PhysicsGirl:

There is a big difference between social conventions that keep a group of people from being treated properly and social conventions that have no deeper impact. The dinner parties versus other types of parties thing is sort of like debating about why a person shouldn't wear white socks with dress shoes. If you don't want to deal with your friend's SOs, don't have a dinner party.

Who says this has no deeper impact? The fact of the matter is that different rules apply to single people than to couple people, whether they be etiquette rules or tax laws. There's no rule that says that if you are inviting a single person to a dinner party you have to invite them to bring along a friend or relative as well, so why is there a rule about coupled people? It's putting more importance on romantic relationships over other relationships. Furthermore, it sets the two groups apart, one with privilege over another. Also, the suggestions that the LW split up the dinner party or rearrange the purpose of the event suggest that upholding the rules of coupledom trump the friendships that are already in place. Not right.

And I am still completely confused as to why a "dinner party" is so special. The LW should change the title to "having my friends over to eat" and avoid all of this.

PhysicsGirl:

Well, there is one other reason and that is generally people who are in a couple like to include their SO to events where it is proper to bring that SO.

First of all, I hate this term SO. It implies that no one else in the person's life is significant. So what if they like to do that? They probably like to go to some events alone too. Besides, maybe I would like to bring my mother to something. Am I to assume that because I "want" to bring her she is invited to every event? What is the "rule" for bringing non romantic significant others to events?

PhysicsGirl:

What does that have to do with anything? Sure, people don't marry at 20 and stay married to the same person their whole lives. But people generally do pair up, even if it is temporarily, and like to include their SO.

I wasn't talking about ozzie and harriet in terms of marriage, I was talking about it in terms of people's relationships with everyone around them and social norms in place. And see above- I don't see why people "wanting" to bring their partner has anything to do with this. And I'm sorry, but they, and their partners, are more likely to NOT want to bring them in the LW's situation.

PhysicsGirl:

As long as people have sex drives, they'll find romantic partners. As long as that happens, they'll want to bring their partners around. You are essentially trying to swim upstream with respect to this issue. (And it has absolutely nothing to do with status.)

Yes, I know I am trying to swim upstream, and I think it is a GD worthy cause to swim upstream against. This statement you make is absurd: what does sex have to do with a social obligation to invite the people your friends are having sex with to a dinner party? Are they going to have sex at the table? You're whole argument here is based on the assumption that everyone who has a romantic partner, wants to take them along everywhere, even if the situation has nothing to do with them, AND that no one would want to bring anyone besides a romantic partner along to anything, AND that even if someone is so petty and dependent that they can't leave the house without their romantic partner and/or is offended that they are not invited to something that again, they have nothing to do with, then their wishes should upheld just because we are talking about romantic partners, and it's "social convention."

It's total BS.