RSVP wording check for plus one troubles

Re: RSVP wording check for plus one troubles

• southernbelle0915 mod

  

  February 2015

  If your family has a history of adding people to invitations, I would use the wording:

  
  

  "Please respond by September 1st

  
  

  ___ seats have been reserved in your honor

  
  

  M_______________________________

  
  

  __will attend

  __decline"

  
  

  The conversation certainly should not be awkward for YOU. THEY would be the rude ones if they add plus ones for themselves. That would be like you feeling awkward telling someone with dog shit all over their shoes that they need to take them off before they tromp around your living room.

  
  

  You will have to re-run numbers once you're ready to send out invites though. Anyone in a relationship should have their SO invited. With your list, you better hope no more than 3 cousins get into relationships over the summer!!

  *********************************************************************************

  
  

  

  Report2 Reply
• LtPowers member

  

  February 2015

  southernbelle0915 said:

  If your family has a history of adding people to invitations, I would use the wording:

  
  

  "Please respond by September 1st

  
  

  ___ seats have been reserved in your honor

  
  

  M_______________________________

  
  

  __will attend

  __decline"

  
  

  The conversation certainly should not be awkward for YOU. THEY would be the rude ones if they add plus ones for themselves. That would be like you feeling awkward telling someone with dog shit all over their shoes that they need to take them off before they tromp around your living room.

  
  

  You will have to re-run numbers once you're ready to send out invites though. Anyone in a relationship should have their SO invited. With your list, you better hope no more than 3 cousins get into relationships over the summer!!

  I hate to keep harping on this, but you keep repeating this advice. It is not "anyone in a relationship"; it's "anyone who is part of a social unit".

  
  

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• southernbelle0915 mod

  

  February 2015

  LtPowers said:

  southernbelle0915 said:

  If your family has a history of adding people to invitations, I would use the wording:

  
  

  "Please respond by September 1st

  
  

  ___ seats have been reserved in your honor

  
  

  M_______________________________

  
  

  __will attend

  __decline"

  
  

  The conversation certainly should not be awkward for YOU. THEY would be the rude ones if they add plus ones for themselves. That would be like you feeling awkward telling someone with dog shit all over their shoes that they need to take them off before they tromp around your living room.

  
  

  You will have to re-run numbers once you're ready to send out invites though. Anyone in a relationship should have their SO invited. With your list, you better hope no more than 3 cousins get into relationships over the summer!!

  I hate to keep harping on this, but you keep repeating this advice. It is not "anyone in a relationship"; it's "anyone who is part of a social unit".

  I hate to ask (really I do, because I feel like I'm going to get some early 1900's courting bullshit), but please clarify the difference.

  *********************************************************************************

  
  

  

  Report5 Reply
• LtPowers member

  

  February 2015

  southernbelle0915 said:

  LtPowers said:

  southernbelle0915 said:

  If your family has a history of adding people to invitations, I would use the wording:

  
  

  "Please respond by September 1st

  
  

  ___ seats have been reserved in your honor

  
  

  M_______________________________

  
  

  __will attend

  __decline"

  
  

  The conversation certainly should not be awkward for YOU. THEY would be the rude ones if they add plus ones for themselves. That would be like you feeling awkward telling someone with dog shit all over their shoes that they need to take them off before they tromp around your living room.

  
  

  You will have to re-run numbers once you're ready to send out invites though. Anyone in a relationship should have their SO invited. With your list, you better hope no more than 3 cousins get into relationships over the summer!!

  I hate to keep harping on this, but you keep repeating this advice. It is not "anyone in a relationship"; it's "anyone who is part of a social unit".

  I hate to ask (really I do, because I feel like I'm going to get some early 1900's courting bullshit), but please clarify the difference.

  Thank you for asking.

  
  

  A "social unit" is a romantic (or other) coupling that has, by virtue of its longevity/permanence/ubiquity/legality/etc, come to be treated socially as if they are a single unit. A "relationship", in this case, I take to mean any romantic pairing regardless of duration, permanence, or status.

  
  

  Not all social units involve romantic relationships. For instance, Miss Manners has pointed out in the past that a pair of elderly sisters living together may be considered a social unit if they always entertain and socialize together. Contrariwise, not all romantic relationships are established enough to be considered social units. An example would be a couple who've dated a few times but aren't yet ready to establish joint social ties (or to be introduced to each others' families).

  
  

  By wording the guideline as "anyone in a relationship", you exclude social units who are not "involved" romantically, while including (to my reading) anyone who's so much as recently gone on a date with an invitee.

  
  

  One could certainly make an argument that any exclusive dating relationship ought to be considered a social unit, but I think there's value in allowing that additional gradation in relationship progress to exist.

  
  

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• redoryx member

  

  February 2015 edited February 2015

  LtPowers said: southernbelle0915 said: LtPowers said: southernbelle0915 said: If your family has a history of adding people to invitations, I would use the wording:
  "Please respond by September 1st
  ___ seats have been reserved in your honor
  M_______________________________
  __will attend__decline"
  The conversation certainly should not be awkward for YOU. THEY would be the rude ones if they add plus ones for themselves. That would be like you feeling awkward telling someone with dog shit all over their shoes that they need to take them off before they tromp around your living room.
  You will have to re-run numbers once you're ready to send out invites though. Anyone in a relationship should have their SO invited. With your list, you better hope no more than 3 cousins get into relationships over the summer!! I hate to keep harping on this, but you keep repeating this advice. It is not "anyone in a relationship"; it's "anyone who is part of a social unit". I hate to ask (really I do, because I feel like I'm going to get some early 1900's courting bullshit), but please clarify the difference. Thank you for asking.
  A "social unit" is a romantic (or other) coupling that has, by virtue of its longevity/permanence/ubiquity/legality/etc, come to be treated socially as if they are a single unit. A "relationship", in this case, I take to mean any romantic pairing regardless of duration, permanence, or status.
  Not all social units involve romantic relationships. For instance, Miss Manners has pointed out in the past that a pair of elderly sisters living together may be considered a social unit if they always entertain and socialize together. Contrariwise, not all romantic relationships are established enough to be considered social units. An example would be a couple who've dated a few times but aren't yet ready to establish joint social ties (or to be introduced to each others' families).
  By wording the guideline as "anyone in a relationship", you exclude social units who are not "involved" romantically, while including (to my reading) anyone who's so much as recently gone on a date with an invitee.
  One could certainly make an argument that any exclusive dating relationship ought to be considered a social unit, but I think there's value in allowing that additional gradation in relationship progress to exist.
  
  ****

  
  

  
  

  What is with you and the "established enough" argument? What does that even MEAN? It's not up to the couple getting married to decide if one of their friends relationships are 'established' enough to warrant an invitation. And the "enough" thing bugs the fuck out of me because it implies that there is some magical line that needs to be crossed, like you have to have been dating long enough or exclusive enough. Some couples know after a few dates or even just one that, yes, this is the person they want to be in an exclusive dating relationship with. Also, I've been through entire long term multiple year relationships without ever meeting the guy's family, that didn't make that relationship any less valid or any less enough to be considered a social unit. That's why you can't make up arbitrary rules like this, because there will always always always be an exception.

  
  

  That's why you pick up the phone or send a text or write an email and ask -- Hey, are you dating anyone you'd like to bring to the wedding? What's his or her name so I can put it on the invitation.

  

  Report0 Reply
• LtPowers member

  

  February 2015

  redoryx said:

  What is with you and the "established enough" argument? What does that even MEAN? It's not up to the couple getting married to decide if one of their friends relationships are 'established' enough to warrant an invitation. And the "enough" thing bugs the fuck out of me because it implies that there is some magical line that needs to be crossed, like you have to have been dating long enough or exclusive enough. Some couples know after a few dates or even just one that, yes, this is the person they want to be in an exclusive dating relationship with. Also, I've been through entire long term multiple year relationships without ever meeting the guy's family, that didn't make that relationship any less valid or any less enough to be considered a social unit. That's why you can't make up arbitrary rules like this, because there will always always always be an exception.

  
  

  That's why you pick up the phone or send a text or write an email and ask -- Hey, are you dating anyone you'd like to bring to the wedding? What's his or her name so I can put it on the invitation.

  Of course you often have to ask. The problem is that you are asking the wrong question.

  
  

  I assure you I'm not making up any "arbitrary" rules here; this comes straight from the etiquette mavens. In fact, it's not arbitrary at all: the rule is you cannot extend a social invitation to one half of a couple that is socially unitary. If a couple does not yet socialize together or entertain jointly, then they are not a social unit and needn't be invited together. (If they did need to be invited together, then they are, by definition, a social unit.)

  
  

  Really, The Knot is quite literally the only place I've ever seen anyone assert that it's necessary to invite any romantic couple as a unit, regardless of their status. And no one here has ever offered any authority to back up the notion. So, quite frankly, I don't think it is I who is making up arbitrary rules on this topic.

  
  

  
  

  Report0 Reply