Ship of Fools: So your kid brings their boy/girlfriend for Xmas, do they share a bed?

Thread: So your kid brings their boy/girlfriend for Xmas, do they share a bed? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026635

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

This is an interesting question. My experience locally is that probably most of the families would presume that children who have moved out of home and come for the holidays would share a bedroom with the significant other they brought to their parents' home for Christmas. Is this a significant issue where you live? Would you presume to tell your adult children they could or could not? And if you would or wouldn't, do you have adult children at present?

I would have said 'don't think so' when our kids were still at home, but when they grew up, circumstances, ideas and opinions sharply changed. I'm more worried that they will not be hurt emotionally by their relationships than whether they are sharing a bed.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Don't worry, they're equally disgusted by the thought of you and your partner sharing a bed.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I'd ask them if they want a double or not. (Unless they are under the age of consent.)

[ 23. December 2013, 23:04: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I'd ask them if they want a double or not. (Unless they are under the age of consent.)

Yeah, vague questions is always how we handled it at my parent's house.

My now father-in-law was clear when I came on a family vacation as boyfriend that I was getting my own room, and we were fine with it. Not only was it just the respectful response, but you really do sleep much better if you don't have to share a bed with someone.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think it's going to depend on how you raised them. No doubt you communicated your own beliefs and standards when they were young. Why change now? Consistency is worth something, particularly if you (general you!) are following the same standards yourself.

Me, I would have been totally mortified if my mother had done anything but automatically give us separate rooms. It's like, Mom, just don't go there. Not mentally or any other way. (If I want to misbehave, I'm perfectly capable of sneaking out my bedroom door in the middle of the night.)

[ 23. December 2013, 23:15: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

No. When my son's girlfriend has stayed it's always been in another bedroom. What they do outside our house - ie in her student flat, I can only assume.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think it's going to depend on how you raised them. No doubt you communicated your own beliefs and standards when they were young. Why change now? Consistency is worth something, particularly if you (general you!) are following the same standards yourself.

Me, I would have been totally mortified if my mother had done anything but automatically give us separate rooms. It's like, Mom, just don't go there. Not mentally or any other way. (If I want to misbehave, I'm perfectly capable of sneaking out my bedroom door in the middle of the night.)

Miss Manners (Judith Martin) said to do what the Victorians did: assign separate rooms, then ignore the nocturnal traffic.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

The idea that sex only happens within shared bedrooms at night time is laughable, so I don't see the point in insisting on separate rooms.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Like I said, we would have expected separate rooms when they were young, and had pretty firm ideas about it. But everything has changed in the world, it seems. So many of our ideas are not what they were. And when you actually have adult children, it is all changed. For us, it was resolved 4 or 5 years ago, and isn't - can't be - an issue.

It is a different issue if the kids are still at home and haven't left, but in a real estate market where a bachelor apartment (one room, all in, costs more than $1200 per month here), if they aren't working right out of highschool at something pretty lucrative (dream on) and are doing post-secondary education, they live with their parents.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

When my children come into my home I expect and they expect to observe my standards of behaviour in our house, so they would get separate rooms. What they choose to do away from home isn't my business. I don't see why I should have to go along with behaviours that make me uncomfortable and I'm sure my kids would be surprised and disconcerted if I did.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

This came up in both directions when Mrs Friar and I were dating/engaged. In both situations, I slept separately -- it was a given. When at Mrs. Friar's parents' home, I either slept in one of her brothers' beds, or else on the couch. Whenever I visit my parents for an overnight, I sleep on the cot in the living room -- not nearly as bad as it sounds. The one time we both visited for an overnight, she slept in my sisters' room and I slept in the living room.

Now we're married, so we sleep together, and it's not an issue.

I don't know what I would do about my own kids. Probably what Miss Manners suggests.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that sex only happens within shared bedrooms at night time is laughable, so I don't see the point in insisting on separate rooms.

Oh, I wouldn't be assigning my adult child and his or her non-cohabiting boy/girlfriend separate bedrooms in some kind of attempt to prevent them from having sex.

But I'm also not going to assume that they are having sex. If they are a cohabiting couple, they get assigned a shared room. If they live separately (and assuming that I have adequate space) they get assigned separate rooms. What they do with those rooms and when is up to them.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

This thread reminds me of my mother. Faced with taking in my elder brother and his wife during some financial disaster, she had a choice of moving my sister into my room, which had twin beds, & Bro & Wife into my sister's room, which had a double bed.

But no; she moved Bro & Wife into the twin-bed room, and Sis & I shared a double bed for nearly a year.

She was a very strange woman.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I recall a similar thread this time last year, but the questions remain:

How old are the children?

What are their usual domestic arrangements?

And Barefoot Friar - can we assume that the brother was not in that bed?

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

A friend used to go to his (male) SO's family every Christmas - this family not having been officially told that their son was gay.

My friend and SO assumed they were put in the same room because family thought they were 'just friends'. They would occasionally say lovely things such as 'friend is part of the family because he visits so often'.

It turned out when friend's SO told his parents that the family had guessed the situation long ago...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 makes a lot of sense.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

I just can't ever imagine living in a house with that many extra guest rooms!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

True. We have precisely zero spare rooms.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
When at Mrs. Friar's parents' home, I either slept in one of her brothers' beds, or else on the couch....

"No, I'm sorry, you're not sleeping with my daughter under my roof. With her brother, on the other hand...." [Big Grin]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Miss Manners has a lot of common sense.

Of course, I was an angel when we were engaged and spent the night at my parents' house. There was never any nocturnal traffic.*

______
*As far as I can recall it was early morning traffic.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

Before Flanderella and I were married, when I visited her house the rule was as we weren’t married, we had separate rooms. Not an issue. (As noted above, we are both capable of getting up and moving during the night…..).

Father In Law passed away some years ago, Mother In Law has happily found another chap, they are not married.

Apparently the same rules don’t apply. Ho hum….

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

I don't think of 'sharing a bed' as implying 'having sex'. I didn't have sex before my marriage, but I often shared a bed with my girlfriend.

I'd prefer my children (when they grow up) to wait until marriage, and will certainly tell them why their mother and I did, and why we think that was the best choice, but for them it'll their choice. As it should be - I don't see enforced chastity as being much of a virtue even if I were in a position to enforce it (which of course I won't be). Either they end up sharing my values, in which case they would be having sex whatever sleeping arrangements they prefer, or they will disagree, in which case I think I'd rather teach them about respect and responsibility than about sneaking around in the night.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Yes of course. Just like my mum allowed me to way back when.

Because:

a) they are adults

b) better indoors with some sort of 'protection' than a quickie round the shed.

As long as they don't make too much noise and keep me awake!

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

The first time I went to visit my Young Man, who then still lived in his parents' house, I was given the spare room. At this point in my life, I was a widow after having been married for 15 years.
Some time after midnight on the first evening, I started to creep across to his room. And then I started giggling (quietly). "Hang on a minute," I thought. "I'm 45 years old - why am I acting like a teenager?"
The next time I went to visit, we shared a bed, and now he has his own place, we can do what we like.

My sister, on the other hand, had a rather traumatic introduction to the art of sleeping with her boyfriend. It was Christmas week, and they had gone out for a drink with friends together - and she didn't come back to the family home until sometime the following afternoon. We were starting to get a bit worried about her.
She had gone back to her boyfriend's flat after the party, and they had both collapsed onto the bed. Nothing untoward had happened - she was just really worried about facing Mum the next day.
Mum, of course, was just relieved she was okay.

If I was in the position of giving advice to the next generation now, I think I'd just quote my gran. Far from being outraged when she found out that my sister had started sleeping with her boyfriend, her only words were: "Well, I hope she's taking precautions!"

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yes they do - and did last night, whyever not?

When my boys turned 18 we bought double beds for both of them and it was entirely up to them what they did in them.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think of 'sharing a bed' as implying 'having sex'. I didn't have sex before my marriage, but I often shared a bed with my girlfriend.

Then you have more self control than we had.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think of 'sharing a bed' as implying 'having sex'. I didn't have sex before my marriage, but I often shared a bed with my girlfriend.
Then you have more self control than we had.

It takes very little self control to refrain from doing something which you don't want to do.

I would think that these days, the only way someone in mainstream culture is likely to be a virgin on their wedding day is by not actually wanting to have sex before. There's no lack of opportunity for it, even in the absence of double beds. Lying down under the same duvet doesn't set off some hitherto unknown storm of hormones - it's the same person, and the same feelings of attraction, that you were with in the car, in the restaurant, on the sofa, or wherever. If you're used to being with someone you love, but have decided not to have sex with just yet, it really isn't that big a deal to go to sleep in the same space. Or so it seemed to me, anyway.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And Barefoot Friar - can we assume that the brother was not in that bed?

Yes. In this case, the brother in question has more than one bed in his room.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I remember as if yesterday when in 1979 I went to stay with my girlfriend at her mother's house. I was gobsmacked to be put up in the same room as my beloved. Sadly, as a GLE I spent the night terrified of "the appearance of sin", clutching my Timothy La Haye tomes to my chest, and the relationship was never consummated [Waterworks]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Zappa's story reminds me of the time, as a late teenager, when I was working on a Brethren-run kids' camp. The spartan camp had a two-man tent pitched a short distance away in the woods for leaders to have some sleep, peace and quiet on their 24-hour day off. It so happened that my day off fell the same day as a girls' leader. There was much head-scratching at the leaders' meeting until somebody came up with the Biblical proverb "it is better for two to lie together than to catch cold". We were both allowed to use the tent safe in the knowledge that this was covered by a Bible verse. We did not however get up to anything.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

The first time my student daughter brought a boy friend home for the weekend he'd got her to ask me if it was okay if they shared a bed. If I said no, then they wouldn't. I figured if they spelt together elsewhere why not here.

GG

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you're used to being with someone you love, but have decided not to have sex with just yet, it really isn't that big a deal to go to sleep in the same space. Or so it seemed to me, anyway.

Me too. My wife and I shared beds many times before marriage without having sex.

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :

And yet, sometimes the parental standards are an anchor for teenagers to hang on to when their environment dictates different behaviour. A friend of ours has a row with her teenage daughter who wanted to share her bedroom with her visiting boyfriend. He wanted to too. It emerged later that although the daughter was outwardly arguing with her mother, she was inwardly hoping that her mother would enforce her authority and usual standards and save her from a situation she was not happy about, but did not want to own up to.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

This. That's why i care about consistency. So my kid can predict me and use it, if necessary, to get out of a stjcky spot. Assertiveness training can come afterward. [Big Grin]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Zappa's story reminds me of the time, as a late teenager, when I was working on a Brethren-run kids' camp. The spartan camp had a two-man tent pitched a short distance away in the woods for leaders to have some sleep, peace and quiet on their 24-hour day off. It so happened that my day off fell the same day as a girls' leader. There was much head-scratching at the leaders' meeting until somebody came up with the Biblical proverb "it is better for two to lie together than to catch cold". We were both allowed to use the tent safe in the knowledge that this was covered by a Bible verse. We did not however get up to anything.

Perhaps they came from a tradition of Bundling (sorry, Ship mechanical rules won't let me post a link; something to do with the format of the web address). I've heard it persisted almost into living memory in the Northern Isles. Were you both sewn into sacks?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I remember as if yesterday when in 1979 I went to stay with my girlfriend at her mother's house. I was gobsmacked to be put up in the same room as my beloved. Sadly, as a GLE I spent the night terrified of "the appearance of sin", clutching my Timothy La Haye tomes to my chest, and the relationship was never consummated

Apparently you missed the part in La Haye's book where he writes, "good sex is more than two people having intercourse..." Had you simply invited a third to join you and your gf you'd have been in ...um... good hands.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps they came from a tradition of Bundling (sorry, Ship mechanical rules won't let me post a link; something to do with the format of the web address). I've heard it persisted almost into living memory in the Northern Isles. Were you both sewn into sacks?

The word "bundle" was certainly in use in Cambridge in the late 60's. Whether "bundling" still happened then, all I know was that I wasn't caught out that way.

In the Fens, bundling was expected to lead to intercourse, pregnancy and a daughter off a family's hands. That was the goal.

[code]

[ 27. December 2013, 07:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It's very useful to have a bed settee in the lounge. Then there is the opportunity for a separate bed if wanted / needed. I'm certainly not getting up in the middle of the night to inspect whether my house guests' sleeping arrangements change during the small hours!

And being married / living together isn't as clear cut as you'd think. Due to snoring, illness or small babies, even married relatives often make use of the bed settee for one of them to get a much-needed decent night's sleep...

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

If the kids are legal adults and already live together, I don't know what the point is for parents to insist on separate sleeping arrangements: They already live together; they sleep together; get over it; stop grasping for a WIN in your own personal morality column here.

If the relationship is more ambiguous, I'd opt for the separate beds but not make a "thing" out of it.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Sorry for double-posting, but I'd add that if roles are reversed and one is in a committed relationship that one's parents/other relations don't approve of, and are pointedly assigned separate bedrooms during family get-togethers, and if lodging elsewhere aren't a viable option, biting one's tongue and being gracious about the sleeping arrangements is probably the best option.

[ 27. December 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you're used to being with someone you love, but have decided not to have sex with just yet, it really isn't that big a deal to go to sleep in the same space. Or so it seemed to me, anyway.
Me too. My wife and I shared beds many times before marriage without having sex.

So did we.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Sidebar story: DP and I know someone who is getting married again after being widowed for several years. She is marrying another alum of the same high school, a widower, who after a rather colorful life wound up becoming a Bible-thumping Baptist minister -- took a mail-order course, hung out his shingle and then started his own online "Bible college." (It is a long story.) Anyway, these are two retirees; they're not young kids; they both have their own households and families.

The husband-to-be recently moved into the wife-to-be's condominium in order to, I think, let one of his children move into his house; this is in one of those generic suburban condo developments with a somewhat transient population that includes many retirees and younger career people.

The two had some sort of engagement open house that involved friends, family and some of the neighbors. During this event the fiance' made a great show of loudly announcing to everyone present that, "We're living together for now, but we don't sleep in the same bed."

The fiancee's sister, who is also our friend, was absolutely mortified.

I really do not understand the sort of mentality that would compel someone to make this sort of public pronouncement. I really don't. What the

hell.

[ 27. December 2013, 19:56: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's not that mortifying. Rather tasteless, but considering that people often joke about who they are or are not going to bed with, it's not a big deal. In the UK someone in the group would've laughed and made a dirty joke, probably in the man's direction, but the woman's comment would've been taken as a sign of her eccentricity more than anything else, especially since she's presumably heading into old age. It sounds like something out of a sitcom.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If he's presenting himself as a colorful convert turned Bible-thumper, he is very likely concerned that moving in with a woman he's not married to (yet) will do his rep some harm. That said, the idiot could have just gone down to the local courthouse with his intended and dealt with the issue properly rather than making everybody want to slide through the floor. TMI.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you're used to being with someone you love, but have decided not to have sex with just yet, it really isn't that big a deal to go to sleep in the same space. Or so it seemed to me, anyway.
Me too. My wife and I shared beds many times before marriage without having sex.
So did we.

And us.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I really do not understand the sort of mentality that would compel someone to make this sort of public pronouncement. I really don't. What the

hell.

Oh, I do. It's called prudery.

I think if I'd heard the announcement, I'd have suggested that sleeping in the same bed wasn't the issue.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you're used to being with someone you love, but have decided not to have sex with just yet, it really isn't that big a deal to go to sleep in the same space. Or so it seemed to me, anyway.
Me too. My wife and I shared beds many times before marriage without having sex.
So did we.
And us.

To add - my mother was not happy about this, and said that she'd prefer us to having sex, but pretending we weren't, rather than giving the impression that we were, whilst actually not.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I haven't read all of this thread, but I think it is worth adding that when my father introduced my mother as his fiancee to his mother, my grandmother insisted that they sleep together in the same bed at her house. She also insisted that they sleep in her bed, and that she sleep in bed with them. The intention was not to have her chaperone them. My grandmother always insisted on sleeping in bed with her children, and my mother was becoming one of her children. My nieces slept with my aunt and uncle in bed (although not every night) well into adulthood.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

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.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

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!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

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.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

me too.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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 ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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!

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It ensured that the woman was fertile.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It ensured that the woman was fertile.

The evidence is mostly that it didn't though.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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”.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

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.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

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?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

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.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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 ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0