What do you think about destination weddings?

[Laurie4b]

ETA: I don't buy the idea that "it is our day and we should do as we please" mindset. Weddings are not just for the couple at all. In my world they are a public covenant made between a man and a woman and their Savior before family and friends. I think the "we will do as we please" attitude is not only selfish, but disheartening.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Yes, this "But it's MY wedding day so everything should be just as *I* want it" is just not justifiable scripturally. I wish the church did better teaching on that, and on the covenant nature of the wedding ceremony, including the part about including the covenant community in that ceremony as witnesses. ah well.

[Renee in NC]

BTW when my grandparents got married, they and their attendants put on their best clothes. They stood in front of the minister and got married. The attendants were the witnesses. They went home changed clothing and my grandfather went back to work. They were married in a church less than 1/4 mile from my great-grandparent's house. My great grandparents did not attend. Big weddings were not the custom then.

 

In an old church we attended some of the members have been there all their lives. One lady told me she got married in the church just before Sunday evening service. Another got married in the middle of the week at the parsonage. Big weddings were for the wealthy.

[Orthodox6]

As best as I can understand, I think it depends upon the perceived purpose of a wedding.

 

When a couple are non-religious, or only marginally-religious, the wedding is "a party", something for fun. Within that context, I can understand a couple desiring a "destination wedding." At the same time, however, I consider it crassly selfish, unless the pair also are paying for transportation, passport fees, accommodations, and food for all guests.

 

When a couple are religious -- Jewish, Christian, maybe Muslim also (?) -- they view their wedding either as sacrament, or as seriously religious in the eyes of God. The wedding service, then, strengthens the couple's belonging to their religious community. A wedding is not a "private thing." In most cases, this ties the wedding to the local area, where "their people" live. A "destination wedding" wouldn't come up as a choice.

[TCoppock]

LOL Of course not, but when we had our wedding we were not asking people to get passports, hotel, airplane tickets, and fly to a foreign country on their dime either.

 

 

 

You don't see a difference in flying or driving across country and possibly staying with relatives for a day or two and flying to a foreign country? You must live a very different life than I live. We simply could never do the foreign country trip with our family of seven yet we could do a drive across country and stay with a family. I am really surprised you don't see a difference in those two scenarios. They are worlds apart to me.

 

I can see a difference between flying and staying in a hotel and driving and staying with relatives. What I was saying is I don't see a difference between flying and stay in a hotel in place #1 or doing the same in place #2. I can honestly say I don't see the passport as a big deal. Pretty much everyone I know travels on a regular basis for either work or fun.

 

I honestly think the OP sister is in for a big surprise. As far as I know all inclusive hotels do NOT consider weddings and receptions as part of the cost. Our resort stated up front that any guest attending our wedding, that was not a resort guest, would cost $100 just to be allowed on the property. That did not include anything else. Food, flowers, chairs, decorations, etc. were priced double or triple what it would have been elsewhere, but you had no other choice but to go through them. We were allowed to go outside for a photographer, but we had to pay a fee to the resort for using someone outside. If she is doing this as a way to save money or have someone else foot the bill she might be in for a rude awakening. Yes, I think it is inappropriate to try and make someone else pay for your wedding, but I stand by the opinion that people should get married wherever they please.

[Orthodox6]

Pretty much everyone I know travels on a regular basis for either work or fun.

 

I have been married for nearly 26 years. We have been able to afford one three-day family vacation during this time period.

 

Not everyone is able to travel. :001_smile:

[Kate CA]

I understand all of this, but I don't think the bride and groom should have to have a rotten day in order to please everyone else. If it was a choice between pleasing all the rellies and having a rotten time, or pleasing ourselves and upsetting all the rellies, what do you do?

Rosie

 

I have yet to see this happen in any of the families I know. I have seen some very selfish parents want things their way and the bride and groom going along, and I have seen some very giving parents doing whatever their children wish. I have also seen the "in between" of these situations too. I think most of the time there is a happy medium that can be found that suits both parties. I think she has an important point here:

 

As best as I can understand, I think it depends upon the perceived purpose of a wedding.

 

When a couple are religious -- Jewish, Christian, maybe Muslim also (?) -- they view their wedding either as sacrament, or as seriously religious in the eyes of God. The wedding service, then, strengthens the couple's belonging to their religious community. A wedding is not a "private thing." In most cases, this ties the wedding to the local area, where "their people" live. A "destination wedding" wouldn't come up as a choice.

 

This is what a wedding is in our world - a faith-based ceremony that means much more than a party. Because we view it this way, our views of weddings are going to be different from the get-go.

[Kate CA]

I can see a difference between flying and staying in a hotel and driving and staying with relatives. What I was saying is I don't see a difference between flying and stay in a hotel in place #1 or doing the same in place #2. I can honestly say I don't see the passport as a big deal. Pretty much everyone I know travels on a regular basis for either work or fun.

 

I don't know *anyone* who travels as you suggest except my retired mother. We have never taken a vacation that was longer than a weekend and we have never flown together anywhere - let alone out of the country - as a family. I have been married for 17 years. Your life is just not my life.

 

I don't know anyone who lives as you must think many do if you don't think flying to a foreign wedding destination is the same as flying across the country. One trip is so radically different in expense from the other that it is hard for me to understand that you don't see that. Staying at a resort in a foreign country and staying in an inexpensive Days Inn in the States - completely different animals to me.

[Rosie_0801]

I have yet to see this happen in any of the families I know. I have seen some very selfish parents want things their way and the bride and groom going along, and I have seen some very giving parents doing whatever their children wish. I have also seen the "in between" of these situations too. I think most of the time there is a happy medium that can be found that suits both parties.

 

Then you have all been very lucky! I can tell you what we've done to solve the question of pleasing everyone, and that's not to get married at all! I'm lucky I have that option. So to all the religious types, at least they are actually getting married, huh?

 

:)

Rosie

[Kate CA]

Then you have all been very lucky! I can tell you what we've done to solve the question of pleasing everyone, and that's not to get married at all! I'm lucky I have that option. So to all the religious types, at least they are actually getting married, huh?

 

:)

Rosie

 

I think if I was in the original situation you described and there really was "no good answer" then I would get married in a small private ceremony with the pastor and a few witnesses. It isn't optimal especially if you have toxic people in your life, but not getting married would not be an option for me or anyone I know.

 

Curious - why do you say you are "lucky" to have that option? (If that is too personal then please forgive me and don't answer.) :001_smile: Marriage is such a blessing to me that I don't understand that mindset.

[Mrs Mungo]

When a couple are religious -- Jewish, Christian, maybe Muslim also (?) -- they view their wedding either as sacrament, or as seriously religious in the eyes of God. The wedding service, then, strengthens the couple's belonging to their religious community. A wedding is not a "private thing." In most cases, this ties the wedding to the local area, where "their people" live. A "destination wedding" wouldn't come up as a choice.

 

The problem with this thought, even among the Christian community at large, is that the concept of "our people" has become a very difficult one for a lot of people. There are several posts in this thread that point this out. When my hubby and I got married-we had a basic ceremony at my grandparents' house and my great-uncle (I have a whole passel of preachers on that side of the family) married us. He left for an Army school relatively soon after that and we had a church wedding when he came back. But, then we moved. We weren't from the same state, we weren't going to be living there. There are lots of scenarios that don't really fit in with what you're saying here.

[Rosie_0801]

Curious - why do you say you are "lucky" to have that option? (If that is too personal then please forgive me and don't answer.) :001_smile: Marriage is such a blessing to me that I don't understand that mindset.

 

I think I'm lucky to be able to avoid the problems of getting married by not having a wedding because I know that isn't an option for many of you. As far as our friends and my relatives are concerned, we *are* married. Most people around assume we are married because a defacto relationship runs the same way as a marriage. We live together, raise kids together, pay our bills, grumble at each other in the mornings, and hide from the kids so we can smooch without being interrupted :glare:;)

 

If I lived in a space where defacto relationships weren't acceptable, I'd either have to have a wedding that pleased my relatives and left me with lasting memories of having had a crappy day, because our idea of a nice and meaningful time wouldn't please any of them. Or we'd have to decide that we don't deserve to have a lousy wedding day, so would please ourselves and hear about how offended everyone is for the rest of eternity. Or we'd have to offend everyone by not getting married. Even a quick trip down to the local JP would also offend my relatives. Are you understanding now, why I'm glad that I can remain unmarried? It's the only option that doesn't bother anyone!

 

Anyway, as I said earlier, however obnoxious young couples are being, at least they are getting married!

 

Rosie

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think that going off to get married is fine, but that they shouldn't expect that friends and family are going to flock off to the resort with them. Going to Mexico isn't selfish, it could be sort of like eloping. But thinking that others are under an obligation to come along would be selfish.

 

I would have no problem saying that we wouldn't be able to join them in Mexico, but that we would love to see the pictures when they get back. If I really liked the sister, I might even offer to watch their kid while they were away.

 

In my most judgemental moments, I would be wondering at the maturity of someone who allows himself to be embarrassed into spending more money than is prudent or who thinks that family and friends are obligated to come along on their vacation (or who think that a big wedding is the thing to do when you're already living together and have a kid). I might even suggest that the prudent thing would be to run down to the courthouse and put the money in the bank.

[happyWImom]

I didn't read all of the responses, but wanted to give my opinion.

 

We had a destination wedding, but did not expect anyone to attend. (2nd wedding for both)

 

I was a travel agent, and have booked many destination weddings, and think they are great, because they take all of the stress off of the bride & groom. It is super economical, when you consider the wedding, reception and honeymoon is much less than what you would pay for a normal wedding and reception.

 

But..... I think if someone is going to go this route, they have to do it knowing that it is more about "them" than the attendees. Unless they do pay for members of the wedding party. Which most do not. I think they need to understand that by chosing this type of wedding, some people they want to attend may not be able to. And they shouldn't take offense to that.

[Tap]

I think if I was in the original situation you described and there really was "no good answer" then I would get married in a small private ceremony with the pastor and a few witnesses. It isn't optimal especially if you have toxic people in your life, but not getting married would not be an option for me or anyone I know.

 

Curious - why do you say you are "lucky" to have that option? (If that is too personal then please forgive me and don't answer.) :001_smile: Marriage is such a blessing to me that I don't understand that mindset.

 

 

This may sound strange but I don't consider my wedding day to be the day that dh and I were bound together. It started the day we met, was consecrated the day we conceived ds and will only end with death. We are committed to one another in a household because we choose to stay bound together....nothing more, nothing less. It is a choice, not a piece of paper, not the words of a government appointed person, but the emotional bond between us.

 

I can see how others view their marriage differently, but for me, the day I married dh was just a legal ceremony. I don't have an emotional bond to it. We celebrate our anniversary sometimes, but now that I think about it, I would rather celebrate the day I met dh in the first place than the day I was legally bound to him.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

This may sound strange but I don't consider my wedding day to be the day that dh and I were bound together. It started the day we met, was consecrated the day we conceived ds and will only end with death. We are committed to one another in a household because we choose to stay bound together....nothing more, nothing less. It is a choice, not a piece of paper, not the words of a government appointed person, but the emotional bond between us.

 

I can see how others view their marriage differently, but for me, the day I married dh was just a legal ceremony. I don't have an emotional bond to it. We celebrate our anniversary sometimes, but now that I think about it, I would rather celebrate the day I met dh in the first place than the day I was legally bound to him.

 

I so totally agree with this! I think that the thing that gets me about so many big blowout weddings these days is that they put so much focus on that wedding DAY, that big expensive party, rather than on the MARRAIGE ITSELF!!!

 

The wedding is JUST ONE DAY. Hopefully the marraige lasts for the rest of your life.

[Orthodox6]

The problem with this thought, even among the Christian community at large, is that the concept of "our people" has become a very difficult one for a lot of people. There are several posts in this thread that point this out. When my hubby and I got married-we had a basic ceremony at my grandparents' house and my great-uncle (I have a whole passel of preachers on that side of the family) married us. He left for an Army school relatively soon after that and we had a church wedding when he came back. But, then we moved. We weren't from the same state, we weren't going to be living there. There are lots of scenarios that don't really fit in with what you're saying here.

 

Note phrase used in my post: "In most cases. . . " :) Military families fall into their own category !

[Laura Corin]

We got married in the States (perforce) and my parents weren't able to attend. We later had a party in the UK. My father coped fine, but my mother developed a very jealous attitude to my MIL, who had attended both events - graciously, in order to try to bring the families together. It took a year for my mother to tell me how much she hated missing my wedding. Her attitude to my MIL never improved. In our case this mess was unavoidable, but I think choosing to marry in a distant land is risky.

 

Laura

[Mrs Mungo]

Note phrase used in my post: "In most cases. . . " :) Military families fall into their own category !

 

But military families are not the only ones that fall into this category, not by a long shot. I have known lots of young couples who met while away at college-she was from one state, he was from another, their friends were in the state where they met, they were moving to still *another* place for a job, etc. It's an extremely common situation.

[Impish]

I can tell you how it worked in my family.

 

Eldest bro, first to marry, did the 'destination' wedding. Parents threw a purple fit over it. They ended up with just his best friend and her sister along...which, I think, was the original point. Everyone (parents, sibs) was invited, verbally, but knowing before hand that the $$ wasn't available...honestly, would have been better to 'elope' and tell everyone later.

 

Then came me. I moved across country, met my husband after my move. Parents live in a mortgage free home, etc...money so not an issue. Church wedding, complete with gown and tux. Only dd.

 

They didn't come, citing $ issues. Mom also neglected to inform me that I had a great uncle living mere blocks away from me. I was married with no family, no friends in attendance...everyone was from Wolf's side of things. My matron of honour used my wedding to get together with a guy she met online, and never showed up.

 

It was incredibly lonely for me. We couldn't have afforded a destination wedding, but if we could have, I would have voted for that.

 

My 2 younger bros are married, both in the same city my parents live. Parents attended both, spending more in clothes and gifts each than airfare and such would have cost them. In fact, wedding gift was $1000 for each the boys. I received $130.

 

Nothing like weddings to make favouritism shine bright and clear!

[Kate CA]

Nothing like weddings to make favouritism shine bright and clear!

 

I am so sorry. :grouphug:

[ciyates]

I didn't read all of the replies but will add my 2 cents worth :confused: I do not thing they are selfish. It is their wedding and they are paying the bill and should have what they want. I also think they should understand when people can't come. HOWEVER it it was my sister I would consider leaving the kiddos at home so I could afford to go. I don't make that statement lightly. I have never went off by myself and left DS or DH at home but my sister is my sister :D

[Sahamamama]

If it was their sincere dream to get married on the beach in Mexico I might feel differently, but it's their sincere dream to have an impressive wedding for a cheaply as possible.

 

Oh, now I get it.

 

"It's their sincere dream to have an impressive wedding for a cheaply (for them) as possible." ;) That's the part that bugs you -- that they want the extravagant wedding, but are planning to pass the cost for it onto their guests.

 

Yup, that would bug me, too.

[Haiku]

So, are destination weddings selfish?

 

Absolutely not. People should be able to have the exact wedding they want. It's THEIR wedding.

 

It's also your prerogative not to go, and if someone plans a wedding that will cost their guests significantly, they should be willing to accept that fact that people won't come.

 

I think you are taking this way, way too personally. It's your sister's wedding. It's her celebration. It's her day. Let her do it her way. You don't have to take your whole family. You don't even have to go.

 

My mom gave me tons of grief because we a) got married outside and b) had a vegetarian wedding. My mother tried to tell me that we had to do things to please our guests. I informed my mother in no uncertain terms that it was MY wedding and I would celebrate MY way and that I was inviting people to celebrate with me, not demanding their presence or kidnapping them. I am still :001_huh: that someone would presume to tell me how to plan my own wedding.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

In my world they are a public covenant made between a man and a woman and their Savior before family and friends. I think the "we will do as we please" attitude is not only selfish, but disheartening.

 

Not everyone shares your religious beliefs. My dh and I were married by a public official. We don't believe in a divine savior. Our wedding was our celebration of our love and commitment to each other, and we had no obligation to please anyone else in how we did it. We planned a nice ceremony and an equally nice reception, and if certain people didn't like the location or the food, well, tdb.

 

Tara

[katemary63]

I think about it as pretty selfish. I would assume that the bride and groom didn't care much about whether other people were there or not, and in that case, they might as well just elope and call it done.

 

With that said, if a family member did this, I'd try very hard *not* to think of them as super-selfish, and I'd smile and wish them well (but I wouldn't be going). :sad:

 

:iagree:I'm not reading the rest of the posts because I want to give my honest opinion without trying to sugar coat it. My son is getting married next year. If he decided to have a destination wedding and another of my children couldn't make it, I would be devastated. A wedding should be a family celebration. I would want/ need ALL of my children to be there. If one of my kids didn't care enough about the others being at thier wedding to make it possible for them to attend, I would take that as a sign that my family wasn't quite what I thought it was. I truly would be devastated. ( And I would put up a HUGE stink about it too!, Trust me, the bride and groom would get an earfull with no punches pulled!)

 

(Happily, none of my kids would ever consider getting married without the others present in a million years.)

 

This whole idea that it's "OUR" day and we should do WHAT EVER we want is just plain selfish and silly. To an extent, yes, it's the bride and groom's day, but other people do count for something. Sheesh.

 

Caveat: If you have the bucks and can pay for at least your entire immediate family to attend, go for it! I'd love to get a free trip to Mexico!

[katemary63]

Absolutely not. People should be able to have the exact wedding they want. It's THEIR wedding.

 

I think you are taking this way, way too personally. It's your sister's wedding. It's her celebration. It's her day. Let her do it her way. You don't have to take your whole family. You don't even have to go.

 

Tara

 

 

Sorry, but I think this is poppycock! It's her SISTER'S wedding. She SHOULD be hurt that her sister doesn't care enough about her to make sure she can attend. I think it's horrible.

[Haiku]

Sorry, but I think this is poppycock! It's her SISTER'S wedding. She SHOULD be hurt that her sister doesn't care enough about her to make sure she can attend. I think it's horrible.

 

And you're welcome to think that. To me, a wedding is a celebration of the love shared between the two people getting married, and it's extremely out of line to try to tell them how to do that. YOU are not going to be part of the marriage, so YOU (generic you here) should not get to tell them how to celebrate said marriage. My brother got married at a hunting lodge in Canada. I didn't go, and I wan't the slightest bit offended that he chose to have the wedding he and his wife wanted.

 

Tara

[lailasmum]

My dh and I had a destination wedding. We got married in northern Sweden at the ice hotel. The actual wedding was planned in a weird whirlwind after having spent the previous 6 months trying to plan a wedding to suit everyone and just not being able to financially manage it without so much debt it would have crippled us. We also had the added stress of having quite socially awkward families. Overall it worked very well.

 

We suddenly came across an option of getting married abroad and it so happened that there was an opening about 4 wks later. We were away about 5 days and got married about day 3. No one knew we had gone and it was very exciting to come home and tell every one. 6 months later we had a blessing and a huge relaxed party/BBQ for our family and friends and it was just the best day. So relaxed and fun. My mum was ever so slightly miffed at not being let in on the secret but later said it had all worked out for the best. Over all the cost was massively cheaper for the foreign wedding, blessing and party vs the full formal family wedding. About a 1/5th of the price and we were able to afford to pay for a few people to come to the party who would have found it hard to attend else.

 

The only time I think a destination wedding is a bad idea if you expect other people to come. Unless you are wealthy enough to pay for everyone or you know they would definitely able to afford it is a bit weird.

[Kate CA]

Not everyone shares your religious beliefs. My dh and I were married by a public official. We don't believe in a divine savior. Our wedding was our celebration of our love and commitment to each other, and we had no obligation to please anyone else in how we did it. We planned a nice ceremony and an equally nice reception, and if certain people didn't like the location or the food, well, tdb.

 

Tara

 

Yeah, I know not everyone shares my faith, but I was not speaking for everyone, just me. :001_smile: She asked what we thought and I told her. We just think differently about what a wedding is and its purpose. That is the way it is.

[Carol in Cal.]

My dh and I had a destination wedding. We got married in northern Sweden at the ice hotel. The actual wedding was planned in a weird whirlwind after having spent the previous 6 months trying to plan a wedding to suit everyone and just not being able to financially manage it without so much debt it would have crippled us. We also had the added stress of having quite socially awkward families. Overall it worked very well.

 

We suddenly came across an option of getting married abroad and it so happened that there was an opening about 4 wks later. We were away about 5 days and got married about day 3. No one knew we had gone and it was very exciting to come home and tell every one. 6 months later we had a blessing and a huge relaxed party/BBQ for our family and friends and it was just the best day. So relaxed and fun. My mum was ever so slightly miffed at not being let in on the secret but later said it had all worked out for the best. Over all the cost was massively cheaper for the foreign wedding, blessing and party vs the full formal family wedding. About a 1/5th of the price and we were able to afford to pay for a few people to come to the party who would have found it hard to attend else.

 

The only time I think a destination wedding is a bad idea if you expect other people to come. Unless you are wealthy enough to pay for everyone or you know they would definitely able to afford it is a bit weird.

 

I'd call it an elopement. And I'd call it a really good idea in that case!

[Mejane]

In my religious tradition, an attitude that doesn't take other people into account is selfish no matter what day it is.

 

I'm not religious, but I totally agree.

[Haiku]

My dh and I had a destination wedding. We got married in northern Sweden at the ice hotel.

 

Jukkasjarvi?? That RAWKS!!

 

ETA: My favorite limerick:

 

I went to the Jukkasjarvi Palace

To see the Aurora Australis

The man at the gate said, "I'm sorry mate,"

The one we've got's Borealis!

 

Tara

Edited April 23, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[lailasmum]

yes it was elopement I guess but in the midst of having a wedding day and venue booked somewhere else so kind of didn't feel so spur of the moment as it could have done, we had been planning a wedding of some sort for ages, just not quite that one. But such a wonderful experience and the relief at not having to please everyone else was great.

 

Jukkasjarvi is an incredible place to get married.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Absolutely not. People should be able to have the exact wedding they want. It's THEIR wedding.

 

It's also your prerogative not to go, and if someone plans a wedding that will cost their guests significantly, they should be willing to accept that fact that people won't come.

 

I think you are taking this way, way too personally. It's your sister's wedding. It's her celebration. It's her day. Let her do it her way. You don't have to take your whole family. You don't even have to go.

 

My mom gave me tons of grief because we a) got married outside and b) had a vegetarian wedding. My mother tried to tell me that we had to do things to please our guests. I informed my mother in no uncertain terms that it was MY wedding and I would celebrate MY way and that I was inviting people to celebrate with me, not demanding their presence or kidnapping them. I am still :001_huh: that someone would presume to tell me how to plan my own wedding.

 

Tara

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

However, she should not expect you to come if you can't financially swing it, unless she wants to foot the bill for you. Paying for your own dress is one thing; but tickets, hotel rooms, meals, present, way too much to ask.

[Guest hannahzoe]

I'm responding to the original post (even though I know it's been a couple years). I came accross your post and this message board because I was trying to find out if I was the ONLY one who feels like destination weddings are selfish! My husband's cousin is having his 2nd wedding (his fiance's first) in Mexico in 5 months. We haven't received a formal invitation yet...but both my husband's brother and the groom's sister have asked us if we plan on going (which is also rude to ask, since we haven't even received an invitation yet, but that's a different story). I am too of the opinion that I would MUCH rather spend that money on a family vacation to Europe versus a vacation planned by someone else to Mexico. So, I'm glad to see that I'm in good company with my opinion. What's most bothersome to me in my situation is that the groom probably doesn't expect us to be there...it's my husband's brother (who is closer to the groom) and the groom's sister who would hold an ill opinion of us if we choose not to go. I suppose I can't worry about that though, as they're not the ones that matter!

[Catwoman]

I don't think destination weddings are selfish, but I do think the couple must be understanding if family/friends decline to attend.

 

I agree. In our family, if you have a destination wedding, you offer to pay the travel/accommodations/food expenses for each and every guest. It is incredibly expensive, but that's the way we do it. Most of the guests choose to pay their own way, but those who can't afford it are still able to attend.

 

Personally, I think destination weddings are a nuisance, and the travel cost is the least of it. There's a lot of planning involved, you often get stuck spending a lot more time with extended family than you would like, and the bride and groom's "dream destination" is often someplace that you have no interest in visiting.

 

I think the main thing is that the bride and groom should realize that not everyone will appreciate their choice of location (and might not be able to get off from work for days at a time, or want to use all of their personal and vacation days to attend, or whatever) and that they have no right to be offended if anyone declines to attend or to be a part of the wedding party.

 

Cat

 

PS. I just realized that this is an old thread that got bumped to the top. Sorry to keep it at the top of the page!

[newbie]

We did destination wedding and noone showed but we had a reception when we got back, so everyone went to that one.

[NanceXToo]

I wouldn't necessarily think of it as "selfish"- I think a wedding day should be whatever the bride and groom want it to be.

 

With that said, the caveat is that they must be understanding if others can't make it/can't afford it.

 

If they decided on a destination wedding and were understanding of people not being able to attend, and/or willing to pay their way so they could, then it's not selfish.

 

If they decided on a destination wedding and gave people a hard time/guilt trip/etc about not being able to attend- then, yes, it's selfish.

[May]

I've lived in southern CA on and off for about 12 years and never have been to Mexico. So I agree, it's not on my vacation list and I wouldn't spend money on a wedding that was there. People are free to have their weddings wherever they want them. I'm also free to RSVP in the negative if I can't or don't want to attend.

[Miss Sherry]

Absolutely not. People should be able to have the exact wedding they want. It's THEIR wedding.

 

It's also your prerogative not to go, and if someone plans a wedding that will cost their guests significantly, they should be willing to accept that fact that people won't come.

 

I think you are taking this way, way too personally. It's your sister's wedding. It's her celebration. It's her day. Let her do it her way. You don't have to take your whole family. You don't even have to go.

 

My mom gave me tons of grief because we a) got married outside and b) had a vegetarian wedding. My mother tried to tell me that we had to do things to please our guests. I informed my mother in no uncertain terms that it was MY wedding and I would celebrate MY way and that I was inviting people to celebrate with me, not demanding their presence or kidnapping them. I am still :001_huh: that someone would presume to tell me how to plan my own wedding.

 

Tara

To the question "is it selfish" you say "absolutely not" but then you go on to describe how it "should" be all about the bride. "It's her day". "Let her do it her way" It seems you are saying it's not selfish - but then describing how it "should" be about nothing but selfishness. It seems you are wanting it to be selfish but let's call it something other than selfish. Does this mean we should be totally selfish on our wedding day but the term selfish has no meaning on that particular day ? :lol:

Selfish: 1.

: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2

: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

 

Of course anyone can do whatever they want to on their wedding day. But the word selfish still has a meaning.:tongue_smilie:

[tex-mex]

I agree. In our family, if you have a destination wedding, you offer to pay the travel/accommodations/food expenses for each and every guest. It is incredibly expensive, but that's the way we do it. Most of the guests choose to pay their own way, but those who can't afford it are still able to attend.

 

Personally, I think destination weddings are a nuisance, and the travel cost is the least of it. There's a lot of planning involved, you often get stuck spending a lot more time with extended family than you would like, and the bride and groom's "dream destination" is often someplace that you have no interest in visiting.

 

I think the main thing is that the bride and groom should realize that not everyone will appreciate their choice of location (and might not be able to get off from work for days at a time, or want to use all of their personal and vacation days to attend, or whatever) and that they have no right to be offended if anyone declines to attend or to be a part of the wedding party.

 

Cat

 

PS. I just realized that this is an old thread that got bumped to the top. Sorry to keep it at the top of the page!

:iagree: That is why most destination weddings are with small attendees. My cousin married in Hawaii (she is from CA) and only her family attended (groom was from Germany) and they paid for her immediate family to attend. I think it is very self absorbed to plan a destination wedding and not foot the bill for the guests. Tacky. Call it an elopement then.

[amsunshine]

I don't think destination weddings are selfish -- but I agree with the other posters that the couple should be understanding if invited guests are unable to attend.

 

We had a destination wedding in Las Vegas -- and really did not expect a whole lot of people to show up. Turns out, only 2 people declined to attend and we had about 100 people there to celebrate with us. It was really fun and relaxed! Everyone had a great time. I also had a lot of relatives out of state, though, and it turned out to be cheaper for them to fly into Vegas and book a hotel room there than it would have been had they flown into my home town. (So it was a "win-win")

 

Mexico, though, is another story. I personally love Mexico and we go often. However, I would not expect others to share my love of Mexico -- especially given the current violence going on there. It's true that the violence hasn't really touched the more prominent resort areas, but I know many people that are turned off to the idea of Mexico, regardless.

 

Hopefully, the bride and groom will have a lovely wedding while at the same time gracefully accept that many of the guests they would like to celebrate with them might not be able to attend.

Edited December 11, 2010 by amsunshine

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

A destination wedding is one where the couple expect some guests to show up-even if it is just a couple close friends or immediate family.

 

Elopement is when you don't expect any guests.

 

Tackiest-when you expect gifts from anyone in either of the above circumstances and are put out if you don't receive any. If the guest shows at a destination wedding at their own expense-their presence is their gift-anything else is a bonus. If you elope or don't invite someone to your destination wedding then you shouldn't expect a gift. Gifts are from people you might actually be willing to have celebrate your big day with you. The previous statement goes double if you then try to have a 2nd reception back home.

[justasque]

Her boyfriend doesn't want to have an inexpensive wedding in town because they have been to a ton of very high end weddings and they'd be embarressed to have a less expensive one.

 

This is the part of the OP's post that stood out for me. It does not bode well for the couple's financial future. It would be a huge red flag for me about the boyfriend and the relationship. You should never spend beyond your means because you are embarrassed - it only gets you into trouble in the long run. (And I wonder how many of their friends could afford the high end weddings they had - and what they had to sacrifice (e.g. house down-payment, SAHM for their future children, etc.) to have them.

 

Weddings aren't to impress other people. There is nothing wrong with a tasteful afternoon service with tea and little sandwiches afterwords in the church social hall, or the bride's parents' backyard, or the local park. I have been to small, inexpensive weddings that were nonetheless tasteful and fun for all - in fact often more so than some of the expensive ones I've attended.

 

I believe it is appropriate and natural for parents to want to celebrate their child finding someone who is committing to be there for the child for the rest of their lives, and thus a wedding is not *just* about the couple - each family member has a role to play and a reason to celebrate.

 

Going away to be married is fine if it works for your family. It's *not* fine to expect others to underwrite the cost of your fancy vacation.

 

OP, could you, without criticizing the current plans, gently suggest local scenarios that are tasteful and fun but within budget?

[ktgrok]

www.belladrum.co.uk/pages/weddings.aspWell, I think it is great for the couple as long as they don't mind it when people can't come. My husband and I got married in Scotland, but we knew our family really couldn't afford to travel there. So rather than having some people there and others not able to make it we decided it would be a private ceremony, just the two of us. My parents were a bit sad not being there, but understood. We had a video made and a a photographer, they were our witnesses :)

 

It was very romantic, just the two of us in a chapel in the highlands, then we went back to our hotel which was actually a castle where we had dinner in the in house restaraunt and wedding cake in our room. When we got back home we had a giant, informal party for all our friends and family. We showed the wedding video and I served traditional scottish food. It was absolutely perfect and I would do it again in a heart beat. However, I would NOT expect anyone to pay for that kind of travel to be there with us.

[ktgrok]

If my best friend in the whole world came up to me and said she was having a destination wedding in another country and would I come, I'd say no. The expense for me would be prohibitive. I think those who want such weddings should go into it with the full knowledge that not everyone in the world views their wedding and it's destination as a must-attend event.

 

If it were me, and I wanted something like this, I'd tell everyone who I wanted there the plans, the prices, the dates, all details and let them decide if they could afford it and want to spend some time at that destination. For those who can't swing it, I'd have a huge bbq bash when I got back, sort of a reception type event to celebrate with all my friends.

 

that's exactly what we did! Although I served shepherd's pie instead of barbecue, in honor of our Scottish nuptials. But we almost did barbeque! We played our wedding video for those that wanted to see it and had a GREAT time.

[Murphy101]

Not at all. Their wedding, their money, their way.

 

That isn't selfish. It's the nature of pretty much any event you are planning and paying for yourself.

 

They should not expect everyone to make the expense or the trip, but really that's true for ANY wedding. Sometimes people just can't afford to take off work or travel or have timing conflicts. It happens all the time whether it's in town, in another state, or in another country.

[StephanieZ]

Well, we had a destination wedding & we loved it. But, I do see both sides of the coin, so to speak.

 

That said, dh & I lived across the country from our families. . . Initially, we were going to hike up into a local canyon & get married there & have a barefoot wedding in the woods. Everyone would have had to fly out & get hotels (except those who would have been comfy bunking in our little house with us). . .

 

When we chose the Caribbean for our honeymoon & saw stuff about getting married there, we threw out the idea to our immediate families for their preference -- fly there or fly out west where we lived?

 

The families preferred the Caribbean. :) So, we did it. It was awesome. Everyone was very relaxed. My brother was tight on $$ (grad school), as we were, too, actually (also in grad school), but I used frequent flyer miles to buy his ticket & he stayed with my aunt in her rental villa for free. The rest of the relatives stayed in villas or in the resort we had chosen. It was all very relaxed. I think folks had a good time.

 

My brother was married in Argentina (his wife was from there). . . It was insanely expensive to get our family of 5 there. My mom ended up springing for it when I said we just couldn't afford it. (My brother insisted we MUST be there. . .)

 

In the end, I think all wedding are crisis-rites. They bring out the best & worst in people.

 

Who/how do you want to be? Who/how does everyone else want to be?

 

How kind? How tolerant? How generous? How considerate? How communicative?

 

If everyone can be open, thoughtful, considerate, patient. . . then all will be well. Sometimes someone won't be able to go. Sometimes someone will have to give or ACCEPT generosity they weren't planning on. . . Sometimes someone will have to accept more or less than they bargained for. . .

[amey311]

I don't mind being invited to destination weddings (elopements with an audience? ;) ). I more mind when the couple is angry that not everyone will come. If the weddings are out of the country, that means, in addition to flights and hotels, the hassle of applying and waiting for passports for everyone who will be attending (and assorted other expenses).

 

For weddings that are far from home, we often end up sending a representative: DH goes for his friends and family, I go for mine. That's just the way life goes. We've done the same when the invite says "no children" and we still have nursing infants/toddlers.

 

I actually had a friend who sent an invitation that said no children and she knew basically that I wouldn't be able to go because of where the wedding was going to be and my HIGH needs young toddler (there was a hike up a mountain, etc so I couldn't just leave him in a hotel room down the hall and attend a ceremony in the ballroom and dash back if needed). She ended up telling me later that she had REALLY wanted me there and knew that Thing 1 would've been fine strapped to my back with a book and a cup (and me being able to wander a bit while listening to the ceremony), but that they had friends with completely unruly children and no interest in corralling them ("because children should be welcome everywhere and should be accommodated at all times"), and they didn't want THOSE children there. So, they had to say "no children." Guess who still brought their children? :glare:

 

So - I don't think destination weddings are selfish, but I think the couple can be in how they react to the replies from the guests.

[catz]

I think destination weddings are fine if the couple don't assume anyone else is going to be able come. I definitely think it's extreme to assume anyone else is going to use that much vacation time and money on their wedding.