On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:58:16 -0500, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>I disagree. It's not the availability or unavailability of the alcohol that
>would annoy people as much as the "mixed messages" it sends to "Host" a
>party yet expect the guests to pay. Or to suddenly change the "rules"
>midparty from "guests" to "paying attendees" at some soiree. If a host can't
>afford to serve what they want, they need to alter their desires. Serving
>wine, or a wine punch... or no alcohol at all even is a better solution than
>to host a "cash bar" at a hosted event.

I agree with the no alcohol solution if the host can't afford to foot
the bill. Throwing a wedding or party is expensive, but by the time
a couple buys a new dress, (can't be seen in the one you wore last
year) shoes etc. Then offers a gift, and sometimes rents a local
hotel room, it's expensive to attend. We went to a "black tie
optional" wedding last year. I didn't have a black suit that was
appropriate. Between our clothes, gift, and hotel room, we spent
over $800.00 to attend this wedding. It was a very nice wedding (as
nice as a wedding can be I guess.) After spending that kind of money
I'd have been more than ****ed or offended if I was asked to pay for
cocktails.

I've been to an early afternoon wedding that had nothing but champagne
for a toast, a small selection of appetizers, then cake and coffee.
It was over by 4:00 pm and everyone could go on their way and have
dinner on their own. And the couple got their gifts..Weddings for
many young couples are just money grabbing events anyway.

This thread and the one about the party that didn't have enough food
makes me realize how different people's views are on what's socially
acceptable.

Gar