Let me clarify my question.
Are you moving with them? because quitting your job to move away with your parents is a definite “no”
If not, then I say you were sheltering yourself a bit if you are capable of living on your own and were too lazy to move, so “no”.
Just my opinion, ymmv, void where prohibited, etc
I’ve already agreed some posts back that it is not so.
I’m trying to keep things simple, because apparently the more qualifiers we throw in at once, the more chance there is for confusion.
By me moving somewhere else.
And the more you simplify the concepts, the more you move the conversation from the reality of the middle to the unreality of the extremes, where either every single adult child who lives at home is a sponging loser or every single adult child who lives at home is a completely well-adjusted success story. It is not in the least confusing to admit that neither of those sweeping statements is true and to move on.
I lived at home my freshman year of college. This was at a large Big Ten school (and not one with a large commuting population like Minnesota). I think it was one of the biggest mistakes I made. Granted, due to scholarships and the vastly reduced cost, I didn’t have to take out any student loans. However, that entire year I was miserable–I felt cut off from campus life and things really felt like an extension of high school. I even worked the same job I had in high school.
One thing I might consider is looking at Craigslist or other classifieds for people looking for sublettors or temporary roommates. On 2 different occasions, I ended up living with random people I found via “roommate wanted” lists. Yes, it was a risk, but I didn’t want to live at home.
Just as some people are making the assumption that living at home=leech, others are making the assumption that living on one’s own=abject poverty. Yeah, if your friend had his own place, he probably wouldn’t be able to travel to Asia for 2 months. Or he would have to save up a little longer. Or maybe he’d go to Europe for a week. But the fact is, it’s rare enough that he was given 2 months off from work. Not to bring another car analogy back into it, but it seems just as dubious as someone living at home so they could buy a Ferrari when they could have their own place and drive a used Honda.
So, if it’s possible to lead an equally well adjusted life either living with parents by oneself, would you agree then, that it becomes a matter of personal preference whether one chooses to live with parents or not (obviously given that the parents fully consent to the arrangement)?
It is NOT in every case possible to lead an equally well adjusted life either living with parents or by oneself. Living at home with your parents as an adult is not uncommonly a red flag that the person has issues, be they large or small, be they permanent or temporary, be they finanical or emotional or whatever. And even if the adult child lives at home by personal preference as opposed to need, why is that personal preference and demonstrated disinterest in independence something to be admired?
Right. I don’t think anyone bold enough to be a world traveler for 2 months is a loser, but he wouldn’t impress me if he used that as a reason for why he had to live with his parents. I’d like to take a two month long vacation too, but I can’t because I have to pay rent. Which I guess just makes me a jealous bitch. 
I think living at home temporarily is definitely a great way at snatching up opportunities (like traveling or internships) that would normally be elusive. As long as the parents don’t mind and there’s actually opportunity-hunting going on, people shouldn’t feel bad for going home.
I’m not sure if I’m reading this the way you intended, but while this is true, it has no bearing on my original statement. You’re essentially saying that some people are going to be freaks no matter where they live?
That’s your opinion. It wouldn’t be to me, but fair enough.
I don’t agree with the premesis that to preferr living with parents automatically means “un-independent”. To start, how do you define it? You’ve accepted that it may be a personal preference, which I interpret to mean that the hid is well off enough to rent on his own if he so desired.
It’s not a ‘premise’. Merriam Webster defines independence as:
“(1): not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) <independent of her parents>”
If you live with your parents, unless you are supporting them (e.g., you own the house and pay the bills) you are by definition not independent. What on earth did you think it meant?
No. At no time have I said this. And I responded directly to your original statement, so I’m really not certain how you might conclude my response has “no bearing” on your statement. If I could identify the source of your confusion, I would address it.
Unless you are are a fully-contributing roommate who just happens to live with your parents, you are not fully independent.
I use the generally accepted definiton of independent, which would not include having your life’s expenses subsidized by your parents.
Not necessarily. An adult child may prefer to live at home regardless of their ability to live somewhere else; ability to live somewhere else (independence) and desire to do so (preference) are not the same thing. And as I said, why is a personal preferencee to live with your parents an admirable thing?
You don’t understand how it’s possible to LIVE WITH your parents and at the same time "not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) " ?
If you rent an apartment, are you then dependent on my landlord for “care and livelihood”?
Sorry, the above was directed at XJETGIRLX
OK, then kindly explain, in single syllables, the following quote.
Moving on,
Sure, easily done. Unless you have some reason that it cannot?
Where at any point did I say that (the bolded portion)?
EXACTLY, is it possible to have both?
You haven’t agreed that it IS a personal preference yet. 1 step at a time please.
No. Having re-read it, I think the meaning is clear. There is no rephrasing I can think of for “It is NOT in every case possible to lead an equally well adjusted life either living with parents or by oneself” that would make it any more understandable.
You asked me for my definition of independent; I gave it.
Impossible? No. Probable? No. It is not “easily done.” People who can afford to live independently in American culture generally do so.
AFAIK or CT, it is in the majority of cases NOT a personal preference. It is in the vast majority of cases appearing in this very thread not a true personal preference, meaning that the responding posters live with their parents solely or even primarily because that is their preference. And you have now twice refused to explain why, even if it is a true personal preference, that is an admirable thing that would make one attractive as a prospective mate. For many people – most, in American society – it isn’t an attractor. And people who consider it a strike against a dating prospect are not unreasonable to do so.
And, by complete coincidence, here is another success story about an adult child moving home. It seems to be the adult child’s personal preference to live at home, remain dependent, and take advantage of her parents. She has the means to live elsewhere (or could acquire the means by minimal effort) but just chooses not to do so – completely her own preference. Now you explain to me how having the means to live elsewhere but just choosing not to makes her actions okay.
OK, it is NOT in every case, but in some or most cases, it is?
So explain why it’s impossible to live with one’s parents and yet not have "your life’s expenses subsidized by your parents. "?
It’s not GD, I’m not going to ask you for a cite as to why it isn’t “probable”, but yes, it IS easily done, I did it, lots of people I know have. Do you have any reason as to why it isn’t easily done? I take the money out of my wallet, I give it to my parents. Which part is suppose to be the difficult one?
Are you simply saying that because most people prefer A, anyone who chooses B must be doing it against their will?
Well, are you still claiming there is some objective reason why someone living with their parents COULD be otherwise as well adjusted and what-not as someone living on their own?
It strikes me as really odd that you would think I would know Throatwarbler Mangrove’s biography. I am not keeping track of him. But the argument has been framed in the context of this culture. I highly doubt it’s very different in Canada, btw. And if you expect to date women from these cultures, but have them judge you based not on their standards but China’s, you’re kidding yourself. Why should they?
I don’t know if he’s looser, or a loser. I also didn’t call him that, though others in this thread have called those who live at home losers, which I stated may have caused TM and others to be so stridently defensive, understandably so. However, he did mischaracterize me as being wealthy and materialistic, and my owning a house as a luxury akin to owning a Ferrari, based on his snap judgements, oversimplifications, and fondness for hyperbole. I guess that can be written off as a cultural difference too? I don’t know.
I actually got the impression that it was because he was a cheapskate, but again, don’t know.
FTR and once again, I never called anyone a loser. But if you’re going to be fair and only judge people by their cultural norms, independence and self-determination are bonafide American values. If an immigrant from China doesn’t value those things as highly, fine, but then, when American women don’t want to date him because they don’t like that he lives with his mom… that’s just too bad. That doesn’t make the woman shallow. She’s choosing not to date him based on her values, just as he is living with his mom based on his. Fair enough?
It doesn’t. When did I say it does? Where were you going with this?
I don’t really know. I find it hard to theorize why someone who is well-adjusted would continue to live at home with their parents, in the absence of cultural conditioning. I am well aware that in some other cultures, children frequently live at home until marriage or even thereafter. In America, well adjusted adult children generally do not. Our culture values things like privacy, independence, and self-reliance, which are not as easily acquired or maintained if you live with your parents. So I guess it depends on how you’re defining well-adjusted. I think it’s fair to say we don’t define it the same way.
I never said it was impossible. I said it was unlikely.
Of course. It is not easily done to live fully independent from your parents and live in their home, simply because they are your parents. The nature of the parent-child relationship is not one of independence, it is one of a parent guiding, supporting, and being deeply involved in the life of a child who is not independent but who is being raised. It is quite obviously not easy to transition from a parent-juvenile child relationship to a relationship between adults when you continue to reside in their home. There are issues of privacy and issues of attempting to transition from a completely intimate parent-juvenile child relationship (where they know what you do, who you’re with, when you come home) to a relationship with adult boundaries where they are no longer intitled to that sort of information and are intrusive if they demand it. It seems to me self-evident that such a fundamental transition in family dynamics is more difficult when the child hasn’t left home. IOW, you live at home you don’t come home until 3 a.m., your mom sits up and worries. Doesn’t matter how old you are, she does, because that’s what moms do. You live in your own place, your mom doesn’t know where you are at 3 a.m. You live with a landlord, he doesn’t give a shit where you are at 3 a.m. Your parents do, because they are your parents. The fundamentals of that dynamic never change entirely, and they very frequently make it problematic for an adult who longer appreciates that degree of parental interest to continue to live at home. Because he wants to be independent and not just financially so.
The part where you remain their child and they continue to be your parents.
No, I’m not “simply saying” that. In fact, I never said that. I realize that it would be easier for you to refute what you wish I said, but I’m not going to oblige you. I’m afraid you’ll have to address yourself to things I actually said instead of repeatedly attempting to twist them into things I very clearly never said.
Someone raised in American culture? I don’t see how that peson could possibly be as well adjusted. They’ve never lived on their own. They prefer to live with their parents. How is that well-adjusted? Again, I guess it depends how you define it.
And that’s three times you’ve disregarded my question as to why, even if a person lives with their parents completely as a personal preference, that should be considered a positive thing. You seem quite good at asking me different versions of the same questions in the vain hope you’ll get a different answer; it would be nice if you’d actually answer the question I asked you.
I’m going to this point: (a) having the means to live independently elsewhere but (b) choosing through complete personal preference to remain in your parents house – the two elements you have been harping on – do not necessarily indicate you are a well-adjusted adult. They just as likely (more likely, IME) indicate you’re a freeloading sponge.
And just because it’s late and I’m tired – going to bed, actually – let me just let you know upfront that your attempts to box me into a corner may lead to me hardening my position in opposition to yours, but they will never in a million years lead to me conceding you are correct when I don’t believe you are. So we can chase this mouse around the barnyard for as long as you want (well, until I get bored), but it doesn’t strike me as advancing the discussion one iota.
Why worry? You sound like you’ve got a pretty solid argument still hidden up your sleeve, don’t be afraid to bring it out any time.
We’ll know when you get bored, I suppose. Good night.