s/o another thread - girlfriends as "family"

[TechWife]

The military girlfriend thread stirred up some memories, thoughts, feelings for me.

 

Three years ago, we had a family reunion (my husbands' family). Of course, many family pictures were taken. Our nephew's live-in girlfriend is in every single one that she could get into. This includes the large group picture, the siblings w/their families (their parents are deceased) and the individual family photos. This young girl was & is not liked by my nephew's immediate family, nor by the extended family for a variety of reasons, but she assumed she should be in the photos and worked her way in. No one wanted to offend our nephew, so she stayed in the groups for the photos. Three years later, she is not a part of his life.

 

Why does this matter so much? Because there were to be no more opportunities to take family pictures. Less than one year after that photo was taken, my brother-in-law died (my husband's brother & the father of the nephew w/the live-in girlfriend). One and one half years after his death, my other brother-in-law died.

 

The last family pictures that were truly family pictures were about twelve years old at the time of that first death. My son wasn't in them, however, as he had not been born (I was expecting). So there is no picture of the family as it was at the time my brother in law passed away.

 

So, when your young men & women are seriously dating someone, living with them or even engaged to them, please encourage them not to step into a family picture without being invited. Also, when it comes to your own family, don't be shy about asking people who aren't in the family to step aside for a minute if that is what you want to do. You can always take a second shot with the person in the frame.

 

It might matter more than you think it ever will.

[regentrude]

What if she had been married to your nephew? Would you have found it appropriate for her to be in the pictures then? Seeing that between 30 and 50% of all marriages end in divorce, she may have been out of your nephew's life after three years as well.

OTOH, people live together with their significant others for years and sometimes decades. They are part of a family. They may, after many years, marry - but the relationship with the extended family may be exactly the same as before.

So, where do you draw the line?

If somebody in a picture bothered me so much: there is always photoshop.

[Hannah C.]

I was a (non-living-in) fiancee on one family trip, and I was excluded from some pictures. I was hurt by it at the time. I also have an aunt who is technically not related, even though she has been part of the family for 30-ish years - they never officially married, but they have 4 adult children. A cousin of mine lived with his now-wife for 10 years before they got married - no one expected them to get married 9 years in, but no one expected them to break up, either. ;)

 

With couples who are engaged, I think it would be appropriate to have the significant others in some of the pictures, but not all. It's usually easy to do, as you mentioned - just take a second shot. With couples who are dating, even some live-in couples, the best thing would probably be for the significant other to graciously bow out of most, if not all, of the family pictures. I don't think non-spouses should be offended by being asked to step out of the pictures, in most cases.

[Mama2Many4]

What if she had been married to your nephew? Would you have found it appropriate for her to be in the pictures then? Seeing that between 30 and 50% of all marriages end in divorce, she may have been out of your nephew's life after three years as well.

OTOH, people live together with their significant others for years and sometimes decades. They are part of a family. They may, after many years, marry - but the relationship with the extended family may be exactly the same as before.

So, where do you draw the line?

If somebody in a picture bothered me so much: there is always photoshop.

 

 

:iagree: that when you are with someone for a long amount of time they become part of the "extended" family. Had they been married she would have been expected to be in the pictures. If they had divorced you'd still be upset that she was in them. Photoshop does work wonders now.

 

FWIW, I would have been very offended had I been the girlfriend and someone asked me to step out of the photos of a family I considered myself part of at that time.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't like my brother-in-law. Can I insist he not be in family pictures because I don't want his face in there? He was separated from my sister for 5 years before they got back together; I still hope they will split up again.

 

Luckily, we take photos with "just the kids, no spouses" and "just the cousins, no spouses." So, I can have a photo with my sisters without him.

[Bluegoat]

Did they have a household together, or were they just roommates with benefits? It would be impolite to ask, and if it were the latter situation, he really ought not to have introduced her or brought her to the family reunion.

 

So the default assumption is, if he brought a girl he was living with, they have a household together. And having a household together is really the traditional definition of a marriage. Some people never bother to get married at all.

 

I think myself that living with a gf who might not be permanent is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, some of them the ones made evident in the situation in the OP, or the other thread. What are you saying when you do it? How is the family supposed to treat this person? Do both people involved understand the situation the same way?

[regentrude]

With couples who are dating, even some live-in couples, the best thing would probably be for the significant other to graciously bow out of most, if not all, of the family pictures. I don't think non-spouses should be offended by being asked to step out of the pictures, in most cases.

 

For how many years of relationship do you consider this appropriate protocol?

After living together for three years, my boyfriend was as much part of the family as he is now as my husband.

Where do you draw the line?

[elegantlion]

What if she had been married to your nephew? Would you have found it appropriate for her to be in the pictures then? Seeing that between 30 and 50% of all marriages end in divorce, she may have been out of your nephew's life after three years as well.

OTOH, people live together with their significant others for years and sometimes decades. They are part of a family. They may, after many years, marry - but the relationship with the extended family may be exactly the same as before.

So, where do you draw the line?

If somebody in a picture bothered me so much: there is always photoshop.

 

:iagree: We have some wonderful family photos from dh's family. Unfortunately all of his brothers and sisters have since divorced, so there'd be a lot of photoshopping necessary.

 

I see photos as a slice of life at the time. When I first met dh's extended family I noticed his grandmother had a studio portrait of dh and his previous girlfriend. Grandma stated in front of the entire family that it was time dh gave her an updated photo. Yup, I adore her.

 

I'm glad I was accepted as part of the family.

[Mergath]

Given that many long term couples who are madly in love are not even legally allowed to marry in most states, I can't imagine rejecting someone just because they aren't married yet. Love is love, and that piece of paper doesn't change much in my eyes.

[LibraryLover]

LOL Kidding, right? Life is so ...not perfect. :)

 

On the upside, I do know how to crop, and I do know Photoshop is not magic.

Edited November 28, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Susann]

Carefully, weighing in here. I totally understand OP pov since gf seemed to be in every picture. Easy enough to solve with pictures not including sig others. That said, I was extremely hurt when my now dh's family had family pictures taken & I wasn't included in any of them because "I wasn't really part of the family" according to mil. We had been dating 9 years at that time more than all the sibling couples put together! We've now been married 23 years & together 33. That was the last full family picture taken before we lost family members. If dh hadn't of stepped in & told mil he wanted me in some of the pictures, I wouldn't of been in any. However, 2 wdils would of been.

[kiana]

I see no problem with a few pics like "cousins only" now "cousins and spouses" -- but to say categorically that potential future wives aren't allowed seems rather harsh.

[Scarlett]

I don't like my brother-in-law. Can I insist he not be in family pictures because I don't want his face in there? He was separated from my sister for 5 years before they got back together; I still hope they will split up again.

 

Luckily, we take photos with "just the kids, no spouses" and "just the cousins, no spouses." So, I can have a photo with my sisters without him.

 

:iagree: So easy to take extra pics with just the blood relatives....

 

I certainly NEVER assume I am wanted in a photo though.

[Holly IN]

I like to weigh in on this.

 

Been in two situations on the family side.

 

1) My wedding: My brother's ex -wife is in the pictures. They were married at the time. They were going through some rough times but we still considered her part of our family. They divorced a year later. Was I upset we included her in the pictures? Nope!!! Were my parents upset? NOPE! Was my brother upset? Nope! She is still in the pictures. :001_smile: Now the current wife was a bit upset at first however we told her to give it up and let it go. We still consider her part of our family and grieved with her when her 2nd husband was killed in a DUI accident. My point in saying this is :chillpill::chillpill:...

 

2) Again my wedding: The photographer of my wedding were very strict about who was considered family and not considered a family. My husband's brother was dating a girl. They were engaged to be married 3 months later. However she has stopped previous weddings to him and dumped him 3 times. So we had no idea if this wedding were to happen. The photographer asked for family members only. This photographer knew this girl was not a member yet. She told us and her she can't be in pictures. I said fine. 20 years later she sent me a nasty letter stating I ruined her life in the last 20 years for not letting her in the wedding pictures but yet I was in her pictures in her wedding. She said I refused to let her in the wedding pictures.

 

So my point is no matter what you do somebody will be hurt if the relationship didn't pan out or what if it did??

 

Aside note: I am not liked by my dh's family including his older brother and his wife (wife in the number 2 situtation above).

 

All in all a :chillpill: needs to be taken here. Each family will have to decide to handle this in their own way. I do say be careful though.

 

Holly

[Holly IN]

I do like the idea of a compromise....some without the girlfriend and some with the girlfriend. This spares any hurt on all sides.

Holly

[linguistmama]

Taking pictures with different categories of people worked well when I got married and graduated from college. My mother remarried right after dh and I got married. Her 2nd husband is in pictures, but we also have plenty of pictures without him. At the time we didn't know about some of the things mom's 2nd dh had done that eventually led to their divorce. We wanted him in some pictures as part of the family just as I would include my brother's long term girlfriend in some pictures and not in others.

[SailorMom]

I am very grateful - almost every day of my life - for the In-Laws I have and for the feeling of inclusion, love, and concern that they showed for me from the very beginning.

'Nuff said.

[tex-mex]

LOL Kidding, right?

 

On the upside, I do know how to crop, and I do know Photoshop is not magic.

:iagree:

 

Reminds me of the time we attended DH's first cousin's wedding. They lived together for years.

 

When it came time for group family (professional) photos, dh's uncle said to me, "Family only." I was married 8 years at the time to his nephew and 8 months pregnant. It was cousins, aunts, uncles, parents, groom, bride, & grandparents. Fortunately, my MIL got mad at this statement -- I did not say a word. And DH's Grandmother was ticked off too. Toot suite I was back in the group photo. Go figure.

 

A year later, the couple divorced. She left him for another man. He was devastated. MIL and I keep the photo as it was a great photo of us all -- tho' grandma died years ago. But still a good photo nonetheless. ;)

Edited November 28, 2011 by tex-mex

[LaxMom]

there is always photoshop

 

That's what I was thinking as well.

 

I'm sure there are some "family" photos I was roped into before my husband and I were married. There are likely also some with my bil's ex-girlfriend, who was around longer than his almost-ex wife, who was around longer than the girlfriend he doesn't live with but is expecting a child with...

 

I guess I'm just thinking there isn't any guarantee of permanence.

[MariannNOVA]

LOL Kidding, right? Life is so ...not perfect. :)

 

On the upside, I do know how to crop, and I do know Photoshop is not magic.

 

THIS. I had our wedding photographer crop the person that dh's brother was married to out of our wedding photos. They are now divorced. No muss, no fuss!

[Hannah C.]

After living together for three years, my boyfriend was as much part of the family as he is now as my husband.

Where do you draw the line?

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my post - I think most live-in couples usually end up being accepted as family fairly quickly, and if they are accepted as family should be included in family pictures. But not all live-in couples are like that.

 

IMHO, the real criteria should probably be a) family acceptance and/or b) what the family member in question considers his/her significant other's status to be in his/her life. This will vary a lot. It's also always good to get a variety of groupings for photos, which takes care of any disagreement between a) and b).

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

I see photos as a slice of life at the time. When I first met dh's extended family I noticed his grandmother had a studio portrait of dh and his previous girlfriend. Grandma stated in front of the entire family that it was time dh gave her an updated photo. Yup, I adore her.

 

I'm glad I was accepted as part of the family.

 

This is exactly how I view a photo. That said-it is easy to group photos by categories as Mrs. M suggested. Another solution-ask the significant other to be the photographer for some shots. There are always extra cameras around...even if they look like cell phones;)

[MariannNOVA]

I may be over-stating the obvious here, but this is how our wedding photographer handled group shots (granted we only had about 65 people at the wedding):

 

First she had EVERYONE who was there in the photo (we were all arranged on the staircase in Prospect House at Princeton University) -- dh and I in front, my daughters in front - everyone else wherever they wanted to be on the staircase.

 

Next, she asked for only family members to stay on the steps and everyone else to step out.

 

From there she eliminated cousins, aunts and uncles, blah, blah, blah, And, yes, there were 6 people who have known my parents since they were all little kids and we had told her so that we could accomodate relationships like that.

 

Sometimes, it is easier to just take the flipping photo and then take another one without the person in it, and select THAT one. Of course, this is being written by the person who had SIL cropped out b/c there was no way to get a photo without her in it.

[AHASRADA]

The OP's point is well taken: Make sure, when having significant family photos done, that at least *some* are taken with family only, to preserve the memories of those most dear without "possibly temporary" family members spoiling it.

 

I also agree with the posters who suggest taking a variety of photos, including and excluding everyone at some point, so as not to hurt feelings. If someone pushes to be in every.last.photo? Push back.

 

Personally, this is one of those times where formality and tradition trumps anything else. People have the right to live their lives in the way they see fit, which may include dating, delaying marriage, long engagements, etc., and that is their prerogative. However, if they choose not to play by the "rules" of tradition, they should not expect the entire family to bend those rules to protect their feelings, unless every member of the family agrees with their liberal interpretation of a committed relationship. In my book, not married = not family. Period.

[TechWife]

What if she had been married to your nephew? Would you have found it appropriate for her to be in the pictures then? Seeing that between 30 and 50% of all marriages end in divorce, she may have been out of your nephew's life after three years as well.

 

Yes, spouses were in the pictures. It would be totally appropriate as it would have represented the family as it was at that time.

 

So, where do you draw the line?

 

This is easy: "I Do" - with full commitment - legal and otherwise.

 

If somebody in a picture bothered me so much: there is always photoshop.

I think you're missing the point.

[Wabi Sabi]

However, if they choose not to play by the "rules" of tradition, they should not expect the entire family to bend those rules to protect their feelings, unless every member of the family agrees with their liberal interpretation of a committed relationship. In my book, not married = not family. Period.

 

Even when there are children involved?

[Rosie_0801]

This is easy: "I Do" - with full commitment - legal and otherwise.

 

Perhaps you live somewhere common law marriages aren't legal? So what happens when someone is in a defacto relationships and has produced children for your family? Surely it's a bit weird to let blood relative and his children in the picture because they are real family, but the womb that carried them has to sit out because she's not real family?

 

Anyway, I think Mrs Mungo had great advice, and you can always do what my SIL does. She positions me at the end of the line so she can cut me off. It's a system that works. :lol:

 

Rosie

[TechWife]

:iagree: that when you are with someone for a long amount of time they become part of the "extended" family.

This was not a long term relationship, and this was the first time extended family had met her. She succeeded in turning everyone off w/in a very short period of time. She was not part of the family, extended or otherwise.

 

Had they been married she would have been expected to be in the pictures.

Yes, married is the operative word.

 

If they had divorced you'd still be upset that she was in them.

No, it would have been an accurate representation of the family as it was at that time

 

Photoshop does work wonders now.

That is not the point. There is no difference between looking @ a picture w/girl friend and looking @ a picture & thinking "I photoshopped girl friend right out of there." Both distract from being able to reminisce about family w/out distractions.

 

FWIW, I would have been very offended had I been the girlfriend and someone asked me to step out of the photos of a family I considered myself part of at that time.

Even if you were not considered family by anyone else? Really? I think it's presumptuous. I waited to be invited into pictures even after our engagement, as did my husband. I only automatically stepped in after the vows were said & the legalities were taken care of.

[Crissy]

It might matter more than you think it ever will.

 

Or it may not matter at all.

If only I had more photographs of my brother from the final years of his life, I wouldn't care who else might be in the picture.

Old girlfriends of second cousins? Fine.

Co-workers of Uncle Henry? Okay.

Sister's friends from high school? No problem.

After all, they were each important in this life for one reason or another.

Of course, they'd all just be background decoration. So long as the one I'm missing IS in the picture, I would cherish it.

[TechWife]

I don't like my brother-in-law. Can I insist he not be in family pictures because I don't want his face in there? He was separated from my sister for 5 years before they got back together; I still hope they will split up again.

 

If you are taking the picture, you can leave out whoever you want to leave out. I see no problem taking a picture of "Sis and the kids." If you propose to take a family picture and he is present, yes, he should be included.

 

Luckily, we take photos with "just the kids, no spouses" and "just the cousins, no spouses." So, I can have a photo with my sisters without him.

We do this as well, however it doesn't help the family photo scenario.

[TechWife]

I see no problem with a few pics like "cousins only" now "cousins and spouses" -- but to say categorically that potential future wives aren't allowed seems rather harsh.

 

I didn't say that. I said that they should wait to be invited.

[TechWife]

I certainly NEVER assume I am wanted in a photo though.

 

Thank you. This is it, exactly.

[OrganicAnn]

At our wedding, my husband's grandfather had just died a month earlier. The grandfather's live in girlfriend was invited to the wedding and managed to be in about all of the group pictures. She moved away soon after. I never really knew her (she was nice enough, but we just didn't know her and were not close to her). I can kinda of related to your situation, but I let things like that go - like water off a duck's back. A picture even with one stranger is better than no picture at all.

[Mrs Mungo]

If you are taking the picture, you can leave out whoever you want to leave out. I see no problem taking a picture of "Sis and the kids." If you propose to take a family picture and he is present, yes, he should be included.

 

So, when they were separated but still married...? What? I should have called him up and asked him to be in the photo or it would not really represent the family?

 

But, if they were happily living together without vows, he wouldn't be able to be in the photo?

 

I'm sorry, but your POV is just not making sense to me.

 

We do this as well, however it doesn't help the family photo scenario.

 

I think if they were living together, then she was part of the family as it was at the time. It sounds like your distaste of her and the situation has more to do with it than the lack of marriage certificate. Would a marriage certificate between them really change how you felt?

[TechWife]

Did they have a household together, or were they just roommates with benefits? It would be impolite to ask, and if it were the latter situation, he really ought not to have introduced her or brought her to the family reunion.

 

Actually, they lived together as a couple in his parents house. Don't get me started.

And having a household together is really the traditional definition of a marriage.

It is not this family's tradition.

 

How is the family supposed to treat this person?

 

As the girl friend of a family member, of course.

 

Do both people involved understand the situation the same way?

No idea, but it's not really relevant to the family photo situation.

[Murphy101]

Wait. Your nephew's dad died. Does your nephew have a problem with the girlfriend in the picture? If not. This sounds like a personal problem for you.

 

I've never been in any photo unless my dh asked me to join in it. That is true for girlfriend, engaged, and married with kids.

[TechWife]

So, when they were separated but still married...? What? I should have called him up and asked him to be in the photo or it would not really represent the family?

Notice, I said if you are taking a family photo and he is present. I didn't say he should be called if he wasn't there.

 

But, if they were happily living together without vows, he wouldn't be able to be in the photo?

 

Nope, I just said he shouldn't presume that he's wanted in the photo. If the pattern of family photo taking w/him had been established over a period of time, then that wouldn't be presuming.

 

I'm sorry, but your POV is just not making sense to me.

That's ok, your POV doesn't make sense to me, either. :tongue_smilie:

 

I think if they were living together, then she was part of the family as it was at the time.

No, that was not understanding at the time, not in this family anyway.

 

It sounds like your distaste of her and the situation has more to do with it than the lack of marriage certificate. Would a marriage certificate between them really change how you felt?

Yep - it would absolutely change. Like I said before, an accurate representation of the family is a great thing to have, even when it includes some not so favorite people and some not so fun memories.

[TechWife]

Wait. Your nephew's dad died. Does your nephew have a problem with the girlfriend in the picture? If not. This sounds like a personal problem for you.

 

Yes, that is correct, my nephew's dad died. I have no idea what nephew thinks of the picture.

 

Personal, yes - I would love to have a more current family photo. I doubt I am the only family member that feels this way. There is nothing wrong with personal, but that doesn't mean it's a problem.

[Mrs Mungo]

Nope, I just said he shouldn't presume that he's wanted in the photo.

 

LOL, that's the truth! ;)

 

 

That's ok, your POV doesn't make sense to me, either. :tongue_smilie:

 

I've known too many live-in girlfriends (some of whom have posted in this thread) that have lasted longer than wives. So...*shrug*.

 

I think Rosie's solution is a pretty good one, lol.

[TechWife]

I am very grateful - almost every day of my life - for the In-Laws I have and for the feeling of inclusion, love, and concern that they showed for me from the very beginning.

'Nuff said.

 

Me, too. I have a wonderful family.

[Bluegoat]

Actually, they lived together as a couple in his parents house. Don't get me started.

 

It is not this family's tradition.

 

 

 

As the girl friend of a family member, of course.

 

No idea, but it's not really relevant to the family photo situation.

 

 

When I saw traditional, I mean in the history of marriage.

 

In Europe, up through the middle ages, marriage was essentially when a couple made a promise to each other to enter a permanent familial relationship and then had a household together.

 

Marriage wasn't defined by some external legal action, but by the relation of the people involved and how they present themselves to the larger community.

 

The way we treat marriage and common law relationships in the West today grows out of that tradition, and it still reflects it in a lot of ways. A big part of it is that the legal document doesn't really create the relationship so much as reflect it or formalize it.

 

When two people live together and present themselves to the wider community without going through the normal legal processes, they may simply believe those processes are not useful/important, but in fact be just as committed and just as much a household as a married couple. The legal document changes nothing objectively in the relationship in that sense. Or, it may be that they haven't made that commitment for some reason, because they don't actually want to.

 

The family and community can only go by what the couple is saying themselves to judge this, by word or deed, because it is not the family that gets to make the commitment or can somehow know what the couple intends. If they are living together publicly, and presenting themselves as family at a family reunion, that says something pretty clear about whether they consider themselves to be a family.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Bluegoat

[TechWife]

When I saw traditional, I mean in the history of marriage.

 

In Europe, up through the middle ages, marriage was essentially when a couple made a promise to each other to enter a permanent familial relationship and then had a household together.

 

Marriage wasn't defined by some external legal action, but by the relation of the people involved and how they present themselves to the larger community.

 

I am well aware of this & have been for years. It does not change the fact that by this family's definition (which is a culturally acceptable, traditional and legal definition), this girl is not family.

 

The way we treat marriage and common law relationships in the West today grows out of that tradition, and it still reflects it in a lot of ways. A big part of it is that the legal document doesn't really create the relationship so much as reflect it or formalize it.

I believe that if a traditional male/female relationship is truly committed in our culture, then there should be no problem legally formalizing the relationship.

When two people live together and present themselves to the wider community without going through the normal legal processes, they may simply believe those processes are not useful/important, but in fact be just as committed and just as much a household as a married couple.

I disagree.

 

The legal document changes nothing objectively in the relationship in that sense. Or, it may be that they haven't made that commitment for some reason, because they don't actually want to.

So if they haven't committed to be family, then why would they want to be in a family photo?

 

The family and community can only go by what the couple is saying themselves to judge this, by word or deed, because it is not the family that gets to make the commitment or can somehow know what the couple intends. If they are living together publicly, and presenting themselves as family at a family reunion, that says something pretty clear about whether they consider themselves to be a family.

No, it says a lot of things, but it doesn't mean they necessarily consider themselves to be family.

[TechWife]

At our wedding, my husband's grandfather had just died a month earlier. The grandfather's live in girlfriend was invited to the wedding and managed to be in about all of the group pictures. She moved away soon after. I never really knew her (she was nice enough, but we just didn't know her and were not close to her). I can kinda of related to your situation, but I let things like that go - like water off a duck's back. A picture even with one stranger is better than no picture at all.

 

I have let it go & we are grateful for every single picture we have. My intent here was simply to point out that people who are not family members should not presume to take privileges that belong to family members. One of those privileges is being included in family pictures.

[TechWife]

Perhaps you live somewhere common law marriages aren't legal? So what happens when someone is in a defacto relationships and has produced children for your family? Surely it's a bit weird to let blood relative and his children in the picture because they are real family, but the womb that carried them has to sit out because she's not real family?

 

Anyway, I think Mrs Mungo had great advice, and you can always do what my SIL does. She positions me at the end of the line so she can cut me off. It's a system that works. :lol:

 

Rosie

 

Please read my original post. I never said that non family members could not be in family pictures. I simply said that they should wait to be invited to be in the picture. As I also said earlier (in a different post), if a pattern is established that includes a specific person in family pictures, that the person is no longer presuming that they are welcome, they know that they are welcome.

[higginszoo]

The picture on my wall of my extended family is 7 years old, taken at my grandfather's 80th birthday (his last). My brother's then-girlfriend was included in the picture, and at the time, I thought how awkward it would be if things didn't work out. Fortunately, they did, and they got married that next winter. But I didn't really know how to broach the subject at the time. My dh had to work and didn't come on that trip, so when I set up the picture, I had in mind my brothers and I, my 3 dc (I was newly pg with #4 and constantly running to the bathroom). Then my parents decided that they wanted to be in the picture, and then my grandparents ... and then someone decided that it was awkward to have my brother's girlfriend just watching (to her credit, she refuted this, but was kind of forced into the picture ... by my grandmother, I think.) But if they'd broken up, especially if he'd married someone else, would I still be able to have that photo on my wall?

[Bluegoat]

I am well aware of this & have been for years. It does not change the fact that by this family's definition (which is a culturally acceptable, traditional and legal definition), this girl is not family.

 

I believe that if a traditional male/female relationship is truly committed in our culture, then there should be no problem legally formalizing the relationship.

 

Clearly it wasn't the definition of your relative who brought his live in gf to the family function.

 

I think that there are in most cases many good reasons to use the legal processes, and I think people probably shouldn't live together unless they are at the point that they are willing to make that kind of commitment.

 

But that doesn't mean that everyone else thinks that is true, and it doesn't mean that somehow the larger family gets to impose that on all of their members. Well, I suppose they could, but they would have to be willing to say that family was mostly about adherence to the family culture.

 

I disagree.

 

It isn't really an issue to disagree about. Objectively it is the case that people can be equally, or even more, committed to a relationship without the legal papers. Just as some people who do get married may not in fact be committed at all. If you look around you can easily find many examples of both kinds of people.

 

 

So if they haven't committed to be family, then why would they want to be in a family photo?

 

Probably they wouldn't. That is why wanting to be in the photo as a family is a good sign they are thinking of themselves as a family.

 

 

No, it says a lot of things, but it doesn't mean they necessarily consider themselves to be family.

 

There is a difference between necessarily, and probably. Unless you want to ask them right out, you have to go by the signs they are giving you. Are they presenting themselves as family, or not.

[Haiku]

Given that many long term couples who are madly in love are not even legally allowed to marry in most states, I can't imagine rejecting someone just because they aren't married yet. Love is love, and that piece of paper doesn't change much in my eyes.

 

A-yup.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

In my book, not married = not family. Period.

 

Wow, that's such a limitation on love ... and I don't mean between the couple in question.

 

Tara

[Moxie]

From family photos to gay rights in 3 easy steps!!

[Mommyof4ks]

I have been married for 13 years, and I am still normally not invited to be in pix, so hurt feelings can go either way lol.