enough relationship that they should always be invited to events as a couple.

(N.B.: By saying "established", I'm not implying that there's a specific length of time that must pass.)

There are certain signs that obviate the need to ask. Married couples, engaged couples, couples keeping house -- all are clearly social units and must be invited together. When I have mentioned these statuses, it is not to imply that they are necessary components, merely sufficient ones. It is also sufficient if the couple has been observed acting as a couple -- traveling together, socializing together, etc.

Now it is also true that sometimes it's necessary to ask. We often invite people to whom we are not particularly close, or those for whom distance or modesty have prevented familiarity with relationship statuses.

The point of disagreement seems to come down to how does one ask, and where one draws the line based on the answer. If the question is asked, "Are you seeing anyone?" and the answer is, "Oh, I've been out a few times with Johnny," that is not really an answer that requires Johnny to get an invitation. If the question is asked, "Is there anyone special in your life whom I should invite," then that's directly addressing the status of "social unit"; if the answer is yes, then the couple is, prima facie, a social unit and must be invited together.

The intent of the etiquette rule is to avoid breaking up "established couples" (that's Miss Manners' phrase, not mine; and again, "established" doesn't mean there's a set time period involved). It's basically up to the couple in question if they consider themselves "established". But if you are extending the rule to include non-established couples (that is, couples who don't consider themselves established), then that is excessive and unnecessary.

Powers &8^]

themosthappy91 · February 2015

I'm sorry @LTPowers but I still don't understand how you can be dating someone and not be a social unit with them. That just makes no sense.

LtPowers · February 2015

themosthappy91 said:

I'm sorry @LTPowers but I still don't understand how you can be dating someone and not be a social unit with them. That just makes no sense.

Perhaps this is a terminology issue.

People date, right? Am I in a relationship with you the moment we go out on a date? Does that relationship end if I go out on a date with someone else next week, and then resume when I go out on a date with you the week after?

"Dating", to me, is a way to relate to people, but not what I consider "a relationship". To me, the latter implies, at a minimum, an understanding by both parties that the relationship is exclusive.

And on top of that, etiquette recognizes "new relationships" and "established relationships". Only the latter fall under the requirement to invite both partners, though it's always considerate to invite the former as well.

None of this is intended to imply that any outside entity is making a decision on the validity of the relationship. The status of the relationship is entirely up to the parties involved.

Inviting Guest's Boyfriend or Girlfriend?

Re: Inviting Guest's Boyfriend or Girlfriend?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards