playdates for 4yo

"Jeanne" wrote in message
...
Banty wrote:
In article , Stephanie says...


"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"Stephanie" ) writes:

I guess I was thinking, am I not supposed to let the plumber in?

I remember reading a recommendation that a young
woman not let a man in (e.g. the plumber) if
she was alone at home, along with stories about
dreadful things that happened in cases like that.


*Shudder* I think I would rather just give up than live in that kind of
fear. Shoot me now.



I'd have to give up homeownership.


What?! You don't see the business opportunities? Women plumbers, women
carpenters, women electricians, women general contractors for women
homeowners who can't/won't allow men into the house.

Jeanne

There would be too small a market.

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...
"How about if we take turns coming over and
helping the other person with their housework
while the kids play with each other?"

This is a playdate I wouldn't mind hosting.:-)

"Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message
...

"bizby40" ) writes:

Living is a risk. Interacting with other people is a risk.
Going out in public is a risk. If you live your life at the
level of fear displayed in this post, then I feel a bit sad
for you.

Bizby

I think you're jumping to conclusions. I go out and
walk along dark streets alone when other people I know wouldn't
do that out of fear of being attacked.

Look: I just happen to be someone who tends to be
aware of a lot of possibilities, OK?

Again, you didn't list "a lot" of possibilities. Only one.

It's my personality
type. (I'm an NP. In the middle on E/I and T/F.)
So when I see someone make a statement that isn't
true because it excludes some possibilities, then
I tend to correct them. I consider that normal
behaviour on a newsgroup.

It wasn't a factual error that you corrected, but a
matter of opinion, so it really wasn't a technical "correction".
If I'm remembering the right passage, anyway.


P. Tierney

In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

"toypup" wrote in message
m...

"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!



Me, too.

Just out of curiosity, if a woman who is lesbian or bisexual invites
another woman (and her child) for a play date, do you think the invitee
might think of it as romantic?

If so, us bi's would be SOL for friendship!
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Banty wrote:

I'm definitely projecting my own feelings about what I perceive to be "most"
marriages in my cohort and wider society, but not specifically my own, no.
After I hit send with my post to Dragonlady I realised that I'd missed
saying that for all I know she and her husband have an open marriage and he
may do what he likes as far as she's concerned. That wouldn't matter because
i would err on the side of caution until informed otherwise.

You really seem to closely assocaite *any* male-female interaction with sex.

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

Just for the hell of it, let's say my marriage WAS a so-called "open
marriage".

So what? Even if we DID have an open marriage, that wouldn't mean
either of us were likely to use a play date as an opportunity to hit on
someone!

(And, if that is your biggest fear, then you'd have to be JUST as
cautious of ME coming to your home alone as of HIM coming to your home
alone.)

Not every interaction with another human being is about sex!
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

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

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.

I disagree. If you listen to the parents of
children who were abused by people known to the
family, it's not uncommon for the parents to say
that they had some niggling feelings of discomfort
beforehand. And even in much less dire circumstances,
I frequently find that if I meet someone and have
initial reservations, I'll often find later
confirmation. I try to walk the line carefully
and keep keep a watchful eye out rather than
abruptly cutting off all contact just because
I got a "bad feeling," so I often do find that
observation pays off. The parent who seemed a
bit cavalier about safety is the one who decided
to run to the grocery store and leave the kids
alone while other kids were visiting. The
parent who seemed a bit harsh at pick up/drop off
at preschool was the one who, when I stuck around
for the first playdate, did a lot of yelling
and made my kid pretty uncomfortable.
I tend to make a lot of decisions based
on those sorts of impressions. I don't usually
make drastic you-can't-play-with-this-kid
decisions, but there are certainly situations
where I'll exercise a lot more supervision than
others based on my assessment of the child and
parents. I really don't think that information
is useless. I think that's exercising my
responsibility as a parent. For me, I don't
feel like it's adequate to rely on neighborhood
statistics to guide all these interactions.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Tai wrote:
Banty 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.

I think this certainly informs much of your
position on the matter.


After I hit send with my post to Dragonlady I realised that I'd missed
saying that for all I know she and her husband have an open marriage and he
may do what he likes as far as she's concerned. That wouldn't matter because
i would err on the side of caution until informed otherwise.

See, I think that's irrelevant. I don't think
it's your business to even think about that. You're
responsible for what *YOU* do, not what her husband
does. If he comes over and hits on you, either his
wife is okay with it or she isn't, but that's irrelevant
because *YOU'RE* not okay with it. So, if he hits on
you, you can show him the door or you can run over and
tell his wife, but I don't see that her permission is
relevant in any way. Would it excuse his behavior if
she allowed it?
In my world, he has no business hitting on
you. You're married (I assume that would be obvious)
and you haven't given any signals that you're interested
in that sort of thing (we may have to disagree about
whether an invitation to a playdate between kids
constitutes such a signal). As far as I'm concerned,
if he's got a hankering for you, he just has to pine
away from unrequited love or get over it. The whole bit
about whether his wife would accept it or not, or whether
she trusts him or not, would be wholly irrelevant to
the matter. If he chooses to step over that line, he's
the one jeopardizing his marriage and you don't have one
iota of complicity unless you actually respond positively
to his overtures.
When you use that argument to suggest that
you have an obligation to keep men out of this
potential pitfall to save them from themselves,
or save their wives from their husbands' indiscretions,
that seems incredibly topsy turvy to me. I don't
feel that obligation anymore than I feel an obligation
to withhold an invitation to a party from someone
I think might not have the money to travel to
the party or an obligation to not serve dessert
at a dinner party because I think one of the guests
is overweight and shouldn't have dessert. They're
big boys and girls. They can make their own decisions
and deal with the consequences.
I can understand your argument that
you might get hit on, and therefore you're not
willing to admit the slightest possibility of
that happening in your home. I don't agree with
it, but I can understand it and feel it's your
prerogative to draw your boundaries that tightly
if that's what you wish to do. When you take the
next step and decide that your decision is extra
virtuous because it "saves" others from themselves,
that's where I think it verges on arrogance. And
the notion that overall, society would be better
off with more people drawing those boundaries
so close is something that I would find incredibly
sad if I believed it to be true. Perhaps I'm
just much more of an optimist than you in terms
of my willingness to trust others, or at least
trust them to run their own lives (well or poorly).

Best wishes,
Ericka

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 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 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.