Hostesses With The Mostest > Entertaining and Hospitality

Does this happen to you?

(1/7) > >>

mchernan:
My in-laws have a huge home, but they never entertain.  They invite us over for the holidays and such, but NOBODY outside the immediate family has ever stepped foot into the house (weird). They do however, invite themselves to our house.  For our anniversary they brought dinner (cold pizza) and stayed until 9:30pm at night.  But then they also invited our Aunt, BIL and his girlfriend.  No problem, these are all people I love anyways but what the heck?  If they wanted to have an anniversary get-together then have it at your own dang house!  Do other people have in-laws that invite a party over to your house? (with 20 hour notice?)

DottyG:

--- Quote ---My in-laws have a huge home, but they never entertain.  They invite us over for the holidays and such, but NOBODY outside the immediate family has ever stepped foot into the house (weird).
--- End quote ---

People don't build big houses just to entertain.  It's not a requirement based on the size of the house.  I don't see a problem with having a large house and not having outside the family people in.  It's no one's "right" to come into someone's home just because they deem that it's "large enough" to have a party in.  It'd be quite rude to insinuate that someone must entertain because they have a "huge home."

(Perhaps that's not what you were leading to.  If not, you might want to rephrase your post, because it really does sound as if that's what you're saying.  And, that would be wrong.)

DottyG:
The fact that have a "huge house" is irrelevant to the story.  The OP should not have mentioned it, as it means nothing.

The issue is that they're bringing other people to the OP's house.  Period.  The size of their own house shouldn't be an issue.  And, it shouldn't have been stated the way it was.  The post started out on the wrong note.  She said it is "weird" that they don't have outsiders in their home.  This was on the heels of saying that they have a "huge house."  It's not "weird."  It's just not what they want to do with their home - large, small or whatever size said home is.

That's why I mentioned that the OP really should rephrase what she wrote.  Because the way it reads, it's a bit offensive (for lack of better word).  Maybe she didn't mean it the way it sounds.  Maybe it was meant in a less rude way.  But, it wasn't stated that way.

I agree that the in-laws shouldn't be bringing people over.  That part is correct.

kiero:
I think that huge house is important.  It is an acceptable reason not to entertain if you have a tiny place.  So if she had left that detail out people would have posted things like "Well maybe their house is too small to have people over" or similar...

I think that it is rude not to return invitations.  If you invite them over they should do the same or turn down your invites.  It is also rude (in most situations) to invite yourself to someone else's house.  the only time this is acceptable is with an offer to help.  Like after I had DD people would call up with an offer to bring lunch and to see DD.  I didn't think that was rude.  Also if someone is housebound (or close to it) then it's OK to ask to come over. 

DottyG:
Had the post read something along the lines of...

Story about inviting (rudely) other people over to the OP's house....etc etc.  And then a footnote as to "I don't think it's that the in-laws home is too small to host their own parties, and the house could accomodate having people over", it'd be one thing.

But, to start out the post in this way, "My in-laws have a huge home, but they never entertain.  They invite us over for the holidays and such, but NOBODY outside the immediate family has ever stepped foot into the house (weird)." is wrong.

It is, as I've said, not, somehow, a huge house owner's responsibility to host a party because they have a "huge home."  The size of their home does not mean that they are, because of the size, obligated to host parties.  NEITHER is it "weird" that they don't have others in their home just because it happens to be a "huge home."

While I can see what the 2 of you are trying to say, the fact remains that the point is lost when trying to assert that "My in-laws have a huge home, but they never entertain."

I'm completely with you on the fact that in-laws should not be inviting other people into the OP's home.  I'm completely with you in that reciprocating invitations is etiquettely proper (and, that could also be taking the OP out to dinner rather than hosting a party in their home, by the way).  I'm completely with you on the etiquette violations within the post.

Had that not been the initial comment of the poster and had it been a sidenote explanation of why they may have room after all, it'd be one thing.  But, as it stands, the post starts out by saying somehow implying that a huge home means they should entertain and that they are "weird" for not doing so.

Again, as I have said several times now, the OP may have not, in any way, meant to imply what's coming across.  And, I hope that, if this is the case, she reconsiders how she phrased what she said and corrects it.

And, understand that I do get what the 2 of you are saying.  I do.  But, that's not how it's coming across at the moment.  Do you see what I'm saying here?

Edited to italicize a paragraph.  I fear that this point must be getting lost in the shuffle and that you might be missing it.  Hoping the italics helps in that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version