Please tell me if it’s me...

Lounmoun

jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »

Ok. My mother in law is living with us. I do not bring any sweets in the house. But she keeps bringing them in. I think it’s very rude. I struggle with sweets and can’t be around them. Last week I blew my plan because she brought home donuts. My husband says it’s me. I need to have will power. I think they should respect the fact I can’t have them in the house. Is it me? What would u do?

I think it is not rude and it is a common issue. Do a search on the forum for the word sabatoge. A number of people feel upset that their family does not follow their diet plan.
I live with my dh and dd who do not need to lose weight. When I decided to lose weight I did not ask anyone to change what they ate or brought home. I ate food I liked all the time and planned treats that fit my calorie goal or left room for a smaller portion.
I'm sure you feel frustrated but it really is not fair to demand no one who lives in your home can bring sweets in ever. I think that maybe your plan is slightly unsustainable for you if you can't stick to it without rigid rules. You might want to rethink how you are approaching weight management and food. Look at your weekly calorie intake instrad of just daily.
You can ask your family to bring in smaller amounts or put it out of sight, you can tell yourself the food is not yours and eat your own stuff happily. Maybe ask for the sweets to be a once a week thing you can plan on instead of surprise doughnuts that you can't enjoy.

born_of_fire74

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

born_of_fire74 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

born_of_fire74 wrote: »

It seems I am some sort of tyrant because there are a handful of things I don't let my husband bring into the house as I have a very difficult time not eating them if they are around. Mostly baked goods, chocolate and nuts.

The baked goods and the chocolate were easy; he doesn't eat them anyway and was only bringing them home for me. The nuts, however, are a different story: he really, really likes them and doesn't want to stop eating them...but he really, really likes me too so he just has them at work instead of having them at home. This way, I'm not stopping him from eating them and he's not tempting me with them in the house. Nothing wrong with a little compromise.

How is this a compromise? Are you honestly suggesting that it would be legitimate for you to tell him he can't have nuts at work, either? I could get that if you were allergic and worried about contact exposure, but how does it hurt you that he's eating them at work when it's just food you don't have any self-control around?

Where on Earth did you get the impression I think he should not eat them at work?? The compromise is that he keeps his stash away from home.

I don’t know about others but I have a difficult time resisting things in my home that I have no trouble resisting outside of it. I can easily turn down baked goods, chocolate and nuts at work, at restaurants, at friends’ etc. For whatever reason, if they’re at home, I’ll eat them eventually. This seems difficult for you to understand; luckily for me, husband doesn’t have that issue and helps me out. Not sure what exactly about this causes you such indignation.

25 years of being together, 13 married, has taught us that it’s important to pick our battles. Nuts are not worthy of battle. Would you feel better if I told you about the silly, arbitrary things that I do simply to accommodate husband because they’re not worth fighting over? I could do that if you like because it’s very important to me that you, a perfect stranger on the internet, approve of my relationship dynamics >.>

A compromise is when both sides give up something. It's nice that he's willing to do this for you, but if you're not giving something up, it's not a compromise.

We don't view our relationship as comprised of individual and discreet transactions, each of which must balance in order to be fair. Rather, we view the relationship as one long, never ending transaction that must, on the whole, be equitable and attractive enough to each of us that it makes our continued efforts and sacrifices worthwhile. Not "giving something up" in this particular transaction doesn't mean that I don't compromise in the grand scheme of our relationship. I alluded to this when I mentioned the silly, arbitrary things I do simply to accommodate husband but I guess it was not clear enough how this facilitates the overall health of our relationship.

I personally think that expecting each discreet transaction to balance internally over the course of 25 years and more is a recipe for disaster. There are couples who "keep score" but it seems very destructive to me to have the attitude of say "she asks that I keep tins of nuts away from home so she must immediately surrender something tangible and equal to my sacrifice in order for this to be fair" and, luckily again, husband agrees.

lemurcat2

She didn't say it was necessary for each transaction to balance (which would be impossible and silly). She said the term compromise refers to a situation where each party gives up something, so based on your word choice she misunderstood what you were saying (and assumed you thought "him getting to eat them at the office" was in your mind you giving something up or compromising).

Kind of unfair to twist that into her thinking that couples should keep score.

born_of_fire74

lemurcat2 wrote: »

She didn't say it was necessary for each transaction to balance (which would be impossible and silly). She said the term compromise refers to a situation where each party gives up something, so based on your word choice she misunderstood what you were saying (and assumed you thought "him getting to eat them at the office" was in your mind you giving something up or compromising).

Kind of unfair to twist that into her thinking that couples should keep score.

No more or less fair than her twisting my words to mean that I don't compromise. She was indignant that I didn't immediately surrender something of equal value to my husband's nuts (teehee) right then and there in order to create a balanced transaction, even after I indicated that I sacrifice for my husband's sake on other occasions.

cathipa

I've changed to be whole food plant based starting January. I still cook for my family food that contains foods that I have chosen to avoid. I resist eating what they are because I know what I am doing is best for me. I don't try to impose my WOE on them (or anyone else) unless they want to try it. Your WOE is your way. Your MIL and husband can do as they want. You have to show restraint.

lemurcat2

born_of_fire74 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

She didn't say it was necessary for each transaction to balance (which would be impossible and silly). She said the term compromise refers to a situation where each party gives up something, so based on your word choice she misunderstood what you were saying (and assumed you thought "him getting to eat them at the office" was in your mind you giving something up or compromising).

Kind of unfair to twist that into her thinking that couples should keep score.

No more or less fair than her twisting my words to mean that I don't compromise. She was indignant that I didn't immediately surrender something of equal value to my husband's nuts (teehee) right then and there in order to create a balanced transaction, even after I indicated that I sacrifice for my husband's sake on other occasions.

I think you misread her. You said it was a compromise for your husband not to eat whatever it was at home, but to eat it at his office. She read that as you saying it was giving up something for you to allow him to eat it at his office (because you used the word "compromise") and objected to you thinking that you should have a say over him eating foods you don't outside of the home. It was a misunderstanding.