TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

RE: Plus One

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It's not about being excluded or not being loved.

It's about not being married but expecting to be treated as if you are.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
It's not about being excluded or not being loved.

It's about not being married but expecting to be treated as if you are.

Exactly.

When you want your boyfriend invited--and are not married--you are REQUIRING that people make value judgments on your relationship if they cannot invite all plus ones.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.

The COMMITMENT is what 2 people make it. Period.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
The COMMITMENT is what 2 people make it. Period.
flan

Yeah--THOSE TWO PEOPLE.

The situation here is that the LW is asking others to recognize that commitment with ZERO public acknowledgement of said commitment.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

If you want to be technical about the proper ettiquite is that unless someone is legally married you do not address the invite to Mr. and Mrs. So and So. Depending on which person you are inviting it would be either Mr. John Smith and guest or Miss Susie Smith and guest.

If there is no cost restraint I see no need to not invite anyone's live in or boyfriend or girlfriend. But that's me. If I have to narrow it down due to money I would start by narrowing it down to those who are dating. If I had to narrow it down further than it would be live ins. But that's just me.

-- Edited by Nobody Just Nobody on Friday 27th of November 2015 07:35:55 PM

msrock · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
It's not about being excluded or not being loved.

It's about not being married but expecting to be treated as if you are.

I never expected anyone to treat me like I'm married. And when I do get married, they are going to treat me the same way they do now. It won't be any different. Nothing will change. The people I know like me for who I am and when I get married, NEWSFLASH!... I'm going to be the exact same person!

msrock · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.

Really?? Now you're all just being silly. biggrin

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
If you want to be technical about the proper ettiquite is that unless someone is legally married you do not address the invite to Mr. and Mrs. So and So. Depending on which person you are inviting it would be either Mr. John Smith and guest or Miss Susie Smith and guest.

If there is no cost restraint I see no need to not invite anyone's live in or boyfriend or girlfriend. But that's me. If I have to narrow it down due to money I would start by narrowing it down to those who are dating. If I had to narrow it down further than it would be live ins. But that's just me.

I agree--I'd probably let everyone bring a plus one.

However, unless the bride or groom knows the SO of someone that would make them invite the plus one--then they can't be in the position of picking and choosing whose relationship is "worthy" or not. It's all or none. Cohabiting is IRRELEVANT.

huskerbb · Guru

msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.

???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

huskerbb · Guru

msrock wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
It's not about being excluded or not being loved.

It's about not being married but expecting to be treated as if you are.
I never expected anyone to treat me like I'm married. And when I do get married, they are going to treat me the same way they do now. It won't be any different. Nothing will change. The people I know like me for who I am and when I get married, NEWSFLASH!... I'm going to be the exact same person!

But that isn't what the LW is asking. She is expecting to be treated as if she were married--when she's not.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
If you want to be technical about the proper ettiquite is that unless someone is legally married you do not address the invite to Mr. and Mrs. So and So. Depending on which person you are inviting it would be either Mr. John Smith and guest or Miss Susie Smith and guest.

If there is no cost restraint I see no need to not invite anyone's live in or boyfriend or girlfriend. But that's me. If I have to narrow it down due to money I would start by narrowing it down to those who are dating. If I had to narrow it down further than it would be live ins. But that's just me.
I agree--I'd probably let everyone bring a plus one.

However, unless the bride or groom knows the SO of someone that would make them invite the plus one--then they can't be in the position of picking and choosing whose relationship is "worthy" or not. It's all or none. Cohabiting is IRRELEVANT.

And if you read what I wrote I said that. These people are trying to limit their wedding guests. That's a fact. So where do you start? In this instance it's perfectly acceptable to invite spouses and not invite live ins.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
msrock wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Plus one is a fiance or your married-to-spouse. Does not include live ins or BFs/GFs unless the bride and groom specifically includes them.
Yep. Thats the way it is here. Married couples are ALWAYS invited as a unit. Not so much boyfriends/girlfriends...
Where I live, the envelope for a married couple would be addressed Mr. and Mrs. John Smith... not Mr. John Smith and Guest.

-- Edited by msrock on Friday 27th of November 2015 03:51:58 PM
Where I live, the woman keeps her maiden name, so it wouldn't be Mr. & Mrs. John Smith.
If I marry a John Smith, I don't become Mrs. John Smith. i get to keep my own identity.

Oh brother! confuse

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
If you want to be technical about the proper ettiquite is that unless someone is legally married you do not address the invite to Mr. and Mrs. So and So. Depending on which person you are inviting it would be either Mr. John Smith and guest or Miss Susie Smith and guest.

If there is no cost restraint I see no need to not invite anyone's live in or boyfriend or girlfriend. But that's me. If I have to narrow it down due to money I would start by narrowing it down to those who are dating. If I had to narrow it down further than it would be live ins. But that's just me.
I agree--I'd probably let everyone bring a plus one.

However, unless the bride or groom knows the SO of someone that would make them invite the plus one--then they can't be in the position of picking and choosing whose relationship is "worthy" or not. It's all or none. Cohabiting is IRRELEVANT.
And if you read what I wrote I said that. These people are trying to limit their wedding guests. That's a fact. So where do you start? In this instance it's perfectly acceptable to invite spouses and not invite live ins.

But there's no difference between live-ins and those just dating.

There are people who meet someone and then move in with each other in a few months or less.

There are other people who may date for several years without living together due to religious reasons, distance, or whatever.

The address is irrelevant.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.
???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

Just getting worse & worse...

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
msrock wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Sorry. Get on the pot and piss or get off.

I don't view living together, outside of marriage, as anything more.

If you are committed enough to live together, get married.

If you dont get married, don't get all offended when others see it as playing at being married.

Most normal people don't. I'm not playing at anything. I'm living a real life that I've made for myself. I really don't care how you and husker see it. I'm happy.
Good for you! I consider a "de facto spouse" a spouse. Most folks up here do.

So what? Who care's what "most folks do" where you live? Other people can send out their invitations however they want. If you don't want to go, then don't go.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.
???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

Just getting worse & worse...
flan

I'm spot on.

msrock · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.
???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

Maybe to you. Not to us. We both have kids... so there's that. Your posts are starting to sound ignorant and obtuse, btw. But keep on. lol.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Oh , i see. You want to complain if the marrieds think you are "playing house' while simultaneously accusing the women of "losing their identity" if they take their husband's name. Uh huh.

huskerbb · Guru

msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.
???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

Maybe to you. Not to us. We both have kids... so there's that. Your posts are starting to sound ignorant and obtuse, btw. But keep on. lol.

LOL!!! Of course not to me--and not to anyone else. You keep talking about the commitment YOU TWO PEOPLE have.

That is IRRELEVANT here. We are talking about OTHER PEOPLE making decisions and they can't possibly be expected to determine whose live in/dating relationship is more "worthy" than others if they can't invited them all.

The social convention here is marriage or at least engaged. That is how OTHER PEOPLE can determine the significance of your relationship.

We know what you think of it. You aren't inviting yourself.

msrock · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Oh , i see. You want to complain if the marrieds think you are "playing house' while simultaneously accusing the women of "losing their identity" if they take their husband's name. Uh huh.

I never complained that the married's think I'm playing house. Trust me... when I make dinner, it's real. lol! I just think it's stupid and hilarious at the same time. But whatever. Carry on. biggrin

huskerbb · Guru

msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.
???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

Maybe to you. Not to us. We both have kids... so there's that. Your posts are starting to sound ignorant and obtuse, btw. But keep on. lol.

Oh, and my wife and I both have kids, too, so I don't see how that is at all relevant, either. Stick to the topic. If you want to start a kids thread, please do so.

huskerbb · Guru

msrock wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Oh , i see. You want to complain if the marrieds think you are "playing house' while simultaneously accusing the women of "losing their identity" if they take their husband's name. Uh huh.
I never complained that the married's think I'm playing house. Trust me... when I make dinner, it's real. lol! I just think it's stupid and hilarious at the same time. But whatever. Carry on.

YOU may not be--but the LW here is.

msrock · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.
???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

Maybe to you. Not to us. We both have kids... so there's that. Your posts are starting to sound ignorant and obtuse, btw. But keep on. lol.
Oh, and my wife and I both have kids, too, so I don't see how that is at all relevant, either. Stick to the topic. If you want to start a kids thread, please do so.

OMG it gets better! Our kids aren't related... yours are. lol. That's the difference between your situation and mine. Wow.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

huskerbb wrote:

But there's no difference between live-ins and those just dating.
There are people who meet someone and then move in with each other in a few months or less.
There are other people who may date for several years without living together due to religious reasons, distance, or whatever.
The address is irrelevant.

Here's what I'm saying. This is what I would do IF IT WERE ME. I'm working on a budget. I start with the couples. Okay, all those invites are out and I find out I can still afford to invite a few more. So now where is the line? FOR ME, the line would be to invite those that live together over just dating. But that is how I'd do it. I don't consider living together the same as marriage. Not in the least. But I do consider it to be more committed than dating. Dating can be anything from We had dinner last week for the first time. to We're sleeping together. to We're discussing moving in together. You are asking me what the difference is. I'm telling you. And I'm explaining how I would go about doing MY invites. But it's not me and I don't really care what other people do so doesn't matter to me.

huskerbb · Guru

Who cares if the kids are related or not??? That makes ZERO difference as to whether anyone should include you or your boyfriend as a plus one.

Again, stick to the topic.

I don't even see what point you are trying to make. You can't get married unless you don't have kids? What?

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

But there's no difference between live-ins and those just dating.
There are people who meet someone and then move in with each other in a few months or less.
There are other people who may date for several years without living together due to religious reasons, distance, or whatever.
The address is irrelevant.
Here's what I'm saying. This is what I would do IF IT WERE ME. I'm working on a budget. I start with the couples. Okay, all those invites are out and I find out I can still afford to invite a few more. So now where is the line? FOR ME, the line would be to invite those that live together over just dating. But that is how I'd do it. I don't consider living together the same as marriage. Not in the least. But I do consider it to be more committed than dating. Dating can be anything from We had dinner last week for the first time. to We're sleeping together. to We're discussing moving in together. You are asking me what the difference is. I'm telling you. And I'm explaining how I would go about doing MY invites. But it's not me and I don't really care what other people do so doesn't matter to me.

OK,

so...

Let's say couple A met a month ago. He was out of a job and moves in with her after just a month--so they are living together.

Now, let's say couple B dated the last two years of college, but got accepted into graduate programs at different schools, so are going to do the long distance thing until that is over.

So the plus one of couple A gets invited and not couple B? That's messed up.

msrock · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Who cares if the kids are related or not??? That makes ZERO difference as to whether anyone should include you or your boyfriend as a plus one.

Again, stick to the topic.

I don't even see what point you are trying to make. You can't get married unless you don't have kids? What?

You said dating and living together were no different. I was responding to that. Don't make stupid comments and I won't respond. Oh... and don't tell me how to post. aww

huskerbb · Guru

msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Who cares if the kids are related or not??? That makes ZERO difference as to whether anyone should include you or your boyfriend as a plus one.

Again, stick to the topic.

I don't even see what point you are trying to make. You can't get married unless you don't have kids? What?
You said dating and living together were no different. I was responding to that. Don't make stupid comments and I won't respond. Oh... and don't tell me how to post.

They aren't any different. Would you not have kids if you didn't live together? Would they magically disappear?

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

But there's no difference between live-ins and those just dating.
There are people who meet someone and then move in with each other in a few months or less.
There are other people who may date for several years without living together due to religious reasons, distance, or whatever.
The address is irrelevant.
Here's what I'm saying. This is what I would do IF IT WERE ME. I'm working on a budget. I start with the couples. Okay, all those invites are out and I find out I can still afford to invite a few more. So now where is the line? FOR ME, the line would be to invite those that live together over just dating. But that is how I'd do it. I don't consider living together the same as marriage. Not in the least. But I do consider it to be more committed than dating. Dating can be anything from We had dinner last week for the first time. to We're sleeping together. to We're discussing moving in together. You are asking me what the difference is. I'm telling you. And I'm explaining how I would go about doing MY invites. But it's not me and I don't really care what other people do so doesn't matter to me.
OK,

so...

Let's say couple A met a month ago. He was out of a job and moves in with her after just a month--so they are living together.

Now, let's say couple B dated the last two years of college, but got accepted into graduate programs at different schools, so are going to do the long distance thing until that is over.

So the plus one of couple A gets invited and not couple B? That's messed up.

Really, Husker? What a ridiculous example.

For couple B, you would KNOW all of that! They would no doubt be the exception to the rule, and it wouldn't matter anyways becaue if they are long distance, why would they make a special trip to go to a wedding??

huskerbb · Guru

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

But there's no difference between live-ins and those just dating.
There are people who meet someone and then move in with each other in a few months or less.
There are other people who may date for several years without living together due to religious reasons, distance, or whatever.
The address is irrelevant.
Here's what I'm saying. This is what I would do IF IT WERE ME. I'm working on a budget. I start with the couples. Okay, all those invites are out and I find out I can still afford to invite a few more. So now where is the line? FOR ME, the line would be to invite those that live together over just dating. But that is how I'd do it. I don't consider living together the same as marriage. Not in the least. But I do consider it to be more committed than dating. Dating can be anything from We had dinner last week for the first time. to We're sleeping together. to We're discussing moving in together. You are asking me what the difference is. I'm telling you. And I'm explaining how I would go about doing MY invites. But it's not me and I don't really care what other people do so doesn't matter to me.
OK,

so...

Let's say couple A met a month ago. He was out of a job and moves in with her after just a month--so they are living together.

Now, let's say couple B dated the last two years of college, but got accepted into graduate programs at different schools, so are going to do the long distance thing until that is over.

So the plus one of couple A gets invited and not couple B? That's messed up.
Really, Husker? What a ridiculous example.
For couple B, you would KNOW all of that! They would no doubt be the exception to the rule, and it wouldn't matter anyways becaue if they are long distance, why would they make a special trip to go to a wedding??

OK, don't like that example, say they have been dating a long time but don't want to cohabit for religious reasons.

Either way, you are still making value judgments on the relationship.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

msrock · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Who cares if the kids are related or not??? That makes ZERO difference as to whether anyone should include you or your boyfriend as a plus one.

Again, stick to the topic.

I don't even see what point you are trying to make. You can't get married unless you don't have kids? What?
You said dating and living together were no different. I was responding to that. Don't make stupid comments and I won't respond. Oh... and don't tell me how to post.
They aren't any different. Would you not have kids if you didn't live together? Would they magically disappear?

Are you fvcking serious??? You don't think there's a difference in your situation where you have kids together and make a family... and my situation where I have my kids and made a family and he had his kids and made a family and now those families are gone and we are all going to combine and try to make a new family? I think you just say dumb **** to try and get a reaction. You can't be that ...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

huskerbb · Guru

They say they don't want people to "judge" their relationship--but yet that is EXACTLY what the LW here wants them to do.

Hypocritical to say the least.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Good gosh, who would have thought this was such a hard to understand topic.

If you are not married, don't expect to be treated like you are married. Pretty simple.

Honeys_Mom · Mod & Permanent Board Sweetheart

After reading through this thread, I frankly I don't find it strange that some folks choose to live together. They probably just wanted to avoid an argument like this one... biggrin

huskerbb · Guru

msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Who cares if the kids are related or not??? That makes ZERO difference as to whether anyone should include you or your boyfriend as a plus one.

Again, stick to the topic.

I don't even see what point you are trying to make. You can't get married unless you don't have kids? What?
You said dating and living together were no different. I was responding to that. Don't make stupid comments and I won't respond. Oh... and don't tell me how to post.
They aren't any different. Would you not have kids if you didn't live together? Would they magically disappear?
Are you fvcking serious??? You don't think there's a difference in your situation where you have kids together and make a family... and my situation where I have my kids and made a family and he had his kids and made a family and now those families are gone and we are all going to combine and try to make a new family? I think you just say dumb **** to try and get a reaction. You can't be that ...

I don't even see your point. You mean you can't get married for some reason?

Your whole line of posts is irrelevant to the situation.

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

huskerbb wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

But there's no difference between live-ins and those just dating.
There are people who meet someone and then move in with each other in a few months or less.
There are other people who may date for several years without living together due to religious reasons, distance, or whatever.
The address is irrelevant.
Here's what I'm saying. This is what I would do IF IT WERE ME. I'm working on a budget. I start with the couples. Okay, all those invites are out and I find out I can still afford to invite a few more. So now where is the line? FOR ME, the line would be to invite those that live together over just dating. But that is how I'd do it. I don't consider living together the same as marriage. Not in the least. But I do consider it to be more committed than dating. Dating can be anything from We had dinner last week for the first time. to We're sleeping together. to We're discussing moving in together. You are asking me what the difference is. I'm telling you. And I'm explaining how I would go about doing MY invites. But it's not me and I don't really care what other people do so doesn't matter to me.
OK,

so...

Let's say couple A met a month ago. He was out of a job and moves in with her after just a month--so they are living together.

Now, let's say couple B dated the last two years of college, but got accepted into graduate programs at different schools, so are going to do the long distance thing until that is over.

So the plus one of couple A gets invited and not couple B? That's messed up.
Really, Husker? What a ridiculous example.
For couple B, you would KNOW all of that! They would no doubt be the exception to the rule, and it wouldn't matter anyways becaue if they are long distance, why would they make a special trip to go to a wedding??
OK, don't like that example, say they have been dating a long time but don't want to cohabit for religious reasons.

Either way, you are still making value judgments on the relationship.

So? You are doing it to.

huskerbb · Guru

just Czech wrote:
Good gosh, who would have thought this was such a hard to understand topic.

If you are not married, don't expect to be treated like you are married. Pretty simple.

Exactly.

I don't really give a rat's ass if anyone is married or not.

However, in this case, the LW is asking a bride or groom to make a value judgment on their relationship when they haven't taken the necessary social conventions that would signify that they should automatically be invited.

Like I said, the weddings around here are big, so I'd let all single people bring a plus one--but it seems weddings cost more in other places and they have to adhere to nonsense like budgets, so.....

huskerbb · Guru

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

But there's no difference between live-ins and those just dating.
There are people who meet someone and then move in with each other in a few months or less.
There are other people who may date for several years without living together due to religious reasons, distance, or whatever.
The address is irrelevant.
Here's what I'm saying. This is what I would do IF IT WERE ME. I'm working on a budget. I start with the couples. Okay, all those invites are out and I find out I can still afford to invite a few more. So now where is the line? FOR ME, the line would be to invite those that live together over just dating. But that is how I'd do it. I don't consider living together the same as marriage. Not in the least. But I do consider it to be more committed than dating. Dating can be anything from We had dinner last week for the first time. to We're sleeping together. to We're discussing moving in together. You are asking me what the difference is. I'm telling you. And I'm explaining how I would go about doing MY invites. But it's not me and I don't really care what other people do so doesn't matter to me.
OK,

so...

Let's say couple A met a month ago. He was out of a job and moves in with her after just a month--so they are living together.

Now, let's say couple B dated the last two years of college, but got accepted into graduate programs at different schools, so are going to do the long distance thing until that is over.

So the plus one of couple A gets invited and not couple B? That's messed up.
Really, Husker? What a ridiculous example.
For couple B, you would KNOW all of that! They would no doubt be the exception to the rule, and it wouldn't matter anyways becaue if they are long distance, why would they make a special trip to go to a wedding??
OK, don't like that example, say they have been dating a long time but don't want to cohabit for religious reasons.

Either way, you are still making value judgments on the relationship.
So? You are doing it to.

That's the problem. You complain about people doing so--but then ask them to do that very thing.

The social convention is married--or at least engaged--and it's an automatic invite.

No marriage or engagement, then all "plus ones" are treated the same--and should be.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 27th of November 2015 08:12:57 PM

msrock · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Who cares if the kids are related or not??? That makes ZERO difference as to whether anyone should include you or your boyfriend as a plus one.

Again, stick to the topic.

I don't even see what point you are trying to make. You can't get married unless you don't have kids? What?
You said dating and living together were no different. I was responding to that. Don't make stupid comments and I won't respond. Oh... and don't tell me how to post.
They aren't any different. Would you not have kids if you didn't live together? Would they magically disappear?
Are you fvcking serious??? You don't think there's a difference in your situation where you have kids together and make a family... and my situation where I have my kids and made a family and he had his kids and made a family and now those families are gone and we are all going to combine and try to make a new family? I think you just say dumb **** to try and get a reaction. You can't be that ...
I don't even see your point. You mean you can't get married for some reason?
Your whole line of posts is irrelevant to the situation.

I can get married tomorrow if I wanted to. You were the one that said living together and dating were the same. If you don't want a response don't post ridiculous comments and I won't respond. You post irrelevant stuff ALL the time.. so get off my back about that. I wouldn't have posted at all if Lily didn't directly address me and say **** or get off the pot... told me I'm playing house. Go attack her for starting that ****. ok? I know why you don't though. lol!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
msrock wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Unless you are married, they may be dating or living together.

But they are not "one".

They are two people playing house.

They are two people committed to each other.
I lived with both my husbands before marriage. That was NOT a decision I took lightly.
flan
BS. Living together is no more of a commitment than not doing so and just dating.
Really?? Now you're all just being silly.
???? No, I'm not. Living together is just an address. Nothing more.

Maybe to you. Not to us. We both have kids... so there's that. Your posts are starting to sound ignorant and obtuse, btw. But keep on. lol.
Oh, and my wife and I both have kids, too, so I don't see how that is at all relevant, either. Stick to the topic. If you want to start a kids thread, please do so.
OMG it gets better! Our kids aren't related... yours are. lol. That's the difference between your situation and mine. Wow.

Even more reason to either get married or stop playing at being married.

huskerbb · Guru

Yet, you don't.

Living together and dating are the same. You could be dating--and you'd still have your children.

You could get married--and you'd still have your children.

PLUS--many people who live together don't have children--so that's not really an argument, anyway.

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
How does taking your husband's name take away your identity?
Wow!
Good luck, welts.
flan

Wow!

So, Flan, should we assume that you kept your maiden name in both your marriages seeing as how you found Lily's question to be so shocking?

chef · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
How does taking your husband's name take away your identity?

This is a good question, Lily.

I took my husband's name. It didn't take away my identity. But then, who I am does not hinge on my name. I could change my entire name and I'd still be me.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
How does taking your husband's name take away your identity?
Wow!
Good luck, welts.
flan
Wow!
So, Flan, should we assume that you kept your maiden name in both your marriages seeing as how you found Lily's question to be so shocking?

LOL

So, really women don't have the right to choose whether or not to take their husbands name, right?

ROTF

Double standard if there ever was one.

chef · Guru

Living together is not marriage. It does not come with any of the rights of marriage. If you live in a state with common law marriage, you may end up getting bit on the backside by living together. If you don't want to get married, fine, but don't pretend you are married. You're not.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

All I have to say is that in the eyes of the law being married and living together are NOT the same thing.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

chef wrote:
Living together is not marriage. It does not come with any of the rights of marriage. If you live in a state with common law marriage, you may end up getting bit on the backside by living together. If you don't want to get married, fine, but don't pretend you are married. You're not.

I live in a common law state. Here's the tricky part. People who live together are constantly using this to be able to file taxes and get more back. Then, when they split up, they find out they have to file for a legal divorce. Once you claim it, you claim ALL of it. Not just the benefits. They're always really surprised and upset to find out they have to claim the bad parts too.