POPSUGAR Smart-living Wedding Disposable Wedding Expenses What Is the Most Disposable Wedding Expense? by Smart Living 5/25/10 0 Shares Like us on Facebook Sign up for our daily newsletter > Follow us on Pinterest Every couple has their opinion about which aspects of a wedding are budget-worthy and which can be skipped all together. Are any of these expenses disposable in your mind? Image Source: Thinkstock Read More Wedding BudgetWedding Watch Our Holiday Gift Guide Show Wedding Professional Bridesmaid Is Telling All in Her Memoir, Always a Bridesmaid (For Hire) 11 Common Bachelorette Party Blunders How to Be the Ultimate Maid of Honor Do NOT Marry Someone Until You Can Honestly Answer These 20 Questions POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests. Get Inspired With Our Living Newsletter Personalize Home Food DIY Vegetarian Love and Sex Tech Sign up with facebook or By signing up, I agree to the Terms and to receive emails from POPSUGAR. What’s Your Reaction? Thanks for your reaction Don’t forget to share this with your friends! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reactions LaurenG22 5 years It's plain rude rude rude to not have complimentary beer/wine at a wedding where there is alcohol being served. Sorry but it is a fact. Not to mention the fact that it makes you look incredibly stingy. If you are not serving it for religious reasons, personal reasons, etc. fine but do not offer a cash bar. It is just tacky. danakscully64 5 years Oh, I thought you were talking about not seeing your 2nd post before typing up my long reply to the first. I'm confused :P "In fact, took no issue with the people who said that alcohol is disposable until had to come along and call all of the people who think alcohol is not "the most disposable" expense rude." Actually I didn't call anyone rude before you started posting to me. That was in a reply specifically directed to you (not saying you were rude, but in response to something you said). I didn't say people who didn't think it was not the most disposable wedding expense rude, I said people who expect it, regardless of the financial situation or personal beliefs, were rude. Actually, you haven't, you've taken my words and twisted false meaning from them. I post something, I say something directly, and you keep talking about me IMPLYING. I never implied anything, that's making something out of nothing. ""if you're getting these things, you have no room to complain," means, "if you're not getting these things, you do have room to complain." No, it doesn't go the other way. "Although, I'm sure that's all me, too, " Actually no, it wasn't. All I said in my first post, the one you replied to at the beginning, was not everyone can provide alcohol or wants to, so it's good to see from that angle as well. Geez. I was not attacking anyone, I was just putting a different perspective out there (so maybe someone could understand the reasoning rather than writing off not having an open bar as rude). I also made a comment that I would rather the B&G put the alcohol money towards something for them (as the guest)... how is that anything other than giving? The wedding means the most to the couple, after all. lilkimbo 5 years I didn't say anything about how far apart my two replies were. Odd that you would even bother to bring that up. I said something about how far apart what comment was from yours. Saying, "You can't compare alcohol to food. Last time I checked, you won't die without alcohol," in a discussion solely about weddings is saying that you will die without food at a wedding. Obviously you meant this to be sarcastic, but you're saying it nonetheless. I was referring to people with teeny-tiny budgets when I cited the few hundred dollars, since those seem to be the people you're concerned with. Most people with extremely low budget weddings are also inviting fewer people. If a couple has a $10,000 plus budget, it completely negates your point about them spending the bare minimum on everything else. Hmmm...Gee, I wonder where I got it from. Perhaps the fact that this whole piece is about what "the most disposable expense" is and you specifically stated, "It's rude of the guests to expect it [alcohol]." You're right, though, I totally pulled that one out of thin air. :oy: It's not "all me." I've supported what I've said with direct quotes from you! Did I somehow go back in and change your comments! I love when people won't take accountability for what they said. Again, you're not taking accountability for things! You're right, you did not directly state that (God, this feels like a conversation with my 8-year-old nephew!), but, why mention those things at all? It's logically follows that "if you're getting these things, you have no room to complain," means, "if you're not getting these things, you do have room to complain." If it doesn't follow, why bother mentioning those things at all. You're painting me in a bad light with your sensationalism. Gee, talking about people dying and saying things about being religiously insensitive doesn't paint people who disagree with you in a bad light at all! (Of course, neither does saying, "nothing is ever good enough for people." Although, I'm sure that's all me, too, and not something you said, even though it's a direct quote from one of your comments! Anyway, I really am done now; there is just no point in continuing this discussion and I don't come on here on the weekends anyway. danakscully64 5 years Your 2 posts were more than 20 minutes apart, I had started typing up my reply after seeing the first, the 2nd hadn't been posted. And actually I think Sugar is malfunctioning because I just got messages in my inbox that were posted 2 hours ago. I'm not saying people will die if they don't eat during the reception :P Just saying it's a need and not a want. I absolutely agree a later party would be better for saving money. Absolutely agree. That was my fault, I didn't specify lunch or dinner time weddings :) That would absolutely be a great way to budget in alcohol, skip the meal. I've spent hours and hours looking at wedding stuff online. I have no idea where I've seen the comments, but they are around (mostly in comment fields on articles). I've read people say things like "That might be your religion, but that's not mine and you're being rude by not buying alcohol for your guests." I know you don't feel that way, but there are people who do. I understand your point about the wedding being too much of a financial burden to delay it, but I truly don't see an open bar of any type being a few hundred dollars. Plus, if the B&G's budget is only 2-4k, even $300 makes a big difference. For a larger budget wedding (10k+), I would say a couple thousand would probably be more accurate. The average cost for a bartender service at a wedding reception is about $2,800. Limiting it to beer/wine can bring it down, but not that much (according to a site online, $11-33 per person for four hours). Depending on the location too (as you know). Some places have food/alcohol/non-alcoholic drink packages that make it affordable too, so that would be fine for a couple who would be happy with an open bar. I NEVER said people who think that alcohol is not "the most disposable" expense are rude. Wow, where did you pull that one from? I wasn't implying anything, that was all you. Once again, you're taking what I said and flipping it around. I NEVER said you DID have room to complain if you're being provided all of those, but those are typically provided anyway (they were examples). If you're already getting entertainment and food, it's a little rude to complain about not having more. I think it's rude to not provide guests with shelter, food, and beverages (non-alcohol, alcoholic, whatever the B&G wants). I don't see it as rude to not serve alcohol. We differ, that's just fine. I don't see how I'm painting you in such a bad light. lilkimbo 5 years :oy: I guess I couldn't stay away! (Odd that you didn't see my post an hour after it was posted; I wonder if Sugar is malfunctioning again today.) My point is that the bride and groom are the ones thinking, "me, me, me." I tried to word it by saying that the bride is thinking it's "her day," but you took issue with that wording, as well! I guess I can't win with you! You could have a reception at a later hour (say, 8:00-11:00), by which point people will have already eaten dinner. The point about dying is silly and obviously meant to sensationalize, as people won't die from not eating for a few hours, even if it is during dinner time, so I'll say that the low blood sugar point is valid, but having a later reception would solve this problem. (To be clear, I'm not saying people should do this, but it puts food and alcohol on the same plane as things that are not necessary to ensure the health of the guests.) It actually seems you are changing your stance again, as you are back to stating that it's OK for people to expect food! I misread your statement about where you had read the comments, but I'd still love for you to point one out for me (I'm not sure why the fact that they were on other sites impedes your ability to do so.) Ha ha. You are so great at sensationalizing things! (I am no longer trying not to be rude, as I don't believe you honestly are, either.) I'm not saying that the bride and groom should change their plans, I'm saying that maybe, if having a wedding is going to be so horribly costly for them in such a way that it will negatively impact their lives to spend a few hundred dollars on alcohol, it would be in their best interest to not have a large reception. I don't have a whole "the bride and groom should do everything in their power to make sure there is alcohol there" attitude. In fact, took no issue with the people who said that alcohol is disposable until had to come along and call all of the people who think alcohol is not "the most disposable" expense rude. It seems you have strayed so far from what this post is about, which is what the most disposable expense is. I'm mad at myself for letting you use this tactic to get me off the original topic as well; I should have known better. Again, since it is about the most disposable expense, it is obviously implied that the couple is choosing to spend money on other things, not that their budget is so extremely tight that there's no way they could possibly afford alcohol. Providing only beer and wine is in no way analogous to providing seating for only half of your guests because the beer and wine would be provided to everyone, some people would just choose not to partake. And not consuming something because you don't like it still means that you are choosing not to consume it. I didn't say that you directly stated I was a moron. When you state obvious facts "weddings are expensive!" as if the person to whom you are talking didn't know them, you are in fact implying that that person is ignorant of basic facts. I do agree that some people are more likely to drink more when it's free, but, in the case of raging alcoholics who are likely to cause a scene, which seems to be your big concern, they will get drunk regardless of whether they have to pay or not. Again, I'd love to know where you read that online, since I've never heard of that before. In comment #16 you stated, "If you're being fed (meal, dessert, and non-alcoholic drinks), are provided with a dance floor and music, and you have people to talk to, then there really isn't too much room to complain," directly implying that if you're not being provided with one or more of those things, you do have room to complain. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money. For me, alcohol is not "the most" disposable expense. But, if someone absolutely cannot find the money in their budget, I understand that. However, that's not what this original post and thread was about. It was about which expense should be disposed of first, a fact which your posts seem to have ignored. The analogy about a child's birthday party is extremely weak as a birthday party for a kid is nothing like a wedding. Now I'm mad at myself for coming back to check this thread! I just can't not respond when someone paints me in such a bad light! danakscully64 5 years I'm sorry if what I'm saying is coming off as rude, I wasn't trying to be rude at all. I felt the same way about your posts. I didn't make the last post to have the last word, I didn't see it until after. The open bar vs cash bar vs no bar debate goes on and on, people have their stance and stick firmly to that. danakscully64 5 years I'm speaking as the guest, I would rather the couple get more of what they want than pay $7 for my drink. That has nothing to do with "me, me, me." That's actually the opposite, that's thinking of someone else. I know a lot of other people who feel the same way, they wouldn't mind buying their own alcohol or none at all so the couple could stay in their budget and get the extras they want (I think every couple should have a honeymoon. This is coming as the friend of the bride, the sister, the cousin, whatever). If you're keeping your guests there for a few hours, it's rude not to feed them as people will be hungry. Alcohol? Optional. Dessert? Optional. You can't compare alcohol to food, last time I checked you won't die without alcohol or suffer from a drop in blood sugar/get a headache. I'm not changing my stance. As a guest, I don't partake in the dining typically, but I don't think it's insane to expect to be fed if it's a long event (in general). Food and alcohol are not on the same level. I didn't say the comments I read on the matter were here, I'm talking about other sites as well. Now you're basically saying the B&G should change their plans so alcohol can be in the wedding? You might think it's better, but that's not always an option. You may have parents who insist on doing it a certain way, your spouse might be in the military and being deployed, or maybe the couple has already saved up for years to get what they have. I just don't care for the whole "the B&G should do everything in their power to make sure there is alcohol there" attitude. It's not a choice to like or not like beer/wine. It wouldn't matter what the topic is, if you only provided something for half of the guests, that's rude. Whether it be meals, party favors, seating, whatever. If you know half of your guests don't drink beer and wine, but enjoy mixed drinks and you choose to only provide for half, that's rude. I never said you were a moron, your posts keep implying that I'm calling you names when I'm not. It comes back around to having people on your guest list who could get out of control. Yes, you can watch someone, but why chance a scene at your wedding between a drunk uncle and your father trying to keep him away from the bar? Why put the extra stress on a guest trying to enjoy the wedding? People are more likely to drink more when it's free. I've read online that with a cash bar, the venue is liable since they're techinically the ones hosting it. Can you show me the quote where I said I expected dessert and music? I'm not finding that. I did say that if guests are getting that already, complaining about not getting alcohol too is ridiculous. They CHOOSE to spend the money they want to at the wedding, but you're also trying to tell them how to spend the money. The manners of guests have gone at the window, everyone is complaining about something. That would be like going to a kid's birthday party and complaining that there is no jumper or clown. Nothing is ever good enough for people. lilkimbo 5 years Anyway, we are never going to agree on this. I'm not trying to be rude and I'm sure you're not either, but I'm sure a lot of what I'm saying is coming off that way and I know a lot of what you're saying is. So, I'm unsubscribing from this thread; it's just not worth it. Feel free to have the last word and have a great day! lilkimbo 5 years I stated it was an assumption and wrong that people are expecting it as "a freebie," not that people are expecting it, considering that attending a wedding is far from free! You specifically stated that you would rather the bride and groom spend money on something else (a photographer, etc.) than on an open bar that many guests could enjoy, in which case they could afford it, they are just choosing not to. My comment was in response to that, so, yes, it is, "me, me, me." Apparently mentioning something a few times means that I "keep going on" about it. What a strange standard! I guess you "keep going on" about how you expect food and dessert at weddings, seeing as you mentioned it once! Again, you have stated several times (so I guess you "keep going on about") that the couple should do what they choose and spend the money on things that are primarily for them, rather than on things that are for the guests. I just worded it differently by mentioning the thought that some brides think it's their day twice. I specifically stated that I don't expect to "recoup costs" when I go to a wedding either. My point in bringing up the costs was that to imply that anything consumed at weddings is not in fact a "freebie." Oddly, you did just state that you expect food and dessert at weddings, so I guess you're retracting that now? It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who keeps changing her stance on things! I've read a lot of comments on here, too, and I've yet to see one that states that alcohol should be served even if the couple has a religious reason for not doing so. I'd love to have you point one out to me! Again, I'll say that my thought on cutting out the costs from other places was based on your comment that you'd rather see the couple spend money on a honeymoon, a dress, etc. It was awhile ago that you made the comment, maybe you'd forgotten what you said? I already addressed your point about if the wedding is paid for by someone else; I think those people should be even more able to provide a couple of hours of beer and wine! If people's budgets are that tight, I think it's better to choose to opt out of having a reception and maybe wait a year or two until money is a little better. Or, to have an informal backyard reception or a brunch reception. Drinking only mixed drinks rather than beer and wine is a choice. But, since you don't think it's rude to not provide alcohol, I fail to see why you think it would be "even more rude" to provide the same alcohol to everyone. Those people can choose to drink beer and wine if they would like alcohol. (Also, "even more rude" implies that there is a level of rudeness in not offering it at all, which is a position you seem to adamantly disagree with, so I'm not sure why you choose that wording.) You say just not to attend the wedding, but in your previous comment, you pointed out that there are some people who you can't not invite to your wedding. Along the same vein, there are some weddings you can't not attend. And, believe it or not, I'm not a moron and I do realize that the couple might be liable if a guest drives home drunk. I'm not sure why you would assume I didn't realize that. However, as I have stated many times, I find it extremely difficult to believe that there will be multiple guests who will get that out of control and I think the few people who must be invited who would have the possibility of getting out of controlled can be carefully watched. Again, the liability could also happen with a cash bar, so this isn't something that would be solved by having a cash bar and not an open bar. If someone is that in to drinking that he or she is willing to drive home drunk, I'm guessing that person is also into drinking to the extent that he or she doesn't mind spending money on alcohol. I've never run into a location that requires additional insurance or security when there is an open bar and have worked pretty extensively in insurance in the past and, again, have never run into this. I've also planned sorority and fraternity formals and they insurance costs and security have been the same whether there's an open bar or not. I too have talked to a lot of brides online (in helping plan friends' weddings) and a few of them have run into one or two places that charge per drink, but not one of them has been unable to find a place that doesn't. Obviously they charge per hour per number of adults attending; I thought common sense would dictate that they charge based on the number of people there, so I didn't need to state it. Since you think it's so easy to find places that charge per drink, if only 10% of a couple's guests will be drinking, I guess they can pretty easily find one of those places and save themselves a ton of money! You just said in an earlier comment that you do expect food, dessert, and music at a wedding. I'll state again (or, as you say, "keep going on about;) that there's no point in trying to discuss this with you if you keep changing your positions. What? Weddings aren't cheap. Good thing I have you here to tell me that; I never would have known that on my own! Duh, I know people are paying $10,000+ to have a wedding, which is a choice. If you don't have the money, don't have a reception, do a simple ceremony with family only! What a novel idea! Again, I'll state (or "keep going on about") that I have no problem paying a lot to attend a wedding and all of the pre-events. And, obviously, a couple is spending a lot on their wedding, but it's because they choose to. You're right, it's hard, if not impossible to please everyone. But, spending money on the honeymoon (like you suggested earlier) is obviously not something that is done in an attempt to please anyone other than the bride and groom. Some brides and grooms think that spending on themselves in more important than spending on celebrating with their friends. It's just a different point of view that I don't subscribe to. danakscully64 5 years It's not an assumption, you have made it very clear that guests expect there to be free alcohol at a wedding. It's nice that you have $300+ to even spend on wedding gifts and travel, not everyone has that kind of money. Many people these days throwing a wedding don't have money for alcohol. If a couple has the money, are fine with an open bar, but are just being cheap, that's a totally different story. I just think it's insane to expect it, not considering different circumstances. If someone can't afford something, it has NOTHING to do with "me, me, me." You keep going on about the "bride's day," I haven't said anything about that. When I attend a wedding, I don't expect to get my money's worth out of it. I don't go in saying "Wow, I bought them a $200 gift, I should get food, alcohol, dessert, and music for that." Actually, I have read a lot of comments online and some people DO believe EVERYONE should serve alcohol, regardless of their religious beliefs. Seriously. What if the brides dress was only $100 or they're not going on a honeymoon? Or maybe their photographer was a gift. It's not always easy to pull $500-5k out of a tight budget, especially when the wedding is paid for by someone else and they have say in what is served. You also have to remember that by serving beer and wine only, you may be singling out some people. A lot of people I know only drink mixed drinks, so you're giving alcohol to only half of the crowd, that's even more rude. If I were to get married, I would do all or nothing. I agree, I don't like the "me, me, me" attitude, I just don't see it here. I think it gets to a point where the guest demands get ridiculous though. I don't like when people tell others how to spend their money. If you really disagree with how their money is being spent, just don't attend the wedding. One thing you're not realizing is the B&G might be liable if they have an open bar and a guest drives home drunk (depending on the location). Some locations require security and insurance as well, so it's typically more than just the bar tab. I'm not planning a wedding, but I've talked to a lot of brides online who said the venues they found charged per drink (and I've heard of bartenders scamming by charging for extra drinks or doubles when they were singles). Or they charged per person, even if 90% of the guest list didn't drink. An open bar is nice if the couple can afford it and wants it. I don't expect dessert at all, I never touch the cake and most of the time, I don't eat at a wedding either. But if as a guest, you're already getting a lot, it's a bit much to expect alcohol too. Weddings are not cheap. You may be paying $300-700 to attend a wedding, but they're paying $10,000+ (typically more). I just talked to someone online whose FH was told her one of his coworkers who is invited to the wedding didn't want to go to the bridal shower or ceremony, just the reception. Those are the type who are just going for the freebies, I would have no problem taking her off the guest list. Wedding planning is hard, time consuming, and you have people at all angles telling you what to do. I think it's hard to please everyone so the couple should do what they can. lilkimbo 5 years Ha ha. Your comment makes me laugh and roll my eyes at the same time. Your insinuation that people who think they should be served a glass or two of wine at a wedding "expect freebies" is an assumption and very wrong. I can't remember the last time I spent less than $300 on an in-town wedding ($25 engagement gift, $75 shower gift, $200 cash/wedding gift). Of course, like I said, that's in town. Add on plane fare ($200), hotel ($200) and costs of getting around town (anywhere from $25-$150, depending on whether I will take public transportation, cabs, or have to rent a car) for an out-of-wedding, and the cost skyrockets to $725, minimum. Of course, if it's someone I'm close to, there's the $200 or so spent on the bachelorette party, which doesn't include the $500 or so to get to the bachelorette party (and spend the night) if it's out of town. Then, if it's a best friend and out of town, there's the $500 or so for travel and lodging for the shower (and possibly another $500 for travel and lodging for the engagement party). I've spend upwards of $1500 on several weddings that I haven't even been in. It's laughable to suggest that anything consumed at a wedding, be it food or alcohol, is a "freebie." (Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to spend the money in order to celebrate with friends. But, I'd be less happy to spend for a friend with a, "me, me, me" attitude.) I fail to see how it's rude to think people will follow what has become a cultural norm, but, then again, I don't subscribe to the all-to-common (in my opinion) attitude that a sense of normal decorum can be thrown out the window when it comes it a wedding because "it's the bride's day." Who knew that someone could own an entire day?!?! Obviously I didn't articulate my point about the debating tactic clearly. I apologize for that. What I meant was that lumping religious reasons in with cash reasons is a debating tactic. No reasonable person would suggest that someone with a religious aversion to alcohol should provide it free-of-charge (or at all, really) at their wedding. However, many reasonable people would (and have on this very thread) suggest that maybe someone could cut $100 out of their flower budget, $100 out of their dress budget, $100 out of their honeymoon budget, $100 out of their photography budget, and, voila, have enough to serve beer and wine. Since when did weddings become so "me, me, me" focused? That's actually one of my biggest pet peeves about the entire wedding industry in the U.S. (and maybe around the world; I don't have a ton of knowledge regarding what weddings are like in other countries). Many brides (and some grooms) think that because they are getting married and it is "their day," they have the right to think only of themselves. I understand that you can't always cut people from the guest list (although, I would say, a best man is definitely someone with whom you (the groom) choose to be friends). What I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that that many people have that many relatives who can't handle their alcohol. If it's a concern regarding one or two people, it should be relatively easy to find someone else willing to help monitor the alcohol intake of those one or two people. I know we've discussed the issue of people racking up huge individual tabs before, and I don't understand at all where you're coming from on that. I've been a maid of honor six times (yes, even though I'm apparently a horribly selfish, entitled person, I have a lot of very close friends). Every wedding has been in a different area of the country and, in every case, every venue we looked at didn't charge per drink; they charged a set fee for an open bar for x number of hours (and a lower fee for a beer/wine open bar for x number of hours). I don't doubt your claim that there are places that charge per drink, but I can't imagine it would be extremely difficult to find a place that charges a set fee. If one's parents are paying for the entire wedding and don't want to pick up the tab for the bar, I would find it even more rude that the couple wasn't willing to ante up and pay for a couple of hours of beer and wine; they aren't even incurring any other wedding expenses! (Not that I have anything wrong with people's parents for weddings; if someone's parents want to pay, all the more power to them!) You say you think it's best to just let people do what they want; obviously no one here is advocating not letting people not have alcohol. I'm not even sure how you could "not let" someone do that. Although, apparently you think it's best to let people do what they want as long as that includes the things you find necessary (meal, dessert, drinks, music). You expect dessert and it's not something everyone does, apparently you think you're expecting a freebie! No one is saying they are going to a wedding solely for the alcohol; it's silly to suggest so. My last statement wasn't about you, it was about people in general. In fact, I can think of some people I casually know to whom it applies, so it's neither an assumption nor wrong. Also, I'd be curious to hear a logical reason for having a cash bar but not an open bar that doesn't include a monetary reason. danakscully64 5 years See, I don't think it's ever selfish to not serve guests alcohol. I think it's rude of the guests to expect it, especially considering the cost. As a guest at a wedding, I am there to support the couple, not drink. If there's alcohol there, that's fine, but I'm not going to judge the couple if they don't put money into a bar. Guests have become so demanding. I don't associate with people who expect freebies. It's not a debating tactic, it's stating a fact that not everyone can afford an open bar tab. Not everyone believes in providing free flowing alcohol. Since when did weddings become so alcohol focused? You can't always cut people from the guest list who couldn't handle their alcohol. You might have resistance from others if it's your other father, a brother, uncles, a grandfather, the best man, even your own Mom. You also might have friends who are still in their partying phase who will each rack up $100 on your tab. Or your parents who don't drink might be paying for your wedding and don't want their money to be spent on it. People have their reasons, I think it's best to just let people do what they want for their wedding. If you're being fed (meal, dessert, and non-alcoholic drinks), are provided with a dance floor and music, and you have people to talk to, then there really isn't too much room to complain. If a guest is going to someones wedding for the alcohol, then they're going for the wrong reasons. Your last statement is an assumption and very wrong. lilkimbo 5 years The thing is, the first few reasons you mentioned (religious beliefs, lost family members, etc.) are vastly different than not having enough money. I've always been of the mind that the wedding itself is for the couple and the reception is for the guests. Unless it's something like religious beliefs, I think it's selfish to not serve alcohol. If a couple is OK with that and thinks the reception is just for them and not the guests, I guess that's just the way they are. Thankfully, I don't typically associated with these kinds of people. I also think lumping religious beliefs in with not having enough money is an attempt to paint people who think alcohol is not a disposable attempt in a bad light ("You are all religiously insensitive jerks.") and a horrible debating tactic. And, I can't believe that many people would associate with and want at their wedding those who can't handle their alcohol to the extent that they are honestly afraid fights will break out and the cops will need to be called. To me, this is another cop out given by people who simply don't want to fork over the cash for alcohol. (Also, the cash bar invalidates all of the reasons you stated other than money and most people are OK with a cash bar, so it shows me that money is the real dealbreaker and the other reasons are brought up simply to paint people with differing opinions in a bad light.) danakscully64 5 years I don't think serving alcohol is part of being a good hostess. A couple may have religious or personal beliefs against it, have family members who are recovering or current alcoholics, have lost family members or friends to alcohol related deaths (drunk driver, liver failure, whatever), not have the money, and so on. A couple may even fear that the people they invite will become drunk and cause problems (maybe the police being called, dancing on the tables, getting into fights). Or that one of their guests will be involved in an accident on the way home from the wedding and feel guilt. Alcohol is a drug. I'm not anti-booze, but I don't think it's necessary for a celebration. It might be fun and if I went to a wedding, I would probably get 1 drink, but I would never judge the host for not having any alcohol or even having a cash bar. I would much rather the B&G put the money towards more photographs, their honeymoon, a nicer venue, a better dinner, a nicer dress for the bride, or something like that. The only good party favor is food :) reynolda 5 years The only pervasive complaints I've ever heard from people - men and women - about weddings involved alcohol (there not being any or the bar being cash), the food/cake, and the music. Thus, things like favors or even your floral arrangements will just not matter much to guests. I think I'll probably drop cash on the bar and the food for them, and the dress for me since I don't want to regret my dress choice down the road. The "rest" can be done on a budget and made to look nice, but for me won't be a cash priority. LiliesandBiscuits 5 years I'm surprised at the number of people who say alcohol. To me offering alcohol (even if it's just beer and wine) is part of being a good hostess. Favors, though, I think are pointless. I love cake, so I couldn't vote that one :) danakscully64 5 years Alcohol and Favors, they're about equal. It depends on the favor, although 99% of the time they end up in the trash. jules0701 5 years Favors and cake. Two things I never remember at weddings. I have been to 10 weddings in the last year and I can honestly tell you that i do not recall one favor or cake that i thought was worth the money spent. never never skimp on the bar. Wedding no no. runningesq 5 years Oh dear god - not alcohol ! Beer and wine are fine options, and are less expensive than a full open bar. Please don't make your guests pay for drinks. I think you can get rid of the favors -- no one really seems to care and they often get left. Oh, and don't skip the hors d'vours ! I am HUNGRY after a wedding and I need a snack before dinner :P Kristensaurus 5 years I just wanted to say how much I love those bent spoon hors dourves servers. Very interesting. Spectra 5 years You can make cute and cheap favors for your guests without dropping a lot of money on them. The pre-made ones are usually extremely pricey and you can probably skip those. I personally think an open bar is a huge waste of money--you can provide beer and/or wine for those that want to drink and offer a cash bar for anyone that wants hard liquor or bottled beers. lickety-split 5 years Disposable cameras on the tables. onlysourcherry 5 years Wedding favors are so stupid. he first wedding I went to I was like "why are there little bags of almonds?" and now, many weddings later, I still feel that way!