Am I justified in being angry about this?

[Abomination]

If it's his computer and his house he can make whatever rules he damn well pleases for whatever reasons he damn well pleases.

Your anger is, however, justifiable... but so are his actions.

Theirs no excuse for physically intimidating your children. Yeah, its his computer, its fair enough if he doesn't want her chatting to boys on it. But standing in front of her and being so confrontational out it is out of line and she should have told him to calm his tits and back the fuck off.

She's not his child. She's the adult offspring of his romantic partner.

His house. His money. His computer. His rules. Don't like it? Leave.

Yeah, no. If he claims parental authority, he has to act like a parent. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And by that logic everyone can do anything and everyone else just has to deal with it or fuck off.

I don't see how ownership of an item somehow translates into full-scale anarchy.

No, there are rules and etiquette in society for a reason and not using your physical strength and presence to intimidate your child (or a child you've taken responsibility of) is one of them. The rules part is fine. He can have rules. He can enforce said rules. Within the limits of acceptable behavior.

She's not a child. She's an adult. 22 years old.

I didn't realize her mom owned nothing at all.

50% of ownership of something is still infinitely more ownership and carries infinitely more authority over something than 0% ownership of something.

 

[Olas]

If you were using his computer in his house I'd say he has reason to be concerned about you possibly using the webcam or doing other things that could compromise privacy. That being said, he treated you like a child when you're clearly not, he really has no right to 'punish' you anymore and if he tried to I'd just ignore him and/or leave.

I guess the answer is yes, I think you are angry in being angry, but more because of his tone than what he was condemning you for doing.

 

[Abomination]

I didn't realize her mom owned nothing at all.

50% of ownership of something is still infinitely more ownership and carries infinitely more authority over something than 0% ownership of something.

Oh so how did you determine that her mom did not say that she could use that computer and did not let her in the house and would be okay with the rules he's imposing in her house? Because it sounds like if the OP brought it up her mom would be disagreeing with her husband.

Then that's something her mother needs to bring up with her mother's husband.

Ownership actually confers more rights of denial than rights of authority. If you own half a car and just because the owner of the other half granted a third party permission to use it the owner who does not want the third party to use it receives precedence.

 

[sweetylnumb]

I didn't realize her mom owned nothing at all.

50% of ownership of something is still infinitely more ownership and carries infinitely more authority over something than 0% ownership of something.

Oh so how did you determine that her mom did not say that she could use that computer and did not let her in the house and would be okay with the rules he's imposing in her house? Because it sounds like if the OP brought it up her mom would be disagreeing with her husband.

Then that's something her mother needs to bring up with her mother's husband.

Ownership actually confers more rights of denial than rights of authority. If you own half a car and just because the owner of the other half granted a third party permission to use it the owner who does not want the third party to use it receives precedence.

Ownership of his computer does not allow him to act like an asshole.

And age is no excuse. Just because shes left home doesn't mean he can suddenly start acting like a twat and go all manly daddy dominance everytime she almost but actually doesnt does something he doesn't like.

Also if shes so old and not his child and shit then in what universe can you tell a visitor to your house that they just narrowly avoided some horrible punishment? What is he going to do, send her to bed without supper?

I thought it was just common sense that having rules didnt mean you could be a total asshole about enforcing them. Im not saying it wasnt his right, he just went about it in a completely inappropriate way and thus yes she should be angry.

 

[Abomination]

I didn't realize her mom owned nothing at all.

50% of ownership of something is still infinitely more ownership and carries infinitely more authority over something than 0% ownership of something.

Oh so how did you determine that her mom did not say that she could use that computer and did not let her in the house and would be okay with the rules he's imposing in her house? Because it sounds like if the OP brought it up her mom would be disagreeing with her husband.

Then that's something her mother needs to bring up with her mother's husband.

Ownership actually confers more rights of denial than rights of authority. If you own half a car and just because the owner of the other half granted a third party permission to use it the owner who does not want the third party to use it receives precedence.

Ownership of his computer does not allow him to act like an asshole.

"Allow"? Of course it does. Everyone's allowed to act like an asshole.

And age is no excuse. Just because shes left home doesn't mean he can suddenly start acting like a twat and go all manly daddy dominance everytime she almost but actually doesnt does something he doesn't like.

Yes he can. He's completely within his right to do so.

Also if shes so old and not his child and shit then in what universe can you tell a visitor to your house that they just narrowly avoided some horrible punishment? What is he going to do, send her to bed without supper?

In our universe, actually. If she's a visitor he can tell her to get out of his house at any moment and that would likely be a very serious punishment.

I thought it was just common sense that having rules didnt mean you could be a total asshole about enforcing them. Im not saying it wasnt his right, he just went about it in a completely inappropriate way and thus yes she should be angry.

I have never said she isn't justified in being angry, but he has every right to do exactly as he did.

Oh right so he doesn't have to consider that it doesn't solely belong to him. And you don't even know if the computer is in fact hers and not his.

You're merely evading the fact he took a unilateral stance on something that may not have belonged solely to him, in a manner that it seems his wife would likely not approve of.

I can not be certain it does not solely belong to him or solely belongs to the mother but it has a far higher probability of being his or being shared ownership than it does being just the mother's and it certainly has a far FAR higher probability of not being the OP's in any case.

So since we're not dealing with a scenario that we know everything about - and if it really didn't belong to the father in any way I'm certain the OP would have mentioned so - I'm going to lean towards the side that has the far higher statistical probability of being true.

 

[Gromril]

As a rule, if you have to ask, the answer is no.

Seriously, you are both grown ass men. If he doesnt like you using shit in his house (or your mums or whatever) then thats his buisiness, but hes got no way of punishing you so remind him of such if he gets lippy again.

 

[Johnny Impact]

His house, his computer, his rules. Be as upset as you want, but understand it doesn't change anything.