Important point, here. However, in most relationships, you don’t feel the need to be with your SO 100% of the time. It doesn’t mean you don’t love him/her.
Have you ever even been in an adult relationship? What do you think? Your girlfriend likes going to office parties any more than you do? The reason you go to these events is because she HAS to go and she would like to be there with someone who she presumably actually LIKES spending time with. Sure you can occassional miss these sorts of things. One thing you absolutely do NOT do, unless of course you like being single, is to skip out a few hours beforehand if your friends call up with a better deal.
Or a better way of looking at it is:
-
Plan A requires me to put the feelings of another person ahead of myself
-
Plan B alllows me to be a self-indulgent child who really does not care about my SO in any meaningful way
Bottom line is if you want a relationship where you come and go as you please, never have to answer to someone and are not obligated to go to any event you don’t want to, you don’t really want to be in a relationship.
Maybe it’s just me but when I say I’m going to do something, I follow through on it, even if something better comes along. And I expect my friends to be the same way if they want to be my friend instead of just some flake who I’ll get a beer with if I have nothing better to do.
I want to be clear here: you said it was a rule that wassoon made up, but now you’re conceding that it’s also a rule in France.
It’s fine and ducky if you want to flout social conventions; heck I do it myself. But you need to be clear on what you’re doing, and you ought to find out how your SO feels about it too and take it into consideration.
In any case, this isn’t just an arbitrary rule. Here’s why it exists:
- Weddings and wedding receptions are usually more fun for the bride and groom than for anyone else. They should be fun for everyone, but c’mon, the events gonna mean the most to the folks at the center of it.
- It means the most to them if their friends are there. If I ditch out on your reception because I think it’ll be boring, then I’m making my friends’ reception less meaningful to them. That’s not really the act of a good friend.
- If I go, but my girlfriend doesn’t go because she thinks it’ll be boring, that sends kind of an insulting message to my friends as well.
- If I go alone, I’m likely to have a lot less fun. My girlfriend will therefore go, not because it’s going to be fun as hell, but because she loves me, and she wants to support me.
You see? Being in a relationship sometimes means doing things you don’t want to do because it makes life better for your partner. When I go to my wife’s work events, or when she goes to mine, we do it because we love one another, not because we really want to hang out with the other person’s coworkers.
There’s a reason for the social convention. Flout it if you must, but unless you’ve got a better reason than, “But it’ll be Borrrrrinnnnng!” it seems kind of self-centered.
Daniel
This is only half true. I would be hurt if my S.O. didn’t invite me to stuff, but I try to get out of boring stuff all the damn time. Two wedding receptions in two months damn near killed me. Just because you don’t want to spend a day/evening bored to tears doesn’t mean you’re not in love with your S.O. That’s some pretty damn insecure thinking, there.
Um, msmith, I don’t think I’m comfortable agreeing with you on relationship issues. Could you like change your mind or something?
Daniel
What about making sure that your guests will have fun too? Assumedly, you’re inviting them because you care about them, and because they care about you. So, normally, it shouldn’t be boring by default but entertaining by default. Of course, some people are going to be bored regardless in any situation. But the basic asumption shouldn’t be "It’s MY reception, so I’m going to have fun and the guests are only there to flatter my ego.
Guess I wouldn’t like to hold a reception where I expect most people to be bored. Nor would I invite people who I think will be bored.
Yes, you’re willing to put up with som crap because these are people you care about. Because they’re good friends, as you mentionned. Not because you’re compelled to attend in order to obey some social rule. Doesn’t seem the case for the OP who apparently would have prefered visiting cornfields with her gf, given his comments about the reception.
Here, we must agree to disagree. Strangers you don’t care about and who don’t care about you don’t have any duty to attend your reception lest you feel insulted. Why would you want them to be present at the fist place if you expect them to be bored to tears, anyway? Best of all worlds : the only people who come actually want to, for various reasons.
That’s true. But as you mentionned, she comes because she cares about you, want you to have more fun, or simply would prefer to be with you rather than drinking with her budies. Not because “SO must attend to social events their bf/gf is invited to”. The latter isn’t an expression of love, but only obedience to some arbitrary rule. It has zero bearing to the signifiance of the relationship. My gf could be plotting my murder and come with me to the reception nevertheless if she bases her decision on obligations rather than on feelings.
Indeed. I will point out that you didn’t say she was coming because “spouses must come, it’s a way it is”.
Yes, thanks for your concern.
Maybe, maybe not. If she doesn’t like them, why the hell is she attending them?
If she’s somehow compelled to do so because otherwise she’ll become an outcast at her workplace, I might come with her to allievate her suffering. But I surely would advise her to look around for another job.
Maybe she could consider getting rid of her “obligations”. Methink there are way too many “have to” in this thread. “Have to be present at office parties” “have to attend to receptions organized by people you couldn’t care less about”. “have to come with you SO”.
That’s the only part I agree with. And even even only to some extent. There are aways special circumstances.
Yes, but why would I do that for any any other reason than “I care about this person”? When did “because it’s the way things should be done” entered this equation?
Does my SO cares about me in any meaningful way if she :
-
Doesn’t care about my feeling and desires?
-
Intends to impose his own set of rules and expects me to follow them blindly?
If you do something because you feel obligated to do it, it’s not “meaningful”, it’s completely worthless. I don’t want my gf to come with me because she feels she must. I don’t want her to try to compelll me into doing something by playing with guilt or “obligation”, either. What does it tell about my feelings for her if I eventually give up for these reasons? Absolutely nothing, once again. Of course, if you want to build ressentment over the long term, it’s the way to go.
Well, I go to office parties and other boring events with my boyfriend because it’s important to him and because I’d want him to do the same for me. I sure as hell don’t go just because I want to be with him at all times regardless of the activity.
I guess it was a bit different when we started dating and were still in the “s/he liiiiiiiiikes me” stage. Then I did want to be with him all the time. But now? I’d rather stay home and clean the grout out of my bathroom tiles than go to one of his office parties with his boring office mates. I only go because it’s important to him. He goes to mine for the same reason.
I have a sister who thinks like you, clairobscur. She looks out for herself and doesn’t do things she doesn’t want to. That’s fine for casual relationships, but it doesn’t make her much of a family member. I could do the same as she does, but I like to count on my family to help me when I need it, so I help them when they need it. Relationships (family or romantic) are a two-way street; we all do things we don’t particularly want to sometimes because we want to build good will for when we want company for something we have to do that we don’t particularly want to (and if you have no obligations in your life that you have to do that you don’t want to do, you are one lucky, special adult.)
Written this way, it sounds like you’d help only because you expect people to help you back. I’m not sure whether or not it’s what you actually mean. In which case, it sounds like a trade. Not like a significant family relationship.
Well…I don’t have much obligations currently, though I’m not sure I would call that “being lucky”. But generally speaking, I precisely think we have enouh obligations at that, and don’t really need a relationship to become a new source of obligations. As I mentionned before, doing something for someone because you feel you’re obligated to do so, or because you’re expecting something in return doesn’t sound very appealing to me, generally speaking.
Seriously, do you feel better if your neighbor makes something for you not because he likes you, but because he intend to borrow your lawnmower next week, or your SO not because she likes you, but because she’d been brought up thinking that it’s mandatory? I sure do not.
Was my line, “It should be fun for everyone,” which you quoted, somehow unclear?
Daniel
Perhaps because if she doesn’t attend them, people at work will start to think that she’s arrogant and uppity, and she’ll have a harder time getting a raise? I’m speaking from experience here, and have started attending work events for this reason.
And I’m sure your advice would be much appreciated.
Who’s talking about attending receptions of folks that aren’t friends? We’re saying that you attend your friends’ receptions because you’re their friend, and that’s part of what friends do for one another. You attend your SO’s friends’ receptions because that’s a sweet thing that SOs do for one another.
On the contrary: if your partner does things they don’t especially want to do because they love you, it shows that they’re willing to make sacrifices for you. And that’s a sign of love.
Daniel
I’m not going to repeat myself once again, so I’m only going to answer this one, which basically sum up what I said in this thread.
That’s precisely my whole point. It’s only meaningful if it’s done out of love. I stated so half a dozen times. But we have been talking here about “obligations”, “social expectations”, “rules”.
So once again (it must be tenth time I say so at least) : If it’s done because “it’s the way it’s done, period” or because “it’s a social expectation that SO attend social events”, I assert that it’s definitely not meaningful.
It means absolutely nothing. It’s a proof of love exactly as much as the clerck asking you “how are you doing?” is a proof that he’s concerned about your health. Any spouse who hates the guts of her/his husband/wife, is cheating on him/her and secretly plan to file for divorce can attend a social event for such a reason. It has exactly zero bearing on whether the relationship is meaningful or not.
Right, but you’re not getting the converse here. Any asshole can attend a spouse’s work function without feeling love; but ONLY an asshole will refuse to attend a work function because it doesn’t sound fun.
Attending those work functions is a necessary, but not sufficient, indication of love. Refusing to do so is a sufficient, but not necessary, means of indicating a callous disregard for your SO’s feelings.
If the SO doesn’t want you to attend, of course, my above thoughts don’t apply; but then, the OP’s situation is clearly different.
Daniel
I’m not much of a believer in altruism. People rarely do anything for the sole reason of benefitting another person. The give-and-take of relationships (business, personal, and otherwise) is the basis of our whole society, in my opinion, and my problem is with people who opt out of the “give” because they can’t be bothered, but still want to participate in the “take.”
Do they last long or evolve beyond “casual” relationships? featherlou makes an excellent point:
There are plenty of people who are fun to be around because they are funny or pleasent, but they have few close relationships because they are unreliable. They won’t put themselves out for anything or they’re flakey in their commitment to doing things. Their relationships can’t really evolve beyond casual drinking buddy or whatever. But some people I guess are fine with that. I know plenty of people who really the only connection is that they like to drink and party. All they need is someplace to show up and they’re all set and that’s all they need in life.
clairobscur - The “obligations”, “social expectations”, and “rules” of which you speak are there to tell you how to act around people you supposedly care about.
I’m still trying to figure this out.
First of all, I’ve been married 13 years and I still don’t buy the whole “obligated to attend” nonsense.
Believe it or not, I have better things to do with my time than stand like a decoration at my husband’s elbow while he talks to people from his work, none of whom I know, nor will likely see again for a year. You know…like go to garage sales. Or sleep. Or watch television. Or read my children a book or play on AmberMUSH or, or, or. I really do.
Now, if he said “I’d like you to come so I have somebody to talk to,” I’d seriously consider it. But no, sir, I have absolutely no obligation to be a wallflower or a decoration just because some book of ettiquette somewhere says so. Those people do not have to live my life.
The son of a friend of his family is getting married in Colorado this summer. It is expected that we will go, because “They came to YOUR wedding.” (The parents did, yes. And came to visit my in-laws of course. The son did not come.) There is zero chance I am strapping 4 small children into my minivan and driving 1500 miles to attend the wedding of someone I met one time, simply because his parents are my in-laws’ best friends. If my husband wants to go, I will gladly drive him to the airport and send him off with a kiss - he grew up with this guy, and a 3 hour plane flight for one is a whole lot less painful than a 3-day drive for 6, with the children either crying, fighting, or asking every mile “Aren’t we there YET???” - and nothing for them, or me, to do when we get there, and hideous expenses all around, from gas prices to food to lodging. Yet, It is still expected that we will go. Why? Because. It is.
Maybe Wasson’s girlfriend simply has better things to do than rearrange her life to suit an arbitrary concept of “should”.
Now, as to the reasons she gave.
It’s possible she really meant to go see the baby. If you’ve ever had a baby, you know that plans of baby-related nature can change. (It’s also possible of course that the baby was a ruse, and no, I don’t condone that.) But let’s say she really meant to go see the baby, and since she’d been given “permission” (feh) to not go to the reception - repeatedly - this seemed fine to her, and a new baby seemed a lot more joyful than a wedding reception where she would know no one except her SO, and having nothing to do except be seen to be with her boyfriend, like an accessory. And then she was reminded about the other promise she’d made, and since in her mind she was already “on her own time”, and certainly not accountable to anybody for her free time, she simply went and had fun.
Some people here are making it out to be damn near a criminal act.
The problem here is twofold: communication and expectation.
She’s not living up to **Wasson’s ** unspoken expectations. Very likely, her expectations are very different anyway. But, her expectations are irrelevent and, her failure is seen as a punishable offense.
They are not communicating without second-guessing - neither of them.
But hey, yeah, boot the chick out. That’ll really fix the problem.
what everyone’s really saying, in their own wonderful way is: “kick the bitch to the curb”. that’s pretty much it. it’s a respect/trust issue. i assume this thread was started a loooooooong time ago and you probably don’t read it, hopefully because she’s out chasing guys that will eternally treat her like shit. well, not HOPEFULLY, but i do hope she’s out of your plans.
Man, you Dopers are a cruel, unforgiving, un-understanding bunch if I ever did know any. I expected a lot of responses about “yeah, be pissed. YELL AT HER!”, but I didn’t expect the majority of people to tell me to dump her immediately.
I was pissed. I became unpissed about it pretty quickly. I talked to her and we’ve worked it out. This is one of my best friends for more than a decade, and I really see a future in this relationship. I’m not going to desert it because she backed out of a reception. Give me a break.
Everyone is right… it’s a trust/respect issue. The thing is, we’re used to trust/respect as FRIENDS, more than SIGNIFICANT OTHERS. There’s different issues there, and we haven’t dealt with/talked about them before. Now we were forced to, and we’ll be forced to in the future. If every relationship ended when one of the people involved got annoyed with the other, there would be no children or married couples in this world.
I think most people who replied to this thread could learn a bit of understanding from this doormat. If you’d prefer to “kick the bitch to the curb” every time you get annoyed, that’s your deal. I’d rather talk through my problems and improve my relationships. That’s just me.
And, part of your original post:
You ask everyone what they would do and then criticise them and become defensive when you don’t get answers you like or expect.
Perhaps you shouldn’t ask any more questions until you’re ready to hear people’s answers.