DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Weddings
*****************************************************
#Post#: 38535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Meg1079 Date: September 11, 2019, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Gellchom link=topic=1288.msg38532#msg38532
date=1568229566]
[quote author=Hanna link=topic=1288.msg38524#msg38524
date=1568223856]
Meg1079 thank you for bringing this up. I really don't like
the judgy side of old school etiquette.
[/quote]
I think we may be talking past each other in this conversation.
Some people are making the point that the etiquette definition
of "social unit" is precisely for the purpose of AVOIDING making
judgments about others' relationships.
The perceived "judgment" only happens if people forget that the
categories recognized by etiquette as "social units" is only a
baseline of people who MUST be invited together to weddings and
dinner parties, regardless of any circumstances or judgments,
not the only people who will fall into that category based on
individual circumstances. It's a social category, not a legal
one, and really it only ever comes into play for hosts inviting
people to that limited category of events.
It does NOT mean that no other couples can or should be treated
as social units. I find it hard to imagine that people would
not treat a couple in the situation Meg1079 describes as a
social unit -- as Meg reports that all of their friends do. And
we can all think of lots of other examples. My mother and her
boyfriend now live together, but even before they did, they had
been socializing as a solid couple, including hosting parties
together. Everyone always invited them together to
dinners/weddings/etc. I think most people would agree that for
such cases, it is not only considerate to invite the "other," it
would be rude not to do so. As opposed to, say, a wedding host
wondering if etiquette requires them to invite someone that a
guest has been dating for a little while, even exclusively, even
madly in love. It just doesn't (although they may choose to
invite them anyway).
In the other direction, we have seen married people try to
overextend the principle, claiming that they aren't being
treated as a social unit if they are seated separately, if only
one is in a wedding party, if a spouse isn't welcome at the
other spouse's book group, if one spouse isn't included in the
other's office party or a baby shower, etc. That's just
ridiculous. They are entitled to their feelings, of course, but
there is certainly no etiquette requirement.
It just isn't that major a thing. It just means that etiquette
requires inviting ALL married, engaged, or cohabiting couples
together to a limited list of events. It does not meant that
other couples should not be treated the same way, too -- just
that for all others, because there isn't a bright line category,
you go on a case-by-case basis.
[/quote]
People have said that they don't consider a relationship serious
unless the couple is living together or married. I just want
people to know that sometimes there's a good reason someone may
not be married or living with their loved one. Telling them that
you (general you, no one in specific) don't consider their
relationship to be serious would be like a slap in the face. The
disabled community is often treated as an afterthought.
#Post#: 38540--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Jem Date: September 11, 2019, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Meg1079 link=topic=1288.msg38535#msg38535
date=1568231938]
People have said that they don't consider a relationship serious
unless the couple is living together or married. I just want
people to know that sometimes there's a good reason someone may
not be married or living with their loved one. Telling them that
you (general you, no one in specific) don't consider their
relationship to be serious would be like a slap in the face. The
disabled community is often treated as an afterthought.
[/quote]
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see people saying the bolded in
this thread? I saw people say that people who choose not to be
married for whatever reason are not, in fact, married. The
relationship is not the same for married people versus unmarried
people. What you have described is a well reasoned choice to not
be married specifically because people do not want to be treated
as married.
It's not a statement of the "seriousness" of the relationship.
It's a factual statement of whether two people are married.
I think privately people make value judgments about other
peoples' relationships all the time. "Poor Jane, everyone knows
her husband John has been cheating on her," or "Sally is so
lucky! Her boyfriend Sam treats her like gold!" But a statement
of whether or not someone is in fact married is NOT a value
judgment. Regardless of the health of their relationship, Jane
and John ARE married and are treated as such in all sorts of
ways because of that commitment they made. Regardless of the
health of their relationship, Sally and Sam ARE NOT married and
are not treated as such in various ways because they HAVE NOT
made the commitment of MARRIAGE. It is not saying Sally and Sam
are not in a serious relationship. It is saying their
relationship is not one of marriage.
#Post#: 38541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Meg1079 Date: September 11, 2019, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TootsNYC link=topic=1288.msg38401#msg38401
date=1568039573]
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1288.msg38303#msg38303
date=1567875645]
....
No, it won't. And why should it, if they aren't willing to
confirm to the world that they are and wish to be a legal
couple? Indeed, how could it know for sure if they were and they
did? Would anyone be happy, if say one of a couple died in a
work accident, for the survivor's entitlement to compensation, a
widow(er)'s pension et cetera to be assessed by an official with
a clipboard coming round and checking how long they had lived
together, how many long-term purchases they had made jointly,
and asking the neighbours if they seemed fond of each other?
[/quote]
I have sometimes said, when people complain that their longtime
sweetheart, with whom they don't live, isn't being included when
spouses would be or are: They're not your spouse. If you want
them to be treated like a spouse, you have three avenues to
achieve that: Get engaged, move in together, or get married.
People will say, "You shouldn't be judging our relationship!"
but in fact, that's what they're asking you to do. With an
engagement, cohabitation, or marriage, THEY are the one
declaring how serious that relationship is.
If you're dating only, no matter how long it is, you are asking
other people to make some OTHER judgment about how serious your
relationship is. Because you have not used the three signals
that our culture recognizes, and now you are asking them to use
their decision and not your declaration (because your
declaration says the opposite, actually--you've dating a long
time and haven't gotten married; what do your actions say about
how serious you are?)
...
[quote][quote]Exactly. I always say too that a couple's decision
to NOT get married is one that comes with consequences socially,
whether it is "fair" or not. For a great many people and
institutions, unless and until people take the affirmative step
to become legally joined in marriage, they are simply not as
"committed" as those who have not taken that step.
[/quote][/quote]
You've been dating for 5 years? That means for 4 years at least,
every morning the two of you get up and decide to not get
engaged or get married, and at least 4 times (when your lease
ran out), you decided to not live together. What do your actions
say?
[quote]Me too. A few years ago a British soldier was killed on
active service and his unmarried partner applied for a widow's
pension and was refused it. She went to law, and ultimately the
MoD caved in and gave it to her. I'm still uneasy about that.
It's almost like marrying them posthumously with him not able to
object (the way Mormons 'baptise' their long-dead ancestors - if
I were a long-dead ancestor I would be fit to be tied about
that). Every soldier going to a war zone must think about what
will happen to his loved ones if he doesn't come back. The
welfare officers must have spelt out in good time to the troops
being shipped out to Afghanistan that 'widows' pensions are for
widows - if you ever plan to marry your partner, think about
getting a licence and doing it now'. But he didn't.
[/quote]
I would have much the same reaction.
Conservative Christians like to say that marriage is under
attack from gay people who want to be able to marry. I think the
institution of marriage IS under attack, but it's not from the
people who say "marriage is special and we want to be able to be
a part of it."
It's from the people who insist on having "domestic
partnerships," or who want the financial or social perks of
marriage without marrying.
There is some middle ground probably, and we're working it
out as a culture. But if marriage means something, then it means
something.
Re: your story of the widow:
In NYC, a cohabiting couple applied to purchase a co-operative
apartment. With a co-op, you actually don't purchase an
apartment; you never own it. You purchase shares in a
corporation that are assigned to the apartment, and owning them
gives you the right to occupy and modify (as well as the
responsibility of upkeep).
Since you are essentially joining a business partnership, the
other shareholders get the right to approve you as a business
partner. So you have to have a certain financial strength
(savings, earnings, etc.), credit score, personal reputation,
etc.
In this couple's case, the woman had enough earnings and savings
to qualify. They approved her as a buyer. The guy did not, and
because they were not married, the co-op had to evaluate him on
his own; he was rejected as a buyer. He WAS approved as a
tenant, which meant he could live there.
The corporation said, "If you were married, we could count you
as a single legal entity, and you'd both be approved. But since
you're not married, and the man has no legal claim to the
financial assets and income of the woman, we can't approve him.
"This is a business decision based on legalities; we aren't
judging him as an unfit person, and we'd be happy to have him
live here."
The couple claimed it was discrimination against them on the
basis of marital status and sued.
I hope they lost.
And we are LONG way away from eliminating the wedding breakfast!
[/quote]
The feeling I'm getting from all these quotes is that if you
want to be taken seriously as a couple, and you want to have all
the legal benefits of being married to your partner, then you
need to be married. Which is fine, and that makes sense. What
I'm trying to say is that in the disabled community some people
cannot marry their partner because the government will take away
their disability benefits. It's not that they don't want to
marry their partner, it's that they can't, not without being
punished for it. They seriously can't even live together with
their partner because the government will punish them for that,
too. The system is messed up, and that needs to change. Perhaps
our culture also needs to change a bit, too.
#Post#: 38642--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Twik Date: September 13, 2019, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The problem with "don't judge my relationship" is that at some
point people planning events have to.
What if your old friend Doug wants to bring his mistress instead
of his wife (oh, and please don't send the invitation to his
home)? or if Cousin Marley is threatening to never speak to you
again if you don't invite her boyfriend (length of relationship
two weeks) to your very intimate wedding that was intended only
for the dozen people you're extremely close to?
In general, I'd say most people are of good judgment, and if
they want to invite people to their weddings they *know* who are
"serious couples" and want to make them happy. But other than
saying everyone must be issued a non-specific "plus one"
invitation, how to do you avoid having to judge?
#Post#: 38682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Gellchom Date: September 13, 2019, 1:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Meg1079 link=topic=1288.msg38535#msg38535
date=1568231938]
[quote author=Gellchom link=topic=1288.msg38532#msg38532
date=1568229566]
[quote author=Hanna link=topic=1288.msg38524#msg38524
date=1568223856]
Meg1079 thank you for bringing this up. I really don't like
the judgy side of old school etiquette.
[/quote]
I think we may be talking past each other in this conversation.
Some people are making the point that the etiquette definition
of "social unit" is precisely for the purpose of AVOIDING making
judgments about others' relationships.
The perceived "judgment" only happens if people forget that the
categories recognized by etiquette as "social units" is only a
baseline of people who MUST be invited together to weddings and
dinner parties, regardless of any circumstances or judgments,
not the only people who will fall into that category based on
individual circumstances. It's a social category, not a legal
one, and really it only ever comes into play for hosts inviting
people to that limited category of events.
It does NOT mean that no other couples can or should be treated
as social units. I find it hard to imagine that people would
not treat a couple in the situation Meg1079 describes as a
social unit -- as Meg reports that all of their friends do. And
we can all think of lots of other examples. My mother and her
boyfriend now live together, but even before they did, they had
been socializing as a solid couple, including hosting parties
together. Everyone always invited them together to
dinners/weddings/etc. I think most people would agree that for
such cases, it is not only considerate to invite the "other," it
would be rude not to do so. As opposed to, say, a wedding host
wondering if etiquette requires them to invite someone that a
guest has been dating for a little while, even exclusively, even
madly in love. It just doesn't (although they may choose to
invite them anyway).
In the other direction, we have seen married people try to
overextend the principle, claiming that they aren't being
treated as a social unit if they are seated separately, if only
one is in a wedding party, if a spouse isn't welcome at the
other spouse's book group, if one spouse isn't included in the
other's office party or a baby shower, etc. That's just
ridiculous. They are entitled to their feelings, of course, but
there is certainly no etiquette requirement.
It just isn't that major a thing. It just means that etiquette
requires inviting ALL married, engaged, or cohabiting couples
together to a limited list of events. It does not meant that
other couples should not be treated the same way, too -- just
that for all others, because there isn't a bright line category,
you go on a case-by-case basis.
[/quote]
People have said that they don't consider a relationship serious
unless the couple is living together or married. I just want
people to know that sometimes there's a good reason someone may
not be married or living with their loved one. Telling them that
you (general you, no one in specific) don't consider their
relationship to be serious would be like a slap in the face. The
disabled community is often treated as an afterthought.
[/quote]
Meg, as I wrote above, I completely agree with you about couples
in situations such as the one you mention, disability, and many
others besides. Irrespective of the etiquette rule, I think
anyone who knows their situation would consider such a couple a
social unit who must be invited together.
I'm replying again because I was troubled by the bolded. No one
here has said that relationships other than marriage,
engagement, or cohabitation aren't serious. Of course they can
be, and often are, as serious, committed, and permanent, or even
more so. I didn't see anyone saying that "they don't consider a
relationship serious unless the couple is living together or
married," as you wrote in an earlier post. The minimum
etiquette rules for invitations are not judgment of the
seriousness of any relationship -- in fact, they are there
instead of judgments of seriousness. There is a very big
difference.
Etiquette rules have to be based on some kind of bright line
categories. That doesn't mean that adhering to only those
categories isn't extremely rude (not to mention mean) in
individual cases. The rules of etiquette do NOT always
guarantee good manners. Indeed, we all know of many examples in
which the best way to be polite is to break a rule. And
treating couples such as those you mention as a social unit
isn't even breaking a rule at all -- it just means going beyond
the bare minimum categories that the rule requires.
There is also the factor that if couples in a situation where
they cannot get legally married want to be recognized as a
permanent social unit, they can have a commitment ceremony.
That's what same sex couples used to have to do. In my
experience, that did the job of everyone treating them as
married -- socially, though not legally. And it seems to me
that there is no reason that other couples can't do that, too,
with the same social result. So the choice not to do so does
say something, I guess.
#Post#: 38684--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: STiG Date: September 13, 2019, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When I got married, we were really tight on space so we didn't
invite any singles with 'plus ones'. But for some, we weren't
sure if they were seeing anyone so we put a slip in their
invitation to let us know if they were seeing someone and we'd
invite them. It worked out well, except for two family members.
One responded that she was bringing her daughter and the other,
her best friend. I wanted to remind them that plus ones weren't
included but my husband didn't want to make a case out of it
(his family) and we ended up having enough 'No' responses that
it wasn't an issue space wise.
The 22 no-shows (after saying they were coming) is a whole
'nother story...
#Post#: 38687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Hanna Date: September 13, 2019, 2:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Twik link=topic=1288.msg38642#msg38642
date=1568384004]
The problem with "don't judge my relationship" is that at some
point people planning events have to.
What if your old friend Doug wants to bring his mistress instead
of his wife (oh, and please don't send the invitation to his
home)? or if Cousin Marley is threatening to never speak to you
again if you don't invite her boyfriend (length of relationship
two weeks) to your very intimate wedding that was intended only
for the dozen people you're extremely close to?
In general, I'd say most people are of good judgment, and if
they want to invite people to their weddings they *know* who are
"serious couples" and want to make them happy. But other than
saying everyone must be issued a non-specific "plus one"
invitation, how to do you avoid having to judge?
[/quote]
I just never actually encountered the problem. I don't expect
people I care about to come solo to any event I host and I also
wouldn't invite someone if I didn't know them well enough to
know their situation. For my wedding I just called the 2-3
people who don't have an obvious significant other. "Are you
seeing anyone that you would like to bring?"
In the example above, Cousin Marley and I could not be all that
close if she wants to be her stranger boyfriend to my intimate
wedding, so she wouldn't have been included in the first place.
Maybe that's just luck, though as I don't have many family
demands.
My Mom has been in a relationship for 30+ years with a man, but
they never married and do not live together; because they don't
want to be married or live together. But never in about 29 of
those years did anyone fail to include both of them on any
formal invitation. They are a social unit and anyone that has
met them once knows that.
Another example - my friend Lynn is single but everyone that
invites her to something formal knows to include her Mom.
It's just not that complicated in my opinion.
#Post#: 38694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Twik Date: September 13, 2019, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The trouble is some events ARE too large to know that Lynn
prefers to attend with her mother. Both the host and Lynn should
be aware that by not inviting her mother, the host hasn't
insulted Lynn, or violated some standard etiquette. Whereas if
the host invites Frank but don't extend an invitation to his
spouse, they have.
Like all etiquette, this involves, but currently I'd say there
are some carved-in-stone, "must invite" relationships. Married
couples (unless they're officially separated). People who live
together as couples. People who have socialized as a couple with
the hosts are pretty close to that.
Other than those, people should be able to invite folks whose
inner hearts they don't know as individuals, without those
people throwing a fit. If Lynn prefers to attend events with her
mother, she at least shouldn't feel upset when someone who
doesn't know her that well doesn't include Mom, just as people
who do know her well should ensure she's made comfortable by the
invitation.
#Post#: 38710--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: LifeOnPluto Date: September 14, 2019, 1:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I posted about this on the old boards, but I'll never forget the
time my partner and I were invited to a friend's wedding. After
dinner, the MC asked for all the "single people" to come up to
the front of the room. My partner and I did not consider
ourselves single, so we stayed put. Then the MC started calling
out the "single people" by name, and he specifically named my
partner and I (among others).
So we went up to the front, where the MC announced that all the
"single people" would be playing a game, which involved randomly
pairing up (male-female) and popping balloons... without using
our hands! The first team to burst their balloon (using only
their bodies) would win.
My partner immediately turned on his heel and sat down. I
stayed, and was randomly paired with the groom's teenage cousin
(I was 30 years old). So all the "single people" started playing
this game, while all the married folks sat there watching, and
grinning at us. Mercifully another team managed to pop their
balloon quite quickly, and it was over. The MC asked for a
"round of applause for all the single people!".
To add insult to injury, when I returned to my table, I'd
discovered that the waitstaff had come around offering shots of
premium spirits for everyone who was sitting down... which meant
in practice, all the "single people" missed out on the shots. (I
have no idea whether this was intentional timing or not).
Fun fact: At that time, my partner had I had been together for 6
years, living together for 5 years, and held a mortgage together
for 4 years.
#Post#: 38715--------------------------------------------------
Re: Doing away with the wedding breakfast
By: Hanna Date: September 14, 2019, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Twik link=topic=1288.msg38694#msg38694
date=1568404590]
The trouble is some events ARE too large to know that Lynn
prefers to attend with her mother. Both the host and Lynn should
be aware that by not inviting her mother, the host hasn't
insulted Lynn, or violated some standard etiquette. Whereas if
the host invites Frank but don't extend an invitation to his
spouse, they have.
Like all etiquette, this involves, but currently I'd say there
are some carved-in-stone, "must invite" relationships. Married
couples (unless they're officially separated). People who live
together as couples. People who have socialized as a couple with
the hosts are pretty close to that.
Other than those, people should be able to invite folks whose
inner hearts they don't know as individuals, without those
people throwing a fit. If Lynn prefers to attend events with her
mother, she at least shouldn't feel upset when someone who
doesn't know her that well doesn't include Mom, just as people
who do know her well should ensure she's made comfortable by the
invitation.
[/quote]
I’d argue that if you are having events so large that you don’t
know your own guests or that you cannot afford to care about
their comfort and happiness, you shouldn't be hosting at all.
And who is talking about to anyone throwing a fit?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page