My live in girlfriend of 7 years not invited to join family potrait

U R A Complete Imbecile wrote:

so whats a family wrote:

So you never heard of common law wife and its legal status and rights? You haven't have you?

So now tell me who the idiot is.

Your Welcome!

Ummm..who said anything about legal status and rights, imbecile?

Here you go again, just in case you missed it:

Family involves absolute and permanent commitment.

Note that it is not limited to "legal status and rights".

IMBECILE!

No it doesn't.

Marriage isn't absolute and permanent commitment. Over half end in divorce.

Further, people can be family without making commitments to each other, for example, an uncle and nephew.

Amen!

With a seven-year history, they have lasted LONGER than the majority of "absolute and permanent commitment" marriages.

According to this website,

, which uses cdc.gov as the source, the average divorce rate for 1st marriages is 41%. The average number of years married is 8 years before divorce.

So, you are wrong on both accounts.

Yep yep yep wrote:

Both of you are idiots if you don't realize that it is "you're" not "your."

so whats a family wrote:

So you never heard of common law wife and its legal status and rights? You haven't have you?

So now tell me who the idiot is.

Your Welcome!

Welcome to LetsRun, NEWBIE!

Your welcome, Imbecile!

logician wrote:

U R A Complete Imbecile wrote:

Ummm..who said anything about legal status and rights, imbecile?

Here you go again, just in case you missed it:

Family involves absolute and permanent commitment.

Note that it is not limited to "legal status and rights".

IMBECILE!

No it doesn't.

Marriage isn't absolute and permanent commitment. Over half end in divorce.

Further, people can be family without making commitments to each other, for example, an uncle and nephew.

(sigh)

"So, some folks make "commitments" that they do not keep and therefore there is no such thing as a commitment?

Great thinking.

IMBECILE!!!"

Ah, but I repeat myself.

so whats a family wrote:

My mom decided to have a formal family portrait done. We have not had one in about 15 years. She plans to include my siblings and their significant others (one sibling with a spouse and one who is engaged) but doesn't want my live in girlfriend included. I'm annoyed because my girlfriend is family even though we are not married. We have lived together for seven years!

My mom says she would be included if we were engaged. I'm thinking of calling mom back and telling her I'm not going if my girlfriend is not included.

I'm sure my dad doesn't care, but my mom is an idiot.

This is just your mom's way of saying you need to propose to your girlfriend.

Your thought process on this makes little sense. You've gone out of your way to thumb your nose at societal norms nor nearly a decade. You've lived with the gf for 7 years but never even become engaged - clearly trying to show how smart you are and how you don't care about societal norms.

Now you are in a huff beacause your mom won't include your gf in the family portrait? Your actions for the last 7 years have all been about showing you don't care about what social norms and now all of the sudden you are crying on a messageboard about it?

This only confirms my suspicions. You guys are being ridiculous. I appreciate you standing up for your gf but come on. She needs to show up and be gracious.

U R A COMPLETE IMBECILE wrote:

logician wrote:

No it doesn't.

Marriage isn't absolute and permanent commitment. Over half end in divorce.

Further, people can be family without making commitments to each other, for example, an uncle and nephew.

(sigh)

"So, some folks make "commitments" that they do not keep and therefore there is no such thing as a commitment?

Great thinking.

IMBECILE!!!"

Ah, but I repeat myself.

My claim was not:

Because commitments are sometimes broken, commitments do not exist.

Indeed, if commitments didn't exist, then it wouldn't be possible to break them.

My claim was:

Because a marriage sometimes (most of the time) ends in divorce, marriage is not an "absolute and permanent commitment."

This is to say, your post that I originally responded to made a false assertion. Further, in your post that this post is replying to, you committed the straw man fallacy.

Pics wrote:

Pics? (of just your girlfriend)

30 responses before this? Letsrun is slipping.

Mom's bar is low if you are engaged she'll include your gf in the picture.

So get engaged and set the date 'In the year 2525, if man is still alive

If woman can survive, . . . '

rojo wrote:

This only confirms my suspicions. You guys are being ridiculous. I appreciate you standing up for your gf but come on. She needs to show up and be gracious.

My girlfriend is right on this. She clearly was not wanted and my mom only caved in because I threatened not to go either. My mom obviously does not want her there. I support my girlfriend and will not allow her to be treated so rudely.

If your wife was treated my this I am sure you would do the same.

I am not going either.

so what's a family wrote:

rojo wrote:

This only confirms my suspicions. You guys are being ridiculous. I appreciate you standing up for your gf but come on. She needs to show up and be gracious.

My girlfriend is right on this. She clearly was not wanted and my mom only caved in because I threatened not to go either. My mom obviously does not want her there. I support my girlfriend and will not allow her to be treated so rudely.

If your wife was treated my this I am sure you would do the same.

I am not going either.

Nobody seems to understand that the affront is not that your girlfriend was almost not allowed to be in a stuffy family photo, the affront was your mother saying that your girlfriend has lower status because you and she is unmarried. Saying, "She can be in our family photo against my will if it's the only way to get you to come," does not address the (only) issue of importance.

To summarize: A sincere apology is the only way to address the issue. A reluctant change in policy doesn't help.

Don't expect the vocal conservative Family Values majority of LRC to ever expect a person to adapt to changing cultural norms. To Robert and his peers, you must act like the Cleavers or you should politely live with the backlash of mainstream intolerance.

so what's a family wrote:

rojo wrote:

This only confirms my suspicions. You guys are being ridiculous. I appreciate you standing up for your gf but come on. She needs to show up and be gracious.

My girlfriend is right on this. She clearly was not wanted and my mom only caved in because I threatened not to go either. My mom obviously does not want her there. I support my girlfriend and will not allow her to be treated so rudely.

If your wife was treated my this I am sure you would do the same.

I am not going either.

Good for you. Despite what some people on here say, you are doinf the right thing.

Sorry webby, but the crux of the matter is about commitment, not cultural norms. Living with someone for 7 years does not constitute a commitment.

It's not fair for the OP to expect his mother to recognize a commitment that has never been made, and most reasonable people will expect some sort of commitment before taking someone into their family.

If the OP has qualms about "traditional marriage", then there are other things that he and his girlfriend can do to ensure their friends and family recognize the perpetual nature of their relationship.

For example, they can both go to the photo shoot and, in front of the family say "We are not traditional people, and we do not plan on having the traditional wedding that most are accustomed to. However, in front of you all, we would like to express our love for each other and to let you know that we are committed to our relationship for the rest of our lives."

If the OP is contrite and recognizes the foolishness of his ways he can also say, "Mom, thank you for bringing this misunderstanding to light. I'm sorry that I have left the nature of my relationship with my live-in girlfriend unintentionally vague. I am glad that we have had this opportunity to work things out and for us to express our intentions regarding our relationship in front of those that we love." At this point, it would be appropriate for the OP to break down sobbing and hug his mother. Everyone will clap, and everyone will live happily ever after.

Any questions?

One question: Do you often debase yourself in this way to convince others that you are worthy of being treated as an equal, or do you have confidence in your own values and include people in your life who respect your choices?

I post on letsrun, so that tells you all you need to know about my values.

Just throwing this out here...

In our family [on of the top families in USA, PM for info...] we dont invite the maids and other personnel to be on the portrait either.

logician wrote:

My claim was:

Because a marriage sometimes (most of the time) ends in divorce, marriage is not an "absolute and permanent commitment."

You're reading this language in an extremely literal way that isn't consistent with how it is normally used and understood. As such, you're attacking a straw man.

A promise or a commitment is something that is made at a fixed point in time that governs future conduct EVEN WHEN the promisor would otherwise be inclined to act differently if they had not previously bound themselves. When people refer to a permanent commitment or permanent promise, they don't mean that the promise literally cannot be broken. What they mean is that it is a promise to do something forever. Even in a world with no-fault divorce, people still enter marriage intending for it to be permanent. I've been to more weddings than I can count, for all kinds of religious and non-religious couples, and all the vows have had some variation of "till death do us part." That's an "absolute and permanent commitment," regardless of whether the couple is divorced within the year.