to think people are selfish to not go to a wedding if it's adults only?

[Birdo83]

Just read another thread where several members said they would refuse to go to a wedding if their children weren't invited. Not for child care reasons but just cause they thought it wasn't right.

Space at weddings are limited what with both peoples friends and family. Are people really expecting some of the bride or grooms friends or family not to attend THEIR wedding so people's kids can take up all the seats? Our wedding was adults only because of course I wanted to prioritise my loved ones over other peoples children who, on the whole, don't mean so much to me. I'd have to have turned several of my closest friends if I'd let everyone bring all their children which I'd hate to do.

It's also worrying how many people can't seem to enjoy themselves without their kids. Ditto people who refuse to go to parties that our adults only. Very odd.

But equally, NotNew, would you claim that it was impossible to be intellectually stimulated without attending Lady Chatterley's Lover or Avenue Q?

Weddings are a family/community celebration?

Err only if you are part of that family (close relative, not second/third cousin etc)

Community?

I don't see how my marriage would have anything to do with the community.

I only say good morning to my neighbours FFS.

It's a wedding, not a carnival.

I think some people on this thread are being deliberately obtuse or choosing only to read what they want to read

THANK YOU 1scoop I was beginning to wonder if I wasn't expressing myself clearly.

Well the next show he's going to see has lots of swearing in it and sexual references - but he's in it, and has been for a while, so I said he could see one of the shows. I suspect he'll survive. There's one or two dark bits, but he already knows what happens in those.

I do find there's plenty of grown up theatre out there that is suitable for children as well. I don't really need to see full frontal nudity myself for culture - it is quite possible to have a cultural experience with someone under the age of 18.

Exactly Notnew

Piper - they do allow them to attend. The one were going to see has an age guidance of 15 - ds2 does not remotely look 15 & he will be allowed to attend - I've already checked. It's age guidance - not the same as the cinema where they're not meant to let you in.

But equally, NotNew, would you claim that it was impossible to be intellectually stimulated without attending Lady Chatterley's Lover or Avenue Q

This was the point I was trying to make.

Debbie that was not what I was challenging or answering. Saintly thought Piper said that "theatre was not suitable for children" and said she was wrong.

I was pointing out that
a) Piper did not say that
b) that of course SOME theatre was not suitable for children
which is what Piper DID say.

Not, of course, that that has much to do with the OP's original question, but as my last comment said, it seems that some people are deliberately picking up on points that weren't even made and choosing to see what they want to see on this thread.

I worked in a theatre where there was a production where we did not allow anyone under 15 in the audience.

And anyway if the bride was going to walk up the aisle with her kit off I'm sure there would be many finding reasons not to attend.

Personally, I just don't like weddings much. My idea of a good time is not to stand about for hours listening to dull speeches/services, eating food I wouldn't have chosen, talking to people I don't particularly want to spend time with and drinking drinks I didn't particularly want. Most weddings aren't a wonderful party with all my mates - they're someone else's wonderful party with all their mates. I go if I can't get out of it but a day at home with my daughter is infinitely more appealing to me. I'll send you a present and genuinely wish you well but it's your wedding and I'm afraid I'm not that interested. I find weddings dull. If I can take DD, then it's a lot more fun because she loves weddings!

I'm perfectly capable of enjoying myself without my child in tow, but if I'm going to have a rare child-free day and possibly spend quite a lot of money on it then there is a whole list of things that I'd like to do that take more priority than going to a wedding. Fortunately, the vast majority of my friends haven't bothered to get married as they seem to feel much the same about the whole business!

Actually, I think there's a lot of looking down on people who like spending time with their children. It's couched in various ways, but piper is being quite disingenuous here. She did say that other people's lives are not intellectually stimulating enough for her. But all that tells us is about her paucity of imagination in terms of what intellectual stimulating is. It's not simply a case of full frontal nudity and simulated sex or cbeebies.

I found you rude, sarcastic and passive aggressive too Piper, so maybe you aren't being intellectually stimulated enough in whatever it is you do if you cannot recognise the way you come across

Look, there is nothing wrong with a person not wanting to leave their children to attend a function, whether that function is a wedding, birthday party, BBQ or NYE extravaganza. It does not mean that these people are intellectually inferior, or odd, or strange or surgically attached to their kids or all the other snide names thrown at them.

If a Bride & Groom state 'childfree' then they have to accept that some people may turn down their invitation - and it really doesn't matter why they have turned it down, just that they have.

There is no point in a B&G getting snotty about it no matter what the reason is
There is no point in a guest getting snotty about a childfree event no matter what the reason is

Quite an interesting insight into lives and pass times of potential 'guestzillas' ....oh and their dc

Everything about weddings these days are all about how to do it the biggest, most expensive, most lavish, most amazing way ever and is all about the bride and groom in a me, me, me kind of way.

I had a wedding. I loved being the bride and all that came with it and ultimately I guess it was about me in a its my party kind of way but I also thought about my guests. To me, the best day came from knowing that all my guests were happy and genuinely wanted to be there. If they had children, they could come, if they didn't want them to come, it was up to them.

Didn't have one single complaint or grumble from anyone.

Yes, there were places we looked at for our reception that meant we couldn't invite all who we wanted to invite and their dc so guess what......we picked somewhere else that could accommodate everyone.

I used to love weddings but now I kinda hate them. Grabby gift lists, expensive hotels in the middle of nowhere, nowhere near where any of the family live which requires you to spend tonnes.

We are invited to this type of wedding at the end of the year and if we did what was wanted by my friend such as staying at the hotel itself, bought something from the expensive list and did the stag/hen do's, we would be looking at a grand for one day. We aren't but it will still be very expensive doing it on the cheap and will mean no family holiday for us this year.

Where did I say that other peoples lives are not intellectually stimulating enough for me?

This thread is like a hurricane of (intentional?) misunderstanding.

Calamitously perhaps so with regards to the stimulation side, but she was also challenged on something she did NOT actually say. And the reverse is often true in that people with children look down on those who don't have children and how selfish and barren their lives must be. Works both ways.

If I thought that I wouldn't be on here

but surely if I mattered to them then they would include my children

And there is exactly what the op was talking about when she used the word 'selfish'. What if, you know, you weren't the only person invited with children? What if half of the guests had 2 or more children each, thereby doubling the guest list immediately? The above comment just shows how self absorbed some parents are

Exactly Yoni. In some cases this could mean an extra 30-40 children. Should the B&G substitute their friends and family in order to invite your children?

I think people forget they aren't the only guest going and actually maybe the B&G have got a lot more to think about. Venues only hold a certain capacity (and that includes village halls, before someone mentions having a cheaper wedding).

I was like this:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
And

That made me laugh.

I suspect some people do a strategic strop about not being able to take their children as a way of getting out of what is basically a very expensive boring way of spending a weekend. I may have considered this course of action myself

I realise this is blasphemy and I will be strung up

I was responding to this: I also said art that wasn't suitable for children, and I meant all forms of art not just galleries and museums

the 'some' came in a later post

She also said I wouldn't feel culturally or intellectually stimulated enough (to never leave her children).

I have a son who cannot be left (ds1) except with dh or my mum & dad. So I found this rather offensive.

Luckily I have a theatre buddy in ds2. So we leave ds1 with daddy, and go and watch a bit of swearing. Of course I'm in the cultural desert of being unable to access full frontal nudity - but I can cope without that particularly intellectual challenge.

Oh come on piper. You did say that. It's perfectly possible to say that you enjoy going to see 18 certificate films or similar and wouldn't want to not do that without passing judgement on those who don't. As soon as you start making comments about how not doing so (after establishing that plenty of people don't care about such things) wouldn't be 'intellectually and culturally stimulating enough' for you, you have moved into hierarchical judgement of intellectual worth territory.

But, PiperRose, you appear to be telling us that you need lots of artistic and intellectual stimulation and that you'd go "insane" without it (from context, it appears that more particularly you'd go insane if you couldn't get artistic and intellectual stimulation outside your home involving swearing and/or sexual imagery).

There are posters on here like elliejjtiny or, to an extent, Kewcumber, who are in a position where their personal circumstances limit what they can do away from their children, for a few years or longer. Do they just need less intellectual and artistic stimulation than you because you are a more sensitive soul? Or are they now insane themselves? Or is it just possible that, actually, you're exaggerating and in practice you'd cope with your mental health intact if circumstances forced you to miss out on going to every single art or theatre show you happen to fancy for a few years and you had to fall back for intellectual and creative stimulation on things like conversation with friends, watching DVDs of 15 or 18 certificate films or recordings of theatre shows, taking online courses, reading journals, and so on, on top of attending more mainstream art shows?