Adults Only
Reading some of my usual haunts today, I came across this link, regarding "adults only" weddings and receptions. The author explains that she's noticed a growing trend among people who plan their weddings and don't invite the children of those people they invite.
I love weddings. What could be more fun than a chance to witness the union of two crazy kids in love, dress up, drink some wine, and hang out with family and friends for hours - not to mention hit the dance floor for the "Chicken Dance" and "YMCA"?
But then a few weeks ago, we got the invitation and saw these unwelcome words: "Adult Reception."
This, of course, is a polite way of saying, "Leave your offspring at home."
I understand why some people would be upset about this; the author describes planning a vacation around one wedding only to discover that the children would not be welcome, which undeniably throws a monkey-wrench into the gears of things if they had already made plans and arrangements. What she doesn't seem to grasp, however, is how much of a monkey wrench it might be to have the children there.
Perhaps to some, those words suggest sophistication and elegance, a social event unmarred by small insistent people in powder-pink crinolined dresses and miniature suits. To me, though, the phrase represents disappointment and hassle, child-care costs, worrying about leaving the baby, and worrying about the poor sitter I'll be leaving with my brood.
The author seems to acknowledge that some people might actually prefer to enjoy an event without children, and alarm bells go off for me when she comments about "the poor sitter" - if your children behave in such a way that you're concerned about their behavior with the sitter, what makes you believe that anyone at the wedding wants to be subjected to that sort of thing?
The impression that I get is that the writer sees finding a sitter for a few hours is an inconveneice to her. She implies that the only reasons a couple - scratch that, a bride, since the groom has no input according to her - would want to have an adults only wedding and reception is for costs, because surely no one can resist children in formalwear, right? Nevermind that the couple is shelling out thousands of dollars for a one-time event centered around them, and that they should be able to have it go as planned, without having to worry that the video of their ceremony will be interrupted by a tantrum or that someone's dress will be puked on. Plus, while I happen to think little dresses and gowns are cute, I'd like to think that the focus of the wedding is on the bride and groom, and not the cranky baby being passed around a table, the stage whispering toddler in the church, or the little kids running hither and yon across the reception (all of which I've either seen or encountered at weddings). And yes, it's cheaper to not invite the kids.
I'm so glad this never came up at my wedding. For one thing, we didn't have anything huge, so it wasn't an issue. As a bonus, all of the kids in my family are old enough to sit down and shut up when told to do so. But I can completely see where these couples are coming from - it's their day after all, who are we to question it?
I love weddings. What could be more fun than a chance to witness the union of two crazy kids in love, dress up, drink some wine, and hang out with family and friends for hours - not to mention hit the dance floor for the "Chicken Dance" and "YMCA"?
But then a few weeks ago, we got the invitation and saw these unwelcome words: "Adult Reception."
This, of course, is a polite way of saying, "Leave your offspring at home."
I understand why some people would be upset about this; the author describes planning a vacation around one wedding only to discover that the children would not be welcome, which undeniably throws a monkey-wrench into the gears of things if they had already made plans and arrangements. What she doesn't seem to grasp, however, is how much of a monkey wrench it might be to have the children there.
Perhaps to some, those words suggest sophistication and elegance, a social event unmarred by small insistent people in powder-pink crinolined dresses and miniature suits. To me, though, the phrase represents disappointment and hassle, child-care costs, worrying about leaving the baby, and worrying about the poor sitter I'll be leaving with my brood.
The author seems to acknowledge that some people might actually prefer to enjoy an event without children, and alarm bells go off for me when she comments about "the poor sitter" - if your children behave in such a way that you're concerned about their behavior with the sitter, what makes you believe that anyone at the wedding wants to be subjected to that sort of thing?
The impression that I get is that the writer sees finding a sitter for a few hours is an inconveneice to her. She implies that the only reasons a couple - scratch that, a bride, since the groom has no input according to her - would want to have an adults only wedding and reception is for costs, because surely no one can resist children in formalwear, right? Nevermind that the couple is shelling out thousands of dollars for a one-time event centered around them, and that they should be able to have it go as planned, without having to worry that the video of their ceremony will be interrupted by a tantrum or that someone's dress will be puked on. Plus, while I happen to think little dresses and gowns are cute, I'd like to think that the focus of the wedding is on the bride and groom, and not the cranky baby being passed around a table, the stage whispering toddler in the church, or the little kids running hither and yon across the reception (all of which I've either seen or encountered at weddings). And yes, it's cheaper to not invite the kids.
I'm so glad this never came up at my wedding. For one thing, we didn't have anything huge, so it wasn't an issue. As a bonus, all of the kids in my family are old enough to sit down and shut up when told to do so. But I can completely see where these couples are coming from - it's their day after all, who are we to question it?