in-laws unhappy... HELP

natswild · October 2015

Canadian here, so my geography is a little fuzzy, but aren't Texas and Florida relatively close together? I know people are calling it a destination wedding, but I'm not sure how that would be any different than, say, having your wedding in Minneapolis, and ILs are from Montana, just as an example. I'd be finding it far more selfish to be having a wedding somewhere that requires all your guests to have a passport, take several days off, etc. Just my opinion though.

For my wedding, my IL's are flying all the way from Nova Scotia to BC. However, my mother is unable to travel, so that made our decision for us. This could definitely be considered a destination wedding, also because FI and I live 15 hours away from my parents town.

banana468 · October 2015

Knottie63139532 said:

charlotte989875 said:

Knottie63139532 said:

levioosa said:

I just flew from CA to FL for my BFF's wedding, had to miss two valuable days from school, and spent about $3000 to be in her wedding, not counting the weekend destination bachelorette trip. Yeah, it was selfish of her. People aren't shitting on destination weddings for no reason. They're an inconvenience to your guests for YOUR vision. Own up to the fact that people are going to be upset they have to travel so far, take time off of work or school, and pay way more money than they would have to if the wedding was local. It's just the way it is with DW. You're not only asking people to travel for your wedding, you're also dictating their vacation time. I'm sorry, but it's selfish. Own up to it.

You didn't have to go. You made a CHOICE to go. So, no she didn't make you spend that much, she didn't make you miss school. You chose to do those things. Own up to it.
----- Pretend there is a box here-----
This attitude is incredibly frustrating to me. The "come or don't come it's yours choice" mentality, in my opinion, comes off like you really don't care if people come to your wedding or not. If that's the case, why not elope? If you really want people, especially your friends and family, to attend your wedding then you need to think about what you're asking them to do. And when you have a DW you're asking people to do more for you than you'd be asking them to do if you held it in area area where you or the hosts are from. People often say on here, the minute you invite people to your wedding its stops being all about what you want and starts being about your guests.

People say a lot of things on here. It doesn't mean they're all right nor does it mean they're all interpreted the way you think. The minute guests are invited, it does become about them, but guests aren't invited until you pick the venue. You pick the venue, THEN you invite the guests. Look, it's as simple as this -- anyone who grew up with siblings likely remembers family birthday dinners -- you went where the birthday boy/birthday girl wanted to go. If that was Chuck E. Cheese, then you went to Chuck E. Cheese. Now that you're adults, you have the choice of not going if you don't want to, but it's incredibly rude, selfish, and unbelievably entitled to think that you should have say in the venue of someone else's wedding.

Who said that guests have a say? My point is that the hosts should be considerate of their guests. When a locale is placed ahead of the guests (whether that's a DW or not) it's a bit selfish.

The guests don't have to go but that doesn't change the request.

And FFS, don't compare it to taking out the trash.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

banana468 said:

charlotte989875 said:

levioosa said:

I just flew from CA to FL for my BFF's wedding, had to miss two valuable days from school, and spent about $3000 to be in her wedding, not counting the weekend destination bachelorette trip. Yeah, it was selfish of her. People aren't shitting on destination weddings for no reason. They're an inconvenience to your guests for YOUR vision. Own up to the fact that people are going to be upset they have to travel so far, take time off of work or school, and pay way more money than they would have to if the wedding was local. It's just the way it is with DW. You're not only asking people to travel for your wedding, you're also dictating their vacation time. I'm sorry, but it's selfish. Own up to it.

You didn't have to go. You made a CHOICE to go. So, no she didn't make you spend that much, she didn't make you miss school. You chose to do those things. Own up to it.
----- Pretend there is a box here----- This attitude is incredibly frustrating to me. The "come or don't come it's yours choice" mentality, in my opinion, comes off like you really don't care if people come to your wedding or not. If that's the case, why not elope? If you really want people, especially your friends and family, to attend your wedding then you need to think about what you're asking them to do. And when you have a DW you're asking people to do more for you than you'd be asking them to do if you held it in area area where you or the hosts are from. People often say on here, the minute you invite people to your wedding its stops being all about what you want and starts being about your guests.

People say a lot of things on here. It doesn't mean they're all right nor does it mean they're all interpreted the way you think. The minute guests are invited, it does become about them, but guests aren't invited until you pick the venue. You pick the venue, THEN you invite the guests. Look, it's as simple as this -- anyone who grew up with siblings likely remembers family birthday dinners -- you went where the birthday boy/birthday girl wanted to go. If that was Chuck E. Cheese, then you went to Chuck E. Cheese. Now that you're adults, you have the choice of not going if you don't want to, but it's incredibly rude, selfish, and unbelievably entitled to think that you should have say in the venue of someone else's wedding.
Who said that guests have a say? My point is that the hosts should be considerate of their guests. When a locale is placed ahead of the guests (whether that's a DW or not) it's a bit selfish. The guests don't have to go but that doesn't change the request. And FFS, don't compare it to taking out the trash.

When a locale is placed ahead of the guests, it's because the bride and groom wanted the locale more than they wanted the guests. There's nothing the least bit selfish about that. The only way this is selfish if they pick the locale then get offended when the guests don't come.

banana468 · October 2015

Knottie63139532 said:

banana468 said:

Knottie63139532 said:

charlotte989875 said:

Knottie63139532 said:

levioosa said:

I just flew from CA to FL for my BFF's wedding, had to miss two valuable days from school, and spent about $3000 to be in her wedding, not counting the weekend destination bachelorette trip. Yeah, it was selfish of her. People aren't shitting on destination weddings for no reason. They're an inconvenience to your guests for YOUR vision. Own up to the fact that people are going to be upset they have to travel so far, take time off of work or school, and pay way more money than they would have to if the wedding was local. It's just the way it is with DW. You're not only asking people to travel for your wedding, you're also dictating their vacation time. I'm sorry, but it's selfish. Own up to it.

You didn't have to go. You made a CHOICE to go. So, no she didn't make you spend that much, she didn't make you miss school. You chose to do those things. Own up to it.
----- Pretend there is a box here-----
This attitude is incredibly frustrating to me. The "come or don't come it's yours choice" mentality, in my opinion, comes off like you really don't care if people come to your wedding or not. If that's the case, why not elope? If you really want people, especially your friends and family, to attend your wedding then you need to think about what you're asking them to do. And when you have a DW you're asking people to do more for you than you'd be asking them to do if you held it in area area where you or the hosts are from. People often say on here, the minute you invite people to your wedding its stops being all about what you want and starts being about your guests.

People say a lot of things on here. It doesn't mean they're all right nor does it mean they're all interpreted the way you think. The minute guests are invited, it does become about them, but guests aren't invited until you pick the venue. You pick the venue, THEN you invite the guests. Look, it's as simple as this -- anyone who grew up with siblings likely remembers family birthday dinners -- you went where the birthday boy/birthday girl wanted to go. If that was Chuck E. Cheese, then you went to Chuck E. Cheese. Now that you're adults, you have the choice of not going if you don't want to, but it's incredibly rude, selfish, and unbelievably entitled to think that you should have say in the venue of someone else's wedding.

Who said that guests have a say? My point is that the hosts should be considerate of their guests. When a locale is placed ahead of the guests (whether that's a DW or not) it's a bit selfish.

The guests don't have to go but that doesn't change the request.

And FFS, don't compare it to taking out the trash.

When a locale is placed ahead of the guests, it's because the bride and groom wanted the locale more than they wanted the guests. There's nothing the least bit selfish about that. The only way this is selfish if they pick the locale then get offended when the guests don't come.

We are clearly at an impass.

lyndausvi · October 2015

natswild said:

Canadian here, so my geography is a little fuzzy, but aren't Texas and Florida relatively close together? I know people are calling it a destination wedding, but I'm not sure how that would be any different than, say, having your wedding in Minneapolis, and ILs are from Montana, just as an example. I'd be finding it far more selfish to be having a wedding somewhere that requires all your guests to have a passport, take several days off, etc. Just my opinion though.

For my wedding, my IL's are flying all the way from Nova Scotia to BC. However, my mother is unable to travel, so that made our decision for us. This could definitely be considered a destination wedding, also because FI and I live 15 hours away from my parents town.

Depends. Houston to Panama City (which is one of the first major cities you would get to from TX) is about 9.5 hours away (driving) Texas it a big state. If they live in mid,west or north TX it's even farther.

Florida isn't small by any means. Panama City to Miami is another 8.5 hours. So depending on where in Texas and where in FL it can be pretty darn far away from each other.

I agree that more "exotic" locations that require passports, where flights and hotels are more on the higher end is more selfish.

thisismynickname2 · October 2015

Knottie63139532 said: charlotte989875 said: levioosa said: I just flew from CA to FL for my BFF's wedding, had to miss two valuable days from school, and spent about $3000 to be in her wedding, not counting the weekend destination bachelorette trip. Yeah, it was selfish of her. People aren't shitting on destination weddings for no reason. They're an inconvenience to your guests for YOUR vision. Own up to the fact that people are going to be upset they have to travel so far, take time off of work or school, and pay way more money than they would have to if the wedding was local. It's just the way it is with DW. You're not only asking people to travel for your wedding, you're also dictating their vacation time. I'm sorry, but it's selfish. Own up to it. You didn't have to go. You made a CHOICE to go. So, no she didn't make you spend that much, she didn't make you miss school. You chose to do those things. Own up to it.
----- Pretend there is a box here----- This attitude is incredibly frustrating to me. The "come or don't come it's yours choice" mentality, in my opinion, comes off like you really don't care if people come to your wedding or not. If that's the case, why not elope? If you really want people, especially your friends and family, to attend your wedding then you need to think about what you're asking them to do. And when you have a DW you're asking people to do more for you than you'd be asking them to do if you held it in area area where you or the hosts are from. People often say on here, the minute you invite people to your wedding its stops being all about what you want and starts being about your guests. People say a lot of things on here. It doesn't mean they're all right nor does it mean they're all interpreted the way you think. The minute guests are invited, it does become about them, but guests aren't invited until you pick the venue. You pick the venue, THEN you invite the guests. Look, it's as simple as this -- anyone who grew up with siblings likely remembers family birthday dinners -- you went where the birthday boy/birthday girl wanted to go. If that was Chuck E. Cheese, then you went to Chuck E. Cheese. Now that you're adults, you have the choice of not going if you don't want to, but it's incredibly rude, selfish, and unbelievably entitled to think that you should have say in the venue of someone else's wedding. ---- BOX BOX BOX BOX ---------
I couldn't read this highlighted portion and not comment. This logic is bass-ackwards. Yes, when you get engaged, you and your betrothed have to think about and hopefully agree upon a general vision for the wedding- like intimate, or a large blow-out party, or yes, even a DW. But considering the guest list is truly most important-- who do you want to share in something as important as your wedding- it becomes a driving force in planning. Guess what? DH and I would have loved, loved to get married in CA wine country. We got quotes from venues and our friends told us it was a great idea. But, traveling to wine country- from plane tickets to rental cars to hotels- was just going to be out of the realm of possibility for our VIP family members. In considering who we really wanted at our wedding, we scrapped the DW idea.

You do not just say, "I want a [insert faraway place] wedding!" and get upset when your VIPs express that they really don't want to go there.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

thisismynickname said:

Knottie63139532 said:

charlotte989875 said:

levioosa said:

I just flew from CA to FL for my BFF's wedding, had to miss two valuable days from school, and spent about $3000 to be in her wedding, not counting the weekend destination bachelorette trip. Yeah, it was selfish of her. People aren't shitting on destination weddings for no reason. They're an inconvenience to your guests for YOUR vision. Own up to the fact that people are going to be upset they have to travel so far, take time off of work or school, and pay way more money than they would have to if the wedding was local. It's just the way it is with DW. You're not only asking people to travel for your wedding, you're also dictating their vacation time. I'm sorry, but it's selfish. Own up to it.

You didn't have to go. You made a CHOICE to go. So, no she didn't make you spend that much, she didn't make you miss school. You chose to do those things. Own up to it.
----- Pretend there is a box here----- This attitude is incredibly frustrating to me. The "come or don't come it's yours choice" mentality, in my opinion, comes off like you really don't care if people come to your wedding or not. If that's the case, why not elope? If you really want people, especially your friends and family, to attend your wedding then you need to think about what you're asking them to do. And when you have a DW you're asking people to do more for you than you'd be asking them to do if you held it in area area where you or the hosts are from. People often say on here, the minute you invite people to your wedding its stops being all about what you want and starts being about your guests.

People say a lot of things on here. It doesn't mean they're all right nor does it mean they're all interpreted the way you think. The minute guests are invited, it does become about them, but guests aren't invited until you pick the venue. You pick the venue, THEN you invite the guests. Look, it's as simple as this -- anyone who grew up with siblings likely remembers family birthday dinners -- you went where the birthday boy/birthday girl wanted to go. If that was Chuck E. Cheese, then you went to Chuck E. Cheese. Now that you're adults, you have the choice of not going if you don't want to, but it's incredibly rude, selfish, and unbelievably entitled to think that you should have say in the venue of someone else's wedding. ---- BOX BOX BOX BOX ---------

I couldn't read this highlighted portion and not comment. This logic is bass-ackwards. Yes, when you get engaged, you and your betrothed have to think about and hopefully agree upon a general vision for the wedding- like intimate, or a large blow-out party, or yes, even a DW. But considering the guest list is truly most important-- who do you want to share in something as important as your wedding- it becomes a driving force in planning. Guess what? DH and I would have loved, loved to get married in CA wine country. We got quotes from venues and our friends told us it was a great idea. But, traveling to wine country- from plane tickets to rental cars to hotels- was just going to be out of the realm of possibility for our VIP family members. In considering who we really wanted at our wedding, we scrapped the DW idea.

You do not just say, "I want a [insert faraway place] wedding!" and get upset when your VIPs express that they really don't want to go there.

Who's talking about getting upset when VIPs say they don't want to go there? This thread isn't about the OP being upset that people don't want to go there. It's about people thinking they have the right to dictate where the wedding will be and getting upset when the bride and groom, who are paying, decide to have it elsewhere. The selfishness is in the people who aren't paying for the wedding, but think they have a right to dictate its location or get pissed when it's not local.

jacques27 · October 2015

And further on thisismynickname's point - that's true of ANY wedding, not just a destination wedding. You don't pick the venue first, then the guest list. Sure, you don't INVITE your guest list until after you have the venue, because duh. What would you be inviting them to then? "Uhhh, yeah, come hang out with us at some place and time TBD. We don't know yet."

But you absolutely gather your guest list FIRST, then pick and book your venue, then invite your guest list. When you don't do that, then you end up with several of the hot messes we've seen in several weeks in Etiquette, Wedding Woes, and Wedding 911 with people booking venues with non-refundable deposits and then realizing after the fact that they have 125 they want to invite to a venue that only holds 100 or you have 54 confirmed for a space that only holds 40 and now you want to know if you can fix it by being rude to your guests and either not invite SO's or have a tiered reception. You can also end up with the situation of picking a time/place that is inconvenient or too expensive for your guests to join you.

And if you want to prioritize your venue over your guests and you don't give a lickety-split whether they are there or not - then good on you and plan away fully acknowledging that what you are planning may not be convenient and is selfish (it just is) but you're owning it. It's when you (general you) don't acknowledge the inconvenience of it and then whinge on and on about how everyone is declining/isn't appropriately excited that gets my goat, personally.

Sometimes (most times) you don't get everything you want. Everything has a trade off. If getting married in front of your entire family is most important to you, then that may mean you don't get to get married under the pretty waterfall or with the ocean in the background. If getting married in a particular place is most important to you, then that may mean you don't get to have everyone you want there. The more people you want involved in your day, the more consideration you have to give to others. As soon as you invite people, it ceases to be "all about you".

ETA: Going back to the birthday dinner example, no one is saying the guests get to pick the restaurant (or guests get to pick the wedding venue). It's just about consideration. I want lobster for my birthday dinner, but I also want my friend Joe there and Joe is allergic to shellfish. If it's more important to me to have Joe there than to eat lobster, I choose to be considerate and not choose a seafood only restaurant so Joe can come with and I'll just eat lobster another night (go to the pretty place for my honeymoon instead). Or, if eating lobster on my birthday is the most important thing to me, I could choose to be selfish, pick the seafood restaurant, and exclude Joe or tell him to suck it up and risk it. Having consideration for your guests is not the same thing as letting your guests pick.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

jacques27 said:

And further on thisismynickname's point - that's true of ANY wedding, not just a destination wedding. You don't pick the venue first, then the guest list. Sure, you don't INVITE your guest list until after you have the venue, because duh. What would you be inviting them to then? "Uhhh, yeah, come hang out with us at some place and time TBD. We don't know yet."

But you absolutely gather your guest list FIRST, then pick and book your venue, then invite your guest list. When you don't do that, then you end up with several of the hot messes we've seen in several weeks in Etiquette, Wedding Woes, and Wedding 911 with people booking venues with non-refundable deposits and then realizing after the fact that they have 125 they want to invite to a venue that only holds 100 or you have 54 confirmed for a space that only holds 40 and now you want to know if you can fix it by being rude to your guests and either not invite SO's or have a tiered reception. You can also end up with the situation of picking a time/place that is inconvenient or too expensive for your guests to join you.

And if you want to prioritize your venue over your guests and you don't give a lickety-split whether they are there or not - then good on you and plan away fully acknowledging that what you are planning may not be convenient and is selfish (it just is) but you're owning it. It's when you (general you) don't acknowledge the inconvenience of it and then whinge on and on about how everyone is declining/isn't appropriately excited that gets my goat, personally.

Sometimes (most times) you don't get everything you want. Everything has a trade off. If getting married in front of your entire family is most important to you, then that may mean you don't get to get married under the pretty waterfall or with the ocean in the background. If getting married in a particular place is most important to you, then that may mean you don't get to have everyone you want there. The more people you want involved in your day, the more consideration you have to give to others. As soon as you invite people, it ceases to be "all about you".

ETA: Going back to the birthday dinner example, no one is saying the guests get to pick the restaurant (or guests get to pick the wedding venue). It's just about consideration. I want lobster for my birthday dinner, but I also want my friend Joe there and Joe is allergic to shellfish. If it's more important to me to have Joe there than to eat lobster, I choose to be considerate and not choose a seafood only restaurant so Joe can come with and I'll just eat lobster another night (go to the pretty place for my honeymoon instead). Or, if eating lobster on my birthday is the most important thing to me, I could choose to be selfish, pick the seafood restaurant, and exclude Joe or tell him to suck it up and risk it. Having consideration for your guests is not the same thing as letting your guests pick.

Ok, first of all, everyone put their eyes back in their socket. What I said was that you pick the venue, then you I N V I T E your guests. I did not say you pick your venue, then you make a guest list. That's the first thing. Let's just get it out of the way now because your argument about choosing a venue, then making a guest list is irrelevant to this discussion.

Secondly, WHY is it selfish for the party who is paying to choose the venue they want, even if some guests can't make it there? Why is that selfish??? It's only selfish if you're operating under the false impression that people are entitled to watch anyone get married. And if that's the case, then why aren't elopements deemed selfish?? I'm going to have my wedding where my fiance and I want. And guess what, half my friends and family live on the opposite coast, so some of them can't come. Now, I could have moved my wedding to the middle of the country to accommodate them, but I chose not to do that because frankly, I don't want to get married in the middle of the country. That is absolutely my right and I will argue til the death that it isn't the least bit selfish for me (and my fiance, of course) to make that decision when we're the ones paying and it's OUR wedding. No one is entitled to come to our wedding. They'll get an invitation and if they can make it, we'd love to have them! But if they can't make it, then they can't make it and I'm perfectly understanding of that. But I'm not going to get married in St. Louis (nothing against St. Louis, just an example) just to make it more convenient for Uncle Bob and Aunt Lucy to fly in from California. I'm going to have it where we planned to have it -- on the East Coast, in a town which is special to us. If Uncle Bob and Aunt Lucy can come, wonderful! If they can't, we'll miss them, but we understand. There isn't anything the least bit selfish about that.

CMGragain · October 2015

selfish - you are thinking of yourself and what you want.

generous - you are thinking of the comfort and convenience of your guests.

To plan a wedding, you need to have a little of both traits. If you plan a wedding without thinking of the consequences to your guests, but are only concerned with your vision, then, yes, this is selfish.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

CMGragain said:

selfish - you are thinking of yourself and what you want.

generous - you are thinking of the comfort and convenience of your guests.

To plan a wedding, you need to have a little of both traits. If you plan a wedding without thinking of the consequences to your guests, but are only concerned with your vision, then, yes, this is selfish.

Guests are not a requirement for a wedding and no one is entitled or required to watch anyone else's wedding. You are not entitled to watch me wed. Therefore, if I have a wedding you can't attend, it does not affect you in any way, shape, or form. You might be sad that you missed it, but it is not my obligation to make sure you can come because, as I said, you are not entitled nor required to watch me getting married. To suggest one is selfish for thinking of what they want would be suggesting that one is selfish for choosing to move away from home, for choosing their major in college despite what their friends or parents want them to study, for choosing one job over another, for choosing a spouse over another love interest. If all those things are selfish in your world, then you live in an extremely black and white world where, in my opinion, you don't quite understand the negative connotations to the term.

By your definition, you're calling every single person who had an elopement selfish. Every single person who didn't invite who other guests wanted them selfish. That's plain wrong, both literally and figuratively.

You seem to be assuming that any action that is not generous is, by default, selfish. Let's nip that fallacy in the bud right now because it's grossly inaccurate. It would be generous of me to pay for my guests' lodging even in a local wedding. It would NOT be selfish of me to not pay for my guests' lodging.

CMGragain · October 2015

Most of the people in my family have eloped. Elopements do not need explanations or defending. When you elope, you have no guests, so their feelings and comfort are not something you need to be concerned with. You can be totally selfish, and that is fine!

Once you invite guests - ANY guests - then their comfort does become something that you need to consider. This does not mean that you can't think of what you want in your wedding - UNLESS it impacts the comfort and convenience of your guests.

By this definition:
Gaps are rude and selfish.
Cash bars or potlucks are rude and selfish.
Weddings without enough space or seats for all of the guests are rude and selfish.
Weddings planned in a location without toilets, or in a place where handicapped guests could not access are rude and selfish. (...but I WANT to be married on the top of the mountain with no roads and no port-a-potties, and my selfish family won't hike up the mountain with us! Whine! )

If your vision is that you be married on that mountain top, then have a private ceremony without guests. You will be inconveniencing no one. Good luck finding an officiant, though! No wedding reception without guests.

PS. Planning a destination wedding is not rude. Complaining that people don't want to come to it is.

CMGragain · October 2015

ready2wed59 said:

My FH parents are VERY unhappy we decided to have a destination wedding... We are both from Texas but decided to have a beach wedding in Florida. They think we're being selfish... How can we help them understand this decision wasn't out of selfishness or to keep them uninvolved but because we wanted an intimate and FUN wedding?

Yes. Selfish, but not rude.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

CMGragain said:

Most of the people in my family have eloped. Elopements do not need explanations or defending. When you elope, you have no guests, so their feelings and comfort are not something you need to be concerned with. You can be totally selfish, and that is fine!

Once you invite guests - ANY guests - then their comfort does become something that you need to consider. This does not mean that you can't think of what you want in your wedding - UNLESS it impacts the comfort and convenience of your guests.

By this definition:
Gaps are rude and selfish.
Cash bars or potlucks are rude and selfish.
Weddings without enough space or seats for all of the guests are rude and selfish.
Weddings planned in a location without toilets, or in a place where handicapped guests could not access are rude and selfish. (...but I WANT to be married on the top of the mountain with no roads and no port-a-potties, and my selfish family won't hike up the mountain with us! Whine!

If your vision is that you be married on that mountain top, then have a private ceremony without guests. You will be inconveniencing no one. Good luck finding an officiant, though! No wedding reception without guests.

But again, you're calling an elopement selfish, which is absolutely laughable. It is NOT selfish. Again, you don't quite understand the word. OR you have a warped opinion of what guests are entitled to. The above examples are against etiquette. Having a destination wedding -- anywhere -- where no one is required to attend is not against etiquette because, gasp, no one is required to attend. An invitation is an invitation, not a summons. If I get married on top of a mountain and invite guests, it will only be selfish I (a) require them to attend or (b) don't tell them it's a mountaintop wedding until they get there and then expect them to climb the mountain. If they know ahead of time where it is and what it requires, then it's up to THEM to make the choice of whether or not to attend, knowing that (a) they're not required to come and (b) they're not entitled to see me get married. You really need to lose this mentality that when a couple decides to get married, every freaking thing they do has to be about their guests when it's simply not true. As long as they follow the rules of etiquette (to which this doesn't apply) and host their guests properly, there is nothing selfish about choosing to have a wedding far away from home. Guests who can will make the trip. Guests who can't won't and most decent logical people will realize that they're no worse off than having not been invited in the first place.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

CMGragain said:

ready2wed59 said:

My FH parents are VERY unhappy we decided to have a destination wedding... We are both from Texas but decided to have a beach wedding in Florida. They think we're being selfish... How can we help them understand this decision wasn't out of selfishness or to keep them uninvolved but because we wanted an intimate and FUN wedding?

Yes. Selfish, but not rude.

Let me get this straight. If the OP gets married in Florida and doesn't invite anyone, it's not selfish. But if she gets married in Florida and does invite guests, then she's selfish. There isn't a Noble Prize winner in this world who can make sense of such absolute nonsense.

CMGragain · October 2015

You have me really confused.. You are saying that same thing that I have always said about weddings.
The word selfish does not mean bad. It means "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others"

When a couple elopes, it is seldom because they are concerned with other people. They are following their own desires. There is nothing wrong with this.

Things that a couple can choose by themselves, without regard to their guests:

Clothing
Flowers
Wedding ceremony
Music
Invitation style

Things where a couple must consider their guests needs:

Venue (capacity, comfort, seating)
Food
Drink
Access (parking ease?)
Timing

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

CMGragain said:

You have me really confused.. You are saying that same thing that I have always said about weddings.
The word selfish does not mean bad. It means "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others"

When a couple elopes, it is seldom because they are concerned with other people. They are following their own desires. There is nothing wrong with this.

Things that a couple can choose by themselves, without regard to their guests:

Clothing
Flowers
Wedding ceremony
Music
Invitation style

Things where a couple must consider their guests needs:

Venue (capacity, comfort, seating)
Food
Drink
Access (parking ease?)
Timing

This is what I mean by not understanding the negative connotations of that word. Right or wrong, the word selfish DOES mean something bad. It is never, ever used as a compliment or a way to reassure someone. It is almost exclusively used as a judgment about someone's lack of consideration for others.

As for your list of things that couples need to consider for their guests, we are in agreement. They do need to worry about venue capacity, seating, comfort, food, parking and drink. THEY get to decide the timing of their wedding and the location of the venue. That is up to them and only them. If a guest finds it inconvenient, then that guest can decline the invitation.

CMGragain · October 2015

So we agree, then. (Gaps are still rude.)

Yesterday, my pastor told me (in private) that she is leaving the church because her husband has been transferred to a distant location, and she feels she needs to follow him. I told her that she needed to be selfish about this decision, and not just be concerned with the congregation. Her needs and her family's needs must come first in this instance. We will get a new pastor. It will be different, but that is life. She will have a new congregation somewhere, and continue her work.
She felt so much better when I told her that it was OK to be selfish about this decision. Nothing negative about it. She cried all over me.

The only person in this world who was not selfish was a carpenter's son who lived 2000 years ago.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

CMGragain said:

So we agree, then.

Yesterday, my pastor told me (in private) that she is leaving the church because her husband has been transferred to a distant location, and she feels she needs to follow him. I told her that she needed to be selfish about this decision, and not just be concerned with the congregation. Her needs and her family's needs must come first in this instance. We will get a new pastor. It will be different, but that is life. She will have a new congregation somewhere, and continue her work.
She felt so much better when I told her that it was OK to be selfish about this decision. Nothing negative about it.

The only person in this world who was not selfish was a carpenter's son who lived 2000 years ago.

I'd suggest there was nothing selfish about it.

CMGragain · October 2015

Well, she wasn't making the decision because of the people in the congregation. So who else motivated her decision? It was about her needs, her desires. Selfish can be good in the right circumstances.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

CMGragain said:

Well, she wasn't making the decision because of the people in the congregation. So who else motivated her decision? It was about her needs, her desires. Selfish can be good in the right circumstances.

In order for something to selfish, there needs to be lack of consideration for others and the implication is that that lack of consideration is symptomatic of an ego-driven attitude, which is why words like self-serving and egotistical serve as a synonym for selfish. That is not true in this case. Also, she doesn't owe anyone anything anymore than I do every time I switch jobs. Are you selfish when you change jobs? After all, you're not thinking of your employer's best interest when do that. Are you selfish when you move out of an apartment to buy a house or to another apartment, thereby no longer paying your current landlord and forcing him to find another tenet? Are you selfish when you choose one college over another? How about when you break up with a boyfriend/girlfriend? Is that selfish too? If we're going to apply the word "selfish" to all of these things, then we're using it incorrectly as it was never a word meant to be used for every single thing we do in life.

CMGragain · October 2015

The definition I quoted to you came from Mirriam Webster's Dictionary. Goodnight.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

It certainly wasn't the whole definition. THIS is from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Selfish:

1

: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2

: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

Synonyms:

egoistic (also egoistical), egomaniacal, egotistic (or egotistical), narcissistic, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-infatuated, self-interested, self-involved, egocentric, self-loving, self-obsessed, self-oriented, self-preoccupied, self-regarding, self-seeking, self-serving, solipsistic

I don't see how any adjective that has "egoistic," "narcissistic," "self-centered," and "self-absorbed" as synonyms can be, in any way, good. Perhaps it's just me.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish

msuprincess04 · October 2015

Maggie0829 said:

I think this entire argument is kind of pointless. Go to a wedding, don't go to a wedding. Why do we have to label everything?
-----

Because the DW label has the selfish label also attached to it. Apparently.

banana468 · October 2015

I feel like there have to be gray scales understood here. There are greater degrees of selfishness in all aspects of life.

The big issue I have is that the answer to, "That's a lot to ask from those invited," is NOT, "Well, it's an invitation so they don't have to come. They can say no." The answer is, "Yes. It IS a lot to ask."

And maybe selfish is the wrong word. But sometimes guests do feel like a lot is going to be asked of them in order to make it to the wedding. Call it anything you want. But the bottom line is that if your wedding is requiring a lot of your guests, it's nice to acknowledge it in a way that isn't with a quick retort.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

banana468 said:

I feel like there have to be gray scales understood here. There are greater degrees of selfishness in all aspects of life.

The big issue I have is that the answer to, "That's a lot to ask from those invited," is NOT, "Well, it's an invitation so they don't have to come. They can say no." The answer is, "Yes. It IS a lot to ask."

And maybe selfish is the wrong word. But sometimes guests do feel like a lot is going to be asked of them in order to make it to the wedding. Call it anything you want. But the bottom line is that if your wedding is requiring a lot of your guests, it's nice to acknowledge it in a way that isn't with a quick retort.

Why isn't the answer to "that's a lot to ask of those invited" "they don't have to come"? People make choices every single day. My friend went to some upscale Italian place for lunch today. I didn't go because I'm going out with some other friends tomorrow night to another upscale place and I want to save some money. I was invited to go, but she had already decided to go there. Does that mean she was asking a lot of me by inviting me to go with her? Not to me.

Finally, no one is "requiring" anything of their guests. Again, attending a wedding is NOT a requirement, so by logic, your statement is irrelevant and inaccurate.

banana468 · October 2015

Knottie63139532 said:

banana468 said:

I feel like there have to be gray scales understood here. There are greater degrees of selfishness in all aspects of life.

The big issue I have is that the answer to, "That's a lot to ask from those invited," is NOT, "Well, it's an invitation so they don't have to come. They can say no." The answer is, "Yes. It IS a lot to ask."

And maybe selfish is the wrong word. But sometimes guests do feel like a lot is going to be asked of them in order to make it to the wedding. Call it anything you want. But the bottom line is that if your wedding is requiring a lot of your guests, it's nice to acknowledge it in a way that isn't with a quick retort.

Why isn't the answer to "that's a lot to ask of those invited" "they don't have to come"? People make choices every single day. My friend went to some upscale Italian place for lunch today. I didn't go because I'm going out with some other friends tomorrow night to another upscale place and I want to save some money. I was invited to go, but she had already decided to go there. Does that mean she was asking a lot of me by inviting me to go with her? Not to me.

Finally, no one is "requiring" anything of their guests. Again, attending a wedding is NOT a requirement, so by logic, your statement is irrelevant and inaccurate.

You're arguing for the sake of having an argument won't you?!

Many people who deem themselves close enough to a couple to be on the guest list have a variety of finances. It can be the type of wedding or the location or simply the time but it would be nice to acknowledge that there are people out there who make the guest list who can't go due to the logistical issues tied to the wedding itself. The answer to those people who cannot go due to the logistical issues created by the bride and groom isn't, "You don't have to come because it was just an invitation." Such an answer is cold and lacking any empathy on the part of the guests.

And finally to the bolded, yes there are requirements. DH and I did not go to a wedding of dear friends nearly 10 years ago because it was out of the country. Between the time, cost and issues with the location chosen (DH's security clearance may have prevented travel even if the cost and time weren't factors) we did not go. No, the couple didn't "require" us to do anything in the same way that the Uncle Sam requires me to pay taxes, but to get to their wedding would have required a great deal of money and time that we could not afford at the time. Yes, those WERE requirements that we would have had to meet if we were to attend.

Obviously we had the option of turning down the invitation and we chose to do so. There were no hard feelings on either side.

I'm sure you're going to have a response to my post and you'll bold it and pick it apart because it's what you like to do.

Have at it.

GlamQueenBride · October 2015

banana468 said:

Knottie63139532 said:

banana468 said:

I feel like there have to be gray scales understood here. There are greater degrees of selfishness in all aspects of life.

The big issue I have is that the answer to, "That's a lot to ask from those invited," is NOT, "Well, it's an invitation so they don't have to come. They can say no." The answer is, "Yes. It IS a lot to ask."

And maybe selfish is the wrong word. But sometimes guests do feel like a lot is going to be asked of them in order to make it to the wedding. Call it anything you want. But the bottom line is that if your wedding is requiring a lot of your guests, it's nice to acknowledge it in a way that isn't with a quick retort.

Why isn't the answer to "that's a lot to ask of those invited" "they don't have to come"? People make choices every single day. My friend went to some upscale Italian place for lunch today. I didn't go because I'm going out with some other friends tomorrow night to another upscale place and I want to save some money. I was invited to go, but she had already decided to go there. Does that mean she was asking a lot of me by inviting me to go with her? Not to me.

Finally, no one is "requiring" anything of their guests. Again, attending a wedding is NOT a requirement, so by logic, your statement is irrelevant and inaccurate.

You're arguing for the sake of having an argument won't you?!

Many people who deem themselves close enough to a couple to be on the guest list have a variety of finances. It can be the type of wedding or the location or simply the time but it would be nice to acknowledge that there are people out there who make the guest list who can't go due to the logistical issues tied to the wedding itself. The answer to those people who cannot go due to the logistical issues created by the bride and groom isn't, "You don't have to come because it was just an invitation." Such an answer is cold and lacking any empathy on the part of the guests.

And finally to the bolded, yes there are requirements. DH and I did not go to a wedding of dear friends nearly 10 years ago because it was out of the country. Between the time, cost and issues with the location chosen (DH's security clearance may have prevented travel even if the cost and time weren't factors) we did not go. No, the couple didn't "require" us to do anything in the same way that the Uncle Sam requires me to pay taxes, but to get to their wedding would have required a great deal of money and time that we could not afford at the time. Yes, those WERE requirements that we would have had to meet if we were to attend.

Obviously we had the option of turning down the invitation and we chose to do so. There were no hard feelings on either side.

I'm sure you're going to have a response to my post and you'll bold it and pick it apart because it's what you like to do.

Have at it.

No, what I like to do is respond, especially to arguments that are absurd. No one is saying to their guests "well, you don't have to come; it's just an invitation." We're telling people who are rude enough to assume they have a say in the venue choice of someone else that guests don't have to come. There are people who can't make it to all kinds of weddings, not just destination weddings. So why are you not asking every person on the face of the earth who ever had a wedding to acknowledge that some people can't make it because of the time of the ceremony, location of the ceremony, or type of ceremony? That is not something that is exclusive to DW.

I get it, one person says it's selfish and 30 others need to jump aboard so that everyone is in agreement and they can shut the discussion down. The truth is, some of what's been said here is just plain inaccurate and a lot of it applies to other types of weddings as well. But if someone dares to bring that up, it's because they just want to argue.

levioosa · October 2015

Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between an Italian dinner reservation I'm invited to that might inconvenience/be too expensive for me to attend, and the pressure that comes from being a VIP invited to a destination wedding.

CMGragain · October 2015

Let's stop feeding the troll. It doesn't really want an answer. It just likes to argue.

in-laws unhappy... HELP

Re: in-laws unhappy... HELP

Choose Another Board

Search Boards