Exactly.
never mind.
I second EJsGirl- *exactly.
*
In my experience, controlling, manipulative assholes don’t think of themselves as controlling, manipulative assholes. They just feel entitled to whatever they want, and of course everyone else should absolutely, happily, and without question accommodate them. That “fact” of life is so obvious to them that they believe that of course it’s obvious to everyone else too; if you disagree it’s not merely a difference of opinion or of priorities – you’re clearly wrong. So no, I wouldn’t guess that he was thinking explicitly in terms of “Oh ho! Now I will manipulate and control my daughter!” That doesn’t make him any less of a manipulative, controlling, entitled asshole, however.
Depends on what you mean by malice, I guess. It’s definitely a manipulation technique, whether they do it as a purposeful plan of action or an unconscious habit. Something they learned to do to get what they want. Some people cultivate their lack of self-awareness for just this reason. They wouldn’t be able to hold onto their self-image of always being right/being a nice person if they looked at themselves too critically, and that’s exactly why they don’t.
IMHO a lack of self-awareness doesn’t confer innocence or entitle anyone to a free pass on bad behavior. If anything it makes it worse because they could behave better, they just can’t be arsed to make the very basic effort of a little navel gazing.
He didn’t leave the dog home because nobody or nowhere will take it. He will try to stay and sneak the little rug crapper in during the middle of the night. You need to make clear that there is only one bitch allowed in your house at all times ever. If he doesn’t have enough money for a motel, he can sleep in his car with his bitch. This guy bought man toys for himself when you were a child instead of paying rent? What a fucking tool. And you don’t need to find a pets motel for him, just rip the yellow pages for motels out. He will ignore any no pets rule and stay at a different one each night.
Best he not cross your threshold until he has already paid for his motel room.
Well, while combing my hair this morning, I looked into the mirror and it hit me. I’d actually decided (without a possibility of budging) that if he shows up tomorrow night with that dog (and I’m betting there’s a 50% chance he’ll show with little Chiquita tucked under his coat) that not only will I not let him in the house, I’ll blast him for disregarding my decision and his lack of respect and tell him he can take his dog and go…well, back to Tulsa. Up until this morning, I was actually starting to feel a bit bad about wavering in my decision to “sneak” the dog in the house. No more. No more wavering, no more guilt, no more feeling torn, no more taking crap.
Seriously, I don’t need this crap in my life.
Good for you! Stick to your guns! You are absolutely not responsible for his poor listening skills and lack of respect for you and your boundaries. You’re an adult in your own home, and you do not need to apologize for that.
Awesome.
In legal terms, it’s called mens rea.
The difference is being an asswipe on purpose vs being an asswipe by accident. Either way, the person is still being an asswipe.
Read the thread. She said both, loud and clear. Since both are valid reasons*, there is absolutely no reason why she shouldn’t invoke both.
*No, failure to explicitly request an exception from the rules does not make this one any less valid. She is under no obligation to do so, and within her rights to stand firm on existing rules that favor her position.
:eek:
You don’t know what they are? Have you even read this thread? It quite clearly indicates the (justified) “issues” with his immature behavior.
She did. She gave him adequate notice that he needed to make arrangements for the dogs.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
A flea infestation is “not that big of a deal”? A health hazard to her pets is “not that big of a deal”? A risk of eviction is “not that big of a deal”?
These things are “not that big of a deal” in the context of saving a family member from a genuine emergency situation – but not to save him from inconvenience caused by his own actions.
Er, the reason they aren’t on good terms is because he has a habit of this sort of childish behavior. Again, RTFT.
nyctea scandiaca, I know exactly what it’s like to be misunderstood on these boards. You can say perfectly reasonable things, and people will get all up in your shit for it. You can say “The sky is blue”, and people will come back at you saying “Fuck you, the sky is blue, why the fuck do you keep calling it red?” And there’s no arguing with them.
Some days, the universe just decides that you lose. I feel for you.
My ex sister in law tried to pull this on us. THREE greyhounds (which are nice dogs) in a house that was new with not one, but two children under two in it, one ill, elderly cat, and one bitchy scrapper of a cat. They were coming to visit and I said “no dogs” - I found out later they were intending on bringing the dogs anyway - because what was I going to do, send them away - when I told my mother in law “yes, I would send them away and not let them stay in my house, no dogs - the cat wouldn’t survive it and the house isn’t suited for three large dogs and I’m not sure how my kids will react. I have my hands full already with two little kids and company staying at my house for a week, I don’t need three dogs.”
For years I became the bitch who didn’t understand that their dogs were like children to them.
Yes, and some days you can completely miss the point that the real rant is about a parent who insists on winning a war of wills with a grown child who clearly wants to break out of that.
Somedays you can nitpick about one fact in an argument when the OP has expressed many and then get all pissed off when somebody points out that the OP’s dilemma doesn’t hinge on your point.
But don’t worry. If you get called on your shit, TDN will ride in on a white horse and paint you as the noble victim.
Yeah, but don’t tell me that “Spent the rent money on turtles” wouldn’t be an AWESOME t-shirt.
What shit, exactly, is she getting called on? She basically said “No dogs, period, should be reason enough.” Several people replied “So you think it’s OK that he brings the dogs?”
There’s a serious reading comprehension problem in this thread.
laugh I felt the need to let you know that I got that, and heard it said in the appropriate Danny DeVito voice. Reading about the OP’s clueless dad, I’m reminded of another quote from that movie.
“This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Perhaps we should shoot him”
Tee hee!
“Either he’s a complete moron, and complete morons are rare…”
“My lease doesn’t allow for dogs” wasn’t the only reason given by phall0106, it was just one of many.
The main reason when you want to do something to someone and they tell you “no” is that they said “no.” No further reasons are needed.
This. Don’t make excuses. A hundred excuses just means dad has to come up with a hundred reasons why you are wrong. Did your father ever say “My house, my rules”?
At this point you must know he is going to show up with that dog, right? The question isn’t what should you say or what should dad do. The question is: what are you going to do when he is standing in your front yard with that little dog running around yapping? I say lock the doors and tell him to go away and not to come back with the dog. That’s going to take some serious backbone and he knows it.
[Bolding Mine]
Well good, we agree on something 
Let me give you an illustration of why I so terribly missed at comprehension in this thread.
A tries to give B a piece of Chocolate cake:
B: Sorry don’t want it
A: Sure you do, here
B: Can’t I’m diabetic
A: I insist - here
B: It’s fattening, I’m on a diet
A: Here
B: My wife wouldn’t allow me to have it
ns: Are you sure your wife would say that? Some wives would make an exception. You should just say you don’t want it. Don’t bring a wife into it. I would eat the chocolate cake if I knew how important it was to A.
BD: It’s not about the wife. Its about B not wanting cake.
tdn: BD you don’t get it
I kind of look at the illustration as having certain parallel thems to this thread.