Care of kids from open relationships

alexi

Member
There is often a desire for kids even though one may be averse to a committed relationship. The general worry is if people who do not like to marry for any reason and have kids what will be the position of the kids. What is a wholesome way of bringing up the next generation?
I thought maybe we should have a community supported group which looks after the welfare of such kids in the best possible way and also allowing the actual parents (in open relationships but staying separately) also bond with their offspring.
What do you feel?
Best regards
Alexi
 
If the parents don't live together, the child will of course have to be carted back and forth between domiciles ...

Care must be taken to ensure that the child's needs get due priority ...

How would this community supported group work? How will it look after the welfare of the kids? Will people meet in person or just exchange ideas via the internet (perhaps via this thread)?

Just wondering,
Kevin T.
 
When people with similar interests (say) "Open Relationships", come together and form a support group with the main aim of providing equal opportunities for the kids; particularly if they cannot be provided with basic minimum facilities by the parents, for whatever reason; then something similar to how churches manage can be adopted. This way the continuity of a well educated future generation can be ensured; without the negative implications of broken homes etc.,.
Alexi
 
If the parents don't live together, the child will of course have to be carted back and forth between domiciles ...

Care must be taken to ensure that the child's needs get due priority ...

No different than taking care of your children, post-divorce. And, in some cases, a whole lot less toxic, I'm sure.

It's funny how much of the stuff that's worried about (re. children of people in poly relationships) has been the way life goes for people after they're divorced.

Not advocating that divorce is a great thing for the kids (although, in some cases, it's sure better than staying in a bad marriage), but the worst case stuff that gets brought up is stuff society already does now (schlepping kids back and forth, wondering if the kids should get used to mom/dad's new partner(s), etc.). In the best case (family-wise), you have a group all under the same roof actively involved in all the childrens' lives.

My two cents, I guess, but I fail to see a "poly problem" here, even though I know it's one of the first things opponents complain about.
 
I seem to be caught in two contrasting discussions at the same time, to wit:

Re: shuttling a child between two homes ... doesn't bother me at all per se. I suppose the most important thing is checking in with the child (often) to see how he/she feels about various things.

Re: support groups with the main aim of providing equal opportunities for the kids ... sounds like the type of groups that would need to be formed within localized areas. I can't provide basic minimum facilities to a child who lives halfway across the world, can I? unless we're talking about becoming online pen pals (and/or tutors) to faraway children.

Are we actually trying to build support groups via this thread, or are we just pondering the benefits of building such groups? I am guessing it's more of the latter.

How would these support groups differ from, say, an intentional community?
 
There is often a desire for kids even though one may be averse to a committed relationship.
Alexi

Having kids is the biggest commitment you can make, so I'm confused how you can think two people would want to have kids, yet not want commitment. Kids are a bigger commitment than marriage or anything else you could possibly do.

However, if you know people who want kids, yet are the kind of people who can't keep up a commitment to finishing a book or change their mind about what they want to eat halfway through eating it, or are just flaky in general....I can understand your having concern.

Makes me think of this :)

http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-who-cracked-3-separate-iphone-screens-expect,32538/
 
I see Osho's point about communal living ... the idea that the kids will have more "parental models" and a more well-rounded understanding of what people and relationships are right for them. There is in addition the ideal that their needs will always be provided for because the whole commune will pitch in.

As for marriage being formulated because men needed to know who their offspring were (so as to pass on their lands to the right offspring), it should be noted that besides social changes taking shape in our world, there are also scientific advances that will change the shape of how humans handle social issues -- in this case, the fact that paternity can now be discovered/confirmed via DNA testing. Who knows what but that technological advance will dissolve the original purpose for marriage? though I suppose marriage has accumulated other (reasons? justifications? excuses?) for its existence since the old days when establishing paternity was all that mattered.
 
It takes a whole village to raise a child.

Igbo and Yoruba (Nigeria) Proverb

Explanation:

This Igbo and Yoruba (Nigeria) proverb exists in different forms in many African languages. The basic meaning is that child upbringing is a communal effort. The responsibility for raising a child is shared with the larger family (sometimes called the extended family). Everyone in the family participates especially the older children, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and even cousins. It is not unusual for African children to stay for long periods with their grandparents or aunts or uncles. Even the wider community gets involved such as neighbors and friends. Children are considered a blessing from God for the whole community. This communal responsibility in raising children is also seen in the Sukuma (Tanzania) proverb "One knee does not bring up a child" and in the Swahili (East and Central Africa) proverb "One hand does not nurse a child."

In general this Nigerian proverb conveys the African worldview that emphasizes the values of family relationships, parental care, self-sacrificing concern for others, sharing, and even hospitality. This is very close to the Biblical worldview as seen in scripture texts related to unity and cooperation (Ecclesiastes 4:9,12) and a mother's self-sacrificing love (Isaiah 49:15-16).

The multiple uses of this Nigerian proverb show the timeliness and relevancy of African proverbs in today's world. In 1996 Hillary Clinton, the wife of the President of the United States, published a book on children and family values entitled "It Takes a Village" based on this proverb. That same year Maryknoll Father Don Sybertz and I published the first edition of our book "Towards An African Narrative Theology" (now available from Paulines Publications Africa, Nairobi, Kenya and Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, USA). In Chapter Three on "Community'' we used this Nigerian proverb and many other African proverbs and sayings on the values of community, unity, cooperation and sharing. In Dallas, Texas there was a controversy over four security guards that whipped some kids who broke into a mall. The parents of the kids said that the guards had no right to discipline their kids, but the guards said that they did what they did because "the village raises the children."

The Anglican Archbishop John Sentamu of York, England at a consultation in Swanwick, England in September, 2005 stated: "As It takes a whole village to raise a child so it takes the whole global village to eradicate poverty . It starts with each of us personally. [For example] do we buy Fairtrade goods?"

Rev. Joseph G. Healey, M.M.
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania:)

The proverb "It takes a village to raise a child" means that the work of raising a child cannot be done alone; rather, an entire community must participate to some extent in the task. This proverb is African in origin.
 
Last edited:
The African philosophy may be largely based on a model of relatively small communities that are separated from each other by substantial distances. In much of the world, communities have expanded until the spaces between them have disappeared. The whole world is gradually morphing into one single community.

This is a complex process with many growing pains. Many factions and nations are still at war with each other. We are then faced with the challenge of understanding how a community raises a child when "the community" is now a whole planet, much of it in a state of conflict. One way people often put the children in the community's hands is by establishing public schooling. But schools can be political institutions so this doesn't work universally. Many people homeschool.

Social programs like welfare also seek to place the needs of the children into the community's hands. But some people say that government assistance should be replaced by private charity.

How the world will function as one large combined community is a riddle for unborn generations to solve. In the meantime we have to figure out how to make do with a fractured community.
 
The children were not going to belong to the parents: they could love them, they could meet them, they could invite them, but they cannot possess them. They have been only vehicles of bringing those children to the world. The children are not their property. The commune will take care of the children.
Hence, marriage loses its relevance.
You can be together with a woman or a man as long as you love. Except love, there is no other reason to be together. There should not be any other reason to be together. Because any other reason is going to be wrong reason.
No law, no logic, no convenience, no respectability…the moment you see the love has disappeared it is time to depart in deep gratitude, friendship, remembering all the beautiful moments that you have given to each other. Not spoiling it by fighting, quarreling, going to a court for a divorce—it is absolutely ugly.
When there is no marriage there is no question of divorce.
When there is no marriage prostitution disappears automatically.
Prostitution is the shadow of marriage. It is the marriage in which love has died that creates the prostitute—the ugliest institution in existence.
The old society forces the woman to sell her body for money.
This is a crime which cannot be forgiven and strange is the fact that all the old societies are against prostitution and they are the causes to create it; and they can't see the simple logic that when a man cannot feel love for his wife and cannot enjoy her…she is no more an ecstasy to him—he tries to find, perhaps he can buy ecstasy, he can buy love, he can buy happiness…a desperate effort of a miserable man….

OSHO
http://www.oshoworld.com/biography/innercontent.asp?FileName=biography8/08-21-communes.txt
 
Adults who want sex without the responsibility of childrearing have a technological option: birth control. Just sayin'.

Re: the ugliest institution in existence ... wouldn't that be war? or torture? or mass murder? What about pollution? corporate greed? political corruption? racism? sexism? How about the fact that prostitution isn't legalized and regulated? because if it was, prostitutes could then turn to the police and the justice system for help when they're attacked, abused, in danger, violated, robbed, or underpaid. I tend to think that prostitution falls rather far down on the list of ugly institutions -- if it belongs on that list at all.

Sorry if that's overly off-topic, but ...
 
Back
Top