Relatives who just don't get it

[A Definite Beta Guy]

My brother still hasn't told me he got married. Just heard it through the grapevine. That was....5 years ago?

[Imma]

Indeed. The effective way to acknowledge a wedding you aren't invited to (including an elopement) is to send a card or gift after the fact.

Is this a western/American custom?

If you don't invite me, you don't get a gift. I'm not going the extra mile to get a card or a gift.
I'm not holding a grudge; no invitation means I wasn't meant to be a part of their wedding festivities. It is what it is. Thus the favor is returned appropriately.

In my country (in Europe) we would handle this the same way as you would. No invitation = no gift. I might send a card though, if I know about the wedding beforehand. I don't think I would send a card after the fact. We are planning to elope at some point next year and we don't expect any gifts or cards, but we might receive some cards from elderly relatives.

I know from the internet that it's also common in America to give Christmas gifts to people you don't actually spend Christmas with. That would be very strange in my country too.

[gaja]

Indeed. The effective way to acknowledge a wedding you aren't invited to (including an elopement) is to send a card or gift after the fact.

Is this a western/American custom?

If you don't invite me, you don't get a gift. I'm not going the extra mile to get a card or a gift.
I'm not holding a grudge; no invitation means I wasn't meant to be a part of their wedding festivities. It is what it is. Thus the favor is returned appropriately.

In my country (in Europe) we would handle this the same way as you would. No invitation = no gift. I might send a card though, if I know about the wedding beforehand. I don't think I would send a card after the fact. We are planning to elope at some point next year and we don't expect any gifts or cards, but we might receive some cards from elderly relatives.

I know from the internet that it's also common in America to give Christmas gifts to people you don't actually spend Christmas with. That would be very strange in my country too.

Northern Europe here:
If my nephews got married, I would probably send a gift whether or not they invited me to their wedding. We had a tiny wedding with just parents, siblings, and very few friends, but no aunts, cousins, etc. The aunts sent presents, the cousins didn't. Some of the neighbours and collegues sent a card or some flowers.

[saguaro]

Northern Europe here:
If my nephews got married, I would probably send a gift whether or not they invited me to their wedding. We had a tiny wedding with just parents, siblings, and very few friends, but no aunts, cousins, etc. The aunts sent presents, the cousins didn't. Some of the neighbours and collegues sent a card or some flowers.

How I would respond would depend on the relationship. When our niece got married 10 years ago, she had a very small wedding in Vegas with only the parents of bride and groom and her brother.   We knew ahead of time and followed up with a card and gift afterward.   If this had been a friend or more distant relative, it might have been just a card.  However, a friend at work got married three months ago, quietly at the courthouse and I didn't find out until last week.  It was a bit late to do anything at that point other than say congratulations.

[mm1970]

Indeed. The effective way to acknowledge a wedding you aren't invited to (including an elopement) is to send a card or gift after the fact.

Is this a western/American custom?

If you don't invite me, you don't get a gift. I'm not going the extra mile to get a card or a gift.
I'm not holding a grudge; no invitation means I wasn't meant to be a part of their wedding festivities. It is what it is. Thus the favor is returned appropriately.

Right?  I'm from a poor, rural area, and we go one step further.

I am often  invited to weddings for my younger cousins.  They know, and I know, that I'm not going. I mean, it's 2500 miles away and 4 plane tickets. 

I do not send a card or a gift to a wedding that I am not attending.

At one point, my mother suggested that I should send a gift. Because: "Her parents bought you a wedding gift."  Yes, but:
1. Her parents were at my wedding
2. You are attending the wedding and providing a gift.

[jinga nation]

Since we're on wedding stories:

A first cousin of mine decided to get married in India this year. He didn't send us (my parents, my brother, or me) an invitation. Even worse, he ignored our first cousin sister (who took care of him for years when he lived in the north east).

His sister sent my parents and cousin sister a shoddy GIF of the invitation. A GIF. A. fucking. GIF. (For those unfamiliar, Indian weddings have multiple events from the bride's and groom's families. Thus the wedding invitation envelope contains multiple cards. She made a GIF of it.)

My cousin sister and her husband were really hurt. My parents decided to send a hundred or so bucks to him as a wedding gift. My dad's all traditional: "We must give something as a symbol of good wishes to them". My brother and I said fuck that scumbag. We used to buy him plane tickets to come to Florida when we were college kids/entry-level professional jobs.

I'm just happy that his wife's already doing damage to his wallet. Heard through the grapevine that she's gone back to India for a "visit".

[Just Joe]

I see that a lot, however my philosophy has always been to treat people very well year-round instead of making a big fuss at the holidays. I'd rather hand out a bottle of wine, a new wooden footstool, or a jar of strawberry jam or pickled mushrooms as soon as the goodies are ready, instead of letting it pile up and saving it for one big day.

I like that. Lots of little fun instead of an annual "binge season" that last three months.

[Just Joe]

I know from the internet that it's also common in America to give Christmas gifts to people you don't actually spend Christmas with. That would be very strange in my country too.

Yep - with my sibling we send gift cards back and forth all year long. Its pointless b/c neither of us are doing a good job of maintaining the relationship. If I stop I'll be the bad guy though. Ya pick your battles...

Is that really an American only thing?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I know from the internet that it's also common in America to give Christmas gifts to people you don't actually spend Christmas with. That would be very strange in my country too.

Yep - with my sibling we send gift cards back and forth all year long. Its pointless b/c neither of us are doing a good job of maintaining the relationship. If I stop I'll be the bad guy though. Ya pick your battles...

Is that really an American only thing?

I was raised Canadian so my guess is no.

[ixtap]

I know from the internet that it's also common in America to give Christmas gifts to people you don't actually spend Christmas with. That would be very strange in my country too.

Yep - with my sibling we send gift cards back and forth all year long. Its pointless b/c neither of us are doing a good job of maintaining the relationship. If I stop I'll be the bad guy though. Ya pick your battles...

Is that really an American only thing?

I was raised Canadian so my guess is no.

Thank goodness we never got into this! My parents have sent me something when we aren't together, but no one else.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Indeed. The effective way to acknowledge a wedding you aren't invited to (including an elopement) is to send a card or gift after the fact.

Is this a western/American custom?

If you don't invite me, you don't get a gift. I'm not going the extra mile to get a card or a gift.
I'm not holding a grudge; no invitation means I wasn't meant to be a part of their wedding festivities. It is what it is. Thus the favor is returned appropriately.

Right?  I'm from a poor, rural area, and we go one step further.

I am often  invited to weddings for my younger cousins.  They know, and I know, that I'm not going. I mean, it's 2500 miles away and 4 plane tickets. 

I do not send a card or a gift to a wedding that I am not attending.

At one point, my mother suggested that I should send a gift. Because: "Her parents bought you a wedding gift."  Yes, but:
1. Her parents were at my wedding
2. You are attending the wedding and providing a gift.

I think these are what some people call "courtesy invitations". Having family members that live far apart presents two challenges, and I think there are two issues at work at the same time: the wedding invitation, and the wedding gift.

What a wedding invitation implies varies from culture to culture, so YMMV. Same deal with a wedding gift.

In the specific subculture I was raised in, there's a pretty traditional protocol involving invitations and gifts. But the protocols are different. The reception is part of the hospitality tradition and protocol whereas the gift-giving part is not.

In the hospitality tradition, the host honors the guest by inviting and entertaining him or her. But reciprocity is expected. If I were hosting a reception for my daughter, I'd be required to invite everyone whose reception my daughter attended in an adult capacity with whom she still has a social tie, along with the people from my network with whom *I* have a strong social tie, particularly those who invite me to their weddings or the weddings of their children. There are cultures where the guest, by attending, is honoring the host... and this is not one of them. The guest's presence doesn't actually confer honor on the host and everyone understands that "the hono(u)r of your presence" mentioned on the invitation is a polite fiction.

In the tradition I was raised in, a person who wants to have a social relationship with the new couple *must* acknowledge the marriage and provide their contact information. This can be done by attending the ceremony and/or reception, or it can be done after the fact. After the fact acknowledgements can take the form of a congratulatory letter, or a card, or a gift. Sending no acknowledgement is a very serious signal that you do not approve of or recognize the marriage and/or that you want nothing to do with the new couple and desire no further social contact with them.

Whether the acknowledgement takes the form of a gift had nothing to do with whether the gift-giver is invited to the ceremony or reception, or whether they attend. It depends on two things: whether you're an adult (children under the age of majority are included in their parents' gifts) and whether you wish the new couple well and want to make at least a token gesture of support for their new life together. A gift like that generally relects the means of the giver and the level of continued contact desired.

Anyway, that's the tradition I was raised in, so I do send gifts.

[Linea_Norway]

I know from the internet that it's also common in America to give Christmas gifts to people you don't actually spend Christmas with. That would be very strange in my country too.

Yep - with my sibling we send gift cards back and forth all year long. Its pointless b/c neither of us are doing a good job of maintaining the relationship. If I stop I'll be the bad guy though. Ya pick your battles...

Is that really an American only thing?

I was raised Canadian so my guess is no.

Thank goodness we never got into this! My parents have sent me something when we aren't together, but no one else.

In Norway people also send each other Christmas presents per mail.

I personally order everything by mail, have it delivered at the place where we will celebrate Christmas, and then take a plane over there.

[Goldielocks]

Whether the acknowledgement takes the form of a gift had nothing to do with whether the gift-giver is invited to the ceremony or reception, or whether they attend. It depends on two things: whether you're an adult (children under the age of majority are included in their parents' gifts) and whether you wish the new couple well and want to make at least a token gesture of support for their new life together. A gift like that generally relects the means of the giver and the level of continued contact desired.

Anyway, that's the tradition I was raised in, so I do send gifts.

The unstated part of this is -- if you were not invited to the wedding, you may reconsider how close you want the social ties to be in future, so token gifts or cards only are typical  where a person was not invited.   The exception may be a great aunt who was not invited to a tiny out of town wedding, who still feels the close ties anyway.  Most other people (in my culture) take it as a clear sign that the couple wishes a smaller social circle of "friends" and a larger circle of "acquaintances", when they hold small weddings.

[Goldielocks]

Indeed. The effective way to acknowledge a wedding you aren't invited to (including an elopement) is to send a card or gift after the fact.

Is this a western/American custom?

If you don't invite me, you don't get a gift. I'm not going the extra mile to get a card or a gift.
I'm not holding a grudge; no invitation means I wasn't meant to be a part of their wedding festivities. It is what it is. Thus the favor is returned appropriately.

Right?  I'm from a poor, rural area, and we go one step further.

I am often  invited to weddings for my younger cousins.  They know, and I know, that I'm not going. I mean, it's 2500 miles away and 4 plane tickets. 

I do not send a card or a gift to a wedding that I am not attending.

At one point, my mother suggested that I should send a gift. Because: "Her parents bought you a wedding gift."  Yes, but:
1. Her parents were at my wedding
2. You are attending the wedding and providing a gift.

Whether the acknowledgement takes the form of a gift had nothing to do with whether the gift-giver is invited to the ceremony or reception, or whether they attend. It depends on two things: whether you're an adult (children under the age of majority are included in their parents' gifts) and whether you wish the new couple well and want to make at least a token gesture of support for their new life together. A gift like that generally relects the means of the giver and the level of continued contact desired.

Anyway, that's the tradition I was raised in, so I do send gifts.

The unstated part of this is -- if you were not invited to the wedding, you may reconsider how close you want the social ties to be in future, so token gifts or cards only are typical  where a person was not invited.   

The exception may be a great aunt who was not invited to a tiny out of town wedding, who still feels the close ties anyway.  Most other people (in my culture) take it as a clear sign that the couple wishes a smaller social circle of "friends" and who they consider to be family,  and want a larger circle of "acquaintances", when they hold small or even destination weddings.   That's ok, but clear.

[fredbear]

[...

The unstated part of this is -- if you were not invited to the wedding, you may reconsider how close you want the social ties to be in future, so token gifts or cards only are typical  where a person was not invited.   The exception may be a great aunt who was not invited to a tiny out of town wedding, who still feels the close ties anyway.  Most other people (in my culture) take it as a clear sign that the couple wishes a smaller social circle of "friends" and a larger circle of "acquaintances", when they hold small weddings.

Mrs Fredbear and I are both INTJs of the Strong I Strong J persuasion, and had a very small wedding.  Tiny.  Immediate family only, not even cousins.  The next day we had a very large reception (and told the guests that we had just combined two lives and had more crap than we knew what to do with, so please, no gifts but your presence).  The guests filled both yards and the house, extended a little way up the canyon walls,  out the driveway, and along the creek.  The centerpiece, by FAR more photographed than the aging celebrants, was an entire roast pig complete with baked-apple denture and maraschino cherries for eyes.  Ours was a slightly different take on using the marriage to manifest what social ties and circles we had had and wanted to have in future (amici quondam amici futurus) - we took it as our chance to get square at last with all the people we "owed" socially for parties and dinners, and all the people who had interested us over the last 40 years.  It was a lovely party for them, gnawing on greasy pigbones, swapping elaborate reminiscences of rivers and mountains past, gabbling volubly about ideas and books.  Neither of us had the chance to talk to half the people we wanted to. 

[Goldielocks]

Fredbear... that is  nice, I meant no invite to either a wedding nor a reception, in case of misunderstanding.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Whether the acknowledgement takes the form of a gift had nothing to do with whether the gift-giver is invited to the ceremony or reception, or whether they attend. It depends on two things: whether you're an adult (children under the age of majority are included in their parents' gifts) and whether you wish the new couple well and want to make at least a token gesture of support for their new life together. A gift like that generally relects the means of the giver and the level of continued contact desired.

Anyway, that's the tradition I was raised in, so I do send gifts.

The unstated part of this is -- if you were not invited to the wedding, you may reconsider how close you want the social ties to be in future, so token gifts or cards only are typical  where a person was not invited.   The exception may be a great aunt who was not invited to a tiny out of town wedding, who still feels the close ties anyway.  Most other people (in my culture) take it as a clear sign that the couple wishes a smaller social circle of "friends" and a larger circle of "acquaintances", when they hold small weddings.

If you mean, by "reconsidering", that a person whose past effort and investment in a bride or groom is clearly and publicly not being reciprocated when the opportunity arises has the right to decide to not continue to walk down the one-way street... then yes, I agree. Of course both the non-invitation and the response to it will do permanent damage to the relationship.

It seems to me that, in a culture that believes hospitality is a duty, and that emphasizes intergenerational support, destination weddings and the "small circle of friends" mentality don't go over well. A ceremony can be completely private (as in the case of an elopement) but each half of the couple has built up a social debt that simply has to be discharged, and a wedding reception is the most efficient way to do it. In an earlier post, Fredbear described just such a reception.

In the culture you describe, it's possible that the "small circle of friends" includes the people who have provided lifelong support to the couple.

I could see a wedding reception with a "small circle of friends" work well if and only if those people are the same ones who helped build the young couple up from childhood. That's seldom the case. The people included at such a ceremony are more likely to be a clique of whatever pals the bridal couple has at the moment. That clique very seldom contains the people who have done the work or who have made sustained investment in the individuals as children or young adults. Inviting the college roommate instead of the great-aunt or uncle who put the bride or groom through college in the first place, or who hosted the bride or groom during summer break, or who took care of that individual for a few months as a child while Mommy and Daddy got a divorce, is short-sighted.

It could be that the bridal couple have discovered some other means of repaying social debt, in which case a reception invitation isn't necessary. Of course, a couple that manages to function effectively as adults and as a couple may not *need* to have a wedding reception.

Getting treated as an "acquaintance" or like one of my parents' social appendages after I've spent years or even decades sending a bride or groom graduation gifts, supporting their charitable ventures, and acknowledging the birth of their children definitely feels like getting the shaft. I don't see the merit in letting such a moment pass unremarked. Simple loss of my patronage might be OK socially, but it doesn't satisfy me emotionally. I'm the sort of person who likes to twist the knife, or at least give a quick sweep of the scythe, when a member of my own set screws me over. It's one of my less pleasant personality traits. The gift can be token. But the acknowledgement will definitely be there on my end. Should the head of the celebrant(s) ever exit his or her sphincter such that he or she decides to act like an adult, the door will at least be open to future social interaction.

I find that the same people who don't believe they owe a social debt to earlier generations, and who do not wish to create similar ties of emotional caring and social obligation among the children of the next generation, are the people who bitch the loudest when they get passed over later. They never seem to believe in getting their fair share of babysitting out of their nieces, moving help out of their nephews, and inheritance from the older generation.

[Goldielocks]

I find that the same people who don't believe they owe a social debt to earlier generations, and who do not wish to create similar ties of emotional caring and social obligation among the children of the next generation, are the people who bitch the loudest when they get passed over later. They never seem to believe in getting their fair share of babysitting out of their nieces, moving help out of their nephews, and inheritance from the older generation.

I am not sure what you mean, can you explain?... the two sentences are contradictory?    they bitch the loudest when they get passed over, yet don't ask nieces and nephews for help..?

Here, a small wedding / reception / limited invites (elopement or destination or otherwise) signals that a couple intends to be self-contained in their marriage and relationships in future, and not seeking  to maintain a deeper link with the larger group.   Yes, there are exceptional circumstances to this... To say that they are shunning the larger group is perhaps a bit too strong, but it seems that's the effect after 10 years. 

[Imma]

Whether the acknowledgement takes the form of a gift had nothing to do with whether the gift-giver is invited to the ceremony or reception, or whether they attend. It depends on two things: whether you're an adult (children under the age of majority are included in their parents' gifts) and whether you wish the new couple well and want to make at least a token gesture of support for their new life together. A gift like that generally relects the means of the giver and the level of continued contact desired.

Anyway, that's the tradition I was raised in, so I do send gifts.

The unstated part of this is -- if you were not invited to the wedding, you may reconsider how close you want the social ties to be in future, so token gifts or cards only are typical  where a person was not invited.   The exception may be a great aunt who was not invited to a tiny out of town wedding, who still feels the close ties anyway.  Most other people (in my culture) take it as a clear sign that the couple wishes a smaller social circle of "friends" and a larger circle of "acquaintances", when they hold small weddings.

If you mean, by "reconsidering", that a person whose past effort and investment in a bride or groom is clearly and publicly not being reciprocated when the opportunity arises has the right to decide to not continue to walk down the one-way street... then yes, I agree. Of course both the non-invitation and the response to it will do permanent damage to the relationship.

It seems to me that, in a culture that believes hospitality is a duty, and that emphasizes intergenerational support, destination weddings and the "small circle of friends" mentality don't go over well. A ceremony can be completely private (as in the case of an elopement) but each half of the couple has built up a social debt that simply has to be discharged, and a wedding reception is the most efficient way to do it. In an earlier post, Fredbear described just such a reception.

In the culture you describe, it's possible that the "small circle of friends" includes the people who have provided lifelong support to the couple.

I could see a wedding reception with a "small circle of friends" work well if and only if those people are the same ones who helped build the young couple up from childhood. That's seldom the case. The people included at such a ceremony are more likely to be a clique of whatever pals the bridal couple has at the moment. That clique very seldom contains the people who have done the work or who have made sustained investment in the individuals as children or young adults. Inviting the college roommate instead of the great-aunt or uncle who put the bride or groom through college in the first place, or who hosted the bride or groom during summer break, or who took care of that individual for a few months as a child while Mommy and Daddy got a divorce, is short-sighted.

It could be that the bridal couple have discovered some other means of repaying social debt, in which case a reception invitation isn't necessary. Of course, a couple that manages to function effectively as adults and as a couple may not *need* to have a wedding reception.

Getting treated as an "acquaintance" or like one of my parents' social appendages after I've spent years or even decades sending a bride or groom graduation gifts, supporting their charitable ventures, and acknowledging the birth of their children definitely feels like getting the shaft. I don't see the merit in letting such a moment pass unremarked. Simple loss of my patronage might be OK socially, but it doesn't satisfy me emotionally. I'm the sort of person who likes to twist the knife, or at least give a quick sweep of the scythe, when a member of my own set screws me over. It's one of my less pleasant personality traits. The gift can be token. But the acknowledgement will definitely be there on my end. Should the head of the celebrant(s) ever exit his or her sphincter such that he or she decides to act like an adult, the door will at least be open to future social interaction.

I find that the same people who don't believe they owe a social debt to earlier generations, and who do not wish to create similar ties of emotional caring and social obligation among the children of the next generation, are the people who bitch the loudest when they get passed over later. They never seem to believe in getting their fair share of babysitting out of their nieces, moving help out of their nephews, and inheritance from the older generation.

I don't really get what you mean. Maybe I'm one of those people who don't believe they owe a social debt to earlier generations? But I simply have no idea who I'm supposed to owe for what. Of course, if you have an elderly wealthy great aunt willing to put you through college, you should be thankful to her for the rest of her life and invite her to all family occasions and keep in touch with her. But outside of Hollywood movies, who has great aunts like that? It seems a bit far fetched.

Maybe I take this personally because my fiance and I are planning to elope some time next year. We expect some negative reactions, but mainly from our direct relatives, we hadn't really thought about other people possibly being insulted too. In our case, we feel our relatives don't really give us any other choice but to elope. My parents have been divorced for a long time and my dad is a complicated, violent man with the impulse control of a toddler. For years, I paid his bills, washed his clothes, cooked for him, long after I had moved out and everyone else had given up on him. It was still never enough for him and all I got were complaints about how I never did anything for him. Despite my best efforts, he eventually lost his house, and he said he blamed me 100%. He got very violent with me and wanted to kill me - but he got some of his senses back and didn't actually kill me. That was the point I broke off all contact and I haven't been in touch with him since. My family doesn't agree with that, saying you can't blame him for his mental issues. My mother and siblings have announced they won't attend any wedding where he isn't present (my mother divorced him for the same reason, but she is of the opinion that the bond between parent and child cannot be broken, unlike the bond between spouses). On my fiance's side, his parents are divorced too and they'd love to come, but not if the other parent is attending. So our immediate family isn't giving us any other choice than elopement, in my mind.

Now, I know our immediate family is going to be insulted when we announce our recent marriage, but it's a direct result of their own actions. I hadn't for a second thought anyone else would be insulted. Your post got me thinking about that, but I still really can't see who we owe any kind of social debt to. Our grandparents were supportive as children, but only one of them is still alive. That grandmother is a very wise woman who recommended elopement in our circumstances. As long as we don't live in sin anymore, she's happy. We never received moral support, money or significant gifts from anyone. Maybe I'm blind to this, but I can't really think of any social debt we'd owe to anyone that needs repaying. I'm also not aware of anyone owing me any social debt either.

[shelivesthedream]

I really really think social debt is dependent on your particular family and expectations - and also the general tone of the wedding. We didn't invite any of my aunts, uncles or cousins to ours, even though I had been invited (and not been able to go - sent a nice handwritten apology but no present) to my older cousins' weddings in recent years. But theirs were big receptions with a disco - EVERYONE was invited so it would have felt a little off if I specifically wasn't. Ours was tiny and we only had my parents, brother, grandmother and some friends. (No one from my husband's family for awkward divorce-related reasons. If you try to make someone pick, don't be surprised if they pick neither of you.) Obviously not an insult to not invite all my extended family. Aunts and uncles generally sent a card with a small amount of money (£20 or so, what I usually get on my birthday) but I didn't expect them to (and wrote effusive thank you letters afterwards) and I wasn't bothered by anyone who didn't really acknowledge the event. Most of them still haven't met my husband as they live in a different part of the country and we don't really visit much as adults. I think we're all fine with that because that's the kind of family we are - low drama but also low contact (not for any special reason).

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I find that the same people who don't believe they owe a social debt to earlier generations, and who do not wish to create similar ties of emotional caring and social obligation among the children of the next generation, are the people who bitch the loudest when they get passed over later. They never seem to believe in getting their fair share of babysitting out of their nieces, moving help out of their nephews, and inheritance from the older generation.

I am not sure what you mean, can you explain?... the two sentences are contradictory?    they bitch the loudest when they get passed over, yet don't ask nieces and nephews for help..?

Here, a small wedding / reception / limited invites (elopement or destination or otherwise) signals that a couple intends to be self-contained in their marriage and relationships in future, and not seeking  to maintain a deeper link with the larger group.   Yes, there are exceptional circumstances to this... To say that they are shunning the larger group is perhaps a bit too strong, but it seems that's the effect after 10 years.

Oops: I meant to say "they never seem to believe they are getting their fair share of help from nieces and nephews".

[TheGrimSqueaker]

<snip>

I don't really get what you mean. Maybe I'm one of those people who don't believe they owe a social debt to earlier generations? But I simply have no idea who I'm supposed to owe for what. Of course, if you have an elderly wealthy great aunt willing to put you through college, you should be thankful to her for the rest of her life and invite her to all family occasions and keep in touch with her. But outside of Hollywood movies, who has great aunts like that? It seems a bit far fetched.

Most of the families on my mother's side are that way. Older generations frequently save in order to give their children, grandchildren, and other family members a better start in life. Helping with child care and education is common. So is a heavily subsidized start in a family business or a household. If a person doesn't have grandchildren, they select some nieces and nephews to receive special support. It generally isn't an entire university education that gets paid for, but room and board while a young adult is attending classes is not out of the question.

In your specific situation, your father did not do what a responsible and socially conscious parent does. Rather, he did the reverse and took where he should have given. Your description of his conduct shows him as displaying a galloping level of parental entitlement that I wish only existed in Hollywood movies, but that happens sometimes when a parent's nether sphincter is fastened too tightly about his or her neck.

Maybe I take this personally because my fiance and I are planning to elope some time next year. We expect some negative reactions, but mainly from our direct relatives, we hadn't really thought about other people possibly being insulted too. In our case, we feel our relatives don't really give us any other choice but to elope. My parents have been divorced for a long time and my dad is a complicated, violent man with the impulse control of a toddler. For years, I paid his bills, washed his clothes, cooked for him, long after I had moved out and everyone else had given up on him. It was still never enough for him and all I got were complaints about how I never did anything for him. Despite my best efforts, he eventually lost his house, and he said he blamed me 100%. He got very violent with me and wanted to kill me - but he got some of his senses back and didn't actually kill me. That was the point I broke off all contact and I haven't been in touch with him since. My family doesn't agree with that, saying you can't blame him for his mental issues. My mother and siblings have announced they won't attend any wedding where he isn't present (my mother divorced him for the same reason, but she is of the opinion that the bond between parent and child cannot be broken, unlike the bond between spouses). On my fiance's side, his parents are divorced too and they'd love to come, but not if the other parent is attending. So our immediate family isn't giving us any other choice than elopement, in my mind.

Now, I know our immediate family is going to be insulted when we announce our recent marriage, but it's a direct result of their own actions. I hadn't for a second thought anyone else would be insulted. Your post got me thinking about that, but I still really can't see who we owe any kind of social debt to. Our grandparents were supportive as children, but only one of them is still alive. That grandmother is a very wise woman who recommended elopement in our circumstances. As long as we don't live in sin anymore, she's happy. We never received moral support, money or significant gifts from anyone. Maybe I'm blind to this, but I can't really think of any social debt we'd owe to anyone that needs repaying. I'm also not aware of anyone owing me any social debt either.

Based on your post, it sounds to me as though your father owes you a gigantic social debt. You don't see it or acknowledge it in part because so many other people cooperated with him to enable him to continue to treat you poorly. Indeed, after years of being abused to that extent it may be hard for you to notice smaller-scale imbalances. Or, you might feel as though one-way-street relationships between adults are somehow normal, appropriate, and sustainable. (They're not.)

With your father, as with most abusive people, everyone has to maintain a level of contact that's "safe" for themselves, that will not lead to further abuse. In many cases, limiting contact to occasional essentially public interaction or online interaction is safe, but in your specific case you've tried it and found that, since you're his favorite target, the maximum safe contact you can have with him happens to be zero. Other people in your family can get away with more contact chiefly because they aren't his preferred target. It appears to me that you're maintaining a safe distance. You're also not falling for the velociraptor play. Good.

There's a natural give and take in all human relationships-- a sort of ebb and flow, as it were-- but sometimes the flow is predominately one-way with one person doing the lion's share of the giving and the other doing most of the taking, for an extended period of time. That, in most societies, creates a social debt even if both parties are willing. If the social debt is not balanced, eventually the person doing the giving turns off the tap, so to speak, and lets the relationship die a natural death. The symptom of a person who doesn't balance out social debt is... not having any close, long-term friends.

It sounds as though you have a basically abusive, non-functional family that is banding together to help your father continue to abuse you. Under the circumstances, eloping and sending a heartfelt letter to each of the people you would have otherwise invited to announce your marriage (and, for some, explaining in writing that your decision to elope is a direct result of their specific manipulative behaviors), is highly appropriate.

The gap left by your abusive family must have been hard to fill. Were there truly no teachers, coaches, neighbors, mentors, bosses, or co-workers who made a difference in your life, with whom you're still in contact? It just seems unusual to me that there's not even one individual besides your grandmother who's hosted you for holiday meals, lent you money, helped you move, babysat you as a child, watched your kids if you have any, let you couch surf for more than a couple days, or set you up with a job lead. If everyone who did that is deceased, then it's possible you don't actually owe anything to anyone because you really did do it all by yourself. Otherwise, you may want to make a list of people who have helped you or given to you in a big way, and consider finding some way to acknowledge them. You don't have to invite them to a wedding, or even a reception, but is it possible to host or entertain them individually? If you were to reach out to them in some way I believe you would put yourself in a position to cultivate a healthy network of people that could become what some people call a "family of choice".

[economista]

I recently had to deal with this whole invitation/gift/etiquette nonsense at my wedding last month.  I essentially paid for the whole wedding myself (my dad is still promising to reimburse me, but I'm not holding my breath) and our venue charged $60 per person for dinner.  We chose to have the wedding in my home state, and my husband's family lives in two different states, one is near my home state and the other is across the country.  We both live in a 4th state, completely across the country.  We decided that the wedding is essentially for our family, and we had to keep numbers down, so we only invited our immediate family members and 1st degree aunts and uncles.  We both have large catholic families so these "close" relatives meant inviting 200 people.

We assumed that most of my husband's family members wouldn't attend the wedding.  We invited them because it was the right thing to do, but outside of his parents and siblings who only live a few hours away, we didn't think any of his extended family would come.  Therefore we were not surprised when they RSVP'd no, but we were pleasantly surprised when a few of them sent us a card and check, for either $20 or $50.  What made me quite angry was how a few of my family members approached it.  They all live less than an hour away from the venue and I had 4 family units, composing 13 people (at $60 per head) simply not RSVP at all.  I called my aunt and grandma and they both said they would reach out to them, but they probably didn't send the RSVP cards back because they assumed I knew they would be there.  (I should point out that my extended family is usually very close - all of the aunts, uncles, and cousins get together lots of times throughout the year for cookouts, holidays, weddings, etc.)    It turns out none of them came to the wedding, but since I didn't know for sure they weren't coming until the day before, I had to pay for them anyway because they were in our final count.  I thought it was bad etiquette that they didn't send any kind of card or gift or congratulations, after I had to pay for them. 

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

[Goldielocks]

I really really think social debt is dependent on your particular family and expectations - and also the general tone of the wedding. We didn't invite any of my aunts, uncles or cousins to ours, even though I had been invited (and not been able to go - sent a nice handwritten apology but no present) to my older cousins' weddings in recent years. But theirs were big receptions with a disco - EVERYONE was invited so it would have felt a little off if I specifically wasn't. Ours was tiny and we only had my parents, brother, grandmother and some friends. (No one from my husband's family for awkward divorce-related reasons. If you try to make someone pick, don't be surprised if they pick neither of you.) Obviously not an insult to not invite all my extended family. Aunts and uncles generally sent a card with a small amount of money (£20 or so, what I usually get on my birthday) but I didn't expect them to (and wrote effusive thank you letters afterwards) and I wasn't bothered by anyone who didn't really acknowledge the event. Most of them still haven't met my husband as they live in a different part of the country and we don't really visit much as adults. I think we're all fine with that because that's the kind of family we are - low drama but also low contact (not for any special reason).

This is a great example of what I meant....  a small wedding is a sign that you are not looking for much in future relationship with the extended family.  You are proof that it can be okay to decide that, and the result is that "we don't really visit much as adults"... "low contact".   Honestly, for those people who invited me to their wedding, if now, 20 years later, after not much contact (once every few years), they needed a place to stay for a month during a divorce, or to be near an ill relative, I would likely say yes, if asked.  For those that did not, I would hesitate unless we had grown closer over the years.

Imma, there are times where an elopement is the best option.  IDK, I think I would find a way to include that grandmother in your elopement (just asking her how to include her in your elopement could figure it out, even if she declines).   

To me, the idea of social debt is repaid by inviting people you want to be there, and acknowledge those that have helped you in the past (mom, sister, close aunt or close cousins), and if /when they decline that has nothing to do with you.   If it is likely, I would just keep the event very small, where the only attraction /invite is to be with you when you get married (e.g, city hall, or small part ceremony), very like your planned elopement.

[Goldielocks]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

I have learned, to my personal embarrassment (giving the wrong type of gift), that different "cultures" or extended family / friend societies view the wedding gift etiquette very differently.  Some are insulted if you give a gift instead of money.  Many approximate the value of the wedding in calculating the gift, some believe that wedding gifts from guests are to be used to pay for the wedding (and given directly to the FOB who traditionally is hosting), others just approximate the value of the relationship to the couple or think of their own personal limited funds available (I would have spent $x for a Saturday night out, so the couple is getting $x in gift).  Some are insulted if you give money instead of a gift because money is impersonal and a maybe sign that you think you are better than they are, or don't think of them at all, and that you couldn't be bothered to get (or make, or take time to wrap) a gift.

[iris lily]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

I have learned, to my personal embarrassment (giving the wrong type of gift), that different "cultures" or extended family / friend societies view the wedding gift etiquette very differently.  Some are insulted if you give a gift instead of money.  Many approximate the value of the wedding in calculating the gift, some believe that wedding gifts from guests are to be used to pay for the wedding (and given directly to the FOB who traditionally is hosting), others just approximate the value of the relationship to the couple or think of their own personal limited funds available (I would have spent $x for a Saturday night out, so the couple is getting $x in gift).  Some are insulted if you give money instead of a gift because money is impersonal and a maybe sign that you think you are better than they are, or don't think of them at all, and that you couldn't be bothered to get (or make, or take time to wrap) a gift.

As for what you were taught, the basic rule of human life is that you cant control what others do, you canonly control your own behavior.

With no response to your invitations (which is silly and rude) I would have called each and every invited guest to ask if they would attend rather than assume someone's word for someone else's behavior. Sure you had a million things to do for this shindig. That's why many people dont do the
Big White Wedding thing, it is time consuming as well as expensive.

As for you being taught about giving a large amount of money for a wedding gift, please consider the fact that you can control only your own behavior and not the behavior of others.

Personally, I think it grasping and tacky to expect a monetary gift of equal value to the commercial meal provided to me at a social event. But whatever, I cant control your thoughts and expectations (see how that works?) and one should always have the wedding one can afford, not the one expected by others.

In the end I hope you had a great time at your wedding party and are now married to your best friend.

[Just Joe]

All these wedding rules and expectations make me crazy. We recently did not attend the wedding of a cousin. Low contact would be a generous name for it. 

I could not attend due to a work conflict but I doubt we would have attended anyhow. We sent them a nice card and $100 and called it "good". The gas money and wardrobe upgrades to attend would have cost more than that.

I hope they use the money wisely to establish their adult lives together and we'll never know what they do with it. I figure there is a 50/50 chance we'll get a thank you card.

The relative is a nice person but very much wrapped up in their own life. Never calls or writes. Never met the spouse. Facebook is central to their lives and I don't use FB.

[MgoSam]

Yeah, I don't know how people do big weddings. My brother and sister's weddings were huge ordeals and they spent considerable time, money (my parents paid for both of theirs, a fact that I'll remember for later uses), and stress in organizing.

One thing that got me was that my parents had to call nearly all of the relatives that were invited several times to get a RSVP. Apparently no one in the Indian community (at least in the MN community in which my parents are a part of) will respond to a wedding RSVP unless they are personally called. Then there are the people that are offended that they weren't invited or if they are invited then they get huffy that their adult children aren't.

I've told my parents that if I get married I plan on a courtroom wedding with a reception at a restaurant's private room or will elope/destination. Of course any such plans will depend heavily on my to-be-partner's wishes (but I hope that she will be on the same page as me). My parents have offered to pay for my wedding but I would rather they kept the money for their own uses. I cannot abide drama nor do I like to be the center of attention.

[mm1970]

I really really think social debt is dependent on your particular family and expectations - and also the general tone of the wedding. We didn't invite any of my aunts, uncles or cousins to ours, even though I had been invited (and not been able to go - sent a nice handwritten apology but no present) to my older cousins' weddings in recent years. But theirs were big receptions with a disco - EVERYONE was invited so it would have felt a little off if I specifically wasn't. Ours was tiny and we only had my parents, brother, grandmother and some friends. (No one from my husband's family for awkward divorce-related reasons. If you try to make someone pick, don't be surprised if they pick neither of you.) Obviously not an insult to not invite all my extended family. Aunts and uncles generally sent a card with a small amount of money (£20 or so, what I usually get on my birthday) but I didn't expect them to (and wrote effusive thank you letters afterwards) and I wasn't bothered by anyone who didn't really acknowledge the event. Most of them still haven't met my husband as they live in a different part of the country and we don't really visit much as adults. I think we're all fine with that because that's the kind of family we are - low drama but also low contact (not for any special reason).

This is a very good point.

The particular culture that I was raised in was more -

The invitation was a courtesy.  If a cousin gets married in my home town, they invite everyone.  All of the aunts and uncles (both sides) and all of the cousins.  This is a large # of people, and nobody wants to be excluded.  (A typical family wedding in my home town is 250-300 people, mostly relatives.)

Cousins that I was particularly close to (those my age, there were 4 of us) - I made the trip to attend the wedding and brought a gift.

It was interesting because TGS mentioned other social requirements like parents and their business contacts.   We were lucky enough to get married two weeks after my husband's sister.  We got engaged, set a wedding date.  (Sister said, but we are getting engaged too!) Anyway.  They got engaged 6 months after we did and set their wedding date for 2 weeks before.  This was for a very good reason - they have relatives in Europe who would come over and be able to attend both weddings.

It also caused a bit of difficulty - as her wedding was being paid for by her parents, her fiance's parents, and her grandmother - it was a much larger affair.  300+ people in their home town, where she still lived.

As my husband and I were getting married where we met, worked for 5 years, and where I currently lived - AND we were paying for it ourselves, our wedding was much smaller (100). 

So you can see the difficulties there - our typical family weddings were both in the 300 people range.  I dealt with my side by inviting the elders - aunts and uncles - but not the cousins.  However, for aunts and uncles with younger children, if they wanted to bring them, they could.  The same issue occurred with my husband's side.  There were 2 families that did not make our list (distant cousins) who were flying over for his sister's wedding, and they said "we're coming to yours too!" So we found space for them.  (They basically took up spots from people who declined to come.)

The thing that I *didn't* expect was the business acquaintance/ friends of my future FIL - who I met at his sister's wedding, and who flat out asked me why he wasn't invited to ours (and handed a gift).  I simply answered: "Well, I don't know you, and as we are paying for our own wedding, it's 1/3 this size."  But honestly, this is a business acquaintance who met my FIL *after* my husband was even out of the house.  So he didn't know him either!

I suppose our option could have been for me to get married in my home town, and have 300-400 people.  My whole family would go - but I think that as my home town is more than 2 hours away from the nearest major airport (with no hotels), many others would have declined to attend.  But I didn't want that, for many reasons.

[mm1970]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

It wasn't until my own wedding that I realized that some people were taught this is a "thing".  One friend of mine gave me cash equal to 2 dinners. We were coworkers, so she knew what it was per person.

It would never occur to me to do that.  I always thought people would bring what they could afford.  That's not the point of the wedding.  It's a celebration.

I had a few aunts and uncles come to my wedding and write a check for $25.  It was $55-60 a person.  But these are lovely people who drove 5 hours, paid to stay in a hotel, to attend my wedding. I was so thrilled that they came, I honestly didn't care if they brought any gift at all.  If we are going to decide that the gift should equal the cost of the wedding, then I figure cost of travel should be included.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

It wasn't until my own wedding that I realized that some people were taught this is a "thing".  One friend of mine gave me cash equal to 2 dinners. We were coworkers, so she knew what it was per person.

It would never occur to me to do that.  I always thought people would bring what they could afford.  That's not the point of the wedding.  It's a celebration.

I had a few aunts and uncles come to my wedding and write a check for $25.  It was $55-60 a person.  But these are lovely people who drove 5 hours, paid to stay in a hotel, to attend my wedding. I was so thrilled that they came, I honestly didn't care if they brought any gift at all.  If we are going to decide that the gift should equal the cost of the wedding, then I figure cost of travel should be included.

Sometimes I fantasize about there being a carved-in-stone rule about how much to spend, such that guests who must travel long distances could qualify for some of their expenses to be reimbursed, instead of having to bring or ship a gift in addition to all the other expenses.

[Goldielocks]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

It wasn't until my own wedding that I realized that some people were taught this is a "thing".  One friend of mine gave me cash equal to 2 dinners. We were coworkers, so she knew what it was per person.

It would never occur to me to do that.  I always thought people would bring what they could afford.  That's not the point of the wedding.  It's a celebration.

I had a few aunts and uncles come to my wedding and write a check for $25.  It was $55-60 a person.  But these are lovely people who drove 5 hours, paid to stay in a hotel, to attend my wedding. I was so thrilled that they came, I honestly didn't care if they brought any gift at all.  If we are going to decide that the gift should equal the cost of the wedding, then I figure cost of travel should be included.

Sometimes I fantasize about there being a carved-in-stone rule about how much to spend, such that guests who must travel long distances could qualify for some of their expenses to be reimbursed, instead of having to bring or ship a gift in addition to all the other expenses.

Whenever I hear about a destination wedding, I still immediately think about how much it must cost the bride and groom to fly their guests in and host them at the hotel.   And then I remember that this is not what usually happens.   I wish there was a rule about this too..  If you invite an out of town guest, that you are required to put them up *somewhere* (in a home, hotel, or tent in your backyard), which they can decline to pay for their own alternative, if desired.   

I am also weird for doing strange things like paying for my bridesmaid's dresses and the rental tuxes (I chose them, so I pay for them, right?)  etc. 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

It wasn't until my own wedding that I realized that some people were taught this is a "thing".  One friend of mine gave me cash equal to 2 dinners. We were coworkers, so she knew what it was per person.

It would never occur to me to do that.  I always thought people would bring what they could afford.  That's not the point of the wedding.  It's a celebration.

I had a few aunts and uncles come to my wedding and write a check for $25.  It was $55-60 a person.  But these are lovely people who drove 5 hours, paid to stay in a hotel, to attend my wedding. I was so thrilled that they came, I honestly didn't care if they brought any gift at all.  If we are going to decide that the gift should equal the cost of the wedding, then I figure cost of travel should be included.

Sometimes I fantasize about there being a carved-in-stone rule about how much to spend, such that guests who must travel long distances could qualify for some of their expenses to be reimbursed, instead of having to bring or ship a gift in addition to all the other expenses.

Whenever I hear about a destination wedding, I still immediately think about how much it must cost the bride and groom to fly their guests in and host them at the hotel.   And then I remember that this is not what usually happens.   I wish there was a rule about this too..  If you invite an out of town guest, that you are required to put them up *somewhere* (in a home, hotel, or tent in your backyard), which they can decline to pay for their own alternative, if desired.   

I am also weird for doing strange things like paying for my bridesmaid's dresses and the rental tuxes (I chose them, so I pay for them, right?)  etc.

Not weird, just more traditional. The origin of bridesmaid's dresses and a bunch of identically-dressed attendants was actually back when people in the nobility really did have servants or retainers for whom they provided a uniform. Weddings really went off the rails when it became socially acceptable to make people wear giant butt bows on their dresses AND pay for the dubious privilege of buying such a single-use monstrosity.

[MrsTuxedocat]

I am also weird for doing strange things like paying for my bridesmaid's dresses and the rental tuxes (I chose them, so I pay for them, right?)  etc.

You are awesome for doing that! I wish brides did not expect so much from their bridesmaids.  This summer, my sister in law was married and is a lovely person BUT she kept pressuring me to pay for make-up/up-do. I wasn't even in the wedding party.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

It wasn't until my own wedding that I realized that some people were taught this is a "thing".  One friend of mine gave me cash equal to 2 dinners. We were coworkers, so she knew what it was per person.

It would never occur to me to do that.  I always thought people would bring what they could afford.  That's not the point of the wedding.  It's a celebration.

I had a few aunts and uncles come to my wedding and write a check for $25.  It was $55-60 a person.  But these are lovely people who drove 5 hours, paid to stay in a hotel, to attend my wedding. I was so thrilled that they came, I honestly didn't care if they brought any gift at all.  If we are going to decide that the gift should equal the cost of the wedding, then I figure cost of travel should be included.

Sometimes I fantasize about there being a carved-in-stone rule about how much to spend, such that guests who must travel long distances could qualify for some of their expenses to be reimbursed, instead of having to bring or ship a gift in addition to all the other expenses.

Whenever I hear about a destination wedding, I still immediately think about how much it must cost the bride and groom to fly their guests in and host them at the hotel.   And then I remember that this is not what usually happens.   I wish there was a rule about this too..  If you invite an out of town guest, that you are required to put them up *somewhere* (in a home, hotel, or tent in your backyard), which they can decline to pay for their own alternative, if desired.   

I am also weird for doing strange things like paying for my bridesmaid's dresses and the rental tuxes (I chose them, so I pay for them, right?)  etc.

Not weird, just more traditional. The origin of bridesmaid's dresses and a bunch of identically-dressed attendants was actually back when people in the nobility really did have servants or retainers for whom they provided a uniform. Weddings really went off the rails when it became socially acceptable to make people wear giant butt bows on their dresses AND pay for the dubious privilege of buying such a single-use monstrosity.

The origin of bridesmaids identically dressed is far more ancient than that. All these women dressed the same was meant to confuse evil spirits that might curse the bride and groom. That's why the groomsmen also dress alike. And we have a bridal party because the Romans required 10 witnesses to a wedding.

I don't think anyone of any breeding would have a lowly attendant in a wedding party. The liveried staff were meant to be as unobtrusive as possible.

[shelivesthedream]

I really really think social debt is dependent on your particular family and expectations - and also the general tone of the wedding. We didn't invite any of my aunts, uncles or cousins to ours, even though I had been invited (and not been able to go - sent a nice handwritten apology but no present) to my older cousins' weddings in recent years. But theirs were big receptions with a disco - EVERYONE was invited so it would have felt a little off if I specifically wasn't. Ours was tiny and we only had my parents, brother, grandmother and some friends. (No one from my husband's family for awkward divorce-related reasons. If you try to make someone pick, don't be surprised if they pick neither of you.) Obviously not an insult to not invite all my extended family. Aunts and uncles generally sent a card with a small amount of money (£20 or so, what I usually get on my birthday) but I didn't expect them to (and wrote effusive thank you letters afterwards) and I wasn't bothered by anyone who didn't really acknowledge the event. Most of them still haven't met my husband as they live in a different part of the country and we don't really visit much as adults. I think we're all fine with that because that's the kind of family we are - low drama but also low contact (not for any special reason).

This is a great example of what I meant....  a small wedding is a sign that you are not looking for much in future relationship with the extended family.  You are proof that it can be okay to decide that, and the result is that "we don't really visit much as adults"... "low contact".   Honestly, for those people who invited me to their wedding, if now, 20 years later, after not much contact (once every few years), they needed a place to stay for a month during a divorce, or to be near an ill relative, I would likely say yes, if asked.  For those that did not, I would hesitate unless we had grown closer over the years.

Not to flog this horse any longer than we need to, but just to be absolutely clear about cause and effect: it is my parents and aunts and uncles who created the "low contact, not really visiting" culture in my family. I haven't seen any of my aunts and uncles regularly since my early teens, when I was still not in control of the relationship. Me not inviting them to my wedding was a continuation of the relationship that they chose to have with me. The cause was "we don't have much of a relationship" and the result was "I didn't invite them to my wedding", not the other way round. My grandmother, on the other hand, did a lot of legwork when I was emerging as an adult (i.e. no longer just a tagalong to my parents but an independent social entity). We therefore have a relationship and the result was she got invited to the wedding. So not to be childish, but they started it!

[Just Joe]

I think alot of us inherit these kinds of situations. Don't feel bad.

[MrMoogle]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

It wasn't until my own wedding that I realized that some people were taught this is a "thing".  One friend of mine gave me cash equal to 2 dinners. We were coworkers, so she knew what it was per person.

It would never occur to me to do that.  I always thought people would bring what they could afford.  That's not the point of the wedding.  It's a celebration.

I had a few aunts and uncles come to my wedding and write a check for $25.  It was $55-60 a person.  But these are lovely people who drove 5 hours, paid to stay in a hotel, to attend my wedding. I was so thrilled that they came, I honestly didn't care if they brought any gift at all.  If we are going to decide that the gift should equal the cost of the wedding, then I figure cost of travel should be included.

Sometimes I fantasize about there being a carved-in-stone rule about how much to spend, such that guests who must travel long distances could qualify for some of their expenses to be reimbursed, instead of having to bring or ship a gift in addition to all the other expenses.

Whenever I hear about a destination wedding, I still immediately think about how much it must cost the bride and groom to fly their guests in and host them at the hotel.   And then I remember that this is not what usually happens.   I wish there was a rule about this too..  If you invite an out of town guest, that you are required to put them up *somewhere* (in a home, hotel, or tent in your backyard), which they can decline to pay for their own alternative, if desired.   

I am also weird for doing strange things like paying for my bridesmaid's dresses and the rental tuxes (I chose them, so I pay for them, right?)  etc.

One of my good friends got married shortly after college.  Most of his friends are in my town, but some he met in college were not.  3-4 stayed at my place and 3-4 stayed at another friend's place (I think).  He also stayed at my place since his apartment was taken over by his soon-to-be-wife's bride's maids, since she was not originally from here.  They got a hotel room for the night after the wedding, then went on their honeymoon. 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I was also taught that you are supposed to give wedding gifts approximately equal to the cost of the dinner you were served at the reception.  You might not know exactly how much it cost, but you can usually guestimate from the type of wedding.  This is the protocol my husband and I follow, but this is not how our guests approached our wedding.  Maybe I've always been wrong?  Our wedding guests gave us either gifts or money that equaled roughly $50 per household, even though almost every household consisted of 2 adults and multiple kids.  Oh well.  It's not something I want to get held up on, but it was slightly disheartening, especially when I attended weddings for some of our guests in the past, and gave them quite a bit more than they gave us in return.

It wasn't until my own wedding that I realized that some people were taught this is a "thing".  One friend of mine gave me cash equal to 2 dinners. We were coworkers, so she knew what it was per person.

It would never occur to me to do that.  I always thought people would bring what they could afford.  That's not the point of the wedding.  It's a celebration.

I had a few aunts and uncles come to my wedding and write a check for $25.  It was $55-60 a person.  But these are lovely people who drove 5 hours, paid to stay in a hotel, to attend my wedding. I was so thrilled that they came, I honestly didn't care if they brought any gift at all.  If we are going to decide that the gift should equal the cost of the wedding, then I figure cost of travel should be included.

Sometimes I fantasize about there being a carved-in-stone rule about how much to spend, such that guests who must travel long distances could qualify for some of their expenses to be reimbursed, instead of having to bring or ship a gift in addition to all the other expenses.

Whenever I hear about a destination wedding, I still immediately think about how much it must cost the bride and groom to fly their guests in and host them at the hotel.   And then I remember that this is not what usually happens.   I wish there was a rule about this too..  If you invite an out of town guest, that you are required to put them up *somewhere* (in a home, hotel, or tent in your backyard), which they can decline to pay for their own alternative, if desired.   

I am also weird for doing strange things like paying for my bridesmaid's dresses and the rental tuxes (I chose them, so I pay for them, right?)  etc.

Not weird, just more traditional. The origin of bridesmaid's dresses and a bunch of identically-dressed attendants was actually back when people in the nobility really did have servants or retainers for whom they provided a uniform. Weddings really went off the rails when it became socially acceptable to make people wear giant butt bows on their dresses AND pay for the dubious privilege of buying such a single-use monstrosity.

The origin of bridesmaids identically dressed is far more ancient than that. All these women dressed the same was meant to confuse evil spirits that might curse the bride and groom. That's why the groomsmen also dress alike. And we have a bridal party because the Romans required 10 witnesses to a wedding.

I don't think anyone of any breeding would have a lowly attendant in a wedding party. The liveried staff were meant to be as unobtrusive as possible.

The identically-dressing women in those days were dressed the same as the bride. That hasn't been common for centuries. It's surprising because it seems incongruous now, but during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (and sometimes even later) it wasn't unusual for members of the aristocracy and nobility to willingly take out the chamber pot for members of the royal family.

Service to a higher-ranking person or family was not considered shameful in the feudal system. Waiting directly on the monarch provided people an opportunity to set themselves or their relatives up for other opportunities to make money such as being given lands or monopolies. If nothing else, they got to lobby for what they wanted. Meanwhile they became friends of the ruler. So there was competition for the job, and positions in the royal household often went to people of rank or children of the wealthy. For special occasions, such as coronations or weddings, the boss would put on a big party and pay for everything including a new and special set of clothing. It was a form of conspicuous consumption. The people in the wedding party *were* generally the ones nearest and dearest to the ruler.

Naturally plenty of people wanted to copy the King or Queen, at least superficially.

Pushing the cost of the clothing onto the wedding attendants kind of defeats the point of conspicuous consumption, at least to people in the know.

[merula]

Pushing the cost of the clothing onto the wedding attendants kind of defeats the point of conspicuous consumption, at least to people in the know.

But....if you buy clothing for your attendants today, in an era when wedding guests assume those costs are borne by the attendants themselves, is it still conspicuous consumption? I mean, it is for the attendants, who know you bought their clothes, but I feel like conspicuous consumption is supposed to be, I don't know, bigger?

I bought my wedding party's clothing. I thought I was being nice, but if we can reframe this as self-serving, I'm game. I always wanted some bridezilla stories about myself.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Pushing the cost of the clothing onto the wedding attendants kind of defeats the point of conspicuous consumption, at least to people in the know.

But....if you buy clothing for your attendants today, in an era when wedding guests assume those costs are borne by the attendants themselves, is it still conspicuous consumption? I mean, it is for the attendants, who know you bought their clothes, but I feel like conspicuous consumption is supposed to be, I don't know, bigger?

I bought my wedding party's clothing. I thought I was being nice, but if we can reframe this as self-serving, I'm game. I always wanted some bridezilla stories about myself.

Conspicuous consumption only needs to impress the people whose opinions matter. Being OK with the fact that there are large numbers of people whose opinions don't matter is the first step to take to achieve upper-class, entitled snobbery. The next step, the one that will vault you into true 'zilla territory, is taking the fact for granted. The behavior has to be automatic, reflexive, and unthinking. It's not just a process of not giving a f***. It's total obliviousness to the idea that a f*** might be wanted, expected, or given by other people in your position.

This is why the most tasteful charity, and the most tasteful spending, is not an attempt to impress the unwashed masses. You're doing it right with the dresses. Your 'zilladom will be an invitation-only event. Because you are superior. The fact that there's a ton of people whose opinions don't matter gives you massive snob credibility. It's what the Victorians were trying to do with all the bizarre little forks and spoons at a place setting: deliberately creating a gap between insiders and outsiders, and then hiring someone else to polish the results.

Whether the majority of the guests even bother to think about who paid for the dresses, and what their default expectation is, pretty much depends on the norm for your family and friends, and for those of your spouses. There's a tipping point at which one custom or the other, is the norm and won't excite comment.

[AlanStache]

...
The identically-dressing women in those days were dressed the same as the bride. That hasn't been common for centuries. It's surprising because it seems incongruous now, but during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (and sometimes even later) it wasn't unusual for members of the aristocracy and nobility to willingly take out the chamber pot for members of the royal family.

Service to a higher-ranking person or family was not considered shameful in the feudal system. Waiting directly on the monarch provided people an opportunity to set themselves or their relatives up for other opportunities to make money such as being given lands or monopolies. If nothing else, they got to lobby for what they wanted. Meanwhile they became friends of the ruler. So there was competition for the job, and positions in the royal household often went to people of rank or children of the wealthy. For special occasions, such as coronations or weddings, the boss would put on a big party and pay for everything including a new and special set of clothing. It was a form of conspicuous consumption. The people in the wedding party *were* generally the ones nearest and dearest to the ruler.

Naturally plenty of people wanted to copy the King or Queen, at least superficially.

Pushing the cost of the clothing onto the wedding attendants kind of defeats the point of conspicuous consumption, at least to people in the know.

Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle gets into this a bit.  Today we think in terms of an elevator pitch, getting face time with the CEO, working on your golf-and-talk game or having a visible project.  Same game different outfits. 

[shelivesthedream]

I think alot of us inherit these kinds of situations. Don't feel bad.

Me? As I said, they started it. But having seen how it works, I am determined that it will be different for my children. They will be obliged to have a proper face-to-face relationship with, for example, my brother until the age of eighteen. Then it's on them, though I'll still encourage them. But if that means me hauling the family across the country to see him (and his potential future family) in person more than once every five years then I'm damn well going to do it, because the children can't do it on their own.

[Imma]

Most of the families on my mother's side are that way. Older generations frequently save in order to give their children, grandchildren, and other family members a better start in life. Helping with child care and education is common. So is a heavily subsidized start in a family business or a household. If a person doesn't have grandchildren, they select some nieces and nephews to receive special support. It generally isn't an entire university education that gets paid for, but room and board while a young adult is attending classes is not out of the question.

Based on your post, it sounds to me as though your father owes you a gigantic social debt. You don't see it or acknowledge it in part because so many other people cooperated with him to enable him to continue to treat you poorly. Indeed, after years of being abused to that extent it may be hard for you to notice smaller-scale imbalances. Or, you might feel as though one-way-street relationships between adults are somehow normal, appropriate, and sustainable. (They're not.)

With your father, as with most abusive people, everyone has to maintain a level of contact that's "safe" for themselves, that will not lead to further abuse. In many cases, limiting contact to occasional essentially public interaction or online interaction is safe, but in your specific case you've tried it and found that, since you're his favorite target, the maximum safe contact you can have with him happens to be zero. Other people in your family can get away with more contact chiefly because they aren't his preferred target. It appears to me that you're maintaining a safe distance. You're also not falling for the velociraptor play. Good.

There's a natural give and take in all human relationships-- a sort of ebb and flow, as it were-- but sometimes the flow is predominately one-way with one person doing the lion's share of the giving and the other doing most of the taking, for an extended period of time. That, in most societies, creates a social debt even if both parties are willing. If the social debt is not balanced, eventually the person doing the giving turns off the tap, so to speak, and lets the relationship die a natural death. The symptom of a person who doesn't balance out social debt is... not having any close, long-term friends.

It sounds as though you have a basically abusive, non-functional family that is banding together to help your father continue to abuse you. Under the circumstances, eloping and sending a heartfelt letter to each of the people you would have otherwise invited to announce your marriage (and, for some, explaining in writing that your decision to elope is a direct result of their specific manipulative behaviors), is highly appropriate.

The gap left by your abusive family must have been hard to fill. Were there truly no teachers, coaches, neighbors, mentors, bosses, or co-workers who made a difference in your life, with whom you're still in contact? It just seems unusual to me that there's not even one individual besides your grandmother who's hosted you for holiday meals, lent you money, helped you move, babysat you as a child, watched your kids if you have any, let you couch surf for more than a couple days, or set you up with a job lead. If everyone who did that is deceased, then it's possible you don't actually owe anything to anyone because you really did do it all by yourself. Otherwise, you may want to make a list of people who have helped you or given to you in a big way, and consider finding some way to acknowledge them. You don't have to invite them to a wedding, or even a reception, but is it possible to host or entertain them individually? If you were to reach out to them in some way I believe you would put yourself in a position to cultivate a healthy network of people that could become what some people call a "family of choice".

Thanks for your kind reply :) I guess both my fiance and I have grown up in such disfunctional families we have a hard time believing what a 'normal' family dynamic is. I've already learned so much from the last two pages of discussion, all kinds of traditions I only knew from Jane Austen novels .... that are apparantly still normal.

You hit the nail on the head by saying that people who don't balance out social debts tend to not have any close, long-term friends. Our parents certainly didn't, which is also why my fiance ended up with very little outside adult influences. Both sets of parents depended heavily on the care of the maternal grandmothers. Sadly my fiance's grandma passed a long time ago. I also had an elderly great aunt who lived on the family farm where my father worked. Sadly, she is long gone too. They were all deeply religious catholic women with a very simple faith. They were the major caring influence in our lives, but it took me quite some time to shake off the idea that you just need to walk behind other people, propping them up and clearing up the mess they make, and never stand up for yourself.

Other than that, honestly, until I met my fiance, there weren't many other people. I was fiercely independent as a child and did everything by myself. I think very people really noticed my parents' absence, if they did, they didn't comment on it. (Although, looking back, the fact that I turned up at my siblings' parent-teacher meetings instead of my parents, should have rang some bells for some people...)  I moved out by putting all my stuff into a backpack and taking the bus to my new town. We now have a small group of close friends generally from the background, but my fiance feels very uncomfortable inviting only friends to our wedding and not blood relatives.

We've also experienced very few weddings personally. I've been to two in my adult life, one of a former co-worker (we found out at the wedding the couple didn't have friends, only co-workers and family attended) and one of a friend of mine. She celebrated her 5th anniversary recently. Eloping or parents-and-witnesses-only weddings are pretty much the norm, if people bother to get married at all. Weddings are expensive and few young couples (I'm 27) can afford it.

As for the size and value of the gift: although it's polite and expected to take a gift, I'm a firm believer that a gift should never be an entrance fee to a party. You invite people because you value their company. I know people who have gone into debt buying their only daughter an expensive wedding gift and I wouldn't want people to get into debt to attend my party, or have them eat ramen for the rest of the month. We always invite a friend on a very low income over for Christmas, and every year I tell her not to buy us anything. She's a great cook so instead she always brings a dish. I much prefer it that way. I don't want anyone to get into problems because I invited them and I would hate if anyone would choose to not attend my party just because they felt they couldn't afford the 'entrance fee'. The friend that married 5 years ago had a big party, but I was quite poor back then. I gave what I could afford and I made her something homemade as well. If I had more, I would have given her more, but I didn't. I would be disappointed in my friend if she had minded that. 

[MgoSam]

...
The identically-dressing women in those days were dressed the same as the bride. That hasn't been common for centuries. It's surprising because it seems incongruous now, but during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (and sometimes even later) it wasn't unusual for members of the aristocracy and nobility to willingly take out the chamber pot for members of the royal family.

Service to a higher-ranking person or family was not considered shameful in the feudal system. Waiting directly on the monarch provided people an opportunity to set themselves or their relatives up for other opportunities to make money such as being given lands or monopolies. If nothing else, they got to lobby for what they wanted. Meanwhile they became friends of the ruler. So there was competition for the job, and positions in the royal household often went to people of rank or children of the wealthy. For special occasions, such as coronations or weddings, the boss would put on a big party and pay for everything including a new and special set of clothing. It was a form of conspicuous consumption. The people in the wedding party *were* generally the ones nearest and dearest to the ruler.

Naturally plenty of people wanted to copy the King or Queen, at least superficially.

Pushing the cost of the clothing onto the wedding attendants kind of defeats the point of conspicuous consumption, at least to people in the know.

Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle gets into this a bit.  Today we think in terms of an elevator pitch, getting face time with the CEO, working on your golf-and-talk game or having a visible project.  Same game different outfits.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George gets Steinbrenner's attention by bringing in a calzone to a lunch meeting. Suddenly he's having lunch with the boss who listens to his ideas.

[Sibley]

Well, to continue the stories of interesting family, may I present a branch of my family?

Background:
Uncle & Aunt have 2 boys, one factors in, we'll call him Cousin.
Cousin married Girl.
Uncle & Dad are brothers
Sister and Boyfriend (BF).
Everyone is white (extremely), except Girl is Chinese and BF is Indian. (this is relevant)

So, Uncle & aunt haven't been decent human beings to Dad, and by extension, me and Sister, at least until we got older and had the potential of adding babies to the family. As a result, we don't really have a relationship with Uncle & aunt, and don't particularly want one. We avoid them in general.

Cousin & wife invited Sister and BF to dinner. They went to dinner, and discovered that Uncle and Aunt were also there! This had not been mentioned ever. Dinner/evening went ok per Sister, slightly awkward, but 4 year old twins really help smooth everything out.

The next day, Uncle does a group text which does not include Sister and BF. In text is a group picture from the evening. Caption: "Guess who's coming to dinner"

Given general ages and history of this guy's behavior, it's pretty safe to assume he was referencing the movie. (Google "guess who's coming to dinner" if you haven't seen it) Ugh.

[zolotiyeruki]

Given general ages and history of this guy's behavior, it's pretty safe to assume he was referencing the movie. (Google "guess who's coming to dinner" if you haven't seen it) Ugh.

It's been a long time since I've seen that movie, but doesn't it end with the characters becoming more comfortable with people of another race?

[Sibley]

Given general ages and history of this guy's behavior, it's pretty safe to assume he was referencing the movie. (Google "guess who's coming to dinner" if you haven't seen it) Ugh.

It's been a long time since I've seen that movie, but doesn't it end with the characters becoming more comfortable with people of another race?

I believe the movie does, yes. That's not how this guy works though.

[Roe]

Given general ages and history of this guy's behavior, it's pretty safe to assume he was referencing the movie. (Google "guess who's coming to dinner" if you haven't seen it) Ugh.

It's been a long time since I've seen that movie, but doesn't it end with the characters becoming more comfortable with people of another race?

I believe the movie does, yes. That's not how this guy works though.

I know the type. If nothing else, not including sis and BF in the text is a dead give away.

[nnls]

I am also weird for doing strange things like paying for my bridesmaid's dresses and the rental tuxes (I chose them, so I pay for them, right?)  etc.

You are awesome for doing that! I wish brides did not expect so much from their bridesmaids.  This summer, my sister in law was married and is a lovely person BUT she kept pressuring me to pay for make-up/up-do. I wasn't even in the wedding party.

I feel like in Australia its common for Brides to pay for bridesmaid dresses.  That's the way all my friends have done it. And then if they wanted everyone in matching shoes/jewellery they paid for those as well. And hair and makeup also covered by bride.

So one friend said she didnt mind what shoes we wore and just wanted us with plain chain/earrings so we wore what we already had. The others paid for everything. You are being invited to be part of their wedding you shouldn't have extra expenses

Us bridesmaids did pay for the bachelorette party though