Excuse me Prudie, but where did Am I Rude say that she "resents" his/her friends because they have "paired up." Not all single people are resentful or jealous of their coupled friends. Furthermore, Am I Rude didn't even SAY that s/he was single!

And I don't believe that your advice was correct at all. Am I Rude wants to have a reunion-type get together with grad school friends, that frankly does not concern their current romantic partners. I think it is appauling that people believe their romantic partners are invited along everywhere just because they are their romantic partners. Women do not need escorts to leave the house anymore, so this is an absurd assumption to make. This person wants to get a group of friends together, and while s/he doesn't have a problem with anyone's romantic partners, there simply is not room for them. Your advice was to change around all of the plans just because some people have romantic partners. And why would these parnters even WANT to go to a party with a bunch of people they don't know who will all be rehashing the old days. No, I'm sorry Prudence but I found this advice terribly offensive. Am I Rude should simply email the invited guests and say "I'd like the six of us to get together for a small dinner" and make it clear that space and resources are scarce, and if necessary, let individuals know that while she'd love to have the person they're currently sleeping with as well, she simply doesn't have the space. Hopefully her friends won't be so rude as to bring along uninvited guests unannounced.

It has nothing to do with being a "singlist". The LW sounds uptight and I would guess Prudie was reading between the lines that the uptightness may be due to resentment.

It IS rude for the LW not to include spouses/partners for a sit-down dinner. Like it or not, they're a package deal and to exclude part of a couple in an invitation is insensitive and even a little weird.

Even high school or college reunions include significant others. I think they only way around this is to invite them to a girls'/guys only night, (as long as none of the grad student friends are of the opposite sex, that is!) When you do that, it makes it clear that, unless they are a gay couple, partners are not invited - without being rude, because they likely wouldn't want to be there anyway.

I guess my wife is technically "the person I'm currently sleeping with," but that characterization is awfully rude and condescending.

You're absolutely right about Prudie's bias, but don't let that prevent you from recognizing your own.

She can indeed invite whoever she wants. Sometimes it's fun to bring spouses, partners, or even casual dates; other times it's not. As a noob, she should recognize that she has options, as well as many future opportunities for parties of all stripes. And of course no one should show up uninvited and unannounced.

While I don't completely disagree with the responses, the "couples couples couples" attitude is way too 1950s for my taste -- and I'm a member of a couple.

This dilemma has two situations and two separate solutions: General socializing, and a desire specific school-oriented "reunion."

First, the "members only" reunion: This can have its role -- maybe once every few months -- but it shouldn't dominate a post-school civilian life. Otherwise, your social life will dry up and become boring -- especially when the school chums inevitably start coming less predictably. I can understand the LW being anxious about the transition, but, rest assured, most of these bonds will persist, even if you don't see *only* each other, exclusively.

Second, and more importantly: For a good, general social life, the LW needs to branch out from the old school crowd, and include both SO's and (gasp! even more importantly!) some new people.

Because the original group (and the way it's portrayed in the letter, it does sound a little cliquish) has expanded, and will continue to expand and contract, there does need to be a "more the merrier" attitude toward newcomers and a flexible attitude toward those who need to drift away and come out less often. The cocktail party is a good solution, as Prudie says.

If the LW doesn't want to be a perpetual cocktail hostess, this is clearly a case where a "third place" would be perfect (as named by the books The Great Good Place and Bowling Alone). The third place could be a restaurant or tavern with plenty of room and an informal attitude, so people can come and go, invite new friends, and so on. Maybe make it a thing for anyone who's available to stop by on, for example, Wednesday nights?

There is also a third concern, reading between the lines as Prudie did -- being intimidated by the new "coupleness" of one's friends. In my experience, the best way to get over that is to get to know the new SO's as individuals, not just as couple-halves. For extraverts, the big gathering is good, because you can mingle around and talk to everyone a little bit. For introverts, a gathering of three people -- you and the couple -- might be better, to have a nice talk and get to know the new person, with your old friend there to help make the connection.

So, while it's not so simplistic as "now we hang out as couples" -- an Ozzie and Harriet attitude would be boring for everyone, couples even more so than singles -- it is true that social lives are dynamic, not "fixed in amber."

To clarify, my major problem with Prudie's advice was that she assumed the LW was "resentful" of her friends. This assumption speaks volumes about how single people are viewed in our culture. Secondly, my point in all of this is that no one who got invited to a dinner party would assume that they could just bring their best friend or their uncle or their sister or their coworker along uninvited, but for some reason, it is ok to just bring along your romantic partner. It doesn't make a lick of sense from any standpoint. If it's ok to restrict guests from bringing non-romantically involved guests to an event that you are hosting, it's ok to restrict them to bring anyone.

I frankly do not see how Prudie's attitude is anything BUT singlist. We have to change the way these things are thought about, or no progress will ever be made.

As another single person, I think you are taking it too far. Sure, its usually no fun to be with a person that no longer sees themselves as an individual, no matter who they are bound too. But at the same time, typically people get married because you know, they like being around that person. A good friend recognizes that and attempts to include that person on a regular basis. Otherwise you are just acting like a jealous kid that doesn't want to share their toys.

Now that doesn't mean you never see somebody alone but it does mean that you choose non-couply activities on an infrequent basis and invite them to those. Then for the rest of the time respect the fact that your friend loves their spouse so surely there is something you can find to like about them as well.

Is this serious - or is this a well crafted take on the standard "prudie is a man-hater" responses we tend to see?

It doesn't "speak volumes about how single people are viewed in our culture." It's just a quirk of Prudie's. One data point.

Also, no one has stated or implied that they approve of bringing a non-invited guest. Rather, the question was, who should be invited?

Meanwhile, your use of the term "singlist" speaks volumes about the chip on your shoulder. Sorry, but I don't really see a need for "progress" here. People know how to be polite (sort of, mostly) and don't need to have their consciousness raised against "singlism."

She can invite whoever she wants. But attendance is going to be very small if she specifically bans all significant others. I'm not sure if it it's necessarily rude, but it certainly is odd. If the size of her place really is the issue, why not meet a restaurant or find someone in the group who has a bigger house? And from a practical standpoint, I don't think she'd be happy even if all the "extra" people stayed at home. She'd just become annoyed that much of the conversation was centering on how people SOs and kids were doing. Because such talk would be natural and inevitable. Not having the people at the dinner would not magically cause them to cease to exist.

Actually it's closer to the "Prudie looooves her some babies" trope.

childless < single < partnered < married

buggie:

To clarify, my major problem with Prudie's advice was that she assumed the LW was "resentful" of her friends. This assumption speaks volumes about how single people are viewed in our culture. Secondly, my point in all of this is that no one who got invited to a dinner party would assume that they could just bring their best friend or their uncle or their sister or their coworker along uninvited, but for some reason, it is ok to just bring along your romantic partner. It doesn't make a lick of sense from any standpoint. If it's ok to restrict guests from bringing non-romantically involved guests to an event that you are hosting, it's ok to restrict them to bring anyone.

I frankly do not see how Prudie's attitude is anything BUT singlist. We have to change the way these things are thought about, or no progress will ever be made.

I do want to say that, as a single person, I understand that singles often do get "dumped" by their couple friends. I also agree that there is some bias against the still single people.

That said, a single person who expects to still be able to act in the same way after a friends has married (or entered into a serious relationship) is an idiot. A spouse is not the same as an "uncle" or a "best friend" and anyone who treated their spouse that way would be disrespectful. Thus, if Single really wants to maintain a relationship with his or her coupled friends, they should probably be pouring their time into getting to know the other half. And trying to create situations where the group can evolve, rather than trying to cling to the past.

buggie:

econdly, my point in all of this is that no one who got invited to a dinner party would assume that they could just bring their best friend or their uncle or their sister or their coworker along uninvited, but for some reason, it is ok to just bring along your romantic partner.

Social conventions are often not logical. One just has to accept them and move on. Why does mens formal wear involve tying a scrap of cloth around their necks?

Buggie, reread the letter. She (don't know why, but I think female) characterizes them thusly:

"most of whom I'm not especially close to"

and "significant others who aren't significant to me"

in other words, I only wanna play with my cool friends, and not you. Don't you dare try to join my clique. Are you going to dump the women in this group when they have children?

Am I Rude, yes you are, plus you have missed the great joy of "grown up socializing" , the opportunity to meet and get to know new friends.

I don't know about boyfriends and girlfriends, but having a sit-down dinner party and inviting only one half of a married couple (or the equivalent) is really strange and kind of rude. If you want to see just your old friends, organize an informal reunion at a bar or coffeeshop or something. Have a cocktail party/game watch/movie night/whatever and invite everyone over. If you really want to have dinner parties, have half of the group at a time.

Also, if you want to stay good friends with your former buddies, you'd better be on good terms with their spouses or SOs, and snubbing them intentionally is not going to get you there. I'm cool with my husband catching up with an old friend without me, but if that old friend kept issuing invites that excluded me, I'd be less cool with it. You and your friends are growing up and your lives are changing--you need to find ways to stay connected that admit of some flexibility towards that fact.

Plus, it's a chance to expand your social circle--you might actually like some of the SOs, or they might end up introducing you to other people that you might like.