Wow. You seem to have completely lost the context here and gone off to an extreme where I didn't. That's odd. What's motivating you to do that? I never said to never consider anyone else under and circumstances. I just said to consider first what you actually want, not to conform to everyone else from the get go. You do realize that when I talked about holding up options to values and priorities, that would obviously imply a person's relationships to others, right? Why would you have assumed otherwise? The OP has a history, including a very recent history, of resenting the real and imagined expectations of others (see the wedding Scrooge thread) and struggles to reconcile those to her own values and priorities.

It begins with not caring about what others want. Until that happens, you can't truly know what you want. After that happens then criteria like values, priorities, and practical constraints are the standards to hold options up against so you have a way to start eliminating options.

We're still FB friends. She's going to be a grandmother in December. She's a psychotherapist, speaker, writer, and substance use disorder treatment specialist.

Mine was cake, punch, coffee, bowl of fresh fruit, and tray of nuts. (Several diabetics attended, so we needed something other than cake for them to eat.) No A list and B list. Everyone was invited to the ceremony and reception-they took place at the same location. We had 50 people total there. It was at my in-law's house. The ceremony was 15 minutes and people ate and chatted after that for about an hour and a half. We left an hour after the wedding started. No, we didn't invite anyone from more than a 1. 5 hour drive away (my husband's family.) The exception was a bridesmaid from out of state that we flew in, housed, fed, provided transportation for, and we paid for the bridal party members' clothing (best man, groomsman, maid of honor, bridesmaid, flower girl.) Everyone was local-I had no interest in my wedding being an excuse for an extended family reunion. I don't like 95% of my relatives and I didn't even want a wedding-it was a concession to my husband. I wanted to the sign paperwork and take a vacation. I can imagine enjoying a small simple wedding if I had a different relatives, but it was a PIA dealing my mother like it always is. I also don't travel for weddings, the exception being Joanne's second wedding (you guys know Joanne from the boards here about 10ish+ years ago.) She was a close friend (I attended the birth of her 3rd child.) Because I don't think weddings matter much, it's no big deal to miss a friend or family member's wedding. I go if it's not a big, huge deal, but if isn't in the time budget or the financial budget, it's no biggie. I don't think twice about missing it, even for someone close to me. I happily look through the wedding album next time I see them or I like their social media posts about it. Yay! You got married! It was lovely!

No, she didn't. Are you on The Spectrum? I ask because your thinking has always seemed unusually rigid in all of your posts, even in situations where people have very effectively explained the nuance like Quill did.

I agree. Anyone who would look down on any form of wedding someone else chooses should never be invited to any wedding. We gave our girls each $5,000 for their weddings/celebration of their union (because they might not want a wedding.) They were able to do it for that amount because they kept them small and simple. 4 years ago middle daughter got married on 3 months notice in a private ceremony (they're not religious and some on my side are both religious and toxic and some on her spouse's side are religious, so avoid drama, no family was invited to that) with only themselves and witnesses, no attendants, then they had a back yard canopied reception at her in-laws' with food from their favorite moderately priced Italian restaurant, iced bottled soft drinks in decorative bins, 2 cakes that weren't officially "wedding cakes" but were white and very decorative, tea lights and string lights for decorations rather than flowers, heavy weight rented nice event restrooms, and a friend taking pics. Her dress was a short 1950s simple type dress and he bought a charcoal grey suit. Invitations were electronic. Three years ago oldest got married on 3 weeks notice. They had been engaged for many months without a date set, trying to plan a more typical wedding many months out, but due to very challenging issues with his side (multi-generational family of addicts-they're all addicts except for SIL) it became obvious that managing that along with the toxic people on my side was going to be much too overwhelming for them. Daughter and SIL have mental health issues to deal with, so bandwidth is limited. When an out of state job opportunity came up, they took it and used some of those funds to move and set up house. Then after several more months they decided to do a very small justice of the peace style wedding. She wore her favorite velvet green party dress she already owned, he bought a black suit, she flew a close friend in to be a witness and the photographer, they married on the back deck of the officiant's house surrounded by woods, then we met them at a very nice French restaurant where it was my nuclear family with them and the close friend for an elegant meal, drinks, and exquisite desserts.

Yes, but if they choose to marry after that they won't get a contribution from us for a wedding.

Not at all! It's what we did. But then, who cares what people think? I've met people... I'm not overly impressed with most of them just like they're not overly impressed with me. Shrug. Group think often goes badly. By middle school we should be intensively training our children out of group think and the "lap dog" mentality where they need outside approval. They need to weigh each matter and decide based on the merits, regardless of whether people agree or disagree with them. We let each of our 3 girls know we set aside a certain amount for when they get (got) married. (That number will likely be a little higher for youngest due to inflation, who is 7 and 9 years younger than the older two, if we can still afford it.) They could/can do with it as they wish-a wedding, a down payment, investing it in an index fund, whatever. They could add to it on their own or in-laws could contribute, but that's what we have budgeted, that that's all there will be from us-enjoy! It worked out well with the older two when they got married 3 and 4 years ago, and that's what it will be for youngest too. I also made it clear they could have whatever kind of wedding they could afford, I would participate in whatever aspects of it they wanted me to, and I have never felt entitled to any particular part of it. I also told them no one was entitled to an invitation to their union, so it was entirely up to them about who they invited. Whatever they want to do to celebrate their union is 100% their choice because again, it's just a day and it's their day, not mine or anyone else's. I don't care much one way or the other about weddings-I care about marriage. And no, they don't have to invite our toxic relatives who ruin things if they don't want to.

I'd say something in a matter-of-fact tone like, "With everything going on in my life, I'm completely spent, so I won't be covering any volunteer time for you with swim team, I won't provide rides for your kids, and there won't be anymore sleepovers until further notice. " Then I'd move on to the next topic sending a clear signal that the matter is decided and not open to discussion. I'd say it when both of them are together, either in person, in a group text, or on speaker phone together, whatever your preferred mode of communication is. If anything like it ever happened again I would be confrontational. I'd tell them in a very firm, forceful tone, "Stop taking advantage of me and starting taking responsibility for your children yourselves."

OP, everyone here is being very nice to you, but I care enough about you and your son to tell you the hard truth. I'm a child of chaos like your son. Your current attitude and mindset are throwing gas on flames and you're reacting to the fire alarm as through it's the problem. It's not. You are. Stop. Just stop. You strike me as a typical dysfunctional parent: emotionally immature. I assume the same of your spouse. You seem to have wildly unrealistic expectations of your child, wanting him to be far more mature and long sighted than anyone at 14 years could possibly be and not grasping that a child exposed to what your child was exposed to growing up would be far less equipped than the typical kid. You allow yourself to childishly react to his typical teen behaviors which is role reversal. In addition you have no sympathy or even grasp of the natural consequences of what you and your ex husband dumped on him over the years. It's long past time to take on the parental role and the parental responsibility that goes with it. (Yes, I'd say the same thing to your ex husband too.) Yes, you were/are hurt by your ex husband, your marriage, and your child's lashing out response to the chaos you participated in and contributed to. Emotionally immature adults don't prioritize their pain over their child's needs. Your child needs therapy and he needs you in therapy, doing the grueling, painful, frustrating work of growing up and getting healthy. You have no business proceeding without individual therapy for yourself and joint therapy with him. You have a history of ineffectively handling family dynamics as evidenced by a toxic marriage that went on far too long without appropriate professional help. Now is your chance to salvage your relationship with your child. You are not equipped to do that on your own. Some humility on your part is absolutely essential; it's time you admit you need ongoing, professional, licensed, clinical help in your family relationships. My parents are emotionally immature adults too. They're in their late 70s now. You do not want a future like theirs. They couldn't face up to their need for help either and they've ruined all their family relationships. When they die it will be more of a relief than a loss, which isn't anything I would wish on anyone. You deserve to have functional, long term, quality relationships for the rest of your life. You can get there by cooperating with the appropriate professional help.

My guess is you're an obliger and need some form of accountability for motivation. The book The Four Tendencies by Rubin addresses this. https://www.amazon.com/Four-Tendencies-Indispensable-Personality-Profiles-ebook/dp/B01MU23P0N/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2Y1LO6HP662HA&keywords=the+four+tendencies+by+gretchen+rubin&qid=1654628697&sprefix=four+tendencies%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1In a nutshell, it describes motivation for 4 different categories of people: 1. upholders- (high external motivation, high internal motivation) self-directed, meet deadlines, take initiative, don't need supervision, like routine, perfectionists, highly value follow through. 2. rebels- (low external motivation, low internal motivation) value freedom, identity, self-expression; act out of love, mission, beliefs in causes; meet challenges in the own way in their own time; don't like supervision, advice, or directions; good at delegating. 3. obligers- (high external motivation, low internal motivation) quick to meet outside expectations, highly value commitments to others, need accountability, supervision, deadlines, monitoring in some form; respond to sense of duty and being a good role model. 4. questioners- (low external motivation, high internal motivation) question expectations, meet only justified expectations; value research, reason, information; only follow advice of trusted authority, trust their own judgement, dislike what is arbitrary.

I have a sleigh bed. The headboard is carved wood.

I'd eat all 3.

I'm not talking about women owning assault rifles. You know that, right? I'm talking about small handguns (for suburban/urban situations) or shot guns (for rural situations.)

But as pointed out upthread, it can't be studied how often guns deter crimes to begin with. People know they're risking getting shot breaking into a home in the US, so only the most crazily motivated people do it. They don't factor in gun training (I'm all for it) and gun storage (again, I'm all for it.) Again, I'm going to double down-the people I know who used a gun during an attack were saved by it. You probably don't live under the immediate threat of violence, but others do. My husband had a female co-worker at the engineering company who had a condition of employment that she was allowed to have a firearm on her person or at her desk at all times. The abuse and threats from her abuser were real and the only chance she had in an altercation was that gun. Guns are an equalizer.

Stalked women are much more common than mass shooters. Armed stalked women are better equipped to defend themselves than school children. I don't think making women as vulnerable as school children by denying them the right to defend themselves has more moral merit. Yes, school shootings are a real problem, but making women more vulnerable as a response to it isn't a real solution. The women I know who used a firearm to protect themselves had no other options that worked. Men ignore restraining orders. Police can't intervene until a stalker breaks the law, and then someone has to call law enforcement after the law has been broken. That's too late.

Again, my experience with real world scenarios doesn't support your theory. Quite the opposite. The link posted by bolt above was a different scenarios than I was talking about-where the abused and abusers do NOT live together. Are you aware of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US? If just having the gun on hand increases death to non-abusers , then the death rate would be sky high. Now tell me what the woman with a stalker who has threatened to kill her or an abuser she left is supposed to do when the man shows up to do her harm. Please be specific and take into account the amount of time it takes to call 911 and have an officer on site. Also, link any studies you have that abusers are less likely to abuse after a legally required cooling off period compared to no cooling off period.

I don't think you read my above comment carefully. Note the use of the word restraining order. Restraining orders mean the abuser and the abused don't live together. The article you linked talked about the abuser killing the abused that they lived with with a gun. I'm talking about scenarios where the woman is not living with her abuser.

That doesn't address the stalker issue. You can't get a police escort round the clock once you know you have a stalker. And imagine yourself telling a woman facing some sort of threat from a man that because more men get guns to threaten women than women get guns to protect themselves, that she shouldn't have immediate access to one. You wouldn't really say that to her, right? And it's not just getting out of town and relocating in your new life, abusive men track women down after they leave. Again, she can't get round the clock police protection in that situation until he shows up later. Do other people not personally know abused women and have they not heard the details of their stories? I'm surprised by the comments here that seem to indicate that. I grew up in a house headed by a single mother in a very rural area before 911. She kept a loaded shotgun on hand and a wolf-German Shepherd hybrid because calling the police (dial 0 for the operator, have the operator link you to the police station 10+ miles from your home) and wait for them to arrive wasn't going to be fast enough during an attack. Dialing 911 and having a patrol car within a mile isn't fast enough during an attack. If the assailant and the woman each have a gun, they're more evenly matched than if neither of them do or just he does.

I agree. (Even though I see you were joking.) People need to take responsibility for their lives, their decisions, and their stuff while they still can and not dump them unnecessarily on others.

Knowing 2 people who shot those who were trying to attack them, I'd need to see a link to well done studies to believe you. And the question wasn't about what happens when no one has a gun, it was about a cooling off period. Also, I know several women who were abused without guns and didn't have the physical muscle mass to stop their male assailants, so again, please post a link that takes those factors into account so I can read up on it.

I always ask myself these questions in light of a woman being stalked, threatened, or abused. If she decides to purchase a gun to protect herself from a man who would disregard a restraining order, would (insert gun regulation here) help keep her safer?

Since this isn't a JAWM, I'll say it. Maybe they're done with this life and are ready to go on to the next. I know that's hard to hear, but my mom's cousin had no intention of fighting for as many months and years as possible. In his early 70s, he just wanted to do his thing, enjoy what last bit of life he had, and then die rapidly. He didn't have preventive care, even when there was obviously a tumor developing on his jaw. He got his things in order, made arrangements for his daughter to move in with her mother (his wife) just before he died, let nature run its course, and called hospice for comfort measures. He knew what he wanted and what actions significantly increased the odds of what he wanted. It's a valid option, even if it's not what others would choose. None of us is immortal, so we need to start thinking carefully about quantity vs. quality of life, because interventions usually increase quantity, but almost always bring a decrease in quality long term. Those deaths tend to be longer and slower, and not everyone thinks that's a good trade off. It's not a small matter. Some people would rather have a shorter life and quicker death by doing what they love up to the very end and not concerning themselves with precautions, treatment, and interventions. If it were me, that's the kind of conversation I would have with them. When they choose A, they significantly increase the likelihood of B. Is that what they want? If they choose X, they significantly increase the likelihood of Y. Would they prefer that? I think people should get to decide for themselves, but they need to think it through explicitly so they aren't deluding themselves.

Suffering is spiritually formative, it draws us closer to The Comforter, it's one way we become more like Jesus, it takes our focus away from the temporal to the eternal, it's a way to be reassured that our faith is genuine, Romans 5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith[b] into this grace in which we stand, and we[c] rejoice[d] in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. 2 Corinthians3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.[a] 6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. Philippians 3 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Yep. The Prosperity Gospel heresy is alive and well and corrupting many branches of Christianity. It's everywhere and confusing people both inside and outside the church. Jesus suffered, martyrs suffer, believers suffer, unbelievers suffer because this world is full of suffering.