By Maria Padhila
As the economy imploded, thanks to the big teabagger foot-stomping tantrum (worse than any I’ve witnessed from a self-respecting 2-year-old), Isaac and our daughter and I were staying with his relatives. There were lots of jokes about who was going to move in with whom when it all tanked and none of us could pay our mortgages anymore. His family is very close anyway; they try to live close geographically, and it’s unheard of to stay in a hotel or with anyone but family if you’re within a 60-mile radius.
I don’t think I could live with his family — I don’t think they’d get our setup, to put it mildly — but it did get me thinking of my dream for a big poly family house. It would seem to make good sense for more people to give it some thought, as the numbers on the charts keep free-falling. I’d love to hear in the comments if you’ve got an economically viable alternative in your poly life, and how it works.
One afternoon that week, I got a chance to interview Robyn Trask, editor of Loving More magazine, a leading polyamory information source, and executive director of the Loving More nonprofit. I had called her to ask about the Kody Brown/Sister Wives case, and I’ll be using that info in a future piece. But because I was curious and I had the chance, I switched gears to try to thrash out thoughts on poly and the economy.
“In this culture, families can be so isolated,” she says. “We’ve been programmed to think of the strong, independent family who doesn’t need anybody as the ideal.”
But that approach doesn’t always work — or works less and less often. She tells the story of inviting a family with whom hers had become friends to live with them when the other family hit hard times. This is the kind of thing people used to do routinely and are now doing (often to great unhappiness) for their relatives. It can only work better if the people involved love each other out of choice. I think about how getting over some jealousy and having a little less space is a small price to pay for knowing you’re with a group strongly bonded and ready to help each other. I think about how many people are facing foreclosure and feel terribly alone. And that maybe they — or I — could have made another choice than to have my family live in a single-family home, if I knew such choices existed and could work.
During my visit with relatives, there was also a lot of talk about older relatives who won’t leave their homes, even though how they’re living has become unsafe and uncomfortable. I’m not one to impose choices on others, but when I hear about older people living in isolation, I know this is not something I want for myself. They are sticking to their guns because they want their children to be able to inherit the house (or its worth). But nothing is worth much nowadays, so why not sell it and spend it on something where a group could live together? Another big issue: The man shortage among older people. The older women complain and fight and accuse each other of man-stealing like the women on a Real Housewives show. It just makes me glad that I’m getting over the whole owning-another-person dynamic now. One less thing to tie me down.
“Poly can bring in multiple close bonds … and sharing resources,” Trask says. She tells of working to establish several households on some farmland currently, and how it’s helpful that the families there don’t need to get three tractors, but can share one. As for her own stint in suburbia, well, she had a beautiful house, but there were aspects of isolation and competition there that lead her to prefer her current rural life.
“This economy may drive us into looking at things differently and sharing more — whether that’s tractors, or lovers,” she says.
She talks about a conference event about a year ago. She was in discussion with a group of largely older polyamorists — “there was a lot of wisdom in that room” — and someone asked the question: “Is the nuclear family set up to support the consumer economy?”
My answer’s yes. As Trask puts it, three nuclear families have three toasters, three blenders, three cars. A poly household might only need one of each. (The same is true for a co-house or communal household — but that might not be as much fun. And I don’t want to overlook other ways neighborhoods are sharing resources, without any connection to poly or communal living at all, and these are great: from tool banks to child-care co-ops.)
I don’t believe in black-helicopter conspiracies. Or maybe I could, but so many of the people who do are unreliable sources to me, and I don’t have the time to check them out for myself. But I believe fully in unconscious conspiracies, in people who, being human and afraid and silly, cut corners here and there, maybe reach for a little more than they know they earned, maybe see it sitting there and no one’s watching, so then they have to scramble to cover it up or justify it. That’s what the American economy today looks like to me.
There are a lot of people sitting at lovely granite countertops or on oversize down-filled cushions watching big screens, with several cars in the oversize garage right now, who tell themselves daily that they have these things and this somewhat more secure life because of their hard work and smart financial strategic planning. They say anyone can get this life if they’re willing to work, really work! But somewhere inside they know that they mostly got them because of sheer luck — born on third base and thought they hit it home, right? The right color, the right parents, the right dodges and compromises, straight teeth, happened to be alive when America was peaking and rode that wave, the right blinders in the right places — the ability to shut out the fact that we walk on the bodies of the poor to have the lives we live. I believe in this kind of conspiracy — that groups of people deliberately indulge in self-delusion to keep something they mutually believe they want.
That’s a little too heavy for this topic, but here’s how it applies here: In order to keep ourselves in granite countertops, we know we have to sell lots of things to each other (and to the new suckers down the line). One way to do that is to split us into as small units as possible, and keep us isolated.
In the 1990s and 2000s, one of my jobs involved dealing with home builders. Farmland was getting turned into giant housing communities full of hulking McMansions, most designed with several suite arrangements — everyone would have a bathroom and mini-kitchen off their bedroom-suite setup, so everyone would need extra glasses, extra towels, extra freaking ice makers. “They” — that is, we — even managed to make it so that people would be isolated from one another within their own homes. Children from parents, parents from grandparents.
At the same time, multiple zoning laws were passed against unrelated families living together in these huge houses; neighbors were encouraged to watch for “too many” different (i.e., beater or not expensive) cars or trucks or vans parked outside as a signifier of, well, let’s be blunt — they didn’t want groups of people recently arrived from other countries to be living together, sharing expenses and sharing stuff. Also at the same time, I was being encouraged to market these homes (we don’t call them houses; one always calls them homes) to certain other people recently arrived from other countries, because it was known that these other recent arrivals, who had more ready money, liked to have in-laws living with them. And that was OK. But a group of guys from certain countries (who built your house and fix your house and make everything around you look a hell of a lot better than it ever did before they got here) living in a home together could be busted.
It’s not too conspiratorial of me to say that zoning regulations could be used selectively against poly households that don’t fit the norm, just as anti-polygamy laws are apparently being used against some households for one reason or another. The conclusion here: Not buying enough stuff is a crime. And I could get thrown out of my theoretical poly dream house for committing that crime.
And if the only way presented to get out of our present difficulties is to buy more stuff, then the penalties for preserving, conserving and sharing will get more harsh.
My dream: A Victory-Garden approach to sharing, where my poly dream house would be the epitome of good global citizenship and economic progress. My nightmare: Teabaggers forcing me to live alone, eat more trans fat, and use more lightbulbs, because the country needs me to consume, and incandescent was good enough for Paul Revere, right?
There is an online training on the Darkness To Light site, too. It costs $10, takes 2.5 hours. Go to the D2L home page, then to Prevention Programs/Stewards of Children/On-Line training.
The Darkness to Light website – http://www.d2l.org has lots of other information and practical strategies adults can use to create protective environments for children. Kat
Maria,
Thanks for saying that. My focus was on the “creating community” more than the poly aspect of it; I hope you knew that. I love your writing and look forward to it and I am sure you are a good mom to your child; I have no doubts about that.
Thank you Mara, I’m looking forward to your follow up on this topic.
Mothers’ sexuality has been used a a divorce/custodial weapon for too long; everyone suffers.
“Transparent environment” is a good way to work it. It’s telling that the example of a communal environment cited is a church.
I can’t tell sometimes if I’m being accused, directly or indirectly, of not caring about or protecting my child, or of putting her through something terrible, with my “lifestyle.” In the end, I know what we’re doing, and I do take care. I’m not going to go on and on about it, though–it would be dull for readers! And I don’t have time to study every comment for possible meaning between the lines. Also, I’m working on not being defensive when there’s no reason to defend, and not being defensive about my writing comes very easily to me, so this is a good place to practice that.
There’s enormous pressure on mothers always–but I think more in the past couple decades, and I’m pretty sure there’s a profit motive behind it. You’re doing too much, you’re not doing enough; every decision from labor to food to health care to activities to curriculum is endlessly debated, judged, and often scorned. I think it’s set up a trigger point or sore spot in many of us, especially those, like me, who are already sensitized to the “you’ll never be good enough” message. The so-called (media inspired) “mommy wars” have become yet another highly efficient way to separate women from each other and prevent our growing together.
I’m pretty sure there are people who have lived in poly situations who have worked out the issues of protecting and caring for children well, at least well enough to share some wisdom, just as I’m sure there are plenty, as with monogamous, traditional families, who have made a horrible mess of it. I’ll do my best to find the happy, secure ones and write about what they’ve learned, as I’m trying with the many other aspects of life that affect poly relationships and vice versa…
“One of the key recommendations of this training is to set up non-negotiable conditions where unknown adults are rarely, if ever, alone with a child. [snip] Predators who tend to be drawn to communal environments where there is access to children…[snip]”
Exactly; which is why I had the concern (and my other friends who are parents had it too) in the first place.
Oh Kat THANK YOU SO MUCH for chiming in! I only just realized last night that both my parents are NPD and as such, I doubt myself ALL THE TIME so trying to defend any arguments I have for gut intuitions I have is extremely difficult for me.
Your insights are exactly what I have experienced, read, been told in therapy and have seen. That was EXACTLY what I was wanting to know; how to create a safe community space for children and you have provided an answer.
Thank you for doing that AND for validating my concerns instead of just telling me I am operating in a position of fear. You have help me tremendously. If you don’t mind, I will be cutting and pasting your post and keeping it in case I need to remind myself that I am NOT wrong in being concerned about this issue.
Thanks for your 2 cents Katt. We are talking facts, not feelings. Reality versus idealism. On the earth as it is not in heaven yet.
If I didn’t know better,
I’d post the daily quote fr. Abraham today…..
mm?
I am late to this conversation, but wanted to put in my two cents. As I have mentioned in other posts, I am the program director and clinical supervisor of an accredited CAC – Children’s Advocacy Center. This is where children who have been possibly sexually abused can be interviewed and get forensic examinations in a child friendly envionment. We also offer therapy for the children and their non-offending caregivers. One of the community services we offer is Darkness to Light training. This is a 2 hour training offered throughout the country to help adults better protect chilren from sexual (in particular) abuse. One of the key recommendations of this training is to set up non-negotiable conditions where unknown adults are rarely, if ever, alone with a child. Where it is important for this to occur, others are informed, doors are left open, it is understood that people will be checking in and they do check in. Predators who tend to be drawn to communal environments where there is access to children (churches, etc.), upon hearing of these policies, often move on.
While it is important to teach children how to protect themselves, we cannot assume it is enough. Predators can be masters at manipulation and many are skilled well beyond the capacity of most, if not all, children and many adults to identify the risks and protect themselves. Setting up transparent environmental conditions whereever possible, is one way to increase safety for adults and children.
off the cuff, I would say one’s affirming or denying response(s) to the world, if you don’t know, might be able to be clarified by their view of the world.
Einstein’s “Do you believe in a benevolent Universe?” and your answer/response to that statement might be able to clarify or start to..
-not that this is the greatest day or time for exactly ‘getting to the bottom’ of things….
I’m a believer in the keep it simple approach during these times-
yet- I applaud the spirit on here!
peace.
Anyone else care to chime in and share your definition of “affirming or denying” in this context (see below)?
“….it is about one’s basic response to the world – affirming or else denying.”
I would like to know what constitutes an affirming response to the world and what constitutes a denying response to the world. Affirming or denying what? I read these terms here and I wonder if they mean something different from what I thought they meant. I ask in an effort to understand what seems to be a universally understood concept (at least universally understood here at PW).
As Robert A Wilson said “Convictions cause convicts; what you believe imprisons you.” I try to question every belief I have and every belief I read or hear or see from others as well.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
“That’s not about points of accurate analysis and debate it is about one’s basic response to the world – affirming or else denying.”
That’s a nice box of either/or you have there. No gray in that is there? No place for any other options. No room for discussion or differing points of view. Fair enough. So do I take that statement above to mean this is YOUR response to the world: dichotomy? Point taken and understood.
Your post led me to believe you have no concerns about children and unknown people in group community living
——————————–
To even speak of ‘unknown people’ with respect to children, when the whole context is a theoretical debate re poly values in community, plays on (and magnifies) a fear of the unknown, of the kind ‘anything BAD COULD happen’ – which cannot be justified by rolling out statistics – statistics that be accounted for in EXACTLY the way I accounted for them. This does not make me correct by the way, simply intellectually responsible.
Many of the conclusions that you come to seem (after lauding the overall debate’s merit) to suggest that things can’t really happen, or you commit to them personally, unless you were satisfied that some guarantee could be supplied that there would be no risks in undertaking any social experiment. So the script goes ‘I really like that idea and wouldn’t it be wonderful if such things could happen, but alas, I cannot possibly risk anything that might create this that or other undesirable outcome’ aka your fear driving a purported reasoning process. It is conspicuous, Carrie.
Let’s look at your closing paragraph in your last post:
—————————————
Yes, that seems to assume negative outcomes if strangers are involved. This is because as my friends have said, they know of the local registered sex offenders (and wonder about the ones who don’t register) in their neighborhoods; the local youth director who was convicted for child sexual abuse, the 12 year old girl who was molested in our Target store when she went to another part of the store and was accosted by a man claiming to be store security, or the local child who was nearly pulled off his bicycle by a stranger in a car while riding near his neighborhood (all in our small rural town before these friends moved away). It is a legitimate concern that I have no solution for.
—————————————
Clearly Carrie, you believe that these are legitimate concerns, whereas in fact it is merely a litany of as many shockingly terrible things as can be listed in one paragraph – creating the impression that the world is not a safe place. That is your baggage – regardless of the many things that are negative/harmful that happen in our world. There are many awesome things too – so many possibilities.
You do not get the kind of guarantees in life that you seem to be demanding as a condition of any kind of experiment. Look, fine if that is your choice Carrie. But I’m certainly not going to keep quiet when such views about life are propagated, especially when being passed as credible concerns or statements about what the world is like.
Planet Waves is about building community in healthier ways than we usually see. Participation would seem to suggest a commitment to a different set of values, a different openness to possibilities and action. Yes, realism about real danger is important. But that is not what you are talking about.
Most contemporary ‘fear’ in the West is a species that is really anxiety – worry in other words. One can choose to worry about anything. One can parade one’s anxieties everywhere one goes and spread them around so others can share in the toxic effects. Fear and legitimate concerns are about recognising something with awareness, where anxiety is about not noticing and living anywhere but in the present moment.
When you raise issues as if they were definitive of the issue at hand when really they are about your personal anxieties then the debate becomes meaningless – simply an opportunity to dramatise an endless supply of phantom worries.
That’s not about points of accurate analysis and debate it is about one’s basic response to the world – affirming or else denying. You choose.
There you have it..
Would it have made a difference had I placed the whole part in quotations to show that it was the information that drives the concern :
“After a divorce, fifty percent of all girls get molested by either their step fathers, their mothers’ boyfriends, or their fathers. Boys get molested too but are even more afraid to report it. This is because after divorce, the children are exposed to more people and are left with people who are not their mothers. In any communal living arrangement (poly or not), the risk of child sexual abuse rises because the communal living creates access.” The whole thing is the basis for the concern, not just the part you separated out. I paraphrased it to the issue at hand: communal living, to make it understandable in that context. Sorry if I was not clear on that.
There is no value judgement in that part, it is not stated as fact; it is stated that this statistic (with the thought that follows it) is the one many people have read
(and heard) that drives them to question the communal living idea. This medium is indeed difficult to work in.
We could discus whether or not it is a real fact. My point was, the concern is real and parents (myself included as you read in a later post) have that concern when entertaining the idea of creating a communal living arrangement. That statistic was not the only factor in my thinking; it was, however one my friends have cited several times so I used it.
“Even if we do not feel it to be our role to be at the forefront, it surely propagates only negatives when we emphasise only fear?”
I didn’t emphasize only fear; I mentioned a concern and it was you who labelled it a “fear.” I didn’t say it was the only thing either; I clarified it by saying that it was something parents thought of (at least the ones I know including myself).
I am not attacking you, Half. I am unhappy with the way ideologies are passed around as though these are written in stone. What does “living in fear” really mean then? Perhaps if that is defined it will be easier to discuss this issue.
Just to make it clear, I discuss issues, not people. Your post led me to believe you have no concerns about children and unknown people in group community living; was I incorrect in that? Feel free to clarify.
You also state things as fact but use no proof to back them up, for example, “Our culture is obsessed with children and this is a big problem too…” Is that a fact? I would disagree with that statement because our culture is not family or children friendly; the social policies (and lack of same) show that children are valued as consumers for the most part; not for their inherent worth as human beings in need of basic life necessities such as education, health care, and healthy living standards. Children don’t vote or make campaign contributions and their needs are not top priority in this country. Is these assertions of mine facts? Can numbers or policy back these assertions up? :::shrugging shoulders::::
It is not a personal attack on you to point out that I dislike ideas that are trotted out as THE newest thing to adhere to; you are not the only one doing that and in fact I took it as you reiterating something others have said (you said as much in your second reply). You didn’t make it clear (at least to me) that this was your personal ideology. Is it?
I do have a general dislike of group-think or herd mentality and I see it so much it makes me crazy.
I have long admired your thoughts Half, I just disagree with the current ones you have written. I am sure I can do that without disliking you or attacking you personally.
I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree then. That’s ok with me.
I still want to know if anyone can address the practical concern I have raised; how to build a community group living situation in which people who don’t really know each other that well can be sure their children can be safe. This assumes the group is made up of people who are not as familiar with one another as would be the ideal set up. This is because at least in my friend circle, that ideal cannot be done due to the constant moving people have had to do because of economic issues. So it is a real concern and one that I have yet to see any solution for.
Yes, that seems to assume negative outcomes if strangers are involved. This is because as my friends have said, they know of the local registered sex offenders (and wonder about the ones who don’t register) in their neighborhoods; the local youth director who was convicted for child sexual abuse, the 12 year old girl who was molested in our Target store when she went to another part of the store and was accosted by a man claiming to be store security, or the local child who was nearly pulled off his bicycle by a stranger in a car while riding near his neighborhood (all in our small rural town before these friends moved away). It is a legitimate concern that I have no solution for. I am sure the folks here can come up with some ideas.
@Carrie: The blog space is a discussion forum. We can ONLY theorise on here. This is limiting, sure – but it is what we have to deal with. I introduced ‘fear’ (something which Eric has written much about on Planet Waves) because it seemed to me to be the only plausible explanation for your erroneous assertion about exposure to more people = greater risk. You stated that as if it were fact!
Frankly, the attempt to cite ‘practical concerns of real people’ over against some ‘du jour ideology’ is just bad form – at whatever point we wish to discredit the crux point of another’s thinking we simply bring the ‘practical concerns of real people’ card into play, buttressed by ‘lots of others I’ve spoken with said this too’. Then it is easy to follow up with the other’s point being some ‘fad’ or ‘ideology’ that you just happen to have seen many of, come and go!
So you assert the other’s perspective to be ‘repeated mantra’, ‘ideology’ or ‘periodic fad’ – Proof?
All the while, you assert that when YOU are making points and counter points you are just giving voice to practical concerns (of others seemingly, not you) and not in fact suggesting theories of your own – Proof?
It seems to me I’m afraid, that you are being intellectually dishonest with your claims and trying to make them unassailable through sleight of hand. Here is a classic example of this:
——————–
Now I am hearing the call du jour of not letting fear rule my life It doesn’t rule my life but I do see that some practical cautions have validity even if you don’t see them.
——————–
You are asserting that I don’t see the practical cautions – but I clarified this in several places and spoke of how it is indexed to the values in the sub-culture. I offered an explanation of the mechanics of how exposure to more people CAN be risky, because of awareness/cultural factors and ownership assumptions applied to children (you parody this as myself saying that you are in a parental ego state – clearly misrepresenting me).
You did NOT make your argument at the outset to be merely one of ‘I do see that some practical cautions have validity…’ This is a retrospective. You were actually not issuing a gentle caution, you were in fact making assertions that are your personal, emotional material dressed up as ‘fact’. I challenged these ‘facts’ with supporting reasoning. I didn’t make it personal. I’m struggling to see you reciprocating but instead seeing sweeping, generic statements.
I’m sorry that you felt challenged personally by my earlier thread comments. Since however, you have chosen to misrepresent what I have said, in what I consider to be a dishonest way, and because these things can start to fester (and I won’t entertain that) I am indeed now calling you out on these matters.
@mystes: On the innocence point – meme or no meme, it feels like you have been a ‘heart and soul’ parent for a long time! Innocence may surely then feel like a long lost dream, of days of yore.. Does this mean the ‘dream’ was not once a reality… ? Tell me it ain’t so.. 🙂
“So I wonder if having an environment where all people know they’ll be listened to and respected if they feel unsafe could make the difference–”
Maria,
That would definitely be the ideal but as I mentioned before, it is difficult to achieve that when people are not as community oriented NOW (due to, among other things, economic issues) so there are too many unknown people milling about. These not-well-known people are the risk factor. If I knew enough people well enough to set up such an environment I would love to create community. My friends (all of whom moved elsewhere and all of whom are parents) have voiced the same sentiments and concerns. They find themselves in areas where they have no close friends they feel they could trust to co-create community.
These friends and I would be able to set up community but their jobs (and ours) prevent us from living in the same geographical area. Building those kinds of friendships takes time and just as they get established, someone has to move away for a job transfer or they get laid off and have to move to where the jobs are. Our economic situation has made it difficult to have such permanent, stable, sharing communities.
Many years ago, my mom took in a young couple and their baby; she rented our basement out to them and shared the kitchen with them. She did this because they needed a place to live but could not afford one. They repaid her kindness by stealing our linens, pots, pans, utensils and household goods. We were ourselves on welfare back then so the loss was a hardship for us. The society we live in HAS to change in a HUGE way before such happenings will fall away; people are too used to the ideology of scarcity so even relatively decent people will do bad things (like that couple did) when they feel threatened or are dysfunctional. That is the reality and my friends and I have to live and work in that reality. It is unfortunate but it is what it is. Just as women have to live in the reality that walking alone at night means they may be harmed (raped) despite the fact that they should be free to walk about whenever they please, unharmed. It sucks but it is what it is and all the ideology of not living in fear doesn’t change what IS. We can work to change what is but we also have to deal with what is when making decisions.
“Half, clearly you “have” no children. Possessions? I guess that *could* be true, but more than anything else, every parent/guardian has responsibility for their kids. Food, clothing, housing, education. Obtaining all of those is no cheap trick, and as the child becomes older, they simultaneously become more expensive and believe themselves to be more autonomous. [snip] That’s where the illusion of possession might kick in. From the outside it might look like the adult is investing or buying the future *for* the kid. And yes, we like to have some cooperation while we’re pouring body&soul into this endeavor. So ‘my’ child does have a different feel than ‘my’ friend. Unless I am providing clothes, housing, food, guidance for that friend. (Ahem.)”
Thank you, Mysti. That was perfectly written and I concur completely.
Oh and how do you get it to bold the words? I still cannot edit my comments and it is really frustrating because I would like the ability to do so. And I am using Firefox; the latest edition too. Maybe it will change when Merc goes direct? ::::frustrated::::
Half,
You missed the last sentence of the part you replied to which said: “Sure, there is the idea that these people are in therapy and as such don’t represent the overall population; I get that.”
Please do not also assume that because I feel protective of the children I gave birth to (since saying “my children” seems no longer politically correct and is ego driven), that I do not feel the same protective feelings about children other people gave birth to. I DO feel protective of and care deeply for all children regardless of who they came from. It is why I have been doing things in my own community to advocate for them. When my husband and I were wanting to raise children, we were not particularly set on them being biological offspring; any children would have been fine with us.
Whenever I hear a repeated mantra, I begin to question the validity of it. This is because over my lifetime, I have seen ideologies come and go. The current one du jour seems to be the one you are promoting about not living your life in fear. The problem I see with this mantra is the same one I see with so many of the paradigms I have seen; it swings to the extreme. A little fear is a healthy thing. Without it we would do stupid things that can be harmful. One such popular mantra back when I was a kid was “kids are resilient.” This mantra turned out to only be true of “some” kids, not all. That means parents did things that harmed some of the kids they were raising because they believed that ideology of “kids are resilient.”
Now I am hearing the call du jour of not letting fear rule my life It doesn’t rule my life but I do see that some practical cautions have validity even if you don’t see them. As the oracle of Delphi said; “Nothing in excess” and I see an excessive fear among some people and an excessive anti-fear campaign in the other side. Why can’t there be a middle ground wherein a little fear is useful at times and a little risk is also useful at times?
As a Virgo rising with Capricorn moon, I will not be imbalanced or impractical nor will I let the group-think du jour sway me from dong what makes good, common sense.
As the Hopi say; “Balance in all things.” I see having good common sense as a balance between some fear and some risk. In weighing the risks and the fears and the outcomes, I take all things into consideration and then I make choices based on those. Who does it harm for me to keep the children I birthed from the risk of harm? Two of them are now 18, unharmed and doing very well. They are socially adept and aware of the machinations of group-think. They are not fearful or unwilling to take reasonable risks. Somehow, protective as my husband and I have been, we managed to raise kids who have a very optimistic outlook on life. Since that works, why would I change it for the remaining two children I am raising?
When I wrote about that issue of parents not wanting to risk their children’s exposure to strangers in a community living arrangement, I was voicing a concern I have heard from many people who have wanted to make just such a community. It was just that, a concern and one that should be addressed, not pushed aside in the rush to promote the paradigm du jour of “live with no fear.” As a concern, it has validity and the parents should not be made to feel like they are “living in fear” for having that concern. Address it, find ways to deal with it, solve the issue; not make them feel like they are operating in a wrong place for having that concern.
If we are to live in a new way of being, part of that (to me) would include allowing people their concerns and feelings and addressing them in gentle and respectful ways instead of assuming we know what is best for THEM; we don’t know what is best for them. They know what is best for them and as parents entrusted with the raising and care of the children they bore (or adopted or fostered) they are the ones who must decide for it is they who are responsible for said children. For you see, another paradigm du jour has been the idea that “professionals” (such as teachers, child psychologists, social scientists, and doctors) know more than parents do about raising children. While these professionals do have a lot of knowledge about children, each child is unique and each parent knows their child well; their voice has to be a respected part of the picture.
As an aware parent (and one who sees through the various paradigms of the day, the group-think, the new age terminology and ideas, and the “politically correct” labels) I am unwilling to swallow every new thing that comes out without real scrutiny. Communal living; in this very disconnected society, is one of them.
So, instead of saying that concern is “living in fear;” what other solution do you offer for that very real concern that parents have? That was the reason I posted in the first place; to get ideas as to how to deal with that issue. Practical ideas, not just philosophical ones because parents (at least the ones I know) are practical realists for the most part; they want real answers and actions they could use in that situation.
Half, clearly you “have” no children. Possessions? I guess that *could* be true, but more than anything else, every parent/guardian has responsibility for their kids. Food, clothing, housing, education. Obtaining all of those is no cheap trick, and as the child becomes older, they simultaneously become more expensive and believe themselves to be more autonomous.
The phrase that comes to mind is: “Buy me some freedom, mom.”
That’s where the illusion of possession might kick in. From the outside it might look like the adult is investing or buying the future *for* the kid. And yes, we like to have some cooperation while we’re pouring body&soul into this endeavor. So ‘my’ child does have a different feel than ‘my’ friend. Unless I am providing clothes, housing, food, guidance for that friend. (Ahem.)
As for the meme of ‘innocence.’ Please. Let us poke that with the skeptic stick. What would happen if kids were introduced to the idea — from birth — that they *chose* to be here, brought in specific debts and talents with them, and that childhood was the space to explore and unfold those? What we call innocence is just a strange nostalgia for a time when we could believe that this life is an accident of nature, a random event, a game of chance – tyche the only way that the Western ego can set up the notion of personal freedom.
Freedom is ever and only the will to love. Anything else is just stirring the garbage.
***
**
*
Hmmmm… I think we’ve beat them this time, but if I hear of sone desperate parents, I’ll pass this on (veg)
Effective tho not everyone’s cup of tea – for head lice. Wash your hair in your own urine (up to 4 days old) and leave it in to dry. The odour quickly goes – only smells if it drops onto cloth. Do several times as necessary.
*faith does NOT mean believing in positivity in a delusional way* sorry!!
While I like your overall look at why these people abuse, my issue is with the ideology that we should just have faith that if we start a community full of people we may not know well, we are to just assume our children will not be at any risk of any abuse. In a room of 20 people in a group therapy setting, more than half of them had been sexually abused in their own homes or communities by family or friends.
——————————————
Well yes Carrie, in group therapy that would be no surprise – which is another example of extracting statistics in a non-representative way. That is your experience, important to you of course, but is that definitive of ‘how things are’??
On your representation of my expressed faith/fear dyad as ideology, permit me to ask a question: (I know you say you are unwilling to risk building links that seem so tenuous and that may carry hidden problems). Why would fear-based decisions be right for everybody?
Just to come back in general, to everyone reading, on my point about a culture obsessed with children. It is instructive to compare the clauses “My friends” and “My children”.
Does anybody believe that when they say “My friends” that these friends would be viewed as being owned/possessed by them?
Now, what happens with “My children”?
I think we need to look soberly at views of how we feel, as a society, on this question of what we think we own. No matter what we articulate with regard to ‘ownership’ of children, in order to be seen saying the correct thing, ego will often manifest through a sense of possessing.
Think of just how much ego gets manifested in the world under the pretense of passion/zeal/self-righteousness around children, when really, much of the time, the ego has been projected into said children; a projection which is then used to justify all kinds of suspect thinking and feeling.
Moreover, once children become expressed writ large in culture as possessions, we protect (notice this is NOT actually protecting ANY child but our own ego defences) and preserve a boundary of ownership – a demarcation point that nobody may cross, or else we will spring to action. Really? Is this zeal warranted when you think about it? Once we set this dynamic in play across society, we introduce covetousness.
Just like the houses, cars, leather sofas, swimming pools, electrical gadgets etc that people will desire and often want to take from us, so our children are made into a commodity (by us) that people wish to own for themselves. Cue lusting…
Personally, I think any adult who wishes to nurture children would benefit hugely from experiencing this as the urge to nurture any child on the planet. Children are a collective, unified like no other, in their beautiful, uncorrupted innocence (until adults corrupt them). We corrupt children in many ways but highlight only the handful of situations that make us feel better that it is “the bad people out there” who do bad things.
Let me just add, Carrie. This is not a recipe for naivety. It is a recognition that we need to be realistic about how the world functions. But faith does mean believing in positivity in a delusional way and acting irresponsibly as a result – it means not believing all will be as it always was and it also means stepping out with values, to attempt to build something better than we have; stretching to move beyond our previous limits and acknowledging that within human beings there is a light that will never go out – one which can be harnessed differently than we have been used to in our prevailing experiences.
The alternative is one of praising ideas profusely, having stimulating debates etc but then dismissing all ‘radical’ ideas as impractical or ‘too risky’. With all new possibilities there is always the issue of manifestation. Even if we do not feel it to be our role to be at the forefront, it surely propagates only negatives when we emphasise only fear?
Sigh. Community is hard–and can be just as dangerous and destructive as isolated living. I’m not sure of the answer, since I still hold my breath when I send my daughter to the next aisle in the store to bring back a bag of rice. One thing that works is to keep the communication open–if anyone at a party/festival/event/campout even gave her a ghost of a creepy feeling, she can tell me AND/OR many other trusted people who will listen, believe, and respond. She has my full permission to talk back, fight back, yell, make a fuss, run yelling at the top of her lungs if her own “spider sense” trips off in any way. We’ve role-played it too. She saw me give holy hell to a guy on the street who made remarks to me (when I’d judged it was safe to yell back. I was walking her in a stroller on a busy street–what was this guy thinking?). So I wonder if having an environment where all people know they’ll be listened to and respected if they feel unsafe could make the difference–at least make it better than the old days, when children would be shut down if they spoke up. My heart hurts for those children who were told to hush or threatened into silence, and adults who didn’t believe them–or were afraid to believe.
The other factor brings up that “biological male imperative” thinking–many say men don’t feel protective or caring toward children who aren’t their own, and hence the abuse cases from stepfathers and boyfriends. I don’t know if this is true. I’ve seen plenty of men who have raised children not biologically their own as if they were their own, and men who have abandoned or abused their biological children (and same for women). So I just don’t know.
In the end, doesn’t it come down to the kind of community–one that’s top-down obedient to an authoritative figure vs. one that’s open to all voices and respects safety and boundaries vs. one that’s all anything-goes, cause everyone deserves to be free, man? Because authoritative rulers usually cast themselves as looking out for everyone’s safety, but they have no compunctions about violating boundaries to do so. Same with those who profess concern with everyone’s “freedom.” It’s a hard place to find or create.
On a completely different level, yes, communal living is hard for other reasons. Will one still get the solitude one needs (and women often sacrifice)? It’s the little annoyances–someone keeps eating “my” gourmet mustard, too much noise at night, those kinds of things, I think, that really torpedo relationships, even between just two people.
I wrote something a couple years ago where i concluded that “community means head lice.” Funny thing this week: I landed in the hospital getting my appendix out this week. My daughter stayed with her cousins, and they all went to a really nice day camp and had a great time–and they all got head lice. It seems to happen more often among the more affluent kids! We haven’t had to deal with it in about four years. I really, really needed the help, but when you get a lot of kids together, that’s the kind of thing that most often happens–those annoying, troublesome, conflicts and maladies that leave you swearing you’re going to just go live in a bubble. But I think annoyances are worth it, and trouble will find you even if you’re all alone in the woods–especially during Mercury retrograde.
“Interestingly, my first post on this thread is basically addressing that fear-based view that more people around equals more danger.”
exactly. wish all of you could come experience DNE (the dance camp i’m still at). whole families, in addition to couples & singles of all ages & orientations, come here to live in community every summer for a week or two, and have been for 32 years. there have been many children born in to the community who have grown up returning each year, and many now hold leadership positions. yet there is still a healthy inflow of new faces each year.
there is child care for those parents who need a break or wish to take calsses, but there are always many eyes, ears and loving souls interacting with the children here. it’s not perfect, but i would definitely say there is a *valid* and tested alternate to the mindset that more people equals more danger.
and:
“I do not see the other when I am gripped constantly/pathologically by my own sense of need; buttressed by distorted beliefs garnered through time.”
yes. have been on both sides of that equation plenty…
“Sexual abuse feels like a by-product, over time, of prevalent (arguably normative in many quarters) psychological and emotional abuse and basic neglect attendant to such deep wounds – that destroy esteem. Inevitably, for some, these wounds fester in ways that make them susceptible to precisely the issues of guilt and shame you mention (whether gleaned from direct experience of sexual abuses or merely from repressed [religious] dogma, trading as the truth about human nature).
As one who was sexually abused by a person my family “took in” for the night so he wouldn’t drive home under the influence, I may be biased in the “fear” direction. However, I have talked to SO many women (and even a few men) and read accounts of so many who were abused by extended family or friends in large group home settings (pre-WWII extended family homes and others) or even when someone allowed a friend to stay a while to get on their feet.
While I like your overall look at why these people abuse, my issue is with the ideology that we should just have faith that if we start a community full of people we may not know well, we are to just assume our children will not be at any risk of any abuse. In a room of 20 people in a group therapy setting, more than half of them had been sexually abused in their own homes or communities by family or friends. It was an awful eye-opener for me to see people in their forties still damaged because of that abuse they suffered. Sure, there is the idea that these people are in therapy and as such don’t represent the overall population; I get that.
My point is this: not knowing how resilient any given child is, it is my opinion (based on experience, both mine and others) that an ounce of prevention is worth years of therapy. In fact, in the above, you use the word “prevalent” which supports my assertion. If it is prevalent, then I ask myself this; with that prevalence in mind is it worth risking my child in order to live in a group with people I may not know that well?
The part you are probably missing is this: I don’t know that many people who I would feel close enough to live together with. I have few friends in the first place (not knowing how to make them very well because of my own Army Brat life of constantly moving) so who are the people I am supposed to set up a trusting, values oriented group living arrangement with? And I am not alone in this situation.
I have maybe a small handful of recently come friends and their families; I don’t know them well enough to feel like I could trust my children’s well being with them. Before either of us gets that close, they move away or I do because of economic issues. My own state is called “the transient state” because for every five people who move here, four move right back out. Kind of hard to make deep, lasting connections when the economy has people moving so much. The social climate is also not conducive to helping and trusting one another; America is a hyper-competitive society with a scarcity mind-set that is so prevalent it undermines even good friends. I have seen this and it is indeed sad.
So even if you dislike my use of statistics to make my point, I still stand by my feelings on this. I am unwilling to risk the well-being of my children in order to create a group-or community living situation with people I barely know. It just doesn’t make sense to do that; the risks are (in my opinion) just too high.
Half, do you think that abuses are so rampant due to all the shame factors and lack of education in this area? So many lack an informative sexual upbringing thus leading to all this fucking dysfunction and abuse!
———————————
Hi Eris67, Good question!
It is difficult to definitively articulate a general theory of abuse and its complex causation. Different types of abuse relate to differing roots. My personal view about the basic dysfunction (it is my view only) is around what the soil constitution (the basic metaphor) is. I’ve worked in the field of mental health a long time – the more ‘ill’ people are is clearly correlated to levels of self-absorption. This has struck me for a while as being a result of entrenched pain that seems insoluble to the person who has become diagnosably disordered – but there is a spectrum. Eric has written quite a bit about Narcissism (being careful to differentiate it from clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
As a contemporary western cultural phenomenon, Narcissism is a basic denial of self that gets dressed up and festers underneath, as a toxified wound – yes, a wound, rather than specifically an illness. Self-absorption is understandable once one sees how difficult it can be to secure healthy, loving attention. Any attention/distraction can start to feel real when there is seemingly nothing else on offer. The malaise of western society in this regard is akin to a desert experience, where refreshing water is urgently needed – delirium is always right near the door – ideal breeding conditions for the basic state of seeing others as a form of food; the source for sating my need.
I do not see the other when I am gripped constantly/pathologically by my own sense of need; buttressed by distorted beliefs garnered through time.
Sexual abuse feels like a by-product, over time, of prevalent (arguably normative in many quarters) psychological and emotional abuse and basic neglect attendant to such deep wounds – that destroy esteem. Inevitably, for some, these wounds fester in ways that make them susceptible to precisely the issues of guilt and shame you mention (whether gleaned from direct experience of sexual abuses or merely from repressed [religious] dogma, trading as the truth about human nature).
Our culture is obsessed with children and this is a big problem too. It lends to over-focus on sexual misdemeanors, especially from predators, that fuel our fears/obsessions and facilitate the projection of our disowned selfhood – drowning as it often is in said guilt and shame – thus we make others wrong, so we don’t have to look at our own interior landscape. And, when we bury it, thinking we hide it, we end up expressing it – one way or another (you don’t need to be Freud to understand this!)
Interestingly, my first post on this thread is basically addressing that fear-based view that more people around equals more danger. When we internalise these deep fears in such a way as to separate off from understanding them, all kinds of further distortions fester – people become more fearful; then they shut down completely and may eventually transmute their deep self-loathing into anti-social impulses and actions – deeply justifying this unawareness through their personal pain and projecting that onto the world that becomes so unfair – and finally justifying any conduct as their pain reflex.
Unquestionably, we must break down these complexes at all points – starting with assiduous honesty when we look into the mirror.
Half
Brilliant!! xoxoxox
Maria…..such great writing! You know I have a poly heart…..It is terrible to be raised without choices…..and through great people like yourself, we are learning that we do have choices…and that is a great feeling. You know, as I visualize your writing, regardless of what type of relationship we are in, its about a common ground…finding people that are progressive in thinking….astrology is a great tool when people are stuck in that area, gives us clarity to find where the blockages are and healing when the time comes……Half, do you think that abuses are so rampant due to all the shame factors and lack of education in this area? So many lack an informative sexual upbringing thus leading to all this fucking dysfunction and abuse! I have not read the statistics, however, so many people live with repressed sexual urges and no real place to share their feelings without being condemned….or utterly shamed…..and thats a fucking shame. I worked with sex offenders as a nurse in a jail setting, and my intuitive feel was that they had huge repression issues and an inability to talk about it due to denial of self and lack of a healthy sexual education. So rather than deal with the feelings…they repress it even further……and take it out either in a unhealthy lifestyle or worse reoffending. Real healing needs to start taking place. The mental health crew in jail and prison settings are overwhelmed….I am starting with myself, and hopefully I can share as much as I can, with those in need too.
When people are loving and open about life….whether poly or not, a healthy life will guild itself into fruition.
Peace and Love,
Patricia
——————–
I do think that some people (especially people with children) may be reluctant to do that kind of sharing because perhaps they have read the same statistics I have. After a divorce, fifty percent of all girls get molested by either their step fathers, their mothers’ boyfriends, or their fathers. Boys get molested too but are even more afraid to report it.
——————–
This paragraph is a great example of the perils of statistics!
After a divorce, people (especially women with children) feel more vulnerable (yes ‘feel’). The likelihood of unwise choices in order to chase away fears is much greater – rebound relationships are so common, esteem is on the floor, “no-one will have me and my kids” etc. So these ‘statistics’ regardless of source, show only that people make somewhat pressured choices in such circumstances. Correspondingly, men who might otherwise have struggled to secure a relationship (and who have esteem and suppressed anger of their own), will find outlets otherwise unavailable – all that karma just waiting to explode into motion once the cocktail of pains mix. That would account for the figures. Quoting statistics in a general way obscures the causation unfortunately and creates the sense of fait accompli.
We should always ask ‘Why?’
But the follow-up is just plain inaccurate:
——————-
This is because after divorce, the children are exposed to more people and are left with people who are not their mothers. In any communal living arrangement (poly or not), the risk of child sexual abuse rises because the communal living creates access.
——————-
In fact, once you cut out the naked statistics initially suggested, by factoring causality in, there is no warrant for extending conclusions to “any communal living arrangement”. Neither can the statement “the risk of child sexual abuse rises because the communal living creates access” be taken as fact.
The issue is truly one of the values inhabiting the sub-culture. While values don’t guarantee anything, an absence of unifying values and awareness will inevitably lead to risk. Hopefully, we are not speaking about communities with few explicit values and little awareness, building such communities?
In my view, in even a moderately aware but values-replete, sub-cultural situation of community, exposure to more people REDUCES the risk of abuse.
You see, it is also a choice whether to see more potential predators (fear), or more potential eyes and ears to spot abuse from other sources (faith). There are more role models for the child, more opportunities to build varied trust/protection modalities and more adults available, in close, that a child can open up to about anything.
Traditional and nuclear families are much more successful at propagating abuse in general, having the cover of insularity, with no outside outlets that a child can reach out to and therefore, no threat to the power base.
Statistics without analysis/reflection can get us ‘proving’ the opposite of what is the case in many situations.
That response I just posted was the second one; the first one disappeared when I tried to paste the link into the field. Merc Rx can be so frustrating!
Maria,
Excellent article. The separating out of families happened (so my sociology books tell me) because after WWII, the American factories were retooled to make stuff but Europe was in no position to buy. To market to the American people (who had the means to buy) there was a campaign to get families to split off into the so-called nuclear family (called that for the times it happened because it happened after we had “the bomb”). Public service ads, magazine articles, pre-movie ads all pressured young people to move out and get their own lives because “Social Security can take care of mom and pop.” The added bonus was that this also created a mobile workforce so the companies could move people around to where they wanted them; before the war people lived in homes with several generations and were reluctant to leave these. So yes, it WAS a planned, conscious act to get Americans to separate out, buy stuff, and become consumers.
The kind of community living you describe (poly or not) has been done and successfully for a long time in Israel. These are called kibbutzim (one is a kibbutz). These communities share everything (except each other but then, maybe they do and we just haven’t heard about it). Here’s a link to a website that explains the kibbutz way of life in detail:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/kibbutz.html
It is an idea that should be considered here in this country.
I do think that some people (especially people with children) may be reluctant to do that kind of sharing because perhaps they have read the same statistics I have. After a divorce, fifty percent of all girls get molested by either their step fathers, their mothers’ boyfriends, or their fathers. Boys get molested too but are even more afraid to report it. This is because after divorce, the children are exposed to more people and are left with people who are not their mothers. In any communal living arrangement (poly or not), the risk of child sexual abuse rises because the communal living creates access.
Maria, thanks for another insightful essay. I’ve been chewing on these issues for a while now. Whether we are poly, monogamous, or celibate, single or in multiple relationships, if we haven’t explored the questions of community and mutual support, love, human decency and responsibility to each other, family (chosen or stuck with), AND consumerism, without a doubt, the economy is going to force our hand. Most of the couples (gay and straight) I know are still hanging on to this single-family model. Even folks with really progressive politics and a good deal of self-awareness have not seemed to stop to question it. I think this is primarily the case because most of my friends are middle class, if not white, as well. (There are so many reasons for us not to question a.)our own privilege and b.) the ways we perpetuate a materialistic and spiritually bankrupt system.) Anyway, all of these things had been in my awareness but when I left the financial security of being in a partnership, they came up in my face. So many of us, though educated and middle-class, are still one job, one divorce, one illness away from a very different financial reality.
I recently lived for 5 months with friends (a married couple) and another single woman, sharing a house. I loved it, but other circumstances took me away. It had been years since I hadn’t lived in the house I owned (with all of its expenses, responsibilities, and *excess*.) How is it that we (or at least I) bought into this model for so long?
I committed to a year of living alone, in part as a gift to myself, to explore this ever-changing light show that I call me, but I am really clear very that I want and need to own very few possessions now. I want friends and community. I want the Victory Garden, too, literally (at least a garden) and figuratively. I certainly could make it on my own, but I understand not only what a high price I paid for that attitude (even in a couple) but the high price that the earth pays.
I want to thank you for making some things very explicit, because the way you put it really helped me feel resolved:
“There are a lot of people sitting at lovely granite countertops or on oversize down-filled cushions watching big screens, with several cars in the oversize garage right now, who tell themselves daily that they have these things and this somewhat more secure life because of their hard work and smart financial strategic planning. They say anyone can get this life if they’re willing to work, really work! But somewhere inside they know that they mostly got them because of sheer luck — born on third base and thought they hit it home, right? The right color, the right parents, the right dodges and compromises, straight teeth, happened to be alive when America was peaking and rode that wave, the right blinders in the right places — the ability to shut out the fact that we walk on the bodies of the poor to have the lives we live. I believe in this kind of conspiracy — that groups of people deliberately indulge in self-delusion to keep something they mutually believe they want.”
Wow. Not only are you an amazing writer… But also an amazing thinker. The whole concept of not consuming being a crime is dead-on. There was a time when I wanted to get a credit card, to cover my ass in an emergency if one should arise (which I realize is in itself ridiculous) and I was scoffed at because I didn’t own a car, didn’t own a house. Didn’t own. Didn’t own. I still don’t. I own some stuff, but only to make a home environment. And, yes, satisfy a predilection for leather. So i have really cool leather sofas. And that about sums up my “things.” Oh and a really cool table that people gather around and talk.
And that whole idea of so-separate households… Isolation from others. Mine. Mine. Mine. Not yours. Fences. You don’t mention fences, but in my 13 years of living in this small city I have seen fences go up everywhere. Literal fences. Stay out. Stay away. Don’t touch. Fear? Fear of what?
And yet… I hear constantly about loneliness. I’m a loner so I’m not sure how far I could take communal living of any sort… I’m probably more suited for a stick building in the wilds. But people ARE lonely, segregated, isolated. I read about it, hear about it, see it.
Blech.
Great article, Maria. I look forward to your stuff every week.
xm