Community Chat

[Sooner]

Note:  This is about weddings, parties, and guests and hosts in general.  

I take the view that if the day is all about the couple they should elope.  If the celebration isn't about everyone who attends, then there is no point in having a wedding with people in attendance.  

In the tradition of hosting, it is about the guests and about sharing time, love and resources with them.  If a major focus isn't on the guests, there is no point in their being there.

I think a lot of today's weddings (no one in mind in particular here but just from what I see and read), are simply a big show put on the sole purpose of impressing people.  Sorry, but I see a lot of that.  Otherwise, the weddings are a great event held for the benefit of the wedding party to socialize with their GUESTS and for everyone to join together to celebrate and enjoy the expreience of the day AS A GROUP.  

It is easy to look at any event an think about how much attention was given to the people attending, whether it's a picinic, a simple meal in someone's home, weekend guests or whatever.  Sometimes it is a pretty ME ME ME world today and that's sad. 

[abbeythe 8th]

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I suppose it is all how you were raised.

I also can't imagine someone inviting people to the church but not the reception, but now a days anything goes. Emily Post would have a heart attack if she read some of the posts on this board.

---

Yes a lot of it does depend on how we were raised.  And clearly some of us were raised to be gracious guests, and not to have the expectation that everyone else will plan their special occasions exactly the way that we want them to do.  I was raised to believe that sharing in the joy of a couple's wedding is a good and precious thing.  Regardless of how much money they spend, how much they've fallen all over themselves trying to impress me, or anything along those lines.  

I'm sure Emily Post would be quite distressed at some of the attitutudes toward weddings here, most especially the negativity and ill will revolving around simply receiving an invitation.

---

You hit the nail on the head with your response.

[Sooner]

---

@abbeythe 8th wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

I suppose it is all how you were raised.

I also can't imagine someone inviting people to the church but not the reception, but now a days anything goes. Emily Post would have a heart attack if she read some of the posts on this board.

---

Yes a lot of it does depend on how we were raised.  And clearly some of us were raised to be gracious guests, and not to have the expectation that everyone else will plan their special occasions exactly the way that we want them to do.  I was raised to believe that sharing in the joy of a couple's wedding is a good and precious thing.  Regardless of how much money they spend, how much they've fallen all over themselves trying to impress me, or anything along those lines.  

I'm sure Emily Post would be quite distressed at some of the attitutudes toward weddings here, most especially the negativity and ill will revolving around simply receiving an invitation.

---

You hit the nail on the head with your response.

---

Well, I was raised to think of others.  

[151949]

And I was raised to think the people you invite to your wedding are your GUESTS and their comfort and well being should be the first thing on your mind when you are in the planning stages. I was also raised that you always send a gift when invited to a wedding even if you don't attend, unless it is some blatantly obvious gift grab situation - those I ignore. 

[Plaid Pants2]

A guests comfort and wellbeing does NOT mean that one should break the bank to have the party of the century.

[Puzzle Piece]

No offense to the bridal couple but asking folks to a destination wedding is burdensome on many.  If they want to get hitched wherever, then I feel it should be a quiet and intimate ceremony without all the hooplah and guests.  I have not gone and attended many such affairs as I don't feel like a 'trip' on a certain day/date.  I'd rather travel to destinations of my own choosing when I desire (and not for a wedding). 

[brii]

Being invited to a wedding, destination or otherwise, you are under no obligation to attend.

In a perfect world, couples should take their guests' comfort and financial situation into play.  Ultimately, it's their day and they can do what they want.

You either moan when an invitation comes or you look foward to attending.  Shouldn't be that much angst about an event...

[Puzzle Piece]

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

A guests comfort and wellbeing does NOT mean that one should break the bank to have the party of the century.

---

Especially when all the 'partying' is over with and reality hits the fan, many end up divorcing after what, maybe 18 months or less.  I'd ask for all my money (expenses) back!

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

A guests comfort and wellbeing does NOT mean that one should break the bank to have the party of the century.

---

Especially when all the 'partying' is over with and reality hits the fan, many end up divorcing after what, maybe 18 months or less.  I'd ask for all my money (expenses) back!

---

Agreed.

I mean, if the attendees are thinking that they deserve Crystal champagne, Beluga caviar, and a choice of five pound Main lobster or Kobe beef, just because they decided to attend, then they may be sorely disappointed.

[lulu2]

I've known a few couples who had destination weddings.  I do not think they were all that disappointed by the limited turnout.  I think one of the major reasons some couples choose destination weddings is to avoid family drama and save money.

You can lump my my husband and me into the uncaring, selfish bride and groom category.  While we were both from the same area, we chose to get married in the (beautiful) church on his college campus, graduation weekend.  My sister did the same thing, the year before.