"For most of human history, bedroom and bed-sharing had everything to do with economics and square footage and very little to do with love. It was about the wealth of space. Rich folks had it. Most others did not. So they used it. Often the two rooms were connected by a dressing room or a shared bath."
"The working class was crammed into small cottages and urban tenements. Like children of the Great Depression, they shared beds out of necessity. Sometimes they even shared their beds with their children. And the most destitute may have even shared them with strangers. It was about having a place to sleep."
"Somewhere along the way, we took the whole thing and turned it on its head, deciding that sharing a bed was the truest measure of a healthy marriage. While I could go into the history of all this, many of us never knew that the twin bed was introduced as a health reform."
Separate sleeping arrangements have been mischaracterized as signs of marital problems, when historically they reflected wealth and practicality. For most of human history, bed-sharing resulted from economic necessity rather than romantic preference. Wealthy couples maintained separate bedrooms connected by dressing rooms or shared baths, while working-class families crowded into small spaces. The cultural shift toward viewing shared beds as essential to healthy marriages is relatively recent. Twin beds were even marketed in the 1950s as doctor-recommended for health reasons, based on beliefs that stronger sleepers drained vitality from weaker ones. Framing separate sleeping as marital dissolution is actively harmful and ignores the practical, civilized nature of this arrangement.
#sleep-arrangements #marriage-and-relationships #historical-economics #cultural-misconceptions #bedroom-design
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]