To be honest if someone sent me an invite that said "casual" I would wear nice jeans because that is "casual." "No Jeans" indicates that this is a step up from casual. Also 13/13 year old kids most likely would not know the difference.
Ditto. Also, local culture may come into play- in Alaska, jeans would be a default for most unless told otherwise.
I'm using your posts as the most recent example, so apologies if you feel singled out, but I'm confused by the number of people saying "Well they have to write 'no jeans' because if they wrote 'casual' people would come in jeans." I entirely agree because 'casual' as a dress code means that jeans and shorts are perfectly acceptable. There are about 15 dress codes in between 'casual' and 'formal', some of which include the 'no jeans, no tie' range.
I don't know, I just feel as though people are reinventing the wheel with their 'new and improved' dress codes. Not just reinventing the wheel but saying that they HAVE to because the old dress codes are 'just so confusing'. If people want to have cutesy dress codes on their invitations then that's completely fine and up to them, but it bothers me that accepted terms that have been in use for a long time are suddenly 'just too hard'.
So although this wouldn't overly bother me as such, I DO understand where gellchom is coming from. It is vaguely offensive to some people when people treat everybody at the 'lowest common denominator' level. There are perfectly clear definitions for the existing dress codes. Just because we personally may not know them doesn't mean that they don't exist or are confusing.
While I understand where you're coming from - I kind of liken it to having reply-cards with pre-written and stamped envelopes with wedding invitations. They're technically incorrect, and I understand why. It can be seen as an implication that the invitees are too boorish to reply on their own, using their own stationery and postage.
However, I (30+ years ago) used them, and I've honestly never received a wedding invitation that did not include them. People have become accustomed to them and yes, there are still people who won't understand that a reply is desired unless it's spelled-out this way. And we can't ignore the fact that our own small towns are becoming more global every day. 30 or 40 years ago it might have been possible to have a casual-dress affair and be certain that no one would show up in jeans. That really is not the case anymore. While I personally would never consider wearing jeans to an event such as in the OP - it wouldn't even occur to me to feel offended.
As an aside - my DS#1 and his fiancee are marrying next year. While we're a long way from sending invitations - they're strongly considering the term "adult reception". I did inform that this is technically incorrect - however, it does seem that quite a few relatives from her side assume that children are always automatically included. (If they do sent out invitations stating that, it won't be with my approval). But overall - sometimes it can be best to spell-things-out (even when preaching to the choir) than to risk future embarrassment.
Oh, and to add - the wedding dinner will be a buffet. So there would not be any opportunity to indicate something like 3 chicken dinners, 1 steak dinner when the invitation was addressed to the two parents - if there was, the hosts would be faced with making a possibly-embarassing phone call. With a buffet, there's the scenario that the parents would simply show up with their kids in tow.