Live Q&As;

Bunch of questions here, so I'll start with the easy one: If you're planning to have kids, and if you're not an experienced, I-always-have-dogs-because-that's-how-I-am person, then I think getting a dog as a trial child is a terrible idea, for the reason you describe here. You didn't ask this, but I also think it's a good idea to shop carefully for a dog with health and other needs in mind. Some dogs that are popular or particularly cute can be terrible choices for inexperienced dog-handlers, for people on a budget, for people who plan to have babies in the near future, etc. Getting a working dog, for example, and expecting it to act like a pet can be a terrible combination. 

(more)

[forehead to keyboard.] 

I didn't say that only good dog parents make good people parents. I simply said that the way one treats a dog can be a good indicator of how one handles a child. 

Your very-close someone gets points off for tactlessness, but that doesn't mean s/he didn't do you a favor. Painful as it is, it's good that you know you've maxed out at least one person's listening capacity with this. Better that than alienating others as you unwittingly remain preoccupied by Topic. 

Here's what it does mean:

1. It's time to hire someone to listen to you. Whether Topic is a career issue or health issue or relationship issue, there's someone out there with the expertise to help you. If you can't afford that, then dig a little more. While the response to expensive/scarce professional guidance is inadequate to the need, there are people trying to improve access, be it through sliding scale fees or group care or affiliation with a larger entity that can absorb some of the costs. Start looking for your safe place to unload. And, for practical solutions to the Topic problem: Talking about it beyond even one listener's limits likely means it's time to find a way to stop talking and start moving forward.

2. You don't need to banish Topic from all of your conversations with loved ones. But, you do need to be mindful of your people's limits, and, ideally, open about them: "I realize I've beaten Topic to death, but I have something I'd like to bounce off you. May I impose on you for 15 minutes?" And stick to the time limit you promised, unless the other person is plainly okay with running long.

3. You do have to avoid Topic around the one who spoke up. No point in looking for loopholes there.

Good luck finding your way to the other side, where Topic barely crosses your mind.

Well argued, thanks. 

I would only add the obvious-but-maybe-not-really-when-you're-the-one-involved: No doubt a lot of people don't have your experience, and don't become good working partners through the dog experience--yet go ahead with the kids anyway. In a way, sharing the pet can become part of the stay-together inertia between two people who aren't a good fit. 

So, maybe I can revise my answer to, sure, have the dog as a practice child, but only when you're ready to learn as much from a bad outcome as you are from a good one. (Which applies even if you don't get a dog, actually.)

Okay, I see that now--but usually that has a simple and usually accessible (thank you, Internet) solution in saving your Topic talk for those similarly immersed by it. Diaper talk with other parents of young kids, hobby talk with similar hobbyists, etc. 

"Listen" might be the single most useful bit of advice, for friendship, romance, career, parenting, even basket-weaving, though at some point you'll probably have to weave a basket. 

This is another question with many questions in it, and a bunch of possible answers.

To me, the biggest issue here is that you can't talk to her. "She doesn't like talking about emotional stuff" is not only her prerogative, but also arguably a more fixed part of her than her weight (though weight is a lot harder to change than people think it is, if recent research is pointing the right way). If you want to be with someone whom you can approach with whatever's on your mind, then she's not the girl for you, and it's time to break up.

Having a reason to break up that has nothing to do with her size allows me to dodge the weight question, but I don't want to.

Used to be I was irritated, even angered by people who saw weight as a dealbreaker. How shallow, I'd think--how dismissive of the human being.

Over time, I came to feel pity for people who saw weight as a dealbreaker. How shallow you must be, I'd think, to be so governed by people's appearances.

At the moment, I'm thinking no such unilateral things about the people who are concerned about weight and appearances, but instead about the relationships. If your attachment to your girlfriend is so vulnerable to a change in her appearance, then I don't like its chances even if she takes a turn for the thin. If you loved her enough for her, then you might not be thrilled with extra weight, but you wouldn't be eyeing the door over it.

Now, if we're talking about unlovable habits that happen to lead or contribute to weight gain, then that's something else. there are definitely some love-killing behaviors behind -some- significant weight gains, and while those are also ultimately about the relationship, they also speak more to the person inside than to appearances. 

Oh, but you should have heard all the other cats in the alley, complaining about how inconvenient it was to have to say all those syllables, to remember whether it was hyphenated or two names or whatever else, and to burden their someday kittens with, what, Smith-Jones-Thomas-Felix. It was Topic A.

You just do. "I like you a lot, but I am not comfortable with these little kisses. I'm sorry."

I seriously doubt this will make everything okay, though. For one, "cringe" and "really fantastic" give me cognitive dissonance. You sure you're "very excited"?

And, the way each of us shows affection is like our fingerprint. Whether a person can significantly change that based on a partner's taste is, to my mind, beside the point, with the point being that each of us deserves to be with someone who appreciates our way of showing love. But, that's me. Your and his mileage may vary.

And, too, I'm uncomfortable with his being as affectionate as you describe and as undeterred by your, "I'm not into that much PDA," at "a few weeks." Yikes. I get that sometimes couples just catch fire quickly, but you two haven't--he's all in and you're all, ew. That's a flag. Maybe it's a mild one, that he's way more into you than you are into him, and maybe it's a serious one, that he's pushing too much intimacy too soon, and maybe it's somewhere in between--but, it's a flag of some sort.

So, speak up, see what you get and don't worry that you're doing something "wrong" or "mean" by drawing a line. Asserting yourself is how you find out whether you're right for each other, and better now than pretending and "gently explain[ing]" your way to a much more invested state.

You're missing, I suspect, the last part where I mention behavior changes that are about something more than weight. 

Same thing: "get fat and lazy," you say. That's behavior first, and weight a secondary consequence.

There are plenty of people who do not sit around on the couch eating chips who put on weight, maybe who work long hours and/or are caregivers to aging parents and/or have a bunch of kids and/or struggle mightily to stay "thin" using the same amount of portion control and exercise as someone else who is "thin," because with weight it's not a simple 2 + 2, there are multipliers involved--and in those cases, yes, I think keeping that spouse at arm's length over weight is a sign of a weak underlying bond. 

So, you deal with the input, which a person does control, and not the outcome, which is subject to certain variables. That just seems like basic kindness to me. 

With the counselor in a solo session. Don't just assume it can't be fixed without teasing out the difference(s) between now and five years ago. Good luck. 

Sure, I'll dash that off in 10 minutes.

I'm going to kick this to Philes, since it's such a great and sweeping and relevant question, but I'll try to assemble a couple of coherent thoughts.

1. Even if we figure out the exact answer, your child will be on the giving and receiving end of some meanness at several points in life. There's no avoiding it altogether. "Best Friends, Worst Enemies," Thompson/O'Neill-Grace/Cohen, which I recommend often, is very clear and reassuring on this. Kids have to learn how to get along just as they have to learn to walk and read and all that, and the process isn't pretty sometimes. 

2. How are you at tightrope walking? To raise kids who don't bully, you need to supervise carefully and correct as needed, like when they say mean things to people's faces or behind their backs; to raise kids who don't allow others to bully them, you need to butt out enough for your kids to assert themselves instead of your doing it for them all the time. It's a constant balancing and re-balancing act as they grow. Bonus, you don't know whether you've gotten it right till it's almost too late to do anything about it. And, different kids/temperaments/personalities need different balances.

3. Another kind of balance matters, too--between their feeling important to you, and their not being misled into thinking they're the center of the earth. Your home needs to be a safe place for them to express their feelings and try new things (which will include trying on the idea of being mean to you, good times) and be significant--but you also need to be the boss. And, the wide wide world, where they are but a small speck, also needs to feature in their education. They need to get out, see others unlike them, give of themselves to others, get introduced to big ideas.

All this and more. I'll take a sec to put it on Philes now ...

I agree with you that "fails to respect body boundaries" is an immediate dealbreaker, but I didn't feel confident that the LW established those boundaries clearly. So much backpedaling and rationalizing in the letter told me it was possible LW wasn't clear.

That, btw, is a whole other thing, and ties in the LW who was hesitant about speaking up to GF about weight gain: If you feel you can't say something, that immediately is a bigger problem than whatever it is you want to speak up about.

Comfort with basic assertiveness is a threshold worth forcing yourself to meet before getting involved with someone else. It can inoculate you against so many other problems.

And, no small thing, it gives you a baseline by which you measure your comfort with someone. If you're normally assertive in certain situations but with so-and-so you're not, it's time to recognize that as dangerous to your well-being and seriously reconsider getting or remaining involved with so-and-so. 

Good point, thanks. This is an extension of the home-as-safe-place point I made, but it's important enough to warrant breaking it out. In a two-parent home, the respect in that relationship is on display at all times, evn when/especially when everyone's guard is down. 

I agree this is common and therefore a strong possibility, one worth holding onto as a point of reference, even a goal.

Since it could be other things, and since even if it's just a tidal thing that can be heavy to leave unspoken, I still think solo counseling is a good idea. Some have pointed out that couples' counselors often won't see one party solo, in which case I think it's worth pursuing the solo part with a different therapist. The marriage counselor can provide names, no doubt.

Thanks.

Normally I'd say that baby showers are different, and that involving people in celebrations* can be an early step in creating a community for your child, but this is different. You're still at a point where your MIL is in control, you make no mention of where your husband is in all this, and a baby is about to make any MIL-boundary problems exponentially worse.

So, my advice here is that you take it up with your husband. Not just the shower, but the whole "anger issues when anyone says no to her" thing. He needs to be willing to serve as the protective wall between his young family and her issues. Is he? (If not, it's counseling or marriage seminar time, to allow a disinterested third party to explain the perils of not making each other your mutual priority.)

*They needn't be gift-shakedown showers. Your host can arrange it to be about collecting donations for needy moms, or a book shower for your child, or an advice shower, or etc.

Your husband has an honest talk with his sister, to say that you and he planned this as some badly needed alone time. You can't ask her not to come, I get it, but you can excuse yourselves kindly and go somewhere else.

I would hope she'd hear of your intentions and say, yikes, sorry, you keep your plans and we'll go somewhere else--but if she doesn't or can't, then do find another place to have your quiet weekend. Even if money is an issue, a holiday often provides opportunities: When everyone is focused on X, Y is often available at a steep discount. 

Good luck. 

A couple of thoughts. 

I would never boycott a no-kids wedding because I took offense at the exclusion of kids. I mean really--I'm nuts about my kids but a night of just adults is not exactly a hardship. Plus, I totally get that it's not everyone's idea of bliss to be around a bunch of squirmy people with volume-control issues. Who am I to tsk-tsk them and say they "should" enjoy having kids around, or that kids and weddings are a cute/beautiful/happy combination, or whatever else? Even if I didn't see the value of adult-only parties, which I do, it would still be your party, your tablet to write upon, and not the place for your friends to write their pro-kid righteousness.

The one exception I might make is if I were nursing and couldn't be away from my baby for the full length of a wedding and reception. In that case, I might ask for some leeway to have my baby on the premises, with the understanding that I'd leave the ceremony at the first little burble.

Anyway, I'm spelling all this out to explain where I'm coming from when I say that, yes, you can cave to have your loved ones there, but that won't change the fact these boycotting loved ones are out of line. But, that's to be expected, right? Since not everyone with small kids expects "their kids [to] be the center of the universe, disrupt plans all the time, and so on," but since these apparently do, then they're being consistent. Thats' something else to consider here---they're just being themselves, and it's not going to change, even after the kids grow up and their focus turns to something else.

So, it's up to you how you want to handle both the wedding and the long-term implications of friends with me-ist tendencies. As you're poised to decide, though, consider how you'll handle things if and when you have kids of your own. The more of a stand you take, the more imporant your integrity will be (i.e., the more closely people will watch). 

I think it's fair (and important) to say that the way he describes himself in his last marriage sounds completely different from the person you see, and then ask what he thinks the diference is--if he even notices there is one. 

In general, don't avoid a subject just because you're not sure how to phrase it. All you really need to do is replace the words you think are too charged or judgmental with more neutral ones. In this case, change "worried" to "curious" and you're good to go.

You know, I almost suggested this, and then opted against it because the kids always end up at the party. But the nearby-but-off-site location is interesting. You'd need more than one sitter, though. 

Oh, gosh, no--I swear the population would double if new parents didn't have to run the gantlet of unsolicited advice.

Okay, maybe not double, but I've never had anyone report they were delighted by all the advice they got; all reports have been of how annoying and intrusive and persistent it is, this societal impulse to coach new parents.

And, you might want to stay in your cabin till your baby's an adult, because the advice flow isn't diminishing any time soon. (Was that part unsolicited?)

[Topic] is the thing in the briefcase in "Pulp Fiction."

Speaking of Tarantino, and of "reading from the top," I suggest reading chat transcripts all out of order, to make them edgy and postmodern. Or go all "Memento" and start at the end and read up.

Good luck with day care, preschool, school, school buses, oh, whatever. Welcome to the Age of Fear.

But ... why is he asking? Are you asking that of him?

If it's just conversation, then you can say, "Of course I do--I have concerns about -myself- long-term. I'd be nuts not to. Why?" ... and you'll be okay. But if he's asking out of insecurity, be it about himself or about your relationship, then both the honest route and the spare-feelings route have some major hazards.

So we're back to, how free are you to talk to this person? 

Right! So, hop on over to the forum and post all your (or your top few) thoughts on cultivating empathy in children. Fanks.

I think you owe yourself a party to celebrate losing a hundred or three- pounds of negativity from your life.

If your friend comes back with an apology, explaining that s/he was in a very bad place then and feels terrible now for taking it out on you, when you were clearly only trying to help and also ahem quite right to suggest professional help, then I'll take that back (and hope you take the friend back, too; people at low points do behave in ugly ways sometimes). 

It might also be a lot simpler. Yes, a lot of people try but can't find a sitter, or have reasons they can't--but that does not look like this:

"We indicated as much on our save-the-dates, and have since gotten responses from a few people close to us that they do not plan to come since they can't bring their kids." 

Not, they do not plan to come "since we tried and tried but can't find a sitter"--these people, "close" friends, gave the bride the Heisman because their kids can't come. The wedding is in 2014! And if there are extenuating circumstances, surely the couple would either know this already or the friends would kindly inform the couple of such, with their regrets.   

Of course no parents who try and fail to find a sitter should be harrumphed for saying no, but that's so not what's happening here.