“You’re not going on your own” - caring or controlling? AIBU?

[Samuelthespaniel]

My husband and I had words over the possibility of a solo trip (it was just an idea) yesterday and I think he may be the unreasonable party but I thought I’d ask in case I am genuinely missing something important here.

For context, married 4 years, no kids. Basically I brought up the idea of a city break I’d like to go on. We normally travel together with the exception of when I go on weekend trips with a friend or family or for work (which so far has only involved flying to a neighbouring country where I have family).

When I first mentioned it yesterday he essentially said “off with you” but his reaction later makes me think that this earlier comment was said because he thought I was joking. DH has no holidays left to take this year, I can WFH. I was considering doing a 3-4 night stay in this city and doing all of the things that I wouldn’t like to bore him with when we travel together eg taking myself off for a facial, some activities (think craft type things, etc). Great, I thought. I can WFH from the hotel and afterwards check out the landmarks, some shopping, etc. it would be my first solo trip in the sense that it would be the first time I’ve travelled alone purely for leisure for that amount of time, but I was looking forward to it and thought it would actually be good for my personal development.

Spoke about it again last night as I told DH about things that I don’t think he’d particularly enjoy doing that I was looking at doing in the city, and he said yeah but you’d need someone to watch your back there. I said I’m sure it would be fine, it’s a relatively safe city by any standard. He said “I’m not restricting you, you just can’t go on your own. Why don’t you wait til next year and see if (name of friend) can go with you. I said it’s not really the point, my friend might not want to go and I was particularly enjoying the prospect of going by myself. I

said I don’t see what it’s really got to do with you (perhaps this was wrong in hindsight). He said we’re married, we do everything together, to which I said that plenty of married people solo travel and he said “I don’t care, I don’t have to worry about them”. I said well ultimately it’s my choice and I have autonomy over my own actions.

He said that if I ignore his feelings then he’ll remember this for again and that we’ll have a big problem when I get back and that’s all he’s going to say, and that it’s not a threat. I replied by saying it does sound like a bit of a threat really. He said he didn’t want to hear anything else from me for the rest of the night, which also felt a bit patronising and like I was being chastised.

I should also mention that at some point in the conversation he asked why I needed to go away so often and I already go away 3-4 times a year with him and what’s the rush and do I want to just take a year out and travel or something and if that’s the case go off and do it (although I don’t see how that would be fine by him but a 3-4 city break isn’t, but anyway). I said that no, I don’t want to take a year out to go travelling and I’m perfectly happy with my life the way it is, but he said the signs are there that I want to be away all the time. I do like to go away, but it’s not to escape anything as such, I really do just like to see new places and thought it would be a good opportunity. I mean, I don’t question why he goes to the gym 3-4 times per week. I don’t feel like it’s any of my business. But I think I should be allowed to explore my hobbies as well.

Sorry this was so long! But does anyone have any experience of this? Did you go anyway? Did you decide against it?

I asked that and am waiting for clarification as to whether he's got a track record for behaving wildly where booze is around. If he's previously been known for getting falling down drunk, vomiting, hitting his head etc, then that's a bit different to a man who hardly drinks but whose wife suspects that he might go off the rails if he's presented with the opportunity. One is being caring, one is being controlling.

But I also don't like his approach of 'you're not going BECAUSE I SAY SO'.

Well, with the update I am no longer sure how much it's controlling and how much it's just tit-for-tat. Bit of both I expect. But either way I am 100% sure it's not caring.

Doesn't matter what his track record is. What matters is that she forbade him from going when he wanted to.

Anybody who stopped me from doing something then later tried to do the same thing themselves could fuck right off.

If anything, given the fact she treated him like an incompetent fool he's been remarkably cool in the face of her hypocrisy.

@Babybirdmum

oh yeah, I totally get it’s different if you have kids. But Op and husband don’t

He said that if I ignore his feelings then he’ll remember this for again and that we’ll have a big problem when I get back and that’s all he’s going to say, and that it’s not a threat.

Can't see how that is in any way caring.

But they were just discussing the possibility of him going. Not that she was right to say no either, but I do think that if he has a history of being an utter dick under the influence of alcohol it holds a little more weight than him just not wanting her to go 'alone'.

Good for you.

How very patronising. And wrong.

Some of us. There is no ‘us and you’ here.
Good for the OP if so.

No. No more weight at all.
She forbade him from doing something he'd enjoy doing, now he's doing the same.
Fair-a-fucking 'nough.

She dictated what he did, he's doing the same.

She' s 'concerned' about him getting drunk, he's concerned about whatever it is he's concerned about.

All square.

Don't be ridiculous.

Even if this was fair, the fact he is condescendingly making it about OP's safety rather than admitting he's playing tit-for-tat is extremely childish.

But it's not fair regardless, because expressing your disapproval of a hypothetical lads' trip to a known mad-bender-location, that didn't even get planned let alone actually go ahead without her DH, is not the same thing as telling your wife she can't travel alone.

Some seriously false equivalences on this thread. Hint: everything is not equal to everything else.

In other words, sightseeing and crafting are not the same as "unsavoury antics" for someone who has form for drinking too much. Expressing concerns for someone's safety in less than ideal circumstances is not the same as saying, "You're not going on your own," threatening unspecified consequences, and commanding one's partner not to speak again for the rest of the night.

She started it with her laying down of the law.

And it's obvious that there was a trip to Amsterdam being planned and she shut it down. Planned or not, though,
the message is clear:

At no point would he be allowed to go to a location that she didn't approve of.

So what if it's a mad-bender location, he's entitled to have fun.

Though I do appreciate the (not so) tacit admission that a wife can control her dh but not the other way around.

Refreshing.

Everybody's idea of fun is different.
As long as it's legal, nobody has the right to judge.

If he gets his idea of fun quashed by her, then he can do it to her.

Laying down of the law
Such a disingenuous reading of what actually happened.

I can see you're either an angry man or a male-centred woman though, so I'll leave it at that.

Literally.

If OP said she wants to go and get drunk in Amsterdam, her DH would actually have a point.

He didn't discuss his safety concerns with you, though. He tried to make a decision FOR you (it's unsafe to go alone, but safe to go next year with one other woman). That makes no sense - how can HE know better than YOU what YOU would be doing on a solo trip and what measures YOU would take to stay safe? He says he's specifically concerned about you as a solo female traveller, but he has not and cannot experience what that's like. He's stepping in and making a decision FOR you (or trying to) when your expertise is far greater than his.

Secondly, his solution doesn't make sense. You haven't said what the city is but I'm having a hard time thinking of someplace where it would be unsafe to visit as a careful, under the radar solo traveller but safe to go with a random other woman. In many cases, a solo traveller (especially one who can pass as a business traveller) will attract less attention and be safer due to being conscious of the need for safety. If your travelling companion is inexperienced or careless she could even be a liability. If you were planning to drink in public and leave your drink unattended or swim in the ocean and leave your things on the beach then sure, another person would be a help for those specific things - but as a solo traveler you probably wouldn't do these things in the first place.

He's also ignoring the fact that the specific desire for a solo trip is a large part of your reason for wanting to go. He's not saying "Gosh, Kharkiv's really close to the front lines right now - would you maybe think of visiting Vilnius or Kaunas this time instead?" He's saying you can NEVER take a solo trip. He may sincerely be worried about you, but he hasn't given YOU the respect of seriously considering your proposed trip for what it is. Maybe you didn't either with his Amsterdam trip; I'd suggest you both back off, make your concerns clear (not vague and assumed, as his have been) and let the person planning the trip explain the plan. Then you each can ask any questions or raise any concerns.

(It's a good thing I'm not married to him, as I would have taken "be off with you!" to mean "Go, have a nice trip, don't hang around here making me jealous I can't go!" and gone ahead and booked.)

Neither. Just have a sense of fairness.
I think that you're the type of woman who likes to have her cake and eat it.

No he wouldn't. She's an adult, she can get drunk if she wishes to.

No. Her idea of fun is to wfh during a city break and use the spare time to sightsee and relax. There is no risk to this behaviour. His idea of fun is to go on a stag do to a place noted for it’s red light district with a bunch of blokes intent on getting wasted. There’s a huge difference here - especially if he has a history of this type of behaviour. Theirs is no more safety in numbers when your companions are a bunch of drunk idiots, than there is going alone.

If my husband said this he would not be my husband for much longer. I think I would be even angrier about "He said he didn’t want to hear anything else from me for the rest of the night" than trying to interfere in your travel plans, but both would be deal breakers.

He's now said (albeit grudgingly) that you can go. Go. Book as soon as possible so if he changes his mind again, you can't just capitulate. If he ever tries to give you a hard time about it afterwards, leave him.

I'm retired so I don't have to worry about taking the piss out of annual leave allowances. Do you?

Cheating on your wife is legal, going to strippers is legal, having lap dances is legal, but the op having a solo holiday does not in any way mean she has accepted these activities in her marriage. Stop making completely false comparisons. You might as well say you bought a coffee after we discussed tightening our belts and saving money so you’ve given me the go ahead to spend hundreds of pounds on cocaine. These two things are quite different too.

Why are you so sure that he'd indulge in these activities?
You aren't, nor is she.
It's in your head and maybe he's.

Tell you what maybe he's aware of tripe like. Eat, Pray, Love and thinking the same of her.

She does not know he'll do anything dodgy.
That's a fact.
She doesn't trust him, why should he trust her?

Most other posters have left this thread since the Amsterdam bombshell.

Yet a few clinging on defending the OP.
A-mazing.