Posted on 02/11/2002 5:06:42 PM PST by Petronski
I have no idea how often or frequently the Van Damn's engaged in swinging activities if at all. However the studies I have read on this topic find that swingers on average engage in their activites about once a month, hardley enough to be considered a "lifestyle", and are generally pretty average and normal in all other aspects of their lives. Just because someone is a "swinger" does not mean they are part of a "swinging lifestyle" just as the fact I am a biker, but certainly not part of a biking "lifestyle".
I am trying to make you see the point you have already made, that is Lifestyle is not an occassional act, which by in large studies have shown swinging tends to be. Not the pornographic orgies that mentally you have obviously assumed it is, with multiple unknown partners on a regular basis. THere are of course as with all things those who are hard core, and do indeed live a "lifestyle" around an activite.. in most realms (regardless of the activity) this is a minoirty (usually a very small minority) of those who engage in central topic of the "lifestyle".
I have to wonder if you have truely thought about what you have said here?
In the majority of weddings performed in the United States, the bride and groom take a vow to cleave only to each other and have no other. A monogamous marriage, by the VERY definition means that each has only ONE mate. To break that vow and have intimacy with another is called adultry. But hey...if it's only once a month...what's the big deal?? It's a very big deal to the other partner.
A monogamous lifestyle is one in which both partners intend to keep their vow of faithfulness to each other. Their typical way of life would be to stay faithful to each other. An isolated and unseen incidence of adultry would be an "event" in an otherwise monogamous lifestyle. An event that may have catastropic consequences.
On the other hand, a swinging marriage can not be defined as a monogamous relationship because the spouses have planned and acted on a decision to NOT be faithful only to each other. Thus, their typical way of life, or lifestyle, would be that to engage in intimacy with multiple persons..be it once a day, once a week...or once a month. Their typical way of life is multiple sexual partners, wheras the typical way of life for a monogamous couple is only one sexual partner.
That our society, as a whole, agrees with this is shown by depicting swinging, spousal sharing, et all...as "an alternative lifestyle." I call it adultry.
I have thought very much about what I have said here, and as I will point out, your attempts to change the subject make me question what thoughts or motives are in your responses.
In the majority of weddings performed in the United States, the bride and groom take a vow to cleave only to each other and have no other. A monogamous marriage, by the VERY definition means that each has only ONE mate. To break that vow and have intimacy with another is called adultry. But hey...if it's only once a month...what's the big deal?? It's a very big deal to the other partner.
Ok, number one, majority, but not all. Number two, Your argument is now not that "swinging" is detrimental to family life, or that Adultery is detrimental? Because there are far more adulterers in this world than swingers. Do you wish to stick to the topic of discussion? Or just diatribe about judeo christian morality?
A monogamous lifestyle is one in which both partners intend to keep their vow of faithfulness to each other. Their typical way of life would be to stay faithful to each other. An isolated and unseen incidence of adultry would be an "event" in an otherwise monogamous lifestyle. An event that may have catastropic consequences.
No one is implying here that monogomous committed couples SHOULD go around humping others, this is not the crux of any logic or statement I have made here. But if we are going to digress to this, then you have to go into an entire other line of questioning and thoughts... which is which is worse, an open relationship, or cheating? And do you really want to have that debate? That certainly is not what I am discussing here.
On the other hand, a swinging marriage can not be defined as a monogamous relationship because the spouses have planned and acted on a decision to NOT be faithful only to each other. Thus, their typical way of life, or lifestyle, would be that to engage in intimacy with multiple persons..be it once a day, once a week...or once a month. Their typical way of life is multiple sexual partners, wheras the typical way of life for a monogamous couple is only one sexual partner.
True, they are going to engage sexually in different practices than a monogamous couple, I am not debating this. What I am debating or challenging you on is the assumption that because they do have sexual activities outside of the norm that this directly has a huge impact on the non sexual day to day activities and relationships, respect etc of the the family or couple in question. So far you have offered nothing to support this supposition. Just that you believe it to be wrong.
That our society, as a whole, agrees with this is shown by depicting swinging, spousal sharing, et all...as "an alternative lifestyle." I call it adultry.
Number one, I did not bring up the term Lifestyle, that was you. Number two it is adultery, I am not saying it is not, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make here. You can call it what you want, adultery, fornication or whatever other psuedonym you wish. That does not change the fundamental point, that being that you have drawn a conclusion, not based on any facts, but your own morality that this is a bad thing to be doing, and you have every right to believe it is a bad thing to be doing. However, what you have not provided is any sort of logical justification for how such activities defacto undermine or harmfully affect all other aspects of a relationship/family.
Understand I am not advocating swinging, but I am not going to sit by and watch people label others as bad parents or bad human beings or unable to raise chilren or to have any morals simply because someone has for whatever reason engaged in sexual activities outside the "public norms". I have been around and seen to much to allow such drivel to be posted unchallenged. You originally asked how can something that parents hide from their children not be bad? I believe I have stated the case quite well that it is reasonable to believe that things kept from children need not be bad or detrimimental.
Even within the confines of monogomy you have kink and perversion... if a husband likes to be dressed up like a girl and dominated by his wife as part of their sexual activities or be feminized by his wife sexually does that mean they are unable to have a stable home and be loving parents? They are still monogomous. It seems to me your argument is more to do with the fact you view it as wrong or immorral and then attempt a jump to that it must have negative impact in other areas as well... but have offered nothing of substance to base this on.
My bottom line is that couples who agree to be sexually intimate with a variety of people do not fit into the monogamous lifestyle. When couples with young children in their home host swing parties with intoxicating substances, in that home, there is the potential for the children to be negatively impacted by that lifestyle.
We have indeed seen Olympian feats of rationalizations in this thread. :-)
The ONE person who willingly stepped up and discussed the swinger's lifestyle openly, was abused, vilefied, and mocked.
The people in FR may have gained some insight into the psychology of "swinging", but instead, they chose to continue making half-assed assumptions made on very little actual knowledge.
PS---You have NO CLUE as to what I know and don't know, and how valid my speculartions may or may not be. But then again, what facts you don't posses, you seem to make up anyway.
Maybe to you, but the media immediately reported that. Same day that Craig took the case, the local radio stations jumped on the story.
"Oh, really? Documented facts? Or just what you heard from someone close to the case?"
No, really, documented facts. I guess it's now you doing a bit of projecting here.
You can check the facts here if you wish.
Can you give me the link to news source that states that everyone in the house has been cleared? I can't find it. Thanks.
The topic of whether the van Dam's lifestyle can create a dangerous situation for the children seems to be the question here, and many have suggested that these people are poor parents by creating a situation which will endanger their lives. Furthermore, many more FReepers seem to be of the opinion that the remaining children should be taken from the family home.
The question then seems to be whether irresponsible parents (being defined as those whose decisions can put their children's lives at risk) should have their children taken from them.
Now, should parents who because of their religious beliefs will not provide medical assistance to their children when they are ill, have their kids taken from them?
Life is never what we think it should be. The Cardinal Law with movies is that children don't die. In real life, ugly things happen and children get caught in the middle.
My son went missing when he was two, but I thought I was being a "good mother" by working to support him. He was found within eight hours, but he had been abused; I quit my job because I couldn't handle the fact that I had gone to work in order to seem "caring".
"Welfare Mother" suddenly lost its stigma...
Ask a hundred different people, and you'll get a hundred different answers.
Some will say that oral sex is "perverted", indeed, there are laws in the books in some States making it illegal.
Others will find that a little "dirty talking" while having sex with your spouse is indicative of a perverted mind.
Some people like to have sex with the lights on, I know a more than a few people who think that is disgusting. Forget about masturbation, even mutual masturbation while engaged in the sex act with your spouse, some believe that you'll go to hell for doing that.
In fact, I know people to whom sex beyond the woman on her back, eyes closed, unduring quietly while the man "has his wey with her" is sick, and perverted.
I am certain that under someone else's definition of sexual perversion, you fall right in, I know I do.
The point here is your definition of "perverted" versus mine.
Real simple; sex between consenting adults...to each their own.
Sex with farm animals, corpses or children...you can feel free to call them perverts, and I will join you.
To me, consentual sex between adults, whether or not that sex is within societal norms (and not forbidden by civil law) does not for "perversion" make.
Sinners? No doubt...we all are.
Immoral? In this aspect, yes.
"Perverts"? I don't see them that way.
Not once in that article does it even insinuate that the neighbor had been in that house this past weekend.
If you continue to adhere to the story that a wild orgy had gone on (please provide any link to a credible, substantiated news report) after Mrs. van Dam came home that night, you must also be aware that the neighbor in question, according to the very runours that you are clinging on to, was not in the house that weekend! He wanted to be part of the 'orgies", but no one would invite him.
I have provided verification for everything that you have questioned, now all you have to do is provide us with the news release that puts the neighbor in the van Dam's house between 9 PM of the night in question, and 10 AM the next morning.
Here's a hint, on the very article that you posted (post #792), it says that the police brought in specially trained dogs to see if these dogs could detect whether this man had indeed been in Danielle's bedroom. He's still a free man, guess the dogs found nothing.
Ah so here we go, so you assumption is if one is a swinger, then one must host swinging parties in their homes and get intoxicated with the children around... Somehow I doubt this fits the typical situation in which swinging occurs, it sure doesn't match anything I have read on the topic. No one would argue doing something like that with children around is a great move, but you make a lot of assumptions assuming this is what typical swinger is doing or how they do it.... but you have made up your mind, so the debate is pointless.
HamiltonJay: Ah so here we go, so you assumption is if one is a swinger, then one must host swinging parties in their homes and get intoxicated with the children around... Somehow I doubt this fits the typical situation in which swinging occurs, it sure doesn't match anything I have read on the topic. No one would argue doing something like that with children around is a great move, but you make a lot of assumptions assuming this is what typical swinger is doing or how they do it.... but you have made up your mind, so the debate is pointless.
Mr. Hamilton, if you wish to believe that Mrs Van Dam came home at closing time with male and female friends...and had consumed NON intoxicating substances all evening ...well, I certainly don't want to be the one to bust your bubble.
If you chose to believe that the inner garage door lock was to prevent the kiddies from stepping in motor oil ....you go right ahead and believe that.
If you believe it is the norm to invite people over to your house after the bar closes to eat left over pizza...AND have them stay only fifteen minutes...well..God bless you.
Finally, if you believe it is the norm to pay for an alarm system...then ignore it when it goes off..and ignore the open door and open gate...well, I advise you to get a couple large, protective dogs. Oh, and dont' get them debarked as the Van Dam's did with their dog.
This needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Children have extreme loyalty to parents...even abusive or neglective parents. Children feel terrible anxiety over separation from their parents. When I was younger I would have said automatically, that they should be removed. Now, having atained a bit more maturity I would try to evaluate whether the parents can be persuaded or taught to be more nuturing or protective.
Now, should parents who because of their religious beliefs will not provide medical assistance to their children when they are ill, have their kids taken from them?
Again, this needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, rather than an across the board ruling. One of the functions of civil government is to protect every citizen, be they adult or child.
While I personally believe in divine healing, I would seek to ensure that the child lives. This might involve court ordered medical visits and monitoring of the child's environment. As a LAST resort, to protect the integrity of the child's emotional well being, I would have the child removed from the home if the parents REFUSED to follow court orders for medical treatment.
Any other questions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.