Pre-Wedding "social"

[hobish]

The difference are:

(1) We don't expect the nightclub to see us as anything more than business opportunities - we'd expect our friends to do so.

(2) If our friends ask us out to a nightclub, we all pay the cover charge, which goes to the house. However, in a paid social, the profit goes to the person issuing the invitation.

(3) If the more people, the more profit, it's unlikely that there won't be a subtle pressure on those who actually don't want/can't afford to go.

Ah, but it's really less that you *invite* your friends, and more that you notify them, just the way you notify the general public. It's clearly a business relationship with your friends--and people do that from time to time.

It's also sort of like a potluck. We give a pass to people who clearly, statedly "organize" a potluck. As long as they're contributing too. We don't land on them for not "hosting."

This "social" is also not a hosted, invitation event.

Of course it can be done quite rudely. But I grew up in a small town, and I can absolutely see the entire community liking the idea of the social. They pay a small sum to have somewhere to go and socialize, and they get the mildly warm feeling that they're helping people a little bit, and they get to socialize w/ the couple whose wedding they know they wouldn't actually be invited to.

I can even see a community sort of resenting the couple who didn't host one of these. Bcs now there isn't a Saturday-night dance this week!

I can see that. And done right, and from the descrription in the OP, it sounds like it could be a heck of a lot of fun.

I've seen beef and beers and the like done in my area for the fire hall or ambulance squad, and even sometimes churches have them as fundraisers. An acquaintance of mine has one every year to put toward a college fund for his orphaned nephew. In my home town (which was actually a small municipality) some people threw one for a family - not even a very well liked one, in fact - who incurred a lot of medical bills when their child was injured.

They aren't billed as a party, they're billed as a fundraiser and from what i can tell people usually walk away feeling like they got as good as they gave. That makes a lot of difference, i think. A lot of people, i'm sure would be more inclined to attend when it's a fundraiser for a public service or the like; but if the intention is laid out plainly and there is no social obligation to attend, and a good time is had by all as they say i don't see the harm or foul no matter the reason for the fundraiser.

[baglady]

I find it odd, solely because I was raised to believe that if you cannot afford it, you don't buy it, and that includes weddings.

But the social (stag & doe, Jack & Jill) is *not* a fundraiser for the wedding. It's for the *marriage.* The money raised is to help the HC get started in their life together. Traditionally (at least in my hometown), it was very young couples fresh out of school who had J&Js, and parents paid for the wedding. Using the J&J proceeds for wedding expenses wouldn't be an issue.

If that's changed with the times, that's unfortunate. It would be like returning all the bridal shower gifts for cash to pay wedding bills.

I'm not also understanding the issue. Wedding showers are specifically to get the things a bride needs for her new life, how is that not also a 'fundraiser'?

That's my point. Socials and showers are both supposed to be about helping the couple get started in married life. I was addressing some posters' impression that socials are held to raise funds for the wedding itself, which has not been my experience.

I think we're pretty much in agreement on this board that it's tacky to put on a wedding you can't afford and expect other people to help pay for it. And I think that's what some posters who aren't familiar with the social think it's about. That's the impression I was trying to correct.

[Jan74]

Now, do the people who have a social also have a shower (or multiple showers, like the kids are doing these days...)?

Cause if so, that is a lot of help getting started. Not to mention the registry.

[Nurvingiel]

Now, do the people who have a social also have a shower (or multiple showers, like the kids are doing these days...)?

Cause if so, that is a lot of help getting started. Not to mention the registry.

The social is something the happy couple does. Attentence is optional. A shower is somethign a friend or family member does. Its existance at all, and attendence, is optional. Buying a wedding gift, off the registry or no, is optional.

There are many options that a couple's friends and family might choose to do or participate in to help a couple get started.

Your post made it sound like the happy couple would be greedy if, after the social, someone threw them a shower. I hope I am mistaken.

[Jan74]

To quote Twik from another post, the one about the lady that wants the man to pay when she goes with him on vacation cause "that is what the man does", "you don't get to mix and match" traditions.

It has already been mentioned in this thread, but here it goes:

Column A: In older times, people would typically have a very inexpensive wedding in the backyard, have a social to help them get started in life, and that was it.

Column B: Nowadays, people have lavish weddings as a rule (as in, even if you are not rich, you still typically go into debt to throw the fanciest party you can possibly afford - that is what I mean by "lavish" here, not necessarily that everyone is having 8 ice sculptures or something like that). They also have registries with expensive items, bachelor and bachelorette parties paid for by their friends, and multiple showers.


It does seem to me that people that are having all of them are picking from both Columns, yes, and I would find them greedy.

[Nurvingiel]

I think socials are more regional than generational. That's the impression I get. Otherwise why would they be commonplace in Manitoba and non-existant in British Columbia?

[Jan74]

I think socials are more regional than generational. That's the impression I get. Otherwise why would they be commonplace in Manitoba and non-existant in British Columbia?

I got the idea they were regional but it was also mentioned in those places where they are common place, it is usually small towns where a lavish wedding with a registry at a fancy department store isn't the rule yet either, more like backyard wedding. So in the places where it seems to still be a thing, and therefore regional, weddings in general also seem more old school, according to the people in this thread.

And that brings us back to "mix and match", whether it is "old school vs. current wedding" or "small town vs. big city wedding", if people also have huge ceremonies with several attendants, tux rentals for guests, limos, registries, multiple showers, and bachelor/bachelorette parties. Of course, if it is the scenario presented by people in this thread where it is all "old school" or it is thought of as a "Jack and Jill shower" or coed shower, then I have zero problem with it. Take a gift, eat cake vs. buy a ticket, eat cake is the same thing exactly. The social is actually better cause you don't have to go to a specific store to get something off a shower registry.