Which is more rude, cash bar or dry wedding?

Dry wedding. Both options are horrible.

Honestly, Id rather go to a dry wedding than a cash bar wedding. Ive been to a few dry weddings, and I have to say most of them were ok and they kept their receptions short- either cake and punch in the afternoon or a short dinner party atmosphere. All of then were for religious reasons, and while I think that theology is bad, I understood. (It also helped that, including ceremony time, most of them were only about maximum 2 hours in length- appetizers, food, cake done!

I've never attended a cash bar wedding- but it seems increadibly rude to ask your guests to subsidize a party you are throwing to thank them.

Dry wedding, both suck though

I would say cash bar. I wouldn't want to charge my guests to attend my wedding.

OP, I hope you're not asking because you're considering doing one of them for your wedding and want to know which would annoy your guests less. If you are, please don't at least offer beer and wine. Both are highly rude to your guests. Dry weddings are only viewed as a little OK if you have a cake and punch reception not at a meal time. Personally for me if I went to an evening wedding I'd rather be able to buy a drink than not have one at all if I wanted it but I wouldn't be happy about it and would leave early.

I think cash bar is rude. I don't usually bring money to a wedding. We are having a dry wedding because my FH and most of our friends are in long term recovery and neither sets of parents drink. Dry wedding could be dry for many reasons but a cash bar is tacky, imo.

I have been to both and had a good time at both. But I seem to view weddings in a vastly different light than the majority. But if it matters to you, think about your guests in the terms of what would they prefer and would they even care? In the end, these people are supposed to be people you care about and want to share this big step in your life. You know them (or at least the majority of them) well enough to answer that question. Either way, I think you will be fine, but I don't know your guests.

If you're looking at it from strictly an etiquette viewpoint than technically it's the cash bar that's worse. You, as the hosts, should never be offering something and expecting your guests to pay for it. If you're looking at it from a real world viewpoint than it's the dry wedding. Sure, there are outliers out there where somebody had a dry wedding and their guests had a blast and still talk about it as the best wedding ever, but most people don't want to go to a dry wedding. Especially an evening dry wedding. You can get away with it if it's a shorter reception during early day time hours but it's not going to be remembered as one of the better weddings and most of your guests will probably have an attitude of, let's just go and stay for an hour and then get out of there. The exception is if the majority of your guests don't drink.

Both are bad but I'd rather go to a wedding with a cash bar. At least I have the option to drink

I would like to have the option to drink so I think dry weddings are worse. Before ww I had never ever heard a negative thing about cash bars, there a just a norm in my family. I only went to first open bar wedding last year. But, I do understanding how it is poor hosting so I would not advise either.

Both are horribly rude but, a cash bar is tackier. A cash bar means that you are okay with drinking (so no moral or religious objections) but, are just too cheap to pay for it. I can think of a limited few times when a dry wedding would be acceptable but, I can't think of any instances where a cash bar would be.

I think a cash bar is worse. I think you can still have a lovely dry wedding, as long as you understand it will be on a shorter timeline, whereas a cash bar feels more like I'm responsible for paying for your party.

Dry is worse. Does the venue let you provide the alcohol? If so, it's much cheaper than buying a package through the venue because you buy exactly as much of whatever you would like to provide as you want and you can return what you don't use.

View Quoted Comment

I couldn't agree more.

Honestly. I see nothing wrong with either. Alcohol is expensive. Weddings are expensive, and if someone has to cut that out so they aren't struggling or maybe religious reasons that's their choice. The fact that so many people have to drink to have fun is sad.
That being said we are trying to have an open bar with wine and beer only. But I feel it's ok if people don't provide alcohol.

View Quoted Comment

It's not about people having to have alcohol to have fun. It's about properly hosting the people who have taken the time to come witness your ceremony. The reception is to thank those people for making the effort to be there.

View Quoted Comment To each their own, but I don't feel alcohol is needed to properly host.

I believe the etiquette answer is cash bar.

That being said, know your guests. My culture doesn't value drinking the way American/european culture does so it's not a huge part of weddings (and tons of people don't host alcohol in their home either). 95% of the weddings I've been to have been either cash bar or dry wedding. I've only been to three open bar weddings (two totally open, one beer and wine only) and they were mostly outside of my culture. I've had a great time at all three because I'm usually there to socialize with my friends. I never pay for a drink at a cash wedding because I don't carry cash and it's on the expensive side. So basically, all weddings with no free alcohol are dry weddings for me.

I think if you're having a dry wedding, you should let your guests know ahead of time that wouldn't be expecting it (ie if its for religious reasons or they're not from your culture). It's their choice or not to attend at that point if they're going to base it on alcohol presence.

We are doing wine, beer and two signature cocktails. Which puts it all within our budget. Might want to give it a look.

I just don't understand why people wouldn't have a bar at their wedding. Luckily every wedding I have ever been too was an open bar. I think both are bad. It'd be a deal breaker for me, if the place didn't have a bar, or I couldn't pay a consumption tab. I'd pick another venue.