RE: Authority/Power and Ethical Use

Nobody (and by that I mean me[;)]) said that being stable as a couple isn;t important to children - but now see - I see your statement as putting the children above anything else. It's there in black and white. If the relationship is healthy and and stable you already are bulding the family around them and yourselves.

They are your dependants, just as your s-types are.

I did not say 'what about the children'. There is no pity for children and I find that completely inappropriate . I also find it unethical(trying to stick with the OP[;)]) that you are putting words in my mouth. What I have said is that if you can't be responsible for children - .DONTHAVETHEM.

Yes, you may have been a couple before them (sometimes-but this isn't exclusive) - but if you want to remain only a couple and not take others into consideration, then don't have dependants. Is it ethical to take on a s-type you wouldn't place your own welfare above if it meant it wasn't detrimental to that s-type? Is it ethical to have dependants if ultimately you are going to put yourself above them when it may hurt them?

So, your in a LDR relationship - it's fucking amazing. But you have children and they have school and college and friends and everything stable - you are going to uproot them from all that move to be with your partner because the relationship is more important and in the long run 'may' be the best thing? What about the other in the relationship moving to you? How about compromise? Or do you do you sit with them and discuss the situation and then do the best you can until the time to move is appropriate?

I am just so surprised by the selfishness of people frankly.

You don't want to make the odd sacrifce - then don't have children. Don't have a dog. Or a cat, or birds. Or neighbours. Or even friends.

It really is that bloody simple.

That is an good way to put it aurora - first but not catered for - pandered is another good word(better than spoilt).

BTW- this is a good excuse to send you love and hope you are well and that you are thought of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Well - you see children as a parasite - then dont have them.

A parasite feeds from a host without any benefit to the host - even killing it. They live at the expense of the host. If you view children as a parasite (which I find a quite disturbing analagy) , then don't have them.

You have children as part of your relationship then you take them into consideration. If you don't gain anything from having them, then it's a 'parasite' of your own making.

You can be selfish with or without dependants - but don't fain 'responsiblity' either way. It wouldn;t be ethical.

And the Hitler quote is used completely out of context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

Actually, a parasite may have benefit to the host in other people's cases. Which leaves us with "feeds from" and "lives at the expense of". An accurate and correct observation, IMO.

First define parasite.

Any parasitic creature lives off another creature without benefit to the host. That is the definition of a parasite. You can't take a word, completely redefine it and make it something else without your opinion being incorrect to the majority/others.

Maybe you should choose another word if you assume a parasite gives anything other than to itself.

quote:

But neither to I hold to the notion that the parents objectively owe them anything.

Now that is very Hitler.

quote:

To ascribe them rights opens a huge can of worms.

Again, very nazi-Hitleresque. People have rights - even small peoples.

Otherwise, lets just take yours away, shall we?

quote:

A Cult of Children mentality is bad for both children and adults.

It allows any cynical person to exploit members of that population for their own ends, hence the quote.

And those ends are rarely, if ever, in the actual interests of the children or the adults.

Exactly, which is why it is out of context in this example.

I think it is bizzaro just how far out of context one sentance can be taken just to make a point.

No one said that a relationship must suffer because of children. In fact most people are discussing the same point and placing children first. Like for example how a the 'couple' have to be 'happy' because this makes the children 'happy' - to me, that is placing children first. But then if children are going to suffer because of a relationship - that isn't healthy either. It isn't about spoiling a dependant and losing out - it is about compromising.

Relationships that are sustainable are about communication and compromise - that includes parental relationships too. And ethics tend to be completely subjective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

First define parasite.

Sure. That's what I did. Parasites are a type of symbiotes that live at the expense of the host.

Some definitions state that the host organism cannot derive benefit, in which case it would not generally be a parasite.

Like my biology books, WP lists both as accepted definitions.

Don't get me wrong. Kids can be great sometimes. But I don't want one.

A parasite is symbiotic, however parasite is excluded from the definition of symbiosis (if that makes any sense - lol)

But yeah, symbiosis works for me.

quote:

quote:

I think it is bizzaro just how far out of context one sentance can be taken just to make a point.

Perhaps. IMO, it was quite in-context.

quote:

No one said that a relationship must suffer because of children.

I didn't.

I just said that me and neph would, and hence our relationship.

quote:

And ethics tend to be completely subjective.

Not only tends. It can be defined as completely subjective.

Hence, I objected to the notion that there are any absolutes about children.

The reason this (in quotes) probably seemed confusing to you/out of context to your posts, was because it wasn't directed to you - but general observation on one single sentance I posted (which you havent refered to) so that is why this might seem a bit off. I should have put 'general' or 'fast reply' so it wasn't associated to you. My apology.

They are your dependants, just as your s-types are.

I am just so surprised by the selfishness of people frankly.

You don't want to make the odd sacrifce - then don't have children. Don't have a dog. Or a cat, or birds. Or neighbours. Or even friends.

It really is that bloody simple.

I understand your point, however children do not ask to be created. If you can't have a good marriage and have children, don't have children - it is that simple.

If you are a dominant in a poly relationship that includes numerous s-types, you don't favour one over the other if you want harmony and productivity - you deal with everyone on the same level unless it is pre- agreed that there is one s-type over another.

When you have children, they don't get to make that agreement. If you are in a relationship and you decide to have children - as long as they are your dependents you do what is right for them - otherwise you are acting irresponsibly in having them in the first place. You have a child, you are accepting responsibility for that dependant... you can't selfishly want to procreate only to go - 'well, this will make me/us happy, fuck what happens to them'. Thats like saying a dominant taking on a submissive then changing his mind later on and just doing what is best for him is completely ok if the s-type hasnt been prewarned and doesn't agree with it.

You can't handle the responsibility of having to care for someone - don't do it then. If you can't handle having the responsibility and may have to make sacrifices and putting others above yourself on occasion - don't enter any relationship - and that includes a parent/child one.

It was .dark. typing (waves) - and I am the first to admit I am emotionally attatched to this particular topic. I deal and have dealt with children regularly where their parents don't consider they have any rights, where their parents insist that they come first and that their children are just an afterthought. I fully believe that most people should attend classes on parenthood and I am a big advocate on sex education and PSHE in schools and at home. I am not really into the whole 'think of the children' crap. I do however believe in the rights of the individual - as an individual - at any age.

And I disagree - yet agree at the same time. I never said that children are to be spoilt. I never indicated that children should be at the centre. I don't actually believe there is a centre - there is a circle that goes around and around, but no centre. What I did infer was that if you have children, then whilst they are dependant on you, you place their needs above your own, or you don't have them. And that includes not making them the 'centre' - it means teaching them to be healthy, functioning adults. About teaching them responsibility of themselves. Teaching them how to cope alone and with others. And if that means, putting off that golf trip or expensive dinner to attend their graduation or sports day or parents evening - then that is what it takes. And if someone isn't able to say - 'hell yeah, I can do that' then they shouldn't even contemplate taking on a dependant at all. (And that includes animals)

quote:

So I'll say it again. You are correct: Don't want the responsibility, don't have the offspring.

I'll add: Don't try then to push your responsibility off on any one else either.

I do not disagree with either of those statements.