Money Moral Dilemma: Should my friends have paid for my hen do?

georget84

For my Stag I felt quite the opposite - Just having my mates along was all I needed. That warm feeling of knowing 30 people had taken a weekend of their lives to spend it celebrating with me, how could I have expected them to pay for me?

I was also very conscious of making sure the stag was excellent value for money as I didn't want folk spending their hard earned on an expensive weekend away on my behalf. I actually chipped in over £200 extra to ensure there was enough beer for the weekend. We also had a whip around on the coach for a charity donation as one of the crew couldn't make it due to being diagnosed with Cancer, so I shelled out for the tip for the bus driver.

On the flip side, this year I went on a stag to Ibiza that cost most of us well over £1000 per head. It was on a Thursday-Sunday so had to take 2 days annual leave and the wedding was on a Friday (Ironically so the bride and groom could save a few quid). When you factor in the Hen do which my wife attended, the wedding day ie drinks, hotels, taxis etc we spent over £2000 between us on that wedding and had to take 3 day annual leave each - so NO, I didn't feel the need to pay for the Stag.

elizabethhull

I agree with many others that hen/stag parties have got ridiculous. I never had one (uni friends had gone back home for the hols,) so best friend and I simply got together for a coffee/chat.

So my first hen party was that of my elder daughter, who organised a meal at a hotel with a Murder Mystery boxed game (hilarious and well worth it !). All guests paid for themselves, but I privately set some money against the bill so when it came to splitting it everyone paid a lot less than they'd imagined.
Then we all went off to a bar, where my daughter's drinks were paid for (mostly Coca cola as she's not much on alcohol). A whole evening, much enjoyed, and no stupid expenditure.

With regard to the OP, WHY oh WHY do people not discuss things beforehand ? I would always want to know in advance what costs were going to be, to what extent I was paying, and would expect to budget accordingly.
Or do people not understand the concept of budgeting these days ?

It;s the same for actual weddings. We've been to expensive ones, and very modest ones - they were all lovely, just different, and no-one to my knowledge sniped about the modest ones.

stmartinsdiver

Assuming that your friends have the same view about what is 'normal'as you do then I can only assume that for some reason they considered it unreasonable to pay for you in this instance. This is perhaps a good illustration of people (you) having unreasonable expectations and coming down to earth with a bump. Sorry, no sympathy.

pjran

NO

It’s expensive enough for your friends to attend your hen do especially when flights, hotels and eating out. Plus I expect they’ll be attending the wedding, new outfit, travel costs and again an overnight hotel stay.

Why oh why should they pay for your hen do? Friendship should not be judged by their generous gestures, you’re somewhat shallow to think that.

Count your blessings that you have a circle of friends.

pearl123

Everybody should pay for themselves. It's a complete waste of money anyway!

Pollycat

stmartinsdiver wrote: »

Assuming that your friends have the same view about what is 'normal'as you do then I can only assume that for some reason they considered it unreasonable to pay for you in this instance. This is perhaps a good illustration of people (you) having unreasonable expectations and coming down to earth with a bump. Sorry, no sympathy.

Maybe they just don't like the OP.......:whistle:

crmism

Some hen parties I've heard about have been at great expense, but you haven't said how much your share was or what it involved.

It could be that you alone are well-off financially, and that the others felt it was too much for them to bear, especially if you all indulged yourselves in a long weekend at a health spa or somewhere similar; indeed, a few celebrations seem to border on the ridiculous and are completely over the top. Alternatively, there might be a reversal of the way people do things, and everyone involved goes "Dutch", in keeping with the currently-unfashionable notion of saving money before the wedding, as it will be needed afterwards to set up the home.

I shouldn't take it to heart. Do as you suggest when your friends get married and, if anyone remarks about stinginess on your part at the time, gently remind them that you paid for your share when you got married.

ska_lover

No Bridezilla, you shouldn't have had your friends pay

providence

pollypenny wrote: »

And people wonder why we baby boomers were able to get on the housing ladder!

We don't wonder, we know.
Your wages were more in line with property prices. Property wasn't seen at that point in time as such a profit source. Your wages were more in line with cost of living.

Your generation also weren't expected to do so much work for free (see "internships") to get this oh so valuable "experience" that companies demand for even the most basic jobs, and could walk into most jobs without having to get a costly degree which will take you the best part of two decades to pay off, because you also had maintenance grants that covered most of what you needed.

My generation is still in debt until they are 40 paying off student loans to get degrees that we were told we absolutely needed to get ahead and yet most of us are just about breaking even between what we are paid and rent/bills/repayments.

Your generation had it good, and pulled the ladder up behind you. For the vast majority of under 40s owning a home is a pipe dream, and it is not because of a hen do or avocado on toast, it is because property prices are unrealistic, wages are not enough to both cover rent and save for a deposit.

We don't wonder about your generation, we know exactly how good you had it, and how hard you worked to ensure we didn't have the same benefits.

Pollycat

providence wrote: »

We don't wonder, we know.
Your wages were more in line with property prices. Property wasn't seen at that point in time as such a profit source. Your wages were more in line with cost of living.

Your generation also weren't expected to do so much work for free (see "internships") to get this oh so valuable "experience" that companies demand for even the most basic jobs, and could walk into most jobs without having to get a costly degree which will take you the best part of two decades to pay off, because you also had maintenance grants that covered most of what you needed.

My generation is still in debt until they are 40 paying off student loans to get degrees that we were told we absolutely needed to get ahead and yet most of us are just about breaking even between what we are paid and rent/bills/repayments.

Your generation had it good, and pulled the ladder up behind you. For the vast majority of under 40s owning a home is a pipe dream, and it is not because of a hen do or avocado on toast, it is because property prices are unrealistic, wages are not enough to both cover rent and save for a deposit.

We don't wonder about your generation, we know exactly how good you had it, and how hard you worked to ensure we didn't have the same benefits.

And a lot of us saved hard for a deposit for a house and made do with second-hand furniture and no carpets on the floor or curtains at the window.
We didn't expect the moon and so put shedloads of stuff on finance and we didn't take out stupidly expensive contracts on i-phones and the like then upgrade as soon as it became 'old'.

We saved up for things and did without until we could afford them.

We had more sense with the money we earned.

Personally, I didn't do any work - hard or not - to make sure you didn't have the same benefits as me.