Anonymous wrote:I never said anything about grandchildren and you are comparing minor children to a self sufficient adult. Apples to oranges.

I can't forever pay for ALL travel for my children, their spouses and children so per DCUM, I wont see them unless I travel to them and only if my DIL allows the visit.

with this attitude you aren’t going to see your kids and grandkids often, true.

Anonymous wrote:I never said anything about grandchildren and you are comparing minor children to a self sufficient adult. Apples to oranges.

I can't forever pay for ALL travel for my children, their spouses and children so per DCUM, I wont see them unless I travel to them and only if my DIL allows the visit.

But you said you'd only pay for your son. So I'm pointing out how this could be viewed by the DIL (or future DIL) as poor treatment. My IL considered me family as soon as they knew we were serious, same with my family.
So yes, it is fair to say once you have grandkids are you NOT going to pay for DIL/SIL but pay for everyone else? Obviously you are not paying for anyone, but lets assume you could afford it, would you pay for DIL/SO? Or just "family".

Obviously nobody expects their parents and IL to pay for everything, but if you are paying for your kid and not their partner, then that is strange and don't be surprised if the partner is not a fan of having you around much...I don't like to be around people who treat me like crap and 2nd class citizen

For those of you that travel with friends, do you pay for your own way or do you say you'll come but only if they pay for you?

I never said anything about grandchildren and you are comparing minor children to a self sufficient adult. Apples to oranges.

I can't forever pay for ALL travel for my children, their spouses and children so per DCUM, I wont see them unless I travel to them and only if my DIL allows the visit.

Anonymous wrote:If I offer money for travel to my child, why does that offer extend to an adult women that is not my child? Weird expectation from an unrelated adult to another adult.

So once there are grandkids in the picture you are gonna offer to full pay for your son and the 2 grandkids, but sorry the wife/SO is on their own? Because they are your child's SO makes them by extension "family". Or at least that is how it is in my family/that of most of my friends.

If I offer money for travel to my child, why does that offer extend to an adult women that is not my child? Weird expectation from an unrelated adult to another adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who "hate" their In-laws typically have IL who try to control everything or who are not inclusive. The people I know who love their ILs have ILs who include them and treat them as if they are family, because they are. Treat people with respect and as adults and you will likely be treated similarly.

Only if you can afford to pay for everything otherwise count them out.

What an attitude---you must be really fun at parties

What does being fun a parties have anything to do with the women here expecting/demanding the the ILs pay for them to attend family events as girlfriends, not even engaged? Zero. Pay to play right?

No one is entitled to anything. But if a family offers to full pay for their son (or daughter), then they should seriously consider offering to pay for the SO as well. Or say "we are paying for meals and activities and lodging for everyone, travel is on you guys". Don't separate out the SO. It's simply not good practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who "hate" their In-laws typically have IL who try to control everything or who are not inclusive. The people I know who love their ILs have ILs who include them and treat them as if they are family, because they are. Treat people with respect and as adults and you will likely be treated similarly.

Only if you can afford to pay for everything otherwise count them out.

What an attitude---you must be really fun at parties

What does being fun a parties have anything to do with the women here expecting/demanding the the ILs pay for them to attend family events as girlfriends, not even engaged? Zero. Pay to play right?

Anonymous wrote:I would be OK if she came along but only on the condition of separate bedrooms.

…says a prim, tight-lipped member of the generation who took us over the 50% divorce rate threshold.

No ring no bring

Anonymous wrote:I would be OK if she came along but only on the condition of separate bedrooms.

Okay. Your family your rules but they are living together so a rather moot point.

Anonymous wrote:I would be OK if she came along but only on the condition of separate bedrooms.

And with that request, you would likely ensure you don't see much of your son, his GF and if they remain together any future grandkids. They are grown adults, living together, and not likely to come visit you if you put crazy rules in place. Its fine for you to have the rules if you really want, but it's also fine for them to say, yeah don't care to spend time with you since you don't respect us

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who "hate" their In-laws typically have IL who try to control everything or who are not inclusive. The people I know who love their ILs have ILs who include them and treat them as if they are family, because they are. Treat people with respect and as adults and you will likely be treated similarly.

Only if you can afford to pay for everything otherwise count them out.

What an attitude---you must be really fun at parties

I would be OK if she came along but only on the condition of separate bedrooms.

Anonymous wrote:
The people who "hate" their In-laws typically have IL who try to control everything or who are not inclusive. The people I know who love their ILs have ILs who include them and treat them as if they are family, because they are. Treat people with respect and as adults and you will likely be treated similarly.

Only if you can afford to pay for everything otherwise count them out.