Modern? Um, arranged marriages, child marriages, and forced marriages are far from modern yet they are inherently transactional and were extremely common in the past. Hardly modern.
We even consider it "tradition" to have a woman's father walk her down the isle during a wedding ceremony to "give her away" - representing a transfer of property from father to husband.
> "give her away" - representing a transfer of property from father to husband.
I doubt you're a father of a daughter you love dearly, or I think you'd see it differently. Have you ever heard a dad half-joking about how reluctant he felt to let his daughter go out on her first date? (Or jokes fathers sometimes tell about cleaning guns when first meeting her new boyfriend, etc.)
There is a "letting go" involved, and especially so when she gets married: someone else will be the first man in her life now. "Giving her away" in the wedding ceremony symbolizes that "letting go" that the dad does--hopefully willingly, joyfully, and knowing the man she's marrying will love her dearly.
> Have you ever heard a dad half-joking about how reluctant he felt to let his daughter go out on her first date? (Or jokes fathers sometimes tell about cleaning guns when first meeting her new boyfriend, etc.)
You're arguing against yourself here. That this trope exists for daughters and not for sons only reinforces the concept of women-as-property.
I don’t see how that follows logically. Feeling particularly protective of someone under your care doesn’t imply you think of them as property.
A more logical conclusion is that you feel protective because you recognize a threat (either real or perceived) to their safety and you have accepted responsibility for protecting them.
I'd like to read about the past 'forced' marriages.. I think we're being led to a mostly financial contract whereas I presume the human context of the past made these things way more emotional than it appears to be.
It's naive to me. Even today you're 'forced' to an extent. You don't marry someone that won't integrate.
I think back in the days kids immaturity was just too dangerous to let them marry whoever at the risk of destroying the family. I've seen that even today, when people are free there are long term costs. 1000 years ago it seems obvious that this was a matter of life and death and picking who will your kids marry was both logical and emotional optimum.
I would not be too worried. We had internet dating take over.
As a guy on dating sites it is apparent that love is already transactional and has always been.
Height, baldness, race, nationality seem to be the primary checkboxes for most women, shockingly even your education, work or usefulness to society rank pretty low.
I would qualify that and say: Relations are becoming more shallow and more transactional. Co-parenting with someone is still a long-term relationship, albeit every person in that relationship (including the child) is less close to every other person in it.
I think marriage for practical reasons is a very ancient phenomenon. Of course most people prefer to find someone who is both a good practical partner and attractive to them romantically, but if you can't do both probably better to have the practical connection without the romance than the opposite.
Probably a regression from Judeo-Christian values, where personal relationships and the character required to live relationally within a community are valued far above transactional or contractual relationships.
Those specific commands you name were given to people who were from a far worse background, and were a huge step up from what they had become accustomed to in their 400 years as slaves in ancient Egypt. As Jesus says about the Mosaic divorce law, "Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard. But it was not always this way from the beginning."
If you want to criticize Judeo-Christian values, I suggest you start from a modern Jewish or Christian understanding of the values or scriptures in question.
Look you can cherry pick all you want. But I've wasted a few decades trying to work through the inconsistencies and woo. Give me some scientific evidence instead of appealing to authority and nostalgia.
You were criticizing certain scriptural passages with what seemed to be an obvious lack of understanding of how those passages are understood by modern Jews and Christians.
The comment about polygamy is along the same lines -- where it occurs in scriptural narrative, it is not condoned, merely reported truthfully. Modern Jews and Christians don't understand scripture (in whole or in part) to be condoning the practice at all
> Give me some scientific evidence instead of appealing to authority and nostalgia.
I have appealed to neither authority nor nostalgia, unless you want to call talking about scripture an appeal to authority. The veracity of scripture is a basic assumption in Jewish and Christian belief, and I'll leave it at that. This thread isn't a good place to debate that topic.
These scriptures don't condemn slavery, polygamy, etc yet they're supposedly authored (however indirectly) by a perfectly moral, all powerful being.
In fact they demand women submit to husbands unconditionally, never teach men, not speak up during gatherings, rarely inherit property, and from time to time act as the spoils of war.
Modern Christian understanding varies, but even the most progressive is still founded on appeals to an authority who claims should not be tested.
Again, it's clear you don't understand the scriptures you're referring to. I'll keybase you if you want to discuss further (I certainly enjoy discussing these topics!) but this isn't a good forum for that.
For most people in most societies it always was. It just used to be surplus value extraction from the wife for the husband and clan, and later the capitalist employing the husband. With the increase in bargaining power of women in society extraction of surplus value bacame more two-way and the capitalist class was able to extract surplus value directly from the women instead of roundabout through the men. Hence both partners need to work to have the same living standard as before with just one partner working.
You could argue that in the past a lot of relationships were also transactional. In many circles marriage was more about securing inheritance. Marriage out of love is a relatively new concept.
A small inheritance/dowry is still an inheritance/dowry. Also the transaction of a woman providing a man with children, in exchange for economic and physical security, is as old as civilization.
No, it was actually true of a very large segment of population at least in the 18th to early 20th centuries in europe / NA : small farmers a.k.a 70-90% of the population
As someone who is largely aromantic and asexual, I have many times considered adopting a child with a close friend, because although romantic/sexual relationships don't appeal to me much, I would still love to be a parent, and have a (somewhat) traditional nuclear family.
It's definitely a possibility, let's see if it works out.
>When you see friends with kids you realize it isn't rocket science.
It isn't hard to do, it's exceedingly hard to do consistently and well.
That being said, all of the headaches are outweighed by watching a hot weirdo develop out of the tiny baby you made. It is amazingly funny to watch children figure out the world.
We hardly even agree on what that means. An ISIS terrorist grown of a family of ISIS terrorists would be “job well done” from the parents’ perspective.
There are just as many examples of “I just wanted you to inherit the family business / uphold our traditional mores / have a simple life like we do”. It’s a very contentious topic and in many ways it was not even considered on a large scale until the 1960s, the default assumption being that someone born in a family of X should accept he is a X too, and the duty of their family was to raise them to be that X. This was even enforced legally, with aristocracy, slavery, castes, etc. Personal wishes and individual psychological wellbeing were just not a thing.
Still today, the degree of conformity enforced on kids, that you see in many cultures, makes it extremely difficult to find a common definition of “good parenting”. Would a “good parent” force you to fast from sunrise to sunset for a month, or encourage you to join an organization that requires permanent celibacy? What about pushing you to prominently display your faith in everyday situations, despite the real possibility of physical violence against you? Or inviting you to mate inside the same ethnic community as your parents, “to keep traditions alive”? Or even just pushing you to follow fitness regimes, because “healthy”, even though you hate sports and exercise? Is that good or bad? These are very big questions and I don’t think we’re anywhere near finding common answers for them.
> It isn't hard to do, it's exceedingly hard to do consistently and well.
Children aren't clay you can mold to your liking. They are born with their own temper, their own aptitudes, their own limits, and it's the environment that does more than your conscious parenting to finish them as a person.
I gotta point out that my wife and I conceived while she was on an IUD. (In 2020) It wasn't a big deal for us, because we were about to go off of birth control.
Can you imagine being married, having a vasectomy, and still using condoms? Awful. Might as well be celibate, fuck. That's no way to live. Condoms feel terrible. Double up with some other birth control and be monogamous so you don't have to worry about disease. And fucking feel something.
Condoms + vasectomy. Jesus. I'd rather eat nothing but kale the rest of my life than get a vasectomy and continue to use condoms with my wife.
It is a lot of responsibility indeed but it comes with benefits too. Parenting is an experience you can skip on, but you can’t know what you’re missing until you go through it. Lots of people change their perspective once they become parents and few regret it - it’s like reaching a new stage in development/life.
I do wonder how many actually regret it. It's socially unacceptable to regret having kids, plus it would be awful on the kids if you openly regretted it. I'd expect that the numbers who do regret it are probably higher than those who admit it, but how high I've no idea.
I don't think it's all-or-nothing issue. As a stay at home dad, there were times when I was so tired and depressed that I was on the verge of tears taking my toddlers to the playground.
Did I regret having them? If you asked me in that 5 minutes - I my have said yes. It complicates your life, makes things harder introduces additional stress into what could otherwise be a simple, uncomplicated life. It makes you worry more about - say - the outcome of elections.
Overall though? I share a house with two teenagers who I love deeply, who are lots of fun and I can't imagine being without.
Even if they are a wonderful human being it basically limits your own choices and potential. If you had moved to a dead-end city with your partner and then break-up... it can be soul killing. ...for a friend. That's it.
Plenty regret it, but they will never admit it so you’ll never know for sure - not unlike voting for certain candidates. And it gets re-evaluated with time.
I did regret it for some time. I still regret it many, many times in a day. Other times the kids save my life and it all looks somewhat worth it. But I just don’t see it as some mystical experience, on balance. It’s probably different for mothers though.
This is my big fear. What if I don't switch, and I really did, deeply regret it? There's no way out. It seems like very serious commitment is necessary.
That's how it started for me. Then, my child came along and was already warmed up to that idea and everything else just happened naturally. Yes, this is an experience that I would not want to skip on having but if you asked me before whether I am ready to make this step I would probably give you the answer: "I'm not sure" and I completely understand people who hesitate starting family. I've also changed after becoming a parent.
I don't know how old you are, but that's how I was up until my mid 20's. When I "dated" in college and in my 20s, I was mostly looking for companionship. Something clicked when I turned 30, and then I found my wife.
Anyway, makes me wonder if there's a niche for aromantic and asexual "dating?" I used to hear stories of couples who didn't have a lot of sex and were just in it for the friendship.
I didn't have a word for this until recently - demisexual.
"a sexual orientation on the asexual spectrum defined as someone who does not experience sexual attraction until they have formed a deep emotional connection with someone."
I suspect that after a few years, a lot (if not most) of "regular" couples are de facto platonic and don't have romantic feelings. In a sense, these guys just skip the first step of sex, romance and infatuation.
"Contrary to what has been widely believed, long-term romantic love (with intensity, sexual interest, and engagement, but without the obsessive element common in new relationships), appears to be a real phenomenon that may be enhancing to individuals’ lives—positively associated with marital satisfaction, mental health, and overall well-being. [...] long-term marriage does not necessarily kill the romance in one's relationship"
This is the case in my marriage, but not in my parents’. They are musicians, artists, perform together and/or take active stakes in each other’s careers. They weren’t sexual as I was growing up (I’m not giving intimate details here) but they had this whole other source of cohesion. A much greater one indeed — I have fond sexual memories but my parents have dozens of live albums at cool venues.
Then, maybe all of this anomie is a disease of affluence. The other thing that united my parents was that, well, they had to fight for survival and for the means if giving us kids a decent childhood experience. Maybe that alone works like continuous shared trauma, us-two-against-the-world.
That article says romance exists, not that it's the majority situation. Even leaving aside unromantic surviving marriages, the high divorce rate is strong evidence.
of course there are couples like that. OP was asking about the majority. is the majority like that? that study you linked doesn't seek to answer this question.
OP had a hunch and I provided something that wasn't just an opinion. If you then looked at the literature you could have pointed out that some research support an erosion theory of relationship satisfaction. I could have answered back that there is evidence that relationship satisfaction is a huge factor for relationship stability (who would have known), and stability should support relationship longevity. In the end we wouldn't be that much closer to a sure answer to the question, but we would all have learned something worthwhile about the topic.
It's a large and sprawling field of research. Why don't you dig into it yourself?
You know who has more sex? Unmarried couples. Sex frequency goes down with relationship duration. So if you want to have lots of sex you want to go between relationships instead of staying a long time in one.
That assumes the person in question is moving from relationship to relationship quickly, as opposed to more common pattern of long stretches of time with no relationship.
I think it almost is guaranteed to at least sometimes, if it's not already there from the beginning.
I am deeply skeptical of claims of a platonic relationship in which the couple is having sex to conceive (per the article). It seems almost by definition not platonic at that point.
It think the "platonic" schema is what binds the couple. A couple where the members are saying they don't want romance etc but are having sex and raising children over the long haul might just be expressing a mutual interest in a form of relational style, just like other couples that express a desire for a different relational style. If you have two people who don't want to admit they want a relationship, or want some basics but not the warm and fuzzies most people are looking for, you'd end up with something like this.
Anecdotally many are in unhappy marriages but we also have no-fault divorce. So you can end it if need be. I suspect you are wrong though. If everyone has an exit to take and everyone wants to take the exit, aside from a cohort that cannot take the exit, why don’t they?
Divorce statistics say that a lot of people do take the exit. But, yes, statistics also say that a lot of those people get remarried. So if people keep getting married over and over, they must like it for some reason.
I don't understand the use of the word Platonic in the title. The couple described doesn't seem to match either the ancient or the contemporary definition of Platonic love.
Yes, there's nothing platonic in this, it's a standard arranged marriage. Unless there's no marriage involved but there better be some legal arrangement or things can go south really quick with becoming a single parent.
Yeah. After the women had to get drunk to bring herself to do it.
And it was not parenting then. Parenting comes later. And this seems to be without sex by design. (even though I would assume it still happens with some "couples")
This is what I plan on doing because I'm gay. I want to have a family but the majority of gay men never have a long term partner and the ones that do hardly ever have children because the process is so difficult and expensive. Ideally, I'll be able to find a woman who is willing to co-parent with me without any expectation of romance or sexual attraction. It's nice to see that this kind of thing might be normalized some day.
Is that changing? And I mean both the long term relationship and the expense having children part? The majority of my male friends are gay and while there are a lot of happily single men there's also a significant chunk who are in healthy long term relationships and a load who are actively looking.
I know less about the children side but I know a few gay men who have adopted, single or as part of a couple, and they described the process as rigorous but not unduly so. I guess this depends where you live, I'm in Scotland, which is supposedly the least homophobic country in the world (an extremely depressing fact) so maybe it's easier for gay men to adopt here.
A good friend of mine actually ended up going that route. The father lives in a foreign country though but they're friends and wish to collaborate in the process. Once Covid is behind us they'll resume trying.
The article leads with 'I wanted to meet a mate and have a baby without wasting time’.
It also reads as if the people in the article optimized their lives for money and then realized in mid life that they neglected the core parts of forming deep personal romantic connections. It casts the forming of deep romantic bonds as "wasting time" and as something that can be purchased later on.
Married men earn more. The economy is disincentivized to protect or encourage healthy marriage. There are a number of other factors that also serve to drive us towards later child birth, fewer marriages, and the outsourcing of everything the family would have done in the past.
"I noticed a lot of people were having kids and starting families later in life. Many would spend their 20’s and 30’s focused on advancing their careers, making money, and pursuing individual experiences and travel. As they got older, many people, particularly women approaching 40 who were still single, started to feel the pressures of biological clock and were growing frustrated by the short term casual relationships they were finding on the mainstream dating apps. They had limited options for finding a like-minded person who was ready to start a family. I wanted to build a platform for everyone who is ready to start a family and help educate them on all of the ways they can make that happen. We connect and educate people who are looking to start a family in any arrangement that works best for them, whether it be a romantic relationship, a platonic co-parent, or a known donor."[1]
I find it highly unlikely that someone who spend over 15 years in causual short relationships to suddenly be able to completely change approaching 40ties.
Long term relationships are different then short term ones and changing habits is hard.
This is sad, but divorce is even sadder. Both phenomena have many negative implications beyond the child's well-being, namely the economy. Consider the waste of each "family" having double the housing, double the cars, double everything...
It's amazing to me that western democracies seem to facilitate single parenting and divorce, instead of discouraging it.
> Consider the waste of each "family" having double the housing, double the cars, double everything...
Because alternative is often quite a lot of suffering of one or both parties.
Even beyond abusive/controlling/openly hostile relationships, you have people who completely checked out of marriage long before divorce. Their partners finally calling end to it are just putting paper on what was reality before.
The thing about traditional marriages with low divorces is that abuse whether physical or verbal was a fact of life in many families. It also often meant alcoholic or gambling partner for years, it meant couples that looked down at each other. Nowdays alcohol was replaced by gaming all the time in some couples, which is milder, but still fully understandable.
I think you're jumping to conclusions. I mean, it may be true that most co-parents still don't share many of the physical assets but considering how co-living has been increasing in the last decade it would only make sense for co-parents to arrange for something similar.
I mean, even divorced parents tend to try to live close to each other. Why wouldn't amicably arranged co-parents not opt for the same if that means easier parenting and living costs?
From your reasoning I understand why you’re against divorced/separated/never-married parents but not why you’re against single parents. Against might be an overstatement.
Man, this is messed up. I mean, if it works, it works...but I wonder if this is a symptom that traditional relationships are becoming harder because of our changing lifestyle. Or maybe they were always hard, but now it's just easier to see how hard because of the internet.
I don't know, but it just doesn't feel right to me.
This article presents a false dichotomy. There is nothing preventing these two people from hating each other and having some divorce-like custody hearing. It may even be more likely, there is no data on this new “approach”.
Commitment is quickly becoming a foreign term, but I don't think that applies to the people in the article.
> “Except we could be totally honest about wanting to have a kid soon, without the goofiness and flirting of a first date. You’re looking to achieve a common goal.”
Here's a crazy idea: IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU MEET PEOPLE! If both are willing, then that's that! It sounds like they are ready to raise a family and commit because literally YOLO. There are plenty of people who are old and haven't found someone they organically vibe with. In my opinion, this isn't any different than an arranged marriage, so I feel like your fear/discomfort makes little sense here.
Meh, arranged marriages used to be the norm everywhere for thousands of years. In many ways, the assumption that a marriage must be out of reciprocal love was established by Romantic writers barely 200 years ago; most tales from before tend to end up with “passionate lovers” meeting a tragic fate, to reinforce the societal message that infatuation is wrong. In traditional rural societies, the brutal realities of survival came first.
As an aside, I still have no idea how these books ended up making romantic love fashionable. The central example, Werther, is about a man who tries to get a woman away from her husband (while she's having none of it) and then kills himself. And the authorial voice clearly treats Werther as sad and misguided. Why did people take so strongly to it?
The word "romantic" changed meaning. Romantic period of literature is not same thing as romance a genre.
The romantic period was about strong emotions in general, solitude, beauty of nature and host of other love unrelated things. Suicide implies stronger emotions then kiss. Love or passion was just one thing.
India? Also, you'd be surprised how common arranged situations are in even the US. Forgetting about Tinder, et al -- what about friends setting up friends? In the US matchmaking is more subtle, but it is extremely common. It's a matter of culture and norms.
I would say that you have to review your assumptions. Maybe lifelong love that we've been thought was the norm was actually a minority throughout history.
Maniac eros
Maniac ludus
Maniac storge
Agapic eros
Agapic ludus
Agapic storge
Pragmatic eros
Pragmatic ludus
Pragmatic storge
I don’t think people argued that eros lasted a lifetime, but others fill the gap as one matures and life circumstances change. If one is lucky enough to achieve this, it makes for a very happy life (according to self-satisfaction surveys over the decades).
It's tough enough to support yourself these days, let alone a family. A single earner can't look after a family of 5+ as was once possible. Additionally, the increasing stress of careers in the middle class seems to make it harder to build strong relationships in the first place.
I thought this article would be highlighting the economic shift towards coliving with friends, which we've seen to be getting more popular, and therefore the rise of platonic parenting. But I think the same causes can explain the article's subject.
> A single earner can't look after a family of 5+ as was once possible.
Sure they can. It just means the family can afford a 1920 level of material wealth: a room for the boys, a room for the girls, the parents sleep in the living room, the kids wear hand-me-downs and read books from the library for entertainment, the other partner knows how to cook and cooks breakfast, lunch and dinner, the family has chicken once a week and meat on special occasions.
Exactly this. If your expectations time travel, you can do anything.
Should there be more government support for families that want to try this with one parent at home? Singapore is paying $10k, so they are starting to understand the economic impact of having well educated citizens:
For me it's just female dual mating strategy in the open: concieve a baby with the hottest available guy (easy), then find a person who will provide the resources to raise the baby (much harder). Of course the best result comes if the two roles can be fulfilled by the some person, but quite often that doesn't happen. DNA tests make the hidden version of this mating strategy harder, but doing it in the open gets more accepted over time.
For my best friend, the worst part was having parents who were constantly fighting and creating a toxic environment, but refused to separate because "we're staying together for the kids". They often took their frustration with each other out on said kids.
Took then over a decade of therapy to get over the emotional damage and abuse.
My father always said he only wanted to take my sister with him, not me.
He always tried to frame it as a time problem. "I can't take both kids, I don't have the time. If you want me to care more for the kids, give me the girl!"
My mother wouldn't have it. She told him he should take us both or none of us. So he took none of us.
While he didn't take much care of any of us, he showed up at my sisters doorstep once every few years and gifted her expensive stuff.
"the decision to have a child with someone you are not romantically involved with and, in most cases, choose not to live with"
I can understand that a lot of divorced marriages end up in a similar state - this just sounds like getting to that state more quickly - what outcomes does that bring for the child/ren?
The article describes “Platonic” co-parenting in which the parents have sex with each other repeatedly on an ongoing basis, conceive a child, bear it to term, and parent together.
I don’t know what’s “platonic” here. Sounds like regular ass family formation to me. I must have missed the point.
The difference here is it works a lot more like an arranged marriage. (Except it's arranged by first parties.) It's not usually based on hormones and propinquity.
The rise of it is probably caused by people living farther away and working overly long hours, so the standard random dating no longer works.
> It's not usually based on hormones and propinquity.
By the time a couple that was formed under regular circumstances (whatever they are), decides to have children (1/2 years after the beginning of a relationship), hormones are long gone.
And propinquity is not a disadvantage; at least people know each other. Deciding to have children after spending a weekend together ("it felt like a date") is foolish, and a recipe for a disaster, in my opinion.
The article (and overall, the idea) is also dangerously ambiguous about the logistics:
- the decision to have a child with someone [...] in most cases, choose not to live with
In real world, this equates to parents choosing other partners in the mid/long term.
This is therefore radically different than an arranged marriage.
I'd define this as an arranged patchwork family. Whether this is better or not than an arranged marriage (in an extended sense, e.g. two people staying together only because of the children), it's pretty much impossible to say.
I would love it if that became more of a thing - arranged marriages organized by first parties.
Personally I don't need the flirting and dating and romance and all that stuff. What I need is someone who shares my values and is willing to enter into a marriage as a social contract. Being married has a ton of personal and social benefits, and having a spouse who brings in as much income as you works like an insurance policy of sorts in a number of life situations (e.g. long-term job loss).
Obviously there needs to be chemistry if both parties are interested in a monogamic sexual relationship being part of their marriage. But if both parties are willing to dispense with all the dating rituals, that can be determined in seconds.
During those ‘dating rituals’ people actually get to know eachother a bit before comitting to having/raising a child together. I find it a bit odd to not spend some time together before taking this decision.
Yeah, that's true. But there's a difference between typical dating and being upfront about what you want. Usually people look for "the spark" and all that when dating.
The whole point of dating is to figure out whether the other person shares your values, is generally compatible and want similar marriage style as you.
mature adults rationally choosing a partner and marrying not for 'love' that undefinable thing we see in movies but for the actual benefits that marriage offers.
Damn, how do I turn this into an article and get my money!
I sort of envision a writer's table where we people brainstorm ways of repackaging pretty obvious things in ways that sound new and exciting so as to get paid. Maybe this is a business model waiting to happen.
‘Platonic’ doesn’t mean ‘celibate’. It means ‘pure, idealised, undistorted, uncontaminated, archetypal’. Which is a pretty fitting description of these people’s relationships to each other: as co-parents and pretty much nothing else.
Why use the word “platonic” when it doesn’t really apply to this situation?
And just like most things on the internet, it’s not like this is a new phenomenon. People have been marrying and having kids for centuries without being “in love”.
So the kids grow up seeing their parents as just associates. Sounds healthy, what a great way to show your kids how intimacy, empathy, and a normal romantic relationship works.
50% of marriages end in divorce and kids are living in separate homes already. The co-parents do show love for each other, the child, and any other relationship.
>> Anderson already had a young son – she split from his father when he was one. She signed up to two websites in early 2019. She wanted the opportunities that having two parents in a child’s life could bring.
Its known as cuckoldry. Why would a guy want to voluntarily raise another man's child and not even get sex with the mom as part of the deal? That takes it to a whole new level.
I understand raising children as a goal. I can also see raising one you didnt make as a thing. I dont see making such a commitment with a platonic other as much of a thing.
A cynical way to see the woman in the article is that she went and had a good time with the wrong guy - whom she was attracted to - and now is literally looking for a "nice guy" to help raise her kid. The absurd part is that she doesn't even want to bring anything to the table in return and thinks that's perfectly normal.
>> You can look at this article as an advertisement.
Thanks, I somehow forgot about that aspect of the internet for a minute. Now the whole thing makes sense. Men=>AshleyMadison like Women=>ThisSite. Both are mostly selling a fantasy.
Platonic co-parenting only really happens when one party is gay and the other is straight. Modamily's mainstream opportunity is connecting straight people who are ready to start a family for romantic relationships.
I obviously don't want to cast dispersions on people who want to do this out of the goodness of their hearts but this just seems like a magnet for pedophiles.
I know many people reading this are thinking I am crazy or paranoid, but as someone who knew a pedophile as a small child (he was a bus driver, and no I wasn't molested by him, but he did go on to rape another student) I can tell you they will find any job or volunteer duty that allows them to molest kids, even if it destroys their lives. They are constantly scanning any avenues to pursue their aims and are willing to totally alter their careers and lifestyle to fake their way into a position of authority around children. Just a warning to those out their who would think "he just like kids, I can trust this <teacher, priest, etc.>" don't, you still must supervise and listen to your child. I and other bus passengers warned our parents that this man was acting suspiciously and we were ignored.
Such people will always find ways to get to kids. The solution is to create systems so that people who are attracted to children recognise that's wrong and can get psychological/psychiatric help to control their condition without being shamed to the extent that they cannot even confide in mental health practitioners.
I don't really see how this comment makes sense, shaming a pedophile is going to make them more likely to seek treatment. While it's bad to demonize people with mental illness, these people don't typically think they have a problem, unlike depression or alcoholism the victim is someone else not the mentally ill, they typically won't care until they are shamed.
I'm just saying this website should have a warning because I can 100% guarantee pedophiles are trawling it looking for access to children, like they would any other kid based online forum.
You have to make it clear that acting on those urges is morally repugnant while also saying that having the urges isn't fundamentally immoral. That's a tricky balance to walk but it's whats needed if we want these folk to come out of the woodwork and actively seek help before they commit abuses.
