playdates for 4yo

On 19 Oct 2005 13:34:36 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:


"bizby40" ) writes:
"Tai" wrote in message
I'm not sure if this is what you mean but I've seen a hint of the "men
are predators, women are victims" line of thought which generally makes me
feel ill whenever I come accross it.

Yes, exactly.

I haven't seen anybody expressing on this newsgroup
a "men are predators" position. "Men are predators" seems
to mean "all men are predators" -- or did you mean
something else? I don't think anybody believes that.

I would say that your posts imply that you believe all men are
potential predators and should be treated as such.

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:23:39 +1000, "Tai" wrote:



Actually, for me and, I'd have thought for most people, it's a recognition
that men and women frequently do have sex when they get together, whether
they (or anyone else) regard it as inappropriate in the circumstances. It
is
very unusual for anyone to be being taken advantage of when it happens,
man
or woman.

To me this goes back again, to the fact that you seem to not trust
yourself, or the judgement of other people. Lots of people are
attracted to other people. Some men and some women have sex when they
get together. Not every man and every woman have sex when they get
together. Many of us manage to be together when men and not do that at
all. I am attracted to men other than my husband. I would neve act on
this.

And I'm not quite sure why you think that one should care what people
think more when one is married than one is not.

reasons unless I was quite amenable to the idea of having sex with him.

you really do seem to be hung up on the sex thing don't you. I realize
its a leap, but what happens if you meat



How's THAT for a freudian slip?


a nice member of the opposite
sex with whom you have lots in common, find very fun, and enjoy
conversation with, but really truly arent interested in sex with.
Thats my definition of a friend, no matter the gender. You however,
seem unable to vew men other than, well, "sex objects" for lack of a
better phrase when its past my bedtime in another part of the world.

This is where we differ. I am highly supportive of marriage as an
institution and long-term committed relationships, in general, regardless
of
their legal status. I believe they are good for couples, children and
society as a whole and I do what I believe is right to support them. Other
people may have similar feelings about that principle of support but
choose
different ways of going about it. Marital fidelity is an important
component
of their relationship for many if not most married people and I don't
believe it is healthy for a society to ignore that. We have no control
over
the behaviour of others in this regard and nor should we but we can show
by
our own example where our values lie. Just as you are free to show by your
own example where yours (of equal value to you) do.

You really are not getting it, are you. YOu are the one who is hung
up on fidelity here. The rest of us see having a sAHD in our homes, (
or vice versa), to have absolutely nothing to do with committment.

I, for example, have an extremley committed, long term marriage. To
imply that your values lie on a higher plane is really pushing the
envelope.


Tai

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:24:06 -0400, "bizby40"
wrote:


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
bizby40 wrote:

I guess I'm pretty lackadaisical. I figure that if it's a good kid,
it'll
be a good family too. And so far my kids have picked good kids
for friends. I'm also a realist -- how much can you tell about
people by meeting them once or twice anyway?

Really? I think intuition often "speaks out"
pretty quickly in a potentially dangerous situation.
It's not 100 percent, but I really appreciate the
opportunity to allow my intuition to suggest that
I'm not sending my child into the best situation.

Yes, really. I think all we can really tell at a glance is how
much "like us" they are. We'll feel good if we walk into
a clean home and the parents seem organized and
friendly, and yet that tells us nothing about the actual
danger to our child. Think about the numbers of
sexually abused children who were abused by people
(like clergy) that the parents trusted.

That isn't to say I'd send my kids off willy-nilly just
anywhere. We do live in a very low-crime school
district. If there were areas that were known for
drugs or high-crime, then I might not send my
child there. And if anything happens to make either
me or my child uncomfortable, I'll stop sending
them there. But I think the amount of information
that I might get from a first meeting is so tiny that
it's not worth worrying about.

Bizby

Your child will grow up. He or she will become a tween and then a
middle schooler and then a highschooler. Now is the time to develop
relationships with the parents of friends. I am one of the most
liberal parents ont he planet, but I am not letting susie spend the
night at sally's house unless I have been in sally's house, met
sally's parental units and have at leat talked with said parent enough
to know that no, they wont go out and leave the ten teenagers in the
house alone over night.......

Because I interacted with those parents when my kids were your age, I
dont have those issues now. Yes, a few new families have come upon the
horizen.

Also as your children gets older it is nice to have a network of like
minded or at least similar minded parents for a whole variety of
reasons.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:45:48 -0400, "Stephanie"
wrote:


"toypup" wrote in message
om...

"Stephanie" wrote in message
...

"toypup" wrote in message
t...

"bizby40" wrote in message
...

"toypup" wrote in message
...
SAHD knows the story. I think intention is important. A SAHP who
doesn't want a parent of the opposite sex in the house alone with them
probably doesn't want to send the wrong signals.

How is inviting a child over sending the wrong signals to the dad?

Well, it is a social thing and he might interpret it to mean there is an
interest.



That's mind boggling. There are certain social interplays in which some
sub-context could be infered, like say an invitation out to coffee
without kids. But I think it is casting asparagus at the male gender to
think that a man, in particular, is going to think an invitation to a
playdate as romantic or sexual interest.

Well, it's not a man, in particular at all. I can see that a woman
invited on a playdate with her child by a SAHD might also think of it as a
romantic or sexual interest.


And I think that is mind boggling!

Yep...talk about a separate universe......

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , bizby40 says...
See, rather than the rarer more dramatic stuff, I'm more concerned with
just
plain unreliability. After all, it's that which sets a scenario for the
more
dramatic stuff.

I'm not trying to convince anyone not to meet the parents of their
kids' friends. I was rather surprised when I invited my kids'
kindergarten friends over and I asked if the parents would
prefer to bring them over the first time instead of having them
ride home on the bus, and without exception they had them
ride home on the bus.

But it does seem to be the norm around here. As we had
most of the kids over here first, I'd at least met them before
my kids went over there. Also, as a classroom volunteer,
I knew most of the kids pretty well. And I think you can
often get a good feel for what the family is like from the
child.

So I never really worried about meeting the parents
first once the kids started kindergarten.

If, as happened to me once, the adult in the household decides
impulsively to up and take the older kids to a movie, leaving my child
alone
with the younger,

And this happened with a parent you'd never met? If not, if you
had met her and didn't realize something like this would happen,
then you're arguing my side for me.

*that's* when something untoward would happen. Nothing did,
but the scene is set. Then there are the general headaches of plans
broken up
last minute, etc. I can pretty much tell that sort of thing very early.

Sure. If something happens that makes you uncomfortable, then
naturally you'd stop going there.

Furthermore, making social contact and culitivating a neighborly kind of
social
relationship allow for dealing with problems or arranging opportunities.

I never said I avoided meeting them altogether. Only that it isn't a
prerequisite for a first playdate for me. I do know many of the
parents of the kids in my kids' grades.

Bizby

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:24:06 -0400, "bizby40"
wrote:


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
bizby40 wrote:

I guess I'm pretty lackadaisical. I figure that if it's a good kid,
it'll
be a good family too. And so far my kids have picked good kids
for friends. I'm also a realist -- how much can you tell about
people by meeting them once or twice anyway?

Really? I think intuition often "speaks out"
pretty quickly in a potentially dangerous situation.
It's not 100 percent, but I really appreciate the
opportunity to allow my intuition to suggest that
I'm not sending my child into the best situation.

Yes, really. I think all we can really tell at a glance is how
much "like us" they are. We'll feel good if we walk into
a clean home and the parents seem organized and
friendly, and yet that tells us nothing about the actual
danger to our child. Think about the numbers of
sexually abused children who were abused by people
(like clergy) that the parents trusted.

That isn't to say I'd send my kids off willy-nilly just
anywhere. We do live in a very low-crime school
district. If there were areas that were known for
drugs or high-crime, then I might not send my
child there. And if anything happens to make either
me or my child uncomfortable, I'll stop sending
them there. But I think the amount of information
that I might get from a first meeting is so tiny that
it's not worth worrying about.

Bizby

Your child will grow up. He or she will become a tween and then a
middle schooler and then a highschooler. Now is the time to develop
relationships with the parents of friends.

Again, I never said I don't develop relationships with the parents
of friends. I absolutely do. It just may not happen before the
first playdate.

Bizby

In article ,
Barbara Bomberger wrote:


Your child will grow up. He or she will become a tween and then a
middle schooler and then a highschooler. Now is the time to develop
relationships with the parents of friends. I am one of the most
liberal parents ont he planet, but I am not letting susie spend the
night at sally's house unless I have been in sally's house, met
sally's parental units and have at leat talked with said parent enough
to know that no, they wont go out and leave the ten teenagers in the
house alone over night.......

Because I interacted with those parents when my kids were your age, I
dont have those issues now. Yes, a few new families have come upon the
horizen.

Also as your children gets older it is nice to have a network of like
minded or at least similar minded parents for a whole variety of
reasons.

Then there are those of us who have had to move as our kids were
entering their tweens . . . or, if you live in a bigger city, as they
kids enter middle and high school, they make new friends and you are
unlikely to know THOSE families.

Still, I DID try to not let my kids spend the night at houses where I'd
never met the parents. As they approached their late teens, talking
with the parents by phone was enough. Now (at nearly 20 -- my oldest
doesn't live at home any more) it's enough that they let me know when
they'll be home -- I don't need to know where they're spending the
night. It's been an interesting transition for me -- figuring out when
to let go of which reins.

I also had a policy of not letting minors spend the night *here* unless
I talked to their parents, but ended up giving that up, and trusting the
kids to know if it was really ok or not. I'm not terribly comfortable
with it, but the first time one of the kids told me I didn't need to
call his father and I insisted, I ended up the victim of some pretty
nasty verbal abuse. (Along the lines of, "I don't give a f*** what the
^&#$ is doing or where he is, as long as he doesn't come home. Why are
you bothering me?") Since then, there've been times (like last night)
when someone who is not yet 18 spends the night here telling me that
they've been thrown out. (My son and his friend tell me that her mother
is an addict who has gone off the wagon -- and I have no reason to
suspect son is telling me anything other than the truth.) I try to
check into the situation enough to know that the child is safe, and
have, on occassion, helped them get in touch with social services -- but
as the kids approach 18 there really isn't a support system in place to
help them.

I know I could get in trouble allowing minors to stay here without their
parents' permission -- but have decided it's a risk I'm willing to take,
given that when I *have* tried to check out situations, I've found that
the kids have been telling me the truth -- they really were thrown out,
at least for the night, or they really DO have parents who don't care
where they are!
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

you really do seem to be hung up on the sex thing don't you. I realize
its a leap, but what happens if you meat



How's THAT for a freudian slip?

LOL!

I missed that when reading it. Thanks for the laugh.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

bizby40 wrote:

I'm not trying to convince anyone not to meet the parents of their
kids' friends. I was rather surprised when I invited my kids'
kindergarten friends over and I asked if the parents would
prefer to bring them over the first time instead of having them
ride home on the bus, and without exception they had them
ride home on the bus.

But it does seem to be the norm around here.

It's not uncommon around here either, but
there are lots of parenting behaviors that are common
here that I'm not too keen on ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

dragonlady wrote:
In article , "Tai"
wrote:

That Marie's marriage may be sexually open didn't even occur to me.
It occurs to you, though.

Not especially, at that point I was thinking of her marriage in a
generic sense anyway since they are couple I know pretty much
nothing about. I mean Marie (?) said that she trusts her husband to
be faithful to her and that could mean a number of things. In this
context I assume they only have eyes (and other bits of their
bodies) for each other.

His eyes may roam wherever they will.

The other bits, however, are only to be used with me.

But you are right -- if we were of the polyamorous persuasion, his
"being faithful" could well mean that he would only have sex with
someone else under agreed upon conditions. However, I thought I had
specified that we are monogomous, AND that I trust him to be faithful.

You may well have mentioned the monogamous part in another post and I
certainly didn't mean to give the impression I don't think you are. If I did
and that was offensive to you I offer my apologies.

At that point in the discussion I was trying to show that I'd never know
what a couple's private understanding was on next-to-no acquaintance and
that I didn't think it relevant to how I choose to behave, anyway. (That was
the bit about erring on the side of caution.)

Tai