Author Topic: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest - UPDATE #219  (Read 29181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Winterlight

  • On the internet, no one can tell you're a dog- arf.
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9891
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #105 on: December 11, 2013, 02:38:47 PM »
If Larry wanted to spend Thanksgiving with his girlfriend, why didn't they go to HER family's celebration?  It's almost like he has the childish attitude of "NOBODY tells ME what to do!!"

I'm with those who don't really know or care about Larry's feelings about his divorce.  Whatever his 'feelings' are, they are totally irrelevant here.    I do care about Larry's lack of respect for his Aunt.

Or done his own, or gone out with GF somewhere- restaurant/friends/group dinner... It's not like he had no options here. He just didn't have his preferred option.
If wisdomís ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care,
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak,
And how, and when, and where.
Caroline Lake Ingalls

JoieGirl7

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7375
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #106 on: December 11, 2013, 03:03:29 PM »
There are different kinds of family holiday celebrations.  If it is typical for these certain members of the family to get together for Thanksgiving then that celebration is something that needs to be accommodated for everyone in the family, not just the oldest one who might die at any moment.

If she wants to have a dinner where only family are invited and it isnít a traditionally shared holiday like Thanksgiving, then she should knock herself out because turning down that invite is not the same as not spending a family holiday with your family because they wonít let you bring your girlfriend.



I wonder why you don't seem to think the aunt's feelings are important as well? Her life is about to change quite dramatically and she probably is sad to know that she will never again host a family holiday meal. Aren't her feelings relevant also? All of your sympathy seems to be on Larry's side

I think that if a particular family group traditionally celebrates together in certain ways every year, that that celebration belongs to the group and not just the whoever is willing to host it.  And things should be worked out to everyone's good, not just for the good of the hostess.


Audrey, I think it's rather unrealistic to think that traditional celebrations don't evolve due to circumstances that can't be helped, and rather than complain one should try to adapt because that's life. If your traditions have remained the same, good for you.

It's not about whether things change or not.  Of course things change.  It's a matter of how those changes are handled.

My traditions have changed completely because both of my parents are now dead.  But, the conversation every year was about how we were all going to celebrate or not, not "this is the deal, take it or leave it.".

No one would just take over and decide that it was more important to them than anyone else.  And as far as significant others were concerned, adults were allowed to make those decisions for themselves.


I don't know what the exact circumstances of the OPs friend were, (if this was an annual family tradition, how many of his close relatives would be there whose company he could not enjoy) but where family holidays are concerned, i dont think the cut and dried rules about dinner parties always apply.


Goosey

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1101
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #107 on: December 11, 2013, 03:07:07 PM »
It sounds like everyone else was in support of the aunt.

And I do believe that the person who is impacted the most by traditions and how they change should have the last say. Otherwise, their family is just basically taking advantage of them, and that's not right.

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8192
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #108 on: December 11, 2013, 03:13:54 PM »
snappylt  ~~  Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit this  :-[  but I really, really hope you find out soon how this scenario ended and come back to share with us.  I'd love to know how Aunt and the other family members handled this unfortunate turn of events.

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 28649
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #109 on: December 11, 2013, 03:18:50 PM »
Adults form social units and others do not get to judge how significant someone else's significant other is.  I think the "rule" was rude to begin with and she should have known better.

Actually, yes they do. That's why etiquette has the social unit rule. Married, engaged and (since late 20th century) cohabiting. Otherwise, every single social invitation would have to have an "and guest" attached to it.

If Larry feels his love is more burning than a million suns, and he can't bear to be apart from his GF for a few hours, he can turn down the invitation.
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

cass2591

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3358
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #110 on: December 11, 2013, 04:16:59 PM »
It's not about whether things change or not.  Of course things change.  It's a matter of how those changes are handled.

My traditions have changed completely because both of my parents are now dead.  But, the conversation every year was about how we were all going to celebrate or not, not "this is the deal, take it or leave it.".

No one would just take over and decide that it was more important to them than anyone else.  And as far as significant others were concerned, adults were allowed to make those decisions for themselves.

I don't know what the exact circumstances of the OPs friend were, (if this was an annual family tradition, how many of his close relatives would be there whose company he could not enjoy) but where family holidays are concerned, i dont think the cut and dried rules about dinner parties always apply.

So requesting a family only holiday, sanctioned by said immediate family members of the person in question, is taking over? And just because you think it should be done your way doesn't mean everyone has to do it your way.

And with that, I'm out of this discussion. The question was rhetorical.
There is no pie in Nighthawks, which is why it's such a desolate image. ~ Happy Stomach

I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened. ~ Mark Twain

Adopting a pet won't change the world, but it will change the world for that pet.

lowspark

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4035
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #111 on: December 11, 2013, 04:25:12 PM »
I'm mainly posting just in case snappylt posts an update with what actually ended up happening.  :D

But I'm in the "traditions change over time and we have to adapt" camp. People move, die, get married, divorced, have children, etc. So just because TG has been at Aunt Martha's where she served exactly Turkey and Stuffing and six specific sides for the last 55 years, doesn't mean that it's going to happen exactly that way in year 56. Sooner or later, things are going to change.

You can either adapt or decline to attend and do your own deal. But yeah, showing up with your girlfriend after specifically being told not to is rude.

Tea Drinker

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1408
  • Now part of Team Land Crab
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #112 on: December 11, 2013, 04:34:53 PM »
Adults form social units and others do not get to judge how significant someone else's significant other is.  I think the "rule" was rude to begin with and she should have known better.

Actually, yes they do. That's why etiquette has the social unit rule. Married, engaged and (since late 20th century) cohabiting. Otherwise, every single social invitation would have to have an "and guest" attached to it.

If Larry feels his love is more burning than a million suns, and he can't bear to be apart from his GF for a few hours, he can turn down the invitation.

The traditional rule here is that people can say "this is a significant relationship" by marrying/announcing an engagement (which just about everyone will accept); living together and making it clear that this is a romantic partnership, not non-romantic housemates (which many people will accept as creating a social unit, but not all; or by some version of "Marisol and I are serious about each other, and want to be treated as a couple even though we're not living together," which, again, some people will accept, but maybe fewer.

The only one of those where traditional etiquette demands that even the newest of partners be welcomed is marriage (even if you're convinced that the marriage can't last, because the couple married ten days after they met). Personally, I would wonder about the level of commitment of that marriage, and would privately take it less seriously than I do some long-term unmarried couples: but if you're playing by the old/formal rules even a little bit, it counts unless and until they split up. And those of us who are asking for acceptance of nonstandard relationships are usually also going to accept the standard ones: I may think it was silly of someone to get married after two weeks, but I also see that it's a pretty clear way of declaring themselves a serious couple.
Any advice that requires the use of a time machine may safely be ignored.

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4681
  • So many books, so little time
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #113 on: December 11, 2013, 04:35:48 PM »
gellchom, I understand your point about Aunt greeting them gracefully, but I disagree for one specific reason - if I were the gf and had attended in good faith, I would absolutely want to know what Larry had done, because it would be a dealbreaker to me. I wouldn't want to stay with a man that disrespectful. How could I trust him not to turn that lack of respect onto me?
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice

snappylt

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 459
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #114 on: December 11, 2013, 05:27:47 PM »
snappylt  ~~  Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit this  :-[  but I really, really hope you find out soon how this scenario ended and come back to share with us.  I'd love to know how Aunt and the other family members handled this unfortunate turn of events.

OP here again.

I don't have an update, yet.  Based on our past pattern, my old friend and I will probably get together for lunch or something in another month or two.  I'll come back and post an update then.

OK, I am curious enough that I am tempted to call him and ask for the rest of the story on the telephone, but that would be really out-of-character for the way this particular friend and I interact with each other.

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8192
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #115 on: December 11, 2013, 05:43:15 PM »
^^^  Yeah, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to tell him that a hundred or so total strangers also want to know the ultimate outcome.   ;D

Luci

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6039
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #116 on: December 11, 2013, 05:56:30 PM »
Bet it's far more than 100! I am following this avidly but haven't posted because someone else has said what I wanted to say, and said it better, and the tide is so extremely going my way.

Just for the record: Larry is a jerk. Respect the hostess and her age and present decisions, and adjust to change. It seems that Larry has gone through a LOT of changes in his personal life in the past many years, so I wouldn't call the new girlfriend family yet!

And I won't dogpile Audry, although I would love to know what past experiences led to her position on this.

LeveeWoman

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4187
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #117 on: December 11, 2013, 06:18:26 PM »
snappylt  ~~  Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit this  :-[  but I really, really hope you find out soon how this scenario ended and come back to share with us.  I'd love to know how Aunt and the other family members handled this unfortunate turn of events.

OP here again.

I don't have an update, yet.  Based on our past pattern, my old friend and I will probably get together for lunch or something in another month or two.  I'll come back and post an update then.

OK, I am curious enough that I am tempted to call him and ask for the rest of the story on the telephone, but that would be really out-of-character for the way this particular friend and I interact with each other.

Oh, c'mon! Change that tradition!

VorFemme

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 13069
  • Strolls with scissors! Too tired to run today!
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #118 on: December 11, 2013, 06:42:17 PM »
Set up an earlier lunch?
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I say more?

TootsNYC

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 30848
Re: The SPECIFICALLY not-invited guest (who was brought along, nonetheless)
« Reply #119 on: December 11, 2013, 06:56:49 PM »
Adults form social units and others do not get to judge how significant someone else's significant other is.  I think the "rule" was rude to begin with and she should have known better.

Actually, yes they do. That's why etiquette has the social unit rule. Married, engaged and (since late 20th century) cohabiting. Otherwise, every single social invitation would have to have an "and guest" attached to it.


Actually, they don't. They have to go by the signals the people themselves send.

And the signals we recognize are the ones Twik identifies--"Married, engaged and (since late 20th century) cohabiting."

Unlike Twik (this is semantics only, but I think it's an important distinction), I believe that following those rules is actually not judging; it's "relying on the messages the couple themselves send to the rest of the world."

Every day, every week, every month, a couple has the option to get engaged; frequently (every year in the case of renters--more often in the case of those who live at home, are someone's roommate on a month-to-month, or own their own homes) they have the option to move in together. And they have the option always to marry (sometimes after a short waiting period).

If week after week, month after month, year after year?, pass and they do none of these things, how are the rest of us supposed to know how serious their relationship is? From all outward evidence, they are not serious.

   And it is not our business to pry into the inward feelings of their heart. We're *supposed* to mind our own business and not make assumptions. We're supposed to rely on the evidence--the evidence that the couple in question present us with every day.