playdates for 4yo

Barbara Bomberger wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:00:14 +1000, "Tai" wrote:




Wait. Read it again. You're saying, that people do have sex whether
or not they think it inappropriate. Do you have any faith in
people's judgement??


In general? Not a lot, no. And this is a very generalised discussion
for me.

This speaks volumes to me. NOt only that you dont trust others to do
what is best in their situation, but that you feel the need, the right
even, to make sure to assert controls in a marriage other than your
own.

I find this statement nonsensical. I have no control over anyone else's
behaviour except my own, nor do I wish it. (My children excepted.)

Tai

In article , "Tai"
wrote:

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.

Heavens, I wasn't offended by the suggestion. I'm WAY harder to offend
than that!


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


--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Barbara Bomberger wrote:
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,

Well, no. I don't know how many times I've had to repeat this but no amount
of you or anyone else saying that I don't trust myself will make it a true
statement.


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.

Not in dispute.



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.

I don't think "one" should care. *I* care. Is it your position that because
you don't I also shouldn't?


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,

Yes, it is, but don't worry it doesn't look like you're the only one who's
made it!


but what happens if you meat 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.

lol

I am feeling sooo misunderstood! (I expect I'll get over it though.)

Look, despite my reiterating at what seems like every turn that I have full
confidence in my self-control a few people appear not to be listening and
anyway, I'm so married I barely remember what it's like to be interested in
a man other than my husband. (John Cusack excepted.) And it isn't the issue
anyway.

The fact remains that for slightly less than two handfuls of men in my
married life it hasn't made a bit of difference to them that I was and am
unavailable. It's never been a huge problem and I didn't even feel
particularly insulted or anything like that (it's just human nature and I
imagine many women behave similarly) but the times it happened in my own
home were much more unpleasant and awkward.



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.

Yes, I am getting it. You're not getting that I believe you are free to
think and do as you wish on the subject without any adverse opinion from me
about it.


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.

Then I've not explained carefully enough that I view my values as working
better for *me*, but pretty much on the same level as everyone else's.
Different things are important to different people, why would I expect you
to place the same emphasis on something we disagree about, anyway?

This has been an exercise for me to try to make the point that when it comes
to the highly personal decision of inviting people into one's own home I
believe it's wrong for people with one mindset to think poorly of others
simply because they have a different set of boundaries. No amount of
sifting though my reasons or anyone else's to decide whether they are
justified is either relevant or appropriate in my very unhumble opinion. Not
that I've minded talking about my reasons as a tangential move, of course.

And... I think I must be just about done on this thread, for now. It's been
fun. Thanks, people!

Tai

dragonlady wrote:
In article , "Tai"
wrote:

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.

Heavens, I wasn't offended by the suggestion. I'm WAY harder to
offend than that!

Well, I'd have thought so but since Banty raised the question in my mind I
thought I should make sure, just to be on the safe side!

Tai

Tai wrote:

But still managed to leave out the bit enclosed by *...* that didn't make it
from my brain to my fingertips:

This has been an exercise for me to try to make the point that when
it comes to the highly personal decision of inviting people into
one's own home I believe it's wrong for people with one mindset to
think poorly of others simply because they have a different set of
boundaries *relating to interactions between men and women* . No amount of
sifting though my reasons or anyone else's
to decide whether they are justified is either relevant or
appropriate in my very unhumble opinion. Not that I've minded talking
about my reasons as a tangential move, of course.

Tai

Tai wrote:

Then I've not explained carefully enough that I view my values as working
better for *me*, but pretty much on the same level as everyone else's.
Different things are important to different people, why would I expect you
to place the same emphasis on something we disagree about, anyway?

I think you've been fine when you've said that
you prefer not to do this because you feel it is worth
it to exclude any possibility that another man could
hit on your in your home. I, or others, may disagree
with whether your choice is warranted (or effective),
but it's indisputably yours to make. You are also on
safe ground saying that you don't want to possibly give
others reason to think you might be doing something
inappropriate. Again, I, or others, might disagree
with whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do,
but it's your choice to make.
Where you start going astray, in my opinion, is
when you claim that you make these choices out of respect
for *me* (or some other hypothetical wife of a father who
might be in your home for a playdate). The overwhelmingly
most likely situation is that he's not there to hit on
you anyway. In the unlikely event that he *is* there
to hit on you, it doesn't really matter whether or not
the wife approves, as it remains absolutely boorish
behavior under the circumstances. So, this argument
adds no strength to your argument, but it does seem
patronizing in your concern for the other marriage
(which almost certainly doesn't share your concern).
You further raise my hackles a bit by the
couple of comments you have made along the lines of
"people will have these suspicions until society
no longer values marital fidelity." That strongly
implies (so strongly that it's more a statement
than an implication) that you believe that valuing
marital fidelity (and living by those values) is
incompatible with a policy allowing married men
or women to be in private with members of the
opposite sex, or at least those who haven't attained
the status of close family friend or tradesman.
Since many of us here live lives where marital
fidelity is valued and achieved despite not giving
a hoot about being scrupulous about being alone
with members of the opposite sex, that is naturally
going to rankle a bit.

This has been an exercise for me to try to make the point that when it comes
to the highly personal decision of inviting people into one's own home I
believe it's wrong for people with one mindset to think poorly of others
simply because they have a different set of boundaries.

I think there's a difference between "thinking poorly
of others" and disagreeing with their choices, or even
concluding that their choices don't meet one's personal
moral or ethical standards. You may feel I don't meet
your personal moral standards for propriety. I may feel
you don't meet my personal ethical standards for avoiding
discrimination. That doesn't necessarily mean that I
think poorly of you. We just disagree.

No amount of
sifting though my reasons or anyone else's to decide whether they are
justified is either relevant or appropriate in my very unhumble opinion. Not
that I've minded talking about my reasons as a tangential move, of course.

No one gets to tell you what to do (or at least
they don't get to make it stick ;-) ) regardless of
your rationale. I *do* think it's fair game for people
to ask the question and come to a conclusion about
whether they believe the choice is acceptable (to them),
or rational, or appropriate, or whatever. Just because
they believe differently from you doesn't mean you have
to change your mind. After all, you disagree with them
and think their choices are inappropriate by your standards,
so why wouldn't they be allowed to think that your choices
are inappropriate by their standards? Disagreeing isn't
a cardinal sin.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Tai wrote:

Then I've not explained carefully enough that I view my values as
working better for *me*, but pretty much on the same level as
everyone else's. Different things are important to different people,
why would I expect you to place the same emphasis on something we
disagree about, anyway?

I think you've been fine when you've said that
you prefer not to do this because you feel it is worth
it to exclude any possibility that another man could
hit on your in your home. I, or others, may disagree
with whether your choice is warranted (or effective),
but it's indisputably yours to make. You are also on
safe ground saying that you don't want to possibly give
others reason to think you might be doing something
inappropriate. Again, I, or others, might disagree
with whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do,
but it's your choice to make.
Where you start going astray, in my opinion, is
when you claim that you make these choices out of respect
for *me* (or some other hypothetical wife of a father who
might be in your home for a playdate). The overwhelmingly
most likely situation is that he's not there to hit on
you anyway. In the unlikely event that he *is* there
to hit on you, it doesn't really matter whether or not
the wife approves, as it remains absolutely boorish
behavior under the circumstances. So, this argument
adds no strength to your argument, but it does seem
patronizing in your concern for the other marriage
(which almost certainly doesn't share your concern).
You further raise my hackles a bit by the
couple of comments you have made along the lines of
"people will have these suspicions until society
no longer values marital fidelity." That strongly
implies (so strongly that it's more a statement
than an implication) that you believe that valuing
marital fidelity (and living by those values) is
incompatible with a policy allowing married men
or women to be in private with members of the
opposite sex, or at least those who haven't attained
the status of close family friend or tradesman.
Since many of us here live lives where marital
fidelity is valued and achieved despite not giving
a hoot about being scrupulous about being alone
with members of the opposite sex, that is naturally
going to rankle a bit.

This has been an exercise for me to try to make the point that when
it comes to the highly personal decision of inviting people into
one's own home I believe it's wrong for people with one mindset to
think poorly of others simply because they have a different set of
boundaries.

I think there's a difference between "thinking poorly
of others" and disagreeing with their choices, or even
concluding that their choices don't meet one's personal
moral or ethical standards. You may feel I don't meet
your personal moral standards for propriety. I may feel
you don't meet my personal ethical standards for avoiding
discrimination. That doesn't necessarily mean that I
think poorly of you. We just disagree.

No amount of
sifting though my reasons or anyone else's to decide whether they are
justified is either relevant or appropriate in my very unhumble
opinion. Not that I've minded talking about my reasons as a
tangential move, of course.

No one gets to tell you what to do (or at least
they don't get to make it stick ;-) ) regardless of
your rationale. I *do* think it's fair game for people
to ask the question and come to a conclusion about
whether they believe the choice is acceptable (to them),
or rational, or appropriate, or whatever. Just because
they believe differently from you doesn't mean you have
to change your mind. After all, you disagree with them
and think their choices are inappropriate by your standards,
so why wouldn't they be allowed to think that your choices
are inappropriate by their standards? Disagreeing isn't
a cardinal sin.

Thank you for your post, Ericka. I don't want to discuss anything in it
further (I'm biting my tongue and sitting on my hands ) but I appreciate
your thoughtful comments and clear statements of your own stance and didn't
want you to think I had read and ignored them or not read them at all.

Tai

Barbara Bomberger ) writes:
On 17 Oct 2005 01:42:11 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:


Sidheag McCormack ) writes:
I don't think unwanted attention is all that rare, but I do think that
unwanted attention from a sober man out of his teens that a sensible adult
woman can't gracefully reject is rare.

I don't think there's any guarantee that the guy would
be sober when he comes over. It's possible for a person
to make things very difficult and unpleasant without
doing anything that's obviously illegal. For starters,
he could prevent her from calling the police by unplugging
the phone when she isn't looking or by putting his hand
on the phone when she tries to call -- along with a
persuasive-looking manner, not so much in order to
persuade as to make the act look like a reasonable one.

OK, you think things like that are extremely rare.
I've never heard of anyone's iron exploding. Unpleasant
things done by one person to another are often heard of.

Maybe the exploding head was an expression of surprise,
in your case?


Cathy

I said it before, only I typed it wrong. mY interpretation of this
post is that you live in fear and that you may well have issues of
previous abuse or being hurt.

I'm sorry bu thats the way it comes acress.

This post does not represent itself as a rational thought.


I'm offended. Please do not make personal remarks
about me.

I was not expressing any fear whatsoever in that post.

There are other ways of thinking besides denying that
something is possible, and living in fear.

Do you use a seat belt if you ride in a car?
Are you able to rationally recognize the possibility
of a collision by putting on the seat belt,
yet not be so terrified that you refuse to
ride in the car?

All I've been doing on this thread is
making statements that I believe to be true.
I have not expressed any fear. Maybe people
have misinterpreted my posts as expressing fear.
That might explain some of the strange responses
I've gotten.

One of my posts contained a statement that
wasn't true; someone corrected it, and
I accepted the correction. If anyone else
thinks anything else I said wasn't true, I'm
happy to discuss it. But no personal remarks, please.


--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:59:09 -0400, "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?

Ah well, the meaning of a misspelled word. I knew I shouldnt be typing
in the middle of the night.

Barb

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:12:10 +1000, "Tai" wrote:



Look, despite my reiterating at what seems like every turn that I have full
confidence in my self-control a few people appear not to be listening and
anyway, I'm so married I barely remember what it's like to be interested in
a man other than my husband. (John Cusack excepted.) And it isn't the issue
anyway.

And this is where the major disconnect it. Most of us are married
also. We are not talking about being interested in another man. We are
talking about having a friendship with someone of another gender. YOur
talking attraction and attention and we're talking friendship. I have
never been "interested" as you put it in another man. I have and still
do comment on the physical attractiveness of other men, be they denzel
washington or the guy with the cute butt walking down the road.That is
NOT what this conversatin has been about. YOu dont seem to get that.
This is about a friendship, not being interested. There is a huge,
huge difference.


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.

Yes, I am getting it. You're not getting that I believe you are free to
think and do as you wish on the subject without any adverse opinion from me
about it.

I am sorry, but the comments above certainly imply strongly that
maritial fidelidy is more important to you and that youplace a higher
value on it than those of us who dont see the problem with having male
friends or having a dad and child in ourh ome.

Upire stated clearly that you DO think you have a right to do
something in order to affect other marriages. Why on earth would you
think that I needed someone to set me an "example"??