Your wife's parents give money and attention to their straight siblings' relationships freely, but have never once acknowledged yours in four months — is unequal treatment still love, just rationed?

DennyOkay, I want your take on something: Your wife's parents give money and attention to their straight siblings' relationships freely, but have never once acknowledged yours in four months — is unequal treatment still love, just rationed. Go ahead, tell me what you think.

FarrahFour months isn't enough time to call anything a pattern, let alone decide who’s being loved less. Imagine a couple where the parents are just slow to warm up to anyone new; jumping to "rationed" ignores how often we misread silence for rejection when we’re anxious. We can’t assign motive yet because we don’t even know if they’ve met the partner properly.

DennyBut wait, you said “freely” about the siblings’ stuff, right? That means there is cash changing hands for those weddings while ours sits at zero. To me, that gap looks less like slow warming-up and more like a deliberate choice to bankroll one side and starve the other out.

FarrahCash for a wedding doesn't prove they're actively starving us out, since families often spend based on immediate needs rather than affection levels. You're looking at one checkbook entry and building a whole conspiracy around it before you've even sat down with them. What if the sibling's ceremony is next month, making that budget spike purely logistical?

DennyPicture a family where the aunt sends $500 for every cousin’s birthday, but our birthday card arrives empty three years running. That’s not a scheduling hiccup, Farrah; it’s a ledger showing exactly who gets funded and who gets skipped, and one missing meeting doesn’t explain why the wallet stays shut.

FarrahPicture someone whose mother buys groceries for her son every week, but forgets to pick up milk for the daughter living nearby—that inconsistency says more about routine than ranking. Three missed cards might mean the sender just stopped tracking dates, not that she calculated who deserved them. One data point doesn’t build a verdict.

DennyThe grocery bag has a handle; my empty envelope has none. Stop calling it forgotten paperwork when the wallet is deliberately locked away.

FarrahYou're right that a locked wallet feels heavier than a missed delivery, but feelings aren't receipts. Say a parent simply refuses to buy alcohol for adult children due to personal beliefs; that's a value boundary, not a love hierarchy. We haven't established whether theirs is a principle or a prejudice.

DennyA value boundary could absolutely explain the no-alcohol rule, though nobody’s checking if they just stopped buying gifts for everyone after the last divorce. If the siblings are getting checks too, then the lock isn’t a belief system; it’s a filter deciding which relationship actually counts.

FarrahFiltering relationships sounds suspiciously like how a spam folder treats emails—automated, indifferent, and easily bypassed by typing harder. We still don't know if they’ve actually opened the inbox or just assumed the signal went to voicemail. Check the contact list before assuming they muted you specifically.

DennyThink about the cousins watching all this unfold—they see their parents treat the straight branch as default and the queer one as optional, setting a template for how the next generation will measure worth. Four months isn't just silence for us; it's a live lesson in hierarchy being taught to kids who didn't ask for it.

FarrahKids interpret silence differently depending on age—a toddler sees neutral absence, while a teen reads deliberate exclusion. You’re projecting a coming-of-age tragedy onto four months of quiet.

DennyAge matters less here because the money keeps flowing to the straight side while ours stays dry, proving the gap isn't random noise. It looks like a deliberate split where affection gets rationed based on orientation, effectively pricing our relationship lower on their internal chart. That kind of visible double standard teaches the kids early on that some families get full support while others get scraps.

FarrahRationing affection assumes they have a budget for love to manage, which is a strange accounting method for family bonds. Maybe they just exhausted their gift-giving capacity during the holidays and haven't reset yet. Before we call it a price tag, check if the bank account is actually empty or just dormant.

DennyDormant accounts wake up with interest, but selective spending doesn’t wait for a refund cycle. If the holiday drain explains zero cash flow across every channel, why do the siblings’ envelopes stay fat while ours sit blank? That discrepancy proves the silence is targeted, not logistical, and leaves me asking if "love" can even survive a policy of permanent underfunding.

FarrahFat envelopes might mean they got a raise or inherited cash, not that they are actively starving yours out of spite. Calling it a policy of permanent underfunding turns a guess into a verdict before we even hear back from the bank. The real test isn't the math; it's what happens when you finally walk through that door.

DennyWalking through the door tests whether the bank has funds, but it doesn't change the fact that four months of zero deposits while the sibling accounts stay liquid creates a clear audit trail of neglect. Until you can produce proof that the household budget applies equally to both branches, calling this mere dormancy ignores the hard data showing a consistent diversion of resources away from your relationship.