Page 174 of 183 FirstFirst ... 74124164172173174175176 ... LastLast
Results 1,731 to 1,740 of 1822

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1731
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    Dad and Grandpa is statistically different from Dad and Uncle. I want to be clear that I'm not arguing against multi-adult families, simply multi-adult families where the adults are peers and partners in age. But if future studies come out that show that Aunts and Uncles, or adults that act in a relationship similar to a non-parent aunt or uncle, do not increase the risk of child abuse, I'm open to changing my mind. I feel that I remain justified in thinking of the poor children based on the best available information we have right now.

    I would argue that dating outside of a "primary" relationship is more in line with swinging than poly, but I suppose I draw the lines weirdly. But I'll stick to my guns on that because otherwise the idea of a primary parenting relationship seems to imply that there are rules and hierarchy in place. Such rules and hierarchy go against the very idea of purist relationship anarchy.
    those future studies will only come, if the stigma of the arrangement is removed. thats the point.

    funny, now the non-poly guy is trying to explain what poly is to the poly guy. c'mon, you are better than that. swinging is a form of poly, duh. what is this, some cis-splaining? lol
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #1732
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    763
    I completely disagree on your definition of poly. Swinging and Poly are both forms of non-monogamous relationships. In one the emphasis is on sex, and the other the emphasis is on love. But if this is just a terms issue, it seems like it should all clear up quickly.

    You seem to be predisposed to believe that those studies will come without any evidence to indicate the supposition will be the case other than your perspective view into personal anecdotes. Like, "that's weird, yo". I mean, I guess I'd grant the idea that stigma must first be removed, but I don't grant the idea that the lack of stigma will change the outcome of the study.

  3. #1733
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    I completely disagree on your definition of poly. Swinging and Poly are both forms of non-monogamous relationships. In one the emphasis is on sex, and the other the emphasis is on love. But if this is just a terms issue, it seems like it should all clear up quickly.

    You seem to be predisposed to believe that those studies will come without any evidence to indicate the supposition will be the case other than your perspective view into personal anecdotes. Like, "that's weird, yo". I mean, I guess I'd grant the idea that stigma must first be removed, but I don't grant the idea that the lack of stigma will change the outcome of the study.
    again, because we have evidence of this throughout history. every time the social stigma of a relationship structure or dynamic is removed, outcomes are normalized. because its the stigma that causes the problem, not the other way around.


    still CIS-splaining. once you go non-monogamous, its not really a thing to further divide up. it doesn't make any sense to either. i know folks who go to swingers parties, and have multiple stable sexual relationships with adults, and have children. are they poly? are they swingers? by your definition they are both. its a distinction without meaning, because once you are no longer monogamous, ethically, then you can/will adopt a huge variety of relationship structures depending on what each person in the relationship needs.

    ie, this is my current structure:

    1. kassy, life-partnering
    2. *******, consistently dating, building a great relationship
    3. ******, we were dating, but now have switched to a kink-only relationship (ie, we just have kink sex scenes with each other). i would like to date her again, if she had the time.
    4. ********, non-local, shes in the same national level car world as me, and so when we bump into each other, or can easily bump into each other, we do
    5. i attend play parties and fuck people i am not dating, and really only see at play parties


    so you tell me? what is swinging, and what is poly and what is ethically non-monogamous? which am i? CIS-splain to me.

    in fact IMO thats my favorite part of being any of these .... relationships can be exactly what they want to be. nothing more, nothing less. doesn't have to fit into a box, doesn't have to fix a label, or anyone elses model of the relationship. the relationship structure can be negotiated and defined ANY way it wants or needs to be. as long as the relationship makes both (all) parties happy ... it can be in whatever form it wants to be.

    its a distinction without a meaning.

    if someone goes to swinger parties, but then also goes on dates with someone they met there, are they no longer swingers? are they poly? what is the line?

    why does it matter?

    it doesn't. its a distinction without meaning.

    EDIT: edited to protect the innocent
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-06-2019 at 12:47 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #1734
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    763
    You see increased negative outcomes for children in homes with aunt-or-uncle-type adults coupled with the parents, regardless of the cohort. Therefore, for any of the classifications of relationships you've noted above, adults bringing more aunt-or-uncle-type persons into the home should be avoided. We already see that this behavior is not limited to same sex, nor to non-monogamous couples. It happens when a real aunt or uncle violates a cis-couple's child. It happens when a non-biologically related step parent is brought into the family unit. There are plenty of non-monogamy models where aunt-or-uncle type relationships are not formed with the children. DADT, Swinging that doesn't come home, adultery, childfree polyamory, etc. all exemplify models where the outside adult is not in contact with familial children. Certainly some of these have their own flaws, and I'm not recommending any particular relationship alternative over the other.

    My argument is fairly nuanced here - if you're going to want polyamory, it should reduce down to relationship anarchy (and I think you support this concept, in your description of avoidance of rules that you've espoused earlier in thread and even your broad misidentification of the concept of non-monogamy right before this post). If you're going to practice relationship anarchy, you are going to develop relationships with a non-biological line, peer-level partner that will act as an "aunt-or-uncle"-type unit in the home. And if you do that, you are putting your children at an increased risk. So either don't have children or don't practice relationship anarchy/polyamory. You can still be non-monogamous without crossing the wrong lines on outsider-child relations, but it does require some rules and hierarchy. Perhaps there's a more middle ground that I should concede, as my argument also boils down to the fact that you shouldn't remarry a new, non-biological partner after you've had kids. For the moment, I think I'd rather be consistent and say you shouldn't remarry and you shouldn't practice relationship anarchy with children due to the risk of real harm.

    You define yourself however you see fit. Just eschew making relationships if relationships 2-5 are romantic in nature such that you would bring those people into a home with kids (and for a global you that doesn't actually mean "YOU", when those people bring you into their home with their kids). Do you think I'm making some other reference or implication about your other relationships outside of kids? Because when you get outside of the boundaries for what might cause harm, you do you - I don't care.

  5. #1735
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    You see increased negative outcomes for children in homes with aunt-or-uncle-type adults coupled with the parents, regardless of the cohort. Therefore, for any of the classifications of relationships you've noted above, adults bringing more aunt-or-uncle-type persons into the home should be avoided. We already see that this behavior is not limited to same sex, nor to non-monogamous couples. It happens when a real aunt or uncle violates a cis-couple's child. It happens when a non-biologically related step parent is brought into the family unit. There are plenty of non-monogamy models where aunt-or-uncle type relationships are not formed with the children. DADT, Swinging that doesn't come home, adultery, childfree polyamory, etc. all exemplify models where the outside adult is not in contact with familial children. Certainly some of these have their own flaws, and I'm not recommending any particular relationship alternative over the other.

    My argument is fairly nuanced here - if you're going to want polyamory, it should reduce down to relationship anarchy (and I think you support this concept, in your description of avoidance of rules that you've espoused earlier in thread and even your broad misidentification of the concept of non-monogamy right before this post). If you're going to practice relationship anarchy, you are going to develop relationships with a non-biological line, peer-level partner that will act as an "aunt-or-uncle"-type unit in the home. And if you do that, you are putting your children at an increased risk. So either don't have children or don't practice relationship anarchy/polyamory. You can still be non-monogamous without crossing the wrong lines on outsider-child relations, but it does require some rules and hierarchy. Perhaps there's a more middle ground that I should concede, as my argument also boils down to the fact that you shouldn't remarry a new, non-biological partner after you've had kids. For the moment, I think I'd rather be consistent and say you shouldn't remarry and you shouldn't practice relationship anarchy with children due to the risk of real harm.

    You define yourself however you see fit. Just eschew making relationships if relationships 2-5 are romantic in nature such that you would bring those people into a home with kids (and for a global you that doesn't actually mean "YOU", when those people bring you into their home with their kids). Do you think I'm making some other reference or implication about your other relationships outside of kids? Because when you get outside of the boundaries for what might cause harm, you do you - I don't care.
    your first paragraph is not cited. i have googled this on multiple attempts and not found a source citing that having additional adults in the household has a detrimental effect on the children. on its face value this is a pretty ridiculous claim, as someone else to share household duties (assuming they are not there out of medical, mental health or other necessity) can only help. you claim that there is a difference between grand parents and uncles, as if its age differential that magically make its OK (through some totally unknown adult interaction?). i did find several studies that showed that children with good relationships with uncles and aunts show improved results. this makes sense too, more, and more diverse adult relationships would help a kid.

    your second paragraph does not follow its own premise. polyamory/ENM/swinging does not mean relationship anarchy. it means relationships defined by the persons in them.

    the more humans your kid knows the higher his mathematical chance to know a pedophile too. this is basic logic and math, and not an argument against your kid knowing people. again, if you who are dating and bring into your life is a pedophile, then you have bigger problems than ENM. at its core this argument is one for sheltering your kid from anyone/everyone as the more people they know and interact with, the higher the chance they meet a bad one.

    there is also the whole, in a two parent household there is still huge, and potentially worse risk for abuse. ie, not like this is some gold standard of family structuring. again, just as much chance that a single parent brings in an abuser, as a poly person does. unless you are implying that poly people are abusers (that would be a BAD idea). i say a higher chance for two reasons #1. having two humans to judge a persons character before bringing them into the house is better than one. and #2. single parent situations are often more desperate than two parent situations bringing in a third, again, leading to not taking as large of risks.


    and your third paragraph, i was demonstrating the stupidity of attempting to contain and label humans as something that does not make sense. "oh thats swinging, thats not poly" is a stupid statement. i demonstrated that it does not make sense to label someone as using a single relationship structure, when they expressly define there relationship structures as however they want to with whoever they want to is the ENTIRE POINT OF THE THING. your so easy claim "oh im not talking about swingers" doesn't make sense, its a distinction that doesn't make sense.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-06-2019 at 02:52 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #1736
    wrong thread
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #1737
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    your first paragraph is not cited. i have googled this on multiple attempts and not found a source citing that having additional adults in the household has a detrimental effect on the children. on its face value this is a pretty ridiculous claim, as someone else to share household duties (assuming they are not there out of medical, mental health or other necessity) can only help. you claim that there is a difference between grand parents and uncles, as if its age differential that magically make its OK (through some totally unknown adult interaction?). i did find several studies that showed that children with good relationships with uncles and aunts show improved results. this makes sense too, more, and more diverse adult relationships would help a kid.
    Seriously? I provided the link earlier in the thread. At the moment where Irony bowed out from talking to you. Shall I go get that for you, sir?

  8. #1738
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    Seriously? I provided the link earlier in the thread. At the moment where Irony bowed out from talking to you. Shall I go get that for you, sir?
    i couldnt find it. feel free to post it.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #1739
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    763
    Just so we're clear... do you actually know what you've gotten yourself into? Like, you know what relationship anarchy is, other than a term to resist against with me? Because it becomes increasingly difficult to tell if you know which end of the pool you are in.

    So, first off... I did not say swinging was relationship anarchy. Nor even non-monogamy. BUT I get now that you do not see difference in those terms. So, I'll confess to saying "I don't know what the f* you're talking about, then." Based on your terms, you lump a whole lot of people together that don't tend to want to be lumped together. It seems like you're trying to say that you don't want to see any difference between the spectrum of relationship models that fall under non-monogamy. Perhaps this is typical for your cohort, but it is atypical for the presentation of non-monogamous groups online. In fact, I think the swingers and the poly people online might take you to task over the way you blend their colors.

    Second, you have previously said in the thread that there should not be rules, nor necessarily norms, in your relationship. This is a term associated with relationship anarchy. I don't know what you think relationship anarchy is, but what it really is matches the type of stuff you spout. Again, if this is a terms issue and that term just bothers you, insert whatever other term you want for rules-free non-monogamous relationship. Yet you self-describe yourself as "poly". When you say poly, are you using that as shorthand for some other terms, such as non-monogamy or relationship anarchy? When I read you say poly, I'm presuming you are in a primary model that follows polyamory. My argument is that practicing poly where you are rule-free is actually practicing relationship anarchy. Your response is, "Hey, don't define me, man." Very beat generation.

    Third, you go on for a couple of paragraphs that talk about the increased opportunity for harm in non-poly environments or due to increased access. This is really irrelevant, and does not change that there are studies, and those studies show that non-biological persons in a family home increase the likelihood of child abuse. I know you don't want that to exist, because it is problematic for a concept that your peg works for every hole. It may very well be that the causal underpinning of this study is exactly as you say - more access leads to more harm. However, it is determined statistically significant that non-biological "parental-like" units are a higher risk than biological parents. Think of it this way: poly people are only just as likely to cause harm as step parents and not statistically found to be any worse. There, you're normalized! Congrats.

  10. #1740
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    763
    Here is the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...038?via%3Dihub

    Your previous complaint was that a step-parent or aunt or uncle was not the same thing as a loving member of a poly circle, and therefore the study did not apply to poly people. Feel free to run with that objection again as a starting point.


    EDIT: Sorry, I pulled from a higher link up the chain - updated to get the particular study I was referencing. Here are a few more:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/351225?...n_tab_contents
    https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...page&q&f=false
    http://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrvv/19/1/75
    Last edited by Unfated33; 03-06-2019 at 03:27 PM.

Posting Permissions

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