DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband's sister and her husband are a nice enough couple, but their tendencies for PDA (both physically and verbally) are starting to drive me bonkers.

They are that couple that kisses at the dinner table, sits on each other's laps when there are more than enough chairs to go around, and professes their love for each other on Facebook, even if they are in the same room. I'm not a prude, but it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

The last straw was when I received my wedding photos a few weeks ago and was dismayed to find many pictures where my in-laws were kissing and making googly eyes at each other in our wedding party (bridesmaids and groomsmen) pictures. Looking at them you would wonder why my husband and I were wearing the bride and groom's attire instead of them.

I really want to say something without hurting their feelings too much, but my husband is convinced they don't know what they are doing. We are all in our late 20s and early 30s, so there is no chance that they will grow out of this behavior.

GENTLE READER: You mean that they look like newlyweds, and yet will never outgrow that stage? Miss Manners finds that a rather charmingly optimistic view of marriage.

It is not charming to watch, however. Prudery -- so common a charge that you anticipate it -- has nothing to do with it. Watching people kiss (and more) on film constitutes a great deal of our so-called entertainment. The reason that onlookers dislike this in life is because it is clear that the loving couple is not interested in others, to the extent of pretending that they are not there.

Do not seat them next to each other at dinner, where couples should be separated anyway, for variety of conversation. Elsewhere, a slightly more polite way of saying "get a room," at least among visiting relatives, is, "It's all right if you want to go home now and be alone." And to keep from going bonkers, stay off their Facebook pages.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: During the offertory collection at my church, some form of religious musical performance takes place. It may be the choir, a soloist (vocal or instrumental) or the bell choir.

At the conclusion of the performance the entire congregation applauds as though they are at a concert. To me this borders on being sacrilegious.

Is this acceptable behavior? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compliment the performers individually and informally after the service? Is this a common practice in other churches?

GENTLE READER: It is, alas, increasingly common for people to regard everything as a source of entertainment. Miss Manners is grateful that you recognize that church music is indeed intended for the glory of God, not the pleasure of worshippers. Praise for the performers may certainly be delivered after the service, but it should not be allowed to interrupt praise for God.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: How long after a woman is married would you call her a bride?

GENTLE READER: In the 19th century, it was a year, during which she could wear her wedding dress as an evening dress.

Nowadays, Miss Manners supposes it is until the couple finally departs from the day-after brunch, much to the relief of guests who have been through a week of dinners, picnics, bar parties and softball games.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am by nature a very private person. I work in an industry that more or less requires a certain level of charisma to succeed, and I am very good at it.

The nature of my position has me working with clients in a one-on-one setting several times a week, and some of these clients feel as though they "know" me, when, in fact, they really know only the "work me."

My top-paying client, with whom I've been working for a number of years, has on numerous occasions expressed having feelings for me, and every time I have expressed to him (as politely as possible, of course) that I am uninterested. It is not uncommon in my profession to have an occasional drink or coffee, etc.; however, he is insistent to ask me every time I see him.

He gets irritated when I decline too often and insists to know what I'm doing instead and who I'll be with. While this makes me extremely uncomfortable, there is a certain level I am willing to put up with in order to maintain my job (there is no one else to take this person from me).

How do I answer such probing questions without being rude? Currently, I tell him I have prior obligations or I've got personal business to attend to. These answers are not sufficient for him, and he continues to probe. I honestly believe that he is the one being rude here, but I do not wish to answer rudeness with more rudeness. Please advise.

GENTLE READER: The name for this behavior is harassment. Furthermore, your relationship with your client being professional, he has no business inquiring into your personal life. Miss Manners recommends your replying to each such inquiry with "That's personal" until he understands that.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I'm a 60-year-old woman, and my husband's mother has died. She was the last of our four surviving parents to die within the past 10 years, and we feel the losses daily.

I was stunned to receive two sympathy notes from different acquaintances that said they were blessed to still have all living and healthy parents. While I appreciate their acknowledging our loss, I felt a stab to the heart to have that so callously pointed out within a day of my mother-in-law's death.

Please tell readers that a simple but sincere "I'm sorry" is sufficient and much appreciated.

GENTLE READER: Indeed. Why people think it is comforting to compare their own good fortune -- or even their own bad fortune, which is sometimes done -- when supposedly offering sympathy, Miss Manners has never understood.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In the past couple of years, I have been invited to three separate fundraisers for women who were going through divorces. The purpose was to raise money to pay court costs during divorce hearings and custody hearings. Only one of these women did I know personally; the others were friends of friends.

I may be wrong, but I feel it is rude to solicit your friends for money to pay for your divorce, and even more rude to have them solicit their friends who are strangers to you.

These fundraisers were not anything someone would want to participate in unless they were doing someone a favor. (For example, one was a silent auction for shoddily made crafts that another friend had created; they were poorly done and nothing you'd want in your home.)

Am I correct in my belief that divorce costs are a private affair and should not be shared among friends, or am I just being stingy?

GENTLE READER: It hardly seems stingy to not want to pay for strangers' divorces. Even the people who were married to them resent doing that.

But Miss Manners has noticed that what you describe is part of a much larger problem. Many people have come to believe that all milestones in their lives -- including, but not limited to, birthdays, graduations, changing residences, engagements, weddings, births, divorces and funerals -- entitle them to demand sponsorship from others. Relatives, friends, friends' friends, professional acquaintances and the world at large may be targeted.

It takes various forms: Bridal couples spreading the vulgar urban legend that guests must spend on them the amount of money that it costs to entertain them; self-sufficient adults pressuring their pensioned parents to pay for multiple weddings; birthday celebrants summoning people for a restaurant celebration for which they are expected to pay; expectant mothers giving their own showers or having their relatives do so; even the bereaved asking for donations for funeral costs or orphans' education.

This does not usually represent warm communities reaching out to help those in need. Rather, it is apt to be solvent people who want more, reaching out on their own behalf. And the donors can by no means count on their generosity being reciprocated.

Furthermore, the demands keep rising. There is the invention of the engagement gift; the elevation of the shower present from amusing trivia to become equivalent to a wedding present; the graduation party that is no longer just for the graduate's friends but for the parents' circle; the infant birthday parties for adults; the workplace collection; and above all, the gift registry.

So Miss Manners is not surprised to hear about the divorce fundraiser. What surprises her is the willingness of people to be shamed into diverting their philanthropic resources from the needy to the greedy. She trusts that you simply declined the honor politely.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My daughter-in-law uses her name when making hotel reservations for the entire family. Should not she have used her husband's name? She also has her voice on the answering machine. Should not the husband be the one with a message on the answering machine?

GENTLE READER: Disliking your daughter-in-law does not entitle you to declare her a non-person. Besides, Miss Manners feels obliged to tell you, it won't work.

(Please send your questions to Miss Manners at her website, www.missmanners.com; to her email, dearmissmanners@gmail.com; or through postal mail to Miss Manners, Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106.)