# 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:** 7
**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 27, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/121 "2004-04-27T16:22:22Z")
> [@ENugent](#): > > Not quite what you said before… No, counselor, I chose to paraphrase to emphasize the point. > [@](#): > > If she thinks it’s ambiguous and would call for clarification, I’d venture to say that it’s not “completely foreign to her experiences.” In fact, I bet that if you asked if she knows what etiquette books say on the subject, she’d be able to tell you the same thing that we’ve been telling you. I framed the situation … invitation addressed to her and my father, at the time they had a four year old child, do they bring the child along. Her answer, as exactly as I can remember it was : “Well, yes.” When I indicated that the reason for my query was that folks on a messageboard were asserting that proper etiquette dictates the children not come unless named, the reply was “Really? Well, it’s probably a good idea to call, I guess.” And you’d lose that last bet, almost assuredly. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/122 "2004-04-27T16:45:26Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Sorry, **Sauron** , but I’m afraid you’re wrong. You may see it as only “telling it like it is,” but the fact remains, he asked for clarification of the invitation and **got it**. At that point, what he should have done was shut up about it and not placed the burden of _his_ problem on the shoulders of the _groom_ to offer up an alternative or special treatment. I seriously doubt we’re ever going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I’ll give this one last shot. I don’t see **Jonathan Chance** looking to the groom to solve his problem. I see him saying “Based on this new information, it’s gonna be very difficult for us to come to your wedding.” He doesn’t ask for special dispensation. Maybe he was going to – I doubt it, but we don’t know. What we DO know is that as soon as JC tells his friend that it’ll be difficult for him to come to the wedding, his friend immediately says “Let me see what I can do.” And once again, I fault the friend from this point forward. If you’ve invited someone to an event (a wedding, a party, or whatever), and then you offer to get additional information for the person you invited so they can make plans, YOU DO IT. YOU are the reason they’re traveling in the first place; you’re the host, with all the duties that implies. > [@](#): > > **Jonathan** didn’t take a simple NO for an answer, which he should have. I have no idea where you’re getting this. JC didn’t whine to the friend about the policy – he just said it would be difficult for them to come, given the new information. The friend, at this point, should have said, “I’m very sorry to hear that, and we’ll miss you, but I understand.” Say you’re throwing a party, and a week beforehand your best friend says “You know what? I misread the invitation. I thought the party was two weeks from now. I’ve got plans next week, so I can’t come.” You really want your best friend there. Do you: a) Say, “Well, that sucks. I’m sorry. We’ll miss you.” and have the party anyway? or b) Say, “Well, maybe I can move the party. Let me check.” If you say b), you’re now obligated to give your friend the party info as soon as you get it. If your friend has to ask you several times if the party has been moved, you’re not fulfilling your duty as a host. > [@](#): > > But then he further does exactly what I suspected he’d done and pestered the shit out of the guy… It’s unfortunate that he was “in limbo” for a couple of days, but too bad. Nope. That’s the groom’s fault, because the groom SAID HE’D CHECK ON ALLOWING THE BABY TO ATTEND. The Chances can’t make any plans whatsoever until they get this info. > [@](#): > > He didn’t get the answer he wanted the first time he asked, so, like I said, he pestered him repeatedly until he wore the guy down, basically giving him no polite way out of an obviously uncomfortable situation. And again, I have no idea where you’re getting this. I don’t see JC wanting ANY particular answer but the correct one. He’s not begging to have his child attend; he’s just saying that it will be very difficult for them to attend if their child can’t. He seems okay with the rule, and understands the rule. > [@](#): > > So now you not only want the groom to break the rules for **Jonathan** , but you expect him to do it lickity-split on **Jonathan’s** timeframe. Well, yeah. Because the friend knew the hassles JC was having to endure just to get to the wedding, regardless of the child situation. Remember, JC is only jumping through these hoops because the friend WANTS him there. Again, the whole “duty of the host” thing. > [@](#): > > I’m just saying that it really was _his_ faux pas to begin with and his annoyance at the groom for not giving him the answer he wanted, as fast as he wanted it or with the tone he wanted to hear it, is out of place. I agree the misunderstanding regarding the invitation is on JC. But I think you’re intuiting a lot more than is here regarding JC’s behavior/reaction. On preview, to **alice\_in\_wonderland** : How on earth is it obnoxious to tell a good friend that you misunderstood the invitation and, since you now have to arrange for childcare et cetera, you doubt you’ll be able to attend the wedding? The friend is planning in him being there. If he just doesn’t show up, THAT’S obnoxious. I see nothing obnoxious in saying “I misunderstood, thanks for the info, I doubt we’ll be able to come.” ---
**Author:** ![jeevwoman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@jeevwoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevwoman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/123 "2004-04-27T17:03:51Z")
> [@avabeth](#): > > I’m having a mostly child-free wedding. We are having a flower girl and a ring bearer - 7 and 4 -, a junior bridesmaid - 9, and their three siblings - 6, 5, and 3. Most family friends are planning not to bring their children. I’m very close to the six children attending, and they are also the children whose parents I trust. The seven, six, and three year old are the most well-behaved children I have ever met - they’ve behaved themselves in expensive restaurants (Ruth’s Chris), during parties with adults, and every single time I’ve seen them - their parents do an awesome job of raising them. The other three children are my cousins’ children, and again, I trust their parents. Ava–unrelated to everything, but since we had a lot of little kids at our wedding, I went to the dollar store and made little ‘gift bags’ for the (non-infant) kids. I put in a little box of crayons, a coloring book and some Harry Potter stuff for the older boy. This kept them entertained and gave the parents a bit of a break. I have heard that they were well-received and we heard nary a peep from the kids the whole time. Of course, we had a very low-key informal wedding, but still, I recommend it. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/124 "2004-04-27T17:16:11Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > On preview, to **alice\_in\_wonderland** : > > How on earth is it obnoxious to tell a good friend that you misunderstood the invitation and, since you now have to arrange for childcare et cetera, you doubt you’ll be able to attend the wedding? The friend is planning in him being there. If he just doesn’t show up, THAT’S obnoxious. I see nothing obnoxious in saying “I misunderstood, thanks for the info, I doubt we’ll be able to come.” The reason I feel it’s obnoxious is that **JC** didn’t even _TRY_ to get child care upon hearing of the no-kids rule. Rather than making an attempt to find a care-giver and then, if unsuccessful, calling his friend back and explaining the situation, he immediately said “Well, that inconvenient for me so we can’t come.” Frankly, if it was my good friend’s wedding, I would probably being trying to accommodated his and his wife-to-be’s wishes, rather than worrying about my own issues right off the bat. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/125 "2004-04-27T18:02:48Z")
**alice\_in\_wonderland** : I see your point. I think, though, that the immediacy of the conversation was what drove JC’s remarks. He didn’t hear about the no-kids rule until he was actually speaking/texting with the groom. Here’s what he posted: > [@](#): > > Day one (via AIM): > Me: Yo, Chris! You there? > C: Yeah. What’s up? > Me: What’s the deal with kids at the wedding? Do you want them there or no? Because friend A just mentioned she was getting a babysitter. > C: No kids. Sorry, Ali doesn’t want them there. > Me: Hmm. That might be a problem because of our travel schedules. And Lady Chance isn’t wild about driving six hours and handing her off to a babysitter. > C: Well, let me see what I can do. I’ll call Ali. This looks to me like he was just looking for info. He was still operating under the assumption that it was okay for kids to attend, and he wanted clarification. That’s why I don’t think he was “dumping his problem on the groom;” he was just reacting to information he received. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/126 "2004-04-27T18:16:07Z")
See, I was with him up until the groom said ‘No kids. Ali doesn’t want them there.’ It was at that point that **Chance** should have replied ‘I will need to get back to you in a few days after we have arranged a sitter to watch Kate.’ Then try to make those arrangements, and if he could not, send his regrets to the bride and groom. His reply about driving six hours and then handing her off to a babysitter sounds a lot like guilt tripping, and probably especially to a stressed out groom who’s no doubt up to his eyeballs in whether or not to go with centerpiece A, B or C, and arranging seating for everyone who is coming to the wedding (Can’t have Uncle Joe sit anywhere near Cousin Bill or there’ll be a war, Cousin Fran wishes to sit with Aunt Beth and Aunt Libby, oh and your coworkers have to all sit together because they don’t know anyone else…) kinds of things. I can see how the groom would get a little upset, how the bride might get a **lot** upset, and how after being asked again in the middle of all the planning would result in ‘huffy’. In cases like that, it seems polite to say ‘I cannot give you a definite answer until we have arranged for a sitter.’ and then make the attempt to find a sitter quick. If one cannot be found, send polite regrets that you will be unable to attend, or go solo if this is a friend of just you and not also your wife. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/127 "2004-04-27T18:16:41Z")
**CG:** _And I can’t count the number of laments from those gurus that I’ve seen while Google-researching about this topic, crying about the general population ignoring the standards of etiquette … apparently, the majority [of etiquette gurus] has decided that they’re irrelevant old fuddy-duddies, and they bemoan their obsolescence._ However, I don’t think that some complaints you haphazardly found on the internet negate the significance of best-selling etiquette books and syndicated columns, when we’re considering whether etiquette conventions are really “irrelevant” or “obsolete” in the society at large. Hypothetically, if I wanted to change them [etiquette conventions], what would I do?\* Exactly what we’re doing here, non-hypothetically: namely, talking with lots of other people about the most tactful ways to convey a “no-kids-invited” message, collecting experiences about what ways seem to work best, and spreading advice about those ways around to people who are looking for it. And then eventually, if a good strategy catches on and becomes popular (and is sufficiently tactful), people who write books about etiquette will incorporate it into their standard canon of conventions. That’s how etiquette always works. _Religion is a social construct with codes of behavior and interaction. Now substitute ‘etiquette’ for ‘religion’ in the preceding sentence._ It doesn’t make your analogy appropriate, because as I said, **your personal religious beliefs and practices are nobody else’s business**. Your social interactions with other people, on the other hand, **are** other people’s business. \*So if I put out a book claiming that it is customary to extend one’s middle finger at the happy couple after a wedding, that makes it so? \* Of course not. The reason etiquette advice is commercially successful is because **it’s widely perceived as useful** , meaning that it generally squares with people’s ideas of polite behavior. It would be completely silly to think that just by publishing a book prescribing whatever weird behavior rules you feel like making up, you could create a wide consensus that they were appropriate polite behavior. You seem to have this weird idea that etiquette is something that snotty etiquette authors arbitrarily **impose** on an unwilling public, instead of realizing that etiquette is actually codified by such authors, over time, from the **behavior** of the public. Not all of it, of course, but the standards of manners that are widely approved and practiced by the public. _When I have a piece of information… that I consider important for others to know… I tell them that piece of information._ But **how** you tell them is affected by the rules of etiquette, right? If you notice from across the room at a party that your grandfather accidentally has his fly open, and you consider it important for him to know that because he’d want to zip up and not go around with his fly open any more, do you take the fastest and most efficient means by yelling across the crowded room “Hey Grampa! Zip up your pants!” Or do you refrain from that on the grounds that it would be rude, and instead let him know in a more subtle and private way? **How** you convey something is very often as important as **what** you’re conveying, which is why we have etiquette rules about generally-accepted ways to do so. \*I do not rely on a manual of elitist snobbery nor multiple manuals of elitist snobbery. Thus, I do not feel compelled to snub those who have not read it or who choose to disregard it. If someone conducts themselves in an offensive manner … I tell them that I find that conduct offensive. It gives them a chance to either adjust their behavior with no real harm done, or to choose not to adjust their behavior. And if they choose not to adjust their behavior, then I can rightfully snub them. Because I’ve clearly delineated the nature of the offense and given them an opportunity to correct it.\* You poor dear. ☹ Honestly, I’ve gone beyond feeling irritated at you and now just feel sorry for you. In a quixotic attempt to liberate yourself from what you perceive as “elitist snobbery”, you’ve designed yourself a nightmare of conflicting individual standards of behavior, full of people making up their own personal definitions of what counts as offensive and trying to get other people to conform to those definitions by accusing them of having offended them, and then having to snub them when they won’t conform. What a sad mess. And all this just to avoid having to take any advice about etiquette conventions from the dread “manual of elitist snobbery”. It really is so much simpler to put a little effort into finding out what the basic common standards of manners are and then abide by them, with a bit of creative adjustment when necessary, than to condemn yourself to renegotiating mutually acceptable standards of manners with every new person you meet. ---
**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 27, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/128 "2004-04-27T18:39:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **CG:** _And I can’t count the number of laments from those gurus that I’ve seen while Google-researching about this topic, crying about the general population ignoring the standards of etiquette … apparently, the majority [of etiquette gurus] has decided that they’re irrelevant old fuddy-duddies, and they bemoan their obsolescence._ > > However, I don’t think that some complaints you haphazardly found on the internet negate the significance of best-selling etiquette books and syndicated columns, when we’re considering whether etiquette conventions are really “irrelevant” or “obsolete” in the society at large. Let me ask you this, then - just because someone buys a book, means they implicitly agree with all the statements therein? I’m certain there are folks out there who buy Miss Manners’ tomes just for the laugh value. And, unless things have changed, being a best-seller doesn’t take much real market penetration. Considering how ‘vital’ you seem to think this information is, I’d wager less than 20% of the families in the country own a manners manual. > [@](#): > > Exactly what we’re doing here, non-hypothetically: namely, talking with lots of other people about the most tactful ways to convey a “no-kids-invited” message, collecting experiences about what ways seem to work best, and spreading advice about those ways around to people who are looking for it. > > And then eventually, if a good strategy catches on and becomes popular (and is sufficiently tactful), people who write books about etiquette will incorporate it into their standard canon of conventions. That’s how etiquette always works. Or they’ll whine about how much better things used to be before all the plebes started ruining polite society for a few years… then note that the practice is grudgingly acceptable, and then incorporate it. > [@](#): > > _Religion is a social construct with codes of behavior and interaction. Now substitute ‘etiquette’ for ‘religion’ in the preceding sentence._ > > It doesn’t make your analogy appropriate, because as I said, **your personal religious beliefs and practices are nobody else’s business**. Your social interactions with other people, on the other hand, **are** other people’s business. Many social interactions are of a religious nature. > [@](#): > > \*So if I put out a book claiming that it is customary to extend one’s middle finger at the happy couple after a wedding, that makes it so? \* > > Of course not. The reason etiquette advice is commercially successful is because **it’s widely perceived as useful** , meaning that it generally squares with people’s ideas of polite behavior. It would be completely silly to think that just by publishing a book prescribing whatever weird behavior rules you feel like making up, you could create a wide consensus that they were appropriate polite behavior. You can be commercially successful publishing books that contain ideas the majority of the nation disagrees with. > [@](#): > > You seem to have this weird idea that etiquette is something that snotty etiquette authors arbitrarily **impose** on an unwilling public, instead of realizing that etiquette is actually codified by such authors, over time, from the **behavior** of the public. Not all of it, of course, but the standards of manners that are widely approved and practiced by the public. I doubt these authors know a thing about the general practices of the public. Not even the most social person in the world can say they’ve encountered the customs of more than a tiny slice of the population. > [@](#): > > _When I have a piece of information… that I consider important for others to know… I tell them that piece of information._ > > But **how** you tell them is affected by the rules of etiquette, right? If you notice from across the room at a party that your grandfather accidentally has his fly open, and you consider it important for him to know that because he’d want to zip up and not go around with his fly open any more, do you take the fastest and most efficient means by yelling across the crowded room “Hey Grampa! Zip up your pants!” > > Or do you refrain from that on the grounds that it would be rude, and instead let him know in a more subtle and private way? Shouting across a room is rude not because of rules of etiquette but because it causes people physical discomfort. I’d inform the person in question quietly because it’s really only his business. But as for subtle? No. No “My goodness, grandfather, the zippers on pantaloons have the cursedest tendency to droop, don’t they?” or some euphemistic claptrap. > [@](#): > > **How** you convey something is very often as important as **what** you’re conveying, which is why we have etiquette rules about generally-accepted ways to do so. > > \*I do not rely on a manual of elitist snobbery nor multiple manuals of elitist snobbery. Thus, I do not feel compelled to snub those who have not read it or who choose to disregard it. If someone conducts themselves in an offensive manner … I tell them that I find that conduct offensive. > > It gives them a chance to either adjust their behavior with no real harm done, or to choose not to adjust their behavior. And if they choose not to adjust their behavior, then I can rightfully snub them. Because I’ve clearly delineated the nature of the offense and given them an opportunity to correct it.\* > > You poor dear. ☹ Honestly, I’ve gone beyond feeling irritated at you and now just feel sorry for you. In a quixotic attempt to liberate yourself from what you perceive as “elitist snobbery”, you’ve designed yourself a nightmare of conflicting individual standards of behavior, full of people making up their own personal definitions of what counts as offensive and trying to get other people to conform to those definitions by accusing them of having offended them, and then having to snub them when they won’t conform. What a sad mess. > > And all this just to avoid having to take any advice about etiquette conventions from the dread “manual of elitist snobbery”. It really is so much simpler to put a little effort into finding out what the basic common standards of manners are and then abide by them, with a bit of creative adjustment when necessary, than to condemn yourself to renegotiating mutually acceptable standards of manners with every new person you meet. As opposed to snubbing them for not conforming to an arbitrary standard? I honestly pity you as well … you can’t see the circle of condescension this code of roundabout-silence creates. Simply, if I am the host of a get-together, and someone does something that offends me, they get a warning and a chance to correct the behavior … not any snarky play-acting or exaggerated ‘setting-of-examples’ that somehow implies you’re better than they are… and certainly not just silently deciding not to invite them back. I will request a final time that you in some way prove that these so-called standards are, in fact, standard. If you can’t, I do wish you’d stop calling them that as if they were gospel delivered from up on high for all to hear and obey. ---
**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 27, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/129 "2004-04-27T18:41:32Z")
You’re right, **Sauron** , we’re probably never going to see eye-to-eye on the details, but I’ll try one more time, too. > [@](#): > > I don’t see **Jonathan Chance** looking to the groom to solve his problem. I see him saying “Based on this new information, it’s gonna be very difficult for us to come to your wedding.” He doesn’t ask for special dispensation. Maybe he was going to – I doubt it, but we don’t know. What we DO know is that as soon as JC tells his friend that it’ll be difficult for him to come to the wedding, his friend immediately says “Let me see what I can do.” Perhaps what we _can_ agree on is that **Jonathan** didn’t _mean_ to put his friend on the spot, but he unintentionally did when he accidentally blurted out what an _inconvenience_ the “no kids” thing would be before even attempting to make arrangements to accomodate it. And again, you’ve got lots of maybes in there. Remember that **Jonathan’s** more detailed explanation is still only paraphrased, so we really don’t know exactly how “immediate” the offer to check with the fiancée was within the context of the whole conversation. The bottom line is, he shouldn’t have been made to feel ( **even inadvertantly** ) as though he had to ask his fiancée to change the rules in the first place, even if **Jonathan** didn’t realize that his complaint would garner that response. > [@](#): > > And once again, I fault the friend from this point forward. If you’ve invited someone to an event (a wedding, a party, or whatever), and then you offer to get additional information for the person you invited so they can make plans, YOU DO IT. YOU are the reason they’re traveling in the first place; you’re the host, with all the duties that implies. Well, SURE. But how fast is fast _enough_ to get a reply to a _special request_. It’s not like **Jonathan** was merely asking what hotel the guests should book rooms in, information which the groom should have close at hand. A few days to respond is not unreasonable. But he didn’t even _wait_ a few days, he _pestered_ him _for_ a few days. _Every_ day. I say he should have waited those few days without asking again until those few days had _passed_. > [@](#): > > I have no idea where you’re getting this. JC didn’t whine to the friend about the policy – he just said it would be difficult for them to come, given the new information. The friend, at this point, should have said, “I’m very sorry to hear that, and we’ll miss you, but I understand.” I’m getting that right from **Jonathan’s** words. He didn’t say, “gee, I’m afraid we won’t be able to make it then, I’m terribly sorry.” He said, “Oh wow, that’ll be hard on us. My wife won’t like driving all that way and then dumping the kid off with a sitter.” Do you _really_ not see the difference in how each of those things sounds? > [@](#): > > Say you’re throwing a party, and a week beforehand your best friend says “You know what? I misread the invitation. I thought the party was two weeks from now. I’ve got plans next week, so I can’t come.” You really want your best friend there. Do you: > > a) Say, “Well, that sucks. I’m sorry. We’ll miss you.” and have the party anyway? > > or > > b) Say, “Well, maybe I can move the party. Let me check.” > > If you say b), you’re now obligated to give your friend the party info as soon as you get it. If your friend has to ask you several times if the party has been moved, you’re not fulfilling your duty as a host. This scenario is just weird and completely irrelevant. Of course if plans change the host is obligated to let the guests know as soon as the information is available. But the wedding plans and rules didn’t change. They were still “no kids.” The groom was just going to see if the Mrs. would _consider_ changing them. He didn’t have that info on day 2 or day 3 or day 4, obviously, because he hadn’t gotten back to **Jonathan** yet. How has he not fulfilled his “duty” as a host. The party was unchanged! As it stood for aaaaaaaaall those 3 or 4 days in between, it was STILL “no kids,” unless or until **Jonathan** heard otherwise. And in that interim, he should have been looking into babysitting arrangements in case the answer came back as still being “No.” And then if he couldn’t, and the answer was still no, that’s when he would have politely declined and wished them well. But he wasn’t even doing _his_ part in trying to comply with the invitation as it stood. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But then he further does exactly what I suspected he’d done and pestered the shit out of the guy… It’s unfortunate that he was “in limbo” for a couple of days, but too bad. > > Nope. That’s the groom’s fault, because the groom SAID HE’D CHECK ON ALLOWING THE BABY TO ATTEND. The Chances can’t make any plans whatsoever until they get this info. Again I say, SO WHAT? So his plans are on hold for a couple of days. Why is this SUCH an inconvenience that you “fault” the groom for not jumping to get an answer _immediately_? The groom has other considerations and a couple of days delay in responding to a special request is _not unreasonable_. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > He didn’t get the answer he wanted the first time he asked, so, like I said, he pestered him repeatedly until he wore the guy down, basically giving him no polite way out of an obviously uncomfortable situation. > > And again, I have no idea where you’re getting this. I don’t see JC wanting ANY particular answer but the correct one. He’s not begging to have his child attend; he’s just saying that it will be very difficult for them to attend if their child can’t. He seems okay with the rule, and understands the rule. No, he wasn’t okay with the rule – he was **cheesed off**. Re-read the OP if that’s unclear. And it really doesn’t matter that he wasn’t bugging him in an effort to get him to say his child could attend, the point I was making was that he was bugging him. Period. He asked. He got an answer he didn’t like. The groom offered to try to accomodate him. And he couldn’t wait 2 or 3 days to get an answer. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So now you not only want the groom to break the rules for Jonathan, but you expect him to do it lickity-split on Jonathan’s timeframe. > > Well, yeah. Because the friend knew the hassles JC was having to endure just to get to the wedding, regardless of the child situation. Remember, JC is only jumping through these hoops because the friend WANTS him there. Again, the whole “duty of the host” thing. Well now, which is it; did **Jonathan** or did he not make the host aware of what a “hassle” it would be to abide by his rules. Above, you contend that he merely attempted to bow out gracefully with an explanation as to why. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid. And there’s no “duty of the host” to make exceptions for every individual on the guest list, regardless of how much he may like them. The duty is on the guest, to accept the invitation as it was presented, or graciously decline. **Jonathan** did neither of those things. And contrary to your contention, he didn’t even _try_ to do either of those things. But I will end, again, with reiterating that between friends, unintended faux pas will happen and the object is to resolve misunderstandings to everyone’s benefit without holding any grudges. They’ve managed to do that, which is _all_ anyone could reasonably ask. YAY for them! Hopefully, we can at least agree that it’s great that they have a Happy Ending. 🙂 ---
**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 27, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/130 "2004-04-27T18:46:39Z")
I just want to apologize to the OP at this point, for what has seemingly become a runaway hi-jack. For what it’s worth, **Jonathan** , you did nothing wrong from where I’m sitting. I’m an advocate for clear communication and the communication was unclear. Good luck with the trip. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/131 "2004-04-27T18:52:42Z")
**CG** , may I recommend that you go and read one of the books recommended, such as the one by Miss Manners I mentioned, and _then_ get into this argument? You’re arguing from a position of assumption about what what etiquette authorities are all about, and you’re assuming wrongly. Luckily for you, Miss Manners explains a lot about the history and philosophy of American manners, the rationale behind practices, and why the law should not be in the business of etiquette (that is, that manners should be the first line of defense, not the courts). Standard American manners are specifically based on priciples of equality, general common sense, non-elitism, and respect for others (and oneself). You seem to feel that they are not–but I don’t get the feeling that you’ve investigated it enough to know. If you do some research and then draw conclusions, you may be better off in this discussion. ---
**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 27, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/132 "2004-04-27T19:04:36Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > **CG** , may I recommend that you go and read one of the books recommended, such as the one by Miss Manners I mentioned, and _then_ get into this argument? You’re arguing from a position of assumption about what what etiquette authorities are all about, and you’re assuming wrongly. Luckily for you, Miss Manners explains a lot about the history and philosophy of American manners, the rationale behind practices, and why the law should not be in the business of etiquette (that is, that manners should be the first line of defense, not the courts). > > Standard American manners are specifically based on priciples of equality, general common sense, non-elitism, and respect for others (and oneself). You seem to feel that they are not–but I don’t get the feeling that you’ve investigated it enough to know. If you do some research and then draw conclusions, you may be better off in this discussion. I’d be happy to go read part of one of those books, if I were convinced that the majority of folks actually cared about those principles. I don’t believe they do … so it’s a waste of my time. It’s the same reason I don’t read books on the history of film criticism … film criticism is, essentially, one snob’s opinion, and 8 times out of ten, has nothing to do with what the general public thinks. Even if all the critics in the world universally united to give a movie the thumbs-up, it doesn’t make it a good movie just because they say so … so even if all the manners-mavens in the world agree that a certain thing is a good practice, that doesn’t make it so. Who decided it was tacky to put on a wedding invitation ‘Adults only’ or ‘Please, no children under 13’? Because that is the crux of my problem with this whole thing… making it supposedly impolite to give people necessary information in a direct fashion. I don’t believe “middle America” really cares if someone puts that phrase or sentiment on the invites. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/133 "2004-04-27T19:14:14Z")
Except that the point is that American manners are _not_ snobbish–only a lot of ill-informed people assume so. And then we get into trouble with hideously rude ideas that people insist are either Official Etiquette, or that they just made up because they don’t know any better, and think that extortion or insults are all right. I’m pretty middle-America, and I’d be ticked off to see “No Kids” on my invitation. But we’ve gotten beyond that into General Manners. If you refuse to do any research on the topic, then I see no reason why anyone should discuss this with you. You’re being deliberately ignorant, which is Against the Code of the Dopers. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/134 "2004-04-27T19:15:21Z")
CandidGamera, now you’re just being deliberately ignorant. You asked if it is standard, and yes, it is. Only the people listed on the invitation are invited, that is standard. I have cites from [WeddingChannel.com](http://WeddingChannel.com), [Weddingmagazine.com](http://Weddingmagazine.com) and [mannersmith.com](http://mannersmith.com) to back that up. You won’t find a conflicting cite. You consider it a waste of your time, which is fine, but don’t try and say that your ignorance makes other peoples knowledge irrelevant. Etiquette is about putting people on the same page, cutting through the uncertainty. If you kid isn’t mentioned on the invite, you damn well know what it means the second you see the inner envelope. THAT is effective communication. But you feel the need to keep yourself in the dark about it, which is why you will continue to be confused when others understand. Two nice quotes from Peggy Post on Weddingchannel > [@](#): > > And if you don’t want children at your wedding? Invitations are about requesting someone’s attendance. They’re not about exclusion, so don’t write, “No children, please.” Invite whom you want, by name, and your intention should be understood. To be double sure, ask people close to you to spread the word that this is a no-kids event. > > What if a guest surprises you by bringing her uninvited children, despite your best attempts? Don’t send them away. Do your best to graciously accommodate, for weddings are happy occasions. I like having etiquette to fall back on with my upcoming wedding, because I don’t have to try and make everything up. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/135 "2004-04-27T19:24:26Z")
One more comment. > [@](#): > > I’d be happy to go read part of one of those books, if I were convinced that the majority of folks actually cared about those principles. Do you mean the “principles of equality, general common sense, non-elitism, and respect for others (and oneself)” I mentioned? Shouldn’t the majority of folks care about those principles? If not, which is the population that needs education–the one that does care about equality and respect, or the one that doesn’t? ---
**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 27, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/136 "2004-04-27T19:26:45Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > Except that the point is that American manners are _not_ snobbish–only a lot of ill-informed people assume so. And then we get into trouble with hideously rude ideas that people insist are either Official Etiquette, or that they just made up because they don’t know any better, and think that extortion or insults are all right. > > I’m pretty middle-America, and I’d be ticked off to see “No Kids” on my invitation. But we’ve gotten beyond that into General Manners. If you refuse to do any research on the topic, then I see no reason why anyone should discuss this with you. You’re being deliberately ignorant, which is Against the Code of the Dopers. No, I’m just being choosy about which sources I accept. Manners are not based on facts… so there’s no issue of ignorance, anyway. I find someone trying to adjust my behavior without directly telling me what I need to do A.) stupid and B.) condescending. So, yes, the ideas put forth by American Mannersists are snobbish. It’s a matter of opinion, you see, and in my opinion, they are snobbish. ---
**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 27, 2004, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/137 "2004-04-27T19:35:12Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > CandidGamera, now you’re just being deliberately ignorant. You asked if it is standard, and yes, it is. Only the people listed on the invitation are invited, that is standard. I have cites from [WeddingChannel.com](http://WeddingChannel.com), [Weddingmagazine.com](http://Weddingmagazine.com) and [mannersmith.com](http://mannersmith.com) to back that up. You won’t find a conflicting cite. Great googly-moogly. If I ask if most of the inmates of our Federal Prison system are in reality innocent despite the court conviction, are you going to point me to websites full of their claims that they are innocent and pronounce it fact? The manners-mavens are **biased** sources. Obviously, they couldn’t admit their own irrelevance… they’d be out of business! My concern is the behavioral expectations of the majority of Americans. Show me survey results pertaining to this question, and maybe you’ll have a point. > [@](#): > > You consider it a waste of your time, which is fine, but don’t try and say that your ignorance makes other peoples knowledge irrelevant. Etiquette is about putting people on the same page, cutting through the uncertainty. If you kid isn’t mentioned on the invite, you damn well know what it means the second you see the inner envelope. THAT is effective communication. But you feel the need to keep yourself in the dark about it, which is why you will continue to be confused when others understand. I agree with cutting through uncertainty. That is a wonderful goal. Whoever decided that it was rude to tell people that a wedding would be child-free by actually saying the wedding will be child free is dumb. > [@](#): > > Two nice quotes from Peggy Post on WeddingchannelI like having etiquette to fall back on with my upcoming wedding, because I don’t have to try and make everything up. Yes, because it would be difficult to string together the handful of letters that make up the setence fragment ‘No children, please.’ :rolleyes: ---
**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 27, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/138 "2004-04-27T19:41:47Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > One more comment. > Do you mean the “principles of equality, general common sense, non-elitism, and respect for others (and oneself)” I mentioned? Shouldn’t the majority of folks care about those principles? If not, which is the population that needs education–the one that does care about equality and respect, or the one that doesn’t? I was unclear. I apologize. I meant the principle that needlessly obfuscating relevant information is somehow polite. It is more respectful to me to inform me of a problem you have with me or my behavior in a direct and adult fashion and trust that I have the emotional fortitude to deal with that. What would be disrespectful would be the “lead by example” method where you exaggerate your good behavior to make sure I notice, or the “lead by example” method where you don’t exaggerate your behavior and then ostracize me when I fail to notice. Excluding people because they don’t have a Miss-Manners cult button is elitist. Not telling people what they need to know flies directly in the face of common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/139 "2004-04-27T20:07:34Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Remember that **Jonathan’s** more detailed explanation is still only paraphrased, so we really don’t know exactly how “immediate” the offer to check with the fiancée was within the context of the whole conversation. The bottom line is, he shouldn’t have been made to feel ( **even inadvertantly** ) as though he had to ask his fiancée to change the rules in the first place, even if **Jonathan** didn’t realize that his complaint would garner that response. Go back to what **Jonathan Chance** posted regarding his conversations with the groom. During the first conversation, the groom says he’ll check on making an exception. Three hours later, the groom says they’re looking into having someone to babysit the child. Then, nothing. For two days. If I’m trying to make plans to attend the wedding, and I’ve apparently gotten an exception granting my child to attend pursuant to a babysitter being found, I have to have additional information before I can do anything else regarding attendance. > [@](#): > > But how fast is fast _enough_ to get a reply to a _special request_. It’s not like **Jonathan** was merely asking what hotel the guests should book rooms in, information which the groom should have close at hand. A few days to respond is not unreasonable. But he didn’t even _wait_ a few days, he _pestered_ him _for_ a few days. _Every_ day. Incorrect, based on what JC posted regarding his conversations with the groom. > [@](#): > > Of course if plans change the host is obligated to let the guests know as soon as the information is available. But the wedding plans and rules didn’t change. They were still “no kids.” The groom was just going to see if the Mrs. would _consider_ changing them. Incorrect. They established, three hours after the initial conversation, that Baby Chance would make the trip, IF they could find someone to sit the child during the service. Everything else the Chances could do regarding attendance was now on hold. > [@](#): > > And in that interim, he should have been looking into babysitting arrangements in case the answer came back as still being “No.” The answer was always “no.” The difference is, the groom was looking into arranging childcare during the service. The Chances are trying to decide if the baby can make the trip. If the baby can, all is well – assuming childcare is available. If no childcare is available, they need to arrange childcare themselves or plan not to go. None of these options were available to them, because they don’t know the details. > [@](#): > > Why is this SUCH an inconvenience that you “fault” the groom for not jumping to get an answer _immediately_? “Immediately” isn’t my problem. My problem is that the groom left his guests in limbo for several days. That’s rude. > [@](#): > > No, he wasn’t okay with the rule – he was **cheesed off**. Re-read the OP if that’s unclear. He was “cheesed off” at the attitude of the groom, not the rule. The groom made an offer to see if they could arrange childcare. When JC finally got an answer (five days after the offer was made), the groom was rude … unacceptably so. > [@](#): > > C: OK, we talked it over and if that’s the only way you can make it you can bring Kate. > Me: OK, hey I’m sorry for all the fuss. I just… > C: Look, I don’t want to argue about it. You should have known she wasn’t invited from the invitation. If the groom was going to be this rude, he _never should have offered to arrange childcare on-site_. Alternatively, he could’ve just stuck to the rule and told the Chances that the baby couldn’t come. > [@](#): > > Well now, which is it; did **Jonathan** or did he not make the host aware of what a “hassle” it would be to abide by his rules. Above, you contend that he merely attempted to bow out gracefully with an explanation as to why. You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid. I’m not TRYING to have it both ways. If you think it’s easy for parents (hell, for anyone) to just up and travel 400 miles (not to mention cross-country) for a wedding … well, let’s just say you and I have different social considerations. It’s my contention that the groom knew where the Chances lived, since they sent them an invitation and all. It’s my contention that the groom knew there was a fair distance between the site of the wedding and the location of the Chances house. THAT’s the hassle I’m talking about. When the (unforeseen by the Chances) issue of childcare popped up, that added even more to the hassles faced by the Chances. I am under the impression (and correct me if I’m wrong, JC) that **Jonathan Chance** was more upset about the “left-in-limbo” portion of the whole situation than the “no kids allowed” portion. And that, in my opinion, was solely the fault of the groom. Since the groom made the offer to check on alternate arrangements for childcare and then didn’t follow through in a timely manner, that’s completely on him. At that point, **he** is committing the faux pas. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/140 "2004-04-27T20:11:39Z")
So, the ‘manner mavens’ are biased sources, because they are knowledgeable and make their living informing people about etiquette? That’s like saying the dictionary people are all biased against your personal, random, definition of words, because they’re all trying to make a buck on standardized definitions. Per your death-row analogy, we have conflicting, respectable, opinions on their innocence, namely the court system having found them guilty as charged. There is no conflicting opinion (other than your own) as to the main points of etiquette. There are conflicting opinions on smaller points, for sure, but many things are standard. You may think “no children please” is acceptable, many people don’t. If you have 2 people in a room, and want to invite one to a party, but not the other, do you insult the other person by pointedly bringing up the party and saying “but you’re not invited”? Maybe if you’re a big jerk, you do, but nice people will avoid insulting others, even if it isn’t as easy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=8)