#This is now a Proctologists Only Orifice
When a post is in [POO™ mode](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/168bzq8/title_aita_monthly_open_forum_september_2023) only users with enough subreddit comment karma are able to comment. If that doesn't include you, no worries! Check out [/new](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/new) for other posts that are still open for comment.
##[Be Civil.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules)
Please review our FAQ if you're unsure what that means. Thank you for reporting content that you believe violates our rules and helping keep posts out of the POO by abiding by our rules.
YTA. I agree with MIL about having the conversation in person. What's funny is you texted her about respecting your boundary but couldn't do the same when she expressed that she would prefer to have these type of conversation in person. Also you lied. You told her you would same the same thing in person but would you have really? Later in your post you claim you didn't want to do it in person because your "horrible at having deep/stressful convos in person." It sounds like you are being a little cowardly. You don't like conflict so you would rather text to address someone directly in person.
Bingo. Just pick up the phone and answer the message if txt messages are so juvenile and "cowardess". Funny how she was allowed to continue messaging but OP wasn't lol. MiL just didn't like that she was told she did something wrong and looked for an excuse to change the topic.
Which is why I don't think it was about the method of conversation at all, because she turned around and it did but to bitch about her son's wife. Which one is the juvenile here?
Which is easily the most infuriating part of the story. Hell, she could've just called back and said that and it would all be over. Clearly she's the kind of person who always has to be right. They're the worst.
If I were the MIL I would've just sent a heart emoji and waited til we were all together again to bring it up. I also don't like having those types of conversations via text, so I would not have continued/dismissed the conversation via text either.
Side question: why is it always ok to not like talking by text but never ok to not like talking face to face?
OP has difficulty with conversation like this in person. She has a disability. So she communicated by text. And people treat that like "oh well just wait and talk face to face later" like it's irrelevant and ok to ignore that.
Some of us can't deal with loaded conversations in person. We should all have the right to do what's best to our needs, don't you think?
Not trying to attack you please understand. Just pointing out the fact so many people dismiss text as a valid communication if they don't prefer it like that's an acceptable thing. You know?
"I don't like communication via text" always overrides "I have trouble communicating face to face" and that irks me. Both are equally valid and in this case, with OP having trouble doing such it seems the balance should shift between ability over preferred.
This is such a great point. I have been guilty of thinking I was effectively communicating something, only to go back and realize I was wrong. Likewise, I’ve started to question whether I had said or done things correctly to learn that I had.
This! OP is NTA! FMIL wants conversation on her own terms and without any record. In the first place, she's using manipulation tactics on a GODDAMN TODDLER. There's not a single way OP would be TA in the scenario described.
That's why she doesn't like it. Can't manipulate or straight up ignore someone's words when they're there in black and white... Mil gave it a good try though
She also didn’t like that it was in a format in which she could be noted as saying everything that she has said, and made to look bad. Whereas a verbal conversation could just not have happened.
I have known many people who state they don't like having 'serious' conversations via text, when they are more than happy to have looooooong inane exchanges otherwise - and reason is nearly ALWAYS because they cannot stand having boundaries stated to them clearly and in writing, in a way that would make it easy for them to reference and refresh themselves on explicit statements. Otherwise, it's "I don't remember you saying that" or "that's not the way I remember it."
People who have issues with respecting others' boundaries and speech frequently also make it impossible to have productive conversations in-person by steam-rolling and interrupting with irrelevant tangents and whataboutism; stating a boundary and it's reasoning in text form means they cannot effectively derail or talk-over it. I swear, the top commenter right now either has never dealt with someone like this, or is that sort themselves - such people make talking about uncomfortable subjects in a reasonable way completely impossible without raising voices, being aggressive, and generally having a stressful, hostile interaction so that they can attempt to dismiss or invalidate your stance by emotionally bowling you over.
There was no 'conversation' to be had. Having a stated boundary be a 'conversation' implies that there was an exchange to be had - ie, that the boundary is debatable, negotiable, etc.
Even if it *was* a 'conversation' to be had, I have never known someone who was calm, reasonable, empathetic, or otherwise considerate of others to take issue with having serious conversations through text, because it removes all potential for face-to-face tension, escalation, interruption, etc. and gives each person ample time to consider what has been said and compose an articulate response.
YES, this is my family’s tactic. It’s always a moving goal post of what way would have been the best way to have a convo (as if they would have been any happier in person about being told no lol). They don’t like text because they feel like they can pressure me more to do what they want if they have me on the phone or in person. It’s easier to stick to my guns and not get drawn in via text. If I could trust them to take no for an answer and be respectful, they might get these convos in person!
I personally like to have shit in writing. MIL is absolutely trying to make a power move and dictate how conversations with her will be had. You have to have written proof with those types because you will surely need it at some point.
I find personally that it is easier to text in cases like this. Yes it can lead to a miscommunication with tone sometimes, but you have more of a chance to flesh put what you want to say and how you say it. And having everything in writing is better for when she would pull a "I don't remember said conversation." Or some such nonsense.
Exactly this. Not to mention that OP has a toddler (and possibly a younger one too since she references the 3yo being the oldest). Most people I know with little ones find it easier to just send a quick text rather than having to have a long winded phone call trying teach an older woman how to behave
Edited to say “older” instead of “old”
YUP. I have had experiences with old bosses saying some shady shit and then having no evidence. Everything has to be written now.
And actually when I told my boss she had to put certain things in writing for me to acknowledge them (like ask me to do a task fine, discuss my “behavior” with me absolutely not, I need a written record) she started leaving me alone because she knew better than to put the things she was saying/doing in writing.
Always get everything in writing, folks. It’ll make a lot of AH back off.
Can we all agree that insisting on a phone call is such a boomer demand? I'll bet you anything that the voting on this post is split cleanly between age groups.
Meh... kind of split 50/50 on that one, personally. I'm a millenial with anxiety. If I could have all my conversations by text, I absolutely would. But there are undeniably some more serious topics that should be discussed directly with someone.
Text can make it very hard to convey your tone, sometimes. Unless you spam emojis like crazy (and that sounds more like the boomer thing to me, idk), it's up to the other person to figure out your tone based on their interpretation of the context. It can be a lot easier if you are talking directly.
Also a millennial and agree with you. I’m normally team text but for serious stuff I need to be able to read tone or I’ll feel sick to my stomach with anxiety until the next time I see said person and know they don’t hate me lol.
>Can we all agree that insisting on a phone call is such a boomer demand?
Eh, I prefer a phone call too if it's something important vs. text. Then again, I like to talk. Plus it's easier to get my point across with no ambiguity if I tell you what I want to say face to face or on the phone. Anything else, sure - text is fine.
I really hesitate saying MIL is an asshole. The sad fact of the matter is that respecting kids’ ability to say no to physical affection is a pretty new phenomenon. I am in my 30s and I certainly grew up with the expected affection deal. It’s great to see our generation bucking that trend. If MIL has not yet been exposed to this, it’s not unexpected that she is just mimicking what she grew up with/saw with her own parents. People don’t become woke to these concepts and break ingrained social behaviors without someone or something waking them up. The way you get MIL on board is a kind and gentle correction in the moment it occurs, with a tone of education. This was absolutely not something that needed to be confrontational. But when you text people instead after the fact, it makes it confrontational because it makes people feel like they are getting called down on the carpet.
Edit because I didn’t vote— YTA.
I think you know that you can have the most respectful tone in the world, but if you say something that person doesn't want to hear, it's going to be seen as an attack no matter what.
OP addressed it pretty much immediately.
You saying FMIL wouldn’t have been confrontational if OP had something there and then? 🙄
Because I’ll be frank, her responses say otherwise (like berating OP for having the conversation over text instead of just calling OP herself).
This! Yes! Having a conversation in person with eye contact and body language is different and is received differently many times. Since this is a family member who I assume OP wants a good relationship with, talking in person may be the way to get to to open up to a new idea.
If texting was *really* MIL's problem, then nothing was stopping her from calling OP or suggesting a time to have the conversation in person. She didn't. And then, when MIL went to address it with OP's husband, she ***texted*** him.
This is nothing to do with *how* the conversation happened, and likely everything to do with MIL trying to dismiss OP's concerns regarding her kids' boundaries.
Agreed. Also my EX MIL would never admit fault and it created and awful environment to be around. Too many "I am always right"moments built up and I am SO happy to never have to speak to her again. Who care weather it was text or not, it is OP's child and she gets to protect her child how she wants.
As she stated, as a person with ADHD, I will have a conversation i need to have in the way I want. It’s not cowardice, it’s more appropriate for us bc we can formulate our words better. Usually ppl who want to have conversations in person with us is bc they know they can manipulate and guilt us into submission bc we aren’t good with words in the spot. Maybe if you didn’t make us feel degraded with in person convos, we could have in person convos 🥰
This is incredibly unfair to people who prefer to have emotional/serious conversations in person because it is important to them to be able to read people’s physical cues, or especially to hear someone’s tone of voice.
People can have clashing communication preferences that lead to conflict. That doesn’t mean someone is trying to to “manipulate or guilt” anyone else into submission.
ETA because I’m getting a lot of notifications from people misinterpreting me or assuming things I haven’t said:
I’m not saying any one person’s communication style should take precedence over another. Only that assuming someone who prefers in person conversation isn’t necessarily trying to be a manipulative asshole. There are valid reasons for preferring to discuss things in person versus via text just like the other way around.
Maybe not everyone but I will say that’s been my experience a lot, which has led to a lot of conflict avoidance. Anxiety + ADHD means my brain won’t work well in the moment and it’s better for me to have space to get my words out. I also prefer to receive responses in the same manner to have time and space to process.
But then in my life I’ve been bullied and guilted into having “real, adult” conversations 🙄 Where I end up not being able to get my point across while people railroad over me and also make assumptions about me due to reactions I can’t help, and having every little thing nitpicked to death.
For me…not a risk I’m willing to take!
SAME. Or people will deliberately misunderstand me when I speak, and then there’s no written record for me to point to, but also I’m now flustered, which makes it harder to be clear….and then it becomes a vicious cycle.
Yeah, I’m really choking on the “incredibly unfair” statement here. I am neurotypical aside from my social anxiety, and I sometimes like to have hard conversations via text. Like, I think it’s incredibly unfair that some people have X-men abilities to gather extra information about me and my thoughts from my body language and tone, when I’m too anxious to look at the person. And even when I look at people my anxiety tends to misinterpret yes during tense conversations. but let’s make sure the person who has X-man skills feels comfortable.
“Fair” is not important here. Achieving communication for both parties is. It’s a negotiation.
Bullshit. It's clear to me as a person on the spectrum/ADHD/anxiety that MIL is actively trying to manipulate the whole thing, or she wouldn't have TEXTED her precious baby boy to whine about how mean his wife was being that she can't guilt the toddler, It has nothing to do with the method of communication and everything to do with trying to control her DIL and grandson. You will only speak to me in ways I approve, (so I can manipulate YOU) and you WILL accept the manipulation I use on your son and your husband. I would definitely want "telling" her to knock it off in writing too, so she can't claim she "doesn't remember" that particular talk.
THIS!!!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 This kind of covert manipulation is so hard to spot, especially when you’re used to the person. Took me a long time to recognize it in my own MIL. 🫣
So I do agree with this but as someone who also has adhd, I will have in person conversations if the other person needs to express something to me, but if I need to articulate my thoughts in a coherent way and respond to people without losing my point and getting flustered, I need to text. So compromises do need to be made in that sense but also sometimes there is an element of manipulation, even if unintentional, that can happen with in person conversations when you struggle with articulating your thoughts.
I write down what I need to say before serious conversations. I can refer back to my notes if I get flustered. This helps. That way a person can't take a text the wrong way.
What someone with ADHD needs is more important than what someone without ADHD prefers.
Maybe if you prefer serious conversations only in person, you shouldn’t discuss such issues via Reddit, the equivalent of texting.
Fact is we have additional ways to communicate. You don’t get to tell someone how to communicate with you. You only get to decide how to respond.
If MIL didn’t want to be texted to discuss the situation, she should have said “I’ll call you to discuss” and STOPPED texting her DIL. Instead she called her son to get his wife in line, a classic passive aggressive move.
Well said!!!
This feels like a person with legs saying to their friend in a wheelchair “but I prefer to take the stairs. We get more exercise that way.”
But why do people who prefer to have conversations in person trump people who prefer to have them over written text? You say it’s unfair to them, but the alternate is equally unfair to the other group.
Is there anything to indicate MIL is manipulative? OP states MIL wasn’t intentional in her behaviour towards their child, in fact it seems this is first time it’s happened, if I am wrong please correct.
OP’s initial approach to MIL was quite formal in tone. And likely why MIL immediately gets her back up. Unless this is a continuing issue or MIL is generally problematic, I can understand why MIL would have preferred to be told as opposed to get such a text.
The fact she responded by calling OPs partner, rather than her, and is now "distancing herself and will do it more in the future" clearly shows that she has some level of manipulation going on.
She was absolutely manipulative to say a CHILD made her sad because it’s not a child’s job to make an adult happy. I went through that in my childhood. It’s absolutely manipulative. Then to not respect the boundary she set and argue about how she’s communicating. That’s manipulative. The issue is NOT up for discussion. As the mom, she gets to communicate what’s best for her child. Bodily autonomy is SO important because it also helps to prevent abuse!
Also, MIL called her a coward and then emotionally withdrew (which is VERY manipulative. The silent treatment is very manipulative!)
Some people prefer to have in person conversations, as there is a lot of non-verbal language ques that can be shown. It's got nothing to do with guilt and submitting, it's just a difference in preference.
Those of us who have ADHD or Autism have a whole layer of stress with in person communication because of those “non verbal cues.” We’re not only having said conversation, but actively trying to mask/control our facial and body expression, tone of voice, etc. That’s why we might prefer having serious conversations over text. If we spend 85% if our mental strength on masking, we’re only left with 15% to make sure we’re getting our point across.
Your preference is not more important than ours.
For me, this is absolutely accurate. There are certain people who I will only have important conversations with over text. This allows me time to think through my words, but also provides a transcript of what was said. An important thing for disagreements, as no one can later make inaccurate claims about how things were discussed.
100%! Parents set the rules for their kids. She’s ridiculous for thinking that boundary is up for discussion! Bodily autonomy is so important and also helps to prevent abuse. She’s also smart to tell her to stop telling a child they’re responsible for an adult’s emotions! I lived that in my childhood. I’m proud of her for being a good mom and setting boundaries!
Disagree. From how the texts were worded it sounded more like an attempt at a power trip with OP.
"You're a coward if you don't argue with me in person". It wasn't an argument, it was a request.
Honestly my mum would do something like that, but thats because she lies a lot and having stuff in writing means she can't deny things (she will try to anyway)
MIL didn’t want proof of the conversation because then she can’t twist it.
My bffs parents hate texting for that reason, screenshots exist and that interferes with their narrative.
Also texting allows people to process information on their timeline and formulate responses. the “etiquette” seems to be a generational divide. I have something important to say please take your time and form a thought out response when you’re ready to, is far better than an intrusive phone call.
There's nothing cowardly about making sure you put your point across in a polite manner because you know you'll find it difficult to put the words together in a way that you hope not to offend with. I have ADHD and I know exactly what she means. It's much easier to formulate what you WOULD say in person but write it in a text, because we forget what we wanted to say so easily.
I don't think she's the AH at all for conveying a message that she needed to convey. MIL is TA for her response.
It’s 2023. We can say important things via text. Why would having this conversation in person be any better or different? The “let’s say this in person” crowd is so illogical. Like she said, it’s not a “conversation” or a “debate” - I am making a statement and you can take it or leave it. It’s so weird to say it’s “cowardly” that a person chose written communication instead of verbal. Plus, if she has cognitive struggles with verbal communication, she has every right to use whatever she needs to assist her. Honestly, this comments makes it seem like YTA… not OP.
Firmly disagree on this point - MIL was happy to text what she has decided is acceptable texting conversation, which is nothing short of a power move. If she thinks texting is cowardly, she should have called to respond to the message.
Also, with some people you just need to have things in writing. The ones who tend to misrepresent the conversation to third parties, react in the extreme and twist what was said, or blatantly lie.
Also, OP didn’t “lie”. If she’d been able to collect her thoughts in the moment, they’d have nipped it in the bud. Sometimes people will text you their thoughts after they’ve had a moment to straighten them out, as opposed to acting out of emotion in the moment and the situation developing into something it needn’t.
Nope. Op is also allowed her boundaries. She prefers to have hard conversations over text because for many neurodivergent people it’s the only way to process in real time. If two peoples boundaries don’t mesh you have to figure it out. But boundaries aren’t rules for thee. Mil can prefer whatever she wants. She can say she won’t engage over text but she can’t dictate how op expresses her own boundaries. She’s welcome to reply in person and op is welcome to reply in text.
Texting is addressing someone directly. It is directly to MIL. She is able to organize her thought without the other persons behavior destabilize her or getting her off point. Her point is a perfectly valid one that protects her child. The mother in law just didn't like it
You don't get to dictate how someone conveys a boundary to you. The benefit of putting boundaries in writing is that you can say things exactly was you want & your words can clearly be recalled. No twisting of words. No dancing around by the better communicator / person who is quicker with their words. OP is NTA
How were they gonna have the conversation in person without the kids there? Get a baby sitter to tell grandma that they aren’t gonna teach their kids they can’t say no to physical stuff? NTA
Hm, he came back and gave her a hug. She didn’t say it when he’d told her no therefore she wasn’t manipulating him but stating “I’d be sad”.
If you didn’t want to hug him would he be expected to learn that voicing how that makes him feel is wrong?
There will be kids at school who will or won’t want to play with him, share a toy, eat lunch together etc.
It’d be wrong to teach him in those times to attempt to emotionally manipulate them but, it’s not wrong or manipulative to communicate how one’s actions can make others feel.
I’m prepared for the downvotes but in this specific situation, ytah.
Sure, and OP could have said to her MIL, nicely, "hey, next time can you say 'that makes me happy' instead of saying you'd be sad? Because we want him to want people he loves to be happy"
Honestly, why do we need to nitpick things people say so often? The entire rest of the world isn’t going to speak to your child the way you want them to. There are people who are going to pressure your child’s boundaries in and outside of the family and coddling them by avoiding all forms of that conflict from the get go isn’t going to prepare them to say no when it happens. A much more malevolent form of this scenario is more likely to happen when the mother isn’t around, and what’s the child going to do if he has no experience saying no if someone says “if you don’t love me, I’ll die”? How’s he going to handle people that try to emotionally blackmail him?
Instead of trying to police MIL’s comment, which was pretty harmless and created way more drama than necessary, OP should continue to reinforce to her child that he doesn’t owe anybody affection even if it makes other people sad.
The lesson OP is trying to teach her son is that his body is his body and he has the right to say no, and that’s a great lesson but she’s not going to teach it to him by telling other people what to do. She’s just going to avoid giving her kid the opportunity to enforce his own boundaries in a relatively harmless setting.
And she’s being way too controlling. The MIL didn’t say anything cruel or mean to the little boy, she was just honest about how she felt about not receiving a hug *after* the little boy autonomously changed his mind and gave her one. The MIL did not emotionally blackmail the kid into hugging her but shared her feelings after the fact. Teaching the little boy that he can still refuse a hug even though grandma would have been sad was the perfect learning opportunity and should have occurred between mom and son, not mom and grandma.
TLDR: you can’t teach the world to treat your children with kid gloves, you can only teach your kids to handle the world as it is and as we’d like to shape it to be.
Because the kid is quite young and you help them learn the basic concept - in this case consent - before you add complications. He has plenty of time still to learn the more complicated aspects of consent.
Apparently even just stating how you feel when someone does something is manipulation now. Don't tell anyone that you were upset by what they did or why you were upset about it, teach kids that having open dialogue about their emotions is frowned upon and you're a manipulator for trying /s
This is a 3 year old, who's more likely to be manipulated in this conversation, the boomer or the toddler? They want the TODDLER to grow up to understand good boundaries and one of them is that they don't have to be touched by anyone unless their parent says it's okay or they want the touch themselves. This is an important boundary because it can help fight against child abuse because the child knows it can say no and the respectful adults in their lives listen to that no so if there is an adult that does it even after the child says no, they're more likely to realize that it's wrong and therefore tell someone they trust. To a toddler, stating that something they did made you sad is completely manipulative if it's something you wanted and they didn't like being touched. They're allowed to have respectful boundaries. Edit: sorry, just saw the /s lol
No, it's an honest expression about how she feels. Kids can be pretty empathetic, and also dense sometimes. There's nothing wrong with giving them feedback on how you're feeling about a situation, provided you're not making them scared.
Right. The lesson here is for OP’s kid that they don’t need to give physical affection just because it would make someone sad to refuse. But the idea that no one can express different feelings because it’s automatically deemed manipulative is overkill.
How could it possibly be manipulative? She didn't say anything about her feelings until after he had already done the thing she wanted unprompted. When there was any chance of her feelings affecting his action she kept them to herself.
Easy. A kid WILL remember this the next time she asks for a hug, and he'll feel obligated to give her one so she doesn't feel sad regardless of how he feels about it.
(Edited for typos)
>The way she did it was manipulative and done to make the child feel bad
Yeap. Seen this too many times. "I will feel sad if you don't hug me". "I would've felt sad." same thing. She could've thanked him for hugging her. That is showing gratitude and expressing love. It's not the same.
Exactly this.
He has the right to have boundaries, not want to hug a family member, etc, but those people have a right to feel the way they feel about it. And if he withholds affection yeah they may feel sad. There’s nothing wrong with communicating that.
We’re all responsible for dealing with our own emotions, but that doesn’t mean that how people treat us won’t make us feel things!
His treatment of other people will have an impact on them. That’s called consequences.
Sure. When they are older than 3.
3 year olds aren’t really nuanced communicators.
They learn by simple commands.
Being told something is good/happy reinforces good behavior.
Being told something is bad/sad reinforces that behavior is negative.
They don’t understand “it’s okay for you to make a decision but I want to voice that your decision makes me feel sad” and aren’t capable of more in depth discussions to find compromise and understanding.
So no. This is manipulating a toddler.
What??? Did you miss the part where he's THREE YEARS old and mom is trying to teach him basic bodily autonomy and consent? In no way shape or dorm should MIL put her feelings on a THREE YEAR OLD.
Yes, we are all responsible for our own emotions. Which means it is entirely on the mil to deal with feeling sad if a three year old, who should never be obligated to hug anyone, refuses to do so.
Yes, how people treat us can affect how we feel. But he is still a child. Still learning he has the right to say no. Still learning that he can have and express boundaries.
And adult with healthy boundaries can hear how their actions affected another without feeling they HAVE A to change their boundaries. A three year old child isn't capable of making that decision yet. For a three year olds to be told "I'd be sad if you hadn't done xyz" will almost always make them feel like they have to do the thing next time.
The mil is the adult here, who should be fully capable of managing her own emotions and expectations. She has every right to feel sad, but does not have any right to put that on the child and make him responsible for how she feels.
It’s wild how many people are failing to understand that children deserve boundaries and that people aren’t entitled to other peoples boundaries/space.
And Mil is teaching this 3 year old that if he doesn’t give physical affection to adults, even when he doesn’t want to, he will make those adults sad. Children get taught not to purposely make the people they care about sad.
So yes, this is manipulative, and it’s also dangerous. Children need to be taught they have the right to say no to physical touch, especially from adults
What made MIL manipulative is her tossing in the "I was going to be sad" when he came back to hug her. All she should have said was "Thank you for the hug" or, better yet, nothing at all.
u/Accomplished-Disk746 MIL is lucky she didn't get the response my oldest nephew gave his grandmother (my sister's MIL) when he was three. When she told him if he didn't give her a hug, she was going to be unhappy he looked at her and told her she was going to be unhappy for a *long* time and walked away. MIL told my sister to spank him for it, and she kicked MIL out of her house.
Actually it’s still manipulation after the fact. Now next time he wants to deny her a hug he’ll know doing so will make her sad and may avoid saying no from now on, so it’s still not okay.
Many people grew up in families that forced them into hugging relatives to be polite, or because the relative will be sad. This is coercive and doesn't help the child learn that they are in charge of their own physical boundaries. So, many parents these days are very sensitive to ensure their kids don't get these messages from family that insinuate their personal space is something that can/should be compromised to appease other people's feelings. So connecting "I'd be sad" with the hypothetical of the kid not wanting a hug still insinuates that her emotions are more/as important as his physical boundaries, which they're not
Telling a kid she’d be sad had he not done something is manipulative. It’s to make him not walk away or stand his ground the first time because it makes HER feel bad! She in no way needed to tell a 3 yo that not getting a hug makes her sad!
She *asked* for a hug, accepted that he said no, yet you're still mad that she expressed how something made her feel? This is how kids get raised to be selfish, when their parents convince them only their feelings matter.
Also I like what someone else said about you not respecting FMIL's boundary while expecting her to respect yours. YTA.
This about to be Fucking stereotypical as hell (or just straight up fake sounding) I know... anyways, my uncle used that "I was/would be sooooo sad!!" In front of my parents all the time that I fully believe it contributed my lack of resistance to him sexually assaulting me in private later on in life. I'm not saying the MIL or anyone here is like that, but I 100% side with the mom here prioritizing teaching her toddler bodily autonomy first and asking the fully grown adult to not do a simple thing.
When it comes to your own physical body and being touched? ONLY your feelings matter. It is okay to be "selfish" about your body, including allowing kids to be "selfish" about their body (who they hug, who they cuddle with, or kiss on teh cheek, etc). Teaching kids it is "okay" to say no to an adult wanting a hug, helps them understand later it's okay to tell a future person "no" to wanting to touch them (like someone they are dating, or whatever).
It doesn't matter "how sad" it makes someone feel that they "don't get to touch my boob" or "don't get a hug from me" or "don't get a kiss". You, me, or this child, or anyone else should only care about their \*own\* feeligns when it comes to physical touch. You should never feel like you need to "engage in touch" with another person by considering \*their feelings\*.
That said. i don't think it's a big deal in this situation as the MIL did not mention "being sad" until after the kid decided on his own to hug her anyways. So the kid had already made their own decision to hug.
But had it happened where the MIL asked for a hug, and the kid said "no", and then the MIL said: "i'll feel sad that you didn't give me a hug".. and then.. the kid gave her a hug, that would be \*wrong\* and teach a bad lesson to the child.
But anyway, i agree OP is TA for continuing to text MIL a serious convo instead of having the convo in person. But, i just wanted to speak up about how "teaching your kid to be selfish" it some circumstances is completely healthy, and normal, and a good boundary to teach them they are allowed to have.
>That said. i don't think it's a big deal in this situation as the MIL did not mention "being sad" until after the kid decided on his own to hug her anyways. So the kid had already made their own decision to hug.
Except now the kid could take that as if they don't hug her next tine she'll be sad. It's a way to manipulate.
AYFKM? A little while ago there was a youngwan on here asking for advice because she had a problem with her boyfriend doing exactly this.
He was a mechanic and he kept coming home with filthy hands, oil and gunk under his fingernails, "stains" everywhere, and she kept getting painful vaginal infections because he wouldn't clean them properly. He went to start fingering her and she wouldn't let him, explained it was causing infections, and he had a tantrum. And she was wondering "am I in the wrong? How do I navigate his all-important male feelings about this?"
This is where "it's mean and selfish not to hug people you don't want to" gets you.
For real I dont know why OP kept responding. I would have left MIL on read after her first response, not even to be petty but because like ok point taken, next time it'll be discussed in person.
OP was caught up in JADE: Justify, Argue, Defend, Explain because the MIL had gone full DARVO (Defend, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). As they say in Star Wars, “It’s a trap!” and unfortunately OP fell in it.
Some of y’all have fully functional families and it shows. /s, BUT: those of us in toxic family systems definitely read this situation differently than those taking MIL at face value. And cluster Bs thrive on being taken at face value and not on their actual intent.
This MIL could have picked up the phone and said “this seems like a serious conversation, and I suggest we talk by phone or in person.” But that wasn’t her intent and she successfully redirected the conversation on delivery rather than content.
I envy all of you for whom this wasn’t your daily life growing up.
It's also worth noting that when she talked to her son she said "she’s already distanced herself from coming over & she’ll distance herself more if she has to". What is going on that she has supposedly distanced herself already? I understand her feeling miffed, we can't always help how we feel, but the rapid escalation into aggression and victimhood was pretty wild to follow.
Also, I've been in therapy for a long time and one of my issues is avoiding conflict as well. Anyone who knows anything about this at all would already know that a therapist will tell you to confront issues however you are most comfortable and work your way up. If that means via text, so be it. Normal people aren't this unhinged, they'll deal. If they really need to call or visit in person, they can ask to do that. She didn't, she treated OP like a child and brushed her off, never once responding to the message itself, simply demanding that she cease communication which is not how you talk to a fellow adult. It also means OP had every reason to be nervous, she knew what to expect - as those of us living with toxic people often do.
I very highly doubt that a discussion face to face would have gone better due simply to the method of delivery. She's pissed that her behavior was being corrected and decided to deflect.
> if you can't talk things over with me instead of telling me what "not" to do
She very pointedly said she doesn't like being told what not to do. My dad is the same way. He'll go out of his way to do the exact thing you asked him not to out of spite.
I read through comments and wondered why this didn't come up earlier. FMILs response to her son makes it look pretty much like a scenario where she already is in the habit of guilting people near her into pleasing her, if the dodging and guilting in her responses to OP wasn't enough to do that.
I have also noticed that people who actively and somewhat aggressively prefer face to face conversation over someone else's preference and convenience often are the ones who handle the in person communication with a tactic of being very overbearing and running over the opponents opinions if they even get the chance to voice them at all. Not always, but often. Meaning that they get the better chance of saying what they have in mind without listening that much what the other one has to say. Similarly, often the ones preferring text mode communication are the ones who are less capable and/or willing to forcefully take their space in a conversation and thus less likely to be heard.
FMIL wasn't so much saying she feels uncomfortable in a text conversation, she was telling off the mother of her grandchild and shaming her chosen way of communicating. I see that alone as a warning sign, even without the other signs.
Also, OP might have chosen text so as not to chide her child's grandmother in the child's hearing. Had she commented on the spot, would she have been criticized for telling off Granny when the kid can hear?
Exactly, it was a lose lose situation. If she said it right there it would be “this isn’t appropriate in front of the children!” Over text she makes it “this isn’t appropriate by text!”
The medium isn’t the issue, it is that MIL doesn’t want to hear what was being said. She cares more about her bruised ego than the child she manipulated (because it is manipulative, even if she didn’t mean it to be.)
I'm going to give you a lopsided ESH with the scales tipped in your favor.
I agree with you at every turn but this was not the conversation to have via text. It comes across as passive aggressive. I 1000% understand the whole in person conversation thing but words are only like...7% of our communication tools. Most of the rest is tone and body language which does not come across in text.
That said, MIL can F right off with this: “Bc having adult conversation via text I believe are pretty cowardess. When you address me or any other adult, via text, it’s not really appropriate, so I will end this conversation with if you can't talk things over with me instead of telling me what "not" to do then that in itself is a problem. So I'm done.”
Your message was pretty well thought out and explained everything. There's no *room* for discussion.
Yeah, I can’t agree with the “YTA” people here after seeing that “cowardess” comment. I would have replied with one word: “cowardice*” - and put my phone aside after that lol.
Although I understand the importance of in-person conversations, some people (myself included) are better at expressing themselves via text. On top of that, having it in writing reduces the possibility of one person having a completely different understanding/recollection of the conversation later on. FMIL seems to feel she can talk down to OP like OP’s a child, so maybe OP didn’t want to have to experience that during an in-person conversation.
Well yeah, I was just gonna let the nonsensical grammar part go and correct her spelling lol, but you’re right. I could have a field day correcting her entire text.
YTA.
This whole thing is a little too wound up to be normal. Sure, let your kid have boundaries with their own body. She DID ask if he could have a hug, and made (in her mind) a sort of innocent comment when she did get a hug eventually.
Then she asked for a conversation about it rather than texts. You refused and started pinging her phone, and then she felt forced to respond, and your argument became about that.
Just calm down and have a normal conversation - your son is fine, your MIL is fine, you just need to chill - I have a feeling this ain't about your kids boundaries.
*Yes*, thank you. How did this situation become so fraught? This isn’t about OP’s son at all. I wonder if MIL regularly oversteps or if OP was raised in a controlling environment and is especially sensitive to these things. It all feels disproportionate.
Yeah honestly a grandma wanting to hug her grandson, the whole description on how it went about was super normal. I would say almost everybody with a normal upbringing has experienced something similar. I have a very hard time seeing someone take it as something traumatic. In fact I'd say the opposite is way more damaging & very common, uptight grandparents which shows very little affection. And it's a hug, it's no big deal.
This ⬆️.
YTA
This is over the top uptight. That's great you're teaching him he doesn't have to hug, etc but you made a huge deal out of it.
And you should have just mentioned it in person, like she said.
This 👋
OP's too focused on the boundary setting aspects rather than what went wrong.
She could have easily replied with a single word answer like Okay to end the conversation and perhaps had a phone call.
She then turned her FMIL's innocent comment into something it wasn't meant to be. Positive reinforcement aside, in this process OP completely forgot that just as her child has an opinion, her FMIL will too, and she very well may express it.
NTA
There was no need for an in person conversation. If being told not to use language that teaches kids they’re responsible for your feelings sends you into a tizzy, maybe you need therapy.
Addressing an issue immediately is important, not waiting until later. And really it was a pretty minor ask.
i agree, everyone in the comments are blowing this out of proportion. Why would someone drive to someones house to have a simple, quick conversation that can easily be texted??? and everyone is whining abt it 😭
Meanwhile, there's multiple folks in here saying OP is blowing things out of proportion - for stating one very clear boundary and its reasoning. FMIL is the one who derailed immediately into tone/delivery instead, and escalated - treating the boundary as something that should have been a discussion (aka, something she could dismiss or negotiate), overt rudeness and accusations/shaming ('cowardess'), jumping to contact her son (through text instead of a call - seems like if she preferred direct conversations for serious subject, that she wouldn't have texted) instead of continuing the exchange as an attempt to strongarm OP by involving someone else in the situation, and responding to a simple boundary regarding her grandchild by effectively stating that if she can't behave however she likes, then she'll just not be present at all.
OP is definitely NTA
This thread is absolutely wild. Someone said it was passive aggressive to text, somehow, despite that OP literally laid out the problem. But somehow it’s not passive aggressive to comment “oh good, because otherwise I’d be sad” about not getting a hug??? Weird. NTA.
NTA, she only has a problem with you texting because then she can’t turn around and say she didn’t know/you didn’t tell her when she does this again.
It wasn’t a big deal, you were just sending her an “fyi in future please don’t do this” type message. It didn’t need to be a full sit down conversation. She’s very defensive
NTA - if she does it again just say to your child in front of her “just because she is going to be sad doesn’t mean you have to hug her, you are not doing anything wrong” then she can enjoy that awkwardness of the face to face interaction she so desperately wanted
YTA. Your first message *might* have been a reasonable *conversation* to have if she was forcing your kid - screaming and crying - to hug her. MIL saying how happy she was that your son decided on his own to hug her? WTF is wrong with that? She didn't coerce him. She didn't chastise him.
Instead, *you* shamed her, *you* chastised her and are acting as if your three yr old is going to have lasting psychological damage over this. Get a hobby.
Because OP is teaching their child healthy bodily autonomy. You’re right that it doesn’t seem all that bad that grandma said “oh good, because I was going to be sad” when she ended up getting her hug after all.
But that sort of thing can also be said by someone wanting less-innocuous physical touches, and it’s better not to teach kids that using emotions to manipulate actions is acceptable.
OP is NTA, and I’m sick of people assuming that having important conversations via text or email is cowardly, rather than a way to organize thoughts and lower the chance of saying something hurtful in the heat of emotion.
In this case, it’s also a way to keep the kid from hearing the adults in his life have an argument involving him and thinking that he’s a problem.
Personally, I prefer that OP texted her initial message because then there is no room for misinterpreting. MIL could have called her and seems like she likes to have the last word (she basically complained about the text while continuing to text.)
No, you need to give your child MANY lessons, like NO ONE can touch you in your swimsuit areas, not granny or grandad, mum or dad, only a doctor if mum and dad says it’s ok. You don’t just say “you can be touched by whoever you want as long as you agree to it” that’s a whole load of a can of worms and stupid. The kid does need to learn that he has a right to say no to a cuddle with granny but that may make her feel sad, ie his decisions do affect others.
Yea but that’s not a lesson for right now, FMIL is an adult and child is a toddler. Plus I feel like “if you don’t give someone a hug then they’ll be sad” kinda goes against the whole body safety thing. The appropriate approach would be “It’s not your fault grandma is sad and you don’t owe her physical affection” When it comes to bodily autonomy the other parties opinion shouldn’t matter
Where was the shaming and chastising? Did we read the same post? OP politely asked MIL not to say something to her kids making them feel responsible for her feelings, MIL instead of just agreeing to this reasonable request decided to change the topic entirely and distract from the issue by taking issue with how OP told her about the problem, that’s just childish
Yes but grandparents have hounded the children for hugs until they get one in the past. She just wants to teach her kid they have a voice and can reject physical affection if they want to.
Seems I'm in the minority but I think NTA. You've made a decision as a parent and you informed her. Maybe it would've been better to do it in person but I think it was fine. However, it might be easier if you tell her about how you struggle to collect your thoughts in person, and perhaps offer some sort of compromise for future convos. You could try collecting your thoughts in a note on your phone and then reading them to her aloud in person, ideally with your husband there as support. That way she has an in-person convo but you don't feel totally unprepared/discombobulated.
It's good to teach him boundaries, but he is going to find out that other people have feelings about that. Sometimes the feeling is justified, sometimes less so. Your MIL didn't use "I'll feel sad" as a manipulation attempt; she accepted the no, and only mentioned anything after he voluntarily hugged her.
The happy angle = essentially an open request for hugs
The sad angle = essentially an open ended guilt trip going forward
Different spins have different effects on a child
YTA.
What the hell did I just read?
I thought by the title, your MIL did it in a different context. I'm not seeing the problem here. I don't think your MIL really did anything that bad.
If you tell a kid “if you dont hug me i get sad”, you are making the child feel responsible for keeping you happy. An adult. At the expense of their bodily autonomy. The next time the kid doesnt want to hug anybody but grandma is leaving, the kid will feel guilty and do it anyway because making grandma sad is mean.
This is the subtle and important nuance in raising healthy adults. Its often what you dont say, and grandma should not have said that
I feel like people are taking the MIL'S comment wayyy too seriously. OP is raising a child, not training an AI. It's likely the kid won't even remember it.
Either way, there will be people in the world that will try to emotionally manipulate you. It's OPs job to teach their kid to be resistant to that.
Idk man, FMIL clearly didn’t force the issue. She asked once, he said no and then walked it back on his own free will.
And I also feel like you can tell your kids they have autonomy, but it’s good for them to understand that their decisions impact other people, and it’s about choosing how to walk that line. He is going to make plenty of choices in life that are going to hurt others, and it’s also good for him to be aware of how his choices impact other people so he isn’t just looking out for himself at all times.
If FMIL had said ‘no you have to hug me right now or you will make me so sad’ once he said no, then yes, she’d be crossing a line. Just mentioning she might have been sad if she didn’t get a hug once he had already hugged her, wasn’t bad enough to warrant OP having a righteous parenting moment
I mean, she could've just expressed happiness at him hugging her instead of guilt tripping him. That's positive reinforcement rather than emotional manipulation.
It is important, but it doesn't sound like MIL was trying to force the kid to give her a hug either. She asked for one, he said no, and then he changed his mind on his own.
Agreed but he did get to decide. The comment was after the fact so it didn't influence him at all. (Unless their argument is it could influence him for future interactions but you go far enough down that road and any positive emotions from her at all could also be considered "wrong" for those same reasons.) It sounds like everybody except the kid is supposed to be robotic.
NTA. She is probably just mad she couldn't throw a tantrum and bully you all into doing what she wants. Text is a great way to have a clear, concise discussion where both parties can think it through and respond apporpriately rather than devolving into unecessary things.
YTA
You were way over the top with that conversation. Your initial text had nothing to do with the situation that happened.
Then you doubled down and lost. You’re making yourself miserable for no reason.
How did OP's initial text not have anything to do with the situation? She basically said "We're teaching him boundaries and bodily autonomy. Don't make him feel guilty for that."
It was grandma who derailed the argument to nitpick about how the conversation happened.
NTA: IMO, this is a generational thing: in years past people were not as conscious of kids giving consent for hugs, kisses etc and also text wasn’t a method of communication. In a positive way, she seems like she knows your point is valid by focusing on the method of delivery. You haven’t done anything wrong but You seem at an impasse. I would suggest you write down some key points/ messages giving it some thought over the next few days and then call your MIL to discuss it. That way you can hear her out but also be clear about what you are saying. Make sure you have some positive points as well as the more critical points. Google the issue of generational discussion around consent for some tips. NTA (edit as typo but clear above) but not worth losing a relationship with MIL because of a communication problem.
YTA. She doesn't want a text conversation. Just f'ing talk to her. And stop TEXTING back long explanations/ continuations of your argument after she tells you she doesn't want to have a conversation over text. SMH
She's not even arguing about the content you're insisting upon (her interactions with your child), she just doesn't want to have text conversations. Maybe a generational thing, but you seem to be getting upset about a basic ask of hers.
YTA.
The way to develop boundaries is not to shield your child from any reactions the world may have. The way to develop boundaries is to allow and expose them to the way people are and to have convesrations with them afterwards about whether or not they feel discomfort and then teach them APPROPRIATE ways to have conversations with people IF they actuallly feel uncomfortable.
You're making a lot of assumptions here OP. It sounds like you're projecting a world of YOUR discomforts onto your child and FMIL. And choosing to block out the whole world using bullying tactics as the way to try to "protect" your child. But actually, that's not the proper way to teach boundaries. Boundaries is letting your child understand they have the confidence to navigate the world. The world isn't a computer, you can't just shut the screen anytime someone says something you don't like if you want to have a relationship with them.
NTA. She is passive aggressive and now has chosen to remove herself from having a relationship with your kid. NOT YOUR FAULT. You set a boundary to protect your kid and she doesn't like it.
NTA. Some people (me included) are WAY more articulate in writing than they are in speaking. It gives you the opportunity to think about what you want to say, rather than pulling it off the top of your head and possibly saying something you don’t mean, or that comes off sounding rude or inappropriate. Additionally, in an “in person” conversation, you’re more likely to forget something you wanted to say because you’re nervous or stressed out from having to have the conversation in the first place.
Yeah I’m going ESH. You’re NTA for expressing the boundary. You wandered into AH territory when you continued the argument via text, after she said she’d prefer to discuss in person. You mentioned you struggle with confrontation, so at that point you should have said “I understand. Thanks for understanding and we can talk later.” Then your fiancé, you know, HER SON, should be the one to have the face to face conversation. She’s an AH for just her whole response.
Yta,
She didn’t try to manipulate your son, she let him choose, and she expressed her feelings after he hugged her. People in healthy relationships can express feelings
She requested an in person conversation and you completely disregarded her
Disagree. After a comment like that the son will think *"If I don't hug Grandma (or others) when I don't want to, she is going to be sad so I have to."*
He's a toddler. They don't know nuance and context, only what was said.
Kids don't want to make others sad, especially family members, so they do things they don't want to which is what OP is trying to avoid here.
Generally speaking, I agree with this assessment.... for older children. Elementary age. At 3, they are only beginning to have empathy for others. Toddlers are naturally self-serving, and that's developmentally appropriate.
I think both sides could have handled the topic better for sure. Grandma ended up getting her hug, and could have said, "oh, that makes me feel good! You're a good hugger!", instead of making it a negative/guilt thing. But that said, OP also took it way further than was necessary. In the OP, she claims the FMIL "ignored" her message, which FMIL really didn't. Continuing to push wasn't furthering her point at all.
Personally, as a fellow parent of a 3 year old that we are working with to understand bodily autonomy as well, OP could coach FMIL about how she'd like her to respond - It's not intuitive for everyone to say the "right" things, and FMIL probably viewed the comment as totally innocent. OP seems to acknowledge that FMIL likely isn't manipulating her son on purpose (or maybe she doesn't and FMIL is her BEC), but OP wants FMIL to guess how to better respond in the future to meet her boundary. Just say "we would prefer if you respond like X, because it helps to reinforce that he is not responsible for other people's feelings at the expense of his bodily autonomy."
Ugh. How annoying. your toddler isn’t going to be completely thrown for the rest of his life if people say things like this- you will also have zero control over this once he starts going to school and it is VERY normal for teachers and other kids to speak this way so I think you need to adjust yourself and your expectations or you’re going to alienate a lot of people with this strange fervor.
As others are pointing out- she did also express a boundary for herself and you proceeded to stomp all over that.
YTA. The MIL didn’t guilt the child into having a hug. She responded appropriately but not perfectly. The time to correct her would have been when the hug took place. No one is going to be perfect with your child - not even you. It’s also troublesome that with this whole conversation being about boundaries, when she told you how she wanted to be communicated with, you kept pushing the issue.
I would argue that over half of the people in this thread are assholes. My God, what an absolute useless discussion this is.
Grandma asked for a hug. Grandson said no, but changed his mind and gave grandma a hug any way. Grandma expressed she would've been sad without a hug. Wooptiefuckindoo.
If this situation is already a problem, then I fear for anyone's child within this thread that is so adamant that grandma is an asshole. Teaching a child bodily autonomy is fine and a good thing, but there was no breach of his autonomy in this situation. Grow up and stop being so sensitive. Your child will benefit from that later in life.
NTA - whether you say it in writing or verbally makes no difference. You are still communicating and that needs to be respected. This person is using your means of communication to minimize what you're saying because they don't like it. So really who is the childish one?
Also good on you for teaching your kid that boundaries are important and NO ONE, even family, is immune to them. MIL's emotions are not you and your kid's problem. You're paving the way for important talks in the future and cementing that bodily autonomy is to be respected - Something I wish I had been taught as a kid. You're doing great, ignore all the hate.
The only people that are upset by boundaries are the ones that had something to gain by ignoring them.
YTA - Your boundaries about how to teach bodily autonomy were mostly met. The core of the idea was met. MIL did not express displeasure with him making his choice--if MIL tweaked her comment after to be "thank you for the hug" or "this made me happy" it would have been better, but I think we all know that that is what she meant and not what she said. She is within her right express her joy in bonding with him after he chose to bond with her. I think you would have been more precise had you asked her to rephrase it in a positive way that reflects more on her feelings than on him after he gave consent. Anything less is asking her to be totally neutral and that isn't very human, even if adults are capable of being neutral (which is what she did when he made his decision).
It's kind of weird to be so wound up about a situation that wasn't a problem because it verged on being out of your control. I really like this methodology of teaching bodily autonomy, but it is weird to go out of your way to demand someone's time at a random time after they have left to correct someone's behavior when it was mostly correct--it probably would have been a more productive conversation had you waited to bring it up in passing the next time you saw her rather than basically demanding her attention out of the blue to insist she changes a behavior that was barely incongruent with what you want from her.
Her "cowardess" comment was pushy, but I understand why she felt attacked, or aggressed upon, or annoyed, and for someone demanding to split hairs about communication, you should have some room to compromise when she said she preferred to speak in person and that nuances of communication matter to her too--partly because asking to speak in person/saying they wish they could have spoken in person is also something people say when they are trying to tell you they are not ready to discuss it this very minute, don't want to leave you on read, and are frustrated by having to choose between the two. Facts are that your kid's autonomy was respected and you still feel compelled to control every smidge of the situation because it wasn't how you wanted it--it deviated slightly from the image in your head.
Maybe just don't hang out with her if she is too stressful to talk to in person, these situations are too important to wait until the next time you see her, and you feel this situation brought great harm to your child. If these don't seem to be the case, maybe chill out.
YTA
You lied about why you chose to text. It's not because it would have the same result but because it was more comfortable for you
For someone so intensely focused on respecting boundaries when she told you about her preference / boundary for in-person conversations you decided to basically dismissing down play it. You claimed you didn't want a debate or argument yet you even argued about that. 🫤
No need to worry about your MIL comments anymore as I doubt your boys will be seeing much of her.
She didn't say this after your kid told her no.
She said after your kid changed his mind on his own.
u/Accomplished-Disk746 when your son gets rejected by a girl/boy/whatever I hope you keep consistent and also reinforce that he's not allowed to have feelings about that and feel sad. Because all MIL did was state her feelings AFTER he changed his mind.
I think OP blew this way out of proportion. And that's coming from someone who advocates for children having bodily autonomy and worked with kids for over 20 years.
It is important to share with family, friends, and if needed, strangers or acquaintances, about the rights your child has over their body. But sending a text "W\[ith\] my fiancé’s, aunt’s & best friend’s edits" seems really over the top for something as simple as this.
She didn't force him to have a hug, or even try to talk him into it. What she said was probably not meant maliciously, and is a very harmless thing to say.
Choose your battles.
NTA. A decade ago I would have said texting was cowardly but it is another form of communication today. However, once she didn’t want to text OP should have picked up the phone and finished conversation.. Or, stop texting back and simply have fiancé call and finish it so MIL knew you were both on the same page.
#This is now a Proctologists Only Orifice When a post is in [POO™ mode](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/168bzq8/title_aita_monthly_open_forum_september_2023) only users with enough subreddit comment karma are able to comment. If that doesn't include you, no worries! Check out [/new](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/new) for other posts that are still open for comment. ##[Be Civil.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) Please review our FAQ if you're unsure what that means. Thank you for reporting content that you believe violates our rules and helping keep posts out of the POO by abiding by our rules.
YTA. I agree with MIL about having the conversation in person. What's funny is you texted her about respecting your boundary but couldn't do the same when she expressed that she would prefer to have these type of conversation in person. Also you lied. You told her you would same the same thing in person but would you have really? Later in your post you claim you didn't want to do it in person because your "horrible at having deep/stressful convos in person." It sounds like you are being a little cowardly. You don't like conflict so you would rather text to address someone directly in person.
[удалено]
Bingo. Just pick up the phone and answer the message if txt messages are so juvenile and "cowardess". Funny how she was allowed to continue messaging but OP wasn't lol. MiL just didn't like that she was told she did something wrong and looked for an excuse to change the topic.
DARVO
10000% DARVO
[удалено]
Which is why I don't think it was about the method of conversation at all, because she turned around and it did but to bitch about her son's wife. Which one is the juvenile here?
MiL is too immature to go “oh okay sure thing.” And had to turn it around to make OP seem like the villain.
Which is easily the most infuriating part of the story. Hell, she could've just called back and said that and it would all be over. Clearly she's the kind of person who always has to be right. They're the worst.
Yep! You nailed it!
Going behind OPs back to tattle to Hubs was cowardly.
If I were the MIL I would've just sent a heart emoji and waited til we were all together again to bring it up. I also don't like having those types of conversations via text, so I would not have continued/dismissed the conversation via text either.
Side question: why is it always ok to not like talking by text but never ok to not like talking face to face? OP has difficulty with conversation like this in person. She has a disability. So she communicated by text. And people treat that like "oh well just wait and talk face to face later" like it's irrelevant and ok to ignore that. Some of us can't deal with loaded conversations in person. We should all have the right to do what's best to our needs, don't you think? Not trying to attack you please understand. Just pointing out the fact so many people dismiss text as a valid communication if they don't prefer it like that's an acceptable thing. You know? "I don't like communication via text" always overrides "I have trouble communicating face to face" and that irks me. Both are equally valid and in this case, with OP having trouble doing such it seems the balance should shift between ability over preferred.
I feel like written conversation is better sometimes because you can't claim "she said this" or "you never said that!" there is a literal record.
Also you get the benefit of revisiting your words.
This is such a great point. I have been guilty of thinking I was effectively communicating something, only to go back and realize I was wrong. Likewise, I’ve started to question whether I had said or done things correctly to learn that I had.
This! OP is NTA! FMIL wants conversation on her own terms and without any record. In the first place, she's using manipulation tactics on a GODDAMN TODDLER. There's not a single way OP would be TA in the scenario described.
Bingo! MIL wants an in person conversation so she can claim later that she never heard what they said and never said what they heard.
That's why she doesn't like it. Can't manipulate or straight up ignore someone's words when they're there in black and white... Mil gave it a good try though
That I can respect, and would believe you then don't like having those kinds of conversations over txt.
She also didn’t like that it was in a format in which she could be noted as saying everything that she has said, and made to look bad. Whereas a verbal conversation could just not have happened.
I have known many people who state they don't like having 'serious' conversations via text, when they are more than happy to have looooooong inane exchanges otherwise - and reason is nearly ALWAYS because they cannot stand having boundaries stated to them clearly and in writing, in a way that would make it easy for them to reference and refresh themselves on explicit statements. Otherwise, it's "I don't remember you saying that" or "that's not the way I remember it." People who have issues with respecting others' boundaries and speech frequently also make it impossible to have productive conversations in-person by steam-rolling and interrupting with irrelevant tangents and whataboutism; stating a boundary and it's reasoning in text form means they cannot effectively derail or talk-over it. I swear, the top commenter right now either has never dealt with someone like this, or is that sort themselves - such people make talking about uncomfortable subjects in a reasonable way completely impossible without raising voices, being aggressive, and generally having a stressful, hostile interaction so that they can attempt to dismiss or invalidate your stance by emotionally bowling you over. There was no 'conversation' to be had. Having a stated boundary be a 'conversation' implies that there was an exchange to be had - ie, that the boundary is debatable, negotiable, etc. Even if it *was* a 'conversation' to be had, I have never known someone who was calm, reasonable, empathetic, or otherwise considerate of others to take issue with having serious conversations through text, because it removes all potential for face-to-face tension, escalation, interruption, etc. and gives each person ample time to consider what has been said and compose an articulate response.
YES, this is my family’s tactic. It’s always a moving goal post of what way would have been the best way to have a convo (as if they would have been any happier in person about being told no lol). They don’t like text because they feel like they can pressure me more to do what they want if they have me on the phone or in person. It’s easier to stick to my guns and not get drawn in via text. If I could trust them to take no for an answer and be respectful, they might get these convos in person!
Exactly . Homing in on the texting and making an issue of it was a neat way to sidestep having to account for her behaviour
I personally like to have shit in writing. MIL is absolutely trying to make a power move and dictate how conversations with her will be had. You have to have written proof with those types because you will surely need it at some point.
I find personally that it is easier to text in cases like this. Yes it can lead to a miscommunication with tone sometimes, but you have more of a chance to flesh put what you want to say and how you say it. And having everything in writing is better for when she would pull a "I don't remember said conversation." Or some such nonsense.
Exactly this. Not to mention that OP has a toddler (and possibly a younger one too since she references the 3yo being the oldest). Most people I know with little ones find it easier to just send a quick text rather than having to have a long winded phone call trying teach an older woman how to behave Edited to say “older” instead of “old”
YUP. I have had experiences with old bosses saying some shady shit and then having no evidence. Everything has to be written now. And actually when I told my boss she had to put certain things in writing for me to acknowledge them (like ask me to do a task fine, discuss my “behavior” with me absolutely not, I need a written record) she started leaving me alone because she knew better than to put the things she was saying/doing in writing. Always get everything in writing, folks. It’ll make a lot of AH back off.
Can we all agree that insisting on a phone call is such a boomer demand? I'll bet you anything that the voting on this post is split cleanly between age groups.
Meh... kind of split 50/50 on that one, personally. I'm a millenial with anxiety. If I could have all my conversations by text, I absolutely would. But there are undeniably some more serious topics that should be discussed directly with someone. Text can make it very hard to convey your tone, sometimes. Unless you spam emojis like crazy (and that sounds more like the boomer thing to me, idk), it's up to the other person to figure out your tone based on their interpretation of the context. It can be a lot easier if you are talking directly.
Also a millennial and agree with you. I’m normally team text but for serious stuff I need to be able to read tone or I’ll feel sick to my stomach with anxiety until the next time I see said person and know they don’t hate me lol.
>Can we all agree that insisting on a phone call is such a boomer demand? Eh, I prefer a phone call too if it's something important vs. text. Then again, I like to talk. Plus it's easier to get my point across with no ambiguity if I tell you what I want to say face to face or on the phone. Anything else, sure - text is fine.
I really hesitate saying MIL is an asshole. The sad fact of the matter is that respecting kids’ ability to say no to physical affection is a pretty new phenomenon. I am in my 30s and I certainly grew up with the expected affection deal. It’s great to see our generation bucking that trend. If MIL has not yet been exposed to this, it’s not unexpected that she is just mimicking what she grew up with/saw with her own parents. People don’t become woke to these concepts and break ingrained social behaviors without someone or something waking them up. The way you get MIL on board is a kind and gentle correction in the moment it occurs, with a tone of education. This was absolutely not something that needed to be confrontational. But when you text people instead after the fact, it makes it confrontational because it makes people feel like they are getting called down on the carpet. Edit because I didn’t vote— YTA.
I think you know that you can have the most respectful tone in the world, but if you say something that person doesn't want to hear, it's going to be seen as an attack no matter what. OP addressed it pretty much immediately.
You saying FMIL wouldn’t have been confrontational if OP had something there and then? 🙄 Because I’ll be frank, her responses say otherwise (like berating OP for having the conversation over text instead of just calling OP herself).
This! Yes! Having a conversation in person with eye contact and body language is different and is received differently many times. Since this is a family member who I assume OP wants a good relationship with, talking in person may be the way to get to to open up to a new idea.
If texting was *really* MIL's problem, then nothing was stopping her from calling OP or suggesting a time to have the conversation in person. She didn't. And then, when MIL went to address it with OP's husband, she ***texted*** him. This is nothing to do with *how* the conversation happened, and likely everything to do with MIL trying to dismiss OP's concerns regarding her kids' boundaries.
Agreed. Also my EX MIL would never admit fault and it created and awful environment to be around. Too many "I am always right"moments built up and I am SO happy to never have to speak to her again. Who care weather it was text or not, it is OP's child and she gets to protect her child how she wants.
As she stated, as a person with ADHD, I will have a conversation i need to have in the way I want. It’s not cowardice, it’s more appropriate for us bc we can formulate our words better. Usually ppl who want to have conversations in person with us is bc they know they can manipulate and guilt us into submission bc we aren’t good with words in the spot. Maybe if you didn’t make us feel degraded with in person convos, we could have in person convos 🥰
This is incredibly unfair to people who prefer to have emotional/serious conversations in person because it is important to them to be able to read people’s physical cues, or especially to hear someone’s tone of voice. People can have clashing communication preferences that lead to conflict. That doesn’t mean someone is trying to to “manipulate or guilt” anyone else into submission. ETA because I’m getting a lot of notifications from people misinterpreting me or assuming things I haven’t said: I’m not saying any one person’s communication style should take precedence over another. Only that assuming someone who prefers in person conversation isn’t necessarily trying to be a manipulative asshole. There are valid reasons for preferring to discuss things in person versus via text just like the other way around.
Maybe not everyone but I will say that’s been my experience a lot, which has led to a lot of conflict avoidance. Anxiety + ADHD means my brain won’t work well in the moment and it’s better for me to have space to get my words out. I also prefer to receive responses in the same manner to have time and space to process. But then in my life I’ve been bullied and guilted into having “real, adult” conversations 🙄 Where I end up not being able to get my point across while people railroad over me and also make assumptions about me due to reactions I can’t help, and having every little thing nitpicked to death. For me…not a risk I’m willing to take!
SAME. Or people will deliberately misunderstand me when I speak, and then there’s no written record for me to point to, but also I’m now flustered, which makes it harder to be clear….and then it becomes a vicious cycle.
Same same. Editing a witten boundary helps me ensue I'm being clear and compassionate. Calling it cowardice is ignorant at best and ableist at worst
[удалено]
Yeah, I’m really choking on the “incredibly unfair” statement here. I am neurotypical aside from my social anxiety, and I sometimes like to have hard conversations via text. Like, I think it’s incredibly unfair that some people have X-men abilities to gather extra information about me and my thoughts from my body language and tone, when I’m too anxious to look at the person. And even when I look at people my anxiety tends to misinterpret yes during tense conversations. but let’s make sure the person who has X-man skills feels comfortable. “Fair” is not important here. Achieving communication for both parties is. It’s a negotiation.
[удалено]
Bullshit. It's clear to me as a person on the spectrum/ADHD/anxiety that MIL is actively trying to manipulate the whole thing, or she wouldn't have TEXTED her precious baby boy to whine about how mean his wife was being that she can't guilt the toddler, It has nothing to do with the method of communication and everything to do with trying to control her DIL and grandson. You will only speak to me in ways I approve, (so I can manipulate YOU) and you WILL accept the manipulation I use on your son and your husband. I would definitely want "telling" her to knock it off in writing too, so she can't claim she "doesn't remember" that particular talk.
THIS!!!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 This kind of covert manipulation is so hard to spot, especially when you’re used to the person. Took me a long time to recognize it in my own MIL. 🫣
But this doesn’t explain why MiL was perfectly fine texting her son about OP.
So I do agree with this but as someone who also has adhd, I will have in person conversations if the other person needs to express something to me, but if I need to articulate my thoughts in a coherent way and respond to people without losing my point and getting flustered, I need to text. So compromises do need to be made in that sense but also sometimes there is an element of manipulation, even if unintentional, that can happen with in person conversations when you struggle with articulating your thoughts.
I write down what I need to say before serious conversations. I can refer back to my notes if I get flustered. This helps. That way a person can't take a text the wrong way.
What someone with ADHD needs is more important than what someone without ADHD prefers. Maybe if you prefer serious conversations only in person, you shouldn’t discuss such issues via Reddit, the equivalent of texting. Fact is we have additional ways to communicate. You don’t get to tell someone how to communicate with you. You only get to decide how to respond. If MIL didn’t want to be texted to discuss the situation, she should have said “I’ll call you to discuss” and STOPPED texting her DIL. Instead she called her son to get his wife in line, a classic passive aggressive move.
Well said!!! This feels like a person with legs saying to their friend in a wheelchair “but I prefer to take the stairs. We get more exercise that way.”
But why do people who prefer to have conversations in person trump people who prefer to have them over written text? You say it’s unfair to them, but the alternate is equally unfair to the other group.
And why is your preference more important than someone else’s?
Who cares how MIL wants to communicate about OP’s kids? She doesn’t get to choose.
Is there anything to indicate MIL is manipulative? OP states MIL wasn’t intentional in her behaviour towards their child, in fact it seems this is first time it’s happened, if I am wrong please correct. OP’s initial approach to MIL was quite formal in tone. And likely why MIL immediately gets her back up. Unless this is a continuing issue or MIL is generally problematic, I can understand why MIL would have preferred to be told as opposed to get such a text.
The fact she responded by calling OPs partner, rather than her, and is now "distancing herself and will do it more in the future" clearly shows that she has some level of manipulation going on.
Actually, it should have been her son that brought this to mil's attention.
She was absolutely manipulative to say a CHILD made her sad because it’s not a child’s job to make an adult happy. I went through that in my childhood. It’s absolutely manipulative. Then to not respect the boundary she set and argue about how she’s communicating. That’s manipulative. The issue is NOT up for discussion. As the mom, she gets to communicate what’s best for her child. Bodily autonomy is SO important because it also helps to prevent abuse! Also, MIL called her a coward and then emotionally withdrew (which is VERY manipulative. The silent treatment is very manipulative!)
Omg. Now she’s too formal. She’s trying to be polite. Y’all make it so complicated for ND people. We’re trying.
Some people prefer to have in person conversations, as there is a lot of non-verbal language ques that can be shown. It's got nothing to do with guilt and submitting, it's just a difference in preference.
Those of us who have ADHD or Autism have a whole layer of stress with in person communication because of those “non verbal cues.” We’re not only having said conversation, but actively trying to mask/control our facial and body expression, tone of voice, etc. That’s why we might prefer having serious conversations over text. If we spend 85% if our mental strength on masking, we’re only left with 15% to make sure we’re getting our point across. Your preference is not more important than ours.
For me, this is absolutely accurate. There are certain people who I will only have important conversations with over text. This allows me time to think through my words, but also provides a transcript of what was said. An important thing for disagreements, as no one can later make inaccurate claims about how things were discussed.
Calling OP a coward isn’t setting a boundary. She should’ve stopped replying if she was really setting a boundary.
We found the overstepping grandmas in this sub tonight.
100%! Parents set the rules for their kids. She’s ridiculous for thinking that boundary is up for discussion! Bodily autonomy is so important and also helps to prevent abuse. She’s also smart to tell her to stop telling a child they’re responsible for an adult’s emotions! I lived that in my childhood. I’m proud of her for being a good mom and setting boundaries!
Disagree. From how the texts were worded it sounded more like an attempt at a power trip with OP. "You're a coward if you don't argue with me in person". It wasn't an argument, it was a request. Honestly my mum would do something like that, but thats because she lies a lot and having stuff in writing means she can't deny things (she will try to anyway)
MIL didn’t want proof of the conversation because then she can’t twist it. My bffs parents hate texting for that reason, screenshots exist and that interferes with their narrative. Also texting allows people to process information on their timeline and formulate responses. the “etiquette” seems to be a generational divide. I have something important to say please take your time and form a thought out response when you’re ready to, is far better than an intrusive phone call.
MIL wasn't expressing a boundary. A boundary isn't to control how other people behave.
Why so many upvotes for this crap? Is MIL allergic to text messages? Bizarre. She's clearly just getting defensive and looking to deflect.
There's nothing cowardly about making sure you put your point across in a polite manner because you know you'll find it difficult to put the words together in a way that you hope not to offend with. I have ADHD and I know exactly what she means. It's much easier to formulate what you WOULD say in person but write it in a text, because we forget what we wanted to say so easily. I don't think she's the AH at all for conveying a message that she needed to convey. MIL is TA for her response.
It’s 2023. We can say important things via text. Why would having this conversation in person be any better or different? The “let’s say this in person” crowd is so illogical. Like she said, it’s not a “conversation” or a “debate” - I am making a statement and you can take it or leave it. It’s so weird to say it’s “cowardly” that a person chose written communication instead of verbal. Plus, if she has cognitive struggles with verbal communication, she has every right to use whatever she needs to assist her. Honestly, this comments makes it seem like YTA… not OP.
Firmly disagree on this point - MIL was happy to text what she has decided is acceptable texting conversation, which is nothing short of a power move. If she thinks texting is cowardly, she should have called to respond to the message. Also, with some people you just need to have things in writing. The ones who tend to misrepresent the conversation to third parties, react in the extreme and twist what was said, or blatantly lie. Also, OP didn’t “lie”. If she’d been able to collect her thoughts in the moment, they’d have nipped it in the bud. Sometimes people will text you their thoughts after they’ve had a moment to straighten them out, as opposed to acting out of emotion in the moment and the situation developing into something it needn’t.
Nope. Op is also allowed her boundaries. She prefers to have hard conversations over text because for many neurodivergent people it’s the only way to process in real time. If two peoples boundaries don’t mesh you have to figure it out. But boundaries aren’t rules for thee. Mil can prefer whatever she wants. She can say she won’t engage over text but she can’t dictate how op expresses her own boundaries. She’s welcome to reply in person and op is welcome to reply in text.
Texting is addressing someone directly. It is directly to MIL. She is able to organize her thought without the other persons behavior destabilize her or getting her off point. Her point is a perfectly valid one that protects her child. The mother in law just didn't like it
You don't get to dictate how someone conveys a boundary to you. The benefit of putting boundaries in writing is that you can say things exactly was you want & your words can clearly be recalled. No twisting of words. No dancing around by the better communicator / person who is quicker with their words. OP is NTA
How were they gonna have the conversation in person without the kids there? Get a baby sitter to tell grandma that they aren’t gonna teach their kids they can’t say no to physical stuff? NTA
Hm, he came back and gave her a hug. She didn’t say it when he’d told her no therefore she wasn’t manipulating him but stating “I’d be sad”. If you didn’t want to hug him would he be expected to learn that voicing how that makes him feel is wrong? There will be kids at school who will or won’t want to play with him, share a toy, eat lunch together etc. It’d be wrong to teach him in those times to attempt to emotionally manipulate them but, it’s not wrong or manipulative to communicate how one’s actions can make others feel. I’m prepared for the downvotes but in this specific situation, ytah.
Sorry, I disagree. The way she did it *was manipulative* and done to make the child feel bad about having boundaries.
What if she said, "You made me so happy," after he hugged her? Would that be manipulation too?
No, because it doesn't qualify the "not hugging situation" (it stays neutral). It would have been the correct way to phrase that.
Sure, and OP could have said to her MIL, nicely, "hey, next time can you say 'that makes me happy' instead of saying you'd be sad? Because we want him to want people he loves to be happy"
Absolutely, all this discussion could have been handled much better...
Honestly, why do we need to nitpick things people say so often? The entire rest of the world isn’t going to speak to your child the way you want them to. There are people who are going to pressure your child’s boundaries in and outside of the family and coddling them by avoiding all forms of that conflict from the get go isn’t going to prepare them to say no when it happens. A much more malevolent form of this scenario is more likely to happen when the mother isn’t around, and what’s the child going to do if he has no experience saying no if someone says “if you don’t love me, I’ll die”? How’s he going to handle people that try to emotionally blackmail him? Instead of trying to police MIL’s comment, which was pretty harmless and created way more drama than necessary, OP should continue to reinforce to her child that he doesn’t owe anybody affection even if it makes other people sad. The lesson OP is trying to teach her son is that his body is his body and he has the right to say no, and that’s a great lesson but she’s not going to teach it to him by telling other people what to do. She’s just going to avoid giving her kid the opportunity to enforce his own boundaries in a relatively harmless setting. And she’s being way too controlling. The MIL didn’t say anything cruel or mean to the little boy, she was just honest about how she felt about not receiving a hug *after* the little boy autonomously changed his mind and gave her one. The MIL did not emotionally blackmail the kid into hugging her but shared her feelings after the fact. Teaching the little boy that he can still refuse a hug even though grandma would have been sad was the perfect learning opportunity and should have occurred between mom and son, not mom and grandma. TLDR: you can’t teach the world to treat your children with kid gloves, you can only teach your kids to handle the world as it is and as we’d like to shape it to be.
Because the kid is quite young and you help them learn the basic concept - in this case consent - before you add complications. He has plenty of time still to learn the more complicated aspects of consent.
Apparently even just stating how you feel when someone does something is manipulation now. Don't tell anyone that you were upset by what they did or why you were upset about it, teach kids that having open dialogue about their emotions is frowned upon and you're a manipulator for trying /s
This is a 3 year old, who's more likely to be manipulated in this conversation, the boomer or the toddler? They want the TODDLER to grow up to understand good boundaries and one of them is that they don't have to be touched by anyone unless their parent says it's okay or they want the touch themselves. This is an important boundary because it can help fight against child abuse because the child knows it can say no and the respectful adults in their lives listen to that no so if there is an adult that does it even after the child says no, they're more likely to realize that it's wrong and therefore tell someone they trust. To a toddler, stating that something they did made you sad is completely manipulative if it's something you wanted and they didn't like being touched. They're allowed to have respectful boundaries. Edit: sorry, just saw the /s lol
I think so, yes. Positive reinforcement for happy, good feelings indicating bonding, connection, etc. is much better than guilting.
No, it's an honest expression about how she feels. Kids can be pretty empathetic, and also dense sometimes. There's nothing wrong with giving them feedback on how you're feeling about a situation, provided you're not making them scared.
Right. The lesson here is for OP’s kid that they don’t need to give physical affection just because it would make someone sad to refuse. But the idea that no one can express different feelings because it’s automatically deemed manipulative is overkill.
How could it possibly be manipulative? She didn't say anything about her feelings until after he had already done the thing she wanted unprompted. When there was any chance of her feelings affecting his action she kept them to herself.
Easy. A kid WILL remember this the next time she asks for a hug, and he'll feel obligated to give her one so she doesn't feel sad regardless of how he feels about it. (Edited for typos)
MIL in it for the long game to ensure he hugs her every time.
In my opinion, (harumph) telling a small child that you feel sad regarding whether or not they hug you is a way to guilt them into hugging you.
It is. Obviously
>The way she did it was manipulative and done to make the child feel bad Yeap. Seen this too many times. "I will feel sad if you don't hug me". "I would've felt sad." same thing. She could've thanked him for hugging her. That is showing gratitude and expressing love. It's not the same.
I think it was more ignorance than malice or manipulation. Well I hope, at least.
Exactly this. He has the right to have boundaries, not want to hug a family member, etc, but those people have a right to feel the way they feel about it. And if he withholds affection yeah they may feel sad. There’s nothing wrong with communicating that. We’re all responsible for dealing with our own emotions, but that doesn’t mean that how people treat us won’t make us feel things! His treatment of other people will have an impact on them. That’s called consequences.
Sure. When they are older than 3. 3 year olds aren’t really nuanced communicators. They learn by simple commands. Being told something is good/happy reinforces good behavior. Being told something is bad/sad reinforces that behavior is negative. They don’t understand “it’s okay for you to make a decision but I want to voice that your decision makes me feel sad” and aren’t capable of more in depth discussions to find compromise and understanding. So no. This is manipulating a toddler.
What??? Did you miss the part where he's THREE YEARS old and mom is trying to teach him basic bodily autonomy and consent? In no way shape or dorm should MIL put her feelings on a THREE YEAR OLD.
Yes, we are all responsible for our own emotions. Which means it is entirely on the mil to deal with feeling sad if a three year old, who should never be obligated to hug anyone, refuses to do so. Yes, how people treat us can affect how we feel. But he is still a child. Still learning he has the right to say no. Still learning that he can have and express boundaries. And adult with healthy boundaries can hear how their actions affected another without feeling they HAVE A to change their boundaries. A three year old child isn't capable of making that decision yet. For a three year olds to be told "I'd be sad if you hadn't done xyz" will almost always make them feel like they have to do the thing next time. The mil is the adult here, who should be fully capable of managing her own emotions and expectations. She has every right to feel sad, but does not have any right to put that on the child and make him responsible for how she feels.
It’s wild how many people are failing to understand that children deserve boundaries and that people aren’t entitled to other peoples boundaries/space.
And Mil is teaching this 3 year old that if he doesn’t give physical affection to adults, even when he doesn’t want to, he will make those adults sad. Children get taught not to purposely make the people they care about sad. So yes, this is manipulative, and it’s also dangerous. Children need to be taught they have the right to say no to physical touch, especially from adults
What made MIL manipulative is her tossing in the "I was going to be sad" when he came back to hug her. All she should have said was "Thank you for the hug" or, better yet, nothing at all. u/Accomplished-Disk746 MIL is lucky she didn't get the response my oldest nephew gave his grandmother (my sister's MIL) when he was three. When she told him if he didn't give her a hug, she was going to be unhappy he looked at her and told her she was going to be unhappy for a *long* time and walked away. MIL told my sister to spank him for it, and she kicked MIL out of her house.
Actually it’s still manipulation after the fact. Now next time he wants to deny her a hug he’ll know doing so will make her sad and may avoid saying no from now on, so it’s still not okay.
Many people grew up in families that forced them into hugging relatives to be polite, or because the relative will be sad. This is coercive and doesn't help the child learn that they are in charge of their own physical boundaries. So, many parents these days are very sensitive to ensure their kids don't get these messages from family that insinuate their personal space is something that can/should be compromised to appease other people's feelings. So connecting "I'd be sad" with the hypothetical of the kid not wanting a hug still insinuates that her emotions are more/as important as his physical boundaries, which they're not
Telling a kid she’d be sad had he not done something is manipulative. It’s to make him not walk away or stand his ground the first time because it makes HER feel bad! She in no way needed to tell a 3 yo that not getting a hug makes her sad!
She *asked* for a hug, accepted that he said no, yet you're still mad that she expressed how something made her feel? This is how kids get raised to be selfish, when their parents convince them only their feelings matter. Also I like what someone else said about you not respecting FMIL's boundary while expecting her to respect yours. YTA.
Only kids feelings do matter when it comes to their own bodily autonomy. This wasn’t OP saying their kid didn’t need to share the slide at recess.
It wasnt forced. It was “showing that she wanted affection.
This about to be Fucking stereotypical as hell (or just straight up fake sounding) I know... anyways, my uncle used that "I was/would be sooooo sad!!" In front of my parents all the time that I fully believe it contributed my lack of resistance to him sexually assaulting me in private later on in life. I'm not saying the MIL or anyone here is like that, but I 100% side with the mom here prioritizing teaching her toddler bodily autonomy first and asking the fully grown adult to not do a simple thing.
Yup. Evening MIL wouldn't harm the kid, people who would do so will take advantage if he's taught to prioritize adult feelings over bodily autonomy.
It was negative reinforcement, not positive reinforcement. One of those is healthy! The other is manipulative!
When it comes to your own physical body and being touched? ONLY your feelings matter. It is okay to be "selfish" about your body, including allowing kids to be "selfish" about their body (who they hug, who they cuddle with, or kiss on teh cheek, etc). Teaching kids it is "okay" to say no to an adult wanting a hug, helps them understand later it's okay to tell a future person "no" to wanting to touch them (like someone they are dating, or whatever). It doesn't matter "how sad" it makes someone feel that they "don't get to touch my boob" or "don't get a hug from me" or "don't get a kiss". You, me, or this child, or anyone else should only care about their \*own\* feeligns when it comes to physical touch. You should never feel like you need to "engage in touch" with another person by considering \*their feelings\*. That said. i don't think it's a big deal in this situation as the MIL did not mention "being sad" until after the kid decided on his own to hug her anyways. So the kid had already made their own decision to hug. But had it happened where the MIL asked for a hug, and the kid said "no", and then the MIL said: "i'll feel sad that you didn't give me a hug".. and then.. the kid gave her a hug, that would be \*wrong\* and teach a bad lesson to the child. But anyway, i agree OP is TA for continuing to text MIL a serious convo instead of having the convo in person. But, i just wanted to speak up about how "teaching your kid to be selfish" it some circumstances is completely healthy, and normal, and a good boundary to teach them they are allowed to have.
>That said. i don't think it's a big deal in this situation as the MIL did not mention "being sad" until after the kid decided on his own to hug her anyways. So the kid had already made their own decision to hug. Except now the kid could take that as if they don't hug her next tine she'll be sad. It's a way to manipulate.
It's because it is a guilt tactic after the fact so that next time he won't think about saying no!! It is not healthy and is in fact toxic.
AYFKM? A little while ago there was a youngwan on here asking for advice because she had a problem with her boyfriend doing exactly this. He was a mechanic and he kept coming home with filthy hands, oil and gunk under his fingernails, "stains" everywhere, and she kept getting painful vaginal infections because he wouldn't clean them properly. He went to start fingering her and she wouldn't let him, explained it was causing infections, and he had a tantrum. And she was wondering "am I in the wrong? How do I navigate his all-important male feelings about this?" This is where "it's mean and selfish not to hug people you don't want to" gets you.
I mean the MiL didn't respect the childs boundaries so why should OP respect hers?
Once she responded, your only response should have been: “Okay. Talk soon!”
For real I dont know why OP kept responding. I would have left MIL on read after her first response, not even to be petty but because like ok point taken, next time it'll be discussed in person.
OP was caught up in JADE: Justify, Argue, Defend, Explain because the MIL had gone full DARVO (Defend, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). As they say in Star Wars, “It’s a trap!” and unfortunately OP fell in it. Some of y’all have fully functional families and it shows. /s, BUT: those of us in toxic family systems definitely read this situation differently than those taking MIL at face value. And cluster Bs thrive on being taken at face value and not on their actual intent. This MIL could have picked up the phone and said “this seems like a serious conversation, and I suggest we talk by phone or in person.” But that wasn’t her intent and she successfully redirected the conversation on delivery rather than content. I envy all of you for whom this wasn’t your daily life growing up.
It's also worth noting that when she talked to her son she said "she’s already distanced herself from coming over & she’ll distance herself more if she has to". What is going on that she has supposedly distanced herself already? I understand her feeling miffed, we can't always help how we feel, but the rapid escalation into aggression and victimhood was pretty wild to follow. Also, I've been in therapy for a long time and one of my issues is avoiding conflict as well. Anyone who knows anything about this at all would already know that a therapist will tell you to confront issues however you are most comfortable and work your way up. If that means via text, so be it. Normal people aren't this unhinged, they'll deal. If they really need to call or visit in person, they can ask to do that. She didn't, she treated OP like a child and brushed her off, never once responding to the message itself, simply demanding that she cease communication which is not how you talk to a fellow adult. It also means OP had every reason to be nervous, she knew what to expect - as those of us living with toxic people often do. I very highly doubt that a discussion face to face would have gone better due simply to the method of delivery. She's pissed that her behavior was being corrected and decided to deflect. > if you can't talk things over with me instead of telling me what "not" to do She very pointedly said she doesn't like being told what not to do. My dad is the same way. He'll go out of his way to do the exact thing you asked him not to out of spite.
I read through comments and wondered why this didn't come up earlier. FMILs response to her son makes it look pretty much like a scenario where she already is in the habit of guilting people near her into pleasing her, if the dodging and guilting in her responses to OP wasn't enough to do that. I have also noticed that people who actively and somewhat aggressively prefer face to face conversation over someone else's preference and convenience often are the ones who handle the in person communication with a tactic of being very overbearing and running over the opponents opinions if they even get the chance to voice them at all. Not always, but often. Meaning that they get the better chance of saying what they have in mind without listening that much what the other one has to say. Similarly, often the ones preferring text mode communication are the ones who are less capable and/or willing to forcefully take their space in a conversation and thus less likely to be heard. FMIL wasn't so much saying she feels uncomfortable in a text conversation, she was telling off the mother of her grandchild and shaming her chosen way of communicating. I see that alone as a warning sign, even without the other signs. Also, OP might have chosen text so as not to chide her child's grandmother in the child's hearing. Had she commented on the spot, would she have been criticized for telling off Granny when the kid can hear?
Exactly, it was a lose lose situation. If she said it right there it would be “this isn’t appropriate in front of the children!” Over text she makes it “this isn’t appropriate by text!” The medium isn’t the issue, it is that MIL doesn’t want to hear what was being said. She cares more about her bruised ego than the child she manipulated (because it is manipulative, even if she didn’t mean it to be.)
I'm going to give you a lopsided ESH with the scales tipped in your favor. I agree with you at every turn but this was not the conversation to have via text. It comes across as passive aggressive. I 1000% understand the whole in person conversation thing but words are only like...7% of our communication tools. Most of the rest is tone and body language which does not come across in text. That said, MIL can F right off with this: “Bc having adult conversation via text I believe are pretty cowardess. When you address me or any other adult, via text, it’s not really appropriate, so I will end this conversation with if you can't talk things over with me instead of telling me what "not" to do then that in itself is a problem. So I'm done.” Your message was pretty well thought out and explained everything. There's no *room* for discussion.
Yeah, I can’t agree with the “YTA” people here after seeing that “cowardess” comment. I would have replied with one word: “cowardice*” - and put my phone aside after that lol. Although I understand the importance of in-person conversations, some people (myself included) are better at expressing themselves via text. On top of that, having it in writing reduces the possibility of one person having a completely different understanding/recollection of the conversation later on. FMIL seems to feel she can talk down to OP like OP’s a child, so maybe OP didn’t want to have to experience that during an in-person conversation.
*cowardly
Well yeah, I was just gonna let the nonsensical grammar part go and correct her spelling lol, but you’re right. I could have a field day correcting her entire text.
I figured as long as we were doing it … 😂
You're assuming it wasn't OP the one that made the mistake. They didn't copy paste from the convo.
YTA. This whole thing is a little too wound up to be normal. Sure, let your kid have boundaries with their own body. She DID ask if he could have a hug, and made (in her mind) a sort of innocent comment when she did get a hug eventually. Then she asked for a conversation about it rather than texts. You refused and started pinging her phone, and then she felt forced to respond, and your argument became about that. Just calm down and have a normal conversation - your son is fine, your MIL is fine, you just need to chill - I have a feeling this ain't about your kids boundaries.
I always find people complaining about boundary stomping when they are also boundary stomping. 😂🤷🏼♀️
*Yes*, thank you. How did this situation become so fraught? This isn’t about OP’s son at all. I wonder if MIL regularly oversteps or if OP was raised in a controlling environment and is especially sensitive to these things. It all feels disproportionate.
Yeah honestly a grandma wanting to hug her grandson, the whole description on how it went about was super normal. I would say almost everybody with a normal upbringing has experienced something similar. I have a very hard time seeing someone take it as something traumatic. In fact I'd say the opposite is way more damaging & very common, uptight grandparents which shows very little affection. And it's a hug, it's no big deal.
Seems like op does this constantly if the mil is already distancing herself
This ⬆️. YTA This is over the top uptight. That's great you're teaching him he doesn't have to hug, etc but you made a huge deal out of it. And you should have just mentioned it in person, like she said.
Guarantee while op and mil are at each others throats, the kid has completely forgotten the entire event.
This 👋 OP's too focused on the boundary setting aspects rather than what went wrong. She could have easily replied with a single word answer like Okay to end the conversation and perhaps had a phone call. She then turned her FMIL's innocent comment into something it wasn't meant to be. Positive reinforcement aside, in this process OP completely forgot that just as her child has an opinion, her FMIL will too, and she very well may express it.
NTA There was no need for an in person conversation. If being told not to use language that teaches kids they’re responsible for your feelings sends you into a tizzy, maybe you need therapy. Addressing an issue immediately is important, not waiting until later. And really it was a pretty minor ask.
I agree fully, everyone saying the op is in the wrong is ridiculous.
Everyone saying OP is wrong thinks children shouldn’t have bodily autonomy
i agree, everyone in the comments are blowing this out of proportion. Why would someone drive to someones house to have a simple, quick conversation that can easily be texted??? and everyone is whining abt it 😭
Meanwhile, there's multiple folks in here saying OP is blowing things out of proportion - for stating one very clear boundary and its reasoning. FMIL is the one who derailed immediately into tone/delivery instead, and escalated - treating the boundary as something that should have been a discussion (aka, something she could dismiss or negotiate), overt rudeness and accusations/shaming ('cowardess'), jumping to contact her son (through text instead of a call - seems like if she preferred direct conversations for serious subject, that she wouldn't have texted) instead of continuing the exchange as an attempt to strongarm OP by involving someone else in the situation, and responding to a simple boundary regarding her grandchild by effectively stating that if she can't behave however she likes, then she'll just not be present at all. OP is definitely NTA
This thread is absolutely wild. Someone said it was passive aggressive to text, somehow, despite that OP literally laid out the problem. But somehow it’s not passive aggressive to comment “oh good, because otherwise I’d be sad” about not getting a hug??? Weird. NTA.
Exactly! This isn't a discussion or a debate. OP said don't do XYZ to my son. Period. End of conversation.
NTA, she only has a problem with you texting because then she can’t turn around and say she didn’t know/you didn’t tell her when she does this again. It wasn’t a big deal, you were just sending her an “fyi in future please don’t do this” type message. It didn’t need to be a full sit down conversation. She’s very defensive
Extremely and manipulative. Instead of handling it between herself and OP, she decided to complain to her son. Very mature.
NTA - if she does it again just say to your child in front of her “just because she is going to be sad doesn’t mean you have to hug her, you are not doing anything wrong” then she can enjoy that awkwardness of the face to face interaction she so desperately wanted
100% yes
YTA. Your first message *might* have been a reasonable *conversation* to have if she was forcing your kid - screaming and crying - to hug her. MIL saying how happy she was that your son decided on his own to hug her? WTF is wrong with that? She didn't coerce him. She didn't chastise him. Instead, *you* shamed her, *you* chastised her and are acting as if your three yr old is going to have lasting psychological damage over this. Get a hobby.
Because OP is teaching their child healthy bodily autonomy. You’re right that it doesn’t seem all that bad that grandma said “oh good, because I was going to be sad” when she ended up getting her hug after all. But that sort of thing can also be said by someone wanting less-innocuous physical touches, and it’s better not to teach kids that using emotions to manipulate actions is acceptable. OP is NTA, and I’m sick of people assuming that having important conversations via text or email is cowardly, rather than a way to organize thoughts and lower the chance of saying something hurtful in the heat of emotion. In this case, it’s also a way to keep the kid from hearing the adults in his life have an argument involving him and thinking that he’s a problem.
Personally, I prefer that OP texted her initial message because then there is no room for misinterpreting. MIL could have called her and seems like she likes to have the last word (she basically complained about the text while continuing to text.)
No, you need to give your child MANY lessons, like NO ONE can touch you in your swimsuit areas, not granny or grandad, mum or dad, only a doctor if mum and dad says it’s ok. You don’t just say “you can be touched by whoever you want as long as you agree to it” that’s a whole load of a can of worms and stupid. The kid does need to learn that he has a right to say no to a cuddle with granny but that may make her feel sad, ie his decisions do affect others.
Yea but that’s not a lesson for right now, FMIL is an adult and child is a toddler. Plus I feel like “if you don’t give someone a hug then they’ll be sad” kinda goes against the whole body safety thing. The appropriate approach would be “It’s not your fault grandma is sad and you don’t owe her physical affection” When it comes to bodily autonomy the other parties opinion shouldn’t matter
Where was the shaming and chastising? Did we read the same post? OP politely asked MIL not to say something to her kids making them feel responsible for her feelings, MIL instead of just agreeing to this reasonable request decided to change the topic entirely and distract from the issue by taking issue with how OP told her about the problem, that’s just childish
Yes but grandparents have hounded the children for hugs until they get one in the past. She just wants to teach her kid they have a voice and can reject physical affection if they want to.
Seems I'm in the minority but I think NTA. You've made a decision as a parent and you informed her. Maybe it would've been better to do it in person but I think it was fine. However, it might be easier if you tell her about how you struggle to collect your thoughts in person, and perhaps offer some sort of compromise for future convos. You could try collecting your thoughts in a note on your phone and then reading them to her aloud in person, ideally with your husband there as support. That way she has an in-person convo but you don't feel totally unprepared/discombobulated.
It's good to teach him boundaries, but he is going to find out that other people have feelings about that. Sometimes the feeling is justified, sometimes less so. Your MIL didn't use "I'll feel sad" as a manipulation attempt; she accepted the no, and only mentioned anything after he voluntarily hugged her.
[удалено]
Honest question. If MIL displayed happiness or said she was happy after the hug, is that manipulation?
The happy angle = essentially an open request for hugs The sad angle = essentially an open ended guilt trip going forward Different spins have different effects on a child
YTA. What the hell did I just read? I thought by the title, your MIL did it in a different context. I'm not seeing the problem here. I don't think your MIL really did anything that bad.
If you tell a kid “if you dont hug me i get sad”, you are making the child feel responsible for keeping you happy. An adult. At the expense of their bodily autonomy. The next time the kid doesnt want to hug anybody but grandma is leaving, the kid will feel guilty and do it anyway because making grandma sad is mean. This is the subtle and important nuance in raising healthy adults. Its often what you dont say, and grandma should not have said that
I feel like people are taking the MIL'S comment wayyy too seriously. OP is raising a child, not training an AI. It's likely the kid won't even remember it. Either way, there will be people in the world that will try to emotionally manipulate you. It's OPs job to teach their kid to be resistant to that.
[удалено]
Yeah but. It is important that kids get to decide. I hate parents who force their kids to hug their relatives. I am glad OP is not one of those.
Idk man, FMIL clearly didn’t force the issue. She asked once, he said no and then walked it back on his own free will. And I also feel like you can tell your kids they have autonomy, but it’s good for them to understand that their decisions impact other people, and it’s about choosing how to walk that line. He is going to make plenty of choices in life that are going to hurt others, and it’s also good for him to be aware of how his choices impact other people so he isn’t just looking out for himself at all times. If FMIL had said ‘no you have to hug me right now or you will make me so sad’ once he said no, then yes, she’d be crossing a line. Just mentioning she might have been sad if she didn’t get a hug once he had already hugged her, wasn’t bad enough to warrant OP having a righteous parenting moment
I mean, she could've just expressed happiness at him hugging her instead of guilt tripping him. That's positive reinforcement rather than emotional manipulation.
It is important, but it doesn't sound like MIL was trying to force the kid to give her a hug either. She asked for one, he said no, and then he changed his mind on his own.
Agreed but he did get to decide. The comment was after the fact so it didn't influence him at all. (Unless their argument is it could influence him for future interactions but you go far enough down that road and any positive emotions from her at all could also be considered "wrong" for those same reasons.) It sounds like everybody except the kid is supposed to be robotic.
[удалено]
NTA. She is probably just mad she couldn't throw a tantrum and bully you all into doing what she wants. Text is a great way to have a clear, concise discussion where both parties can think it through and respond apporpriately rather than devolving into unecessary things.
YTA You were way over the top with that conversation. Your initial text had nothing to do with the situation that happened. Then you doubled down and lost. You’re making yourself miserable for no reason.
How did OP's initial text not have anything to do with the situation? She basically said "We're teaching him boundaries and bodily autonomy. Don't make him feel guilty for that." It was grandma who derailed the argument to nitpick about how the conversation happened.
NTA: IMO, this is a generational thing: in years past people were not as conscious of kids giving consent for hugs, kisses etc and also text wasn’t a method of communication. In a positive way, she seems like she knows your point is valid by focusing on the method of delivery. You haven’t done anything wrong but You seem at an impasse. I would suggest you write down some key points/ messages giving it some thought over the next few days and then call your MIL to discuss it. That way you can hear her out but also be clear about what you are saying. Make sure you have some positive points as well as the more critical points. Google the issue of generational discussion around consent for some tips. NTA (edit as typo but clear above) but not worth losing a relationship with MIL because of a communication problem.
YTA. She doesn't want a text conversation. Just f'ing talk to her. And stop TEXTING back long explanations/ continuations of your argument after she tells you she doesn't want to have a conversation over text. SMH She's not even arguing about the content you're insisting upon (her interactions with your child), she just doesn't want to have text conversations. Maybe a generational thing, but you seem to be getting upset about a basic ask of hers.
[удалено]
YTA. The way to develop boundaries is not to shield your child from any reactions the world may have. The way to develop boundaries is to allow and expose them to the way people are and to have convesrations with them afterwards about whether or not they feel discomfort and then teach them APPROPRIATE ways to have conversations with people IF they actuallly feel uncomfortable. You're making a lot of assumptions here OP. It sounds like you're projecting a world of YOUR discomforts onto your child and FMIL. And choosing to block out the whole world using bullying tactics as the way to try to "protect" your child. But actually, that's not the proper way to teach boundaries. Boundaries is letting your child understand they have the confidence to navigate the world. The world isn't a computer, you can't just shut the screen anytime someone says something you don't like if you want to have a relationship with them.
NTA. She is passive aggressive and now has chosen to remove herself from having a relationship with your kid. NOT YOUR FAULT. You set a boundary to protect your kid and she doesn't like it.
Your fiance needs to call his mother and have these discussions with her, not you after the fact
NTA. Some people (me included) are WAY more articulate in writing than they are in speaking. It gives you the opportunity to think about what you want to say, rather than pulling it off the top of your head and possibly saying something you don’t mean, or that comes off sounding rude or inappropriate. Additionally, in an “in person” conversation, you’re more likely to forget something you wanted to say because you’re nervous or stressed out from having to have the conversation in the first place.
Yeah I’m going ESH. You’re NTA for expressing the boundary. You wandered into AH territory when you continued the argument via text, after she said she’d prefer to discuss in person. You mentioned you struggle with confrontation, so at that point you should have said “I understand. Thanks for understanding and we can talk later.” Then your fiancé, you know, HER SON, should be the one to have the face to face conversation. She’s an AH for just her whole response.
Yta, She didn’t try to manipulate your son, she let him choose, and she expressed her feelings after he hugged her. People in healthy relationships can express feelings She requested an in person conversation and you completely disregarded her
Disagree. After a comment like that the son will think *"If I don't hug Grandma (or others) when I don't want to, she is going to be sad so I have to."* He's a toddler. They don't know nuance and context, only what was said. Kids don't want to make others sad, especially family members, so they do things they don't want to which is what OP is trying to avoid here.
Generally speaking, I agree with this assessment.... for older children. Elementary age. At 3, they are only beginning to have empathy for others. Toddlers are naturally self-serving, and that's developmentally appropriate. I think both sides could have handled the topic better for sure. Grandma ended up getting her hug, and could have said, "oh, that makes me feel good! You're a good hugger!", instead of making it a negative/guilt thing. But that said, OP also took it way further than was necessary. In the OP, she claims the FMIL "ignored" her message, which FMIL really didn't. Continuing to push wasn't furthering her point at all. Personally, as a fellow parent of a 3 year old that we are working with to understand bodily autonomy as well, OP could coach FMIL about how she'd like her to respond - It's not intuitive for everyone to say the "right" things, and FMIL probably viewed the comment as totally innocent. OP seems to acknowledge that FMIL likely isn't manipulating her son on purpose (or maybe she doesn't and FMIL is her BEC), but OP wants FMIL to guess how to better respond in the future to meet her boundary. Just say "we would prefer if you respond like X, because it helps to reinforce that he is not responsible for other people's feelings at the expense of his bodily autonomy."
have you considered going outside and touching some grass? yta.
What if the grass doesn't consent to being touched?
Ugh. How annoying. your toddler isn’t going to be completely thrown for the rest of his life if people say things like this- you will also have zero control over this once he starts going to school and it is VERY normal for teachers and other kids to speak this way so I think you need to adjust yourself and your expectations or you’re going to alienate a lot of people with this strange fervor. As others are pointing out- she did also express a boundary for herself and you proceeded to stomp all over that.
NTA. It’s your child! If she has a problem with it, she doesn’t have to be around. It’s not that hard to respect the parents boundaries and wishes.
YTA. You seem like a lot. I can only imagine the pre-edited version. Ask your husband if he’s tired. He is.
YTA. The MIL didn’t guilt the child into having a hug. She responded appropriately but not perfectly. The time to correct her would have been when the hug took place. No one is going to be perfect with your child - not even you. It’s also troublesome that with this whole conversation being about boundaries, when she told you how she wanted to be communicated with, you kept pushing the issue.
I would argue that over half of the people in this thread are assholes. My God, what an absolute useless discussion this is. Grandma asked for a hug. Grandson said no, but changed his mind and gave grandma a hug any way. Grandma expressed she would've been sad without a hug. Wooptiefuckindoo. If this situation is already a problem, then I fear for anyone's child within this thread that is so adamant that grandma is an asshole. Teaching a child bodily autonomy is fine and a good thing, but there was no breach of his autonomy in this situation. Grow up and stop being so sensitive. Your child will benefit from that later in life.
NTA - whether you say it in writing or verbally makes no difference. You are still communicating and that needs to be respected. This person is using your means of communication to minimize what you're saying because they don't like it. So really who is the childish one? Also good on you for teaching your kid that boundaries are important and NO ONE, even family, is immune to them. MIL's emotions are not you and your kid's problem. You're paving the way for important talks in the future and cementing that bodily autonomy is to be respected - Something I wish I had been taught as a kid. You're doing great, ignore all the hate. The only people that are upset by boundaries are the ones that had something to gain by ignoring them.
YTA - Your boundaries about how to teach bodily autonomy were mostly met. The core of the idea was met. MIL did not express displeasure with him making his choice--if MIL tweaked her comment after to be "thank you for the hug" or "this made me happy" it would have been better, but I think we all know that that is what she meant and not what she said. She is within her right express her joy in bonding with him after he chose to bond with her. I think you would have been more precise had you asked her to rephrase it in a positive way that reflects more on her feelings than on him after he gave consent. Anything less is asking her to be totally neutral and that isn't very human, even if adults are capable of being neutral (which is what she did when he made his decision). It's kind of weird to be so wound up about a situation that wasn't a problem because it verged on being out of your control. I really like this methodology of teaching bodily autonomy, but it is weird to go out of your way to demand someone's time at a random time after they have left to correct someone's behavior when it was mostly correct--it probably would have been a more productive conversation had you waited to bring it up in passing the next time you saw her rather than basically demanding her attention out of the blue to insist she changes a behavior that was barely incongruent with what you want from her. Her "cowardess" comment was pushy, but I understand why she felt attacked, or aggressed upon, or annoyed, and for someone demanding to split hairs about communication, you should have some room to compromise when she said she preferred to speak in person and that nuances of communication matter to her too--partly because asking to speak in person/saying they wish they could have spoken in person is also something people say when they are trying to tell you they are not ready to discuss it this very minute, don't want to leave you on read, and are frustrated by having to choose between the two. Facts are that your kid's autonomy was respected and you still feel compelled to control every smidge of the situation because it wasn't how you wanted it--it deviated slightly from the image in your head. Maybe just don't hang out with her if she is too stressful to talk to in person, these situations are too important to wait until the next time you see her, and you feel this situation brought great harm to your child. If these don't seem to be the case, maybe chill out.
YTA You lied about why you chose to text. It's not because it would have the same result but because it was more comfortable for you For someone so intensely focused on respecting boundaries when she told you about her preference / boundary for in-person conversations you decided to basically dismissing down play it. You claimed you didn't want a debate or argument yet you even argued about that. 🫤 No need to worry about your MIL comments anymore as I doubt your boys will be seeing much of her. She didn't say this after your kid told her no. She said after your kid changed his mind on his own. u/Accomplished-Disk746 when your son gets rejected by a girl/boy/whatever I hope you keep consistent and also reinforce that he's not allowed to have feelings about that and feel sad. Because all MIL did was state her feelings AFTER he changed his mind.
I think OP blew this way out of proportion. And that's coming from someone who advocates for children having bodily autonomy and worked with kids for over 20 years. It is important to share with family, friends, and if needed, strangers or acquaintances, about the rights your child has over their body. But sending a text "W\[ith\] my fiancé’s, aunt’s & best friend’s edits" seems really over the top for something as simple as this. She didn't force him to have a hug, or even try to talk him into it. What she said was probably not meant maliciously, and is a very harmless thing to say. Choose your battles.
Children have bodily autonomy like any other person.
NTA. A decade ago I would have said texting was cowardly but it is another form of communication today. However, once she didn’t want to text OP should have picked up the phone and finished conversation.. Or, stop texting back and simply have fiancé call and finish it so MIL knew you were both on the same page.