"I realized after several months that, while I enjoyed Susan's company, her partner Mike is not someone I am comfortable with. He is a heavy drinker and makes sexist and racist comments that leave me cringing. I've reached out to Susan several times to suggest the two of us do things solo, but unfortunately, they are quite joined at the hip."
"Moreover, I think it would be wise to accept what Susan is communicating to you. If she and Mike are a package deal, warts and all, it will probably help you to think of them that way. I know that Susan's presence is more tolerable to you than Mike's and, from what you've written, for good reason. But it doesn't do you much good to think about how ideal your friendship would be if you could just get Susan away from him."
"Not going to happen. Indeed, if he's saying racist and sexist things and you're cringing, but she isn't, Mike might not be the only one to hold those opinions. I don't mean to malign Susan's character, and it's not right to hold anyone responsible for their spouse's actions, but it sounds like she's thinking of this as a couple friendship. And so, the truth, for you, is that it doesn't work. I find directness to be the best course"
A newcomer befriended a couple but finds the husband's heavy drinking and sexist, racist remarks intolerable. The wife treats the relationship as a couple friendship and rarely separates from her partner. Attempts to arrange solo outings with the wife failed because the couple remains tightly coupled and continues to seek group get-togethers. The practical conclusion is to accept the couple as a package and recognize that the friendship may not work for someone who cannot tolerate the partner's behavior. Directness, boundary-setting, and clear limits are preferable to prolonged avoidance or passive pretense.
Read at www.mercurynews.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]