And while you can’t help being gay, you could choose to not have sex with people of your own gender and live a celebate lifestyle for the sake of your children.
Yes, but I don’t somehow see you going off about how race car drivers are DELUSIONAL if they don’t take into consideration how DEVASTATED their children will be if they die. Of course, no one’s started a thread about “Race Car Drivers with Kids,” so you haven’t had the opportunity to blow your special brand of hysteria all over that thread.
I don’t know what you picture when you think “swinger,” but I really don’t think it has much basis in reality. For instance, I think it’s very rare for anyone’s mother to be frequently double-penetrated by little league coaches, and even if she was, I really don’t think the kids would find out.
Unless you are assuming that “parents who like to fuck others” = “parents who have no idea how to be discreet” or “parents who don’t think about their kids AT ALL.”
It’s been my experience that people who aren’t swingers and who have not had any friends who are swingers rarely have any idea what they’re talking about when it comes to the morality of swingers.
cough
To be precise, I said. “you should stay out” of parenting discussions. You can read that as some kind of absolutist declaration as to what people should or should not be allowed to do, but to me is what just a bit of petulant advice. This IS the Pit, after all.
Absolutely. I tend to place critiques of soldiers on battlefields pretty high on that list, for example.
Yes. At least ahead of pursuits that fall short of real needs.
That depends on how you define “poly.” WhyNot isn’t talling about poly relationships, just sexual encounters.
I would disagree that divorce is a choice. At least, I would disagree that a marriage can be held together if there’s no love and that it’s a worse choice for parents to stay together in those circumstances than to end it. Divorce is a solution to an existing problem, not the creation of a new problem.
huh?
Having a life partner is an emotional need for most people and it doesn’t have to create a situation where a child is deceived about who’s really in his “family” and who isn’t.
You must be DELUSIONAL if you think any of that makes any difference when the POOR KIDS are traumatized for life. How do you think they’ll feel when they find out Mommy and Daddy don’t love them enough to stay together, huh? How can you excuse that emotional trauma! The parents are clearly just being selfish.
Dio, why do you condone society’s potential reaction in this case if you don’t have a moral issue with it? Society clearly condemns many other voluntary behaviors, but because you don’t have a problem with them, you don’t care about that. You have yet to answer to this point, and I think it’s because you can’t. Once again, you have talked yourself into a corner.
You said you don’t live with these people. It didn’t sound like you were describing a relationship with clearly defined partners whose roles were understood by your children. It sounded like you just said you were sometimes banging your “friends.” I don’t call that “poly,” I call that swinging.
Okay, so in a “swinging” situation, who is being introduced as a member of the child’s “family?” Isn’t that only poly situations? Didn’t you insist that you were only talking about swinging?
Fine. If there are race car drivers who don’t think their children could potentially be devastated by a fatal accident then they ARE delusional. I don’t think many of them are in denial about that, though.
Even hypothetically, do you think that’s something which could hurt a kid emotionally?
I’m not saying they aren’t discreet, or that any harm will come if the kids don’t find out (at least if they don’t find out while they’re still kids). I’m saying it can’t be assumed that they won’t find out accidentally and that such an eventuality has to be taken into consideration.
I’ve never shot heroin either. That doesn’t mean I can’t say that a heroin habit would be a shitty choice for me as a father.
Nobody, that’s my point.
Yes. In a true poly situation the kid already knows who’s who and isn’t going to be in for a nasty shock if he finds out that people are involved in this paradigm without his knowledge. Maybe even people who are complete strangers to him.
I am.
OMG! The very idea that a parent could have had sex with a COMPLETE STRANGER!!!
Still not seeing the lack of moral outrage, dude.
Personally, I was OVERJOYED when my parents split up. It was nothing but a relief after all the fighting. It was no trauma at all and I think that very few kids actually think they’re parents get divorced because they didn’t love their kids. Any decent parents would make it clear to the kids that it wasn’t their fault anyway. Divorce really isn’t that big of a deal anymore. I’ve never met a single person who has ever said they felt any personal shame or culpability about their parents’ divorce. This is a bit of a strawman.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What societal “moral” reaction have I condoned?
Well, you’re certainly allowed to use words with whatever definitions you’d like them to have, but it’s generally best, if not using the standard definitions, or if you don’t agree with the definitions as previously stated in the same thread to make that clear before continuing your argument.
I am clearly and most definitely in the second definition: ““open marriages”, with two people making a conventional dyad, committed primarily to one another, who also go on dates with other people. These other relationships may be long term or short term, but involve more than just sex. They involve companionship, shared interests, friendship - they involve everything that monogomous peoples’ boyfriends and girfriends do.” I am most certainly not, have never been, nor am I interested in being a swinger according to the most widely accepted definition, and the one given earlier: ““swingers”, often complete with clubs, who are looking for short-term generally anonymous sex without relationships. Swingers are generally secretive about their lifestyle, and often present a monogomous front to acquaintances. Or not.”
A few more definitions of “swinger”:
From Swinger - definition of swinger by The Free Dictionary
From http://dict.die.net/swinger/
From the very, very very **not **worksafe (so I’m not linking to it) “Swingers Society”:
None of those describe my lifestyle one bit.
It’s a question of priorities, not morality. I’ll simplify it for you. Don’t lie to your children. Don’t lead them to believe their family is something it isn’t. How about that?
WhyNot, I see no substantive difference between how any of those definitions would emotionally affect children. The issue is that there is still a potential for them to find out they’re family is not what they’ve always thought it was. If you don’t think that can have any affect on their trust or sense of familial security then I don’t know what to tell you.
Well, it certainly does fit your M.O. of changing your position whenever we reach a new page of comments or so. Which is it:
- It’s not wrong, it’s just that the kids will feel bad because other people think it’s wrong.
- It is wrong, but only if you’re a parent.
- It’s not wrong, it’s just wrong to hide it, unlike all other sexual activities.
You’ve claimed all of the above as your sole position so far.
That’s now how I read it at all, though plenty of people have sex with more than one person throughout their lifetimes. Not that big a deal.
WhyNot, your experience/involvement with poly relationships: strictly sex or is it a deeper relationship? Parents?
My position has been the same from my firts fucking post. This issue is not miltiple partners but secret partners that the kids don’t know about.
- It’s not wrong, it’s just that the kids will feel bad because other people think it’s wrong.
- It is wrong, but only if you’re a parent.
- It’s not wrong, it’s just wrong to hide it, unlike all other sexual activities.
You’ve claimed all of the above as your sole position so far.
[/QUOTE]
The answer is kind of number three but my issue is about hiding partners, not hiding sex.