March 10th, 2006

Previous Entry Next Entry
12:34 am - on sharing sex secrets with sires...

(53 comments | Leave a comment)

on sharing sex secrets with sires... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at


[User Picture]From: tobalita Date: March 10th, 2006 - 04:20 pm (Link)
Well, it wasn't really about sinning. We're Jewish and I was never told to wait for marriage to have sex. In fact, I think my folks told me they had sex before marriage. I was only ever told to have sex with someone I love. So it didn't have anything to do with god or hell (we don't believe in hell either).

I think it was more of my folks level of comfort with my boyfriend/fiance/husband. It wasn't until we were married that they were comfortable accepting the fact that this guy was a fine upstanding young man who deserved to sleep with their daughter. They always thought that "living together" was immature and that grown-ups who love each other should get married. So I think it was more that they let us sleep together after we were married because they finally saw us as grown-ups and not as kids.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 10th, 2006 - 06:46 pm (Link)
Yeah, I knew you were jewish. I didn't mean it so seriously, though. I mean, I figure your parents wouldn't want you to burn in hell if they believed in it either. I imagine it would have something to do with loving you or something. ;-) Still, I guess my point was more that some parents seem to have this theory, that "I can't stop the kids from breaking the rules when they're elsewhere, but they better follow them when they're here." and I find that weird.

So do you think that if they knew Matt better they would have been more ok with it? Or do you think it wouldn't have mattered who he was. Just no one would have been fine and upstanding enough until you were married?
[User Picture]From: bryguypgh Date: March 10th, 2006 - 07:27 pm (Link)
Just a slightly different take on "not under my roof" - it's true you can't stop them elsewhere, but you can make a very strong statement about what you think by enforcing rules in your own house, much stronger than you can make by simply announcing what you think. That said, I'm not sure the "separate rooms" rule is one that's worth taking a stand on, but I can understand why people do it.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 10th, 2006 - 10:14 pm (Link)
then explain it to me. I totally get the encouraging the kids to have your values while you're raising them. I even get calling them up after they've moved out and complaining to them in the hopes of continuing to restructure their ideals. But I don't see the usefulness at all of saying "well, you aren't sinning while your in my house no matter what you do outside of here." other than to avoid potential errant bolts from the blue.
[User Picture]From: bryguypgh Date: March 10th, 2006 - 10:32 pm (Link)
No, all I'm saying is that parents use house rules to send messages about what they think is important. If there's any question of how serious the parents think the sin is, forbidding it under their roof should make it clear. Think of the rules as a megaphone for the communication of principles between generations.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 12th, 2006 - 04:46 pm (Link)
I guess I see how you might enforce such rules when the kid is a kid. But in say Toby's case. Where she and Matt were already living together, it just seems silly. Was there any chance whatsoever that she was gonna say after a visit "why, they're right. We shouldn't be living together yet. I'm moving out!"
[User Picture]From: bryguypgh Date: March 12th, 2006 - 05:21 pm (Link)
Clearly the rules on their own aren't enough, but if the relationship goes bad somehow and the child's life is in crisis the parent's values will stand out in sharp relief. Now again I'm not saying that I agree with these values, just that communicating values is important, and enforcing rules can reinforce that communication.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 13th, 2006 - 05:06 am (Link)
So then you theorize that its basically a parental way of covering their ass so that they can eventually go "I TOLD YOU SO!!!"

yeah, that makes sense...
[User Picture]From: mamarayne Date: March 11th, 2006 - 01:53 am (Link)
You totally miss the point. Nobody wants to hear the springs squeaking in their kids room. Think about it, if you can hear it, then the springs probably aren't squeaking in your own (at least not at that time). And it's totally unnatural for the kid's springs to be squeaking when your own are not! Seriously though, if it makes the parents uncomfortable, then that's reason enough for them to say 'not here'. Don't be fooled, most parents pretty much know their kids are screwing outside of home, as well as doing whatever else they want to do. We know we aren't going to control that. But if it goes against their grain for whatever reason, they have the right to say “not under this roof”, afterall, they ARE paying for said roof. It's the same as knowing that your Uncle smokes smelly cigars; you don't really care what he does at his house, but you're not going to let him smoke them in yours.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 13th, 2006 - 05:11 am (Link)
hey, its no picnic hearing the parent's springs when you're the kid either... just sayin' is all.

anyway, i think its more a question of grown up kids coming back to visit, not underaged kids who still live there that i was considering foolish. There's a big difference between saying "please don't have noisy sex in our house" and "you can't sleep in the same room." Imposing extraneous rules only serves two purposes. 1) annoying those the rules are imposed upon. 2) inspiring them to break them.
[User Picture]From: tobalita Date: March 10th, 2006 - 07:36 pm (Link)
Not upstanding until married. ;)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: March 10th, 2006 - 10:17 pm (Link)
and really, he's kinda shady now...

• Go to Top