For over a decade, two lifelong friends held onto a promise forged in their youth—a pact born from hope and determination. Bound by a sibling-like bond and a shared passion for motorsports, a simple deal to quit smoking became a testament to their unwavering loyalty and belief in each other’s strength.
Now, with the years having passed and the dream within reach, the weight of that promise stirs deep emotions. What began as a playful teenage wager has blossomed into a profound journey of trust, sacrifice, and the enduring power of friendship that challenges the boundaries of time and circumstance.
WIBTAH if I don’t include my wife on a trip I planned for my friend?
As renowned researcher Dr. Brené Brown explains, “Boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.” In this scenario, the OP is struggling to define and enforce appropriate boundaries around a promise made years ago, and how that promise interacts with his current primary commitment—his marriage.
The core issue here is the difference between a commitment made in adolescence and the ongoing responsibilities of a marriage. While the OP’s intent to honor the promise to A is commendable, the financial and emotional implications of the trip have shifted significantly since the initial agreement. The OP mentioned the plan to his wife, and while she initially found it ‘wholesome,’ her subsequent excitement indicates an unspoken assumption that she would be included, or at least that the arrangement wouldn’t exclude her entirely given the scale of the expense and travel. The wife’s desire to join, even if it breaks the original pact, signals a need to feel included in significant shared resources and experiences, which is a standard expectation in a marriage.
The OP’s defense that it was a ‘me and A thing’ prioritizes the past agreement over the present reality of his marital partnership. The appropriate action would be to acknowledge the wife’s feelings of exclusion and find a compromise. Since the race tickets are sold out, the constructive recommendation is for the OP to firmly proceed with A as planned, but immediately plan and fund a separate, comparable, and exclusive trip for himself and his wife to celebrate or make up for her exclusion from this specific event. This honors the original deal while validating the primacy of the marriage.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The original poster is facing a conflict between honoring a long-standing promise made to a close friend and maintaining spousal harmony. He feels committed to fulfilling the terms of the original deal, which was strictly between himself and his friend, leading him to exclude his wife from the trip he arranged based on that agreement.
Is the original poster justified in strictly adhering to the original terms of the decade-old deal with his friend, or does the sanctity of his current marriage require him to prioritize finding a way to include his wife, even if it means altering the terms of the original promise?
