Relationships ruined by "lifestylers"?

[teknight]

No, no, you don't understand what I'm asking. Apologies; I'll try again.

It's OK, JM. It's hard to express yourself clearly in English. I perfectly understand, what with being foreign and all.

Only if the kid has the skills to do that reasoning,

Stella's right. What's more, kids aren't tiny adults, they literally think differently and what aren't capable of what we consider "rational thought"- at least not to the level we hold ourselves at.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's OK, JM. It's hard to express yourself clearly in English. I perfectly understand, what with being foreign and all.


Stella's right. What's more, kids aren't tiny adults, they literally think differently and what aren't capable of what we consider "rational thought"- at least not to the level we hold ourselves at.

tek, you got your av! Is that you? You almost look... American.

 

[eastern sun]

I'd use different tones, too. I also use different tones when I think someone is lying, particularly if I reach the conclusion that the point of their fabricated bio is to come here and stir up shit.

I'll admit that there was a time when I thought both you and osg were alts that Marquis had created just to make us monkeys dance.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'll admit that there was a time when I thought both you and osg were alts that Marquis had created just to make us monkeys dance.

My god, woman, paranoid much?

 

[eastern sun]

My god, woman, paranoid much?

There was a time when alts popped up with some regularity around here. Most of them were so obvious it didn't take much effort to identify them, but once in a while I'd get totally entangled in the deciphering craze - and jump to conclusions just to free myself . . . . (My name is eastern sun, and I am a cyber-stalker.)

 

[JMohegan]

Don't forget, as a female child, I was young in a time where innately unfair rules and standards and directives were delivered in a respectful tone. And not capriciously, either, the standards always applied. They were double standards, that's all.

And yes, absolutely, no one needs to point it out to me-- this is part of my, very personal problem-- a huge, huge part-- with heteronormative Dom/sub dynamics. Again, I do NOT proscribe them for anyone else. Most of you are younger, and don't experience sexist shit unless you ask for it. You're welcome.

But you cannot count on it. Really, you cant. And you cant count on the kid to say one single word about his misunderstandings. The general rule is; "First do no harm."

I was born in '58, and have a slightly younger sister. We both consider ourselves feminists, but of the Choice Branch of the movement. (You know, choice, as in: right to choose.)

"You're welcome," huh. For what? Why should people, whose choices in family structure you condemn, thank you for your efforts to condemn them?

If you don't want to have a relationship with skewed power dynamics, then don't have one. But unless you can present a convincing argument as to why and how children are traumatized in every instance involving such a dynamic, regardless of how the power is administered by the one in charge and received by the one who's deferring, then you've got no right to make blanket assertions condemning that type of family.

Well, you have the right to your opinion, of course. Just as I've got the right to say that to me you sound, on this thread, just exactly like the rightwing whackjobs who condemn all gay adoption as harmful to kids.

 

[MisterSir]

Reading this thread, I'm reminded why I disappeared in the first place.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Did you read "Prescribe" instead of Proscribe?"
I am going to edit that.

 

[00Syd]

Reading this thread, I'm reminded why I disappeared in the first place.

Don't go away again!!

 

[Stella_Omega]

goddammit, JM has PMs turned off. I am totally hoping he misread my entire post.

 

[JMohegan]

How would a child tell the difference between a Domme and an abusive wife?

The same way a child tells the difference between a non-kinky woman and an abusive wife.

Ever seen Rebel Without a Cause? The James Dean character, Jim, has parents who are always fighting. They disagree constantly, and in the ensuing battles the mother always browbeats the father and wins. On matters big and small, including matters having to do with Jim himself, Jim's father backs down and is belittled.

That is an abusive relationship. How can Jim, and the rest of us, tell? Because the father is clearly miserable on a regular basis, and that misery is caused by the badgering of the mother, as well as the father's own lack of strength.

Take away the fighting and the misery, and replace those two with the following:

- a couple that embraces the rhythm of a life in which one person, the mother, is clearly in charge, but....
- the father's opinion on key issues is clearly respected, and demonstrably matters, and...
- the father's contributions to the family are openly respected and valued, as are the mother's, and....
- the father does not become despondent when the mother makes decisions, but submits to them with an air of acceptance and acknowledgment that yeah, that makes sense (because the respect here goes BOTH ways), and.....
- normal occasional blips aside, both people are clearly happy with each other.

I believe a child could perceive that difference.

 

[JMohegan]

goddammit, JM has PMs turned off. I am totally hoping he misread my entire post.

It's possible! That happens.

And we do seem to be having trouble understanding one another in recent posts on this thread.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's possible! That happens.

And we do seem to be having trouble understanding one another in recent posts on this thread.

I've re-written portions of it.

- a couple that embraces the rhythm of a life in which one person, the mother, is clearly in charge, but....
- the father's opinion on key issues is clearly respected, and demonstrably matters, and...
- the father's contributions to the family are openly respected and valued, as are the mother's, and....
- the father does not become despondent when the mother makes decisions, but submits to them with an air of acceptance and acknowledgment that yeah, that makes sense (because the respect here goes BOTH ways), and.....
- normal occasional blips aside, both people are clearly happy with each other.

Makes me wish I could do that in my marriage!

 

[JMohegan]

Thanks for the edits, Stella. Yes, I did misunderstand that post!

As an aside, and just for the record, I agree completely that young women have a hell of lot to thank the feminists of prior generations for.

Back to the subject of kids in families withe skewed power dynamics. I get, from the edit in bold below, that you don't condemn the dynamic itself. But are you still adamant that people in those relationships shouldn't have kids - no matter how that dynamic expresses itself? [Older posts copied here, so you can see what I'm talking about.]

That's the "choice" I was referencing. The choice to embrace whatever family dynamics seem to best fit the parents, as long as it's not harmful to the kids.

We agree that traumatizing kids is not okay, and that a situation that is perceived by kids as abusive is not okay for that very reason. Where we seem to be disagreeing is on the question of whether a family involved skewed power dynamics would necessarily, unavoidably, generate that perception.

Please, folks, if really feel you must live 24/7 slave/master? Do it childless. It is NOT fair to the kids. They do not have a choice.

Because two daddies or two mommies are normative in other ways, ones that really count. That's been the point of the gay marriage rights movement.

I have fought for fifty years now, for the right of autonomy-- for women, for racial minorities, for LGBT. those rights are political, but they are expressed in the personal sphere. a 24/7 slave has no autonomy. That slave may also be, by sheer coincidence, a woman.

One-way power dynamics? Not good for a kid to witness. Doesn't matter what the sex of the respectives are.

Don't forget, as a female child, I was young in a time where innately unfair rules and standards and directives were delivered in a respectful tone. And not capriciously, either, the standards always applied. They were double standards, that's all. They were firm, consistent standards that hurt. Me.

And yes, absolutely, no one needs to point it out to me-- this is part of my, very personal problem-- a huge, huge part-- with heteronormative Dom/sub dynamics.

Again, I do NOT condemn (I had originally said "proscribe") these dynamics for anyone else.

Most of the women here are younger, and won't experience firm consistent sexist standards unless they ask for it. You're welcome, ladies. I have fought for forty some years for this.

But you cannot count on it. Really, you cant. And you cant count on the kid to say one single word about his misunderstandings. The general rule is; "First do no harm."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks for the edits, Stella. Yes, I did misunderstand that post!

As an aside, and just for the record, I agree completely that young women have a hell of lot to thank the feminists of prior generations for.

Back to the subject of kids in families withe skewed power dynamics. I get, from the edit in bold below, that you don't condemn the dynamic itself. But are you still adamant that people in those relationships shouldn't have kids - no matter how that dynamic expresses itself? [Older posts copied here, so you can see what I'm talking about.]

That's the "choice" I was referencing. The choice to embrace whatever family dynamics seem to best fit the parents, as long as it's not harmful to the kids.

We agree that traumatizing kids is not okay, and that a situation that is perceived by kids as abusive is not okay for that very reason. Where we seem to be disagreeing is on the question of whether a family involved skewed power dynamics would necessarily, unavoidably, generate that perception.

I can see that i was overstating-- probably in reaction to some irritation or another.

Sure, many D/s marriages probably pass muster very well. Humans always worry about the worst-cases. It's programmed into us.

 

[ownedsubgal]

There was a time when alts popped up with some regularity around here. Most of them were so obvious it didn't take much effort to identify them, but once in a while I'd get totally entangled in the deciphering craze - and jump to conclusions just to free myself . . . . (My name is eastern sun, and I am a cyber-stalker.)

anyone would be honored to be cyber-stalked by you. lol

 

[Stella_Omega]

double post

 

[JMohegan]

I can see that i was overstating-- probably in reaction to some irritation or another.

Sure, many D/s marriages probably pass muster very well. Humans always worry about the worst-cases. It's programmed into us.

Fair enough.