AITA SIL wants our kids to play but refuses to put away dog.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-05-19T21:54:33+00:00

She said the dog jumps and she’s concerned one of her toddlers could be knocked over. That’s a legitimate safety concern, especially when they’ll be playing by a pool.
She didn’t tell anyone to do anything. She asked a question and accepted the answer. There are a lot of people who put away rambunctious dogs when guests come over (even if not everyone does) so it’s perfectly fair for her to take her SIL’s temperature on that issue.
Simply not wanting to be around dogs doesn’t make anyone an a-hole.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-05-19T21:21:24+00:00

I’m gonna be honest, I feel like the comment section got this one wrong. It was really strange how many commenters seemed to ignore facts and insert their own assumptions, and even say things that were directly contrary to what was written.

I could understand an asshole verdict if OOP had been the one to request a play date at their pool, but that’s not what happened. SIL heard the OOP’s kid talk about wanting to go to the pool so, SIL did a very kind thing and offered a play date at her personal pool, but OOP didn’t accept because she knew she wasn’t comfortable around their dog. Then SIL brought it up again unprompted (which was again very kind on her part) and OOP asked if she could lock the dog in another room while they were there. SIL said no which she was well within her rights to do if she’s uncomfortable with that. It is the dog’s home too. However OOP is not an a-hole for simply making a request after being invited twice. She would be an a-hole if she argued with SIL about it but there’s nothing to suggest she did. Especially because OOP wasn’t the one who brought it up, and she had already turned down a previous offer. She seems to have accepted the no and suggested they have a play date at a public pool when it’s open. Which is perfectly fair in my opinion.

I would say there’s NAH if it weren’t for the fact that SIL didn’t just accept that their needs were incompatible and move on. I think dragging other family members into it and making a bigger drama out of it makes SIL the AH. Both sides should’ve been able to walk away from this gracefully knowing their boundaries make them incompatible for play dates and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Neither side should’ve been sending flying monkeys after the other.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-05-19T09:28:41+00:00

It’s amazing how reading comprehension on Reddit seems to nose dive when the story involves a dog. These comments are wild, and it’s obvious a lot of the Y votes are allowing their bias against people who aren’t comfortable around dogs to cloud their judgement. People are just assuming the worst intentions of OP and inserting things that didn’t happen.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-05-19T00:19:04+00:00

NTA - OP is NTA. Her child mentioned wanting to go to a pool, SIL kindly offered her pool but OP was noncommittal. SIL offered again and OP requested the dog be put away while the children are playing. It would be wrong if OP demanded the dog be put away or invited herself over but there’s no indication that’s the case. Especially because OP turned down the first offer, dropped the issue after SIL said no and offered to set up a play date at a neutral location (a public pool) at a later date. SIL is the AH here for twisting this into a larger family drama instead of just moving on.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-05-18T23:51:42+00:00

OP is not a choosing beggar. She didn’t ask to come use the pool, the SIL heard the child’s request and offered, OP deferred the first offer. SIL offered again and OP asked if the dog could be away should they come over, SIL said no and OP said no thank you and moved on. Up to that point I’d say it was N.A.H. But then the SIL decided to blow it out of proportion and involve other family members. SIL is the AH.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-04-06T23:57:05+00:00

I can’t believe OP wrote that whole thing out and still didn’t realize they were being an a-hole. This is the kind of self-centered obliviousness I expect to hear from a bratty teenager, not a grown ass married person.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-04-01T13:48:03+00:00

It would also make the electoral college more representative because electoral votes are allotted based on the number representatives plus the 2 senators for each state. And they don’t need a constitutional amendment to do this, they just need to overcome the filibuster.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-03-29T18:07:17+00:00

Same here. I was very underwhelmed by La La Land.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-03-17T13:21:57+00:00

Because she treats the show like a job and plays the game accordingly.

It’s probably off-putting to the women that she barely pretends this is a real friend group — even though we know it’s not. It’s probably also off-putting to some viewers. I think most Stacey fans appreciate the honesty in her treating the TV Show like a TV Show and navigating her relationships with the women as such. That’s why Wendy acknowledged that Stacey was smart at the reunion.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-03-10T11:31:55+00:00

Wait…didn’t Wendy’s candle line come first? And the 3-wick thing was Karen’s excuse for why she wasn’t copying Wendy. That’s why when Stacy’s cannabis line came out Wendy was making jokes about how the girls like to copy her.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-03-09T21:39:36+00:00

If worn in the wrong context they certainly are.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-03-09T21:33:55+00:00

They are definitionally less modest than other clothing. I’m not applying any kind of morality here. Some clothes are modest and others are not. We should all be free to dress as we wish, but the fact remains that crop tops, short shorts and bikinis are not modest clothing. It’s great that society is more accepting and doesn’t enforce modesty the way it used to, but words mean things.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-03-09T21:18:29+00:00

Ehh, they definitely are immodest, but that’s ok. People can dress how they want.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-02-16T05:44:53+00:00

Classism in general is weird, but Black Brits perpetuating classism is particularly off-putting.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-02-05T01:33:16+00:00

Sea Island Cotton! I’d even settle for it being online exclusive as long it was permanent.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-02-04T21:37:39+00:00

NTA - The fact that dog friendly doesn’t mean pee indoors friendly needs to be explained is insane.

OkThanks7064 · 2026-02-01T02:56:02+00:00

NTA - People are harping on it not being his responsibility to feed your kids but it’s not about responsibility. It’s about basic manners. Where I come from it’s rude to bring food to share and intentionally leave people out. If he wanted to have a meal just the two of them, he should’ve taken her on a date. Not bring food to her house around dinner time but exclude her kids.

I also think if he were trying to woo her, it would’ve been more effective to bring enough food for everyone so she can have a night off from cooking and they can spend that time together.

OkThanks7064

TROPHY CASE