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?

Tags: boyfriends, family, friends, gf, girlfriends, husbands, in, in-laws, law, parents, More…space, wives

Views: 138

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

Paul posted photos
5 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Pre-Adamic Age in the group Christian Men
"That's a Mormon thing. Haven't heard it from any other creed."
8 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Pre-Adamic Age in the group Christian Men
"Interesting interpretation considering Adam was made of mud. Anyway, no. Te original posits on race in the 17th century posited the African race was a pre-Adamic race. And then later, the Asian race was a byproduct of Caine's taking an African…"
11 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Pale Horse's discussion Pre-Adamic Age in the group Christian Men
"Decidedly inconvenient for many. JB"
25 minutes ago
Leto Atreides II replied to Leto Atreides II's discussion Ferguson Grand Jury Decision in the group The Great Debate
" "
28 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Pale Horse's discussion Pre-Adamic Age in the group Christian Men
"To clarify, the pertinent excerpt from the Justified pilot script that your summary brought to mind (Crowder is suspected of blowing-up a black church; Givens is a Federal Marshal) ... JB"
30 minutes ago
Milo Morris replied to Pale Horse's discussion Pre-Adamic Age in the group Christian Men
"Yeah, that. I call it a convenient assumption."
33 minutes ago
Tim Dienes replied to Pale Horse's discussion Pre-Adamic Age in the group Christian Men
"I certainly never had any impression of racism whatsoever. There were beings referred to in the OT from time to time. It has been a long time since I read about them. Genesis 6:4 mentions the Nephilim, which are cross-listed as Giants in my…"
40 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service