Weddings are supposed to be that one special day in your life when everything is supposed to be perfect, ya know. But then life happens and nothing is truly sacred any more.
A woman was planning her wedding, advertising it as a child-free event. However, two of her three sisters had children. This didn’t seem like too much of a biggy, but the youngest sibling pointed out that they are still family and, more or less, volunteered to babysit, but that also meant she wasn’t going to the wedding.
And then drama ensued.
More info: Reddit
If you're gonna have a wedding, you bet something's going to happen to at the very least try and ruin it, like driving over a speed bump at 52 miles an hour
Image credits: Emma Bauso (not the actual photo)
This could also include a refusal to go a child-free wedding, for more reasons than one, but the lack of children is definitely the crux of it
Image credits: u/Vegetable-Car-5668
The issue became very chaotic with sisters taking sides and the parents... well, the parents just wanted to see their daughter married and be merry
Image credits: Carlo Buttinoni (not the actual photo)
The story goes that this one woman was set to get married soon and was thus planning her wedding. She was the third of 4 kids in the family, all sisters, with the two older ones already having full-blown families. And then there was the youngest one who was married, but was child-free.
Incidentally, the wedding was also child-free, which put one of the sisters into a bit of a bind. Among everything else that was happening in her life, she just didn’t have anyone to leave the kids with for the wedding day.
This seemingly irked the youngest sister something fierce. And long story short, she decided to stay back and babysit, thus skipping out on the wedding altogether. This in turn infuriated the bride and this a conflict was born.
While there were some nuances, the whole conflict seemed to revolve around the fact that, one, the sister is “aggressively child-free”, and, two, the wedding was child-free, which meant that some family members technically considered children were excluded from what is more or less a family occasion.
The conflict escalated from throwing minor details into the ether to something that sparked a full on outrage from the sister, and it’s something OP feels bad about too. She said that she “didn’t see the point in going to an event half the family would be missing from (referencing the kids).” She also added that the kids are better company than her sister. Did I mention they weren’t on the best of terms as is?
The oldest chose OP’s side in this conflict, while the second sister feels really bad (it’s her kids OP offered to watch). The parents, on the other hand, aren’t acknowledging the situation at all—it sounds like one of those situations where they just want to see their daughter get married, enjoy a wedding, then go home and turn on the Knicks game (while the sisters scratch each other’s eyes out in the background).
Image credits: Anastasia Shuraeva (not the actual photo)
The comment section is where it gets interesting. The flair on the Reddit post declares OP the jerk, but that was the majority vote before OP provided an update that sprinkled even more nuance to everything.
Turns out, the guy OP’s sister is marrying used to be close with her husband’s sister, OP’s sister-in-law, and there is a lot of bad blood between them as there was abuse, talks of abortion and other horrible things. With that in mind, people found more of a reason to be on OP’s side, hence all the NTA commentary.
But considering both sides, OP’s comment to her sister—the one about not seeing a point in the event—was at the very least rude. After all, it’s the sister’s wedding and she can have it any way she wants. OP doesn’t have to go per se, but she shouldn’t feel like she now has to babysit because of it.
On the other hand, those saying NTA argued heavily that not going to her husband’s sworn enemy’s wedding is reason enough. If anything, it’s an invitation, not a summons, so the sister has to accept it the way it is.
The post took off soon after being published and garnered a bit over 12,500 upvotes (with a 92% approval rating) and even got a handful of Reddit awards. You can check out the post in full context here.
Image credits: Liza Summer (not the actual photo)
Diverging from the issue at hand for a bit, child-free weddings seem to be on the rise. But OP does make a solid point—kids are part of the family, so why should they not be invited?
While it sounds like a simple decision, it’s not, and here’s why: allowing guests to bring kids along means that someone or something will have to keep them busy. Wedding programs for adults are a given, but kids also need a program, more or less planning a whole separate part of a wedding and that affects the wedding budget.
If you are going to allow kids at a wedding, consider hiring an entertainer for them, who might also organize some tabletop activities and whatnot. Also, the venue you’re having the wedding at might also help in getting some kids' meals out. And it helps to have a huge venue altogether—loads of space for them to explore and wander around.
If it’s a no-kids deal, then be clear about your expectations, be honest and explain simply why you chose that way. Overly complicating the explanation might lead to parents trying to make you change your mind and make exceptions for them. If it’s the case that you’re only allowing specific kids to come, don’t forget to communicate your expectations for the kids, what the ground rules are and the like.
In other words, clarity is key here. You can also be very clear about your stance on the topic in the comment section below!
Folks had two major opinions, depending on whether they read the story before or after the update
