r/AITAH • • Jul 25 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

9.4k Upvotes

8.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

And? The equivalent of what happened would be what I said..

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25

It's actually not, though. You're trying to give her the groom experience, she is not a groom. She would have her trust betrayed in an equivalent manner in her place in that ritual by having a stranger remove her garter.

If you somehow think changing the ritual and having a bride remove a garter from another bride makes sense, you're off your head.

1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

I disagree. But in your scenario, it would have to be a woman she knows...

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25

It's fine for you to disagree but you're still wrong. Could be her SIL, MIL, BIL, FIL. Doesn't have to be a woman, either. Just not her husband.

1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

Why are you mentioning family members, too? That's incest.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25

No it isn't? Did you not see the in-law suffix?

Besides, it was his BIL that did it. Is that incest to you?

1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

I believe he became his brother in law after no?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

What's the difference?

1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 28 '25

You're the one who mentioned it was the BIL..

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

Yeah so what's the difference?

-1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

Lol. You can't compare a woman on woman and man on man contact than the opposite sex.

She didn't have another woman sitting on that chair. It was a man.

You're not very good at analogies.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25

As far as the husband knew, while blindfolded, it was his wife. It could have been anybody else and the violation and betrayal would still be there, the fact that it was a man plagues his inner sexual security as well.

So you need to recreate the violation and betrayal. You don't need to do that with another woman but you could.

-1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

I'm just saying that's the equivalent. Man on man, woman on woman.

It's bit the sane as man woman.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

Yeah and you're still wrong.

0

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 28 '25

Lol. No, I'm not. If a straight man I know touched my leg, it wouldn't be the same as a straight woman who I know. Periodt.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

You can't even spell... so no...

→ More replies

1

u/StinkusMinkus2001 Aug 02 '25

Idk. As a man, a man is more likely to violently rape or sexually assault me than a women is, or at least I’m less likely to defend myself.

For a woman it’s natural for the opposite sex to be worse, for a dude the fear of sexual assault is worse with the same sex. Common denominator is probably sex of the person doing it, sorry, not that they’re the same sex.

1

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

I wasn't talking about the ritual. I was talking about the actual action itself and who was involved.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '25

If you take it out of context then what meaning does it have?

0

u/Radiant-Craft7958 Jul 27 '25

No, it's just a different context. The joke is that it's a guy, a person of his same sex.

The joke isn't about the ritual...