[calsy]

Humans have always slept in family groups. It seems like the more natural thing to do.

Likewise with nudity. Westerner's are hung up on covering themselves up in front of family members at a certain age. Many Asian cultures don't have that baggage. Bathing with family or going to a bathhouse is normal, and why wouldn't it be?

[hutzlibu]

Maybe, but for intimacy back in those times, there was plenty of private nature around, where couples could sneak away, while the grandmas watched the kids.

[calsy]

Those days, most of the world lives like this now. Intimacy when you have kids is not the highest priority that overrides everything. Im not saying its not important, just that you don't make life choices based on if we 'can get it on here'. You just have to get creative thats all.

Bonding with your child and thinking about their needs becomes more important.

[hutzlibu]

"Intimacy when you have kids is not the highest priority that overrides everything."

It is not, but it is still missing, when you don't manage to make room and time for it. Because when it is missing for too long, you can loose each other.

(And I have 2 small children btw. and been on the road with them. So I know a bit about "getting creative".)

[Retric]

Waiting for the kids to fall asleep likely transcends the ages… Kids naturally sleep more than adults, especially when very young.

[adventured]

So called "natural" doesn't always mean better. Fortunately we get to choose what we like or don't like, preferences.

Our distant ancestors had to put up with a lot of negatives that we do not necessarily need to. Just because they did it, doesn't mean they wanted to, it may mean they had mediocre alternatives (or no alternatives at all).

[calsy]

Ancestors? It's normal now, just not where you are. A couple of centuries ago a bunch of upper class Europeans in big homes made it a point of having separate rooms for kids as means of showing off their wealth and status, and now here we are.

You can see this history quite clearly now in the old castles Royal families live in and the obscene amount of rooms they have. Who can look after an 18 room castle? Someone with money and power, that's who.

So what part of changing the basic build blocks of family connections that have existed even before we were walking on 2 legs for a 'status symbol' makes it the better option?

Its funny we like to pretend we are smarter or 'know better now'. It couldn't be any further from the truth. We don't sleep properly, we can't eat properly, we don't exercise enough and we suffer through chronic loneliness. We are the worst examples of how human beings should live.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

From my reading, that's not where "modern living" comes from at all. For that, we should look to middle class folk living in the Netherlands, in roughly the late 1700s. They were (so I have read) the first to develop the modern concept of "home" with distinct rooms for different purposes, at least on a scale that be attained/reasonable aspired to by regular people. The account I read of this strongly suggested that this shift was not a copy of aristocracy/royalty, but rather a new conception rooted in the life and experience of a new mercantilist class.

[calsy]

And I'm sure the kids still remained with their parents at night. Through all of our known history across all cultures families have slept together. It is only in the past few centuries that European wealth and individualism changed that.

So why is this the 'better' option? What is the benefit from separating a child from their parents at night? More likely it just how our parents did it and everyone else does it so we inherently think its the best way.

What we think to be normal or right is in fact the complete opposite that based on our known history.

[recuter]

> And I'm sure the kids still remained with their parents at night. Through all of our known history across all cultures families have slept together. It is only in the past few centuries that European wealth and individualism changed that.

I am sure you are so sure because you are attempting to shoehorn reality into some vague political philosophy.

> So why is this the 'better' option? What is the benefit from separating a child from their parents at night?

Privacy for one. Some people claim letting your baby cry in the other room is healthier for their development, 'etc. If you insist on being post-modern about everything lets take it all the way, what even is 'better'? Why is 'better' even 'better'?

I'll keep my individualism thank you. You do your better and I'll do mine.

[calsy]

Political philosophy? Different cultures approach life in different ways. Where’s the politics in that?

Families sleeping together is the the absolute opposite of post modern.

Letting a baby cry out for its parents while it’s alone is a ‘good thing’ makes no intuitive sense. Feeding babies with bottles became normal for some reason until we understood that it was more for the benefit of the companies selling formula and decided ‘gasp’ breastfeeding might be preferred.

You keep your individualism? It’s the only thing you know, you have no idea what life is like otherwise. You just assume the culture you live in is the best version of how to do things.

[rayiner]

> Many Asian cultures don't have that baggage. Bathing with family or going to a bathhouse is normal, and why wouldn't it be?

And other Asian cultures are even more prudish about covering up around family than westerners.