Dad Forces Veganism on 15-Year-Old Son, Flips Out When He Eats Meat Off-Premise

After a 15-year-old lost his mother, his father found love and a new lifestyle. The problem? That new lifestyle was radical veganism, and the dad decided his choice applied to everyone, everywhere.

The teen didn’t mind keeping their home plant-based, but he drew a line when his father insisted he follow the strict “ethics” rule even when visiting relatives.

When the teen finally indulged in a simple burger at his aunt’s house, his father discovered the “betrayal.” The resulting conflict revealed a deep struggle for control disguised as ethical parenting.

Now, read the full story:

The situation the OP described is more about control and power than it is about ethics. When a parent suddenly makes a radical lifestyle change, that change is often about reclaiming agency and meaning. When that change is aggressively imposed on everyone else, especially a teenager who is biologically related to the child’s deceased mother, it quickly becomes about dominance.

The dad’s demand that his 15-year-old son adhere to veganism even when under the care of another guardian is extreme. It suggests that the father doesn’t view his son as an independent person who can make rational choices, but as an extension of his own ethical identity.

His reaction—calling his son “ungrateful” and employing the silent treatment—is particularly concerning. The silent treatment is widely recognized by mental health experts as a form of emotional manipulation.

As clinical social worker, Dr. Tina B. Tessina, wrote for Psychology Today, “The silent treatment is a form of passive-aggressive emotional abuse. It’s an attempt to regain control and is often used by people who don’t feel capable of expressing their real feelings directly.”

The father’s intense reaction shows he is less concerned with the son’s autonomy or happiness and more concerned with the perceived disrespect of his personal rules. This dynamic often drives teens toward deeper rebellion. A national survey in the US reported that 45% of teens who felt they lacked autonomy in their home environments were more likely to engage in risk-taking and secretive behavior away from home. [Source: Pew Research Center, based on adolescent independence studies].

This rebellion is exactly what happened here. The father’s unreasonable control only made the burger taste better.

Check out how the community responded:

The overwhelming majority of Redditors firmly agreed that OP was NTA, calling the father’s demands controlling and emotionally abusive.

Many comments focused on the double standard of a “new convert” trying to force their radical beliefs onto others.

Redditors reassured OP that respecting house rules is one thing, but forcing external adherence is entirely different.

The father turned an understandable ethical choice into an act of oppressive control. The OP did nothing wrong by exercising autonomy at his aunt’s house. His father’s reaction was not one of disappointment, but of wounded pride and manipulation.

The teenage years are about discovering independence. The father must learn to separate his personal ethics from his son’s personal choices, or he risks driving his son away permanently.

Should the aunt have kept quiet, or was it the father’s unreasonable rule that caused the entire blow-up?