Damien the Leper Posted July 21, 2019 Posted July 21, 2019 On 7/18/2019 at 2:19 PM, smac97 said: Wow: Whenever topics along these lines (free love / polyamory / swinging / open relationships, etc.) come up, one of the first thoughts that come to me is "how do the participants address the effects of such behaviors on their children?" So, it turns out, does the author of the above article. Read on: Well, yes. The risk of abuse for children from mom's boyfriend is . . . Twenty. Times. Higher. And the APA is "promote{ing} awareness and inclusivity" of these arrangements. The mind reels. This is a good question. I've never bought been persuaded by the consent-of-the-participants-is-the-sole-metric-for-sexual-behavior concept. There are too many variables in play. But that's not the only good point raised by the author of this piece: These are some very good points. Well put. Sexuality on its own is a very challenging aspect to life. Now the APA is looking to legitimize "polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types...", apparently without regard for the welfare of children who will be affected by such things, or the heightened risks to those children, or the substantial likelihood of some forms of coercion being introduced into marital relationships under the guise of "consent." The Proclamation seems more relevant by the day. Thoughts? -Smac Any and all past, present and future types of poly relationships are condemnable.
Calm Posted July 21, 2019 Posted July 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, The Nehor said: People want to belong to someone and to have someone belong to them. I think it better to phrase as belonging with rather than belonging to. I don’t see any sense of possession or ownership needed. More along the lines of feeling at home, knowing where one fits. 1
Recommended Posts