Hello everyone, I hope you can help me. Please feel free to reply in Dutch. I can understand quite a bit but it is easier to explain my case in English.
At the beginning of this year I moved into a new apartment. Now I have gotten into a discussion with the next door neighbour that my kitchen window needs to be closed at all times. For better understanding, my window is facing one of hers and I assume it is her bedroom window.
She stood in front of my kitchen window yesterday (that I had open on kiep) and knocked to tell me that I had to close it. I also checked with my landlord if this is the case and they told me that, yes and it had to be closed for privacy reasons. However, since I’ve been living there I have a foil on the window as I also like to have my privacy so you cannot see anything when looking out or in. As we are getting close to summer you can imagine that not being able to open a window for fresh air is very inconvenient. Additionally, I was not aware of this prior to signing the rental agreement, nor did my landlords inform me about this situation. Do I have to comply as I have not been aware and it is not stated in my contract?

On Feb. 9, 2022, I officially became "Homeless" on state record and applied for rent and housing assistance in Knoxville through KCDC/Section 8.
Per today's date:
Zeitraum = 825 days aka 27.123 months. This is exactly the length of time I've been surviving homeless.
It wasn't until THIS YEAR that my name "officially" has gone from being on their "PRE-waiting list": aka the long-ass waiting list you're on BEFORE graduating to the "OFFICIAL" waiting list.
*Btw, no one informed me of this being their process. I waited for many hopeful months while living out of my car, waiting to be called that I contacted them to get the news of only being on the PRE-waiting list- List. Good shit...
So, I decided to visit KCDC in-person last week to speak to them about my still pending status and ask if there were any actions I could take to help my chances of having a place to call home...
FYI: The Broadway location is ONLY for applying to any of their listed complexes. Unfortunately, ALL their waiting lists are also completely full.
*The Harriet Tubman location is for applying or relating to receiving vouchers for financial rental assistance.
FYI: you can ONLY APPLY for a voucher between their generous hours of 8AM-3PM only on the 2nd WED of each month, just fyi for any new applicants.
All I was told at each location was to "continue waiting" and that I would one day be contacted whenever my name came up.
The housing costs in Knoxville, especially have risen quickly dramatically even since when I very first began applying and they'll continue this trend.
**BTW, they're SHUTTING DOWN our Homeless Shelter on Broadway due to a LACK OF FUNDING (good timing), so yet another option we can all cross off our lists of any places to lie our heads down at night.
Pretty ironic that TN is the FREAKING VOLUNTEER STATE, considering... "GO VOLS", am I right??
See news link here: https://www.wate.com/news/knox-county-news/the-foyer-a-low-barrier-knoxville-homeless-shelter-set-to-close-as-officials-seek-new-operato
Oh yeah, HOMELESSNESS IN TN is also now a CLASS E FELONY!
*You are automatically disqualified from receiving public assistance such as Section 8 and SNAP benefits unless you've fully paid off ALL FEES (up to $3,000 for being homeless) and have fully completed your probation period! *KEEPING THINGS REALLY CLASSY, TN! 😜 (Also, you can't sleep in your vehicle at any rest stops, either. Also illegal. You can sit there in your car for only 3hrs max.)
"In Tennessee, felonies are classified from A to E, with Class A being the most serious and Class E being the least severe. A Class E felony in Tennessee is the lowest level of felony. It includes offenses such as theft of property valued at $1,000 to $2,500, certain driving offenses like third or subsequent DUI offenses, stalking, and forgery. The typical punishments for Class E felonies in Tennessee include: 1. One to six years of imprisonment (PRISON TIME, not jail), and/or 2. Fines up to $3,000. (Also, just pointing out that with any Class E felonies, being the "least" serious felony, if any fines for the offense are deemed as "unspecified" in their books, they then have the capability to charge an offender up to $50,000.)
However, these punishments can vary based on a variety of factors such as the exact nature of the crime, whether or not the defendant has a prior criminal record, and other relevant factors considered by the court." See specifics here: https://codes.findlaw.com/tn/title-40-criminal-procedure/tn-code-sect-40-35-111/
Covertly, they've named this abomination as the:
"Equal Access to Public Property Act of 2012.” Makes it sound so helpful and positive for us, doesn't it? Thanks, guys! LOL!
See below what all is covered, including: **If they happen to search and find any of your stored belongings (likely being at times literally their entire life's possessions, including if they find you've stored your food somewhere) the police will immediately confiscate it, and then you will have a total of 90 days to go to them and claim all your belongings or else they'll consider it as "abandoned property". You must detail exactly where on the property that they found your items, so that they then will slap you with a Class E Felony, charge you a "holding fee" for whatever amount of time they "stored" it for you, also stating that "the court shall include an order of restitution for any property damage or loss incurred as a result" of you or your belongings being present on the state property. But hey, at least you get your items back!
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2021/title-39/chapter-14/part-4/section-39-14-414/#:~:text=It%20is%20an%20offense%20for,agency%20responsible%20for%20the%20land.
My Story: (if you've made it this far and give any shits about hearing it for the sake of context.)
Around 1 year-deep into the COVID-19 pandemic, I had been living in an expensive house centered in the North Knox Historic District, working FT at a job I'd spent the past few yrs diligently climbing their ladder, and splitting the house payment with my then, Fiancee of 5 1/2 yrs. He began dating a different girl, had moved her into our house, while stating that "If I didn't stop being depressed, he was going to kick me out". Unfortunately, the house had been put solely in his name when bought. You see, my grandmother had just passed from COVID-19, my childhood best friend had just passed away, and I had been informed suddenly that my 84yrs-old dementia-ridden Father was getting worse and also nearing his last days. Not long after, my older sister contacted me acting upset, stating that he now needed to be on continual watch for FT care, so I packed my things, left my fiancee and my then home and moved in to care for my late father. Eventually, I had to leave my job to fulfill my caretaking duties but I don't regret being there for my father but it grew to be very difficult times, as it was for many those yrs. Dad passed away Jan. 31, 2022. My mother immediately inherited the house at his death, per their messy divorce agreement many yrs before. She so graciously left no time after me literally watching him take his very last breath in the bedroom down the hall from my own for her to serve me immediate eviction papers, now forcing me to leave the home that I grew up with my father in, while being raised. This house, I had only 1 year previous, agreed to my mother and sister when they had requested this of me, quit my long-term, FT job, losing all my sources of income in order to live with and solitary care for my father. (Everyone else- meaning my mother and 3 sisters -were all "too busy" to help me out or give even short breaks. I'm informing you of this, so that anyone that ever says to themselves, "why don't they just go live with family", can comprehend how that's not an actual option for everyone, so when the systems are failing, ppl aren't always on the streets or living out of their cars bc of drug problems or laziness or whatever other common misconceptions I've heard from ppl that are limited in grasping these situations for others. That last month that he was still alive, they all "forbade" me from leaving the house at all nor having any visitors "for his health", despite my deep despair from watching his health ferociously decline, resulting in my very rapidly declining mental health and massive weight-loss and over-exhaustion. Upon receiving my eviction notice, I then immediately began applying for Section 8 assistance. I had no one left and nowhere to go. It's like this for a lot of people. Don't assume ppl always have any other options available, is my point of giving so much backstory. Not exactly trying to "victimize" myself here for pity. I'm strong, I've got this. Just trying to get some points across for when you judge another's situation that you don't know.
Ok, here's the last I'll say about all this. Just humor me and try to consider what I'm pointing out here.
Every single one of us local TN natives have seen through the years how various homeless individuals will bravely step into some of our favorite local diners, gas stations, retail stores, etc. Them, asking employees permissions for maybe utilizing a restroom, some cold water or a drink, often after them walking around most the day (shelter kicks everyone out once it's morning), often after being in our unforgiving weather or high temps. Sometimes, they're asking even for a small bite to eat or leftovers from the kitchen. SO MANY times throughout the years, we've all been standing by, as we witness some enraged employee or the manager angrily decline, followed with often loud threats of calling the cops on them, etc in an attempt to motivate them to not come back asking later, as now they see how many of their annoyed paying customers are actively shaking their heads and shaming their whole interaction with rotten looks of disgust.
I mean after all, our businesses ABSOLUTELY can't be taking any risks of "losing their dedicated customers, just BC some "lazy bums" keep showing up, "always asking for free handouts" and "scaring away our business".
Really, it's best to just not give them anything in the 1st place cus ya know, just like strays, they'll "just keep showing back up"...
Right?
Excluding sometimes a random kind individual's exception, for the most part this mindset I'm highlighting here has most often worked as an sorta unspoken "Golden Rule" when we're relating to how we'll decidedly "handle" our large and growing homeless population.
Now that our housing prices have fully skyrocketed, with increases markedly on the rise almost immediately after the COVID-19 Pandemic that left so many of us without income that was supporting our access to necessities. Many, many "middle-class" individuals who were previously working averaging their 5 days/week (ty past labor strikes enforcing our allowance of 2 days off) and living comfortably on their 40hrs/week paychecks are currently struggling to find availability and also afford even a 1br ran-down apartment in our "lower-class" neighborhoods. Most are now working multiple jobs trying to keep up, and childcare isn't offered for free, so it keeps everyone from having opportunities to not only spend time raising their children vs random strangers who are also overworked, but how can you save money when you're losing part of what you earn, just to be able to go to work and not be fully abandoning your children to fend for themselves if left home alone?
Often, homeless ppl can be seen all throughout our city, and guaranteed to be growing in mass numbers when inching closer toward that underpass leading up to the Historic Gay St./Downtown/UT campus/Cumberland Strip. *It's really fairly ironic I've thought, how so much of our income has always been made/spent here, however we're required each time, to first drive through the huge crowd of terribly unfortunate ppl left standing without their bare necessities, often left to sleep outside the packed shelter when it hits capacity, which is always a guarantee. They're not left outside strictly bc they're "on drugs", like a lot have been led to believe.
Lastly, but oh of such an amazing relevance-
**Here's some realism surrounding our cultures' universally pre-conceived (disconnected/egotistical and mis-informed), accepted stigma that states the following phrase:
"These ppl just won't get a job bc they're SO LAZY and just want to live off all us hard-working American's tax dollars...blah blah blah.." Employers won't hire if you don't have an address and the shelters fail to deliver anyone's incoming mail, nor do businesses want to hire a homeless person showing up without proper hygiene or attire or any kind of criminal record. Also, transportation is a bitch. KAT bus costs money, and is very limited on its area services. By walking such lengthy distances, not only can your safety be at risk (especially for Females or any shifts beginning or letting out after dark) but you're gonna be super sweaty and gross by the time you actually arrive to then work a full shift, if you can even somehow make it on time every day by walking for hours before and then after every single shift that you show for.
This isn't any kinda "new" issue for the poor, btw. Don't be such heartless fools, making someone else's situation about "you".
Life's realities can forcibly humble an individual, catching us off-guard for what we'll often end up facing. Always count your blessings and never assume you know anything about anyone else's struggles or how they got there. We're all just trying to survive in this place.
Thanks for reading and hopefully this info helps bring insight to whomever reads this. Good luck out there, I mean it. We got this. ❤️

In the world of international trade, business owners are always looking for ways to improve their operations and broaden their clientele. In this quest, freezone business setup stands out as a ray of hope, providing ambitious visionaries with a plethora of advantages and incentives. We explore the benefits of freezone business setup in this blog post, enabling you to embrace your inner entrepreneur and prosper in the cutthroat world of global trade.
The Influence of Free Zones
Free zones are economic enclaves that are purposefully created within a nation to promote trade, encourage innovation, and draw in foreign capital. These approved areas have several benefits that distinguish them from conventional business settings, including:
100% Foreign Ownership: The possibility of 100% foreign ownership is probably the most alluring aspect of setting up a business in a free zone. In contrast to mainland businesses, which frequently need local sponsors, free zone companies give foreign nationals total authority over their businesses, enabling owners to set their own goals and make independent strategic decisions.
Tax Incentives: Value-added tax (VAT), import and export duties, and corporate and personal income tax exemptions are just a few of the alluring tax incentives that free zones generally provide. These tax advantages give businesses a competitive edge in the global marketplace by resulting in significant cost savings and increased profitability.
Customs Duty Exemptions: Imported goods into free zones are frequently exempt from tariffs and customs duties, which simplifies import-export transactions and lowers operating expenses. Businesses involved in international trade especially benefit from this advantage, which allows them to maintain competitive pricing and maximize supply chain efficiency.
Streamlined Setup Process: To reduce red tape and speed up the setup process, free zone authorities have instituted streamlined company formation and registration procedures. Entrepreneurs can launch their businesses fast and effectively, saving time and money, with the help of free zone authorities and effective licensing procedures.
The world-class infrastructure found in free zones includes state-of-the-art telecommunications networks, modern office spaces, warehouses, and logistics facilities. Modern amenities and technology are featured in these spaces, giving companies the tools they need to run smoothly and successfully compete on a global basis.
Free zones offer businesses convenient access to international markets due to their strategic location close to major transportation hubs, ports, and airports. Businesses in free zones gain from seamless connectivity and logistics support, which facilitates market expansion and growth opportunities, whether they are aiming for regional or global markets.
How to Set Up a Free Zone Business
Planning and Research: Identify appropriate free zones that complement your target markets, industry sector, and business objectives by conducting in-depth research. To make an informed choice, take infrastructure, incentives, and regulatory frameworks into account.
Pick the Best Free Zone: Decide which free zone best suits your company's needs in terms of infrastructure and incentives. Regardless of your industry—manufacturing, services, logistics, or technology—there is a free zone specifically designed for you.
Prepare Documentation: As required by the selected free zone authority, collect the required paperwork, such as copies of your passport, a business plan, a lease agreement, and any pertinent forms.
Application Submission: Fill out and send the application form to the appropriate free zone authority, following the prescribed guidelines and procedures, along with the necessary documentation.
Conclusion
The Setting up a business in a free zone gives entrepreneurs the best chance to become visible in vibrant, dynamic marketplaces. Through the utilization of free zone benefits such as tax incentives, exemptions from customs duties, world-class infrastructure, streamlined setup procedures, and 100% foreign ownership, companies can realize their full potential and attain sustainable growth and success in the current competitive business environment. You can confidently navigate the challenges of freezone business setup and grow your company to new heights of success when Flying Colour Business is your reliable partner. Get in touch with us right now to find out more about our offerings and to start your journey toward success and growth with Flying Colour Business at your side.

abandon, ability, able, about, above, absence, absolute, absolutely, abstract, abundance, academy, accent, accept, access, accident, accompany, accomplish, according, account, accurate, achieve, achievement, acid, acknowledge, acquire, across, action, active, activity, actor, actual, actually, adapt, addition, additional, address, adequate, adjust, administration, admire, admission, admit, adolescent, adopt, adult, advance, advantage, adventure, advertise, advice, advise, adviser, advocate, affair, affect, afford, afraid, after, afternoon, again, against, age, agency, agenda, agent, aggressive, ago, agree, agreement, agriculture, ahead, aid, aim, air, aircraft, airline, airport, alarm, album, alcohol, alive, all, alliance, allow, ally, almost, alone, along, already, also, alter, alternative, although, always, amateur, amazing, ambition, ambulance, among, amount, analysis, analyst, analyze, ancient, and, anger, angle, angry, animal, anniversary, announce, annual, another, answer, anticipate, anxiety, any, anybody, anymore, anyone, anything, anyway, anywhere, apart, apartment, apologize, apparent, apparently, appeal, appear, appearance, apple, application, apply, appoint, appointment, appreciate, approach, appropriate, approval, approve, approximately, architect, area, argue, argument, arise, arm, armed, army, around, arrange, arrangement, arrest, arrival, arrive, art, article, artist, artistic, as, ashamed, aside, ask, asleep, aspect, assault, assert, assess, assessment, asset, assign, assignment, assist, assistance, assistant, associate, association, assume, assumption, assure, at, athlete, athletic, atmosphere, attach, attack, attempt, attend, attention, attitude, attorney, attract, attraction, attractive, attribute, audience, author, authority, auto, available, average, avoid, award, aware, awareness, away, awful, baby, back, background, bad, badly, bag, balance, ball, ban, band, bank, bar, barely, barrel, barrier, base, baseball, basic, basically, basis, basket, basketball, bath, bathroom, battery, battle, be, beach, bear, beat, beautiful, beauty, because, become, bed, bedroom, bee, beef, beer, before, begin, beginning, behavior, behind, being, belief, believe, bell, belong, below, belt, bench, bend, beneath, benefit, beside, besides, best, bet, better, between, beyond, bicycle, big, bike, bill, billion, bind, biological, bird, birth, birthday, bit, bite, black, blade, blame, blanket, blind, block, blood, blow, blue, board, boat, body, bomb, bombing, bond, bone, book, boom, boot, border, boring, born, borrow, boss, both, bother, bottle, bottom, boundary, bowl, box, boy, boyfriend, brain, branch, brand, brave, bread, break, breakfast, breast, breath, breathe, brick, bridge, brief, briefly, bright, brilliant, bring, broad, broken, brother, brown, brush, buck, budget, build, building, bullet, bunch, burden, burn, bury, bus, business, busy, but, butter, button, buy, buyer, by, cabin, cabinet, cable, cake, calculate, call, camera, camp, campaign, campus, can, Canadian, cancer, candidate, cap, capability, capable, capacity, capital, captain, capture, car, carbon, card, care, career, careful, carefully, carrier, carry, case, cash, cast, cat, catch, category, Catholic, cause, ceiling, celebrate, celebration, celebrity, cell, center, central, century, CEO, ceremony, certain, certainly, chain, chair, chairman, challenge, chamber, champion, championship, chance, change, changing, channel, chapter, character, characteristic, characterize, charge, charity, chart, chase, cheap, check, cheek, cheese, chef, chemical, chest, chicken, chief, child, childhood, Chinese, chip, chocolate, choice, cholesterol, choose, Christian, Christmas, church, cigarette, circle, circumstance, cite, citizen, city, civil, civilian, claim, class, classic, classroom, clean, clear, clearly, client, climate, climb, clinic, clinical, clock, close, closely, closer, clothes, clothing, cloud, club, clue, cluster, coach, coal, coalition, coast, coat, code, coffee, cognitive, cold, collapse, colleague, collect, collection, collective, college, colonial, color, column, combination, combine, come, comedy, comfort, comfortable, command, commander, comment, commercial, commission, commit, commitment, committee, common, communicate, communication, community, company, compare, comparison, compete, competition, competitive, competitor, complain, complaint, complete, completely, complex, complexity, compliance, complicate, complicated, component, compose, composition, comprehensive, computer, concentrate, concentration, concept, concern, concerned, concert, conclude, conclusion, concrete, condition, conduct, conference, confidence, confident, confirm, conflict, confront, confusion, Congress, congressional, connect, connection, consciousness, consensus, consequence, conservative, consider, considerable, consideration, consist, consistent, constant, constantly, constitute, constitutional, construct, construction, consultant, consume, consumer, consumption, contact, contain, container, contemporary, content, contest, context, continue, continued, contract, contrast, contribute, contribution, control, controversial, controversy, convention, conventional, conversation, convert, conviction, convince, cook, cookie, cooking, cool, cooperation, cop, cope, copy, core, corn, corner, corporate, corporation, correct, correspondent, cost, cotton, couch, could, council, count, counter, country, county, couple, courage, course, court, cousin, cover, coverage, cow, crack, craft, crash, crazy, cream, create, creation, creative, creature, credit, crew, crime, criminal, crisis, criteria, critic, critical, criticism, criticize, crop, cross, crowd, crucial, cry, cultural, culture, cup, curious, current, currently, curriculum, custom, customer, cut, cycle, dad, daily, damage, dance, danger, dangerous, dare, dark, darkness, data, database, date, daughter, day, dead, deal, dealer, dear, death, debate, debt, decade, decide, decision, deck, declare, decline, decrease, deep, deeply, deer, defeat, defend, defendant, defense, defensive, deficit, define, definitely, definition, degree, delay, deliver, delivery, demand, democracy, Democratic, Democrat, demonstrate, demonstration, deny, department, depend, dependent, depending, depict, depression, depth, deputy, derive, describe, description, desert, deserve, design, designer, desire, desk, desperate, despite, destroy, destruction, detail, detailed, detect, detection, detective, determine, develop, developing, development, device, devil, dialogue, diet, differ, difference, different, differently, difficult, difficulty, dig, digital, dimension, dining, dinner, direct, direction, directly, director, dirt, disability, disagree, disappear, disaster, discipline, disclose, discover, discovery, discrimination, discuss, discussion, disease, dish, dismiss, disorder, display, dispute, distance, distinct, distinction, distinguish, distribute, distribution, district, diverse, diversity, divide, division, divorce, DNA, do, doctor, document, dog, domestic, dominant, dominate, door, double, doubt, down, downtown, dozen, draft, drag, drama, dramatic, dramatically, draw, drawer, drawing, dream, dress, drink, drive, driver, drop, drug, dry, due, during, dust, duty, dwell, dying, dynamic, each, eager, ear, earlier, early, earn, earnings, earth, earthquake, ease, easily, east, eastern, easy, eat, economic, economy, edge, edit, edition, editor, educate, education, educational, educator, effect, effective, effectively, efficiency, efficient, effort, egg, eight, either, elderly, elect, election, electric, electrical, electricity, electronic, element, elementary, eliminate, elite, else, elsewhere, e-mail, embrace, emerge, emergency, emission, emotion, emotional, emphasis, emphasize, employ, employee, employer, employment, empty, enable, encounter, encourage, end, enemy, energy, enforcement, engage, engine, engineer, engineering, English, enhance, enjoy, enormous, enough, ensure, enter, enterprise, entertain, entertainment, entire, entirely, entrance, entry, environment, environmental, episode, equal, equally, equipment, equivalent, era, error, escape, especially, essay, essential, essentially, establish, establishment, estate, estimate, etc, ethics, ethnic, European, evaluate, evaluation, evening, event, eventually, ever, every, everybody, everyday, everyone, everything, everywhere, evidence, evolution, evolve, exact, exactly, exam, examination, examine, example, exceed, excellent, except, exception, exchange, exciting, executive, exercise, exhibit, exhibition, exist, existence, existing, expand, expansion, expect, expectation, expense, expensive, experience, experiment, expert, explain, explanation, explode, explore, explosion, expose, exposure, express, expression, extend, extension, extensive, extent, external, extra, extraordinary, extreme, extremely, eye, fabric, face, facility, fact, factor, factory, faculty, fade, fail, failure, fair, fairly, faith, fall, false, familiar, family, famous, fan, fantasy, far, farm, farmer, fashion, fast, fat, fate, father, fault, favor, favorite, fear, feature, federal, fee, feed, feel, feeling, fellow, female, fence, festival, few, fewer, fiber, fiction, field, fifteen, fifth, fifty, fight, fighter, fighting, figure, file, fill, film, final, finally, finance, financial, find, finding, fine, finger, finish, fire, firm, first, fish, fishing, fit, fitness, five, fix, flag, flame, flat, flavor, flee, flesh, flight, float, floor, flow, flower, fly, focus, folk, follow, following, food, foot, football, for, force, foreign, forest, forever, forget, form, formal, formation, former, formula, forth, fortune, forward, found, foundation, founder, four, fourth, frame, framework, free, freedom, freeze, French, frequency, frequent, frequently, fresh, friend, friendly, friendship, from, front, fruit, frustration, fuel, fulfill, full, fully, fun, function, fund, fundamental, funding, funeral, funny, furniture, furthermore, future, gain, galaxy, gallery, game, gang, gap, garage, garden, garlic, gas, gate, gather, gay, gaze, gear, gender, gene, general, generally, generate, generation, genetic, gentleman, gently, German, gesture, get, ghost, giant, gift, gifted, girl, girlfriend, give, given, glad, glance, glass, global, glove, go, goal, God, gold, golden, golf, good, govern, government, governor, grab, grace, grade, gradually, graduate, grain, grand, grandmother, grant, grass, grave, gray, great, green, grocery, ground, group, grow, growing, growth, guarantee, guard, guess, guest, guide, guideline, guilty, gun, guy, habit, habitat, hair, half, hall, hand, handful, handle, hang, happen, happy, harbor, hard, hardly, hat, hate, have, he, head, headline, headquarters, health, healthy, hear, hearing, heart, heat, heaven, heavily, heavy, heel, height, helicopter, hell, hello, help, helpful, hence, her, herb, here, heritage, hero, herself, hey, hi, hide, high, highlight, highly, highway, hill, him, himself, hip, hire, his, historic, historical, history, hit, hold, hole, holiday, holy, home, homeless, honest, honey, honor, hope, horizon, horror, horse, hospital, host, hot, hotel, hour, house, household, housing, how, however, huge, human, humor, hundred, hungry, hunter, hunting, hurt, husband, hypothesis, ice, idea, ideal, identification, identify, identity, ignore, ill, illegal, illness, illustrate, image, imagination, imagine, immediate, immediately, immigrant, immigration, impact, implement, implication, imply, importance, important, impose, impossible, impress, impression, impressive, improve, improvement, incentive, incident, include, including, income, incorporate, increase, increased, increasingly, incredible, indeed, independence, independent, index, indicate, indication, individual, industrial, industry, infant, infection, inflation, influence, inform, information, ingredient, initial, initially, initiative, injury, inner, innocent, inquiry, inside, insight, insist, inspire, install, instance, instead, institute, institution, institutional, instruction, instructor, instrument, insurance, intellectual, intelligence, intend, intense, intensity, intention, interaction, interest, interested, interesting, internal, international, Internet, interpret, interpretation, intervention, interview, introduce, introduction, invasion, invest, investigation, investigator, investment, investor, invite, involve, involved, involvement, Iraqi, Irish, iron, Islamic, island, Israeli, issue, it, Italian, item, its, itself, jacket, jail, Japanese, jet, Jew, Jewish, job, join, joint, joke, journal, journalist, journey, joy, judge, judgment, juice, jump, junior, jury, just, justice, justify, keep, key, kick, kid, kill, killer, killing, kind, king, kiss, kitchen, knee, knife, knock, know, knowledge, lab, label, labor, laboratory, lack, lady, lake, land, landscape, language, lap, large, largely, last, late, later, Latin, latter, laugh, launch, law, lawsuit, lawyer, lay, layer, lead, leader, leadership, leading, leaf, league, lean, learn, learning, least, leather, leave, left, leg, legacy, legal, legend, legislation, legislative, legislator, legitimate, lemon, length, less, lesson, let, letter, level, liberal, library, license, lie, life, lifestyle, lifetime, lift, light, like, likely, limit, limitation, limited, line, link, lip, list, listen, literary, literature, little, live, living, load, loan, local, locate, location, lock, long, long-term, look, loose, lose, loss, lost, lot, lots, loud, love, lovely, lover, low, lower, luck, lucky, lunch, luxury, machine, mad, magazine, mail, main, mainly, maintain, maintenance, major, majority, make, maker, makeup, male, mall, man, manage, management, manager, manner, manufacturer, manufacturing, many, map, margin, mark, market, marketing, marriage, married, marry, mask, mass, massive, master, match, material, math, matter, may, maybe, mayor, me, meal, mean, meaning, meanwhile, measure, measurement, meat, mechanism, media, medical, medication, medicine, medium, meet, meeting, member, membership, memory, mental, mention, menu, mere, merely, mess, message, metal, meter, method, Mexican, middle, might, military, milk, million, mind, mine, minister, minor, minority, minute, miracle, mirror, miss, missile, mission, mistake, mix, mixture, mm-hmm, mode, model, moderate, modern, modest, mom, moment, money, monitor, month, mood, moon, moral, more, moreover, morning, mortgage, most, mostly, mother, motion, motivation, motor, mountain, mouse, mouth, move, movement, movie, Mr, Mrs, Ms, much, multiple, murder, muscle, museum, music, musical, musician, Muslim, must, mutual, my, myself, mystery, myth, naked, name, narrative, narrow, nation, national, native, natural, naturally, nature, near, nearby, nearly, necessarily, necessary, neck, need, negative, negotiate, negotiation, neighbor, neighborhood, neither, nerve, nervous, net, network, never, nevertheless, new, newly, news, newspaper, next, nice, night, nine, no, nobody, nod, noise, nomination, nominee, none, nonetheless, nor, normal, normally, north, northern, nose, not, note, nothing, notice, notion, novel, now, nowhere, nuclear, number, numerous, nurse, nut, object, objective, obligation, observation, observe, observer, obtain, obvious, obviously, occasion, occasionally, occupation, occupy, occur, ocean, odd, odds, of, off, offense, offensive, offer, office, officer, official, often, oh, oil, okay, old, Olympic, on, once, one, ongoing, onion, online, only, onto, open, opening, operate, operating, operation, operator, opinion, opponent, opportunity, oppose, opposed, opposite, opposition, option, or, orange, order, ordinary, organic, organization, organize, orientation, origin, original, originally, other, others, otherwise, ought, our, ours, ourselves, out, outcome, outside, oven, over, overall, overcome, overlook, owe, own, owner, pace, pack, package, page, pain, painful, paint, painter, painting, pair, pale, Palestinian, palm, pan, panel, panic, pant, paper, paragraph, parent, park, parking, part, participant, participate, participation, particle, particular, particularly, partly, partner, partnership, party, pass, passage, passenger, passion, past, patch, path, patient, pattern, pause, pay, payment, PC, peace, peak, peer, pen, penalty, people, pepper, per, perceive, percentage, perception, perfect, perfectly, perform, performance, perhaps, period, permanent, permission, permit, person, personal, personality, personally, personnel, perspective, persuade, pet, phase, phenomenon, philosophy, phone, photo, photographer, phrase, physical, physically, physician, piano, pick, picture, pie, piece, pile, pilot, pine, pink, pipe, pitch, place, plan, plane, planet, planning, plant, plastic, plate, platform, play, player, please, pleasure, plenty, plot, plus, PM, pocket, poem, poet, poetry, point, police, policy, political, politically, politician, politics, poll, pollution, pool, poor, pop, popular, population, porch, port, portion, portrait, portray, pose, position, positive, possess, possession, possibility, possible, possibly, post, pot, potato, potential, potentially, pound, pour, poverty, powder, power, powerful, practical, practice, prayer, preach, precisely, predict, prediction, prefer, preference, pregnancy, pregnant, preparation, prepare, prescription, presence, present, presentation, preserve, president, presidential, press, pressure, pretend, pretty, prevent, previous, previously, price, pride, priest, primarily, primary, prime, principal, principle, print, prior, priority, prison, prisoner, privacy, private, probably, problem, procedure, proceed, process, processing, processor, proclaim, produce, producer, product, production, profession, professional, professor, profile, profit, program, progress, progressive, project, prominent, promise, promote, prompt, proof, proper, properly, property, proportion, proposal, propose, prosecutor, prospect, protect, protection, protein, protest, proud, prove, provide, provider, province, provision, psychological, psychology, public, publication, publicity, publish, publisher, pull, punishment, purchase, pure, purpose, pursue, push, put, qualify, quality, quarter, quarterback, quarterly, queen, quest, question, quick, quickly, quiet, quietly, quit, quite, quote, race, racial, radiation, radical, radio, rail, rain, raise, range, rank, rapid, rapidly, rare, rarely, rate, rather, rating, ratio, raw, reach, react, reaction, reader, reading, ready, real, reality, realize, really, reason, reasonable, recall, receive, recent, recently, reception, recipe, recipient, recognition, recognize, recommend, recommendation, record, recording, recover, recovery, recruit, red, reduce, reduction, refer, reference, reflect, reflection, reform, refugee, refuse, regard, regarding, regardless, regime, region, regional, register, regular, regularly, regulate, regulation, regulator, reinforce, reject, relate, relation, relationship, relative, relatively, relax, release, relevant, relief, religion, religious, rely, remain, remaining, remarkable, remember, remind, remote, remove, repeat, repeatedly, replace, replacement, reply, report, reporter, represent, representation, representative, Republican, reputation, request, require, requirement, research, researcher, resemble, reservation, resident, residential, resign, resist, resistance, resolution, resolve, resort, resource, respect, respond, response, responsibility, responsible, rest, restaurant, restore, restriction, result, retain, retire, retirement, return, reveal, revenue, review, revolution, rhythm, rice, rich, rid, ride, rifle, right, ring, rise, risk, river, road, rock, role, roll, romantic, roof, room, root, rope, rose, rough, roughly, round, route, routine, row, rub, rubber, rude, ruin, rule, run, running, rural, rush, Russian, sacred, sad, safe, safety, sake, salad, salary, sale, sales, salt, same, sample, sanction, sand, satellite, satisfaction, satisfied, satisfy, sauce, save, saving, say, scale, scandal, scare, scatter, scenario, scene, schedule, scheme, scholar, scholarship, school, science, scientific, scientist, scope, score, scream, screen, script, sea, search, season, seat, second, secondary, secret, secretary, section, sector, secure, security, see, seed, seek, seem, segment, seize, select, selection, self, sell, Senate, senator, send, senior, sense, sensitive, sentence, separate, sequence, series, serious, seriously, servant, serve, service, session, set, setting, settle, settlement, seven, several, severe, sex, sexual, shade, shadow, shake, shall, shallow, shape, share, sharp, she, sheet, shelf, shell, shelter, shift, shine, ship, shirt, shock, shoe, shoot, shooting, shop, shopping, short, shortly, shot, should, shoulder, shout, show, shower, shrug, shut, shy, sibling, sick, side, sigh, sight, sign, signal, significant, significantly, silence, silent, silver, similar, similarly, simple, simply, sin, since, sing, singer, single, sink, sir, sister, sit, site, situation, six, size, ski, skill, skin, skirt, sky, slave, sleep, slice, slide, slight, slightly, slip, slow, slowly, small, smart, smell, smile, smoke, smooth, snap, snow, so, so-called, soccer, social, society, soft, software, soil, solar, soldier, sole, solid, solution, solve, some, somebody, somehow, someone, something, sometimes, somewhat, somewhere, son, song, soon, sophisticated, sorry, sort, soul, sound, soup, source, south, southern, Soviet, space, Spanish, speak, speaker, special, specialist, species, specific, specifically, specify, speech, speed, spend, spending, spin, spirit, spiritual, split, spoil, sponsor, sport, spot, spray, spread, spring, square, squeeze, stability, stable, staff, stage, stain, stair, stake, stand, standard, standing, star, stare, start, state, statement, station, statistical, status, stay, steady, steal, steel, steep, stem, step, stick, still, stimulate, stimulus, stir, stock, stomach, stone, stop, storage, store, storm, story, straight, strange, stranger, strategic, strategy, stream, street, strength, strengthen, stress, stretch, strike, string, strip, stroke, strong, strongly, structural, structure, struggle, student, studio, study, stuff, stupid, style, subject, submit, subsequent, substance, substantial, substitute, succeed, success, successful, successfully, such, sudden, suddenly, sue, suffer, sufficient, sugar, suggest, suggestion, suicide, suit, summer, summit, sun, super, supply, support, supporter, suppose, supposed, Supreme, sure, surely, surface, surgery, surprise, surprised, surprising, surprisingly, surround, survey, survival, survive, survivor, suspect, sustain, swear, sweep, sweet, swim, swing, switch, symbol, symptom, system, table, tactic, tail, take, tale, talent, talk, tall, tank, tap, tape, target, task, taste, tax, taxi, tea, teach, teacher, teaching, team, tear, technical, technique, technology, teen, teenager, telephone, telescope, television, tell, temperature, temporary, ten, tend, tendency, tennis, tension, tent, term, terms, terrible, territory, terror, terrorist, test, testimony, testing, text, than, thank, thanks, that, the, theater, their, them, theme, themselves, then, theory, therapy, there, therefore, these, they, thick, thin, thing, think, thinking, third, thirty, this, those, though, thought, thousand, threat, threaten, three, throat, through, throughout, throw, thus, ticket, tie, tight, time, tiny, tip, tire, tissue, title, to, tobacco, today, toe, together, toilet, token, tolerate, tomato, tomorrow, tone, tongue, tonight, too, tool, tooth, top, topic, toss, total, totally, touch, tough, tour, tourist, tournament, toward, towards, tower, town, toy, trace, track, trade, tradition, traditional, traffic, tragedy, trail, train, training, transfer, transform, transformation, transition, translate, translation, transmission, transmit, transport, transportation, travel, treat, treatment, treaty, tree, tremendous, trend, trial, tribe, trick, trip, troop, trouble, truck, true, truly, trust, truth, try, tube, tunnel, turn, TV, twelve, twenty, twice, twin, two, type, typical, typically, ugly, ultimate, ultimately, unable, uncle, undergo, understand, understanding, unfortunately, uniform, union, unique, unit, United, universal, universe, university, unknown, unless, unlike, until, unusual, up, upon, upper, urban, urge, us, use, used, useful, user, usual, usually, utility, utilize, vacation, valley, valuable, value, variable, variation, variety, various, vary, vast, vegetable, vehicle, venture, version, versus, very, vessel, veteran, via, victim, victory, video, view, viewer, village, violate, violation, violence, violent, virtually, virtue, virus, visibility, visible, vision, visit, visitor, visual, vital, voice, volume, voluntary, volunteer, vote, voter, voting, wage, wait, wake, walk, wall, wander, want, war, warm, warn, warning, wash, waste, watch, water, wave, way, we, weak, weakness, wealth, wealthy, weapon, wear, weather, web, website, wedding, week, weekend, weekly, weigh, weight, welcome, welfare, well, west, western, wet, what, whatever, wheel, when, whenever, where, whereas, whether, which, while, whisper, white, who, whole, whom, whose, why, wide, widely, widespread, wife, wild, wildlife, will, willing, win, wind, window, wine, wing, winner, winter, wipe, wire, wisdom, wise, wish, with, withdraw, within, without, witness, woman, wonder, wonderful, wood, wooden, word, work, worker, working, workout, workplace, works, workshop, world, worried, worry, worth, would, wound, wrap, write, writer, writing, wrong, yard, yeah, year, yell, yellow, yes, yesterday, yet, yield, you, young, your, yours, yourself, youth, zone.

Before u read, this will be bunch of informations that are barely connected, it's poorly written, I'm not claiming to have done nothing wrong I just need someone to share my situation with and maybe seek some advice.
Me (F20) have been dating my bf (M19) for almost two years. For background : we went to same school and I used to be his long-term hallway crush, but he seemed shy so I made a first move. In the beginning, like every relationship goes, I could brag about how perfectly he's treating me if anyone asked, and, having sh1tty situations in payt with ex and situationship I was over the moon to have someone treat me so gentle.
Before we started dating, he knew I have an ex of over two years, he knew I had two boys being my very dear friends and I told him, as he has no lady friends, that if he expects me to remove one guy especially it wont work and he agreed that he won't be expecting of me to cut off my friends for him with no hesitation. Guy friend in question is kinda boy who sees to opposite gender besties and if someone says they'd be cute couple he'd act as if it's actual inc3st and we never saw each other any other way then friends. At the prom, same guy friend cried for two hours because he thought I didn't have good time because my crush kissed another girl, but honestly I had the great time when i saw how much he cared for me.
My byofriend also, before dating me, without me asking or saying anything said "I'll remove all woman from my life when I have u" aka girls from school that are people he doesn't talk to enough to call them friends but there is some contact between them. I was confused because I didn't plan on asking him to as I have guy friends but i felt respected.
It all ended up the exact opposite, I did remove my friend who i still miss to this day because my boyfriend was overly jealous. On his side : girls from school started to pick up on him and when he told me about it, I sensed bullying and told him to block them because they're being pretty annoying and he, kidd u not, asked "do i have to?" so brought up him saying he'd remove anyone for me and he did after days of arguing and me crying because it's the opposite of our agreement before dating. It wasn't even jealousy on my side and he didn't want to block them because he thought they'd ask why and he'd be uncomfortable but... He made a promise that he didn't keep.
Year later he broke up with me partly because i wasn't "pure"/ I have an ex and partly because of how bad my mood swings were (I had 3 doctors diagnosing me with severe depression and was almost hospitalized at the time I was "moody" ).
That breakup had me getting even worse because he was the guy to say "I'm so scared you'll leave me" "if you stay I stay" "i hope we're forever" I didn't know forever meant one year but the breakup was only 2 weeks long, had me suffering for over a month before he actually broke up because he took it very very slow. I slept 15 minutes a day and i wish i was being metaphoric, waiting for him to decide weather he'll stay or not. I did everything I could, my ocd gets worse in stressful situations and my brain telling me "if you do this, that will happen, if you don't, that will happen" all day every day, but I obviously did everything it told me to do to keep him and he still left and ruined us for 2 weeks of separation.
Note : If someone tells you they have something going on and they can't change it, don't come in their life trying to force a change, weather it's friendship you might not like or mental disorder out of their control, please.
After we got back together : - I told him i spent time home in group chat with two of my girls and some of their friends and random boy we found where we played "guess what I drew" because i couldn't leave bed and couldn't sleep, he got jealous at that random boy and made me feel bad for doing something while not being in a relationship. (I didn't flirt, we didn't talk in private chat, we just played and he was also aroace.)
While we were on breakup I also reached out to my guy friend and he is doing amazing, enjoying life and was happy I contacted him but my boyfriend made me cut him off, again. Tho, his sister best friend (girl) is buying him gifts, sleeping over at their place in room him and his sister are sharing but why would I be jealous? In fact, I'm not, I like that girl more then I like his family.
Anyway, it was last summer, when he asked me to be his girlfriend again I told him that I'll need time to heal, prepared him for the fact that I will bring up stuff he did before we broke up because I'm still hurt, and he'll need to be extra patient and gentle and he agreed, but instead, every time I talked about pain breakup caused because I wasn't over it, he'd yell at me so i tried to bottle it all up.
In past few months, everything I tell him will hurt me he'll find a way to do it, even if it's something he didn't have in mind, if i told him fictionally it'll hurt me so he knows, he'll do it, and when I confront him about it he'd focus on my reaction saying "are u being fr?" (Like I didn't warn him.) or "stop making me angrier I'm stressed" ( Like I'm not, also, stressed.)
Every time he does something i asked him not to, if I had a reaction it would turn into hours long fight and after making me a bad guy for reacting, he'd play a victim saying I misunderstood, it's all in my head ect. Well i started to tell my friend about our fights or I'd ask AI making "story" to see situation from someone else's perspective because I was tired of being told it's all in my head and it's on daily basis.
He recently started to pick up on my traits of ocd or autism that I also have diagnosed and told him about before he asked me out.
This was my overreaction, I agree, but I'm aware and I didn't ask to be this way; He gave me his hoodie so I'll sit in bus ( it was so dirty and I'd rather be standing, but he wanted me to sit with him and offered a hoodie which was nice. ) when we got to my place laundry dryer fell and put his hoodie on my, just day before, washed rug so i can have free hands to pick up the laundry, he picked hoodie up, angry that i left it on a floor for hot minute, immediately and put it on my bed where I sleep. I threw it right away and started crying because I'm extremely germophobic and had flashbacks from how dirty the bus was, he wanted to go home because i was acting too crazy and I know it's too much of a reaction on my side but I'd rather be like that then like people with no basic hygiene. He started asking "are you going to be this way forever?" And pressuring me to answer, then he told me I'm the only person in whole world behaving like this, like I don't know it's too much, I know it, my ocd is taking over my time and my life, my rituals are anxiously long, my fear of being dirty makes me unable to function through out the day, I have it hard already without someone putting a pressure on it, my doctor refused to treat me even tho I told him it takes at least 2 hours after I go to bed to re-do all my rituals so I can sleep without feer and I still end up waking up few times in one night, I know it's not normal bruh that's why it's a disorder lol, I never claimed it was normal but how can I just get it out of my body, I feel like crazy disgusting creature with zero rights to live because of what he says every time I have a" moment ".
He also doesn't fail to make me feel guilty for not paying attention to my tone when speaking or my facial expressions or my sensory sensitivity like it's all my fault, asking when will I stop being like this and that it's just me being like this, that no one else is this hard to deal with.
I love him and he's making me hate my existence, my flaws, things I can't change about myself, what am I supposed to do about it? Therapy in this country isn't much of help. I feel so guilty oftenly for being the way I am and I didn't even list half of the things.
He also makes me feel guilty for him giving me his time, when we have plans for a day but we spend that day with him always being in rush to go back home and him complaining how he didn't have to do A B and C because he "had to see me" like he doesn't even want to see me. (Same boy who said, over year ago " I can't stand seeing you only four hours a day I wish to be around you all the time".
We're fighting every day and every day it's something I asked him not to do but he still did and it always ends up with me being just too angry all the time and him doing nothing wrong.
He doesn't communicate well, he's messages contains 2-3 words and when I understand what he wrote instead of what he "meant" it's my fault. I warned him more then year ago that if I keep trying to explain in 5 different ways my point of view while he doesn't even explains his with valid sentence I'll give up on talking.
He's "explanation" goes like this : If i ask for two plus two he'll say the fishes brethe air - not only is the explanation wrong in general but it never has anything to do with my question. Like dudes that cheat and excause is that his grandma died, you get it?
Now, I'm so tired that when I try to tell him what's wrong, when he starts to be self defensive I block him because I can't take it anymore, I now can't communicate because I know how it'll end up anyway and it lost it's meaning. I'm turning out toxic but I'm tired, my soul is tired while his soul is rotting.
It hurts watching my sweet boy turning into such an ignorant and pathetic person. I started to think he has npd.
It seems like only solution is for me to stop reacting and to bottle everything up, but that's not relationship I want. I don't want to pretend I'm fine when I'm not, I don't want to keep masking around my own partner just for the sake of his ego because that guy can't stand being told he did something wrong and it takes hours of justifying, self-defense and victim role for him to actually say sorry without even understanding why he should be apologizing for.
TLDR : I (20f) am dating my bf (19m) who's only ever focused on my reaction when he's mistreating me then the reason why I reacted.

Before u read, this will be bunch of informations that are barely connected, it's poorly written, I'm not claiming to have done nothing wrong I just need someone to share my situation with and maybe seek some advice.
Me (F20) have been dating my bf (M19) for almost two years. For background : we went to same school and I used to be his long-term hallway crush, but he seemed shy so I made a first move. In the beginning, like every relationship goes, I could brag about how perfectly he's treating me if anyone asked, and, having sh1tty situations in payt with ex and situationship I was over the moon to have someone treat me so gentle.
Before we started dating, he knew I have an ex of over two years, he knew I had two boys being my very dear friends and I told him, as he has no lady friends, that if he expects me to remove one guy especially it wont work and he agreed that he won't be expecting of me to cut off my friends for him with no hesitation. Guy friend in question is kinda boy who sees to opposite gender besties and if someone says they'd be cute couple he'd act as if it's actual inc3st and we never saw each other any other way then friends. At the prom, same guy friend cried for two hours because he thought I didn't have good time because my crush kissed another girl, but honestly I had the great time when i saw how much he cared for me.
My byofriend also, before dating me, without me asking or saying anything said "I'll remove all woman from my life when I have u" aka girls from school that are people he doesn't talk to enough to call them friends but there is some contact between them. I was confused because I didn't plan on asking him to as I have guy friends but i felt respected.
It all ended up the exact opposite, I did remove my friend who i still miss to this day because my boyfriend was overly jealous. On his side : girls from school started to pick up on him and when he told me about it, I sensed bullying and told him to block them because they're being pretty annoying and he, kidd u not, asked "do i have to?" so brought up him saying he'd remove anyone for me and he did after days of arguing and me crying because it's the opposite of our agreement before dating. It wasn't even jealousy on my side and he didn't want to block them because he thought they'd ask why and he'd be uncomfortable but... He made a promise that he didn't keep.
Year later he broke up with me partly because i wasn't "pure"/ I have an ex and partly because of how bad my mood swings were (I had 3 doctors diagnosing me with severe depression and was almost hospitalized at the time I was "moody" ).
That breakup had me getting even worse because he was the guy to say "I'm so scared you'll leave me" "if you stay I stay" "i hope we're forever" I didn't know forever meant one year but the breakup was only 2 weeks long, had me suffering for over a month before he actually broke up because he took it very very slow. I slept 15 minutes a day and i wish i was being metaphoric, waiting for him to decide weather he'll stay or not. I did everything I could, my ocd gets worse in stressful situations and my brain telling me "if you do this, that will happen, if you don't, that will happen" all day every day, but I obviously did everything it told me to do to keep him and he still left and ruined us for 2 weeks of separation.
Note : If someone tells you they have something going on and they can't change it, don't come in their life trying to force a change, weather it's friendship you might not like or mental disorder out of their control, please.
After we got back together : - I told him i spent time home in group chat with two of my girls and some of their friends and random boy we found where we played "guess what I drew" because i couldn't leave bed and couldn't sleep, he got jealous at that random boy and made me feel bad for doing something while not being in a relationship. (I didn't flirt, we didn't talk in private chat, we just played and he was also aroace.)
While we were on breakup I also reached out to my guy friend and he is doing amazing, enjoying life and was happy I contacted him but my boyfriend made me cut him off, again. Tho, his sister best friend (girl) is buying him gifts, sleeping over at their place in room him and his sister are sharing but why would I be jealous? In fact, I'm not, I like that girl more then I like his family.
Anyway, it was last summer, when he asked me to be his girlfriend again I told him that I'll need time to heal, prepared him for the fact that I will bring up stuff he did before we broke up because I'm still hurt, and he'll need to be extra patient and gentle and he agreed, but instead, every time I talked about pain breakup caused because I wasn't over it, he'd yell at me so i tried to bottle it all up.
In past few months, everything I tell him will hurt me he'll find a way to do it, even if it's something he didn't have in mind, if i told him fictionally it'll hurt me so he knows, he'll do it, and when I confront him about it he'd focus on my reaction saying "are u being fr?" (Like I didn't warn him.) or "stop making me angrier I'm stressed" ( Like I'm not, also, stressed.)
Every time he does something i asked him not to, if I had a reaction it would turn into hours long fight and after making me a bad guy for reacting, he'd play a victim saying I misunderstood, it's all in my head ect. Well i started to tell my friend about our fights or I'd ask AI making "story" to see situation from someone else's perspective because I was tired of being told it's all in my head and it's on daily basis.
He recently started to pick up on my traits of ocd or autism that I also have diagnosed and told him about before he asked me out.
This was my overreaction, I agree, but I'm aware and I didn't ask to be this way; He gave me his hoodie so I'll sit in bus ( it was so dirty and I'd rather be standing, but he wanted me to sit with him and offered a hoodie which was nice. ) when we got to my place laundry dryer fell and put his hoodie on my, just day before, washed rug so i can have free hands to pick up the laundry, he picked hoodie up, angry that i left it on a floor for hot minute, immediately and put it on my bed where I sleep. I threw it right away and started crying because I'm extremely germophobic and had flashbacks from how dirty the bus was, he wanted to go home because i was acting too crazy and I know it's too much of a reaction on my side but I'd rather be like that then like people with no basic hygiene. He started asking "are you going to be this way forever?" And pressuring me to answer, then he told me I'm the only person in whole world behaving like this, like I don't know it's too much, I know it, my ocd is taking over my time and my life, my rituals are anxiously long, my fear of being dirty makes me unable to function through out the day, I have it hard already without someone putting a pressure on it, my doctor refused to treat me even tho I told him it takes at least 2 hours after I go to bed to re-do all my rituals so I can sleep without feer and I still end up waking up few times in one night, I know it's not normal bruh that's why it's a disorder lol, I never claimed it was normal but how can I just get it out of my body, I feel like crazy disgusting creature with zero rights to live because of what he says every time I have a" moment ".
He also doesn't fail to make me feel guilty for not paying attention to my tone when speaking or my facial expressions or my sensory sensitivity like it's all my fault, asking when will I stop being like this and that it's just me being like this, that no one else is this hard to deal with.
I love him and he's making me hate my existence, my flaws, things I can't change about myself, what am I supposed to do about it? Therapy in this country isn't much of help. I feel so guilty oftenly for being the way I am and I didn't even list half of the things.
He also makes me feel guilty for him giving me his time, when we have plans for a day but we spend that day with him always being in rush to go back home and him complaining how he didn't have to do A B and C because he "had to see me" like he doesn't even want to see me. (Same boy who said, over year ago " I can't stand seeing you only four hours a day I wish to be around you all the time".
We're fighting every day and every day it's something I asked him not to do but he still did and it always ends up with me being just too angry all the time and him doing nothing wrong.
He doesn't communicate well, he's messages contains 2-3 words and when I understand what he wrote instead of what he "meant" it's my fault. I warned him more then year ago that if I keep trying to explain in 5 different ways my point of view while he doesn't even explains his with valid sentence I'll give up on talking.
He's "explanation" goes like this : If i ask for two plus two he'll say the fishes brethe air - not only is the explanation wrong in general but it never has anything to do with my question. Like dudes that cheat and excause is that his grandma died, you get it?
Now, I'm so tired that when I try to tell him what's wrong, when he starts to be self defensive I block him because I can't take it anymore, I now can't communicate because I know how it'll end up anyway and it lost it's meaning. I'm turning out toxic but I'm tired, my soul is tired while his soul is rotting.
It hurts watching my sweet boy turning into such an ignorant and pathetic person. I started to think he has npd.
It seems like only solution is for me to stop reacting and to bottle everything up, but that's not relationship I want. I don't want to pretend I'm fine when I'm not, I don't want to keep masking around my own partner just for the sake of his ego because that guy can't stand being told he did something wrong and it takes hours of justifying, self-defense and victim role for him to actually say sorry without even understanding why he should be apologizing for.
TLDR : I (20f) am dating my bf (19m) who's only ever focused on my reaction when he's mistreating me then the reason why I reacted.

Introduction

1. Will this be your first dog? If not, what experience do you have owning/training dogs?

It will be our first dog as an adult, growing up I had a small cattle dog cross.
2) Do you have a preference for rescuing a dog vs. going through a reputable breeder?
We are open to rescue but would most likely end up going with a reputable breeder to get the specific breed that we're after.
3) Describe your ideal dog.
This may not exist but it feels like we're after the goldilocks zone of dogs. We'd like to have a small affectionate dog for our family and daughter (10) to have as a companion. Although we want it to be affectionate, we don't want it to have separation anxiety or be comfortable chilling out around the house without being held. We want it to be on the lower energy side, we're happy to take it for a walk almost every day, but if we miss one it won't go stir crazy. We'd prefer something on the quieter side. We don't mind the occasional bark at the door, but endless barking would get irritating. We want it to be okay around other dogs, even though we don't have any ourselves. Leaning towards the smaller / medium sizes.
4) What breeds or types of dogs are you interested in and why?
Two leading contenders were cavalier king charles and a beagle. Both suit the profile of small to medium size, affectionate and good family dogs. Having some second thoughts about the beagle due to noise concerns. Cavalier king charles sounds good, however we're concerned it might be a little _too_ needy.
5) What sorts of things would you like to train your dog to do?
Basic commands / manners. Not jumping on people, sit, stay, come, quiet, drop.
6) Do you want to compete with your dog in a sport (e.g. agility, obedience, rally) or use your dog for a form of work (e.g. hunting, herding, livestock guarding)? If so, how much experience do you have with this work/sport?
No, it will purely be for family company.
Care Commitments
7) How long do you want to devote to training, playing with, or otherwise interacting with your dog each day?
Our daughter will devote a significant period of time cuddling / playing. We will dedicate short training periods (10-20 minutes) combined with an evening walk.
8) How long can you exercise your dog each day, on average? What sorts of exercise are you planning to give your dog regularly and does that include using a dog park?
We'd be doing an evening walk of around 4-5 km, and have the option of using a dog park if we feel it's a good environment for the dog (i.e. handles interactions well with other dogs)
9) How much regular brushing are you willing to do? Are you open to trimming hair, cleaning ears, or doing other grooming at home? If not, would you be willing to pay a professional to do it regularly?
We'd be happy to do basic grooming at home, and pay for a professional when required.
Personal Preferences
10) What size dog are you looking for?
Small to medium.
11) How much shedding, barking, and slobber can you handle?
Shedding - We prefer lower (who doesn't) but it's not a deal breaker. Perhaps not to the extremes (i.e. a husky). Barking - Prefer very little. Slobber - okay with a little.
12) How important is being able to let your dog off-leash in an unfenced area?
We'd like to have the confidence of being able to let our dog off-leash and have them return on command, but we don't have any _necessity_ for it.
Dog Personality and Behavior
13) Do you want a snuggly dog or one that prefers some personal space?
Snugly dog that doesn't get distressed on it's own for a while. Both parents work from home so they will almost always "be around", but not necessarily in contact / actively playing at all times.
14) Would you prefer a dog that wants to do its own thing or one that’s more eager-to-please?
Eager to please would be nice.
15) How would you prefer your dog to respond to someone knocking on the door or entering your yard? How would you prefer your dog to greet strangers or visitors?
We'd prefer them just to greet strangers / be excited. A small about of barking is fine as long as they quiet down after a while.
16) Are you willing to manage a dog that is aggressive to other dogs?
No, we'd prefer not to have aggression towards other dogs.
17) Are there any other behaviors you can’t deal with or want to avoid?
Outside of the typical they must be good with kids, etc.
Lifestyle
18) How often and how long will the dog be left alone?
The dog will rarely be left alone. Two work from home parents. We're not adverse to taking the dog out with us if it's to an appropriate location.
19) What are the dog-related preferences of other people in the house and what will be their involvement in caring for the dog?
Similar to what has been described here. The parents will be responsible for exercise / taking them out of an evening, the daughter will be responsible for cuddles.
20) Do you have other pets or are you planning on having other pets? What breed or type of animal are they?
No other pets.
21) Will the dog be interacting with children regularly?
Our 10 year old daughter, occasionally some nephews or nieces that are slightly younger.
22) Do you rent or plan to rent in the future? If applicable, what breed or weight restrictions are on your current lease?
We own our own home.
23) What city or country do you live in and are you aware of any laws banning certain breeds?
Australia, no bans on anything relevant to what we're looking for.
24) What is the average temperature of a typical summer and winter day where you live?
Average temp is ~22c in Summer and ~14c in Winter. It can get up to extremes of 40c in Australia, but rarely and the dog would be inside.
Additional Information and Questions
25) Please provide any additional information you feel may be relevant.
It's hard to convey in answers here, but a lot of these things are "feelings" rather than set in stone. I know every breed will have a range of behavior. No dog is guaranteed to tick all the boxes, but that's okay we're just looking to capture the majority of what we're after.
26) Feel free to ask any questions below.

Just a heads up that rental fraud seems to be getting more common these days, and it's important to be aware of it whether you're looking for a new place or currently renting.
Apparently, eviction moratoriums during the pandemic made it easier for scammers to sneak into rentals using fake documents, knowing they wouldn't get kicked out easily. Now, even with the moratoriums lifted, longer eviction processes due to court backlogs are giving fraudsters another advantage.
Here's the scary part: these criminals are getting craftier. They're using a mix of real and fake personal info to create entirely new identities – synthetic fraud – which makes them super hard to detect.
How to protect yourself:

• Be cautious of listings that seem too good to be true, especially if they pressure you to send money upfront without seeing the place.
• Never give out personal information or money before signing a lease and seeing the property in person.
• Verify everything! Double-check landlord info, ask for references, and make sure the lease agreement is legit.
• Consider using a reputable rental service or app.

If you're a landlord, don't forget to thoroughly verify tenant applications! There are services available to help you with this too.
Let's all stay safe out there! Upvote so more people see this!

I have already posted on here somewhere about how I and my current bf are looking to hopefully get married sometime in the not too distant future. He is the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I could not be happier.
This is about my first boyfriend, let's call him Dick.
I was 24 and he was 19. We met while I was working on a college campus at a Burrito Bowl. Well, actually, that's not strictly true. Although I did not attend that particular college, I was often involved in a religious organization that met on that college campus-in addition to working there. We met when I joined the Discord server for that religious organization, and offered to bring dinner to meet new people. He was the only person to take me up on my offer, and so on a storming night in the middle of a week in October, I rolled up to the campus meeting center with a wagon full of:
-a pot of soup
-tortilla chips
-seasoned bread
-butter
-shredded cheese
-sour cream
-fork, knives, spoons, glasses, and folded cloth napkins
Yes, I basically brought an absolute stranger a full meal. For free. On a college campus. In a wagon.
We hit it off and became really fast friends. Really fast friends. Fast forward to end of April the following year. He and I were hanging out together because he wasn't going to be coming back to that college the following semester. He had lost his scholarship because of bad grades. The night before he was supposed to leave, I took him to one of my favorite restaurants as a farewell treat. It was going to be two years before I could see him again. After I dropped him back off at his dorm, I went to run a few errands of my own. Meanwhile, he is texting me that he hasn't packed anything and he doesn't know where to start. I offered to come help, and he said please.
I was at the store while he was texting me, so I bought for myself a 1.25L bottle of coke, and some chocolate. I got THE text as soon as I had finished checking out: "Hey when you get here, I'd like to talk to you about something that's been on my mind."
I pull up to the dorm and go up to his room, plop myself onto the couch. He left to go get something out of his car that he had forgotten. When he came back, he nervously sat down on the arm of another chair in the room, and proceeded to drink MY coke and chowed down on MY chocolate, while rambling on about how he thought I was super sweet and that he really like me and that he hadn't intended to come back, but now, it was his entire goal to come back one day for me. He didn't ask me right then to be his gf, but said he wanted time to think about it, but would I also think about what my answer would be?
I said I would, and proceeded to get his entire dorm room cleaned and packed by 9 am the next morning. A week later, he asked me to be his girlfriend. I said yes and we were incredibly happy--for three weeks.
At the end of three weeks, we were talking while he was traveling to and from work, but there just wasn't anything there anymore. He started ("inadvertently") giving me lists of people, animals I would have to please and things I would have to do in order to be his gf. He didn't want to talk to me anymore, I never knew if he would call me or not, or if he would just randomly hang up on me in the middle of a call. He would constantly rather play video games or listen to music than talk to me. I was becoming more and more discouraged and feeling very boxed in. Also, I never received any gifts, flowers or presents from him our entire relationship. I know it is kind of hard to do long distance, but I managed to send TWO packages to him containing meaningful gifts. Side note for those interested: my current bf either sends me flowers/gifts via DoorDash, Instacart, etc., or has me go out and buy what I like and then refunds me the money. I love this so much.
I went away to go volunteer at another religious organization. Right before I left, I bought a plane ticket to go visit him for my birthday week. Everything was arranged. During the camp, we broke up. Here's how.
He knew that he was my first ever for everything. First bf, first serious relationship, first KISS. He played that, and played it hard. He knew that I had boundaries and that I would stick to them, even if I was embarrassed or thought it would hurt him. I was not going to budge on what I thought was right. He told me that his plan was basically to kiss me the minute I stepped off the plane to see if there was any "spark" there. Idk what would have happened if he didn't find the "spark". When I hinted that I might not be comfortable with that, he asked me why, and I said it was the way I was raised. He got upset, told me that he was starting to hate my parents and said that this was the way things were going to go. I hung up with him, called my mom and told her everything. I got her to begrudgingly allow me that if Dick wanted to kiss, I could. That is all I wanted, sex wasn't even on the menu.
At this point, I am mad at Dick. So I called him back and ranted off on him about how I felt about the entire thing, but mentioned that I had "permission" from my mother to kiss him IF I chose. He didn't let it go, but got his mother involved. We argued back and forth for two days. Finally, two days before camp ended, he texted me, asking if we could have an honest conversation. The basics of what he said, over TEXT:
"I love you, and when I say it I do mean it, but I mean it more in the way that you would tell your sister."
I was so distraught and stressed out that I couldn't think of anything else to do other than pray. Over the period of an hour, I literally typed out my heart and feelings to the God I thought I believed in, to Dick. At the end of it, Dick's entire response? "Don't you know that would've been better said to the Big Man Upstairs?"
I ended things immediately.
We tried to remain friends (at first this was mutual agreement, and then entirely his idea) but it didn't work out well at all. All I can say is that Karma is an absolute bitch, and in this matter I am 100% on her side. Hell, I would've even given her the weaponry needed to screw Dick over, even without her asking.
A few months go by and he ends up getting into another relationship. The gf doesn't know me, but tells him that he needs to block me or else. So he does, I end up having to leave the Discord server for the religious group, and I lost contact with most of my support group because of this. I should mention here that these were MY friends, not his. He wasn't even from the same state as I was. I found out from my best friend that just a few short weeks later, Dick went into the server and posted a prayer request about how his gf was missing. Later, he posted another, and even later posted a third. My best friend rang my phone off the hook that night trying to get in touch with me.
Apparently, Dick's gf was incredibly mentally unstable. She had threatened to go end her life, and disappeared. Nobody knew where she was. Dick eventually called the cops, and when they found her, she GASLIT him saying that he was so untrusting, was just the worst, he made her feel that way, all the jazz. They broke it off and I believe she may have been institutionalized for a little bit.
So yeah. I think I'm way happier now, just sayin. :)

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

The more people who are aware of these resources, the more people will be able to pushback on landlords trying to rip them off. Share this with anyone you know who is renting, so that they have this info handy when times comes for Lease Renewal.
Here are a few tips that have helped me get better results out of these negotiations:
tldr; Generate a letter using the Negotiation Kit and use this when responding to the increase notice. Make sure to do this as early as possible as NCAT only has a 30 day window from notice. Having other properties as examples can also help when negotiating.
1. Do Proactive Research

• In the 6 months coming up to your lease renewal, do your research and get an idea of the avg. rent for similar properties in your area. Generally, we get an offer of about $30-$50 above market at the minimum
• I usually just save a search on realestate.com.au and check it out every now and then. Whenever you see something similar to your property, Screenshot as many details of the listing as possible (as it will be deleted). Do this with everything relevant you find. Won't be enough to hold up in NCAT but will help you get your point across

2. Respond Quickly - 30 Day NCAT Window

• You will only have 30 days after receiving the notice to apply to NCAT for an excessive rental increase notice - FairTrading for reference
• NCAT isn't going to be the most stress-free route for you go through. However, this is realistically the most accessible method for you to dispute the increase. The property manager will take you a lot more seriously while you are still able to apply for this, so make sure to kickoff negotiations early

3. Tenants Union of NSW Negotiation Kit

• The Negotiation Kit generates a letter outlining the avg. rent within a postcode, using rental bond data; and additionally outlines the factors taken into consideration by NCAT in determining fair rent
• This tool was ultimately what i believe got me across the line in my last negotiation. It provides hard evidence of the actual avg. rent in your area, while also reminding the property manager that you are aware of the fact that you can dispute the increase
• I would approach negotiations by generating a letter and attaching this as a part of your first response to the Rental Increase

4. Don't be a D**\*

• If you approach negotiations by bombarding them with messages and taking out your stress on them, you're just giving them a good reason to instruct the landlord to not budge on the price
• You don't have to be kind, but be professional. At the end of the day, you don't want to go through the stress of taking this to NCAT, or moving out and they know that as well

Following these steps seriously helped my luck with property managers. I am hoping it will also help you guys.

A week ago, someone asked why “divestment from IDF contracts is so difficult.” After the actions, suspensions, and arrests of last week, I have also wondered why protestors and MIT’s administration did not reach an agreement. Here’s an effort to explain it.
I’m looking to read the protest demands carefully and generously, then consider MIT’s constraints generously. My conclusion is that if the core demands had broad support on campus—and I can't say whether they do or do not—there are still principled, consistent reasons MIT could not agree to them.
Please add anything I’ve missed about the SAGE and MIT positions in the comments. Factual corrections or additional details are appreciated.
(If you’re here for hot takes, you’re in the wrong thread. I’m not saying what MIT should do about the demands, and I'm not sharing opinions about student protests or MIT's response. Please feel welcome to share your opinions about these in other posts about these topics.)
The demands
The core demands of the Scientists against the Genocide Encampment (SAGE) are:

1. The immediate termination of two active faculty contracts with the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMoD)
2. A ban on future faculty contracts with IMoD.[1]

The protestors identified these contracts in the MIT Brown Books, which provide detailed information about all sponsored research projects on campus. SAGE says the following two basic research contracts are active:

• “Autonomous Robotic Swarms: Distributed Coordination and Perception.” SAGE alleges this project can be used to “target Gazan citizens or American protestors.”[1]
• “Field-capable Bacterial Biosensors with Hyperspectral Reporters for Remote Detection of Analytes of Interest." I have not seen any specifically alleged concerns about this project. [3]

SAGE propose to end current funding for these, but says the two active projects can proceed with alternative funding.[2] SAGE has also said a review of project-specific human rights risks or new limits on foreign military research would only work if they ended these two contracts with immediate effect.[2] So while public statements do take issue with at least one of the research subjects, the demands are focused only on the sponsor.
Two facts about these contracts have been widely misreported. First, the contracts appear to be funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), not IMoD.[4] As the “direct sponsor,” IMoD chooses which academic research proposals to fund. DoD involvement does not appear to be an important consideration to SAGE. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that ending contracts with a primary government funder could create complications for MIT.
Second, SAGE has said that “more than $11M” has been funded through DoD/IMoD since 2015.[1][3] But the data SAGE has published duplicates balances for many multi-year awards. Once deduplicated, the amount allocated by DoD since 2015 is closer to $3.4 million, of which $3.2M has been spent.[4] The demands do not address spent research funds, only the unspent balance of the two active grants, an amount not publicly reported by SAGE or MIT. That said, the direct cost does not seem to be a material issue for either side.
Conflicts between the demands and MIT’s research policy
Meeting protestors’ core demands would require MIT to do something it has not done before: electively ban faculty from working with a specific sponsor. Doing this would conflict with the MIT faculty’s longstanding position on “research freedom,” which A) lets faculty freely choose collaborators and topics and B) limits university intervention when their research faces criticism.[5][6]
Consistent with research freedom, MIT has not previously banned sponsors or ended research contracts except when required by U.S. law. For example, when many MIT faculty said that MIT should sever all ties with the Saudi kingdom after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, MIT did not terminate any Saudi-affiliated research contracts.[5] MIT has similarly rejected calls to stop faculty research contracts with fossil fuel industry partners.
MIT’s faculty and administration have taken related public positions favoring “research openness,” including for sponsors in host countries criticized for human rights concerns like Russia and China.[5][6] These positions assert that science requires open collaboration even during foreign policy conflicts. MIT recently reaffirmed its position on openness as Congress considered new limits on U.S.-China research collaboration.[7]
SAGE argues that research freedom was disregarded in February 2022, when MIT terminated a $100M/year collaboration agreement with Russia’s Skoltech after the Russian army invaded Ukraine.[1][8] However, as a broad, university-level partnership between MIT and Skoltech, the agreement did not implicate faculty research freedom as SAGE’s demands do.[8] MIT continues to allow faculty to work with Russian sponsors and collaborators, although U.S. State Department sanctions now restrict research collaborations with many Russian institutions, including Skoltech.[9]
The Saudi and Skoltech decisions show MIT's inflexible position on faculty research freedom, even when human rights concerns are broadly held in the MIT community. MIT exercises more discretion over non-research funding, like direct partnerships and gifts. But unless required by U.S. law or foreign policy, MIT seems unlikely to create tailored bans on faculty research sponsors.
Other policy limits on military-sponsored campus research
MIT’s existing rules for campus research limit how military-sponsored research can be conducted, but not the collaborators or subjects faculty can choose. Research projects:

• must be publishable without restriction.
• cannot require students to work on classified topics.
• cannot exclude researchers by country of origin.[10]

These rules practically limit the military projects that can happen on campus. For instance, no research project could be kept secret from anyone else at MIT. (See [11] for reasons that MIT has opted to limit military research through conduct restrictions.)
For sponsors in some countries, MIT applies an “elevated-risk review” to faculty research proposals when the content could present risks to human rights, U.S. national security, or U.S. economic competitiveness.[12] These reviews involve both an MIT-wide faculty committee and senior administrators. They can result in project modifications, contract changes, or a refusal of MIT support.[4][12] Elevated-risk reviews are not done for approved research contracts because “the bar for administrative intervention to terminate such projects should be set very high.”[4]
There are at least two reasons an elevated-risk review would not satisfy SAGE's stated demands. First, SAGE seeks a content-independent ban on contracts with IMoD, which does not easily fit with a review process that looks at content-specific risks.
Second, since expanding these reviews would limit faculty research freedom, doing so would normally involve faculty. But getting faculty involved means that changes could not happen immediately, which SAGE has said it cannot accept.
Sources and further reading
[1] SAGE website
[2] SAGE final proposal to MIT administration
[3] MIT Graduate Students for Palestine, “No more MIT research for Israel’s Ministry of Defense,” The Tech, 10 May 2024
[4] SAGE data extracts of MIT Brown Book research contracts
[5] Richard Lester, "Review and Reassessment of MIT’s Relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (2019)
[6] MIT Faculty, "MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom" (2022)
[7] Maria Zuber, “Written Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space and Technology” (2021)
[8] Phillip Martin, “MIT abandons Russian high-tech campus partnership in light of Ukraine invasion” WGBH News (2022)
[9] “Information Regarding Informal Research Collaborations with Peers at Russian Institutions” MIT VPR website (2022)
[10] MIT Policy & Procedures 14.2 (“Open Research and Free Interchange of Information”)
[11] Harvey Brooks on research freedom, protests, and military contracts at MIT (1973)
[12] MIT VPR, “Elevated risk project review process” (2019)

Hi legaladvice,
I (28M) think this is more for relationships but this is really more pressing.
Some key points before you read; I moved to Orlando, FL from Washington state in February of 2023. It was closer to family and I had a lot of friends here. I truly love it here. I’m convinced there is something mentally not-okay with my mother and we’ve had a hot/cold relationship for years. My dad divorced her and got re-married to her and these days just puts up with it. We used to have a significantly better relationship but this has frankly tarnished all of that and he just puts up with it. My parents are real-estate investors in the Orlando area and generally buy some of terrible homes in even worse areas and somehow find renters. They act like they’re mansions but they truly are terrible. I’m 28 years old.
When I initially moved here, I got my own apartment in a great suburb of Orlando. My parents helped me move and were really excited for me to get back on this coast. At some point during my residency, my parents brought up a notion to attempt to “help” me by buying me a house. My credit is shot and there is no way I qualify for a conventional mortgage. Maybe before the big short but certainly not in today’s housing climate. I didn’t actively reach out to them for this sort of assistance but I toyed with the idea.
Given the fact that they are real-estate investors, their interest rate was going to be somewhere in the realm of 7%. That left me with a max value of about a $400,000 house in order to be comfortable with the payment. Daily my mom would send me listings to some of the shittiest homes I’ve ever seen and get upset when I say I don’t like it. That would generally be when I would cut off the conversation after I’m told I’m “ungrateful”. Mind you they haven’t even done anything yet.
Months pass and I find a decent townhome in a location that I’ve always wanted to live in. It’s a townhome that has 2beds, 2baths and was about $380K. In an effort to make my parents happy and not be so “ungrateful” I agreed that they can put an offer on it. Mind you this house is one that I would likely never buy with my own money, but given the interest rate I sort of had to stick with it.
The agreement was that they would put down $100K for the house, I pay the full escrow (mortgage payment, PMI, taxes and HOA dues) and, when it comes time to sell, I would get every dollar above the selling price. It was an enticing deal to get some equity that I otherwise wouldn’t get living in an apartment complex. This was all something that was verbally discussed and I can’t find any physical copy of this being said either over text or another medium.
I broke my least and move in came in October of 2023 which also happened to be when I met my beautiful and loving girlfriend who I am extremely happy with. My parents came over in December for Christmas and I actually had my girlfriend stay in my house while my parents were in town so we can all do stuff together. I thought it went well. My parents met her family, my friends and we generally had a great time.
That apparently wasn’t their idea of the week and they are super upset that my girlfriend basically lives here. Text exchanges with my mother generally result in me being called a disgrace, ungrateful, disrespectful, etc. I would bore you with the text threads but I’ll probably share that when I post this to relationships.
I’m not looking for advice on the relationship piece, but at the end of the day this is all stemming from the fact that I got a girlfriend, they apparently don’t like her, are losing control of me and now we’re both suffering navigating business and family. It’s taking a huge toll on me to the point where I woke up today and cried after receiving another demeaning text from my mother. That same person they hate was there to comfort me.
This is where y’all come in. I’m really worried about the integrity of this “deal”. At this point I don’t think I will get any equity and my parents will just cut ties. When I brought up that I’m concerned about this, my mother always skirts the conversation over text, starts attacking me and they scoff when I bring up the idea of signing some sort of agreement. This house is riddled with issues because the inspector, the real-estate agents friend, missed so many things. I would love to get them fixed but not if I never have the opportunity to see the money again. The dishwasher is loose, the fridge is broken, the breaker panel is buzzing, the toilets are leaking and the air conditioning sounds like a car from the 1930s. I’m paying $2800/month for this house and while my payment at this stage goes almost all to interest, the property value did rise.
What I’m also more and more concerned about is my rights as a “tenant”. I have no formal lease agreement and just have electricity bills and other documentation to show that I live here but I could just as easily be kicked out on the street, correct? What should I be doing here to protect myself?
Your guidance is so appreciated.

I am NOT OOP, OOP is u/AdhesivenessMurky204
Originally posted to AITAH
AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?
Thanks to u/queenlegolas and u/Direct-Caterpillar77 for suggesting this BoRU
Editor’s Note: added paragraph breaks for readability
Trigger Warnings: PTSD, mentions of abortion, domestic abuse, verbal abuse, sexual assault, rape
Original Post: April 28, 2024
My husband (28M, who I will call Jack) and I (27F) have been together for 4 years, we have 2 young children and I am pregnant again. I have been pregnant for what feels like most of our relationship. I got pregnant 4 months into our relationship. We got married a month before our daughter’s 1st birthday and ended up with a honeymoon baby. After our son was born, I talked to my OB and she put me on birth control and I have been taking it militantly.
My daughter is now 3 and my son is 2. A little over a month ago I discovered I am pregnant again, despite taking my birth control religiously. Abortion is banned in my state, and the pregnancy was discovered too far along to attempt to obtain one out of state. While Jack and I were nervous, we also love being parents and decided that 3 young kids would be a challenge, but 3 was a good number for us. Then we went in for the first ultrasound and got some unexpected news - it’s twins.
Things have been tough financially, and while we were stressed but excited for a third child, we were not expecting a third and fourth child. Beyond the finances, I am the primary caretaker and I know that twins is going to be a lot, three children under 5 is already a lot, but 4 children under 5 is going to be really really difficult for me. Physically, I am tired of being pregnant. I’ve been pregnant or breastfeeding the majority of our relationship. It’s exhausting, it feels awful, and I don’t recognize my body anymore.
Four children is enough. I don’t want more. I told Jack that I was done with pregnancy, I’ve been pregnant enough, I’ve been experimenting with different types of birth control for over a decade and I still can’t stop getting pregnant, abortion isn’t a valid option where we live, we need something more permanent. He agreed, and suggested an IUD, I told him no - if it did fail then it could cause an ectopic pregnancy which could kill me, especially where we live. I’ve had both control fail me multiple times already and I’m not taking the chance, so I suggested a vasectomy. He was not open to the idea, and was even upset that I suggested it and told me I should get my tubes tied. I told him a tubal ligation is a much bigger surgery and I could be recovering for weeks during which time I wouldn’t be able to work or take care of our 4 young children, but he could ice his balls for a day or two and be done with it. He told me that not getting pregnant was ultimately my responsibility, and topped it off by saying “that’s what your body your choice means, YOUR body, so YOU choose.” That’s when it went from a discussion to a full blown fight.
See, when I was 19 I had another birth control failure with my boyfriend at the time (who I will call Tom). I wanted an abortion, Tom did not because he was opposed. I told him I was getting the abortion since it was my body and my choice, and Tom said some horrible things to me, including threatening me. I broke up with him and got the abortion. In response, Tom ended up following me one night and attacking me. I don’t want to go into detail but it was horrible, and he ended up going to prison for a number of charges related to the attack. Not only do I have a number of scars and some long lasting physical effects, but I have PTSD as well.
Jack knows about my history and diagnosis, and has known from the beginning. I have a pretty prominent facial scar so I was upfront about it early on in our dating. Jack always presented himself as very pro-choice, so I was shocked that he would say that. I got really emotional and started crying and shouting, and it turned into a full-blown fight.
Eventually I said that birth control is a two-way street and so far I’ve been the only one managing it and he said “and now we have 2 kids and 2 more coming, great job.” I told him he sounded like Tom and he got super pissed, basically said how dare you compare me to him, and maybe he might want kids one day with someone who doesn’t compare him to her felon ex-boyfriend. I was stunned and horrified. I said “well then let’s not waste any fucking time,”then packed up myself and the kids and drove to my parents place.
It’s been about a week since the fight. I’ve spoken with Jack a few times and he has since apologized and said he was out of line and was speaking from a place of anxiety after finding out about the twins, but also that I said things that were out of line and it was wrong of me to insist he undergo a medical procedure. He said that can move on from the things I said and that he wants to see his children and be a family again. I told him no, that I didn’t want to “move on” from the things he said to me. I can’t just get over that and I think we need space apart. Jack was upset by this and while we talked I brought up getting a separation agreement to manage custody and finances while we figure things out. He did not like this suggestion, said we didn’t need to pull the courts into this.
I haven’t told a lot of people about what’s happening but my family and a couple close friends. My sister and best friend both think I should throw the whole man away, but my brother (who is the only other one married with kids) thinks that I’m being extreme for what sums up to a fight between two scared people who both said nasty things. My mom is trying to be supportive but is occasionally reminding me that I “don’t want to be a single mother of 4” and telling me not to let my PTSD drive my decisions, while my dad is being completely unhelpful (he thinks jokes are helpful - like calling me Doorknob because I “can’t stop getting knocked up”, telling me to let the oven cool down, real knee-slappers). I don’t know what to do. My kids are happy to be at grandma and grandpas house but they miss their daddy, I’m 4 months pregnant and already uncomfortable as hell, I wish I could go back to being a happy little family but I’m so hung up on the things he said in that fight. Am I destroying my family over one bad night? Am I being unreasonable for asking my husband to get a vasectomy?
Edit: I've noticed a lot of people recommending condoms. I have gotten pregnant with condoms twice. Our second child and my first pregnancy were both conceived using condoms properly (correct fit, put on correctly, single use, not expired, no breaks, etc). I do not trust condoms enough to not fail a third time. I know the failure rate is supposedly small, but it's not personally small enough for me. Edit to the edit: I'm sorry, I didn't expect so many comments so fast and I can't keep up with them. By the first pregnancy I mean the pregnancy with Tom. With Jack I was on the patch when I got pregnant with our daughter, condoms with our son, and the pill with the twins. So far I haven't ever suspected that Jack has tampered with our birth control and always presumed that I'm a fertile Myrtle.
I recognize the comments and just want people to know I'm seeing the suggestion. I'm not dismissing it, but the thought of it is deeply upsetting and has provoked a lot of anxiety. I just wanted to make it clear that if the suggestion is only based on the condoms, that the condom pregnancies were with two different partners. While I know I always used condoms properly with Tom, I do believe that Tom could have been fully capable of sabotaging the condoms.
AITAH has no consensus bot, OOP received mixed reactions of NTAs and YTAs
Relevant Comments
deepsleepsheepmeep: NTA. Your husband is though. Your body has already been through A LOT. A tubal ligation is a serious surgery and you are right about being out of commission for a while when recovering. If he is more concerned with an imaginary future wife than he is for you, I don’t think there is much hope for this marriage.
We have 4 close friends who all got vasectomies. None of them bitched about it like your wimp of a husband. We actually had fun vasectomy themed parties for them.
On the off chance he does end up getting a vasectomy, make sure to do the follow up appointments. One of the vasectomy fab 4 did not follow through and ended up with a post-vasectomy baby.

OOP: Thank you, I feel like this is a lot of what has been so upsetting has been that he's thinking about some imaginary future wife when I'm right here, his actual wife, the mother of his children. It's like he's already imagining a future without me.

 
Update: AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?: May 3, 2024
I didn’t expect so many comments and literally couldn’t go through them all. It seemed like the majority of people said I was NTA but I did get a lot of YTAs telling me I was trying to force him to get a medical procedure and telling me to get one instead. Besides already addressing my reasonings why I made my request in the original post (which I want you to read with real "per my last email" energy), I in no way am *forcing* him to have a medical procedure, but I am saying that I do not want to be with a partner who is not willing to be snipped. This is an issue of compatibility. The number of children you want, the methods of birth control you’re willing to use, those are issues of compatibility and a reason relationships end all the time. If he doesn’t want to be sterilized that’s fine, but then that means that we’re not compatible anymore, since it means he wants more children and I don’t. Beyond that there were some YTA comments and some DMs that were just nasty, calling me a murderer and saying my body is a cemetery. Sadly enough, I expected those types of comments, because I know there are a lot of Toms out in the world.
First I wanted to address a couple things that kept coming up, because last post turned into thousands of comments that all said about 5 different things, so to avoid my inbox becoming another echo chamber:

You’re 100% going to have a C-section anyway so just get a tubal while giving birth.

No, I’m not 100% going to have a C-section anyway. Twins are not an automatic C-section. With my birth history there is no reason to presume that a C-section is in my future. My OB agrees, and has discussed the possibility as doctors have to do but also said that based on my past two birth experiences, I'm a "perfect candidate" for vaginal delivery.
I also am not going to mince words: tubal ligations are *less* effective than vasectomies with a *much higher* likelihood of an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy can *kill me*. In fact I got a PM from a woman who is a fellow fertile Myrtle who had an ectopic after a tubal. I am rejecting birth control options that, if they fail, would lead to my likely death. I don’t want to be pregnant again but I also don’t want to die and leave my children motherless, and in no way should anyone assume that traveling to another state to obtain an emergency abortion will continue to be an option in the future - we live in scary times, and Gilead is a real possibility. The comments seemed to have the vibe that people think that ligations are magically more effective than vasectomies and vasectomies are more of a whisper of sterility than an actual sterilization method so for those in the back VASECTOMIES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TUBAL LIGATIONS, FULL STOP. So I really need y’all to shut up about it.

Go to another state and obtain an abortion anyway.

I appreciate the personal offers to help I received in DMs deeply, but no. I’m in my 2nd trimester, which I know is still legal in some places, however I am at a point in my pregnancy where I personally as an individual do not feel comfortable obtaining an abortion, considering I would be *even farther* along by the time I could travel (which is not only finances, but logistics as well). I am 16 weeks pregnant now, these babies aren’t just clusters of cells to me anymore, and I’m not going to expand on that since it’s not up for debate.

Why not adoption?

With love and respect to everyone who has gone through adoption in all its aspects, adoption is absolutely not for me. This is a thought process I already went through 8 years ago, and now that I’m a mother and not a scared teenager I know it’s even less for me. I personally could not go through with it and come out the other side intact. Going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me.

Leave him and give him full custody of the twins

No. Because going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me. Jesus, some of y’all.

Just have a sexless marriage.

No. I love banging my husband, obviously lol. I don't want to be in a sexless marriage and anyone who has been to an abstinence-only high school knows that abstinence is not the way lol. There were a lot of comments assuming I would be perfectly fine withholding sex from my husband and having na dead bedroom, and I wouldn't. I have a sex drive. I'm going to want to bang my husband. Wanting to have sex with your spouse is *normal*.

What you would do about birth control if you divorced and dated in the future?

I’m not thinking of dating anyone else right now, because I’m thinking more about saving my actual marriage instead of an imaginary relationship. And if theoretically I did, I would probably seek out a partner who was snipped or was ready to be to be honestly, or a woman. I’m bisexual so there’s a very good chance that my future partner wouldn’t have the right parts to knock me up anyway lol.

Jack is sabotaging your birth control

I clarified my methods in the original post (as per my last email), but I did want to address this because it came up a LOT. I don’t have reason to believe that Jack sabotaged my birth control. A number of other fertile Myrtles showed up and brought up they or their family members repeated pregnancies in the face of birth control, including tubals. Accusing my husband of reproductive coercion for no reason other than I keep getting pregnant is a big leap and a weighty accusation. I am not the only fertile Myrtle out there, there's a reason there's a whole term for it.

Your husband is a narcissist, abuser, psychopath, and he does no childcare

My husband and I historically have a really healthy and loving relationship outside of this fight. In fact, this fight is the first time we’ve really had a fight, we’ve only ever had little arguments that we’ve been able to talk through. He’s an active father, the reason that I do the majority of childcare is due to circumstance between maternity leaves, our job schedules and the fact that I breastfed my babies. Someone also presumed I’m the breadwinner, which isn’t quite true. Jack makes more than me, but we do not have deeply significant differences in our incomes. When he is home he does his fair share of cleaning and cooking (arguably more than me at times), and parenting. That being said, the things he said in the heat of the moment were deeply concerning, and we’re addressing that together.
So to get down to the nitty gritty of the real update: since the last time I posted, Jack and I have sat down together and had a real come to Jesus talk. I’m not going to go through the whole breakdown, but it basically boiled down to this: it’s the vasectomy, but it’s more than the vasectomy. It was wrong of me to compare him to Tom but it was wronger of him to weaponize my trauma against me in a very malicious way. The way he intentionally used the same language my abuser used in an effort to hurt me was not acceptable and damaged the trust between us. He agreed it was not acceptable and said that in the aftermath he was horrified and ashamed his own words, and that he (as an explanation and not an excuse) kind of snapped under the stress. Oh and what he said about his “next wife” was not an indication of him not being committed to me but was because he felt hurt and wanted to hurt me back. He has apologized numerous times and seems to feel genuinely bad about it.
As for the separation, I am still going forward with it. I need space and time and I need to take that before the babies come. I am still staying with my parents who, for the record, are not sick of me or the kids. We’re a tight knit family, I only moved out when I moved in with Jack, and my sister moved out about a year ago so they have been empty nesting, and my mom doesn’t like that we live “too far” (an hour) away. What I have realized with space and time is how deeply triggering it was, in a way that I cannot explain to those without PTSD from DV, those who know will know. It’s deeply unsettled me and I’m having a hard time “getting over it” so to speak. There is now a lot of fear of my husband that was never there before and it’s going to take a lot to repair that trust and sense of safety. I cannot make a decision while I’m in this space, and I am addressing this with my personal therapist. Overall, I told him that if he wanted to stay married to me I needed two things from him: marriage counseling and a vasectomy, and even then I still cannot guarantee him anything. He understands, but I do not know what will happen with the vasectomy right now, we focused more on talking about the fight, but he is very aware that it's now a dealbreaker. And we have a marriage counseling appointment set up for next week. I'm hoping that counseling will bring some clarity to the situation, and in the mean time for the next couple months I'm focusing on giving my kids lots of cuddles and preparing myself for two new babies to come into my world, with or without Jack.
Additional information from OOP on her relationships

OOP: I've been through a trial to convict my ex-boyfriend of trying to kill me because of an abortion in a deep red, deeply religious area. I've definitely heard worse things, and I typically have pretty thick skin. That being said, I am pregnant and pretty emotional, so it's not the best experience. That being said, I do appreciate the level-headed comments when I see them through the sea of comments kind of saying the same stuff over and over. I'm not reading a lot of them if what I can see in the comment notification starts off nasty, so a lot of it is just inbox white noise. My favorites are the ones that start off with "I'm not going to read that BUT..." and I just think lol same. Like you don't want to read my post but expect me to read your comment that was made without even reading the situation? lol nope. And there are a lot of people conflating "providing someone with a hard choice" with "forcing someone into a medical procedure" and it just makes wading through for the actually helpful comments more tiring. Thank you though, I very much appreciate the kindness. Sorry, I've gotten so much of the same nonsense I guess I needed a little vent lol.

OOP on wanting her husband to make a decision and be on the same page

OOP: I want to be honest with him about where I am emotionally because I want him to make an informed decision. While the vasectomy is a deal breaker, it's really my secondary concern. My primary concern is the way he acted during the fight and his intention exploitation of my trauma because he was mad and scared. I think that telling him "get the snip to stay with me" and then deciding to leave anyway because there are deeper issues and/or I don't feel safe anymore would be cruel. He deserves to have the full picture before he makes a choice, doesn't he?
If he doesn't want the vasectomy, that's his choice. It's not what I want, but it is what it is. If he wants to call it quits at 4 kids, then it is what it is and if he secretly wants to be the next Nick Cannon then it is what it is he should be free to do that. That is part of why I don't know where he is on the vasectomy right now and we didn't really discuss it much when we talked, I'm focusing on discussing the bigger issue for me which is trust and safety within the relationship. The only way for him to make an informed decision about whether or not he get a vasectomy is for him to have all the information about the situation. If that makes him want a vasectomy less, then it is what it is. It's not about making him want to have a vasectomy. It's about being on the same page.

 

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

I am NOT OOP. OOP is u/justathrowaway282641
Originally posted to TwoHotTakes + her own page
Previous BoRU #1, BoRU #2, BoRU #3, BoRU #4, BoRU #5, BoRU 6
Editor’s Note: removed all relevant comments from older posts to make space for new updates. To see all older relevant comments, check out the previous BoRUs above
NEW UPDATE MARKED WITH ----
[New Update]: My family forgot to invite me to my grandparents funeral, but they are convinced I was there.
Trigger Warnings: death of loved ones, emotional manipulation, gaslighting, harassment
RECAP
Original Post: November 14, 2023**
I’m 30s F and caused a major blowup in my family and now none of them are talking to me. For background, my hometown is tiny (500pop) and when I went 2 hrs away to “the city” (15,000pop) for college, I loved it. I ended up staying after graduation, got married, and am happy here for a decade. I visit my home town every few weeks or so, call/text my family near daily, and thought we were all good. My family’s pretty small. Just my brother, mom, step dad, dad, step mom, and an aunt and uncle (mom’s siblings, never married, no kids). My mother's grandparents moved to my home town when I was in high school and were just down the street from us. My family has always been pretty drama free (aside from my parent’s divorce when I was a kid) and we’ve been happy. The step-parents were blended in perfectly and we share holidays and celebrations together. We’re all super close and just the perfect little group.
Ever since I moved away, the topic of “when am I moving back?” is constant, and I’ve always laughed it off. My home town has nothing. You have to drive 30 minutes for milk and bread. 60-90 minute one-way commutes to work. And floods shut down the main road every Easter. I love the town, but I love here more. I have parks, stores, community events, a library! The “city” is great. My family grumbles that I need to move back, but I refuse. I've been trying to encourage them to come here, especially since it's not an hour drive to the nearest medical facility.
Now to the meat and potatoes: both my grandparents passed over COVID times. They were both old and their health had been failing for a while so it was only a matter of time. Thankfully they didn’t catch it, but it made visiting them impossible and we survived mostly through FaceTime. They both passed in their sleep months apart. Both were cremated and kept securely under the kitchen sink for safe keeping while the pandemic blew over. That was 2021.
Well, I just found out my family held a funeral for them and scattered the ashes in my uncle’s maple grove over the summer. No one said a word to me about it. I’ve visited numerous times before and after and not one word. I only found out because my great uncle from California posted on Facebook a few weeks ago that he is entering hospice and was so thankful his health stayed strong enough for him to see his little sister (my grandma) to her final resting place. I was confused and called my mom. She was all “Yeah, the funeral we had in July, remember?” Ya’ll, I visited them for the 4th of July. They did the funeral the 8th. Not a word about it to me. They had planned this for months. Long enough to arrange for my infirm great uncle to be brought over from the other side of the country. Apparently, they talked about it “all the time”.
Everyone is convinced I was at the funeral. They SWEAR I was there. I can prove I wasn’t because Google’s got my location history. My hubby is baffled because he was supposedly there, too, but he had to work every weekend in June and July. Time clock doesn’t lie. My family straight up forgot about me. I’m hurt. I’m sad. And they’re pissed at me “for lying”. They think I’m causing drama over nothing. Nothing I say can convince them I wasn’t there. My family is united in this. And they’ve all put me “on read” until I admit I’m wrong. They think I’ve gone nuts. Either there’s a doppelganger of me attending events, or my family doesn’t want to admit they screwed up. I’m not backing down.
Thanksgiving is coming up, and my family’s been vague posting on Facebook about “forgetful kids” and mental health. It’s so freaking weird and I don’t know if I’m in bizzaro world or what’s going on. My mom’s best friend reached out and said I should just admit I was wrong and apologize, that I’m causing my mom so much unnecessary stress. I asked her if she’s checked everyone’s home for CO2. She hung up on me. (We checked our CO2, and our testers are running just fine.) I have reached out to a few people in my home town to check in on my folks, and they all say they're fine. I even spoke with the local volunteer fire fighter group to see if they could check for gas leaks. Not sure if they were able to.
I don’t know what to do. I’ve shown them the proof I wasn’t there, but they know I’m tech savvy and just assume I’ve Photoshopped it. Hubby says we need a break, and we’re going to be staying home this holiday season.
Edit: I don't know the update rules, so I'll post updates to my profile should anyone want them.  
Update #1: November 27, 2023
Not sure how to do updates on posts, so figured I'd post anything on my profile. Folks have private messaged me and this will be easier I think?
It's 11/27 and Thanksgiving just happened. Hubby and I stayed home. We got a small turkey and made our own little thanksgiving. It was nice. We ate around noon, then watched a movie, and later sat outside with a bottle of wine to watch the sun set behind the trees and neighbor houses.
We usually take the day before off, drive to my folks, stay the night, and help with the Thanksgiving Day cooking. So it wasn't until Wednesday night that my mom broke the silence. Mom called and asked when I was showing up, and I told her we were staying home this year, but for them to have a happy Thanksgiving, and to give the rest of the family my love. She was quiet for a long time after I said that, and I think she eventually mumbled an "okay", or something, and hung up. It wasn't an angry hang up. Just a hang up. On Thanksgiving day, I sent a group "Happy Thanksgiving!" gif to our family group chat. I received a few "happy Thanksgiving"'s back. No one's said anything else. There's been no posts on Facebook.  
Update #2: December 12, 2023
So, I think I mentioned in one of my comments that my dad and I usually talk on the phone every Sunday morning. We're both early risers so we'd chat over our morning coffees and watch the sunrise. Him and I haven't really spoken since this all went down and it's been tough. I'm used to talking to him, you know?
Well, I was sitting outside in my usual spot, watching the sun rise and freezing my butt off, and he called me. I'm not entirely sure how to describe the emotions I felt. It was a mix of panic, hope, terror, happiness, and dread. I ended up answering because I just had to know what he wanted. It was an awkward conversation. He didn't address the current "drama", but instead tiptoed around the situation with all the grace of an cow on stilts. For instance, a simple "How are you doing?" Type question was answered with a "Not good." And the whole conversation would stall out for a bit because he knew why I wasn't doing well. So we ended up talking about the weather, the various winter birds we'd seen in our feeders, and the Christmas decorations around town. Things like that.
Eventually he asked if we were coming out for Christmas, and sounded sad when I told him we weren't. He asked if him and step mom could come visit us instead, and I told him it wasn't a good idea this year. That hubby and I were going to spend a quiet holiday together. I let him know he should be receiving some gifts at his PO Box any day now, so to please pick them up from the post office and put them under the family tree for everyone. He said he'd ship ours to us as well.
And that was pretty much it. No crazy drama to report. The only posts on Facebook have been the usual Christmas excitement ones, countdowns, photos of Santa, silly gift ideas, photos of company Christmas parties.
On a personal note: Hubby and I are doing alright. Our health is good, our spirits high, and we're as solid as ever. We each got Christmas bonus' at our jobs, so we're excited about that. They're not large, but we're happy to have them. We have also done advent calendars for the first time ever. I got him a Lego one, and he got me a hot chocolate one. We're going to do the calendars again next year. Maybe make a tradition out of it.
Everyone please have a safe and happy holidays.  
Inheritance: December 16, 2023
I've received a lot - A LOT - of messages and private DMs urging me to check into inheritance and such. I'm really touched a lot of Internet strangers are worried about me and I wanted to ensure everyone that inheritance is most likely not an issue here. I'd almost be relieved if it was, because then it would at least make some sense. Money does weird things to people, you know?
No one in my family is wealthy by any means. After my grandparents' passed, their small estate was used to pay for their end of life expenses and remaining assets split up. Everyone directly related got an equal split (so excluded my dad and the step parents). I don't remember the exact amount I received, but it was around $5k if I recall. My brother gave me his share, too, so I could finish paying off my college debt while the interest freeze was active.
The great uncle from California has kids and grand kids, and great grandkids of his own, and also isn't wealthy. I think one of his kids makes good money doing something in finance, but I'm not entirely sure. I can't imagine he left us anything, as we hardly knew him. My mom, aunt, and uncle only met him a few times in their lives, and my brother and I even less. Grandma and him were close, but I don't think he liked my grandpa much.  
Christmas: December 25, 2023
I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas. I've received a lot of support through my posts and I'm really grateful. Writing these updates have had a therapeutic effect.
Yesterday was Sunday, but I didn't answer my dad when he called. I just really didn't feel up to a pointless chat, so let it go to voicemail. He tried to reach me a few times throughout the day, but I didn't answer.
Our bestie last minute invited us over to his house for Christmas day lunch (today), so husband and I were busy all Christmas Eve making cookies, peanut brittle, and homemade suckers/hard candies for his kids. Mom tried to reach out as well, but I also ignored her calls.
We had a BLAST at lunch! Our friend's kids are a lot of fun to be around. They got some techy presents from their grandparents (Quest vr headset and steam decks, lucky little rascals) Friend and his wife aren't good with tech, while hubby and I are, so we helped get them set up while our friend played a good host to his folks and inlaws. The grandparents didn't realize that a Steam deck required a Steam account, so we got the kids all their own accounts set up, added them to our steam friends lists, and gifted them some games. We also bought them a few VR games for their headset, and they were off to the races with Beat Saber in no time.
As for my folks: My brother texted and asked if we could talk sometime tomorrow. I think me ignoring mom and dad has caused some kind of upset. Which they deserve.  
Brother’s call: December 26, 2023
Spoke with my brother over the phone this morning.
For starters, he apologized for everything. Him and I are good (for now). For a bit of background, my brother and I are only 2 years apart. There weren't a lot of kids around growing up, so the two of us were often stuck doing stuff together. So we have a lot of shared interests and passions. He's been pretty silent on this whole matter, but still "part of the group", if you know what I mean. I think the thought of losing him out of my life was probably the most painful, because he's always been there. He was my rock until I met my husband. He's definitely a Mama's boy, though, so anything mom wanted, he made sure she got. I'm happy to have him back.
Without further ado, here's the story from the horse's mouth:
Mom apparently had a cancer scare late last year (which no one told me about, go figure), and dad had a stint put in his heart back in January (which I did know about). This "sense of mortality" has apparently lit a fire under Mom's ass to get me back home. But since I wasn't reacting to her passive aggressive hinting, she and step mom decided to go full crazy. My great uncle's health was bad, and he'd been asking about funeral arrangements for his sister (my grandma) for a while, so the moms decided to plan it. And use the event as a giant middle finger to me. They kept all the planning pretty hush-hush between the two of them, so no one on our side of the family actually knew about the funeral until like 2 weeks before. The moms said they'd invited hubby and I. No one thought anything about it. No one thought to mention, confirm, or check with me.
The plan was to scatter the ashes, say a few words, and maybe head to town for lunch. It was a small affair. The mom's didn't even tell the family that our great uncle was coming for it. Like I said, it was a small thing. Barely a footnote. No one thought it was odd because we're pretty chill people.
4th of July happens. Hubby and I are out. No one thought to mention it, as we were all busy celebrating and having a great time. Any time the topic of "this weekend" would start, the conversation would be quickly shifted by one of the moms. We went back home.
8th of July happens. Great uncle rolls into town with a few of his kids, grandkids, and great grandkids, and it's a surprise to everyone (but the moms). Everyone drives to the maple grove and the moms have brought a ton of food and stuff. It's a full blown party. No one on my side noticed I wasn't there, because there were so many extra faces outside the usual group. They did the spreading of the ashes, they said their words, they ate, they had a great time. It wasn't until our great uncle left, and all his side left with him, that they realized I wasn't there. And hadn't been there.
And this is where the crazy went up a notch. My brother says the moms were happy no one noticed I wasn't there. And that this was proof to everyone that I needed to move back because I was so easily forgotten about. Because none of them thought to reach out, right? They basically did a ton of guilt tripping manipulation bullshit and it made everyone upset at me for not showing up. Somehow it was my fault for being excluded. So suddenly everyone was on their side with "sticking it to me".
But then a few months went by, and tempers cooled, and then I guess the horror of it set in. Followed by the shame, but by then they were "in too deep". How do you undo something like this? And since I hadn't brought it up, I guess they figured they would all just stay quiet about it and hope I never asked about a funeral.
That's when I discovered the situation from my great uncle's Facebook and called my mom, who panicked and went with the stupidest solution. Claiming I was there. Don't I remember?
I ended up talking with a few friends from high school, mentioning the situation, and word got back to those in town. So suddenly town gossip and little old church ladies got involved. Was I, or wasn't I at the funeral? Did my family forget to invite me to the funeral of the only grandparents I'd ever know? Or am I just causing a ruckus? My brother said they all just went with mom's answer. Of course they wouldn't forget me. Of course I was there. Of course they're good people. And it just snowballed.
The family expected me to eventually fold. I'm usually a nonconfrontational person, so me sticking to my guns was unexpected. And then I missed Thanksgiving. And now Christmas. With no sign of backing down. And I guess the realization that I could just stop being part of their lives is setting in and my parents are panicking. He's tried just getting them to apologize and explain, but stubbornness prevails. They want to rug sweep, but I'm not letting them.
My brother is upset with everything that's happened. He's realized just how crappy it all has been and he wants nothing to do with it anymore. But since he lives with my mom, he can't "get away from it".
He has asked if he can come stay with us for a little bit. I spoke with hubby, and he's in agreement with me that my brother can come crash in our spare bedroom for as long as he wants. Brother works remotely, so it's no trouble for him to pick up and go. I believe he's making the trip today or tomorrow. Not entirely sure, but I expect crap to hit the fan when he arrives.
On a side note, hubby's stoked that my brother and I made up. The two usually game together, but haven't due to "the situation". He's downstairs right now setting up his man cave in preparation for my brother's arrival. I'm happy to see him so excited.  
Brother's Here: December 27, 2023
My brother rolled in late last night. He'd obviously been crying and when I opened the door, he just held me and sobbed. I'd never seen him like that before and soon both of us were just standing in the doorway crying into one another. He kept apologizing. Over and over again. Said he wasn't sure why he went with it. Just kept saying sorry. Hubby got him all set up in the spare bedroom while brother and I talked. My brother's a wreck. He's always been a big guy, but he's lost a lot of weight and his clothes just hang off him. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was on drugs. We talked for a little bit before bed and he re-explained everything for my husband. I'd told hubby the story, but it was just so weird that hearing it again helped.
This morning my brother was up at dawn making some coffee and getting his work day going. Hubby's off all week (lucky) so hubby made us working folk some pancakes and bacon. So far everything's peaceful. We've decided not to answer any calls from our family. They've been made aware that he arrived safely, and that we are going to spend the New Years together, and that we're not answering any calls until January 1st. They may text if they wish. I'm sure they're losing their minds. Serves them right.
Everyone, have a safe and happy new years! Don't drink and drive!  
Happy 2024!: January 2, 2024
I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable holidays, and may the new year be full of joy and happiness!
Not too much of an update. Things here have been quiet. My brother's settled in nicely and he's a great housemate. Our place isn't very big, but we have full basement and a nice outside patio/porch area so it doesn't feel crowded at all with the extra addition. He's a quiet and clean guy. No hassle at all. He got some fresh clothes from the Walmart, a haircut, and trimmed his beard, so he's more "presentable" now. He's a lady killer when he gets cleaned up. He's made nice with the (very nosy, but kind) retired couple next door and is adapting to "city living" nicely.
Folks back home have been mostly well behaved. There's been a few texts back and forth, as we're not answering calls. Mom mainly wants to know when brother's coming back, but he's keen on staying here for a while. Mom said I can't "keep him" and I told her he's a grown ass man and can do what he wants. Brother says he has her blocked after she ORDERED him to return home.
Brother has tentatively asked if he could stay long term, should he decide to, or at least longer than a usual visitor would stay. Which we're fine with. He has a good paying job and could afford an apartment, but he's never lived on his own and I would guess he has some anxiety about it. Should that be the case, he'll start paying us some rent and we'd probably adjust to give him the basement as his own space.  
Had to change the locks: January 17, 2024
My brother is officially staying with us for the long haul. Hubby and him spent all Sunday organizing the basement and shifting things around so he now has his own area to be comfortable in. He's pretty handy and has also started fixing little things around our house. Our windows and doors have never closed and locked/unlocked smoother. He even fixed one of the closets we never use because we can never get the darn door open. Sadly, he also had to change the locks on our house and get us all new keys.
This is because while hubby and I were out this Saturday, the moms showed up. They'd been calling and texting us all week, but we weren't really answering them, so I guess the two decided to drive over and hash it out in person. They have emergency keys to my place, and just let themselves in. Brother told them to leave, they argued, and my nosy (but kind) neighbors called the police when they noticed the commotion. So, we get a call from neighbor's wife, return home to some cops in our yard, all the neighbors out "vacuuming their trees", and my nosy (but kind) neighbors standing on my porch with my brother behind them, doing their best Gandalf "You shall not pass" impression.
Had to talk with the cops, explain that we were having a family dispute and word vomited. I don't really remember what all I said, and was shaking a lot. Our local cops are really great. Fantastic guys and gals in blue, and took it all in stride. It's really cold here, so one had me join him in his cruiser with the heat on, and gave me a bottle of water to calm down while we talked. They asked if we wanted the moms trespassed but I wasn't sure if that counted as a criminal charge so just asked the cops if they could just make them leave, which the cops did with no fuss. I think the moms were shocked we were taking this so seriously. They didn't fight or scream at us. Just left quietly.
My dad promised me he'd make sure his wife left us alone. "Or else". He said he'd also have a stern talk with my mom. Him and I talked Sunday morning, and he seemed absolutely at the end of his rope. Husband jokingly told my dad he could move in, too. To which he declined.
Not sure where to go from here, but we're getting some ring cameras installed once they arrive. And everyone but my dad is blocked. Hopefully they all just leave us alone.  
Nothing New To Report: February 2, 2024
Had a lot of DMs for updates, but don't have much anything to report on. The moms are behaving themselves. All's quiet on the western front. Felt weird ignoring or copy/pasting "no updates" to everyone, so here's what we've been doing, should anyone care.
Dad got a new bird/squirrel feeder from Amazon (looks like a little picnic table for a child's dolly but has a mesh top for the bird seed. I think it's supposed to be for chickens?) It's totes adorbs. To his horror, it also works as a Cooper hawk feeder, so now he's "fortifying his defenses" and putting up some trellises around it. He'll have to wait till warmer weather before planting anything to grow on them.
We had some ring cameras installed and put in a motion-activated camera that double functions as a light bulb. It goes in the light fixture outside the front door and is pretty cool. Video quality isn't all that great, but it's a nice addition I guess. It does overlook the bird feeders, so I've been watching it on my lunch breaks on the days I have to go into the office.
Hubby and brother are feuding. They started a coop farm in Stardew Valley a few days ago and they both want to romance Leah. My husband confided in me that he's also been romancing Sebastian as a backup. I'm not sure why he's keeping this a secret, but he's pretty smug about it.
RELEVANT COMMENTS
fractal_frog I hope your dad can outsmart the hawks!

OOP: He'll be able to, I just know it. He's used to dealing with the wildlife and having hawks about, but he just wasn't expecting one to snag a meal right from his new feeder.
I told him it was "technically" still a bird feeder. Just....for bigger birds. Which he thought was funny. He said he might make a little "no hawks allowed" sign to put up next to it.

MissOP: keep the updates coming. the moms are so close to folding it's just a little bit more. LMAO also, the bro mance between your husband and brother is so cute. lol Honestly, I think your husband making sure he has a side piece of Sebastian is absolutely the play.

OOP: So far still no word from the moms, but I hope you're right. I would love an apology and for us to begin moving past this. But I NEED that apology. I feel selfish saying that, but I refuse to "be the bigger person" on this. I just won't.
As for my brother and husband, yeah, they're basically soul mates. The two hit it off immediately when they first met, and they've been thick as thieves for years.  

Update: February 27, 2024
My dad came out for a visit over the weekend. We had a good time and the weather was lovely for some grilling and beers. It was really nice to see him again and he seemed healthy and in good spirits.
Here's his report from back home: Step mom (dad's wife) has started to realize she's screwed up. I credit her change of mindset to the fact that my dad sat her down and laid it out for her: she leaves his kids alone, or she's getting divorce papers. That apparently shut her up right quick, because they had a prenup done when they married and I'm not sure the details of it, but it wouldn't end favorably for her. She hasn't worked in years, so I imagine she'd be eligible for alimony? But I'm not versed in any of that legal mumbojumbo. Dad didn't seem too worried about it, so I'm not gonna worry about it.
Step dad was pissed the police were involved in the last "mom visit" (despite no one getting arrested or anything) and was in a "the kids are out of control and need to be reigned back in" mindset. When my dad pointed out that "the kids" in question were all in their mid-30s, it took some of the steam out of stepdad's sails. According to my dad, even my mom looked a little surprised when he said that. So, part of me is wondering if a good chunk of this whole thing is my mom not truly realizing that her kids were grown, and no longer children she could make demands of. Both of the moms have left us alone. I expected my mom to continue to kick up a fuss, but I think the cops spooked her.
There was a wonderful suggestion by a comment or to get their pastor involved, which I passed along to my dad. Dad has since spoken to their pastor about everything. He's a young guy, relatively new to their church, and joked that his first month on the job he had to do 3 funerals in a row and his new "flock" were just dying to get away from him, so he's got a sense of humor which is nice. The new pastor agreed to sit down with everyone and help the family hash it all out in a true "Come to Jesus" type moment next month, so that maybe we could celebrate Easter together as our first holiday as a family. Dad said the pastor was aware our family was having some troubles, but unsure of exactly what was going on, and since he was new, the pastor didn't want to pry. He has also agreed to do a small service down at my uncle's maple grove later in the summer, as it usually floods and is a muddy mess all spring. According to my dad, my aunt and uncle are so over all the drama and just ready to move on, so I expect hugs and apologies from them when we next meet.
Stardew Valley Update: My brother was victorious in the grand fight for Leah. It was a hard battle. Well fought. When my husband exposed his plans to woo Sebastian all this time, it was quite the betrayal. Dramatics aside, their farm is really cute and I'm so happy they're enjoying the game!  
Update 4/1 - Final one I think - April 1, 2024
Happy April Fools everyone! I hope you all check your caramel apples for stray onions before taking a bite! I also hope your Easter weekend was a delightful one.
It is with great joy that I tell you all about our most recent update! Possibly even a conclusion to this whole ordeal.
The entire family (aunt, uncle, moms, dads, brother, me, husband) and pastor met at my dad's house and we all sat down to hash the situation out. As expected from what my dad said, my aunt and uncle greeted us all with apologies and hugs, which was nice. My uncle usually helps host the Easter egg hunts with the church and he brought our Easter baskets to give to us in case us kids weren't sticking around the for the weekend. I'm not sure why but seeing it made me tear up and feel stupid, because it was just a basket of candy but it meant a lot to me for some reason.
The pastor led us in a prayer and talked about forgiveness and such. He then asked us all to talk one at a time about how we're feeling and what we want the end result of today to be. No one was allowed to interrupt so everyone got to talk. It was nice. The consensus for the group was that most everyone wanted things to go back to "normal". The only ones who had any variance off this was my mom and step dad. They both wanted all us kids to move back to the area.
The pastor asked them why they wanted us back, and neither could give a good reason other than "because family", and the pastor asked us if we were thriving where we were. And we said we were. He asked if we were happy there. Which we were. He then asked my mom and step dad if they wanted us to give up our happiness to make them happy.
And Mom broke down and said no. We all had a good cry. The pastor then asked about the funeral and lies that led up to it and followed it and how it made us all feel and what we wished we'd done differently if we had the chance. It was all very emotional, but in a good way, you know? Everyone apologized and admitted they f-ed up and did a really crappy thing.
We all talked for a long, long time and the pastor was a great mediator. Eventually we all reached some sort of resolution and I think we're good now. Emotions are still high and a little raw in areas, but we stayed for Easter weekend and had a nice time. We're going to keep moving forward slowly and try to repair the relationship, but I believe we're well and truly out of the woods.
As for my brother, he's still staying with us, and mom will stop trying to guilt trip him back home. He's thinking about renting a small apartment in our area but we're not pushing him to make a decision. He knows he's welcome to stay as long as he wants. I think he wants to try dating (he's had a few girlfriends but never anything serious) and is embarrassed to bring any girls around our place, lol. He's been going to a few random classes/bookclubs at the local library for something free to do and hitting it off with all the little old ladies who attend, and they keep trying to hook him up with girls his age who they know. He has been on a few lunches/coffee dates with a couple girls, but I think he's too embarrassed by the attention to give it a real try at "dating" any of them. He's happy, though, which is all I could ask for.
I'm not sure if there will be any more updates, as I think it's all be resolved about as much as it can be at the moment. I wanted to thank you all for your words of advice and giving me a place to vent and scream into the void. Please be kind to one another and to yourselves. Thank you.
Relevant Comments
emjkr: What a nice and hopeful update, I’m really glad you stuck to your guns when everyone threw sanity out the window!
But, could your mother explain how she thought this would work out in her favour?

OOP: I don't think mom thought too far ahead. I believe she assumed it would all just magically work out the way she wanted it to. She said she wasn't sure what she was expecting to happen (which I think was a lie, but I wasn't going to push it).

mak_zaddy: This was a great update! But ummmmmm no stardew valley update? What gives? Has Sebastian been woo’ed? How’s Leah? What’s happening?

OOP: Sebastian has indeed been wooed (and whoohooed) There's kids and cows and chickens. The two are still having a wonderful time at the game. They're working on completing the community center but it's slow going as they aren't trying to speedrun and just doing things as they want. I believe they're thinking about going into the desert mines once they complete that bundle, but they're both super chicken shit about it!

-my-cabbages: I don't really understand what you had to apologize for ... but I'm glad you're happy and the situation seems to be settling down

OOP: There wasn't much of an apology on my end, as everyone agreed I had done nothing wrong. Mine was more of a "I'm sorry you didn't feel as though I would listen." Type apology, which I don't really believe is a proper apology because apologies like that push the blame back on another. I mostly expressed my feelings and the shock of it all, and how betrayed I felt.  

----NEW UPDATE----

Small, happy update: May 7, 2024 (1 month later)
Things as wonderful as the moment. Still doing baby steps with The Moms. We're texting and talking on the phones more, which is nice. Very civil.
Dad "accidentally" bought a bunch of hand crafted bird feeders at a craft fair. By accidentally, I mean: he had a little too much fun in the beer tent, went for a stroll while step mom wasn't looking, and stumbled upon a guy's booth and bought "one of each". He wouldn't tell me how MANY "one of each" was, but he cackled like a witch when I asked. Step mom said she's forcing him to give a few to me, so I'm expecting a delivery or a Dad-visit any day now.
My brother is officially "going steady" with a girl. We've met her a few times and she seems like a real sweetheart. She's our age and has a little boy (5-6 years old, I haven't asked) from a previous relationship (The dad's not in the picture from what I can gather). She's the granddaughter of one of his Book Club members, so the old ladies made good match makers in the end. The relationship is still very new and I'm routing for them.
No new Stardew Valley updates. Work has been a little crazy lately and I haven't been able to play much of anything, and brother has been distracted by his new lady friend. So, husband finally started Baldur's Gate 3, and fell for Gale's "magic trick" so now those two are a thing. I expect him to be sufficiently distracted from reality for the next few weeks.
 

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

My wife's sister Eva has always been the center of attention. She is very self centered and is obsessed with romanticizing her life to her own detriment. She refuses to take a job that she isn't passionate about and has bounced around various countries traveling for the last 8ish years. This wasn't a huge deal, but several years ago, she was impregnated by and married a 20 year old guy.
My wife has always been the responsible one in her family. She raised her other nephew for the first few years of his life because her other sister Dina had severe postpartum depression. Additionally, her parents went through a messy divorce and she had to care for her sisters a lot growing up, so she’s “the responsible one”.
Eva always says that no one has ever helped her and she's always had to do everything herself. That is far from true. She is the kid’s primary caregiver, so I’ll give her credit, but she is by no means raising him alone. She relies heavily on her family for money and childcare. Eva’s father regularly flies her out to see him, paying for everything and also sends her money. Her husband’s family also sends her money monthly. Her mother flies out to her and assists with childcare every month or so for sometimes weeks at a time. My wife flew out when she gave birth, helped with caring for both her and the child afterwards, and none of them to my knowledge ever received a thank you. She thanks them by constantly telling them they need to step up and do more. It's never enough. I'm fully convinced that her family could all care for her 24/7 and she would still tell them they weren't doing enough because she’s fundamentally unhappy and blames everyone else for it.
Her relationship with the child's dad has been rocky from the beginning. She doesn't want to be with him, but she also doesn't want him seeing other people. He’s always seemed like an okay dad, though he travels for his job, so he’s gone for days or weeks at a time. Also like I said, he was basically a teenager when they met, so he doesn’t have much in terms of a career or experience. When he’s home, she tells him he needs to work because they need money. When he works she tells him they need him at home. They live overseas so they do have some free childcare, but she says that it’s not enough time to allow her a part time job.
So yeah, things have never been great and it’s no secret I don’t really like being around her. She’s a pleasant enough person to talk to (most of the time,) but she’s such a chaotic presence that any time we’re with her, I’m on edge. Her family feels the same.
Things came to a head recently when Eva’s husband finally had enough and essentially told her that he can’t make her happy and they need to live separate lives and co-parent. Every time my wife visits them, they inevitably end up screaming at each other, so we all think this is for the best. He’s not the best dad, but he’s far from the worst. He’s also pretty self-centered and romanticizes his life similar to her. Now that they’re breaking up though, she’s accusing him of abuse, though I’m unclear what she’s specifically accusing him of. Since she’s started with those allegations, she’ll also backtrack on them, alternating between being angry that her family won’t support her in her abusive situation, and then being angry that he isn’t around more to help and telling them that she needs him home more. It’s also worth mentioning that her definition of abuse has stretched to saying that her friend abused her by giving someone else a job that they were supposed to give her. Additionally, she was previously diagnosed as a teen for being schizophrenic. I don’t know much about schizophrenia, but she definitely has something going on mentally, though to me it’s more what I imagine BPD or bi-polar to look like. She seemingly floats between multiple different versions of reality, and fully convinces herself that whichever version she’s in right now is the only one there is and ever has been. She’s open to therapy which her family has encouraged and said they’d pay for, but she won’t do the work of actually finding a therapist.
So, now she’s in a custody battle with the father which she’s predictably not handling well. He wanted to move into another apartment in their complex and she refused, saying he’ll be too close. Then she’s refusing to give him the two items from their apartment that he wanted to keep for himself. She’s always been very vindictive once she decides that someone has wronged her. When asked to actually draw up a custody agreement that she’ll agree to she won’t, presumably because she prefers shifting goalposts and not having something that people can hold her to.
It’s new drama every day. She’s constantly berating her parents and sisters for not doing enough for them and “siding with her abuser” when they try and do anything productive with the joint custody discussions. Honestly if it wasn’t for her child, I don’t think they’d put up with it, but everyone is concerned for the kid. He’s so sweet and they don’t want him cut out of their lives. They try to walk a fine line of influencing what they can while stopping short of telling her the whole truth, that she’s the one that’s being unreasonable most of the time. Honestly they’re probably some of the few stable presences in the kid’s life, so they want to make sure they stay in it.
My wife has asked what I think, but I don’t have a great answer. I know generally it’s best to not cater to the demands of someone so toxic and unwell, and by not fully calling her on her shit, they’re enabling her to some degree. On the other hand, they’re right that if they did call her on her shit, she would burn them and likely cut them out of the child’s life. Even if the court battle gets nasty, I don’t see her getting less than 50% custody of the kid. She’s been his primary caregiver and while it’s probably not a great environment mentally for him, it’s not anything that the courts would separate a family over. In general, she’s not a bad mom and doesn’t mistreat the kid from what I’ve seen, though she will weaponize him against the father.
All this is taking a mental toll on my wife, but she’s decided to do what she can to ensure the best outcome for her nephew given the circumstances. So she does what she can to try and influence from the sidelines while also walking on egg-shells trying not to piss off her sister too much. It would be much better for her mentally if she stopped interacting and participating in her sister’s drama, but again, there’s the kid to worry about. She’s tried just engaging less and her sister takes it the same as if she’d disagree with her. Anyone have any advice with how to approach this? What can I do to support her?
tldr; wife's sister is unstable and treats her family poorly but they're forced to cater to her to stay involved her her child's life. What do?

My wife's sister Eva has always been the center of attention. She is very self centered and is obsessed with romanticizing her life to her own detriment. She refuses to take a job that she isn't passionate about and has bounced around various countries traveling for the last 8ish years. This wasn't a huge deal, but several years ago, she was impregnated by and married a 20 year old guy.
My wife has always been the responsible one in her family. She raised her other nephew for the first few years of his life because her other sister Dina had severe postpartum depression. Additionally, her parents went through a messy divorce and she had to care for her sisters a lot growing up, so she’s “the responsible one”.
Eva always says that no one has ever helped her and she's always had to do everything herself. That is far from true. She is the kid’s primary caregiver, so I’ll give her credit, but she is by no means raising him alone. She relies heavily on her family for money and childcare. Eva’s father regularly flies her out to see him, paying for everything and also sends her money. Her husband’s family also sends her money monthly. Her mother flies out to her and assists with childcare every month or so for sometimes weeks at a time. My wife flew out when she gave birth, helped with caring for both her and the child afterwards, and none of them to my knowledge ever received a thank you. She thanks them by constantly telling them they need to step up and do more. It's never enough. I'm fully convinced that her family could all care for her 24/7 and she would still tell them they weren't doing enough because she’s fundamentally unhappy and blames everyone else for it.
Her relationship with the child's dad has been rocky from the beginning. She doesn't want to be with him, but she also doesn't want him seeing other people. He’s always seemed like an okay dad, though he travels for his job, so he’s gone for days or weeks at a time. Also like I said, he was basically a teenager when they met, so he doesn’t have much in terms of a career or experience. When he’s home, she tells him he needs to work because they need money. When he works she tells him they need him at home. They live overseas so they do have some free childcare, but she says that it’s not enough time to allow her a part time job.
So yeah, things have never been great and it’s no secret I don’t really like being around her. She’s a pleasant enough person to talk to (most of the time,) but she’s such a chaotic presence that any time we’re with her, I’m on edge. Her family feels the same.
Things came to a head recently when Eva’s husband finally had enough and essentially told her that he can’t make her happy and they need to live separate lives and co-parent. Every time my wife visits them, they inevitably end up screaming at each other, so we all think this is for the best. He’s not the best dad, but he’s far from the worst. He’s also pretty self-centered and romanticizes his life similar to her. Now that they’re breaking up though, she’s accusing him of abuse, though I’m unclear what she’s specifically accusing him of. Since she’s started with those allegations, she’ll also backtrack on them, alternating between being angry that her family won’t support her in her abusive situation, and then being angry that he isn’t around more to help and telling them that she needs him home more. It’s also worth mentioning that her definition of abuse has stretched to saying that her friend abused her by giving someone else a job that they were supposed to give her. Additionally, she was previously diagnosed as a teen for being schizophrenic. I don’t know much about schizophrenia, but she definitely has something going on mentally, though to me it’s more what I imagine BPD or bi-polar to look like. She seemingly floats between multiple different versions of reality, and fully convinces herself that whichever version she’s in right now is the only one there is and ever has been. She’s open to therapy which her family has encouraged and said they’d pay for, but she won’t do the work of actually finding a therapist.
So, now she’s in a custody battle with the father which she’s predictably not handling well. He wanted to move into another apartment in their complex and she refused, saying he’ll be too close. Then she’s refusing to give him the two items from their apartment that he wanted to keep for himself. She’s always been very vindictive once she decides that someone has wronged her. When asked to actually draw up a custody agreement that she’ll agree to she won’t, presumably because she prefers shifting goalposts and not having something that people can hold her to.
It’s new drama every day. She’s constantly berating her parents and sisters for not doing enough for them and “siding with her abuser” when they try and do anything productive with the joint custody discussions. Honestly if it wasn’t for her child, I don’t think they’d put up with it, but everyone is concerned for the kid. He’s so sweet and they don’t want him cut out of their lives. They try to walk a fine line of influencing what they can while stopping short of telling her the whole truth, that she’s the one that’s being unreasonable most of the time. Honestly they’re probably some of the few stable presences in the kid’s life, so they want to make sure they stay in it.
My wife has asked what I think, but I don’t have a great answer. I know generally it’s best to not cater to the demands of someone so toxic and unwell, and by not fully calling her on her shit, they’re enabling her to some degree. On the other hand, they’re right that if they did call her on her shit, she would burn them and likely cut them out of the child’s life. Even if the court battle gets nasty, I don’t see her getting less than 50% custody of the kid. She’s been his primary caregiver and while it’s probably not a great environment mentally for him, it’s not anything that the courts would separate a family over. In general, she’s not a bad mom and doesn’t mistreat the kid from what I’ve seen, though she will weaponize him against the father.
All this is taking a mental toll on my wife, but she’s decided to do what she can to ensure the best outcome for her nephew given the circumstances. So she does what she can to try and influence from the sidelines while also walking on egg-shells trying not to piss off her sister too much. It would be much better for her mentally if she stopped interacting and participating in her sister’s drama, but again, there’s the kid to worry about. She’s tried just engaging less and her sister takes it the same as if she’d disagree with her. Anyone have any advice with how to approach this? What can I do to support her?
tldr; wife's sister is unstable and treats her family poorly but they're forced to cater to her to stay involved her her child's life. What do?

Two fully furnished bedrooms available in July for the SummeFall 2024 semester!
Address: 521 Southwest Parkway, APT 303
Residential complex: University Place Condominiums
Room: Completely furnished - Fully furnished room: twin size bed, mattress, nightstand, desk, and chai

• Private bathroom, walk-in closet, carpet and tile flooring
• Ceiling fan and large window with outside view

Location: All within 5 miles - Grocery/Retail: 2 HEB’s, Target, CVS, Walgreens, Shell gas, and Walmart

• Restaurants: Whataburger, Starbucks, Chipotle, Hungry Howie’s Pizza, Layne’s chicken fingers, Chick-fil-A, and many more - Short 8-minute drive from Texas A&M University
• Located along Bus Route 31 (E-Walk)

Shared living area: Includes all major appliances - Living room: multiple couches and TV - Kitchen: Stove, oven, microwave, refrigerator, sink, drawers, cabinets, and dishwasher - Internet: 400 Mbps, Ethernet cables provided - Laundry: Washer and dryer in-unit
Outdoors: Communal amenitie - Outdoor swimming pool and basketball court
Rental information: Becomes vacant on 7/1/24 - Rent: $460 per month (all utilities included, meaning you don’t pay a penny for utilities) - Security deposit: 1 month of rent ($460) upon signing the lease - $40 screening application fee by 3^rd party (money doesn’t go to me)
Price comparison: Average city rent & nearby apartment rent - Average rent in College Station: $1352 - Madison Pointe (average): $985 - Hillstone Parkway (average): $890 - The Wick (average): $830 - Parkway Circle (average): $724 - Rent I charge (fixed): $460
Room 1 photos: Take a look here Room 2 photos: Take a look here
Reply or DM me if you're interested and want more information!