Category: Let's talk
I believe as a signle parent, or as parents, you give up the right to dump your kids with a sitter while you go party. If you want to party, then do not have kids. If you want kids, then stay home and take care of them. This does not include the need for occasional one on one time to keep the relationship alive if you are in one. It means that you give up the right to act like a single person with no family when in fact you have one at home.
First, you'll have to define what you mean by party. The nature of that definition will change the answer somewhat. Then we can give you an answer.
I'd agree with Silver, but I think I understand.
I disagree. A child or family doesn't have to mean you cut off your young life. As long as you leave your child in a safe place, with people he or she is comfortable with, you can go out for the evening.
Shopping, to visit a friend, lover or otherwise.
If a parent doesn't have time away from a child and the child time away from a parent, it would be okay, but it is simply not necessary to stop living as a single person.
Now if you mean staying gone for days on end, you'd be right, but again, you'd have to answer Silver's question as to that.
I agree. The question is somewhat ambiguous, though if I were to define "partying" by its usual connotation, I would have to agree with Real. When you procreate, you gain a responsibility to put yourself second. That isn't to say you can't have a life. It merely means you are required to take care of the fruit of your loins, to ensure their needs are met, especially at a very young age. Leaving your children at home with a trustworthy attendant while you take a break, enjoy time with friends or loved ones is fine - healthy even in most cases. Going off gallivanting in the clubs to participate in what society seems bent on defining as the "single" experience? Only if you can be responsible about it. That means not staying out too long, coming home pissed yout of your tree, or etc.
Parenting is such a diverse task, and no matter what you do, or how you do it, you can’t predict your child’s outcome.
Example, I have a relative who’d go away for days. She only purchased food once or twice a month, and once her kids were old enough, they had to get to school if they wanted to go or not.
She’d be sleeping, or gone, or whatever, and they better not bother her.
No one went to jail. They graduated, and 2 are high ranking military personal.
Another parent I know was home. This parent was responsible. Got up made sure breakfast was made. Had plenty of food.
Made sure the kids had their needs met, and such things.
2 of them went to jail. Only one graduated from high school, and that parent was subjected to the new laws about what you can and cannot make your child do after they are 16.
A child is allowed to drop out of school even, and a parent has no say.
So I say you’d be harming yourself giving up your pleasures for a child. Sure, you need to be responsible, but after that, you won’t know what you’ll actually have when the child grows up.
Some grow to dislike you, not because you were a bad parent, they just don’t like you as a person, or your ideas, and such.
People should have kids because they want them, not because they expect to have someone that loves them later in life.
You raise a child, because you enjoy the experience, and want to have a healthy adult in the world. You also want to keep your bloodline going.
Other than that, when they are grown, you are a good friend, or bad depending on their opinion of you.
I can say, I've never been a single parent. I do believe single parents are frought with challenges the rest of us can't really appreciate. When parenting, I have always been grateful to have a partner, someone who frankly sees the world very differently than I do.
Single parents, no matter how you slice it, do not have that privilege. Parenting is really difficult all the time: you're always afraid of failure, worried about the little one, and then all the practical considerations of everything.
I'm gonna throw a monkey wrench into this discussion:
We say partying is out for single parents, or parents in general. What about people who dump off the kids and go to the church things, like what I saw in Florida, that last hours and hours and hours? Just because that is culturally better accepted, doesn't make it better.
You can get parents coming out of those, who are just as cranky and tired as though they had a hangover.
Honestly? I, I've had the privilege of a long-time partner, and one who is way more educated than I am about child development types of things at that.
I'm not a parent, but like everyone else, I've been a child so...
I think that, as Wayne said, it's about balance. You don't have to live for your child 150% of the time. Yes, you've brought this child into the world, so now it's your responsibility to make sure that child has all their needs met. But if you want to have some fun sometimes, go for it, provided you can leave the child with someone you trust. Happy parents make happier children for the most part. If you're unhappy, you'll likely be less giving, more prone to anger or depression or just plain sadness, you won't be as patient or willing to play, your child will get less loving attention and so forth. Take care of yourself, otherwise you won't be able to take care of a child.
Ok, I agree with most of this, and I've never been a single parent either. But I have to throw in a curve ball for the sake of debate to the last post.
Meglet, you say that happy parents make for happier children. But does anyone else remember seeing the guidy parents who, despite (or because of) being so happy, don't have a clue about their kids' well-being, don't really care much about their emotional needs though they swear they provide for them physically and financially...that kind of parent isn't a good idea either. if your so drunk on your own fine lifestyle, and taking care of yourself so well that your kid's well-being comes second and falls by the wayside, how does that make you a good parent?
I'd also argue that, though a parent does need to do some things for himself or herself, because he or she is a single parent, they need to be more for the kid as an individual than those parents who work together as partners.
A single parent can't just check out in my oppinion, which is ironic, since they are the ones who are most often prone to wanting to do so--who wouldn't, since you have double the stress and no partner to help you juggle it all.
I think that part of parenting is sacrifice and change. those two factor into the equasion no matter how much pleasure you may get out of having a kid, no matter how much you wanted the kid in the first place. you need to know to put your needs second at least some of the time. it's part of my definition of responsibility. That mentality that you shouldn't care as much about how you parent because
you can't control how they turn out as adults is foolish in my opinion. I have a two-year-old, and I'll parent him to my standards--I'll happily give some things up for him and I have already, and this way I could say that, regardless of how he turns out, I have done my very best as a parent.
It's ok for a parent to go out for a few hours, but I wouldn't engage in any seriously risqué behavior. I wouldn't invite casual strangers back to my place or go to theirs. I wouldn't leave my kid, even with a trusted relative, to embark on a weekend away with a casual boyfriend, but that's just me.
I would feel awful to leave my kid for a week or longer because I would miss the goodnight ritual that he and I have, for example. And I know he'd miss it too.
So it's all subjective to how a person wants to parent. I have my firm beliefs on what's ok and what's unacceptable, but I won't ever be able to inject my viewpoint into someone's lifestyle if they happen to be of the opposite opinion as myself.
I agree with Meglet on this. And Bernadetta, I don't think Meglet was implying that the child's well-being should come second to the parents, and/or that the parents should be happy at the expense of the child. But I do think many parents don't take care of themselves, and then it does have a negative impact on the child. But, I'm not a parent, so I can't speak on this issue with experience behind me.
I didn't get that Meglet was implying that, either.
and, honestly? I think what she said was one of the best things said so far.
if you don't have happy parents/parents who don't hesitate to put themselves first some of the time, you're a lot less likely to have a happy, well rounded child.
I realize I'll get flak for saying this, but if it takes going out for a casual fling to contribute to the parent's overall happiness, I'm all for it.
parents need to remember that they're still adults, and therefore, don't need to be with their kid, or children, constantly. by parents continuing to do the kinds of things adults do, and leaving their child with a trusted person, they're showing him or her how to interact with others, and perhaps, even learn to play alone.
in saying that, though, it's crucial for me to stress that when parents spend time with their children, they need to make it clear, through their action and words, that the child is loved, and that the parent wants him or her to be happy.
Chelsea, I'm not disputing the fact that kids need to be taught to socialize with others besides parentsand also to be self-sufficient. My mother takes my so almost every other weekend so that he can go and do things with people other than myself and his father. I think independence is key to any child's development.
However, the original poster mentioned partying. And that could be interpreted in many ways, as has been said, and so I mentioned several ways of "partying" whith which I personally wouldn't be comfortable with.
i dotn' think it's healthy for anyone to be attached to the hip with their kids, but there are safe and responsible ways of doing yrou own thing and there is wrecklessness. And I guess each of us would define which is which by our own comfort level regarding these things.
dI'm not saying any parent needs to be a monk, but I also don't want to turn out to be a hypocrit in the eyes of myself and my kid one day, when I express my thoughts on something he's doing that I might not be comfortable with.
Bernadetta, there is a world of difference between a "happy" parent and a "guiddy" or "blissed out" parent. Keep that in mind. We're not talking about a parent who spends all their time having fun and none of their time with their kids. But let me tell you something: when my parents were fighting a lot, having issues at work, not socializing much, staying cooped up with us in the house a lot, they weren't as happy, and were not as nice to be around. They met our basic needs but not our more complex needs. The child needs to come first, but the only way to do that really well is to take care of yourself well and allow yourself to meet -your more complex needs sometimes too.
I think that parents, single or otherwise, do have a right to go out sometimes and enjoy themselves. It's a m atter of balance, however. If you're doing it once every couple of weeks, or even if you have one fairly dedicated night each week where often something willll be happening for you, then I say as long as it's not hurting anyone, go for it. By partying, I'm talking about stuff like hanging out with your friends, maybe watching a game or going to a bar in a group, having a few drinks, nothing too wild and crazy and nothing dangerous. It gets problematic when as parents you expect people to become built-in babysitters for the little ones you're leaving behind in your pursuit of fun (my mom experienced a lot of this and I saw it firsthand).
Everyone, parents included, has the right to have a little fun. Just don't do it to someone else's detriment. Your child does not need you at every minute of every day, but you oughtn't neglect them either. Ideally you helped bring them into the world for a reason.
Bernadetta, you'll learn that you might be seen as a bad parent no matter how good you thought you did in your childs eyes when you express dislike of something he's doing.
"well my friends parents are allowing it, so you're a prude." Well, remember when I wanted that A and you had the money, but you wouldn't give it to me, so that is why I'm..."
That list goes on.
I am of the view, anything you do for your child is because you want to. Do not expect all your sacrificing, and such to pay you back. If you expect, you might have hart ache later in life.
You gave, and that is it.
First off, to Bernadetta, the types of parents you’ve described in your first post are the self-indulgent type. And, it matters not if you are a single parent or if you are with a partner in raising your children, that type of parenting is completely unacceptable!!! The same goes for putting your needs first over that of your child’s under the pretext of “happy parents equal happy kids!” The opposite is equally true… “Self-indulgent parents equal self-centered children.” Remember that A, your kids did not ask to be born, and B, he/she did not get a choice as to whom gets the privilege of being his/her parent! These reasons alone plus the love you feel for your little munchkin should be reasons enough for you to give up the lifestyle of a single person without any obligations. Correct me if I am wrong Chris, but this is what you are conveying in your original post?
In this kind of debate, a child’s point of view is often overlooked in the light of adults’ needs to be fulfilled and or happy…!
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that you should be a slave to your children! They need to learn as soon as possible that the sun does not rise and set but on them. While it is ok for you to take a few hours off to go swimming, biking, or having tea with a friend and so forth, it is irresponsible to say the least if you were to place your child in someone else’s care so that you could go for a shag because you are horny, or get plastered and come home at 2 in the morning. My conscience alone wouldn’t allow me to ask my friend for such a favor of caring for my precious gift so that I could go out and act like an unpaid whore or a drunken slop even if it is only once in a while. – But t that’s just me! While my last 2 examples are neither right nor wrong but rather it is up to each individuals choice to make if you have no children to think of. Once you are a parent however, you are your children’s role model, and they are much more impress by what you do and not so much by what you say!
To Wayne: there are no guarantees in life let alone in parenting!!! This does not mean that you shouldn’t do your best by your children, or that you shouldn’t set standards for yourself while fulfilling said role! I would go as far as saying that you owe it to your children to do so… - Even at the very likely risk that your child does not agree with your parenting style at times. In my humble opinion, the permissive parents are the worse. Because they want to be like other fellow parents or they want to be popular and highly thought of by their kids…. – The reasons are of little important, but the results are detrimental.
I have to ask, since this seems to be a common theme. For those of you who think it would be wrong to leave a child with its grandparents so you can go out and get laid. Do you also think its wrong to leave your child with its grandparents so you and your husband can have sex without being interrupted? For those who say its wrong to go out and get plastered and come home at two in the morning. If the child is staying at its grandparents overnight, and going to church the next day (something that I did frequently as a child), could you come home at two in the morning then?
If we're going to set these standards, especially if we're setting them without any set definition of what exactly constitutes the basis for our opinions, we should have clearly defined perameters of where the line lies between what is acceptable and what is not. So can any of you point out exactly where that line is?
I love these questions.
If I needed to get shagged, I'd leave my child with a trusted person and go get shagged. Now I don't get plastered, but I enjoy a drink, love to dance, so when I come home, or don't come home, I don't pick my child up until I'm back to the parent mode.
I was never single with I was a parent of small ones, but I and my wife would go out often, leaving the kid with grand parents, or aunts or someone responsible. We also took out turn at keeping kids, so.
Sometimes we'd invite family over, and it be a family party.
My parents never hid such things, and I guess I'm okay. Smile.
Cody, I love your questions, but you won't get answers, I bet.
'See, they first have to paint a picture of sexual openness to the point of demonization: this is how any group can make another group look bad. My Lesbian friend in San Francisco gets the same sorts of treatment.
Only if you are having some sort of a break is it a problem, you see. It's a lot like addiction: people demonize and call things addiction that are culturally taboo or not deemed acceptable. That is also how they define excess, for parents in this case.
I saw parents in Florida leave their kids for hours and hours to go to some long-winded spiritual magic show, after which they were crankier and more demanding of the kids to perform than before they went. I laugh, even still, at the idea of leaving your kids for a weekend so you can go to a fatherhood conference to be told that by virtue of being a male parent you are a. Responsible for all that's gone wrong with parenting, and But., not doing enough. Me? I would rather stay home with the little one and actuaaly do something constructive.
Oh, and at those conferences, one of which I was fool enough to actually attend, they talk about all the culturally unacceptable things demonized here.
And, of course, anyone who left the kids with the partner or someone else to go get beat up at said conference was seen as the better parent. Had you left the kiddy with someone for just a few hours to go unwind after work? How dare you. You are a working machine and don't you forget it! LOL
The best answer to your questions, Cody, is whatever is culturally unacceptable, the adult version of "uncool" or "unpopular" there's your answer, I think. The extremes are used to demonize whathat little the middle / working man gets in the way of a good time.
I agree with all those on here who say it's a balance, as with anything, really.
And Wayne is right: Your kid will question you and your parenting forever and ever. Even if they do appreciate you. My guess, as uneducated as it may appear, is that that is how they will progress to do better than us, just as we did in our time, and our parents before us. I remember as a kid my own parents telling us stuff they had to do, and that they wouldn't make us do. Not complaining, they were just being honest. And I've done the same thing.
And the hardest thing about parenting? It's a parent's job to be left. If you have tiny ones, you really don't know it yet. It'll start when they first want to pick something out to wear that you (usually the mother, but not always), don't afprove of, or would rather they wear something else. It's all downhill from there. Lol not really, but still.
Those talking about the strongest I will approve of this, I don't approghe of that, are destined for the most difficult time. Everyone, bar none, has standards and expectations. But a good dose of pragmatism never hurt anybody. But pragmatism is usually very far away from people dealing in extremes.
So next time you have a date night, and somebody criticizes you, ask them why it is they don't criticize those who visit the endless hours' long spiritual magic shows, or conference goers, or the like? If you're in a part of the country where such freak accidents of nature occur.
And remember H. L. Mencken's definition of puritanism: "The fear that someone, somewhere, just might be happy."
Thank you for giving me flashbacks of those stupid day-long religious meetings Leo. I'll be sending you the bill for my PTSD meds.
But, in all fairness, I'm willing to give the people who have aspoused this opinion on here the benefit of the doubt. Bernadetta I know is extremely open-minded, and I think mini is too from what I've gleened from our conversations. They're both intellectual. I think they'll be able to come up with good answers that will, if nothing else, spark an interesting discussion of the subject.
I've no doubt there are many on here who do fit perfectly into your characterization Leo, but I don't think bernadetta and mini are one of them, or two of them rather. I have more faith in them than all that.
Well said, Chelsea. I would certainly agree. As with so many other things in life, it's all about balance. Balance, and one's personal lifestyle.
Lightning, you bring up an interesting point. For me, I consider leaving the child with the grand parents and going out for casual sex dates a terrible thing, but then I also don't believe in casual sex or going out and getting good and drunk. But let's say I did. I think you still need to be responsible. I think leaving the baby with the folks, or with another "trustworthy" source while you enjoy some time to yourself or your partner is quite acceptable, even necessary. I am a parent, though not a single one, and I can't tell you how many times, even in the last two months since my little girl was born that I've wanted to give her to her grand parents for the night, just so I can have time to myself or, yes, so my wife and I can enjoy a prolonged, uninterrupted romp. Circumstances do not allow this however. I love the little dear to pieces, but I won't lie and say the transition between a family of two and three hasn't been somewhat difficult. What needs to be taken into consideration in this case is why you are going off and leaving your child, and how often. And how you are interacting with him or her when you are around. If you're trying to hold on to your pre-child life, I hate to say it, but that's not going to happen. If your child is a chore and an inconvenience, that isn't good. But if you just need a break now and then, sure! Parenthood is a big responsibility, and it can be very stressful at times. We need time to ourselves and others. But like Chelsea said, it's extremely important for a child to feel loved, and for their needs to be met. so going back to the original question, and yours, Lightning, I'd say if your actions are not harming you, your child, or your relationship with that child, then go for it. If you can party all night, then come home retain a clear head, and treat your child with the same love and patience you would express any other night, more power to you. But if you can't ...
a "shag" rather than sex? An 'unpaid whore"? Really? Just wow. Way to twist the issue to portray it exactly the way you want it to look. Very little open-mindedness going on in that post. Yes, what's worse: dumping the kid off wherever to have sex with your husband, or dumping the kid off wherever to have casual sex? You're still dumping the kid, either way, so at this point is' just a values war.
This is a great topic. There have been some great questions and scenarios posed that are good for young people like me to take in to consideration. Not to steer the topic off direction but I still haven't decided whether or not I want to be a father. I never had a parental role mottle that I could take seriously until I went out on my own. It's kind of ironic that after I went off to college other family members were willing to help out, but at the same time I realize there wasn't much they could do from the beginning because of how controlled I was. I haven't had time to juggle these sorts of thoughts about having children because it isn't a priority, but I will certainly keep these things in mind.
I sure hope those who are opposed to parents leaving their kid with a trusted person so they can have sex, or for any other reason, do, answer Cody's questions.
while I can't say I've seen open mindedness from Mini, regarding sexually related things, I'm genuinely curious to see if she has an intellectual response to contribute. not this, "if you wanna get sloppy drunk/freely have sex, you'll be deemed as an irresponsible parent by those who will freely twist going out for one's happiness, to look as bad as they want it to.
oh, and, while I'm at it, I also have a question to those who are opposed to this particular stance.
Mini, I know you have a little girl. I don't know your marital status, but if you aren't single, do you advocate foregoing intimacy with one's partner, just cause your kid is in the house? I'd bet not.
are you suggesting that those who have small kids should give up sex completely, till their children are grown, just cause, in your eyes, views like mine and Cody's are unacceptable?
Just to be clear here, I'm preaching balance pretty much across the board.
If you go out sometimes to get drunk, to have a good time with friends or for a one-night stand, or for any other reason, then as long as this isn't being done to someone else's detriment, I think it's okay. That's a bit of a blurry line though. Obviously, unsafe sex has risks associated with it, as would getting really hammered, depending on where you did it. Weigh those risks against what you want and what potential harm there is. If you're the sort who thinks that would be horrible for your little one...well, by and large, most little ones don't mind a whole hell of a lot if they experience no net hurt as a result. If my brother and I got a babysitter, we might not be truly happy with said babysitter, but I can tell you that we never got upset with our parents for actually leaving. This is because our parents were good, loving and attentive just about all of the time.
In other words, why you go out isn't really factoring into it for me unless there's larger-than-is-wise risk involved.
Something small to consider, however: for me, personally, I feel that if you know you're going to come home annoyed, upset, exhausted or otherwise unable to be a proper parent, then you owe it to yourself not to have your children back until you're going to do well by them. This applies to stumbling home plastered at two in the morning or coming home from a day-long church excursion. I think parents who want to do these things owe it to their kids to remember that; if they do, then the going out will have even less repercussion on the children involved because they aren't going to be dealing with a sloppy, angry and sometimes downright unpleasant parent.
In BG's place, your little girl sleeps lots, so what keeps you from having a long uninterrupted romp? For several years now, she can be in the same room even.
I totally agree with kimmy Mini. After working in the community, and with community for some time, most problems happen when the parent forget their very responsibility as someone's primary care taker. Of course, no problem there if you, as an adult allow yourself to have a bit of "me time'" ones a month or something, but that should be within you and your family boundries.
If you want to party, that is fine. Make arrangement for someone to look after your little one. doesn't matter if your child is a baby, or is 10 years old. They are still "child". and on the defination of "child", it goes all the way till they are 16, 18, or 21 (depending on where you are).
No one asking the adult to be totally selfless for their kids, but no kids also ask to be born in an environment that is not well cared for. If you decided to have kids, regardless if it is accidentally, or naturally, it is your responsibility as a parent to bring them up, in a safe and caring environment. As i said, ones in a while party is acceptable, in fact, in some way, is encourage.
If you want to get laid, get laid, before getting laid, make sure your kids are well care for, and make sure they have the safe environment with a safe adult for the time frame you wish to be laid on. If you don't wish to have any kid responsibility, well, make good friends with your contreception to start with.
I don't think anyone has said it's fine to go out and party while leaving the child unattended. Even the most "radical" of the views expressed here did not suggest that.
Out of curiosity, I wonder where the original poster of this topic went?
Also, these types of discussions remind me of psychology classes that I had to take in college; particularly the ones dealing with relationships.
Parenting is a big responsibility, and one, that I am unsure of at the present time. However, just to echo some of your opinions I think that it is totally culturally acceptable to leave your child with a trusted party, so that you and your partner can have a date night. Maybe engage in some sex, too, if you plan on leaving your child at his or her grandparent's house overnight. Before entering parenthood, you should really ask yourself if you can be almost 100% committed to the child. Otherwise, just keep your reproductive organs in your pants...
My parents were always around,not taking enough time for themselves. Sometimes, though, they would have date nights. Thankfully, I didn't have to sit through any boring religious meetings. Lol:)
Forereal, my little girl does sleep a decent amount. Maybe she'll tae three or four naps a day, ranging from half an hour to two hours. However except for around 11PM, when she will sleep in her bassinette for two to four hours, the only other time she sleeps, she needs to be held by one of us, or in a baby carrier. Otherwise, no sleep for her. We can certainly enjoy ourselves during that one window, however by then one or both of us is so tired that it becomes a question of sex versus sleep.
For lack of time to dedicate to this topic (and a couple of others), I've refrained from posting my reply for a while, but now that I have some time on my hands...
Cody, you're right that I'd view having sex with my partner while the baby's at grandma's more acceptable, even required for our sanity and for bonding as a couple or a team, much more acceptable than leaving the baby at grandma's for a casual lay. My reasoning may not be viewed as logical for you--I don't know. it's for you to decide. But I don't take that stance without solid reasons.
I think there are many more risks associated with casual sex rather than that with a steady partner--obviously you have STD's, the risk of pregnancy, but on some level for many women (and even men) you have the risk of emotional attachment.
When I have sex with my partner, I consider that not only a celebration of our couplehood, but also a contribution to our family as a whole. Don't get me wrong--I'm not in mommy mode when I'm with my partner alone, I've always been great at turning off "mommy me" in favor of the woman that I am in relation to my partner.
But here, if we do get pregnant, we can easily accommodate--we already have a well-structured family. And please dont' use the argument of: a woman who's having casual sex can use contraception responsibly. I was on the pill and using condoms when I got pregnant. The point is moot. The single woman who is not attached to the man she's sleeping with (or vice versa) can't really have sex with no strings attached when she is a parent, in my opinion, because sex can yield pretty life-changing consequences which can very well affect her child as well. Even if she decides to abort or adopt the baby out, she will have lasting emotional effects which can stand in the way of her parenting her first child. If she decides to keep the child (which often happens) she's left being a single mom to another one, which only makes things that much more unstable and difficult.
Back to emotions: I have a stable relationship with my partner, where we're both clear on how we feel about each other, we both love each other, etc. In a casual relationship, whether you're just trying things out or you're in an FWB situation, sometimes (more often than not) the emotional line could be blurred. There will be FWB advocates like Chelsea who insist that FWB's are perfectly stable emotionally as long as all parties are honest with each other. I say it isn't so, because (maybe unlike Chelsea) many women equate sex with emotions. It's scientifically proven--look it up. It's got to do with the level of oxytosin released by a female during sex. I wont' go in-depth abou tit righ t now, but my point is, even if people think they're being honest with each other, they might not be honest with themselves. Complicated, emotionally charged conflicted relationships take energy and time away from your parenting--and that's got a way of sneaking up on some people. You might be going into it for some no-strings-attached casual sex, and you might be leaving (the same night, a month, a year into it) with an emotional mess on your hands. Happy parent? Maybe not so happy in that instance.
I know ther are no guarantees in life. My partner can leave tomorrow or next year or in five or ten years. But for now, we have a solid, stable home and partnership, and casual sex, in my eyes, just doesn't promote stability. It's my opinion. I feel strongly about it, but it doesn't mean that all should subscribe to it. If I know of a person who's having casual sex and they're a parent, I might not be able to help thinking: "flighty parent" and I don't generally think that being flighty has a place in parenting.
I'm not saying here that a person should be celebat forever as a single parent. You should by all means meet someone, enter into a relationship with them, but in my eyes, a one-night stand and/or somecasual sex shouldn't be the way to go about it.
Now, I am almost sure that my views on this are biased this way because of my general views of casual sex. I believe I explained in another board a long time ago, why casual sex isn't for me.
And by the way, for those of you who were jumping down Kimi's throat for her wording and accusing her of not being open-minded--may I remind you that she said this is her personal view and, though she worded her stance rather strongly, she did state at the end of her post that it's what she views as good parenting, and what works for someone else is their issue. By the way, kimmi, thank you, because you actually worded exactly what I've been feeling regarding this topic in a much more concise way than I could have.
Meglet, there is a values war regarding this, of course. But our values factor in a lot as parents. We use our values and our moral compass to raise our kids in the way we deem well. So I can't see why values are being demonized here.
Chelsea, to answer your question, I don't think twice about being intimate with my partner in the same house as my kid is staying. In. Sure, we take care to not have him in the same room, especially now that he's older and can talk and imitate, only because it would make for an awkward conversation between my mom and myself if my baby imitated our actions while there or wherever else. That aside, I would never be intimate with a casual partner or even a boyfriend who wasn't longterm and not my baby's father while in the same house as my kid. My morals, not religiously or culturally motivated by the way, tell me that's not a good idea.
I dont' care what anyone says: most people say that it doesn't really matter what you do as an adult, as long as your kid is loved and well cared for, they wont' mind or really observe your actions. I strongly disagree, and I think Kimi touched upon this. People rarely take the kid's thoughts, feelings, and ideas regarding their adult lives into consideration. Just because a kid is little doesnt' mean he or she won't be observant. Maybe many kids aren't, but, having been a very observant child myself from a very early age, I have to say that adults foolishly assume that kids aren't impacted by what their parents do as long as they dont' do it in front of them.
I feel that by bringing around casual sex partners, whether to my home or elsewhere, would impact my lifestyle and thus, make some sort of an impact on my child. If my kid grows up to be a jiggalo or a Casanova one day, I wont' ban him from my life or disown him, and I wont' scoff at him for his life choices. but I'll also know he didnt' get that lifestyle idea from me. lol.
I feel that when parents (or longterm couple with kids) show affection toward each other, it reinforces stability, promotes positive feelings of confidence in the idea of partnership in the kid's mind, and makes the kidd feel confident about his or her own family. I feel that dating casually or having flings does just the opposite to the kid. And plese, let's throw the argument that the kid doesn't have to be affected by what they don't know or see, right out the window, because in many cases, despite the parent's good intentions to keep their adult life separate from their child-rearing life, kids are very aware. And maybe they can't comprehend everything at once, but they put two and two together as the years go buy, they take little memories and feelings out of their childhood treasure chest and they figure things out. And they question, often without bringing these things up with the parents who intended for the kid to not know about certain things. I know I did. And so, either I was a smart, inquisitive, assuming little cookie, or there are more kids like the one I was. And I'm betting there are more.
So for that reason, I intend to promote stability in my life as a parent. I prefer to be responsible--as has been said, a good balance needs to be maintained, but I dont' factor getting plastered and staying out till to into that measured balance. Not even if my kid is at grandma's. Because what happens if my kid suffers some medical emergency and I can't revert into mommy mode because I am drunk off my ass? Am I supposed to let my mother handle it until I'm feeling coherent again? I don't think so.
My point during this long ramble is, as a parent, I feel I need to think within reason of being one even when I'm taking time to myself. Because that's what parents, good responsible ones anyway, are supposed to do. They owe it to their family, to their kids, and to themselves in my opinion.
Greg and whoever else said that we shouldnt' burden people with our kids just so we can have time to ourselves, etc. I agree with that as well. And that factors into the whole casual sex thing too. I don't deem casual sex such a priority that I would leave my kid with someone just to go and partake in it. I value my time with my partner more than I could evern value casual sex, therefore, it seems plausible to me to allow my kid to go to grandma's in order for us to have a nice date together--not just sex, mind you. I think it contributes to our strength as a family, not just my own well-being or pleasure, although that certainly factors into it.
BG stated that our lives change drastically when we become parents, and whoever doesnt' think thats' true is totally kidding themselves. That couldn't be more true. I dont' think anyone truly understands the entirety of that statement. Those of you who have no kids yet (or never will) can insist that just because I'm a parent and you're not doesnt' mean you dont' get what is being said here. But the truth is, you may understand the literal mening of "everything changes when you become a parent", but you dont' understand how drastic the adjustment actually is, how this transition really feels, until you go through it. Things--your priorities, your values, your motivations change. And if they don't, then there's a good chance you are sort of a crappy parent and you're not as responsible as you should be.
I don't believe that values concerning casual sex have any real bearing on whether or not it's okay to leave your kid with someone else while you go have fun. Whether your definition of fun is casual sex, going for drinks, or freakin' stamp collecting, the point is not so much what you're doing but how often and for how long. It's about the child in this case.
I did not mean to demonize anything or anyone. I objected to Kim's wording because, while she is free to express her personal views as are we all, it is very easy to twist a situation to make it look the way you'd like it to. I generally have more respect for posts that show some level of objectivity, and I felt there was very little objectivity in her post. I know I would not appreciate being called an unpaid whore if I dared to sleep with someone I wasn't, say, married to, so yes, I do think that stance is narrow-minded.Casual sex is no more for me than it is for you, Bernadetta, but I would never sink so low as to call someone who does it a whore.
Let me clarify something, before I get jumped on: expressing a personal opinion--even if it might be kind of conservative--is not what I define as sinking too low. What I meant by that was that I'd never settle for name-calling.
Well, we like it or not, there are some single parents or parents out there, looking for casual sex whenever they have the chance. They biologically needs it. This is not only for men, but also true for women. I have a friend, who is fair older than me and have two girls, age 12 and 10. After she drop her girls to school, she usually have at least 2 out of 5 school days having sex dates with either her friends with benefit, or with some other males that looking for such casual arangements. In fact, she told me that she needs it. She has been doing that for years. Honestly, that is also onen of the reason why her and her husband divorce to start with. She need sex all the time, and he, well, according to her, he's a piece of "wood", but on the wrong part of the body.
It is almost like, during school time, that is her "me time" and otherwise, she is fully dedicated to her dauthers. Is that consider right or wrong, well, that is depends on one's values and one's culture believe.
I agree with Write Away on this one. Casual sex is never a good idea. Great job of using oxytosin.
I wonder if there are some women who just work differently, biologically? Not abnormally, just differently. I definitely equate sex with emotional attachment and I can't really help that, so perhaps women who do the opposite can't much help it either. I guess as long as you can juggle everything else in your life and still put your children first, then there's really no problem other than a moral one, and morality is what you make it.
So I have a question that sort of relates:
There are a lot of things we call damaging to kids: too much exposure to sex or nudity is seen as damaging by most parents. I'll admit, I'm as much a average white American raised in the 70s as you can get. So, when all the craze about oh my gosh, parents, especially fathers, must be fully clothed in the presence of their kids became all the rage and it was linked to child abuse, I went along. I wasn't as dedicatedto it as my wife was, probably because she's an educator.
Anyway, I personally knew child abuse, and in a way that I shan't express on the Internet, but never was a half-clad adult the damaging part insofar as I can remember. I've also done quite a bit of reading on anthropology. Just a sort of hobby I guess.
Anyway, most human populations worldwide live where kids see a good deal more parental skin than we Western types allow for. I'm not saying be a lewd or something, just less, I don't know, they're less hung up.
Also, I'm an engineer: I know how a disciplined person communicates damage. I can tell you the damage pop (or soda for you upper class types) will do to electronics, without a single values statement. Very objectively, that damage from sugar as a corosive and added doping factor, to mineralized water as a conductant / instant short circuit.
What has puzzled me in the past few years is this: Are we, by this sort of Puritanical approach with our kids, really protecting them from any damage? Is the entire world population but us damaged? Are we just a weak race who cannot sustain ourselves very well? Or, it seems more and more to me, are we ascribing science to a cultural phenomenon? To an adult yuck factor?
It makes me think of the woman where I worked that insisted I was contributing to the obesity problem by eating at my desk. Same plate of food, same portion size, but instead of being in the lunch room I was catching up on work. I pointed this out, and that I just couldn't s{{?"}}ae the science behind what she was saying. Same plate, same portion, but one location makes you fat, another magically does not. Her only response was to tell me I just didn't understand, stomp off, then come back to inform me we engineers needed to learn science wasn't everything. Of course it isn't: everything is everything.
So, in the interest of that, if the kids somehow know you're having sex, or somehow see you partially clad or inappropriately dressed is the buzz word I guess, we all understand it being culturally icky. At 12, my daughter thought I was culturally icky for coming into the kitchen and pouring myself a beer, when they were having their sleepover and making something in there. And no, I wasn't in a robe, I had clothes on.
But culturally icky isn't damaging. There may or may not be anything culturally icky about pop on your laptop, but it's damaging, in ways that can be explained.
I use the clothing thing here because we all abide by it, it's not something you ever see debates on like you do sex or casual sex.
And by "all" I do mean all, tiny, fractional white society in one slice of time and geography. Most others in history and elsewhere in the developing world have sex where the kids can even hear it: something none of us have ever done.
So are all those people damaged? Are your ancestors damaged? How does this even work. I get the culturally icky part. We all play along with the charades that are expected values and religions and things. If there's real damage, let's define it. Otherwise maybe leave it for the culture taboos.
I think Bernadetta makes some great points, and I agree with Meglet. In fact had my daughter called a girl something like Kimi used, I would tell her at 19 she's getting a bit big for that.
Well, Leo, I don't know if I can really answer your question, because some of what you say is universally viewed as damaging children, I find isn't.
So here's an example: For instance, going back to the previous topic for a second and relating it to this one, I find that it may be more damaging to a kid who you have sex with rather than if they see you have sex.
I'll be the first to say that I've had sex with my partner around my kid when he was smaller. Same room--not the same bed/surface obviously because that's dangerous, but it's been done.
I'll also say I dont' see anything wrong with walking around in a robe or partially naked--or even fully naked around my kid, when getting up, going to grab a cup of water, or even making breakfast, etc.
It's not damaging, because kids need to be comfortable with their own anatomy and human anatomy in general, in my oppinion. And I bet that most kids, at some point or another in their short lives, have walked in on, or will catch their parents having sex, and that's not damaging either, because you need to teach your kids about sex----it's importance, that it's not something to be ashamed, what it may neam to some people, how to practice it safely, etc--if you don't, who will.
I already explained why it would be totally different if the man in my bed was a casual friend, thus not a partner of mine or my kid's father.
I think instability, is damaging, and in my eyes, that's a form of it.
I'll also venture to say that what's considered damaging and culturally acceptable for children has changed greatly in the last few years.
Nowadays, people, especially police officers who have dealt with child abuse, etc., recommend that parents should teach their children the technical terms for their reproductive parts from the earliest age.
No wee-wee or tinkle-wink or vaJJ, or any of those abnoxiously silly names that people ascribe to body parts under the guise of protecting their kids. I'm all for teaching my two-year-old that he has a penis, and girls have vaginas. He'll probably find it amusing for a while and maybe he'll run down the hall yelling "penis" for a day or so at home or at grandma's, and maybe that'll make some ignorant, squeemish adult feel awkward, but he'll get over the novelty of it soon enough, and he'll know the right term for his equipment. I feel no shame in that---in fact I'm proud.
I think you hit the adult icky factor right on the head, leo, because I think that adults, many of them, have been shamed into their own prudishness by religious views and culture, that they repeat the cycle with their kids.
I may not be cool with casual flings, but that doesn't make me a prude. In fact, I'm so far from being a prude that, if my kid ever accuses me of being one as Wayne suggested he might a few posts back, I might not be able to stop myself from laughing right then and there. lol
Truth is, adults are silly. We all are, in our own little ways--some more than others. We're sillier than kids. Kids are taught to feel shameful about bodily functions,
they dont' acquire this shame from thin air. They're taught prejudice and racism, not lift it from their own, pretty little imaginations.
They're taught religious belief, it doesn't come to them in a divine intervention from the sky.
And so, when a little baby grabs his penis because it feels great to do so, because he's exploring himself, some silly mom may grasp his hand and move it away. Or if a toddler insists on running around butt naked, a mom or dad or grandma will rush to put his clothes on.
I don't subscribe to such restrictive practices. I'd rather guide my kid, and explain to him what's what, and what's meant to be private, but I'll never shame him for being curious. I'll never make him feel bad for wanting to explore and learn. At least I won't be guilty of that much. lol.
You bring up a great point about self-exploration: the more a child is shamed for what should be considered natural (if private), the more he will be ill equipped to understand how his body works. The more busy you are shaming and being shamed, the less educated you will be.
I see most think that all sex that isn’t in a “relationship” is casual sex and without emotion.
Can you not have a boyfriend or girlfriend you are not married to, but enjoy sexually?
Writer, were you “married” when you started to have sex with your current husband, or even when you got pregnant?
Just because a person is a FWB doesn’t mean it is not tied to emotion. Good friends can be very emotional.
I like the lady’s view that has sex because she feels she needs it. She sound totally responsible, and still only has 2 kids.
Do you know people can get themselves fix so they don’t have to worry about it?
Do you not know is just as dangerous to drive a car? You don’t get STD’s but what if you have a crash and are hurt for a few days?
If you child has a medical emergency, you’ll sober up, trust me. Plus you did leave your child with someone able to handle it, didn’t you?
Children are very aware, but making things you do positive are your job. If you have a casual boyfriend/girlfriend, make it positive.
I guess I hurt lots of kids when I’m outside in my yard without my shirt? *sigh*
When I lived in California guys are on the beach no shirts, women mostly naked, because of these strings they wear.
Last I know a lady that earns plenty cash. She could take care of a man and a several kids without a man if she decided to have all the ones she got pregnant with.
She’d be a hell of a single parent, because she could hire a nanny if she choose.
Single or married have nothing to do with a child’s wellbeing. I just can’t see that.
Having sex with his or her father, or your boyfriend really makes no different either.
Responsibility is the key, not casual.
You view casual sex as bad, so you view it bad for your child’s well Bing for you to have it.
That is okay, but not the facts. Casual sex is not bad, nor parting responsibly.
Well actually, wayne, I'm not married. lol. I never said sex outside the marriage is casual sex. I also didn't say that sex with a boyfriend is casual sex. I think most here who read what I was talking about can determine what I meant by casual sex.
I'm aware that FWB relationships can be emotonally charged--and that may be a positive thing for some, but it can lead to some unwanted complications with most. That's my belief based on the observations I've made. I also didn't mention that my oppinions are facts. I have strong arguments to back my oppinions up, but that does not necessarily mean that people should agree with them.
People can get fixed--maybe many of them do when they're done having kids and want to persue flings, or even a lon-term relationship. But, are you aware of how risky it is to have yoru tubes tied before you are a certain age? It can be a medically unsound decision, not because you might want ot reverse it, but literally because it could mess with your organs and hormones in ways you wouldn't want them messed with I've looked into it. It's not for everyone.
I love the example that Joane presented, about the lady going off to have as much sex as she needs, and still managing to be a responsible parent, regardless.
and, seriously, this stance that sex outside of a long term relationship is unhealthy for a child's development, and various other negative things people have ascribed to it, is absolutely ridiculous.
people say they'll educate their kids about sex/their body, but what I'm gathering, is, they'll only do it to the extent that they feel comfortable.
since many people here feel that casual sex is a bad idea, they'd never dream of telling their kid that that, too, is a healthy part of life, as they don't see it as such.
Wayne is right, though. casual sex is no less emotional than sex with people in a traditional relationship.
Yes, I'm aware about the tying of tubes, but there are other methods for fixing this issue?
I can't see the complications any different from the complications of being as you are Write, and you breaking up with your mate.
Sure, you and I agree people don't have to agree, but explain to me what these complications are, and how they can be worse?
Lets leave sex for a minute. My dad loved to shoot pool, and have a drink, at home or out. Sometimes he'd sit on a weekend and drink until he was feeling no pain. Lol. I think maybe the house would probably feel no pain either.
Here is the thing. He was never abusive, we always had plenty of everything, plus. He'd maybe loose his shirt playing pool so to speak, but it wasn't his familes shirt, because he kept his spending change separate.
Would you say his drinking/partying had a bad effect, or should have?
I am the only one of my brothers and sisters that drink. We don't gamble. I can't say about their sex lives, but I've not had any worse or better complications as a single man then I did as a maried man sexually.
I also would keep booze in my house and rink as much as I wanted. I'd go out with my wife, and we might not come home until tomorrow. Even go away for the weekend.
But again, all was covered. My children never wanted for anything.
I really think a single parents doings are just that, and will only effect a child if they make them do so.
Bernadetta, yes, we also made no big deal out of the kids being naked and didn't use the weird prude names for penis and vagina.
I think you have to go a couple of generations back, to maybe my own parents' generation, to get people using those fake words or getting uptight about the exploration.
We also never had an issue with a young nude bird toddler or one running around in a diaper.
It's adult torso epidermus that is supposedly damaging to kids, especially adult male epidermus. I'm at fault for just going along and not really questioning things, or not wanting to make some kind of an issue out of things.
Deep down I always did think it was silly, because when you start breaking it all down, it doesn't add up. I can, and did, break down how pop will damage a motherboard. But they can't do that with adult bodies.
And this is in part what people are looking for with the breakdown of damage to kids by the parent's casual sex. It sounds like you did: not that the parent is having the sex, but in your opinion it creates instability, which you're right, societies worldwide work hard to create stability for kids.
Only that stability looks very different from one society to the next. We with our nuclear single-family dwellings have one idea of it.
I've seen people from other cultures who have extended family coming in and out, strangers coming in and out, sleeping over for a week, etc. To our upper crust white society, that very well may look unstable. But is it? And is it different from the talking about here?
I don't know: I'm just asking a few hard questions that parenting through the teen years have left me with.
As to the moral compass issue? I have found over the years that objectivity has served as the best moral compass I can think of, rather the best filter for how something should be defined.
One job we have for young programmers is describe how they're solving a problem as though you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about programming. I love that. I should be able to describe any public safety issue to you that is water-related, without resorting to Coast Guard achronyms.
And, I can do this even for fidelity in my own marriage, without resorting to Christianity to call infidelity evil, or Feminism for calling men horny pigs. Just picking on those two value systems because they shape us all in Western society whether you subscribe to them or not: a couple of sisters battling it out for the Mother's favor. And control of everything else.
Outside of those systems, I can: In our society we treat domestic relationships as the most atomic sovereign entity there is outside of self.
So, to violate that causes instability in other areas that depend en the domestic relationship.
Personally I couldn't commit. That type of domestic treason, because of what it would do to her, and how wasteful and easily such an act would destroy what we've built together for over 20 years.
People don't have to agree with that thinking, but there's thinking and it's objective.
I always tried to get my daughter to explain why something was wrong and never settled for the "because we're not supposed to," I'd like to think anyway, that by reinforcing that thoughtfulness, she would have the skill set necessary to adjust her moral compass as new information arrives.
Did you know that nautical compasses are not fixed? That's right: they need maintinance.They need to be adjusted every year or so, not by very much usually, but because Magnetic North is shifting.
People talk like a moral compass is cast in stone. But even though most people when I was your age lived together before they were married, it was considered very selfish and unstable to have kids out of wedlock. All the many questions, and in all the young people publications of the 80s and early 90s.
Even the phrase "easy come, easy go," applied to nonmarital domestic partnerships like yours, has been proven wrong. But to see what's written here, is for me at least, a bit of a flashback to the stuff they wrote about in the 80s. Only now it's casual sex.
Some of this I think really is cultural. Doesn't make it wrong, or even unimportant. But what men and women supposedly need and have to have, may not be all that scientific. Is it soft or hard science?
I'm reminded of a friend who took one of those Women's Studies classes in college. You know the ones: Males are always privileged abusers, testosterone poisoned, and women cannot help holding a grudge or needing to break down all the time.
When he told me about it, I really felt for two women in that class: One Japanese and one Russian. This was supposed to be science, and it was all culture. My friend said the Japanese woman grimly suffered through it, but the Russian stood up in the middle of the class and told the professor she needed to get out more and see more kinds of people. She stomped out of the class and never went back is what I heard. A couple black women I knew called those "angry white woman" classes.
I bring this up, because if we're saying any of this is science, science doesn't have cultural bias. I explained how pop damages a kmotherboard. But that wasn't a Asian who prefers green tea and so. Just came up with that to fit his cultural context.
Don't get me wrong: we abl have cultural context, even mine to be questioning everything now, a lot of midlife stuff isn't shared by everyone around the world. We raise our kids with it, and it gives them a sense of belonging, traditions and all that.
But if something is science, it will be describable like I can describe an engineering problem in technology, or my brother, a marine biologist, can describe what various pollutants are deing to the oceans and how they affect different life forms and food webs.
I guess I look at some of this soft science stuff the same way I do the churches trying now to use a few scientific facts to back up what they believe.
I'm not challenging people to not believe whatever they want.
I'm challenging anyone who can to submit real data on this stuff. Not picking on you, Bernadetta, I hope you understand. But 25 years ago, people who did what you are doing? The gentler would say it was unfortunate, the less gentle said it was selfish, and all for the same reasons. It's really uncanny to me how comparative this stuff has come out.
I realize you may not have the perspective of having had people throw this same type of "data" (in quotes) at you for your choice and you having a child, but many women your mother's age did. And very much with the same that's-so-unstable thinking. Not as bad as my bilological mom being sent to another town to have her baby away from friends and family, but pretty bad, as you could imagine.
Even hospital staff could be unkind to "a mother and boyfriend" (in quotes) at least until the early 90s. They just "weren't real parents," you see.
And everyone was practicing their moral compass. In the best interest of so child, of course.
Wayne: interesting point about partying and how it shouldn't be assumed to be harmful. I think it comes down to experience because when I saw the topic title I immediately had a red flag go up. There were times when there were parties in the house during the school week when I was a kid. My mom and stepfather, or whoever my mom had over after he left, would blast music, get drunk and routy, dance and shout, and keep us up for most of the night. I was terrified to go downstairs and come across something bad the next morning so a lot of times I would just go in late. One time my mom woke up and found me upstairs, bitched and cussed me out, then proceeded to put me in the car with her intoxicated friend who took me to school and somehow I survived. I'm sure the majority of you haven't had some experiences that were as drastic, but is it a wonder why at first I took the connotation of partying negatively? I don't have a problem with partying or going out and having fun under the condition that it won't interfeer with the child's well being, nor will it put you in any harm as well. You can still get intoxicated and laid and be responsible about it, but if you don't feel like you have that power and want to blame the alcohol or your impulses, then you're better off not taking the risk.
I've seen both sides Ryan. I have relatives that can't control what they do, and do exactly as you described. My dad would say they were follish people.
I have had to keep uncles and such from my dad's bar when he wasn't home. His law was the law in his house, and even I could tell an adult the law. You go over it, my dad would deal with it when he returned. That was understood.
I slept at night, was cent to school properly.
I grew up with the law, so inforced the law in my house as well, because my wife had relatives that were foolish, and still are follish people.
For you, I do understand. It was your parent. I'm just saying, it doesn't always turn out baddly.
Instability is created, not the rule. If casual sex, drinking, or whatever causes instability, it isn't the act, but the person.
What about these people that use what is suppose to be stable to harm, such as church twice or three times a week?
What about the parent who can't manage money, and won't get help, but is at home all the time?
How about the plain lazy? I've seen it all and some.
Thank you, Leo, you have very neatly (and far more eloquently) explained my earlier post about objectivity over personal views. I think that we can believe whatever we want, just as long as we know why. As soon as you can't answer why, then you need to re-examine why you think the way you do. I'm talking about broad sweeping statements like "casual sex is never a good idea" rather than personally contextual statements like "I've never personally seen casual sex go well".
Wayne's right. The problem we see with testimonial-based arguments is whatever is the newest thing, or the thing with the greatest cultural ick factor gets the most testimonal stories against it, because it agrees with what people want to believe. None of it is actual evidence, not in the scientific or pragmatic sense.
Gay people used to be hammered with this from testimonials of people who were abused by a gay parent, or neglected while parents went to Pride events, etc.
Put it this way: I don't buy product based on testimonials only, so I'm not sure about buying ideas based on that either. For me, the jury's still out on a lot of this stuff. Probably sounds like a cop-out to some, but honestly, if I saw a topic where something was discussed like this, and the current fad to be opposed to wasn't what was under attack, I think I could take the ideas from it a lot more seriously. It just looks too much like what's already been done to gays, unmarried domestic partnerships, and others.
Testimonials will always be out there to back whatever is popular. That isn't an individual thing: it means those individuals giving the testimonial are being heard now, perhaps for the first time, perhaps not, because now that particular problem is en vogue to talk about.
Some of the Prohibition propaganda makes for some pretty interesting reading. Prohibition was the first major Women's Concern on the ballot right after women got the right to vote. And drink was supposed to cause all the things we've seen here, or some of us grew up hearing, or have seen in all the magazines in the last couple decades.
At least we got Also Capone out of Prohibition, and our parents' generation got some good gangster movies out of it. Not much else, though. And we afparently don't learn too quickly.
Two decades from dow, I'm gchessing outside of some grops of people, we'll wonder what kind of a fuss we were making about same-sex parents, or casual sex or any number of other things.
As I said before, many on here who are single parents, or in a domestic partnership, would be facing much of the same treatment a couple decades ago.
I will freely admit to being harder and harder to convince as time goes by, and I see more groups who were supposed to turn out one way, do just fine like the rest of us. I'd say it's been a bait and switch, except we really don't want people having a tough time.
Meanwhile, the generation that was supposed to have been ruined by backwards messages on records and unattached sex is now supporting those who thought it, as they retire and we do as they did before us.
I'm always open to any explanation for how something actually works, though, because real troubleshooting of real problems is always reducible, and always has an explanatory link between a cause and an effect.
Sometimes I wonder if pragmatism, too, is culturally icky, at least to your average masses looking to get the latest juicy bit on what a newly discovered group does, and how they damage our children.
People don't like pragmatism because it requires them to actually analyze their irrational feelings on a subject. Few people enjoy having their beliefs challenged.
Well, with uncle posts, the way i view it is that, is all about belance and proper education. Sex in the oriental world, at least till the late 90s, is something that is untouchable, undiscussable subject. Its a door lock between parents and children. Whenever kids ask the question as kid do, how do i exist, parents often give some vague answer like, i collect you from the trash one day, or i went to the toilet, have a dump, and then boom, there you are...
I guess what i trying to say is that sexual education is s omething that need to happen, not only in science class, but also in a home environment. Not asking you to discuss with your parents, children, about the sex act, but around the area of sex. e.g. emotional attachment, emotional detachment, safe sex, healthy sex, etc.
I don't think the views on Casual sex will ever go away. They've been with us sense human kind. People have a need to have their partners belong to them. They also have a need to believe everyone else wants the same, and that this method is safe, and better when all is correct.
It won't change. Sex is a problem, and when you add casual to that it becomes plain nasty, unhealthy, and morally wrong.
Not true, many cultures have viewed casual sex as not only acceptable but healthy and expected. Some still do today, though they are few and far between thanks to the spread of that scurge known as Christianity.
Writer is not Christian? So how do you justify her?
Yes, I know about the cultures, and many of them don't even have problems with STD's or over population.
I sincerely believe when you make something secret, dirty, and wrong, you add the harm in it. It is like porn sites. Why do they have to have viruses? They really don't, but some one wants to mess up people that enjoy watching porn.
No, bernadetta is not Christian, but she lives in a Christian controlled society, with Christian controlled norms and social expectations. Its incredibly difficult to escape from those. You may not believe in the God, but having those social expectations drilled into your head is a hard thing to resist.
Cody is right. Years after I'd shed the Christian faith and the associated chains it bound me by, I still find myself with certain leanings I can't explain. Getting rid of those has been a challenge when everyone else around me still sees it the way I used to see it.
Okay, so explain me? Smile.
I'm smart, not a miracle worker.
So. Are Aboriginal women, San women, or other nonChristianized women less emotional or something than the Western White. Somehow, this is how the "science" behind this starts to break down. These other groups practice casual sex, and have for millennia.
Frankly, the ownership and resource arguments hold a lot more water, because more often than not, resource-rich environments produce casual sex, while resource-poor ones produce at least strict monogamy, if not all-out prudes.
Your White Wing talk show hosts who claim the wellfare system has created casual sex are not altogether wrong. It's not like the bonobonos, who live in an environment where food is extremely plentiful, but if a woman gets pregnant, there is less risk now to her and the child if there is no male appliance to bring home the bacon, take out the garbage and a few other things like fend off resource-invaders.
That has a lot more weight, cross-species even, than the arguments about how emotional women are. Because what does that even say about all the pre-Christianized, pre-capitalized cultures. Christianity is merely the religious vehicle for capitalism, ne more and no less. And I'm not ashamed to say I support the free market, in a bot of cases.
The more I think about it, the argument about women's emotions does have a bit of an ick factor, that being the assumed majority being Western Whites. And this coming from somebody who has absolutely no white guilt. None.
The ick factor is this: to say majority, when we mean one demographic only, is mathematically wrong.
Not quite as bizzarre as my daughter being told that since she saw her daddy soke a cigar, she was 97% more likely to smoke.
So if we're going to say that for Western, usually white, Christian society capitalist women, sex is almost always connected with emotion, you better believe people will buy that. It's the emotion of insecurity, potential loss of resources, potential vulnerability.
You want to see how that one works? Go to a primarily-white family court and watch the show. You'll find out just how much about resources it all ends up being.
I'm not saying one way or the other on the issue, but if we're applying science to it we probably need a bigger sample size for some of this stuff.
A Dell is one kind of computer. That doesn't make all other computers have the same properties as a Dell, especially when they behave so differently from a Dell.
I'm guessing this was not science, but a few facts cobbled together to back up Western White and Middle East Muslim values. Back up the values all one wants, but this one isn't science any more than me saying 2+2=4 is an English composition assignment.
The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to me in light of the anthropology I've read about over the years.
Or, one of you will be able to explain away the Aborigines and others who even ritually practice casual sex.
Science answers questions about our natural world: it doesn't start with I feel emotional about something and now I need a few facts that will back me up.
In a animal kingdom, Humans are one of the very few creature that have sex with emotional attach on them. Sex in the animal world is simply to produce offspring, to keep their habitat going, if you like.
what leo, myself, and a few others are trying to argue, is that sex doesn't always have emotional attachment for all women, just cause some people think women are built that way.
if what people with those views say is true, how do they explain women like myself who don't attach so much emotion to sex?
I care about the people I sleep with. not in a, "I want you to love me," sort of way, but in a way that says, "I enjoy you as a person, and therefore, wanna share sex with you."
Perhaps less oxytocin is released for some women as compared to others? Couple that with differing values, and it would explain why a lot of women feel differently about the issue.
I'm not the least bit religious anymore, but I still attach emotion to sex. So maybe those values aren't entirely gone. Or maybe I have a biological reason to attach the two. Either way, honestly, I don't see that it much matters. Live and let live and all.
Incidentally, someone a few posts back said that other animals have sex purely to procreate. This is mostly true, but what about dolphins? From what I understand at least, dolphins do have sex to further the species, but they also have casual sex as well because apparently it's enjoyable and they like doing it. I think I read somewhere that a female dolphin who is not in a position to be pregnant will still sometimes have sex for the enjoyment.
Just sort of a sidelight. But I'm with Meglet on this one. I honestly can't explain it, but oxytosin was the closest thing I could think of to at least put a scratch on it.
Fair enough Cody. Smile.
I also would have to say some animals have sex to enjoy it. Next it isn't emotionless either. Many mate up.
Some even will try to kill or kill a mate that has another male smell on them, so there is even jealousy.
I wonder if this is natures way of trying things out for humans?
Evern listen to cats go at it? Smile. Now that is pleasure with a Capital P.
yes, that's correct about dolphins having sex for pleasure. never heard what Wayne said about cats, though.
No, with cats, that's pain. Male cats have barbed penises. Don't ask me how I know that. Its a long and terrifying story.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the sentiments. I'm only concerned about the use of "science" in this situation. If you want to know why, study a bit on eugenics. It wasn't really about killing black babies or babies who are unfit in society's eyes: it was about using a few scientific facts to back up a culturally constructed ideal. In that case, it happened to be white society, and eugenicists used frenology, a fake science studying skull formations in races to categorize intelligence.
I'm not even picking on Bernadetta here: This one hit a sore spot for an embarrassing reason. As an undergrad in International Studies, I. Studied a whole lot of cultural anthropology. I even read the stuff for fun.
But I, like everyone else, was nearly taken by this chemistry argument, which leaves out all noncapitalist societies. Monotheism is the religion of capitalism and capitalism is the backbone of monotheism. Societies influenced by one are influenced by the other. Makes it neither right nor wrong. But it's dangerous to assert science where science isn't. If it was, it would at least acknowledge the caveat that is most of humanity for most of time.
Interestingly, I've been around this one before: as a young man, part of our sex education of the 1980s was being told how to be a present father, help during the birth, they even had videos of it all for us to watch. I still agree with it all, including the cultural pressure to conform.
But for them to say biologically men have been present fathers helping in the home for most of time, is scientifically inaccurate. Saying that men's testosterone levels go down when they are fathers, causing the dads who are present to have less of the "poison" (in quotes) we call testosterone, is ridiculous. And, scientifically inaccurate.
I know men, though I I am not one of them, who rejected the whole thing: culture, taboos against being an absent dad, etc., because they found out they'd been lied to.
So, I'm well-read and honest enoughto admit, most dads for most of time have not helped with the birth, or done a lot of child-rearing. But, I live in the modern world, am happy to live in the modern world, and have willingly conformed to these (relatively speaking) new social pressures. Of course, men in our forties and fifties now are learning what women learned in the 70s, that we can't do it all, earn the most money and still stay at home and be the best dad.
And we're learning this without all the support and other things women got before us: we're doing it by hard knocks on our own, most of us.
Same stuff applies to casual sex. I've never had sex outside a long-term committed relationship. So of course I attach sex with emotion more than I would if I had regularly done so. But things don't realbby stack up culturally on the unattached sex issue. Meaning, most culturs outside of the current model, which has been globalized, have done this.
Another case where I've seen science used to play games with social taboos has been the problem of girls starting their periods earlier and earlier, in some cases too early to be anything but dangerous.
Guess whose fault that $, according to some? The father. If he's a present dad, phermones get released that slow down her puberty, to bilogically keep him from becoming attracted to her. Because of course, all men are potential pedophiles.
Except that is complete bunk. And this fool here was foolenough to buy that nonsense from a parenthood publication, and felt pretty bad there for a year or so.
That's the reasons why I'm careful about misapplied science. I'm now always and forever careful about picking out sfacts that back up either what I believe, or what I just take for granted, like I did the sex / partnership thing for years, because of it leading to stuff like what I mentioned here.
If I'm wrong about the oxytosin thing, someone will be able jo tell us why it works in monotheistic capitalist societies and why not other places. But that persen can't possibly be a chemist.
thought this was a board on single parents and partying, not sex it's always sex with a few. jesus go get laid and stop acting experienced and like you are in the know how.
Re the original topic subject, there is no reason to why single parents can't party and have a life. But this in my opinion can only come at complete responsibility of someone close and the trust of said parent and child when old enough to understand the situation.
I think the whole discussion on whether it's good or bad for the child is utter bull shit! I could give countless stories on people who's parents who partyed and kids turned out great and some who didn't and their kids turned out idiots.
it's the interaction you give the child not what stupid forums say that counts.
Okay, as my time is precious, I will only address to the comments directed at me... To answer your questions Cody, and do keep in mind I could only speak for myself, and what I am about to say reflect but my own values and opinions!
The first situation in which you described depicts casual sex…. Since Bernadetta has so eloquently covered the ground, I don’t have much to add except that, should contraception fail, if you are already stress out with one/two kids now, congratulations, get yourself ready to take your stress level up to another nodge! Through your action, you are also forcing your existing children into dealing with the new addition of a step-sister/brother whether or not they wanted to. If you are a “man,” you are now financially responsible for 2 households. That is, unless said casual partner is willing to make a long term commitment to you for her future unborn sake’s. Now your offspring’s have to deal with a re-composed family, and, while some do work out, others could end up with long lasting emotional scars that you, as a parent has knowingly inflict through your action.. Furthermore, if you are foolish enough to bring said casual sex “partner” into your home, you are knowingly putting your children at a potential risk of sexual molestation/abuse!!! – Just imagine having that on your conscience all in the name of happy or sexually fulfilled parent!!! You are delusional if you truly believe a night worth of shagging has no risk away from or with your kids next door no matter the frequency!
To the posters who have issue with my choice of words… First off, Vulgarity is not a habit in which I indulge in, but when it is needed to drive my opinion home, I will use it without hesitation. Secondly, I could describe the situation of a parent who is solely responsible for an innocent life that they willingly or not brought into this world purposefully indulge in a casual lay in a more politically correct wording, I.E. casual sexual intercourse, but poop will always stink no matter the perfume used to mask the unpleasant odor!!! Secondly, some frequent posters to the board spares no nicety or tact when it comes to expressing their opinions, so in that, I am sure they wouldn’t mind if I don’t handle their feelings with kid gloves… After all, that would be hypocritical of them right? Smiles. If that makes me close minded and low in your minds eye, - trust you me, I wont lose any sleep over this! – There are certain core values that I hold steadfast to. Parenting and parental responsibility are a couple of examples… I won’t apologize for my passion, my opinions, or my choice of words!
Now to the opposite spectrum where a couple is involved in a long-term committed relationship needing some alone time to solidify their bond to one another, that is completely healthy and necessary!!! Connected and committed parents equate to a stable home environment. On the other hand, how could a casual lay possibly contribute to your own kid’s well being? We all know that children thrive best with consistency and stability in the home. You don’t have to graduate from high school to know that casual by definition doesn’t equate to consistency! I, frankly am, astonish that I and Bernadeta have to clarify such obvious things, but alas…!
As to your second scenario Cody, as Bernadetta so rightly pointed out, on one hand, you are sober and thereby of a sound mind which could react to any and all emergency situation. When you are plastered however, you could barely take care of yourself and stand on your own 2 feet let alone make a sound decision regarding another human being’s live. In certain instances like surgery, when a minor child is involved, only parents or a legal guardian can sign the consent form. For someone who is a father Wayne, you surely knew that? So your statement justifying that the child is with a responsible adult who could react in your place should you be out getting plastered, just doesn’t cut it in this instance...
To Chelsea… it depends on how you define sexual open mindedness. If you mean portraying oneself as a bus where anyone can ride, or flaunting one’s sexuality for all to see be it on an open form or anywhere else, or embracing and practicing your ideas on the subject at hand even though they are a contradiction to my core values just to conform with your strange notion of open-mindedness, then no… I am not at all so!!! – Nor in all honesty, do I want to be. What I adhered to is the concept of live, and let live! - realizing that my ideas, although they are right for me, does not mean that everyone else agree with them, nor should they. It also mean that I have the right to disagree with your ideas, and express them in ways I deem appropriate.
Regarding your wondering whether or not I have something intellectual to contribute… if it meant inundating every single board topic with an opinion just because I think I’m all that, or because I just like to hear myself talk,*sort of speak* then no… I don’t! If intellectual contribution equates to 80 percent of my posts consisting of “thank you” so and so, or “well said” so and so serve for what purpose I don’t know but to take up the unfortunately limitless space, then again, no… I don’t have anything intellectual to add, here or on any other board topic!!! You are the queen of intellect on all 3 counts, and I am reduced to being a simple zoner who believes in formulating my own thoughts, and only post when the subject matters interest me. *sweet smiles*
I’ve said all that I care to say on the subject. I am not here to change your or anyone else’s mind, nor you, mine!
Love your post Kimi. Just had to voice that, since it really resonated with my thoughts once again, and to me at least, made a lot of good sense.
It made sense, but you could replace every instance, or practically every instance, of casual sex in your post with marital sex and it has the exact same risk. I know you may not realize this, but you can get pregnant from husbands too. Its possible, isn't science wonderful? Just because you're married doesn't mean you're ready to have another kid. It also doesn't mean that your children will want to have another little sister or brother.
If risk aversion is your basis for all your opinions, become a hermit or a human vegetable, those are your only choices to live a risk free life. Someone wise once said that if you are living a risk free life, you aren't living.
I also think its slightly hypocritical of you to say that sex between married people is used to strengthen a bond, and make it sound all romantic and sweet, but then when talking about casual sex you automatically go to cheap whore. So you're either madly in love with birds flying around your head while Disney music plays in the background, or you're taking it up the ass in a back alley so you can buy drugs. Those are basically your two possibilities. I invite you to tell which of those applies to Bernadetta, the unmarried mother of a child. Was she a cheap whore when she had the sex, or were there birds flying around her head and twittering adorably?
I object here, but more to the strength of the words sometimes being slung about. They do not make you look like your opinion is strong; they make you look like a prude, so have on if that's the impression you want to give. I wouldn't automatically call someone having a fling a whore, and I wouldn't exactly condone calling someone like Chelsea "a bus for anyone to ride". Everyone has standards, and in both cases there is an attempt, willing or not, being made which attempts to unfairly denegrate a behaviour you don't agree with.
To put this baldly, Kimmy, I think your word choice leaves a lot to be desired in a few choice cases. I respect your right to your opinions, strong or not, that should go without saying. If i was using your means of logic (that is, using very strong speech to make your point) I could call you a self-important loudmouthed prig. But guess what purpose that serves? None at all. It probably wouldn't actually insult you, since you don't know me, but it might, so I'd do my best not to throw that sort of mud. Obviously you don't give much of a rip what people think of you.
And here, I think, is the crux of it. Bernadetta, Kimmy, I can see where you're coming from, and on the point of being plastered and needing to give consent for surgery, that's something I hadn't thought of. As far as molestation goes, however, are you trying to insinuate that all husbands (or wives, for that matter) are beyond reproach and innocent? Because I'm here to tell you that they sure as shit are -not completely innocent. I won't get into details, but I have two second cousins who could attest very strongly to that, thanks. Being married to someone, or engaged, or whatnot, does not in any way increase the likelihood that your child or children will be safe. They very likely will be, and I'll admit that the more casual or free your spirit is on the matter of sex (the more partners you invite home, at the least), the more you invite the possibility. However, this is irrelevant, since we're talking at least in large part about going away to have a good time. That one-night stand you met at a motel, if you're the type, doesn't even need to know your real name, much less where you live, in order to have a little fun with you. Even if they do know your name and could deduce your address, do you think statistically that the average one-night stand will show up at your home to molest your child?
Adding to Cody.
And every casual sex partner brought in to the house is a rapist and sexual abuser, but husbands and wives are never?
Casual sex even stinks? Marital sex, or committed sex smells different?
I’ve never raped or sexually abused anyone’s child of the partners I’ve had “uncommitted relationships with” so what’s wrong with me?
I could start a fight, but I’ll not.
I always thought with the cats the males were made like that to keep them together? I’ve seen the females purring and rubbing on the males, so assumed. Lol
No Mini, I’ll not even try to change your mind. Just wow!
To add to the male-cats thing: I believe it's a mechanism to ensure that a female cat doesn't go trying to have sex after a tom has impregnated her. When you hear a cat supposedly shrieking in the throes of passion, that's pain you're witnessing. Make no mistake. It's pretty cruel, honestly. Also sort of scary when you think about any queen who gets pregnant two or more times. You'd think after the first horrible experience she'd be wary...but apparently not.
Ouch on the cat thing. Talk about pleasure versus pain. lol.
Ok. before I tackle anything else. I want to address the fear mongering as it relates to sexual abuse, as well as the misinformation stated to make that point.
3 in 4 cases of sexual abuse at least in the US are conducted by people who knew the abused person well. Not by strangers, not by just casual people coming in and out of the house, but by friends of the family, family members, and close teenaged friends. children who live in homes marked by domestic abuse, violence, or divorce can raze the rate of sexual abuse somewhat, as does living in a single parent home, though to a much less extent. As someone who has been abused, and who has been abused by someone I knew well, I will not stand for people to use lies and bullshit logic/judgement to prop up their moral arguments. Get the facts please, before twisting a dramatic issue to make a point.
SW, Wayne, nice work on this issue, as well. :)
Cody, Kimi is also a single parent. When I was young, many used the harsh language she used on Chelsea, only they used it on people like her and Bernadetta. I'm a bit beside myself, to be honest. But I know they're both young and haven't had to bear the humiliation and shame. I, for one, am glad.
Kimi has accused me elsewhere of trying to be open minded to gain the popularity of young people. This isn't much more than laughable, with minimal success at best. What I am, though, is just another middle-aged human who has seen a few decades of this rhetoric thrown around at groups of people, notably the same stability arguments Kimi threw at Chelsra, and others throw at gay parents, was thrown at unwed mothers a generation ago. Pardon me if I am just astounded sometimes, and other times I observe all the rhetoric simply not adding up.
I, too, I guess live by a rigid code of honor, to some people at least. I won't commit any relationship treason, be it cheating or giving out personal details that would violate Her privacy in any way. In other words, I'm no more and no less than billions of men throughout time.
But I've seen all this rhetoric be wrong so many times before.
People a generation ago were dead wrong: single or unmarried mothers are not whores, or a bus to ride, and neither is Chelsea now. In fact, the single mothers I've known are downright brave.
But before belittling others, some would do well to consider what their lot would have been a generation ago.
In 1970, these sharp attitudes had my biological mother sent to another town, away from family, to have the pregnancy and give birth. Now, I am no woman, but I was privileged to support my wife through pregnancy and birth, and to this day I'm not sure I comprehend how a woman like the one that gave birth in 1970, actually did it without support.
So no, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest with the kids. I'm a man who has observed a lot, knows some, but often is left with more questions than answers. Has made me at least try to be more circumspect in recent years. To the one saying they're not out to change minds? If you write it, and we read it, you will impact others' thinking. You reminded me that we still have long way to go. We're a long way from 1970, or a generation ago when unmarried mothers like Bernadetta and kKimi were treated to the same retorts and worse. But we still have a long way to go.
Most sex crime comes from people the child knows. Not strangers. This is a case of some people using the tragedy of sex crimes, revictimizing abuse survivors, all for the personal gratification of supporting the majority view, one which most of us practice. This coming from an unwed mother who a generation ago would have been shunned. Implies either a lot of self-loathing or the historical memory of your average chicken. Makes as much sense as a blind guy wanting rights, then turning total racist on another group. But I guess opinions need not be logical.
You can also argue that, if the parent has lots of casual partners and bring them home, the child is expose to those "casual partners" too. Considering thise, when you are 3 or 4 or 5 or even 6 years old, your parent bring someone back home, and tell you that that person is his or her friend, and is ok for him to her to stay and visit. As a 3/4/5/6 years old kid, you are more likely to trust your parent's judgement. Doesn't matter if the casual partner is going to be there for 1 time, or few times, your child will be more likely to expose to those potential harm than not.
I stand on my view, if a parent wants to party, go ahead, if they want to have casual sex, go ahead. As long as you can be a responsible parent, and know what is your priority as a responsible adult and parent as a matter.
It is not just you, alone, it is about you and your child/children as well.
Joanne, you can, but, the data, does not back you up, as far as sex crime goes. At least, not as drastically as you think. while I'm honestly not 100 percent how I feel about all sorts of people being in and out of a single parent household. It is true, that many cultures, particularly third world cultures make this a much bigger practice than we do, generally, and even so, the data backs up the viewpoint, that the kids are usually safe.
yes, something could happen, but you're making an argument as ridiculous as this. I will never, ever take my kid out to eat anywhere, because their is a remote chance they can be food poisoned.
DO I think their is some danger with strangers in the house, yes. But, at least according to the data, sexual abuse is not the biggest problem, by a long shot.
No James, i'm simply giving the arguement from another side of the coin. Not that i believe or not believing in it or anything. As i said as a conclusion, if the parent wants to party, or sex, then, they are more than welcome to it. As long as they can be a responsible parent and have their priority right. That was towards a general statement, not towards just sex, or party, or anything really.
None of the strong opinion people have yet responded to any of the stuff some of us have brought up. That may tell us a lot.
That "bus that everyone can ride" comment is so way out there that it wouldn't even show up in those women's studies textbooks they had at university, as example of maltreatment of women. And the author of that statement even herself has a little girl! What does that say?
I never would've guessed we'd see such in 2013.
I didn't expect that there would be a productive response--a real attempt to get us to understand and to address our points. I usually look for three things in a "blunt" post, and the presence of at least two of them usually means that person will be unwilling to come back and defend in a productive way:
1. Saying whatever they like under the safe umbrella of "personal views".
2. Repeatedly asserting that they don't care what anyone else thinks and that they won't lose sleep over other peoples' opinions. This is a convenient way of failing to account for what was said while trying to act like the discussion is so far beneath them as to be insignificant. How many times have we heard people say things like: "Well, it's just the zone, I don't care about anyone here, so why should I have to defend my points?" It's a good way to avoid having to actually make sense.
3. Becoming frustrated because people object to the bluntness of the post. Most of us have seen posters who, while spewing objectionable and unsubstantiated claims, immediately assume that people disagree with them because they can't "handle" the bluntness.
Well said, Meglet. I use similar criteria, and have yet to have it invalidated on the zone, or anywhere else, come to that. Strong opinions are fine, but the stronger you make them, the more heat you're going to face when someone decides to take them apart.
Wow to the last 2 posters, how very we'll put.
And I'd also say most of us do care how we come across, as that is just part of the human experience.
I think it is fine to have personal opinion or personal views. However, what will these so call "personal opinion and personal views" in say, 5 years time? And, will all these personal opinions and views come from life experience that shape by One's culture and values, or simply to make sure that "i'm different from all of you, and the rest of the world"?
I often think that those who stated so strongly that they don't care what other think of them, after all its the zone kind of thing is really hiding their fear, and in some way, wanting to be different from the rest and somewhat stand out from the rest as well.
What will be interesting to see is that these people, what will they think say, 5 years from now, when they reading back their own posts?
Of course, we all do mistakes, we are wish we could be different in some way some how. But, my professional instinct makes me wonder, and from my professional experiences, usually, those that consider themselves that they don't care what others think of them, they are those, that care the hell lots more than say, the 1 standard diviation norms group of population.
I agree with what leo said, completely. But I just want to add one more thing.
Its OK to have an opinion, but when the facts clearly prove your opinion wrong, and you keep posting it, you're just misleading yourself, and more tragically you're misleading others.
You have an excellent point there. Especially with information this sensitive (when is abuse not sensitive, after all?) it's important to make sure you have your facts right at the very least.
as for the bus comment, I personally found it quite amusing. I know that I'm not suggesting everyone come ride me, and others are free to see me being open with regards to my sexuality, as they wish to.
I respect and accept that we all have differing views, and being willing to share them, is what makes interesting discussions.
however, I disagree that just cause someone says they don't care what others think, that that actually means the exact opposite.
while I doubt such comments were directed at any one person, I don't think it's right to put every person who says those kinds of things, in such a group.
I'm aware that I say that, sometimes, but I don't say it for the reasons others may. on the boards, my words are the only things people have to go off of, so I convey what I'm trying to get across as best I can.
I absolutely try to post exactly what I think, because it matters to me how I'm perceived I don't want people thinking I'm something I'm not, nor that my views are something they are not.
My opinions change provided I get strong information that shows me I'm wrong. In 5 years I'll still for the most part agree with my post, and probably even more so Especially on a topic such as this.
Being right on a topic like this is not the point. Looking at the facts seems better. I don't think everyone shoulde be in to anything casual, or not, but this topic is about parenting, and on that my view stands strong.
i don't think there is right or wrong in this topic, well, i shall say, the sub discussion of this topic. there is no right or wrong with casual sex. what you are is shape by what you value, with yourself as an individual or in your culture, and also, perhaps, your religion and spiritual believe. To stereotype one another just because their believe and values do not agree with your believe and value system is rather pointless.
To clarify something, Chelsea: I'm not lumping people into groups. I was saying that the three things I pointed out, when taken together, often indicate a certain type of post, not a certain type of person, and the presence of one or even two of those things is by no means a blanket description of those not willing to back up what they say. There's also a difference between not caring what people think of you and not caring what people think of the ideas you present. I don't much care what zoners, as individuals, think of me as an individual beyond the human impulse to be liked and not hated, obviously. But I do care if my posts are misrepresented.
Oops, I made a mistake: that should read"a certain type of poster" not "post". Sorry.
I understand what you're saying, Meglet. I was just clarifying where I'm coming from on this issue.
I, too, care about my posts being misrepresented, which is often why I'll illustrate points in many different ways.
some people will willingly twist things however they want, as Kim did in writing that I like to hear myself talk, and others will read my words for exactly what I'm trying to convey, as Wayne and others often do.