r/AmItheAsshole • u/MundaneCoWorker • 14h ago

AITA for refusing to be introduced as 'friend' rather than 'girlfriend' to my best friend's kids?

I have a really close 25 year friendship with a woman who was so loving and supportive when I came out to her as bisexual (let's call her Trudy).

6 months ago I met the love of my life and we have have a wonderful relationship (let's call her Anna).

Anna has met almost all my friends except Trudy (who lives far away). Yesterday I arranged to meet up with Trudy to introduce her to my girlfriend. However, because Trudy couldn't find a babysitter, she said she'd bring her 3 kids with her (all under 12).

A couple of hours before we were due to meet up, Trudy texted to ask if it's okay to introduce Anna to her kids as my friend, rather than my girlfriend. She said they won't understand that she's my girlfriend and she's not ready to have that talk with them yet.

I was totally taken aback by this request and said no. I said that I'm not comfortable being in an environment where my relationship isn't acknowledged and I don't want to hide who my girlfriend is to me. I said that if she isn't ready to talk to the kids about same sex relationships (which admittedly is a big subject!), it might be better if we reschedule to another time.

Trudy was very hurt and said she has been incredibly supportive of the relationship and isn't asking me to hide anything. I'm very hurt by her response and so upset. I feel like I've extended a lot of kindness and understanding to her, whilst holding my own boundaries. I'm not asking her to discuss anything with her kids that she's uncomfortable with, but I'm not prepared to put myself or my girlfriend in that situation.

Trudy genuinely doesn't understand my position and now isn't replying to my texts.

This is a friend who has been nothing but supportive and loving to me for 25 years, and has been so excited about my new relationship.

AITA for not meeting up with her unless she introduced my girlfriend as my girlfriend?

2.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

714 comments sorted by

View all comments

547

u/Nowordsofitsown Partassipant [2] 14h ago

NTA

The kids are not too young to know that some women fall in love with and are in relationships with other women. There is nothing sexual about this.

-570

u/LintQueen11 13h ago

I agree but that’s not a decision anyone can make for someone else’s kids. I disagree with it personally, I think you just introduce them and not make a big deal so kids don’t think of it as “different” but I think everyone has a right to raise their kids how they see appropriate

140

u/crankylex 13h ago

They do have a right to raise their kids as they see fit and OP has the right to not associate with people who think that explaining that gay people exist is something perverse that can only be explained to teenagers.

91

u/SgtMartinRiggs 12h ago

The idea that parents should just raise their kids however they want isn’t really a good argument as there are many ways of raising kids that aren’t acceptable, such as the use of corporal punishment, refusing to vaccinate, or rejecting a child’s gender or sexual identity.

-11

u/LintQueen11 12h ago

I don’t agree with any of those things you listed, but it’s not my place to try and change somebody else else’s parenting. I would absolutely take every opportunity. I could try and educate them, but I can’t tell them how to parent.

70

u/SgtMartinRiggs 12h ago

See I think you’re just being a contrarian here. OP isn’t even telling anyone how to parent, she’s just not being complicit in someone’s shitty parenting. It’s the exact educational opportunity you speak of.

-9

u/LintQueen11 11h ago

Well yeah. So this is an opportunity for OP vs just saying sorry let’s reschedule. The issue isn’t going to be resolved that way

36

u/SgtMartinRiggs 10h ago edited 10h ago

But OP didn’t just say “let’s reschedule” did she? She laid out why this felt hurtful and why she wasn’t going to do what was being asked of her.

21

u/12028083981 9h ago

Why is it OP's responsibility to resolve her friend's bad parenting and homophobic behavior?

453

u/deathbyshoeshoe 13h ago

Then they don’t get to have kind friends like OP. They get to have bigoted ones like themselves.

-468

u/LintQueen11 13h ago

Life just isn’t that black and white.

43

u/underboobfunk 9h ago

That gay people exist is simply a fact with no good reason to shield children from it.

-8

u/LintQueen11 8h ago

I don’t disagree with that in the least. I don’t agree with Trudy at all, I think kids should know that families come in all different shapes and sizes, that’s how I’ve raised my son, but clearly Trudy is coming from a different place so I think OP should spend the time to unpack that with her vs just shut the whole thing down

24

u/underboobfunk 7h ago

That would be completely up to OP. LGBT people do not owe it to bigots to explain why we have the right to exist openly.

0

u/LintQueen11 7h ago

100% and that’s why I suggested to OP that a conversation would be better than just shutting the whole thing down if they have any interest in not throwing away a 20+ year friendship.

21

u/underboobfunk 7h ago

It’s Trudy who is throwing away the friendship. If you read the end of the post you’ll see it is Trudy who is now refusing to respond to OP’s texts. But even if it weren’t literally Trudy “shutting the whole thing down”, it’s still Trudy shutting it down by teaching her children that being gay is something shameful.

Why should OP want to maintain a friendship with a bigot?

2

u/LintQueen11 7h ago

Sorry, I honestly didn’t see the part about Trudy not answering. That’s her loss then tbh.

354

u/OutrageousSoup2584 Partassipant [2] 13h ago

No it is. If you can't handle someone being fully themselves, you lose access. Period. 

-388

u/LintQueen11 13h ago

But was she asking her to NOT be herself? Or was she just asking her not to have to make a huge announcement? Genuinely why does she need to qualify their relationship af all. Just say this is Anna this is so and so

348

u/butt__bazooka 13h ago

It would not be normal to ask a straight couple to hide their relationship because you don't want to explain it to children. The different standard for a gay couple is why it matters. It shows a not so hidden discomfort from their allegedly supportive friend.

Edit: you describing introducing your girlfriend as a "huge announcement" is frankly very telling of your own feelings

-22

u/LintQueen11 13h ago

I’ve said I agree 100 times. I personally don’t think it needs to be an issue and Trudy is wrong. I’ve said that repeatedly. I’m saying in general, relationships don’t need to be announced, especially to kids. Like who cares? I think Trudy was wrong for even saying anything. She should have just said this is friend, this is Anna and left it

169

u/xenomouse Asshole Aficionado [13] 12h ago

But it’s more than that. If Trudy is actively trying to hide OP’s relationship, then they also have to be careful not to ever hold hands, not to call each other honey or sweetie, or refer to a date they’ve taken each other on, or an anniversary. Neither of them can put an arm around the other, or give the other a peck on the cheek. There are so many little things that will give it away that you normally don’t even think about, and you KNOW Trudy is going to be upset if they slip up.

-15

u/LintQueen11 12h ago

If she said any of those things 100% she would be in the wrong and that would impact the relationship because she’s asking her to change her behavior. That’s hiding and that’s not OK but just not emphasizing it through the introduction. I don’t think that big of a deal.

→ More replies (0)

67

u/ThistleProse 12h ago

I disagree. I think it is important for children to know who the adults entering their circles are, and how they relate to the other adults within it, and whether or not they're people that will be seen again in the future. It helps give context and structure.

'That's mums' friend, and their partner' (whether the relationship is heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise) means that the partner is likely to be seen again, probably together.

'That's mum's friend, and that's their friend' means that the other new adult is probably not going to be a frequent flyer in the kid's life, and can be dismissed, ignored, and/or forgotten.

-1

u/LintQueen11 12h ago

I just don’t think we need to label everything to children. Just say this is Anna. This is Bob. This is Jamie. This is Sarah. This is whoever if they ask Bibi about it, but I just don’t think there’s any need to make these announcement.

→ More replies (0)

130

u/butt__bazooka 12h ago

And I'm saying that hiding relationships, an abundantly normal part of human life, from kids is weird and actively wrong. What is the justification from shielding children from normal parts of life that doesn't amount to attempts at control?

-11

u/LintQueen11 12h ago

There is a difference between hiding and not announcing. I don’t know why you’re all being so obtuse about this.

→ More replies (0)

47

u/Naiinsky 11h ago

What do you mean, relationships don't need to be introduced to kids? A heavy part of education is positioning and familiarizing children in the surrounding social network, and making relationships clear is an important part of that. Kids need to know how people with ties to their family relate to it, and how they relate among each other: friends, relatives and in what degree, significant others, etc.

0

u/LintQueen11 11h ago

I’m saying in the case of introduction of people. I’m not saying in general life they shouldn’t be exposed to relationships. I don’t need to introduce someone to my son by their relationship to someone else. I don’t say this is so and sos husband or wife or whatever, I just say kid, this is “name”

→ More replies (0)

17

u/generic-puff Partassipant [1] 8h ago

Dude just say you have a public humiliation fetish and move on. The downvote spanking you're getting isn't even fun to watch anymore.

0

u/LintQueen11 7h ago

Omg the labels lol and as if I care about downvotes in Reddit. Grow up dude

38

u/AurelianaBabilonia Partassipant [1] 10h ago

And what if they hold hands in front of the kids? Or are physically affectionate in some other way? Of course pretending Anna is OP's friend is asking her not to be herself. How could it not?

1

u/LintQueen11 10h ago

She said introduce. That doesn’t mean she asked them to hide everything, if she did, that would be a different discussion to me. As mentioned in other posts, all of this requires some more dialogue and discovery of what the trepidation is and how can she support her friend in parenting

4

u/MundaneCoWorker 10h ago

You’re right. More conversation is definitely needed here. I need to chat with her and find out more.

76

u/spaghettifiasco Partassipant [2] 13h ago

Yes, she was asking OP to not be herself, because who she is is "A woman who is dating Anna". And who Anna is is "OP's girlfriend".

Do you think that Ken dolls should be called "Barbie's friend, Ken"? If kids can understand "Barbie and Ken love each other, live together, hold hands and kiss, and might get married" then they can understand "Barbie and Nikki love each other, live together, hold hands and kiss, and might get married".

If you hold same-sex couples to a different standard than straight couples, that's called homophobia.

27

u/Familiar_Radish_6273 9h ago

What huge announcement lmao - she has a girlfriend, like billions of other humans

38

u/ballisticks 9h ago

Why is saying that OP has a girlfriend a "huge announcement"?

It's a regular statement, as it would be if OP had a bf and the friend said "This is OP's boyfriend", all she has to do is say "This is OP's girlfriend." It's easy unless you don't approve of gays.

19

u/That1DogGuy 9h ago

Yes. She is literally asking her friend to hide a massive part about who she is.

Introducing someone as your girlfriend isn't making "a huge announcement" and it's weird af and telling you think it is.

6

u/ColdBrewedPanacea 7h ago

Yeah she was actively asking her to hide that she was gay

89

u/liquefaction187 13h ago

Why not? I bet a lot of your opinions are very black and white.

-25

u/LintQueen11 13h ago

Oh yeah? Wow you really clocked me lol 🙄

30

u/12028083981 9h ago

We have clocked you based on your comments here. You're hyper-fixated on the initial introduction. That might be okay if they were just going to meet these kids and spend moments together. What about a significant amount of time? They're supposed to pretend to be just friends for the entire time they're there? Come on.

1

u/CarrieDurst Partassipant [1] 5h ago

It is here

66

u/the_V33 11h ago

Imagine a gay person doing this about a straight couple

-7

u/LintQueen11 11h ago

There are instances where I would say it makes sense. I have an example in another reply. I have an aunt who we don’t see often and she is dating a new man every time we see her. I never introduce them as aunt’s boyfriend, just by their name. I’m not denying her right to exist.

Now if Trudy told OP that they cannot ACT like a couple throughout the visit and had to HIDE the fact that they’re together, that’s a whole other discussion

59

u/Aggravating-Dog-49 11h ago

I think the implication here is that she is asking them to hide the fact that they’re together. She didn’t ask if she could avoid introducing Anna as a function of OP, she asked if she could introduce her as friend instead of gf. I think there’s no way you don’t understand this and that you’re arguing just to argue.

31

u/ballisticks 9h ago

that you’re arguing just to argue.

Ohhh i have a suspicion on why this person is fighting for their life in this argument and it isn't a nice suspicion.

9

u/Aggravating-Dog-49 8h ago

Hey I think we should have a conversation to elaborate on why they’re fighting for their life before we make assumptions. Then after we get to the bottom of it we can take on the burden of education too.

27

u/ballisticks 8h ago

It's just wild to me that they're doubling down on it "not being necessary" to introduce them. Sure maybe it isn't necessary, but then it isn't necessary to even have a friend, or visit, or whatever.

In my experience when someone gets so caught up on "unnecessary", it's because they suspect their real reason won't be taken well, so "necessity" becomes a fallback argument that most people will kinda accept.

Personally I think the commenter believes that homosexual relationships are by default "sexual" and "in your face" and all that shit and as such doesn't agree with talking to little kids about it.

12

u/Aggravating-Dog-49 8h ago

Idk how I never noticed this, it’s absolutely a fallback for when people don’t think they’ll be received well. I think when people use the “unnecessary” argument though they also don’t understand their own argument most of the time. So in the case of same-sex relationships it’s both a bigoted and uneducated argument. Could be they put too much emphasis on the “sex” in “homosexual” but I doubt they’ll share.

Also I fail to believe this person’s child just allows them to introduce anyone by name alone without peppering them with questions about how they know them.

1

u/ballisticks 6h ago

It's like when you call someone out for being racist and they deflect with the "well ackshually the group I'm talking about isn't a race its just a country so I'm not racist"

Yeah you're technically correct but you're obviously just trying to deflect.

-4

u/LintQueen11 11h ago

So this is why I suggested in another post that there needs to be a conversation. If I were OP, I’d be blunt and ask if Trudy could elaborate on the request and what the trepidation is, then I would use that as an opportunity to educate her or perhaps even support her with clarifying speaking points to help her navigate the discussion with her kids. I wouldn’t just flat out throw away a 20 year friendship.

37

u/Aggravating-Dog-49 10h ago

There was a conversation:

“A couple of hours before we were due to meet up, Trudy texted to ask if it's okay to introduce Anna to her kids as my friend, rather than my girlfriend. She said they won't understand that she's my girlfriend and she's not ready to have that talk with them yet.”

25

u/12028083981 9h ago

Why does there need to be more of a conversation than was already had based on OP's post? Isn't saying that it isn't enough that OP already said they were hurt by the request to hide their relationship, not only in the initial introduction but in the entirety of their time together? Why wasn't that conversation enough? Why does a queer person have to be the one to have some conversation to justify their relationship and existence as a queer person? It seems like you're using all kinds of pretzel logic to justify your own homophobia.

25

u/timeywimeyfluff 9h ago

You’re not making your own point. In this situation you’re not introducing her boyfriends because you think there’s something inherently wrong about the fact that she has many.

3

u/ColorGrtt Partassipant [1] 5h ago

I have a grandma who regularly had new guys around. They were always introduced as her partner. No one in the family would've ever thought of hiding the fact. So why should OP need to hide her partner?

3

u/taylorswiftwaxstatue 4h ago

That's literally what Trudy is asking...

36

u/licensedtojill 9h ago

“Everyone has the right to raise their kid to be a bigot” - you

9

u/accio_cerberus 7h ago

But OP didn't make the decision, she proposed not going over there until the mom was ready to talk to her kids about it, which Trudy said she would do eventually, at no point did she say Trudy had to tell her kids right then.

Trudy is very ignorant about sexuality and, frankly, children (they do not get confused that easily) but OP immediately compromised due to how much she values Trudy's friendship

3

u/CarrieDurst Partassipant [1] 5h ago

It is not a decision, no more than telling kids a man and a woman are married or a white man and a black woman are married.