When is the right time to get involved with a significant other's family?  I've often bounced back and forth on the spectrum of involvement when it comes to past girlfriends.  With my current gf of almost two years, as of this thanksgiving I am now feeling too close of comfort.

I've learned, in the past, that you can get too involved with their family and lose your objectivity on the relationship.

Scale 0 ( You block them on Facebook from even seeing your profile pic and then meet them at the wedding.)

 to 10:  You move into an apartment with her male relatives, become a wolf pack and forget you even have a gf.

What do you think?

Views: 147

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In a marriage or relationship headed towards marriage, the primary relationship is with the romantic partner. You have a relationship with your partner's friends and family through your partner. If your partner has a close, healthy, helpful relationship with her family, you will be helpful and somewhat close with them. If your partner has a distant, unhealthy, or unhelpful relationship, part of the romance will be creating a good relationship apart from the troublesome "family of origin."

I can't put these concepts on your scale. Maybe if I add another factor. If your partner has a +8 degree relationship with her family, your relationship to them should be +7 or +6. [It'll never be as close as she is to them.] If your partner has a negative relationship with her family, you should try to be neutral towards them.

You didn't like my definition of 10?!

*shrug*

Your scale just doesn't in itself have room for the most important consideration.

I've been asked to be the neutral go-between between my husband and my in-laws. I knew better. Even if I could be neutral, I shouldn't be. My job is to choose my husband, always. And to avoid situations where I'm forced to choose between him and anything else.

RSS

Latest Activity

Shane replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"Trump is destroying the political machine."
32 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"Yes but why was Ivanka shoveling it? It was like she was at the wrong convention."
2 hours ago
Shane replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"It's a lifetime average. Men generally earn more throughout their lives than women. They start work earlier in life, retire later in life, and don't take years out of the workforce for children. There's a whole lot of problems with…"
2 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"Shane-- Wages are what you earn when you are on a clock. Earnings encompass other forms of income, such as rent, interest, and royalties. What does this have to do with this? Are you saying that men generally receive more income in non-wage form?"
3 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"Liam-- Sixty percent of working mothers find it difficult to balance a job and a family. Twenty percent of fathers say having a family makes it more difficult to advance in their job, compared to forty-one percent of mothers. That strongly implies…"
3 hours ago
Shane replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"PH please learn the difference between wages and earnings. Then pass on that knowledge."
4 hours ago
Shane replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"Link?"
5 hours ago
Liam Strain replied to Sir's discussion US Presidential primaries in the group The Great Debate
"'I do think I did a decent job showing that mothers have a harder time holding a job than fathers' No. The data you provided did not demonstrate that. "
5 hours ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service