AITA for letting my SIL interview me about being a birth mother knowing my answers wouldn't be exactly what she was looking for?
The poster, a 34-year-old woman, placed her son for adoption at the age of 20. She has had no contact with the child or his adoptive family since the placement. This personal history is not a secret but is not frequently discussed.
The poster's younger sister-in-law (SIL), who became a young mother herself at 17 and chose to raise her child, developed a strong interest in adoption, focusing heavily on anti-adoption literature for her social work stud*es.
The SIL asked the poster for an interview for her assignment, centering questions on regrets, the decision to place the child, and the impact of post-birth contact like skin-to-skin bonding, leading the poster to question if she was wrong to be honest when the answers conflicted with the SIL's expected narrative.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The central conflict stems from the poster's firm conviction that placing her child for adoption was the only way to ensure his safety from the abusive environment she was living in at 20.
Her honest answers, which validated adoption as a necessary option in certain dire circumstances, directly contradicted the ideological stance her sister-in-law needed for her academic work.
The poster agreed to the interview, partially hoping to challenge the SIL's narrow view, but ended up frustrating her, leading to an accusation that she made the work harder.
Was the poster justified in prioritizing factual honesty about her past trauma and decision over accommodating her sister-in-law's academic requirements, or should she have declined the interview if she knew her perspective would derail the SIL's research focus?
Commenters Came in Hot with Their Takes:
The thread exploded with reactions. Whether agreeing or disagreeing, everyone had something to say — and they said it loud.