Places kids don't belong?

[Malthus]

@spark240

I’m talking about the suggestion that it is inappropriate to “humiliate” guests who have presumed to bring children, or dogs, or hitchhikers picked up along the way, or whatever… that instead those people should be “put at ease.” Naturally this changes the character of the event for everyone else, to accommodate the interloper. (I’m not saying the door must be barred and the presuming guest sent home, but neither should there be pretense that everything is fine and expected.)

Yes, I understand that you feel such situations can be avoided by listing exclusions in the invitation. I disagree; if you’re dealing with people who might make their own assumptions about bringing unlisted guests to your private event, there’s no natural end to the exclusions that must be made. Maybe you’ve never had guests assume more than you imagined possible, but if everyone was following your thinking here it’s a cinch that such situations would arise repeatedly in some circles. And frankly an “invitation” listing all the various unwelcome parties rather than simply the welcome doesn’t come off as very inviting, even if one happens to be in the latter group.

The most natural, unambiguous, polite and practical approach is for everyone to take it as a given that people and other beings not mentioned in an invitation are not to attend (unless, of course, specific permission is sought and received by the invited guest, in advance). This is the traditional understanding. It’s the retreat from this standard which has mixed the signals.

I don’t get it. The whole point is to avoid a situation in which everyone is put into the position of having to either humiliate or tolerate unwanted guests, by ensuring that they don’t show up. Why exactly is that bad?

I did not create the situation in which many people do not understand the “traditional understanding”. Nor am I somehow casting moral doubt on the worthiness of the ‘traditional understanding’. I am merely proposing a simple and practical response to the reality that, quite evidently, many do not understand it. One that involves little or no extra work and that leaves no room for doubt or misunderstanding.

The alternative, it seems to me, is to rely on the ‘traditional understanding’ and then either seethe with impotent rage or turn people away from your door if it isn’t understood and people (presumably people you like) show up with kids anyway. I guess I’m not understanding why that, in your mind, is a “win”.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Children don’t belong in TV sitcoms. Children that are cast in sitcoms are trained how to act to a point where they just don’t act like kids any more, and that just ruins the show.

The two sitcoms I can think of that weren’t ruined by kids are Roseanne and The Nanny. And that was probably because there was so much arguing going on, it made it seem much more realistic. In both shows the kids were snotty, bratty and always at each other’s throats, just like I expect kids to be. And the parents were driven to exhaustion trying to raise them.

I also don’t want to see a child actor suddenly injected into a show so that a story can start revolving around him.

Damn kids on television.