Author Topic: Girl's Only Birthday Party - is it rude for the GOH to bring her boyfriend? p50  (Read 7023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

amylouky

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1567
I think it's rude, and I'd be put off if I were a guest. She is using the "girls only" label as an excuse to not pay for the SO's, but not applying that to her SO.
If I got an invite to a "girls only" event, I'd be fine with not bringing DH. But if I then found out that someone else's SO was invited (even if it was the hostess/GOH's SO), I'd be irritated.

NyaChan

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4107
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought giving yourself better accommodations your guests was a faux pas? You wouldn’t serve yourself champagne and give your guests grape juice, or eat caviar when your guests are having hot dogs. Does that only apply to food? I know it is her party and her tab, but something about inviting only her SO seems off to me. I just can't put my finger on it.
Personally, i would be a little put off. I don't like those one-gender-only events. I just don't. If i participated in one to help my friend celebrate her birthday and found out it was only SO-free only for some it would leave a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe i am petty, i don't know.

That's a really good point! If you remove "boyfriend" from the equation and say "Zoe has stated she's got limited funds so she's paying for X for herself but not her friends because it's her birthday and she's hosting. Is that okay?" I wonder if more people would say "You need to accommodate all guests equally and plan the party accordingly." ?

I see the boyfriend as another equal guest, not a special accommodation or privilege for Zoe.  I guess that's where my disconnect is  :) 

Hmmmmm

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6552
As a guest I wouldn't be bothered by it because my SO would not want to go to an afternoon tea.

However, I would think the host was doing a "Hey look, I have a BF!!!"  A long term BF joining in the group would seem less "off" to me. 

Why does she want him there?  For a chance for her friends to meet him? 

JenJay

  • I'm a nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standards of nonconformity.
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6225
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought giving yourself better accommodations your guests was a faux pas? You wouldn’t serve yourself champagne and give your guests grape juice, or eat caviar when your guests are having hot dogs. Does that only apply to food? I know it is her party and her tab, but something about inviting only her SO seems off to me. I just can't put my finger on it.
Personally, i would be a little put off. I don't like those one-gender-only events. I just don't. If i participated in one to help my friend celebrate her birthday and found out it was only SO-free only for some it would leave a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe i am petty, i don't know.

That's a really good point! If you remove "boyfriend" from the equation and say "Zoe has stated she's got limited funds so she's paying for X for herself but not her friends because it's her birthday and she's hosting. Is that okay?" I wonder if more people would say "You need to accommodate all guests equally and plan the party accordingly." ?

I see the boyfriend as another equal guest, not a special accommodation or privilege for Zoe.  I guess that's where my disconnect is  :)

That makes sense.

I see the boyfriend's presence as an accommodation she's willing to provide for herself but not her guests. (Of course once he's there he should be treated as any other guest!)

This is a great topic!  :D

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21524
Hobish, I get your point and agree somewhat but it also seems petty to cut single friends to mzke way for the SOs. Deciding who comes based on their  romantic success rather than  their relztionship with the host just seems off.

Betelnut

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3761
It wouldn't bother me.  She is inviting her friends to her birthday tea.  Maybe the SOs are not considered (by her) as friends.
Native Texan, Marylander currently

WillyNilly

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7490
  • Mmmmm, food
    • The World as I Taste It
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought giving yourself better accommodations your guests was a faux pas? You wouldn’t serve yourself champagne and give your guests grape juice, or eat caviar when your guests are having hot dogs. Does that only apply to food? I know it is her party and her tab, but something about inviting only her SO seems off to me. I just can't put my finger on it.
Personally, i would be a little put off. I don't like those one-gender-only events. I just don't. If i participated in one to help my friend celebrate her birthday and found out it was only SO-free only for some it would leave a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe i am petty, i don't know.

That's a really good point! If you remove "boyfriend" from the equation and say "Zoe has stated she's got limited funds so she's paying for X for herself but not her friends because it's her birthday and she's hosting. Is that okay?" I wonder if more people would say "You need to accommodate all guests equally and plan the party accordingly." ?

I see the boyfriend as another equal guest, not a special accommodation or privilege for Zoe.  I guess that's where my disconnect is  :)

And that would have been the case except the cat's out of the bag.  Its already been said that the reason the others SOs aren't being invited isn't because they aren't friendly with the group or wouldn't normally be part of things.  Nope.  Straight up its cause she doesn't want to pay for them.  And its already been said its a "girls" thing.  Once you say those things you can't really say "well no it was always going to be this way this is simply a gathering of my closest peeps." 'Cause its been made clear that's not the case.

I also think that gender isn't what makes for a changed atmosphere, its romantic relationship.  A random guy-friend of the group?  He's still just a friend.  But this is a boyfriend.  And that does change dynamics.  And I know lots of people say "well when my SO & I hang out its just hanging out, its no different it doesn't change the atmosphere!" and I say to you: you are deluded.  Because it does.  Not for better or worse necessarily, but it is different.  And if its not different then they aren't really a very "significant" significant other then are they?  Maybe there is no romance whatsoever in your relationship then.  Because being "significant" and being a "romantic" partner are what makes for the difference.  It might be subtle but it is there.  Because its no longer a group of equals - where everyone is simply platonic friends.  Now its a group of platonic friends and a subset of romantic friends.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 11:37:38 AM by WillyNilly »

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
Is it rude of Zoe to invite her friends to a "Girl's Afternoon Tea" but also bring her boyfriend? Or is it ok, since Zoe is both the hostess and the GOH? Would it work if Zoe told her friends in advance that whilst their SOs were not invited, her boyfriend would be present?

I don't think it's *rude*, per se, but what it is is a lie, because if there's a guy there, it's not a girls' thing.
Words mean things.

hobish

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 18186
  • Release the gelfling!
Hobish, I get your point and agree somewhat but it also seems petty to cut single friends to mzke way for the SOs. Deciding who comes based on their  romantic success rather than  their relztionship with the host just seems off.

Oh, that is definitely a much worse idea. I hope it wasn't seriously considered.
It's alright, man. I'm only bleeding, man. Stay hungry, stay free, and do the best you can.
~Gaslight Anthem

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21524
It was one of the options mentioned in the OP.

Roe

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6464
I think its rude.

Like a previous poster, I thought that you could only exclude an SO if its a girls/guys only event.

Exactly.  Just because it's "her tab and her party" doesn't make it her rules.

jmarvellous

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3528
I guess I don't get the point of calling it a "girls" event at this point, but beyond that I don't think it's rude.

Maybe it's because my friends come in all stripes, from married straight folks with kids to cohabitating straight folks to people who don't believe in monogamy, to single folks of all orientations, to bi/gay folks in or out of relationships to people who don't identify with a particular gender or who are in transition and in or out of relationships, but I just don't feel like it's necessary to put a label on these things in the strictest sense and be offended if one man who's special to the host is invited to an otherwise girls' event that's not for a particularly huge occasion.

It's not like she's picking and choosing among her guests whose SO is worth inviting. That, I'd have a problem with.

Giggity

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8622
It's not like she's picking and choosing among her guests whose SO is worth inviting. That, I'd have a problem with.

She sort of is, in that she is saying only *her* guy is worth inviting.
Words mean things.

Texas Mom

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3840
When the invitations were issued, it was billed as a "Girl's Tea."  People accepted based on that representation.

Inviting her BF under these circumstances is rude - she changed the nature of the event from a girl's gathering to something else.

I vote rude.

jmarvellous

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3528
It's not like she's picking and choosing among her guests whose SO is worth inviting. That, I'd have a problem with.

She sort of is, in that she is saying only *her* guy is worth inviting.

Not really. I can see why people don't like it, but it's not an issue of inviting one guest's SO because he's the host's boyfriend, not her guest's boyfriend.

Honestly, I'm just saying I get why she's doing it, not that I think it should be widespread practice to have these sorts of gatherings. I just don't find it "offensive."