In this scenario, a Reddit user seeks validation for their decision to exclude their sister, Sarah, from their wedding party. The user recounts a history of animosity between Sarah and their girlfriend, Missy, stemming from Sarah’s penchant for making disparaging remarks about Missy’s belongings and character. Despite Missy’s avoidance of Sarah due to warnings from the user, Sarah continued her negative behavior, culminating in a family drama involving a Valentino purse six years prior.
Upon announcing their engagement, the user is met with Sarah’s assumption of being a bridesmaid, prompting a heated response from the user, who expresses their disbelief at Sarah’s expectation. This leads to a confrontation in which the user firmly states their decision to exclude Sarah from the wedding party, prompting emotional reactions from both Sarah and their mother, who pleads for Sarah’s inclusion.
Despite their family’s insistence, the user remains resolute in their decision to exclude Sarah and warns their parents of potential consequences if they continue to advocate on Sarah’s behalf. The user concludes by reaffirming their commitment to maintaining a boundary with Sarah, having blocked her from direct communication.
The user seeks validation for their actions, firmly believing that they are justified in excluding Sarah from their wedding party due to her past behavior and ongoing negative attitude towards their partner, Missy.
Read for more info Reddit
Here’s what top commenters had to say about this one:
Pretend-Percentage45 said:
Sure-Dust2251 said:
RogueInsanity90 said:
