The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I actually read that as "you must be emotionally mature and self assured for polyamory to work." From my understanding it did not mean "If you are not ok with polyamory you must not be emotionally mature or self assured."
Exactly.
Maturity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for polyamory to work.
And ege is right. Most people don't have the necessary maturity. What he left out is that some people have the necessary maturity, but aren't interested in it for completely different reasons.
Well, I left it out because it seemed obvious enough.
I didn't mean to imply that whoever is not interested in polyamory must be emotionally immature and not self-assured.
I'm with JK on this one - the implication is that if you're in a more conventional 2-person relationship then somehow you do not have these traits.
Man what the hell. If I read a statement in these forums and don't give someone the benefit of the doubt then I'm reading it wrong and arguing against something that wasn't said. If I do read it and interpret it literally and don't read into it, I'm also wrong.
If you refrain from reading into it the statement, you will notice it doesn't say that you are emotionally stunted if you are in a monogamous relationship.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I notice my hippy-ish Renaissance Fair friends are really into polyamory. I don't think its about the sex or the commitment but they are addicted to the drama that spawns from it.
If you choose to raise a child in a polyamorous house hold, a huge con to that is trying to do a bunch of every day things like, oh, going to a parent-teacher meeting. And that goes back to what ElJeffe says, you're going to have jealousy and drama. I mean, if you can handle that, more power to you, but it seems like people can barely juggle their wife/husband and kid :P
Here's what's breaking my brain with this whole child-rearing discussion.
Just because the parents have polyamorous lovers doesn't necessarily give those lovers any authority over the children.
Yes, I understand that there is probably a poly group somewhere that's decided that they're going to form a little village to raise a child and they're all going to chip in equally. And I would agree that that's a bad idea. I also think that is a decision that is related to, but separate from, the decision to be polyamorous.
When I was discussing children in my last poly relationship, it was pretty clear how things would work for us. My partner and I are the parents; our children are ours to raise. Any extramarital lovers who want to horn in on that have to respect our authority. We might go to them for suggestions or for occasional babysitting much the way we would go to a grandparent or uncle, but there is absolutely no reason that our secondary lovers would need to be involved in things like parent-teacher meetings or major life decisions.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I notice my hippy-ish Renaissance Fair friends are really into polyamory. I don't think its about the sex or the commitment but they are addicted to the drama that spawns from it.
I don't think that's a universal vision of polyamorous child rearing. I was reading an account on Pandagon from a polyamorous woman who was dreaming of buying a house and raising children with her numerous partners.
I'll also point out that my last poly relationship was relatively drama-free.
No relationship is 100% drama-free, but what little drama we had had nothing to do with other lovers, and we had significantly less drama than my last relationship (which was monogamous) and less drama than the many of the monogamous relationships I've seen around me.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If you choose to raise a child in a polyamorous house hold, a huge con to that is trying to do a bunch of every day things like, oh, going to a parent-teacher meeting. And that goes back to what ElJeffe says, you're going to have jealousy and drama. I mean, if you can handle that, more power to you, but it seems like people can barely juggle their wife/husband and kid :P
Here's what's breaking my brain with this whole child-rearing discussion.
Just because the parents have polyamorous lovers doesn't necessarily give those lovers any authority over the children.
Yes, I understand that there is probably a poly group somewhere that's decided that they're going to form a little village to raise a child and they're all going to chip in equally. And I would agree that that's a bad idea. I also think that is a decision that is related to, but separate from, the decision to be polyamorous.
When I was discussing children in my last poly relationship, it was pretty clear how things would work for us. My partner and I are the parents; our children are ours to raise. Any extramarital lovers who want to horn in on that have to respect our authority. We might go to them for suggestions or for occasional babysitting much the way we would go to a grandparent or uncle, but there is absolutely no reason that our secondary lovers would need to be involved in things like parent-teacher meetings or major life decisions.
That sounds like an "open marriage" type of deal. Would you object to that kind of label? I'm not trying to put you down or anything, that's just what came to mind when reading your description.
Do you think mommy and daddy having extra lovers would be confusing/harmful to children at all? I'm not sure if it's inherently harmful or only harmful to the extent that mommy and daddy can't/won't explain exactly how their relationships work, or the child simply can't comprehend the idea of it.
A lot of people seem to take the notion that a broad network of family is good for children and extend that to mean that having 3 or more parents is a grand idea. It isn't. As was pointed out, people fight about how to raise kids all the time. There's a lot of drama in childrearing, and much of it boils down to the fact that you have two people who are The Boss, and they don't always agree.
Broad networks of family work great because, while everyone can chip in and help out and provide guidance and love, there's the understanding that the parents are the rule makers. When there's disagreement, they win out. There's no question of what to do when mom and grandma disagree over proper punishment - mom has the trump card.
When you have 3 or 4 or however many parents, you're going to have a whole fuckton of arguments. Throw that on top of issues of sharing quality time, standard jealousy issues (they exist even in two-parent families, and more parents makes it worse), and lots of other problems, and polyamorous families become a giant clusterfuck.
Polyamory is fine and dandy if you can handle the challenges therein (most people can't - I sure couldn't), but when it comes to children, pick a single fuckpartner and be done with it.
would it be best if we required that the two parents decide amongst themselves before the child is born who has the trump card between them?
I mean, if reducing the number of bosses is the argument against poly, then surely 1 boss is better than two?
Or are single parents the best idea, rather than appointing one parent as subservient, and the other as the master(mistress?) of the house?
If you choose to raise a child in a polyamorous house hold, a huge con to that is trying to do a bunch of every day things like, oh, going to a parent-teacher meeting. And that goes back to what ElJeffe says, you're going to have jealousy and drama. I mean, if you can handle that, more power to you, but it seems like people can barely juggle their wife/husband and kid :P
Here's what's breaking my brain with this whole child-rearing discussion.
Just because the parents have polyamorous lovers doesn't necessarily give those lovers any authority over the children.
See, I was talking about a long-term polyamorous group that was living together and also raising children. It's obviously different if it's basically just an open marriage where the parents are free to canoodle as they see fit with whomever they please. In that case, I think it's fine, provided there's an element of discretion (assuming younger children, here).
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Do you think mommy and daddy having extra lovers would be confusing/harmful to children at all?
Possibly, if handled poorly.
"Mommy is out with a friend tonight" should be enough information for a child when she wants to know why daddy is home alone. If other partners are coming over, they should either get their freak on discretely or the kids should be dropped off at a relative's.
I'll point out that I've never been a big fan of poly cohabitation. I'm pretty skeptical of cohabitation in general, mostly because I'm a fiercely solitary person.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'll point out that I've never been a big fan of poly cohabitation. I'm pretty skeptical of cohabitation in general, mostly because I'm a fiercely solitary person.
Might one call you feral?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think poly is just as valid an option as any other child rearing choice. Single parents, gay lovers, committed unmarried hetero's, 3 daddy's and a mommy, i don't see how one is inhererntly better than the others. Apparently drama is going to go way up with extra parents, but wouldn't parental supervision/support also go up? Stress from over worked parents go down with more hands to handle all the feeding, cleaning, soccer practise etc?
I'll point out that I've never been a big fan of poly cohabitation. I'm pretty skeptical of cohabitation in general, mostly because I'm a fiercely solitary person.
Might one call you feral?
Hey feral cats like eachother, they just don't like anyone/anything else
Medopine on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I think poly is just as valid an option as any other child rearing choice. Single parents, gay lovers, committed unmarried hetero's, 3 daddy's and a mommy, i don't see how one is inhererntly better than the others. Apparently drama is going to go way up with extra parents, but wouldn't parental supervision/support also go up? Stress from over worked parents go down with more hands to handle all the feeding, cleaning, soccer practise etc?
Secondly, that a parent dividing their time and "emotional intimacy" - I'm assuming that this is polyamory and not just a fuckbuddy/guest-star scenario - among many partners has that much less time for their child. We all know there are consequences for children whose parents devote (either by choice or necessity) inordinate amounts of time to their work; how can the same not be true of people who fritter that time away with relationships? The obvious objection to this is that perhaps the extra partner(s) will pick up the slack, but speaking as somebody with a stepparent I can assure you that this is hardly an adequate substitute.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not talking about what we've agreed to call "open marriage", which sounds like an eminently sensible arrangement.
I'll point out that I've never been a big fan of poly cohabitation. I'm pretty skeptical of cohabitation in general, mostly because I'm a fiercely solitary person.
Might one call you feral?
Quiza, el jefe.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Do you think mommy and daddy having extra lovers would be confusing/harmful to children at all?
Possibly, if handled poorly.
"Mommy is out with a friend tonight" should be enough information for a child when she wants to know why daddy is home alone. If other partners are coming over, they should either get their freak on discretely or the kids should be dropped off at a relative's.
I'll point out that I've never been a big fan of poly cohabitation. I'm pretty skeptical of cohabitation in general, mostly because I'm a fiercely solitary person.
I really don't get why it's healthy for a child to be able to hear mom having her head slammed against the headboard if it's just daddy home, but not if mommy's friend "River" is over as well. Either having a child exposed to their parents sexuality is harmfull, or it's not, or their are degrees, and then when do you draw the line? Is it wrong to allow your child to overhear a threesome but ok to allow them to hear thier father call the mother mistress and the mother refer to the dad as "slut worm" while behind closed doors?
I think poly is just as valid an option as any other child rearing choice. Single parents, gay lovers, committed unmarried hetero's, 3 daddy's and a mommy, i don't see how one is inhererntly better than the others. Apparently drama is going to go way up with extra parents, but wouldn't parental supervision/support also go up? Stress from over worked parents go down with more hands to handle all the feeding, cleaning, soccer practise etc?
Yeah but you might get added stress from trying to schedule those extra helpers in a way that didn't create jealousy and allowed all of them to get quality time with the kiddo without stepping on anyone else's toes.
I wouldn't say outright all polyamorous relationships shouldn't involve a child, but I guess I only think it would work in a situation as described by Feral, where the primary decisionmaking is limited to a small number of people.
I think poly is just as valid an option as any other child rearing choice. Single parents, gay lovers, committed unmarried hetero's, 3 daddy's and a mommy, i don't see how one is inhererntly better than the others. Apparently drama is going to go way up with extra parents, but wouldn't parental supervision/support also go up? Stress from over worked parents go down with more hands to handle all the feeding, cleaning, soccer practise etc?
Secondly, that a parent dividing their time and "emotional intimacy" - I'm assuming that this is polyamory and not just a fuckbuddy/guest-star scenario - among many partners has that much less time for their child. We all know there are consequences for children whose parents devote (either by choice or necessity) inordinate amounts of time to their work; how can the same not be true of people who fritter that time away with relationships? The obvious objection to this is that perhaps the extra partner(s) will pick up the slack, but speaking as somebody with a stepparent I can assure you that this is hardly an adequate substitute.
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not talking about what we've agreed to call "open marriage", which sounds like an eminently sensible arrangement.
i think that using anecdotal data to justify an argument that a certian type of family is wrong, is a poor idea.
Your situation didn't seem to work out for you, or at least you seem to think it never. That's hardly evidence that it an't work out.
Zonkytonkman on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Yeah but you might get added stress from trying to schedule those extra helpers in a way that didn't create jealousy and allowed all of them to get quality time with the kiddo without stepping on anyone else's toes.
That's a big thing. Diminishing returns kick sharply into play the more people you have handling child-rearing. I spent my time shuttling between two divorced parents (my dad remarried) and my dad's parents, and even living in the same city relatively close to one another that meant a huge portion of my childhood was spent in the backseat of cars.
I think poly is just as valid an option as any other child rearing choice. Single parents, gay lovers, committed unmarried hetero's, 3 daddy's and a mommy, i don't see how one is inhererntly better than the others. Apparently drama is going to go way up with extra parents, but wouldn't parental supervision/support also go up? Stress from over worked parents go down with more hands to handle all the feeding, cleaning, soccer practise etc?
Yeah but you might get added stress from trying to schedule those extra helpers in a way that didn't create jealousy and allowed all of them to get quality time with the kiddo without stepping on anyone else's toes.
I wouldn't say outright all polyamorous relationships shouldn't involve a child, but I guess I only think it would work in a situation as described by Feral, where the primary decisionmaking is limited to a small number of people.
i don't agree. Businesses are sometimes co-owned by a number of people. my current company has 3 principals. I don't see why three people could not do as good a job raising a child as two.
Secondly, that a parent dividing their time and "emotional intimacy" - I'm assuming that this is polyamory and not just a fuckbuddy/guest-star scenario - among many partners has that much less time for their child. We all know there are consequences for children whose parents devote (either by choice or necessity) inordinate amounts of time to their work; how can the same not be true of people who fritter that time away with relationships? The obvious objection to this is that perhaps the extra partner(s) will pick up the slack, but speaking as somebody with a stepparent I can assure you that this is hardly an adequate substitute.
I know that we're now distinguishing between polyamorous cohabitation and an open marriage, but I do want to point out here that I wouldn't take somebody as a lover in an open situation who I wouldn't be comfortable having around my kids. Sure, I wouldn't want the kids around if we're going to have loud sex with extramarital partners, but on the other hand if I'm going to throw a dinner party or a barbecue or something with lovers or former lovers over they'd have to be people I wouldn't mind playing with my kids.
So in that regard it's a little like having an extended family, and I think there's an old saying about that... "semen is thicker than water." Isn't that how it goes?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Yeah but you might get added stress from trying to schedule those extra helpers in a way that didn't create jealousy and allowed all of them to get quality time with the kiddo without stepping on anyone else's toes.
That's a big thing. Diminishing returns kick sharply into play the more people you have handling child-rearing. I spent my time shuttling between two divorced parents (my dad remarried) and my dad's parents, and even living in the same city relatively close to one another that meant a huge portion of my childhood was spent in the backseat of cars.
so three adults cohabiting while raising a child would solve that, no?
Zonkytonkman on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited May 2008
I'd think this obvious, but rearing a child is a bit different from owning a business. One obvious difference is that children aren't easily divisible without some tedious chainsaw labor.
Secondly, that a parent dividing their time and "emotional intimacy" - I'm assuming that this is polyamory and not just a fuckbuddy/guest-star scenario - among many partners has that much less time for their child. We all know there are consequences for children whose parents devote (either by choice or necessity) inordinate amounts of time to their work; how can the same not be true of people who fritter that time away with relationships? The obvious objection to this is that perhaps the extra partner(s) will pick up the slack, but speaking as somebody with a stepparent I can assure you that this is hardly an adequate substitute.
I know that we're now distinguishing between polyamorous cohabitation and an open marriage, but I do want to point out here that I wouldn't take somebody as a lover in an open situation who I wouldn't be comfortable having around my kids. Sure, I wouldn't want the kids around if we're going to have loud sex with extramarital partners, but on the other hand if I'm going to throw a dinner party or a barbecue or something with lovers or former lovers over they'd have to be people I wouldn't mind playing with my kids.
So in that regard it's a little like having an extended family, and I think there's an old saying about that... "semen is thicker than water." Isn't that how it goes?
i've heard "blood is thicker than water", but isn't that just something about how to launder bloody clown suits?
Zonkytonkman on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I'd think this obvious, but rearing a child is a bit different from owning a business. One obvious difference is that children aren't easily divisible without some tedious chainsaw labor.
i realize it's not a perfect analogy, but some of it works. You have three people with "ownership" over something that they all have a personal (and usually emotional) stake in, and all three have to agree on decisions, while keeping all arguments civil enough that they can keep coming back to work on the following day.
It's not perfect, but it shows that a three people can lead something together, as equals.
I think that three could work - beyond that you might be pushing it (in terms of primary caretaker and decision maker)
Also how would such an arrangement be handled in regards to healthcare and the like?
We're operating in the non-legal realm here for this discussion I assumed - legally Lousiana is the only place I know of that lets you have more than two legally recognized parents (they have a dual paternity doctrine there).
So if you go for more than two, one person is going to have to fight a very hard (and probably losing) legal battle to get any kind of legally recognized parental rights.
Medopine on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I think that three could work - beyond that you might be pushing it (in terms of primary caretaker and decision maker)
Also how would such an arrangement be handled in regards to healthcare and the like?
We're operating in the non-legal realm here for this discussion I assumed - legally Lousiana is the only place I know of that lets you have more than two legally recognized parents (they have a dual paternity doctrine there).
So if you go for more than two, one person is going to have to fight a very hard (and probably losing) legal battle to get any kind of legally recognized parental rights.
Also, for adoption, in pretty much all states, the parental rights of the natural parents have to be terminated before the child can be adopted by another person.
So that's not a great option for the third person either.
The only problem I have with polygamy is that when adopted at a societal level it can significantly increase the rate at which STDs are spread. A widespread network of concurrent, multi-partner relationships is one of the key factors in the African HIV crisis.
BubbaT on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I know that we're now distinguishing between polyamorous cohabitation and an open marriage, but I do want to point out here that I wouldn't take somebody as a lover in an open situation who I wouldn't be comfortable having around my kids. Sure, I wouldn't want the kids around if we're going to have loud sex with extramarital partners, but on the other hand if I'm going to throw a dinner party or a barbecue or something with lovers or former lovers over they'd have to be people I wouldn't mind playing with my kids.
That's a good, commonsense approach.
My main concern with any of this is that a kid needs a certain minimum of both parental contact and stability, both of which are separate from the issue of supervision (which can be supplied by any responsible adult). A big extended cohabitating family (of any arrangement) hopefully supplies stability, but if the parental figures are absent or unavailable for long stretches of time, that's a problem. On the other hand, when the kid is being shuttled around from place to place, even from between parent to parent, that represents a loss of stability that carries its own problems. What's always necessary in any scenario is that the parents can find an arrangement that meets or exceeds those minimums.
I really don't get why it's healthy for a child to be able to hear mom having her head slammed against the headboard if it's just daddy home, but not if mommy's friend "River" is over as well. Either having a child exposed to their parents sexuality is harmfull, or it's not, or their are degrees, and then when do you draw the line? Is it wrong to allow your child to overhear a threesome but ok to allow them to hear thier father call the mother mistress and the mother refer to the dad as "slut worm" while behind closed doors?
I think a young child shouldn't really be exposed to sex at all, so I'd object to all of those. The kind of situation I can see arising in a polyamorous relationship is two folks going at it in the bedroom while a third is out in the living room watching the kids. I don't call that "discreet".
So basically, the bolded bit. To the extent the kids aren't exposed to it, it's fine.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I notice my hippy-ish Renaissance Fair friends are really into polyamory. I don't think its about the sex or the commitment but they are addicted to the drama that spawns from it.
Are they ugly? Ugly people tend to be freakier.
:winky:
Yeah... they're not very attractive. I wouldn't call them freaky either, nerdy slackers would be a better description.
I really don't get why it's healthy for a child to be able to hear mom having her head slammed against the headboard if it's just daddy home, but not if mommy's friend "River" is over as well. Either having a child exposed to their parents sexuality is harmfull, or it's not, or their are degrees, and then when do you draw the line? Is it wrong to allow your child to overhear a threesome but ok to allow them to hear thier father call the mother mistress and the mother refer to the dad as "slut worm" while behind closed doors?
I think a young child shouldn't really be exposed to sex at all, so I'd object to all of those. The kind of situation I can see arising in a polyamorous relationship is two folks going at it in the bedroom while a third is out in the living room watching the kids. I don't call that "discreet".
So basically, the bolded bit. To the extent the kids aren't exposed to it, it's fine.
Posts
Well, I left it out because it seemed obvious enough.
I didn't mean to imply that whoever is not interested in polyamory must be emotionally immature and not self-assured.
Man what the hell. If I read a statement in these forums and don't give someone the benefit of the doubt then I'm reading it wrong and arguing against something that wasn't said. If I do read it and interpret it literally and don't read into it, I'm also wrong.
If you refrain from reading into it the statement, you will notice it doesn't say that you are emotionally stunted if you are in a monogamous relationship.
Here's what's breaking my brain with this whole child-rearing discussion.
Just because the parents have polyamorous lovers doesn't necessarily give those lovers any authority over the children.
Yes, I understand that there is probably a poly group somewhere that's decided that they're going to form a little village to raise a child and they're all going to chip in equally. And I would agree that that's a bad idea. I also think that is a decision that is related to, but separate from, the decision to be polyamorous.
When I was discussing children in my last poly relationship, it was pretty clear how things would work for us. My partner and I are the parents; our children are ours to raise. Any extramarital lovers who want to horn in on that have to respect our authority. We might go to them for suggestions or for occasional babysitting much the way we would go to a grandparent or uncle, but there is absolutely no reason that our secondary lovers would need to be involved in things like parent-teacher meetings or major life decisions.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Are they ugly? Ugly people tend to be freakier.
:winky:
No relationship is 100% drama-free, but what little drama we had had nothing to do with other lovers, and we had significantly less drama than my last relationship (which was monogamous) and less drama than the many of the monogamous relationships I've seen around me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That sounds like an "open marriage" type of deal. Would you object to that kind of label? I'm not trying to put you down or anything, that's just what came to mind when reading your description.
Do you think mommy and daddy having extra lovers would be confusing/harmful to children at all? I'm not sure if it's inherently harmful or only harmful to the extent that mommy and daddy can't/won't explain exactly how their relationships work, or the child simply can't comprehend the idea of it.
would it be best if we required that the two parents decide amongst themselves before the child is born who has the trump card between them?
I mean, if reducing the number of bosses is the argument against poly, then surely 1 boss is better than two?
Or are single parents the best idea, rather than appointing one parent as subservient, and the other as the master(mistress?) of the house?
See, I was talking about a long-term polyamorous group that was living together and also raising children. It's obviously different if it's basically just an open marriage where the parents are free to canoodle as they see fit with whomever they please. In that case, I think it's fine, provided there's an element of discretion (assuming younger children, here).
No, I wouldn't object to it.
Possibly, if handled poorly.
"Mommy is out with a friend tonight" should be enough information for a child when she wants to know why daddy is home alone. If other partners are coming over, they should either get their freak on discretely or the kids should be dropped off at a relative's.
I'll point out that I've never been a big fan of poly cohabitation. I'm pretty skeptical of cohabitation in general, mostly because I'm a fiercely solitary person.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Might one call you feral?
Hey feral cats like eachother, they just don't like anyone/anything else
EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not talking about what we've agreed to call "open marriage", which sounds like an eminently sensible arrangement.
Quiza, el jefe.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I really don't get why it's healthy for a child to be able to hear mom having her head slammed against the headboard if it's just daddy home, but not if mommy's friend "River" is over as well. Either having a child exposed to their parents sexuality is harmfull, or it's not, or their are degrees, and then when do you draw the line? Is it wrong to allow your child to overhear a threesome but ok to allow them to hear thier father call the mother mistress and the mother refer to the dad as "slut worm" while behind closed doors?
Yeah but you might get added stress from trying to schedule those extra helpers in a way that didn't create jealousy and allowed all of them to get quality time with the kiddo without stepping on anyone else's toes.
I wouldn't say outright all polyamorous relationships shouldn't involve a child, but I guess I only think it would work in a situation as described by Feral, where the primary decisionmaking is limited to a small number of people.
i think that using anecdotal data to justify an argument that a certian type of family is wrong, is a poor idea.
Your situation didn't seem to work out for you, or at least you seem to think it never. That's hardly evidence that it an't work out.
That's a big thing. Diminishing returns kick sharply into play the more people you have handling child-rearing. I spent my time shuttling between two divorced parents (my dad remarried) and my dad's parents, and even living in the same city relatively close to one another that meant a huge portion of my childhood was spent in the backseat of cars.
i don't agree. Businesses are sometimes co-owned by a number of people. my current company has 3 principals. I don't see why three people could not do as good a job raising a child as two.
I know that we're now distinguishing between polyamorous cohabitation and an open marriage, but I do want to point out here that I wouldn't take somebody as a lover in an open situation who I wouldn't be comfortable having around my kids. Sure, I wouldn't want the kids around if we're going to have loud sex with extramarital partners, but on the other hand if I'm going to throw a dinner party or a barbecue or something with lovers or former lovers over they'd have to be people I wouldn't mind playing with my kids.
So in that regard it's a little like having an extended family, and I think there's an old saying about that... "semen is thicker than water." Isn't that how it goes?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
so three adults cohabiting while raising a child would solve that, no?
I think that three could work - beyond that you might be pushing it (in terms of primary caretaker and decision maker)
i've heard "blood is thicker than water", but isn't that just something about how to launder bloody clown suits?
Also how would such an arrangement be handled in regards to healthcare and the like?
i realize it's not a perfect analogy, but some of it works. You have three people with "ownership" over something that they all have a personal (and usually emotional) stake in, and all three have to agree on decisions, while keeping all arguments civil enough that they can keep coming back to work on the following day.
It's not perfect, but it shows that a three people can lead something together, as equals.
We're operating in the non-legal realm here for this discussion I assumed - legally Lousiana is the only place I know of that lets you have more than two legally recognized parents (they have a dual paternity doctrine there).
So if you go for more than two, one person is going to have to fight a very hard (and probably losing) legal battle to get any kind of legally recognized parental rights.
It was just a question that popped into my head.
So that's not a great option for the third person either.
That's a good, commonsense approach.
My main concern with any of this is that a kid needs a certain minimum of both parental contact and stability, both of which are separate from the issue of supervision (which can be supplied by any responsible adult). A big extended cohabitating family (of any arrangement) hopefully supplies stability, but if the parental figures are absent or unavailable for long stretches of time, that's a problem. On the other hand, when the kid is being shuttled around from place to place, even from between parent to parent, that represents a loss of stability that carries its own problems. What's always necessary in any scenario is that the parents can find an arrangement that meets or exceeds those minimums.
I think a young child shouldn't really be exposed to sex at all, so I'd object to all of those. The kind of situation I can see arising in a polyamorous relationship is two folks going at it in the bedroom while a third is out in the living room watching the kids. I don't call that "discreet".
So basically, the bolded bit. To the extent the kids aren't exposed to it, it's fine.
Yeah... they're not very attractive. I wouldn't call them freaky either, nerdy slackers would be a better description.
And by date I mean bang them.
sure, but that goes just as well for het couples
What I'm saying is that I'd love to engage in Polyamyamory.
i guess that's why i quoted el jeffe?