A partner’s mother wants a lavish week-long vacation for her “big anniversary birthday”—but there’s one person who’s definitely NOT on the guest list. Now, she expects her son to foot the bill using JOINT finances. The internet has THOUGHTS.
When love, money, and family collide, someone always gets hurt. But what happens when you’re asked to bankroll a luxury vacation you’re explicitly banned from attending? One Reddit user found themselves in this exact nightmare scenario—and the internet is absolutely LOSING IT over who’s the real villain in this family drama.
THE ORIGINAL POST: Read It and WEEP
User ARandomStringOfWords posted to r/AmItheAsshole with a situation that immediately struck a nerve. Here’s what they wrote:
“My partner’s mother decided she wants to have her big anniversary birthday in another state, going for a week and staying somewhere fancy. She’s said she’ll pay for everything but the only people invited are her children and her partner. Fair enough. It’s her big day and while being excluded hurts I can understand her wanting to only have those closest to her there.
*Here’s the but. My partner wants to be the big man and pay for it, or at least split it with his siblings. I am very much not OK with that. We have joint finances which means by definition half of that very large sum would be coming from my hip pocket. His family are big on the whole “no, let *me* pay” game and normally I’m happy to play it but I just don’t feel it’s OK for me to be told I’m not invited and then have him expect me to contribute.*
TL;DR AITA for not wanting to financially contribute towards a holiday I’m being excluded from attending?”
Let that sink in. She’s being asked to fund her own exclusion. To literally pay money so her partner can go on a fancy vacation without her. To smile and nod while half of “a very large sum” disappears from their shared account for a party she’s banned from attending.
What The Experts Say: This Is About MORE Than Money
One in five couples say money is their biggest relationship challenge, and this situation perfectly illustrates why financial conflicts cut so deep.
Establishing clear financial boundaries is crucial for couples, including setting limits on individual spending or deciding on major purchases together, as clear boundaries prevent misunderstandings and misuse of shared resources.
Money is a common cause of stress in relationships, and if left unaddressed, it can impact more than just your wallet. But this isn’t just about dollars and cents. Joint decision-making is essential, as this collaborative approach ensures that both partners have a say in financial matters, reinforcing mutual respect and trust.
Reddit’s Verdict: The Comments Are ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL
The Reddit community did NOT hold back, and the top comments are scathing. Let’s break down what people REALLY think about this mess.
“Why Is He Even GOING?” – The Top Comment That Says It ALL
User florida_lmt delivered what became the most upvoted response with a staggering 1.4K votes:
“NTA. Forget about paying for this trip. Why is he even going? My husband would not attend a vacation I was being intentionally excluded from. There would never be a thought it would be an immediate hard decline.”
This comment cuts straight to the heart of the issue. It’s not just about the money—it’s about loyalty. Would YOUR partner attend a week-long luxury vacation you were banned from? The fact that this is even a question has Redditors FURIOUS.
The Debate: Can Parents Have “Kids Only” Time?
Not everyone agreed the situation was so black and white. User Beginning_Meet_4290 pushed back:
“Families are allowed to on holidays on their own? I don’t see why you’re villainising this woman for wanting to go on holiday with just her kids.”
But user Key-Direction-9480 (with 314 upvotes) asked the question on everyone’s mind:
“Weird that this sub is generally sympathetic to children who want to meet their parents with no step-parent present, yet upvotes a comment saying a mother shouldn’t meet with her children without their partners. Can anyone bridge the gap for me?”
User trumpeter84 provided the nuanced breakdown that got massive support:
“There’s a difference between meet/spend time with, and go on a week-long vacation in a different state while your spouse is not invited. Every couple is going to draw the line between those in different places, but there’s a pretty big gap there.”
They continued:
“Rational people aren’t going to object to their partner having a meal or doing a shared activity with a parent or family-of-origin. Most people would be fine with their partner spending a weekend at their parents house, or each half of the partnership spending a holiday with their respective family of origin instead of together. A lot of couples would even be cool with a partner going on a week long family vacation alone if they were invited but couldn’t attend for some reason.”
“But for me, the lines start getting drawn around the ‘not invited’ bit. I encourage my spouse to spend time with their family without me, but I’m also aware that I’m always invited along if I want to go. When the purposeful exclusion starts, things get hostile and uncomfortable.”
User Canadasaver summed it up perfectly with 108 upvotes:
“Sad that a mother doesn’t view their children’s partners as family.”
The Three-Choice ULTIMATUM That Has Everyone Talking
User axw3555, with 548 upvotes, laid out a crystal-clear framework that many are calling the PERFECT response:
“NTA. Be very clear, he has 3 options:
1. If you pay, I’m coming. Period.
2. If I don’t come, you don’t pay.
3. If you go, and I find out afterwards that you paid, I will split the finances over this.Let him choose. But what he chooses will tell you how much he respects you.”
This comment is FIRE. It puts the ball squarely in the partner’s court and makes the consequences crystal clear. No wiggle room. No excuses.
User vroddba (491 upvotes) emphasized the joint nature of their finances even more strongly, suggesting the ultimatum should use “WE” throughout:
“I’d use WE to further iterate the joined finances.
If WE pay, I’m coming. Period.
If I don’t come, WE don’t pay.
If you go, and I find out afterwards that WE paid, I will split the finances over this.”
The “Equal Treatment” Solution That Actually Makes Sense
User taewongun1895 proposed a different approach that gained significant traction:
“Or, OP gets a withdrawal from the joint finances that is equal to the cost of his trip. She can use the money for a girl’s weekend out.”
This suggestion resonated with many Redditors. If he’s going to drain their joint account for a vacation without her, she should get to do the EXACT same thing. Fair is fair, right?
“Separate Finances NOW” – The Nuclear Option
User gremlinofspite didn’t mince words:
“NTA but the real problem is your partner, not his mom. Separate finances now. And reconsider this relationship if he thinks you should have to pay for part of his’s mom’s trip.”
User Different-Leg7609 echoed this sentiment:
“I’d be separating finances real quick. NTA.”
Multiple commenters suggested that if the partner wants to play “big man,” he needs to find the money from HIS OWN pocket, not their shared resources.
The “Big Man” Game: When Ego Costs YOU Money
The original poster revealed an important cultural detail about the family dynamics:
“His family are big on the whole ‘no, let me pay’ game and normally I’m happy to play it but I just don’t feel it’s OK for me to be told I’m not invited and then have him expect me to contribute.”
This “big man” mentality—where family members compete to pick up the tab—might seem generous on the surface. But when it involves excluding a partner and then expecting them to fund their own exclusion? That’s not generosity. That’s disrespect wrapped in a bow.
User Familiar_Shock_1542 called it out:
“Oh, hell no. NTA. He’s the A for even considering using joint money for his mom’s excluding event. And y’all should stop playing the big man game.”
The Partner’s Dilemma: When “Losing Face” Matters More Than Your Spouse
In the comments, the original poster revealed her internal conflict that had many Redditors ALARMED:
“I don’t want him to have to lose face in front of his family, especially because I know his siblings will propose that they all pay for the trip and split it between them. It’d be humiliating to have to say he couldn’t do it.”
This response triggered alarm bells across the thread. User Scenarioing, a “Top 1% Commenter,” delivered a harsh reality check:
“‘I don’t want him to have to lose face in front of his family… …It’d be humiliating to him’
—Of course you don’t ‘want to’. You HAVE to. If he literally subsidizes her exclusion against his own wife with substantial marital assets, and he participates, there is no bottom. You are worthless be her decree and he obeys.
He caused this. It is up to him to fix it. Whatever the consequences are.”
Let that sink in. The original poster is worried about HER PARTNER’S embarrassment while he’s perfectly fine with her funding her own exclusion. The priorities here are WILDLY out of whack.
The Middle Ground: When Exclusion Is Okay (Sort Of)
User Polish_girl44, a “Top 1% Commenter,” offered a more balanced perspective:
“It depends. I love when I’m not included and my bf goes to spend time with his family. Its their time and I’m happy for them. But in case of the money – I think husband should find a way to pay from his own pocket if he feels to pay.”
This comment highlights an important distinction: Some people are genuinely okay with their partners having family-only time. The problem isn’t necessarily the exclusion itself—it’s being expected to PAY for that exclusion.
User Healthy-Detective326 agreed:
“I kind of agree. At least separate savings accounts for things like this. He wants to be the ‘big man?’ He can take it out of his fun money- not their joint account. Absolutely NTA.”
The Solution: What The Original Poster Decided
After reading hundreds of comments and absorbing the collective wisdom (and rage) of Reddit, the original poster revealed their plan:
“From reading all the comments I think I’m going to make that proposal and see how he responds. He’s big on the concept of fairness (AKA growing up with multiple siblings and wanting everything to be equal). Hopefully it resolves the issue.”
The proposal? If he takes money from their joint account for this trip, she gets to withdraw an equal amount for her own vacation or personal use. Fight fire with fire.
But user Tanyec offered a dose of financial reality:
“If that’s something you guys can afford, that seems fair. If it isn’t, then neither of you should be spending money you don’t have, and especially not on something that’s just for one of you.”
This is the crucial point many commenters emphasized: If they CAN’T afford for BOTH of them to take expensive vacations, then NEITHER of them should be draining their joint account for solo trips.
Other Commenters Weigh In: The Verdict Is UNANIMOUS
User Poekienijn summed up the fairness argument:
“NTA. If your partner wants to pay for it he should, but it can’t come out of your joint finances. Or if it has to: you should be able to take the same sum out to spend on a trip or something else just for you.”
User Heavy-Equipment8389 agreed:
“NTA. I can certainly understand why you don’t want to pay for something where you’re not welcome. If you have only joint finances, I’d tell your husband you want to balance things out with spending the same amount for something for yourself like a trip to your parents or something hobby related.”
User commanderclue called out the mother-in-law directly:
“NTA. Maybe the others who make the cut have spouses who don’t want to invest in this milestone anniversary birthday that they aren’t invited to. Your mil is a piece of work.”
And user Nice_Option1598 suggested the ultimate power move:
“NTA your mil is a grown adult who can’t have her childrens partners attend a holiday because she needs all attention on her birthday. She needs to get a grip and realise she’s not the centre of the universe. If your partner takes that money then make sure you take the same amount of money and shout your own Friends or family a week away without inviting him. Make it a really epic trip. Far better than hers. If he complains ask him how it’s any different from him.”
The Bigger Picture: What This Says About Relationships
This story forces us to confront uncomfortable questions that go WAY beyond one birthday party:
When does “family time” become deliberate exclusion? There’s a difference between grabbing coffee with your mom and going on a week-long luxury vacation without your spouse.
Should a partner attend events their spouse is banned from? Many commenters said absolutely not—that attending would be a betrayal in itself.
Can a relationship survive when one person’s family treats their partner as an outsider? This is the real question. If the mother-in-law doesn’t view her son’s partner as family, and the son is okay with that, what does that say about the relationship’s future?
Is it ever okay to use joint finances for something that benefits only one person? The overwhelming consensus: Only if BOTH partners agree, and only if it’s truly affordable.
The REAL Problem: It’s Not About The Money
Here’s the truth bomb that multiple commenters dropped: This isn’t really about the money at all.
It’s about respect. It’s about partnership. It’s about whether this man will choose to subsidize his partner’s exclusion or stand by their side.
User BoobySlap_0506 nailed it:
“That’s not quite it; he can see his mom on his own whenever, the problem here is the out of state trip that OP is not invited to. I know for me, my husband would decline travel like that if I was excluded.”
User MarlenaEvans agreed:
“Well you’re talking about 2 different things. First, these aren’t children. Also, she’s not meeting with them. She’s having a lavish party and vacation. People don’t typically do that without their spouses.”
User HorizonHunter1982 summed up the underlying issue perfectly:
“People are individuals and different people read different posts and comments.”
But the overwhelming majority agreed: This situation is NOT okay.
The Final Verdict: Who’s REALLY The Ahole Here?**
The overwhelming consensus? NTA (Not The Ahole).**
With 830 upvotes and 333 comments, the Reddit community spoke loud and clear: The original poster is absolutely, 100% justified in refusing to contribute financially to a vacation they’re excluded from.
But the comments reveal something deeper and more troubling: The real problem isn’t the mother-in-law. She has every right to invite whoever she wants to her birthday celebration. The real problem is the PARTNER.
His willingness to:
- Attend a vacation his spouse is banned from
- Drain their joint finances for this trip
- Prioritize his family’s “big man” games over his partner’s feelings
- Worry more about “losing face” than about his partner’s dignity
THAT’S the problem. THAT’S what has Reddit seeing red.
What Happens Next? The Questions That Keep Us Up At Night
As of the last update, the original poster planned to propose the “equal withdrawal” solution and see how their partner responds. But many Redditors warned that his response will be VERY telling about the future of this relationship.
Will he:
- Agree immediately and apologize for not seeing the problem?
- Push back and insist on going anyway?
- Find the money from his own “fun money” instead of joint finances?
- Decide not to attend the trip at all out of loyalty to his partner?
Whatever he chooses will reveal his true priorities. And if he chooses wrong? Well, as user axw3555 warned:
“What he chooses will tell you how much he respects you.”
The Bottom Line: When Love Meets Money, Someone Always Pays
This story is a perfect storm of family dynamics, financial boundaries, and relationship respect. It’s clickbait gold because it touches on something SO many people have experienced: being made to feel like an outsider by their partner’s family.
The mother-in-law has every right to celebrate however she wants. But the partner’s willingness to drain their joint account—money that’s half hers—to fund a vacation she’s banned from? That’s where understanding ends and betrayal begins.
Whether this couple can weather the storm depends entirely on whether the partner chooses his mother’s ego or his partner’s dignity. And honestly? The fact that this is even a question tells you everything you need to know.
What do YOU think? Should she have to pay for a party she’s excluded from? Would you attend a vacation your partner wasn’t invited to? Is the mother-in-law out of line, or is this just normal family bonding? Sound off in the comments below—we want to hear YOUR hot takes on this family drama!
UPDATE: As this story continues to blow up on Reddit, one thing is clear: Money problems in relationships are never JUST about money. They’re about respect, boundaries, and whether your partner has your back when it matters most. This couple’s next move will determine whether they’re a team—or whether they’re heading for separate bank accounts… and separate lives.
Leave a Reply