Is it acceptable to say that lactating mothers can't attend a wedding reception?

[minitrip]

I've been invited to a wedding in June, and my baby will be about 4 weeks old. We've been told that I am welcome to bring her to the wedding, but not the posh reception. As I hardly know the couple getting married (uni friend of my husband) going to the wedding is a bit irrelevant if I can't meet anyone afterwards.

I do have a tiny bit of sympathy for people who won't have toddlers/children at their weddings (although I invited kids to mine - I think they make it a happier occasion), but I thought it was a bit harsh to exclude breastfeeding babies (and their mothers)...

The definition of "selfish" is to put yourself before other people. So deciding to have your wedding exactly as you want without any concessions to the practical concerns of your guests is, strictly speaking, selfish.

I think what you really mean is that you feel justified in being selfish on your wedding day. That is a whole other point to debate and one on which there are lots of different views.

I agree jellybeans! At 4 weeks i couldn't express more than a dribble, and I NEVER managed to express a whole day's supply - i think you would need to be a dairy cow to do that without a lot of stress!

Agree also with Jellybeans. So, in order to attend the wedding she must give birth, get baby to latch on, establish good feeding pattern, learn how to express and get the baby to feed from the boob AND a bottle, all in 4 weeks?

Yeah, that'll be right

I wouldn't go, do as others have suggested and stay at home snuggled up with DC, a good dvd and lots of choccy. TBH when I hear 'no kids' I tend to think dull as shite anyway. A wedding is a family occasion, children are crucial parts of families. I really don't get the anti-kids drive. What miserable stuffy weddings they must be.

I agree with Ruty and other posters about not getting this child-free wedding thing. Also agree with the bit about weddings becoming precious and twattish these days.

mimitrip, I would have been really relieved to not have to go, tbh, so good for you in telling them No Thanks.

Flappythebat - we had a similar thing happen when my DS was a toddler and wasn't included on an invitation to DP and myself. I asked if he could come as I knew there were other children going and the reply was 'only if you bring his own food' .

Agree with Docbunches and all others exasperated with the child free wedding thing.

Doc - why not invite the bride's husband to dinner. When she asks if she is included, repeat her line "only if you bring your own food" to her. How reasonable would she find that?

Children are people too!

Child free weddings don't have to be stuffy and miserable and neither are those including children guaranteed to be delightful fun filled affairs.

I've been a few adult only wedding and enjoyed them thoroughly. They weren't at all boring or stuffy.

THe peope I think are being precious are the ones who insist that their children should be invited everywhere. Are you this rude and self-obsessed over other people's birthday parties, retirement dinners or any other social occasion that someone has put time and effort into hosting? ('I know you said formal dress on the invitation but I don't like formal clothes and anyway it's so superficial to worry about what people wear'
'I know the restaurant has a no-pets rule but Fluffy (a huge farting slavering Staffordshire)gets so anxious if I leave him at home, no one will notice him, oh honestly I do think that people are far too uptight about animals in this country'
'I know you said you didn't want a stripper on your hen night but I've arranged one anyway, it's traditional, why are you such a prude?')

I think it is the enforcing of the child free bit that i find difficult to deal with. A number of posters have said "oh, just leave the dcs with babysitter, you will have a much better time". Well, yes, if that is what they want to do they will do it anyway without needing a child ban. Then let those who want or need their kids with them for whatever reason have them there.

For those who say "why should we pay for food for kids of people we hardly know" i would say WHY are you inviting people you hardly know to your wedding???

Invite those who are REALLY your nearest and dearest and it is unlikely you would want to exclude their kids!

SolidGold - blimey, are children animals now? Heck, you must know some badly behaved brats! Dogs are not allowed in restaurants for hygiene reasons. Kids are usually (though not always) a bit cleaner!

lol YorkshireRose. Although we DID actually go to this particular wedding as we knew the couple very well, I thought it was a bit 'off', but we didn't make a big thing out of it.

Agree with your post of 9.18. People shouldn't really be picking and choosing which guests can or can't bring their DCs, it's bound to cause resentment. As I say, we just sucked it up as it wasn't worth the bad feeling it might have caused.

Doc - I guess bride must have booked child numbers assuming some kids would drop out but they didn't - bad organisation on her part I suspect.

How do the couple know that you will actually be breastfeeding?

Agree that this is a no baby rule rather than no lactating mother rule.

Perhaps they envisage that reception with be loud and noisy and do not want crying baby there.

Glad you have decided not to go. Not worth the effort with 4 week old baby I'd say.

Mears - most new mums at least try to breastfeed for at least the first few weeks, so if it does not even occur to the couple that this could be an issue then they are a bit thick.

I think the couple are basically not that bothered if the OP goes or not, so i would in her place make zero effort to attend.

I see you have turned the invitation down, OP, good on you.

YorkshireRose - how I wish that were true

I am a midwife and the statistics don't support your assumption I am afraid.

Depending where you live, as many as 50% of mothers do not even try.

Yes Mears, but that leaves 50% who DO try!

Therefore enough new mothers DO breastfeed so that it SHOULD occur to the couple that it COULD be an issue!

So I stand by my opinion that they are a bit thick to have not even considered it.

They may have wondered how she was feeding her baby but I do not think they would have assumed she was breastfeeding.

They don't want a baby at the reception no matter how it is fed is what I am trying to say.

Mears - I don't think they really care whether the OP goes to the wedding or not, frankly, so they don't really care about any issues she may have with feeding.

Which is why OP was right to simply turn the invitation down.

I agree that they don't care whether she comes or not but primarily they definitely don't want the baby. Glad she is not going too.

Yes I agree they basically don't want the baby there. But what i can't understand is why they are happy for the baby to be at the church service but not at the reception. Surely a crying baby in the middle of the vows would be more troublesome than in the middle of a noisy reception?

And as for them worrying that the noisiness of the reception would bother the baby, i have always found newborns fall asleep much easier with lots of chatter around them and wake if if it goes quiet. Something to do with the reassurance of having lots of people around them i think.

Yes is it strange not to be concerned about the baby in the church

I think we can all agree that the couple's behaviour is a bit harsh (as minitrip rightly says herself in her OP) - and that's putting it mildly, imo.

I think for lots of couples the photographs and the reception are the wedding: the church/RO bit is just the tedious formality that has to be got through before the 'important' stuff with cameras.

No no no avengingger!

That just can't be. It just can't.

Maybe the couple are aware that anyone but anyone can attend a church ceremony if they want? And so to ask people not to come to that when there will more than likely be random members of the usual congregation there seems a bit off?