Caught between personal desires and mutual respect, their conflict reveals the raw vulnerability beneath the surface of compromise. Each believes they are justified in their choice, yet the clash exposes the painful truth that love sometimes means confronting the limits of sacrifice.
My wife recently decided she doesn’t want to give oral anymore. Her reason is that she doesn’t like it and so doesn’t think she should have to do it. Ofcourse she’s right, no one can force her to give oral, and she’s entirely within her right to refuse oral to me.
That said, I’ve always hated having Friday night dinners with my in-laws. My in-laws are nasty judgemental people and for the last 10+ years I’ve spent almost every Friday night – when I should be relaxing from a long week’s work – with people that I honestly detest on some level.
Why do I do this? Because it makes my wife happy and I want her to be happy.
So I told my wife that’s fine – she doesn’t have to, but that I’d also like to stop doing something which I hate – spending every friday with my in-laws.
She says I’m an asshole and that the situations are different. I disagree, we’re both stopping something we hate despite it making the other happy. I think we’re both within our right to do so and neither of us are assholes.
Conclusion
The original poster (OP) is facing a conflict where his wife has unilaterally decided to stop performing a sexual act she dislikes, which the OP accepts as her right. However, the OP then decided to stop an activity he dislikes—attending mandatory Friday dinners with his in-laws—which he does only to ensure his wife’s happiness. His wife views his action as malicious retaliation, while the OP sees it as an equal exchange based on shared sacrifice.
Is the OP’s decision to stop visiting his in-laws a justifiable response to his wife ending sexual intimacy she dislikes, or is his comparison of the two situations fundamentally flawed because of the nature of sacrifice and spousal expectation? Should both partners maintain disliked obligations if they are vital to the other’s well-being, or are both entitled to withdraw from non-essential but mutually supportive activities?
Here’s how people reacted:
That said, if you just didn’t want to go to dinners with your in laws, just tell her you don’t want to. You are not the asshole for not wanting to. No need to make this about oral sex. It just says how petty you are about not getting oral from her and frankly, coming off as passive aggressive about her not wanting it.
Edit: HOLY SHIT platinum and silver???? Thanks y’all!
For clarification tho, I’m not comparing giving head to going to supper. I’m just saying he’s sacrificing his time and comfort to do something he hates on a WEEKLY basis. That’s a lot of time doing stuff you really don’t wanna do.
“Gotta pay me to see the in-laws with a blow job, honey”
These are two different things. Family and sex. Work on the blowjob issue separately with your wife. Don’t punish her for it find something else you like. Wouldn’t you enjoy it more if your partner was actually into it? Not doing it begrudgingly looking at the clock wondering ‘How much longer is this going to take? Is he ever going to finish?’
Edit: [BTW he literally says this:](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/bqoxdt/aita_for_doing_the_same_thing_as_my_wife/eo6m80w/)
>I’d be happy to go to half as many dinners for half as many blow jobs.
You’re doing this to punish her for not wanting to go down on you, not just because you don’t like your in-laws. It would be different if you chose to stop going just because you hate it, like she did, but instead you decided to stop going to get back at her for not doing something that she doesn’t like.
NAH she has a right to refuse oral just as you have a right to not be belittled every Friday night