AITA for refusing to help my daughter with her car payment because she is a stripper?
A father’s world shatters when he discovers the painful truth about his daughter’s secret life, a revelation that tears at the fragile bond between them. His promise to support her through college clashes with his deep disapproval, igniting a battle of values, pride, and desperate choices.
Caught between love and disappointment, the daughter stands her ground, defending a path he cannot accept. Their conflict becomes a raw, emotional reckoning — a poignant struggle where understanding is elusive, and the cost of independence feels unbearably high.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
As renowned researcher Dr. Brené Brown explains, “Boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.” In this scenario, the father is attempting to establish a boundary based on his moral code by weaponizing financial support, which is a common, though often counterproductive, pattern when deeply held values are challenged. The daughter, a 22-year-old college student, is demonstrating agency by seeking quick income, even if the source is ethically objectionable to her father. Her motivation is clearly financial necessity, as evidenced by her claim that the income from stripping is needed because her alternative earnings are insufficient to cover both her living expenses and the car payment. The father's sudden withdrawal of the car payment, while technically within his rights as the payer, functions as punishment rather than constructive boundary setting. This shift transforms a supportive agreement into a conditional tool, likely damaging trust and communication. The father's action was overly punitive and lacked a phased approach to boundary renegotiation. A more constructive approach would involve transparently discussing the moral conflict first, perhaps offering a short transition period where support continues while the daughter seeks alternative employment, or setting clear conditions for future support. The immediate cut-off escalated the argument and shifted the focus from the daughter's career choice to financial insecurity.
AFTER THIS STORY DROPPED, REDDIT WENT INTO MELTDOWN MODE – CHECK OUT WHAT PEOPLE SAID.:
The internet jumped in fast, delivering everything from kind advice to cold truth. It’s a mix of empathy, outrage, and no-nonsense takes.
The original poster (OP) is experiencing significant emotional distress and moral conflict upon discovering his daughter's employment as a stripper, leading him to immediately withdraw financial support for her car payments. This action represents a strong assertion of his personal values against his daughter's chosen means of income, creating a direct conflict between his role as a provider and his moral judgment.
Given the clash between the father's moral objection and the daughter's need for financial stability, the core question remains: Is it justifiable for a parent to immediately cease agreed-upon financial support as a direct consequence of discovering employment they morally disapprove of, or does the prior commitment necessitate continued support until an alternative, acceptable agreement is reached?