quote:

---

Weddings are to make money for your future

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One more thing:

If you invite someone to a party where it is clear that he or she does not have to contribute either in bringing money or food, it is rude to mention afterwards, "Hey, that meal cost us $200."

---

Definitely agree.

Mentioning any figure above $50 (that's even in Australia where food is expensive) also doubles up as an admission of stupidity.

[ 22. June 2013, 05:44: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
My Mum taught me that guests shoud spend approx equivalent to the cost of the wedding on their gift, as a guideline to how generous you can be. But she also taught me that it is rude for the bride and groom to expect this and never to be ungrateful for a gift. The women in the OP story acted appallingly. Even drawing other guests' attention to the gift was shockingly bad etiquette.

We were disppointed that one of our close friends spent only £10 on our wedding gift, but we didn't tell him that. Revenge came the following year when he married and we spent £100 on our gift to him. He never explicitly said so, but was clearly embarrassed by our generosity in comparison to his. Also, revenge through love felt a hundred times better than seeking to shame him publicly and our friendship remains strong.
 

---

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
But why should you want revenge anyway? I thought giving a present was a nice thing to do but should never be expected. Perhaps your friend couldn't afford more, perhaps the £10 spent was a real stretch - but actually, it doesn't matter, a present is not about buying friendship.

I do not think it is appropriate to make someone feel embarrassed because a present has not lived up to someone's expectations.

You invite someone to a wedding for the pleasure of their company, not to see what you can get out of it.

M.
 

---

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
Even if you were trying to measure parity (which is dumb), there are all sorts of other things to factor in. How personally costly was it for them to attend the service?

My sister-in-law was living in Australia for a year when we got married. She and husband flew back for the ceremony - I suspect that cost them quite a bit; we didn't care about whether or not they gave us a present.

Or we could talk about the widow's mite. Giving in comparison to what the giver has shows far more about the heart than giving in comparison to what the recipient receives.

Lots of factors which the recipient doesn't necessarily know about. Be grateful they're there; see it as a good opportunity to throw a party for some friends. Any stuff you get given is an added extra.

[ 22. June 2013, 08:30: Message edited by: Custard ]
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Struck me that it is mentioned in the article that in some cultures monetary gifts are customary. Which reminded me of the beginning of The Godfather - but also of an African colleague who discussed with us how much she should give for a distant family member's funeral (apparently that was the custom, presumably form a time when losing the family breadwinner meant you really needed people to rally around and contribute to secure the family's future).

Don't know enough about the couple to know if this a relevant factor.
 

---

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
I just think commercialisation and greed have gradually led people to forget what marriage is actually about.

I know one young couple with a child who 'can't afford' to get married. I pointed out that a trip to the register office, including fees and a couple of strangers pulled from the street, can be done for a very modest price.

But no, nothing less than a footballer's wedding costing many thousands of pounds will do.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 


When we got married quite a lot of the friends we'd invited had just graduated or were still working on postgraduate degrees and didn't have a lot of money.

We made the mistake of asking for a lot of inexpensive things in our wedding list, thinking that most of our guests wouldn't be able to afford to buy elaborate gifts. This was good for our friends (one person got us a garlic press and lemon squeezer; that was fine, it was all she could afford) but some of our relatives just ignored the list and bought us things they thought we needed. Result; half a dozen casserole dishes and a food processor that sat in the kitchen cupboard for about ten years before we discovered the joys of homemade soup... We did say thank you nicely for the food processor, and never told the uncle who gave it how long it was before we used it.

[ 22. June 2013, 10:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
When my best friend got married, I got them a gift from their registry - Michael Fish fridge magnets They were much loved and are still being used on their fridge, and the low cost didn't matter because it was something they wanted.

The food hamper is a bit of an odd wedding gift (I'd give a food hamper for a birthday or Christmas but not a wedding) but it's not terrible/rude/inappropriate. My best friend would have preferred it over the very expensive crystal she received which she never uses and feels embarrassed over the price of it.
 

---

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
If people expect cash gifts to cover the cost of the meal and leave a little over to "make money for their future", they should be completely upfront about it and sell tickets to the wedding rather than send out invitations. Then at least the "guests" aren't fooled into thinking that they're being offered hospitality.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
I have just been to the wedding of a couple who have lived together for a while and so have a fully stocked house.
The invite said something along the lines of - that because of living together we do not need anything except the pleasure of your company if you do wish to give us a present, then money or a voucher from John Lewis would be lovely.

We gave £50 – it cost us about £400 for new clothes, travel and drinks at the do (it was an expensive bar). We are on a limited budget £50 was what we could afford. And I got a very lovely letter of thank you afterwards, both for our gift and for coming to the day.

It has never occurred to me that I should have to cover the cost of the invite. I don't earn a lot and have family to keep. If soembody wants me to pay for my own meal then it needs to be a place I can afford.

If I choose to pick a very expensive venue for my wedding then that is my decision I can't expect my guests to be abe to afford it.

It also means that the people who have the money to spend on the largest weddings get the most presents. That hardly seems fair on those who are doing things on a budget and probably need things more..
 

---

Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on :
 
It's quite an interesting topic of debate /etiquette. My fiancee and I will be getting married in a couple of years due to study commitments and medical reasons, but we are planning only to ask guests to bring themselves & a plate of food. (Yes, we are defintely doing things frugally!!) If they want to give anything, we are just going to ask for monetary gifts towards the honeymoon as both of us pretty much have everything we need to set up home

[ 22. June 2013, 12:41: Message edited by: Yam-pk ]
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
The invitation to the most recent wedding I attended featured a request that there be no wedding presents (as both bride and groom were will into their 30s and established) but a cheque to a Toronto hospital's teaching programme where they bride had been treated the previous year, was requested (or to a charity of one's choice). This particular fund reaped over $10,000 from the wedding, we all had a good time, nobody worried about presents, we got tax receipts, and timely thank-you notes from the bride and groom.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Also I didn’t think the original gift that started the furore was wrong. I actually thought it was a bit different and individual – unlike the 4 electric meat carving knives I received when I got married (and I am a vegetarian)

If it had in it the things that the giver said it did, there were some interesting items. Plus the wicker picnic baskets are not cheap either. I thought that quite romantic for a wedding.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Apparently the average wedding costs £22,000. Anyone spending that much on getting married has probably left rationality behind long since.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
One of the most interesing wedding presents we recieved was a bottle of port and a whole round of stilton cheese. But then that person knew us really well
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
But why should you want revenge anyway? I thought giving a present was a nice thing to do but should never be expected. Perhaps your friend couldn't afford more, perhaps the £10 spent was a real stretch - but actually, it doesn't matter, a present is not about buying friendship.

I do not think it is appropriate to make someone feel embarrassed because a present has not lived up to someone's expectations.

You invite someone to a wedding for the pleasure of their company, not to see what you can get out of it.

M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
But why should you want revenge anyway? I thought giving a present was a nice thing to do but should never be expected. Perhaps your friend couldn't afford more, perhaps the £10 spent was a real stretch - but actually, it doesn't matter, a present is not about buying friendship.

I do not think it is appropriate to make someone feel embarrassed because a present has not lived up to someone's expectations.

You invite someone to a wedding for the pleasure of their company, not to see what you can get out of it.

M.

---

Fair enough. I am not claiming the moral high ground particularly. On the other hand, I do think that some sort of gift is generally expected when a person is invited to a celebration - birthday, wedding, dinner party or what have you - unless otherwise waived on the invitation. It's just good manners not to show up empty handed.

Of course we value our friend's friendship more than his gift - and in fact we did at the time of his wedding have more disposable means than he had at the time of ours(the fact that shaming him gave me an evil frisson of satisfaction, was a side issue). There is more to it than I put into my original story. He had made snide comments that our suggested gifts were ostentatiously pricey (a matter of opinion. Depends whether you want your kitchen pans to last 3 years or a lifetime I suppose) and there was an element of judgmentalism to his vanishingly small contribution.

BUT anyway, the point is that it is wrong to be stingey and it is wrong to complain when you don't get lavished with cash and diamonds. We should all value one another far more highly than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
But why should you want revenge anyway? I thought giving a present was a nice thing to do but should never be expected. Perhaps your friend couldn't afford more, perhaps the £10 spent was a real stretch - but actually, it doesn't matter, a present is not about buying friendship.

I do not think it is appropriate to make someone feel embarrassed because a present has not lived up to someone's expectations.

You invite someone to a wedding for the pleasure of their company, not to see what you can get out of it.

M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Struck me that it is mentioned in the article that in some cultures monetary gifts are customary. Which reminded me of the beginning of The Godfather - but also of an African colleague who discussed with us how much she should give for a distant family member's funeral (apparently that was the custom, presumably form a time when losing the family breadwinner meant you really needed people to rally around and contribute to secure the family's future).

Don't know enough about the couple to know if this a relevant factor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
One of my daughters wanted to suggest on the invitations that contributions to a money tree would be welcome. I put my foot down, not only at a request for money, but that it is impolite to ask for presents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Apparently the average wedding costs £22,000. Anyone spending that much on getting married has probably left rationality behind long since.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
There is a difference between being stingy and not having a lot of disposable income. Most of the weddings I've attended as an adult, I've only brought a card because that's all I could afford. Seriously, it's bad manners to be poor now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They are Canadian, reference research and old attitudes, not cultural custom. Not proof, but indicative of "standard Canada."

---

Um, NO. That's like extrapolating from Belfast to "standard UK". Anyway, since this is a tiff between individuals, I'm not sure how extrapolatable (?) this is to culture as a whole.

IMO, both guest and bride were in the wrong. The guest's gift choice went beyond odd and could see the border of insulting. Peanut butter? Marshmallow fluff? For the monetary value of the "gift basket" the guest could have purchased two cheap wineglasses and no one would have batted an eye. The bride might have huffed privately about the price but I think she would have shut up and put the wineglasses away.

The bride, of course, was wrong to say anything critical about the gift beyond private commentary. Graciousness ought to have prevailed.

But while I think she was wrong to use this gift as her example, she does have a point about change in wedding culture and gift expectations. Precious few weddings are between two young virgins who have always lived at home and will be setting up a household. Couples these days don't need stuff for a household, they've got all that already. They do tend to appreciate monetary gifts, in part to defray wedding expenses.
 

---

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Apparently the average wedding costs £22,000. Anyone spending that much on getting married has probably left rationality behind long since.

---

Is it really up there already? It was only a year ago IIRC that it crossed the £20k threshold. And when you bear in mind the fact that many people refuse to have anything to do with the Wedding Industry, the cost of weddings of those that do must be somewhere in the £30-40k+ area on average. Grim, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

IMO, both guest and bride were in the wrong. The guest's gift choice went beyond odd and could see the border of insulting. Peanut butter? Marshmallow fluff? For the monetary value of the "gift basket" the guest could have purchased two cheap wineglasses and no one would have batted an eye. The bride might have huffed privately about the price but I think she would have shut up and put the wineglasses away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
]I think they would be averages for just the so-called "Wedding Industry" weddings from a couple of different surveys, and not comprehensive stats covering all industry and non-industry weddings. How would the industry sources reporting those figures have any knowledge of the amounts spent at businesses not specifically dealing with weddings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Apparently the average wedding costs £22,000. Anyone spending that much on getting married has probably left rationality behind long since.

---

Is it really up there already? It was only a year ago IIRC that it crossed the £20k threshold. And when you bear in mind the fact that many people refuse to have anything to do with the Wedding Industry, the cost of weddings of those that do must be somewhere in the £30-40k+ area on average. Grim, eh?

---

I think they would be averages for just the so-called "Wedding Industry" weddings from a couple of different surveys, and not comprehensive stats covering all industry and non-industry weddings. How would the industry sources reporting those figures have any knowledge of the amounts spent at businesses not specifically dealing with weddings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In (slight) defense of the brides, I was taught as a child wedding gifts are for the purpose of setting up the couple, that's why the gifts are dishes and flatware and cooking gear and bedding, not books and recordings and clothes and jewelry etc. I used to fuss at having to help pay the cost of setting up other people's houses but no one helps set up mine, to which my grandma responded if you don't marry you are supposed to live with a family member, not set up a household.

So the idea of wedding gifts setting the couple up for the future is ancient. What's new is that many couples don't need dishes and bedding and cookware, they already have it all. So the concept of setting them up shifts to cash for the honeymoon (a common request) or for a downpayment on a house (less common). Or just cash.

Also, some of the articles say "She's Italian and her bride is Croatian. They've never been to a wedding where guests didn't give cash...Mason was one of only two guests who didn't gift at least $150 cash (the other gave a present in addition to cash)." story on the spec This sounds like a culture clash.

"She says Mason's gift was the laughingstock of the wedding. At a post-wedding pool party the next day, friends and family stopped by the living room to get a look at the basket that's still on display in their home." [same cite] If they display the basket as a joke and their friends agree it's a joke, that confirms the culture clash. Maybe in some social strata of Italy and Croatia wedding gifts are traditionally cash? Some shipmates should know. Back in the 60s a friend dated a USA gal from a German-heritage family and said at weddings they attended there was always a money tree (and champagne was served to bride and groom only, the guests got beer). Different culture.

Which does not excuse horrible manners. Both sides went a bit over the line in the email exchange.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Breakdown of figures here. These are "as reported by readers of Bride magazine". I suppose it depends to what extent the readers of that august organ actually participate in the Wedding Industry.

---

Well, I think that's clearly not a representative sample. Those of us who wanted simple, non-materialist weddings also generally would consider such a magazine torture to read.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
It's the sort of magazine they leave lying around in dentists' waiting rooms. Somehow after reading it, root canal surgery seems less painful.

Yes, I agree, it's pretty rubbishy as a sampling technique. Though figures elsewhere are not that different. I'd love to say it was all lies, but as a singer I've been at weddings where stupendous amounts of £oot are clearly being spent.
 

---

Posted by Ana (# 11667) on :
 
I'm absolutely stunned at the thought of having to give a £100-£200 gift at a wedding. Do people really do that?

That would put me off attending
 

---

Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
Mr Shrew and I are getting married early next year. My mum was adamant that gift lists are essential, but we both feel really uncomfortable with soliciting gifts, especially after attending a friend's wedding last year where the gift list was over promoted to the point of vulgarity.
Mum has the anxiety that we will receive fourteen toasters if we don't supply a list. I think it is unlikely but i don't really know that there is an answer which will satisfy us both.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
Mr Shrew and I are getting married early next year. My mum was adamant that gift lists are essential, but we both feel really uncomfortable with soliciting gifts, especially after attending a friend's wedding last year where the gift list was over promoted to the point of vulgarity.
Mum has the anxiety that we will receive fourteen toasters if we don't supply a list. I think it is unlikely but i don't really know that there is an answer which will satisfy us both.

---

Vouchers? Although now it's taking a chance, since the store you choose might go into administration by the time you get married! Somewhere like Ikea should be OK though, and they sell everything - including food if you run out of ideas
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
It shows how times and expectations change.

When my parents married in the austerity of post war UK their favourite present was a basket of tinned food.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Vouchers for sex toys?
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
Mr Shrew and I are getting married early next year. My mum was adamant that gift lists are essential, but we both feel really uncomfortable with soliciting gifts, especially after attending a friend's wedding last year where the gift list was over promoted to the point of vulgarity.
Mum has the anxiety that we will receive fourteen toasters if we don't supply a list. I think it is unlikely but i don't really know that there is an answer which will satisfy us both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
Mr Shrew and I are getting married early next year. My mum was adamant that gift lists are essential, but we both feel really uncomfortable with soliciting gifts, especially after attending a friend's wedding last year where the gift list was over promoted to the point of vulgarity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


So the idea of wedding gifts setting the couple up for the future is ancient. What's new is that many couples don't need dishes and bedding and cookware, they already have it all. So the concept of setting them up shifts to cash for the honeymoon (a common request) or for a downpayment on a house (less common). Or just cash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Also, some of the articles say "She's Italian and her bride is Croatian. They've never been to a wedding where guests didn't give cash...Mason was one of only two guests who didn't gift at least $150 cash (the other gave a present in addition to cash)." story on the spec This sounds like a culture clash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It seems to me that its the BRIDES who need educating about wedding etiquette:

1. The guest list should include all those people you'd like to share your day with - if that means more than your "venue" can comfortably hold, change the venue.

2. Weddings do not have to cost the earth and receptions can be simple - or, to quote a departed relative " Friends and the people you love will be happy with a cup of tea - a bun will be a bonus ".

3. It is useful to have a list: the range of items on this should range from those that could be bought by a child with pocket money (wooden spoons, can openers, etc) to more expensive items.

4. You do not solicit for cash - VULGAR, VULGAR, VULGAR. If you cannot afford the honeymoon you've booked cancel and go somewhere cheaper. It is wrong to expect your guests to foot the bill for your post-wedding holiday.

5. Any gift that is received should be acknowledged with a hand-written letter of thanks - end of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


So the idea of wedding gifts setting the couple up for the future is ancient. What's new is that many couples don't need dishes and bedding and cookware, they already have it all. So the concept of setting them up shifts to cash for the honeymoon (a common request) or for a downpayment on a house (less common). Or just cash.

---

The brides arraigned a dinner at $100 a plate. If they were concerned about setting up for the future, they should have spent less.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Also, some of the articles say "She's Italian and her bride is Croatian. They've never been to a wedding where guests didn't give cash...Mason was one of only two guests who didn't gift at least $150 cash (the other gave a present in addition to cash)." story on the spec This sounds like a culture clash.

---

They are in Canada, a multicultural country. One should not expect every guest to conform to, or even know their cultural expectation.
Such expectation would only apply in monocultural area and, IME, even in many of those, expressing such ingratitude is unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... I'm more than willing to buy the premise that cash giving vs. a gift basket was a culture clash. But do we really want to suggest that holding a gift up for public ridicule is an essential feature of either Italian or Croatian culture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... I'm more than willing to buy the premise that cash giving vs. a gift basket was a culture clash. But do we really want to suggest that holding a gift up for public ridicule is an essential feature of either Italian or Croatian culture?

---

It was actually the gift-giver -- so not the Italians or Croatians -- who made the whole thing public, and invited readers to comment on the bride's actions. The ridicule of the gift was all private until the giver released the bride's e-mails for public ridicule.

(Laughing in private at a weird gift happens in every culture. Hands up, every diabetic who has been given a box of chocolates or non-drinker who got a bottle of wine.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
My Mum taught me that guests shoud spend approx equivalent to the cost of the wedding on their gift, as a guideline to how generous you can be.

---

Are you saying that the gift should cost the same as the wedding???


Most people would never be able to do that. If that were instituted, the only people likely to get gifts would be those who had a civil wedding officiated by a justice of the peace.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I parsed that as meaning 'the guest's cost to the wedding' - ie the cost of their food and drink and maybe the fancy stationery.

My oft-expressed opinion is that the only really essential component is a few cases of decent champagne*.

The problem is that the social logic is that those giving the celebration should pay for it - otherwise they're just acting as salespeople for the caterers etc - but since they are spending beyond their means there is this desire for compensatory present to assuage the anxiety.

The answer of course is to have the wedding you can afford - but I think we may have to dismantle consumerist capitalism and burn down all branches of Pronuptia to enforce this.

*just discovered a left-over half case at the back of the cupboard. Goody, goody.
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
Yes, sorry that was ambiguous, i meant to say the guideline amount to spend is what you guess they will have spent to have you there. Another problem with this is that you might turn up and find it's a lot posher or more modest than you assumed.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
Yes, sorry that was ambiguous, i meant to say the guideline amount to spend is what you guess they will have spent to have you there. Another problem with this is that you might turn up and find it's a lot posher or more modest than you assumed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... I was referring to the one which mentioned the bride having a pool party in which the gift was displayed for friends and family to laugh at, and the one which mentioned how the bride arranged the items in the basket to be photographed for the newstory, highlighting the marshmallow fluff and the candy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... I was referring to the one which mentioned the bride having a pool party in which the gift was displayed for friends and family to laugh at, and the one which mentioned how the bride arranged the items in the basket to be photographed for the newstory, highlighting the marshmallow fluff and the candy.

---

Mistake #1: discussing any sensitive matter via texts or e-mails
Mistake 2: getting into an argument with a friend over a tacky fluffernutter gift basket
Mistake 3: asking the general public to take your side in an argument with a friend
Mistake 4: thinking this was ever a friendship

I understand having a misunderstanding with a friend. I understand having an argument with a friend. What I totally do not understand is giving private correspondence to the media and embarrassing my idiot friend just so I can win the argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Does Miss Manners really want to suggest that every invitee should spend precisely the same amount?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I get that food is an expensive part of the wedding day and obviously, you're already married and can't change much now! But I would far rather just have tea and cake with my loved ones for free than expect people to have to pay to attend my wedding breakfast. Different strokes I guess - my guests being able to attend for free is more important than the food for me, I'd just rather have no 'real' food (just cake, salad etc) at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
Yes, sorry that was ambiguous, i meant to say the guideline amount to spend is what you guess they will have spent to have you there. Another problem with this is that you might turn up and find it's a lot posher or more modest than you assumed.

---

Since I didn't choose the extravagance/ frugality of the wedding, why should that determine my gift? The problem with treating the whole affair as a quid-pro-quo transaction is, if I just wanted to pay to go to a fancy dinner, I'd go to a restaurant of my own choice with the music and food I like. Does Miss Manners really want to suggest that every invitee should spend precisely the same amount, regardless of their own income and regardless of their relationship to the couple? A minimum wage coworker spends the same as a wealthy close relative? Silliness.

I spend about the same amount for every wedding I'm invited to. Often I'll have a go-to present if I find something I think is particularly nice or appropriate. That may get adjusted upwards for a closer friend or relative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I was a student, and obviously on a tight budget, I was invited to the wedding of some good friends (at least I thought they were)...

After the wedding, the couple started a big fight with me, saying that I was cheap. They never talked with me again after that.

---

quote:

---

Belle Ringer: I.e. the separation might well have happened even if you had bought the most expensive gift on the list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Belle Ringer: I.e. the separation might well have happened even if you had bought the most expensive gift on the list.

---

That's possible of course, although during the fight they were quite explicit in stating the reason for breaking the friendship.

It doesn't matter much now, it's already some time ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It seems to me that its the BRIDES who need educating about wedding etiquette:


2. Weddings do not have to cost the earth and receptions can be simple - or, to quote a departed relative " Friends and the people you love will be happy with a cup of tea - a bun will be a bonus ".
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It seems to me that its the BRIDES who need educating about wedding etiquette:


2. Weddings do not have to cost the earth and receptions can be simple - or, to quote a departed relative " Friends and the people you love will be happy with a cup of tea - a bun will be a bonus ".
.

---

I agree with most of your list but struggle with this one. I am getting married in (gulp) six weeks. I have family travelling from far and wide to attend. They have always been impeccable hosts to me at weddings and functions. I don't think I could do anything but a big reception and meal.

---

quote:

---

I understand having a misunderstanding with a friend. I understand having an argument with a friend. What I totally do not understand is giving private correspondence to the media and embarrassing my idiot friend just so I can win the argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I think a list that is given on request is one thing as it helps guide those who want it. However I have in the past received an invite with the presnt list attached - I thought that was a bit tacky.

---

I've had that with a few wedding invites (non work-related). I'm afraid my initial response is: they've only invited me because they want their house re-furbished. Or, more cynically, they're spending so damn much on the wedding day, they want to make the guests stump up for giving their house a make-over, instead of prioritizing their own funds.

Particularly the case when it's clear that ridiculous amounts of money have been spent on the day and the honeymoon. If that much money can be thrown away on a dress, a reception, a cake, photos, blah-blah and three weeks in a luxury hotel in Jamaica, they don't need me to buy their Wedgewood toilet seats for them.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
... I can't understand people who get the media involved in ANY argument. It's like inviting a pack of wolves to your baby lamb's birthday party. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, everyone ends up being shredded. ...

---

Well said.
 

---

Posted by WhyNotSmile (# 14126) on :
 
I got married 5 weeks ago, and, both being in our 30s and having moved out from parental homes quite some time ago, we both had our own houses full of stuff. We really didn't need or want anything from anyone, so we asked people just to come along to the wedding and, if they wished, to make a donation to charity in lieu of a gift.

It was amazing how many people really found themselves unable to not buy us a present - mostly friends of our parents! Our own friends gave us gifts by helping out on the day and in the run-up to the wedding.

But everything people did was appreciated - we had no expectations what anyone SHOULD do or give a particular thing. That seems like the height of rudeness.
 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In the days of fancy wedding china, a couple of plates or saucers was the semi-anonymous (in the sense no one will remember a year later who gave it) gift you gave as not a close friend of the couple.

---

quote:

---

Zacchaeus: Doesn't sound like they had much idea of friendship - it's more of how to use people..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It seems to me that its the BRIDES who need educating about wedding etiquette:


2. Weddings do not have to cost the earth and receptions can be simple - or, to quote a departed relative " Friends and the people you love will be happy with a cup of tea - a bun will be a bonus ".
.

---

I agree with most of your list but struggle with this one. I am getting married in (gulp) six weeks. I have family travelling from far and wide to attend. They have always been impeccable hosts to me at weddings and functions. I don't think I could do anything but a big reception and meal.

---

*nods*

My wedding's in seven weeks. We have family taking a 10-hour drive just to be there. There's no way they'd be happy with anything less than a full sit-down meal.

---

Well, L'Organist did say that weddings can be simple, not that weddings should be simple I think the point was that it's not OK to have a big wedding and expect guests to make up for that cost by spending loads of money on the gift or to donate money to the honeymoon fund. If a big wedding is within your means and you would enjoy it*, go for it.

*I know plenty of introverted people who have been pressured into a big wedding they didn't enjoy themselves, sadly.
 

---

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 
My daughter says that if she gets married, she wants a picnic in the park

Thankfully, apart from next-generation family, it's likely to be all divorces from here on. Then funerals, unless I get there first.
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I think there's a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't issue with weddings these days. For every person saying "But it's your day! Everything should be perfect! Aren't you in love?" there's another person saying "I can't believe people spend so much money on a wedding! You can have a potluck and buy a dress from a charity shop!" or alternatively "I can't believe you're putting off your wedding until you have more money - don't you KNOW that you can have a potluck and buy a dress from a charity shop?" In these days of austerity I think I've heard more of the latter though.

My wedding last year cost practically nothing but that's because Mr Liopleurodon and I are hardcore introverts who hate parties so we didn't have any kind of reception and the number of guests at the ceremony was fewer than ten. I think it's important that people have the wedding that they want. This means overruling the voices of both the wedding industry vultures AND the people who tut that you could buy some nice new furniture with what you spent on that bouncy castle hire. Ours was cheap and perfect for us, but it was no better or worse because it was cheap.
 

---

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think there's a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't issue with weddings these days. For every person saying "But it's your day! Everything should be perfect! Aren't you in love?" there's another person saying "I can't believe people spend so much money on a wedding! You can have a potluck and buy a dress from a charity shop!" or alternatively "I can't believe you're putting off your wedding until you have more money - don't you KNOW that you can have a potluck and buy a dress from a charity shop?"

---

I do agree with this. I think people think (or at least imply) that there is only one way to have a wedding: fairy tale princess; faux vintage bunting ( ) and mis-matched crockery or low key DIY cheap. It is easy to get defensive when your wedding is not one of these.

I think sometimes people advocating the DIY approach may not realise that they induce as much pressure/guilt as the Wedding Industry and its manufactured dreams.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think there's a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't issue with weddings these days. For every person saying "But it's your day! Everything should be perfect! Aren't you in love?" there's another person saying "I can't believe people spend so much money on a wedding! You can have a potluck and buy a dress from a charity shop!" or alternatively "I can't believe you're putting off your wedding until you have more money - don't you KNOW that you can have a potluck and buy a dress from a charity shop?"

---

quote:

---

cliffdweller: It's a cultural ritual designed to prepare the young couple for future parenthood, when their life will be an even higher-stakes, near continuous stream of such damned if you do, damned if you don't decisions-- cloth v. disposable? spank or time out? breast or bottle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a cultural ritual designed to prepare the young couple for future parenthood, when their life will be an even higher-stakes, near continuous stream of such damned if you do, damned if you don't decisions-- cloth v. disposable? spank or time out? breast or bottle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a cultural ritual designed to prepare the young couple for future parenthood, when their life will be an even higher-stakes, near continuous stream of such damned if you do, damned if you don't decisions-- cloth v. disposable? spank or time out? breast or bottle?

---

ISTM, it is a holdover trade negotiation/wealth display/community celebration and that the state of the parent's live afterwards is a relatively modern afterthought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
One of my pastorly Facebook friends who lives in rural Texas is advertising free wedding services any Sunday during the summer if the couple is willing to be married in the context of the church service.

It will be interesting to see who takes him up on this. I think that at least some couples/in-laws invested in the idea of a church wedding are still even more invested in the idea of THEIR OWN UNIQUE church wedding, and would balk at the idea of a no-frills ceremony in the middle of Sunday worship with "just anybody" in attendance. On the other hand, I suspect that many unmarried couples who aren't invested in the pomp-and-circumstance might wonder why bother anyway, especially if they don't have a connection to the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
To me it's a ridiculous idea because I think that a couple who wants to be married and considers themselves so is already married in the eyes of God. To wait to declare that before humans until one has more material possessions when one has already declared it before God seems silly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't honestly understand the problem with waiting until you can afford the wedding you want. Is it because they're already sleeping together and shouldn't be, or what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
Mr Shrew and I are getting married early next year. My mum was adamant that gift lists are essential, but we both feel really uncomfortable with soliciting gifts, especially after attending a friend's wedding last year where the gift list was over promoted to the point of vulgarity.
Mum has the anxiety that we will receive fourteen toasters if we don't supply a list. I think it is unlikely but i don't really know that there is an answer which will satisfy us both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
I thinkit ddepends on what you mean by a big dream wedding.

To me, it is really important to feed everyone who attends, because Ilike to host well and to show my love for people by hosting well. I am also unwilling to reduce a guest list because I would like all the people who are important to myself and Mr Shrew to be able to be there with us to celebrate. Again, this is about liking to show love through hospitality.

This is naturally making the whole thing a more expensive affair. You simply cannot feed 120 people for an evening without it being a bit costly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a cultural ritual designed to prepare the young couple for future parenthood, when their life will be an even higher-stakes, near continuous stream of such damned if you do, damned if you don't decisions-- cloth v. disposable? spank or time out? breast or bottle?

---

ISTM, it is a holdover trade negotiation/wealth display/community celebration and that the state of the parent's live afterwards is a relatively modern afterthought.

---

It was a joke. Not a very funny one if I have to explain it.

---

No, just me being thick.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
When considering what food to serve, the timing of the wedding is important. If the wedding is at two in the afternoon, people don't expect a full meal. You can serve delicious gourmet sandwiches and snacks.

I actually prefer this to a sit-down meal because the guests get the opportunity to talk to more different people. They are free to move around from one group to another.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
When considering what food to serve, the timing of the wedding is important. If the wedding is at two in the afternoon, people don't expect a full meal. You can serve delicious gourmet sandwiches and snacks.

I actually prefer this to a sit-down meal because the guests get the opportunity to talk to more different people. They are free to move around from one group to another.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the easiest ways to keep costs down is to cut out the alcohol or have a single champagne toast only, something that works particularly well (one would think) with a morning or early afternoon wedding. But that goes over better with some groups than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And conversely, as a guest, you are there to celebrate your friends' happiness-- not to be treated to a lavish meal and booze fest. So there should be no judgment from true friends/relatives re: how lavish the entertainment, food, venue might be.

---

Yes, but I do think the Happy Couple have a duty to be good hosts. That means ensuring that people's needs are met and they do not go hungry/thirsty.


Obviously there are limits: we are providing alcohol with the meal/toast; unlimited soft drinks but no free bar all evening. It helps that a good 1/3 of the guests won't drink for religious reasons.

Mind you it does occur to me that the Gospel precedent for a wedding is a lavish booze fest
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
I have never received a wedding invitation without a gift registry card enclosed. It's just what people (at least, all the ones I know) in the UK do when they get married. Mind you, in my evo circles, the couple are usually setting up home for the first time, so need stuff.

I think that my favourite weddings have been ones where all the trappings and trimmings were contributed by friends and family. It makes for a lovely happy atmospere of love and goodwill.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
I thinkit ddepends on what you mean by a big dream wedding.

To me, it is really important to feed everyone who attends, because Ilike to host well and to show my love for people by hosting well. I am also unwilling to reduce a guest list because I would like all the people who are important to myself and Mr Shrew to be able to be there with us to celebrate. Again, this is about liking to show love through hospitality.

This is naturally making the whole thing a more expensive affair. You simply cannot feed 120 people for an evening without it being a bit costly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:

Mind you it does occur to me that the Gospel precedent for a wedding is a lavish booze fest

---

Maybe we just invite Jesus and let him take care of the booze.

 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... cash is the assumed gift in many cultures, but generally this is already known by the guests and doesn't need stating tackily in the invites.

---

quote:

---

The invitation was beautiful - on heavy, creamy cardstock with engraved lettering, wrapped in a silky ribbon – all the stuff girls care about. Beneath the usual day-time-place details was a single word on its own line: presentation. I had no idea what this meant! I asked around... And then I called my mum, and she laughed and said, “It means they want money, not gifts”.

I was quite taken aback. What had the world come to? First, it was bad enough that people started printing their registry information on their invitations. Now they were just asking for money flat-out?

Well, it turns out that this is a totally common practice in Manitoba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I attended one wedding where a buffet meal was served. Tables were called up one at a time to self serve. By the time they reached my table which was last, there was very little left for us to eat as some of the previous tables had 'pigged out'. Just a warning as I think served plates are more satisfactory in view of my experience.

---

Were you not only at the same wedding, but at the same table, as me a few months ago?

 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Leaf: the ritual presentation of them will take place, at around 10 pm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.

---

I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.

I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
Presentation: The head table (marrying couple in the middle, attendants on either side) is set up at one end of a reception hall, facing the dance floor. People have typically been dancing for a few hours after dinner and speeches.

At 10 pm, as a lunch is being brought out, "presentation music" begins and the dance floor clears. That is the cue for guests to form a long line, in pairs, in front of the marrying couple. The room forms a gigantic "T" shape with the head table at the top of the "T".

The couple has a large bowl in front of them on the head table. Guests place the envelope with cash in the bowl, kiss the bride and kiss/shake hands with the groom. Then guest couple "splits": male guests move down the line kissing the female attendants, female guests move down the line kissing the male attendants. [This predates SSM; I don't know what the protocol is for gay and lesbian guests. However by that point people have had a few drinks and there's a lot of general kissing anyway.]

After presentation comes a rather terrifying ritual. It is 'supposed' that the groom has secretly stashed some of the presentation money for himself upon his person. To right this supposed theft, the bride's loyal, young, drunk, male relatives helpfully drag him to the middle of the dance floor in front of witnesses, strip off the groom's jacket, seize him, and throw him in the air above their heads/shake him upside down to make the money fall out. Grooms are typically equipped with a pocketful of change for this purpose. It can be nerve-wracking to watch a groom being gleefully shaken upside down by a large group of drunken men; try not to think about spinal fractures. The hopefully-unfractured groom is eventually returned, red-faced and dizzy, to the bride, and the reception continues with the late lunch and dancing.

The presentation money is entrusted to someone regarded as exceptionally trustworthy; they often leave the reception with the envelopes at that point. 95% of the envelopes contain cheques, not cash, so not much opportunity for theft anyway.

Congratulations. You are now prepared to attend a local wedding I believe presentation was Ukrainian in origin but is widely practiced here.

[ 26. June 2013, 03:23: Message edited by: Leaf ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.

---

I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.

I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.

---

I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.

I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The rule I was taught for weddings and funerals is that guests are on their own for alcoholic drinks (Except the wedding toast). The food should be free for the guests.

---

I'd consider that unusual. Pretty much every wedding I have been to, including my own, has had a meal with wine and champagne provided by the hosts. As I see it, a meal includes drink as well as food, and the thing you drink with a proper meal is wine.

I don't see "cash bar" as very different from "we've reserved the back room at the Turgid Cactus on 5th Street - dinner will be $25 a head".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
Presentation: The head table (marrying couple in the middle, attendants on either side) is set up at one end of a reception hall, facing the dance floor. People have typically been dancing for a few hours after dinner and speeches.

At 10 pm, as a lunch is being brought out, "presentation music" begins and the dance floor clears. That is the cue for guests to form a long line, in pairs, in front of the marrying couple. The room forms a gigantic "T" shape with the head table at the top of the "T".

The couple has a large bowl in front of them on the head table. Guests place the envelope with cash in the bowl, kiss the bride and kiss/shake hands with the groom. Then guest couple "splits": male guests move down the line kissing the female attendants, female guests move down the line kissing the male attendants. [This predates SSM; I don't know what the protocol is for gay and lesbian guests. However by that point people have had a few drinks and there's a lot of general kissing anyway.]

After presentation comes a rather terrifying ritual. It is 'supposed' that the groom has secretly stashed some of the presentation money for himself upon his person. To right this supposed theft, the bride's loyal, young, drunk, male relatives helpfully drag him to the middle of the dance floor in front of witnesses, strip off the groom's jacket, seize him, and throw him in the air above their heads/shake him upside down to make the money fall out. Grooms are typically equipped with a pocketful of change for this purpose. It can be nerve-wracking to watch a groom being gleefully shaken upside down by a large group of drunken men; try not to think about spinal fractures. The hopefully-unfractured groom is eventually returned, red-faced and dizzy, to the bride, and the reception continues with the late lunch and dancing.

The presentation money is entrusted to someone regarded as exceptionally trustworthy; they often leave the reception with the envelopes at that point. 95% of the envelopes contain cheques, not cash, so not much opportunity for theft anyway.

Congratulations. You are now prepared to attend a local wedding I believe presentation was Ukrainian in origin but is widely practiced here.

---

quote:

---

Expectations of marrying couples, hosts, and guests vary by culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
http://www.bigroast.com/essex/hog-roasts/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
True - but if "the average" wedding costs £20,000 - I think you could have something fun with 150 guests for between £2000 to £2500, including venue hire, service and outfits.

(I would think you could also buy enough beer and cider with the hog roast not to need to charge the guests, or provide an amount to be going on with and invite people to byob for a shared bar.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The position I'm arguing against is the "you don't need to wait and save up for a wedding" because for many people there are three options:
1: wait and save up for the wedding
2: have the wedding now and get horribly into debt
3: have the wedding and cut back the guest list to only a very small handful of people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I attended one wedding where a buffet meal was served. Tables were called up one at a time to self serve. By the time they reached my table which was last, there was very little left for us to eat as some of the previous tables had 'pigged out'. Just a warning as I think served plates are more satisfactory in view of my experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Or option 4: have as many people as you like but do it within your means.

Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone.

---

quote:

---

This used to be very common among 'ordinary' working class people. My gran remembers weddings from her day where the 'meal' was a scotch egg and a pork pie and a natter at the bride's mother's house, and their honeymoon was a weekend in a cheap London B&B.

---

quote:

---

Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone. This used to be very common among 'ordinary' working class people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

We got married nearly 25 years ago on a shoestring, and even then it cost about £500 (not including the honeymoon). About half of that was the cost of the reception; generously paid for by my parents and catered by a consortium of my relatives - and yes, in a church hall. I can quite understand how someone could run up a four-figure bill for a wedding nowadays without being extravagant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone.

---

quote:

---

IMO, it is quite ridiculous to run up a debt on the first day of your married life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
But I'm not a big fan of shaming people into having the cheapest possible option either. And the poorer you are, the more ideas people have about what is an acceptable use for your money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I am another one in a culture where fruit squash really isn't an option.

The culture in France is that you have (usually) an afternoon ceremony, followed by champagne and petits fours for everyone, and then a nice sit down dinner in the evening for a more select group of guests. Not to have wine here would be the insult of the century. It just kind of has to be done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Although if you're poor it's not your money is it? It's debt that's the problem, people should have a wedding they can afford, otherwise its silly. People are hardly being shamed into having cheap weddings. At least no-one I've ever heard of. I feel most people are shamed by our prevailing culture into having huge expensive weddings that stress them out, and cost money they can't afford to spend.

---

quote:

---

I chose to break with my family's cultural expectations at my wedding and have a buffet, and also to forgo the traditional greeting line since me and my bride hate such stiff formality. My family were a bit surprised since many had never been to a wedding without a sit-down meal or a greeting line. But it was our wedding, not theirs, and I think they still had a good time despite their surprise.

---

quote:

---

And regarding people who have 180+ guests and can't find a free/cheap place to hold a reception. The simple answer is, if you can't afford a reception don't have a reception. It's not an essential requirement.

---

quote:

---

But I think in most cases if you don't know anyone at all among those 180 friends and family who can provide contacts to get a free/cheap place for people to gather then you're probably not trying hard enough. Everyone knows someone. You might not be religious, but one of your friends might be.

---

quote:

---

I hired a venue for my wedding because we could afford it. But our engagement party was held for free at my mum's amateur dramatics group hall for instance. It was a bit down market, but when filled with people, and with a few balloons up, no one cares.

We could have had our reception there if we chose to. Food provided by aunts and uncles. Cost £0. For our wedding we did get our cake for free as a wedding gift from my wife's aunt, photos were free as a gift from my uncle. Flowers provided by a women my MIL is friends with. But most people don't even try to ask around to get things done cheaply.

---

quote:

---

They go straight to the wedding catalogue with all the shiny pictures and ridiculous price tags and act like a kid in a candyshop.

---

quote:

---

For our wedding we did get our cake for free...

---

No, you didn't. Your aunt paid for it.

We didn't pay for ours either; it was a gift from my sister's fiancée (now my brother-in-law) who is a baker. I didn't pay for a wedding organiser, or for my hair to be done, or for musicians and a caller at the barn dance, or for a chauffeur to take us to the station for our honeymoon trip. All these things were done for us without any cash incentives, but they weren't free; they were very much appreciated gifts from various relatives and friends.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
@Leaf: thank you for your presentation about Presentation, I knew nothing about this. I cannot watch video very well with my current internet connection so I couldn't listen to the Presentation music, but maybe I should be glad I didn't?

In the Netherlands, invitations to weddings, birthdays etc. won't have "Presentation" written on them, but they might have something like "Gift suggestion: ✉" written discretely in a corner. This still leaves the choice open to the guest whether to go along with the suggestion or not.

What also happens sometimes is that the Master of Ceremony (usually a brother or sister of the bride or groom) sends a letter along with the invitation saying that the couple are dreaming about some big item, and they suggest that guests may contribute money towards it.
 

---

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Surely the point is that everybody is entitled choose their wedding – and as long as they can afford is so what? The huge problem is that so many people can’t afford it but have bought into the dream and go to extraordinary lengths to pay for it.

One of our groups of churches is pretty village church that people flock to for their weddings, we see the full price range of weddings and each is lovely. But we do get ones that are funded on credit, as the couple think they have to have everything they see in the mags etc.

There is a huge wedding industry that tempts couples into wanting more. As I said in a previous post a cake maker told me that when they do wedding cakes, they charge much more than they do for the same cake but for a different celebration.

It seems to be about the day and not their life together. We have even had weddings that are not even paid for before the couple separate.

But to expect your guests to fund your dream and then to be rude when they don’t, is not about choice of wedding, its about living beyond your means and bad manners.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

They decided to go first of all for a registry wedding, so they could start living together and have babies; and of course it was as cheap as chips. And are now saving up for the huge celebration which'll involve lots of far away family and many friends; centred on a Dedication (or blessing) service in church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Speaking of what's cultural, the obligation to invite everyone you've met to your wedding is cultural too. I can't personally imagine having a couple hundred people I wanted to invite to my wedding. We invited fifty to the reception and that was higher than I would have done it if not for family expectations.

---

quote:

---

Autenrieth Road: Weddings are in a whole different class, and I rarely even hear when a wedding is performed at our church, whether before or after the fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sure, there's a cultural element, but the size of your group of close friends and family isn't just cultural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Even buying fish and chips for 120 people would cost something like £1k

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sure, there's a cultural element, but the size of your group of close friends and family isn't just cultural.

---

But how you define close friends and family probably is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Autenrieth Road: Weddings are in a whole different class, and I rarely even hear when a wedding is performed at our church, whether before or after the fact.

---

In the Protestant Church of the Netherlands, it is compulsory to announce a wedding in three regular church services beforehand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Many people have suggested ways of doing so above but still can't get past the idea of "having it all". Everyone wants to hire a private venue, have a sit-down waiter-service meal laid on for everyone followed by a week abroad in the sun.

Why can't you have a reception in a back garden or a church hall, and get relatives to provide a food buffet and fruit squash for everyone. This used to be very common among 'ordinary' working class people. My gran remembers weddings from her day where the 'meal' was a scotch egg and a pork pie and a natter at the bride's mother's house, and their honeymoon was a weekend in a cheap London B&B.

The idea of a wedding breakfast with sit down waiter service, and elaborate table decorations in an expensive hotel is ridiculously extravangant and out of the price range for most people who have it. Even a pork roast is very expensive for what it is, but its fashionable so many people want one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Speaking of what's cultural, the obligation to invite everyone you've met to your wedding is cultural too. I can't personally imagine having a couple hundred people I wanted to invite to my wedding. We invited fifty to the reception and that was higher than I would have done it if not for family expectations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Weddings are in a whole different class, and I rarely even hear when a wedding is performed at our church, whether before or after the fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Someone earlier posted about a Texas church which was offering completely free weddings if you got married within the regular Sunday service. If the couple with no money got married either within the Sunday service slot (you wouldn't want it every week, but an occasional service turning into a nuptial mass for regular parishioners doesn't seem like a bad thing) or directly before the Sunday service (so they can still take communion together as a married couple pretty much straight afterward) it needn't cost anything beyond the statutory fee for registering the marriage. The minimal marriage service (the religious equivalent of the registry office quickie) can't take more than ten minutes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
@Leaf: thank you for your presentation about Presentation, I knew nothing about this. I cannot watch video very well with my current internet connection so I couldn't listen to the Presentation music, but maybe I should be glad I didn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I know a couple - good churchgoing folk so no problem with church services - who wanted to start a family, but be married first. They also wanted a lovely big celebratory wedding with family from far away overseas over to visit. But the funds for that were a long way off.

They decided to go first of all for a registry wedding, so they could start living together and have babies; and of course it was as cheap as chips. And are now saving up for the huge celebration which'll involve lots of far away family and many friends; centred on a Dedication (or blessing) service in church.

It'll be a celebration of their marriage, rather than a wedding. And while it took me a while to get my head round it, knowing the couple and what it means to them, I think it's a fantastic idea.

---

quote:

---

John Holding: Followed by the blessing of the civil marriage of the parents of two of the baptisees.

---

quote:

---

@ Jane R: I suspect it was the initial culture clash that caused the problem in the first place. I was tipped off by your word "intentionally" in, "I'd have thought intentionally hurting a friend's feelings would be considered rude in any culture."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I guess I'm old fashioned. But my expectation is that the wedding, including reception is paid for by the bride's father. Also, the invitations to the reception are from the bride's mother, and it is the bride's parents who are at the head of the receiving line. The reception is put on not by the couple, but by the bride's family for the couple.

Presents are for the couple, primary in the case where they are young and are (or will be) setting up a home for the first time. For weddings at other stages of life, presents are tokens of friendship.

If I am invited to an event, I do not expect to pay, unless that is clear up front, and acceptance is indicated by paying up. At a different kind of event, there is a difference between 'RSVP' by itself at the bottom of the invitation, and "RSVP, PBAB".

If funds are tight, then get the family and friends to rally round, as has been illustrated up-thread. And cut your coat to fit the cloth. The pattern which La Vie en Rouge gives is not confined to France, i.e. you have the 'general' reception first, perhaps at the venue for the ceremony - just drinks and nibbles. Then a small party of close family and friends goes to a nice venue for a meal. And if funds are tight, it is obviously a lot easier to ask these people for a contribution as they know the couple's circumstances.

The story in the OP suggests that the invitees with the rejected present were not close friends to the couple, as they did not know about allergies. Were they invited in the expectation that the couple would get a cash present which was greater that the cost of the guests?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That's the trouble with culture clashes - nobody bothers telling you what you've done wrong until you've done it. Because everybody knows you shouldn't do it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's just a generational thing, Jade. I had no expectation of it being "my wedding" - my parents hosted it and paid for it. It was a "send-off" as much as the start of something new. The wedding was a rite of passage, not "the bride's big day."

I would have preferred something less formal, with more of our friends there, but we didn't have to pay, and we got lots of presents.

One gripe was that we (regular church-goers both) wrote out the Order of Service but when it came back from the printers my mother had changed it, having vetoed the word "benediction" on the grounds that it "sounded Catholic." Of course, there was a benediction at the end, it just wasn't mentioned on the Order of Service. Mum discounted our actual knowledge of the way church services worked - she just assumed that Protestants wouldn't use Latin-sounding words, and that we were wrong.

---

quote:

---

Again, what would have happened if you hadn't had parents around? Surely even when you got married, there were people in that situation?

---

I can't recall anyone I knew who didn't have at least one parent around, so I can't answer that.
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
My wedding was a cross between the Jade Constable and North East Quine examples. We were young and penniless so parents paid for it, but we all had different expectations. My parents saw it as their party to send me off, Husband and I saw it as our wedding that should suit our taste, his parents were actually pretty silent and just paid half the cost. I found myself constantly clashing with my Mum, and she would always play the "we're paying for it" or "this is what is expected" cards. In the end, i found the conflict so stressful, I backed down and let her make many of the decisions. It is just a party after all and at least they let me choose the groom If I were getting married now (and paying for it) I would have a much less formal do, although it probably wouldn't work out any cheaper.

My point is, everyone, even within the same culture - even within the same family - has different expectations of what "ought to" happen at weddings. My suspicion is that the "ought" is inserted at will, to justify pushing one's own agenda. A least it all points to how important people think weddings are, which is a good thing. They are hugely significant milestones.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Mrs. Cniht and I hosted our own wedding. For various reasons, having her parents host wouldn't have worked.

So, because we were the hosts, the invitations came from us ("Mr Leo Cniht and Miss Bride Tobe request..."), all the arrangements were made by us, and all the cheques signed by us. Various family members insisted on making a contribution towards our costs, which was very nice of them, but we wouldn't have done anything differently if we were on our own.

[ 27. June 2013, 18:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Leaf wrote:

quote:

---

Some cultures have shaming issues around food, especially at festive celebrations i.e. If you don't have enough food, or good quality food, the proper response of the host is to die of shame. (I'm looking at you, Italians and Ukrainians.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Leaf wrote:

quote:

---

Some cultures have shaming issues around food, especially at festive celebrations i.e. If you don't have enough food, or good quality food, the proper response of the host is to die of shame. (I'm looking at you, Italians and Ukrainians.)

---

Add the Irish to that list.

We've hosted my Irish wife's family a couple of times...one time in a tent. She bought the whole shop. They all arrived carrying the total produce of a load of other shops. Then it started to rain. We could barely get in the bloody tent for all the food, and even after stuffing our faces, were left with mighty piles of high-spec leftovers and no fridge.

My missus gets jumpy about visiting people, since she imagines the collosal spasms of obsessive-compulsive hospitality we'll be about to put them to.

It's all a bit wierd for a working-class Essex boy who was brought up to believe it was 'being flash' to offer more than a cup of tea and a cheap biscuit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I also bothered at least one person by giving myself away. Said I wasn't going to be given away if Bullfrog wasn't, and he said he wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That's the trouble with culture clashes - nobody bothers telling you what you've done wrong until you've done it. Because everybody knows you shouldn't do it...

---

Unless one lives in a homogenous culture and every invitee is part if this same culture, this is not an excuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That's the trouble with culture clashes - nobody bothers telling you what you've done wrong until you've done it. Because everybody knows you shouldn't do it...

---

Unless one lives in a homogenous culture and every invitee is part if this same culture, this is not an excuse.

---

Uh, why the heck not?

The point is that one can't know what you don't know that you don't know. And the thing about "invisible culture" is that those in the dominant culture can't know what they don't know that you don't know. Which means the clashes will be inevitable. Doesn't matter if there are other people who are from other cultures or not-- just means they will have their own faux pas to worry about, probably different from yours, but equally fraught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

If nothing else, the point we should take away from this surprisingly long-lived thread is for everyone on both sides of the equation to offer each other a lot more grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That's the trouble with culture clashes - nobody bothers telling you what you've done wrong until you've done it. Because everybody knows you shouldn't do it...

---

Unless one lives in a homogenous culture and every invitee is part if this same culture, this is not an excuse.

---

Uh, why the heck not?

The point is that one can't know what you don't know that you don't know. And the thing about "invisible culture" is that those in the dominant culture can't know what they don't know that you don't know. Which means the clashes will be inevitable. Doesn't matter if there are other people who are from other cultures or not-- just means they will have their own faux pas to worry about, probably different from yours, but equally fraught.

---

These are reasons why things happen, I maintain they are not excuses. Nor should they necessarily be points of contention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
My daughter wanted me to give her away -- but my wife objected, and insisted that the response to the traditional, "Who gives this woman away?" was, "Her mother and I do." That was acceptable to all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

My point is that we call it "invisible culture" for a reason. It's invisible to the people in it (who assume "everyone knows") and it's invisible to the people outside it (who can't know what they don't know). Neither side "sees" it until the clash happens. And that is the case whether the wider culture is homogenous or heterogenous. There is not necessarily any ill intent on either side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

My point is that we call it "invisible culture" for a reason. It's invisible to the people in it (who assume "everyone knows") and it's invisible to the people outside it (who can't know what they don't know). Neither side "sees" it until the clash happens. And that is the case whether the wider culture is homogenous or heterogenous. There is not necessarily any ill intent on either side.

---

I do understand invisible culture, though I do not think it is the case in the OP.
I am less than accepting of invisible culture, though. It is one reason racism, sexism and other issues persist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Which is why, again, grace is the most important thing here. Giving people the freedom to move into an unfamiliar culture, knowing they'll make blunders. Being willing to look a bit foolish when you do. Being open to correction. A heavy dose of humility and a lot of good communication on both sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Invisible culture can lead to inequality when there are invisible barriers. That's obviously huge. But the solution is not to label it "racist" because, if it truly is invisible culture, it's not racism, it's just the inevitable assumptions of the majority culture. The way you break down the inequality is by making the invisible barriers visible-- becoming aware of them so you can accommodate newcomers. You don't get there by labeling people, you get there by education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

I don't think mistakes due to invisible culture are racist or sexist-- they are innocent errors, blindspots. Racism and sexism occurs when it's not unintentional-- when the invisible becomes visible, and yet you continue to insist on your way because it is "right" or "the way things should be".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's mostly upper-class white academia where I encounter this sort of oppressive guilt-laden agenda about invisible culture that only creates more barriers.

---

This description does not, quite, fit me. My approach might be equally screwed up, but it is different.
 

---

Posted by The Intrepid Mrs S (# 17002) on :
 
Returning to the vexed question of money, The Intrepid Miss S is marrying Future Son-In-Law in October - she wouldn't pay the extra for a summer wedding when it would probably rain anyway, and she's getting married ona Friday because it's cheaper.

Rather than endless tooth-sucking about the costs of everything (Mr S notoriously never pays a ha'penny if he can get away with a farthing!) we just gave them A Sum of Money. FSIL's mother and stepmother gave them the same as they'd given FSIL's sister. We don't know what the total cost will be, because we have left it all to them to decide.

Miss S has a spreadsheet with every item budgeted for. The sheet includes what money they have been promised; how many months remain to The Day; and in consequence, how much they need to save each month to come out square.

Despite this, we have been allowed to issue the invitations*, and Mr. S will walk her down the aisle (though I understood that the correct response to 'Who giveth this woman...' was simply to hand over the bride's hand in silence, NOT to say 'I do', in case you ended up married to your own daughter).

* because that's what it says in Debrett - FSIL bought her their Wedding Guide as a joke!

Finally, after much agonising, they are including details of their wedding list on the additional info sheet, prefaced by 'Should you wish to celebrate our marriage with a gift...' and there are plenty of less-expensive items there. I certainly don't believe they have any expectation of receiving a gift of equal or greater value to the per-head cost of the reception, whatever it might be.

Mrs. S, practising wearing a hat and heels
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
"Who gives this woman..." is not part of any recognized Anglican rite, so far as I am aware, at least not based on the texts of the relevent Prayer Books.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Intrepid Mrs S:

...though I understood that the correct response to 'Who giveth this woman...' was simply to hand over the bride's hand in silence, NOT to say 'I do', in case you ended up married to your own daughter....

---

Not in England. The Prayer Book has "I will", not "I do". Just like every other Church of England marriage service since. And once upon a time marriages could be annulled if words such as "I will" were not used. I suppose the idea was that "will" implies a voluntary choice, and an intent to marry. (Which has always been required for a valid marriage in England, ever since there was an England, long before there weas any legislation on the matter, forced marriage was never legal here, and merely saying the words at the wrong moment doesn't get you wed either, because you need the intention.)
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
"Who gives this woman..." is not part of any recognized Anglican rite, so far as I am aware, at least not based on the texts of the relevent Prayer Books.

---

Please look at note 6 here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It just says "may".

Mind you, having seen some of the colossal confections that certain brides-to-be wear, being escorted by a stretcher party would be a better plan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sorry, I took 'the bride may....or the bride and groom may' to indicate only two possible choices. It doesn't say that it's optional, which surprises me since that must be the case.

---

quote:

---

Firenze: Reminds me of Most Pathetic Slogan Ever - 'You may get it at Menzies'. Which irresistibly suggests that, equally, you May Not.

So the wording seems to me to mean either may, but neither must.

---

(In Mozambican Portuguese, the way to ask for the time is not Que horas são? [What time is it?] but Que horas pode ser? [What time may it be?]

I always feel an urge to answer: "It may be twenty past three in the afternoon, but it also may be 5 o'clock in the morning..." )
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Under common worship the giving away is optional. If used the brides father does not say anyting just hands over his daughter's hand into the groom's

---

quote:

---

I am less than accepting of invisible culture, though. It is one reason racism, sexism and other issues persist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Under common worship the giving away is optional. If used the brides father does not say anyting just hands over his daughter's hand into the groom's

---

1662 has "The Minister, receiving the Woman at her Father's or Friend's hands..." so nothing to say, and they don't have to be the Dad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
lilbuddha:

quote:

---

I am less than accepting of invisible culture, though. It is one reason racism, sexism and other issues persist.

---

That's true, but like cliffdweller I don't think you should immediately jump to the conclusion that the person doing something that seems odd to you *intended* to give offence. Even people from the same culture may have different ideas about what is polite - the fact that this thread has been running for five pages should tell you that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

For example my Other Half wrote my parents a thank-you letter after staying at our house for the first time. They were charmed, but also surprised; he'd already thanked them personally at the end of his stay and they weren't expecting a note as well.

If I'd been the one to go and stay at his parents' house first I would not have sent them a letter afterwards, because it's not something we do in our family. Having been alerted to the difference in family cultures, I did send them a thank-you letter and was saved from a terrible faux pas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
lilbuddha:

quote:

---

I am less than accepting of invisible culture, though. It is one reason racism, sexism and other issues persist.

---

That's true, but like cliffdweller I don't think you should immediately jump to the conclusion that the person doing something that seems odd to you *intended* to give offence. Even people from the same culture may have different ideas about what is polite - the fact that this thread has been running for five pages should tell you that.

---

But I do not jump to that conclusion. If my posts seem to have implied this, it is a fault in my phrasing. Indeed, my OP was sparked by the bride's finding offense where there was likely none.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Had you not been aware, and therefore did not send the letter, I do not think it would have been terrible. Not certain it would even be a faux pas, as your expectations and theirs would be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Intrepid Mrs S:
Mrs. S, practising wearing a hat and heels

---

[tangent]My daughter got married last year and I had to do the same with the heels - Mr Nen was quite taken with idea of me in high heels doing the washing up - but I wore a fascinator, not a hat. I hope you all have a lovely day. [/tangent]

I like all these different ideas about how the bride and groom arrive at the altar. I did the traditional thing of being given away by my dad, and Nenlet1 did the same, but I might rethink things if I was doing it again... Although I guess I wouldn't... It was important to my dad...

Nen - feeling nostalgic.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
lilbuddha:

quote:

---

I am less than accepting of invisible culture, though. It is one reason racism, sexism and other issues persist.

---

That's true, but like cliffdweller I don't think you should immediately jump to the conclusion that the person doing something that seems odd to you *intended* to give offence. Even people from the same culture may have different ideas about what is polite - the fact that this thread has been running for five pages should tell you that.

---

But I do not jump to that conclusion. If my posts seem to have implied this, it is a fault in my phrasing. Indeed, my OP was sparked by the bride's finding offense where there was likely none.

---

fwiw, I read the above quoted post the precise same way, and indeed am having trouble putting that comment together with this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE
One is identifying the source of conflict, the other is the response to that conflict. Thinking people should be more aware of the others they interact with, does not mean I think offense should be taken when they fail to do so.

---

quote:

---

Reminds me of Most Pathetic Slogan Ever - 'You may get it at Menzies'. Which irresistibly suggests that, equally, you May Not.

---

quote:

---

All interactions are interpretations. We do start with assumptions, some of those are difficult to see. This does not mean they cannot be seen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am failing to communicate here. I am not illustrating the concepts well.
All interactions are interpretations. We do start with assumptions, some of those are difficult to see. This does not mean they cannot be seen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Taking offense requires a choice, though the level that this is conscious varies.
----------
I say these statements can be made without implying a judgement. I sense you do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Inevitable clashes. Here is the thing, unless one lives in a culture which is functionally isolated, one will know that all cultures are not the same. One may not know every difference, true. But that is more will than ability. I accept that misunderstandings will happen, regardless. However, I do posit that when one feels offense, it is often avoidable if one attempts to understand. That exploring the why is rarely impossible or unreasonable.

...That I do not think that culture clash need be inevitable does not mean I inherently assign a moral value or judgement to said clashes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

To explain the judgement thing I offer this example.
Racism is a description of a mindset. Calling it good or bad is a judgement. Calling a racist person good or bad, right or wrong is a judgement.

And it is often not black and white.
My Gran is racist. This is a statement of fact, she believes people are different based upon their "race." Her upbringing and experiences inform this, but as rural as her life has been, she does have opportunity to see why this may not be accurate. To her credit* though, she accepts individuals on their own merits.

*Yeah, that one is a judgement.

---

quote:

---

Here is the thing, unless one lives in a culture which is functionally isolated, one will know that all cultures are not the same.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0