Husband fed me a food he knows I have never eaten and never willingly will

[Anon39]

I came back from taking our son to training and as I walked back in my husband asked me if I wanted a sausage sandwich I immediately said yes

started eating it and he said do you know what those sausage are? And I replied in the negative and he started to chuckle and said “do you like it?” So my hackles were up I stopped eating and asked for the package of sausage

he started getting defensive and I just knew it was black pudding (which I do not eat and have never eaten and he knows how I feel I have no feelings if you do eat it and that’s not the point of my post)

I found the package and it was black pudding sausage I was so upset he knew I would never have willingly eaten black pudding. I feel so betrayed and I’ve ended up crying and he has basically told me to grow up and stop being so dramatic he can’t understand why I’m so upset

it’s not really about the food it’s about the breaking my trust I would never think to question him about what type of sausage they were because I trusted him

not to drip feed I am Autistic so I am aware I have issues around food

yes you’re being unreasonable and should have checked (after 20 years of marriage)
no - your partner deliberately betrayed your trust

WHAT OP?!?!

The "solution" to this is you have to take on more chores and cook all your own food? And that his "problem" was not offering you a choice, not that he'd deliberately and maliciously fed you something you don't eat????

This isn't on! If you need to cook for yourself you might as well take on all cooking and he does all laundry and cleaning.

And you need a sincere apology.

Or she could take herself out of the equation and leave. Given that it appears there’s ongoing abuse.

This wouldn’t even be a valid argument if the OP had said she dislikes black pudding. She didn’t. She said she would never eat it - totally different. You decided to try it and found that you liked it. That’s fine. But you made that decision yourself, you didn’t have it forced on you by your partner disguised as something else, and you weren’t jeered at when you became upset, not only at the thought of eating it, but at the fact that someone who is supposed to love and respect you could deliberately take away your control over something they knew you felt strongly about. That’s the difference.

The real point is that it's trivial. It was a joke, not a particularly clever one and a bit mean, but a joke. I wouldn't eat sheep's eyeballs (my DH says they are gross - don't know when he tried them) and I'd be yuk about being fed one without knowing it. I'd get cross. I'd object to being laughed at. I'd say so. I'd wash out my mouth and have gin and tonic or something. I'd stomp a bit. I would not go on about it all over MN as if it was the end of the world. It's not.

In what world is this a joke ? OP’s partner knew she didn’t eat black pudding and had her own reasons for not doing so. He decided to feed it to her disguised as something else, and then mocked her distress. Or do you think it’s acceptable for people to assume they have the right to disregard the boundaries of others, depending on how ‘trivial’ they perceive them to be ?

I think boundaries and consent are important issues - but I don’t think they apply to absolutely everything. Or rather, I don’t think their importance is equal in all situations.

Sex - yes. Boundaries and consent absolutely non-negotiable.

Religious beliefs - again, pretty important.

Food… well I think we’ve already established that there are grey areas because it’s ok to trick kids into eating stuff. So at the very least it’s a sliding scale where age is concerned.

OP’s husband was mean. But tricking someone into eating something they are not religiously opposed to nor allergic to is not tantamount to rape, is it? Therefore not all consent issues are equal.

The grey areas of tricking kids eating stuff that’s good for them doesn’t apply to consenting adults who have decided not to eat something for reasons valid to themselves. Boundaries are boundaries, and if someone has decided to set a boundary in a particular area, why do you think others are entitled to cross it just because they think they know better ? OP’s partner didn’t tell her what he was doing because he knew if he had, she wouldn’t have eaten the sausages. And that’s the issue. If you can’t see the problem, I give up.

Why is this so hard for some posters? Eating and having sex are both places where the utmost trust must obtain between the participants. This is true whether its two or more. When you cook for and feed someone you are partaking in the most primal and original act of care and service that humans have as mammals. Trickery, deceit, and manipulation of the meal is a betrayal of trust at a very deep level. At an atavistic and somatic level.

That is what OP has complained about. It doesn’t matter that one or the other posters would treat this as trivial or some kind of funny joke. Lots of people have poor boundaries, are easily abused, or talk their way into not caring if they are bullied or infantalized by their partners.

But the rest us, and the OP, see this as a significant piece of disrespect and contempt for her autonomy. Its made worse by all of you trivializing it, making stupid analogies that are grounded in contempt for OP, , snd otherwise Minimizing the incident.

In marital therapy this kind of contempt snd secretive covert control over what OP eats would be taken as a very serious sign of marital breakdown. Because it signifies the DH’s contempt snd disregard for OP’s preferences. Its not “what happened” that matters here but that it happened that matters. So it doesn’t matter that this poster or that pister pretends she wouldn’t care if her partner fed her sheep’s eyeballs or shit. It doesn’t matter because it happened to OP snd not to them, and in OP’s experience it signals contempt and marital breakdown.

Good grief "consent is a sliding scale"

I didn't think this thread could get worse , but well done.

The grey areas of tricking kids eating stuff that’s good for them doesn’t apply to consenting adults who have decided not to eat something for reasons valid to themselves

Even with children there's a huge difference between say smothering green veg in cheese or tomato sauce because children do need to eat green vegetables and tricking a child into eating something like black pudding, which is not an essential foodstuff and then laughing about the deception.

Tricking kids isn't ok anyway.

We have never done it because of allergies. Aversion is an important safety mechanism.

And if people realised that about 25% of anaphylaxis happens in children who don't have a diagnosed allergy they might stop and reflect a bit more.

We offer a range of healthy food and the children all eat a healthy variety, even if there are foods they avoid.

If you can’t see the problem, I give up.

I doubt it!

I’ve been perfectly willing to accept that there was a problem with the husband’s behaviour. Maybe read what I’ve repeatedly said?

I have annoyed you and some other very black-and-white thinkers by probing the grey areas. For example (this is a slightly different one), what is the cut-off age for tricking kids into eating stuff? When is ok by Rosscameasdoody and when is it this Boundary Crossing? You can throw your hands up in despair and refuse to answer- but it’s still a valid question.

Not another nasty poster who has nothing to contribute but a sneer!

I’m only ‘demanding’ answers from people who insist on tagging me and saying they give up etc. Otherwise I’m happy to let the questions stand as evidence that there aren’t always hard, definable boundaries that are inviolable.

Do you get that? (You don’t have to answer btw 😉)

Do some of you seriously not understand the difference between behaving as a responsible parent and ensuring children eat a balanced diet and what the OP's husband did?

Not sure if this is for me, but I’m guessing so as mine was the last meaningful post before this.

I do understand the difference, yes. I was pursuing a discussion about whether there is a hard line on consent regarding food and where that might be.

I mean, clearly we don’t go into the kitchen at restaurants and enthusiastically consent to every ingredient. Restaurants seek consent regarding allergens - but that is generally all - and menus don’t list every ingredient.

I was interested in this boundary because clearly some posters (admittedly a minority) didn’t actually think the husband had behaved that badly.

I (mistakenly it seems) though a discussion forum was an appropriate space to explore why that might be, and where people thought the line was with food.

I think the line is some way clear of what OP’s husband did. I have made it clear I don’t condone his behaviour.

But that’s not ok for some posters who have presumably been sucked into some sort of purity spiral, whereby any discussion about preparing food for others must revolve constantly around a notion of a hard line of consent- whilst being simultaneously unwilling to define this line.

I was not attacking anyone. I was very measured, but I’ve wound some people up to the extent that their personal attacks have been deleted 🤷‍♀️

Mumsnet can be a strange place.

You flatter yourself if you think your post was meaningful.

Consent is consent. There isn't a sliding scale.

Yep, wouldn’t disagree at all.

Well I think I will flatter myself that my post was more meaningful than a tautology like ‘consent is consent’ 🤷‍♀️

It’s fine if you don’t want to engage with the topic. But don’t tag me and pester me with nasty jibes without actual content unless you’re willing to actually engage.

Of course ‘consent is consent’ but very, very clearly there is a sliding scale of consent when it comes to food, if only in the sense of age. At what age must you stop hiding Ingredients in your children’s food? Because if it’s vehemently not a sliding scale, as you’ve bossily stated, then you presumably have a watertight cut-off point that you can now state?

Or are you just going to snipe at me again? Hmmm. I wonder!

But that’s not ok for some posters who have presumably been sucked into some sort of purity spiral, whereby any discussion about preparing food for others must revolve constantly around a notion of a hard line of consent- whilst being simultaneously unwilling to define this line.

This doesn’t make any sense in the context of this thread though.. The only ‘notion of the hard line of consent’ here is one that doesn’t involve people sneakily being fed something they’ve already clearly said they don’t want to eat. And that clearly does define the line.