A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General (moderated)
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Does "no presents" really mean that?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 5th 03, 04:11 PM
Rosalie B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

x-no-archive:yes Penny Gaines wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote in :
[snip]
I agree with Banty that manners are not so common now (I think it is
incredibly rude to bring wedding gifts TO a wedding as it results in
all kinds of chaos no matter how well it is handled).

So just as one must put reply cards in wedding invitations because
otherwise (and even so) people will not tell you if they are coming or
not, one must also specify about presents on an invitation. And that
is absolutely against etiquette to do.

[snip]

I don't think it is that there are *no* manners, just that they
are *different* manners.

So just like UK wedding invites don't have lots of different envelopes
(the invitees names are on the invitation itself), most UK weddings
have arrangements for receiving presents. Postage in the UK is
sufficiently expensive that if you don't live near the bride and groom
it would be too expensive to mail it.

Can the postage expense not be figured into the cost of the gift?
When I shop I mostly shop by catalog, and the shipping charge is part
of the cost.

The problems here are that presents are commonly put on a table, but
the giver may (often does) forget to put a card in them under the
impression that he or she will give the gift directly to the bridal
couple and that the couple will REMEMBER who it was that handed them
that specific present. This latter assumption is especially
unrealistic.

Or the card is outside the package and gets separated. So no one
(except the giver) knows who the present is from. If the bride and
groom actually open the presents at the reception, the separation of
the card and gift becomes even more of a problem.

Plus someone must be delegated to log the gifts in and take the
presents somewhere after the reception, without getting them broken or
damaged.

And there is the not insignificant problem of theft. From the
reception, from the car of the person doing the transporting, or from
the house or apartment of the honeymooning couple.

When you read older books, the manners then are quite different to now.
At times manners have been very formal, with strict details on such
things as when and how long to visit people (afternoons only, leave
after 15 minutes), other times they are informal and apparently
left to the individual to decide.


Yes I've got an etiquette book from the 1800s which is quite amusing
to read. But while formal calls are not made anymore, there's a basic
underlying appropriateness of behavior. Such as that it's rude to
overstay your welcome, and the people in the neighborhood should
welcome a newcomer.

grandma Rosalie

  #22  
Old July 5th 03, 04:12 PM
Rosalie B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

x-no-archive:yes ==Daye== wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 06:22:45 EDT, "D&K Condron"
wrote:

What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
done?


Well, no presents to me means just that. However, I probably
would have gotten the child a card or something small for his
birthday. When I say small, I mean a present that is less than
$5.

Before I had my daughter, I decided to stop celebrating Xmas. (I
celebrate now because of my daughter... she makes it enjoyable.)
I asked for no presents. I told everyone that I would not be
buying gifts, so don't buy me anything. My DH did buy gifts, but
he was still celebrating. I STILL got presents. I didn't buy
anyone anything, but I was heaped with presents. When I asked
them about it, they said, "We thought you weren't serious." I
responded, "I was serious."


I decided to stop exchanging gifts except with very close family
members (i.e. grandparents) when I got to the point that I had more
children than anyone else. I had two and they had one or none. I
told them a couple of months in advance. My SIL still sent gifts, but
she told me she had bought them already. We didn't send her family
anything. And the next year, we didn't get anything or send anything
to sisters, brothers, aunts or uncles. So it can be done without any
ill feelings.

I still sometimes send my sister a non-birthday gift "just because".



grandma Rosalie

  #23  
Old July 5th 03, 07:04 PM
Hillary Israeli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

In ,
David desJardins wrote:

*dragonlady writes:
* According to Miss Manners (also Emily Post and other such experts) an
* invitation is NOT a demand for a gift, one is NOT under an obligation to
* bring gifts, and putting "no presents" on an invitation implies that
* there normally IS an obligation and is therefore improper.
*
*If that's what Miss Manners and Emily Post think, they are wrong.

You can say that as often as you like, but it will not magically become
correct. The thing is, among MANY members of American "polite society,"
for want of a better term, what dragonlady says is in fact believed to be
true. Formal etiquette is basically a codification of the rules of polite
society, right? So MM and EP are not wrong! Certainly if you tell me you
disagree with them, and that people you know disagree with them, hey, no
problem...but I know LOTS of people do do not disagree with them, so for
at least "a whole lot of urban/suburban well-educated Jewish and/or
Christian relatively well-off people" they are correct.


*Putting "No Presents" just implies that you don't want any presents. It
*doesn't imply that there would have been an obligation to bring presents
*if that statement were omitted. That's the fundamental mistake.

The thing is, you would never write "no presents" on an invitation unless
there were an underlying assumption that without such notation, presents
would be brought. It would be rude of a host to make that assumption.

You wouldn't issue an invitation to a party and write "no elephants
allowed" on it, would you? No, because you don't assume people will bring
elephants unless otherwise instructed. Similarly, gifts. One must not
assume gifts will be forthcoming unless guests are otherwise instructed,
it's considered rude.

As for me, I don't really care if someone writes "no gifts," I
pretty much just figure they don't know any better, it's not like I find
it offensive. But many of my older-than-me family members DO find it
offensive, as do many others in my social circle.


FWIW.

hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

  #24  
Old July 5th 03, 07:25 PM
David desJardins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

Hillary Israeli writes:
According to Miss Manners (also Emily Post and other such experts) an
invitation is NOT a demand for a gift, one is NOT under an obligation to
bring gifts, and putting "no presents" on an invitation implies that
there normally IS an obligation and is therefore improper.


If that's what Miss Manners and Emily Post think, they are wrong.


You can say that as often as you like, but it will not magically become
correct.


It doesn't have to "become correct". It is correct. The statement,
"Putting 'no presents' on an invitation implies that there normally is
an obligation," is factually and logically wrong. You don't have to
know anything about 'manners' to know that---only about logic.

The thing is, among MANY members of American "polite society," for
want of a better term, what dragonlady says is in fact believed to be
true. Formal etiquette is basically a codification of the rules of
polite society, right?


Hey, I didn't disagree with the 'etiquette' proscription against 'No
Presents'. If someone wants to call that uncouth, that's fine with me;
they can think whatever they want. But if they say that writing 'No
Presents' implies that presents would otherwise be required, they are
just wrong.

The thing is, you would never write "no presents" on an invitation
unless there were an underlying assumption that without such notation,
presents would be brought.


The thing is, you are wrong. If I did write that, it wouldn't depend on
such an assumption.

You wouldn't issue an invitation to a party and write "no elephants
allowed" on it, would you? No, because you don't assume people will
bring elephants unless otherwise instructed.


If I were to write 'No Presents', it wouldn't be because I assume that
everyone would otherwise bring a present. It would be because I fear
that some people might bring presents. That's quite different.

I don't assume "People must bring presents to birthday parties." But I
do know, from experience, that some people sometimes do. Can you see
the difference?

David desJardins

  #25  
Old July 5th 03, 07:25 PM
Penny Gaines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

Rosalie B. wrote in :

x-no-archive:yes Penny Gaines wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote in :
[snip]
I agree with Banty that manners are not so common now (I think it is
incredibly rude to bring wedding gifts TO a wedding as it results in
all kinds of chaos no matter how well it is handled).

So just as one must put reply cards in wedding invitations because
otherwise (and even so) people will not tell you if they are coming or
not, one must also specify about presents on an invitation. And that
is absolutely against etiquette to do.

[snip]

I don't think it is that there are *no* manners, just that they
are *different* manners.

So just like UK wedding invites don't have lots of different envelopes
(the invitees names are on the invitation itself), most UK weddings
have arrangements for receiving presents. Postage in the UK is
sufficiently expensive that if you don't live near the bride and groom
it would be too expensive to mail it.

Can the postage expense not be figured into the cost of the gift?
When I shop I mostly shop by catalog, and the shipping charge is part
of the cost.


I suppose it could be, but I don't tend to buy presents from catalogues.
I think the last present I took to a wedding was a compost bin (well, it
was on the gift list), combined with a garden ornament made of concrete.
The postage cost would probably have doubled the cost of the gift, *and*
the recipients would have had to make a special trip to the post office
depot to collect them. We didn't live anywhere near the wedding, so we
couldn't have taken it to them seperately.

The problems here are that presents are commonly put on a table, but
the giver may (often does) forget to put a card in them under the

[snip]

Yes, it does come with its own set of problems. OTOH, English weddings
do other things differently to American weddings - eg we don't have
bridal showers, we don't have rehersal dinners, we don't have lots of
groomsmen. From reading US wedding sites, each of those has its own
set of problems.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

  #26  
Old July 7th 03, 02:43 AM
Jean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

The host has requested for "something yummy to share" instead of
presents perhaps indicated that she may or may not have prepared many
varieties of food and would like to have another 8 more dishes (8 moms
invited) to be added to the list. However, if guests still bring a
little gift on top of the dish (since it is a children's party), then
it'll be a bonus. Kat, did all the moms bring both food and present
(except you)? I guess if the request is meant for an adult occasion,
then probably guests will just bring food and treat it as pot-luck.

Jean






"D&K Condron" wrote in message ...
I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents, but
a dish of something yummy to share instead.

Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a gift.
Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to be
the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.

What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
done?

Kat


  #27  
Old July 7th 03, 10:44 AM
Byron Canfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message
.com...
Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
be considered rude.


I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday Gift
Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since Miss
Manners' time...


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

  #28  
Old July 7th 03, 06:19 PM
Elizabeth Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

In article vP9Oa.56185$926.6971@sccrnsc03,
"Byron Canfield" wrote:

"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message
.com...
Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
be considered rude.


I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday Gift
Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since Miss
Manners' time...



Miss Manners' time is now. Her POV, I think, would be that just because
tacky phenomena like gift registries exist, that doesn't make them
correct. I've personally given in to the concept of bridal registries,
both as a bride and as a gift giver, because the general idea of wedding
presents (if one chooses to give them) is to help the happy couple
outfit their new establishment and it seems like a practical approach
because it helps the giver determine what's most needed. But what's the
deal with birthday registries? To help kids fill out their toy
collection? I don't see any need to foster their greed further. Or to
relieve their friends of the requirement to put some thought into gift
selection.

  #29  
Old July 7th 03, 10:11 PM
H Schinske
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

Kat ) wrote:

Yes, all of the other moms brought food in addition to the gifts. Yet these
were not "little" gifts as you mention, but ones that I guess were in the
$20 - $30 dollar range.


Egads. That's *way* more than I ever spend on the gifts my kids take. Our limit
is $10 or so. And that's for parties where gifts *are* expected.

--Helen

  #30  
Old July 8th 03, 12:36 PM
Byron Canfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Does "no presents" really mean that?

"Elizabeth Gardner" wrote in message
...
In article vP9Oa.56185$926.6971@sccrnsc03,
"Byron Canfield" wrote:

"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message
.com...
Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
be considered rude.


I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday

Gift
Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since

Miss
Manners' time...



Miss Manners' time is now. Her POV, I think, would be that just because
tacky phenomena like gift registries exist, that doesn't make them
correct. I've personally given in to the concept of bridal registries,
both as a bride and as a gift giver, because the general idea of wedding
presents (if one chooses to give them) is to help the happy couple
outfit their new establishment and it seems like a practical approach
because it helps the giver determine what's most needed. But what's the
deal with birthday registries? To help kids fill out their toy
collection? I don't see any need to foster their greed further. Or to
relieve their friends of the requirement to put some thought into gift
selection.

I'm not defending birthday registries -- I think they are very near the
height of presumptiousness. I was just making the observation that Miss
Manners' opinion and the current reality do not match.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AD/HD World Expert Presents Online Thurs May 27 TerryM2442 General 0 May 26th 04 05:33 AM
They opened their Chanukkah presents today...sigh dejablues General 128 December 28th 03 07:25 PM
America's Favorite Grandma Presents: Christmastime Do's and DON'Ts!! Mother Henrietta Hickey General 6 December 17th 03 09:08 AM
Holiday presents for the neighbors kids? P. Tierney General 10 December 8th 03 09:09 PM
First Christmas Presents Marie General 12 November 18th 03 08:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.