Am I totally crazy, or did Prudie sound extremely rude and off the mark towards LW3? Unless I completely misread the post correctly, the LW was simply asking how to politely ask for her immediate friends to attend her dinner, and not their spouses due to seating restrictions.

I was completely surprised to read Prudie's response telling her to get over her hatred of the fact that her friends now have significant others. Where did that come from??

What a terrible thing to say to someone, who was only asking a simple seating question. It seemed more like Prudie had some unresolved issues of her own (a bad experience maybe?) that had leaked out into her response. Shame on her!

(Though the cocktail party advice instead of dinner did sound like a good compromise.)

wow, I totally agree with you. My mouth was hanging open! Where did she get all that resentment stuff? I re-read the letter a couple of time, and it seems that (not for the first time ever, ahem), Ms. Prude just had some bile to cough up and took it out on a LW. Very, very unprofessional and I think she owes the LW an apology.

Sometimes I wonder if the entire letter is not there when I don't understand Prudie's response/reaction. I think she read into the fact that the hostess was single still and the others had spouses so must have a "chip" if she didn't want the spouses included. If she wants to have the friends over to her place specifically I feel that the stand-up cocktail party idea was a good one!! Otherwise the location may have to be changed to accomodate everyone.

What irked me a bit about it is that the LW's concern seemed to be only for herself/himself. Whether s/he likes it or not, these people are currently part of his or her so-called friends' lives now- however, all I heard from him or her is that the "others" don't matter to him/her, s/he doesn't want them in his or her home.

Look, I'm not an extroverted person and I tend to be cold and unsympathetic at worst and brusque at best. However, even I realize that some of my friends have significant others, children, etc.- whether or not I like them or even "approve" of these partners, kids, etc. is a moot point. Friendship isn't all about me, me, me- it's about me, you, me, you.

If the LW's concern truly is space, there are ways around it but, somehow, I get the tone that space isn't the real issue at hand. Instead, I get a cliqueish "no noobs" (ironically, even though s/he is a noob) feeling. Most people find ways to deal when their companions enter different stages of life. The LW needs to either figure out how to do things the "grown-up" way or not adjust and find other people with similar values to spend his or her time with.

Red Dobe:

What irked me a bit about it is that the LW's concern seemed to be only for herself/himself. Whether s/he likes it or not, these people are currently part of his or her so-called friends' lives now- however, all I heard from him or her is that the "others" don't matter to him/her, s/he doesn't want them in his or her home.

Amen. It was an odd letter and I think a lot of the people railing against Prudie's response missed a key component: These are people who now rarely see each other. So, it's not like the LW is going to see Bill's wife next week at some other party...she flat out has zero interest in meeting her ever. Imagine if somebody you haven't seen in a couple years invited you to a dinner party and specifically noted your spouse wasn't invited. You'd find that odd no matter how small their place was.

Now, if these people had remained in touch, I could maybe see having an event with just the old friends, but that's not the case. The LW seems to want to relive the good old days and pretend nothing has changed. But things have changed and she's no longer even in regular contact with these people.

Prudie "got all the resentment stuff" because she's having to explain to the clueless LW a rule of etiquette so basic that she should have learned it long before graduate school. The dinner party LW has in mind is not a business function to which it's acceptable to invite the employees and not their SOs. For the kind of event LW is contemplating, you don't invite half of a married, engaged, or involved couple and specifically disinvite the other half. Simple as that.

The LW said in the last line that LW's friends' significant others were not significant. I think that's where Prudie was feeling the hostility. I think that if you care about people, and those people are in serious relationships, then you at least care enough not to be rude about the other people in their lives. This person does seem socially stunted. But if he/she wants to see all the old friends without SOs then another kind of gathering is needed. Like lunch.

I thought that Prudie was not that off base about the dinner guests. First of all LW hadn't been out of graduate school very long, and her friends have wives or significant others. This implies that some of them she has also known since graduate school. That person who has been around the group for awhile may feel left out.

My husband and I and our social circle are also motly in our mid/late 20s - a couple years out of grad school or so. We have a dining table that will at most accommodate 6.

Solution 1) cocktail/buffet party. We made a big pot of sangria and kept the pitcher going. Put out finger foods..some cheeses, shrimp cocktail, wings, chips/vaggies with dip...people can then move around and talk. Its not formal and better for socializing and good way for people to catch up. Guests can also bring something to the party.

2) Have a "girls night" or "guys night" out..that way no significant others come and you ladies can gossip and be girlie. But notice the night OUT bit..do not invite people to your home and tell them to leave their better half at home.

3) Have a dinner for 2 couples...6 people is perfect for having a conversation..its hard for people to talk to each other if you are sitting 10+ at a table.

Remember most people that are really your friends do not want to go to anything too formal in the first place..they just want to laugh, drink, catch up and have a good time.

It's not true that she (I'm saying "she" somewhat arbitrarily to avoid "he/she" every time) said she didn't want to meet them ever. What she said was that she didn't want to have to *exclude* some of the people she knows well in order to make room for people she doesn't know at all. It was clear to me that if there was space, she'd be happy to have everyone. And she didn't miss the etiquette rule at all; it's not as if she disinvited the spouses and is shocked that anyone is unhappy with her. She understands that normally, you'd be expected to invite spouses. She understands the issue. She simply wanted to know -- because asking a question is supposed to be what advice columns are for -- whether there's a way, when space is limited, to invite people without also entertaining their spouses and significant others you've never met. She wants to know whether, when it's her home, she has the right to make her own guest list based on the people she most wants to invite. It's not exactly a crazy theory.

It's a perfectly normal, functional question that shows a perfectly normal grasp of the social issues involved. I agree that the answer is "probably not," but concluding that she's some kind of socially stunted weirdo because she would rather invite ten people she knows than five people she knows and five people she doesn't know strikes me as a little much. I'm not sure why the question couldn't have simply been answered "Unfortunately for people with small spaces, most people expect their spouses to be included in this kind of invitation, so you will probably want to find something that can accommodate everyone." I'm not sure why the gratuitous snotty comment about resenting people for being married was necessary.

to overwrite in her replies.

I don't think your graduate degree is in biology, because then you might have absorbed the lesson that all life forms move through stages of development, and no stage lasts forever.

is she serious?

Look, I may be brash, even incomprehensible, but I sure as fuck wouldn't compare friendship to amber.

For the a map to some alternative answers, send me a note to onemessylady.gmail.com

alisonjane33:

It's not true that she (I'm saying "she" somewhat arbitrarily to avoid "he/she" every time) said she didn't want to meet them ever.

I don't read it that way. She makes it clear they're not in regular contact any more, meaning this is sort of a reunion. These significant others are people she's likely never met before and probably won't be meeting anytime soon. Plus, she flat out says they're not important to her.

alisonjane33:

It's a perfectly normal, functional question that shows a perfectly normal grasp of the social issues involved.

To which the perfectly normal, functional answers are A) Cutting it from her 10 best friends down to 5 to accommade the significant others, B) Making it an open house sort of event where seating wouldn't be an issue, or C) Holding it at a restaurant. I'd think anybody who really was concerned with having a fun and successful gathering would come up with these without outside help. Instead, she's locked in on it being a sit-down dinner party at her too-small place that's going to be awkward for everybody.

Nasochkas:

Solution 1) cocktail/buffet party. We made a big pot of sangria and kept the pitcher going. Put out finger foods..some cheeses, shrimp cocktail, wings, chips/vaggies with dip...people can then move around and talk. Its not formal and better for socializing and good way for people to catch up. Guests can also bring something to the party.

Mmmmm. I'll have some of the vaggies, please!