"I find it hard to believe you wouldn't inform your brother-in-law of your plans to return home early, but OK-let's go with it. You're overreacting. You have every right to be angry. By all means, never ask your brother in law to house-sit again. But his offense is not worth breaking familial bonds over. Also, and importantly, this isn't your call."
"Your husband has known his brother longer than you. If he wants to keep this person in his life, he's allowed to. You don't have to like it. You don't have to forgive him. But if you want to stay married to that man, you will have to at least tolerate his brother. The cost of enmeshing your life with another person is that you have prolonged association with their people. In-laws are a fact of life."
A couple returned early to find the brother-in-law hosting an orgy while house-sitting. Anger is justified and the brother-in-law should never house-sit again. However, the offense does not warrant permanently breaking family bonds. The decision about continuing the sibling relationship belongs to the husband, who has longer history with his brother. A spouse who wishes to remain married must tolerate association with the partner's relatives even if forgiveness is not offered. Enmeshing lives brings prolonged contact with a partner's people; in-laws are an unavoidable reality. Clarification of whether the event was merely a party or an organized sexual gathering may affect responses.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]