# Damn wedding weenie! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937 "2004-04-25T18:04:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/281 "2004-04-30T03:03:35Z")
so now you’re not only justifying rude behavior, you’re applauding the increase of it? that people are polite in the face of rude behavior really shouldn’t be taken as a tacit acceptance and welcoming gesture of rude behavior. really, it shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![jastu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/43a26b/32.png) [@jastu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jastu)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/282 "2004-04-30T03:12:21Z")
I’ve only just come back to this thread and was surprised to see the debate still raging. Even though I thought everyone knew the basic rules of etiquette it has become blatantly obvious this is not the case. The most obvious answer then, as people have already stated, is to follow up the invitation with a phone call to clear up any misunderstanding where children are involved. I do like **Chotti** ’s invitation, leaves absolutely no room for misinterpretation. I was also amazed by the number of people who stated most of the weddings they have attended have included children. I have been to at least a couple of dozen weddings in my time and there has not been one occasion where children were invited, other than those in the wedding party or immediate family members. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/283 "2004-04-30T03:17:19Z")
> [@Chotii](#): > > I don’t give a good goddamn about your ettiquette book. I _do_ care very much about suiting my behavior to a specific, individual situation. _I_ was invited to a wedding in the UK (flying from Washington state) which we could not politely refuse as it was very close family, which was stipulated “no children”. Yeah. Right. We weren’t to bring the (breastfed) kid? We _could_ not accommodate the specifically stated wishes of the bride and groom. But we halfway did anyway by having me take the baby outside when she fussed. Shrug. And I submit that anyone, _especially family_, who would not make an exception in a case such as yours, is an oaf. If my cousin had been travelling overseas and was nursing, you can damn well count on the fact that _she_ would have been allowed to bring her baby, even if no one else was. No one should be _that_ inflexible. In that case, the person who breached etiquette was the bride who didn’t include your child, not you, who _had_ to bring her regardless. But that has nothing to do with the fact that her exclusion of your child, or her specific mention of “no children” was completely clear to you. We’re not discussing the “no children” rule here, we’re discussing whether or not it’s clear whether or not children are supposed to be included based on how the envelope is addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Chotii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@Chotii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chotii)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/284 "2004-04-30T04:17:42Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > And I submit that anyone, _especially family_, who would not make an exception in a case such as yours, is an oaf. If my cousin had been travelling overseas and was nursing, you can damn well count on the fact that _she_ would have been allowed to bring her baby, even if no one else was. No one should be _that_ inflexible. In that case, the person who breached etiquette was the bride who didn’t include your child, not you, who _had_ to bring her regardless. The odd thing was that it was pointed out to us FIRMLY that the wedding was ‘no children’ and only relented when we indicated that our other choice would be not to come - and we were . I felt uncomfortable. > [@](#): > > But that has nothing to do with the fact that her exclusion of your child, or her specific mention of “no children” was completely clear to you. We’re not discussing the “no children” rule here, we’re discussing whether or not it’s clear whether or not children are supposed to be included based on how the envelope is addressed. I don’t pay much attention to what the outside envelope says. Even the inside envelope may be done by rote, hand-written by a third party unfamiliar with individual situations, and not by the bride and groom themselves. What the invitation _itself_ says is everything. Because you never know. Sometimes it may stipulate non-traditional things like ‘Please wear kilts’ to a Scottish-themed wedding, which would hardly be written on the envelope! In the case of children, in _my_ experience, their attendence is not ‘non-traditional’. Apparently I’ve been to a lot of weddings where people were book-rude and nobody noticed, because nobody gave it a second thought. But in that case, were they _really_ rude? Or just following their own set of rules? And isn’t this really okay? ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/285 "2004-04-30T04:34:41Z")
> [@Chotii](#): > > In the case of children, in _my_ experience, their attendence is not ‘non-traditional’. Apparently I’ve been to a lot of weddings where people were book-rude and nobody noticed, because nobody gave it a second thought. But in that case, were they _really_ rude? But that’s the thing, how do you know how any other guest was addressed at those weddings? You certainly weren’t privvy to everyone else’s envelopes to peruse. For all you know, all the weddings you went to were child-friendly on purpose and each child there was specifically invited to attend, in which case, no, they weren’t rude at all if they were invited! > [@](#): > > Or just following their own set of rules? And isn’t this really okay? If they’re making up their own rules to follow and not abiding by what’s specifically written, then no, it’s not really ok… _unless_ they’ve cleared it with the hosts in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/286 "2004-04-30T08:27:35Z")
I wonder if I might enquire how many of those arguing here actually have children of their own? Can I get a show of hands please? The reason that I ask is that, as a parent, I know what it is like to work with a daily, habitual assumption that nearly every activity involving both myself and by wife, will include the children too, _unless the explicit decision is made to exclude them_; an example: It’s late Friday night and my wife says “Shall we go to the cinema tomorrow?” - I will assume that she is talking about a daytime performance of a film with a censor certificate suitable for our kids, and that ‘we’ means the whole family. If it were not so, she would have said “ **Shall I try to get a babysitter tomorrow night** , so that we can go to the cinema, **just the two of us** ”. Probably in excess of 99% of our lives are organised this way; young children are a huge preoccupation and the overwhelming majority of activities that involve both of us as parents, will also implicitly include the kids _ **unless deliberate, conscious steps are taken to the contrary** _. The concept that ‘we’ means all four of us is deeply ingrained in my psyche - even when we discuss and plan activities where we only _mentiion_ the two of us ( **I** ’d like to go out for pizza, what would **you** like, dear?), the default assumption is that, if we haven’t specifically arranged something else for the kids, they will be coming along. There is nothing presumptuous or ignorant about this state of affairs; it is just how life happens to work for busy parents. Now. **I KNOW** that weddings aren’t the same class of event as a trip to the movies or the pizza joint. **AND I AM NOT** arguing that any false assumption that anyone might make in regard of (perceived)implied invitation of kids to a wedding is ‘OK’, ‘correct’, ‘desirable’ or anything else like that. **BUT** I can imagine a set of circumstances whereby, in the whirlwind of activity that is a normal family, a couple with young children might receive an invitation and, due to the inertia of habit, arrive (largely through unconscious processes) at the (mistaken) understanding that the whole family is invited. **OF COURSE** it isn’t correct, desirable etc, but it also wouldn’t be an act of wilful and selfish ignorance or deliberate and inconsiderate rudeness (and I believe that to assume that this is the only possibility is, in itself, somewhat ignorant); it isn’t excusable, but it is _ **understandable** _, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/287 "2004-04-30T10:50:06Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > . > And it’s not just my experience. Look at the folks on the other side. Katriona, Shayna, and others all had kids come to their weddings that weren’t wanted. I accept that. But doesn’t that support my assertion that the previous behavior pattern of the general acceptance of ‘no specific invitation means no kids’ is falling away? I think it does. Not really. If people were saying that they had a relatively large number of uninvited children show up -for example, 50 couples were invited without their kids and 25 of them brought their children- then I’d say the rule might be changing. People aren’t saying that. They’re saying that a couple of children showed up uninvited. If you invite fifty couples with children and only one or two bring the uninvited kids, that supports the rule _not changing_. If there is only one couple with uninvited kids, and they bring them, it’s too small a sample to generalize at all. ---
**Author:** ![jastu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/43a26b/32.png) [@jastu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jastu)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/288 "2004-04-30T10:57:02Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I wonder if I might enquire how many of those arguing here actually have children of their own? Can I get a show of hands please? I have two children. When they were younger, I never assumed they were invited to any event we had been invited to, unless it was a family gathering or a children’s party. If I was in doubt, I would always check with a quick phone call. > [@Mangetout](#): > > I can imagine a set of circumstances whereby, in the whirlwind of activity that is a normal family, a couple with young children might receive an invitation and, due to the inertia of habit, arrive (largely through unconscious processes) at the (mistaken) understanding that the whole family is invited. There are many instances and occasions where it would be inappropriate to turn up with your children, as in any type of adult party, dinner or work function. Consequently I find it very hard to believe some people would just assume their children were always automatically invited or turn up with them due to the “inertia of habit”. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/289 "2004-04-30T11:14:15Z")
> [@jastu](#): > > Consequently I find it very hard to believe some people would just assume their children were always automatically invited or turn up with them due to the “inertia of habit”. ‘Assume’ seems to imply conscious consideration; I am suggesting the possibility of process being entirely overlooked. I can tell that you (and others) find it hard to believe, but that’s just the way it goes. It is often the case that things we wouldn’t have even imagined suddenly seems obvious and self-evident _after_ they have come to our attention and we have consciously thought on them. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/290 "2004-04-30T12:26:45Z")
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance] And it’s not just my experience. Look at the folks on the other side. Katriona, Shayna, and others all had kids come to their weddings that weren’t wanted. I accept that. But doesn’t that support my assertion that the previous behavior pattern of the general acceptance of ‘no specific invitation means no kids’ is falling away? I think it does. QUOTE] Don’t use my example as support for “misunderstanding” or the falling away of a custom. I said in my post that even after being told it was a no kids affair, she took it upon herself to just invite anybody and everybody she chose. There was no misunderstanding about it, and that’s my beef with CandidGamera’s comments; even after being repeatedly told that some people to still keep to the custom of “whoever is on the invitation is invited,” there’s still this feeling that an invitation addressed to them equals carte blanche to invite whoever they please, no matter the host’s intentions when extending the invitations, and that it should be A-OK with everybody. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/291 "2004-04-30T12:49:27Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > I think most people do somewhere betweeen 1 and 2. I accepted the risk that by not specifically disinviting kids on the invitation , someone would, through either misunderstanding or willfulness bring their uninvited kids. In exactly the same way that by not specifically disinviting Samanths’s three younger siblings on the invitation, I risked those three extra kids showing up at my daughter’s birthday party. It’s one thing to accept the risk- it’s entirely another to accept the blame for the misunderstanding when a friend hears from another friend (who apparently either did understand the invitation or at least called to check) that children are not invited. I’d have gotten more than huffy if Samantha’s mother called me a couple of weeks before because she heard from Adriana’s mother that siblings were not invited, and then tried to blame the misunderstanding on me. I didn’t think the issue was assigning blame for the misunderstanding. JC was upset at his friend’s tone in that last convo, not the misunderstanding itself, was my impression. It’s really neither side’s fault, if the invitee simply isn’t aware of the protocol. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/292 "2004-04-30T12:51:58Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > \ > > Ok, now we’ve crossed over into the completely insane. I’m done with this moron. You girls keep up the good fight if you want, but I don’t have the patience. > > One last thing, though… **Mangetout** , this bloke is exactly the kind of person we’ve all been referring to with regard to the kind of people who truly think nothing of bringing whomever they damn well please to a formal, by-invitation-only event, just because _they_ can’t see why their precious darling who’s joined with them at the hip shouldn’t get to come if he wants, or why _they_ should have to find a babysitter since weddings are family events anyway. > > Ta! Have fun, all! I’ll reply anyway, on the off-chance you’re still here listening, after the drive-by personal attack. No, I’m not that sort of person. Bringing extra people somewhere is something I would never do. I AM the sort of person who’ll stand up for folks who are being blamed for things that just aren’t their fault. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/293 "2004-04-30T12:53:16Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > BTW, **CandidGamera** , why do you call it the wedding invitation rule? The rules aren’t actually any different for a wedding invitation than they are for any other sort of invitation. It’s just that you don’t often hear of people who misunderstand when they receive an invitation addressed to “Mr & Mrs Doe” for a retirement party, an adult’s birthday party, the “Thank You” dinner the pastor is throwing for the church volunteers, a company holiday party , an invitation to dine out, etc. Why do people apparently understand the rule in those situations, but not for weddings? Because WIR is a more distinctive abbreviation than IR? ---
**Author:** ![Elret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Elret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elret)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/294 "2004-04-30T12:59:57Z")
> [@Chotii](#): > > \*Childcare will be provided to assist people in accommodating the wishes of the bride and groom for an adults-only ceremony. > > (OR: Our sincerest apologies, but childcare could not be arranged for this adults-only ceremony.) \*[/CENTER] The problem I have with your sample invitation (ignoring the fact that I agree with the others here who find disinviting people on an invitation unpleasant), is that I still have no idea how I am to make my wishes clear at my own wedding. How can I invite some kids and not others? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/295 "2004-04-30T13:01:25Z")
> [@Katriona](#): > > Then they’ve got bigger problems than just finding a sitter for Snottums. > > I just figured it out: You’re somehow related to the goat-felching twit who, upon find out our wedding was no-kids, felt quite free to not only bring her undisciplined hellions, but her neighbor’s 3 as well. That was a little out of left-field. Actually, that was out of the bleachers NEXT to left-field. I’ll say again… if I knew that kids weren’t to come to an event, there’s no way in hell I’d bring kids to that event. I’d never disrupt someone’s special day, it wouldn’t be just or fair. Regarding the parent-closer-to-child-than-other-parent … problems? Well, it may be that the parents are close to a separation; it may be that one parent travels a lot, and the remaining parent has formed a lot closer bond with the child. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/296 "2004-04-30T13:09:19Z")
> [@Elret](#): > > The problem I have with your sample invitation (ignoring the fact that I agree with the others here who find disinviting people on an invitation unpleasant), is that I still have no idea how I am to make my wishes clear at my own wedding. How can I invite some kids and not others? I would say there is no way to do it without offending. Only if you use some sort of system like - age cut off, 13 and up. But if you say this person’s 5 year-old can come and your 7 year-old can’t come then you are going to offend the parents of the 7 year-old. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/297 "2004-04-30T13:46:49Z")
I said it before, and several of our posters failed to read it, but I’ll say it again, and in more detail. My own personal behaviorial code goes a little something like this. A host has the right to set whatever conditions they like on a get-together. If I am aware of these conditions, and accept them, I will attend if able and I will follow those conditions. If I do not accept them, I won’t attend. If I am made aware of a condition after agreeing to attend, I reserve the right to leave immediately. Not only would I never deliberately flaunt the invitation-rule, there’s a 99% chance I wouldn’t even consider asking for an exception. I’d rather not attend than ask for an exception. Now, on finer points of behavior, like the old elbows-on-the-table issue, I don’t recognize the authority of formal etiquette. If someone specifies that adherence to the details of formal etiquette in all respects was a condition of attendance at a party, I wouldn’t go. So to those who jump to conclusions regarding an individual they know nothing about, I say : Bite me. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Elret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Elret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elret)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/298 "2004-04-30T14:12:39Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > I would say there is no way to do it without offending. > > Only if you use some sort of system like - age cut off, 13 and up. But if you say this person’s 5 year-old can come and your 7 year-old can’t come then you are going to offend the parents of the 7 year-old. As odd as I find the fact that it could even _be_ considered offensive for me to invite my beloved cousins without being obligated to spend an extra $1200 to invite kids I don’t know, I’m actually asking more about the communication issue than etiquette. For those who are suggesting that the best way to make it clear that only parents are invited is to put “No kids” or “Adults only” on the invitation, I’m pointing out that in my case, that wouldn’t work, I don’t _want_ an “Adults Only” wedding. Is there really no way for me to have an “Invited People Only Regardless of Age” wedding? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/299 "2004-04-30T14:20:10Z")
> [@Elret](#): > > As odd as I find the fact that it could even _be_ considered offensive for me to invite my beloved cousins without being obligated to spend an extra $1200 to invite kids I don’t know, I’m actually asking more about the communication issue than etiquette. For those who are suggesting that the best way to make it clear that only parents are invited is to put “No kids” or “Adults only” on the invitation, I’m pointing out that in my case, that wouldn’t work, I don’t _want_ an “Adults Only” wedding. Is there really no way for me to have an “Invited People Only Regardless of Age” wedding? I had the suggestion of three flavors of invites before, but it is an extra expense. You could just try calling the folks whose kids aren’t to attend and telling them in a friendly fashion that you’ve “got two seats just waiting for them” or some such. Our just accept the risk that some folks don’t know the invitation rule and may bring extra kids. Doesn’t always happen. ---
**Author:** ![Elret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Elret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elret)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/300 "2004-04-30T15:15:34Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I had the suggestion of three flavors of invites before, but it is an extra expense. That’s my confusion, though. Even if I had specific invites for each different scenario, I can’t imagine what flavour (hee) I would send when I want to invite just parents, since it couldn’t say “No kids”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=16)