Polyamory.com Forum  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 09-10-2013, 12:25 AM
BrigidsDaughter's Avatar
BrigidsDaughter BrigidsDaughter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 814
Default

Natja - S.C. is referencing scientific evidence from psychological and sociological studies. I'm sorry that it is offensive to you, but that does not mean that the correlations do not exist outside of stereotypes.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-10-2013, 12:41 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 6,755
Default

The duality of male and female exists for biological and psycho-social purposes, and each has its own energy. Children need balance in their lives. Why shouldn't there be a balance between males and females in their lives? If it isn't the parents, there should be others in the kids' lives who are a positive presence. What is so offensive about that?
__________________
Hot chick in the city.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me.
~Bryan Ferry
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-10-2013, 01:09 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,814
Default

I don't think you are likely going mad. But, it's quite possibly that you are lacking current educational information on the topic (as noted by two previous posters) or that you are reading something into the words that wasn't actually stated.

It is a fact that humans in current societies require relationships with males and females in order to learn how to establish healthy relationships as adults with males and females.

IN NO WAY is that to suggest that those relationships need to be of a specified form (ie, doesn't need to be a mom and a dad-could be a variety of models that work). But it's well documented information.

Furthermore:

It was also very clear that the poster was not in any way suggesting anything specific about any other posters dynamic regarding that (except mine lol). In regards to mine-they are correct. Not only do my children have 3 parents in the household currently-but until the last 2 years, they had 4. 2 females and 2 males. Additionally they have MANY very involved extended family members of both sexes and functional relationships with several trans people as well.

But there was a time when I was a single mom of a daughter (6 years of time actually) and when that was the case it was of critical importance that there were men in our life to be male role models for my daughter. Even with MULTIPLE wonderful male examples-she craved a "daddy". She wasn't taught that by me, but she experienced her age-mates having that and felt "left out" it showed in her actions.
So another critical component is insuring that the people who are around your children are actually trustworthy because *especially* a child who feels a sense of "neglect" at not having something other people have-is at risk of being taken advantage of by an adult who keys in on that vulnerability.

As for our children meeting our partners. We don't "date" in the sense of going out to meet people off the internet or blind dates etc. If someone is being considered a potential partner, they are already part of our social group of friends and known to the extended family.

Maca tried the "meet them online and then date" (GG and I both had no interest in even trying that) and he found that it was too disruptive and didn't have results he liked. Specifically, the people he thought were "his type" online-turned out to not be in real life. They might have been his type of "pretty" but they weren't his type of people.

So in terms of people coming around that are unknown-that doesn't happen. But in terms of people coming around-we're always around.


Interestingly I was laughing over this on fb the other day-because someone outside of our town-but within an hour, has begun a fb group extending the invite to "any one who is poly friendly, drug free and kid friendly" to camp out on their property every Saturday night for a "family friendly evening of fun where we can all be accepted for who we are and the relationships we have". The group is open so that anyone who joins it can add anyone they want.

A great example of what I was saying before-it's very normal here for people to socialize in groups this way. It's almost expected.

*I do realize it is NOT that way in other places-that's why I point it out, it is here*
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-10-2013, 01:59 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,814
Default

Interesting quote from my social psychology textbook

"With an interdependent self, one has a greater sense of belonging. If they were uprooted and cut off from family, colleagues, and loyal friends, interdependent people would lose the social connections that define who they are."

(Social Psychology by David G Meyers 11th edition)

Just found that to be interesting in light of the conversation and debate regarding the involvement versus segregation of relationships.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-10-2013, 07:00 AM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
I don't think you are likely going mad. But, it's quite possibly that you are lacking current educational information on the topic
Don't patronise me.

I am objecting to the generalisation and cultural bias of the line. I grew up in a matriarchal and homosocial environment as did many women I know, none of whom acted in the way described. So yes it offends me as it implies a universal truth, but it is far from it.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-10-2013, 07:03 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,814
Default

I wasn't patronizing. But take it as you will.
I grew up in an LGBT-friendly and multicultural family.
We recognize the need for both sexes, abundance of races and abundance of cultures involvement in raising our children.

Not to mention that I am CURRENTLY a student studying exactly this topic and it's NOT old news. It's pretty damn current info as a matter of fact. But please-don't take it from me or any one here. Feel free to go do the research yourself. It's always better that way anyhow.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-10-2013, 07:21 AM
Natja's Avatar
Natja Natja is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 814
Default

I did not say it is old, I said it was culturally biased. Not that that in itself surprises me, but that you don't realise that, that is the surprise.

And it is not that I don't feel it is important for children to experience diversity, I think it is extremely important, what I disagree with is the statement that not having that diversity would make all young women into victims of predators or get into unsuitable relationships, as I have said, this is not a reality for myself, members of my family or friends/friends of family brought up in the same way.

It offends me because of the bias, it is patronising because it presumes that I am uneducated instead of simply having a different cultural experience.

Let me also point out that the two women I know with the most dysfunctional attitudes to men both had fathers in their lives (no abuse).

What what do I know eh?

I iz stoopid *drool*
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-12-2013, 04:20 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 6,755
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natja View Post
And . . . what I disagree with is the statement that not having that diversity would make all young women into victims of predators or get into unsuitable relationships, as I have said, this is not a reality for myself, members of my family or friends/friends of family brought up in the same way.
Natja, nobody said that.

This is what you quoted and said was offensive to you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
OK, calm down.

I didn't single you out. I know that your kid's dad is involved, you've said that before. So you're not even the kind of family I'm talking about. What I said is that IF a child doesn't have any male role model, THEN they will be more likely to latch on to some random guy who happens to be available. It doesn't need to be the guy you bring home, it can be a male teacher, a scouting leader, or the mail man for that matter.
Saying that children without male role models are "more likely" to latch onto any random guy does not equate to "making all young women into victims." It just means that a child (male or female) who doesn't have a strong male influence in their life will likely (though not written in stone) have a predisposition toward becoming attached to or wanting the attentions of the most convenient male that comes along. SC did not say nor imply that anyone raised without a male role model will automatically set themselves up to be victimized, but that they could very likely look for things like guidance, authority, a father figure, stability, consistency, mentorship, etc., from someone who might possibly be unable or inappropriate to be there for them in that way. Additionally, that male not being able to be there for them does not automatically equate to being an abuser or predator. It could simply be someone who won't be around for long - nothing earth-shattering, but disappointing nonetheless. Of course, there could be the extreme of abuse and victimization, but no one said that scenario would be a given, "universal truth."

It makes logical sense to me. I don't see how it could be construed as offensive.
__________________
Hot chick in the city.

Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me.
~Bryan Ferry

Last edited by nycindie; 09-12-2013 at 04:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-12-2013, 05:40 AM
alibabe_muse's Avatar
alibabe_muse alibabe_muse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by london View Post
I have a child, yes. A child that I wouldn't dream of involving in my adult romantic relationships of any kind for at least a year of dating someone. So yeah, in your situation, I'd probably stick to swinging, date people who can host, or go to hotels. I believe in quality couple time. I have my own very large and loud extended family to spend time with, it seems bizarre to leave my family to go and spend time with someone else's grandkids. I want my free time to be filled with adult company, bonding and filthy sex. I have my own kid to build tents with. I don't want those kind of entwined relationships with metamours particularly in the early dating stage - especially whilst I am still deciding how I feel about the guy, and I believe that kids shouldn't be involved in their parents adult relationships at all for months and months and months. So altogether, that whole set up is everything I am fundamentally against in polyamory. Thanks though, it gives me another angle to investigate what expectations any married or attached guys have in terms of allowing us to develop an adult romantic and/or sexual relationship. I simply couldn't under those sorts of conditions.
London - this is your choice, your belief and how you want involvement in your son's life (shrug) nothing wrong with that. At the same time, nothing wrong in how LR & her family operate either (or anyone else's). It's her choice and what works for her.

Personally I'm about in the middle of both your choices. And prior to moving to where we now live, my kids met all our friends. They made attachments to a few of my husband's best friends (really loved seeing them etc ) and since our move we don't see them much (once in last two years ). Are my kids suffering or asking why T doesn't love seeing us anymore? No, they have not. They know changes happen in their lives, friends come and go. They also know the most important thing: both their father and I love them infinitely and we'll always be here for them. They are well grounded, don't fear new friends and are growing up to be well rounded individuals. They have stability even if the people we allow in their lives end up being unstable.

My point is each of us as parents are the foundation for the health and happiness of our kids no matter how many x, y & Z's come into their life or not. And that how each of us chooses to live our poly lives is exactly that, our choice, our right and our individual opinions. To keep trying to tell someone they are wrong is ridiculous (unless their children are getting abused mentally, physically or sexually).
__________________
the muse (me) - 40's pansexual, female, poly, married 18 years, open & looking
bassman (was DH) - 40's male (blueeyeddevil), poly, father of our 3 children, my husband
MY BLOG
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-12-2013, 06:47 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,814
Default

Natja-

noone said it WILL cause that. Only that it increases the risk-which it does. There is empirical prove that it does increase that risk.
That doesn't mean it WILL or that it always does. It also doesn't mean it's a cause effect.

when ice cream sales rise, crime rates rise. But one doesn't cause the other. they are just related. The suspected cause is actually the rise in temperature.

If it was said it WOULD-then yes-I would totally see your point-but that isn't what was written.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
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 12:36 AM.