In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Alun" wrote


Now, if one spouse is not a biological parent, that's potentially a
different ball game, but I won't go there.


Hell, I'll go there, because to not "go there" just panders to people with
twisted dirty little minds who think "something must be going on there".
Just to make it interesting, let's say that the child is adopted. Those of
us who are parents (and I think most who aren't parents) understand the
unconditional love parents have for their children, be they "natural",
"step", or "adopted".

Yup.

Of course, there are a notorious few who abuse children. They are the rare
exception, not the rule.

Until the very recent past, perhaps less than 150
years in this country, and much more recent than that in less developed
parts of the world, families didn't live in 3 and 4 bedroom homes where each
person had their own "space". Not only did Dad and Mom and the kids sleep
in the same place, but also Grandpa and Grandma and the occasional cousin or
Auntie or Uncle who might be without their own nuclear family to spend the
night with.

Yup.

And due to all sorts of diseases and the risks of childbirth, "blended
families" were extremely common. In some cases, the youngest children in a
family would have no blood relation to the oldest ones.

The concept of the "nuclear family" is extremely new.

Here's another situation for you: Lots of people I know go tent camping with
their kids. One tent per family. Bunch of sleeping bags on the floor of the
tent, or in the back of the minivan. Not exactly "the same bed" but not much
privacy either.

Are all those folks damaging their kids? I don't think so!

Dr. Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some
people live today in places outside her privileged neighborhood.

"Dr." Laura would likely have a heart attack if she saw how some
people live today in places *inside* her privileged neighborhood.

73 de Jim, N2EY