Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-12-2013, 08:27 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

There is no research that can systematically prove that people without male role models attach to males in that fashion. It would be impossible to prove. Feel free to show me credible research that distinctly shows that people without male role models have a tendency to attach to males more quickly or whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-12-2013, 10:04 AM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default It does and it doesn't

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
There is no research that can systematically prove that people without male role models attach to males in that fashion. It would be impossible to prove. Feel free to show me credible research that distinctly shows that people without male role models have a tendency to attach to males more quickly or whatever.

if a person neglects to teach their child about how to think critically, gain knowledge and employ that knowledge to build a house of wisdom (which at present, probably should include a chapter about men being prone to being oblivious to the truth about their gender, which without getting into it can be summed with the fact that after millions of years of stable genetics within an Order, which means physical phenotypes remain virtually unchanged which is sometimes called social evolution and NOT the fantasy type fiction Dawkins writes about, and species of the Order Hymenoptera, excommunicated males from their colonies so that there could be functional, highly organized "cities" where behavior of citizens could be voluntary and therefore enforcement of acceptable behvior could be left to the honor system)

While it is definitely true that males can overcome their genetic disposition to be lying idiot assholes who are oblivious to such facts because they are too stupid to know any better, for the most part their will always be stupid idiot assholes prototypes who play the "natural" male part extremely well. They don't even have to be genetically male, you just have to be stupid and have lying being accepted as part of your core beliefs.

However if Human populations limited males presence to only those who were intelligent enough to be live within a community, the world would have virtually none of the problems that plaque the world today. Bull dykes are NOT males and as result are typically pose few to none of the societal problems that genetically gendered males do

and I regret to inform you, london, that yes, sheltering your child from all males can lead to the child to having unhealthy relationships with males or women who play the male gender role.

I cannot prove it and have no research to show you, however I strongly believe that it is much much better to have your child be in an unhealthy relationship with a women who fills the male role, than to be have a problematic relationship with a genetic male, no comparison

but the plan for the highest probability of healthy adult relationships for your children is to teach them to think critically, make wise decisions and be exposed to males however I do not recommend exposure to males without first teaching them to think for themselves, have the courage to be themselves despite social pressure and how to spot animals disguised in Human bodies, which the most important take home is that nearly all of them have penises

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 09-12-2013 at 10:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-12-2013, 03:36 PM
alibabe_muse's Avatar
alibabe_muse alibabe_muse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 345
Default seeing in real life

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
There is no research that can systematically prove that people without male role models attach to males in that fashion. It would be impossible to prove. Feel free to show me credible research that distinctly shows that people without male role models have a tendency to attach to males more quickly or whatever.
I'm not going to go look this up but tell you a real life story that has been happening since February this year:

I started watching two little brothers, one was almost 3 (is now) and the other 1-1/2. Their father lives two states away and was not actively involved in their lives. And about 3 weeks later I started to watch another boy who was 2-1/2 and his father passed away when he was 7 months old. These two families had very little male involvement with their children. When all of these kids met my husband, they attached to him immediately, more so than me. They called him dada and loved receiving attention from him. For me, this is first hand proof that kids will attach themselves to a male role model when they don't have them in their home.

And the first few months with these children was hard. They were sort of mean little rugrats. Hitting, pushing, biting but I realized they really needed some extra love from both my husband and myself (they got plenty from their mom but she had to work and the daycare they were at beforehand, they came home beat up pretty much). Now 8 months later, they are happier kids, still have typical sharing issues, but have learned to ask an adult for help.

The other boy, even with three older brothers (13, 9 & 7) could not speak at all except the word moma and grunted when he first came here. In 5 months, with the influences here (I consider it a "stable" home environment) he started speaking in sentences and stopped the grunting all together.

These kids are living proof that people without a male role model in their personal lives do have a tendency to attach to males quickly. There's no abuse at home, but a lack of a male figure in their lives. I could be wrong on this but seeing it is all the proof I need that this is true.

Last edited by alibabe_muse; 09-12-2013 at 03:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-12-2013, 03:49 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,184
Default

A tendency or predisposition is only a pattern of behavior or inclination that has been observed in large numbers, but is not an outcome that is set in stone nor a prediction. Of course, many other possibilities exist and other factors play a part. Some of you are just being a tad too literal and are getting caught up in minute details instead of stepping back to see the overall picture.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-12-2013, 04:02 PM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

I think the point is, correlation does not equal causation, so linking the two without allowances for variation and calling it fact is very frustrating to some of us, there are millions of reasons why there might be a correlation which might have more to do with the people involved, rather than the lck of males per se. For example, I have a friend who has a habit of talking down her ex in front of the kids, I hate that I have had to shut her up when she does it but I know that when I am not there she is running her mouth off.
Now, children closely identify with their parents, I reckon those kids have a far more dire outlook than most of my generation who didn't know our fathers at all.
So, not literal, I just think the theory is simplistic.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-12-2013, 04:36 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natja View Post
. . . linking the two without allowances for variation and calling it fact is very frustrating . . .
I didn't see where anyone called it a fact or did not allow for variance. But it is logical.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me. ~Bryan Ferry
"Love is that condition in which another person's happiness is essential to your own." ~Robert Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-12-2013, 04:52 PM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
I didn't see where anyone called it a fact
Oh you missed that eh?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-13-2013, 12:23 AM
BrigidsDaughter's Avatar
BrigidsDaughter BrigidsDaughter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 822
Default

I've re-read the posts and no one called it a fact. We said that there was scientific evidence that points us to that conclusion. A few of us could site studies if you wish.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-13-2013, 06:17 AM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrigidsDaughter View Post
I've re-read the posts and no one called it a fact. We said that there was scientific evidence that points us to that conclusion. A few of us could site studies if you wish.
Yes please point me in the direction of these multi generational, multi cultural, multi-ethnic and multinational studies please.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-13-2013, 06:44 AM
london london is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK - land of the free
Posts: 1,635
Default

@alibabe

I'm sorry but what you have highlighted here is that there were some children you know who were not given sufficient boundaries and/or stimulation. Not having a dad is no reason for a seven year old child not to speak. Maybe he has some sort of learning disability. From what you said, once they were in a loving environment with stimulation, they thrived. It sounds like something the social services needed input into. Them not having a father has no9thing to do with anything.

I think what some people might be confused with here is the fact that children who grew up with a strong of men coming in and out of the house but no male that actually took an interest in them, they may have an unhealthy perception of males and that may lead to unhealthy attachments to males. This occurs when a parent
(usually the mother) provides more attention to her romantic relationships than she does to her children. The children then think the way to get positive attention, affection and love is through romantic relationships. You'll see the little girl who has learnt to "flirt" with men from a young age because that's how she sees mummy get attention. This all occurs when there is a cycle of unhealthy romantic relationships that were never kept separate from parenting roles. It's behaviour that the parent displays that causes this, not the child.

Quote:
nd I regret to inform you, london, that yes, sheltering your child from all males can lead to the child to having unhealthy relationships with males or women who play the male gender role.
My child has very healthy, close relationships with his father, his uncles, his male cousins, male family friends, his grandfather and his male dance teachers. I don't shield my son from males, I just do not involve my kid in my love life. Big difference.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
boundaries, personal rights, privacy

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 PM.