It's entirely plausible, but I also keep wondering about some oddly vague details in the letter.
"I sent out a dinner invitation to my in-laws." So the LW invited more than just the BIL solo.
Does that mean the LW canceled a larger party over being offended by just one of the guests having a dietary requirement? If so, what did the other guests think? Were there discussions amongst all the parties between the notice-of-needs and the cancelation? (Did any of them take the BIL's side?)
Does it mean the LW invited the brother-in-law and the BIL's legal spouse (current), or spouse (former), or unwedded coparent? Is the boyfriend in place of someone else, an extra person, or other?
"He added that he will be bringing his boyfriend" -- It's quite unclear whether the LW invited the BIL-solo, the BIL-and-someone-else, the BIL-and-this-boyfriend, or the BIL-with-a-plus-one. We're told only what the LW says the husband said the BIL said. Why keep the phrasing so vague?
The LW absolutely seems contemptuous of the BIL. Is that because the boyfriend is male, was/is an affair partner, wasn't actually invited, is the third party of a polyamorous arrangement, just had gender confirmation surgery ...? (That last one seems unlikely to be called "major organ transplant surgery", but this LW sounds so off the wall that I can't quite rule it out.)
I don't know that this short letter rises to Missing Reasons, but ... why so vague, LW?
no subject
"I sent out a dinner invitation to my in-laws." So the LW invited more than just the BIL solo.
Does that mean the LW canceled a larger party over being offended by just one of the guests having a dietary requirement? If so, what did the other guests think? Were there discussions amongst all the parties between the notice-of-needs and the cancelation? (Did any of them take the BIL's side?)
Does it mean the LW invited the brother-in-law and the BIL's legal spouse (current), or spouse (former), or unwedded coparent? Is the boyfriend in place of someone else, an extra person, or other?
"He added that he will be bringing his boyfriend" -- It's quite unclear whether the LW invited the BIL-solo, the BIL-and-someone-else, the BIL-and-this-boyfriend, or the BIL-with-a-plus-one. We're told only what the LW says the husband said the BIL said. Why keep the phrasing so vague?
The LW absolutely seems contemptuous of the BIL. Is that because the boyfriend is male, was/is an affair partner, wasn't actually invited, is the third party of a polyamorous arrangement, just had gender confirmation surgery ...? (That last one seems unlikely to be called "major organ transplant surgery", but this LW sounds so off the wall that I can't quite rule it out.)
I don't know that this short letter rises to Missing Reasons, but ... why so vague, LW?