When a Wedding reception says "adult" only does that mean over 18 or 21?

[DopeyDame]

I think it means "hey, cousin Sally - we invited you and Bob. NOT your screaming toddlers. Since I don't trust you to pick up on the etiquette based on the names on the invitation, I am directly stating it here."

 

[Pixiedustaway]

They would get their own invitation if they were invited. Everyone has different rules. Some say no one under 18. Some say no one under 21. Unless they get an invite assume they are not invited.

 

[tvguy]

Why?

DUIs. The reason the U.S. states that lowered the drinking age put it back to 21, too many people getting killed.

 

[Kitty 34]

My whole thread and your replies got me thinking of the first bridal shower I hosted 4 years ago for my son's bride to be. I thought I was having an afternoon event with the ladies on our side of the family and a couple from the bride-to-be's side. Small house but I felt it would work with about 15 of us woman. Well......along came 7 children all under the age of 6 to join us, also!! I love kids but WOW the whole dynamics of my little bridal shower certainly changed!!!

 

[wilkeliza]

DUIs. The reason the U.S. states that lowered the drinking age put it back to 21, too many people getting killed.

Interestingly in other countries where the drinking age is lower there are less DUIs. Of course their driving age is older then their drinking age so by the time people can legally drive they have learned how to respect alcohol. There is going to be the bunch in any country who just drink to get wasted but I do think learning your bodies tolerance legally before you ever get to drive legally would cut down on DUIs.

 

[SirDuff]

DUIs. The reason the U.S. states that lowered the drinking age put it back to 21, too many people getting killed.

Can you share your evidence that DUIs in those under 21 are lower in the US than in Canada and other countries where drinking age is lower than 21? It may exist, but I've never seen it (and it is the only way that your comment makes sense).

 

[tvguy]

Can you share your evidence that DUIs in those under 21 are lower in the US than in Canada and other countries where drinking age is lower than 21? It may exist, but I've never seen it (and it is the only way that your comment makes sense).

MADD may be a better source for that. They have a huge push going on in Canada.
But here are some other links.
http://www.lfpress.com/2013/06/18/should-21-be-the-new-19-for-legal-drinking
https://canadasafetycouncil.org/news/should-we-raise-drinking-age-21
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ebate-is-over-higher-drinking-age-saves-lives

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Really don't want this to turn into a debate whether a reception should have kids or not but my sister and I were just wondering the age? She said 18, I say 21 because of obviously the alcohol.

What would you guys assume?

Well my husband's coworker had a no kids wedding...This pic below is from the exact wedding invitation we received from them.


Her intent was to not have minors at the party. Not out of concern for alcohol at all (because there were people under 21 invited and who attended the wedding) but because she wanted a different feeling/mood for her wedding.

Just a random scenario-
Say the inivitation reads Mr and Mrs X and follows up somewhere saying adults only then I would assume if Mr and Mrs X had children they would not be invited. Say Mr and Mrs X had their 18 year old living with them well in the coworker's invitation they would have included that 18 specifically if they were invited.

OP It's a bit hard to tell what they mean without knowing how the invitations are worded. (ETA: I would also clarify though with the bride and groom should I have any questions if I were the guest receiving the inivitations)

 

[kaytieeldr]

1. Of the OP is the invitee, "adults only" means only the people to whom invitations are addressed. If it's addressed to Mr. and Mrs. X and they're trying to determine whether they can bring their 19 year old triplets, the answer is "no. If they're to be invited, they'll get their own invitations.

 

[SirDuff]

MADD may be a better source for that. They have a huge push going on in Canada.
But here are some other links.
http://www.lfpress.com/2013/06/18/should-21-be-the-new-19-for-legal-drinking
https://canadasafetycouncil.org/news/should-we-raise-drinking-age-21
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ebate-is-over-higher-drinking-age-saves-lives

Did you read what you cited?

From the second article (which basically counters your claim that Canada should increase the drinking age to 21 years because that helped reduce DUIs in the US):

The health board says some U.S. studies show that country’s legal drinking age of 21 leads to fewer crashes among youth. Despite a drinking age of 21, American statistics for 2005 show 16 percent of drivers ages 16 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking alcohol. Young men 18 to 20 years of age (who shouldn’t be drinking at all) report driving while impaired more often than any other age group. Minimum drinking age laws are constantly and openly flaunted on college campuses. Even the President’s daughter, Jenna Bush, was caught drinking underage in 2001. In March 2007, the American surgeon general reported there were 11 million underage drinkers in that country, of which 7.2 million were considered binge drinkers, meaning they drank more than five drinks on one occasion.

“It’s hard to see how anyone could cite the American experience as a success,” says Canada Safety Council president Jack Smith. He notes that over the past 10 years alcohol-related fatalities on Canada ‘s roads have dropped about 30 percent. The Americans had a higher fatality rate to start, and have seen practically no change in the number of deaths.

 

[pryncess527]

DUIs. The reason the U.S. states that lowered the drinking age put it back to 21, too many people getting killed.

I thought it was because the Federal Govt withheld funds for highway projects unless they raised it to 21. Nothing to do at all with safety.

 

[mummabear]

Interestingly in other countries where the drinking age is lower there are less DUIs. Of course their driving age is older then their drinking age so by the time people can legally drive they have learned how to respect alcohol. There is going to be the bunch in any country who just drink to get wasted but I do think learning your bodies tolerance legally before you ever get to drive legally would cut down on DUIs.

NZ has a driving age of 16 and a drinking age of 18.

It makes no sense to me that people can be considered an adult at 18, can get married, join the military, be held legally accountable as an adult but can't have a beer at the pub

 

[Gumbo4x4]

"Adults only" was meant to make it abundantly clear that we were only inviting those listed on the invite and not their children as well. I never considered making my wedding adults only until I experienced a ceremony that you could barely hear (I was in one of the first rows) because of two girls who were old enough to know better. They caused some chaos at the reception too. Every other wedding I've attended kids did not cause a scene, but I had no intention of risking it.

The decision had nothing to do with the drinking age. Our wedding and reception would have been appropriate for children had they been in attendance.

Edited to add: At at least two of the weddings I've attended the bride was under 21 (can't recall with the grooms), so I probably wouldn't have thought it meant 21 and up. Though, alcohol has also not been served at the vast majority of weddings I've attended, so there's also that.

I agree, I think it means only the named parties, not their children (even if 18 or 21). Those 18 & older should be receiving their own invitations if that's the intent - unless it specifies "and family" on the invitation.

 

[wilkeliza]

NZ has a driving age of 16 and a drinking age of 18.

It makes no sense to me that people can be considered an adult at 18, can get married, join the military, be held legally accountable as an adult but can't have a beer at the pub

Yep. You are old enough to decide you are willing to die for your country but we can't trust your judgement on alcohol consumption.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

NZ has a driving age of 16 and a drinking age of 18.

It makes no sense to me that people can be considered an adult at 18, can get married, join the military, be held legally accountable as an adult but can't have a beer at the pub

My XH was actually served alcohol at a nice restaurant in Universal in 2003. We were 20 and out for a nice dinner. He had just came back from Iraq. The waiter served him after they had a little talk about his service. He told him if you're old enough to die for your country you're old enough to have a beer.

 

[tvguy]

I thought it was because the Federal Govt withheld funds for highway projects unless they raised it to 21. Nothing to do at all with safety.

The motivation for raising the drinking age that prompted the threat of withholding federal funds was safety.

 

[Wendy31]

I think it means "hey, cousin Sally - we invited you and Bob. NOT your screaming toddlers. Since I don't trust you to pick up on the etiquette based on the names on the invitation, I am directly stating it here."

Yes! This!

Only the people actually listed on the inner envelope are invited - but many people don't get this & think because the invitation says "Mr. & Mrs. Bob Smith," it's okay to bring their children as well. Therefore, brides have to include the line "adults only" so MAYBE Mr. & Mrs. Bob Smith will realize their children are not invited.

I would assume "adults only" means 18 and over.

If the invitation says "Mr. & Mrs. Bob Smith and Family" AND also had a line about "adults only," I would assume Mr. & Mrs. Bob Smith could bring their children if their children are still primarily living at home (college notwithstanding) AND are over the age of 18.

However, technically, anyone over the age of 18 should be receiving his/her own invitation even if he/she lives w/ the parents who are also invited.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

However, technically, anyone over the age of 18 should be receiving his/her own invitation even if he/she lives w/ the parents who are also invited.

Etiquette-wise yes but I've seen it both ways. In fact the wedding of my sister-in-law's best friend was last summer. My other sister-in-law was 19 at the time and was living at home. On the invitation the sister-in-law living at home was just included on the invitation that was sent to her parents rather than a separate one.

 

[tzolkin]

Etiquette-wise yes but I've seen it both ways. In fact the wedding of my sister-in-law's best friend was last summer. My other sister-in-law was 19 at the time and was living at home. On the invitation the sister-in-law living at home was just included on the invitation that was sent to her parents rather than a separate one.

This is the way I have usually seen it done as well. When my siblings were over 18 but in college, they were usually included on my parents' invitation. Once they were "adults" living on their own, they started receiving their own separate invitations.

 

[Wendy31]

Etiquette-wise yes but I've seen it both ways. In fact the wedding of my sister-in-law's best friend was last summer. My other sister-in-law was 19 at the time and was living at home. On the invitation the sister-in-law living at home was just included on the invitation that was sent to her parents rather than a separate one.

Right, I've seen it done more times than not that way too - if the adult child is still living w/ the parents & is within the 18-25ish age range, most of the time the invitation is addressed "...and Family".

And I've also seen it where, instead of "...and Family," the adult child/ren is/are listed on a separate line (especially on the inner envelope) -

Mr. and Mrs. Bob Smith,
Miss Jane Smith, and
Mr. John Smith

But, if you go by the etiquette books, anyone over the age of 18 is supposed to receive his/her own invitation.