playdates for 4yo

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message:
I'm sure it would partly depend on the history.
What kinds of friends does she usually have? What's
her judgement usually like?

I trust her judgement in friends. So far, I have liked everyone she has
liked. She does have one semi-friend that I don't trust so she is not
allowed to spend the night there. I always have the one friend to our house
to keep an eye on them.

Still, assuming all was
well there, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't allow the sleepover
if I had never met parents or child. If I had met the
child, or had heard a lot about her, or her family was
known to friends of mine, or something like that, I'd
probably allow the sleepover but I'd take her myself and
at least chat briefly with a parent when dropping off.

Well, I went ahead and let her go. I did; however, sent her with my cell
phone in case she needed to call if she felt uncomfortable. I met the
parents when I dropped her off. They seemed nice enough.

In part, I try to preempt this sort of
situation from happening by encouraging my kids
to invite their friends over as soon as it seems
like a friendship is blooming, and I'll invite
the parents in when they pick up (or whatever)
if they want to stay and chat for a moment. I
also volunteer to drive for stuff or be involved
with school activities when possible so that I
get some chance to meet other kids and parents.

When she was younger, I did that. Now that she is in middle school and has
different types of friends, I guess I don't feel a need to do that or there
is really little opportunity to have every friend over. With her in middle
school, there has not been many opportunities to volunteer for things. I
have not went on a field trip yet, but I do plan to this year. I think the
whole meeting parents and friends before they are allowed to do things
together kind of drops off, even though we still need to be vigilant on
making sure parents are home during parties, which so far we have not had a
problem with that.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
Ericka Kammerer ) writes:

I know very few people who find ordinary
socializing between married folk and opposite sex
friends to be suspicious, even if they're not
accompanied by chaperones all the time.


Yet marital infidelity does occur at times.

Yeah, and...?

So if no-one ever suspects that it's happening,
then there are some people who have an inaccurate
view of reality.

You're not reading carefully. I did
not say that infidelity doesn't happen. I
did not say that no one who ever socialized
with members of the other sex had an affair.
What I *said* was that having a rule that
keeps men and women apart is not a necessary
condition for a society to value (or achieve)
marital fidelity. People are perfectly capable
of having affairs with strict rules in place
(those who have affairs, after all, are *by
definition* rule breakers).

Your accusation that I'm not reading carefully
is not in any way supported by the rest of
your paragraph, which merely reiterates what
you did or did not say.

One could hold the view that
although some marital fidelity exists, it has
no correlation with what appears to others to
be ordinary socializing. (How do the people
meet, then?) Or is the hope that there will be
a society in the future in which there is no
marital infidelity?

Oh, please. Of course there won't be
such a society, now or in the future. But you
know what? Even in the days of strict rules
and chaperones there were plenty of affairs.
There are people having affairs right now that
you would never suspect of doing so and who
never appear to be socializing with members of
the opposite sex. And there are plenty of people
who *do* have opposite sex friends who are as
faithful to the marriages as the day is long.
This is simply a factor that isn't relevant.
Therefore, to claim that there will always
be suspicion of married people who have opposite
sex friends, or that there will always be a
social stigma to such socializing, until and
unless society stops valuing marital fidelity
is absolutely a red herring.
Unless, perhaps, you would like to make
the argument that I must not value marital fidelity
very much since I *do* have male friends and I
wouldn't think twice about being around them
without a chaperone?

I remain unconvinced of your claim that
"to claim that there will always be suspicion
of married people who have opposite sex
friends ... until and unless society
stops valuing marital fidelity is
absolutely a red herring."

Please note that I'm not making such a claim
myself; it was someone else who said something
like that. However, your collection
of statements above, although it contains
a bunch of true statements, doesn't strike
me as an effective argument in favour of
your claim.

Perhaps it would help if I also clarify
that in this thread I have generally (or
completely) not been arguing for or against
any particular social system, but only arguing
in favour of what I see as truth and clear
thinking. I'm willing to be corrected, too, if I
say something that isn't true, as has already
happened once on this thread.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.

"P. Tierney" ) writes:
And yet, by focusing on potential infidelty above
eveything else, including other wrongs that are quite
common (stealing, for example), you are (imo) helping to
contribute to an inaccurate view of reality.

What inaccurate view is that?

I'm only talking about infidelity because other
people mentioned it and said things that struck
me as untrue. If people had said things about
stealing that struck me as untrue, I would likely
be posting on the subject of stealing. Would
I be contributing to an inaccurate view of
reality by talking about stealing rather than
talking about something else? Is there something
special about infidelity that merely talking about
it contributes to an inaccurate view of reality,
while one can talk about other subjects without
that problem?

Basically, I mean I don't follow your point.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.

In .net,
Clisby wrote:

* Let's look at this in a slightly different way. Sometimes I go away for a
* few days during the school holidays with a friend and her children - to the
* beach, that sort of thing. We'll usually stay in a two to three bedroom
* unit, cottage or apartment and (it's changed as the children have aged) the
* girls now go in one room, the boys in another and the adults will share a
* twin bedded room.
*
* How many married men and women in this newsgroup would do that with a friend
* of the opposite sex? Let's assume the friends are heterosexual, unrelated by
* blood and their respective spouses aren't joining them. I suspect far fewer
* than the people who would be quite happy to have their male friendly
* acquaintance visit with them when only their little, napping children are
* there.
*
*I would, for one.

Me too!
In fact, I've done something quite like that. What's the big deal,
exactly? I'm not a homewrecker type of person, neither are my male
friends, we're not going to be hooking up, so who cares if we share a roof
and four walls?

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"P. Tierney" ) writes:
And yet, by focusing on potential infidelty above
eveything else, including other wrongs that are quite
common (stealing, for example), you are (imo) helping to
contribute to an inaccurate view of reality.

What inaccurate view is that?

My response above was to your words, which stated:

Yet marital infidelity does occur at times.
So if no-one ever suspects that it's happening,
then there are some people who have an inaccurate
view of reality.

IMO, your posts from the beginning, when you stated
that unwanted attention would be the "worst thing" that could
happen as a result of a father-mother playdate, along with
those that philosophically followed that line was the real
"inaccurate view of reality".

I'm only talking about infidelity because other
people mentioned it and said things that struck
me as untrue. If people had said things about
stealing that struck me as untrue, I would likely
be posting on the subject of stealing. Would
I be contributing to an inaccurate view of
reality by talking about stealing rather than
talking about something else?

If you focus on it to the exclusion of all else, as
you did with your first post on the other issue, then yes.

Is there something
special about infidelity that merely talking about
it contributes to an inaccurate view of reality,
while one can talk about other subjects without
that problem?

It's about putting things in perspective. You can
CYA by stating that you are only speaking the
"truth" when stating risks, and since *anything* is a
risk, you are technically correct. But when one focusing
on one risk to the exclusion of all else, then one is
painting an inaccurate view of reality, to coin a phrase.


P. Tierney

In article , Sue says...


When she was younger, I did that. Now that she is in middle school and has
different types of friends, I guess I don't feel a need to do that or there
is really little opportunity to have every friend over. With her in middle
school, there has not been many opportunities to volunteer for things. I
have not went on a field trip yet, but I do plan to this year. I think the
whole meeting parents and friends before they are allowed to do things
together kind of drops off, even though we still need to be vigilant on
making sure parents are home during parties, which so far we have not had a
problem with that.

How do you make sure that the parents stay home during the party? Call them
later in the evening? Or ask them when you meet them and take their word on it?

Banty

Sue wrote:

I think the
whole meeting parents and friends before they are allowed to do things
together kind of drops off, even though we still need to be vigilant on
making sure parents are home during parties, which so far we have not had a
problem with that.

I think that many people feel that way, and that's
fine. It just wasn't that way in my family when I was
in middle/high school and it's not really the way I want
to go with my family now. There's a fine line to tread,
as kids do need to become more independent, but I just
feel that the need to be aware of friends and their
families increases during this time period rather than
lessening. Fortunately, our situation is such that
it's possible for me to maintain that sort of awareness
without being too much of a PITA.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

I remain unconvinced of your claim that
"to claim that there will always be suspicion
of married people who have opposite sex
friends ... until and unless society
stops valuing marital fidelity is
absolutely a red herring."

Please note that I'm not making such a claim
myself; it was someone else who said something
like that. However, your collection
of statements above, although it contains
a bunch of true statements, doesn't strike
me as an effective argument in favour of
your claim.

This is a pretty simple logic problem.
I say X (forbidding this sort of contact) is
not a prerequisite for Y (a society or individual
valuing marital fidelity). If you would like
to refute that claim, then you must argue that
Y is impossible without X. If you would like
to make that argument, go ahead. I can't
imagine it being true, however, as my existence
pretty much proves to me that X is not a
prerequisite for Y. So, do you challenge that
I value (and practice) marital fidelity? Or
do you challenge that an example to the
contrary is sufficient to refute an
"if X then not Y" assertion?

Best wishes,
Ericka

"P. Tierney" ) writes:
It's about putting things in perspective. You can
CYA by stating that you are only speaking the
"truth" when stating risks, and since *anything* is a
risk, you are technically correct. But when one focusing
on one risk to the exclusion of all else, then one is
painting an inaccurate view of reality, to coin a phrase.

Let's just say we disagree. I don't think making
true statements paints an "inaccurate view of
reality". That last sentence of mine may be the
only sentence of mine in any of my posts that
you actually disagree with. :-)

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

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:
Catherine Woodgold wrote:

I remain unconvinced of your claim that
"to claim that there will always be suspicion
of married people who have opposite sex
friends ... until and unless society
stops valuing marital fidelity is
absolutely a red herring."

Please note that I'm not making such a claim
myself; it was someone else who said something
like that. However, your collection
of statements above, although it contains
a bunch of true statements, doesn't strike
me as an effective argument in favour of
your claim.

This is a pretty simple logic problem.
I say X (forbidding this sort of contact) is
not a prerequisite for Y (a society or individual
valuing marital fidelity). If you would like
to refute that claim, then you must argue that
Y is impossible without X. If you would like
to make that argument, go ahead.

No, thank you, I'll have to decline your
invitation to refute that claim, because I
happen to agree with it. :-) I never
said otherwise. I disagree with you about
something else (see above).
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.