U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 11:24 AM
 
6,957 posts, read 3,796,357 times
Reputation: 4646

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post
Single moms should only date single dads, and only if they have the same number of kids. Otherwise the relationship over the long run will be full of all kinds of unexpected conflicts. And make sure neither of you has any guns. Haven't you heard of the Brady bill?
Why should they not have any guns?

 
Old 02-12-2015, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Terra
2,827 posts, read 3,075,498 times
Reputation: 3338
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post
Single moms should only date single dads, and only if they have the same number of kids. Otherwise the relationship over the long run will be full of all kinds of unexpected conflicts. And make sure neither of you has any guns. Haven't you heard of the Brady bill?
Don't even bring guns into this discussion. It has nothing to do with anything.
 
Old 02-12-2015, 11:28 AM
 
33,063 posts, read 22,978,590 times
Reputation: 30086
Oh boy, it was a joke (not a good one, but still). Brady Bill... Brady Bunch... same number of kids...

sigh
 
Old 02-12-2015, 11:38 AM
 
6,884 posts, read 4,480,417 times
Reputation: 12081
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillabean View Post
...for a lot of us, we are divorced people dating other divorced people with no intention of marrying anyone (at least, I have no intention of marrying anyone). In those cases there is no "financial burden" unless you count getting the occasional birthday gift or Christmas gift as a burden (in which case I would argue that maybe you shouldn't be dating if money is that tight).
It's quite true that the legal obligations to merge finances are essentially zero if the relationship is non-marital. Nevertheless, in an asymmetric relationship (low-income person with children, high-income person without children - and note that I'm NOT assigning a gender to either!) the wealthier partner will almost shoulder most of the expenses. If no children are involved, the incremental expenses of running a household of two people (boyfriend and girlfriend) are not much greater than those of one. Once children enter the picture, expenses increase considerably.
 
Old 02-12-2015, 12:28 PM
 
10,026 posts, read 8,910,459 times
Reputation: 5888
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillabean View Post
It might be for people who are thinking of getting married (and I can see that). But for a lot of us, we are divorced people dating other divorced people with no intention of marrying anyone (at least, I have no intention of marrying anyone). In those cases there is no "financial burden" unless you count getting the occasional birthday gift or Christmas gift as a burden (in which case I would argue that maybe you shouldn't be dating if money is that tight). Although truth be known, I have yet to even see/meet the kids of any man I dated (and vice versa) let alone start shelling out money for someone else's child.
I wonder if it's the men you meet. I say that because when I dated dads I met the kids usually early on and they let me know they were looking for a woman to help support their families.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpa View Post
I have a different view. IF I marry someone, we become one household. Meaning 1 financial pool to take care of his/mine/our kids. If I were to marry a man with kids I would have no problem contributing to their financial upkeep and stepping into a parental/mother figure/whatever they need role.
Do you have kids? I get it if both people have kids because it's equal. However if someone like me married a dad it wouldn't be equal and I would resent having to support his kids and even his ex. It would be different if he was a widower and the kids lived with him.
 
Old 02-12-2015, 12:30 PM
 
366 posts, read 296,758 times
Reputation: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
It's quite true that the legal obligations to merge finances are essentially zero if the relationship is non-marital. Nevertheless, in an asymmetric relationship (low-income person with children, high-income person without children - and note that I'm NOT assigning a gender to either!) the wealthier partner will almost shoulder most of the expenses. If no children are involved, the incremental expenses of running a household of two people (boyfriend and girlfriend) are not much greater than those of one. Once children enter the picture, expenses increase considerably.
Single parents are not low income by default.
And childless people are not necessarily higher income.

Please tell me where to find a boyfriend who will pay my bills without living with me or marrying me. Does that even happen?!

Anyway, cost wise, if you are marrying someone with kids it's because you are not opposed to a lifestyle with kids. Costs go up as soon as any child is introduced, yours or not.

You keep assuming that a person with kids adds zero value to the relationship, financial or otherwise.
 
Old 02-12-2015, 12:34 PM
 
366 posts, read 296,758 times
Reputation: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou View Post


Do you have kids? I get it if both people have kids because it's equal. However if someone like me married a dad it wouldn't be equal and I would resent having to support his kids and even his ex. It would be different if he was a widower and the kids lived with him.
Why would it be different? They still aren't your kids.

Dating people with kids is harder and more responsibility. I don't think it's for everyone. I just don't like it when people put down people who do choose to take on that challenge.

Also, the assumption that people with kids bring no value to a relationship is starting to grate on me.
 
Old 02-12-2015, 12:35 PM
 
10,026 posts, read 8,910,459 times
Reputation: 5888
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsun556 View Post
Move along, just another militant feminist trying to manshame instead of accepting responsibility.
I think that some women (men too)will have kids with people irresponsible then think others will accept the choice. I don't, I think having kids while single is usually a poor choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by linda814 View Post


I agree....CHUMPS are the REAL DADS who disappear, not the ones who come into the picture.. that makes them CHAMPS in my book....my son bonded with my husband over sports and hunting....he's a doctor now... no thanks to bio dad...
I look at it differently being a woman but I would question the morals of someone who had a kid with someone who disappeared. I know people like that and it's an issue. I'd never date a man who didn't support the kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
And this is how the majority of people I know think.
I have yet to know of a single situation where someone married a single parent and had to single handedly support their spouse and kids. Often quite the opposite. Man marries woman with kids who works and has child support monies coming in each month. Not to mention she may already have a house. Its probably worse for the single fathers because they are having money deducted from their check while the custodial parent is having money added to theirs.

On the lower economic scale many men live with single mothers to benefit from the free section 8 housing and food stamps, etc. and contribute little if anything financially.

I think it is perfectly ok for one not to want to be in a relationship with a single or divorced parent. Its fine if you do not want to part with your money for the benefit of others or can not muster any love or compassion for those that are not closely related by blood (actually microscopic DNA). To each their own. I do not see this as the majority tho. It is obvious just by observing our society that lots of people embrace the children of others; step parents, adoptive parents, fosters, god parents, mentors,

As for those who have a repulsion for the children of others I often wonder how you would feel if at some point your spouse became a single parent, or you became a single parent. Would you want your own children to have the benefit of a loving step parent and an intact family unit. Would you want your children to grow up in a stable, economically advantaged home or would they now become stinky, germ ridden baggage not worthy of affection from a non blood relative and be rightfully expected to grow up with only one parent and have a higher risk of falling prey to poverty, drugs and crime.
Actually I know a lot of childless women who do get stuck supporting the kids and the ex. These are cases where dad pays child support and often (though not always)the mom was a stay at home mom. It's a different issues than adoption because the ex is around. I would adopt a child, I would never be a stepmother to a kid that has a mother. No advantage at all for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 49ersfan27 View Post
I wouldn't give two if someone thought I was selfish for that. It's none of their business in the first place.
Yeah if more people stood up to it people would get the hint. It's not being selfish at all.
 
Old 02-12-2015, 12:43 PM
 
10,026 posts, read 8,910,459 times
Reputation: 5888
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
It's quite true that the legal obligations to merge finances are essentially zero if the relationship is non-marital. Nevertheless, in an asymmetric relationship (low-income person with children, high-income person without children - and note that I'm NOT assigning a gender to either!) the wealthier partner will almost shoulder most of the expenses. If no children are involved, the incremental expenses of running a household of two people (boyfriend and girlfriend) are not much greater than those of one. Once children enter the picture, expenses increase considerably.
This and this is something I am seeing a lot. I know a lot of educated career women who make a lot of money and are childless. Because most are getting to a point where they won't have kids (or may have a kid or two if they are lucky)they figure they can't do better than a single dad. Maybe the childless men don't want them or want younger or don't want to get married at all. Meanwhile the single dad is paying child support and perhaps had a wife who stayed at home. Because he is paying child support, perhaps alimony and mortgage he doesn't have a lot of money. The career childless woman does so he looks at that, and so does his ex. Many states now go by household income, not what the parents make so the stepparent may find themselves paying more money. Even if they aren't because the parent is paying so much to the ex this means the stepparent pays more in the household. Before someone says this doesn't happen, let me assure you it does. I know many cases where the new stepparent got stuck paying child support and even alimony. Also, what if non custodial parent loses their job do you think the court will say they don't have to pay when they see the spouse makes a lot of money? of course not. So yes there are cases where the parent lost their job and the stepparent is paying child support and even alimony.
 
Old 02-12-2015, 12:44 PM
 
10,026 posts, read 8,910,459 times
Reputation: 5888
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpa View Post
Why would it be different? They still aren't your kids.

Dating people with kids is harder and more responsibility. I don't think it's for everyone. I just don't like it when people put down people who do choose to take on that challenge.

Also, the assumption that people with kids bring no value to a relationship is starting to grate on me.
Because many times the new spouse has to support the kids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top