Well, it's always been a rule that you don't host parties of any kind in your own honor-or if you do, you issue the invitations using "host-less" wording, so to speak: "The pleasure of your company is requested" etc. because otherwise it could appear that you are asking for gifts, which is never polite. It's also considered immodest. There is a loophole, which is that you can always throw a party without specifying a reason for it, and presumably your guests will be savvy enough to realize that it's a party to celebrate your birthday or whatever without you having to specify it.
Yes, different circles and crowds of people have their own customs and make their own exceptions. That's one thing. I don't side-eye anyone for throwing their own birthday parties. But that's me-not etiquette in general.
That said, I do side-eye people who snark in a public forum "Give me a freaking break" or whatever when it comes to etiquette in general. For one thing, Miss Manners, Emily Post, Crane's et al didn't write the rules. They were developed over a long period of time, and they didn't come into being to inconvenience you (generic). Nor is anyone going to fine you, throw you in jail, or otherwise punish you for not following the rules to the letter.
But the rules exist for a reason: to help keep things on an even keel when you're dealing with more formal situations, or with situations that involve people who are not part of your "circle" or your "crowd." An Internet forum like TheKnot that has people from everywhere posting in it, especially in a folder labeled "Etiquette," promotes these rules for that reason: they smooth out the bumps in interactions with other people. And sometimes not following them can have very serious repercussions, such as damaged relationships and lost friendships. It's up to everyone individually to decide if they want to take that risk when they decide to do something that doesn't follow etiquette, but no one is entitled to a "freaking break" when they declare that they don't and won't follow etiquette-especially in a thread in an "Etiquette" folder in a public forum.
First of all, I couldn't possibly care less if you side-eye me or not for posing a legitimate question/challenge about this so called etiquette faux pas when you have yet to provide a source. If Miss Manners didn't write this rule, then show me who did. You refuse to do that, which only leads me to believe that you, like the rest of us, have no idea where it originated or what anal-retentive person so obsessed with his/her friends' numbers of parties came up with it. So if there's no source and no legitimate reason, choosing to blindly follow it and side-eye others for it would be, in my view, considered poor etiquette. And yes, I will repeat for eternity "give me a freaking break" and I will side-eye anyone who blindly follows so-called "rules" that have no purpose and no origin other than arbitrary commentary instead of using their own common sense in deciding how many parties a grown adult can host with his/her own money.
Two things: Why am I supposed to care about whether or not you care less about being side-eyed?
And with an attitude like yours, why should I or anyone else in this forum give you a source for our positions when, if you stop your childish name-calling of us as "anal-rententive" or any other juvenile and immature name, you can find out for yourself in the same places we do if you bother to take the trouble. Lowering yourself to the level of name-calling inspires no one here to want to do your homework for you. Do it for yourself.
Yes, that's generally what people say when there is no source to back up their bogus claims. And FYI, I didn't call anyone here anal-retentive, unless of course, you're the author of that silly "rule." In that case, then yes, I do think the author of the rule is anal-retentive. And third, I doubt everyone on this forum wants you as their official spokesperson, so maybe just speak for yourself next time? Just a tip.
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
What dictates a major adult celebration? How big does a Christmas party have to be to be considered a major celebration? This is why it's a silly rule that, frankly, is better left forgotten. No one should dictate how many parties a person hosts in their lifetime.
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
What dictates a major adult celebration? How big does a Christmas party have to be to be considered a major celebration? This is why it's a silly rule that, frankly, is better left forgotten. No one should dictate how many parties a person hosts in their lifetime.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out it's talking about birthdays, showers, anniversary, graduation parties? At this part you're arguing just to be contrary.
Well, it's always been a rule that you don't host parties of any kind in your own honor-or if you do, you issue the invitations using "host-less" wording, so to speak: "The pleasure of your company is requested" etc. because otherwise it could appear that you are asking for gifts, which is never polite. It's also considered immodest. There is a loophole, which is that you can always throw a party without specifying a reason for it, and presumably your guests will be savvy enough to realize that it's a party to celebrate your birthday or whatever without you having to specify it.
Yes, different circles and crowds of people have their own customs and make their own exceptions. That's one thing. I don't side-eye anyone for throwing their own birthday parties. But that's me-not etiquette in general.
That said, I do side-eye people who snark in a public forum "Give me a freaking break" or whatever when it comes to etiquette in general. For one thing, Miss Manners, Emily Post, Crane's et al didn't write the rules. They were developed over a long period of time, and they didn't come into being to inconvenience you (generic). Nor is anyone going to fine you, throw you in jail, or otherwise punish you for not following the rules to the letter.
But the rules exist for a reason: to help keep things on an even keel when you're dealing with more formal situations, or with situations that involve people who are not part of your "circle" or your "crowd." An Internet forum like TheKnot that has people from everywhere posting in it, especially in a folder labeled "Etiquette," promotes these rules for that reason: they smooth out the bumps in interactions with other people. And sometimes not following them can have very serious repercussions, such as damaged relationships and lost friendships. It's up to everyone individually to decide if they want to take that risk when they decide to do something that doesn't follow etiquette, but no one is entitled to a "freaking break" when they declare that they don't and won't follow etiquette-especially in a thread in an "Etiquette" folder in a public forum.
First of all, I couldn't possibly care less if you side-eye me or not for posing a legitimate question/challenge about this so called etiquette faux pas when you have yet to provide a source. If Miss Manners didn't write this rule, then show me who did. You refuse to do that, which only leads me to believe that you, like the rest of us, have no idea where it originated or what anal-retentive person so obsessed with his/her friends' numbers of parties came up with it. So if there's no source and no legitimate reason, choosing to blindly follow it and side-eye others for it would be, in my view, considered poor etiquette. And yes, I will repeat for eternity "give me a freaking break" and I will side-eye anyone who blindly follows so-called "rules" that have no purpose and no origin other than arbitrary commentary instead of using their own common sense in deciding how many parties a grown adult can host with his/her own money.
Two things: Why am I supposed to care about whether or not you care less about being side-eyed?
And with an attitude like yours, why should I or anyone else in this forum give you a source for our positions when, if you stop your childish name-calling of us as "anal-rententive" or any other juvenile and immature name, you can find out for yourself in the same places we do if you bother to take the trouble. Lowering yourself to the level of name-calling inspires no one here to want to do your homework for you. Do it for yourself.
Yes, that's generally what people say when there is no source to back up their bogus claims. And FYI, I didn't call anyone here anal-retentive, unless of course, you're the author of that silly "rule." In that case, then yes, I do think the author of the rule is anal-retentive. And third, I doubt everyone on this forum wants you as their official spokesperson, so maybe just speak for yourself next time? Just a tip.
No, I'm not the author of the rule. And whether or not anyone else wants me as the official spokesperson, the rule exists and everyone is subject to it, including you. Just a tip.
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
What dictates a major adult celebration? How big does a Christmas party have to be to be considered a major celebration? This is why it's a silly rule that, frankly, is better left forgotten. No one should dictate how many parties a person hosts in their lifetime.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out it's talking about birthdays, showers, anniversary, graduation parties? At this part you're arguing just to be contrary.
Even if it is just those things, the rule really just doesn't make sense.
I had a huge 30th birthday party - rented a venue and everything. I'll also have a pretty big wedding when I'm in my 30's. If I choose to have a big 40th, 50th & 60th birthday party, and maybe a 30th anniversary party or something (I hope!), that would double the number of events allotted to me in my lifetime.
But I'm still wondering why that's the allotment. With that kind of spread, I don't think it would tax friends or seem childish. There is an argument that you're flaunting money if you have that kind of birthday party so often, but it's something I love doing, and I saved for like my other friends save for annual trips and such. And let's be real...I suspect that only a small percentage of the friends I invited to my 30th birthday would still be friends with me and come to my 60th birthday.
The social repercussions are non-existent: no one will feel put out for being invited to another party years later, no one will be taxed by replying "No" if they can't make it, I doubt anyone is counting the number of parties you're throwing.....
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
What dictates a major adult celebration? How big does a Christmas party have to be to be considered a major celebration? This is why it's a silly rule that, frankly, is better left forgotten. No one should dictate how many parties a person hosts in their lifetime.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out it's talking about birthdays, showers, anniversary, graduation parties? At this part you're arguing just to be contrary.
Even if it is just those things, the rule really just doesn't make sense.
I had a huge 30th birthday party - rented a venue and everything. I'll also have a pretty big wedding when I'm in my 30's. If I choose to have a big 40th, 50th & 60th birthday party, and maybe a 30th anniversary party or something (I hope!), that would double the number of events allotted to me in my lifetime.
But I'm still wondering why that's the allotment. With that kind of spread, I don't think it would tax friends or seem childish. There is an argument that you're flaunting money if you have that kind of birthday party so often, but it's something I love doing, and I saved for like my other friends save for annual trips and such. And let's be real...I suspect that only a small percentage of the friends I invited to my 30th birthday would still be friends with me and come to my 60th birthday.
The social repercussions are non-existent: no one will feel put out for being invited to another party years later, no one will be taxed by replying "No" if they can't make it, I doubt anyone is counting the number of parties you're throwing.....
It just seems silly.
I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm trying to clarify from the etiquette point of view. I couldn't give a rats ass how many parties you throw. I do believe Miss Manners' rule is a suggestion as it could be considered in poor taste to throw that many parties in your own honor. It doesn't mean your spouse, your friends, your Great Aunt Sally can't throw them for you.
And to be honest, I find the bolded to be incredibly sad. Friendships often wax and wane and change over the years, but that you consider that "reality" is the sad part, but then I've learned from TK that a lot of people no longer put stock in friendships the way they used to.
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
What dictates a major adult celebration? How big does a Christmas party have to be to be considered a major celebration? This is why it's a silly rule that, frankly, is better left forgotten. No one should dictate how many parties a person hosts in their lifetime.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out it's talking about birthdays, showers, anniversary, graduation parties? At this part you're arguing just to be contrary.
Where is it stated or even implied what it's talking about? That's what YOUR interpretation is, but that doesn't make it fact. And your last argument is the argument of those who have no argument. FYI.
Well, it's always been a rule that you don't host parties of any kind in your own honor-or if you do, you issue the invitations using "host-less" wording, so to speak: "The pleasure of your company is requested" etc. because otherwise it could appear that you are asking for gifts, which is never polite. It's also considered immodest. There is a loophole, which is that you can always throw a party without specifying a reason for it, and presumably your guests will be savvy enough to realize that it's a party to celebrate your birthday or whatever without you having to specify it.
Yes, different circles and crowds of people have their own customs and make their own exceptions. That's one thing. I don't side-eye anyone for throwing their own birthday parties. But that's me-not etiquette in general.
That said, I do side-eye people who snark in a public forum "Give me a freaking break" or whatever when it comes to etiquette in general. For one thing, Miss Manners, Emily Post, Crane's et al didn't write the rules. They were developed over a long period of time, and they didn't come into being to inconvenience you (generic). Nor is anyone going to fine you, throw you in jail, or otherwise punish you for not following the rules to the letter.
But the rules exist for a reason: to help keep things on an even keel when you're dealing with more formal situations, or with situations that involve people who are not part of your "circle" or your "crowd." An Internet forum like TheKnot that has people from everywhere posting in it, especially in a folder labeled "Etiquette," promotes these rules for that reason: they smooth out the bumps in interactions with other people. And sometimes not following them can have very serious repercussions, such as damaged relationships and lost friendships. It's up to everyone individually to decide if they want to take that risk when they decide to do something that doesn't follow etiquette, but no one is entitled to a "freaking break" when they declare that they don't and won't follow etiquette-especially in a thread in an "Etiquette" folder in a public forum.
First of all, I couldn't possibly care less if you side-eye me or not for posing a legitimate question/challenge about this so called etiquette faux pas when you have yet to provide a source. If Miss Manners didn't write this rule, then show me who did. You refuse to do that, which only leads me to believe that you, like the rest of us, have no idea where it originated or what anal-retentive person so obsessed with his/her friends' numbers of parties came up with it. So if there's no source and no legitimate reason, choosing to blindly follow it and side-eye others for it would be, in my view, considered poor etiquette. And yes, I will repeat for eternity "give me a freaking break" and I will side-eye anyone who blindly follows so-called "rules" that have no purpose and no origin other than arbitrary commentary instead of using their own common sense in deciding how many parties a grown adult can host with his/her own money.
Two things: Why am I supposed to care about whether or not you care less about being side-eyed?
And with an attitude like yours, why should I or anyone else in this forum give you a source for our positions when, if you stop your childish name-calling of us as "anal-rententive" or any other juvenile and immature name, you can find out for yourself in the same places we do if you bother to take the trouble. Lowering yourself to the level of name-calling inspires no one here to want to do your homework for you. Do it for yourself.
Yes, that's generally what people say when there is no source to back up their bogus claims. And FYI, I didn't call anyone here anal-retentive, unless of course, you're the author of that silly "rule." In that case, then yes, I do think the author of the rule is anal-retentive. And third, I doubt everyone on this forum wants you as their official spokesperson, so maybe just speak for yourself next time? Just a tip.
No, I'm not the author of the rule. And whether or not anyone else wants me as the official spokesperson, the rule exists and everyone is subject to it, including you. Just a tip.
I have yet to see proof it exists. As far as I'm concerned, it's a product of someone's vivid imagination.
Well, it's always been a rule that you don't host parties of any kind in your own honor-or if you do, you issue the invitations using "host-less" wording, so to speak: "The pleasure of your company is requested" etc. because otherwise it could appear that you are asking for gifts, which is never polite. It's also considered immodest. There is a loophole, which is that you can always throw a party without specifying a reason for it, and presumably your guests will be savvy enough to realize that it's a party to celebrate your birthday or whatever without you having to specify it.
Yes, different circles and crowds of people have their own customs and make their own exceptions. That's one thing. I don't side-eye anyone for throwing their own birthday parties. But that's me-not etiquette in general.
That said, I do side-eye people who snark in a public forum "Give me a freaking break" or whatever when it comes to etiquette in general. For one thing, Miss Manners, Emily Post, Crane's et al didn't write the rules. They were developed over a long period of time, and they didn't come into being to inconvenience you (generic). Nor is anyone going to fine you, throw you in jail, or otherwise punish you for not following the rules to the letter.
But the rules exist for a reason: to help keep things on an even keel when you're dealing with more formal situations, or with situations that involve people who are not part of your "circle" or your "crowd." An Internet forum like TheKnot that has people from everywhere posting in it, especially in a folder labeled "Etiquette," promotes these rules for that reason: they smooth out the bumps in interactions with other people. And sometimes not following them can have very serious repercussions, such as damaged relationships and lost friendships. It's up to everyone individually to decide if they want to take that risk when they decide to do something that doesn't follow etiquette, but no one is entitled to a "freaking break" when they declare that they don't and won't follow etiquette-especially in a thread in an "Etiquette" folder in a public forum.
First of all, I couldn't possibly care less if you side-eye me or not for posing a legitimate question/challenge about this so called etiquette faux pas when you have yet to provide a source. If Miss Manners didn't write this rule, then show me who did. You refuse to do that, which only leads me to believe that you, like the rest of us, have no idea where it originated or what anal-retentive person so obsessed with his/her friends' numbers of parties came up with it. So if there's no source and no legitimate reason, choosing to blindly follow it and side-eye others for it would be, in my view, considered poor etiquette. And yes, I will repeat for eternity "give me a freaking break" and I will side-eye anyone who blindly follows so-called "rules" that have no purpose and no origin other than arbitrary commentary instead of using their own common sense in deciding how many parties a grown adult can host with his/her own money.
Two things: Why am I supposed to care about whether or not you care less about being side-eyed?
And with an attitude like yours, why should I or anyone else in this forum give you a source for our positions when, if you stop your childish name-calling of us as "anal-rententive" or any other juvenile and immature name, you can find out for yourself in the same places we do if you bother to take the trouble. Lowering yourself to the level of name-calling inspires no one here to want to do your homework for you. Do it for yourself.
Yes, that's generally what people say when there is no source to back up their bogus claims. And FYI, I didn't call anyone here anal-retentive, unless of course, you're the author of that silly "rule." In that case, then yes, I do think the author of the rule is anal-retentive. And third, I doubt everyone on this forum wants you as their official spokesperson, so maybe just speak for yourself next time? Just a tip.
No, I'm not the author of the rule. And whether or not anyone else wants me as the official spokesperson, the rule exists and everyone is subject to it, including you. Just a tip.
I have yet to see proof it exists. As far as I'm concerned, it's a product of someone's vivid imagination.
Well, it's always been a rule that you don't host parties of any kind in your own honor-or if you do, you issue the invitations using "host-less" wording, so to speak: "The pleasure of your company is requested" etc. because otherwise it could appear that you are asking for gifts, which is never polite. It's also considered immodest. There is a loophole, which is that you can always throw a party without specifying a reason for it, and presumably your guests will be savvy enough to realize that it's a party to celebrate your birthday or whatever without you having to specify it.
Yes, different circles and crowds of people have their own customs and make their own exceptions. That's one thing. I don't side-eye anyone for throwing their own birthday parties. But that's me-not etiquette in general.
That said, I do side-eye people who snark in a public forum "Give me a freaking break" or whatever when it comes to etiquette in general. For one thing, Miss Manners, Emily Post, Crane's et al didn't write the rules. They were developed over a long period of time, and they didn't come into being to inconvenience you (generic). Nor is anyone going to fine you, throw you in jail, or otherwise punish you for not following the rules to the letter.
But the rules exist for a reason: to help keep things on an even keel when you're dealing with more formal situations, or with situations that involve people who are not part of your "circle" or your "crowd." An Internet forum like TheKnot that has people from everywhere posting in it, especially in a folder labeled "Etiquette," promotes these rules for that reason: they smooth out the bumps in interactions with other people. And sometimes not following them can have very serious repercussions, such as damaged relationships and lost friendships. It's up to everyone individually to decide if they want to take that risk when they decide to do something that doesn't follow etiquette, but no one is entitled to a "freaking break" when they declare that they don't and won't follow etiquette-especially in a thread in an "Etiquette" folder in a public forum.
First of all, I couldn't possibly care less if you side-eye me or not for posing a legitimate question/challenge about this so called etiquette faux pas when you have yet to provide a source. If Miss Manners didn't write this rule, then show me who did. You refuse to do that, which only leads me to believe that you, like the rest of us, have no idea where it originated or what anal-retentive person so obsessed with his/her friends' numbers of parties came up with it. So if there's no source and no legitimate reason, choosing to blindly follow it and side-eye others for it would be, in my view, considered poor etiquette. And yes, I will repeat for eternity "give me a freaking break" and I will side-eye anyone who blindly follows so-called "rules" that have no purpose and no origin other than arbitrary commentary instead of using their own common sense in deciding how many parties a grown adult can host with his/her own money.
Two things: Why am I supposed to care about whether or not you care less about being side-eyed?
And with an attitude like yours, why should I or anyone else in this forum give you a source for our positions when, if you stop your childish name-calling of us as "anal-rententive" or any other juvenile and immature name, you can find out for yourself in the same places we do if you bother to take the trouble. Lowering yourself to the level of name-calling inspires no one here to want to do your homework for you. Do it for yourself.
Yes, that's generally what people say when there is no source to back up their bogus claims. And FYI, I didn't call anyone here anal-retentive, unless of course, you're the author of that silly "rule." In that case, then yes, I do think the author of the rule is anal-retentive. And third, I doubt everyone on this forum wants you as their official spokesperson, so maybe just speak for yourself next time? Just a tip.
No, I'm not the author of the rule. And whether or not anyone else wants me as the official spokesperson, the rule exists and everyone is subject to it, including you. Just a tip.
I have yet to see proof it exists. As far as I'm concerned, it's a product of someone's vivid imagination.
Troll
Just more evidence that you lose it when you're legitimately challenged to provide proof of some of the crazy things you say.
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
What dictates a major adult celebration? How big does a Christmas party have to be to be considered a major celebration? This is why it's a silly rule that, frankly, is better left forgotten. No one should dictate how many parties a person hosts in their lifetime.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out it's talking about birthdays, showers, anniversary, graduation parties? At this part you're arguing just to be contrary.
Where is it stated or even implied what it's talking about? That's what YOUR interpretation is, but that doesn't make it fact. And your last argument is the argument of those who have no argument. FYI.
I'm going to jump in here. The "rule" from Miss Manners says: "Perhaps you are confused by Miss Manners’s rule that limits major adult celebrations to only three in a lifetime. This is so as not to overtax one’s friends and appear childishly indulgent." (via WaPo)"
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
What dictates a major adult celebration? How big does a Christmas party have to be to be considered a major celebration? This is why it's a silly rule that, frankly, is better left forgotten. No one should dictate how many parties a person hosts in their lifetime.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out it's talking about birthdays, showers, anniversary, graduation parties? At this part you're arguing just to be contrary.
Where is it stated or even implied what it's talking about? That's what YOUR interpretation is, but that doesn't make it fact. And your last argument is the argument of those who have no argument. FYI.
Re: Celebration Party
This says MAJOR adult celebrations. This is not saying you can't have a Halloween or Christmas party. This is suggesting, not demanding that you do not have big elaborate birthday parties every year, nor big elaborate anniversary parties every year.
Hosting an event to honor yourself (showers, birthday, anniversary) has always been considered an etiquette faux pas as these are often considered gift giving occasions.
No, I'm not the author of the rule. And whether or not anyone else wants me as the official spokesperson, the rule exists and everyone is subject to it, including you. Just a tip.
I had a huge 30th birthday party - rented a venue and everything. I'll also have a pretty big wedding when I'm in my 30's. If I choose to have a big 40th, 50th & 60th birthday party, and maybe a 30th anniversary party or something (I hope!), that would double the number of events allotted to me in my lifetime.
But I'm still wondering why that's the allotment. With that kind of spread, I don't think it would tax friends or seem childish. There is an argument that you're flaunting money if you have that kind of birthday party so often, but it's something I love doing, and I saved for like my other friends save for annual trips and such. And let's be real...I suspect that only a small percentage of the friends I invited to my 30th birthday would still be friends with me and come to my 60th birthday.
The social repercussions are non-existent: no one will feel put out for being invited to another party years later, no one will be taxed by replying "No" if they can't make it, I doubt anyone is counting the number of parties you're throwing.....
It just seems silly.
And to be honest, I find the bolded to be incredibly sad. Friendships often wax and wane and change over the years, but that you consider that "reality" is the sad part, but then I've learned from TK that a lot of people no longer put stock in friendships the way they used to.