Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually it is mental illness or some other disability that prompts a family to care about their child’s welfare. I suppose they don’t want to see him dead in the streets.

This.

My brother vanished 13 years ago after arguments about basic expectations. It has tortured my parents.

Watch some movies about addicts. Even star in born.
You can literally do everything for them for zero payoff or improvement. You cannot your job, you can spend down your savings, you can hire the top psychologist and 12 month retreat clinic. Twice.

Zero payoff.

The mentally disordered person or addict has to want and drive the improvement. Not Mommy.

How can a “mentally disordered person” do this? They lack insight that they are ill. Do you also think an epileptic can just will themself to stop having seizures? I mean, I really don’t want my cancer to reoccur and I take a pretty toxic medication to help prevent that, but if it comes back anyway does that mean it’s my fault for not wanting remission bad enough?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cultures have inter generational homes and don't consider it "failure to launch." Also, you don't have as much control over your kids as you think. Your kids may end up a big mess no matter what a great job you did raising them. What are you going to do then, kick them to the curb?

Many cultures who do this are a mess. People should be able to be independent or at least contributing to their own livelihood for half of their life at least.

What cultures are you referring? The US was like this until the 1950s when the idea of the nuclear family (mom, dad and 2.3 kids living on their own) took on a life of its own.

You now read stories of the family “compound” coming back because the cost of housing, childcare and elder care is so expensive.

Usually, this is parents building an ADU where children come live, or the parents move into the ADU and the kids take over the house. Parents able to help with childcare and know they have family close by if they have an emergency.

This set up usually doesn’t involve kids never leaving…but maybe they are single until their 30s and everyone agrees the arrangement makes a ton of sense.

Italy for one. Mom doing the son's laundry and meals into their 40's while they play and date around. Their economy is tanking.

Anonymous wrote:Failure to Launch is an American phrase. A third of all young adults in Spain live at home, and half of young Italians. Stats are here: https://brilliantmaps.com/europe-live-parents/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually it is mental illness or some other disability that prompts a family to care about their child’s welfare. I suppose they don’t want to see him dead in the streets.

This.

My brother vanished 13 years ago after arguments about basic expectations. It has tortured my parents.

Watch some movies about addicts. Even star in born.
You can literally do everything for them for zero payoff or improvement. You cannot your job, you can spend down your savings, you can hire the top psychologist and 12 month retreat clinic. Twice.

Zero payoff.

The mentally disordered person or addict has to want and drive the improvement. Not Mommy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cultures have inter generational homes and don't consider it "failure to launch." Also, you don't have as much control over your kids as you think. Your kids may end up a big mess no matter what a great job you did raising them. What are you going to do then, kick them to the curb?

Many cultures who do this are a mess. People should be able to be independent or at least contributing to their own livelihood for half of their life at least.

What cultures are you referring? The US was like this until the 1950s when the idea of the nuclear family (mom, dad and 2.3 kids living on their own) took on a life of its own.

You now read stories of the family “compound” coming back because the cost of housing, childcare and elder care is so expensive.

Usually, this is parents building an ADU where children come live, or the parents move into the ADU and the kids take over the house. Parents able to help with childcare and know they have family close by if they have an emergency.

This set up usually doesn’t involve kids never leaving…but maybe they are single until their 30s and everyone agrees the arrangement makes a ton of sense.

Anonymous wrote:This man is 21, has never had a job, doesn’t attend college, does nothing. His parents (divorced) pay for everything he does; food, gas, car, phone, clothing. He bounces between his parents houses.

What do they each gain from this? Why doesn’t he want to launch? Why do they finance his lifestyle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My coworker has two adults sons living with him and his wife. They both work full time and mom does everything (clean, cook, laundry). I always sense that the mom sort of likes having her sons in the house. So maybe failure to launch in some way benefits parents (even if it’s a psychological).

I agree with this. My 30 something cousins work full time, make good money and live with their parents. One of them has a girlfriend he stays with sometimes and one doesn't date. My aunt absolutely loves having them at home because it makes her feel like she's still a young mother. She tries to commiserate with me about "cooking for boys" even though my boys are actually children!

Maybe she just enjoys being a mother. People who enjoy it don't just turn it off once their kids turn 18. People who were just going through the motions might be a different story.

That would gall me to compare cooking for adult kids to the relentless demands of feeding actual kids, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My coworker has two adults sons living with him and his wife. They both work full time and mom does everything (clean, cook, laundry). I always sense that the mom sort of likes having her sons in the house. So maybe failure to launch in some way benefits parents (even if it’s a psychological).

I agree with this. My 30 something cousins work full time, make good money and live with their parents. One of them has a girlfriend he stays with sometimes and one doesn't date. My aunt absolutely loves having them at home because it makes her feel like she's still a young mother. She tries to commiserate with me about "cooking for boys" even though my boys are actually children!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My coworker has two adults sons living with him and his wife. They both work full time and mom does everything (clean, cook, laundry). I always sense that the mom sort of likes having her sons in the house. So maybe failure to launch in some way benefits parents (even if it’s a psychological).

I agree with this. My 30 something cousins work full time, make good money and live with their parents. One of them has a girlfriend he stays with sometimes and one doesn't date. My aunt absolutely loves having them at home because it makes her feel like she's still a young mother. She tries to commiserate with me about "cooking for boys" even though my boys are actually children!

Maybe she just enjoys being a mother. People who enjoy it don't just turn it off once their kids turn 18. People who were just going through the motions might be a different story.

That would gall me to compare cooking for adult kids to the relentless demands of feeding actual kids, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Usually it is mental illness or some other disability that prompts a family to care about their child’s welfare. I suppose they don’t want to see him dead in the streets.

This.

My brother vanished 13 years ago after arguments about basic expectations. It has tortured my parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most cultures have inter generational homes and don't consider it "failure to launch." Also, you don't have as much control over your kids as you think. Your kids may end up a big mess no matter what a great job you did raising them. What are you going to do then, kick them to the curb?

Many cultures who do this are a mess. People should be able to be independent or at least contributing to their own livelihood for half of their life at least.

What cultures are you referring? The US was like this until the 1950s when the idea of the nuclear family (mom, dad and 2.3 kids living on their own) took on a life of its own.

You now read stories of the family “compound” coming back because the cost of housing, childcare and elder care is so expensive.

Usually, this is parents building an ADU where children come live, or the parents move into the ADU and the kids take over the house. Parents able to help with childcare and know they have family close by if they have an emergency.

This set up usually doesn’t involve kids never leaving…but maybe they are single until their 30s and everyone agrees the arrangement makes a ton of sense.

My father lived in a "family compound" like that -- several houses facing a quad. This was in the South. He left and never looked back. We never visited any of his relatives and lived as a strictly nuclear family. I really think, despite our idyllic suburban childhoods, that we missed out on a lot not having relatives around. It's just not healthy to live that way IMO. You see this all over DCUM -- the claws come out at even the slightest hint of overlapping with anyone else. Strange and pathological IMO, signs of an unsustainable society.