"Barring his mother from your home is not a tenable plan. She's family and he's clearly resolved to forgive her. It's his right to retain their bond, even if she acts like a nosy, old puritan. She absolutely violated your privacy and attempted to foist her sex-negative values on you (not to mention an extremely narrow interpretation of the function and meaning of sex toys). But she has no real power. Her weighing in is ultimately a mere annoyance. You don't have to change your ways at all. The sex toys can stay, just as she will be staying in your husband's life."
"Knowing that she's going to be around no matter what, you should figure out what you think would be sufficient amends. Maybe you all talk about it together, in a context where"
A privacy violation occurred when a mother-in-law searched a dresser drawer and confronted a partner about sex toys. The response emphasizes that permanently banning her is not workable because she is family and the husband intends to maintain the relationship. The violation is acknowledged as serious, including the imposition of sex-negative beliefs and a narrow view of sex toys. The recommended path is to keep personal practices unchanged while addressing the harm through agreed-upon amends. A conversation is suggested in a context that allows everyone to define what would be sufficient to move forward.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]