Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Hans Tilstra (hanstilstrarabbit.com.au) | |
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 06:06:39 -0600 (MDT) |
> I have found that lifestyle (sexual preferences) issues are directly > supported in cohousing by how people deal with it. Thus cohousing typically > directly supports monagamous couple relationships because that is what is > tacitly "approved of" by the way people relate and react. So saying that a > cohousing group does not have the capacity, or inherient in cohousing is > nothing to do with lifestyle approval is not true. No, I don't doubt that groups lack the capacity Its just below the direct > level of your group awareness. Pay attention to how people who are not like > you are talked about and referred to. This is why some homosexual and poly > relationships stay in the closet. It's not that they are outright banned by > some community agreement, its that they risk the disapproval of their > neighbors. > > Yes, the OFFICIAL community represented by the bylawish, board/membership > meeting process does not take any OFFICIAL postiion on peoples sex lives, > but the around the dinner table, sidewalk gossipers form the community > positions on many many issues you never actually talk about in an official > meeting. This unofficial process defines many of the cultural norms you will > find in your communities. Confronting this can be a good excercise in > community growth. How people raise their kids is a classic issue. Have > anyone in your group that spanks their kids? I doubt there is any official > policy of your community to forbid spanking, but I bet it would cause uproar > and such from parents that do not. Odds are high, its an almost unanimously > dissaproved of parenting style in your community, and I will also wager that > you have never talked about it in a meeting. > > I was involved in an intense mediation once regarding sex in a community. > The official groups statement and position was that it was none of anybodies > business. The unofficial group sentiment represented somewhat widely was > outrage at the sexual practices of a particular subgroup (partner swapping) > and it took quite a bit of work for the group to own up to their unofficial > gossipizing and disapproval. In the meeting it was all smiles and statements > of acceptance, in private it was all frowns and dissaproval. This > dichotomoy, between the public arena, and the private arena is very > interesting to pay attention to, you can learn a lot about a community when > you examine the difference between the two. > > Rob Sandelin > Northwest Intentional Communties Association > Building a better society, one neighborhood at a time > > > >
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING, (continued)
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Unnat, October 19 1999
- RE: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Rob Sandelin, October 20 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Deb Smyre, October 20 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Lee Irwin, October 20 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Hans Tilstra, October 21 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Michael McIntyre, October 21 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Maggi Rohde, October 21 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING administration, October 21 1999
- Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING Jennifer S. Stevens, October 21 1999
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.