Does "no presents" really mean that?

[D&K Condron]

I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents, but
a dish of something yummy to share instead.

Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a gift.
Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to be
the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.

What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
done?

Kat

[just me]

"D&K Condron" > wrote in message
...
> I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents,
but
> a dish of something yummy to share instead.
>
> Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a
gift.
> Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to be
> the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.
>
> What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
> done?
>


It means no presents, but some people just can't believe that people mean
that. We just attended a big big 50th wedding anniversary party. The
honorees had specified "no presents". I overheard one complain to the other
as someone left a gift on a table for them that now they knew which of their
friends couldn't read. They really meant it. Any other event I've been to
where the invitation had specified "no presents" also meant it. Maybe Miss
Manners has a suggestion on how to gift someone even if they said that on an
invitation, but I haven't read that particular column.

-Aula


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/03

[Cathy Kearns]

Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
be considered rude.

However, it you really want to get out of getting presents, I've found
throwing a "summer pool party" or having a few friends over for a
sleep over, without mentioning the words "birthday", "graduation",
"anniversary", or "wedding" often will do the trick.

"just me" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "D&K Condron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents,
> but
> > a dish of something yummy to share instead.
> >
> > Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a
> gift.
> > Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to
be
> > the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.
> >
> > What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
> > done?
> >
>
>
> It means no presents, but some people just can't believe that people mean
> that. We just attended a big big 50th wedding anniversary party. The
> honorees had specified "no presents". I overheard one complain to the
other
> as someone left a gift on a table for them that now they knew which of
their
> friends couldn't read. They really meant it. Any other event I've been
to
> where the invitation had specified "no presents" also meant it. Maybe
Miss
> Manners has a suggestion on how to gift someone even if they said that on
an
> invitation, but I haven't read that particular column.
>
> -Aula
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/03
>

[Penny Gaines]

D&K Condron wrote in >:

> I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents,
> but a dish of something yummy to share instead.
>
> Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a
> gift.
> Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to be
> the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.
>
> What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
> done?

I wouldn't have taken a present either. Well, I might have done, but only
if I'd have given a present if there wasn't a party.

Did the other mums bring some food?

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Chris Smith]

Cathy Kearns wrote:
> Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
> and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
> by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
> intentioned, is rude.

Really? Seems to me that whatever "should" be expected, presents ARE
expected. It's certainly NOT going to work for those persons who want
to avoid presents to just not mention anything and assume that people
won't bring gifts. I'm curious what you think the polite way would be
to handle this situation.

I'm assuming that it's already been decided that the child should not
receive gifts from everyone. There are very good reasons for such a
decision. The "just let people bring gifts and be polite about it"
approach may work for adults who are celebrating a wedding anniversary,
but it does NOT work for young children who learn very questionable
values when their special days are all marked with blatant consumerism,
materialism, and piles of flashy toys -- half of which they will then
forget about the very next day.

I can only say that I would *never* feel offended in any way to receive
an invitation that specified "no presents".

> However, it you really want to get out of getting presents, I've found
> throwing a "summer pool party" or having a few friends over for a
> sleep over, without mentioning the words "birthday", "graduation",
> "anniversary", or "wedding" often will do the trick.

Then it's not really a birthday party, is it? It's just any old normal
playdate.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[Brian Edmonds]

Chris Smith > writes, regarding how one can politely (a
la Miss Manners) request no presents at a party:
> I'm curious what you think the polite way would be to handle this
> situation.

I'd be tempted to write a small essay myself, but I tend to be wierd.

Dear <Shmoo>,

I would be very pleased if you and your <mugwump, parent of choice>
would attend my birthday party. It will be held on <date> at <some
place>. We'll be touring the Antarctic ice sheet, so be sure to dress
warmly. Afterwards we'll be having hot chocolate and crumpets.

Since I just want all my friends to relax, play, and have a good time,
please don't worry about bringing a present. I have enough trouble
keeping the dust bunnies in my room under control without more stuff.
I know Miss Manners says this is a rude thing to say, since it implies
that a present would otherwise be expected, but really, how many
birthday parties have we been to where bringing a present hasn't been
the normal thing to do? I have no idea what world she was living in.

I look forward to seeing you at <some place> on <date>. Please let my
<heffalump, parent of choice> know if you can't make it.

Your friend, <Shmoo>.

Brian.

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >, just me wrote:
> ... Maybe Miss
> Manners has a suggestion on how to gift someone even if they said that on an
> invitation, but I haven't read that particular column.

Miss Manners has said that "no presents" on an invitation is not
really apropriate, as an invitation is NEVER to be used as a request
for presents.

I believe that it is impolite to bring a present to an event for which
the invitation explicitly says "no presents". If you wish to give a
present, it should be separately delivered or mailed at a different
time.


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[dragonlady]

In article >,
"just me" > wrote:

> "D&K Condron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents,
> but
> > a dish of something yummy to share instead.
> >
> > Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a
> gift.
> > Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to be
> > the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.
> >
> > What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
> > done?
> >
>
>
> It means no presents, but some people just can't believe that people mean
> that. We just attended a big big 50th wedding anniversary party. The
> honorees had specified "no presents". I overheard one complain to the other
> as someone left a gift on a table for them that now they knew which of their
> friends couldn't read. They really meant it. Any other event I've been to
> where the invitation had specified "no presents" also meant it. Maybe Miss
> Manners has a suggestion on how to gift someone even if they said that on an
> invitation, but I haven't read that particular column.
>


As others have pointed out, Miss Manners says it is improper to put "no
presents" on an invitation, therefore there IS no "proper" response.

Personally, I would not give a regular gift, nor would I feel guilty
about not giving one. Depending upon the person and how well I knew
them, I might find a way to do something out of the ordinary to
recognize the event, but it would have to be something not wrapped and
not presented at the party.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Banty]

In article >, Chris says...
>
>Cathy Kearns wrote:
>> Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
>> and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
>> by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
>> intentioned, is rude.
>
>Really? Seems to me that whatever "should" be expected, presents ARE
>expected. It's certainly NOT going to work for those persons who want
>to avoid presents to just not mention anything and assume that people
>won't bring gifts. I'm curious what you think the polite way would be
>to handle this situation.

The problem is that a lot of manners have broken down as far as how much they're
understood or followed. Officially, one does not have any obigation whatsoever
to bring a present to a birthday party, and the party giver should have no
expectation whatsoever that any present arrive with the guests. If any presents
should arrive, therefore the party giver is surprised and honored and tickled
that someone would go through such an effort, and to discourage that kind of
good effort and intention in any way would be rude and work against what is good
in people in general.

Officially.

Of course, IRL most b-day party givers *do* expect presents (or at least make
provision for their reception), and party goers feel obligated to bring presents
as some kind of payment for the party, or the idea that it was always that way,
like wedding showers. And, even if they *knew* better, and weren't moved to
give a gift, they know full well that this misunderstanding is so ubiquitous
that they feel they'd *better* bring a gift else be the only ones who didn't.


>
>I'm assuming that it's already been decided that the child should not
>receive gifts from everyone. There are very good reasons for such a
>decision. The "just let people bring gifts and be polite about it"
>approach may work for adults who are celebrating a wedding anniversary,
>but it does NOT work for young children who learn very questionable
>values when their special days are all marked with blatant consumerism,
>materialism, and piles of flashy toys -- half of which they will then
>forget about the very next day.

I feel your pain. Once I got around it in on way by saying on the invite that
my son likes books, and got presents that are more worthwhile or at least more
stackable :-)
But I've since learned that *that* is rude, given the official scenario - sort
of like saying "let's go to the movies I like Chinese food", putting it on my
companion to buy me some dinner.

This sort of thing, and some of the (when my son was younger) silliness about
who is invited and who isn't, and how "all the kids" are supposed to be invited,
etc., etc., led me to establish a family birthday tradition of doing a birthday
*trip* to somewhere my son wanted to go, since his birthday usually lands in a
long weekend for our school district.

>
>I can only say that I would *never* feel offended in any way to receive
>an invitation that specified "no presents".
>
>> However, it you really want to get out of getting presents, I've found
>> throwing a "summer pool party" or having a few friends over for a
>> sleep over, without mentioning the words "birthday", "graduation",
>> "anniversary", or "wedding" often will do the trick.
>
>Then it's not really a birthday party, is it? It's just any old normal
>playdate.

... that only a few intimates need know is a birthday celebration. This does
work fairly well. Also, one can hold really small birthday celebrations
including a movie or some other outing, and hold the Stuff Extravaganza down to
an acceptable level that way.

Banty

[dragonlady]

In article >, Chris says...
>Cathy Kearns wrote:
>> Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
>> and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
>> by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
>> intentioned, is rude.
>
>Really? Seems to me that whatever "should" be expected, presents ARE
>expected. It's certainly NOT going to work for those persons who want
>to avoid presents to just not mention anything and assume that people
>won't bring gifts. I'm curious what you think the polite way would be
>to handle this situation.

There are a number of things I've done.

1 - My kids know not to expect an annual birthday party. On the years
that we don't throw one, we still have a family birthday dinner. They
are allowed to invite a friend or two -- but by inviting their friends
to dinner on their birthday rather than a birthday party, their friends
don't feel obligated to bring a present. In fact, it has been my
experience that gifts under those circumstances are rare. Sometimes
parents have called to clarify, and I emphasize that it is NOT a
birthday party, just a birthday dinner, and that while my children might
get some gifts from family members, they are NOT expecting their dinner
guests to bring anything. Rather, their friend's presence is the only
"gift" they are expecting.

2 - Sometimes, we give the kids the gift of a birthday outing (movies,
skating, bowling, swimming, whatever) to which they are allowed to
invite friends. However, again, since we don't call it a "birthday
party" it seems to get around the gift expectation. The invitations
are less formal -- nothing is mailed out. Depending on how old the kids
have been, either they or I make phone calls to the parents or the kids,
and the verbal invitation is worded fairly carefully. "For my birthday,
my mom is letting me take some friends skating on Saturday; would you
like to come with us?" We carefully avoid the word "party". Again,
sometimes a few friends have turned up with gifts, but we are careful to
avoid making a Big Deal of opening them, and to reassure the ones who
DON'T bring anything that we are delighted they are there and we were
not expecting anything.

3 - I have, on occassion, invited people over without mentioning that it
was someone's birthday, and hauled out a birthday cake at the end of a
meal. Some people get offended: "If I'd known, I'd have brought a
gift!" We point out that that is exactly WHY they didn't know in
advance. It seems to work out most of the time, but does seem to annoy
some people.

4 - While I've never done it, I've seen some invitations that ask for
something specific, but not costly. For example, an invitation for a
going away party might ask us each to bring a collage or a letter or
something for a scrapbook that will be a joint gift; on one occassion,
I actually got two sheets of paper that had been specifically set up for
my child's name and address and picture; I don't remember what the
second sheet was for -- maybe just a collage or something. Sometimes,
some people still bring other gifts, but by explaining that we will be
collectively making something that will be particularly meaningful, it
seems to get around the "obligatory" gift expectation.

I hate how Big and Expensive and Obligatory kids' birthday parties have
become -- both to throw and to attend. I'd love to find a way to cut
that back, but not at the expense of tossing out generally accepted
manners -- and that means NOT saying "no gifts" on the invitations.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes "Cathy Kearns" > wrote:

>Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
>and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
>by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
>intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
>remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
>dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
>be considered rude.
>
>However, it you really want to get out of getting presents, I've found
>throwing a "summer pool party" or having a few friends over for a
>sleep over, without mentioning the words "birthday", "graduation",
>"anniversary", or "wedding" often will do the trick.

I have been thinking about this and my initial thought was that the
party giver should suggest that the gifts be brought unwrapped and
given to the local hospital. But that still gets into the expectation
that there will be presents brought.

Then I thought - well maybe the gifts could be labeled as to age or
sex of the child they were for and there could be a gift exchange
instead of the birthday child getting all of them. Kind of like a
gift exchange that is done in some offices. I suspect there might be
problems in the execution of this idea, as I haven't worked out the
details.

I agree with Banty that manners are not so common now (I think it is
incredibly rude to bring wedding gifts TO a wedding as it results in
all kinds of chaos no matter how well it is handled).

So just as one must put reply cards in wedding invitations because
otherwise (and even so) people will not tell you if they are coming or
not, one must also specify about presents on an invitation. And that
is absolutely against etiquette to do.

So in the first instance, instead of 'no gifts', one would say
something to the effect of 'Birthday child will not be receiving
gifts. Any gifts will be donated to the oncology ward of Children's
Hospital' or something of that sort. It certainly is rude, but if you
are going to be rude you might as well be definite.

Party-excursions and combo parties are also a good idea. My dd#2 gave
a combo party for her dh's graduation from law school and her ds's
bday. It was a pool party and BBQ, and the kids had pizza and cake,
and I don't think a lot of them knew that it was a bday party,
especially as it wasn't really on his birthday, but was on the nearest
Saturday.



>
>"just me" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "D&K Condron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents,
>> but
>> > a dish of something yummy to share instead.
>> >
>> > Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a
>> gift.
>> > Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to
>be
>> > the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.
>> >
>> > What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
>> > done?
>> >
>>
>>
>> It means no presents, but some people just can't believe that people mean
>> that. We just attended a big big 50th wedding anniversary party. The
>> honorees had specified "no presents". I overheard one complain to the
>other
>> as someone left a gift on a table for them that now they knew which of
>their
>> friends couldn't read. They really meant it. Any other event I've been
>to
>> where the invitation had specified "no presents" also meant it. Maybe
>Miss
>> Manners has a suggestion on how to gift someone even if they said that on
>an
>> invitation, but I haven't read that particular column.
>>
>> -Aula
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/03
>>

grandma Rosalie

[dragonlady]

In article >,
David desJardins > wrote:

> Banty writes:
> > Officially, one does not have any obigation whatsoever to bring a
> > present to a birthday party, and the party giver should have no
> > expectation whatsoever that any present arrive with the guests. If
> > any presents should arrive, therefore the party giver is surprised and
> > honored and tickled that someone would go through such an effort, and
> > to discourage that kind of good effort and intention in any way would
> > be rude and work against what is good in people in general.
>
> I disagree with this whole analysis. If someone really doesn't want
> presents for their children (e.g., maybe they think that having presents
> at a party is too materialistic, or they don't want the child to have
> particular kinds of toys, or they just have that personal preference,
> for whatever reason), then it's not "good" of people to disregard the
> host's wishes.
>
> There seems to be an implicit assumption in some of the replies here
> that the only reason that someone might request no presents is to "free"
> the guests from the "obligation" to bring a present. [And I think this
> is the reason people, unfortunately, disregard such requests: they think
> only that they are not obligated to bring a present---but they choose to
> do so anyway---rather than being actively discouraged from doing so.]
> But I think that's not at all accurate. A host might request "No
> presents" because the host really doesn't want any presents, and such a
> host is unlikely to be "tickled" by having their desires ignored.
>
> It seems a bit weird to me if the only way to avoid getting unwanted
> presents is to not have a party at all.
>
> David desJardins
>

I think you misunderstand some of the responses; we are stating what
etiquette experts consider to be proper; whether you think traditional
etiquette is reasonable or not is irrelevant to identifying what it IS.

According to Miss Manners (also Emily Post and other such experts) an
invitation is NOT a demand for a gift, one is NOT under an obligation to
bring gifts, and putting "no presents" on an invitation implies that
there normally IS an obligation and is therefore improper.

As I see it, the bigger problem is that people now treat invitations and
announcements as gift demands -- both those sending and those receiving
them -- making it hard to throw a party just because you want to have a
party for someone. I wish there was an easy solution.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[==Daye==]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 17:04:48 EDT, David desJardins
> wrote:

>It seems a bit weird to me if the only way to avoid getting unwanted
>presents is to not have a party at all.

That may very well be, but what is wrong with wanting to
celebrate a child's birthday with their friends???

As an adult, I enjoy celebrating my birthday with friends.
However, I don't need them buying me presents. I don't have the
celebration to get presents. I have the celebration to celebrate
the day of my birth with friends.

--
==Daye==
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[==Daye==]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:49:39 EDT, (Hillary
Israeli) wrote:

>because it implies that had that
>specification NOT been on the invitation, the guest would in fact have
>been obligated to bring a gift; also it is considered rude because if a
>guest feels like bringing a gift, the host should not take that joyful
>expression of kindness away from the guest.

I don't know what world Miss Manners lives in, but in my world,
if you are invited to a birthday party and you don't bring a
gift, then you are considered rude. How dare you come to the
party without a gift???

--
==Daye==
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Cathy Kearns]

Oh, you can have a party, just not one billed as a "birthday party",
at least before the event. You can have balloons, and cake. But
sending out invitations that say mention birthdays tends to bring
out the gift giver in people. If you surprise them with the reason
(think surprise engagement parties) then they get to celebrate the
reason, but it's too late to get a present.

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Banty writes:
> > Officially, one does not have any obigation whatsoever to bring a
> > present to a birthday party, and the party giver should have no
> > expectation whatsoever that any present arrive with the guests. If
> > any presents should arrive, therefore the party giver is surprised and
> > honored and tickled that someone would go through such an effort, and
> > to discourage that kind of good effort and intention in any way would
> > be rude and work against what is good in people in general.
>
> I disagree with this whole analysis. If someone really doesn't want
> presents for their children (e.g., maybe they think that having presents
> at a party is too materialistic, or they don't want the child to have
> particular kinds of toys, or they just have that personal preference,
> for whatever reason), then it's not "good" of people to disregard the
> host's wishes.
>
> There seems to be an implicit assumption in some of the replies here
> that the only reason that someone might request no presents is to "free"
> the guests from the "obligation" to bring a present. [And I think this
> is the reason people, unfortunately, disregard such requests: they think
> only that they are not obligated to bring a present---but they choose to
> do so anyway---rather than being actively discouraged from doing so.]
> But I think that's not at all accurate. A host might request "No
> presents" because the host really doesn't want any presents, and such a
> host is unlikely to be "tickled" by having their desires ignored.
>
> It seems a bit weird to me if the only way to avoid getting unwanted
> presents is to not have a party at all.
>
> David desJardins
>

[Nevermind]

(Hillary Israeli) wrote in message >...
> In >,
> just me > wrote:
>
> *where the invitation had specified "no presents" also meant it. Maybe Miss
> *Manners has a suggestion on how to gift someone even if they said that on an
> *invitation, but I haven't read that particular column.
> *
>
> No, Miss Manners says it is not up to a host to dictate whether a guest
> should or should not bring presents.

And she's entitled to her opinion.

However, the fact is that guests to parties for which the acknowledged
purpose is an anniversary or birthday do indeed feel that a present is
required, and therefore it is my opinion that if a part-giver
specifically does not want to burden others with the need to buy
presents, he/she can and should state "no presents" on the invitation.

I have been tempted to do that myself with my kids' parties, and my
reason is that I hate the thought of some family spending money they
might not have that week. My kid is being thrilled by the party
itself, and the guests are giving him the gift of their presence --
truly. And these other parents don't owe my kid a present because in
most cases they barely know my kid.

There was a time in my life when I just groaned at being invited to
one of my niece's or nephew's birthday parties because I was always
the only broke one in the family. (I had no kids of my own then and
was naive about the party thing, as Miss Manners seems to be.) My
other siblings (we have a big family) would show up with
knock-the-kid's-socks-off gifts and I'd try to get creative. LOSER! I
finally learned to just charge the stuff.

I am now sensitive to the fact that my kids' friends really don't owe
my kid a gift just because my kid named him or her to be invited to a
party. However, as presents are, despite Miss Manners, de rigeur, I
have never had the courage to say "no presents." (1) Some of the
parents would think we were utter weirdos who might not be safe to
send their kids to visit; (2) Some parents wouldn't believe me, and
they'd bring presents, making the other parents/kids feel bad; (3) My
kids know, even at their young ages -- as Miss manners should know at
her age -- that presents are de rigeur, and so they'd feel seriously
cheated if there were no presents.

> It is up to the guest as to whether
> or not the guest chooses to bring a present.

In theory; very much NOT in practice.

> It is considered rude to put
> "no presents" on the invitation, because it implies that had that
> specification NOT been on the invitation, the guest would in fact have
> been obligated to bring a gift; also it is considered rude because if a
> guest feels like bringing a gift, the host should not take that joyful
> expression of kindness away from the guest.

But if one person's joyful expression makes another person feel like a
****, I think the former person can be asked to get joyful some other
way -- or drop a present off separately/later. Just my opinion.

[David desJardins]

dragonlady writes:
> According to Miss Manners (also Emily Post and other such experts) an
> invitation is NOT a demand for a gift, one is NOT under an obligation to
> bring gifts, and putting "no presents" on an invitation implies that
> there normally IS an obligation and is therefore improper.

If that's what Miss Manners and Emily Post think, they are wrong.
Putting "No Presents" just implies that you don't want any presents. It
doesn't imply that there would have been an obligation to bring presents
if that statement were omitted. That's the fundamental mistake.

I do see this idea expressed here and elsewhere (that people say "No
Presents" to relieve the guests of some obligation---e.g., I see a
posting from "Nevermind" that says exactly this). But it's wrong to
reach a conclusion about "No Presents" based on the assumption that
that's the only reason people might say this. It's not.

David desJardins

[chiam margalit]

"D&K Condron" > wrote in message >...
> I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents, but
> a dish of something yummy to share instead.
>
> Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a gift.
> Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to be
> the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.
>
> What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
> done?

Within our circle of friends, no presents is very common, and most
parents respect that. However, in liu of presents, *many* children ask
for a donation to a particular charity. For one child I know, he
requested that donations be sent to a campership fund for special
needs kids in our local JCC camp, because as a special needs kid, he
wanted other kids to have the great experience he's had.

Another girl we know asked for book donations, which she then brought
to an inner city school that was trying to build up their library.

When you do something like this, parents feel that they're fulfilling
the presents duty, and the family who has requested no presents gets
something much more valuable in return.

Marjorie

[Penny Gaines]

==Daye== wrote in >:

> Before I had my daughter, I decided to stop celebrating Xmas. (I
> celebrate now because of my daughter... she makes it enjoyable.)
> I asked for no presents. I told everyone that I would not be
> buying gifts, so don't buy me anything. My DH did buy gifts, but
> he was still celebrating. I STILL got presents. I didn't buy
> anyone anything, but I was heaped with presents. When I asked
> them about it, they said, "We thought you weren't serious." I
> responded, "I was serious."

I had a similar problem one year: I was working very hard on
decluttering, and so when my mother asked what I wanted, I told
her a particular type of chocolates. She got me that *and* another
present.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Penny Gaines]

Rosalie B. wrote in >:
[snip]
> I agree with Banty that manners are not so common now (I think it is
> incredibly rude to bring wedding gifts TO a wedding as it results in
> all kinds of chaos no matter how well it is handled).
>
> So just as one must put reply cards in wedding invitations because
> otherwise (and even so) people will not tell you if they are coming or
> not, one must also specify about presents on an invitation. And that
> is absolutely against etiquette to do.
[snip]

I don't think it is that there are *no* manners, just that they
are *different* manners.

So just like UK wedding invites don't have lots of different envelopes
(the invitees names are on the invitation itself), most UK weddings
have arrangements for receiving presents. Postage in the UK is
sufficiently expensive that if you don't live near the bride and groom
it would be too expensive to mail it.

When you read older books, the manners then are quite different to now.
At times manners have been very formal, with strict details on such
things as when and how long to visit people (afternoons only, leave
after 15 minutes), other times they are informal and apparently
left to the individual to decide.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes Penny Gaines > wrote:

>Rosalie B. wrote in >:
>[snip]
>> I agree with Banty that manners are not so common now (I think it is
>> incredibly rude to bring wedding gifts TO a wedding as it results in
>> all kinds of chaos no matter how well it is handled).
>>
>> So just as one must put reply cards in wedding invitations because
>> otherwise (and even so) people will not tell you if they are coming or
>> not, one must also specify about presents on an invitation. And that
>> is absolutely against etiquette to do.
>[snip]
>
>I don't think it is that there are *no* manners, just that they
>are *different* manners.
>
>So just like UK wedding invites don't have lots of different envelopes
>(the invitees names are on the invitation itself), most UK weddings
>have arrangements for receiving presents. Postage in the UK is
>sufficiently expensive that if you don't live near the bride and groom
>it would be too expensive to mail it.
>
Can the postage expense not be figured into the cost of the gift?
When I shop I mostly shop by catalog, and the shipping charge is part
of the cost.

The problems here are that presents are commonly put on a table, but
the giver may (often does) forget to put a card in them under the
impression that he or she will give the gift directly to the bridal
couple and that the couple will REMEMBER who it was that handed them
that specific present. This latter assumption is especially
unrealistic.

Or the card is outside the package and gets separated. So no one
(except the giver) knows who the present is from. If the bride and
groom actually open the presents at the reception, the separation of
the card and gift becomes even more of a problem.

Plus someone must be delegated to log the gifts in and take the
presents somewhere after the reception, without getting them broken or
damaged.

And there is the not insignificant problem of theft. From the
reception, from the car of the person doing the transporting, or from
the house or apartment of the honeymooning couple.

>When you read older books, the manners then are quite different to now.
>At times manners have been very formal, with strict details on such
>things as when and how long to visit people (afternoons only, leave
>after 15 minutes), other times they are informal and apparently
>left to the individual to decide.

Yes I've got an etiquette book from the 1800s which is quite amusing
to read. But while formal calls are not made anymore, there's a basic
underlying appropriateness of behavior. Such as that it's rude to
overstay your welcome, and the people in the neighborhood should
welcome a newcomer.

grandma Rosalie

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes ==Daye== > wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 06:22:45 EDT, "D&K Condron"
> wrote:
>
>>What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
>>done?
>
>Well, no presents to me means just that. However, I probably
>would have gotten the child a card or something small for his
>birthday. When I say small, I mean a present that is less than
>$5.
>
>Before I had my daughter, I decided to stop celebrating Xmas. (I
>celebrate now because of my daughter... she makes it enjoyable.)
>I asked for no presents. I told everyone that I would not be
>buying gifts, so don't buy me anything. My DH did buy gifts, but
>he was still celebrating. I STILL got presents. I didn't buy
>anyone anything, but I was heaped with presents. When I asked
>them about it, they said, "We thought you weren't serious." I
>responded, "I was serious."

I decided to stop exchanging gifts except with very close family
members (i.e. grandparents) when I got to the point that I had more
children than anyone else. I had two and they had one or none. I
told them a couple of months in advance. My SIL still sent gifts, but
she told me she had bought them already. We didn't send her family
anything. And the next year, we didn't get anything or send anything
to sisters, brothers, aunts or uncles. So it can be done without any
ill feelings.

I still sometimes send my sister a non-birthday gift "just because".



grandma Rosalie

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
David desJardins > wrote:

*dragonlady writes:
*> According to Miss Manners (also Emily Post and other such experts) an
*> invitation is NOT a demand for a gift, one is NOT under an obligation to
*> bring gifts, and putting "no presents" on an invitation implies that
*> there normally IS an obligation and is therefore improper.
*
*If that's what Miss Manners and Emily Post think, they are wrong.

You can say that as often as you like, but it will not magically become
correct. The thing is, among MANY members of American "polite society,"
for want of a better term, what dragonlady says is in fact believed to be
true. Formal etiquette is basically a codification of the rules of polite
society, right? So MM and EP are not wrong! Certainly if you tell me you
disagree with them, and that people you know disagree with them, hey, no
problem...but I know LOTS of people do do not disagree with them, so for
at least "a whole lot of urban/suburban well-educated Jewish and/or
Christian relatively well-off people" they are correct.


*Putting "No Presents" just implies that you don't want any presents. It
*doesn't imply that there would have been an obligation to bring presents
*if that statement were omitted. That's the fundamental mistake.

The thing is, you would never write "no presents" on an invitation unless
there were an underlying assumption that without such notation, presents
would be brought. It would be rude of a host to make that assumption.

You wouldn't issue an invitation to a party and write "no elephants
allowed" on it, would you? No, because you don't assume people will bring
elephants unless otherwise instructed. Similarly, gifts. One must not
assume gifts will be forthcoming unless guests are otherwise instructed,
it's considered rude.

As for me, I don't really care if someone writes "no gifts," I
pretty much just figure they don't know any better, it's not like I find
it offensive. But many of my older-than-me family members DO find it
offensive, as do many others in my social circle.


FWIW.

hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

[David desJardins]

Hillary Israeli writes:
>>> According to Miss Manners (also Emily Post and other such experts) an
>>> invitation is NOT a demand for a gift, one is NOT under an obligation to
>>> bring gifts, and putting "no presents" on an invitation implies that
>>> there normally IS an obligation and is therefore improper.
>
>> If that's what Miss Manners and Emily Post think, they are wrong.
>
> You can say that as often as you like, but it will not magically become
> correct.

It doesn't have to "become correct". It is correct. The statement,
"Putting 'no presents' on an invitation implies that there normally is
an obligation," is factually and logically wrong. You don't have to
know anything about 'manners' to know that---only about logic.

> The thing is, among MANY members of American "polite society," for
> want of a better term, what dragonlady says is in fact believed to be
> true. Formal etiquette is basically a codification of the rules of
> polite society, right?

Hey, I didn't disagree with the 'etiquette' proscription against 'No
Presents'. If someone wants to call that uncouth, that's fine with me;
they can think whatever they want. But if they say that writing 'No
Presents' implies that presents would otherwise be required, they are
just wrong.

> The thing is, you would never write "no presents" on an invitation
> unless there were an underlying assumption that without such notation,
> presents would be brought.

The thing is, you are wrong. If I did write that, it wouldn't depend on
such an assumption.

> You wouldn't issue an invitation to a party and write "no elephants
> allowed" on it, would you? No, because you don't assume people will
> bring elephants unless otherwise instructed.

If I were to write 'No Presents', it wouldn't be because I assume that
everyone would otherwise bring a present. It would be because I fear
that some people might bring presents. That's quite different.

I don't assume "People must bring presents to birthday parties." But I
do know, from experience, that some people sometimes do. Can you see
the difference?

David desJardins

[Penny Gaines]

Rosalie B. wrote in >:

> x-no-archive:yes Penny Gaines > wrote:
>
>>Rosalie B. wrote in >:
>>[snip]
>>> I agree with Banty that manners are not so common now (I think it is
>>> incredibly rude to bring wedding gifts TO a wedding as it results in
>>> all kinds of chaos no matter how well it is handled).
>>>
>>> So just as one must put reply cards in wedding invitations because
>>> otherwise (and even so) people will not tell you if they are coming or
>>> not, one must also specify about presents on an invitation. And that
>>> is absolutely against etiquette to do.
>>[snip]
>>
>>I don't think it is that there are *no* manners, just that they
>>are *different* manners.
>>
>>So just like UK wedding invites don't have lots of different envelopes
>>(the invitees names are on the invitation itself), most UK weddings
>>have arrangements for receiving presents. Postage in the UK is
>>sufficiently expensive that if you don't live near the bride and groom
>>it would be too expensive to mail it.
>>
> Can the postage expense not be figured into the cost of the gift?
> When I shop I mostly shop by catalog, and the shipping charge is part
> of the cost.

I suppose it could be, but I don't tend to buy presents from catalogues.
I think the last present I took to a wedding was a compost bin (well, it
was on the gift list), combined with a garden ornament made of concrete.
The postage cost would probably have doubled the cost of the gift, *and*
the recipients would have had to make a special trip to the post office
depot to collect them. We didn't live anywhere near the wedding, so we
couldn't have taken it to them seperately.

> The problems here are that presents are commonly put on a table, but
> the giver may (often does) forget to put a card in them under the
[snip]

Yes, it does come with its own set of problems. OTOH, English weddings
do other things differently to American weddings - eg we don't have
bridal showers, we don't have rehersal dinners, we don't have lots of
groomsmen. From reading US wedding sites, each of those has its own
set of problems.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Jean]

The host has requested for "something yummy to share" instead of
presents perhaps indicated that she may or may not have prepared many
varieties of food and would like to have another 8 more dishes (8 moms
invited) to be added to the list. However, if guests still bring a
little gift on top of the dish (since it is a children's party), then
it'll be a bonus. Kat, did all the moms bring both food and present
(except you)? I guess if the request is meant for an adult occasion,
then probably guests will just bring food and treat it as pot-luck.

Jean






"D&K Condron" > wrote in message >...
> I recently went to a child's birthday party that requested no presents, but
> a dish of something yummy to share instead.
>
> Well, out of 8 moms invited, I was the *only* one who did not bring a gift.
> Did I miss something? I admit that I am new at the mommy thing, but to be
> the only one who did as instructed? I am very confused.
>
> What do the rest of you think "no presents" means? What would you have
> done?
>
> Kat

[Byron Canfield]

"Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
.com...
> Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
> and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
> by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
> intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
> remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
> dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
> be considered rude.

I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday Gift
Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since Miss
Manners' time...


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article <vP9Oa.56185$926.6971@sccrnsc03>,
"Byron Canfield" > wrote:

> "Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
> .com...
> > Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
> > and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
> > by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
> > intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
> > remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
> > dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
> > be considered rude.
>
> I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday Gift
> Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since Miss
> Manners' time...
>


Miss Manners' time is now. Her POV, I think, would be that just because
tacky phenomena like gift registries exist, that doesn't make them
correct. I've personally given in to the concept of bridal registries,
both as a bride and as a gift giver, because the general idea of wedding
presents (if one chooses to give them) is to help the happy couple
outfit their new establishment and it seems like a practical approach
because it helps the giver determine what's most needed. But what's the
deal with birthday registries? To help kids fill out their toy
collection? I don't see any need to foster their greed further. Or to
relieve their friends of the requirement to put some thought into gift
selection.

[H Schinske]

Kat ) wrote:

>Yes, all of the other moms brought food in addition to the gifts. Yet these
>were not "little" gifts as you mention, but ones that I guess were in the
>$20 - $30 dollar range.

Egads. That's *way* more than I ever spend on the gifts my kids take. Our limit
is $10 or so. And that's for parties where gifts *are* expected.

--Helen

[Byron Canfield]

"Elizabeth Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> In article <vP9Oa.56185$926.6971@sccrnsc03>,
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote:
>
> > "Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> > > Miss Manners would point out that presents should never be expected,
> > > and telling guests that normally they are expected, but not this time
> > > by writing "no presents" on an invitation, no matter how well
> > > intentioned, is rude. I would also presume that making disparaging
> > > remarks about guests who could not contain their joy about their
> > > dear friends' occasion without bringing them a token would also
> > > be considered rude.
> >
> > I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday
Gift
> > Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since
Miss
> > Manners' time...
> >
>
>
> Miss Manners' time is now. Her POV, I think, would be that just because
> tacky phenomena like gift registries exist, that doesn't make them
> correct. I've personally given in to the concept of bridal registries,
> both as a bride and as a gift giver, because the general idea of wedding
> presents (if one chooses to give them) is to help the happy couple
> outfit their new establishment and it seems like a practical approach
> because it helps the giver determine what's most needed. But what's the
> deal with birthday registries? To help kids fill out their toy
> collection? I don't see any need to foster their greed further. Or to
> relieve their friends of the requirement to put some thought into gift
> selection.
>
I'm not defending birthday registries -- I think they are very near the
height of presumptiousness. I was just making the observation that Miss
Manners' opinion and the current reality do not match.


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >, H Schinske wrote:
> Kat ) wrote:
>
>>Yes, all of the other moms brought food in addition to the gifts. Yet these
>>were not "little" gifts as you mention, but ones that I guess were in the
>>$20 - $30 dollar range.
>
> Egads. That's *way* more than I ever spend on the gifts my kids take. Our limit
> is $10 or so. And that's for parties where gifts *are* expected.

Birthday presents at parties run quite a range of different prices
around here. We generally spend about $15 for a present for a
birthday party our 7-year-old son is invited to, but have gone higher
on occasion, when we saw a particularly suitable present for a close
friend.

At our son's most recent birthday party, he got presents varying in
price from $0 (a nicely drawn picture of a volcano, fitting the theme
of the party) to a $20? action figure that only the child who gave it has
subsequently played with and which has already been moved to the
"garage-sale" pile by our son, something that rarely happens. (The
volcano picture was saved in the same cleanup---this decision was
based on how much he valued the items, not based on his liking for
the two givers.)

--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article <GNrOa.3939$H17.3106@sccrnsc02>,
"Byron Canfield" > wrote:

> "Elizabeth Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <vP9Oa.56185$926.6971@sccrnsc03>,
> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote:

> > > I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday
> Gift
> > > Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since
> Miss
> > > Manners' time...
> > >
> >
> >
> > Miss Manners' time is now. Her POV, I think, would be that just because
> > tacky phenomena like gift registries exist, that doesn't make them
> > correct. I've personally given in to the concept of bridal registries,
> > both as a bride and as a gift giver, because the general idea of wedding
> > presents (if one chooses to give them) is to help the happy couple
> > outfit their new establishment and it seems like a practical approach
> > because it helps the giver determine what's most needed. But what's the
> > deal with birthday registries? To help kids fill out their toy
> > collection? I don't see any need to foster their greed further. Or to
> > relieve their friends of the requirement to put some thought into gift
> > selection.
> >
> I'm not defending birthday registries -- I think they are very near the
> height of presumptiousness. I was just making the observation that Miss
> Manners' opinion and the current reality do not match.
>


It's not the job of etiquette experts to match their directives to the
times, just as it's not the job of grammar experts to accept every
variation in language that happens to come along. "Between you and I"
is endemic, but it's still not correct, and there are good reasons why
it isn't, having to do with the underlying structure of English.
Likewise with the rule about "no presents" on an invitation: the
underlying analysis (which others have laid out in this thread) still
leads to the indisputable conclusion that it's tacky, for the same
reason that birthday registries are tacky.

Miss Manners grasps the era just fine; she just doesn't approve of it in
this instance.

[David desJardins]

Elizabeth Gardner writes:
> Likewise with the rule about "no presents" on an invitation: the
> underlying analysis (which others have laid out in this thread) still
> leads to the indisputable conclusion that it's tacky

When people dispute it, it's not indisputable.

> for the same reason that birthday registries are tacky.

The former is (or can be) motivated by dislike for getting presents.
The latter is motivated by wanting people to get you stuff. I can't see
how the two could be farther apart.

David desJardins

[Splanche]

One thing that's not been mentioned yet:

Is it possible that the other mothers that were invited brought gifts because
they didn't like the fact that the mother was dictating that her CHILD didn't
need any gifts, instead of it being a request by a person for their own self?

- Blanche

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
David desJardins > wrote:

> Elizabeth Gardner writes:
> > Likewise with the rule about "no presents" on an invitation: the
> > underlying analysis (which others have laid out in this thread) still
> > leads to the indisputable conclusion that it's tacky
>
> When people dispute it, it's not indisputable.

It is if you accept the underlying analysis. You may dispute the
underlying analysis if you like, though it won't change anything. While
etiquette evolves along with society, nothing in the march of technology
or the cataclysmic social changes of the past 50 years has affected this
particular rule, keenly though makers of toys and giftware wish it had,
and hard though they try to make people believe it has.

>
> > for the same reason that birthday registries are tacky.
>
> The former is (or can be) motivated by dislike for getting presents.
> The latter is motivated by wanting people to get you stuff. I can't see
> how the two could be farther apart.
>


True, the motivations are opposite, but their effect in the context of a
party invitation (and their place in the pantheon of impolite behavior)
is, ironically, identical. If you write "no presents, please" on an
invitation, the implication is that if you hadn't written it, the
recipient would have had an obligation to bring a gift. If you put the
location of your birthday registry on the invitation, it makes the
obligation explicit. Either way, it violates a basic tenet of
etiquette, which is that gift-giving is at the option of the giver, and
that the receiver is not allowed to either ask for or decline to receive
gifts. The birthday registry is marginally worse, in that the
recipient is not only assuming gifts, but specifying which ones.

I understand the desperation of moms who put "no presents" on an
invitation. I would like to do something similar wth my husband's
sisters, who always go overboard at Christmas with too many toys
composed of too many little tiny plastic pieces. But I haven't been
able to think of a polite way to ask them to rein it in and that's
because there is no polite way. My only hope is that someday he might
take it up with them as an intra-family matter, where different rules
apply. If they lived nearer by and we saw them often, I might be able
to do it myself, but as it is, we don't have that kind of relationship.

We kept birthday presents in check last year by limiting the size of the
party.

[Chris Smith]

Elizabeth Gardner wrote:
> True, the motivations are opposite, but their effect in the context of a
> party invitation (and their place in the pantheon of impolite behavior)
> is, ironically, identical. If you write "no presents, please" on an
> invitation, the implication is that if you hadn't written it, the
> recipient would have had an obligation to bring a gift.

I'm still waiting for someone to give a good sound reason why this is
true. So far, it's been merely asserted. I know that's not what I
would mean, were I to write such a thing on my child's birthday
invitations. I would mean, instead, that while the guest would
otherwise have had the option to bring a gift, they are now being asked
not to bring one. Of course, David said this some time ago, and no one
answered then, but continued to repeat this thing about presuming that
gifts are normally expected. That's just wrong.

So while I agree with Miss Manners and others that gifts should not be
expected, I think it's an error in logic to conclude that asking others
not to bring gifts is poor etiquette.

> I understand the desperation of moms who put "no presents" on an
> invitation. I would like to do something similar wth my husband's
> sisters, who always go overboard at Christmas with too many toys
> composed of too many little tiny plastic pieces. But I haven't been
> able to think of a polite way to ask them to rein it in and that's
> because there is no polite way.

That, to me, indicates that there's something wrong with the concept of
"polite" that is leading you to that conclusion. If you were expecting
someone to go out of their way to help you, that would be rude. If
you're expecting someone NOT to go out of their way to make your life
more difficult, that's perfectly reasonable. A concept of manners that
indicates that you shouldn't inform them that they are causing you
problems is a bit strange.

> We kept birthday presents in check last year by limiting the size of the
> party.

Which is wrong. Parents shouldn't be forced with a choice between not
inviting someone or having a pile of flashy toys for gifts.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
David desJardins > wrote:

*Elizabeth Gardner writes:
*> Likewise with the rule about "no presents" on an invitation: the
*> underlying analysis (which others have laid out in this thread) still
*> leads to the indisputable conclusion that it's tacky
*
*When people dispute it, it's not indisputable.
*
*> for the same reason that birthday registries are tacky.
*
*The former is (or can be) motivated by dislike for getting presents.
*The latter is motivated by wanting people to get you stuff. I can't see
*how the two could be farther apart.

BOTH are things that happen only because the person who makes them happen
is assuming that other people are going to bring presents. It is that
underlying assumption which is considered tacky (although for a child's
birthday party, it's not, really, even according to Miss Manners, if I
remember correctly - young kids' parties are, like showers, expected
gifting occasions, right?)

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

[David desJardins]

Hillary Israeli writes:
>> The former is (or can be) motivated by dislike for getting presents.
>> The latter is motivated by wanting people to get you stuff. I can't
>> see how the two could be farther apart.
>
> BOTH are things that happen only because the person who makes them happen
> is assuming that other people are going to bring presents.

People keep saying this, but it's still not true. Even if I think
there's only a 1% chance that someone might bring a present, I might
still specifically ask people not to bring presents, because I want to
reduce the chance further. It's just not at all reasonable or logical
to say that, if I ask for something not to happen, implies that if I
hadn't made that request, then it would have happened or would have been
obligatory.

If I say to my child, "Don't go into the street," does that imply that
the child would otherwise have been required to run into the street?
This seems ridiculous.

David desJardins

[David desJardins]

Elizabeth Gardner writes:
> If you write "no presents, please" on an invitation, the implication
> is that if you hadn't written it, the recipient would have had an
> obligation to bring a gift.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. It doesn't imply that
at all.

> If you put the location of your birthday registry on the invitation,
> it makes the obligation explicit. Either way, it violates a basic
> tenet of etiquette, which is that gift-giving is at the option of the
> giver, and that the receiver is not allowed to either ask for or
> decline to receive gifts.

Certainly, if there's a rule against declining to receive gifts, then
requesting that people not bring gifts violates that rule. That *is*
indisputable. However, I think the rule of etiquette that allows you to
force unwanted gifts upon me is what's "tacky", not my polite request
that you not do so.

> We kept birthday presents in check last year by limiting the size of
> the party.

Don't you think that it's sad that these rules of "etiquette" are
preventing you from inviting friends to your party? Is that really the
purpose of etiquette: to constrain people's ability to enjoy themselves?

David desJardins

[Naomi Pardue]

>The thing is, you would never write "no presents" on an invitation unless
>there were an underlying assumption that without such notation, presents
>would be brought. It would be rude of a host to make that assumption.

Except that, I believe that, even according to ettiquette mavens, the two
events where presents ARE "expected" are showers (wedding/baby/whatever) and
children's birthday parties.
And yes, if I wrote 'no gifts' on my child's party invites, I would expect the
guests to honor that. (And, if they DID feel strongly moved to give my child a
gift, to do it away from the party, so as not to embarrass other attendees who
had not brought gifts.)

..
Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

[Naomi Pardue]

>I had a similar problem one year: I was working very hard on
>decluttering, and so when my mother asked what I wanted, I told
>her a particular type of chocolates. She got me that *and* another
>present.
>

*grin* My neice became Bat Mitzvah last fall, and, of course, got a million
presents. When Hanukkah time rolled around, she couldn't think of anything she
wanted or needed. She finally came up with a few ideas, along with 'good
chocolate.' EVERYONE in the family got her 'good chocolate.'


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

[Naomi Pardue]

>I decided to stop exchanging gifts except with very close family
>members (i.e. grandparents) when I got to the point that I had more
>children than anyone else.

About 10 years ago, when the number of neices and nephews began to multiply, I
suggested to my sisters/brother that we do a 'name-draw' for the adult members
of the family for Hannukah gifting. They were amenable to that (though my
parents declined; wanting to be able to give presents to all their kids...).
The first year we drew names, then every year after that we cycled through the
family by age. We still always got gifts for the neices/nephews. It was always
SOO hard to buy presents for my sibs though, since no-one ever knows what they
want (and really.... we're all adults with incomes of our own. If we really
want something, we can usually buy it, right? And if we can't afford it, we
can hardly expect someone else to buy if for us, especially during that time of
year when they're trying to buy gifts for their kids too!). Finally, last
year, my brother and his wife said that they were going to drop out of the gift
cycle. I immediately said that we would too, and my sisters agreed as well. So
now we just get presents for the kids, and our parents.
(Who are ALSO hard to buy for! Mom collects murano glass, so she's pretty easy,
but Dad is impossible....)

The kids are still pretty managable though. I have only 6 neices/nephews on my
side of the family, and only one of DH's side.


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

[Cathy Kearns]

"Chris Smith" > wrote in message
.. .
> I'm still waiting for someone to give a good sound reason why this is
> true. So far, it's been merely asserted. I know that's not what I
> would mean, were I to write such a thing on my child's birthday
> invitations. I would mean, instead, that while the guest would
> otherwise have had the option to bring a gift, they are now being asked
> not to bring one. Of course, David said this some time ago, and no one
> answered then, but continued to repeat this thing about presuming that
> gifts are normally expected. That's just wrong.
>
> So while I agree with Miss Manners and others that gifts should not be
> expected, I think it's an error in logic to conclude that asking others
> not to bring gifts is poor etiquette.

Let's go to the post that started this thread. Someone was invited
to a kid's birthday party, that asked folks to bring food, but no
presents. She showed up with food, and was shocked, and
a bit embarrassed, to find she was the only one that did not
bring a present. It left a big enough impression on her to
come to misc.kids and ask if she was out of line.
Now, the reason for etiquette rules so people know what is
expected and won't get embarrassed. With this case as an example,
she did what the invitation said, and yet ended up embarrassed.

The problem with "No presents please" is what exactly
does it apply to?

Does it mean no one, including the parents, grand parents,
or siblings are giving this child presents. I doubt it.
Does it mean "no presents unless from someone very close
to the birthday child". Well, I can't imagine anyone invited
to the party feels they aren't close to the birthday child.
Does it mean no "little presents"? No hand drawn
pictures? No personalized poems? No homemade cookies?
Well, those things always are welcome.
And then there are those who ran across a special
something for this child six months ago and have been saving it for their
birthday. Do you really think those people are going to junk
the present? What about the child's "best friend" who bought
her/him a toy just like the one "she/he always wants to play with at my
house."
Do you stifle the generosity of the young friend, who has obviously
thought this through enough to get something the birthday child likes?
So exactly where do you draw the line?

People have problems with this, those that bring no
presents, just as the invitation literally says, feel embarrassed.
Etiquette is meant to keep that from happening.

[David desJardins]

Cathy Kearns writes:
> Now, the reason for etiquette rules so people know what is
> expected and won't get embarrassed.

I think the reason for etiquette rules is to help people get along more
comfortably with one another. Avoiding embarrassment may be part of
that, but it seems a very small part. There are all sorts of situations
where someone might do something that would make me very angry or upset,
and etiquette helps prevent that from happening, even though no
embarrassment is involved. And giving me presents that I don't want,
definitely makes me uncomfortable and unhappy.

Perhaps a hundred years ago when many rules of etiquette were developed,
giving gifts was an expression of something positive, but in modern
American culture, gift-giving is a highly commercialized activity that's
actively manipulated by people who sell stuff, to get people to consume
more and more and more. It's a perfectly reasonable thing for people to
want to opt out of. If etiquette makes that hard to do, then that's a
problem with etiquette.

Personally, I don't have the energy to fight this particular battle, but
I admire people who do.

> The problem with "No presents please" is what exactly
> does it apply to?

It applies to the person receiving the invitation, and it asks that
person not to bring any presents. This seems extremely obvious. I'm
sure that Miss Manners would tell you that if you get an invitation that
tells you not to bring a present, then you shouldn't bring a present.
Simple.

David desJardins

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
Chris Smith > wrote:

> Elizabeth Gardner wrote:
> > True, the motivations are opposite, but their effect in the context of a
> > party invitation (and their place in the pantheon of impolite behavior)
> > is, ironically, identical. If you write "no presents, please" on an
> > invitation, the implication is that if you hadn't written it, the
> > recipient would have had an obligation to bring a gift.
>
> I'm still waiting for someone to give a good sound reason why this is
> true. So far, it's been merely asserted. I know that's not what I
> would mean, were I to write such a thing on my child's birthday
> invitations. I would mean, instead, that while the guest would
> otherwise have had the option to bring a gift, they are now being asked
> not to bring one. Of course, David said this some time ago, and no one
> answered then, but continued to repeat this thing about presuming that
> gifts are normally expected. That's just wrong.
>
> So while I agree with Miss Manners and others that gifts should not be
> expected, I think it's an error in logic to conclude that asking others
> not to bring gifts is poor etiquette.

But if you truly weren't expecting them, in any way, at any level, why
would you bother asking people not to bring them? The act of asking
them not to implies that you expect there's at least a chance they will,
unless you specify otherwise. An unexpected gift can't logically be
turned down in advance.

The relationship between etiquette and reality is always a little
tenuous (e.g., in polite society it's not done to point to an overweight
person and say, "Gee, you're fat!" even though it's undoubtedly true).
So the reality that presents are expected on certain occasions is
irrelevant to the etiquette rule against acknowledging the expectation
in any way.

>
> > I understand the desperation of moms who put "no presents" on an
> > invitation. I would like to do something similar wth my husband's
> > sisters, who always go overboard at Christmas with too many toys
> > composed of too many little tiny plastic pieces. But I haven't been
> > able to think of a polite way to ask them to rein it in and that's
> > because there is no polite way.
>
> That, to me, indicates that there's something wrong with the concept of
> "polite" that is leading you to that conclusion. If you were expecting
> someone to go out of their way to help you, that would be rude. If
> you're expecting someone NOT to go out of their way to make your life
> more difficult, that's perfectly reasonable. A concept of manners that
> indicates that you shouldn't inform them that they are causing you
> problems is a bit strange.

If you agree with Miss Manners et al. (as you say you do above) that
presents should not be expected, then it follows that asking people not
to give you presents implies that you think they might unless you asked
them not to. In this case, I know darn well they will, based on past
experience, but it's still quite presumptuous to tell them not to. And
it's further complicated by the fact that though I'm not thrilled with
the gajillion presents my daughter receives, she certainly is, at least
temporarily. So is there a polite way for a third party to request a
moderation of presents when the recipient is delighted with them and
they're not actually causing damage?

>
> > We kept birthday presents in check last year by limiting the size of the
> > party.
>
> Which is wrong. Parents shouldn't be forced with a choice between not
> inviting someone or having a pile of flashy toys for gifts.

Actually, that wasn't my primary motivation, it was just a nice
side-effect. My primary motivation was to limit the party to close
friends, rather than invite everyone she knows (numbering dozens of kids
at this point), whether they were a friend or not. Now that she's at an
age where the word "friend" is starting to have a specific meaning, it
seemed like a good time. And I've noticed a levelling off of party
invitations this year. Whether it's because we didn't invite many
people to our party or because everyone is starting to scale back, I'm
not sure, but I have to admit it's a relief not to have to go shopping
every other week for gifts for kids I hardly know.

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes (Naomi Pardue) wrote:

>>The thing is, you would never write "no presents" on an invitation unless
>>there were an underlying assumption that without such notation, presents
>>would be brought. It would be rude of a host to make that assumption.
>
>Except that, I believe that, even according to ettiquette mavens, the two
>events where presents ARE "expected" are showers (wedding/baby/whatever) and
>children's birthday parties.
>And yes, if I wrote 'no gifts' on my child's party invites, I would expect the
>guests to honor that. (And, if they DID feel strongly moved to give my child a
>gift, to do it away from the party, so as not to embarrass other attendees who
>had not brought gifts.)
>
I have been trying to figure this out - why did those other moms bring
big expensive presents when 'no presents' was specified? I would be
angry with them if it were me. (Rather than embarrassed that I hadn't
brought a gift). With 'friends' like that, who needs enemies. Maybe
it is paranoid of me, but I would suspect that I'd been sandbagged.

grandma Rosalie

[Byron Canfield]

"Elizabeth Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> In article <GNrOa.3939$H17.3106@sccrnsc02>,
> "Byron Canfield" > wrote:
>
> > "Elizabeth Gardner" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <vP9Oa.56185$926.6971@sccrnsc03>,
> > > "Byron Canfield" > wrote:
>
> > > > I suspect Miss Manners has not quite grasped the era of the Birthday
> > Gift
> > > > Registry. If that is an indication that the rules have changed since
> > Miss
> > > > Manners' time...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Miss Manners' time is now. Her POV, I think, would be that just
because
> > > tacky phenomena like gift registries exist, that doesn't make them
> > > correct. I've personally given in to the concept of bridal
registries,
> > > both as a bride and as a gift giver, because the general idea of
wedding
> > > presents (if one chooses to give them) is to help the happy couple
> > > outfit their new establishment and it seems like a practical approach
> > > because it helps the giver determine what's most needed. But what's
the
> > > deal with birthday registries? To help kids fill out their toy
> > > collection? I don't see any need to foster their greed further. Or
to
> > > relieve their friends of the requirement to put some thought into
gift
> > > selection.
> > >
> > I'm not defending birthday registries -- I think they are very near the
> > height of presumptiousness. I was just making the observation that Miss
> > Manners' opinion and the current reality do not match.
> >
>
>
> It's not the job of etiquette experts to match their directives to the
> times, just as it's not the job of grammar experts to accept every
> variation in language that happens to come along. "Between you and I"
> is endemic, but it's still not correct, and there are good reasons why
> it isn't, having to do with the underlying structure of English.

That is, however, immediately refutable by pointing at the evolution of the
English language. If the experts didn't, at some point, accept a variation
in language, we would ftill be typing thingf very ftrangely.

> Likewise with the rule about "no presents" on an invitation: the
> underlying analysis (which others have laid out in this thread) still
> leads to the indisputable conclusion that it's tacky, for the same
> reason that birthday registries are tacky.
>
> Miss Manners grasps the era just fine; she just doesn't approve of it in
> this instance.
>
Her approval, however, does not constute "the rule," but merely her
approval. She may not LIKE the idea of presents being expected, and may
thing that they should not be expected, but that does not alter the plain
and simple fact that they ARE expected.

An "expert" is only as qualified as his/her ability to perceive change (for
better or worse).


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
Naomi Pardue > wrote:

*>The thing is, you would never write "no presents" on an invitation unless
*>there were an underlying assumption that without such notation, presents
*>would be brought. It would be rude of a host to make that assumption.
*
*Except that, I believe that, even according to ettiquette mavens, the two
*events where presents ARE "expected" are showers (wedding/baby/whatever) and
*children's birthday parties.

Yes, I believe I addressed that in a subsequent post. I think that what
happened is, originally someone talked about a kid's party (makes sense,
this is a kid-focused newsgroup!) but then others chimed in with
discussion of parties in general, in particular someone mentioned what I
think was an anniversary party to which guests were requested not to bring
gifts -- and I got all confused! So, for a child's party, yes - gifts are
normally expected and I imagine if a host would prefer gifts not be
brought, the host is going to have to notify the guests in advance, and it
wouldn't (IMO) be rude to do so. That being said, the kids might get upset
about it. I know my not-quite-3-year-old is very birthday-party savvy, and
as soon as I tell him we are going to one for a friend of his he wants to
know "what are we going to GIVE him, mommy? what will his PWESENT be?" and
I think if I said nothing, he'd be bummed out!! :)

-h.
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
Chris Smith > wrote:

>
> I am starting to wonder if Miss Manners would prefer (and I must admit
> that I've now read some back issues of Miss Manners columns out of
> curiosity stemmed from this thread) that the message be conveyed with a
> personal phone call or a separate letter, rather than on the invitation
> itself.
>

I don't recall what Miss Manners has to say about it, but my mom
(equally a stickler for such things) says the only way you can
gracefully give any direction on the gift question is orally, and then
only if the giver inquires. You can say, "Oh, please don't bring
anything, your presence is the only gift we want" (which may or may not
work), or you (as the mother of the bride) can say, "They're registered
at Macy's" or you (as the parent of the child) can say, "Well, Johnny
likes drawing and painting, and reading about dogs, and we try to avoid
toy guns," but that's about as far as it can go and still be within the
realm of politeness.

I personally always inquire about the gift thing when I reply to a
birthday invitation, mostly because I often don't know the child very
well and really need some direction. If the mom said not to bring a
present, I would respect that, though my daughter would still make a
card. If people respected the request to RSVP, you could deliver the
"no present" message then, so maybe the faux pas of putting it on the
invitation stems from the faux pas of people not RSVP-ing when they
ought to. In other words, an etiquette failure all around.

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
David desJardins > wrote:

*Hillary Israeli writes:
*>> The former is (or can be) motivated by dislike for getting presents.
*>> The latter is motivated by wanting people to get you stuff. I can't
*>> see how the two could be farther apart.
*>
*> BOTH are things that happen only because the person who makes them happen
*> is assuming that other people are going to bring presents.
*
*People keep saying this, but it's still not true. Even if I think
*there's only a 1% chance that someone might bring a present, I might
*still specifically ask people not to bring presents, because I want to
*reduce the chance further. It's just not at all reasonable or logical
*to say that, if I ask for something not to happen, implies that if I
*hadn't made that request, then it would have happened or would have been
*obligatory.

I did not say it would have been obligatory. I said it would have
happened. I still believe if there were no preconceived notion that
gift-bringing might occur, then there would be no reason to write "no
gifts."

* *If I say to my child, "Don't go into the street," does that imply that
*the child would otherwise have been required to run into the street?
*This seems ridiculous.

No, not required to - but the possibility would have existed. You're not
going to be at the beach on an island miles from civilization and say
"don't run into the street," are you? Because there is no chance your kid
is going to run into the street.

But, you know, whatever. It's not like I really care what people write on
their invitations, or do not write on their invitations. I mean, the only
time it gets to me is when someone I know invites my mom or my grandma to
a party and does that, because then mom and/or grandma will call me and
say "what's wrong with so-and-so, why would she do something so tacky?" -
of course prompting me to respond something along the lines of "gosh, I
really couldn't say, but isn't it tackier to talk about it behind her
back?"

-h.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Cathy Kearns > wrote:

>People have problems with this, those that bring no
>presents, just as the invitation literally says, feel embarrassed.
>Etiquette is meant to keep that from happening.

But the etiquette stated that no one was obligated to bring presents
to begin with. So the OP "should" not have been embarrassed to show
up at a party without a present regardless of what was on the invitiation.
I don't think this particular piece of etiquette is about preventing
embarrassment.

--Robyn

[Naomi Pardue]

>according to ettiquette mavens, the two
>*events where presents ARE "expected" are showers (wedding/baby/whatever) and
>*children's birthday parties.
>
>Yes, I believe I addressed that in a subsequent post.

Yeah, I eventually worked my way down to that post....

>That being said, the kids might get upset
>about it. I know my not-quite-3-year-old is very birthday-party savvy, and
>as soon as I tell him we are going to one for a friend of his he wants to
>know "what are we going to GIVE him, mommy? what will his PWESENT be?

Well, IIRC, the party in question was for slightly older kids. And, in any
case, as the parent, surely it's your job to explain, in such a situation that
at this particular party, the birthday child willl not be recieving a gift, but
that, instead, you and your child can, together, cook something yummy and
delicious to bring to the party.

I agree that etiquette can often be complicated and nonsensicle, but in a
situation like this, it still comes down to respecting the wishes of the host.
If she says no gifts, that means no gifts. (And if you DO feel, as noted,
strongly moved to give a gift, at least check with her to find out the
motivation for the policy, and if there is any way around it. She, presumably,
has a good reason for making the request.)


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

[Chris Smith]

Cathy Kearns wrote:
> The reason "no gifts please" is considered tacky is the sentiments
> behind it, the nicer one being "I don't need any presents" the less
> nice one being, "I don't trust you to get me anything I could possibly
> want."

What?!?

No, that's far from the sentiment behind such a thing. The sentiment,
in the case of the child's birthday party (which was, after all, the
context of this thread) is that it gets ridiculous that a child (often
too young to have already formed values about such things already)
learns that birthdays are fun because of the ludicrous heap of presents
on the table. That child can then match up presents to guests and
decide, based on how well they like the presents, which guests were most
valuable, and otherwise be tossed head-on into a consumerist view of the
world. All the while, the parents are fighting tooth and nail to try to
teach the child to value everyone's presence, but the entire environment
is encouraging that child to evaluate presence instead. People then
become so resigned to this absolute mess of good values that they give
up trying to teach anything different, and it's now become funny and
even cute for children to talk about occasions like Christmas and
birthdays using words like "loot".

You see, no one really NEEDS presents -- certainly no child needs
seventeen new toys to be happy -- but what do you think happens when
children spend every special day and happy occasion surrounded by piles
of new toys? With such training going around from early childhood, no
wonder consumerism is such a strong force in the world.

Yeah, I recognize that children pick up this mindset from a lot of other
places anyway; others' birthdays even if not their own, relationships
with friends and schoolmates, etc. Still, I feel a need to protect a
parent's remaining places to keep it out.


This thread has made me more aware of the other side of things, though.
Sure, there's some personal value to being able to do something special
for a person; it's not just a one-way exchange. Greeting cards are far
different, I think. Yes, Hallmark makes a bundle off of selling them,
but in principle at least, they aren't valuable in themselves in the
same way as toys, but rather because they are given by a person. That
redeems them. I'd love to see people bring cards to parties. Someone
mentioned that their daughter would bring (even make?) a card for such
an occasion, and I think that's an excellent idea.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

[Mary Ann]

Cathy Kearns > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Does it mean no one, including the parents, grand parents,
> or siblings are giving this child presents. I doubt it.
> Does it mean "no presents unless from someone very close
> to the birthday child". Well, I can't imagine anyone invited
> to the party feels they aren't close to the birthday child.
> Does it mean no "little presents"? No hand drawn
> pictures? No personalized poems? No homemade cookies?
> Well, those things always are welcome.
> And then there are those who ran across a special
> something for this child six months ago and have been saving it for their
> birthday. Do you really think those people are going to junk
> the present? What about the child's "best friend" who bought
> her/him a toy just like the one "she/he always wants to play with at my
> house."
> Do you stifle the generosity of the young friend, who has obviously
> thought this through enough to get something the birthday child likes?
> So exactly where do you draw the line?
>
The funny thing about all this greed and birthday parties is that it is the
parent (of the giver) who spends the money and agonizes over the appropriate
gift. My middle school age kids in a middle to upper suburb will more than
likely choose to give the fuzzy pen and a notebook from the dollar store. I
seldom spend more than 5.00 anymore, including gift bag, for birthday
presents.

[Naomi Pardue]

>I still give birthday, Xmas and anniversary presents to all my
>children and grandchildren and SILs and DIL. But that's only 17
>people - 19 if you count dh and my mom (which I do)
>

I am pathetically hopeless about remembering birthdays and things. I've long
ago given up on trying to remember adult family member birthdays. (And for them
there is still the same 'we're all adults and can buy what we want for
ourselves issues.) Ditto for anniversaries. If I'm really with it, I remember
to call my sibs on their birthdays, but even that's pretty much gone by the
wayside in recent years.

I was really good about neice/nephew b-days for quite a while, but I'll confess
that for the last couple of years I've become quite lax and have forgotten most
of them. (Which makes me feel very guilty because Shaina's b-day is right
around Hanukkah, so my sibs NEVER forget to send her presents, since they
always just get put in the box with her Hanukkah presents. But I often forget
their kids' b-days...)

>My mom, who now has 16 great grandchildren (from 7 grandchildren who
>each have a spouse) has decided not to give anything to anyone anymore
>except me and my sister. 'Cause that's 30 people right there.

Youch! Yeah, I can see how that would get difficult. My mom has no great
grandkids yet. (And hopefully won't for quite a while yet. My eldest neice is
only 13!) She seems quite content to be still buying gifts for her 7
grandchildren, 4 children and 4 children-in-law. And my MIL adores spoiling her
two grandkids rotton with more gifts than anyone can possibly imagine!


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

[Rosalie B.]

x-no-archive:yes
(Naomi Pardue) wrote:

>>I still give birthday, Xmas and anniversary presents to all my
>>children and grandchildren and SILs and DIL. But that's only 17
>>people - 19 if you count dh and my mom (which I do)
>>
>I am pathetically hopeless about remembering birthdays and things. I've long
>ago given up on trying to remember adult family member birthdays. (And for them
>there is still the same 'we're all adults and can buy what we want for
>ourselves issues.) Ditto for anniversaries. If I'm really with it, I remember
>to call my sibs on their birthdays, but even that's pretty much gone by the
>wayside in recent years.
>
I don't give gifts to adults (except my mom, and my dh) other than my
children who are now adults, but they are still my kids.

What I do is make a calendar up using calendar program software in
which I have everyone's date of birth and all the wedding dates. And
I mean everyone - my children's in-laws, my nieces spouses, and
children, deceased ancestor's birth wedding and death dates - the
whole bit. Since I have it all in the database, I don't have to
remember and possibly get it wrong (although it did take me about 3
years to get my BIL's birthday correct).

And I print out the appropriate dates in the calendar (I don't usually
put the death dates in, or the birth dates of my BIL's in laws or
birth dates of really distantly related people, but I do put my
children's in-laws in there so they can remember them if they want).

I have the birthday as an age for the kids i.e. Matthew's 9th
birthday, but for the adults I just say David C. born in Chicago in
1947 or whatever it is not exactly how old he is.

I also put all the wedding dates. This comes out as the wedding
anniversary with appropriate gifts for that anniversary. Next year we
will have our 45th anniversary. So it will say Grandma Rosalie and
Grand dad Bob Towson MD 45th Anniversary (Sapphire)
(only with our real names of course).

I then send this to appropriate people (my mom, my children, my older
grandchildren, my BIL, my oldest niece of my deceased SIL, dd#3's in
laws etc.) It doesn't cost a lot to do this - about $12 @ which
includes a collage of photos in color for each month and the cover and
a spiral plastic binding to hold it together.

I keep this calendar posted in our bedroom or the aft cabin of the
boat. When I was working I had two for myself - one for at work and
one at home. I look at it every day. So there's very little excuse
for me to forget, and if I do forget exactly which day some particular
birthday is, I can easily check.

>I was really good about neice/nephew b-days for quite a while, but I'll confess
>that for the last couple of years I've become quite lax and have forgotten most
>of them. (Which makes me feel very guilty because Shaina's b-day is right
>around Hanukkah, so my sibs NEVER forget to send her presents, since they
>always just get put in the box with her Hanukkah presents. But I often forget
>their kids' b-days...)
>
>>My mom, who now has 16 great grandchildren (from 7 grandchildren who
>>each have a spouse) has decided not to give anything to anyone anymore
>>except me and my sister. 'Cause that's 30 people right there.
>
>Youch! Yeah, I can see how that would get difficult. My mom has no great
>grandkids yet. (And hopefully won't for quite a while yet. My eldest neice is
>only 13!) She seems quite content to be still buying gifts for her 7
>grandchildren, 4 children and 4 children-in-law. And my MIL adores spoiling her
>two grandkids rotton with more gifts than anyone can possibly imagine!

My mom bought gifts for everyone too up to last year when she stopped.
It just got to be too much for her. She's almost 94 and is still
getting around pretty well, but she doesn't have as much energy now.

grandma Rosalie

[Kevin Karplus]

This thread seems to be drifting from the topic of presents at
birthday parties to birthday presents in general. I think the topics
are quite separate---one can give presents without bringing them to a
party.

My son has 12 cousins, so we gave up on keeping track of birthdays of
our nieces and nephews quite some time ago. We do give holiday gifts
(mostly Christmas) until the kids turn 18 (which reduced the number to
8 last year). We have not yet made a decision about what to do about
the greatnieces and greatnephews (only 1 so far).


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[D&K Condron]

"Robyn Kozierok" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Cathy Kearns > wrote:
>
> >People have problems with this, those that bring no
> >presents, just as the invitation literally says, feel embarrassed.
> >Etiquette is meant to keep that from happening.
>
> But the etiquette stated that no one was obligated to bring presents
> to begin with. So the OP "should" not have been embarrassed to show
> up at a party without a present regardless of what was on the invitiation.
> I don't think this particular piece of etiquette is about preventing
> embarrassment.
>
> --Robyn
>

I am the original poster, and you are right, I wasn't embarrassed that I
didn't bring a gift, just very confused as to why others did. I could see
myself putting "no presents" on a future invitation for my child, but now
all of this etiquette stuff has come up that I hadn't thought of - which
didn't answer my original question, but has left me with other questions
instead ;)

This whole thread has shown me that there is no "right" answer to the no
presents question. Everyone seems to have their definite idea as to whether
it is appropriate or not, and what the right way to respond is, so in the
future I will just respond as I feel the specific situation warrants. Thank
you all for your informative input.

Kat

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
Naomi Pardue > wrote:
>
>I was really good about neice/nephew b-days for quite a while, but I'll confess
>that for the last couple of years I've become quite lax and have forgotten most
>of them. (Which makes me feel very guilty because Shaina's b-day is right
>around Hanukkah, so my sibs NEVER forget to send her presents, since they
>always just get put in the box with her Hanukkah presents. But I often forget
>their kids' b-days...)

What we do with the neices and nephews now is to get them one gift a year,
which we give them whenever we go to visit. They get our kids one thing as
well. With a total of 11 kids between the 3 families, this saves a ton on
postage and shopping time for all of us. We do try to remember to call on
everyone's birthday.

--Robyn

[E]

"Kevin Karplus" > wrote in message
...
> This thread seems to be drifting from the topic of presents at
> birthday parties to birthday presents in general. I think the topics
> are quite separate---one can give presents without bringing them to a
> party.
>
> My son has 12 cousins, so we gave up on keeping track of birthdays of
> our nieces and nephews quite some time ago. We do give holiday gifts
> (mostly Christmas) until the kids turn 18 (which reduced the number to
> 8 last year). We have not yet made a decision about what to do about
> the greatnieces and greatnephews (only 1 so far).
>
>
> --
> Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
> life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
> Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
> Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
> Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
> Affiliations for identification only.
>

I remember when I was a teen and the presents stopped. I'm thinking I would
do it the other way around - start giving the gifts to the teenagers. they
are (I was) old enough to appreciate them at that age, and probably "need"
stuff more. I know I would have loved little thoughtful things at that age,
and especially when I was in college. by then, I also knew how to write a
nice thank you note.
the younger ones don't really "need *that* much stuff, get tons of
hand-me-downs, and don't bother to write TY's, or aren't old enough to know
how...
JMHO
Edith
nak

[Kevin Karplus]

In article >, E wrote:
> "Kevin Karplus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My son has 12 cousins, so we gave up on keeping track of birthdays of
>> our nieces and nephews quite some time ago. We do give holiday gifts
>> (mostly Christmas) until the kids turn 18 (which reduced the number to
>> 8 last year).
>
> I remember when I was a teen and the presents stopped. I'm thinking I would
> do it the other way around - start giving the gifts to the teenagers. they
> are (I was) old enough to appreciate them at that age, and probably "need"
> stuff more. I know I would have loved little thoughtful things at that age,
> and especially when I was in college. by then, I also knew how to write a
> nice thank you note.
> the younger ones don't really "need *that* much stuff, get tons of
> hand-me-downs, and don't bother to write TY's, or aren't old enough to know
> how...

Ahh, but buying presents for young kids is fun, while trying to find
presents for adults or teens that you barely know is TOUGH. We see
the various cousins less often than once a year, and the parents are
not always very helpful in telling us what the kids are interested in.
The thank-you notes aren't what I give presents for anyway.

--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

[E]

"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "E" > wrote:

<SNIP>

> > I remember when I was a teen and the presents stopped. I'm thinking I
would
> > do it the other way around - start giving the gifts to the teenagers.
they
> > are (I was) old enough to appreciate them at that age, and probably
"need"
> > stuff more. I know I would have loved little thoughtful things at that
age,
> > and especially when I was in college. by then, I also knew how to write
a
> > nice thank you note.
> > the younger ones don't really "need *that* much stuff, get tons of
> > hand-me-downs, and don't bother to write TY's, or aren't old enough to
know
> > how...
> > JMHO
> > Edith
> > nak
> >
>
> When grandma died, grandpa stopped giving birthday and Christmas
> presents -- said he just couldn't spend that much time shopping,
> couldn't remember all his grandkids' birthdays (there were 24 of us), so
> instead, every Christmas, he picked up 48 brand new one dollar bills,
> and put them in envelopes for each of us -- one bill each for our
> birthday and for Christmas.
>
> Even then, $2 wasn't all that much money, but I can remember as a
> college student (early 70's) looking forward to getting that $2, because
> I always spent it on something that I didn't actually need, and that was
> just for ME. It might only be a pair of fancy panties, but I enjoyed
> the shopping.
>
> So I think you may have a point -- a gift, even a small one, to an older
> teen might be more appreciated than a gift to a two year old.
>
> However, I think you'd probably annoy the parents of the two year old a
> lot more . . .
>
> meh
> --
> Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
>
I don't know, I've got a 15.5yo DS and a 18yo DD, as well as a 7+wo. we
have plenty for the newborn - even without having any showers (though I
would have loved a get-together [sorry to ramble - sore point for me]) or
receiving many gifts. I mean, really, how much do they REALLY need? not to
mention, where can you put it all, and how much do they really use?
whereas my other 2 are still growing/wearing out of clothes, have more
expensive tastes, like to receive things. I remember being hurt when it all
stopped. I think you're better off starting something later in life that
they're not expecting than to stop something they've gotten used to...
JMHO
Edith
nak