ShareThis Page
Husband pressures introvert into another uncomfortable vacation with the in-laws | TribLIVE.com
More Lifestyles

Husband pressures introvert into another uncomfortable vacation with the in-laws

Carolyn Hax
| Monday, February 4, 2019 1:30 a.m

Adapted from a recent online discussion.

Dear Carolyn:

About three years ago my husband and I (no kids) went on a big vacation with my husband’s family. I REALLY wasn’t interested in going but his mother had pushed for a family trip for a long time, his father had just gotten over cancer, and it coincided with a big anniversary for his parents. I told my husband I was happy to do it this one time.

We went, it was fine, but afterward I maintained that I had no intention of making this a regular thing.

Well, now an even bigger anniversary approaches and tentative discussion for the trip has started as though it’s already a given. I don’t want to go! I didn’t feel comfortable the whole week we were together. Before that trip I had mentioned my fear of never getting alone time, but my husband promised we would do our own thing as much as we wanted. Instead we ate every meal as a group, and if we ever hinted we’d go off to do something alone, then everyone else would tag along anyway.

When I said I wouldn’t do it again, he said I was being selfish. So now I don’t know what to do. How do I make it clear to my husband that I’m not going on this — or any — trip? We all live near each other so it’s not like it’s an excuse to spend quality time together.

— Leave Me Home Alone

Well wait — what did he say about the broken promise of some alone time?

I realize the issue is macro and I’m going micro, but couples do manage to make such differences work when they find ways to compromise. And, it should go without saying, when they honor those agreements.

You agreed to Big Trip I based on a promise of alone time, and he reneged.

So you have that as a valid objection to Big Trip II. And his calling you “selfish” after he reneged is rich, because how is it not selfish of him to insist on your misery just to get what he wants?

Of course, when you’re launching selfishness accusations at each other like marital darts, you’re both losing the argument, so let’s back up for a second.

You said you wouldn’t agree to trips as a “regular thing.” It’s three years. Not unreasonable. So first think of ways to go, not ways to opt out.

Start by asking him to describe how closely he thought the last trip aligned with what you’d agreed to. No sarcasm, just, “I want to understand how you see this.” Then give your view as needed, with examples. Then suggest changes for this time — ones you don’t need him to make happen. Build in access to your own transportation — rented car, bike, kayak, unicycle, anything. Or suggest doing half the trip — planning upfront to arrive late or leave early. Or talk to your in-laws? Maybe one of them understands introversion better than your husband does.

Any cooperation means you can work toward agreement from there.

No cooperation means, as always, your problems are bigger than this trip, so solutions would have to be, too. Think communication, mutual respect for differences, boundaries — and counseling, if you’re building any of these from scratch.


Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com, follow her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/carolyn.hax or chat with her online at noon Eastern time each Friday at www.washingtonpost.com.


Email Carolyn at tellme@washpost.com, follow her on Facebook or chat with her online at noon each Friday at washingtonpost.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.