Page 342 of 418 FirstFirst ... 242292332340341342343344352392 ... LastLast
Results 3,411 to 3,420 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #3411
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    There is at least some investigation into how children fare in monogamous, non-monogamous, and polygynous groups. It generally says that poly groupings harm children. I generally support the idea of using a village to support kids, so perhaps it is that the poly structure doesn't actually create the nurturing tribe that children need? I'm uncertain of that, but the research starts here:

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/367/1589/657

    Key quote is "Living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect[,] and homicide of children."
    aka

    in a sexist, abusive structure (polygamy) sexism and abuse are rampant and that hurts children.


    thats a study on polygamy, not polyamory.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #3412
    in terms of scientific studies, there are some ongoing ones, but not really much published yet.

    also, like homosexuality, and trans, and other situations like that, the self-reporting is stigmatized, and thus the pools are hard to accurately discern.

    what is known, is that a large number of people who are poly, are also parents (~50%), and that at least half of them conceal there polyamory from there children. some conceal it from all other adults, for fear of repercussions (including legal).

    this makes getting accurate data sets tough to do. it also shows the cracks in the whole nuclear family mono-culture narrative (just like homosexual marriage, trans etc did in the 90s and 2000s).

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...y-and-children
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 02:49 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #3413
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    I wish you'd take a longer look at the study. It certainly discusses polygamy, but it also covers family situations like step-parents. I'd see a step parent as being more akin to a bonus parent in a polyamory grouping, right?

  4. #3414
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    I wish you'd take a longer look at the study. It certainly discusses polygamy, but it also covers family situations like step-parents. I'd see a step parent as being more akin to a bonus parent in a polyamory grouping, right?
    i wouldn't. at least not how i've seen it done before. maybe some are like that. i dont know.

    its been far closer to uncle/aunt or grandparent (minus the age difference) in the situations i've observed.



    its hard to try to scientifically study something that the self-reporting is stigmatized and punished by society. as we have seen with other groups (LGBTQ), it leads to a circular logic loop, hard to find folks who are open to being studied, leads to studies showing only the crazy ones, leads to the conclusion that its crazy, leading to the further stigmatizing of said thing. this is only now being shaken off for gay marriage for example, most recent studies showing that two stable gay parents are equal in child rearing to two stable straight parents. and that the only pressure on that unit, is actually from the outside, outside judgment effects the children more than what happens in the actual relationship.

    and gay marriage has been legal for what? 15 years in most of the civilized world? it will take that long or longer to gather actual scientific data on poly child rearing as well. and like the LGBTQ studies, i think it will show pretty commandingly that the adults in a child's life having sex or not matters far less than the adults being involved in the child's life.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 02:57 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #3415
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    As an aside, most of the people I know in polyamorous relationships do not have children with each other (though in a few cases, one partner has children prior to a previous divorce). The only example I know of, the other side of the v became the adoptive parent when the biological father stepped out of the poly relationship. Poly seems to gravitate to the younger and more liberal wings of society, and being a middle-aged liberal means I'm more likely to run into poly groupings than not.

    I think a potential issue touched on is that poly relationships do seem to dissolve more naturally and faster than marriages fail. In some ways, a lot of effort is put into making it very difficult to get out of a marriage. This may relate to the fact that heightened instability and adult figure change in a child's life has noted negative consequences: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331486/). I wouldn't call this the nail in poly by any means, but rather that it seems like poly structures could facilitate the ease of departure for attached adult units from a family grouping. If I was in a poly relationship with kids, that would be a prime concern of mine to work on when bringing in or letting go of partners.

    I think the alternative of hiding this information from children is pretty foolhardy. My kids seem to figure out literally everything going on in our lives as it stands. Either new partners would be coming into our parental bed at times, or one of their parents would be frequently leaving for overnights to go be somewhere else. In the case of the former, it's no secret. In the case of the latter, one adult is sacrificing connective time with the children to be elsewhere... I'll argue that's detrimental to the cohesiveness of the family in that case. So I'd at least recommend people in alternative relationships be upfront and open about it with their children, too.

  6. #3416
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    As an aside, most of the people I know in polyamorous relationships do not have children with each other (though in a few cases, one partner has children prior to a previous divorce). The only example I know of, the other side of the v became the adoptive parent when the biological father stepped out of the poly relationship. Poly seems to gravitate to the younger and more liberal wings of society, and being a middle-aged liberal means I'm more likely to run into poly groupings than not.

    I think a potential issue touched on is that poly relationships do seem to dissolve more naturally and faster than marriages fail. In some ways, a lot of effort is put into making it very difficult to get out of a marriage. This may relate to the fact that heightened instability and adult figure change in a child's life has noted negative consequences: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331486/). I wouldn't call this the nail in poly by any means, but rather that it seems like poly structures could facilitate the ease of departure for attached adult units from a family grouping. If I was in a poly relationship with kids, that would be a prime concern of mine to work on when bringing in or letting go of partners.

    I think the alternative of hiding this information from children is pretty foolhardy. My kids seem to figure out literally everything going on in our lives as it stands. Either new partners would be coming into our parental bed at times, or one of their parents would be frequently leaving for overnights to go be somewhere else. In the case of the former, it's no secret. In the case of the latter, one adult is sacrificing connective time with the children to be elsewhere... I'll argue that's detrimental to the cohesiveness of the family in that case. So I'd at least recommend people in alternative relationships be upfront and open about it with their children, too.
    people can and have hid far more than that they might go on a few dates with someone other than there spouse from there children, for generations.

    the whole "does the high cost of divorce hurt, or help" is an ongoing topic. its one i struggle with, being that my brother got divorced when his daughter was 3. on one hand, he was very unhappy, and had a shit life, and that shit life would have lead to a shit relationship with his daughter. on the other, she has to cope with having two moms on a daily basis. on the plus side, my brother is now happy as can be with his new wife, and his new wife is freaking great with his daughter. overall, i think it was a good thing.

    but the devil is in the details. his divorce was very amicable, he maintains a good relationship with his ex wife, and his current wife has a good relationship with her too.

    but that isn't always the case.

    thats another reason that while statistics are useful, they arn't super useful as tools to understand the fundamental nature of something. they are only useful towards understanding what commonly happens, not what is or is not right, wrong, or fundamentally a thing or not. and no matter what the statistics are, a shitty monogamous marriage isn't a good thing for the kids, and a shitty poly relationship isn't going to be good for the kids. meanwhile, a solid poly relationship is probably just as good as a solid monogamous relationship is.

    the only thing to debate, is how many monogamous relationships fit that criteria, and how many poly ones do. if thats the argument you want to use. and my point there is that monogamous nuclear families don't have a great track record here.

    meanwhile, my point is simply that FUNDAMENTALLY, a poly relationship isn't any worse than monogamous one is for childbearing. it can also have certain advantages. it probably has disadvantages as well. and the success of the situation will likely depend on the functioning level of the people involved in the situation.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 03:20 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #3417
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    You've said no less than 10 times that poly keeps the constructs loose and that "one person's poly is different from another person's poly." You can make it a game of semantics, but if you don't have boundaries/ rules, you don't have a relationship at all and definately don't have an environment where intimacy can thrive. People feel safe when there are borders and security is a cornerstone of intimacy.

    50% of marriages fail, so they're not ideal? Of the 50% that do last, the children have a decided advantage. Outside of a very isolated set of, perhaps, religious idealists, a nuclear system doesn't mean isolated influences. But even still, the nuclear family unit is the center of the family structure and by itself the term means nothing. A healthy nuclear family (mom and dad) typically leads to better outcomes for children.

    To your (maybe) 2 point argument... 1) Your position is NOT supported by any science. In fact, the counter is true. 2) Prove it. 3) There are 3 primary psychological constructs for parenting styles and I think you're conflating tribal with concerted cultivation. If not, you're going further off the tracks.

    Spending time together is a weightless metric if you're arguing it's importance in a relationship. You swapped the order around, so I'm assuming you don't understand the meaning of intimacy. "Reliable" time together is meaningless. Intimate time together is meaningful. Sex is meaningful.

    Since you linked her TED talk, Ester Perel says; "If love is an act of imagination, then intimacy is an act of fruition. It waits for the high to subside so it can patiently insert itself into the relationship. The seeds of intimacy are time and repetition. We choose each other again and again, and so create a community of two."

    Monogamy is the environment where love and intimacy thrive. Inside that healthy nuclear relationship, kids, governed by an appropriate parenting style, are given the biggest chance for success.

  8. #3418
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    You've said no less than 10 times that poly keeps the constructs loose and that "one person's poly is different from another person's poly." You can make it a game of semantics, but if you don't have boundaries/ rules, you don't have a relationship at all and definately don't have an environment where intimacy can thrive. People feel safe when there are borders and security is a cornerstone of intimacy.

    50% of marriages fail, so they're not ideal? Of the 50% that do last, the children have a decided advantage. Outside of a very isolated set of, perhaps, religious idealists, a nuclear system doesn't mean isolated influences. But even still, the nuclear family unit is the center of the family structure and by itself the term means nothing. A healthy nuclear family (mom and dad) typically leads to better outcomes for children.

    To your (maybe) 2 point argument... 1) Your position is NOT supported by any science. In fact, the counter is true. 2) Prove it. 3) There are 3 primary psychological constructs for parenting styles and I think you're conflating tribal with concerted cultivation. If not, you're going further off the tracks.

    Spending time together is a weightless metric if you're arguing it's importance in a relationship. You swapped the order around, so I'm assuming you don't understand the meaning of intimacy. "Reliable" time together is meaningless. Intimate time together is meaningful. Sex is meaningful.

    Since you linked her TED talk, Ester Perel says; "If love is an act of imagination, then intimacy is an act of fruition. It waits for the high to subside so it can patiently insert itself into the relationship. The seeds of intimacy are time and repetition. We choose each other again and again, and so create a community of two."

    Monogamy is the environment where love and intimacy thrive. Inside that healthy nuclear relationship, kids, governed by an appropriate parenting style, are given the biggest chance for success.
    eeekkkk

    if you don't have rules, then you don't have a relationship?

    yeah, im not even gonna touch that. nope. gross. i've been in that relationship many times, and its always been total shit.

    sorry, thats a non-starter. i dont want to judge your relationship via the internet, but i've never seen that mentality help a relationship. i want zero part of any relationship based on rules. relationships are based on consent, not rules.


    as to your last bit about ester's quote .... none of that conflicts with polyamory in any way, i dont know why you would think it does.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 03:43 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #3419
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    I bet you have rules you don't even think about. An example might be, "We won't couple outside of our pairing without proper protection from procreation and diseases."

    A relationship without rules is, by definition, Relationship Anarchy. Which I think was my point about where my feelings on poly turn toward nihilism.

  10. #3420
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    I bet you have rules you don't even think about. An example might be, "We won't couple outside of our pairing without proper protection from procreation and diseases."

    A relationship without rules is, by definition, Relationship Anarchy. Which I think was my point about where my feelings on poly turn toward nihilism.
    no, you are building a false dichotomy between rules and no rules.

    relationships are based on and defined by consent. not rules.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •