What kind of power balance do you have in your relationship?

[Homburg]

We have "umbrealla rules" for lack of a better term, which enable me to function on a daily basis without having to ask permission to do XYZ necessary thing, but I don't view that as autonomy, because he considers the use of my knowledge and understanding to make decisions to be an act of service to him. If we ever reach a place of being under the same roof, he will decide my daily schedule, if I go back to college, what I do professionally, etc. He wants my input, he demands my input, but I have no say in the final outcome.

Insofar as rules and management go, I discussed this concept with Evil_Geoff a while back, and he used a "fire and forget" missile as his example. In this case, you lock the missile on its' target, hit the button, and let it do whatever it is going to do to hit that target. In my case, I make as clear as I can what I want done (which sometimes is admittedly unclear) and then expect her to do it. I honestly would be driven insane by requests for permission to go to the bathroom, and picking out her clothing, and the like. Totally insane.

I will make clothing suggestions if we are going to some sort of event where I want her dressed some particular way, and when we are talking, playing, whatever, she asks permission to use the restroom (largely because she does not want to interrupt whatever it is that I am doing). So there are exceptions to the rule. But overall, Geoff's "Fire and forget" metaphor is a good one for us.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I can't figure out which one to pick.

In our [his and my] minds, I have no autonomy. I am his, period. He has the right to micromanage as much as he desires. When the decision was made to close the vintage business, I gave him all the information (why I felt it was a good move, what options were possible), and he made the decision. He refers to my children as "his" - they are a part of me therefore they belong to him.

I am happy you are in a good place at the moment, but it does make me uneasy that he feels your children 'belong to him' in any context at this early stage of your relationship. Personally it would raise the hairs on the back of my neck for anyone to feel my children belonged to them as I don't see them as part of the arrangement. Even in vanilla days I would keep my children out of the picture for quite a long time, and would have something to say to anyone who seemed to be trying to ingratiate themselves with me through my children....I always made it clear that was the quickest way to get shown the door as I did not want them subjected to being used as part of my relationship choices.

That being said, F has done an enormous amount for my son, been patient and understanding, been supportive beyond belief, reached out to connect with him on a level that works for my son, respects him, but is clear he is not his father, nor does he have the right to tell him what to do and is there because of our relationship and his acceptance of my children as individuals, belonging does not extend beyond I belonging to him. Even with that level of commitment, it has taken time to grow and though he initially accepted he was part of the package, he allowed time for the trust to grow between them and had a supportive but not possessive position in his life. I hope it all works out for you and this is what you want, but please be careful of involving the children too deeply and placing them in a position of feeling vulnerable or obligated to someone they have not known for long, or someone feeling they have that right over your children who have not been given the option of consenting as you have as an adult.

Catalina

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Homburg]

I think the "fire and forget it" thing is where the concept of micromanagement confuses me. IMO I can be "micromanaged" without him having to stop everything every 6.4 minutes to make sure I'm doing what he wamts me to be doing, but whenever micromanagement is discussed, people speak as if it doesn't count unless you can't even sit down in a chair without first asking permission.

*shrug* I don't know what to call it. Never do. I don't consider it micromanagement because I really don't care about the micro details. It is sufficient for me, and I hope for her, that she does what she does at my behest, even if I allow and require her to exercise her own judgement in sorting the details.

She knows my taste in clothing for her well enough to know what I will appreciate and what I will not. It is thus her responsibility to wear that which will please me more than displease me.

She knows my taste in food well enough to know how to construct a menu for the week. She bears the responsibility for executing that menu. In this specific example, she has been known to change the menu on the fly. She informs me, and I generally don't mind. We live in the Real world, and have four kids. External constraints matter.

She knows my tastes insofar as general service is concerned. Well, she is learning my taste in that area. I am learning my taste in that area. I am not a patient man, and for me, desire produces action. If I am thirsty, I will simply get myself a drink. I don't sit about thinking how thirsty I am. I want the ice water now. Given the ease with which I can obtain said water, I just do it. Calling her in and having her get it would actually slow down my gratification. Sure, it's another chance for her to serve me. Whee, I'm thirsty and want my frikken drink. That said, she occassionally just brings me a drink without asking. She'll notice that I've not been up in a while and will decide that I may well be thirsty. I get a drink, and may not have realised that I want one yet. That, friends, is good stuff.

Sadly, the toughest part for me is coming up with service needs. I am not someone with complex needs or daily rituals. I don't want my slippers, newspaper, pipe, and Manhattan in a tumbler with 3 ice cubes. Not my thing.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[catalina_francisco]

I knew that would freak people out, and probably create some discussion. lol

He doesn't interact with the kids, he isn't pushing to interact with the kids, he hasn't asked to meet the kids, and we've not discussed when he might be introduced to them, as our relationship isn't at that stage, yet.

One of the things he likes about me is I'm a damn good mother, and he trusts my judgement regarding them, so he's actually very hands off - he might ask me to outline my plans for them on the weekends they're here and offer input, but that's about it.

He also recognizes that it is very easy for me to feel overwhelmed and frazzled when I'm with them because it's 5 to 1, and I'm not used to being "in the trenches" as much, anymore. So his involvement/overseeing of "his children" consists of reminding me that I'm an amazing, nurturing, creative mother, and he expects me to interact with the kids like that. He loves that part of me, and he wants "his children" to experience the peaceful, patient, capable woman I am, not the woman who gets easily flustered and stressed out and snappish (which is more likely to happen when I'm feeling scattered and unfocused). The man's all about being centered and joyful, and wants that to encompass every corner of my life - including the moments when I have 5 children going in 10 different directions, requesting 15 different things from me.

#1 rule - everything I do is for his pleasure/he is my highest priority.
#2 rule - my[his] children's wants/needs trump rule #1

I know you are a smart lady, but must admit it still doesn't work for me to include them in ownership/belonging terminology. Guess I have just always had a strong ethic about people having the right to make those choices for themselves and do not consider children as part of a D/s or M/s relationship just because a parent chooses to pursue it. I can honestly say I have not even ever thought of my own children as 'belonging to' me even though I am their biological mother, raised them on my own, and would give my life for them if necessary...it just does not rate as healthy on my feminist and humanitarian radar.

Catalina

 

[intothewoods]

I don't want my slippers, newspaper, pipe, and Manhattan in a tumbler with 3 ice cubes. Not my thing.

The Manhattan thing is the only part of service submission that I dig! Well, the cooking/serving meals/etc. You like when she cooks for you though, right? I love being a hostess. It makes me feel really good down to my core.

I don't know where I'm going to fall on this - except that I think it's really going to be pretty fluid. Some days we cook together and some days I take care of him. We're still feeling it out. And then the other day he told me I could go to a party as long as there were rules, and I got all happy pet-like. I thought aw, damn, just when I was thinking I was allllll submission is contained to the bedroom. Phooey.

 

[Homburg]

I knew that would freak people out, and probably create some discussion. lol

*shrug*

I was un-freaked by it. Your kids don't live with you. You are not the primary caregiver. He does not live with you. At that point, his interaction with the kids is going to be perforce limited.

If anything, I am heartned by the concet, both because he is acknolwedging how important the kids ar ein your life, and thus his, and he is taking ownership (not in a D/s sense) of your concerns in areas that he can help in, but has no specific duty to do anything about.

#1 rule - everything I do is for his pleasure/he is my highest priority.
#2 rule - my[his] children's wants/needs trump rule #1

And I've seen this statement before, which is another reason why i was unbothered.

 

[FurryFury]

<snip>He refers to my children as "his" - they are a part of me therefore they belong to him.<snip>

You are right that does freak me out a bit. First of all kids are not "a part of the parent" in my book. Second in no way are they anyone's property, particularly someone not related to them. That raises my hackles quite a bit.

However, I'm happy that he is mostly hands off in this area, building you up and actually helping. I'm also glad you are happy.

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[Homburg]

The Manhattan thing is the only part of service submission that I dig! Well, the cooking/serving meals/etc. You like when she cooks for you though, right? I love being a hostess. It makes me feel really good down to my core.

itw, you can make me a drink or a meal any time you want, baby =)

Sure, I like it. I'm happy when she brings me a drink, or cooks for me. It pleases me, and I make sure she knows that the food is good, or that I am thankful that she took the time to produce lunch for me. I don't necessarily consider that service submission though. that is her being a good wife, partner, and mom, when she knows that th ekids can't really fend for themselves (without making absurd messes) and that I can fend for myself but it's not generally a good idea for too long (due to chance of absurd messes).

Yes, these days it falls under the umbrella of service submission, but that is because the whole relationship is covered under the umbrella of M/s. I'm pretty damned sure she doesn't get all wet and gooey cleaning out the litterbox because she is doing it for me. At least I hope not. *shudder*

I don't know where I'm going to fall on this - except that I think it's really going to be pretty fluid. Some days we cook together and some days I take care of him. We're still feeling it out. And then the other day he told me I could go to a party as long as there were rules, and I got all happy pet-like. I thought aw, damn, just when I was thinking I was allllll submission is contained to the bedroom. Phooey.

Phooey? Whyfore you make the phooey noise? Do you not want it beyond the bedroom? If so, have you told Mr. Man?

 

[Homburg]

He doesn't view my children as property. I am his property.

It never occured to me that other people don't consider their kids to "belong" to them in a non-D/s sense... I do. They are mine - part of my heart, and my only biological family. I don't "own" them like luggage, or anything, but they are mine. It's pretty common if I need to round them up (esepcially if we're at the playground with a huge gaggle of extended friends) for me to call out "All children who belong to me, it's time to leave!" They are used to it, they know it's said out of being a permanent part of my heart (not our of obligation or "ownership"), and they like knowing they are "mine".

I guess I don't take the term "belong" or "my/mine" as literally [with regards to offspring] as others do...

I'm not sure why. Legally they are property, well, chattel. Property with rights, if you will. You have a legal obligation to them, yes, but they are legally required to stay with you unless they somehow obtain emancipation through the court system. Yes, the court can take them away from you under the auspices of Family services, or whatever moniker is used, but they have to go through similar legal rigamarole to any goverment agency taking your property. Until they reach age of majority, you own them legally.

I'm not sure why people would have a problem with that. If you move, do you ask your children if they want to move too, or do you just drag them along? If you go out to eat, do you ask them if they want to stay home and watch Boomerang, or are they told to get in the car? If you're all at the playground and it is time to go, can the kids do what they want, or do you do as Monica said and round the little bums up?

You (generic) may not like the verbage of ownership, but unless you are stupendously more permissive a parent than I can personally imagine as functional (ie you let the kids rule you), you own em. And, c'mon, there's ownership in the M/s sense, and there's ownership in the "I own my cat" sense. One describes body and soul submission of one person to another. The other describes an unequal relationship based on duty, biological need, and legal necessity.

And let's not pussyfoot around, the M/s version is friendlier because it is consensual. Your ownership of your children is more serious because it is non-consensual insofar as the State is concerned. I can abandon/dismiss my slave. If I boot my kids out on the street I get arrested.

So, tell me again how I don't own them? (well, aside from the epistemological argument that you can own nothing outside the reach of your arm, and which you cannot destroy sans consequence, but that's another thread)

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

For the moment: I am not in a purely S/m or D/s relationship..we are vanilla with a hint of kink. That being said: he is a top and I am his bottom within the confines of the bedroom (since that's the only place I feel comfortable giving up any sort of control) therefore my option was the last one. Since I haven't been in this particular position in quite a while (bottoming) it's still pretty weird and rather strange to me. My s/o is a naturally dominant, alpha personality and I do certain things (ie dress, make up or not) to his specifications but on the whole outside of our bedroom..we are equals. (Since I wouldn't really be comfortable any other way)

 

[FurryFury]

Yes, legally children are property. That is wrong. This is a HOT button issue for me.

At one time women were also property. (That may be fine with folks in a D/s sense but in a legal sense I think it's not a good thing for us.)

If, as a child you ever were treated as property or "part of" a parent in a negative way, you'd understand why I have a problem with it.

The courts often do NOT rule in the kids best interests because of this property issue. It's very messed up in my opinion.

 

[intothewoods]

Phooey? Whyfore you make the phooey noise? Do you not want it beyond the bedroom? If so, have you told Mr. Man?

I'm still kind of uncomfortable with it, but also, I like having things settled in my head. It's part of my control freak nature. And yeah, me and Mr. Man talk about it all the time. We talk so much, sometimes we forget to have sex!

Ha. Just kidding.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm not sure why. Legally they are property, well, chattel. Property with rights, if you will. You have a legal obligation to them, yes, but they are legally required to stay with you unless they somehow obtain emancipation through the court system. Yes, the court can take them away from you under the auspices of Family services, or whatever moniker is used, but they have to go through similar legal rigamarole to any goverment agency taking your property. Until they reach age of majority, you own them legally.

I'm not sure why people would have a problem with that. If you move, do you ask your children if they want to move too, or do you just drag them along? If you go out to eat, do you ask them if they want to stay home and watch Boomerang, or are they told to get in the car? If you're all at the playground and it is time to go, can the kids do what they want, or do you do as Monica said and round the little bums up?

You (generic) may not like the verbage of ownership, but unless you are stupendously more permissive a parent than I can personally imagine as functional (ie you let the kids rule you), you own em. And, c'mon, there's ownership in the M/s sense, and there's ownership in the "I own my cat" sense. One describes body and soul submission of one person to another. The other describes an unequal relationship based on duty, biological need, and legal necessity.

And let's not pussyfoot around, the M/s version is friendlier because it is consensual. Your ownership of your children is more serious because it is non-consensual insofar as the State is concerned. I can abandon/dismiss my slave. If I boot my kids out on the street I get arrested.

So, tell me again how I don't own them? (well, aside from the epistemological argument that you can own nothing outside the reach of your arm, and which you cannot destroy sans consequence, but that's another thread)

I'm not sure property is really the right word, but eh, it's hard to find the perfect word. Look at abortion. It's a fetus, it's the mother's body, it's a life, it's a potential life...

Label aside, I'm pretty much with you on how I view the relationship, though I think of him as having more or less a zone of autonomy. It builds a sense of responsibility. My kid can make his own pb&j sandwich. Wassup now?

 

[Homburg]

Yes, legally children are property. That is wrong. This is a HOT button issue for me.

At one time women were also property. (That may be fine with folks in a D/s sense but in a legal sense I think it's not a good thing for us.)

If, as a child you ever were treated as property or "part of" a parent in a negative way, you'd understand why I have a problem with it.

The courts often do NOT rule in the kids best interests because of this property issue. It's very messed up in my opinion.

How is it wrong? Is there some better solution to dealing with individuals that are patently incapable of taking care of themselves, and likewise incapable of making rational informed decisions? Is there a better structure? Is there some way other than implied ownership? Do we need to sign renewable leases on our children? Do we let them rule our world as pocket tyrants subjecting us to underaged irrational whims?

There's enough of that as is with the little bums rolling their eyes when you tell em they're topping from the bottom =P

I'm honestly sorry that you were mistreated, and I can understand why it would be a hot button issue for you, but you can hopefully accept that your experience was the exception, not the rule. As a result, the protections set in place are what is needed, however fallible they may be, as opposed to tearing the whole system down and not holding a parent accountable for thier minor children, or somehow having to gain permission of their child, or, worse, the State before making a decision that affects the child's cheerful existence. No thank you.

Ownership is a worthwhile compromise in child-rearing, not some burdensome onus. Without it, we would be subject to the ministrations of the state far more often than we currently are (which is too damned much IMO), and we would cede ever increasing amounts of parentl responsibility, right, and enjoyment to the govt, as well as experiencing the joy of dwindling privacy, as the govt is forced to monitor more and more as the parent is no longer responsible for the child. Again, no thank you.

As to women being property, sorry, but this is apples and oranges. An adult woman is, just that, and adult, and is thus theoretically capable of taking care of herself and making rational, informed decisions. Turn an 8yr old loose sans support and what happens? Yes, a 28yr old woman might fall prey to the same sort of predators and dissolution as a lone, unsopprted child, but at least she has a fighting chance, and has the potential faculties to make better decisions. The average 8yr old won't.

 

[Homburg]

I'm still kind of uncomfortable with it, but also, I like having things settled in my head. It's part of my control freak nature. And yeah, me and Mr. Man talk about it all the time. We talk so much, sometimes we forget to have sex!

Ha. Just kidding.

I was just wondering. The way you described it was a bit confusing.

--

I'm not sure property is really the right word, but eh, it's hard to find the perfect word. Look at abortion. It's a fetus, it's the mother's body, it's a life, it's a potential life...

Label aside, I'm pretty much with you on how I view the relationship, though I think of him as having more or less a zone of autonomy. It builds a sense of responsibility. My kid can make his own pb&j sandwich. Wassup now?

Chattal is the word I usually use. Abortion is a whole nother can o worms though, and a threadjack from hell. I won't even get into that one, ugh.

 

[catalina_francisco]

You are right that does freak me out a bit. First of all kids are not "a part of the parent" in my book. Second in no way are they anyone's property, particularly someone not related to them. That raises my hackles quite a bit.

LOL, I was beginning to think I was strange!! I think for me, even more so than the spoken words of ownership/belonging, what would concern me is that someone would even think or speak this way about children they had never met...for me it is sort of a red flag as to how their mind may work...and also I will admit that after being a sole parent for near on 20 years who did date from time to time, it was always a sore point when a man in my life made a beeline for my children (in person or conversation) as a way to supposedly get me to feel more romantic or whatever toward him, and believe me, it was one of the most common ways men thought was a dead cert to get a woman to fall for him and anything he wanted...and unfortunately it worked on a lot of women who regretted it later when they realised their children had been played as a ploy to get a shortcut to their hearts, not a genuine feeling for the children or often the woman. Just be careful please CM as words can often indicate more than is spoken, and as you knoe, deep feelings take time to build, especially in relation to someone else's children.

Catalina

 

[doveofserenity]

It never occured to me that other people don't consider their kids to "belong" to them in a non-D/s sense... I do. They are mine - part of my heart, and my only biological family. I don't "own" them like luggage, or anything, but they are mine. It's pretty common if I need to round them up (esepcially if we're at the playground with a huge gaggle of extended friends) for me to call out "All children who belong to me, it's time to leave!" They are used to it, they know it's said out of being a permanent part of my heart (not our of obligation or "ownership"), and they like knowing they are "mine".

i agree with CM on the matter of the children being "mine".

They are of me, by me, live with me, i am their caretaker until they turn 18. Whether it be Biblical, spiritual, or by law; the parents-either together or divorced, are responsible (as is a Master to His property) for the safety, well being, proper schooling, and all around good behavior of the children.

Being divorced, i have had to be the one to make all the rules, decisions, punishments, etc...of my children. And even though i dont THINK of them as property, they are Mine.


"By definition property relating to another person is stated as:

A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using, or to transfer ownership."


As to the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit - example being signing over parental rights to the courts if the child is so out of control that neither parent can handle that child safely anymore.

Whether to use or not use - example being chores to help keep their home clean.

Exclude others from using - example being black market sewing factories, pedophiles, etc.

Transfer ownership - example being signing over parental rights to the other parent in case of dire circumstances.


"Traditional principles of property rights includes:

control of the use of the property - chores
the right to any benefit from the property - hugs and kisses
a right to transfer or sell the property - to move them to another district if better education is there.
a right to exclude others from the property. - protecting them from pedophiles, etc."


So from the eyes of a mother, my children are my property and responsibility until they turn of age. Then they take over their own rights.

If children get in trouble with the legal system, its the parents that are usually brought before the courts. Because the parents are responsible for those kids.

My point of view only, but on this i agree with CM for the reasons stated above.

 

[ecstaticsub]

I'm going to have to answer none of the above. Since I am in a LDR and am married things are a little different. My PYL has 100% control over those parts of my life that he wants control over. Things that he doesn't want control over-my children, my daily schedule, etc he doesn't control.

The major desicions in my life in reality are made by the military because my husband is active duty. When we move, where we move to, if my husband will be able to be with the children while I fly to see my PYL..and more.

Final say on anything sexual or having to do with my body or appearance is under my PYL's control. (Hair color, nails, whether or not to have cosmetic surgery and others) When he and I are physically together he decides everything.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm not sure why. Legally they are property, well, chattel. Property with rights, if you will. You have a legal obligation to them, yes, but they are legally required to stay with you unless they somehow obtain emancipation through the court system. Yes, the court can take them away from you under the auspices of Family services, or whatever moniker is used, but they have to go through similar legal rigamarole to any goverment agency taking your property. Until they reach age of majority, you own them legally.

I'm not sure why people would have a problem with that. If you move, do you ask your children if they want to move too, or do you just drag them along? If you go out to eat, do you ask them if they want to stay home and watch Boomerang, or are they told to get in the car? If you're all at the playground and it is time to go, can the kids do what they want, or do you do as Monica said and round the little bums up?

Actually, yes, I used to ask them how they felt about everything and took that into consideration when making decisions because I felt they had a right to feelings and happiness also. I would not think of uprooting them from friends, family and familiar surroundings without first talking to them and taking all things into consideration...I know first hand what that feels like and it ain't pretty. Apparently it was a rare, but considered best practice way of managing such things as when I was studying and it came up in case studies, I was praised for being able as a parent to think beyond my own immediate wants/needs to be concerned about how the children might feel and include it in the decision making process. I would also ask them where they wold prefer to eat, if they actually wanted to go out to eat, and when going to play in the park, they knew ahead of time how long we could spend there and why, but if they were in the middle of something when that time arrived and there was no serious reason to interrupt it I would tell them they could have the extra time.

I also had a strong policy of not introducing them to every man I dated. Not only were they off limits in conversation for the first couple of dates or so, there had to be a substantial amount of time of dating and my getting to know the guy, then also a real belief accompanied by suitable signs and shared hopes of the relationship being more than a passing fancy before they got to meet someone. I also wanted to know how that man was as a person, parent, or possible partner of someone with children....expressing a desire to be an authoratative or caring figure in a child's life does not necessarily mean they have the skills or the child's best interests in mind...in fact they might have less than honourable motives behind that aim. Once met, they were still not left alone with that person for another significant period of time, and if possible even then they would not be left alone with them. They were allowed to voice their opinion on the person, and I listened and took it into consideration. And as I said in a previous post, many a man thought the best way to impress a single parent was to show an interest in the child/ren so that usually didn't win them any points (and some women also see it as a way to get a foot in)...friendly interaction was fine, but buying gifts and trying to get on a meaningful level from the first meeting with the children was usually a bad move for them to make as it seemed fake to me....you have to know someone to have genuine feelings for them, and that takes time, especially with children. As to viewing them as property...no way, and that seems supported by law in that it says no-one can legally own another. Guardianship is a different matter and for me reinforces the notion of taking the child's interests into consideration more so than ordering them about as if they have no rights, thoughts or feelings that are legitimate and real.

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

Actually, yes, I used to ask them how they felt about everything and took that into consideration when making decisions because I felt they had a right to feelings and happiness also. I would not think of uprooting them from friends, family and familiar surroundings without first talking to them and taking all things into consideration...I know first hand what that feels like and it ain't pretty.

I went to 13 different schools before I graduated from high school. The Army is not interested in what you, or your kids, think of relocation.

And I will relocate in a heartbeat without asking my kids what they think if it is patently in their best interests. That said, their interests are tantamount in my mind. Doesn't mean I am concerned enough to modify my choices once they are made, but thier needs are utmost in my decision making process.

Apparently it was a rare, but considered best practice way of managing such things as when I was studying and it came up in case studies, I was praised for being able as a parent to think beyond my own immediate wants/needs to be concerned about how the children might feel and include it in the decision making process. I would also ask them where they wold prefer to eat, if they actually wanted to go out to eat, and when going to play in the park, they knew ahead of time how long we could spend there and why, but if they were in the middle of something when that time arrived and there was no serious reason to interrupt it I would tell them they could have the extra time.

You have supported my argument with your own words. As you said here, if there is a serious enough reason, you would interrupt. this means that you are willing to assert your rule as needed, showing your decisions to be superior to their whim.

I also had a strong policy of not introducing them to every man I dated. Not only were they off limits in conversation for the first couple of dates or so, there had to be a substantial amount of time of dating and my getting to know the guy, then also a real belief accompanied by suitable signs and shared hopes of the relationship being more than a passing fancy before they got to meet someone. I also wanted to know how that man was as a person, parent, or possible partner of someone with children....expressing a desire to be an authoratative or caring figure in a child's life does not necessarily mean they have the skills or the child's best interests in mind...in fact they might have less than honourable motives behind that aim. Once met, they were still not left alone with that person for another significant period of time, and if possible even then they would not be left alone with them. They were allowed to voice their opinion on the person, and I listened and took it into consideration. And as I said in a previous post, many a man thought the best way to impress a single parent was to show an interest in the child/ren so that usually didn't win them any points (and some women also see it as a way to get a foot in)...friendly interaction was fine, but buying gifts and trying to get on a meaningful level from the first meeting with the children was usually a bad move for them to make as it seemed fake to me....you have to know someone to have genuine feelings for them, and that takes time, especially with children.

I would consider this to be common sense. Yet it also shows that your decisions are superior to their whims. Your children may well have been interested in meeting your beaus, yet your rules would not allow it. Say you started dating a footballer, and your child found out and wanted to meet said footballer after the first date. Assuming your rules are kept to, you would say no. This again puts your decision and determination of the the good ahead of that of your child.

As to viewing them as property...no way, and that seems supported by law in that it says no-one can legally own another. Guardianship is a different matter and for me reinforces the notion of taking the child's interests into consideration more so than ordering them about as if they have no rights, thoughts or feelings that are legitimate and real.

They're chattal, as per a number of different legal definitions I've read in years past. Yes, they have rights, but so do your pets. Are you going to argue that rights alone make pets immune to ownership? Guardianship is an entirely different matter, but children are still legally defined as chattal in a number of areas (your locality may differ, obviously).

We can get into an ontological argument as to what "own" means, but that is semantic diddling at best. The core here is that your children are very much legally tied to you, and you have every right to do anything you wish to their lives so long as you stay within the guidelines established by law, much like anything else you own. And your children are not allowed to leave your household without your permission, cannot make their own decisions, cannot legally take care of themselves, etc. And the State will enforce all of these until such time as you are proven an unfit parent and the State goes through the process of removing ownership.

Looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck? It's a duck.

 

[intothewoods]

Regardless of how you think about it, it seems to me that there are things you decide for children, things you get their input on and things they can decide for themselves. We all probably draw that line at a somewhat different place, but I don't think it's that different.

Cat, you wouldn't ask your kids whether they wanted to meet someone you were going on a first date with, right? You made the decision unilaterally that the person didn't get to meet your kids until much later. And I'm sure Homburg's kids get to choose what to eat on some occasion. Also, there are practical considerations. CM has 5! I think it's tough to let 5 kids get to make choices about everything. For simplicity's sake, you might just say - hey, majority rules so you all get apple juice. Or whatever.