Tattoos can be symbolic, but sometimes, people might go a little overboard. Especially if they are your in-laws. Remember, when you marry someone, you are also marrying their family. While you could always say that the family is of no responsibility to you- they are, and before you know it, you have two options before you. Either you can live harmoniously with them or you could go to war. Maybe it’s not even your fault, but relations and boundaries can often blur themselves. And that is when the problem begins.
Amidst all the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law drama, a mother actually took recourse to Mumsnet, a parenting network website. In a thread that is now deleted a woman stated that her MIL tattooed her children’s names on her leg. Now, while the action could be endearing, she was upset that she did not get permission to do so.
Considering that the MIL didn’t take the permission of the mother in question. The mother asked the parenting network website if she was being unreasonable.
Her post, according to The Mirror read, “My husband came home from a visit to his mother’s house and has told me that my MIL has got my children’s names tattooed on her leg above her own children’s names. I’m really annoyed as she did not ask for our permission.”
Mother In Law Tattoo’s Grandchildren’s Names On Her Leg- Mother Furious!
Interestingly, her mother-in-law had tattooed her own son’s name too. And while the wife in question can be angry with her children’s names being tattooed, we don’t think she has any ground to be furious with her husband’s name being tattooed. After all, it is the husband’s mother in question.
So if the husband was the one furious, that was understandable. “Both my husband and I don’t have tattoos and she knows how we felt when she first got a tattoo with my husband’s name on her. Any thought, am I right to be annoyed and that she should have run it by us first? I have not seen her yet.”
Interestingly, the entire forum booed her for her strong take.
One user commented, “Are you this controlling in all aspects of your life? You do realize that you don’t own a name, even if you’ve chosen to call your children by it. Nor do you own your MIL’s body. Absolutely bizarre.”
Another commenter mentioned, “You are being unreasonable. If she had got her name tattooed on your child’s leg, you would then have a reason to be annoyed.”
What do you think? Who was in the right? Should the mother-in-lawc have asked for permission? Let us know in the comments!