In the quiet anticipation of a new journey, a guide prepared to lead a group named “Womens+ Adventures,” believing he was stepping into a celebration of Pride Month and the LGBTQ+ community. Yet, the reality unfolded differently—this was a group of plus-sized women, each carrying their own strength and vulnerability, ready to face the rugged challenge of Gray’s Peak. What began with hope and careful planning soon met the harsh truths of physical limits and unspoken struggles.
The first hike, meant to be a gentle introduction, became a mirror reflecting pain, perseverance, and the raw edges of human spirit. Each step was a battle against the body’s resistance, and every moment revealed the courage hidden beneath exhaustion and discomfort. This story is not just about reaching a summit, but about confronting the unexpected, embracing imperfection, and finding dignity in the climb.
AITA for cancelling on a group of very out of shape women that hired me to train/guide their hikes?
As renowned researcher Dr. Brené Brown explains, “Boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.” This situation highlights a critical failure in establishing and maintaining professional boundaries regarding service delivery and client capability.
The OP, operating as a small business owner and guide, entered into a contract based on provided information regarding fitness levels. When the group demonstrated, through their performance and reaction to suggested preparation (e.g., laughing at the homework), that they were significantly unprepared for the agreed-upon goal (Gray’s Peak), the professional obligation shifted. The OP correctly recognized that proceeding would endanger the clients, strain their own capacity, and likely lead to failure, which aligns with responsible service provision. The group leader’s subsequent tantrum and accusations of fatphobia indicate a defensive reaction to having their expectations—and perhaps self-perception—challenged, shifting accountability away from their own lack of preparation.
The OP’s decision to terminate the service and issue a pro-rated refund was an appropriate and professional action to prevent further liability and wasted time. A constructive recommendation for future engagements would be to implement a mandatory, low-stakes preliminary assessment (perhaps a video call demonstrating a short walk or a detailed log review) *before* accepting payment and designing the long-term plan, clearly stipulating prerequisites and the right to terminate services without penalty if those prerequisites are not met by the client base.
THIS STORY SHOOK THE INTERNET – AND REDDITORS DIDN’T HOLD BACK.
The original poster (OP) faced a significant conflict between their professional assessment of the group’s fitness levels and the group’s unrealistic expectations for their training progression. Despite being patient and attempting to accommodate the group’s needs by offering refunds and ending the contract, the OP faced severe emotional backlash, including accusations of prejudice and online harassment.
Was the OP correct to terminate the guiding service and issue a partial refund when the group failed to meet the basic prerequisites for the planned training, or should the OP have endured further difficulty and criticism to accommodate an unprepared group?
