Am I being unreasonable by not wanting my partners ex in our house we are buying together?

[catmum789]

I am pregnant with my first baby and my partner has a child already with his ex wife, we are in the process of buying a house together, 50/50 bills etc and I said that I didn't want his ex wife coming in to the house, I thought this was perfectly reasonable because it's my safe space where I will be raising my baby and I don't want to be on edge constantly that it has to be spotless so she doesn't come in and judge. (Also a side note, my partner doesn't go in to his ex's and her new partners house.) My partner then got annoyed with me and said I was being unreasonable but I don't think I am. help :(

[quote Tattler2]@Getyourarseofffthequattro
When you cannot agree upon the terms under which you wish to live, living apart then becomes the only solution. Seemingly they have not been able to reach a mutual agreement.

The each have a right to live in the manner that is consistent with their beliefs and principles. To date, they seem not to have reached such an agreement. Maybe they will; maybe they won't.

In either case, it seems that the OP would probably be permitted entry into her partner's home. He seems to be of the opinion that it is reasonable to allow the mother/mothers of his child/children to enter into his home at least for pick/drop off. Neither mother may ever choose to exercise that entry, but his children will always know that their parents were capable of engaging in simple and routine civility.[/quote]
What in any case?

It's ridiculous to suggest that yet another child lives apart from their father because their father favours his ex wife.

The dad in this situation is wrong. He is putting his ex above his pregnant wife. There is no two ways about it.

If they decide to live apart, the partner will probably allow entry into his home to the mothers of both his children. this is such an odd solution. So extreme. This is at most a minor inconvenience to the partner to not have his ex in the house. But to OP it will be very uncomfortable. I mean they could even set up a bench in the garden as a compromise if she can't wait in the car..

Neither mother may ever choose to exercise that entry, but his children will always know that their parents were capable of engaging in simple and routine civility. the kids don't need to know any of it if mum doesn't try to walk in uninvited. It will just be normal.

How wonderful for the eldest children to have their mothers rights of entry to their step mothers home so staunchly defended.
His youngest would know that his father would rather his ex girlfriend could be in the house than live with them at all, however, if Tattlers advice be followed. Which is not so wonderful.
There's some hugely distorted morals and decision making processes going on here.

I suspect this may have as much to do with the DP wanting to have all parts of his life under one roof, for convenience sake, as anything else. That may work with the kind of couple that wake up one day to the fact they are already living separate lives apart from the kids, and decide to split on that basis. However, most divorces leave at least one of the pair distinctly pissed off, to put it mildly. If there is any acrimony in the air, then tight boundaries give things a working chance of moving forward.

How about a portaloo in the front garden?

I honestly think Tattler is just trolling at this point.
Always suggesting people split up over the minor of disagreements

The most minor*

@SpongebobNoPants
I think that it trivializing your partner and his feelings to determine that something about which he feels strongly is a minor problem. In this situation ,you are essentially saying that his feelings about the behavior that he wants to model for his children is minor. You are also suggesting that his status as an equal investor should take secondary standing to pregnancy.

My suggestion that they consider living apart is not saying that they should break up, but it is a way of allowing each of them they control that they each seem to need in their home environment.

I don't think that being pregnant gives you more say in your home than your partner has. I do think that people who have such different perspectives have to consider that they may not be compatible.

This, at least for the partner, is not his first relationship; so he knows that a pregnant partner is no indicator of a compatible relationship.

I’m suggesting this is easily resolvable. Splitting up yet another family because of a minor disagreement (yes it is minor and yes I do think people get to veto having people in their home even if another householder wants to allow it).

How we work, and most healthy normal functional people work, is they discuss, compromise and move on. They don’t break up families on a whim.

Disagreements are a normal part of relationships. You are not going to agree on everything 100% of the time.

In our household, how we resolve issues like this is we have a frank discussion about who’s needs or wants have greater weight and the weight of the affect each person’s need/want on the other person’s happiness in the situation.

For example, I want to paint the hallway green, husband wants it yellow. I really really dislike yellow, he prefers it but doesn’t hate green so we compromise because my option doesn’t make him unhappy, he’s ok with green but it’s not his favourite, but his option would make me unhappy.

In OP’s situation I would suggest she has the right to exclude the ex from her home because her right and happiness to feel safe and comfortable in her home outweighs both her DH’s and SC’s want to have an open door to ExW.
The reason for this conclusion is because having ExW in the house isn’t necessary, there is no need to have there at all. Calls, texts, FaceTime, email etc can all be used to communicate without her being physically present and will cause no harm to any of the householders.

The SCs have coped fine not having dad enter mum’s home, so they will be fine.

However, ExW entering the home will specifically cause emotional harm to OP (anxiety, not feeling safe etc) and therefore the logical resolution to this is for her husband to respect this and not want to cause unnecessary upset for his wife. His current wife’s needs should always outweigh his exWs. She is no longer the priority and other than having a general consideration for her overall well-being, he should not be invested in her.

@SpongebobNoPants
Unless I have missed it, I did not see anything indicating that the ex is advocating anywhere for entry into the OP's home. I see this as the partner advocating for his right to have his values present in a house for which he is an equal contributor. Perhaps, it is important for him to be the kind of man that he wants to be. This may be as important to him as his partner's perceived need for an emotionally safe environment. To trivialize his need because you can more readily identify with her need is neither reasonable nor fair.

He is not prioritizing the ex over his pregnant girl friend. His ex has no dog in that hunt. Ideally, they can talk and reach an agreement that recognizes and validates each of their needs and wants.

I don't think that being pregnant entitles you to more or less consideration in a property access and usage discussion. Had he simply said, I will not invest in a property where I need your approval or permission to invite someone into the house, not many people would view that as an unreasonable position.

Given the high divorce rates in most countries, many people would be better off if they gave more thought to compatibility and the reasonableness of living together before taking those steps.

Being an equal householder and contributor does not mean you get to ignore your partner’s feelings. By that logic sahms have no right to a say in their home if they aren’t contributing equally financially.

His is prioritising his ex, or rather his wants regarding his ex over his wife’s happiness. He should be the one to compromise here. As you’ve stated, his ex hasn’t even asked to come into their home so why is her DH insisting on his right to allow it, especially as he knows it goes against his current wife’s wishes.

To trivialize his need
He does not need his ex in his house. It is trivial because he can function perfectly well with the status quo which has been established - currently his ex and him do not enter each other’s homes, there is no precedence for this so his want is trivial.

His wife’s need to feel safe isn’t trivial. The mental health of his wife and well-being takes precedence over a new “nice to have” he’s decided he’d like but doesn’t need.

I don't think the financial side of things should come into deciding who is allowed in the house. I think it's shit to decide that the person with more money gets more say etc.

I agree @PingedPotato. It doesn’t matter who’s contributing what, even if her DH was paying for the house in it’s entirety he still doesn’t get to ignore his wife need for feeling safe and not invaded by his exw

Given the high divorce rates in most countries, many people would be better off if they gave more thought to compatibility and the reasonableness of living together before taking those steps

Aren’t you on your second marriage? If it was there simple then surely you wouldn’t be divorced either.

You can’t discuss every possible situation that may come up in the future prior to marriage, situations often arise that are completely unexpected. You obviously ensure your morals, life goals etc align but beyond that it’s quite difficult and people change over time.

Perhaps the it hadn’t even occurred to the OP prior to this discussion that her husband would be implementing an open door policy to his ExW as that is a new development and not the status quo.
That’s a reasonable assumption on OP’s part seeing as her husband doesn’t enter the ex’s house.

Unless I have missed it, I did not see anything indicating that the ex is advocating anywhere for entry into the OP's home. I see this as the partner advocating for his right to have his values present in a house for which he is an equal contributor. Perhaps, it is important for him to be the kind of man that he wants to be. This may be as important to him as his partner's perceived need for an emotionally safe environment. To trivialize his need because you can more readily identify with her need is neither reasonable nor fair.

Erm… in the OP she explains that he thinks she’s unreasonable for not wanting his ex in the house. He got annoyed about it. Therefore he must be advocating for having her in the house.

In contrast, there is nothing from the OP that suggests this is about having his values present or being the kind of man he wants to be. Nothing about modelling relationships. That’s all you. It could just as well be that he wants an easy life and is used to just doing what his ex wants.

It could just as well be that he wants an easy life and is used to just doing what his ex wants

This is so often the case. Quite often people take what they think is the path of least resistance.

It’s also worth pointing out that a ‘need’ to show he can get on with his ex (his ‘values’ and ‘the kind of man he wants to be’) can be met in hundreds of ways that don’t involve being in the house. He could go on day trips or for lunch out with the kids and their mother, for example.

A need to feel safe and comfortable in your own home, however, can only be met in the home.

Given that, her needs definitely trump hers.

Being pregnant does matter too. Pregnancy is hard and can make you vulnerable in many ways. Even more so in a blended family. A husband who fails to consider your needs during pregnancy can be extremely damaging.

What kind of man gets angry with his pregnant partner and insists that her need to feel safe at home is ‘trivial’? That is not the sort of good man with important values @Tattler2 seems determined to paint him as.

The only person who can say how important it is to the OP's partner to be able to have his views and values in place in his home is the OP's 9partner. The OP can and has stated what is important to her. He has stated what he wants observed in his home as well. Unlike many, I am not trivializing the views, values, or needs of either. I am assuming the both are stating positions that are equally important to and for them.

I don't know how safe I would feel in a home where my thoughts ,needs, and preferences were considered secondary to my partners based upon my gender, pregnancy status, or his about my ex. What if the OP were to see that she does feel safe having his children, his siblings , or his parents in the home? Should he then say, no they will not be permitted in the home?

Nothing has been stated that indicates that ex hat any desire to enter the home. The partner has stated the way in which " he" feels about access to his home. The only that about which we are guessing is how significant an issue is this for him and few seem to be willing to allow that "for him "this might be a significant boundary tied to his vision of himself as a person (having nothing to do with dictates from or by his ex).

Tattler is off on her own thing there I think.

@beyondourreef you are living my life.

I don't think that being pregnant entitles you to more or less consideration in a property access and usage discussion.

@Tattler2 while pregnancy and childbirth under 6 months ago may not be given special consideration where you live, it is given special consideration in the UK in various areas of law.

So yes the OP's husband is being unreasonable in trying to overrule the OP's wishes in allowing his ex into their home if it makes the OP feel unsafe. In fact pregnancy and childbirth meant I was given protection by various parties from my DP's ex. However unlike in the OP case my DP was the first one who ensured she could have no contact with me.

This is not the matter that can be in the grey. It's fairly black and white. She's allowed in or she's not.

Then it comes down to want or need. There is no need for the ex to come into the house, a president has been set where the ex wife doesn't allow DH into the house .

His want for easier life by either appearing like everything is all rosy with the ex or just because may the ex wife will give him agg is a want. The needs of the kids to show toys can be done by video chat if it's desperate.

If you look at psychology hierarchy of needs, feeling safe is one of the basics of human need.

Pregnancy you are vulnerable. Your status in a blended family makes you especially vulnerable to the whims of others. This is a fact no one can deny.

If he lives with wife 24/7 it's amazing to me that he would try to pacify the ex wife who is in his like for a few hours a week at most collectively. It's almost like apologising for being part of blended family. Gives me the ICK tbh.

This isn't about inviting the ex in, it's about who is in control of the house and the order of priority given in the house. If DH is used to giving control to ex for a easy life, this is one of the very minor ways he can do it whilst reminding op that she's not worthless but worth less. It will show up in other areas too.

I seem to be having trouble with the basic concepts in this thread. It might be because ,as far as I know, I have never known people who have banned anyone from their homes. I cannot image saying to my step kids that their mother would have to wait outside should she come to pick them up. In fact we teach all of the kids about basic courtesy and that would be so contrary to what we teach the kids that I just can't fathom living a life where that would come close to being a consideration. That said, I suppose the rules should be consistent with the environment in which you choose to place yourself.

I seem to be having trouble with the basic concepts in this thread

I’m inclined to agree. You clearly have never had anxiety or a desire to feel safe, which is good but not everyone is so lucky.