Why don't we concentrate on people who ACTUALLY raise their kids poorly rather than taking pot shots on people with different views on relationships from you if you want to make rules banning kids so badly?
I'm all for concentrating on the poorly raised kids. If your kid turns out right and can have good relationships I am not really worried how you did it. I am all for the Ken Titus way of doing things if that's what you need to do for that kid to turn out right.
Wasn't Titus an alcoholic neglectful father, pitting son against son for scraps of affection when he wasn't busy trying to set the record for the worst husband ever? I'm sitting here scratching my head, because I'd much prefer people like him go childless than a mature and responsible couple who just happens to hold different views on relationships from you.
Maybe you're just using the Titus example because his son turned out "okay and a little bit quirky", which is something a lot of people strive to become as it balances being an interesting person and a sane person. However, I hate to break it to you, but that's a TV show, and "these results may not be typical". For every 1 kid that goes through horrible parenting like that and turns out okay, there are going to be 99 kids in jail by 18, being just as abusive to their own kids and wives, alcoholics, depressed, etc.
I just want to make sure though, so there's no misunderstanding-- if you ever have kids, don't just drink a 6 pack of beer and throw one kid in after the other into a lake to teach them to swim. It's funny on TV, it's pretty scary in real life, especially when the kid doesn't surface.
A lot of kids grow up fine when daddy has something on the side. Seems like more problems come up with mommy has something on the side, or when daddy can't keep his dick in his pants long enough to bring home the bread.
I'm not sure why mommy being unfaithful is worse than daddy being unfaithful.
Please give a reason that's not pure misogyny.
I have no reasoning. It's an observation, not a conclusion. If you wanna get uppity on somebody for not fitting into the modern liberal world, get on the kids who have to live with it, I guess.
Care to go over the data you're basing this on? It just seems horribly sexist.
Edit: And I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I'm just extremely curious how the "it's ok if you're a dude" undercurrent of your post makes any goddamn sense.
Friends and family, and those that they know is the primary data. Analyzing conversations I've had with people from broken homes in my psychology classes, people who've talked with my fiance who has her degree in psychology and works as an assistant to a therapist while working toward her PhD. I live in southwest Michigan though, where what you see is what you get. There is still racism and sexism and everything else to some degree, but it tends to be realistic judgementalism. I think the impact of that relative to the emotional reactions of children is minimal.
As an example, a friend of mine had a father who ran around a lot on his wife. That friend of mine has struggled with respect for women and lasting relationships. A relative of my fiance's was a woman who regularly cheated on her husband in their home while he was away. The son and two daughters of that family have had excessive problems with abuse and unexpected pregnancy (and rumors say STDs), requiring legal intervention on multiple occasions.
What it comes down to in that case is acknowledging the fact that men and women are different, and their roles in the family are different not just by tradition. From the evidence I have, it seems that children (before they are influenced much by outside-the-home societal morals) view mother and father as two distinct entities, each with more damaging potential flaws.
Why don't we concentrate on people who ACTUALLY raise their kids poorly rather than taking pot shots on people with different views on relationships from you if you want to make rules banning kids so badly?
I'm all for concentrating on the poorly raised kids. If your kid turns out right and can have good relationships I am not really worried how you did it. I am all for the Ken Titus way of doing things if that's what you need to do for that kid to turn out right.
Wasn't Titus an alcoholic neglectful father, pitting son against son for scraps of affection when he wasn't busy trying to set the record for the worst husband ever? I'm sitting here scratching my head, because I'd much prefer people like him go childless than a mature and responsible couple who just happens to hold different views on relationships from you.
Maybe you're just using the Titus example because his son turned out "okay and a little bit quirky", which is something a lot of people strive to become as it balances being an interesting person and a sane person. However, I hate to break it to you, but that's a TV show, and "these results may not be typical". For every 1 kid that goes through horrible parenting like that and turns out okay, there are going to be 99 kids in jail by 18, being just as abusive to their own kids and wives, alcoholics, depressed, etc.
I just want to make sure though, so there's no misunderstanding-- if you ever have kids, don't just drink a 6 pack of beer and throw one kid in after the other into a lake to teach them to swim. It's funny on TV, it's pretty scary in real life, especially when the kid doesn't surface.
Jesus "The Stone Wall" Christ! Thank you for pointing out TV is fake, I guess I'll put my anvil away and stop looking for a sassy black maid who says "Mr. Chicken you so crazy!"
Yes Ken was an alcoholic father and abusive but some kids, SOME KIDS need to be raised that way to have any chance of overcoming either their wiring from their genetics or their raising up till then. Sadly most who are raised that way end up in jail because that is not what they needed.
But this all comes back to my beginning point which is sort out your shit first (what ever that is, be it with wives or husbands) then bring in kids, if you want kids.
People who have dated or been friends with kids who grow up with fathers that cheated or mothers that decided hey I'll try being a lesbian for a few years, know that these people have mostly horrible romantic relationships. I'd much rather have kids come into something that works so that parents can tell there kids when their ready to hear it, hey this how things work for us how ever things work for you go sick.
Why don't we concentrate on people who ACTUALLY raise their kids poorly rather than taking pot shots on people with different views on relationships from you if you want to make rules banning kids so badly?
I'm all for concentrating on the poorly raised kids. If your kid turns out right and can have good relationships I am not really worried how you did it. I am all for the Ken Titus way of doing things if that's what you need to do for that kid to turn out right.
Wasn't Titus an alcoholic neglectful father, pitting son against son for scraps of affection when he wasn't busy trying to set the record for the worst husband ever? I'm sitting here scratching my head, because I'd much prefer people like him go childless than a mature and responsible couple who just happens to hold different views on relationships from you.
Maybe you're just using the Titus example because his son turned out "okay and a little bit quirky", which is something a lot of people strive to become as it balances being an interesting person and a sane person. However, I hate to break it to you, but that's a TV show, and "these results may not be typical". For every 1 kid that goes through horrible parenting like that and turns out okay, there are going to be 99 kids in jail by 18, being just as abusive to their own kids and wives, alcoholics, depressed, etc.
I just want to make sure though, so there's no misunderstanding-- if you ever have kids, don't just drink a 6 pack of beer and throw one kid in after the other into a lake to teach them to swim. It's funny on TV, it's pretty scary in real life, especially when the kid doesn't surface.
Jesus "The Stone Wall" Christ! Thank you for pointing out TV is fake, I guess I'll put my anvil away and stop looking for a sassy black maid who says "Mr. Chicken you so crazy!"
Yes Ken was an alcoholic father and abusive but some kids, SOME KIDS need to be raised that way to have any chance of overcoming either their wiring from their genetics or their raising up till then. Sadly most who are raised that way end up in jail because that is not what they needed.
But this all comes back to my beginning point which is sort out your shit first (what ever that is, be it with wives or husbands) then bring in kids, if you want kids.
People who have dated or been friends with kids who grow up with fathers that cheated or mothers that decided hey I'll try being a lesbian for a few years, know that these people have mostly horrible romantic relationships. I'd much rather have kids come into something that works so that parents can tell there kids when their ready to hear it, hey this how things work for us how ever things work for you go sick.
Don't bring in examples from TV as anecdotal evidence if you don't want it pointed out how retarded it is to extrapolate real life conclusions from them.
What kids need alcoholic neglectful wife-abusing parents? I just can't picture in my head a kid that would require a substance-addicted parent bartering their love and indoctrinating them in the worst kind of interpersonal relations. Some kids make it out of situations like these pretty okay, but that's a result of resilience, not because kids crave shit like this.
Some children who are raped by their parents, miraculously, end up leading successful normal lives and building off of the horrible things that happened to them. For most children though, rape is a horrible thing that will scar them for life. You can't point to the child that somehow had enough resilience to cope with it and leave relatively unscathed and go "see, some kids just need to be raped".
Alcoholic neglectful parents are bad. Always. Some kids get out okay, but that doesn't make it a good parenting style. I can't believe I even have to type that.
As to the initial point, my real issue with what you said is that you're breaching a new level of societal control. Very rarely do we decide who should have children and who shouldn't. That's taking away a great deal of personal freedom for a person, and we generally reserve it for very clear, very direct, very causal, instances of harm, such as when DYFUS takes your child away because you beat the ever loving shit out of him on a daily basis. We don't tell people they can't have kids because 'we have a hunch based on anecdotal evidence that you might not be a good parent'.
Children of homosexual couples and adulterous couples have "mostly horrible romantic relationships". Wow, mostly? That's a pretty big claim... I'd ask you to back that up, but we know that's unlikely.
So in your ideal world, you'll ban gays from having kids, anyone who has ever cheated, polygamous couples, who else? Single parents should probably be banned, as long as we're on this list. What about ex-drug addicts? What about people with mental illnesses? I mean, it must be pretty difficult to be a parent with bipolar disorder, right?
You simply can't make commitments in a relationship to more than one person.
Really? So you can't make a commitment to your wife and your kids at the same time? Or to your wife and your boss? "Sorry, sir, I can't commit to coming in on time at 9am because I'm married." Or to your poker buddies and your job? "Sorry guys, I can't commit to every Thursday at 9 because I'm married."
So in your ideal world, you'll ban gays from having kids, anyone who has ever cheated, polygamous couples, who else? Single parents should probably be banned, as long as we're on this list. What about ex-drug addicts? What about people with mental illnesses? I mean, it must be pretty difficult to be a parent with bipolar disorder, right?
I believe in erring on the side of caution when it comes to cohabitation, polyamory, and kids, too - but I think there might be a little tiny bit of catastrophizing going on this thread.
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.
You simply can't make commitments in a relationship to more than one person.
Really? So you can't make a commitment to your wife and your kids at the same time? Or to your wife and your boss? "Sorry, sir, I can't commit to coming in on time at 9am because I'm married." Or to your poker buddies and your job? "Sorry guys, I can't commit to every Thursday at 9 because I'm married."
So in your ideal world, you'll ban gays from having kids, anyone who has ever cheated, polygamous couples, who else? Single parents should probably be banned, as long as we're on this list. What about ex-drug addicts? What about people with mental illnesses? I mean, it must be pretty difficult to be a parent with bipolar disorder, right?
I believe in erring on the side of caution when it comes to cohabitation, polyamory, and kids, too - but I think there might be a little tiny bit of catastrophizing going on this thread.
I don't like catastrophizing, but in this case it was more of a "slippery slope precedent" thing. It's like if someone argued that going over the speed limit by 5mph warranted a $500 fine, then we'd have to make the logical assumption that going 10mph over the speed limit warrants as much, if not more fine, as does 20mph, etc.
So by him suggesting that polyamarous people shouldn't be allowed to have children because anecdotal evidence suggests some kids are negatively affected by it, we have to make the logical leap that conditions/situations even more likely to have negative impacts on children should also be not allowed from having children.
In no way do I think people with bipolar disorder should be banned from having children, but there are also probably more issues with having bipolar disorder and parenting than being polyamarous and parenting. I'm trying to suggest that people are against polyamarous couples having children not because of "think of the children", but rather because polyamarous couples are 'weird' and people don't relate to them.
I'm trying to suggest that people are against polyamarous couples having children not because of "think of the children", but rather because polyamarous couples are 'weird' and people don't relate to them.
Bolded lime for the win, because if you're poly, you're just a filthy immature horndog living out their teenage fantasy of screwing multiple people, m i rite?
You know, or you could understand that it's possible to have feelings of love for more than one person.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Why don't we concentrate on people who ACTUALLY raise their kids poorly rather than taking pot shots on people with different views on relationships from you if you want to make rules banning kids so badly?
I'm all for concentrating on the poorly raised kids. If your kid turns out right and can have good relationships I am not really worried how you did it. I am all for the Ken Titus way of doing things if that's what you need to do for that kid to turn out right.
Wasn't Titus an alcoholic neglectful father, pitting son against son for scraps of affection when he wasn't busy trying to set the record for the worst husband ever? I'm sitting here scratching my head, because I'd much prefer people like him go childless than a mature and responsible couple who just happens to hold different views on relationships from you.
Maybe you're just using the Titus example because his son turned out "okay and a little bit quirky", which is something a lot of people strive to become as it balances being an interesting person and a sane person. However, I hate to break it to you, but that's a TV show, and "these results may not be typical". For every 1 kid that goes through horrible parenting like that and turns out okay, there are going to be 99 kids in jail by 18, being just as abusive to their own kids and wives, alcoholics, depressed, etc.
I just want to make sure though, so there's no misunderstanding-- if you ever have kids, don't just drink a 6 pack of beer and throw one kid in after the other into a lake to teach them to swim. It's funny on TV, it's pretty scary in real life, especially when the kid doesn't surface.
Jesus "The Stone Wall" Christ! Thank you for pointing out TV is fake, I guess I'll put my anvil away and stop looking for a sassy black maid who says "Mr. Chicken you so crazy!"
Yes Ken was an alcoholic father and abusive but some kids, SOME KIDS need to be raised that way to have any chance of overcoming either their wiring from their genetics or their raising up till then. Sadly most who are raised that way end up in jail because that is not what they needed.
But this all comes back to my beginning point which is sort out your shit first (what ever that is, be it with wives or husbands) then bring in kids, if you want kids.
People who have dated or been friends with kids who grow up with fathers that cheated or mothers that decided hey I'll try being a lesbian for a few years, know that these people have mostly horrible romantic relationships. I'd much rather have kids come into something that works so that parents can tell there kids when their ready to hear it, hey this how things work for us how ever things work for you go sick.
Don't bring in examples from TV as anecdotal evidence if you don't want it pointed out how retarded it is to extrapolate real life conclusions from them.
What kids need alcoholic neglectful wife-abusing parents? I just can't picture in my head a kid that would require a substance-addicted parent bartering their love and indoctrinating them in the worst kind of interpersonal relations. Some kids make it out of situations like these pretty okay, but that's a result of resilience, not because kids crave shit like this.
Some children who are raped by their parents, miraculously, end up leading successful normal lives and building off of the horrible things that happened to them. For most children though, rape is a horrible thing that will scar them for life. You can't point to the child that somehow had enough resilience to cope with it and leave relatively unscathed and go "see, some kids just need to be raped".
Alcoholic neglectful parents are bad. Always. Some kids get out okay, but that doesn't make it a good parenting style. I can't believe I even have to type that.
As to the initial point, my real issue with what you said is that you're breaching a new level of societal control. Very rarely do we decide who should have children and who shouldn't. That's taking away a great deal of personal freedom for a person, and we generally reserve it for very clear, very direct, very causal, instances of harm, such as when DYFUS takes your child away because you beat the ever loving shit out of him on a daily basis. We don't tell people they can't have kids because 'we have a hunch based on anecdotal evidence that you might not be a good parent'.
Children of homosexual couples and adulterous couples have "mostly horrible romantic relationships". Wow, mostly? That's a pretty big claim... I'd ask you to back that up, but we know that's unlikely.
So in your ideal world, you'll ban gays from having kids, anyone who has ever cheated, polygamous couples, who else? Single parents should probably be banned, as long as we're on this list. What about ex-drug addicts? What about people with mental illnesses? I mean, it must be pretty difficult to be a parent with bipolar disorder, right?
I don't want to ban anyone from having kids, people need to find what they need in order to create
a happy (gay, straight, poly, single parent, two parent, or multi-generational) home and then bring in kids.
Bringing kids into a home where the parents have unresolved issues (alcoholism, sexual abuse, etc) doesn't do either the kids or the parents any good.
If you want proof talk to a child therapist, social worker or sit in at an AA, or Alateen meeting.
You simply can't make commitments in a relationship to more than one person.
Really? So you can't make a commitment to your wife and your kids at the same time? Or to your wife and your boss? "Sorry, sir, I can't commit to coming in on time at 9am because I'm married." Or to your poker buddies and your job? "Sorry guys, I can't commit to every Thursday at 9 because I'm married."
So in your ideal world, you'll ban gays from having kids, anyone who has ever cheated, polygamous couples, who else? Single parents should probably be banned, as long as we're on this list. What about ex-drug addicts? What about people with mental illnesses? I mean, it must be pretty difficult to be a parent with bipolar disorder, right?
I believe in erring on the side of caution when it comes to cohabitation, polyamory, and kids, too - but I think there might be a little tiny bit of catastrophizing going on this thread.
I don't like catastrophizing, but in this case it was more of a "slippery slope precedent" thing. It's like if someone argued that going over the speed limit by 5mph warranted a $500 fine, then we'd have to make the logical assumption that going 10mph over the speed limit warrants as much, if not more fine, as does 20mph, etc.
So by him suggesting that polyamarous people shouldn't be allowed to have children because anecdotal evidence suggests some kids are negatively affected by it, we have to make the logical leap that conditions/situations even more likely to have negative impacts on children should also be not allowed from having children.
In no way do I think people with bipolar disorder should be banned from having children, but there are also probably more issues with having bipolar disorder and parenting than being polyamarous and parenting. I'm trying to suggest that people are against polyamarous couples having children not because of "think of the children", but rather because polyamarous couples are 'weird' and people don't relate to them.
Personally I'm fascinated by people making polyamarous couples work, if you can more power to you.
Next up: Man Married to Goat by an Overripe Banana in Maryland, Tree and an Awkward-Looking Rock witness.
Non-traditional things are okay as long as no one can prove empirically that it harms a child, right?
Having another adult in a child's life is not all that "non-traditional." From the child's perspective, it's not necessarily all that different than having frequent contact with an extended family member or a family friend or a nanny.
Nobody (thusfar) has advocated having threesomes in the love swing in the nursery. The kid doesn't have to know who's fucking who.
Every polyamorous person is going to have a different opinion about it... however, from my perspective, the child's parents still have final authority and responsibility for that child's upbringing. For instance, if I have a girlfriend and she happens to be married, and they have a kid, junior still has one mom and one dad - I'm just mommy's friend who sometimes babysits - if only for reasons of social acceptibility.
Part of the difficulty with this topic is that we're talking about any and all non-monogamous relationships as if they all fall under one big umbrella, even though how I handle poly in my life might be diametrically opposite from hippies living in a commune in the hills outside Santa Rosa.
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.
Next up: Man Married to Goat by an Overripe Banana in Maryland, Tree and an Awkward-Looking Rock witness.
Non-traditional things are okay as long as no one can prove empirically that it harms a child, right?
Having another adult in a child's life is not all that "non-traditional." From the child's perspective, it's not necessarily all that different than having frequent contact with an extended family member or a family friend or a nanny.
Nobody (thusfar) has advocated having threesomes in the love swing in the nursery. The kid doesn't have to know who's fucking who.
Every polyamorous person is going to have a different opinion about it... however, from my perspective, the child's parents still have final authority and responsibility for that child's upbringing. For instance, if I have a girlfriend and she happens to be married, and they have a kid, junior still has one mom and one dad - I'm just mommy's friend who sometimes babysits - if only for reasons of social acceptibility.
Part of the difficulty with this topic is that we're talking about any and all non-monogamous relationships as if they all fall under one big umbrella, even though how I handle poly in my life might be diametrically opposite from hippies living in a commune in the hills outside Santa Rosa.
I don't think you remember what it's like to be a child. They're not that stupid.
Next up: Man Married to Goat by an Overripe Banana in Maryland, Tree and an Awkward-Looking Rock witness.
Non-traditional things are okay as long as no one can prove empirically that it harms a child, right?
Having another adult in a child's life is not all that "non-traditional." From the child's perspective, it's not necessarily all that different than having frequent contact with an extended family member or a family friend or a nanny.
Nobody (thusfar) has advocated having threesomes in the love swing in the nursery. The kid doesn't have to know who's fucking who.
Every polyamorous person is going to have a different opinion about it... however, from my perspective, the child's parents still have final authority and responsibility for that child's upbringing. For instance, if I have a girlfriend and she happens to be married, and they have a kid, junior still has one mom and one dad - I'm just mommy's friend who sometimes babysits - if only for reasons of social acceptibility.
Part of the difficulty with this topic is that we're talking about any and all non-monogamous relationships as if they all fall under one big umbrella, even though how I handle poly in my life might be diametrically opposite from hippies living in a commune in the hills outside Santa Rosa.
I don't think you remember what it's like to be a child. They're not that stupid.
I just don't see how 'weird' equates to 'bad'.
Yeah, when the 1st grade class talks about how all families need to have a mommy and daddy, little Sally with her 2 dads and 1 gang-banged mom will feel pretty left out.
...as will Bobby with his 2 butt-pirate daddies.
...and so will Lisa with her single mom who has no idea who or where the father is.
...and so will Brett whose mom died while delivering him.
There are plenty of not typical family situations out there, why the hell are we making such a big deal out of this one?
I have no issue with poly. I fully think it is your choice, and as long as everyone involved is happy with what is going on, then more power to you.
However, I have to agree with the idea that it should either be started after your kids grown up, or before you have kids. Especially if that person is going to be living with you.
Its the same standard as if you are a single parent and dating. You wait until you know the relationship is solid to even introduce the kids to the new person. Why? Because kids are impressionable, and will attach themselves to people easily. The more people in and out of their lives, the harder it becomes to make that attachment. This applies to the Poly siutation as well.
On top of which, the kid is going to become confused. They are used to there being just mommy and daddy, and now all of a sudden there is another person here who acts towards mommy and daddy like mommy and daddy act toward each other. Most the debate here is only taking in the sexual side, but you can not have a relationship like that without their being emotional attachment. Introducing that new type of attachment to a child can mess with them a bit.
Edit: At library on computer and ran out of time and just had enough time to post, so I finished after logging back on.
I'm pretty sure the only people in this debate that I didn't want to eventually murder were the ones who pointed out that trying to socially engineer someone else's household is an exercise in retarded.
Yeah, when the 1st grade class talks about how all families need to have a mommy and daddy, little Sally with her 2 dads and 1 gang-banged mom will feel pretty left out.
...as will Bobby with his 2 butt-pirate daddies.
...and so will Lisa with her single mom who has no idea who or where the father is.
...and so will Brett whose mom died while delivering him.
There are plenty of not typical family situations out there, why the hell are we making such a big deal out of this one?
Where the hell do you live where that many kids like that are in one class? Anyhoo...
Weird is not always bad. But it usually is. And in all the cases you just listed, there's a vacant spot where parenting should be, or additional complication in interpersonal relationships that are supposed to be reliable, stable, and comfortable for SallyBobbyLisaBrett. Sometimes it can't be helped, and we do what we can... but it is selfish to do something that conventional wisdom tells you is wrong with only a half-assed argument for why it isn't. If kids turned out better with six moms instead of one, I think we'd see a lot more mormons around.
Yeah, when the 1st grade class talks about how all families need to have a mommy and daddy, little Sally with her 2 dads and 1 gang-banged mom will feel pretty left out.
...as will Bobby with his 2 butt-pirate daddies.
...and so will Lisa with her single mom who has no idea who or where the father is.
...and so will Brett whose mom died while delivering him.
There are plenty of not typical family situations out there, why the hell are we making such a big deal out of this one?
Don't forget Johnny, who spends every other weekend with his biological father and has a mommy and a step-daddy at home.
And Billy, whose teenage mother and father live in the basement of Nanna and Poppa's house, and thinks "normal" is having Mommy, Daddy, Grandma and Grandpa all under one roof.
tl;dr lol family values.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Yeah, when the 1st grade class talks about how all families need to have a mommy and daddy, little Sally with her 2 dads and 1 gang-banged mom will feel pretty left out.
...as will Bobby with his 2 butt-pirate daddies.
...and so will Lisa with her single mom who has no idea who or where the father is.
...and so will Brett whose mom died while delivering him.
There are plenty of not typical family situations out there, why the hell are we making such a big deal out of this one?
Where the hell do you live where that many kids like that are in one class? Anyhoo...
Weird is not always bad. But it usually is. And in all the cases you just listed, there's a vacant spot where parenting should be, or additional complication in interpersonal relationships that are supposed to be reliable, stable, and comfortable for SallyBobbyLisaBrett. Sometimes it can't be helped, and we do what we can... but it is selfish to do something that conventional wisdom tells you is wrong with only a half-assed argument for why it isn't. If kids turned out better with six moms instead of one, I think we'd see a lot more mormons around.
...Couldn't help but notice you placed Brett in the category of bad parenting situations. Are you suggesting butt-pirates can't raise children? That's pretty fucked up man.
For that matter, I also take offense that you don't think a single parent could raise a child well, or any of the other hundreds of variations off the typical nuclear family.
Conventional wisdom tells me not to put my dick in another man's asshole. Should we ban gays, just because I don't feel an attraction to someone of my own sex? Yeah, I'm only in love with one person at a time, but does that somehow prove that being in love with several people is impossible? I believe it because people tell me they are in love with several people at once, just like I believe gays aren't just ass-fucking eachother as a cute joke toward me.
I just don't fucking get this thread, it's pretty much identical to an anti-gay thread but with a slightly different name. Haven't we gotten over judging others for their sexuality just because we don't agree with it yet?
Well, the idea behind this thread wasn't meant to be about the sexual tendencies of people... I was using it as a way to show that "Hey, some people would enjoy this arrangement"... Overall it's more towards "Hey, with the economy what it is I think it's easier to have three sources of income vs. two", I mean most people I've met damn near end up in the poor house trying to keep their kid in daycare.... My wife and I are lucky that her mother will watch over them, saving us 500-60 dollars a month, but when you look at the grand picture it'd also be cheaper to have a third person living with you and feed them then it would to keep your kid in daycare...
Kind of like a live in nanny, but free... Like, "Hey, we'll give you a room, food, and an easy life if you cook, clean and watch our kids..." as many households now seem to require both parents to have full-time jobs just to keep up with things (Like my wife and I)...
Just seems like having a third person on hand in the household would make a lot of lives easier, whether it be an additional sexual partner, or just someone else...
Fighting increased cost of living by adding yet another earner is a losing battle.
Not always. Anecdote lol, but it worked out great for 2 of my cousins. Cousin 1 is married to husband. They invite cousin 2 to live with them so that she can watch kid while cousin 1 goes back to work. Household has more money to go around, mortgage and utilities are easily paid, and the cost of cousin 2 using food and utilities is more than offset by cousin 1's additional income and the savings by not sending kid to daycare.
The one thing that people in poly relationships all agree on is that relationship dynamics get exponentially more complex the more people you add. This is particularly true when living together.
Having said that, people do form these kind of family units.
And quite often a child protection agency gets involved somewhere down the line. If the 60s have taught us anything it must be that these kind of family units are just a literal clusterfuck.
To be fair the ones that work you would probably never hear about in terms of CP.
It's a measurement issue. Two people can easily say that the other person is totally committed to them. Three people end up wondering if the other person is getting a greater share of "commitment" and naturally have no way to measure such a thing.
Honey, you know I love you with all 50% of my heart.
Well, the problem was that you mentioned the chance for sexy fun times in the OP, and this being the Internet, that's what we gravitated towards. :P
Also, you have to take into account that said third person's ambition in life would have to be "taking care of someone else's kid" otherwise they'd rapidly become more than a bit disenchanted with staying home and watching your munchkins while you went out and succeeded.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Well, the idea behind this thread wasn't meant to be about the sexual tendencies of people... I was using it as a way to show that "Hey, some people would enjoy this arrangement"... Overall it's more towards "Hey, with the economy what it is I think it's easier to have three sources of income vs. two", I mean most people I've met damn near end up in the poor house trying to keep their kid in daycare.... My wife and I are lucky that her mother will watch over them, saving us 500-60 dollars a month, but when you look at the grand picture it'd also be cheaper to have a third person living with you and feed them then it would to keep your kid in daycare...
Kind of like a live in nanny, but free... Like, "Hey, we'll give you a room, food, and an easy life if you cook, clean and watch our kids..." as many households now seem to require both parents to have full-time jobs just to keep up with things (Like my wife and I)...
Just seems like having a third person on hand in the household would make a lot of lives easier, whether it be an additional sexual partner, or just someone else...
But that third person is going to want/need money for clothing/entertainment/vacations/cars and so on, so even focusing on the economics of it and ignoring emotional/relationship issues it still falls apart.
One big problem with any sort of emotionally invested poly relationship is that there's inevitably going to be some favoritism, or at least some perception thereof.
Also, I'm kind of confused by the OP's insinuation that living together inevitably implies romantic or sexual connections, as opposed to say, a roomate. I'm living with three other dudes next year, I certainly hope that's not how it works.
Fighting increased cost of living by adding yet another earner is a losing battle.
Not always. Anecdote lol, but it worked out great for 2 of my cousins. Cousin 1 is married to husband. They invite cousin 2 to live with them so that she can watch kid while cousin 1 goes back to work. Household has more money to go around, mortgage and utilities are easily paid, and the cost of cousin 2 using food and utilities is more than offset by cousin 1's additional income and the savings by not sending kid to daycare.
On a large scale and if enough people do it, it will drive the cost of living even higher over time. It's exactly what happened to cause many/most families to need two working parents.
One big problem with any sort of emotionally invested poly relationship is that there's inevitably going to be some favoritism, or at least some perception thereof.
Also, I'm kind of confused by the OP's insinuation that living together inevitably implies romantic or sexual connections, as opposed to say, a roomate. I'm living with three other dudes next year, I certainly hope that's not how it works.
That was something I got out of the OP as well. I don't see why it has to be sexual, romantic or poly based. It could just be a relative that has a part time job during the day, but can help out with kids, bills and other things to keep costs down. That way they still have money for themselves, but are contributing to the over all group. You could just rent out a room and one of the members of the coupledom stays home still, but I think there tends to be more boundry issues there than with a family member unless you have a place just for them to stay in, not just a bedroom, but full living quarters to themselves.
You simply can't make commitments in a relationship to more than one person.
Really? So you can't make a commitment to your wife and your kids at the same time? Or to your wife and your boss? "Sorry, sir, I can't commit to coming in on time at 9am because I'm married." Or to your poker buddies and your job? "Sorry guys, I can't commit to every Thursday at 9 because I'm married."
Let's be reasonable here. If you're getting married then hopefully you're marrying someone who will understand that you have a job. Or that you have to balance them and kids.
Poker buddies? If you got poker on Thursday, but your wife has plans that require you, who are you gonna pick? Your wife or your friends?
If you shun your wife for your friends, your relationship is going to take a hit for it, and if it continues, then the relationship will most likely fail. If it doesn't, then one person is being treated unfairly, and that's not a working, healthy, relationship. Which is what we're talking about. Working relationships.
If you and your spouse can bring another person into your life and the relationship not take a hit because of it, then great. I'm happy that you can make those arrangements and not suffer.
However, that's a very small minority, and the very act of an open relationship is there to specifically appease personal wants. Which is pretty much not good behavior for a relationship.
Considering this, I have to disagree with the OPs idea that an open relationship is an idea that people should adopt.
Yeah, when the 1st grade class talks about how all families need to have a mommy and daddy, little Sally with her 2 dads and 1 gang-banged mom will feel pretty left out.
...as will Bobby with his 2 butt-pirate daddies.
...and so will Lisa with her single mom who has no idea who or where the father is.
...and so will Brett whose mom died while delivering him.
There are plenty of not typical family situations out there, why the hell are we making such a big deal out of this one?
What are you, stupid? It's because it's something we don't understand, duh!
Well, the problem was that you mentioned the chance for sexy fun times in the OP, and this being the Internet, that's what we gravitated towards. :P
Also, you have to take into account that said third person's ambition in life would have to be "taking care of someone else's kid" otherwise they'd rapidly become more than a bit disenchanted with staying home and watching your munchkins while you went out and succeeded.
Yeah, a few of us have said that he's really mixing up a bunch of different ideas.
I mean, I'll happily be the resident cheerleader for polyamorous lifestyles, but even I have to say that doing it because you think it'll somehow save money or simplify your life is pretty nonsensical.
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.
Posts
Wasn't Titus an alcoholic neglectful father, pitting son against son for scraps of affection when he wasn't busy trying to set the record for the worst husband ever? I'm sitting here scratching my head, because I'd much prefer people like him go childless than a mature and responsible couple who just happens to hold different views on relationships from you.
Maybe you're just using the Titus example because his son turned out "okay and a little bit quirky", which is something a lot of people strive to become as it balances being an interesting person and a sane person. However, I hate to break it to you, but that's a TV show, and "these results may not be typical". For every 1 kid that goes through horrible parenting like that and turns out okay, there are going to be 99 kids in jail by 18, being just as abusive to their own kids and wives, alcoholics, depressed, etc.
I just want to make sure though, so there's no misunderstanding-- if you ever have kids, don't just drink a 6 pack of beer and throw one kid in after the other into a lake to teach them to swim. It's funny on TV, it's pretty scary in real life, especially when the kid doesn't surface.
Friends and family, and those that they know is the primary data. Analyzing conversations I've had with people from broken homes in my psychology classes, people who've talked with my fiance who has her degree in psychology and works as an assistant to a therapist while working toward her PhD. I live in southwest Michigan though, where what you see is what you get. There is still racism and sexism and everything else to some degree, but it tends to be realistic judgementalism. I think the impact of that relative to the emotional reactions of children is minimal.
As an example, a friend of mine had a father who ran around a lot on his wife. That friend of mine has struggled with respect for women and lasting relationships. A relative of my fiance's was a woman who regularly cheated on her husband in their home while he was away. The son and two daughters of that family have had excessive problems with abuse and unexpected pregnancy (and rumors say STDs), requiring legal intervention on multiple occasions.
What it comes down to in that case is acknowledging the fact that men and women are different, and their roles in the family are different not just by tradition. From the evidence I have, it seems that children (before they are influenced much by outside-the-home societal morals) view mother and father as two distinct entities, each with more damaging potential flaws.
Jesus "The Stone Wall" Christ! Thank you for pointing out TV is fake, I guess I'll put my anvil away and stop looking for a sassy black maid who says "Mr. Chicken you so crazy!"
Yes Ken was an alcoholic father and abusive but some kids, SOME KIDS need to be raised that way to have any chance of overcoming either their wiring from their genetics or their raising up till then. Sadly most who are raised that way end up in jail because that is not what they needed.
But this all comes back to my beginning point which is sort out your shit first (what ever that is, be it with wives or husbands) then bring in kids, if you want kids.
People who have dated or been friends with kids who grow up with fathers that cheated or mothers that decided hey I'll try being a lesbian for a few years, know that these people have mostly horrible romantic relationships. I'd much rather have kids come into something that works so that parents can tell there kids when their ready to hear it, hey this how things work for us how ever things work for you go sick.
Don't bring in examples from TV as anecdotal evidence if you don't want it pointed out how retarded it is to extrapolate real life conclusions from them.
What kids need alcoholic neglectful wife-abusing parents? I just can't picture in my head a kid that would require a substance-addicted parent bartering their love and indoctrinating them in the worst kind of interpersonal relations. Some kids make it out of situations like these pretty okay, but that's a result of resilience, not because kids crave shit like this.
Some children who are raped by their parents, miraculously, end up leading successful normal lives and building off of the horrible things that happened to them. For most children though, rape is a horrible thing that will scar them for life. You can't point to the child that somehow had enough resilience to cope with it and leave relatively unscathed and go "see, some kids just need to be raped".
Alcoholic neglectful parents are bad. Always. Some kids get out okay, but that doesn't make it a good parenting style. I can't believe I even have to type that.
As to the initial point, my real issue with what you said is that you're breaching a new level of societal control. Very rarely do we decide who should have children and who shouldn't. That's taking away a great deal of personal freedom for a person, and we generally reserve it for very clear, very direct, very causal, instances of harm, such as when DYFUS takes your child away because you beat the ever loving shit out of him on a daily basis. We don't tell people they can't have kids because 'we have a hunch based on anecdotal evidence that you might not be a good parent'.
Children of homosexual couples and adulterous couples have "mostly horrible romantic relationships". Wow, mostly? That's a pretty big claim... I'd ask you to back that up, but we know that's unlikely.
So in your ideal world, you'll ban gays from having kids, anyone who has ever cheated, polygamous couples, who else? Single parents should probably be banned, as long as we're on this list. What about ex-drug addicts? What about people with mental illnesses? I mean, it must be pretty difficult to be a parent with bipolar disorder, right?
Yes. Yes it is.
Really? So you can't make a commitment to your wife and your kids at the same time? Or to your wife and your boss? "Sorry, sir, I can't commit to coming in on time at 9am because I'm married." Or to your poker buddies and your job? "Sorry guys, I can't commit to every Thursday at 9 because I'm married."
I believe in erring on the side of caution when it comes to cohabitation, polyamory, and kids, too - but I think there might be a little tiny bit of catastrophizing going on this thread.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't like catastrophizing, but in this case it was more of a "slippery slope precedent" thing. It's like if someone argued that going over the speed limit by 5mph warranted a $500 fine, then we'd have to make the logical assumption that going 10mph over the speed limit warrants as much, if not more fine, as does 20mph, etc.
So by him suggesting that polyamarous people shouldn't be allowed to have children because anecdotal evidence suggests some kids are negatively affected by it, we have to make the logical leap that conditions/situations even more likely to have negative impacts on children should also be not allowed from having children.
In no way do I think people with bipolar disorder should be banned from having children, but there are also probably more issues with having bipolar disorder and parenting than being polyamarous and parenting. I'm trying to suggest that people are against polyamarous couples having children not because of "think of the children", but rather because polyamarous couples are 'weird' and people don't relate to them.
Bolded lime for the win, because if you're poly, you're just a filthy immature horndog living out their teenage fantasy of screwing multiple people, m i rite?
You know, or you could understand that it's possible to have feelings of love for more than one person.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I don't want to ban anyone from having kids, people need to find what they need in order to create
a happy (gay, straight, poly, single parent, two parent, or multi-generational) home and then bring in kids.
Bringing kids into a home where the parents have unresolved issues (alcoholism, sexual abuse, etc) doesn't do either the kids or the parents any good.
If you want proof talk to a child therapist, social worker or sit in at an AA, or Alateen meeting.
Personally I'm fascinated by people making polyamarous couples work, if you can more power to you.
Non-traditional things are okay as long as no one can prove empirically that it harms a child, right?
"Straw man married to" more like.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Don't be stupid! How does a Straw man have sex with a goat?
With hat in hand!
Beats me, but I'm pretty sure that Scarecrow was desperate enough before Dorothy came along to give it a shot. :P
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Having another adult in a child's life is not all that "non-traditional." From the child's perspective, it's not necessarily all that different than having frequent contact with an extended family member or a family friend or a nanny.
Nobody (thusfar) has advocated having threesomes in the love swing in the nursery. The kid doesn't have to know who's fucking who.
Every polyamorous person is going to have a different opinion about it... however, from my perspective, the child's parents still have final authority and responsibility for that child's upbringing. For instance, if I have a girlfriend and she happens to be married, and they have a kid, junior still has one mom and one dad - I'm just mommy's friend who sometimes babysits - if only for reasons of social acceptibility.
Part of the difficulty with this topic is that we're talking about any and all non-monogamous relationships as if they all fall under one big umbrella, even though how I handle poly in my life might be diametrically opposite from hippies living in a commune in the hills outside Santa Rosa.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't think you remember what it's like to be a child. They're not that stupid.
I was never a child. I willed myself into existence fully formed from the distilled essences of lust and pride.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I just don't see how 'weird' equates to 'bad'.
Yeah, when the 1st grade class talks about how all families need to have a mommy and daddy, little Sally with her 2 dads and 1 gang-banged mom will feel pretty left out.
...as will Bobby with his 2 butt-pirate daddies.
...and so will Lisa with her single mom who has no idea who or where the father is.
...and so will Brett whose mom died while delivering him.
There are plenty of not typical family situations out there, why the hell are we making such a big deal out of this one?
However, I have to agree with the idea that it should either be started after your kids grown up, or before you have kids. Especially if that person is going to be living with you.
Its the same standard as if you are a single parent and dating. You wait until you know the relationship is solid to even introduce the kids to the new person. Why? Because kids are impressionable, and will attach themselves to people easily. The more people in and out of their lives, the harder it becomes to make that attachment. This applies to the Poly siutation as well.
On top of which, the kid is going to become confused. They are used to there being just mommy and daddy, and now all of a sudden there is another person here who acts towards mommy and daddy like mommy and daddy act toward each other. Most the debate here is only taking in the sexual side, but you can not have a relationship like that without their being emotional attachment. Introducing that new type of attachment to a child can mess with them a bit.
Edit: At library on computer and ran out of time and just had enough time to post, so I finished after logging back on.
Where the hell do you live where that many kids like that are in one class? Anyhoo...
Weird is not always bad. But it usually is. And in all the cases you just listed, there's a vacant spot where parenting should be, or additional complication in interpersonal relationships that are supposed to be reliable, stable, and comfortable for SallyBobbyLisaBrett. Sometimes it can't be helped, and we do what we can... but it is selfish to do something that conventional wisdom tells you is wrong with only a half-assed argument for why it isn't. If kids turned out better with six moms instead of one, I think we'd see a lot more mormons around.
Don't forget Johnny, who spends every other weekend with his biological father and has a mommy and a step-daddy at home.
And Billy, whose teenage mother and father live in the basement of Nanna and Poppa's house, and thinks "normal" is having Mommy, Daddy, Grandma and Grandpa all under one roof.
tl;dr lol family values.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
...Couldn't help but notice you placed Brett in the category of bad parenting situations. Are you suggesting butt-pirates can't raise children? That's pretty fucked up man.
For that matter, I also take offense that you don't think a single parent could raise a child well, or any of the other hundreds of variations off the typical nuclear family.
Conventional wisdom tells me not to put my dick in another man's asshole. Should we ban gays, just because I don't feel an attraction to someone of my own sex? Yeah, I'm only in love with one person at a time, but does that somehow prove that being in love with several people is impossible? I believe it because people tell me they are in love with several people at once, just like I believe gays aren't just ass-fucking eachother as a cute joke toward me.
I just don't fucking get this thread, it's pretty much identical to an anti-gay thread but with a slightly different name. Haven't we gotten over judging others for their sexuality just because we don't agree with it yet?
You seem to be the only person who it's telling that, though.
Kind of like a live in nanny, but free... Like, "Hey, we'll give you a room, food, and an easy life if you cook, clean and watch our kids..." as many households now seem to require both parents to have full-time jobs just to keep up with things (Like my wife and I)...
Just seems like having a third person on hand in the household would make a lot of lives easier, whether it be an additional sexual partner, or just someone else...
Movie Collection
Foody Things
Holy shit! Sony's new techno toy!
Wii Friend code: 1445 3205 3057 5295
Honey, you know I love you with all 50% of my heart.
Also, you have to take into account that said third person's ambition in life would have to be "taking care of someone else's kid" otherwise they'd rapidly become more than a bit disenchanted with staying home and watching your munchkins while you went out and succeeded.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
But that third person is going to want/need money for clothing/entertainment/vacations/cars and so on, so even focusing on the economics of it and ignoring emotional/relationship issues it still falls apart.
Also, I'm kind of confused by the OP's insinuation that living together inevitably implies romantic or sexual connections, as opposed to say, a roomate. I'm living with three other dudes next year, I certainly hope that's not how it works.
On a large scale and if enough people do it, it will drive the cost of living even higher over time. It's exactly what happened to cause many/most families to need two working parents.
Also this, which is ridiculous:
People think that they need a shit-ton more than they actually do, in general. A good long-term solution is not to add another earner to the equation.
That was something I got out of the OP as well. I don't see why it has to be sexual, romantic or poly based. It could just be a relative that has a part time job during the day, but can help out with kids, bills and other things to keep costs down. That way they still have money for themselves, but are contributing to the over all group. You could just rent out a room and one of the members of the coupledom stays home still, but I think there tends to be more boundry issues there than with a family member unless you have a place just for them to stay in, not just a bedroom, but full living quarters to themselves.
Let's be reasonable here. If you're getting married then hopefully you're marrying someone who will understand that you have a job. Or that you have to balance them and kids.
Poker buddies? If you got poker on Thursday, but your wife has plans that require you, who are you gonna pick? Your wife or your friends?
If you shun your wife for your friends, your relationship is going to take a hit for it, and if it continues, then the relationship will most likely fail. If it doesn't, then one person is being treated unfairly, and that's not a working, healthy, relationship. Which is what we're talking about. Working relationships.
If you and your spouse can bring another person into your life and the relationship not take a hit because of it, then great. I'm happy that you can make those arrangements and not suffer.
However, that's a very small minority, and the very act of an open relationship is there to specifically appease personal wants. Which is pretty much not good behavior for a relationship.
Considering this, I have to disagree with the OPs idea that an open relationship is an idea that people should adopt.
Or, OR! You can not be an idiot who doesn't know what the word "savings" means. That works too, I hear.
What are you, stupid? It's because it's something we don't understand, duh!
Yeah, a few of us have said that he's really mixing up a bunch of different ideas.
I mean, I'll happily be the resident cheerleader for polyamorous lifestyles, but even I have to say that doing it because you think it'll somehow save money or simplify your life is pretty nonsensical.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Where did you get that chart? I love it and I want to source it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
http://www.census.gov/const/www/charindex.html#singlecomplete
median and average square feet by location.
That is what I was implying, yes.