Grad's GF - Fam Pics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha when one of our daughters got married our younger daughter had a serious boyfriend. We took some photos with him and some without him that we joked were for “insurance” and he laughed along. They ended up getting married and we threw out the ones without him.

+1.
This is the way civilized people handle it. In this day of digital photography, a few extra prints means being kind to an outsider.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha when one of our daughters got married our younger daughter had a serious boyfriend. We took some photos with him and some without him that we joked were for “insurance” and he laughed along. They ended up getting married and we threw out the ones without him.

James Comey once told a similar story in an interview - his adult dd's boyfriend was at his swearing in as FBI Director and they took a family portrait with the president. Then Obama said, "Okay, and one without the boyfriend just in case" clearly as a joke but they did indeed take one without him. (And his dd wound up marrying the guy.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Family" means different things to different people. My in-laws don't include extras in the family photo until they are married. I spent Christmas with his family while we were engaged - just a few months shy of our wedding - and I'm not in that family photo. I am in the one from the following year. My in-laws are wonderful people, we get along great, they are warm and loving and welcoming. But their tradition is that the "family photo" is ... just family. It's a clear line, nobody has to wonder who "counts" or worry that one kid's SO is being treated differently from another's.

In other words, the photo thing is only a big deal if you are reading more into it than just the photo.

That is beyond bizarre that your ILs didn't allow their son's fiancee in the family photo.

100%

This, I could even see leaving out a girlfriend of a year or two, but a fiancee "a few months shy" of the wedding? Wtf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Family" means different things to different people. My in-laws don't include extras in the family photo until they are married. I spent Christmas with his family while we were engaged - just a few months shy of our wedding - and I'm not in that family photo. I am in the one from the following year. My in-laws are wonderful people, we get along great, they are warm and loving and welcoming. But their tradition is that the "family photo" is ... just family. It's a clear line, nobody has to wonder who "counts" or worry that one kid's SO is being treated differently from another's.

In other words, the photo thing is only a big deal if you are reading more into it than just the photo.

That is beyond bizarre that your ILs didn't allow their son's fiancee in the family photo.

100%

This, I could even see leaving out a girlfriend of a year or two, but a fiancee "a few months shy" of the wedding? Wtf?

Instead of genuinely rooting for healthy relationships to grow, our society subconsciously wants young couples to break up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha when one of our daughters got married our younger daughter had a serious boyfriend. We took some photos with him and some without him that we joked were for “insurance” and he laughed along. They ended up getting married and we threw out the ones without him.

James Comey once told a similar story in an interview - his adult dd's boyfriend was at his swearing in as FBI Director and they took a family portrait with the president. Then Obama said, "Okay, and one without the boyfriend just in case" clearly as a joke but they did indeed take one without him. (And his dd wound up marrying the guy.)

That’s pretty funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha ha when one of our daughters got married our younger daughter had a serious boyfriend. We took some photos with him and some without him that we joked were for “insurance” and he laughed along. They ended up getting married and we threw out the ones without him.

James Comey once told a similar story in an interview - his adult dd's boyfriend was at his swearing in as FBI Director and they took a family portrait with the president. Then Obama said, "Okay, and one without the boyfriend just in case" clearly as a joke but they did indeed take one without him. (And his dd wound up marrying the guy.)

That is hilarious!

[Anonymous]

We have a bunch of photos from my niece’s wedding that we all think would have been better without my brother’s long-term girlfriend (they were in their 50s). They broke up a year after the wedding and none of talk to her. We should have at least taken some without her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Family" means different things to different people. My in-laws don't include extras in the family photo until they are married. I spent Christmas with his family while we were engaged - just a few months shy of our wedding - and I'm not in that family photo. I am in the one from the following year. My in-laws are wonderful people, we get along great, they are warm and loving and welcoming. But their tradition is that the "family photo" is ... just family. It's a clear line, nobody has to wonder who "counts" or worry that one kid's SO is being treated differently from another's.

In other words, the photo thing is only a big deal if you are reading more into it than just the photo.

That's ridiculous. Maybe this made sense in the era of film etc, but with digital cameras, taking one extra photo with the GF is hardly an issue. Also photoshop exists should they break up and you want to remove her.

My mother's attitude was always "this is just a snapshot of our family at the time". We had formal family photos taken when my grandmother was clearly declining. The group shot had my cousin's fiance in it and my brother's then long time girlfriend. The photographer offered some without her, but my mom declined. They've all been married over 20 years at this point. And the good will goes much further than any pettiness.

[Anonymous]

It’s rude and hurtful. They could’ve taken pictures with any subset.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think it is rude and antiquated, but people often are. i advise my daughter not to live with her boyfriend prior to marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s rude and hurtful. They could’ve taken pictures with any subset.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I think it is rude and antiquated, but people often are. i advise my daughter not to live with her boyfriend prior to marriage.

That's also rude and antiquated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the good will goes much further than any pettiness.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s rude and hurtful. They could’ve taken pictures with any subset.

+1

[Anonymous]

I think its rude and ridiculous. Engagements and marriages also break and often in bitter ways. Rings and papers doesn't solidify relationships, love and care does.