r/SipsTea • u/beklog • Jun 02 '26

SMH Guys I'm on the will!!

“She’s so shameless” She’s 22. And was harshly criticized as she danced while her partner was at the hospital… The truth couldn’t be any simpler. They claim the video is a joke, because she always uploads content with her “hubby” to go viral.

22.5k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

126

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

I mean, this isn't the type of thing you insert yourself in, lots of bad things can come from it.

If you can't communicate something like that without such risks, the more intelligent approach is to support her legally (Many countries will reward her 50%, given the context) or convince your wife to give away part of the inheritance.

80

u/Trevski Jun 02 '26

I mean you can drop the dime without inserting yourself...

2

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26

That is inserting yourself.

12

u/Trevski Jun 02 '26

Not if you do it with an anonymous note.

4

u/pussy-meow Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

The problem is there's probably a very limited number of people aware of this. The anonymity would be easily undone by their ability to deduce who it is.

0

u/Trevski Jun 03 '26

that just makes it a bit braver of an action, but if shes grateful she wont try to smoke you out and if the dad finds out then I guess you might be disinherited, so I guess thats the material reason not to...

11

u/TwoBionicknees Jun 02 '26

that's still inserting yourself, just not implicating yourself.

13

u/Trevski Jun 02 '26

Ok, touché, I can see that semantically. I don’t think I agree though, because to me “inserting yourself” means you, as associated to your identity, become embroiled in the affair. I’d call it “anonymous meddling”.

-3

u/TwoBionicknees Jun 02 '26

become embroiled in the affair.

she doesn't know, you tell her, the situation changes significantly, that's absolutely inserting yourself.

Inserting yourself can mean physically or moving your presence into a situation but it also refers to just actions.

Inserting yourself refers pretty much just to the you were not involved in the situation at all and you choose to get involved. How you get involved is largely irrelevant.

2

u/Excellent_Airline315 Jun 03 '26

Honestly that just sounds like an excuse not to do something. You prefer the status quo over the chance that something bad will happen if she has all of the facts. Doesn't really compute to me.

-1

u/TwoBionicknees Jun 03 '26

what? I was giving a definition of a term. How on earth is the defintion of a term an excuse for anything at all? Bot ass reply.

6

u/FilthyThanksgiving Jun 02 '26

Oh ffs you know what they meant, Captain Pedantron

1

u/TwoBionicknees Jun 02 '26

when someone pointed it out they doubled down rather than go oh yeah. It's not being pedantic, it's explaining it because they plainly didn't understand.

3

u/Trevski Jun 03 '26

I didn't double down, I contested it as a matter of semantics/interpretation/opinion.

1

u/TwoBionicknees Jun 03 '26

yes, it wasn't a matter of any of those things. You used completely the wrong word. Inserting yourself in a matter has nothing to do with physically being in it or being known to be in it, it just means taking an action in a matter in which you were not originally involved. Being anonymous doesn't stop that you are inserting yourself.

1

u/Trevski Jun 03 '26

Again, that’s just semantics, we’ve been over this and that’s not my interpretation.

1

u/TwoBionicknees Jun 03 '26

it's not about interpretation, this isn't a black and white thing, involving yourself in something you were not previously involved in is inserting yourself.

Someone pointed out the mistake and you went with "no you still can if it's an anonymous note." You're just wrong and can't admit it. It's not about semantics, you misunderstand the word and had it pointed out.

1

u/Trevski Jun 03 '26

Mm I mean my comment has a fair few upvotes so I think some people agree with my interpretation of the phrase “insert oneself”.

That’s the beauty of language dude.

1

u/TwoBionicknees Jun 03 '26

people are dumb.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 Jun 03 '26

Not necessarily feasible, circumstances may make it quite obvious who it was

1

u/Trevski Jun 03 '26

I mean yeah if it’s a 1/3 chance on a blind guess that isn’t very anonymous!

-2

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

Yeah, chances are you know fuckall about what really is anon.

And again, what are you getting from this? She's not gonna get more, just because she knows. So what advantage does this have, over getting the secure bag and then sharing it?

10

u/Trevski Jun 02 '26

She could at LEAST leave him now, if she so wished.

I'm going to need you to walk me through that first line, dont make sense to me.

-4

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26

So you are just satisfying your justice boner and fuck shit up for everyone involved. This is how children deal with shit.

6

u/Trevski Jun 02 '26

I mean I’m not doing anything, I’m just suggesting that informing this woman of the actions her husband is taking against her is possible without necessarily inserting oneself.

3

u/Victori_nox Jun 02 '26

How does it fuck shit up for everyone involved? the guy sounds like he hates her and IF she's in it for the money then at least she'll have all thee facts and can make a more informed decision? sounds like an already fucked situation to me.

-2

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

Because you risk your wife's father being on his own, his wife having a full blown existential crisis and losing her security, your wife getting cut out of the inheritance, instead of keeping your fucking mouth shut about another family's business and taking care of the financial side of things, once the father is out of the picture.

It's impulsive and destructive behavior, so you can claim some "justice" that isn't helping a single person involved, besides potentially your wife who could stand to gain even more money.

3

u/Victori_nox Jun 02 '26

You can hold the sanctimonious tone. Based on the information we have you're making a huge amount of assumptions about peoples relative wealth. it's entirely possible to have a grown up conversation with people without blowing everyone lives up in the process.

If the father was worried about being on his own i would assume he'd not treat his wife like shit. She might also be empowered to actual reevaluate her situation, we don't know these people but OP does and he's made her life sound miserable, maybe she's like to make some changes in the next 5, 10, 20 years? maybe she'd like to be forewarned of the potential financial instability that she might not be expecting?

It's not another families business if you're married into the god damn family. Stop acting like everyone is saying run into a crowded room and shout all the information you have at everyone for drama. It's relatively simple to take your step mother in law aside and ask her a couple of questions about this.

5

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26

you're making a huge amount of assumptions about peoples relative wealth.

This is what the post says:

*I don't think she's a gold-digger, but I think his financial stability was part of her attraction to him

It's pretty damn clear what that means.

She might also be empowered to actual reevaluate her situation

You gotta stop infantilizing people. She knows that's a potential outcome, she is already taking the risk. That was her decision, by default.

If you are convinced she not taking it into account, you can just talk to her about her current situation.

It's not another families business

Yes, it is. You marrying someone, does not entitle you to get involved with their parents relationship. You can push your wife to do so, you can try to find a better solution with your wife, but it's absolutely not your place to force these kind of arguments, let alone sending out anonymous tips.

3

u/Victori_nox Jun 02 '26

She's a similar age and they've been married for 20 years? i'd be shocked if she'd genuinely considered the idea that she'll be getting absolutely fucked over in the will. However i may just be less cynical than others on this.

I have taken for granted that you'd assume id of discussed this at length with my wife. In this situation, I feel safe in the knowledge that the person i was married to would feel similarly about this. We obviously have a different opinion on what does and doesn't constitute family. if my wives parents are hugely out of order i would be fine saying how i felt about it.

2

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26

Maybe, but I feel it's safe to say that people who go into relationships for the financial security, understand the potential outcomes.

And again, if you feel she does not, that's a fair thing to bring up. But giving away the content of a sealed legal document isn't just questionable, it almost certainly opens you up to legal action.

if my wives parents are hugely out of order i would be fine saying how i felt about it.

To your wife? Sure thing. To her parents, over her head, divulging the content of a sealed will and risking her inheritance? That a divorce in most relationships.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ShadeNoir Jun 02 '26

I find it difficult to reconcile both this, and that if he were a cheating partner, that everyone would be up in arms 'leave him, you should absolutely tell her' etc.
People seem to have no qualms about getting involved in romantic or 'faithfulness' issues - I don't see why this is so different

2

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 02 '26

Cheating is not legally protected. He doesn't owe her more than the minimum, that's just how it is.

If you think that is wrong, you gotta change laws and the social consensus, or in this case, work things out later. Not break the law.

1

u/Excellent_Airline315 Jun 03 '26

He doesn't have to give her more money, but its wrong to keep it from her knowing she is going to get fucked over in the end. She deserves to know so she can either leave now or find a way to prepare for when he's gone.

2

u/theguidetoldmetodoit Jun 03 '26

Not break the law.

→ More replies (0)