cash bar?
Jan2159
are having a dinner reception and the club where it is being held reccomended
making a cash bar available. We are having a champaigne toast, but did not
want to be responsible for over-consumption. Any suggestions?
Mary S.
not host an event and ask your guests to pay to attend. Admission fees,
suggested gift prices, and money trees are also wrong.
If you don't want to pay for the extra drinks, then just serve
champagne. You (or the club, depending on their insurance and the small
print in your contract) will be responsible for over-consumption anyway.
Whether or not guests paid for their drinks makes no difference in terms
of your liability and responsibility. Please, please rethink your cash
bar.
Mary
--
Mary Sweathe
San Francisco, CA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Buffy
bar at a wedding, no announcments nothing its just the norm!!!!!!!!
lol over here we tend tobe more surprised when it isnt a cash bar!! #
Thought we were supposed to be the ones who stuck heavily to tradition lol
how comes you guys are so rigid??hehe our 'stiff upper lip' must have rubbed
of ;o)
--
Buffy
'Shoot first ask questions later you can always get new terrorists!'
icq 11968958
"Mary S." <mswe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8gh3em$ko4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
T
> Blimey
Just wanted to point out that the last times I heard this were on the Kroft
childrens shows, like the Bugaloos and HR Pufnstuff. :^)
> here in the UK it is taken for granted that it will ALWAYS be a cash
> bar at a wedding, no announcments nothing its just the norm!!!!!!!!
> lol over here we tend tobe more surprised when it isnt a cash bar!! #
Actually, in practice, many communities consider a cash bar to be a norm, but
it can be very very awkward and embarassing when people are invited from
outside the specific community and then asked to pay for their own drinks. If
you're absolutely sure that absolutely everyone on your guest list has no doubt
that this is how all weddings are done, hey, go for it; unfortunately, most
weddings are not this small or inclusive of just one social group. I would
hate to have any of our guests to feel awkward about any part of our wedding;
we want our guests to have a wonderful time.
> Thought we were supposed to be the ones who stuck heavily to tradition lol
> how comes you guys are so rigid??hehe our 'stiff upper lip' must have rubbed
> of ;o)
Heh. Actually, it's not really "tradition" -- if you look at how weddings were
up until about 50 years ago, people would have parties at their homes or
parties in the church hall or whatever; they never had cash bars. Cash bars
are a relatively new development.
garnet
and unsympathetic to cop an attitude about someone who chooses to offer one. A
cash bar is not a figment of our imagination, it has a title because it exists.
I have been too two weddings where there was a cash bar. At the events it took
the guests only minutes to discover that it was a cash bar. One approaches the
bar and discovers by witnessing the person ahead of them it is a cash bar. Do
not make a big deal out of it or announce it in anyway..let it blend. I think
its a good idea to offer the champagne and also non alcoholic drinks without a
charge though
Buffy wrote:
> Blimey here in the UK it is taken for granted that it will ALWAYS be a cash
> bar at a wedding, no announcments nothing its just the norm!!!!!!!!
> lol over here we tend tobe more surprised when it isnt a cash bar!! #
>
> Thought we were supposed to be the ones who stuck heavily to tradition lol
> how comes you guys are so rigid??hehe our 'stiff upper lip' must have rubbed
> of ;o)
>
Karen Simmons
>
> A cash bar is not a figment of our imagination, it has a title because
> it exists.
So does rape and murder, but that doesn't make them right. Ok, yeah, I
know - not in the same league as a cash bar at all and I agree it's a
wild exaggeration, but the point is that just because something exists
and has a name doesn't make it right.
> IAt the events it took the guests only minutes to discover that it was
> a cash bar. One approaches the bar and discovers by witnessing the
> person ahead of them it is a cash bar.
I have been in line and not ever paid attention to the person in front
of me because I was talking to someone else. Suddenly my turn comes, I
order my drinks and I'm told that I have to pay. At this particular
instance it was a good thing my husband had his wallet, because when I
get dressed up for a wedding the only thing I keep with me in that
little-bitty evening bag is a credit card for emergencies, some tissues,
and my lipstick. If my husband hadn't had cash in his wallet, I'd have
been in the embarrassing position of having ordered and received drinks
that I couldn't pay for. Not the best way to be a host, IMO.
> I think its a good idea to offer the champagne and also non alcoholic
> drinks without a charge though
If I were to ever attend a social event - wedding or anything - where I
had to pay for non-alcoholic beverages, I'd leave immediately. That is
the height of rudeness to your guests, IMO.
Karen
Lyn
open bar, my FH does not, as his family doesn't drink, at all (though he
does), and he wants to cut costs by having a limited bar. Our compromise is
to have BEER AND GOOD WINE OOPS..caps. (Sorry). In addition to pop,
purified water, and iced tea. We meet with the business owner tomorrow, and
I am going to see if we can purchase a keg of a good import beer (Sam Smith
or Bass, or something like that) , and have it available.
I am not offended by a cash bar. And I ALWAYS, ALWAYS carry
cash...regardless of circumstance.
-L.
not available <lwe...@jet.cc.emory.edu> wrote in message
news:8gi0hf$roi$1...@lendl.cc.emory.edu...
> Mary S. (mswe...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> : It is never, never appropriate to have a cash bar at a wedding.
>
> I disagree; what if the hosts can't afford to pay for a night's worth of
> drinks for everyone? A lot of people in my area have receptions with free
> beer and champagne, but if you want wine or cocktails, you have to buy
> them yourself. Others will pay for all non-alcoholic drinks, and any
> guest who wants alcohol pays separately. I would rather let the guest
> choose to buy a drink they especially want, than be strictly limited by
> what I can afford to provide. There's an important difference between not
> providing all drinks for free, and not providing any drinks for free! If
> you've supplied people with water, tea, coffee, milk, and pop, I think
> you've done your job as a host; if you give them champagne or beer, even
> better, but you don't have to write a blank check for a booze-up just to
> be a considerate host.
>
> What is horrible is what happened at my reception: as the guests began to
> arrive, they went to the bar and were told [a total error on the part
> of the bartenders!] that they could have free beer and liquor, but that
> they had to PAY for pop! Can you imagine anything so stupid as that? So
> the adults could get a free beer, but they had to pay some amount to buy
> their kids a soda. When we arrived, we nearly had a kitten, watching the
> people in front of us fishing around for change trying to get a soda!
> Thankfully we arrived only a short time after the other guests, but as far
> as I was concerned, the damage was already started. Luckily we fixed that
> situation immediately (!!) and tried to announce to everyone that they had
> made a mistake. However, with a reception of that size and noise level, I
> shudder to think of the numbers of people who might think it was OUR idea
> to charge for pop, rather than a grievous error on the part of the
> reception hall. It does go to show that it's important to have someone
> double-checking everything, and authorized to fix problems on your behalf
> while you're busy on the wedding day. It also might prevent the bride
> from strangling a bartender inadvertently! heh.
prpo...@my-deja.com
the club where it is being held
reccomended
> making a cash bar available.
You don't suppose they made this recommendation because they're the ones
who'll get the cash?
Paul
not available
aMAZon
garnet wrote:
>
> Although I do not personally like the idea of a cash bar, it would be arrogant
> and unsympathetic to cop an attitude about someone who chooses to offer one. A
> cash bar is not a figment of our imagination, it has a title because it exists.
> I have been too two weddings where there was a cash bar. At the events it took
> the guests only minutes to discover that it was a cash bar. One approaches the
> bar and discovers by witnessing the person ahead of them it is a cash bar. Do
> not make a big deal out of it or announce it in anyway..let it blend. I think
> its a good idea to offer the champagne and also non alcoholic drinks without a
> charge though
I wish that would happen more often -- offering non-alcoholic drinks at
a wedding
without a charge.
It really annoys me when I go someplace and only *then* am I told that
it's a
cash bar, even for pop (or other soft drinks). If I knew in advance
what the
situation was likely to be, I'd bring the money.
At least at most of the weddings I've been to, the bartenders will give
you
a glass of water for free.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
JG
Buffy wrote in message <8gh619$aej$1...@supernews.com>...
>Blimey here in the UK it is taken for granted that it will ALWAYS be a cash
>bar at a wedding, no announcments nothing its just the norm!!!!!!!!
>lol over here we tend tobe more surprised when it isnt a cash bar!! #
>
>
I dunno. I'm in the UK and although I've been to a couple of weddings with a
cash bar, it always surprises me a bit. Maybe that's because I'm Jewish, and
I have _never_ been to a Jewish wedding where they did that.
jo
not available
: of me because I was talking to someone else. Suddenly my turn comes, I
: order my drinks and I'm told that I have to pay. At this particular
: instance it was a good thing my husband had his wallet, because when I
I think the way it is supposed to work is that, when you arrive at the
bar, the bartender is supposed to present you with the possibilities.
I.e. we have beer, pop, white wine. And if you say, how about scotch and
soda, s/he informs you that there's a charge for cocktails but not for the
others. But, considering how it can go in reality, I wouldn't trust the
people to do this right without some preliminary double-checking!
Surely it's okay to just serve your guests non-alcholic drinks? I've been
to several weddings which had no alcohol at all (usually in church
reception halls), and I don't think there was anything weird about it.
I don't take it anyone is suggesting that ALL liquids should be paid for
by guest, just the liquor if they desire it. ? For people who are on
limited budgets, my guess is that the hedonic calculus is better satisfied
by putting the money into good food and non-alcholic drinks, rather than
sinking it into an open free bar (which can quickly become an exorbitant
cost, and if you're having a big family-type wedding with lots of kids,
it's only satisfying a smallish percentage of the guests anyway).
Rochell Shaw
that hosts should provide refreshments, whatever they may be, without
expecting their "guests" to pay (because if they pay, they're not really
guests, now, are they?). Now, if the drinks provided are just soft
drinks, with no liquor at all, that's just fine, as long as guests don't
have to pay. Or a compromise, like Lyn suggests, is also fine. That's
basically what we had, btw-- we had a brunch at which we provided beer
(we paid a bit extra for "the good stuff"), wine, and mimosas, as well
as any soft drinks. However, we did have a totally open bar for the
cocktail hour, for which the reception hall ran a tab for us-- it came
to about $300.
Lyn wrote:
>
> Actually, we are struggling with this at the moment, too. I want to have
> open bar, my FH does not, as his family doesn't drink, at all (though he
> does), and he wants to cut costs by having a limited bar. Our compromise is
> to have BEER AND GOOD WINE OOPS..caps. (Sorry). In addition to pop,
> purified water, and iced tea. We meet with the business owner tomorrow, and
> I am going to see if we can purchase a keg of a good import beer (Sam Smith
> or Bass, or something like that) , and have it available.
>
> I am not offended by a cash bar. And I ALWAYS, ALWAYS carry
> cash...regardless of circumstance.
>
> -L.
>
> not available <lwe...@jet.cc.emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:8gi0hf$roi$1...@lendl.cc.emory.edu...
Jeanne
T wrote:
> Buffy wrote:
>
> > Blimey
>
> Just wanted to point out that the last times I heard this were on the Kroft
> childrens shows, like the Bugaloos and HR Pufnstuff. :^)
HF Pufnstuff? You must be ancient! I watched it in fifth grade and that
was........31 one years ago.
Jeanne
Rochell Shaw wrote:
> I agree with the poster who wrote that cash bars are improper... I feel
> that hosts should provide refreshments, whatever they may be, without
> expecting their "guests" to pay (because if they pay, they're not really
> guests, now, are they?). Now, if the drinks provided are just soft
> drinks, with no liquor at all, that's just fine, as long as guests don't
> have to pay.
I suspect cash bars came into acceptability due to certain demanding guests who
could not possibly dream of graciously accepting their host's hospitality if that
hospitality did not include alcohol. Some guests are wretchedly ungrateful people
who distain the refreshments offered by the host.
garnet
(1) Rape and a cash bar? That's insulting and rude to even put them in the
same sentence.
(2) If you do not carry money on you when you go to any function, you are
ignorant. What if there was a valet parking system and a tip would be the
right thing to do in that situation? Dumb and careless excuse..if you leave
the house with no money, you deserve to be embarrassed.
(3) If you would leave a wedding because you had to pay for an alcoholic
drink, you are a total ass wipe and should have never been invited to begin
with. Even if you find it rude, leaving because of it, displays your lack
of tolerance for diversity. You and the women who would leave a wedding
because she could not eat meat, must be real winners.
Karen Simmons wrote:
> garnet wrote:
> >
> > A cash bar is not a figment of our imagination, it has a title because
> > it exists.
>
> So does rape and murder, but that doesn't make them right. Ok, yeah, I
> know - not in the same league as a cash bar at all and I agree it's a
> wild exaggeration, but the point is that just because something exists
> and has a name doesn't make it right.
>
> > IAt the events it took the guests only minutes to discover that it was
> > a cash bar. One approaches the bar and discovers by witnessing the
> > person ahead of them it is a cash bar.
>
> I have been in line and not ever paid attention to the person in front
> of me because I was talking to someone else. Suddenly my turn comes, I
> order my drinks and I'm told that I have to pay. At this particular
> instance it was a good thing my husband had his wallet, because when I
> get dressed up for a wedding the only thing I keep with me in that
> little-bitty evening bag is a credit card for emergencies, some tissues,
> and my lipstick. If my husband hadn't had cash in his wallet, I'd have
> been in the embarrassing position of having ordered and received drinks
> that I couldn't pay for. Not the best way to be a host, IMO.
>
> > I think its a good idea to offer the champagne and also non alcoholic
> > drinks without a charge though
>
garnet
hosts' expense is a reasonable expectation. An open bar with alcohol is very
costly, and to think that every family can afford such an event is rude. (yes
karen simmons--rude!!!) So, you raise a point that makes sense to me...you
want your guests to have lots of options so you find a cash bar gives people
more options. I like that approach! A cash bar is an only option for many
people. If a budget is tight and you still want your guest to have an option
to drink whatever they want, there is nothing wrong with a cash bar. It is
pretty obvious to me, that the cost is the main reason for people doing
this............how can that be considered rude? One good thing
though.--guests like Karen simmons would have already left in disgust, so you
wouldn't have to worry about ever inviting her to another function again!! LOL
hillary israeli
*
*(3) If you would leave a wedding because you had to pay for an alcoholic
*drink, you are a total ass wipe and should have never been invited to begin
*with. Even if you find it rude, leaving because of it, displays your lack
*of tolerance for diversity. You and the women who would leave a wedding
*because she could not eat meat, must be real winners.
Well, I would not take the slightest offense at a bar which served only
non-alcoholic beverages. However, a bar which served non-alcoholic
beverages for free, and then offered alcoholic beverages for a fee, I find
insulting and offensive. Most likely this is because in my social circle,
one does not EVER require guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment.
This is how I was raised. A dear friend of mine who was raised in Japan
still, after living in the US for many years, gets creeped out when people
do not automatically remove their shoes at her front door. It does not
mean that she is a loser or an intolerant person. And I do not believe
that my reaction to a cash bar makes me a loser or an intolerant person.
It's simply that I've had a relatively broad experience with various
levels of entertaining in various parts of the USA, and never in any of
the diverse social groups I've "partied" with, has it been acceptable to
have a cash bar. Therefore suddenly being presented with one would really
really freak me out and I wouldn't be able to help but wonder if the hosts
were a) completely ignorant, b) aware, but unconscionably rude, or c)
following some local custom of which I am completely unaware. In a case
such as this, I would probably try to find out which it was - by asking
the person who brought me to the party something like "oh, a cash bar - is
that the local custom here in Schmoeville?" If the response was "heavens
no, I can't believe they did this," my feelings would be markedly
different from how I would feel if the answer were "in fact, yes - I know
it's not what you're used to, but even my great-great-grandma had a cash
bar at her wedding at the original Schmoeville town square. Isn't it
interesting?"
-h.
--
hillary israeli.....................................hillary@netaxs.com
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
hil...@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet
Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock.
garnet
I ever even think about it. Similar to you, in my experiences a host provides
options for its guest, and an open bar was one of them. I always have stated in
the past that if someone was trying to budget more into their wedding, they
could offer imported beer and wine along with the non alcoholic type beverages
to their guests, rather than have a cash bar set up or no alcohol at all.
In this world, we share space with people who are similar to us, and
different from us. A lucky and blessed person is the one who can walk beside
anyone and find a connection with them. Economics separates mankind as much as
race has divided us for centuries. Like you have noted different cultures have
diverse expectations. Within our society culture is not just defined by
geography but by experience. So, in a lifetime there is not an excuse to be
"freaked out" by what is foreign and unknown to us.
I guess what took the discussion down this path for me was hearing people
say they would leave a wedding because of the fact there was a cash bar or
because their was no meat. People do some strange things, no doubt about it.
Some people think tattoos make their skin look pretty, some serve jello at their
weddings, and some offer a cash bar? It has nothing to do with a person being
rude. It is not that twisted or complicated. Often a premises will insist a
bar is handled that way or a family can not handle the expense. Why would that
make you leave or think the host were rude? You might think to your
self.....bummer.....or yikes, too bad I love free drinks..or even wow......how
strange, never seen this occur. However it won't mean a thing in ten years.
I went to this wedding a few years ago, and the couple had the reception at
the town community center. The place had cartoons painted by children on the
walls!! The table looked like a potluck dinner at a grange hall and there were
three kegs of Budwieser. There will children barefoot dancing, and the DJ was a
14 year old with a portable CD player. I had never been to a wedding like this
ever. I remember saying to myself..."I do not how I got here, but I am glad I
did." I felt like the girl on the titanic who went downstairs to see how the
other side parties! Not really........as i have always had very diverse
relationships with people of all backgrounds. It is like that in New England,
because of how economically diverse an area it is. You have a lot of people who
have never even left the state, and you have others who own the products you
purchase every single day! I felt honored that I was invited to share the day
of two people declaring their love for one another. They are not on trial for
etiquette and hospitality, this is their show. If I was to walk out of the
wedding because I interpreted the guests as being rude.......I would be
dismissing the fact that one can learn from the simple as much as they can from
the complex.
Karen Simmons
>
> you are a total ass wipe
Is it possible for you to post w/out calling people who disagree with
you obscene names?
> Even if you find it rude, leaving because of it, displays your lack
> of tolerance for diversity.
No, it displays the fact that I won't be invited as a "guest" to a
function and then not even provided the very basic need of a
non-alcoholic drink w/out being charged for it. As a guest, I don't
expect to pay for my meal or my drinks. I would congratulate the bride
and groom, thank them for their hospitality, and then leave - either to
go home where an iced tea is free or to a restaurant where I *choose* to
pay for a soda.
Karen
garnet
Karen Simmons wrote:
> garnet wrote:
> >
> > you are a total ass wipe
again:
If you would leave a wedding because you had to pay for an alcoholic
drink, you are a total ass wipe and should have never been invited to begin
with.
Muhlyssa
signs/menus to stand on the bar with prices of various drinks?
a la:
Beer: $2.50
Wine: $3.00
Mixed drinks: $5.00
etc.
I have been to parties with no host bars (not weddings) that did
it this way.
Melissa, aka Muhlyssa
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
garnet
all she wanted to know was how to handle informing people, not what we all
thought of it. :) I was thinking not announcing it might be the way for her to
go, but others said they attend functions with no money, so perhaps your idea
would dismiss their embarrassment fears of getting busted for being the cheap
one?
T
> Often a premises will insist a
> bar is handled that way
Interesting point: My site prohibits alcohol sale. No vending without an
additional-charge permit. So, as I've talked to other people from the
neighborhood, I've heard stories that "Oh,at my cousin's wedding, they *sold
tickets that would then be exchanged for beer.*
Wow.
> or a family can not handle the expense.
The expense of.... coffee? Juice? Milk? Water? Domestic beer? Soda? If the family
cannot handle the expense of a full all-out liquor stock, that's certainly nothing
to be worried about. When people come to our house for dinner, we offer whatever
we have. Last night, we had an impromptu guest, so we offered water, milk or
cranberry-apple juice. Did that make us bad hosts for not having red wine with the
steak? When we have our wedding, we offer what we can afford, which will probably
be soda, coffee, decafe, water, a variety of beer, a couple kinds of wine, and
*maybe* (we hope) a limited variety of liquor.
> Why would that
> make you leave or think the host were rude?
When we have people to our house to relax or party or eat or whatever, we don't
charge admission, and we don't charge per-drink. A wedding is a bigger deal, and
that's why we budget up to a year in advance for it.
> I went to this wedding a few years ago, and the couple had the reception at
> the town community center. The place had cartoons painted by children on the
> walls!! The table looked like a potluck dinner at a grange hall and there were
> three kegs of Budwieser. There will children barefoot dancing, and the DJ was a
> 14 year old with a portable CD player. I had never been to a wedding like this
> ever.
There's nothing rude about this, though! Not having a fully-catered affair doesn't
make it rude. Making guests whip out cash makes it rude.
Over the years, I've had to take a shift off from work, give up that pay, buy a
gift, possibly buy a new outfit, and go through some inconvenience to get to a
wedding, and then I find out that people are still expected to shell out funds?
Ew. I'm not cheap, as I've already paid for the gift, transport, and given up
hours at work, but no, I'm not paying more. I don't care much cash *at all*. I'm
a notorious impulse spender, and if I carried more than what I had to have with me,
I'd probably buy something else I don't need, and that's even when I have money.
No, I don't carry cash, so no, I won't be at a cash bar.
Even then, I feel awkward, because if a friend of mine buys me a drink as a
surprise, then I feel badly because no, I'm not buying the next round. Ew. Bad,
awkward, icky. Is that how guests are supposed to feel at weddings? I don't think
so.
I think a significant explanation is that people probably "used" to know that
people should only serve what they can afford at a wedding; a keg is fine, soda is
fine, a favorite brand of wine, great. But then some of the halls and hotels
realized they could make a lot of money by leaving their bars staffed near the
room, and allowing guests to buy liquor out there when the hosts chose not to offer
it, and from there it was just a short hop to convincing people that it's "more
convenient" to offer the cash bar right there in your reception area. It's really
just a way for the site to make more money off your party, and sadly, it's expanded
so now people are charging for whatever they can (per the story above). Ew.
Crystal Light
> Mary S. (mswe...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> : It is never, never appropriate to have a cash bar at a wedding.
>
> I disagree; what if the hosts can't afford to pay for a night's worth of
> drinks for everyone? A lot of people in my area have receptions with free
> beer and champagne, but if you want wine or cocktails, you have to buy
> them yourself. Others will pay for all non-alcoholic drinks, and any
> guest who wants alcohol pays separately. I would rather let the guest
> choose to buy a drink they especially want, than be strictly limited by
> what I can afford to provide. There's an important difference between not
> providing all drinks for free, and not providing any drinks for free! If
> you've supplied people with water, tea, coffee, milk, and pop, I think
> you've done your job as a host; if you give them champagne or beer, even
> better, but you don't have to write a blank check for a booze-up just to
> be a considerate host.
Agreed. I just attended a wedding last weekend where the couple didn't
provide any drinks, not even on a cash basis. It was a pretty boring
reception in my and my fiance's opinion, and we would have loved at least
the option to purchase our own drinks. Believe me, we would have, and
wouldn't have given a second thought to how it might have been ettiquetely
inappropriate.
-Crystal (and Aaron)
August 26, 2000
Muskegon, Michigan
T
> but others said they attend functions with no money, so perhaps your idea
> would dismiss their embarrassment fears of getting busted for being the cheap
> one?
This ought to be good: What is your definition of "cheap"?
MLS
drink, you are a total ass wipe and should have never been invited to begin
with.<<
Um, garnet, I tend to agree with your assumption ... although I'd use
friendlier language. But, Karen has said in virtually every single one of her
posts that she would leave if there weren't free *non-alcoholic* beverages.
Big difference.
Now, I thought the whole point of a cash bar was to have people pay for their
own *alcoholic* beverages if they really wanted to have them. I've never heard
of paying for non-alcoholic beverages...
I think you're fighting here without really knowing the general premise behind
the discussion.
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
T
>
> Agreed. I just attended a wedding last weekend where the couple didn't
> provide any drinks, not even on a cash basis. It was a pretty boring
> reception in my and my fiance's opinion, and we would have loved at least
> the option to purchase our own drinks. Believe me, we would have, and
> wouldn't have given a second thought to how it might have been ettiquetely
> inappropriate.
>
If you can't have any fun at all without alcohol, that's very unfortunate.
Many religions and many families choose not to promote alcohol.
You don't describe much about the wedding at all, but there are many instances
where it's very common to not include alcohol: A daytime/early afternoon
reception, some church sites, some park sites, and in temporary instances, some
standard reception sites that are unable to renew a liquor license.
Again, it's very unfortuate that you considered alcohol to be a major part of
why a reception was boring.
aMAZon
garnet wrote:
>
> (1) Rape and a cash bar? That's insulting and rude to even put them in the
> same sentence.
>
> (2) If you do not carry money on you when you go to any function, you are
> ignorant. What if there was a valet parking system and a tip would be the
> right thing to do in that situation? Dumb and careless excuse..if you leave
> the house with no money, you deserve to be embarrassed.
I routinely carry my "day" purse (with the credit cards and the majority
of the money) with me, but leave it in a locked car trunk. That is in
no way "ignorant".
> (3) If you would leave a wedding because you had to pay for an alcoholic
> drink, you are a total ass wipe and should have never been invited to begin
> with. Even if you find it rude, leaving because of it, displays your lack
> of tolerance for diversity. You and the women who would leave a wedding
> because she could not eat meat, must be real winners.
Do you have some sort of an issue with the previous poster? Calling her
"ignorant" and "a total ass wipe" is extremely rude.
Be a grown up and take it to email. Or better yet, just don't use such
language.
Jeanne
MLS wrote:
> >>If you would leave a wedding because you had to pay for an alcoholic
> drink, you are a total ass wipe and should have never been invited to begin
> with.<<
>
> Um, garnet, I tend to agree with your assumption ... although I'd use
> friendlier language. But, Karen has said in virtually every single one of her
> posts that she would leave if there weren't free *non-alcoholic* beverages.
> Big difference.
>
I have never, ever, ever seen a reception charge guests for water. Soda, fancy
bottled water, iced tea, lemonade, punch, etc. are all nice extensions of a host's
hospitality should they provide it BUT the requirements of being a good host merely
dictate that you offer ample refreshments to your guests, not *WHAT* you offer
them. I have most definitely seen functions where the beverage of the host's choice
was either water or iced tea. If you did not like those two alternatives, there
was always the cash bar for those guests whose tastes and wants extended into soda,
fruit juices, etc.
>
> Now, I thought the whole point of a cash bar was to have people pay for their
> own *alcoholic* beverages if they really wanted to have them. I've never heard
> of paying for non-alcoholic beverages...
The host does not *owe* his guests alcohol and he\she certainly does not *owe* them
sodas, fruit juices, etc. I have yet to see a limit or fee for good old water and
ice cubes so yes, if someone said they would petulantly walk out of a reception
because they had to pay for a non-alcoholic beverage other than ice water then I
would have to conclude that the guest was a spoiled brat and probably not someone I
would have invited in the first place.
There is, after all, such a thing as guestzillas.
>
>
> I think you're fighting here without really knowing the general premise behind
> the discussion.
>
>
I certainly understand the premise and if I choose ice tea, water and coffee as the
beverages I, as hostess, will supply to my guests and some guests want something
different, they are certainly welcome to the cash bar to fulfill their wants. And
that includes the soda Ms. Simmons would leave a wedding reception in a huff over
having to pay for it.
Holly Drumm
(along with water). We paid for 2 kegs - Labatt Blue and Coors Light.
Champagne was available for the toasts, but all other alcoholic beverages
were to be paid for by the guest. This worked out well, as this way we
could control the cost, and the guests could still order whatever they
wanted.
Holly
Jeanne
Crystal Light wrote:
> Agreed. I just attended a wedding last weekend where the couple didn't
> provide any drinks, not even on a cash basis. It was a pretty boring
> reception in my and my fiance's opinion, and we would have loved at least
> the option to purchase our own drinks. Believe me, we would have, and
> wouldn't have given a second thought to how it might have been ettiquetely
> inappropriate.
>
> -
Nothing like a good ol' dry wedding reception to wring out people's true
prioroties in life.
MLS
as the
beverages I, as hostess, will supply to my guests and some guests want
something
different, they are certainly welcome to the cash bar to fulfill their wants.
And
that includes the soda Ms. Simmons would leave a wedding reception in a huff
over
having to pay for it.<<
Interesting :)
As I said, I've simply never heard of having to pay for soda at a wedding
reception. There may not be anything inherently wrong with it, but I
personally have never seen it happen.
For us, my fiance and I don't drink alcohol at all. My fiance's father and
brother do, so does my brother, and they overruled our suggestion of having a
cash bar. Due to their wants and needs, we're having an open bar ... not
exactly what we would have done, but hey, what the heck, it's their money :)
As far as having water, iced tea, and coffee... I would drink the water (but
that's kind of boring, isn't it?), but I don't drink coffee and I think iced
tea is disgusting. But, yeah, I'd drink the water without leaving in a huff
over the whole thing. It's certainly not worth it.
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
Christiane E. Rutyna
> The host does not *owe* his guests alcohol and he\she certainly does not *owe* them
> sodas, fruit juices, etc. I have yet to see a limit or fee for good old water and
> ice cubes so yes, if someone said they would petulantly walk out of a reception
> because they had to pay for a non-alcoholic beverage other than ice water then I
> would have to conclude that the guest was a spoiled brat and probably not someone I
> would have invited in the first place.
What about a certain friend of mine who has severe allergic reactions to
WATER?? (Yes, I'm very serious here.) He can drink other beverages, such
as milk or soda, because the reaction is lessened, but plain water on a
not-full stomach is likely to send him into shock. Now I know that this
is extreme, but the point is that water is not an answer for everyone, and
you can't expect it to be.
Christi
klsimmons
> water and coffee as the beverages I, as hostess, will supply
> to my guests and some guests want something different, they
> are certainly welcome to the cash bar to fulfill their wants.
> And that includes the soda Ms. Simmons would leave a wedding
> reception in a huff over having to pay for it.
A good host will provide a variety of FREE beverages (not
necessarily alcoholic) for her guests to choose from. A good
host will not limit her guests to water merely because she
chooses not to drink other beverages. I don't drink Coke, nor
do I drink sweet tea, I must prefer a plain glass of iced-
water. But I also live in the south and know that Coke and tea
are two drinks that are pretty much staples in my part of the
country. So I will make sure they are available to my guests
free of charge. IMO, if a host is unwilling to provide anything
other than water for her guests, then she is not a good host.
And Jeanne - please note I never said I'd "huff" anywhere. I
said I'd graciously take my leave of the couple. I realize that
you have a problem with me, but please stop putting words in my
mouth that I didn't use. Thank you.
Karen
not available
: At my wedding - soda, tea, coffee and lemonade were offered free of charge
: (along with water). We paid for 2 kegs - Labatt Blue and Coors Light.
: Champagne was available for the toasts, but all other alcoholic beverages
: were to be paid for by the guest. This worked out well, as this way we
: could control the cost, and the guests could still order whatever they
: wanted.
This sounds like a reasonable plan to me. Why wouldn't this version of a
"cash bar" be totally appropriate? If it is, I don't see how.
As far as the "how to" question.... again, I think the bartenders are
supposed to be told to offer the guest all the free drinks (e.g. beer,
pop, iced tea?), and if the guest request something that is not on the
list, then the bartender says that other special drinks are available at x
price. But for god's sake, make sure they know how to ask, or you'll end
up with an icky embarassment like I had.
not available
: Well, I would not take the slightest offense at a bar which served only
: non-alcoholic beverages. However, a bar which served non-alcoholic
: beverages for free, and then offered alcoholic beverages for a fee, I find
: insulting and offensive. Most likely this is because in my social circle,
: one does not EVER require guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment.
I don't get it--why would you feel this way, given that the hosts have
obviously provided everything else (non-alcoholic) for your enjoyment? For
many couples I know, providing alcohol was a moral issue, not just a price
one. They didn't want to prevent their guests from enjoying it, but they
also didn't want to encourage drinking by paying for it. At some
reception halls, you also have no choice. The bartenders are not going to
refuse to make alcoholic drinks for your guests if requested, so you have
to decide whether to pay for it. Some people don't believe in it, and
some people flat out can't afford it, as it can be a huge expense,
especially at a big wedding.
Nobody is requiring guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment at
all! Both of those have been provided; it's the special quality of adding
alcohol that the guest is paying for. Why is that so offensive? ???
Really, I just don't get it--I would like to understanding the reasoning.
garnet
aMAZon wrote:
> garnet wrote:
> >
> > (1) Rape and a cash bar? That's insulting and rude to even put them in the
> > same sentence.
> >
> > (2) If you do not carry money on you when you go to any function, you are
> > ignorant. What if there was a valet parking system and a tip would be the
> > right thing to do in that situation? Dumb and careless excuse..if you leave
> > the house with no money, you deserve to be embarrassed.
>
> I routinely carry my "day" purse (with the credit cards and the majority
> of the money) with me, but leave it in a locked car trunk. That is in
> no way "ignorant".
>
> > (3) If you would leave a wedding because you had to pay for an alcoholic
> > drink, you are a total ass wipe and should have never been invited to begin
not available
: The expense of.... coffee? Juice? Milk? Water? Domestic beer? Soda?
These things are all much cheaper than champagne, wine, and liquor. If
someone can't afford the latter, and they are supplying me with all the
free non-al. drinks i can handle, then I figure there is no difficulty
paying for alcholic drinks if I choose to have them. I've been to many
weddings like this--in fact, I would say it's the norm in my recent
experience (though not prior to, say, 10 years ago). If people were
offended and insulted, I sure didn't notice. I wasn't.
: When we have people to our house to relax or party or eat or whatever,
: we don't : charge admission, and we don't charge per-drink. A wedding
: is a bigger deal, and : that's why we budget up to a year in advance for
This seems very narrow minded to me! Of course nobody is charging
admission! If you couldn't afford to have expensive drinks at home, you
wouldn't provide them at all. But a wedding is different--it's not always
held in your home, where guests simply get what you provide. At a
restaurant, club, or hall, you often are in a position where the bar is
available to the guests regardless, and then you as host have to choose
what to pay for. Selecting "everything" may well be quite out of budget
range, even for those people who "budget up to a year in advance". If you
think the lack of free drinks at a wedding like this is a problem, I must
wonder, what else do you criticize at a wedding that is done on a small
budget? Lots of people don't have massive cash to throw at a wedding,
even if they saved up for two years. And still others will find that a
nice dinner, or a string quartet, or helping friends and family pay for
accomodations, is more important than providing all free alcohol.
: There's nothing rude about this, though! Not having a fully-catered
: affair doesn't : make it rude. Making guests whip out cash makes it
: rude.
Why? The guest is the one choosing to have alcohol not provided by the
host. As long as the host is supplying you with a nice dinner and plenty
of non alcoholic drinks, I do not understand the demand that everything
else be free as well. Have you ever hosted an informal, BYOB party? Is
that rude too?
: No, I don't carry cash, so no, I won't be at a cash bar.
Then you'd be drinking the free non-alcoholic drinks, or you'd choose a
beer instead of a cocktail, right? What's wrong with that?
not available
: A good host will provide a variety of FREE beverages (not
: necessarily alcoholic) for her guests to choose from. A good
I understand your point here, yes. Obviously the host can't expect guests
to pay for regular non-al. drinks. Whether pop is required or not, I
guess, is up to the individual and their budget, but if you've provided
water, iced tea, coffee, and milk for the kids if any, I think you're
doing just fine.
The thing that's puzzling me is: why is it worse to have free reg. drinks,
and let guests pay for the option of alcohol, than it is to just have free
reg. drinks alone?
The ideal situation is total free drinks. If you can't swing that, maybe
you serve beer and champagne or wine only. Maybe just beer. Maybe just
non-alcholic drinks. But in any of the above options, why is it wrong to
let the guest choose to pay for something else, if they aren't satisfied
with what is available for free? Most people I know who want to drink
that badly will be perfectly capable of paying for it, just as they would
pay for it at a bar. I mean, we don't expect anyone to provide free
cigarettes nowadays, right? But if there was a place the guest could buy
them, as an option, that wouldn't be rude. In fact, the guest might
appreciate being given the choice. i guess I am missing something--but I
really would like to know what it is.
T
> hillary israeli (hil...@hillary.net) wrote:
> Most likely this is because in my social circle,
> : one does not EVER require guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment.
>
> I don't get it--why would you feel this way, given that the hosts have
> obviously provided everything else (non-alcoholic) for your enjoyment?
If you have people over to your home, do you charge them for specific items? Do
you make them pay extra if they go with the imported beer rather than regular?
Even if you say, "Hey, let's go out to dinner, my treat," do you then change
your mind at the last minute and say, "OH, but I'm not buying you anything to
drink," or "Oh, but I'm not buying alcohol even though I said I'd treat."
Don't those situations strike you as at least odd? Inconvenient? Rude?
>
> Nobody is requiring guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment at
> all! Both of those have been provided; it's the special quality of adding
> alcohol that the guest is paying for. Why is that so offensive? ???
What does alcohol have to do with quality? It's like saying to your host that
you don't think what they've chosen is good enough so you'll just have the
hotel restaurant bring in a steak.
There are two ways to look at cash bars, and neither is very flattering.
You've got hosts that think it's a great idea to make guests pay for beverages
when they're too cheap to budget for it themselves: Allowing a vendor to sell
at your wedding is rude. Do you allow the bakery to sell extra rolls and extra
cupcakes? Does your photographer have a booth where people can sign up for
their own pictures to be taken for pay? How about the seamstress, does she
have a sewing machine in the cloak room for any extra mending people have
lugging around in their trunks?
And the other side is, of course, the guests who simply can't have fun unless
they've got liquor. Hard liquor. No, the keg or wine just isn't good
enough. I want an Old Fashioned, and I don't care if nobody else has it. How
do they expect me to get up and dance at all unless I loose my inhibitions to
properly celebrate?
Ick.
Ick ick ick.
klsimmons
<gar...@post.acadia.net> wrote:
> if you have restrictions on reading certain language...skip
> over my posts.
For soemone who is so uptight about people treating you right,
you sure do seem to spend an awful lot of time saying it's ok
for you to treat others badly, garnet. Perhaps you should stop
protesting that you're "treating people they way they treat you"
and start looking at your own behaviour. I did not call you any
names in my original post, nor did I swear at you or say that
you were ignorant. Yet you did all three to me. Perhaps it's
you who needs to worry about how you're treating people.
Shelli Shaw
>of paying for non-alcoholic beverages...
>
Sadly, I've witnessed it. My husband DJ'd a wedding (and I
assisted him) where not only was it a cash bar, but soft drinks
were also for sale. The only free beverage was water.
This wedding was interesting in other ways, also-- 1) the bride
and groom danced their first dance together, but then spent
virtually no time together for the rest of the reception, except
for when they... 2) smooshed wedding cake in each others' faces
violently, to the point where I thought the bride was going to
attack the groom, she was so angry at him for messing up her
face and hair.
This was maybe 6 months ago, but I truly wonder if they've
lasted this long!
hillary israeli
*hillary israeli (hil...@hillary.net) wrote:
*: Well, I would not take the slightest offense at a bar which served only
*: non-alcoholic beverages. However, a bar which served non-alcoholic
*: beverages for free, and then offered alcoholic beverages for a fee, I find
*: insulting and offensive. Most likely this is because in my social circle,
*: one does not EVER require guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment.
*
*
*I don't get it--why would you feel this way, given that the hosts have
*obviously provided everything else (non-alcoholic) for your enjoyment? For
I would feel that way because my parents and grandparents and aunts and
uncles and friends' parents and teachers and other adult acquaintances who
have entertained me or socialized with me during the 30 years I have been
on this planet have all instilled within me the principle that one does
not charge guests a fee for food or entertainment, and that to do so is
rude and insulting. If I had been raised in a different environment, I'm
sure I would feel differently.
*also didn't want to encourage drinking by paying for it. At some
*reception halls, you also have no choice. The bartenders are not going to
I have personally reviewed the contracts of at least 20 reception halls in
the Philadelphia area and none of them have such restrictions. So this
must reflect my community's standards - at least, I would presume it does.
No one around here (at least, no one in the group who would use these
reception halls) would ever dream of having a reception at a place which
required them to have a cash bar! It would be like having the reception at
a place which required them to make all the guests be topless - unheard
of, and rather rude and presumptive!
*Nobody is requiring guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment at
*all! Both of those have been provided; it's the special quality of adding
*alcohol that the guest is paying for. Why is that so offensive? ???
It's not the alcohol. If the alcohol, water, and sparkling apple juice
were free, but there was a "cash bar" of soda and juice, I'd still be
offended. I have been taught by my elders (familial and non-familial) that
one does not charge one's guests for ANYTHING! It's considered RUDE!
Like I said in my other post, I understand that other people may have been
raised differently and I believe I addressed the issue of how I would
handle a cash bar in that post. I hope this post clears up your remaining
concerns regarding my beliefs on the subject :)
klsimmons
> apple juice were free, but there was a "cash bar" of soda and
> juice, I'd still be offended. I have been taught by my elders
> (familial and non-familial) that one does not charge one's
> guests for ANYTHING! It's considered RUDE!
Exactly. Thanks for explaining it better, Hillary. This is
also how I was raised and how everyone I know feels. We made
the decision not to offer hard liquor at our wedding because we
knew we couldn't afford to pay for a sufficient variety of
liquors to satisfy everyone. So rather than having people pay
for a drink, we provided a variety of beer, wine, champagne,
soft drinks, tea, and coffee (and water, of course). I would
not have charged my guests for ANY of these items. Had we had
further budget restrictions, I wouldn't have felt bad about
cutting out the beer, wine, and champagne at all. But I could
not see my way clear to charging my guests for drinks. I'd
rather have an alcohol free reception, than charge my "guests".
Karen
garnet
likes to have a cocktail or a beer or a glass of wine while at a wedding, does not
mean that they need alcohol to have a good time? You seem to have had some bad
experience with alcohol in your past.
T wrote:
> not available wrote:
>
> > hillary israeli (hil...@hillary.net) wrote:
> > Most likely this is because in my social circle,
> > : one does not EVER require guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment.
> >
> > I don't get it--why would you feel this way, given that the hosts have
> > obviously provided everything else (non-alcoholic) for your enjoyment?
>
> If you have people over to your home, do you charge them for specific items? Do
> you make them pay extra if they go with the imported beer rather than regular?
>
> Even if you say, "Hey, let's go out to dinner, my treat," do you then change
> your mind at the last minute and say, "OH, but I'm not buying you anything to
> drink," or "Oh, but I'm not buying alcohol even though I said I'd treat."
>
> Don't those situations strike you as at least odd? Inconvenient? Rude?
>
> >
> > Nobody is requiring guests to pay for refreshments or entertainment at
> > all! Both of those have been provided; it's the special quality of adding
> > alcohol that the guest is paying for. Why is that so offensive? ???
>
garnet
MLS
Do
you make them pay extra if they go with the imported beer rather than
regular?<<
If I had people over to my home to eat, there would be no alcohol there. If
they really wanted it so badly, they could dig into their pockets for some
money and walk down to the corner store to get some.
If I chose not to have alcohol at my wedding and people still wanted it *that*
badly, they could do the same thing. I, too, am confused as to why it would be
in any way rude to not serve alcohol. I mean, come on. This is getting
ridiculous.
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
T
>
> This seems very narrow minded to me! Of course nobody is charging
> admission! If you couldn't afford to have expensive drinks at home, you
> wouldn't provide them at all. But a wedding is different--it's not always
> held in your home, where guests simply get what you provide.
Physically, there may be a bar in the same building, but that doesn't mean
it's appropriate for people to go digging around and finding it. If there's
a McDonalds next door or a grocery store across the parking lot, is it okay
that your guests go and buy their own food because they don't think what
you're offering is good enough and they can just bring it with them, into the
reception, and eat it?
> Selecting "everything" may well be quite out of budget
> range, even for those people who "budget up to a year in advance". If you
> think the lack of free drinks at a wedding like this is a problem, I must
> wonder, what else do you criticize at a wedding that is done on a small
> budget?
Heavens, I'm not criticizing the host's choice of beverage. I am criticizing
the idea that hotels and halls make extra money above and beyond what they're
charging the HC by leeching more money out of the guests -- and that the
guests aren't happy enough with what the hosts have provided so they go off,
buy more stuff, and bring it into the reception. If you don't bring enough
for everybody, then don't bring it in!
> And still others will find that a
> nice dinner, or a string quartet, or helping friends and family pay for
> accomodations, is more important than providing all free alcohol.
And that's great and wonderful and fine, but then why do their guests have to
run around buying up alcohol anyway?
> Why? The guest is the one choosing to have alcohol not provided by the
> host. As long as the host is supplying you with a nice dinner and plenty
> of non alcoholic drinks, I do not understand the demand that everything
> else be free as well.
The idea is that as a host, one is supposed to provide appropriate
sustinence: Adequate food, adequate beverage. Adequate doesn't mean "full
spectrum of rail drinks" but in most circles it's more than "just water".
And as a guest, you're supposed to be gracious and say "Thank you, this was
delightful" and if you have any really odd dietary or beverage restrictions,
eat ahead of time or leave fairly early so you can still get loaded.
> Have you ever hosted an informal, BYOB party? Is
> that rude too?
I've even attended byob parties that were receptions, but the idea is that
you're invited with that specific knowledge that you're bringing beverages as
a kind of potluck, and even then, the hosts usually provide
(space/munchies/music/a stereo/etc). If you're going incredibly informal,
that's one thing, but the whole idea behind a wedding is that it's a
celebration, and that since you're inviting your friends to party with you,
you will provide time-appropriate refreshments, and while that doesn't mean
alcohol is required, it does mean that your guests shouldn't have to whip out
their pocketbook because there are vendors hawking beverages at your
reception.
klsimmons
> not serve alcohol. I mean, come on. This is getting
> ridiculous.
Mary,
Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone is saying it's
rude to not serve alcohol (I may have missed it, in which case,
feel free to let me know! *grin*). What I think some of us are
saying is that either serve it or don't serve it, but don't
charge your guests to have it.
MLS
one does not charge one's guests for ANYTHING! It's considered RUDE! <<
You know ... alcohol, for all intents and purposes, is a drug. Some people
feel very strongly about not serving it. Some people feel very strongly about
not drinking it. Some people are certainly not going to encourage the drinking
of it by supplying it in unlimited quantities. That's crazy.
The more I read this thread, the more I *don't* want alcohol at the wedding.
In my opinion, there is a WORLD of difference between alcohol - and soda,
water, iced tea, juice, etc.
One is not charging guests for food and entertainment. One is serving guests
dinner, dessert, hours of music and dancing, and any and all non-alcoholic
beverages.
I do not believe that alcohol should *ever* be something that is expected as
mandatory. The fact that it seems to be just that for some people strikes me
as pretty sad.
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
T
> Alcohol is a legal beverage that many adults enjoy to drink. Just because someone
> likes to have a cocktail or a beer or a glass of wine while at a wedding, does not
> mean that they need alcohol to have a good time? You seem to have had some bad
> experience with alcohol in your past.
I'm not refering to preferences, I'm saying that if someone cannot relax and enjoy
themselves without alcohol, that's very unfortunate. Alcohol isn't a requirement for
a party. If someone likes to have Big Macs and fries for dinner, should they bring
that to the reception because they don't like the chicken dish?
Sarah W
for a host to offer a cash bar, or even allow a cash bar. For the record,
I, too, believe that having a cash bar at a party I am hosting is
unspeakably rude.
Some replies have questioned why it is rude to provide an opportunity for a
guest to buy a drink that he/she wants that doesn't happen to be in the
list of what the host is providing for the guests. The problem is that it
is rude for the guest to be so dissatisfied with what the host has provided
that the guest feels the need to purchase something else.
The hosts provide food and drink for their guests' enjoyment. The guests
graciously accept (or quietly and unobtrusively decline) what the hosts
have offered. The hosts do not say, by word or by deed, "Here's a handy
way to purchase an upgrade on your food or beverage." And the guests do
not say, by word or by deed, "I don't like what you've chosen to offer me
so I'll reject what you've offered and buy something for myself to eat or
drink at your party."
In my opinion and according to the way I was raised, providing a cash bar
is not catering to my guests' convenience. It is closer to being a
condemnation of my guests' manners.
If you have moral objections to alcohol, don't serve it. If you choose for
cost reasons not to serve alcohol, don't serve it. If you choose to serve
only iced spring water and a variety of freshly baked loaves of exotic
breads, then a polite guest will drink and eat what you provide, thank you
for your kind invitation, and stop at Burger King on the way home. (The
guest will probably dine out for months on the story of the wedding where
all they served was bread and water, though. :-} )
Sarah W.
not available
: What does alcohol have to do with quality?
I didn't mean "quality" in the sense of "good"; I meant it in the sense of
"property".
At any rate, don't you think there's something different about hosting a
private dinner in your home, or even taking people out to eat, and having
a wedding reception? If I host the former events, I know what to expect,
and I can plan to pay for it. Liquor at a wedding reception is not
something you can control the cost of very easily, and it can quickly
break the bank for many hosts of moderate means. As I see it, you're
stuck in one of three situations: don't provide any (which may disappoint
you as well as your guests), provide some for free, until the money runs
out, at which people have to pay (which I think is worse than the cash bar
option, frankly), or else offer them everything you can afford flat out,
and then give them the option to get other drinks.
When you say things like the following:
: You've got hosts that think it's a great idea to make guests pay for
: beverages : when they're too cheap to budget for it themselves
It makes it sound like you're just totally inconsiderate of the fact that
not everyone has lots of money at their disposal. I doubt that's what you
wanted to convey, and I certainly am not interested in hearing it, if you
were. Not being able to afford unlimited drinks for all is not being
"cheap". In fact, when I researched some reception halls in my area,
other reasons having nothing to do with money came up. For example, when
you've got a big wedding and lots of guests, if you sign a blank check for
drinks, not only will people drink about three times more than they would
normally, but you increase the chances of some alcohol-related incident
happening at your reception (or afterwards) because people are going to be
drinking more. These are not just issues you can pass off, because they
are going to be relevant to some people--at least as relevant, if not more
so, than the potential rudeness of the cash bar.
I take it your real argument is that there's something offensive, period,
about having anything sold at a wedding. I submit that drinks are a
radically different class of substance than your other examples, like the
food, or photos, or whatever. Alcohol is known to be an option some
people prefer and others do not like. It's not like you're paying extra
for mushrooms on the steak! At most weddings I've been to that did a cash
bar, it was the difference between free beer and paying for your own well
drinks. I am still trying to figure out why exactly this is supposed to
be offensive. I know, thanks, why selling hot cross buns at the wedding
is offensive! I don't know why letting the bartender offer free drinks,
and then letting guests pay for other special things they want, is so
weird. It's not like they're asking for a "better dinner" at all, they're
asking for a different type of drink. I don't see any successful analogy
between the two situations.
So if all it comes down to is: selling BAD, never ok! Then I would say,
it's also bad to encourage excessive drinking, or to bleed your parents
dry with a huge drink bill. One solution is to omit the drinks, and the
other is to limit them in some way. I don't believe in limiting the
quantity--i.e. once you've offered free beer, don't rescind it an hour
later--but rather in limiting what is available for free. To pick an
analogy that DOES make sense.... if you're a guest and a host offers to
buy you dinner, and you want to try to most expensive wine on the list,
it would be nice of you to either insist on paying for the special thing,
or else not to ask for it unless you know the host would not mind or be
pinched by paying for something more extravagant. To me, that's what's
going on here. I think you're point that selling is tacky is legitimate;
I just think the other reasons outweigh it. And your comments about being
cheap are totally out of line.
not available
: Physically, there may be a bar in the same building, but that doesn't mean
: it's appropriate for people to go digging around and finding it.
We're obviously talking about something totally different. What I have in
mind is, you're having the reception at a place which has a bar, right
there for anyone to use. That has been the situation at nearly every
reception I've been to which involved alcohol (i.e. not a church).
You thus are forced to decide, as a host, what to pay for. I guess
perhaps you could insist on not having ANY liquor served, but I don't know
how successful you'd be with that--probably not very. It is starting to
appear to me that this is a serious regional difference, because the
venues available for weddings here are somewhat different from the
descriptions others are posting. If you go someplace public (i.e. not a
private home, club, or rented room), then you're looking at a hotel, club,
or restaurant. I don't think you'd have much luck banning these places
from selling alcohol to your guests, even if you tried. So you either
have to serve it for free, and pick up what could be a giant tab, with
other complications of serving lots of booze, or else you have to impose
some restriction. Tacky? Maybe, for some who were brought up in a more
pure fashion or location. But here, it would not make even a ripple, much
less a wave, so it's probably worth the risk of being rude.
: charging the HC by leeching more money out of the guests -- and that the
: guests aren't happy enough with what the hosts have provided so they go off
I don't think we have to view it in such negative terms, even if we're
totally against it. I mean, I don't provide cigars to my guests, but some
of them DO smoke them, and if they buy one from the bartender I wouldn't
think either that the club was leeching money, or that the guest wasn't
happy enough with my provisions!
: The idea is that as a host, one is supposed to provide appropriate
: sustinence: Adequate food, adequate beverage. Adequate doesn't mean "full
: spectrum of rail drinks" but in most circles it's more than "just water".
I know that. I don't see why you and Karen are worried about people
charging for anything beyond water. The poster who asked just said "cash
bar", as far as I recall. I assume the regular drinks are free, and thus
the host IS providing appropriate sustenance. The issue is, why exactly
is it rude to pay for alcohol, if it's something special a guest wants?
Your description of people "hawking" beverages is absurd; it just does not
happen that way. No need to exaggerate to unrealism here.
hillary israeli
*> I have been taught by my elders (familial and non-familial) that
*one does not charge one's guests for ANYTHING! It's considered RUDE! <<
*
*You know ... alcohol, for all intents and purposes, is a drug. Some people
*feel very strongly about not serving it. Some people feel very strongly about
*not drinking it. Some people are certainly not going to encourage the drinking
*of it by supplying it in unlimited quantities. That's crazy.
*
*The more I read this thread, the more I *don't* want alcohol at the wedding.
*In my opinion, there is a WORLD of difference between alcohol - and soda,
*water, iced tea, juice, etc.
*
*One is not charging guests for food and entertainment. One is serving guests
*dinner, dessert, hours of music and dancing, and any and all non-alcoholic
*beverages.
That's fine! Who said anything about making alcohol mandatory?? Like I
said -- serving alcohol for free and selling the juice is JUST as rude as
serviing juice for free and selling the booze. Have alcohol, don't have
alcohol, frankly I couldn't care less!! Just don't SELL anything!!!!!!!!
hillary israeli
*I take it your real argument is that there's something offensive, period,
*about having anything sold at a wedding.
Yes! By George, I think you've got it! :) :) :) :)
*I submit that drinks are a
*radically different class of substance than your other examples, like the
*food, or photos, or whatever.
I respectfully disagree.
*Alcohol is known to be an option some people prefer and others do not like.
Sure. Also, steak is known to be an option some people prefer and others
do not like. Should you have steak for sale at your wedding if you plan to
serve chicken to most guests because you can't afford to serve steak? I
mean, to may way of thinking, it is exactly the same thing!!!
*drinks. I am still trying to figure out why exactly this is supposed to
*be offensive. I know, thanks, why selling hot cross buns at the wedding
*is offensive!
OK, well, if you know why selling hot cross buns is offensive, then you
know why selling alcohol, or fruit juice, or soda, or steak is offensive.
So then I start to try to figure out why we're having this discussion!
*I don't know why letting the bartender offer free drinks,
*and then letting guests pay for other special things they want, is so
*weird. It's not like they're asking for a "better dinner" at all, they're
*asking for a different type of drink. I don't see any successful analogy
*between the two situations.
In what substantive way does your postulated scenario (in which the
bartender offers free drinks and then lets guests pay for other special
things they want) differ from one in which the caterer offers free chicken
with asparagus and mashed potatoes, but allows guests to purchase other
special things they want, such as filet mignon or truffle-scented risotto,
or snow peas with water chestnuts, or heck, hot cross buns, or McDonald's
burgers and fries? They're not asking for a "better dinner" at all -
plenty of people would argue that chicken is better than steak! - they're
just asking for a different type of dinner....
*So if all it comes down to is: selling BAD, never ok! Then I would say,
*it's also bad to encourage excessive drinking, or to bleed your parents
*dry with a huge drink bill.
I agree with all three statements here. One, selling at private parties is
bad; two, it's unwise to encourage excessive drinking; three, bleeding
one's parents dry is never appropriate. I don't see what this has to do
with cash bars, really. I mean, I had an open bar and I managed to uphold
all three statements - that is to say, we did not sell anything, we did
not encourage excessive drinking, and we CERTAINLY didn't bleed anyone
dry. So I'm not sure I get your point.
*One solution is to omit the drinks, and the other is to limit them in
*some way.
Solution to what? The problem of "encouraging excessive drinking?" I think
that is a red herring. Having an open bar does not encourage excessive
drinking. Does offering cocktails before dinner and wine with dinner at
your home encourage excessive drinking? It's exactly the same thing! It
isn't the mere presence of alcohol which encourages excessive drinking
among the general population. It's disease (alcoholism) or a certain type
of "frat party" atmosphere, or a number of other things in the absence of
which one can have a perfectly civilized party, WITH open bar, without
people drinking excessively.
Or do you refer to the solution to the problem of bleeding one's parents
dry? In that case, I believe the "solution" is to never ask one's parents
to pay for that which they can not afford! If your parents insist on
paying for the entire affair, but can not afford an open bar, MY solution
would be to offer what they can afford, nothing more - or to pay for it
myself, if I were able.
*I just think the other reasons outweigh it. And your comments about being
*cheap are totally out of line.
I hope you're not referring to anything *I* said. I didn't make any
comments about anyone being cheap.
not available
: I, too, believe that having a cash bar at a party I am hosting is
: unspeakably rude.
For you, ok. But if you think it's "unspeakably rude" for others, then
you maybe should lighten up a little. Hosting a wedding reception is a
major financial deal, sometimes, and hosts are usually trying to do the
best and most lavish thing they can. If that means they can give you beer
and not whiskey, I just don't see the horrible, unSPEAKable crime involved
in letting the guest buy whiskey if that's what the guest's heart really
desires.
: is rude for the guest to be so dissatisfied with what the host has provided
: that the guest feels the need to purchase something else.
This doesn't even make sense--if the hosts are having a bar where you can
get things for free, or purchase your own special item, then obviously
the host intends for the guest to do just that if desired. I think the
point is more about providing everything the host can, and still allowing
the guest to satisfy their particular desires. I mean, if someone is
rude, it's the host, for allowing a drink to be sold, not the guest for
buying one when it is an option to do so. Does that make sense?
: have offered. The hosts do not say, by word or by deed, "Here's a handy
: way to purchase an upgrade on your food or beverage." And the guests do
But that's not what's happening! I'm not saying you're wrong,
ultimately--maybe cash bars ARE tacky. But if so, it's not for the
reasons you're giving here. A whiskey is not an "upgrade" on a beer, it's
something totally different that not everyone wants. And it does seem
that drinks are a special situation. What about the example I was using
before, where you really want an expensive wine, but you don't want your
friends, the hosts, to have to pay for it just because they asked you to
dinner? Is it so very tacky for you to offer to buy it, and them to let
you do so? It's not like the hosts are saying "drink all the free beer
you want, but you gotta pay for the rest!"--what happens is that you're
offered what's available, and if the guest wants something else, they have
to ask for it and, if necessary, pay for it.
Mary S.
Judith Martin (Miss Manners) writes in her books:
(In response to the question, "Do you think it is appropriate to have a
full or partial cash bar at a wedding reception? Some coworkers and I
were wondering if it would be rude to ask your guests to pay for a
drink, or whether today's economy warrants such actions.")
"Miss Manners is going to take a drink herself, if she keeps having to
listen to that argument. No, you cannot use the economy as an excuse
for the extreme rudeness of charging your own guests for their
refreshment. If you can't afford liquor at your wedding reception,
serve tea or punch. If you can't afford that, serve water. But serve
it graciously."
She also writes: "Allowing some of your guests to drink but refusing to
pay for it cannot be passed off as a moral position."
Also (In response to a letter complaining about various "cheap" wedding
tactics, including borrowing a dress and having a cash bar): "Nor is
there anything wrong with borrowing a wedding dress or inviting many
people. However, you may be relieved to hear that selling drinks is
disgusting. By serving them tea and homemade cake, she could be
perfectly gracious within the limits of the budget."
Emily Post (Elizabeth Post, actually, in the modern edition) gives three
options for types of bars at receptions: Open Bar, in which the host
pays a flat rate for all the drinks served; Consumption Bar, in which
the host pays for whatever is ordered, with the bar keeping a running
tab and delivering it to the host afterwareds; and White Bar, which
serves only "white" drinks, i.e., the host serves and pays for
champagne, white wine, etc. Or, of course, she says you are not
obligated to provide alcohol at all, but may serve your guests a variety
of other drinks. She does not even acknowledge the possibility of
charging your guests for any type of refreshment.
I don't have my Amy Vanderbilt on hand, but I know that she also says
cash bars (or any form of asking guests to "whip out cash" at a wedding
reception) is inappropriate and rude.
Cash bars, money trees, listing registered stores on the invitations,
charging $50 at the door to get into the reception hall, allowing
barstaff, coat check staff, and valet parkers to accept tips from guests
-- these are all definitely not allowed at a wedding reception. In some
(I don't want to say "lower-class," but that seems to be what people are
hinting at in this thread) social circles they may be customary, but
that doesn't make them right.
Mary
--
Mary Sweathe
San Francisco, CA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
hillary israeli
*how successful you'd be with that--probably not very. It is starting to
*appear to me that this is a serious regional difference, because the
*venues available for weddings here are somewhat different from the
*descriptions others are posting. If you go someplace public (i.e. not a
*private home, club, or rented room), then you're looking at a hotel, club,
*or restaurant. I don't think you'd have much luck banning these places
*from selling alcohol to your guests, even if you tried. So you either
Where is "here"??
My own wedding was at a country club in the suburbs of Philadelphia. They
wouldn't have dreamed of selling liquor to my guests! I've been to formal
affairs at hotels around here, as well as in northern NJ, and almost all
of them have been open bar. I recall one affair in a hotel in Bergen
County, NJ which was not open bar - it was wine/soft drinks only. You
could not purchase other drinks at the bar in the reception area. You'd
have had to walk across the hotel to a different bar if you wanted to buy
your own alcohol. I don't recall anyone I knew doing that!
-h.
T
> T (terrif...@uwm.edu) wrote:
> : What does alcohol have to do with quality?
>
> I didn't mean "quality" in the sense of "good"; I meant it in the sense of
> "property".
Did you mean "propriety", which is still a different version of "good"? I
don't understand.
> At any rate, don't you think there's something different about hosting a
> private dinner in your home, or even taking people out to eat, and having
> a wedding reception?
No. In all three situations, I am inviting people I care for to have a nice
evening. I am the host, and I will provide food and beverages. There isn't
a difference.
> If I host the former events, I know what to expect,
> and I can plan to pay for it. Liquor at a wedding reception is not
> something you can control the cost of very easily, and it can quickly
> break the bank for many hosts of moderate means. As I see it, you're
> stuck in one of three situations: don't provide any (which may disappoint
> you as well as your guests), provide some for free, until the money runs
> out, at which people have to pay (which I think is worse than the cash bar
> option, frankly), or else offer them everything you can afford flat out,
> and then give them the option to get other drinks.
My perspective is that as hosts, we are supposed to provide "normal" or
"acceptable" food and drink. If we're sure that none of our guests will like
not having hard liquor and there'll be a riot -- and as hosts, we should be
sensitive to this -- then yes, we should budget a lot more for alcohol than
people whose guest list involve many Baptists and Mormons. This may mean you
can't have huge fresh floral centerpieces, or that you have to go with a
knock off dress instead of a designer original, but if your priorities are
that your guests have hard liquor, that's your decision. If you think it's
important that your guests have beer or wine with the meal, but then soda
afterwards, then that's what you, as host, provide, and that's great. If
your guests can't stand not having alcohol after dinner, then you as host
misjudged your guests, and your guests may prefer to graciously say thank you
very much for the wonderful meal, this was very nice, and head out and have
beer and wine somewhere else.
That there is an option to buy more drinks at your reception means that
either you are abdicating your position as host, which makes no sense, or
that your guests are saying that you are not a good host, which is not nice
either.
> When you say things like the following:
> : You've got hosts that think it's a great idea to make guests pay for
> : beverages : when they're too cheap to budget for it themselves
>
> It makes it sound like you're just totally inconsiderate of the fact that
> not everyone has lots of money at their disposal. I doubt that's what you
> wanted to convey, and I certainly am not interested in hearing it, if you
> were. Not being able to afford unlimited drinks for all is not being
> "cheap".
I did not say that not paying for unlimited alcohol is "cheap." I am saying
that having a vendor rig up a bar and take your guests money because the host
is inviting guests but not paying for something the host apparently expects
the guests to pay for is cheap. It is *not* cheap to go non-alcoholic. It
is not cheap to go with just one type of beer, or one champaigne toast. It is
not cheap to have wine with dinner and a keg later. It is not cheap to offer
alcohol during the cocktail hour but then offer unlimited non-alcoholic
beverages later. There are many ways that a host can make alcohol available
without being financially drained. There are no ways to ask your guest to
spend money at the reception.
> For example, when
> you've got a big wedding and lots of guests, if you sign a blank check for
> drinks, not only will people drink about three times more than they would
> normally, but you increase the chances of some alcohol-related incident
> happening at your reception (or afterwards) because people are going to be
> drinking more. These are not just issues you can pass off, because they
> are going to be relevant to some people--at least as relevant, if not more
> so, than the potential rudeness of the cash bar.
That's why a registered bartender is a *must*, and your reception site -- and
probably the bartender himself -- have insurance and have legal boundaries to
respect. I realize this varies state-to-state, but bartenders are not
allowed to serve alcohol to inebriated people in many states. While you, the
host, are paying for the alcohol, the reception site, as provider, is almost
always held liable for giving the alcohol out. This may not, unfortunately,
stop some moron from drinking just a little too much and then trying to sue
the happy couple, but the liability falls to the site, and this person would
be just as likely to try to sue the happy couple for slipping on the floor or
any other mishap the happy couple had no control over.
> I take it your real argument is that there's something offensive, period,
> about having anything sold at a wedding. I submit that drinks are a
> radically different class of substance than your other examples, like the
> food, or photos, or whatever.
And I disagree. Why is alcohol special?
> Alcohol is known to be an option some
> people prefer and others do not like. It's not like you're paying extra
> for mushrooms on the steak! At most weddings I've been to that did a cash
> bar, it was the difference between free beer and paying for your own well
> drinks.
I just don't get how people think it's okay to either go off and buy
something different to drink at a party because they don't like what the
hosts are giving, plus they think it's okay to drink something different
around all the other guests? This isn't like having unrelated people in a
restaurant where one table has soup while the other is a seven course meal,
it's a unified party.
> I am still trying to figure out why exactly this is supposed to
> be offensive. I know, thanks, why selling hot cross buns at the wedding
> is offensive! I don't know why letting the bartender offer free drinks,
> and then letting guests pay for other special things they want, is so
> weird. It's not like they're asking for a "better dinner" at all, they're
> asking for a different type of drink. I don't see any successful analogy
> between the two situations.
It isn't even a "better dinner" but a different dinner analogy. If your
guests don't like any of the choices for what you're serving for dinner,
should they have the hotel restaurant bring in something off the menu if they
pay?
>
> So if all it comes down to is: selling BAD, never ok!
Exactly.
> To pick an
> analogy that DOES make sense.... if you're a guest and a host offers to
> buy you dinner, and you want to try to most expensive wine on the list,
> it would be nice of you to either insist on paying for the special thing,
> or else not to ask for it unless you know the host would not mind or be
> pinched by paying for something more extravagant.
If you're going out for dinner and you want to try the most expensive wine,
it's often polite to make sure everyone at the table has the wine. Here's a
more specific example on that theme: You go out to dinner with someone who
cares enough about you to have picked out a nice restaurant and s/he gives
you two or three suggestions -- food or beverages -- that s/he knows you'd
find good. Do you say "No, no thanks. I'm going for alcohol, and I don't
like your choices?" That's what happens with a cash bar.
> To me, that's what's
> going on here. I think you're point that selling is tacky is legitimate;
> I just think the other reasons outweigh it. And your comments about being
> cheap are totally out of line.
Cheap is applied to the selling part. Tacky is extremely similar to cheap.
I am not saying that it's cheap to not serve alcohol, or to have quarter or
half barrels, or to pick out a single wine that goes with dinner. I am
saying it's cheap to have vendors at your wedding, and that's what a cash bar
is.
You're the host, not some pyramid marketing scheme middleman.
T
> We're obviously talking about something totally different. What I have in
> mind is, you're having the reception at a place which has a bar, right
> there for anyone to use.
Okay, there are a few different layouts here, so there are a few different ways
that people are misinterpreting what is expected.
1. A hall offers a bar that would be either right in your reception area or in
an area right up next to it where only your guests will have access (you've
rented the restaurant for the night, or it's a single hall situation.)
In this case, the host determines what is available. At our site, there is a
big room, a small room, and a kitchen area with counters facing two ways, so I'm
pretty sure the bar will be set up over one of the counters; the other one will
probably be for non-alcoholic beverages, food or something. I'm pretty sure the
big meal stuff will get set up over to another area. Anyway. The host
determines what's offered, so we will make sure there's plenty of coffee/hot
water for tea, soda, etc. available around the side, and the beer/wine/alcohol
will be available through the bartender, who will keep track of how out of it
patrons seem. I'll be talking with our caterer about pitchers/multiple cups of
beer/etc as far as liabilities and helping to monitor our guests.
2. You're at a hotel or multiple-room site where there's a communal for-pay bar
for the guests of the receptions.
Depending on how close this outside bar is, it's still kind of upsetting. It's
either that the hosts of the wedding know that their guests will want hard
liquor, but they won't budget for it, or that the site is capitalizing on how
many people equate going out to having hard alcohol regardless of what is being
provided. Giving the host the benefit of a doubt, this still leave the prospect
that the owners of the site are trying to undermine the host's judgement and
generosity by making a few bucks off the guests, which strikes me as an
incredibly nasty business practice, and I personally would be very wary of
dealing with them.
3. There's a bar down the hall, past the elevators, around the pool over there.
If a guest wants hard alcohol and the host chose not to provide it and the guest
wants hard alcohol so badly that this bar is searched out, I would have to
wonder about the guest. This guest is choosing alcohol over spending time
celebrating with the HC and friends and family? Ick. And then some guests have
been known to seek out these bars on the other end of a hotel and *bring their
drinks back to the reception!!!* What a slap in the face!! Not only are they
being rude to the hosts, explicitly saying that what the host has provided isn't
to their liking, but they're also being rude to the other guests who aren't
being served the same beverage. Didn't their mom every tell them that if they
don't have enough for everyone, don't drink it in front of others? Sheesh.
> : The idea is that as a host, one is supposed to provide appropriate
> : sustinence: Adequate food, adequate beverage. Adequate doesn't mean "full
> : spectrum of rail drinks" but in most circles it's more than "just water".
>
> I know that. I don't see why you and Karen are worried about people
> charging for anything beyond water. The poster who asked just said "cash
> bar", as far as I recall. I assume the regular drinks are free, and thus
> the host IS providing appropriate sustenance. The issue is, why exactly
> is it rude to pay for alcohol, if it's something special a guest wants?
Because the guest is saying that whatever the host is providing isn't good
enough. If you have someone over for dinner and you've put the food on the
table, how do you, personally feel, if the guest starts in that they really
wanted "X", or that the variety of beverages you're providing isn't good enough
and they really wanted <insert name brand> for their manhattan? A wedding
reception is still a party you're hosting, and allowing vendors to circumvent
your choices by making your guests pay out cash means that you, as the host,
have chosen to not show any sensitivity to your guests' preferences, or that
your guests don't think your hosting is up to snuff. And the only winner here
is the site, the owners of which have already charged you for rental, external
caterers, a cake cutting fee, etc.
> Your description of people "hawking" beverages is absurd; it just does not
> happen that way. No need to exaggerate to unrealism here.
No, the bartenders aren't crowing "git yer gin 'n tonics here!", so you're
right, I was exaggerating about the "hawking" but a cash bar really is nothing
more than letting your site open up an area to sell stuff to your guests that
the site owners couldn't get you to buy.
garnet
not available wrote:
> T (terrif...@uwm.edu) wrote:
> : Physically, there may be a bar in the same building, but that doesn't mean
> : it's appropriate for people to go digging around and finding it.
>
> We're obviously talking about something totally different. What I have in
> mind is, you're having the reception at a place which has a bar, right
> there for anyone to use. That has been the situation at nearly every
> reception I've been to which involved alcohol (i.e. not a church).
> You thus are forced to decide, as a host, what to pay for. I guess
> perhaps you could insist on not having ANY liquor served, but I don't know
> how successful you'd be with that--probably not very. It is starting to
> appear to me that this is a serious regional difference, because the
> venues available for weddings here are somewhat different from the
> descriptions others are posting. If you go someplace public (i.e. not a
> private home, club, or rented room), then you're looking at a hotel, club,
> or restaurant. I don't think you'd have much luck banning these places
> from selling alcohol to your guests, even if you tried. So you either
> have to serve it for free, and pick up what could be a giant tab, with
> other complications of serving lots of booze, or else you have to impose
> some restriction. Tacky? Maybe, for some who were brought up in a more
> pure fashion or location. But here, it would not make even a ripple, much
> less a wave, so it's probably worth the risk of being rude.
>
> : charging the HC by leeching more money out of the guests -- and that the
> : guests aren't happy enough with what the hosts have provided so they go off
>
> I don't think we have to view it in such negative terms, even if we're
> totally against it. I mean, I don't provide cigars to my guests, but some
> of them DO smoke them, and if they buy one from the bartender I wouldn't
> think either that the club was leeching money, or that the guest wasn't
> happy enough with my provisions!
>
> : The idea is that as a host, one is supposed to provide appropriate
> : sustinence: Adequate food, adequate beverage. Adequate doesn't mean "full
> : spectrum of rail drinks" but in most circles it's more than "just water".
>
> I know that. I don't see why you and Karen are worried about people
> charging for anything beyond water. The poster who asked just said "cash
> bar", as far as I recall. I assume the regular drinks are free, and thus
> the host IS providing appropriate sustenance. The issue is, why exactly
> is it rude to pay for alcohol, if it's something special a guest wants?
garnet
Nate Edel wrote:
> garnet <gar...@post.acadia.net> wrote:
> % if you have restrictions on reading certain language...skip over my posts.
>
> Most of us are big enough here not to be offended by such language, but it
> certainly reflects poorly on you.
T
His opinion is standard. If you think people think obscenity is acceptable in a
public, international forum, you're mistaken. It may be tolerated, but
"tolerance" isn't the same as "respected," "appreciated" or "enjoyed.".
T
>
>
> In my opinion, cash bars aren't even in the same LEAGUE as the money dances,
> listing registration places, charging money for admittance, or allowing tips.
> Comparing the two - in my mind - is absolutely absurd.
You're so right. At least with the other practices, (except tips) the HC get the
cash. With the cash bar (and tips) it's the vendor making more profit above what
you're already paying for what should be a perfectly wonderful evening for your
guests.
T
> Without getting into whether we are doing the right thing or not, we are
> hosting all non-alcoholic drinks, domestic and microbrew beers, wine and
> champagne.
This sounds like a wonderful selection -- something for everyone!
> A no-host hard alcohol bar will be available.
When I first read this, since I don't usually deal with this kind of thing, my
first impression was a fully stocked wet bar just open for anyone to make
whatever alcoholic concoction they want. No host.
It just took me a sec.
> As a way of making sure
> guests knew that if they order cocktails it is at their expense, how is
> this?
I just wonder why. The list above sounds great -- probably more extensive than
what we're having, and probably a better selection than most normal parties
people go to.
Sarah
: On 25 May 2000 21:56:00 GMT,<lwe...@jet.cc.emory.edu> wrote:
: Where is "here"??
: My own wedding was at a country club in the suburbs of Philadelphia. They
: wouldn't have dreamed of selling liquor to my guests! I've been to formal
: affairs at hotels around here, as well as in northern NJ, and almost all
: of them have been open bar. I recall one affair in a hotel in Bergen
: County, NJ which was not open bar - it was wine/soft drinks only. You
: could not purchase other drinks at the bar in the reception area. You'd
: have had to walk across the hotel to a different bar if you wanted to buy
: your own alcohol. I don't recall anyone I knew doing that!
I think that, to a certain extent, the logistics of this may play some
sort of a role. For example, our reception site is a converted farmhouse.
There is one bar in the place, which during normal restaurant hours (the
place is a restaurant, not a banquet hall) serves as a regular bar like
you might find in any restaurant. For weddings, this is where all the
drinks are served. We plan on offering unlimited soft drinks, water, ice
tea, tea, coffee, wine, and beer, but not hard liquor. But the liquor is
still *there*...what are they going to do, put it all away somewhere just
for the four hours of the wedding? That seems very unreasonable to me.
So the bartender will tell the guests what is available, and if they want
something above and beyond that, they can ask for it and they can have
it...if they pay for it. (I don't find this in the least offensive. I,
for example, cannot stand whiskey. I will not offer it in my home. But
one is certainly welcome to bring some if they are coming for
dinner...heck, I don't even mind if you get here, see that there isn't
any, and then run back out to get some.)
Now, if this were going to be a catered affair, or something else where a
bar were not readily available, I wouldn't have any liquor. It's just an
expense thing.
Sarah
--
One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.
Virginia Woolf, _A Room of One's Own_
Rhiannon Farkas
hosting all non-alcoholic drinks, domestic and microbrew beers, wine and
thinking we would do was along the lines Melissa suggests. A sign which
reads:
Beer and Wine: Provided by the Bride and Groom
Cocktails: $____
It would obviously look a little nicer than that :) As a way of making sure
guests knew that if they order cocktails it is at their expense, how is
this?
Rhiannon
Muhlyssa <malgaze...@lacba.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:274b8d4f...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...
> If you are resigned to having a cash bar, how about making little
> signs/menus to stand on the bar with prices of various drinks?
>
> a la:
>
> Beer: $2.50
> Wine: $3.00
> Mixed drinks: $5.00
>
> etc.
>
> I have been to parties with no host bars (not weddings) that did
> it this way.
>
>
>
> Melissa, aka Muhlyssa
MLS
charging $50 at the door to get into the reception hall, allowing
barstaff, coat check staff, and valet parkers to accept tips from guests
-- these are all definitely not allowed at a wedding reception. In some
(I don't want to say "lower-class," but that seems to be what people are
hinting at in this thread) social circles they may be customary, but
that doesn't make them right.<<
In my opinion, cash bars aren't even in the same LEAGUE as the money dances,
listing registration places, charging money for admittance, or allowing tips.
Comparing the two - in my mind - is absolutely absurd.
And Mary, you're starting to sound *extremely* elitist. Lower class? God, I
can't even dignify that with a proper response. How insulting and pretentious
can one person get?
Mary (who, by the way, *isn't* having a cash bar ... but thinks there's
absolutely nothing wrong with it)
to Phil 6/23/2001
MLS
rude to not serve alcohol (I may have missed it, in which case,
feel free to let me know! *grin*). What I think some of us are
saying is that either serve it or don't serve it, but don't
charge your guests to have it.<<
I guess I don't see it as the hosts of the wedding charging the guests for
anything. I see it as there is obviously alcohol in the bar in the corner and
if my guests really want it, they can have it - I'm just not paying for it.
(Hypothetically speaking, since I *am* having an open bar <g>)
I see it as another alternative to guests. I see it as something benefitting
*them*, and not the HC. Despite some other arguments, I think that the choice
of serving or not serving alcohol has very little to do with whether or not the
HC can afford it.
I don't approve of smoking. I would *never* buy cigarettes for someone. But,
if we pass a 7-11 on the street and they want to run in and get some, it's not
my place to stop them. I think that's the closest analogy I can think of - at
the moment anyways :)
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
prpo...@my-deja.com
Keep in mind that all the etiquette experts you have quoted are from the
U.S. I think it's clear that if you have a cash bar at an American
wedding reception, you run the risk of offending people. Of course,
you're free to take that risk, but you should be aware of it.
But that's not necessarily the case in other countries. According to
posts in this and other threads on this topic, having a cash bar at a
wedding reception in the U.K. is not considered ill-mannered.
I'm curious about how people in other English-speaking countries (like
Australia, Canada and New Zealand) feel about this topic.
Paul
Rhiannon Farkas
T <terrif...@uwm.edu> wrote in message news:392DF179...@uwm.edu...
> Rhiannon Farkas wrote:
>
> > Without getting into whether we are doing the right thing or not, we are
> > hosting all non-alcoholic drinks, domestic and microbrew beers, wine and
> > champagne.
>
>
>
>
thing, my
> first impression was a fully stocked wet bar just open for anyone to make
> whatever alcoholic concoction they want. No host.
>
> It just took me a sec.
>
> > guests knew that if they order cocktails it is at their expense, how is
> > this?
>
than
> what we're having, and probably a better selection than most normal
parties
> people go to.
>
1. My DF's family is one of drinkers. Socially, they drink. It is
expected. I would rather not have Uncle such and such on anyone's case.
And whether it is polite or not, it could happen without the opportunity to
drink *their* drink.
2. Regionally (Pacific NW), or maybe just in my region and my social
circles, it is acceptable and often expected to have a cash bar. Many
people keep asking me why we are paying for the beer, wine, champagne even.
To me that it something that more people than not will want and I can afford
it. Again though, people keep wondering why I'm paying for it.
3. Selfishly, don't flame me please :), I don't drink beer, am not really
big on wine, and DO want to have something to drink at my own wedding. I
don't drink much, but what I do drink are usually mixed drinks.
Since it is the norm in our circle I feel okay having it available for the
family members who do want to pay for it, providing many alternatives for
those that don't or aren't interested and having the ability to drink my
drink of choice as well.
Rhiannon
Tammy & Jeff
> 9 days) we are offering everyone 2 free drink tickets which entitles them to
> two free alcoholic drinks each. We are also serving Wine, tea, coffee, punch
> and pop for free. Is there anything wrong with this???
Tammy...
not available
: Did you mean "propriety", which is still a different version of "good"? I
: don't understand.
No, I mean "quality" as in "property". As in, thing X may have some
particular quality Y.
: sensitive to this -- then yes, we should budget a lot more for alcohol
You simply can't say this, and then in the same breath claim that you're
being sensitive to the fact that people are on a limited budget.
Sometimes, there is no way to possibly budget for that, and no, it isn't a
matter of eliminating a few floral centerpieces.
not available
: public, international forum, you're mistaken. It may be tolerated, but
: "tolerance" isn't the same as "respected," "appreciated" or "enjoyed.".
I appreciate and enjoy it. But then, that's because I'm "lower class". I
think we have a lot more fun in my world.
not available
: tea, tea, coffee, wine, and beer, but not hard liquor. But the liquor is
: still *there*...what are they going to do, put it all away somewhere just
: for the four hours of the wedding? That seems very unreasonable to me.
This is exactly my point: at most of the places I looked at, there was no
choice! And it's not like we have the resources of Philadelphia at our
fingertips, such that we could eliminate those horrible, pyramid-scheme,
tacky vendors who try to hawk things to our guests! (I mean, really, to
me that kind of language is a lot more obscene than the word "ass"!)
The booze is there at the bar, whether the hosts pay for it or not, it's
right there in the same rooms as the reception. In our case, we knew we
wanted to pay for free alcohol anyway. But at many receptions I've been
to (especially with a younger crowd) there's no way the hosts could have
afforded to pay for a sloshfest for everyone, which is what often would
ensue, in my dark, tacky, low-class trashy social sphere. I think if we
all took our noses out of the air for a minute, we'd see that the same
thing occurs even in the loftier social spheres, but hey.
I think people are correct, technically, that it is wrong to have "sale"
of any kind at the reception. I understand why they think this. However,
this is a situation where you've got to have some sensitivity to people's
budgets and to the customs of the low class masses. I had a money dance
at my wedding. GASP! Before you start shooting off obscenities, consider
that I would have had to deal with riotously unhappy extended families on
both sides, had I not done it. It was certainly not MY idea, as I was
wearing a monstrous dress that did not lend itself to a long workout of
dancing. And I'm sure there are some people at my wedding that were
snootily offended by this display of rampant, cash grubbing greed.
Frankly, the sweat and foot pain involved for me could not be repaid by
the receipts--I think the fundamental misunderstanding people have of a
money dance is that it exists in order to grub for coin. Instead, it is
another primitive midwestern custom designed to humiliate the bride and
groom, force them to exhaust themselves dancing with everyone (sometimes
twice!) in public, give the kids something fun to do by trotting up to
dance with the "big" kids for their buck, etc. My impression is, the last
thing it's about is the money, per se. But I can't expect high-tone snobs
to "get" that.
Anyway, when I go to the many weddings in my grubby area which have a cash
bar, my first thought is, poor parents, god help them pay for this spread.
I'm only too happy to pitch in for my own cocktail. If I didn't want to
do that, I'd drink pop or tea, no biggie.
That's why I'm saying, yeah, there are some things that are not
"accepted", but let's look at the context. Is the cash bar primarily
about being cheap to your guests, or is it primarily about giving them a
chance to be happy that you can't afford to sacrifice your mortgage to?
It just doesn't compare to FOOD, I swear. There is no legit comparison
between saying, oh, if it makes you happier you can pay $20 for a steak
instead of our chicken dish.... and saying hey, beer is free, but if you
want that whiskey sour instead you can get it from the bar yourself.
I don't know.... yes, I understand why this is not DESIRABLE, but I do not
see why it is OFFENSIVE, why it is unspeakable, etc.
That's the rub. I get why a money dance is not desirable. But I don't
get why it offends anyone (and frankly, don't care if it does). I get why
cash bar is not desirable, but realistically, in my world, I don't see why
it should offend anyone, as long as they're getting something to drink for
free beyond water, ya know?
not available
: I would actually say that the whole cash bar/money tree issue (since
: those seem to be the two "tacky" things that are commonly done at a lot
What I've seen a lot is where the Bride IS the money "tree"--they just
tape it onto your dress. Try playing Miss Manners when confronted with a
roomful of half-drunk 60 year olds, who have designs to do just this.
You'll find the low class world has its own obligations. Maybe I should
write a book of "trash etiquette"--i.e. how to treat people whose primary
goal at your wedding is mildly raucous fun, without offending them.
not available
: Exactly. Thanks for explaining it better, Hillary. This is
: also how I was raised and how everyone I know feels. We made
Well then you should try slumming more often!
Everyone I know feels differently, perhaps due to low class status.
That's a joke, by the way. I feel I must point that out to the impaired.
I guess we have to just say, when in Rome....
And I live with the plebes. So, if you too live among them, then have a
cash bar and don't blink an eye. If you are among patricians, be aware
that they all find it horrifyingly, unspeakably, pyramid-schemy rude.
The sad thing is, it's not like allowing guests to pay for a drink is
"charging" the guests. To me, if you're charging them for something, it
means that they either MUST pay, or else they feel obligated to pay. I
nixed one nice reception site, for example, simply because guests would
HAVE to pay for parking, and there's no way we could have arranged to pay
for it in advance. That would seem OFFENSIVE to me, because the guest is
put in a bind. Having some "dinner upgrade" is a similarly offensive
idea, because it's like, the guest is put upon in an unpleasant way that
they would have difficulty avoiding. But alcohol is an optional item in a
way that food is just NOT. That to me is the crux of the difference here.
I mean, technically, you're RIGHT. And in your circle, and those of the
other posters here who are obviously bred from diff. stock than I, you're
the norm. But in my world, that's not the norm, and I wouldn't think it's
right for people to get unspeakably offended about it.
not available
: said -- serving alcohol for free and selling the juice is JUST as rude as
: serviing juice for free and selling the booze. Have alcohol, don't have
See, this is where my intuitions differ completely. I think it would be
very rude to charge guests for non-alcoholic drinks, and give them liquor
for free. That's why I nearly passed a brick at my own wedding, when the
bartender tried to give someone a free beer and charge them for the pop!
(Like I said, thankfully we repaired the situation fast, but oh it was a
terrible moment of horror.)
I think alcohol just is different, and I am not making this up out of
desire to be rude, but apparently because in my low class world, there is
some generally accepted sense of difference that I have tuned into. If
there was not, I doubt everyone would have cash bars at their weddings.
I have known people who walked around passing out tickets for drinks. My
hubby tells of a wedding he attended where the fathers of the happy couple
went around with tickets for liquor. The drinks were free! All drinks.
But they passed out tickets so that they could keep it in check, a bit.
I.e. the person who had already imbibed several would have to return to
ask for a ticket. Now, you may laugh or (more likely) screech in horror
at this tale, but according to the standards I'm seeing here, it would be
more acceptable than a cash bar. Because hey, nobody's selling anything!
Personally, I think it's better to be discreet about it, and just have
what's free for free, and other things paid for separately, privately.
But really, what's to stop them, if the only standard is "don't sell
anything"?
Oh well. A little more understanding and sympathy for other walks of life
would be nice, in this conversation.
not available
: There's at least one other situation -- you provide a certain amount, after
: which it's gone. For example, one of the options at the restaurant we're at
I think this a lot worse than the cash bar option. Because the guests
gets to thinking that a certain thing is free, and THEN all of a sudden
they're surprised with a fee. It's like, oh, if I had known I'd be
charged for it later, I would have had another drink earlier and not
dawdled around.... ! Again, this is a joke, ok.
But seriously, I think consistency is better than nothing. I'd rather
someone said, here's all the free beer you can pack in, but we're drawing
the line at martinis.... than that they switched the programme on me
later.
not available
: Depending on how close this outside bar is, it's still kind of
: upsetting. It's : either that the hosts of the wedding know that their
: guests will want hard : liquor, but they won't budget for it, or that
What's more than "kind of" upsetting is that you keep assuming this jerky
thing (is that too obscene, or can we go with "jerky"?) about the
"budgeting" of the hosts. Darn it, don't you understand that not everyone
is able to afford this type of thing? It's not about "budgeting", it's
about lack of cash, period. In my case, I had a hard time picking a
site that offered as much as I could afford to provide my guests. I
wanted to give them a big dinner, rather than some weird sampling of hors
d'oeuvres on a toothpick! But that took some serious effort and
budgeting. You seem to assume that people will just be able to decide
they want X and then find a way to save up for it. That's not the way
life works for everyone. And--amazing as it may seem--it might seem
better in this situation to give the guest everything you can afford to
give, and also to let them buy a cocktail (especially when you can hardly
prevent this in the first place). Luckily, I did not have to worry about
this, as we found a good place, but a lot of people I know DO worry about
this, and have trouble with it. You know, do they pay for one or two kegs
until they run out? Do they omit liquor and make people unhappy, or do
they have a cash bar and make people unhappy? Everyone wants free drinks,
and I think the solution many opt for is to give as many free as you can,
and let the rest be available for cash. This does not take my breath away
as an offensive act. It's not quite the same, I'm afraid, as giving
everyone a steak and letting the guest pay for potatoes. It's about
totally optional alcoholic beverages. There has GOT to be some
distinction here. I'm not even disagreeing with your main point--I think
that anyone who can pay for all free drinks SHOULD do this, and that it's
tacky not to. But sometimes, tacky is worth the price, you know?
not available
: In my opinion, cash bars aren't even in the same LEAGUE as the money dances,
: listing registration places, charging money for admittance, or allowing tips.
: Comparing the two - in my mind - is absolutely absurd.
: And Mary, you're starting to sound *extremely* elitist. Lower class? God, I
: can't even dignify that with a proper response. How insulting and pretentious
: can one person get?
Couldn't agree more.
Jeanne
Sarah W wrote:
> Hillary has explained very well why she believes that it is unacceptable
> for a host to offer a cash bar, or even allow a cash bar. For the record,
> I, too, believe that having a cash bar at a party I am hosting is
> unspeakably rude.
>
> Some replies have questioned why it is rude to provide an opportunity for a
> guest to buy a drink that he/she wants that doesn't happen to be in the
> list of what the host is providing for the guests. The problem is that it
> is rude for the guest to be so dissatisfied with what the host has provided
> that the guest feels the need to purchase something else.
Yes, yes, yes!
>
>
> The hosts provide food and drink for their guests' enjoyment. The guests
> graciously accept (or quietly and unobtrusively decline) what the hosts
> have offered. The hosts do not say, by word or by deed, "Here's a handy
> way to purchase an upgrade on your food or beverage." And the guests do
> not say, by word or by deed, "I don't like what you've chosen to offer me
> so I'll reject what you've offered and buy something for myself to eat or
> drink at your party."
>
> In my opinion and according to the way I was raised, providing a cash bar
> is not catering to my guests' convenience. It is closer to being a
> condemnation of my guests' manners.
Yes, yes, yes! Or worse, a facilitation and encouragement of your guest's bad
manners.
>
>
> If you have moral objections to alcohol, don't serve it. If you choose for
> cost reasons not to serve alcohol, don't serve it. If you choose to serve
> only iced spring water and a variety of freshly baked loaves of exotic
> breads, then a polite guest will drink and eat what you provide, thank you
> for your kind invitation, and stop at Burger King on the way home. (The
> guest will probably dine out for months on the story of the wedding where
> all they served was bread and water, though. :-} )
>
> Sarah W.
By far the best post on cash bars I have seen in this newsgroup in 8 years!
Stick it in the FAQ!
Jeanne
Jeanne
klsimmons wrote:
> > I certainly understand the premise and if I choose ice tea,
> > water and coffee as the beverages I, as hostess, will supply
> > to my guests and some guests want something different, they
> > are certainly welcome to the cash bar to fulfill their wants.
> > And that includes the soda Ms. Simmons would leave a wedding
> > reception in a huff over having to pay for it.
>
> A good host will provide a variety of FREE beverages (not
> necessarily alcoholic) for her guests to choose from. A good
> host will not limit her guests to water merely because she
> chooses not to drink other beverages.
I don't consider ice water, iced tea and coffee/hot tea to be insufficient
offerings of refreshment to my guests. Granted, if I happened to have erred in
inviting petty, whiny people who HAVE to have a Coke with their dinner and
reject my hospitality then I suppose such guestzillas would view me as not being
a good hostess.
>
> And Jeanne - please note I never said I'd "huff" anywhere. I
> said I'd graciously take my leave of the couple. I realize that
> you have a problem with me, but please stop putting words in my
> mouth that I didn't use. Thank you.
Karen, you are the only person in this huge thread who stated a decision to
leave a reception if not given free rein to drink the sodas of your choice free
of charge. I don;t care if it was Barbara Bush (my idol!) who wrote the
post....the intended reactional behavior is rude, petulant, whiny, and most of
all, petty guestzillaism regardless of who wrote it. Anyone who would leave a
reception of supposed "dear friends" for such a minor issue is really catering
to their self interests and leaving in an indignant huff. Get over it.
Judith
>It is never, never appropriate to have a cash bar at a wedding.
A cash bar is the norm?!! Where is this? Are you a millionnaire? It might
be the norm for incredibly wealthy people but I really can't believe that
the average person can afford to pay for free drinks for ALL their guests
all day and possibly all evening as well!?? (especially if you consider that
there are plenty people in the NG who seem to be inviting 200+ guests)
I can't speak for other countries, but in the UK , you certainly don't get a
free bar for the guests at weddings.....or most other functions for that
matter. We're having 80 guests and they're all getting a free glass of
champagne on arrival at the reception and another glass of champagne for the
toast after the meal. We are also paying for the wine served during the
meal. If they want another drink before the meal while the photos are being
done, or after the meal / in the evening, then they can pay for it
themselves........and I have no problem with doing that. You would never go
to a wedding in the UK and *expect* to have free drinks all day long.
>If you don't want to pay for the extra drinks, then just serve
>champagne.
If we were to serve free champagne all day and evening it would probably
bankrupt us!!?? I don't know, maybe drinks are incredibly cheap in the US
but serving free drinks to guests just isn't the done thing over here. I
just pity the poor person who has to foot the bill if that's what's
*expected* at weddings in the US, because whenever there is a "free bar",
there will always be some people who take advantage of it, without
considering who is actually paying for it.
Judith
hillary israeli
*
*I think people are correct, technically, that it is wrong to have "sale"
*of any kind at the reception. I understand why they think this. However,
*this is a situation where you've got to have some sensitivity to people's
*budgets and to the customs of the low class masses. I had a money dance
I'm confused. I saw in another post you referred to yourself as "low
class," and now you are referring to some "low class masses." Who or what
is a "low class" person in your estimation? You see, the way I think about
"class" in our supposed-to-be-classless-but-ha-ha-on-that society is that
"middle class" generally refers to most people who have enough money to
live reasonably well but aren't "wealthy," and this group of people is
flanked by "the poor" and "the wealthy" rather than the "low class" and
"high class." I don't know why this is, but it seems to be the way I and
my other friends and family (who interestingly just had a discussion about
this last week) think about it. All of us, btw, are basically "middle
class" by that definition. In this scheme, "low class" refers to a person
of any financial means who hasn't been brought up properly and who doesn't
understand how to behave in polite society. I understand you do not use
the term "low class" in the same way, but I don't understand what you
mean.
Bear in mind that my paternal grandparents were solidly in the ranks of
"the poor," yet they did not raise my father in a "low class" way -- so to
my way of thinking, any equation of poverty with a "low class" group of
customs or attitudes is simply not applicable. I also of course (being a
product of a public school system) have had many friends and acquaintances
during my life who were of far lower financial means than my own more
fortunate family - and honestly, while I do recall one guy named Eddie who
truly did behave in what I'd consider a "low class" manner, most of these
people are perfectly able to function in polite society and one of them at
least definitely agrees with me about cash bars because I asked her
yesterday!
I'd also like to know exactly who the "high tone snobs" are. I know 6
millionaires off the top of my head. 4 of them you would NEVER dream had
that kind of money - they act like your average middle class working
people. One of them acts like a low class bum most of the time, but he's
very bright and has a wicked good sense of humor so his boorish behavior
is often tolerated by those of us who've known him a long time.
Is a "high tone snob" anyone who agrees with the tenets of etiquette as
put forth by Post, Manners, Vanderbilt, et al? If so, I throw up my hands
in frustration and exit the discussion. I simply can't fathom this system.
-h.
--
hillary israeli.....................................hillary@netaxs.com
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
hil...@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet
Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock.
hillary israeli
*
*> And Mary, you're starting to sound *extremely* elitist.
*
*I was commenting on the turn the thread seems to have taken (all the "I
*was brought up never to..." and "in my social circle, people would die
*before..." and "my upbringing taught me to be offended if..." responses
*to this subject), not necessarily saying that *I* think asking your
*guests to shell out at your wedding is lower-class, per se.
Ah. I was the one who kept saying "in my social circle" and "I was brought
up..." Let me clarify. I was certainly NOT implying that people who are
not in my social circle are "low class." They are just people with whom I
do not associate, and since I do not associate with them I have absolutely
no way of knowing what is normal, standard, and customary practice for
them at their parties or formal affairs or whatever. I simply wanted to
make it plain that I was speaking as a representative of my own particular
social group here in the Philadelphia area rather than attempting to speak
as a representative for the entire country or something which would be
absurd. Like I said, I still don't understand what lwedener means by "low
class" since to me it means "someone who wasn't brought up to behave
politely" or "someone who ignored his/her upbringing and behaves boorishly
in public." It has no financial connotation to me.
hillary israeli
*hillary israeli (hil...@hillary.net) wrote:
*: said -- serving alcohol for free and selling the juice is JUST as rude as
*: serviing juice for free and selling the booze. Have alcohol, don't have
*
*
*See, this is where my intuitions differ completely. I think it would be
*very rude to charge guests for non-alcoholic drinks, and give them liquor
*for free.
Well, the way you feel about that is probably the same way that I feel
about cash bars in general. So perhaps now you understand my point of view
a little more.
*I think alcohol just is different, and I am not making this up out of
*desire to be rude, but apparently because in my low class world, there is
*some generally accepted sense of difference that I have tuned into. If
*there was not, I doubt everyone would have cash bars at their weddings.
Well, not being part of your social circle, and apparently never having
known any other members of your social circle well enough to be invited to
such an affair or to discuss this with them, I have no way of knowing
anything about it except what you tell me, which I'm perfectly willing to
believe. I'm still confused about what this "low class world" is.
*Oh well. A little more understanding and sympathy for other walks of life
*would be nice, in this conversation.
Again, I do hope that's not a dig at me. I've already made it quite clear
that I fully understand that there are many different subcultures and
social customs in our society, which is why I have couched all of my
opinions in phrases like "in my social circle," and "in my experience" and
so forth! I also explained in a previous post that were I to find myself
at an affair with a cash bar, and it were explained to me that this was
the custom in that region or among that cultural group, I would respond
differently than if the cash bar was offerred by someone of my own social
circle who knew how it would be receieved (poorly) but chose to ignore the
local customs.
Judith
>>It is never, never appropriate to have a cash bar at a wedding.
>>What if the hosts can't afford to pay for a night's worth of
drinks for everyone?
At last......someone who has considered what the host can actually AFFORD!!!
We have a set budget for our wedding as I'm sure a lot of people do. We are
giving our 80 guests 2 free glasses of champagne plus wine with the meal.
Now the chances are that that drinks bill alone will probably come to
something like £700-800 (depending on how much wine people drink). That
gives the guests about 4 drinks each. They will be arriving at the
reception at 3pm and the "evening do" lasts until midnight. Do you really
think that those guests will be happy with just 4 drinks in 9 hours?
Somehow I doubt it. Obviously some people will drink more than others but
supposing people have on average one drink an hour (some will have far
more!) - that's 9 drinks per person = 720 drinks at around £2 per drink =
£1440. Ok, so the figures won't be exactly spot on, but it still shows how
totally out of control the drinks bill could get......... but hey, maybe we
shouldn't have a honeymoon, or perhaps I'll not bother having any
bridesmaids (that's 2 less dresses to buy!), or we could do away with the
flowers, or just buy a sponge cake from Tesco..........that's fine, as long
as the guests get their free drinks ?? If we're supposed to foot the bill
for absolutely every single drink all day and evening, then we'd have to
exclude most of our family and friends - so then they wouldn't be getting
ANY drinks at all, because they wouldn't be there!!
Our wedding is going to be a special day that we want to share with our
family and friends - but if I thought that there were guests who would be
really disgusted at having to buy their own drinks in the evening (whether
alcoholic or not), then I wouldn't bother inviting them. I certainly
wouldn't lose any sleep over it! If someone invites you to their wedding,
it shouldn't be about how much free food and drink you're going to get out
of the hosts, it should be about sharing their happiness on that special
day. I mean, it just gets ridiculous - are we supposed to pay for their
petrol and accommodation if they have to travel a long distance to get to
the wedding? Because if that's what's *expected* then we'd better forget
the whole thing and the 2 of us just go down to the local registry office!!
Judith
Karen Simmons
> I guess I don't see it as the hosts of the wedding charging the
> guests for anything. I see it as there is obviously alcohol in
> the bar in the corner and if my guests really want it, they can
> have it - I'm just not paying for it.
Hmmm. Ok, I can see that. From my perspective: I invite guests to my
home for a meal. I display drinks in the corner of the living room.
Most people would then assume that those drinks are available for them
to drink, so they go pour a glass of scotch. I then say "oh, those
drinks aren't free - you owe me $3.50 for that scotch." To me it doen't
matter that *you* aren't charging the guests. To me the important
distinction is that you are inviting people to be guests and then you
are showing them something that you aren't offering them as a "guest".
> I don't approve of smoking. I would *never* buy cigarettes for
> someone. But, if we pass a 7-11 on the street and they want to run
> in and get some, it's not my place to stop them.
Sure. I understand that. But we're not talking about driving past a
bar or a liquor store here. You are specifically asking the caterer (or
whoever) to set up the bar *in your private facility* and then allowing
them to charge your guests. IMO, that's not right. In my opinion,
that's no better than the bride and groom serving themselves filet
mignon and serving their guests cold chicken sandwiches and then saying
"oh, but you can pay the caterer to upgrade".
Karen
Karen Simmons
>> What if the hosts can't afford to pay for a night's worth of
>> drinks for everyone?
>
> At last......someone who has considered what the host can actually
> AFFORD!!!
I don't think anyone is insisting that the couple must pay for something
they can't afford. That has nothing to do with it. If you can't afford
an open bar (we couldn't, I know that others can't), then don't serve
hard liquor. Serve beer, wine, and softdrinks instead. If you can't
afford that, serve softdrinks, coffee, tea, and water.
The issue is not making the HC go into debt. It's making sure that your
guests are treated like GUESTS and not a profit center for your
vendors. I like the way another poster put it - you'd never have your
photographer set up a photo center and start charging guests for prints,
you'd never have the caterer selling upgraded meals to guests who could
afford to pay, you'd never have your baker selling pastries on a table
to the side of the cake? Why would you have a bartender selling
upgraded drinks?
> but hey, maybe we shouldn't have a honeymoon, or perhaps I'll not
> bother having any bridesmaids (that's 2 less dresses to buy!), or
> we could do away with the flowers, or just buy a sponge cake from
> Tesco..........that's fine, as long as the guests get their free
> drinks ?? If we're supposed to foot the bill for absolutely every
> single drink all day and evening, then we'd have to exclude most of
> our family and friends - so then they wouldn't be getting ANY drinks
> at all, because they wouldn't be there!!
When you invite people to be your guests, yes you are supposed to "foot
the bill" for every single thing you offer them. That doesn't mean you
have to offer them things that you can't afford, it means that you have
to make sure you are making choices that allow you to treat your guests
as your GUESTS and not profit centers.
And yes, if you choose to invite a lot of people to celebrate with you,
then you do have an obligation to them - as a courteous host to take
their needs - into consideration. If that means you have chosen to
invite so many guests that you can't afford to give all of them a glass
of wine with dinner unless you cut out your honeymoon, then you either
eliminate the wine and serve water and tea and coffee, or you eliminate
the honeymoon. It's a matter of prioritizing your budget.
> If someone invites you to their wedding, it shouldn't be about how
> much free food and drink you're going to get out of the hosts, it
> should be about sharing their happiness on that special day.
You're right. But if you invite people to your wedding, you have an
obligation to them to not ask them to pay for their meal/drinks. IMO.
They are your guests and a good host doesn't charge guests.
Karen
MLS
those seem to be the two "tacky" things that are commonly done at a lot
I, for one, definitely put them in the same league)<<
A cash bar could very well be seen as an option with definite benefits for your
guests, if they would really love to have a beverage that the HC can't afford
(or has other reasons not) to offer. It serves no advantage to the happy
couple what so ever ... and, in my experience, has been implemented 100% to
further the comfort of one's guests.
I have never actually witnessed a "money tree" but, from what I've heard it's
implemented by extremely greedy couples (or couple's families) looking to get a
few more bucks.
How the two even compare is way beyond me.
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
MLS
whoever) to set up the bar *in your private facility* and then allowing
them to charge your guests.<<
hmmmm...
See, at any reception I've ever been to, the bar was already *in* the facility.
Meaning that it didn't need to be set up - it was already there, fully stocked
with liquor. So, if it wasn't an open or cash bar, the guests would go in and
*see* the liquor, but not be able to have it.
I'm trying to remember the inside of the reception hall I"m using, and I don't
*think* the bar is actually inside there, so I'm glad I can avoid this problem
altogether <g>
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
Karen Simmons
> It serves no advantage to the happy couple what so ever ... and, in
> my experience, has been implemented 100% to further the comfort of
> one's guests.
That's actually an argument that I could be persuaded by - at least on
an individual basis.
OTOH, it's just as easy to argue that a cash bar has been implemented
solely to further the comfort of the bride and groom. In other words,
to allow them to "serve" liquor, but not have to pay for it so they can
spend that money elsewhere.
But I still think that's probably the best argument *for* a cash bar
that I've heard yet.
Karen
MLS
solely to further the comfort of the bride and groom. In other words,
to allow them to "serve" liquor, but not have to pay for it so they can
spend that money elsewhere.
But I still think that's probably the best argument *for* a cash bar
that I've heard yet.<<
Thanks :)
I can also see how it could be implemented by a cheap happy couple who doesn't
want to shell out the bucks for their own liquor, but in my experience that's
never been the case, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Mary
to Phil 6/23/2001
T
> You simply can't say this, and then in the same breath claim that you're
> being sensitive to the fact that people are on a limited budget.
> Sometimes, there is no way to possibly budget for that, and no, it isn't a
> matter of eliminating a few floral centerpieces.
Here's my perspective as a host:
It is our job to provide what our guests will expect at an afternoon/evening
function. They will have travelled far, they will be spending lots of time,
they will be enjoying the entertainment.
They will want alcohol.
In the best of all possible worlds (i.e., my employer gives me a raise Real
Soon Now) we will offer a good variety of non-alcoholic beverages (included
some form of purified water. This is Milwaukee, home of historically recurrent
cryptosporidium.) We will also offer a few kegs of diffent types of beer, we
will offer a few types of wine, and we will buy a variety of liquors, and we
will staff the area with at least one qualified bartender (especially
considering Don's a high school teacher. Even if no member of our families
and friends would overimbibe, the underaged teens would probably try sucking
beer right out of the tapper if it were left unattended.)
Because this is what our guests want, we will go without centerpieces, we will
go without a fancy cake, we will go without favors, we will go without limos,
and pew bows. Because this is important to our guests, it's important to us.
This is the kind of party we're throwing.
However, as a host, it is perfectly acceptable to not serve alcohol at all, or
to serve from one or two kegs, or some limited supply. Just as the host is
expected to provide appropriate beverage, the guests are expected to not do
beer bongs and suck it down like there's no tomorrow, so if a small subset of
your guests drinks all the beer, it should be apparent to the people around
them -- the other guests -- that it isn't your fault that the alcohol may have
run out a little sooner than the absolute end of the evening. It's best to
plan for contingencies, but when guests are rude, these things can't be
helped.
But again, if you as the host choose not to offer alcohol, that's fine, but
the vendor should honor your wishes and not try direct marketing to your
guests.
aMAZon
not available wrote:
> This seems very narrow minded to me! Of course nobody is charging
> admission! If you couldn't afford to have expensive drinks at home, you
> wouldn't provide them at all. But a wedding is different--it's not always
> held in your home, where guests simply get what you provide. At a
> restaurant, club, or hall, you often are in a position where the bar is
> available to the guests regardless, and then you as host have to choose
> what to pay for. Selecting "everything" may well be quite out of budget
> range, even for those people who "budget up to a year in advance". If you
> think the lack of free drinks at a wedding like this is a problem, I must
> wonder, what else do you criticize at a wedding that is done on a small
> budget?
I think the issue is not one of small weddings, or small budgets.
It seems to me that it's more that some Happy Couples want other
folks to pay for an extravagance they can't afford.
I could have wanted a deluxe reception at the fanciest hotel in town,
and charged admission for it, but that would have been seen as
tacky in the extreme. This is the sort of feeling some folks get
at having to pay for drinks (including soft drinks!) at a reception.
I've been to simple weddings, and was happy to attend. If someone
invited me to a cake-and-punch wedding, I'd be happy to go, wish
them well, and perhaps partake of the refreshments, whatever they are.
I've been to elaborate weddings, and was happy to have what was offered.
For those weddings that offer only water -- well, you *are* supposed
to toast the Happy Couple with something other than water. It doesn't
have to be Dom Perignon, but it should be something other than water.
> Why? The guest is the one choosing to have alcohol not provided by the
> host. As long as the host is supplying you with a nice dinner and plenty
> of non alcoholic drinks, I do not understand the demand that everything
> else be free as well.
I think the idea is that one ought to be happy with what the host
provides, without supplying yourself with something else. It's not
a demand for free alcolholic beverages.
> Then you'd be drinking the free non-alcoholic drinks, or you'd choose a
> beer instead of a cocktail, right? What's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that, providing they have it. I've been to places
where *everything* but water cost the guests.
--
aMAZon
zesz...@worldnet.att.net
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Elisabeth Bates
: People do some strange things, no doubt about it.
: Some people think tattoos make their skin look pretty, some serve jello at
: their weddings, and some offer a cash bar? It has nothing to do with a
: person being rude.
hmm, so would a wedding without a main meat dish (salmon or a veggie
alternative), NO CASH BAR(1), and a bride whose dress shows off her
tattoo be considered rude or not?! :)
- Lissie (& Nik, in 5 weeks! And i'm getting my wedding tattoo tomorrow!)
(1) i wouldn't dream of asking my guests to pay for anything at this
celebration, particularly since almost all are
coming from out of town to be with us, but we can't afford an open bar,
so we're having a selection of wine and beer along with the non-alcohol
options.