Platonic bed sharing while married.

[Hetta]

Now, everyone is entitled to their expectations and feelings - but constituting a problem for someone else just because what they do goes against your personal feelings and expectations isn´t very convincing. These people quite obviously have different feelings and expectations than you, and as long as what they do isn´t in conflict with their feelings and expectations, yours or mine are pretty much irrelevant for the question whether they have a problem.

Okay, this is getting silly. The OP asked for people's opinions. People have given their opinions and yes obviously they are based in their expectations of marriage or committed relationships. I don't know why these responses are "irrelevant" when obviously they are relevant to the OP.

 

[Hetta]

Thanks for explaining. I, however, used the term "jealousy" more in the way the dictionary documents its use. Hence the misunderstanding.

Yes, I noticed that already.

I don't really have a need to look up jealousy or define jealousy or think about jealousy. I have a really good relationship with my husband where we leave each other plenty of space to have relationships with others, so long as those relationships do NOT infringe on our marriage. A close physical relationship for either of us with another person would infringe on our marriage, and on the fact that we both require exclusivity from the other. Exclusivity =/= jealousy. The vast majority of married/cohabiting people expect their relationship to be exclusive when it come to a bed partner. Sure, I love my friends and I hug my friends and tell them things I wouldn't tell anyone else, and I'm very close to them. But I don't sleep with them. The bed belongs to me and my husband and that's central to our relationship. I don't know anyone who is married or in a long term relationship who doesn't think the same way. Maybe to some people that = jealousy but to most of us, it's central to a relationship.

 

[selfinflikted]

Maybe I am just dense her, but I simply don´t understand how doing only what is "required" has become the criterium for what we do?
IOW: I never said it was required, and the question I answered wasn´t asking for requirements.
This criterium has been added post hoc, and it doesn´t seem to be particularly consistent. If "It isn´t required therefore it is not intelligibly desirable" were a broadly accepted tenet we would have to stop 90% of what we do immediately.

No, you just misunderstood. The OP made it seem like a requirement, not anything you said. (because the OP has/had TWO opposite sex "platonic" friends he wants to sleep and cuddle with. )

 

[quatona]

No, you just misunderstood. The OP made it seem like a requirement, not anything you said. (because the OP has/had TWO opposite sex "platonic" friends he wants to sleep and cuddle with. )

I honestly have no idea how you get from there to it being a "requirement".
I have done thousands of things, I have done things several times - without any of them being a requirement. I just wanted to do them.

 

[quatona]

Okay, this is getting silly. The OP asked for people's opinions. People have given their opinions and yes obviously they are based in their expectations of marriage or committed relationships. I don't know why these responses are "irrelevant" when obviously they are relevant to the OP.

Do you consider my expectations of partnership/marriage relevant for your partnership? Do you think it would be reasonable for me to claim that there is a problem in your partnership simply because it doesn´t match my expectations?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi Kylissa, and thanks for your response.


I feel there´s an ongoing misunderstanding.
The question "Is it unwise, according to my moral convictions?" is a different one than "I don´t understand why anyone would do that."
Because the second one was asked multiple times in this thread I have been trying to answer this one.
It seems to me that everyone who has been tempted has an idea why someone would do it.


Yes. However, what strikes me as confusing is the fact that I have tried to give several potential reasons in several posts, but nobody even seems to take notice, and even less to address them. People just keep repeating "I don´t understand it, and most everybody else doesn´t, either."



Yes, you and I had already agreed that this is an interesting and important question. It´s a question only the OP can answer.
Personally, I don´t understand why anyone would ask for personal advice on an internet forum, anyway. But maybe the OP didn´t mean to ask for advice and instead just wanted to provoke a discussion.


Yes, it´s possible that he is making personal decisions according to majority vote, or something.

What I personally take home from this thread: I wasn´t aware how broadly accepted certain concepts of partnership/marriage still are - concepts of which I thought they had been at least questioned by a considerable number of people (and which, I may add, I think deserve to be questioned and challenged).
That´s useful information.

I think I see what you are saying.

Well, if I were to lay aside what I consider to be right, wise, and moral ... sure I can see reasons WHY someone might want to do it. Those are precisely the reasons that make me consider that I don't want to do it.

But yes, one would have to admit there are potential benefits/reasons, if one assumed a particular mindset to start with.

I think people are maybe just so - not shocked, maybe, but I think maybe it's just something so far outside of the realm of what they'd normally consider that they never get to seeing that point? I didn't see what you meant until I read your response to me just now. I can understand why they would never get around to discussing that.

Kind of like an elephant in your bedroom - that has a very interestingly-shaped wrinkled around his eye. The sheer size of the elephant in a bedroom is probably going to keep most of them from ever being able to focus on the wrinkle, you know?

As far as the survey of conventionally-accepted ideas, I don't know. I'm a little surprised there is more than one person posting here that thinks it's ok, but on the other hand, you're probably getting a very biased cross-section in the "sample" posting here. I don't know how valid it would be to extrapolate to the"real world" or not.

It's been interesting though.

 

[quatona]

I think I see what you are saying.

Well, if I were to lay aside what I consider to be right, wise, and moral ... sure I can see reasons WHY someone might want to do it. Those are precisely the reasons that make me consider that I don't want to do it.

But yes, one would have to admit there are potential benefits/reasons, if one assumed a particular mindset to start with.

I think people are maybe just so - not shocked, maybe, but I think maybe it's just something so far outside of the realm of what they'd normally consider that they never get to seeing that point? I didn't see what you meant until I read your response to me just now. I can understand why they would never get around to discussing that.

Kind of like an elephant in your bedroom - that has a very interestingly-shaped wrinkled around his eye. The sheer size of the elephant in a bedroom is probably going to keep most of them from ever being able to focus on the wrinkle, you know?

As far as the survey of conventionally-accepted ideas, I don't know. I'm a little surprised there is more than one person posting here that thinks it's ok, but on the other hand, you're probably getting a very biased cross-section in the "sample" posting here. I don't know how valid it would be to extrapolate to the"real world" or not.

It's been interesting though.

Thanks for your response, Kylissa! That´s all fair enough, and I am glad you are able and willing to think about my posts.

Now, as far as our convictions go as to what´s "right, wise and moral": maybe there are several different ideas of it that all have their merits and are internally consistent. I find these interesting to discuss - not because I expect huge opinion changes on either side, but simply because we all may learn something.

For me a partnership is not so much about sheltering our emotions. It´s more about challenging them. I wouldn´t know how to reconcile limiting my partner in whatever she feels is enriching her life with my idea of love. Actually, her having a rich life is what I want most for her. That said, I do know these emotions jealousy, hurt pride, insecurity when I learn that some of those experiences she expects to be enriching are not or not exclusively directed at or linked with me. I also know the feeling that something is taken away from me that belongs to me. In my - dare I say? - "spiritual" system these emotions are, however, petty, anxious and self-centered (and on top of that, I encounter them as hurting myself), and growth and self-actualization require me to overcome them or at least to learn not act upon them; no more letting them get in the way of my empathy and my ability and will to embrace and celebrate anything that is alive in the persons around me.
I am also aware that this is a (life-?)long process, and there can be challenges that ask too much from me, at this point in time. I can´t handle them yet. In which case I´d tell this to my partner, hoping she is willing to assist me in this process even though that´s not her duty.

I´m sure you won´t agree with this (and I am not out to change your mind or convince you), I am just trying to get you to focus a little more on the elephant´s wrinkle for just a moment. Actually, I don´t even think that some of these my ideas are so alien to Christianity.

I agree that CF is not necessarily a representative sample of the population (and, on top, America is over-represented whereas I am European).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for your response, Kylissa! That´s all fair enough, and I am glad you are able and willing to think about my posts.

Now, as far as our convictions go as to what´s "right, wise and moral": maybe there are several different ideas of it that all have their merits and are internally consistent. I find these interesting to discuss - not because I expect huge opinion changes on either side, but simply because we all may learn something.

For me a partnership is not so much about sheltering our emotions. It´s more about challenging them. I wouldn´t know how to reconcile limiting my partner in whatever she feels is enriching her life with my idea of love. Actually, her having a rich life is what I want most for her. That said, I do know these emotions jealousy, hurt pride, insecurity when I learn that some of those experiences she expects to be enriching are not or not exclusively directed at or linked with me. I also know the feeling that something is taken away from me that belongs to me. In my - dare I say? - "spiritual" system these emotions are, however, petty, anxious and self-centered (and on top of that, I encounter them as hurting myself), and growth and self-actualization require me to overcome them or at least to learn not act upon them; no more letting them get in the way of my empathy and my ability and will to embrace and celebrate anything that is alive in the persons around me.
I am also aware that this is a (life-?)long process, and there can be challenges that ask too much from me, at this point in time. I can´t handle them yet. In which case I´d tell this to my partner, hoping she is willing to assist me in this process even though that´s not her duty.

I´m sure you won´t agree with this (and I am not out to change your mind or convince you), I am just trying to get you to focus a little more on the elephant´s wrinkle for just a moment. Actually, I don´t even think that some of these my ideas are so alien to Christianity.

I agree that CF is not necessarily a representative sample of the population (and, on top, America is over-represented whereas I am European).

Certainly what we consider to be right, moral, and wise will depend on what our beliefs and goals consist of.

I understand where you are coming from. I'm somewhat familiar with the idea of attempts at self-actualization and so on. And you're right, in pursuit of that, I wouldn't agree, LOL. But I can consider what you say.

Immediately I think of the opposite though. You mention that jealousy and other "negative" emotions are your possible natural response. I have to consider how the presence of negative emotions will affect your SO's self actualization? Will she be negatively affected by your distress? If you attempt to suppress your distress for her sake, then you are not living honestly.

What happens if you flip that, and your SO's goal was focused on your self-actualization? What are your needs? Can they be met inside the relationship, or must you go outside? If so, how would that affect her?

Please, these are all just rhetorical questions. I guess in the scenario you propose, I switch to consider both people. I am not sure it's possible to pursue self-actualization independently and concurrently?

I just come from a completely different paradigm. I am reminded of situations where sacrifice of one's own needs actually prove to be very satisfying. My own best examples were in raising my daughter, and things I gave up in order to give her a good Christmas. The fact that I remember so well those feelings and scenarios so many years later - they were very satisfying to me. While I'm not advocating sacrifice for sacrifice's sake, necessarily, there is something to be said for enjoying what is done for the sake of another instead of being made to feel selfish in satisfying your own desires because they cause distress to someone you love?

Anyway, probably more than you wanted to hear, lol. I guess I'm looking at a different wrinkle on that elephant. Or maybe it's a tuft of whiskers instead.

 

[quatona]

Certainly what we consider to be right, moral, and wise will depend on what our beliefs and goals consist of.

And that´s why I consider our current exchange much more worthwhile than the comparably superficial question what is permissible in a committed relationship. We are seeking for the actual beliefs and goals that people´s answers to this question are founded on.
When posters here kept asking "For the life of me I can´t understand why anyone would...?", I was under the impression that they were interested in learning about exactly this. Turns out that you are the only one who even only consider the responses (as opposed to simply ignoring them or shooting them down). I appreciate that.

Immediately I think of the opposite though.

The opposite?

You mention that jealousy and other "negative" emotions are your possible natural response.

Sorry for interrupting - but just to make sure you don´t misunderstand: I wouldn´t call them "natural", I´d call them "immediate".

I have to consider how the presence of negative emotions will affect your SO's self actualization? Will she be negatively affected by your distress?

That depends entirely on her approach towards dealing with emotions. I mean, it´s called self-actualization for a reason.
I´m not sure, though, how the presence of negative emotions is the actual point. If I have them I have them. I have to deal with this fact, she has to deal with this fact. The question is rather: How do we deal with our own emotions and with those of the other person.

If you attempt to suppress your distress for her sake, then you are not living honestly.

This must be a huge misunderstanding. At no point did I mean to advocate or recommend the suppression of emotions. The opposite is the case: I am advocating to get fully aware of them, to explore them, etc. I´m also advocating to be fully open and honest about my emotions.

What happens if you flip that, and your SO's goal was focused on your self-actualization?

I am afraid we have another misunderstanding here. When talking about the pursuit of self-actualization in my previous post, I wasn´t talking about her self-actualization but about mine.

What are your needs? Can they be met inside the relationship, or must you go outside? If so, how would that affect her?

It´s pretty safe to say that she is confronted with similar emotions in herself as I am with mine in the reverse situation. She will decide how to deal with them, and I will have to deal with that. But how´s that of any relevance for me and how I deal with my own emotions? Why would my will to self-actualize be dependent on her doing the same if roles were swapped? It´s not a trade or something, is it?

Please, these are all just rhetorical questions.

So you didn´t expect responses? Sorry that I tried to answer, anyway.

I guess in the scenario you propose, I switch to consider both people.

Oh, most definitely I am doing this, as well. Just not by making assumptions about what would happened if roles were swapped.

I am not sure it's possible to pursue self-actualization independently and concurrently?

Well, I wouldn´t know why her hypothetical unwillingness to overcome her emotions could possibly prevent me from trying to overcome mine?

I just come from a completely different paradigm. I am reminded of situations where sacrifice of one's own needs actually prove to be very satisfying. My own best examples were in raising my daughter, and things I gave up in order to give her a good Christmas. The fact that I remember so well those feelings and scenarios so many years later - they were very satisfying to me. While I'm not advocating sacrifice for sacrifice's sake, necessarily, there is something to be said for enjoying what is done for the sake of another instead of being made to feel selfish in satisfying your own desires because they cause distress to someone you love?

Well, I know that Christianity is somewhat circled around the concept "sacrifice". It has never made much sense to me.
Of course, with the examples you give I know what you are talking about, and I would fully agree that helping another person to get what they need is rewarding, joyful, fulfilling. Actually, I felt that was the very content of my previous post. I just don´t know why I would call something rewarding, joyful, fulfilling a "sacrifice". The jury is still out whom a gift benefits more: the giver or the given. This is exactly what prompts me to refuse the concept "sacrifice": it assumes a conflict where there is none. For me, declaring (or thinking of) a gift to be a "sacrifice" takes all the beauty out of giving and being given.

Anyway, I would be interested in hearing why you call my willingness to nurture my generosity "suppression", and yours "sacrifice".

I´ll be gone for the weekend. All the best.

 

[selfinflikted]

I honestly have no idea how you get from there to it being a "requirement".
I have done thousands of things, I have done things several times - without any of them being a requirement. I just wanted to do them.

Of course. So have I.

But what I'm saying is, the OP makes it sound like without sleeping and cuddling together they can't have the friendship they need. Hence, requirement. Again, the OP is making it sound like a requirement.

 

[Hetta]

Eek, I missed that, selfinflikted.

Anyway, I think I've said all I had to say, to the point of overkill. <sorry>

So, I'm going to go and watch Torchwood instead.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

But maybe the OP didn´t mean to ask for advice and instead just wanted to provoke a discussion.

Correct, I'm not seeking advice, I just wanted to provoke discussion and hear opinions from other's on this subject.


Note-I'm sorry it was wrong of me to use the word *cuddling*, perhaps cuddled (top half spooning) at times would have been more accurate, the reality is we did more talking than sleeping, sometimes we cuddled while we talked, but most times we had no physical contact while we were sleeping.

 

[quatona]

Correct, I'm not seeking advice, I just wanted to provoke discussion and hear opinions from other's on this subject.

So, out of interest: What do you take home from the discussion?

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Permission from a wife to share your bed with another woman, does not mean it's okay or will be okay. As a Muslim, I would never dare ask such a question to my wife. Outside of Islam, there are too many varying factors that would cause problems later in the marriage. What if you shared the bed, and wound up having sex with that partner? What if she admitted having feelings for you? Also, what if that platonic relationship was with a woman who was married as well but did not have permission from her husband to do such things?

 

[HitchSlap]

Permission from a wife to share your bed with another woman, does not mean it's okay or will be okay. As a Muslim, I would never dare ask such a question to my wife. Outside of Islam, there are too many varying factors that would cause problems later in the marriage. What if you shared the bed, and wound up having sex with that partner? What if she admitted having feelings for you? Also, what if that platonic relationship was with a woman who was married as well but did not have permission from her husband to do such things?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Muslim men consider their wives property?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why am I still reading this thread? LOL ... since I stated my opinion and pretty much accepted that a couple of the posters here simply had a different opinion, and that was that.

I have to say, I pretty much agree with Hetta on a lot of points.

There was a time when, due to illness, my husband wasn't supplying what I needed in marriage. There was no real companionship, no intimacy, and no sex.

At that time, I had a family member (kind of) helping out. We had been friends for many years, he was actually a double-in-law (no blood relation) and I thought of him more-or-less as kind of a brother. We had gone out a few times (not as a date or anything), shooting pool, that kind of thing. Just relaxed and had fun together. I've done this with my brother as well.

At one point in time, I can't recall the reason exactly, we were both tired, and ended up lying down on a king-size bed. Both fully clothed, on top of the covers, each on our own side, not touching. Just resting, and we both slept. When I woke up, I recognized the intimacy of the situation, and to me it had crossed the line. In a way I WAS tempted, because it had been some time since I got what I needed in my marriage, and I had "loved" this man (in a familial, platonic way) for many years.

This was a danger to my marriage, and I immediately put distance between us, no longer finding companionship with him and certainly not sharing the proximity of a bed. We did nothing inappropriate, but it could have led to such (in my mind) and I felt the wise thing was to recognize that and stop it immediately.

I hadn't recognized the danger at first because he was "platonic" to me (as I said, practically a brother in my mind) and seemed safe.

Maybe those kinds of things wouldn't happen to another person ... but I don't think that's likely to be true. I don't think I'm unusual in that. I think MOST people would begin to be tempted in a situation like that.




What I'm imagining from your scenario is a marriage where - what? They live together, pay the bills together, have a household in common. But the need for intimacy is met outside of marriage by another person? That's not marriage in my book.

Of course I am acknowledging that that is MY position. And I think one that is shared by many. But you, or anyone else, always have the freedom to do what you think is right.

If the question is one of Christian morals, I don't think this falls within what is right in a Christian marriage. Outside of Christ, the world will always do what it wants to do, and that is not my place to legislate, but between every person and God.

(ETA: I realize my last sentence may be taken in the wrong way. I am NOT saying that everyone outside of Christ would do this. Not at all. I realize most non-Christians have morals that would make this wrong in their books as well. I mean no disrespect. My point was simply that I was posting from a Christian perspective, and as such, I don't believe it is our place to morally enforce the world outside of Christianity, especially on strictly interpersonal matters.)

Speaking of Christian morals, doesn't the OT recommend a man take care of his sister-in-law's needs when the husband can't?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Speaking of Christian morals, doesn't the OT recommend a man take care of his sister-in-law's needs when the husband can't?

Are you referring to when a man dies, his brother was to marry his wife if she had no children? The purpose as I understand it was in order that she can have children, and the firstborn was considered the child of the deceased brother - I suppose for purposes of inheritance and carrying on his line.

 

[~Anastasia~]

quatona,

My apologies. I saw you would be gone for the weekend and since I was pretty busy (still am) I put off replying ... and now it is almost the following weekend.

I'll try to format this back-and-forth so that I can reorganize my thoughts after the hiatus.

And my disclaimer: (Please, for you or anyone else reading, I am discussing these things from a basically theoretical standpoint, and fitting into your framework - this would not be something I would advocate - I say this because sometimes my theoretical discussions cause other members confusion and/or concern.)

Immediately I think of the opposite though.

The opposite?

I meant that I immediately switched to the other person's point of view (I think that's what that quote refers to). You spoke of your role in helping your partner achieve actualization ... I immediately considered your partner's point of view while attempting to achieve actualization, in view of the effect that attempt would have on you, their partner.

You mention that jealousy and other "negative" emotions are your possible natural response.

Sorry for interrupting - but just to make sure you don´t misunderstand: I wouldn´t call them "natural", I´d call them "immediate".

No worries about interruption. But ... would you not consider that your immediate emotional response represent your actual feelings?

I have to consider how the presence of negative emotions will affect your SO's self actualization? Will she be negatively affected by your distress?

That depends entirely on her approach towards dealing with emotions. I mean, it´s called self-actualization for a reason.
I´m not sure, though, how the presence of negative emotions is the actual point. If I have them I have them. I have to deal with this fact, she has to deal with this fact. The question is rather: How do we deal with our own emotions and with those of the other person.

Absolutely.

But I suppose I am looking at in terms of what I would consider to be the most likely human scenario?

For example, say your SO tells you that you are unable to meet her needs for intimacy, and she wishes to sleep/cuddle with someone else in order to have those needs met. Your immediate response is jealousy. As you don't wish to deny or suppress those feelings, you are now experiencing a negative emotion. (All this is for the purpose of illustration - I'm not trying to put feelings or words on either you or your SO - my apologies if making it personal seems offensive in any way.) And depending on how your SO responds to the fact that you have negative emotions ... if they distress your SO, then will she really be more self-actualized in the act of sleeping/cuddling with someone else, while knowing that she has caused you distress? And if the fact that her behavior in seeking her own needs causes you negative emotions doesn't distress her ... then I would be concerned that you have an entirely different set of problems.

If you attempt to suppress your distress for her sake, then you are not living honestly.

This must be a huge misunderstanding. At no point did I mean to advocate or recommend the suppression of emotions. The opposite is the case: I am advocating to get fully aware of them, to explore them, etc. I´m also advocating to be fully open and honest about my emotions.

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you would see this as a viable option. I only meant that in order to achieve someone else's self-actualization in such a scenario, one might try. We can agree that it is undesirable to suppress emotions.

What happens if you flip that, and your SO's goal was focused on your self-actualization?

I am afraid we have another misunderstanding here. When talking about the pursuit of self-actualization in my previous post, I wasn´t talking about her self-actualization but about mine.

Oh. Darn, LOL. I had forgotten this part of your response and wrote the above.

I hope you will just forgive me and we can go from there, if the remainder of the post turns out to be salvageable.

What are your needs? Can they be met inside the relationship, or must you go outside? If so, how would that affect her?

It´s pretty safe to say that she is confronted with similar emotions in herself as I am with mine in the reverse situation. She will decide how to deal with them, and I will have to deal with that. But how´s that of any relevance for me and how I deal with my own emotions? Why would my will to self-actualize be dependent on her doing the same if roles were swapped? It´s not a trade or something, is it?

No, I don't mean to suggest it was a trade.

I guess my overall point, regardless of who is seeking self-actualization, or if both are, and regardless of who is having needs met outside the relationship - over all of that, my point is basically - how can you seek happiness if doing it makes someone else unhappy? I'm not speaking in terms of selfishness, or not, but rather of the idea that if your actions hurt someone else, aren't they automatically robbed of the benefit you sought by doing them in the first place?

Please, these are all just rhetorical questions.

So you didn´t expect responses? Sorry that I tried to answer, anyway.

Your responses are fine. I only meant to say that if I were being too personal, the questions themselves were the point, and answers weren't necessary. If you don't mind discussing on personal terms though, it does make things easier.

I guess in the scenario you propose, I switch to consider both people.

Oh, most definitely I am doing this, as well. Just not by making assumptions about what would happened if roles were swapped.

I am not sure it's possible to pursue self-actualization independently and concurrently?

Well, I wouldn´t know why her hypothetical unwillingness to overcome her emotions could possibly prevent me from trying to overcome mine?

I was speaking more of conflicting desires/needs.

You speak of "overcoming emotions" ... how does that fit into your idea of self-actualization?

I guess I see a basic tension between emotions that are caused by the scenario (a partner seeking intimacy outside of the relationship) and a level of harmony - either interpersonal or intrapersonal.

I just come from a completely different paradigm. I am reminded of situations where sacrifice of one's own needs actually prove to be very satisfying. My own best examples were in raising my daughter, and things I gave up in order to give her a good Christmas. The fact that I remember so well those feelings and scenarios so many years later - they were very satisfying to me. While I'm not advocating sacrifice for sacrifice's sake, necessarily, there is something to be said for enjoying what is done for the sake of another instead of being made to feel selfish in satisfying your own desires because they cause distress to someone you love?

Well, I know that Christianity is somewhat circled around the concept "sacrifice". It has never made much sense to me.

Of course, with the examples you give I know what you are talking about, and I would fully agree that helping another person to get what they need is rewarding, joyful, fulfilling. Actually, I felt that was the very content of my previous post. I just don´t know why I would call something rewarding, joyful, fulfilling a "sacrifice". The jury is still out whom a gift benefits more: the giver or the given. This is exactly what prompts me to refuse the concept "sacrifice": it assumes a conflict where there is none. For me, declaring (or thinking of) a gift to be a "sacrifice" takes all the beauty out of giving and being given.

You have a good point. I don't mean that to give the gift itself was a sacrifice. Specifically, I was struggling financially (it was my first Christmas as a single parent, and I had just had to set up a household). I chose to return some things I had bought for the house that I needed, and I also didn't buy a coat though I needed one, in order to have some money to spend for Christmas. The gifts themselves were not the sacrifice, but it was necessary for me to sacrifice some needs in order to provide them. I hope that makes sense.

It wasn't really a matter of any Christian concept - it was simple fact.

Anyway, I would be interested in hearing why you call my willingness to nurture my generosity "suppression", and yours "sacrifice".

I´ll be gone for the weekend. All the best.

The sacrifice I already explained, hopefully to your satisfaction.

Willingness to nurture generosity - quite simply I did not see it that way. But you have a point. I did not assume that you would suppress your emotions, I merely saw it as one possibility that might allow your partner to enjoy intimacy with someone else without the potential burden of your negative emotional response. But I will admit, it was the only immediate possibility I could see of a way you could deal with those emotions (jealousy, etc.) to a degree that would prevent distress in your partner.

Again, my apologies for the delay in replying.

 

[Saleena]

In response to the OP

Dr.Cox - Master of saying "NO!" - YouTube

 

[Sammy-San]

Is it morally ok for a married man (with permission from his wife) to share a bed platonically with a friend of the opposite sex?

No. It's just plain creepy for a married person to sleep in the same bed with someone else who they aren't married to.