Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
If the Amish can decide to refuse medical care for their children, the Jews can practice male genital cutting, the Klan can teach their children to hate people for the melanin content of their skin, many societies let the doctors "correct" intersex conditions surgically without so much as parental consent, and so forth ... what the hell does it matter whether the children grow up in an otherwise ordinary household with an unbalanced power dynamic? Sure, "let them decide for themselves". Screw that. They can't. Quite simply put, their parents and immediate environment while growing up, these stick certain ideas in their head, ranging from potty training to ethics, and at the end of the day, these kids are allowed to enter society. There, they are exposed to ideas that vary somewhat from those they have in their heads, and they can compare, pick and choose, and even come up with their own points of view (otherwise known as "deciding for themselves"). At this point, they can do that. Not before. Or does one propose we leave the kids as somewhat intelligent monkeys with overdeveloped vocal chords (their own decision)? Humans came out of the trees at some point, and gradually, over the course of countless millenia, developed a social inheritance that supplemented genetic inheritance (technically speaking, we had social inheritance from the apes we descended from, but I digress). This social inheritance ranges from language, through ideas and knowledge, to behaviour and skills. It also displays some slight variability (slight, if you compare to apes, at least). And we pass the local flavour on to our children, warts and all. Or does anyone think we should suddenly invade Japan and take the kids there from their parents, since the modern sarariman-families (yes, I know other parts of society are starting to change in this respect) have a distinct power dynamic that probably surpasses the imbalance of these "surrendered wives"? Can we even find some intersection between human cultures that will provide some "average" social inheritance that we can standardize for children? Certainly, such an intersection would be quite handsomely dominated by Chinese, Indian and African cultures, since they are the most numerous in the world. For that matter, do we want standardization, or is such diversity one of the few strengths we as humans have, one of the things worth keeping? No man or woman is an island unto herself / himself, nor can we be, for humans are not born self-sufficient. We all come from somewhere, and we all choose where to go from there once we are allowed to stand on our own. Those children whose parents are involved in relationships with such imbalanced power dynamics are no different in this regard. And, in the end, parents are human, too. Couples, in fact. (In the west, at least; I don't think any western nation recognizes poly- or endogamous relationships yet.) These couples have a relationship that not only predates the children, but is in fact the very reason the children exist in the first place. I posit that this relationship is important, and that is should remain what it was, so that the true foundation of the relationship (love, caring, and hard work) can be an example to the children as they grow up. Whether the parents have a particular orientation does not matter; lesbian parents are illegal many places, but in those places where they are legal, they do better than heterosexual parents on all parameters, including providing male role models for the children (we are a social species, the children learn from their environment just as well as their parents, with enough exposure). Similarly, it does not, or should not, matter whether there is a power dynamic. If we do not accept atypical relationships between parents as children grow up, it does not matter how much we speak of tolerance and diversity in society. They will know the truth. And that truth will be that only the public face is acceptable, that only conformity is allowed, and that- while we may tolerate (as in, "put up with") a different "wiring"- it is still shameful to live it. This puts a final limit on how far we as humans can develop. Until we let go of this restriction, we cannot transcend the bounds of our prejudices and misconceptions, ever. No amount of effort will do it. We aren't talking about "indecent" exposure here. I'll leave that topic for another thread. But there is no difference in this regard. All sides of WIITWD have parallels in vanilla relationships. It isn't form, but function, that matters. The children will perceive the function (that is how they are able to correctly apply what they have learned in the first place) and they can easily relate to other forms (that is how they can assimilate different cultures, and shift between relating to adults and peers). Just like the vanilla wife isn't going to blow her husband in front of the kids, the kinky one isn't going to ride her husband to the elbow in front of them either. If heavy play is going on, soundproofing resolves the only remaining issue, which is that of the kids feeling safe. Something that can be enhanced in a power exchange household, as communication is (ideally) more explicit, and there is not only someone to take charge and say "not in front of the kids" when an argument breaks out, but the partner is going to listen. We may know that this is considered "wrong" by prevailing societal standards of morality and propriety. Almost like a "black" person sitting in the front of the bus some decades ago, eh? They children don't. They are blank slates. Let's not mar them.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|