Should little kids be banned from some restaurants?

[NovemberBride]

I voted no. I would not give my business to a place that has this as a blanket rule. We eat out with our DD who is 20 months at least once a week. As a parent of a toddler, I am very mindful of not allowing my child to disturb the other diners. If she does, either my DH or I get up and walk outside with her (we do not let her run around inside the restaurant), or we quickly ask for our food to go. That said, we have been dining out with my DD since she was a newborn and she generally is well behaved in restaurants. We are sure to bring crayons and books for her in case they have none, and yes, on occasion if the meal is taking longer than expected, we allow her to watch something on our iphones. We do not go out to eat past her bedtime or when she needs a nap, because we know that she will not be well-behaved. DH and I do not live near any family and we do not have a regular sitter. While we do not take our DD to what we consider dimly-lit romantic restaurants, we do take her to nicer places as we appreciate good food. I would be upset and offended if my DD was not welcome in those places just because she is a child. I understand that not all parents are as considerate, but that is no reason to discriminate against all children.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here's a point: Places that don't offer high chairs, and have no space for strollers are basically telling you your 2 year old is not welcome.

Some very fancy places do offer high chairs.
Not the place where I hit the panic button. They were in the process of trying to find a spot for our stroller at that moment.
The friends that invited us are great friends of the owners, or they might have told us that no strollers were allowed. Of course now we're probably banned from the place for life

 

[Autumnovember]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

 

[charbie]

Wait, don't a lot of bars do this already? I seem to remember being in college and not able to get into certain establishments until I was 21 yrs old...

interestingly I saw an article about parents bringing their kids to happy hour...

They just wanted a happy meal.

At Applebees, sure. I'd probably do the same.
At a nice happy hour place where they serve half price martinis (that are still over priced) and half price sushi? Ummm, no thanks.

 

[charbie]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Them be some dangerous words, AN. I wont be surprised if someone writes back on here about how exactly you are supposed to control a two year old who does not understand reason....I've seen those words uttered here before...a certain thread about children on airplanes kenny started a looooong time ago comes to mind. Gets ugly, really fast.

But I get whatcha mean

 

[shihtzulover]

I don't see a problem with some restaurants choosing to ban children. I can certainly understand it, because even the most well-behaved children can sometimes throw tantrums or just be loud in general. On top of that, many children are unfortunately not well-behaved, which makes it much worse.

I definitely would not want to be trying to enjoy a really nice meal at an upscale restaurant, only to be distracted and bothered by a screaming or otherwise unruly child. Sure, some children are just fine in such a setting, but if you let those children in (if you could even somehow identify them, as opposed to the poorly-behaved children), it would be seen as even more discriminatory.

I am often surprised when I see children in more expensive restaurants. They don't really tend to have children's menus, and I know that when i was a kid, I definitely would not have even bee interested in going to one.

So yes, I think that it's a totally fine idea. If people want to bring children along, then there will be many other restaurants to choose from - restaurants that do allow children.

 

[Autumnovember]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Them be some dangerous words, AN. I wont be surprised if someone writes back on here about how exactly you are supposed to control a two year old who does not understand reason....I've seen those words uttered here before...a certain thread about children on airplanes kenny started a looooong time ago comes to mind. Gets ugly, really fast.

But I get whatcha mean

This is true---I think Jennifer painted the picture perfectly. To me, SHE is in control. I have two nephews, I've been out to eat with them...I do understand how hard it is to get kids to behave sometimes. I think the real problem is that parents who CAN'T get their kids to behave just become repeat offenders at restaurants...if that makes sense.

 

[NovemberBride]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Why should my child be penalized because some parents do not control their children?

 

[purselover]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Them be some dangerous words, AN. I wont be surprised if someone writes back on here about how exactly you are supposed to control a two year old who does not understand reason....I've seen those words uttered here before...a certain thread about children on airplanes kenny started a looooong time ago comes to mind. Gets ugly, really fast.

But I get whatcha mean

Exactly why IMO restaurants should be able to ban children because it can be so difficult to reason with them! And I'm sorry but by the time someone takes their fussing child out of the restaurant I've already been disturbed, there are always exceptions of course but for the most part I think children should be kept out of very nice restuarants.

 

[Maria D]

I voted no. I would not give my business to a place that has this as a blanket rule. We eat out with our DD who is 20 months at least once a week. As a parent of a toddler, I am very mindful of not allowing my child to disturb the other diners. If she does, either my DH or I get up and walk outside with her (we do not let her run around inside the restaurant), or we quickly ask for our food to go. That said, we have been dining out with my DD since she was a newborn and she generally is well behaved in restaurants. We are sure to bring crayons and books for her in case they have none, and yes, on occasion if the meal is taking longer than expected, we allow her to watch something on our iphones. We do not go out to eat past her bedtime or when she needs a nap, because we know that she will not be well-behaved. DH and I do not live near any family and we do not have a regular sitter. While we do not take our DD to what we consider dimly-lit romantic restaurants, we do take her to nicer places as we appreciate good food. I would be upset and offended if my DD was not welcome in those places just because she is a child. I understand that not all parents are as considerate, but that is no reason to discriminate against all children.

I am always amazed that so many parents don't know to do this kind of thing. I get bored easily and I'm almost 50. If the checkout line at the supermarket is too slow, I pick up People mag and read it for free, it keeps me from getting crabby. So it stands to reason that a toddler might need something to entertain themselves. What is so hard about carrying around some novelty toys that only come out at the restaurant, in the plane, standing in line, wherever? Last week on a plane (I know I shouldn't be bringing up planes) I listened to a kid -- probably about 3 -- whine and kick the chair in front of him for about half an hour until his Dad finally gave him his watch to play with. It was a 3.5 hour flight and not once did Dad take something out of his carry-on for his son to play with. Seriously, you expected a child to just sit back and enjoy the flight? I *still* make sure to bring a sketchpad and drawing pencils for me and my daughter and she is 17! Her iPod battery ran out and she was glad I had them.

 

[charbie]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Why should my child be penalized because some parents do not control their children?

NB: Im only asking because I'm curious and my only child is in utero, and not trying to be offensive, but does your child enjoy dining really nice restaurants? Id imagine it cannot be much fun for small kids to eat somewhere that is designed for an adult crowd. What does a kid eat at a place with $100 plates if there is no kids menu? Again, I ask bc im curious, and I wouldn't want to shell out tons of cash for a 5 yr old to eat at a super nice restaurant.

 

[lbbaber]

Someone mentioned a thread about a plane that caused heated responses but there is a big difference between a restaurant and a plane that would cause parents to get upset. Banning children from certain resturants--no big deal. We can just choose another restaurant to bring our kids to (and yes I voted its ok to ban kids under 6 even though I'm a mom). But when we need to travel we have NO CHOICE but to bring our little one's on planes sometime. I could see why that thread would get heated.

And to add-- in college I waiting tables at fine dining restaurants--its amazing how many parents simply don't care what kind of ruckus their kids cause

 

[Autumnovember]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Why should my child be penalized because some parents do not control their children?

Why should I be penalized because some parents can't control their kids?

 

[Autumnovember]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Them be some dangerous words, AN. I wont be surprised if someone writes back on here about how exactly you are supposed to control a two year old who does not understand reason....I've seen those words uttered here before...a certain thread about children on airplanes kenny started a looooong time ago comes to mind. Gets ugly, really fast.

But I get whatcha mean

Exactly why IMO restaurants should be able to ban children because it can be so difficult to reason with them! And I'm sorry but by the time someone takes their fussing child out of the restaurant I've already been disturbed, there are always exceptions of course but for the most part I think children should be kept out of very nice restuarants.

Yep, agreed. Or our of restaurants where there are HOOKAH'S and people BLOWING SMOKE all over the place (yup, had to sit next to a screaming child while trying to enjoy some hookah...a place a child had no place being).

 

[junebug17]

Look, I really like babies, toddlers and small children, but there's no denying that they can cause a ruckus in a restaurant - and it's hard to "control" or reason with such little ones (I'm talking really little, babies to 3 years). And when I go to a family-style, casual restaurant I expect to see and hear babies crying and toddlers doing the hokey-pokey around the table because they can't sit still any longer. But by the same token it would sure be nice to be able to go to certain restaurants and be assured that there won't be any fussing and fuming during the meal. My husband and I like to go to a particular restaurant because there tend to be less kids there, and it's just a calmer, quieter environment. It just makes for a more relaxing atmosphere. I don't think that makes us bad people. It doesn't mean we don't like kids - I've raised two of them!

On the rare occasions my husband and I wanted to go to a more up-scale restaurant when my kids were little, we hired a baby-sitter. My kids were generally well-behaved, but all kids have their moments and I didn't think it was fair to subject others to a potential melt-down.

 

[charbie]

Look, I really like babies, toddlers and small children, but there's no denying that they can cause a ruckus in a restaurant - and it's hard to "control" or reason with such little ones (I'm talking really little, babies to 3 years). And when I go to a family-style, casual restaurant I expect to see and hear babies crying and toddlers doing the hokey-pokey around the table because they can't sit still any longer. But by the same token it would sure be nice to be able to go to certain restaurants and be assured that there won't be any fussing and fuming during the meal. My husband and I like to go to a particular restaurant because there tend to be less kids there, and it's just a calmer, quieter environment. It just makes for a more relaxing atmosphere. I don't think that makes us bad people. It doesn't mean we don't like kids - I've raised two of them!

On the rare occasions my husband and I wanted to go to a more up-scale restaurant when my kids were little, we hired a baby-sitter. My kids were generally well-behaved, but all kids have their moments and I didn't think it was fair to subject others to a potential melt-down.

Well said.

 

[charbie]

Someone mentioned a thread about a plane that caused heated responses but there is a big difference between a restaurant and a plane that would cause parents to get upset. Banning children from certain resturants--no big deal. We can just choose another restaurant to bring our kids to (and yes I voted its ok to ban kids under 6 even though I'm a mom). But when we need to travel we have NO CHOICE but to bring our little one's on planes sometime. I could see why that thread would get heated.

And to add-- in college I waiting tables at fine dining restaurants--its amazing how many parents simply don't care what kind of ruckus their kids cause

Guilty. And I totally understand what you're saying. I was pointing out that AN mentioned "controlling" small children. Parents of even the most well behaved children cannot always "control" them. I've noticed in a few places on PS when someone uses the words "control your kids" it can get ugly...whether talking about a backyard BBQ or a plane ride.

 

[bluebirrrd]

I voted yes. Any restaurant owners who view this as a problem in their business or who want to cater to an adults only clientele should feel free to make this their policy if they want. I believe this topic has also come up regarding day spas, where, like fine restaurants, people also expect to enjoy themselves and relax. Do those who voted no also disagree with adults only resorts? I got to stay in one in Cancun. It was one of the most luxurious and relaxing experiences I've ever had.

My favorite fine dining restaurant was also my parents favorite restaurant when I was a child. On our family's special occasions, I always got to go with them, but you can bet I was never anything less than quiet, still and respectful in every way. Like many others here, I was raised to know exactly how to behave in public. That is just not the case with all children, or even all adults. There are other options, like just being more consistent in asking people to leave when they disturb other customers, but creating a blanket policy should be on the table too. It should be the owner's choice. The world should not always revolve around children.

 

[TristanC]

I think more parents today than ever before feel that the best way to raise children is to impose as few restrictions on them as possible.
I once saw a parent in a supermarket reasoning with his 3 year old about their candy buying compromise.
Do they even bother correcting spelling and grammar any more, or would that hurt little Jonny's self esteem?
They see the mentality that "children should be seen but not heard" as an archaic 1950s thing.

These parents resent others interfering in their right to parent their kids as they see fit.

AFAIC that's groovy except then their DNA units are out in public.

EDIT: I'm also surprised at the near 90% response rate.
PS must have an unusual mix.
If the public was 90% yes, CNN would not have considered this controversial enough to publish.

Sometimes taboo sells eyeballs. It is a bit like **** and or sex. Everyone indulges. Well, near enough as everyone, yet it frequently hits news headlines as being controversial.

Sex is a way of life. Even more so than kids. But it sells viewership. So does any basic taboo topic I guess.

I would love more child free restaurants. I also do frequent ikea's canteen from time to time which is essentially 300 kids pretending that a 5ft by 5 ft plastic moulded playground is disneyland, so it depends on my own proclivities for the day.

I applaud restaurants for going down this route.

Would be even better if there was a way to "vote to kick" rowdy tables. All the other patrons can press the vote button, and if it passes 80% vote, the table is evicted. Preferably through a trapdoor.

 

[TristanC]

Oh, just occurred to me. This thread reminds me of an interview about this man, who had a room fully decked out in velcro. If his kids didn't behave, he would make them change into velcro outfits and basically velcro them to the wall.

They kinda liked it. But it gets old. And he would velcro the other offending child (he had 2) to the opposite wall, so they could have a shoutfest till that got old as well.

Parents and guests were free to interact outside of the velcro room.

They use the room for fun stuff as well so hopefully no lasting trauma was caused.

 

[VRBeauty]

I'm tempted to argue "no" just for the sake of a good discussion, but I can't> I see absolutely nothing wrong with a restaurant "banning" children under a certain age if they're trying to cater to a clientele that would be bothered with by fussing children or parents who are loudly trying to "control" their children. Do you suppose they could impose a ban on loud braggart type adults while they're at it?

BTW I'm not a parent, but I've seen many loud/screaming child situations in which I don't think the issue is one of the parent needing to "control" the child, but one of the parent needing to be more realistic when they plan a day that involves young children. Two hours of Mom shopping and trying on clothes with a youngster? Of course Jr is going to get fussy. Mom basically dragging the kids around in a shopping cart, focused on the racks, chatting on a phone, never interacting with the kids except to tell them to shut up? The parents often seem to be the culprits but it's not because they don't "control" the kids, it's because they seem to forget that raising kids requires some lifestyle adjustments.

Rant over.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

The question asks if children should be banned from some restaurants, which implies that there is a right or wrong standard by which restaurants should adhere. So my answer is no, I don't think it is necessary to ban children from any restaurant. However, I have no problem with restaurant owners choosing to ban children. Money talks, and if the owner feels he can improve his bottom line by keeping out little ones, then that's his right! I don't really care either way, but I sure did enjoy that week at the adults only resort in Jamaica. Reading my book or sitting at the swim-up bar in the infinity pool without kids screaming and splashing me or crowding up the place with a million floatie toys was pretty awesome!

 

[rainwood]

I voted yes. Our favorite restaurant is a classic Greek diner and there are usually lots of kids, some well-behaved and some not, and we're fine with that. It's part of the experience and we expect it. We've had kids kick the back of the booth we're sitting in for half an hour straight, we've eaten through non-stop screeching, we've smiled as kids ran around the restaurant throwing things the entire time. It's just part of going there. If it were an expensive, special occasion restaurant, I'd be pissed if those same things happened.

But why a ban? Because most parents of well-behaved children don't try to bring their kids to an age-inappropriate restaurant. It's the clueless parents who usually do it and then tune out when their kids go ballistic. The same kind of parents who bring toddlers to violent, scary movies. And they're the same people least likely to believe that maybe their kids shouldn't be there or that they should leave if things get out of hand, and will react badly if you ask them to leave. So you have to have a rule that applies to all.

And I agree with the poster who said if you wait to see which parents and kids shouldn't be there, it's already too late because someone's evening out has already been ruined. I also wholeheartedly support those restaurants that ban cell phone use, on the same principle. Because it's the rude, arrogant people who sit there shouting inane crap into their phones and ruin everyone else's meal. Some people just think they're entitled to do whatever they want, whenever they want. And unfortunately some of those people are parents of small children. And owners of cell phones.

 

[Jennifer W]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Why should my child be penalized because some parents do not control their children?

NB: Im only asking because I'm curious and my only child is in utero, and not trying to be offensive, but does your child enjoy dining really nice restaurants? Id imagine it cannot be much fun for small kids to eat somewhere that is designed for an adult crowd. What does a kid eat at a place with $100 plates if there is no kids menu? Again, I ask bc im curious, and I wouldn't want to shell out tons of cash for a 5 yr old to eat at a super nice restaurant.

I don't understand the concept of or the need for separate food for children. My parents didn't bring me up to eat differently to them and I wouldn't want to order from a 'kids menu' for my child. Even in quite nice restaurants, the things intended for children to eat can often be often poorer quality than the adult meals. My child can eat processed chicken or potato shapes or food made into smiley faces or fries or whatever round about the time hell freezes over. In the meantime, she can have a half portion of something from the menu, which she'll choose, eat and enjoy. All the restaurants we go to will have a few dishes I know she'll enjoy, things like fish or smoked fish, a plate of olives and crudites or a fruit-based dessert, for example. I never made separate food for her at home and I'm not going to start ordering it when we go out. She loves food and enjoys being out like that. If she felt differently about the whole thing, we wouldn't take her out to eat. I also tend not to take her out if we're going with a crowd - she needs a little more attention that that implies to keep her behaviour as good as we need it to be in a restaurant.

eta kid's menus 'arrived' suddenly in Scotland about ten or so years ago. Maybe they're different elsewhere, but they are pretty grim here, in the main. Before that, we just ordered smaller portions for our children.

 

[MonkeyPie]

But why a ban? Because most parents of well-behaved children don't try to bring their kids to an age-inappropriate restaurant. It's the clueless parents who usually do it and then tune out when their kids go ballistic. The same kind of parents who bring toddlers to violent, scary movies.

Ooohh, I HATE this! Why would you subject your toddlers ears to excessively loud noises that could injure their eardrums? Not to mention, three hours is a very long time for a child to sit still and focus, even on a movie they probably would be more interested in (like cartoons or something). I went to see Dark of the Moon last weekend, and some idiot had a tiny baby there - like 3 months old. Needless to say, she cried more than once. They did take her out each time, but wtf? Either get a babysitter or wait until it's on DVD - it won't kill you.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Jennifer, there are exceptions to every rule. I don't order off the kids menu for Micah, either (you're right, they look so gross - he just eats off my plate). However, EVERY child will have a meltdown at some point that defies logic. Micah is very well-behaved and I am very lucky, but just this morning he flipped out when I let him down off my lap when he wanted down, because for some reason, he didn't REALLY want down, he just wanted to SAY down. No sense or logic of any sort. No child is immune to this.

 

[ksinger]

I voted yes. Our favorite restaurant is a classic Greek diner and there are usually lots of kids, some well-behaved and some not, and we're fine with that. It's part of the experience and we expect it. We've had kids kick the back of the booth we're sitting in for half an hour straight, we've eaten through non-stop screeching, we've smiled as kids ran around the restaurant throwing things the entire time. It's just part of going there. If it were an expensive, special occasion restaurant, I'd be pissed if those same things happened.

But why a ban? Because most parents of well-behaved children don't try to bring their kids to an age-inappropriate restaurant. It's the clueless parents who usually do it and then tune out when their kids go ballistic. The same kind of parents who bring toddlers to violent, scary movies. And they're the same people least likely to believe that maybe their kids shouldn't be there or that they should leave if things get out of hand, and will react badly if you ask them to leave. So you have to have a rule that applies to all.

And I agree with the poster who said if you wait to see which parents and kids shouldn't be there, it's already too late because someone's evening out has already been ruined. I also wholeheartedly support those restaurants that ban cell phone use, on the same principle. Because it's the rude, arrogant people who sit there shouting inane crap into their phones and ruin everyone else's meal. Some people just think they're entitled to do whatever they want, whenever they want. And unfortunately some of those people are parents of small children. And owners of cell phones.

Yeah, there it is, really. Parents who already have a store of common sense don't take children to expensive restaurants in the first place. IMO, there are some places that children of a certain age, really just do not belong.

I was talking to my husband last night, and being of a certain age - (or perhaps it was simple lack of disposable on the part of our parents?) - we thought back to our childhoods, where neither of us could remember over 5 times that we ate out at a sit-down restaurant while growing up, and when we did it was HUGE and SPECIAL. We ate at home 99.5% of the time. Heck, as he pointed out, going to McDonald's was a BIG deal. I don't recall doing it until I was in the double digits - junior high maybe? People really just didn't used to eat out like they do now, and taking children? Not often. Part of the 1950's mentality lingered - lots really, and that said that there were certain spheres/places where it was generally assumed that children didn't belong. Coming from that time, I can see its charm, if for no other reasons than it gave mom and dad a socially accepted break, and it taught children early that they were not the bright hot center of every universe.

Since we've been talking about kids and where it's appropriate for them to be or not be, I'll post a link. I've posted the link to this piece before some years ago, but I'll post it again because there are always new people here who might have missed it, and simply because I love it. It is written by a man of my mother's generation (mom was b. 1936) and describes his and his parent's generations attitude towards children pretty well. Even as a child of divorce, it was mostly how I was raised, and so resonates quite strongly with me. I suspect some here might get their hackles up reading it, but it is a glimpe into another way of viewing children, one that is clearly out of vogue, yet I think offers some valuable insights.

Bless you Mom.

The Kindergarchy
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/161yutrk.asp

 

[NovemberBride]

Yes, they should.

Mainly because there are some parents out there who really have absolutely no idea how to control their children.

Why should my child be penalized because some parents do not control their children?

NB: Im only asking because I'm curious and my only child is in utero, and not trying to be offensive, but does your child enjoy dining really nice restaurants? Id imagine it cannot be much fun for small kids to eat somewhere that is designed for an adult crowd. What does a kid eat at a place with $100 plates if there is no kids menu? Again, I ask bc im curious, and I wouldn't want to shell out tons of cash for a 5 yr old to eat at a super nice restaurant.

Charbie,

I should clarify, we don't take her to really fancy places. But that said, we are not huge fans of chain restaurants, so we eat at a lot of places that don't have separate kids menus (not because they are so fancy, in many cases just because they are small, independent restaurants.) Also, I think it is important for kids to eat healthy and eat lots of different things so we often don't order off the kids menu for her because it usually consists of hot dogs, chicken nuggets and fries. We are much more likely to order her something off the adult menu and then we take the leftovers home. It is admittedly more expensive, but she gets several meals out of it. I will say that we are lucky in that DD is not a typical picky toddler. She eats almost anything we give her (one of her favorite things is calamari!)

 

[zoebartlett]

Children shouldnt be banned from resturants. I think parents should use common sense when taking their kids out to eat. I also think those who want a quiet evening out should pick a place that children are less likely to be brought.

I agree. I'm surprised that so many people agree with banning kids from restaurants.

I'm more surprised that banning small kids from some restaurants has somehow become banning all kids from all restaurants.

ETA - and I just have to say, what IS it these days that people take it as axiomatic that children MUST be loud, boisterous, and disruptive and other people just need to sit down, shut up and suck it up? Did I miss something at some point in the last 40 years?

I would have been ON the plate if I'd done any of that at a restaurant.

I do think it's wrong that some parents don't make more of an effort to teach their children dos and don'ts at restaurants. I just think that in general, if a family with young children want to go out for dinner, they're probably not going to choose a super high-end place anyway.

Also, the owner of the restaurant mentioned wants to ban children who are 6 and under. Why those ages? There could be a very well-behaved 4 year old who sits quietly at the table while a 7 year old could be a brat and behave horribly.

 

[AmeliaG]

Also, the owner of the restaurant mentioned wants to ban children who are 6 and under. Why those ages? There could be a very well-behaved 4 year old who sits quietly at the table while a 7 year old could be a brat and behave horribly.

This was my point exactly. If a restaurant wants an adult atmosphere, make the ban 17 and under or 21 and under. This is what the adult resorts do. If a restaurant can make a profit without catering to the family segment of the market, I'd love to eat at a place like that. A 6 and under ban doesn't really do anything.

On the other hand, assuming that an expensive, upscale restaurant automatically provides an adult-only atmosphere sounds a little foolhardy. What about those upscale, expensive Italian restaurants that cater to multigenerational family celebrations like christenings and confirmations?

Our favorite Italian place is very upscale and has the best atmosphere for a romantic dinner for two on the right night but on a Sunday afternoon, with 3 confirmation parties in progress, its a little bit like eating in Munchkinland. The situation is not going to change though, the big families keep them in business, not couples like us with relatively small tabs.