 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
»
|
Ship of Fools
»
» Oblivion
»
So your kid brings their boy/girlfriend for Xmas, do they share a bed? (Page 2)
|
|
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: So your kid brings their boy/girlfriend for Xmas, do they share a bed?
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
Physical contact between lovers, the sharing of sleeping space and having sex are three different things. Not allowing adult children to sleep in the same bed shows a lack of trust in their ability to make their own decisions, and is an abuse of power.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Not allowing adult children to sleep in the same bed shows a lack of trust in their ability to make their own decisions, and is an abuse of power.
In the alternative, it shows a keen sense of the strength of human appetites and passions and is a manifestation of a refusal to allow people to engage in gravely sinful behaviour in the very heart of my home. Exercise of proper authority, yes: abuse of power, get off my aching back!
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Not allowing adult children to sleep in the same bed shows a lack of trust in their ability to make their own decisions, and is an abuse of power.
In the alternative, it shows a keen sense of the strength of human appetites and passions and is a manifestation of a refusal to allow people to engage in gravely sinful behaviour in the very heart of my home. Exercise of proper authority, yes: abuse of power, get off my aching back!
Sex between lovers being a grave sin is far more appalling.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Physical contact between lovers, the sharing of sleeping space and having sex are three different things. Not allowing adult children to sleep in the same bed shows a lack of trust in their ability to make their own decisions, and is an abuse of power.
If you are an adult couple and you don't appreciate the sensitivity of your parents to you sleeping with your partner, then you're probably not really interested in what they think at all.
I have and would continue to make rules in my own house about who sleeps with whom. That said, if there was discomfort about this, I would also fund a stay in a local hotel for adult children who could not abide by my house rules.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sex between lovers being a grave sin is far more appalling.
I didn't say it was, you know I didn't say it was and you know that the status of extra-marital sexual intercourse is a dead horse hereabouts.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sex between lovers being a grave sin is far more appalling.
I didn't say it was, you know I didn't say it was and you know that the status of extra-marital sexual intercourse is a dead horse hereabouts.
No it isn't a dead horse.
"... engage in gravely sinful behaviour in the very heart of my home." is what you said. What does this mean if it doesn't mean that you believe sex between lovers is a grave sin?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sex between lovers being a grave sin is far more appalling.
I didn't say it was, you know I didn't say it was and you know that the status of extra-marital sexual intercourse is a dead horse hereabouts.
No it isn't a dead horse.
"... engage in gravely sinful behaviour in the very heart of my home." is what you said. What does this mean if it doesn't mean that you believe sex between lovers is a grave sin?
The traditional view was that if the couple truly loved one another, fundamental to this was respect. It therefore meant that they would fulfil their love by marrying and would not consummate their union until they had done that.
You may regard that as hopelessly old-fashioned, but that is no justification for accusing Trisagion of sinning against love by taking that understanding for granted.
I don't always agree with Trisagion, but on this issue I've a lot more sympathy with his position than the notion that somehow of two people really 'lerve' each other, that excuses everything.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
My mother was of that generation who, at least in America, were seduced by tv and movies into the fashion of twin beds. Thus, almost all the bedroom furniture she ever collected consisted of suits with twin beds -- often excessively tall, antique beds that were unfit for purpose in just about every possible way. DP and I usually got put in a bedroom with twin beds, even after we'd been together for nigh onto thirty years. I think in the last house before her death, twin beds were all she had. The most anti-libidinal things in the whole world. Partner and I usually had sex when billetted in these arrangements just to spite her.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Loud sex is a good thing to be involved with but not a good thing to hear.
I'm not all that interested in hearing people do the sex thing, regardless of how they are related to me.
Sleeping, as long as they don't snore loud enough to wake me or sleep walk, I got no issues with.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sex between lovers being a grave sin is far more appalling.
I didn't say it was, you know I didn't say it was and you know that the status of extra-marital sexual intercourse is a dead horse hereabouts.
No it isn't a dead horse.
"... engage in gravely sinful behaviour in the very heart of my home." is what you said. What does this mean if it doesn't mean that you believe sex between lovers is a grave sin?
The traditional view was that if the couple truly loved one another, fundamental to this was respect. It therefore meant that they would fulfil their love by marrying and would not consummate their union until they had done that.
You may regard that as hopelessly old-fashioned, but that is no justification for accusing Trisagion of sinning against love by taking that understanding for granted.
I don't always agree with Trisagion, but on this issue I've a lot more sympathy with his position than the notion that somehow of two people really 'lerve' each other, that excuses everything.
But the idea that you have to want to marry someone to love them is nonsense, as is the idea that you should only have sex with one partner in your entire life.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the idea that you have to want to marry someone to love them is nonsense, as is the idea that you should only have sex with one partner in your entire life.
Church marriage services still follow the pretence that marriage is for life, and that it represents a distinct state separate from the unmarried life.
Maybe one day Christians will formally jettison these notions, but it hasn't happened yet.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But the idea that you have to want to marry someone to love them is nonsense, as is the idea that you should only have sex with one partner in your entire life.
Church marriage services still follow the pretence that marriage is for life, and that it represents a distinct state separate from the unmarried life.
Maybe one day Christians will formally jettison these notions, but it hasn't happened yet.
Church marriage services don't say that the couple are virgins or have only had sex with each other - that's what I meant about only having one sexual partner. Church marriage services don't assume there have been no previous sexual partners.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Church marriage services don't say that the couple are virgins or have only had sex with each other - that's what I meant about only having one sexual partner. Church marriage services don't assume there have been no previous sexual partners.
I don't understand the relevance of this to the subject under discussion.
Most Christian churches teach that one should only have sex with one's wife, and that ideally the wife should be a life partner. You don't have to like it to acknowledge it as a generally accepted theology.
Someone can legitimately say that certain behaviours are sinful and that they're not happening in their house. I can think of quite a number that would not happen in my house that are non-sexual, I'm sure you can too if you think hard enough about it.
In my view, enforcing one's own house rules most of the time cannot be said to affect the wider freedom of others - providing a) one is not providing a public service or b) one is not attempting to enforce those rules on the wider public who may not accept them.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Church marriage services still follow the pretence that marriage is for life, and that it represents a distinct state separate from the unmarried life. ...
I would hope most of us, even if we are fairly pessimistic as to how widespread is the reality of this these days, would at least still regard the correct word as 'aspiration' rather than 'pretence'. And both as an aspiration, and as a reality where achieved, it is self-evidently far better than any of the alternatives that are widely peddled.
Even those who go into marriage with their own fingers crossed behind their backs, are hoping, and usually expecting, that the other person means it.
[ 01. January 2014, 10:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Church marriage services still follow the pretence that marriage is for life, and that it represents a distinct state separate from the unmarried life.
Maybe one day Christians will formally jettison these notions, but it hasn't happened yet.
If this was done it would be seen as further evidence of liberalisation to the point that Church teachings count for absolutely nothing whatsoever . Mind you I get the distinct feeling this is already the way most outside the CofE view it , so in this regard it would make precious little difference.
On subject of OP , personally I count myself as reasonably liberal. On the whole people seem to be quite capable of deciding for themselves what is right, or what is wrong, without me waving a disapproving finger about.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Oddly enough, in the 17th and 18th centuries, in both Britain and America, it was apparently quite common for unmarried courting couples in Puritan communities to share a bed - but fully clothed, and the parents would sometimes inspect the clothing!
The practice was probably misinterpreted by 20th century historians as a sort of trial sex before marriage to see if the woman was fertile (many if not most marriages occurred when the woman was pregnant, and of course women were often the ones blamed for infertility) but at least some sources seem to imply that it was more in aid of kissing and cuddling and what we later called "heavy petting". Any activity likely to lead to babies was perhaps done outdoors, when the weather warmed up. There is a reason that the month of May has its reputation.
And, contrary to blah-blah, the more Protestant and Puritan communities of the time were perhaps rather less anti-sex and anti-women than the more catholic or establishment ones. And had higher birth rates. (There has hardly ever been a human society with a higher sustained birthrate than the early New Englanders).
Not that they weren't all rather anti-sex by our current standards. But, for the time. (Of course the cavalier types were fine with the idea of their menfolk having it off with peasants and servants and mistresses and actresses - but they weren't too keen on their daughters having boyfriends.)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In my view, enforcing one's own house rules most of the time cannot be said to affect the wider freedom of others - providing a) one is not providing a public service or b) one is not attempting to enforce those rules on the wider public who may not accept them.
Yes - I agree.
We have plenty of house rules including "All the washing up is done before bed time".
But no-one gets to tell me what my house rules should be.
It may be wrong in your view - but that's it. It's just your view. You are perfectly entitled to have your own rules in your own home. You might even leave the washing up 'till morning :shock: If I am harming no-one and not breaking the law then don't go calling me sinful!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Oddly enough, in the 17th and 18th centuries, in both Britain and America, it was apparently quite common for unmarried courting couples in Puritan communities to share a bed - but fully clothed, and the parents would sometimes inspect the clothing!
The practice was probably misinterpreted by 20th century historians as a sort of trial sex before marriage to see if the woman was fertile (many if not most marriages occurred when the woman was pregnant, and of course women were often the ones blamed for infertility) but at least some sources seem to imply that it was more in aid of kissing and cuddling and what we later called "heavy petting". Any activity likely to lead to babies was perhaps done outdoors, when the weather warmed up. There is a reason that the month of May has its reputation.
And, contrary to blah-blah, the more Protestant and Puritan communities of the time were perhaps rather less anti-sex and anti-women than the more catholic or establishment ones. And had higher birth rates. (There has hardly ever been a human society with a higher sustained birthrate than the early New Englanders).
Not that they weren't all rather anti-sex by our current standards. But, for the time. (Of course the cavalier types were fine with the idea of their menfolk having it off with peasants and servants and mistresses and actresses - but they weren't too keen on their daughters having boyfriends.)
That's interesting. I understood during some periods in Europe the fashion was to marry a woman who was obviously pregnant. I can't remember the reasoning or where I heard about that.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It ensured that the woman was fertile.
The evidence is mostly that it didn't though.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
My house. My beds. My rules.
For 20 years the out-laws have been placing my same-sex partner and me into separate bedrooms.
Is it then uncharitable for me, when this married different sex couple comes to visit, to place them into separate bedrooms?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
AFAIC, when you’re a guest in someone else’s home, it’s good manners to follow their house rules. If someone is a vegetarian and doesn’t want meat eaten in their house, it’s good manners not to eat it. If they’re precious about their carpets and want you to take your shoes off, it’s good manners to remove them. If they don’t want unmarried people sharing a bed(room), it’s good manners to abide by their house rules even if you don’t agree with them about sex before marriage being wrong.
That said, if my mother put my boyfriend and me in the same room, I am another of those who would be mortified. I don’t think she would have done, but I made doubly sure by telling her “put boyfriend in the nice room and I will sleep in the little poky one”.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Silent Acolyte
How thoughtless of your outlaws.
Yes, I'd put them in separate bedrooms with the blithe* comment "I know you prefer people not to share". If space is a problem make your partner share with their parent of same sex...
* optional
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Just for the sake of anecdotal data, I shared a bed many times with a person of the opposite sex, without having sex.
And my son routinely sleeps in the same bed at our house with his girlfriend. He's 21 and she's 19.
And my younger son, 19, is right now spending a week or so at his girlfriends house in another state. The sleeping arrangements are that he will be sleeping in her bed. And, soon, she will visit us ( I can't wait to meet the girl that finally won his heart! ) for a week or so, and she will sleep in his bed.
And I want to second the comments asking who has all these extra bedrooms? Lol. I would certainly not ask the young lady to sleep on our couch with our dog. (Our dog loves when guests sleep on the couch.) I'm pretty sure early on in my sons relationship, that they slept in the same bed and he refrained from sex, like a gentlemen, or, like a decent person, until she was ready.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Just for the sake of argument, for the separate-bedrooms folks: Suppose you have an adult child who's been in a committed, faithful relationship for a number of years with someone -- someone you think would make a fine child-in-law. The two of them live together now, in fact. But for whatever reason, the two of them are not in any hurry to make their relationship official with Church or State. You don't understand this, but you don't have a lot of say in the matter.
So...when the holidays roll around, and The Kid calls and says that s/he's coming home with The Significant Other...what is your desired outcome in insisting on their sleeping in separate bedrooms?
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
My mother was of that generation who, at least in America, were seduced by tv and movies into the fashion of twin beds. <snip> The most anti-libidinal things in the whole world. Partner and I usually had sex when billetted in these arrangements just to spite her.
At the moment, I'm reading a Barbara Vine novel where the protagonist is of that twin bed generation. I thought she had an interesting take on it. She said (roughly) that society had evolved from the mats on the floor with everyone piled together to a desirable place where each person had a bed of one's own. This kept illness from spreading and allowed each person greater comfort by determining for themselves just how many covers were used and when to turn over.
Sex was more exciting, as it necessitated a bit of courtship and intention on the part of the "visitor."
Then along came the big, family "togetherness," movement of the early 1960's and progress was set back.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Light relief:
Priest (visiting recently married young couple): 'Of course, sex before marriage is absolutely wicked!!'
Young Husband: 'Yeah, and it's not bad after, either.'
Sorry.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Suppose you have an adult child who's been in a committed, faithful relationship for a number of years with someone -- someone you think would make a fine child-in-law. The two of them live together now, in fact. But for whatever reason, the two of them are not in any hurry to make their relationship official with Church or State. You don't understand this, but you don't have a lot of say in the matter.
I think there are two ways of seeing that even for people (like me) who accept with the traditional Christian ethic on pre-marital sex. You could say that the relationship described falls short of compliance with the standard because relationships like that should be formalised by marriage, or you could say that it is a violation because sex is wrong in relationships like that. On the first view, the 'problem' is the failure to marry, on the second, it is the failure to abstain.
I think for people taking the first view (which I think I would, if the relationship is as committed as I think you mean to imply) then whether there is on is not an act of love-making on any particular day isn't of any real ethical significance. It wouldn't be 'better' for the couple to reduce their level of physical intimacy - what would be 'better' would be if they get on with making the public declaration of love and commitment appropriate to the relationship which already exists.
On the second view, any act of love-making is part of the problem, and exacerbates the sin. I could understand why people taking that view would not want to appear to condone such acts.
That is, of course, all premised on an assumption that 'sharing a bed' implies 'having sex', which personally I don't make, and would be another reason why, if and when I ever face this dilemma with my kids, I don't expect to worry about it too much. I'll probably do what I'd do for any other guests - assume that cohabiting couples will share and others won't as a default, and then adjust that arrangement as requested and as available space permits.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
And Eliab, just like you might not want to lose control of thoughts when considering one's parents sharing a bed, best to think of other things when any house guests are visiting.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Just for the sake of argument, for the separate-bedrooms folks: Suppose you have an adult child who's been in a committed, faithful relationship for a number of years with someone -- someone you think would make a fine child-in-law. The two of them live together now, in fact. But for whatever reason, the two of them are not in any hurry to make their relationship official with Church or State. You don't understand this, but you don't have a lot of say in the matter.
So...when the holidays roll around, and The Kid calls and says that s/he's coming home with The Significant Other...what is your desired outcome in insisting on their sleeping in separate bedrooms?
I don't hold any particular weight to legal/religious weddings, so for me the issue is more to do with commitment than having the right piece of paper.
For me, the two extremes:1. my teenage daughter bringing home a new boyfriend/girlfriend and expecting them to sleep (and possibly have teenage sex) in my household. 2. My 40 year old relative bringing her 20 year partner with whom he/she has children/mortgage/whatever.
I wouldn't allow the first to happen in my house and wouldn't think twice about the latter. The problem is thinking about the line between the two, I don't know where it is or how I would decide what to do there.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I would think that responsibility, consequences and commitment would define the lines...in other words, most teenagers, for reasons of psychological development and experience, can't be expected to always make sexually responsible decisions; when they make poor sexual decisions, the consequences can be devastating; and their pairings at that point tend to lack the commitment factor. On the other hand, two competent adults have been living as a committed couple for a long time, who are for all intents and purposes a married couple (recall that in the OT "doing the deed" constituted marriage) sans papers -- it seems petty and and priggish to tell them, "I don't care what you do at home; you can't share a bedroom under my roof." It would appear to be more of a self-congratulatory piety boundary marker for the parent/host than any sort of thoughtful response to the couple's relationship and need for a place to stay.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I'm thinking of the friend I spent the day with recently who has been married to the same person for 29 years and they have two delightful children.
But because his first marriage ended in divorce he is never invited to his in-laws: even at Christmas the wife and children are welcome but my friend is not.
The wife's father is a minister ...
brain-fart edited out - L'O
[ 04. January 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do they share a home? If they usually share a bedroom in their home, it would seem odd to separate them in your house, even if you would prefer that they marry before cohabiting.
On the other hand, if they have separate homes, they get separate rooms, even if one of the beds gets no more than a pro forma rumpling.
This is about where I stand. It hasn't come up, because the only child I have who is old enough to be out of the house is still living at home. so she is not allowed overnight visitors of the opposite sex ("allowed" is too strong.. it just is assumed it won't happen, and has never come up for debate). However, I know that she occasionally spends the night elsewhere with whatever guy she is dating at the time, and that's fine. She knows I don't care about "sex before marriage" so much as "committed relationship" only.
As far as I know (and I don't want to enquire any deeper) my son (younger) is still "innocent" or at least would never admit to me otherwise. but there is just an assumption that the same rules apply. we discuss these issues in a general way enough that they know where I stand, even though we've never formally layer down any rules.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The thing is, these days we don't have relationships or choose our morality to please our elders, so we can't expect our elders always to welcome our partners or our lifestyles. Families are composed of interconnected but mostly autonomous individuals, and we're not obliged to be loyal to or even to tolerate each other's values.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
