The whole, 'I might think differently about you,' part sounded really shitty to me. A 46 year old who's known someone for years already 1) shouldn't feel that way about their friend/girlfriend and 2) should know better than to say so if they do. Doesn't sound like someone who cares about the L-dub's feelings.

How are these people 35 and 46?

This woman sounds clingy and emotionally needy AF, and if the boyfriend is ambivalent or having second thought about getting involved, I can't say I blame him.

@3 Yeah. That too.

She never said her family was awful. She just said they were conservative and narrow minded. Does that equate to 'awful' in your mind, Dan? If so, who's being narrow minded here?

I got the strong vibe from the letter that the boyfriend isn't really that into LW, but has always liked her as a friend and feels like he "owes" her a trial as a relationship. When you're truly into somebody, you might get smacked upside the head by events that make you think differently about them, but you don't generally look for that around every corner.

@2 - while perhaps not your point, their ages caused me to reflect as well. In my experience, as you age it becomes easier to figure out more quickly whether you are compatible with a potential "partner". The complication here is that they are shifting from one type of relationship to another, as pointed out by ciods @6.

I don't necessarily agree with Dan about five months being "too soon" for somewhat older folks to take this step (they are quite a bit younger than I am, however!) but its the ambivalence that puts the kibosh on the holiday family trip. Let this simmer is what I'm hearing Dan say, and I agree with that.

I agree with everything Dan said, except the last part about possibly not going home to visit family. I think PARTNER should definitely go home if only to see the grandparents. She is lucky to have had them into their 90's. If grandma and grandpa still live on their own in their own home and they have an extra bedroom she should consider staying with them. But in the grands are now in something like assisted living then she should stay with her parents but have a backup plan like staying in a hotel if things really go south. Leave the boyfriend behind for this visit.

I get the feeling he's having second thoughts in general really. It's a pretty big change from 'I think so yes' to ... Okay let's be blunt here.

He thinks that seeing her with her family will change how he looks at her which means these feelings are already cooking they just haven't come to the surface yet (out of his mouth exactly).

Ex that he couldn't get over for 10 years tells me that he's broken and she will always own his heart. Not much you could do about it short of giving him his fantasy sex life 24/7/365 which is her actually.

Damn this is a lot of baggage can we charge them for the extra bags?

@1 Yeah, that part sounded really suspect to me as well. The only thing that seems plausible is if she passively goes along with it when her family says racist, phobic or other shitty things. Or even joins in as a way to fit in and avoid conflict. Some people fall back into childhood roles around their families of origin.

Perhaps after a years -long friendship he sees it as possible and the truth slipped out. They're not really in the getting-to-know-you stage, after all.

@3: Conservative + Narrow-Minded = Awful. That's just math.

UGH. First, don't subject ANYONE to your shitty family if you can barely stand them yourself. It's just basic human decency. Second, your 46 year old boyfriend is not into you and you should dump the motherfucker already. He may like having sex with you (you're a warm body in which to insert his penis), but he certainly does not seem to be invested in anything beyond that. AMBIVALENT MEN ARE THE WORST. Read up on it, FFS. Oh and go visit your grandparents some other time, outside of the holidays, stay in hotel and away from the rest of your family. Life is too short for all of this bullshit done out of obligation.

LW is 35 and she still needs a boyfriend crutch to tolerate a weekend with her “not hostile, just conservative and narrow-minded” family? Run like the wind, boyfriend! Your ambivalence Is well founded. And Xina@12, “ambivalent man” in this case seems to be giving this LW (who is pushing for a emotionally-fraught family visit 5 months into a relationship he obviously has doubts about) more than a fair shake given that she is his rebound after a ten year relationship ended (does that ever work out? Rarely.) I have been that ambivalent man, and it’s usually because my subconscious was screaming, “Don’t stick your dick in crazy!”

@13 nailed it. Start working on the most important relationship in your life - the one with yourself.

@11: Obviously they're not awful. People can still be sociable and pleasant at the holidays regardless of their political dispositions. She wants to see the older ones before they pass on, as they're in their 90s. We are bred to be polite people, Dan.

If they were "awful", the LW wouldn't have suggested seeing them for the holidays. Are you implying LW is misguided in the evaluation of her own relatives? Would your advice be different if her parents were Meryl Streep and Michael Moore?

Some days Dan does a pretty fair Captain Awkward imitation.

First off correct me if I'm wrong but lw never specified their gender. This read like a gay couple to me. Which is why I thought the parents being conservative was such a problem. Second, Dan really pissed me off with refusing to use the word partner and bolding the word boyfriend. Partner is a non gender specific word. And it's the best one we have right now. Not to mention it's just an asshole move to refuse to use the method of referring to someone's partner that they prefer you to use. (See? Partner. Just a non gendered word that can be used in the place of girlfriend/boyfriend.) Highlighting it and shoving it in the person's face is even worse.

I think the word partner, Username confidential, @18, has usually referred to someone who one is deeply emotionally and financially entwined with. Is this possible after five months? The word has been corrupted to include the person you started dating x moments ago. For some, Dan being one, it’s hard to let go of the general expectation about what that word means.

And I think Dan is shoving it in her face because she’s shoving it in his. It’s a woman writing, that’s my feeling. And using Partner every three words doesn’t make it so.
LW, this man has told you his feelings so respect them or he’ll be ex whatever to you soon.
You may have had a friendship established before you became lovers, it’s still new territory in terms of a romantic relationship and even I feel your claustrophobic vibe, and I’m just subjected to your words in a letter.
If you want this relationship to continue, shut it now about Xmas and any ‘ but you promised’ bull, then go face your toxic family yourself. See the people you learnt your intimacy patterns from. It might help you wake up to yourself.

LW doesn’t matter if it’s five months of five or fifty yrs, if a partner doesn’t want to spend Xmas with your difficult family then that’s their choice.
You say you want to see your grandparents, so focus on that experience. Having this man there would mean you’d always be worrying about him, and by the sound of it, with just cause. I think he’s saved you a lot of headache.
Go spend some heartfelt time with the older people, and relax. You’re a big girl now and he sure is a big boy. So listen and respect each other’s boundaries around families of origin and Xmas. Horror stories come out of this combination.

Christmas is one of the most emotionally charged holidays of the year, when you hope that everyone will be on their best behaviour, everyone will get along, there will be no radical differences aired around the dinner table. LW already knows her conservative family may have no reservations about airing their views openly.

This would be the worst time for her to introduce her boyfriend of only 5 months. Because of their ages, I expect she's probably tired of being asked when she's going to settle down, get married, and start a family. Bringing her BF might elicit more of the same which would embarrass him greatly - even without his lukewarm attitude.

My suggestion would be to skip the holiday entirely, go for a long weekend in January, stay at a B&B, and visit only the people who matter the most, namely the grandparents.

@11 I was just gonna say the same thing. Thanks for beating me to it. Love your stuff. Hope you and your family have a wonderful Holidays.

@5 & @16/Raindrop: PARTNER not only describes her family as conservative and narrow-minded, but also described them to her boyfriend as "difficult" and clearly does not what to "face them alone." And although not entirely clear, she letter suggests that she has avoided seeing them for the past two years, and is doing so now because of the advanced age of her grandparents. If that is how she is describing her own family, it is entirely reasonable to believe that an outsider would find them to be awful,

@24: Name me a "meet-the-folks" situation that isn't difficult. Doesn't mean that it's awful. The bœuf bourguignon might be worth it. It means more to the parents and grandparents than it does to them. So why not indulge them. Why be so selfish?

Nevertheless, I can concur with @21.

Raindrop: You realize that Dan is an older gay man right? Meaning he's lived through those conservative people actively blocking AIDS research because it was killing off "undesirables" like gays, resulting in over half a million deaths (probably including people he knew and loved)? He's seen them campaigning to deny him employment, housing, and the right to marry or adopt children? Seen them fighting against legal protections from hate crimes against him and his friends? Meaning, maybe, just maaaaaaybe this isn't the right place for your "oh you can't call conservative people awful (even if they spent the last 30 years trying to make your life hell when they weren't trying to actively get you killed)" whining?

I agree with DonnyKlicious @14: 5 months is too early to be dragging an S/O home for emotional support against your family. Heck, as a rule, it should be you supporting your S/O when they have to deal with your awful family - not the other way around. Cool your jets, LW.

@26: Yes, the word is malleable. Hard to say exactly what type of "conservatism" defines her parents. Devout Catholic, born again Baptist, or just pontificating curmudgeons quoting W.F. Buckley Jr., or simple moderates. Who the f*** knows?

I'm actually an older gay man than Dan. Lived through loss I carry to this day. Was a Red Cross trained caregiver for awhile. So you're AIDS card play didn't impress me. Sorry.

@18 yes thank you! I was so pissed off reading how he forced in the word "boyfriend". I can't recall if PARTNER ever specified their gender (I was thinking female but maybe that was just my brain making an assumption) and they didn't specify their orientation either. Not that they are required to do either.

As I'm straight, I'm not sure how people in the LGBTQ+ community view this, but I have heard that when more people make it a practice to use the word "partner" for their significant other, or when they list their pronouns in their social media bios or wherever, it can make things easier for people in the LGBTQ+ community. From what I've heard, this can make it so that individuals aren't forced to inadvertently out themselves by referring to their partner as their "partner", or specifying which pronouns they use.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that I deeply appreciate your comment @18, and I know a number of my friends would say the same.

Wow, Dan. Join the current decade. "Partner" is a gender neutral term that has replaced "boyfriend" or "girlfriend"; it's also poly friendly. "Partner" no longer just means an intermediate step between "boyfriend/girlfriend" and "fiancé/e/spouse." And five months (plus the two-year preamble) is not too soon to designate someone as a serious person in one's life; it's past the ninety-day money-back guarantee period.

Beyond scolding PARTNER for her choice of words, I agree with Dan. And I picked up on the same clue: His reason/excuse for not wanting to visit your family with you is that "perhaps he would see me in a different light around my family and ... that meeting them might make him think differently of me." Translation: I don't want to know the real you. Ouch.

Knowing this, would I try to ask this guy to visit my family with me, tell him that his support would be very helpful, blah blah? PARTNER, this IS a red flag. He's not as serious about you as you are about him, which is understandable, given his recent involvement with the (or at least "a") love of his life which he's probably still processing. He's been with you for five months; you've been emotionally with him for two and a half years. Word choice aside, he's not as committed to you as you are to him. Yet? Remains to be seen. Christmas 2020 would be a good time for him to join you and your family, if he's ready to know you, warts and all, by then. If not, cut your losses and walk.

UpAndOver @3, yes, this is entirely possible. I don't think wanting someone who's definitely in your corner supporting you around your family is needy or clingy, but she certainly seems to expect him to be as committed to her as she is to him, which is not reasonable.

Raindrop @5, she also described them as "difficult" and "challenging," and the best thing she said about them is that they were "not hostile." I don't think it's inappropriate to round all that down to "awful."

Jaysin @8: It may be too late to change her plans. Christmas is only two weeks away; if she cancels now, she'll be an even bigger asshole than her new boyfriend. She's 35 years old; she needs to suck it up and go now that she's committed to it. And file "flakes on something important to me" in her mental ledger on Mr Wonderful.

Dum @9: "Ex that he couldn't get over for 10 years tells me that he's broken" -- You've misread the letter. He was with this person for almost 10 years; she moved away in 2018, he tried to get over her, she moved back a year later and they explored getting back together; they didn't. So he's only been really trying to get over this woman for a year and a half max. The rule of thumb is half the length of the relationship, so you and PARTNER should both cut him some slack.

Raindrop @16: "If they were "awful", the LW wouldn't have suggested seeing them for the holidays." Haha! You yourself said, we are bred to be polite, and politeness includes spending time with blood relations even when they are awful. Stop digging.

Username @18: PARTNER never specified their gender, but the ex of 10 years was female, so if PARTNER were a different gender that might have been germane to the discussion. Besides, I doubt someone with conservative, narrow-minded parents would bring a brand new same-sex partner home to shove under their noses. I'm happy to presume PARTNER is a woman. And I completely agree with your calling out of Dan's snark. Sorry, Dan, you flubbed it here.

Lava @19: "Corrupted"? Wow. Dan might find it hard to let go of the 1990s meaning of "partner" but being snarky to the person using it was uncalled for.

Fan and others, you can’t go changing the meanings of words to suit. Partner has an accepted meaning. That poly people might use it differently doesn’t erase how others use it. It implies a level of commitment past boyfriend/ girlfriend. A financial one as well as an emotional one.

@25/Raindrop: LOL. I have met girlfriends’ families, I have seen my family welcome the partners of my sisters, and I have seen my extended family do likewise. Being warm and welcoming isn’t hard and isn’t going above-and-beyond.

PARTNER herself doesn’t want to face her family alone. That underscores all the other information she provided. You have no case. Mr. Partner has good reason to believe PARTNER’s family is awful, which is good reason to beg of spending Christmas with them.

Don't love that Dan called PARTNER crazy. Congrats on that old trope. Especially since her "crazy" act was daring to write in to his column where he is paid to answer the letters of his chosing. Hard eye roll on that one, Dan.

LavaGirl, word definitions evolve over time. I'm the same age as LW and also view "partner" as a nongendered boy/girlfriend replacement. Just because a word has a specific meaning to you doesn't mean society won't evolve it anyway.

Lava @32, no. Partner has many accepted meanings. Business partner. Cohabiting partner. Polyamorous partner. Same sex partner. Opposite sex partner. Gender neutral partner. I didn't change these meanings, they exist in the world. Perhaps PARTNER used this word because she IS, in fact, emotionally committed to this man at a level beyond a mere boyfriend, or because the word "boyfriend" sounds childish to her, or because she considers her relationships equivalent to same-sex ones. You can't just dismiss meanings of words because you disagree with them.

Oh and Raindrop @25, I've met one of my partners' (see what I did there) parents and they were absolutely lovely, in fact I get along with them better than he does. So meeting parents is not always difficult. Not for opposite-sex people anyway.

Damn disappearing asterisks again!!

Queue @34, Dan didn't call her crazy. He said it was crazy to ask an advice columnist to weigh in on whether Mr PARTNER is obligated to stick to his agreement to visit her family. Sane people sometimes do crazy things.

Dan's advice is fine; his long-chopsticks fussiness about the word 'partner' is odd.

The lw should come straight out and ask her bf / partner, 'I'd like you to come for Christmas to offer me emotional support'. If he says 'it's too early for that', accept it at face value; if he demurs for a reason closer to the one he gave, begin to consider whether she's more into him than he is into her.

@2. Fresh. They are both behaving entirely maturely and creditably. Her letter is lucid. It's to the guy's credit he doesn't have a fling with her while he's still winding down emotionally from his 10y relationship (or while he's still prepared, in principle, to re-open it to see if there's anything there).

Third option! PARTNER would like her friend with her for the holiday. (PARTNER could be male, but my take was female.) Mr. Partner doesn't want to go. Third option is for PARTNER to abandon those concrete plans and not go.

Question: If Mr. Partner could visit PARTNER's family just as a friend, would you want his support there in a friendship capacity? Or does it only work if he's the romantic partner?

I am now going to put the whole friend/sex/relationship part of the question aside and talk about time spent with conservative narrow-minded relatives.

Wanting to see elderly grandparents is valid, but doing so over the emotionally fraught holidays isn't necessary. See them before Christmas or after if possible. Visit in person when you can. Phone and skype regularly otherwise.

If you do visit parents over Christmas, take some precautions. Do NOT stay with the family sleeping in your old bedroom or the new guest room or the couch. Do whatever it takes to get a hotel or airbnb. It will be worth the money. Go over. Eat Christmas dinner. Get out. On boxing day, visit again. Take a nice walk with the family. Get out. Keep (emotionally fraught) gifts to an inexpensive minimum. A few dollars for each one, something thoughtful and small, nothing big ticket or memorable. (I like those art calendars, the ones with wildlife photographs or Impressionist paintings.)

I hope I don't need to tell you to be prepared with a dozen topics of conversation you change the subject to whenever politics comes up. (Several different sports teams (4), the weather (2, your home town weather and the weather where you're visiting), how adorable a baby is (1, 2 if you can think of 2 babies), your commute to work (1, 2 if you take a bus or train), several items you or an (imaginary) neighbor grow in your garden (at least 2, flowers and vegetables), movies (1-4), and for thoughtful opinion, Christmas carols, for or against.

@13. codyonthehill. I wouldn't be so sure that the lw is unaware of the possibility that 'her partner isn't into her'. Isn't it the unstated presupposition of the whole letter? The Christmas thing is a placeholder for 'can he support me? Make a sacrifice for me?'. Can he interact with her folks?

She's 35. At some level, she's asking, 'is he the one?'. He's also aware she's asking this.

@40. Fichu. I think that's the proposal anyway. Her parents are 'narrow-minded' and 'conservative'. I'm not sure they're staying in the same bedroom.

I strongly believe saying: "I might change my feelings towards you if I meet your awful family" is an asshole move. It would be a total red warning alarm in my book for a guy to say that to me. He sounds immature or incredibly selfish. You didn't choose your family, and as a partner he should be there to support you and not begrudge you for something it was not your fault. This doesn't sound like boyfriend material, too immature. He needs to grow up.

LW's boyfriend was still not over a 10-year relationship about 2 years after it ended. That's bad sign. In my experience, the most toxic, triggering relationships are the hardest to leave behind. He may never get over that one.

Since then, he gave LW a shot, and my sense is, after a few months, he's cooling off. That's not surprising for a rebound situation at the best of times.

Like Dan, I'm perturbed by the "partner" designation. Others have suggested that it's a word that's bandied about these days, but to me, it's loaded. I've been seeing my current GF for over a year, and still wouldn't use that word. Our lives are not intertwined.

I can imagine that LW's BF, having been prematurely slapped with the designation "partner" and being prematurely asked to meet the awful folks, on the heels of whatever that 10-year thing was, is feeling just a wee bit squeamish.

LW should try to unclench, and enjoy the holidays.

"I might think differently about you." At the very least it's judgey, kind of like the LW best not show the fullest extent of the situation they came from b/c then the boyfriend has the right to pull up stakes. Like the pedigree of a dog one is considering buying from a breeder. It's just kind of gross.

Harriet @39, she did ask him. "When I asked my partner in early November if he would come home with me for Christmas, he said, 'I think so, yes.'" (There is, of course, a difference between "I think so" and "Yes." If his answer was definite then he's being a weasel by changing his mind now.) She then asked him again in a month and he'd changed his mind, and did give her reasons. Sure, she could push him with a "but you agreed" but is this visit going to be any better for her with a grudging companion? I think the answer is no.

I do agree that there's nothing age-inappropriate about the way either of these people is acting. Parents have a way of treating their offspring like children, and making them feel like children, well into adulthood. She's not being childish by wanting the man she loves to be there for/with her, and he's not being immature by wanting to avoid a less than cheery family visit this soon.

Harriet @41: Ding ding ding. The real question isn't, "should I press him to come on this trip with me?", it's "how important am I to him?" PARTNER, you have your answer. What are you going to do with it?

Fubar @44, your timeline is wrong. They split up in 2018 -- anywhere between 12 and 23 months ago -- and then, as he was trying to get over her, she returned and rekindled his feelings if not their relationship just this calendar year. It's unrealistic to expect him to be fully over her. I agree PARTNER is probably no more than a rebound for him, someone who was there and willing. Using her to get over his ex might be fine if he was willing to let her use him as a human shield at Christmas. But he's not. PARTNER, this Christmas, don't give him your heart.

Correction: PARTNER didn't ask the question a second time; Mr PARTNER volunteered that he had given it further thought and didn't think it was a good idea.

I think it would be cool if someone made Dan a forum avatar; maybe wearing a superhero outfit?

"Partner" just struck me as non-American. "Conservative" has acquired a rather elastic definition depending on who's setting up the scale, and it could be limited to either social conduct or politics, but "narrow-minded" and the rest make it seem that "awful" isn't a stretch.

Mr Savage's mind seemed to be wandering to Oz, and Ms Fan's to holiday music. I'm not sure about rebound = human shield.

What struck me first about the letter was the unusually high level of processing from LW. Then there was BF/P's phrasing in asking if LW would give him a chance to show up romantically.

Mainly, though, I was struck by LW's jumping to make a firm commitment on the strength of BF/P's "I think so, yes." There was no time crunch, and he's brought up his change of mind in what seems a sufficiently timely manner. That she made such firm plans without checking back in suggested that the general relationship pattern consists of her trying to lock him into things from which she's afraid he'll back out. It reminded me of the televised version of Sad Cypress, when Elinor overheard the nurses discussing her engagement to Roddy. Nurse O'Brien's verdict was, "She's lucky to have caught him and she knows it. Behind the eyes, she's nervous as a kitten."

@46. Bi. There's a difference between 'hey, meet the folks. They're kind of awkward and old-fashioned' and 'I'd really appreciate your support in getting through a potentially difficult holidays with my parents--especially since it could be one of the last chances I get to visit my grandparents'. It could be a quite ordinary reaction, hearing the first, to think, 'no, I'll pass'--whereas someone asked for the second would, at least, understand the importance his lover was prepared to grant him.

But I don't think there's disagreement between us here--nor really amongst the forum.

@48. curious. Good suggestion.

I think Dan's sensitivity over "partner" is slightly anachronistic. For a long time before marriage equality, "partner" was the greatest term for the commitment between a same-sex couple who would otherwise be married. Under this system, using the term for more recent, less committed relationships would cheapen it and leave no viable alternative for same-sex couples to equate their relationships to marriage. However, now that marriage equality is a reality, in this country at least, I don't think it should matter so much who uses the word to mean what. To me, it does imply a somewhat deeper connection and more intertwined lives than "boyfriend" or "girlfriend," but I wouldn't begrudge anyone their use of it as they like.

...

But ugh, Christmas season is really here, isn't it? >_< I don't know why I dislike Christmas as much as I do. I shouldn't really begrudge the goyim their joy. It just feels so invasive sometimes. Like there's something wrong with me because I refuse to assimilate even a little bit. I hope you all have the decency to say "Happy Holidays" unless you know for certain someone is Christian or otherwise celebrates Christmas. I know I always appreciate it.

Lava @20, 21, sometimes you hit the nail right on the head.

A while back I would have agreed with Dan that "partner" denotes a fairly serious relationship. In the last five-ten years or so I've heard people using it more casually. When my (current) partner and I first started dating, he introduced me as his "partner" to people a few times. It surprised me: I didn't think we were at the "partner" stage. Still don't know if he meant the word differently or he was just already in it for the long-haul :)

Calli @51, I love Christmas but dislike the way it's handled here. For most folks (in America, at least), it's more about consumerism, and the various and manifold aspects of that have become depressingly crass. So I feel ya. That said, Christians totally stole the timing from prior pagan rituals--the Romans had Saturnalia, the Druids also did some sort of solstice thing--taking that timing for Christmas was just good marketing on the part of Christians. I personally prefer to think of Christmas as a more general solstice celebration. Humans need a good mid-winter party to remind themselves that not everything is crap.

I did send a few cards this year, and they said: "Happy fucking holidays." :)

I now really wish I had some "Merry Saturnalia!" cards to send!

@53 You can make some! Who says arts & crafts is just for kids? Not me!

I'm still basically a kid, though...

I would totally enjoy the shit out of a Druidic solstice party. No Santa or crosses allowed.

At the very least the boyfriend was oversharing when he said "I might think differently about you". Even if he legitimately felt that, it was probably not the right thing to say, unless she was seriously pestering him to do something he really didn't want to do. We don't know, because we don't have his account.

Either way, he clearly doesn't want to go, and I sense that LW is being a bit needy here. And come on, they are 35 and 46 respectively, that's too old for this kind of bullshit. Just say everything you said in this letter, and have it out.

Also, squabbles over holiday family plans are tedious. If you really love each other, you'll find better things to fight about.

Harriet @50, yes. We know that she told him her family is "difficult"; we don't know whether she specifically asked him to be there in the role of emotional support animal. We also don't know the exact words he used to communicate "I think so, yes." Regardless, he doesn't want to go and he has the right to not want to go. The only issue I see is his reason -- that he doesn't want to see the side of her that doesn't get along with her family. If he had left it at "it's too soon and I'd feel awkward" then he'd have done no wrong in my book.

Calliope @51, some of us goyim dread it for the very same reasons. At least you get to have a Chinese meal instead of enduring the annual carnival of commercialised family pressure!

Niles @57, "seriously pestering" is a distinct possibility based on the tone of the letter, and yes he could have just blurted that out when "it's too soon" wasn't sufficient for her. Regardless, these are his true feelings and they should be heeded.

Pija @58, that too. Very good point. Put me on Team She Was Out Of Line For Asking.

@59 My family does usually go for Chinese food on Christmas Eve, but last year we switched it up and went for Japanese instead.

Once my finals are over (Friday!), B&N is re-hiring me for a few weeks as a seasonal (read: temporary) employee. So, like last year, I'll be intimately involved with the commercial side of the season. I just have to compartmentalize it all. "Work" goes in this box. "Christmas" goes in the Work box. Etc.

I loved it when (I first noticed it in young) people started mentioning they had a 'partner' instead of a GF or BF, making it clear they were completely comfortable with the gender not being specified like it was homophobic armour.

ciods and CalliopeMuse - there's also always the option of celebrating Festivus!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus

Festivus is a secular holiday celebrated on December 23 as an alternative to the pressures and commercialism of the Christmas season. Originally created by author Daniel O'Keefe, Festivus entered popular culture after it was made the focus of the 1997 Seinfeld episode "The Strike", which O'Keefe's son, Dan O'Keefe, co-wrote.

The non-commercial holiday's celebration, as depicted on Seinfeld, occurs on December 23 and includes a Festivus dinner, an unadorned aluminum Festivus pole, practices such as the "Airing of Grievances" and "Feats of Strength", and the labeling of easily explainable events as "Festivus miracles". The episode refers to it as "a Festivus for the rest of us".

It has been described both as a parody holiday festival and as a form of playful consumer resistance.

@64 Yes, I've long been aware of Festivus. I've never seen the Seinfeld episode, though. The idea is pretty funny.

My automatic assumption when someone says "partners" is that the couple is co-habitating. For my own purposes, I think I'd use the word "boyfriend" unless we were living together, in which case I would say "partner." That is, however, often not how the term is used by my generation.

I'll qualify my response by saying that I've never, ever understood the INHERENT reticense some people have to partners meeting families and/or.considering it a huge step in a relationship. Logistically, it can obviously take longer for people who don't live near their parents or siblings to set up a vacation with a partner as is necessary to meet the family, and in the case of shitty families of origin, I.van understand not wanting to INFLICT one's shitty family members on a casual partner who isn't potentially signing up to deal with them indefinitely.

I see my mom and sister all the time and my dad at least monthly, because they live in town (my dad splits time between Milwaukee and Chicago, where his girlfriend lives) and I like them. (I see my brothers probably a dozen times a year, though not exactly monthly, as it tends to be clustered around holidays and birthdays; they live in different cities all within a two hour drive.) I don't consider meeting this one set of people I see regularly, as it happens in the course of life, to be different than meeting my friends, a second set of people whom I see regularly as it happens, and iths likely to happen sooner rather than later as a function of bringing a girlfriend to social events.

I have dated a few people who balked at meeting my family members after a few months of dating, even as a function of happenstance and not as some kind of planned visit, and I don't even have the issue of my immediate family members being people I don't want to inflict on others. Some people have a weird hangup about that, which is only going to be compounded by values disconnects or other social friction. It's okay to be disappointed; it's a bad idea to put any energy into making this something more than it is (and, really, avoiding meeting a family YOU consider shitty always has a built-in good reason).

@1: Hmm, I might think differently about a partner who glad-hands Right-wing asshole family members to maintain social harmony (as people who wish to keep visiting asshole family members tend to do) instead of challenging them on their bullshit and/or cutting contact. It's a legit concern IMO, ESPECIALLY when one has already noted bad things about one's family members to one's partner.

@5: Yes, by definition, conservatives are bad people (which means most Liberals are bad people, because Liberalism is a centuries-old ideology, one actually embraced by American Republicans/conservatives, that serves many people poorly) because they want to conserve a status quo that sucks for a lot of people. Being broad-minded means CONSIDERING different views, not necessarily accepting the repugnant ones. But I think you know that.

@17: LOL. It makes sense, as the underlying principles informing the advice are mostly shared between them. I wish the net attitude over at Awkward Industries wasn't so (unfairly, IMO) critical of Dan (especially 20-year-old opinions/perspectives he's since disavowed), because they might be able to pass off questions to each other that are more appropriate for the other.

@18: Dan sometimes has access to info that's edited out of the letters for publication (a feminine-named e-mail address, for example, even if the letter itself is unedited), and the fact that Boyfriend's ex is a woman makes it's overwhelmingly likely that LW is, too. Just go with the gender assignments in the column ubless they're CONTRADICTED by something published. You're comng off as someone LOOKING for a reason to be offended, and you're reaching; that isn't helping our cause, for the "us" defined by people who want to normalize gender-neutral language (and, in my case at least, don't ID as binary-gendered). You'll get more traction objecting to assumed genders when there isn't strong evidence to support the supposition.

@22: Is it? I always assumed the high suicide rate was a function of holiday PLUS seasonal affective disorder.

@29: Don't encourage zir; ze's looking for reasons for offense to position zirself as socially/morally superior (consciously or not), not engaging in thoughtful genderqueer activism. People like that have been actively harming a majority of genderqueer people for decades now, and the very last thing we need are more straight allies validating them so that they get to feel righteously pissed off about something or for the sake of performative wokeness.

@34: He didn't - he described behavior, not the person. Fuck am I sick of people pushing worthless "activism" supposedly on behalf of demographics of which I'm a part that is actually just narcissistic demands that social norms reflect their personal preferences. "Crazy" is useful, and it's unfairly marginalizing in it's MISapplication, not in its appropriate application.

@67 I call myself a crazy person all the time. I probably shouldn't, but I do.

@68 Calli
"I call myself a crazy person all the time"

Maybe you've heard, but before you were born when Dan's column started, those seeking advice were to address him as "Hey faggot". (Holy shit, just typing those words freaked me out. Apologies!)

Are you 'taking back' crazy person when you say it?

FWIW, I think most of the crazy people don't know they are at all and tragically would never consider doing anything to change.

Ms Muse - Somehow, I cannot make that group of people and "their joy" match up, but I quite appreciate any objectors to the colossus. I am on the record as an official non-celebrant of any holiday (one might suspect that I commemorate a very few days of significance only to my late fiancé, but I couldn't possibly comment), and play the Non-Celebrant Privilege card with about as little delicacy as the situation encourages. It is very nice that my one evening bridge game is in a JCC (though, alas, they're closing too early to have a game on the 24th), and it was also amusing that for years I couldn't hold a game on Good Friday until the group moved from a community centre to a Lutheran church.

I have long considered HH to be, while better than MC, problematic on its own account as one of the biggest false equivalences now going. Fortunately, I am known among my bridge players for hoping that holidays come and go without anybody's being murdered (I share Poirot's opinion of holiday celebrations' being especially conducive to homicidal impulses and actions). This passes as being on a par with my advice to anyone going on holiday, Don't Get Married.

Mr Curious - Brave of you to type the word out. It raises an interesting question about the delicacies attached to quoting such a term when the views of the venue creator and many or most of the company among whom the term will be quoted are at such variance.

Note that I recognize this to be quotation rather than usage; I am genuinely primarily interested in the delicacy question and will happily discuss the issue with an attempt at as much impartiality as can be reasonably expected, although it would be more pleasant not to see that word typed out again.

@71 vennominon
Thank you. Now I seem to recall you censoring your own use of that horrible word recently (and IIRC demonstrating that censoring is difficult here since special characters get stripped?).

In any case I wholeheartedly agree. That is a horrifying word.

I wonder if still today, every 10-year old bully considers that the worst thing they can say to another boy. How sick and twisted.

Personally I would be happy for use of the F-word, like the N-word, to become absolutely prohibited for anyone but it's victims.

EricaP @64, I love Festivus and I had no idea the writers of Seinfeld didn't make it up. See the things I learn from this column!

Calliope @66, my last cohabitant used to call me his girlfriend because he thought the term partner sounded too businesslike. Drove me up a tree. We owned a home together, I was a bit more than a mere "girlfriend." But I've also thought the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" sound a bit silly when you're talking about people in their 30s and older. When partner became a more accepted substitute, I was pleased. I would think someone saying they had a "boyfriend" meant that they weren't really serious about that person. But I don't think one needs to cohabit to be serious.

Curious, congrats on the magic number. I agree that people in the group can use self-deprecating words, slurs even ("my nigga," anyone?) while people outside the group must tread more carefully. The fat acceptance movement also comes to mind.

Re @60, I'm actually going to change my mind back to my original position. This isn't a guy she met five months ago on Tinder, it's a guy she was friends with for two years prior to dating him. Inviting him for the family holiday was a reasonable request. Turning down the invitation was also reasonable, even after initially agreeing. He does owe her an apology but he doesn't owe her a visit.

p.s. to my @72 which said "I would be happy for use of the F-word, like the N-word, to become absolutely prohibited for anyone but it's victims"

I'm guessing that sadly can't happen for the F-word until gay men are less widely subject to bigotry in a society. In other words, I don't think a societal imperative that the F-word is 1000% forbidden is within reach now, because the society wouldn't accept it by sufficient consensus. I think this is a measure by which African-American people have come further.

@73 BiDanFan
FYI, over here in the states, I don't think non-black people can use that variation of the N-word either. Or /any/ variation I can think of.

/Break/
The whole idea of 1000% un-useable words is somewhat odd, but I feel it is also 1000% within the rights of oppressed peoples to institute them, and 1000% understandable why they would.

@74 BiDanFan
I agree, period and degree of friendship prior to dating does count for something. (It can also complicate something which I once upon a time effed up quite completely.)

I'm perfectly fine with not being able to say the F-word (not fuck, obviously) and the N-word. The only time I've ever heard the K-word was from assholes on the internet, in quotations, and in one particular family joke (my late grandmother was a Hebrew school teacher and used to take her students on nature walks she privately called "kike hikes," which I think is horrible but also kind of hilarious). I'd be very happy if no one ever used that word around me again, but I don't object to it in books like the Great Gatsby where its use emphasizes what an asshole a particular character is (at least, that's how I choose to interpret Tom's use of it). If someone really wants to throw an ethnic slur at me, I much prefer "Jew-Bagel" (which is hilariously ridiculous and my father apparently got called once by a childhood bully -- I would laugh in someone's face if they called me that).

Mr Curious - Part of the problem is that we'll never get consensus. It's such an easy way to play up to the One Good Gay role. I remember about three years ago hearing a video in which a young conservagay was talking about how much he liked it when his straight friends used the word, because it showed him they were comfortable around him. (That is having extremely low expectations of straight people, especially when they he never called them [rhymes-with-speeders] and they wouldn't like it if he did.) In a way, I think it's even worse when it's used in an, "I don't mean YOU!" manner, with all its implications of conditional acceptance.

There's been a fair amount of conversation lately about whether to welcome F-bomb droppers into leftist spaces, the theory presented being that such people adapt to their surroundings and drop problematic terminology. At least, that's what's put forward by edgeleft types. But even a lot of non-edgy leftists like using anti-gay language and framing it as Ironic Homophobia, which is sometimes done in good faith. It often comes off, though, as what I call Ironic Ironic, because they clearly enjoy it so much. (It reminds me of a long thread I had with a Mr Ank before your time - he was a Brazilian whose burning passion was to study Latvian, but his Russian wife wouldn't stand for it - in which he defended Mr CK's comedy as genuinely gay-helping but eventually admitted to feeling a visceral thrill when he heard the word.)

But it's popped up lately on the right as well. You may have heard of the recent interview in which grifter extraordinaire Mr Rubin told Mr Trump fils that, "because we're equal now," (even if so, for how much longer, I wonder?) he, Mr T, could call him, Mr R, a f-blank-blank and it wouldn't bother him, because the word is powerless. Mr Rubin is among those who have gone off Chick-Fil-A because they decided to shift the focus of their donations from anti-noncishet groups to such things as hunger and homelessness, but he's still trying to convince his friend Mr Shapiro to come to his anniversary party or bake him a cake.

I do not, though, fault Mr Rubin for selling out. It's almost a necessity for gays to get significant mainstream acceptance. It should just be executed as seamlessly as possible and fetch a whacking great price.

One thing that primary season has led me to wonder is whether Mr Savage would have caught on if he'd not gone through a lengthy F-slur period. I've come to that after a lengthy round of sighing at leftist who have been busy blasting Mayor Buttigieg for being a corporatist up-sucker and other entirely legitimate complaints. But they are showing a lack of vision and I think it's deliberate. It was practically inevitable that the first G to mount this credible a campaign would have to be a huge establishment-player. We don't have anything like a sufficiently large base for another type to get anywhere close to so far. Even Sen Baldwin might have had to go much farther in that direction had she been male. But what the left is doing is preparing to Buttigieg the next gay to run (comparable to Borking Supreme Court nominees) so that they can get someone more oppressed instead. I am not hearing any leftist with a vision for how to help non-sellout Gs rise through the ranks. They like having Myr B just as he is, and don't want a woke gay who might not be so easy to dismiss.

I suppose almost everyone will disagree, but I'm used to it. Sometimes, though, I'm Cassandra.

@77 venn
"[rhymes-with-speeders]"

Hey, do I recall correctly that back in this column's "Hey [F-word]" infancy, the word "[rhymes-with-speeders-B-word]" also appeared not infrequently?

(All I know for sure is that I've never felt moved to reproduce, so it never really felt about me. So perhaps I shouldn't type that B-word either.)

"the theory presented being that such people adapt to their surroundings and drop problematic terminology"

Good point venn. For example I don't see our Voldemort adapting to shit.

And just generally, thanks for bringing those like me who haven't noticed these sad developments up to speed.

"It was practically inevitable that the first G to mount this credible a campaign would have to be a huge establishment-player."

So true. Much like the first (1/2) black President would have to be all that plus not trigger racist fears. (Note I only mention "1/2" because we shouldn't fool ourselves that we aren't generations away from a black POTUS who isn't mixed race.)

"I am not hearing any leftist with a vision for how to help non-sellout Gs rise through the ranks."

I agree there simply is no way given the size of the current "base" of support for equality for the non-straight.

"I suppose almost everyone will disagree"

I think I may never have agreed with you more on what you wrote.

And electing a woman, and a non-straight, President is very important to me. But not just any; Hillary had strength Barack didn't, and just about everything Trump doesn't...but she was a poor candidate.

I love Warren in just about every way. If it was Pete I loved that much he's be my candidate instead. (Though I do admit that generally I think women tend to have qualities I admire more than men.)

(I think it's sad that while writing the last paragraphs I tried to think of terrible public figures who aren't straight white males. Clarence Thomas. Michelle Bachman. It sure would be great if non-straight people weren't so oppressed that someone like me who isn't following the politi-sphere super closely could think of a terrible non-straight example...but I suppose there isn't even a highly visible public space for them among the terrible constituency.)

Anxiety is a hell of a drug.

Firstly, LW, you're at least in your 30 years. Going "two years" without seeing your family for the holidays (aka "missed a single year, once") isn't shit. From age 30-50, what percentage of people who dont live within a short drive of their family do you think either travel or host Thanksgiving? In my case, I'll be lucky to get to 5; but I suspect the average person misses 5-8 of those years. So you're ahead of the curve.

W/R/T "seeing you in a different light" - it's a thing. I recall traveling to meet a GF's family for Thanksgiving. My GF, who was in other ways a successful, independent adult, turned into a literal child in front of my eyes - throwing a crying, foot-stomping tantrum because it rained (briefly), for example. Not gonna lie, it bothered me a little bit - the difference between me being on the other end of a similar tantrum would only be time and familiarity)

Anyways, thinking on it longer, what he means is "When you point the finger, three more point back at you".

@3 UpAndOver @16 Raindrop @31 BiDanFan
My parents were sufficiently awful that I had to go to the ER and my grandma called CPS and the police on them. I wound up agreeing not to press charges if they agreed not to hit me again.

They kept their end of the deal, but I still feel vulnerable and uncomfortable with them. I chose not to go completely no-contact with them, and they apologized for what they did to me.

For several years, I only saw them for holidays. I brought my current boyfriend or a platonic friend with me as a buffer and for moral support. They specifically agreed to it on those terms.

I wasn't clingy in other circumstances. I could have chosen simply to not go at all. I could have "sucked it up and gone alone", but that would indeed have sucked.

Curious @75, yes, that was what I meant. White people can't be using that phrase, straight people can't be using the F-word, thin people can't be referring to anyone as fat.

Calliope @76, Jew bagels are the best bagels! ;)

Venn @77, "breeders" is at least punching up. Friends ribbing each other is fine, but they should know to keep these reclaimed terms of endearment amongst themselves.

Opalescent @80, I'm sorry about your toxic family. You wouldn't describe your family as "not hostile," would you? The LW has, therefore the amount of abuse she would be sucking up is not equivalent to your situation.

Ms Fan - It's not a term I recommend to anyone. One of the biggest telltale signs of someone's One Good Gaying (and this probably applies to many other "One Good"s as well) is the willingness to be always the one taking the joke. That seems to be the price of admission for a lot of faux-called acceptance.

Mr Curious - Good for you for being able to be so nearly unreservedly behind someone.

@80 BiDanFan
They haven't been physically or verbally abusive to me since that day. My mom is amazing with other people's kids. She was a special ed teacher for severely disabled kids. They are liberal politically, devout Christians but aren't nasty to or about GLBT people. Everyone else thinks they're lovely, and I think they have good, non-malicious intentions. They just had no business being parents. All of my discomfort is from the past. I would absolutely understand if her level of discomfort with her parents is equivalent to mine.

Opal @84, and I would understand if her level of discomfort with her parents were equivalent to mine, but we're both just projecting.