Is it really common now for people not to understand that if you invite to a "party" that the host pays?

by colodio

Question by Old Mister Happy: Is it really common now for people not to understand that if you invite to a "party" that the host pays?
And if you can't afford to treat your guests, then you change the plans to something more affordable, or don't call it a "party"?

Get-togethers for friends and going Dutch is great, no problem, but buying your own meal and drinks and someone else making reservations in an expensive restaurant does not constitute "putting on a party". Or is this just old fashioned thinking?

Sounds a bit like an entitlement problem that you feel you should be at a great restaurant, even though you can't afford it, and no one has offered to take you there.


Best answer:

Answer by Mimi
It's more of putting on a "dinner arrangement". The problem is when they call it a party! It's not a party, it's a dinner meeting of friends.
I've been to loads of these in the past two years, and think it's okay - if I don't have enough $ to pay for dinner, I usually tell the host that I'll show up for dessert or an after-dinner drink.
I went to one last night - we all paid a flat rate for a shared banquet, and the hostess' dinner was paid for by her best friend. It was okay, but I prefer a party at someone's house definitely.
I've also been to dinners like this where everyone pitches in for the guest of honor's dinner/drinks.
The out to dinner plan is less social, as you're stuck sitting at a table talking to whoever is right next to you - and that can wear thin after the first 2 hours...and if the restaurant isn't any good, that's a downer.
I suppose people don't want the cooking/cleanup part of the party. I think this is fair enough. But they shouldn't be surprised if some of their friends can't come due to the $ of the dinner...or if they don't like the type of food at the restaurant.

What do you think? Answer below!