I can't take my baby to a wedding but someone else can...

[Writerwannabe83]

One of my DH's good friends is getting married in 2 months time. When they handed out their invites they said children are welcome to be at the church ceremony but are unable to attend the meal and the evening reception.

That's fine, I have absolutely no problem with child-free weddings.

I have a baby that I EBF so I text the bride and declined the invite and said it because I couldn't leave DS. DS will have just turned 5 months at the time of the wedding. I didn't get a reply from her.

My DH is felt quite aggrieved as he wasn't comfortable with the fact that me and DS couldn't go seeing as DS will not need a seat or food so won't be affecting their guest numbers or cost. But anyway, like I said, I have no problem if the B&G choose child free weddings.

However, it has now transpired another couple who have a baby are being allowed to take theirs because "he will only be 3 months old".

Since learning this my DH has spoken to the Groom who has said he will speak to the bride. The Groom said of course he wanted me to be at the wedding but apparently the bride had said she didn't want babies/children present as she didn't want food being thrown around the room?!

Do 5 month old babies do that?
(DS is my first so I have no experience of a baby's fine dining etiquette).

He also said she probably wasn't aware I'd still be BF.

It's been five days now since my DH spoke to his friend and we still haven't heard anything back do I'm guessing the bride said no and we are still not welcome.

I don't know how I feel about it all now - surely if she is banning babies it should apply to all babies? I think it's a bit unfair that I'm being turned away but another mother and her baby aren't.

(Incidentally the other baby is being formula fed so can technically be away from her parents.)

I'm happy to be told I'm BU - I just think it's a bit harsh that my baby isn't welcome but someone else's is....

My husband has spoken to the Groom about it as he is better friends with the Groom than I am with the bride. The Groom was understanding and said he would speak to the Bride and so the ball is in their court. Me and DH won't mention it again and if we hear nothing then we'll assume they still aren't happy for DS to attend which is fair enough. I will definitely still go the Ceremony though - I'm not a petty person

Apocalypse where on earth did that divorce comment come from? Or the name calling?

As many posters have experienced, they feel differently when they have their own kids and realise that it's not that easy to leave them/express/give a bottle. And I don't see it as a bad thing if the bride one day learns this.

I'm afraid this just doesn't make any sense at all:

Ok, in hindsight I could have rang her but at the same time I was reluctant to do so because I absolutely didn't want her to feel pressured to invite me still. If I'd told her over the phone the reasons why I wasn't going I'd be worried that she would feel she had to go back on her initial plans because she felt she couldn't voice out loud that DS still couldn't come. I didn't want to make her feel uncomfortable.

So we have the justification for replying by text. You didn't want to pressure the B&G. Very laudable. However, this is followed by:

My husband has spoken to the Groom about it as he is better friends with the Groom than I am with the bride. The Groom was understanding and said he would speak to the Bride and so the ball is in their court. Me and DH won't mention it again and if we hear nothing then we'll assume they still aren't happy for DS to attend which is fair enough.

Really? Because that sounds to me that you are pressuring them to extend the invitation to your DS.

I can assure you that they will remember this FOR AGES. I have been married for 11 years, and I can still tell you the people who wangled invitations to the wedding even though they weren't on the guest list.

And this:

*But she can't expect me to start introducing bottles just so I can spend 4 hours at her Wedding Reception can she?

Or maybe she does?*

I very much doubt that she cares how you choose to feed your baby, or has given it much thought. You were invited. You declined, by text. Now you want it all to be different, and all about you and your feeding choices. EBF is great, but don't expect everyone else to give a monkeys about it. You are being a guestzilla.

Gosh Beryl I'm impressed with your forensic analysis (is there a smiley for "I'm not being sarcastic" as I do genuinely mean that)

It's all down to the spreadsheet Phaedra

"In case any prospective breast feeders read this thread and are put off - within a month or so of starting to wean, most babies can be left for several hours. Even bottle refusers (who ime are less likely to refuse if their mum isn't around with a better offer anyway)....I'd just hate someone to think that breastfeeding means having a baby latched on 24/7 for months and months."

This.

These "I need to take my baby everywhere because EBF" threads come up every now and again and they make me feel like I am living in an alternative universe to a lot of breastfeeders on MN.

My baby was EBF, did not like formula and would not drink from a bottle. Of course I went out without her! Two hours for a quick lunch out at a local restaurant when she was less than 2 weeks old, and evenings out (about four hours out of the house) once a week from about seven weeks old.

She had EBM from a cup, spoon and dropper--a bit messier than a bottle, but they work just fine for most babies. From 4.5 months, some milky cereal and puree as well. Then a bit later, we added in finger foods and a sippy. Leaving her all day long might have been tricky, but a few hours would be fine.

Of course everyone is different, but in my experience most EBF babies can be left for a bit even if they don't like bottles. You wouldn't think this from reading a lot of MN threads on this subject, though! If I were an expectant mum who lived in an area where FFing was normalized, and my ideas about BFing were formed primarily from reading these kinds of ideas on the internet, I don't think I'd be tempted to give breastfeeding a try.

A lot of people are saying I should have phoned the Bride to explain about the feeding and my reason for not going and I was criticised for not having done so.

Yet when my husband did exactly that but face to face we are being accused of wangling for an invite and so he is criticised for doing it.

As someone else said, you can't win sometimes....

Not read it all but why can't you just express some milk and leave baby with relative and said bottles of expressed milk?

the newststesman just as I would never criticise s BF mother for leaving her baby for a few hours or criticise someone for choosing to wean early, I don't think I should be criticised because I don't want to leave my baby or that I don't have any plans to wean early.

If I were to attend the whole day event, including the Ceremony without DS I would be away from him for 12 hours.

If I took him to the Ceremony but then left him to enjoy the daytime and evening Reception I would be away from him for 10-11 hours.

The only way it could feasibly work was if took him to the Ceremony and fed him either during it or after it after it and then take him to someone to look after before heading to the venue. However, I can't say that choosing the alternative option of breastfeeding during the ceremony sounds appealing or very polite

I could just go to the Wedding Breakfast but I would still have to feed him before hand as I would expect to be away from him for 4 hours.

And maybe it makes me 'wet' or a bad advert for breast feeding but there's no way I could relax and enjoy myself if I thought there was any chance of my DS being hungry and screaming for me and being force fed by a syringe. For that reason alone I'm happy with my decision not to go.

My husband joked I should go for the whole day and have someone parked up in the car park with DS in the back seat so I could pop out to feed whenever needed

madamecast - I've read enough threads from EBF mothers to know that 'just giving a bottle' isn't as simple as it sounds

Plus, if I do go for the whole day, the thought of having take my breast pump with me and continually sneak off to the toilet every few hours to express some milk off does not fill me with much joy

Which is all well and good but if you are making decisions about feeding which curtail what you can and can't do that is not someone else's fault and they shouldn't have to make allowances for you.

And to be honest to say you won't breastfeed at the church really knocks your whole argument out of the water as you wouldn't bloody well breastfeed your kid if you did take it with you????

No it's not that simple. Bloody we'll start now as dd at 7 months won't even entertain a bottle so my social life entails places and events where I can take dd.

And I am sure no one is expecting you to sneak off to the toilets to express milk. They would surely have a room somewhere that you can go to without having to sneak at all.

No I wouldn't breast feed DS at the Church if I was then going back home with him and missing the day/night time reception because obviously I wasn't going to be away from him so could feed him whenever.

What I meant was that if I was planning on leaving DS with someone after the Ceremony in order to participate in the rest of the day I would have to feed him there in order to 'fill him up' before I left him with someone.

I don't expect the B&G to make allowances for me. The thread is about how one mother (who is formula feeding and happy to leave her baby with others) can take her baby to the Child Free Wedding but I can't take my EBF one.

I haven't once asked the bride to reconsider her stance when it comes to my DS. Yes, my DH has open to the groom to explain why I can't go (as a lot of people said I should have done anyway) but he certainly didn't ask if I could come and bring DS. The Groom, off his own back, said he and the Bride hadn't realised I would still be BF'ing and so would speak to her about it.

Like I have said countless times, I am perfectly fine about not going because the thread isn't about me being pissed off that it's a child free wedding, it's about why it's one rule for one but another for someone else.

1. I feel a bit sorry for the bride and groom. they made a decision they felt suited them best and are obviously being pressured left right and centre to bend the rules for this person, and then for that person, and if they really want certain people to be there then perhaps they feel they have no choice but to do a u-turn on the babies thing. Perhaps you are just not so high up on their list of 'must haves' as the other woman.

If they say yes to too many people then before long someone will be saying 'but what about my three year old anti-social, hyperactive, triplets who are renowned for running up and down and screaming a lot and biting people? Why should they be left out? It's not fair!'

2. Breast feeding should not ever mean that you cannot be separated from your child AT ALL for goodness sake. It's not the dark ages. Especially not when the child is 5 months old. All BFing mothers should do themselves a favour and learn to express and bottle feed from time to time, or just give some formula on the odd occasion. It won't kill the child for crying out loud. It will make everyone's lives a bit easier and it will enable mothers to get over themselves and be a bit less self-absorbed and less breast obsessed, quite frankly.

3. We are all divided into first, second or third class when it comes to wedding invitations. Some of us get pride of place on the top table, some of us get to be best man or bridesmaid, some don't even get invited to the ceremony or the wedding meal, just the after party. The conditions of your invitation (based on your level of importance to the B&G) were laid out in the invitation. Take it or leave it. It is not for you to question what level of inclusion they have invited others to enjoy.

YANBU but it does sound as though she just wants the other women there for whatever reason.

Anywho the really important thing that I wanted to ask is, is your place still free for the hen do cause I could always take your place, if it would help

Apocalypse where on earth did that divorce comment come from? Or the name calling?

Morethanpotatoprints, page 9. The name calling was to show the very weird gleeful hand rubbing at the idea that this bride might be getting what she wants now, bit in years to come it'll bite her on the arse. It's truly bizarre to wish unhappiness on a bride because she wants a certain kind of wedding. It's not like she's badgering the OP to leave her child to suckle with wolves while she's at the wedding, or threatening anything. She was told the OP can't come, she appears to have accepted it.

Hi OP

Sounds like you've made your plan, and I hope you all have a lovely time at the ceremony. This is all a storm in a teacup and I'm sure you and B&G will be fine.

I would like to pitch in a little on the ebf thing. As someone else said, some ebf threads make it sound like a very difficult thing, and I'd hate for someone to be put off.

While there are some ebf mums who are literally that and choose never to give a bottle (no criticism intended, it's entirely their choice how they feed their baby), and while there are some babies who will refuse anything other than the breast....I think the majority of bf babies do get the odd bottle now and then, perfectly happily, without any big palaver about 'introducing' bottles or mixed feeding ongoing. Stick a bottle in their mouth, give it a squeeze to get the milk started, and they twig on, especially now you can get fairly natural shaped teats. It isn't the major faff as sometimes implied on these threads.

That's my experience too kentish - "bottle refusers" are definitely not the norm (don't know any in real life!) but people tend to post when they have problems rather than when things are going well!

Though saying that, I can't express a drop despite feeding two big healthy babies fine

How do people know they have an outright "bottle-refuser" anyway?

To be perfectly blunt - if you have a EBF baby and had to go to hospital as an emergency or died your baby would have to learn to use a bottle. I am sure it must be difficult for a few babies but I do think a lot of mothers are rather martyrish about this. My baby happily took breast and bottle and to be perfectly honest if made life a lot easier .

Agree with those saying these threads are not a great advert for BF. These threads make BF sound like a nightmare. It's such a shame.

Guestzillas this is new to me but very appropriate in situations were people expect hosts to change their plans to suit them.

I think the bride and groom are idiots. Honestly, who bans a five month old baby from a wedding reception - what do they think the baby's going to do? Eat all the food?

But if they're really not prepared to accommodate the baby of old friends, then they're not your friends, are they? They're just being self-centred and inconsiderate.

Dc1 I could have left, dc2 no chance. Not because he would or wouldn't take a bottle, but because he just wanted me all day and all night (dh would do as a substitute, but of we both went out.. a good friend sat for him for an hour once, we could hear his screams along the street when we returned and she has never offered since!)

Also worth remembering that OP has a three month old pfb and probably feels like she's entered a twilight zone of feeding/waking/feeding/quick sleep/feeding again.

It's there wedding, their day so they can be self centered, selfish etc. and do as they please! If Op was such a good friend she would respect their wishes.

Becoming a parent does not automatically mean you become the center if the universe and everyone should accommodate your needs when they make plans.

Can I just add that just as ebf can be left by their mothers in most cases, there may also be situations where a ff baby cannot be left by their mother.

The arrogance of the "well the other baby is ff so can actually be left whereas my baby can not" comment is infuriating and self absorbed.