PDA in Front of Family?

[RoseMary131]

Plus remember we had a widow living in our home for many years. That “upped” the general PDAs and lowered the PDAs that wouldn’t be extended to her, because while she liked that we were happily married, she didn’t need a reminder that she was not and never would be again. That really raised my awareness of how marital PDAs can affect someone who has no one and has no prospects of having that change.

This again goes to what individual people have as their own preference, their experiences, and their family of origins. How they feel, how they handle losing a spouse, etc.

My father died at a young age. My mom was in her late 30s when she became a widow. She never expressed that our other relatives needed to stop showing affection with their spouses when she was around. As we (her children and now her grandchildren) grew up and married, we do not need to stop holding hands or kissing our spouses when she is with us.

Mom’s family of origin probably helped shape that she did not need us to hide our affection with our spouses even though she is a widow. Growing up, Mom lived across the street from her own grandmother and spent much time with her. Her grandmother (my great-grandmother) had been a single mom since my grandmother (Mom’s mom) was little. My great-grandmother had no need to have spouses not holding hands, etc. around her.

My father’s father died early and his widowed mom (my grandma) did not need her children (and later us, her grandchildren) to refrain from holding hands with spouses, nor having arms around each other, etc.

**If **my husband dies before me, I do not want my children to stop expressing their love with their spouse when they come to visit or if I lived with them. By expressing their love, I mean to hold hands, wrap their arms around each other while standing or sitting, placing their hand on their spouse’s leg while sitting next to each other, and sharing a kiss. My children and their spouses should feel free to be who they are - a husband and wife - who hold hands and share a kiss. Just because they lost their father - they shouldn’t have to lose what feels natural to them when I am with them. To me that would be a very, very sad request to make of them.

Family of origin plays a very big role throughout generations in how we respond in most areas throughout our lives. The topic expressed by the OP on this thread is highly influenced by personality, culture, and family of origin. Not right or wrong - not judging one person’s idea better than the other - accepting some families express kisses between spouses at Thanksgiving dinner and others don’t want spouses to share hand holding.

 

[Lorelei12]

Family of origin plays a very big role throughout generations in how we respond in most areas throughout our lives. The topic expressed by the OP on this thread is highly influenced by personality, culture, and family of origin. Not right or wrong - not judging one person’s idea better than the other - accepting some families express kisses between spouses at Thanksgiving dinner and others don’t want spouses to share hand holding.

I don’t think that anyone disputes this. What I have a problem with is the assumption that a) everyone in the family necessarily feels the same way about it- just because no one has even brought it up (“you know, when you and Tom are all over each other I want to run out of the room and cry because it makes me miss Jake”) doesn’t mean others are not bothered by it and b) that somehow physical affection is a better “witness to marriage” than how you treat your spouse otherwise.

When I see a couple acting a little over the top, I don’t think “oh my, how adorable, they are such a great witness to marriage”. I think that either they are looking for attention or trying too hard to mask some problem. On the other hand, when I see a couple who, as EasterJoy pointed out, never says anything bad about each other, who treat each other respectfully and lovingly in front of others, that is a much better witness to marriage. I just think to equate physical affection with a good marriage is really poor reasoning in defense of PDA.

It seems there is a continuum of acceptable lovey-doveyness in each family, that’s fine.I personally don’t care if a couple occasionally pecks each other or holds hands a bit- sometimes my husband and I do this too depending on whose company we are in. I think cuddling is weird in front of others, and multiple frequent kisses. Also baby talk makes me ill.

It’s not that it’s wrong to kiss your spouse, but rather that it is charitable to consider that others in your company might be uncomfortable, for whatever reason. Even if you’re not aware that they are. It seems remarkably un-Christian to say “I can act however I want, and if someone has a problem with it too bad”. It’s not on the person who is uncomfortable to speak up- most times, they will not say anything. It’s our responsibility to consider the feelings of others, and that means we shouldn’t always just do whatever we feel like.

 

[RoseMary131]

When I see a couple acting a little over the top, I don’t think “oh my, how adorable, they are such a great witness to marriage”.** I think that either they** are looking for attention or trying too hard to mask some problem.

While you may be thinking a couple holds hand for attention or to mask a problem - that is your thoughts - not necessarily their thoughts. They may not think they are acting “over the top.”

If they are in pain and want to soothe their pain with holding hands or keep their pain a secret by their choice from others - respect their desire to hold hands (or other form of affection) and work on their healing for this pain. Their pain might be just as strong as the person who mourns the loss of their spouse. Every couple has some problems. Let them work on healing, before they find their selves in a divorce.

The OP and the others who posted about holding their spouse’s hand, sharing a kiss, sitting with their arm around each other ---- did not say they were in favor of couples “acting a little over the top”.

“Acting a little over the top” is going to be defined differently by each person.

It’s not that it’s wrong to kiss your spouse, but rather that it is charitable to consider that others in your company might be uncomfortable, for whatever reason. Even if you’re not aware that they are. It seems remarkably un-Christian to say “I can act however I want, and if someone has a problem with it too bad”.** It’s not on the person who is uncomfortable to speak up- most times, they will not say anything.** It’s our responsibility to consider the feelings of others, and that means we shouldn’t always just do whatever we feel like.

The Church does not teach us that holding hands with spouses in front of others is an unacceptable thing.

I have never heard that spouses should refrain from holding hands, saying “I love you”, or sharing a kiss at an extended family gathering or even at a funeral and the family gathering after the funeral.

I truly can not be held accountable to make sure I avoid everything that any one might have emotional difficulties with.

Each person at the extended family gathering is going to have some area in their life that causes them emotional pain. Does all conversation stop because someone may have pain in that topic? No.

There is likely to be someone who has suffered a miscarriage at the family dinner. Would there be no conversation about babies at the dinner? No.

There is likely to be someone who has emotional distress about religion? Someone left the Church, someone feels the Church has hurt them, someone’s loved one left the Church… When Grandpa asks everyone to say one thing they are thankful to God on this Thanksgiving Day, do we stop Grandpa and say, “Ssshhhh, our cousin is having a hard time with God these day. She’s upset God let her husband die” ? No.

It is not being unchristian or uncharitable to say, “I am going to hold hands with my spouse. I’m not stopping my normal practice on the case that someone may be upset.”

We each are responsible for setting our own boundaries. That means if our cousin is upset that she is lonely and misses her husband and for today she needs us to stop holding hands, it is up to her to express it to us. We can’t know if she does not share it with us.

However, this cousin who is lonely because she misses her husband can not impose upon us that we can no longer hold hands in her company and expect us to comply or else we are uncharitable or unchristian.

We can choose to comply to her request and no longer hold hands with our spouse in her company (or what ever her request is - no longer share a kiss, no longer say “I love you”, no longer sit arm and arm in her company). We are not obligated to do so.

We are not acting unchristian or unloving if we decide we can not meet her request and we continue holding our spouse’s hand when she is around.

In fact, for the cousin who never asked everyone to stop holding hands, she might be distraught to learn that everyone stopped holding hands with their spouse at the dinner because her dear husband died or divorced her. Now, she “might” feel “not only did I lose my husband and holding his hand, now, my whole family thinks they can’t hold their spouse’s hand because of me.”

 

[RoseMary131]

It’s not on the person who is uncomfortable to speak up- most times, they will not say anything.

Yes, it is on the person who is uncomfortable to speak up. We can not spend our lives “mind reading” everyone we come in contact with. If they are uncomfortable, it is there place to express it.

Being widowed, divorce, or single longer than a person desires to be single is not a universal reason to be too upset to see spouses holding hands throughout a Thanksgiving family celebration.

Some people may be extremely sensitive to seeing spouse’s together - it is not up to their family members to decide “no one display affection to your spouse during the celebration.”

It’s our responsibility to consider the feelings of others, and that means we shouldn’t always just do whatever we feel like.

Its their responsibility to allow us to know “I get really upset when I see you holding hands with your spouse.” Its also their responsibility to find healing for their deep hurt that causes them not to be able to allow others to hold their spouse’s hand or share a kiss.

Being Christian or charitable does not mean, “do not hold hands with your spouse or share a kiss at family gatherings because someone may be missing their spouse.”

It’s not that it’s wrong to kiss your spouse, but rather that it is charitable to consider that others in your company might be uncomfortable, for whatever reason.

What else do we not do because others may be uncomfortable for whatever reason?
If our cousin lost her job, must our brother not share about his latest project at work. Does everyone walk on egg shells?

Life is what it is - ups and downs - happy and sad - lonely and fulfilled. Being Christian, being charitable, being loving, being a good family member does not mean at Thanksgiving dinner around the US, spouses and couples in love should refrain from holding hands or sharing a kiss or standing arm and arm because someone in the family might be lonely.

The person who is so distraught that they are hurt to see couple’s express their “oneness” by holding hands, etc. is the one responsible for seeking healing of that pain. The rest of their family is not responsible for making sure that person does not see couples hand-in-hand with their spouse. They can offer love and compassion and still hold their spouse’s hand at the family gathering.

May God lighten the pain of those without their beloved. May all those who suffer loneliness find peace, especially within their family. Let them find healing which allows them to not be in pain as they see others holding hand, sharing a kiss, or standing arm and arm with their beloved.

 

[Lorelei12]

There is likely to be someone who has suffered a miscarriage at the family dinner. Would there be no conversation about babies at the dinner? No.

This is actually interesting to bring up because I think it’s another example of where people should be charitable. In the instance of someone who recently had a miscarriage, or even a couple who is having trouble conceiving, then yes, I actually do believe that family members should be sensitive to that and be kind by not making an entire conversation about babies. If you want to talk about babies, have a side conversation but for heavens’ sake, what kind of a person wouldn’t care about another’s emotional pain?

I know someone who, when she was pregnant, made a big show of it. Talking to the baby in front of anyone, groaning every time she got up, just in general being very theatrical. She did this around someone who was struggling with infertility, and it was completely insensitive. I don’t think she meant to be this way, but that is what happens when people act in a self-centered way, not considering the feelings of other people around them.

The attitude that someone struggling with something should just deal with it is unkind. I would certainly hope that, if around someone who recently had a miscarriage or any other fertility issue, that family members would not simply decide it’s their problem. Family cares about one another, and I would think that a loving person would care about their family member’s feelings, not just about doing whatever they feel like. We are supposed to be thoughtful and while no, we cannot read everyone’s mind and shouldn’t be expected to, we do need to be considerate, kind people.

 

[RoseMary131]

Originally Posted by RoseMary131 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
There is likely to be someone who has suffered a miscarriage at the family dinner. Would there be no conversation about babies at the dinner? No.

This is actually interesting to bring up because I think it’s another example of where people should be charitable. In the instance of someone who recently had a miscarriage, or even a couple who is having trouble conceiving, then yes, I actually do believe that family members should be sensitive to that and be kind by not making an entire conversation about babies. If you want to talk about babies, have a side conversation but for heavens’ sake, what kind of a person wouldn’t care about another’s emotional pain?

There are many ways to be sensitive to the pains of others. Having “entire conversations” about babies or avoiding holding hands with your spouse does not mean you are not sensitive to the pains of others.

What about the mother and father with their new baby at the gathering that includes the couple who lost their baby through miscarriage?

How should the entire family react to the joys of this new little child in their mist?

While the one couple has sorrow that they can not conceive or that they lost their baby through a miscarriage, it is acceptable for everyone to rejoice with the new baby.

It is acceptable for the new mom and dad to share their stories of their new baby. It is acceptable for others to be very happy and very excited about this baby and to ask many questions about the baby.

It is acceptable for the baby to even become one of the major joys of the family gathering.

The attitude that someone struggling with something should just deal with it is unkind. I would certainly hope that, if around someone who recently had a miscarriage or any other fertility issue, that family members would not simply decide it’s their problem. Family cares about one another, and I would think that a loving person would care about their family member’s feelings, not just about doing whatever they feel like. We are supposed to be thoughtful and while no, we cannot read everyone’s mind and shouldn’t be expected to, we do need to be considerate, kind people.

This does not mean those present who are happy for this great gift of a new family member are being unkind, unloving, or uncharitable to the family who is grieving.

Condolences, love, kindness is still offered to the precious family who is hurting for their lose. The whole family most likely is sad about the little child who died through the miscarriage or after birth.

That is part of the joys and sorrows of life in families. We rejoice with each other and cry with each other even at the same Thanksgiving dinner.

We do not live in an “either - or” world. We aren’t asked to avoid joys because there are sorrows. We don’t stop the joy of a baby because of the sorrow of another baby. We don’t stop holding hands with our spouse because another loved one lost her spouse. We share with each other in the ups and downs.

We can still be considerate and kind to the parents who lost their child, while having conversations about babies.

Many parents choose not to tell everyone of their miscarriage. There is a high chance that someone at every family gathering has felt this loss. Yet, conversations of babies can still be shared at the family celebrations.

All of us grieve something. All of us have pains. We are compassionate to others. Yet, we don’t have to avoid the joys of our lives. We can celebrate marriages at the same family dinner where we share sorrow with the one who lost their spouse.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t really see why anything which is 1) not morally wrong, and 2) not foreplay, should should be ‘wrong’ or even TMI.

Shunning public displays of affection is not Christian tradition, it’s Greek and Roman stoic tradition, which may be appealing to patrician types, but doesn’t really have a moral footing.

On the other hand, witnessing an obvious mating ritual can be disconcerting to bystanders. A public display of several unsuccessful relationship attempts can perhaps not be optimal from the point of view of finding someone else if this one doesn’t work out.

However, love is not something shameful to be done in secret, in a closet, like a physiological activity that’s best done at the gents or ladies. I think we won’t get much better at those things if we keep outlawing affection and confining it to the ‘room’.

Plus remember we had a widow living in our home for many years. That “upped” the general PDAs and lowered the PDAs that wouldn’t be extended to her, because while she liked that we were happily married, she didn’t need a reminder that she was not and never would be again. That really raised my awareness of how marital PDAs can affect someone who has no one and has no prospects of having that change.

That differs from person to person. In my case, it can easily get to the point of physical pain, some of which is pretty much permanently somaticised after all those years, but on the balance of things it feels like a small victory when I see it works for someone else, and to a certain extent I feel included when people share their happiness with me by allowing it to show where I’m present. On the other hand, if I were to notice people holding back from each other because of me (and concerned looks and hushed voices etc.), that would be a very powerful reminder actually.

 

[Lorelei12]

We do not live in an “either - or” world. We aren’t asked to avoid joys because there are sorrows. We don’t stop the joy of a baby because of the sorrow of another baby. We don’t stop holding hands with our spouse because another loved one lost her spouse. We share with each other in the ups and downs.

I agree with this. In the example you gave, at first, the issue was simply a conversation, not someone bringing their new baby. Those are two different things. As you say, we share with one another in the ups and downs. The “and downs” part shouldn’t be forgotten. Someone with emotional pain should be considered by others as much as possible. Not necessarily to the point that everyone has to walk on eggshells, but there is a line between normal behavior and attention seeking behavior that has the potential to be hurtful to others, or even just being unintentionally insensitive.

I just take issue with the idea that we shouldn’t need to think about others at all, because if they are going through something, it’s their problem. That we should just act however we want to, even if it pains someone else. It’s really not going to hurt anyone to tone down the physical affection in front of a recently widowed person.Or for an expectant mother, who is rightfully overjoyed, to tone it down a little in the company of others who wish they were pregnant but are not, or had lost a baby recently. That is the kind of acute pain I mean. Couples who are humble do not need to make a grand display of their affection for others to see. I don’t know, maybe I just know a lot more attention-seekers than the normal person.

 

[RoseMary131]

I agree with this. In the example you gave, at first, the issue was simply a conversation, not someone bringing their new baby. Those are two different things. As you say, we share with one another in the ups and downs. The “and downs” part shouldn’t be forgotten. Someone with emotional pain should be considered by others as much as possible. Not necessarily to the point that everyone has to walk on eggshells, but **there is a line between normal behavior and attention seeking behavior that has the potential to be hurtful to others, or even just being unintentionally insensitive. **

I just take issue with the idea that we shouldn’t need to think about others at all, because if they are going through something, it’s their problem. That we should just act however we want to, even if it pains someone else. It’s really not going to hurt anyone to tone down the physical affection in front of a recently widowed person.Or for an expectant mother, who is rightfully overjoyed, to tone it down a little in the company of others who wish they were pregnant but are not, or had lost a baby recently. That is the kind of acute pain I mean. Couples who are humble do not need to make a **grand display **of their affection for others to see. I don’t know, maybe I just know a lot more attention-seekers than the **normal **person.

I would like to meet a normal person!

Back to the thread:

in my family it is no big deal at all for couples to show affection. I’m not talking about making out, groping, or anything like that, but holding hands, putting arms around each other, and quick pecks are really commonplace. So are random 'I love you’s between partners.

I was really surprised that even little, nonsexual displays of affection are often seen as rude or inappropriate in front of family. I guess it’s just one of those things that every family does differently.

Anyway, I was just curious about other’s thoughts on the matter. What displays do you find acceptable, if any, and why or why not?

I do not think anyone posting was conveying… “do not have compassion for others.”

Hand holding and sharing a kiss or saying “I love you” does not equal a grand display. They are often a natural part of married life.

My point was that we are always going to find people in our family who hurt because of something. That does not mean we can not hold our spouse’s hand.

We don’t stop every conversation that might be painful to someone. We speak with kindness to everyone. We don’t set out to offend anyone.

If someone is so upset that simply seeing someone hold the other person’s hand brings them to tears… it is not the couple that his holding hands that hurts them… it is the hurt that was in their heart when they walked in the door. We want to help with the pain. That does not mean suddenly change holding hand which is a normal, healthy action between spouses - in many families’ tradition. Even at a funeral, custom and Church etiquette do not suggest we refrain from holding a spouse’s hand.

Yes, we offer the hurting friend or family member our love, but we don’t have to stop holding hands with our spouse for the gathering. Asking everyone at Thanksgiving not to hold hands because our cousin got a divorce or her husband died is not helping her deal with her pain.

We tell her how much we love her and offer her our condolences, but we don’t ask the entire family to stop holding hands among spouses.

We don’t ask everyone to refrain forever in giving their spouse a kiss, because our mom is a widow. If Mom is too upset for years on end to see us share a kiss with our spouse, we might want to help Mom in a manner that heals her pains… not avoid it by avoiding kissing our spouse in her presence and having all of our relatives to stop this at all Thanksgiving gatherings.

If “no more kisses” is a plan agreed upon by Mom and all couples, that may be the right choice for that family, but that should not be imposed upon all couples. The couple who choses not to accept this - does not need to be “shamed” into doing so.

Fearing that maybe someone in the room on Thanksgiving is upset about their own marriage or being single is also not a reason for every couple to not hold hands like spouse may naturally do or not share a kiss that says “I love you”.

That does not mean the spouses holding hands have great marriages or are not in marriage counseling. Nor does it mean they are wanting to hurt anyone.

Believing those who hold hands, kiss, say “I love you” - are uncaring, uncharitable, unchristian, selfish, etc. is a very broad statement that most likely does not apply to the majority of people.

I’m guessing those who wrote on this thread that they share a kiss with their spouse and hold their hands are not in the category of not caring about others, selfish, uncharitable, etc.

No “normal” person holds hand with their spouse every Thanksgiving to be unloving to others.

(For the dysfunctional person who holds their spouse’s hand to be unkind to someone else - they probably do other dysfunctional things as well and need our charity and kindness, too. That’s another thread.)

 

[RoseMary131]

I saw this beautiful story on line and it reminded me of what I think some posters were talking about on this thread, the natural feeling of holding hands with a spouse.

wwme-phils.com/heartlinks/touching-story-about-marriage

Its titled “A Touching Story about Marriage” and is on a website for World Wide Marriage Encounter. Its about a couple married 72 years.

---

Since this thread is dealing with marriage, I’ll step a bit off the actual topic and invited all couples reading this to a World Wide Marriage Encounter Weekend.

WWME is a beautiful personal weekend for couples of any or no faith. Although it is under a Catholic view and Mass is offered, it is focused on Marriage and not a “theology of marriage”. It is a very private weekend. There is no sharing from the participant couples about their marriage with other. Couples hear beautiful, personal talks from the WWME team couples and return to the privacy of their own room to discuss privately with their spouse about the topics. Its a weekend for the couple to focus only on each other.
wwme.org/

Happy Thanksgiving and Happy Marriage to all.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree with this. In the example you gave, at first, the issue was simply a conversation, not someone bringing their new baby. Those are two different things. As you say, we share with one another in the ups and downs. The “and downs” part shouldn’t be forgotten. Someone with emotional pain should be considered by others as much as possible. Not necessarily to the point that everyone has to walk on eggshells, but there is a line between normal behavior and attention seeking behavior that has the potential to be hurtful to others, or even just being unintentionally insensitive.

I just take issue with the idea that we shouldn’t need to think about others at all, because if they are going through something, it’s their problem. That we should just act however we want to, even if it pains someone else. It’s really not going to hurt anyone to tone down the physical affection in front of a recently widowed person.Or for an expectant mother, who is rightfully overjoyed, to tone it down a little in the company of others who wish they were pregnant but are not, or had lost a baby recently. That is the kind of acute pain I mean. Couples who are humble do not need to make a grand display of their affection for others to see. I don’t know, maybe I just know a lot more attention-seekers than the normal person.

The problem with “in front of a recently-widowed person” is that of course the change is obvious. If all the couples are hugging and holding hands as a matter of course in everyday life and then it all stops after your husband dies, how does that help that much?

I don’t think we differ in that a) we all agree that of course married couples can express some amount of physical affection in front of other people and b) of course there is a point where anyone not a member of the couple is going to say “oh, c’mon, get a room!” So the only question is where the line exists between those two extremes.

In our situation, the amount of physical affection shown by non-spouses in the family is not negligible. Our teens walk up and give us kisses, a grandmother will walk by and squeeze her grandson’s hand…these gestures are not absent between non-married couples. I think that is why I don’t find giving up married-only gestures is asking a lot. Even so, going back to my childhood (when the PDAs between family members were far lower), I’d say it was not a huge deal to keep the marital PDAs fairly close to what everyone else gets. Besides, as children get older and hit adolescence, they like to see that their parents love each other. They don’t necessarily like to think about their parents “doing that.”

Still, different places have different attitudes. I’m just suggesting this (that is, that not everyone is thrilled to see married couples let on that they are not just in love but are exclusive sexual partners in the PDAs they choose) as something to keep in mind when you draw your own line. Something toned down is usually something everyone else is just fine with, if not relieved about.

 

[RoseMary131]

we all agree that of course married couples can express some amount of physical affection in front of other people

In our situation, the amount of physical affection shown by non-spouses in the family is not negligible. … these gestures are not absent between non-married couples.

I think that is why I don’t find giving up married-only gestures is asking a lot. Even so, going back to my childhood (when the PDAs between family members were far lower), I’d say it was not a huge deal to keep the marital PDAs fairly close to what everyone else gets.

Still, different places have different attitudes. .

Those words I bolded are very much the key.

In your situation… why you don’t find it is asking a lot… your childhood (family of origin)… your family members (or close contact) had lower PDA between family members… you say its not a huge deal…

For some of us, we have different childhood attitudes from you, our parents and grandparents had **different **childhood attitudes from your parents and grandparents… which is why placing your thoughts and attitudes on others can be a huge deal for them.

While it appears to you not to be a big deal, your idea of what is a huge deal is based on your thoughts. Other’s feelings and thoughts on the subject are just as strong a part of who they are, so to change their thoughts and feelings is a huge deal.

Someone whose divorced, widowed, and single family members welcomed the rest of the couples holding hands or kissing their spouses… might think it is no huge deal for you to understand that it is acceptable for couples to express that they are married through spousal kisses and hand holding in front of widowed, divorced, single friends.

It seems it is a huge deal for you to see the other way. And for some, seeing your idea is a huge deal.

This is an individual couple’s decision based on their own feelings as a couple which is highly influenced by personal feelings, personality, family of origin, childhood, parents’ and grandparents’ attitude, and culture.

 

[pnewton]

I would really, really like to leave homosexuality out of this thread if at all possible…

Then I do not have a problem with this sort of display, to a mild extent, between a married couple, man and wife. I do not have a problem with a child seeing affection between man and wife. I see a little more issue with a boyfriend and girlfriend doing this, and a giant issue with two people living together doing this in front of children, my children any way. I believe kids get way too much exposure to sexual sin at an age that is way to young as it is.

 

[EasterJoy]

Those words I bolded are very much the key.

In your situation… why you don’t find it is asking a lot… your childhood (family of origin)… your family members (or close contact) had lower PDA between family members… you say its not a huge deal…

For some of us, we have different childhood attitudes from you, our parents and grandparents had **different **childhood attitudes from your parents and grandparents… which is why placing your thoughts and attitudes on others can be a huge deal for them.

While it appears to you not to be a big deal, your idea of what is a huge deal is based on your thoughts. Other’s feelings and thoughts on the subject are just as strong a part of who they are, so to change their thoughts and feelings is a huge deal.

Someone whose divorced, widowed, and single family members welcomed the rest of the couples holding hands or kissing their spouses… might think it is no huge deal for you to understand that it is acceptable for couples to express that they are married through spousal kisses and hand holding in front of widowed, divorced, single friends.

It seems it is a huge deal for you to see the other way. And for some, seeing your idea is a huge deal.

This is an individual couple’s decision based on their own feelings as a couple which is highly influenced by personal feelings, personality, family of origin, childhood, parents’ and grandparents’ attitude, and culture.

True, but the change towards being as demonstrative as people have become, particularly with the kind of touching that is not welcome from just anybody, is recent. Maybe I’m old, but I’m old enough to remember that it was not the married who started the trend of PDAs between sexual partners, but those who were advocates of “free love”. Before that, the touching that married people exchanged was genuine, but it wasn’t far beyond the kind of touching extended to the rest of one’s family. I suppose that for some of us, however, we are talking about some of us having grandparents who were the very ones who started the trend of doing anything and everything in public, such that contemporary PDAs seem very restrained, indeed, yes.

The older I get, the more I think that there is room to take another look at the old boundaries and why they were there. That is all I am saying.

I also think it is more reasonable to expect dating couples (and even co-habituating couples) to show some decorum when the married couples show that it can be done. Yes, you can be very much in love and yet restrain yourself in front of other people. Since gay couples are a reality, it is also far more reasonable to expect them to avoid showing themselves as sexual partners when even the heterosexual couples refrain from that. If we’re going to live in mutual tolerance as families, that may become part of what makes it possible. I’m in favor of it, and a family who would like to be able to welcome those to the table who choose to be in scandalous sexual situations might thank themselves if they have this kind of boundaries in place.

 

[thewanderer]

On that account, I think that what I consider PDAs that fall in the “everyone” category are far beyond what everyone else here thinks that I mean. I get the feeling that people think I’m against cupcakes; I’m just saying to choose the sort that allows you to bring enough for everybody. It really is very nice.

I think this is really true, which is why I asked you about a quick peck on the mouth when all the other circumstances were accounted for. I could be mistaken, but it seemed as though the reason people began to argue with you is because you discounted even a quick peck on the mouth as ever even possibly being appropriate at a family gathering. And after saying that you went on to speak about appropriate displays only being things you would extend to others, which made it seem as though you were saying that it is wrong to treat your spouse any more affectionately than you do your mother or sister at a family gathering. So, following out the logic, you should sit with your mother and sister at least as often as with your spouse, you should hold hands with them the same number of times and for the same duration as you do your spouse etc. It really came across as though you were claiming that it is wrong to treat your spouse any differently at a family gathering. Nobody here is advocating people making out, but a quick peck on the lips is hardly something that merits a couple being told to go get a room. It is a completely appropriate sign of affection in public. Now if they were french kissing, that would be different, but nobody on this thread is advocating that, just as no one is advocating for any sort of groping. I think we all agree that such things go too far. The question thats left is what exactly you mean by “things that can be shared by all”. If you mean you have to treat your spouse just as you would anyone else then you will find many people disagreeing with you, but I really don’t think that is what you are saying. I’m just not sure how you are determining what is and is not appropriate and so do not know to what extent we agree.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think this is really true, which is why I asked you about a quick peck on the mouth when all the other circumstances were accounted for. I could be mistaken, but it seemed as though the reason people began to argue with you is because you discounted even a quick peck on the mouth as ever even possibly being appropriate at a family gathering. And after saying that you went on to speak about appropriate displays only being things you would extend to others, which made it seem as though you were saying that it is wrong to treat your spouse any more affectionately than you do your mother or sister at a family gathering. So, following out the logic, you should sit with your mother and sister at least as often as with your spouse, you should hold hands with them the same number of times and for the same duration as you do your spouse etc. It really came across as though you were claiming that it is wrong to treat your spouse any differently at a family gathering. Nobody here is advocating people making out, but a quick peck on the lips is hardly something that merits a couple being told to go get a room. It is a completely appropriate sign of affection in public. Now if they were french kissing, that would be different, but nobody on this thread is advocating that, just as no one is advocating for any sort of groping. I think we all agree that such things go too far. The question thats left is what exactly you mean by “things that can be shared by all”. If you mean you have to treat your spouse just as you would anyone else then you will find many people disagreeing with you, but I really don’t think that is what you are saying. I’m just not sure how you are determining what is and is not appropriate and so do not know to what extent we agree.

Yes, both my MIL (when she was alive), my parents, and my sons might feel free to give me quick peck on the mouth. So yes, it depends on the group! If you’re in a group where no one but your spouse would ever consider touching you that way, though, then at least keep it very brief and discrete.

Again, I think I was also perhaps more literal than others with the “D” in PDA. That which is discrete is a different matter than a display, which seems to me something done so that at least somebody who is not being included can hardly miss it. If the others have to keep out the eagle eyes to “catch” you, then IMHO is hard to call that a “display”.

So yes, maybe we’re just talking semantics.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Then I do not have a problem with this sort of display, to a mild extent, between a married couple, man and wife. I do not have a problem with a child seeing affection between man and wife. I see a little more issue with a boyfriend and girlfriend doing this, and a giant issue with two people living together doing this in front of children, my children any way. I believe kids get way too much exposure to sexual sin at an age that is way to young as it is.

I’m not sure why a cohabiting couple showing affection is any different than a couple that is just dating showing affection. We aren’t talking about foreplay. A quick kiss between any couple is still just a quick kiss.

Before I got married my husband and I showed the same level of affection that we do now. Had someone suggested that we stop because we weren’t married, they probably would have been met with a dirty look.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, both my MIL (when she was alive), my parents, and my sons might feel free to give me quick peck on the mouth. So yes, it depends on the group! If you’re in a group where no one but your spouse would ever consider touching you that way, though, then at least keep it very brief and discrete.

Again, I think I was also perhaps more literal than others with the “D” in PDA. That which is discrete is a different matter than a display, which seems to me something done so that at least somebody who is not being included can hardly miss it. If the others have to keep out the eagle eyes to “catch” you, then IMHO is hard to call that a “display”.

So yes, maybe we’re just talking semantics.

Ironically, I’m now less sure that its just semantics. Well, maybe I should ask what you mean by discrete. I think everybody would agree that it is innapropriate to use PDA as a way of putting on a show for the others to show them how “in love” you are as a couple. But there is as much of a difference between putting on a show and just being affectionate as there is between just being affectionate and working to make sure your affectionate displays are hidden and secret.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I appreciate how well this conversation kept up while I was gone over the weekend.

I actually can really see both sides of this very well. I get where EasterJoy is coming from, but I think that I personally swing to the other side. At the end of the day I will treat my husband differently than I treat everyone else in the room. And if he started treating me like I was just another member of the family, I would probably be confused, and even a little hurt.

I also think that if you are going to request that the gay/dating/cohabiting/other relationship that makes you uncomfortable couples don’t do XYZ, then you should also refrain from doing XYZ, that’s just common courtesy.

 

[EasterJoy]

OK…so how about this? Yes, there are even family members who are closer than others, because yes, having your parents fluff your hair is not so annoying as having your uncle fluff your hair. So yes, this is not about sex, per se. Still, if the PDAs between “special people” are such that you don’t have to “change the rules” when you don’t approve of who is the chosen “special person” of some other family member, then you’ll be on good ground to be natural and welcoming when your personal visitation of “Look Who’s Coming to Dinner” arrives at your Thanksgiving table, whether it is a relationship that is objectively not moral or it is just one that you think is a disaster on the horizon. If your family member simply abides by the usual boundaries for “special persons”–after all, you have robbed them in advance of a chance to be “publically defiant” about their relationship–there will be that much more room for everyone else to look the other way and keep debates about that relationship for another day, under the charitable assumption that being “flaunting” or “defiant” is the farthest things from their minds.