Party Plans Spiral After Host Refuses To Cut Pineapple Cocktail Despite Boyfriend’s Allergic Daughter
The party drink that became a test of how far compromise should go
Someone (OP) recently posted about a disagreement with their partner over how far they should go to accommodate their partner’s daughter’s allergies at a party they’re hosting.
According to OP, they asked everyone attending about their allergies beforehand. It turned out that only one person had any: their partner’s daughter, who’s allergic to both pineapples and nuts.
With this information now available, OP was open to compromising by making the entire party nut-free. No candy, no desserts, nothing with nuts anywhere.
However, OP had planned to prepare a delicious Halloween-themed cocktail called "Witches' Brew" that contains pineapples.
So, as a considerate partner, they decided to make a second cocktail available in addition to the pineapple drink.
OP innocently communicated this to their partner, thinking he would be happy about them adjusting their budget to make this second drink available.
To their surprise, he was upset instead. To him, since his daughter is allergic to pineapple, it should be nowhere near the party at all. He didn’t need alternatives; he just wanted pineapple out.
OP isn’t on board with this idea. They feel it’s unfair to cut out something that everyone likes because of one person, especially when there’s an alternative available.
This has caused a big disagreement between the couple, and OP has been left wondering if they’re being unreasonable by standing their ground.
Check out the full story below.
Let’s dig into the details
OP made sure to be aware of everyone’s allergies in preparation for their upcoming party
Knowing that their boyfriend’s daughter is allergic to pineapple, they decided to make another drink she could have. But OP’s boyfriend feels that a pineapple drink shouldn’t be present at all
We gathered some interesting comments from Netizens
“NTA. You provided an alternative.”
This Redditor pointed out the possibility of cross contamination
“I’d be thinking not TA if she’s old enough to know not touch the drink with pineapple.”
“I’d be thinking not TA if she’s old enough to know not touch the drink with pineapple.”
“NTA. Coming from someone with a nut allergy, this is totally reasonable.”
“NTA. You have an alternative and you notified the allergic person.”
“NTA. You have alternatives and you thought to ask.”
This Redditor decided to share their own personal struggles in relation to the story
“NTA. It’ll be clear what she can and cannot have and it’s a single drink.”
“NTA. So long as there's a warning she can avoid it/keep it out of reach if she's small.”
“NTA. You’re being more than reasonable.”
“NTA. You've provided an alternative PLUS your BF's daughter is going to have to learn restraint sometime.”
“NTA Unless she's deathly allergic, it doesn't have to be removed from everything.”
The real tension isn’t just about pineapples. It’s about whether providing a safe option counts as inclusion or whether true accommodation means nobody gets what one person can’t have.
Both perspectives make sense depending on your values around hospitality and fairness.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
