[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAzul

I used " " around forbid because I think that the word is being perhaps misused in the original poster's message. I didn't specifically say to my fiance (now husband) "I FORBID you to go to a strip joint, and if you do, I'll leave you." Because that sort of sounds patronizing. I said, "I'm not comfortable with you having strippers or going to a strip club because of x, y and z reason. It crosses a boundary for me in our relationship, and if you or your best man (who incidentally used to spend a LOT of time and money in strip clubs) feel it absolutely necessary to go to a strip club for your bachelor party, we're going to have to have a serious discussion about it."

No forbidding, but laying out there that I was not comfortable with it. I don't see how that makes it less trusting of him? I do trust that he would not cheat on me, let alone cheat with a woman who makes money off of such enterprises, otherwise we wouldn't have been in a relationship nor would we have gotten engaged. The stripper thing is a special situation that needs clarification, much like many things in married life.

I'm not sure I'm reading your last paragraph correctly? Yeah we have different interactions with our friends now that we're married, mainly because now we live together and we can't blow off the laundry to go spend the evening doing whatever else, plus we have to now budget for our household. But I don't get this

Remember, I was speaking as a hypothetical - I know absolutely nothing about your relationship other than what you've said, although it didn't seem at all like "forbid" entered into the equation, which was exactly my point. Forbidding someone is a poor method, for the reasons I've outlined, and might be indicative of the ancillary elements I laid out.

Also, you basically effectively forbid it without actually saying that - just an FYI, you might have felt better about the way it went down, but you did box him in pretty effectively if it went down like this. I know it's more nuanced than that, and I'm mostly teasing, but thought I'd note that.

I agree with your first sentence. It fundamentally altered what was expected of both of us. We're now legally and religiously bound to love, honor, respect and support each other. Before our marriage, we did those things because we loved each other and wanted to remain together. We now have to say "no" to some friend things (individually and as a couple) because we have to budget or because we have chores to do or because it's just not our bag. It's part of the deal.

So he's now required (note I didn't say "forced" - that was the implication you brought, though) to give up some things due to his new commitments and expectations. Conversely, he no longer does some of the things he used to do - hence, bachelor party, QED-ish.

Remember: he did those things before out of love, but now he's contractually bound. The whole enterprise is intended to joke with the dude that he can't do any of the things he NEVER DID BEFORE ANYWAY! Hence the dog collars or shots out of a turkey baster or whatever.

The second part is confusing. It sounds like you're saying because a couple haven't yet made their vows, that it's OK for a partner to celebrate with a stripper party because that's marking the transition into marriage? To me and my relationship, the stripper boundary existed waaaaaaaay before engagement and marriage came into the picture. Surely, a transition can be marked by any one of a number of other activities?

All I'm saying is that you're railing against a strawman by taking offense to the "last hurrah" portion of the presentation, then turning around and acknowledging that married life will require him to interact with his wife, his friends and really his day-to-day life differently. A bachelor party as celebration of the "end of an era" is not an insult to the wife any more than a wedding is an insult to his friends. After all, wouldn't that be the converse?

If some want to do it with strippers and bacchanalia, that's understandable in a way, because you're sort of rubbing the "loss" of that in the guy's face in a teasing or jocular manner - and once again, 95% of guys don't even do the things they're no longer 'allowed' to do by covenant or contract.

For what it's worth, I've been to literally dozens of bachelor parties and can't think of a single time in which the groom did something that I would consider morally reprehensible or wrong - certainly nothing even remotely close to what I would consider important for the wife-to-be to know. I think James was being incendiary.