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.
It has changed "the rules"...and our culture...hasn't it? I don't know if it was part of it. Like I said, the context bothered me for some reason...it's as if my space was invaded, kind as if I had been blindsided. The little kid being goofy/coy/talkative/rambunctious at the airport or at the store or in line at the post office is ok, though.
Yes, kids will do that...invade space, take you by surprise.
I suggest you sequester yourself in your study so as to avoid, in the future, people who will shake up your personal sense of space. Not everyone is this sensitive, but since you already know you are, it pretty much is on you, not the next person (and certainly not a free-spirited, huggy child) to maintain your own comfort zone.
Being out generally means a social context. A social context generally means people. Sometimes it means little people. I'm not sure how you arrived at the decision that a child crawling into your lap meant her mother is a welfare crack wh*ore who pops out a child a year, but hey. You must have your own reasoning.
I, for one, get touched by children constantly in public and it just sort of makes me laugh. I always look down and ask if they're looking for Mommy and that usually gets them to remembering themselves and remembering that they're not supposed to talk to strangers. Kids can be amazingly uninhibited. I think it's adorable and--remember, of course, this is just my opinion--not necessarily an indication of bastard child of poverty status.
Good...God.
I can't look at this thread any more because it's so ridiculous that I can't even believe I opened it in the first place. Sometimes I really, truly can't believe people.
Oh, I don't want to make it like something out of The Scarlet Letter.
However, it makes things so much more difficult for the mother and the child.
First thing's first. Nobody has the slightest clue how difficult it is to raise a child until they actually have one. Until then, it's an abstraction, formed mostly from what gets seen in the movies and Lifetime's movie of the week. In fact, Hollywood has really glamorized this to the point of absurdity. But Hollywood starlets have nannies and maids and cooks and drivers and assistants to help them in life. However, the average unwed parent doesn't have all that, and they still have to pull an eight-hour shift at the Piggly Wiggly or the hospital.
Once the child comes along, it becomes an all-consuming, 24/7 commitment on the part of the parents. And, if you're going it alone, it's an even more exhausting ordeal. Suffer through a colicky child alone and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I had to do that when my wife was away for a four day meeting.
What's more, long-term studies are beginning to show that two-parent families really do the best job for the mental health of the child.
And, then, if you're lucky you'll have supportive parents in town to help out. But, while they're glad to do it, they've already raised their kids. Asking them to be continuously on-call to help with your kid isn't exactly fair to them either.
So while all children should be welcomed in life, there are multiple reasons why you wouldn't have a child out of wedlock. It's problematic for the parent, the child, and the entire family.
I think its better for a child to have a happy Mother and Father who are married to each other. When you throw divorce into the mix, I don't think the same rules apply.
I can't tell you how many people I have spoken with who have such horrible struggles because they are divorced from the person they had a child with. I am a single Mother, my daughters Father signed over his parental rights and in some ways, I think that has made life easier for us.
Of course not having a backup is hard but if the other parent isn't going to be there, helping, standing shoulder to shoulder with you, then I think its easier to do it on your own. Some states don't allow the custodial parent to move without permission from the non-custodial parent, some don't allow you to travel outside your state and country. Some divorces make is necessary for things like medical treatment, getting ears peirced and even insane things like hair cuts be discussed by the parents who by this point hate each other.
Yes, kids will do that...invade space, take you by surprise.
I suggest you sequester yourself in your study so as to avoid, in the future, people who will shake up your personal sense of space. Not everyone is this sensitive, but since you already know you are, it pretty much is on you, not the next person (and certainly not a free-spirited, huggy child) to maintain your own comfort zone.
It's amazing that someone can't post their experiences without being attacked or having them interpreted so as to make them look like a villain. We don't have to love everybody, ok, so read on a little more.
Since you were irked enough to post twice, I will be more of an a-hole and give you the specifics.
In all of these cases, the mothers looked like absolute "white trash." You know, good enough for a Jerry Springer casting call. The babies were unkempt and not the kind of child I would want to raise nor take out in public. I always do a "wedding back check," it's a reflex. If Mama had one, it probably meant she was married and there probably was a Papa. (I also don't chat up Mama if there is a wedding band). If there is no wedding band, it could mean that a significant other is not around. Let it go at that, ok?
Of the handful of times it happened, I can definitely tell you that one of them was just like I said. I actually knew the people. I had joined a singles group in a new city and a girl needed help moving, so she had a "moving party," complete with pizza. Her sister who was really skanky was there, with her 3-year-old unkempt daughter. I found this sister repulsive. I also found out she was impregnated in high school by a reservist that bolted, not wanting anything to do with sis or baby. Out of all the people at this get together, her daughter kept trying to get MY attention. Why me? About a week later, I found out that her mother who was there was inquiring about me with the intent of setting me up with the sister (arrgh)...and this is just after finishing a Masters and moving to town....yeah, right! Her mother was of the variety one would harpoon. I left the group...there were other occurrences like this within a short time after joining.
Before you put your hand on your hip, and complain "well, that was just one experience." In all of these cases, the demographics were similar. It doesn't take more than about 30 seconds of observing and listening to know that these were not quality people; hence, I don't want THEIR needy kids climbing up on me. Don't ignore that I ALREADY SAID: I gladly play with the children of friends and co-workers I know and I'll even joke with little kids in line, but limiting it to sticking out my tongue or making faces at them to get a laugh.
I sometimes think that when someone takes this down a tangential route it's because there is a snippet they will focus on because they feel personally slighted. Let's not derail a thread....it's about whether out of wedlock is ok and I gave it the "thumbs down."
Redirecting traffic.....
Last edited by robertpolyglot; 04-06-2008 at 10:36 AM..
In my opinion...nothing is inherently "bad" about it. Is there a higher rate of poverty associated with it? Probably. But do affluent, educated men and women have happy, healthy children out of wedlock? Of course.
Do married couples in poverty have children under the same circumstances that some unmarried do? Of course.
In or out of wedlock does not dictate the quality of life a child does or will have. The conventional, traditional thinking of yesterday will have to change and minds will have to open to be more in line with modern trends. As modern women attain higher educational levels and higher paying jobs, having babies out of wedlock is more a "choice" than a consequence
In or out of wedlock does not dictate the quality of life a child does or will have.
The data indicate that this is simply not true. As noted and referenced previously in this thread, out of wedlock children tend to have a variety of disadvantages in life. As you correctly note, there are always exceptions (just as there are some cigarette smokers who never get cancer, while there are many non-smokers who do). But statically speaking, out of wedlock kids begin life with a series of disadvantages.
The data indicate that this is simply not true. As noted and referenced previously in this thread, out of wedlock children tend to have a variety of disadvantages in life. As you correctly note, there are always exceptions. But statically speaking out of wedlock kids begin life with a series of disadvantages.
Yes indeed, aren't social psychologists and sociologists who follow around these people for years and years compiling statistics just great? Not a job I would want, but somebody's gotta do it.
Yes, exactly, looking at it from ONE point of view and not considering that of the offspring.
Yes, I will nod to the research pyschologists who have followed the offspring of FULLY single parents (and same-sex couples) and have concluded that the prognosis isn't as good as when kids know who their Mom (who possesses a God-given vagina)* and Dad (who possesses a God-given penis) are.
Sorry. This issue is, again, of the variety that will polarize the posters in this thread.
Sidebar: this ihas happened to me at least 4 times in the last 10 years and I can't stand it. I'm in a public place, such as at a shopping mall or at a library, and there is a woman with a kid or two, one of which is a daughter. The daughter is about 2 or 3. When I am in close proximity, the daughter either tries to climb up on me or go from her mom's arms and climb into mine. I promptly let the child know "no" (nicely, but firmly) such that they stay with their Mom. I look at Mom's ring finger and there is no ring, so I surmise it's an out-of-wedlock sort of thing and baby daughter is hungering for a "father figure." And since, I look clean-cut, I'm elected! Gee thanks. I am a true believer that this one-sidedness throws off the intended dynamics of the child-rearing process. It's not a testimony to whether a single woman has the ability to do a good job as a mother. It isn't. It's about creating the most optimal situation for the child.
* after hearing of the man in Oregon who is pregnant....sheez...we have to accept everything and everybody, don't we?
a freind of mine who is married :her daughter does this because her father does not give her enough attention.
I would also like to point out that while there are successful, single, 40-year-olds with advanced degrees who decide to be single parents, this is the exception, not the norm.
The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be married (and unwilling to accept not being married before having children).
The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be married (and unwilling to accept not being married before having children).
This is true with regards to having children (i.e. the more educated you are the more likely you are to have children in marriage). We know, too, that education level and income level are very highly correlated. Unmarried households with children tend to have lower incomes, and out of wedlock births are increasingly the norm among lower income people. This, of course, contributes to a generational cycle of poverty since these kids are very likely to grow up with significant financial disadvantages.
I think its better for a child to have a happy Mother and Father who are married to each other. When you throw divorce into the mix, I don't think the same rules apply.
I can't tell you how many people I have spoken with who have such horrible struggles because they are divorced from the person they had a child with. I am a single Mother, my daughters Father signed over his parental rights and in some ways, I think that has made life easier for us.
Of course not having a backup is hard but if the other parent isn't going to be there, helping, standing shoulder to shoulder with you, then I think its easier to do it on your own. Some states don't allow the custodial parent to move without permission from the non-custodial parent, some don't allow you to travel outside your state and country. Some divorces make is necessary for things like medical treatment, getting ears peirced and even insane things like hair cuts be discussed by the parents who by this point hate each other.
I don't disagree with you. A terrible marriage is a far worse environment for a child than being raised by a single parent. However, the point of the thread is basically saying that having children out of wedlock (or, to be more up to date, a committed relationship) isn't a hardship. However, unless you're making lots of money to pay for helpers, it really is.
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.
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.
