In the circumstances we’re talking about, I don’t think formal, written invitations are very widely used outside weddings, so I couldn’t really answer. In most situations, the invitation is oral. And in the culture I’m talking about, the whole family would always be invited, even if it’s a cookout at the home of an unmarried childless man or a New Year’s Eve party. We children were at every New Year’s Eve party; it was always a family event.
And, I should add, in some cultures, the bride and the groom are not considered the hosts and their wishes – beyond the wish of being married by the end of it – are considered the least important.
I’ve seen China mentioned, but what other cultures are we talking about, specifically?
I’m just curious.
I’m talking about the invitation thing - assuming extra people are invited even if their name isn’t on an invitation.
Exactly the thought that was in my mind, ascenray, thank you for saying it before me and so well.
As for this comment:
I think you’re reading more into my sentence than I intended.
What I meant by this is that (a) a wedding unites two families (creating an extended family), (b) that families are bonds of kinship, which is (c) defined by birth, which (d) means children, since (e) we are all born into our families as children.
In other words, unless you’re Adam and Eve, who is “in your family” is defined by “who was born of who” (leaving aside special cases like adoption, which is just another form of “birth” for family purposes). I wasn’t trying to imply that childless couples don’t constitute “a [nuclear] family” (which is a purely semantical yet increasingly political argument that in any case is tangential to this topic), and I apologize if that is the sense you got from me.
Now if we could return to the original reason for this topic, I hope we can all agree now that:
[ul]
[li]Some people (including the OP) wish to exclude “children” (by some age-limit definition thereof) from their wedding, whether for economic or personal reasons.[/li][li]Many people (including myself) would assume that an invitation to a wedding automatically includes their children unless explicitly told otherwise. (At least the first time; I personally have made an effort to double-check ever since I got my first “no-child” wedding invitation. But not everybody works this way.)[/li][li]To assume this is true is not “rude”, “incredible” or “arrogant” any more than asking people not to bring children is “rude”, “hateful” or “a sin against Man, God and Nature”. It is simply a difference in people’s cultural expectations. (Though complete self-absorption may play a factor on either side as well.)[/li][li]Unless you want to anger people you already like enough to invite to your Special Day, be as consistent as possible in applying the no-child policy.[/li][li]From personal experience, some people (particularly close family of the bride/groom) who “already know” about the wedding will not really read the wedding invitation looking for gotchas like “don’t bring children” or “Bermuda shorts only”.[/li][li]Thus, if you are serious about having a no-child wedding, and like your friends and relatives happy, I suggest you send follow-up messages couched in polite terms reminding people about it.[/li][li]Can’t we all just get along? [/li][/ul]
Even if the invitations are oral, you mean that if a boss said, “Bob, Mrs. Boss and I would like to have you and Sally over for dinner next week” that the kids would be invited too? People in this culture you are referring to would really bring small children to a catered black-tie midnight party, and the hosts would always expect that children would be there?
There are really NO parties which are meant for adults only? Everything always includes all children? What culture is this, if you don’t mind saying?
I’m pretty certain he’s Indian and I will back him up as a fellow desi that if you are invited to an Indian party NO ONE will ever bitch about you bringing your kids be they 3-25. That’s what your adolescents are for-to take care of the stank brood of babies in the basement. I myself have never been to an “adults only” Indian party. You have to understand this is a culture that places a very, very high value on children and NO ONE will leave their frickin’ young kids home on a Saturday night.
That said, my parents would never bring us to parties with their white friends. They always got baby-sitters for those and fully understood that we were not included in the invitation.
These days my parents go to them but that’s because all of us (me and my sis, their friends’ kids) are in their mid-20s. But when I was home I went to a few parties with my parents and it was cool. They were all happy and expected me to show up when I go home to see my family.
Same here and those seem to be the rules for my neighborhood in general. I don’t have any kids of my own, so I don’t really care, but invitations that I’ve received that are “no kids” explicitly state “adult only reception” or something of the like in the invitation itself.
You’re free to make the rules for your own wedding, and I support a no-kids policy, but do realize that different cultures and even neighborhoods have different assumptions of who is invited. Maybe “no kids” is the default assumption for most people these days–personally, I did not know that.
And I apologize for misreading what you meant. But there are many people who look at us as if we’re aliens from outer space because we don’t have or want children, and would certainly not consider us a family because we don’t have them. So you can understand how it could be a sensitive subject for people such as myself. People rarely invite us over and ask us to bring the dog. 
(Well, that’s not entirely true. My dad does.)
Well, among my family in India, the idea that the bride and groom get to decide who is invited to the wedding as well as any other details of the numerous ceremonies and parties is laughed at. “The wedding is not for the bride and groom; the wedding is for everyone else!” is the general sentiment. In some cases, if you are a friend of the bride or groom, but not related to anyone, you’re not going to get invited, no matter how close you are; a wedding is for the family first. If there’s room, friends can come, but they’re not the first priority, especially if there’s a cost factor. Of course, cost factors are variable, because it’s generally accepted that a lot of people are going to show up uninvited. It’s a celebration; you can’t blame them.
At the actual wedding ceremony, the scene is usually a big old party with everyone gossiping, comparing attire, joking around, laughing it up, and gorging themselves. Kids are running around, laughing, screaming, crying, spilling things. Older kids and younger adults are socialising and playing pranks. Some people are loudly arguing about politics and sports. Some are criticising the food in great detail and recalling the great wedding caterers of their youth. There’s a group of grandpas and grandmas trying to recall the intricate family trees of everyone they know (inevitably coming to the conclusion that someone on the groom’s side is related to someone on the bride’s side). Off in a corner of the tent, the bride and groom, quiet, embarrassed, nervous, and largely ignored, choking in the smoke of the peat fire, are led through a complicated and unintelligible ceremony by two loudly bickering priests (one supplied by each family). Only when the often excruciating and interminable ceremony is over are they free to join in the fun.
It’s a grand old time.
It’s my understanding that in strict Islamic practice, the bride’s presence is not required, and often not even wanted, at the wedding. The main part of the ceremony is the signing of a contract between the groom and the bride’s father. And then all the men party. The bride stays home all dressed up until it’s time for her to be transferred to her in-laws’ house; it’s not necessarily considered a very happy occasion.
But I’m not a Muslim, so don’t take my word for it.
Hey, that’s a nice mannequin, where’d you get the straw? :rolleyes:
Certainly a formal party would not (generally) expect to include children, but your everyday (er, every-year) New Year’s Eve party (such as mine) typically does, since I’m inviting the same crowd of friends and family over to my house that I do for, say, a Fourth of July or Labor Day cookout or a birthday party. And hey, I’m not going to send my kids out of my own house for a party, so of course my friends and relatives are expected to bring their kids without my having to say, “hey, bring the kids”.
Since I assume you do not have children, let me assure you, the best way to hang out with your adult friends without getting constantly bothered by your kids or finding babysitting arrangements is for them to also have kids the same age. The kids play in another room and you can play cards, watch movies, whatever. And if they’re babies, guess what, they sleep. A LOT. Or else are easily fascinated by the One Eyed God (TV).
“Bringing children to a party” does not mean playing butler and bodyguard to them any more than it does at any other time.
No one ever got invited to a catered, black-tie midnight party. It just wasn’t part of the culture. But in any case, when the invitation is oral, there is an opportunity to make clear who’s invited.
In traditional Indian culture, there are no parties that are meant for adults only. You are your family. You do everything with your family. Except for when a bunch of guys sneak off to drink. But that’s not really considered a party; it’s just men behaving badly.
Of course, the influence of western culture has changed things a lot, but only in the last 10 years has this kind of thing penetrated down to the middle class. Until very recently, if you’re a regular guy, you’re not likely to get invited to any catered, black-tie midnight parties. And if you are, your parents still might not let you go. (Traditionally, adult men live with their parents and traditional parents do not like the idea of “drinks parties.”)
I wasn’t talking to you or any point you made, in the first place; and in the second, there’s nothing “straw” about what I said. The person I was talking to had said that ALL parties ALWAYS include children, and I asked questions about that, and he answered, and I asked for further clarification of what he said. No need to be so snotty about responding. :rolleyes:
Ascenray, that is very interesting to know. I hadn’t known things worked that way in India. I still think that in most places “here” (in the U.S.) it’s considered wrong to just bring a bunch of people not named (orally or in writing) but as other U.S. posters have said, it is common in their geographical areas. I suppose it’s best that hosts don’t assume that people would “know” how things work, and guests don’t assume that what they believe to be “the way” is the way it is for everyone.
:dubious: Is that what I said?
Agreed.
That is not a direct quote, which is why I didn’t put it in quotations. The direct quotes are: “To some people it’s “just basic courtesy” that when you invite a couple, you also invite their children”; and “in the culture I’m talking about, the whole family would always be invited, even if it’s a cookout at the home of an unmarried childless man or a New Year’s Eve party. We children were at every New Year’s Eve party; it was always a family event.” Is that somehow different from “all parties always include children”? If this is not what you meant, I misunderstood.
For the record, I don’t mind children at a wedding. What I mind is people who assume it’s okay to bring uninvited guests to ANY party without being told it’s okay to bring them. And what’s far worse than children coming as uninvited guests are the complete idiots who bring their latest bar pick-up. I’d take 10 kids at my wedding or any party rather than a bunch of adults I don’t know and who barely know the person they showed up with.
By the way, your description of an Indian wedding sounds pretty much like any American one! (Whether with kids or not.)
Ah, I see. Well, where I’m from, we call that the Fourth of July.
Also, on further reflection, I still stand on what I’ve said in this and other threads: Kids do not enjoy being the only kid at a formal event. It’s wrong to drag them someplace where they’re not welcome and where they don’t want to be. However, it might be that the same people who think that their wedding will be “ruined” by a child spilling their milk at the reception are the same people who think the wedding will be “ruined” by the tablecloths being the wrong shade of white, or a bridesmaid being taller than her counterpart among the groomsmen. It wouldn’t kill some people to unclench a bit, whether that means allowing kids at the ceremony or not.
Perhaps I owe an apology for being a bit ethnocentric in this thread. I operate out of an assumption that most English-speakers are members of the same culture of which I am a member - the typical white WASP-type middle class one, which used to operate by the “Miss Manners” type of etiquette in social situations. Those are the rules I try to apply.
It hadn’t occured to me to consider other cultures, and for I regret that and any hard feelings that may have caused.
On the other hand (because I am a bit bull-headed): if I (and my hubby) am paying for a wedding out of my (and my hubby’s) hard-earned cash, people had damn well better consider me (and hubby) the host. Period. (This is indicated in the U.S.A. by the lack of a line on the invitation such as “Mr. & Mrs. So-and-So invite you to the wedding of their daughter, etc.” - if the invitation you receive makes no mention of the parents, the bride & groom are the hosts.)
[QUOTE=YaWanna]
It hadn’t occured to me to consider other cultures, and for I regret that and any hard feelings that may have caused.
[QUOTE]
:smack: The word “for” should not have been included in the quoted sentence.
Having been to several American and Indian weddings, I’m confused by this statement. Every American wedding I’ve been to involves a solemn ceremony in which a priest, the bride, the groom, and often several other people stand up and say a lot of really solemn, serious stuff (and often really embarrassing to listen to), while everyone has to sit quietly and watch, ending with the “I dos.” Sometimes you even have to sit through some excruciating recitals of poetry or musical performances. That seems to me the major component of an American wedding. Maybe the reception might be as lively, but the wedding itself – I don’t see it.
And I’ve never seen two priests bickering about proper procedure at an American wedding.
Well, to be honest, the bride’s consent is required, and is generally given through her father. This is mainly because its seen as unseemly for men and women to be socialising together (unless they’re really close family, and no, I don’t get it). There will generally be festivities at the bride’s house too, but it will be just the women who are invited.