Saturday, June 27, 2009

No kidding: The child-free couple allow parents another chance to air their views

No kidding: The child-free couple allow parents another chance to air their views
[A] father of three children under 6. . . pleads: “I wonder if you could stop telling me about your fantastic social life. I know I asked what you’d been up to, but it was purely rhetorical: I don’t actually want to hear that your suite had a plunge pool, or that everybody ended up back at Kate Moss’s, or that the sharks were so close that you could touch them. Show some sensitivity. Please shut up. Last weekend I went to the park four times and saw some tramps.”
. . .
Still on non-invitations, one of our respondents, a Miss S, a mother of one from Camberwell, complained: “This year alone I’ve had two wedding invitations that specifically excluded children. Who’s next for the ban? Old people? If you think children will ruin your wedding, do you think you should be getting married at all? It’s absolutely ridiculous. It makes my blood boil.”

One marrying couple did complain to us recently that, between the lot of them, their friends had nearly 150 children. That’s the size of a small school, and one can quite see how that might alter a sophisticated metropolitan reception. And the bill. But on the whole, marrying non-parents, we’re slightly ashamed of you on this one.
Oh, you know where I stand on this one. What so quintessentially celebrates the beginning of a childfree marriage as an adults-only celebration? I don't know where anyone gets off trying to push a guest-list agenda, let alone one which includes a probably unwilling participant who is likely to disrupt the festivities.

Technorati Tag:

4 comments:

Vinny C said...

I always get a bit confused about how people think banning babies from a wedding is the beginning of a slippery slope to banning old people. When was the last time you heard of someone bringing great-grandma to a wedding uninvited?

mccn said...

I also, frankly, don't get the equation. Old people are adults. Babies are not. Old people who need assistance with toileting and socially appropriate behavior generally are not invited to things like weddings; and, if invited, are often not able to come, as family is aware of the potential issues and is unwilling to pay for a companion or nurse to accompany them. The problems listed above are a description of babies and children. Families should be mindful of the problems caused by some feces-smeared, grubby, howling child at your wedding and react appropriately - just as if that person were going to be grandma.

Restless Cynicism said...

I think couples are perfectly within their rights to ban kids from their wedding. It is THEIR day and I've heard too many horror stories of people bringing babies and toddlers to weddings and letting them completely run riot, take all the attention, and cause nuisance and annoyance during the ceremony and reception (they ALWAYS take over the dancefloor for their own personal playground for starters). I'm very unlikely to get married but if I did my invitation would include the words "No children under the age of 8 years old". If anyone has a problem with that, then don't come. Simple.

One of my friends future sister in law actually withdrew from her wedding when she learnied her little darlings couldn't be page boy and maid of honour. Because she wanted THEM to have the spotlight. Sod that it was Liz's big day, HER kids are more important.

Newsfop said...

I was priveleged enough to be part of a tremendously elegant wedding this summer. My friends who got married are strongly child-free, and my wife and I are child-free as well. There was a marginal amount of push back on the "no children" policy, but there was no instance of any invasion of the small kind. Thus the whole day was a complete success, and it has been a topic of discussion many many many many times since.