Bridezilla Expects Woman To Watch 40 Kids For $50 During Her Childfree Wedding

As we go through life, we can find that some people have a real knack for taking a good idea and distorting it beyond all comprehension.

For instance, it makes sense that a growing number of couples are now opting for a childfree wedding. Such a move can reduce the headcount, simplify the menu, and save the kids themselves from an event that's often pretty boring for them.

But it seems there's no wedding plan that a particularly pernicious bridezilla can't twist to her own advantage.

Yet while it's sadly not uncommon for an entitled couple to exploit the goodwill of their guests, some cases make it pretty clear that these machinations have personal reasons behind them.

And while that somehow wasn't patently obvious to one woman's family, it's hard to take what she described in her story as anything but blatant disrespect.

The woman we're about to hear from has always been close to her brother, but the same cannot be said for the woman he's about to marry, who is code named Emily.

As she explained in a Reddit post, this history likely had to do with Emily's bizarre decision to exclude under the age of 21 from her childfree wedding because the woman is 20 years old.

She originally wasn't going to be allowed at the ceremony or the reception, but the brother (code named Nate) was able to convince Emily to let her at least attend the ceremony.

However, this compromise would eventually unravel after Emily had the idea to set up a daycare for the children of her guests.

Since both the woman and her boyfriend love kids and are respectively training to be a teacher and a pediatrician, they were open to the idea when the bride asked if they could handle this responsibility.

That is, until they learned that this would involve watching 40 kids for over six hours and that the bride was only willing to pay each of them $50 for this big job.

As the woman put it, "We agreed that we'd do it for $150 each, but Emily insisted on her original offer."

It was at this point that Nate revealed he had already volunteered the woman and her boyfriend for this task without their knowledge.

So when the woman refused the proposed arrangement, Emily became increasingly angry.

In the woman's words, "She proceeded to tell me that I was being a greedy, selfish brat, and that I should be paying her since she'd be giving me practice for my teaching career."

Before the two couples parted ways in anger, Emily told the woman that if she doesn't babysit the 40 kids as asked, she'll ruin the wedding and won't be allowed at the ceremony.

And it turns out that the woman's family agrees and thinks she should want to do anything that would make her brother's wedding perfect.

And since she's normally willing to babysit for free, they figured that this situation should be no different and that she's being childish.

Apparently, the fact that babysitters aren't usually expected to watch 40 children at once didn't occur to them.

In any case, the woman now feels conflicted as her sadness at not being able to attend the wedding (and her worries as to how this will affect her relationship with Nate) clashes with her refusal to be mistreated by Emily.

But when she reached out to Reddit, the community was stunned at the idea that anyone could possibly take Emily's side in this situation.

As one user said, "They don’t want you to attend the wedding but you’re allowed to work it?!? If she thinks 21 is a child, tell her it’s irresponsible to have a child in charge of 40 other children and decline."

For those who responded, the unreasonable expectations, insulting pay, and Emily's likely ulterior motive of cleverly excluding the woman from the wedding no matter what she chose were enough to firmly put Emily in the wrong.

And they felt that neither Nate nor the woman's family came off all that well in this situation.

As another person put it, "Everything Emily asked of you was unfair and unkind. That your brother thought it reasonable is really sad. I’m sorry."

h/t: Reddit | Maximum_Somewhere281

NEXT ARTICLE