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.
Living in the real world, abstinence does not work. Never has, never will. But I suspose your theory may hold water in a make believe perfect world.
Well, abstinence is 100% effective when it's practiced. If by "does not work" you mean that abstinence is dismissed as impractical because people today are generally undisciplined and irresponsible, then I agree with you.
Looking at the epidemic of STDs and unplanned pregnancies happening today, I don't think "safe sex" practices are working out very well either. The same argument could be made about all birth-control and safe-sex options; they seem to only work in a make-believe perfect world.
Last edited by boodhabunny; 08-06-2010 at 04:15 PM..
Obviously, the system is broken and many people abuse it. Child welfare is also "valid" according to the system. Women who work are not those who get on gov. assistance unless they find themselves temporarily in dire straights. Others have no intention of working and find if they dont practice personal responsibility, the gov. will take care of them. The latter seems to be how most ppl sterotype single mothers not giving benefit to those who work and are responsible or how they became single parents.
Yes, it is valid. I know single parents who work and are responsible and I give them a lot of credit because it's hard out there. I don't lump everyone into the same category as the chronic welfarites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I dont know that the system will ever be without abusers and not sure what can be done. I know some states have taken measures like limiting the time one can be on assistance and not increasing amounts for additional children born while on assistance and offering job training and education. This cluster f was created because men were not held responsible for their bastard children (read up on bastardy and baby farming). So now you have the broken welfare system and the broken child support/services system.
Seems like the welfare system, created in LBJ's "Great Society" of the 1960s, which "freed" men from taking financial responsibility for their children and lumped it onto the taxpayers heralded in the other causes of the breakdown of American family and by extension, society: hippies and their lifestyle being "in" (drug abuse became mainstream for the first time in society as hippies could live completely useless lives because of welfare); the "sexual revolution" (along with the Pill, welfare was a big boon to promiscuity); and the negative aspects of the "women's liberation movement" (childbearing women didn't need husbands anymore because of welfare so they were liberated from having to put up with them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
And octomom is a freak of nature.
I just hope there are not other idiots out there dreaming of being just like her ...
Too bad she resides in a state with such liberal policies when it comes to determining who is unfit to keep their children. She is obviously mentally ill and, even if she weren't, she simply has too many kids to take care of! If she worked 24-7 she couldn't take care of only the PHYSICAL NEEDS of all of those kids, let alone their social, mental and emotional needs. Those kids should have all been taken away from her and put in foster care or adopted out to deserving parents. Instead she gets to warehouse them all so she can exhibit them like circus freaks for her own financial gain and notoriety ("fame"). It is quite obvious that the State of California certainly does not care about the welfare of those children or it would not leave them enslaved in such a precarious, haphazard and saddest of all, totally UNFAIR, life with that hosebeast of a woman.
First, of all your mom is wrong. There are men out there who will acknowledge their girlfriends children. I was with my daughters father for 13 years and when I got with him I had a 3 year old son. He took care of my son 14 years w/ out a problem. You giving up your daughter is a totally immature, selfish and inconsiderate move. I mean come on, no real man is going to want to be with you for giving up your daughter for such foolish reason.
True, there are some men that you can't allow around your daughter. You have to be the judge of that. You daughter comes first, men last. Your daughters life and feelings come first. Daughters allways need their mom no matter what. There are some things that fathers aren't able to provide for their daughters. Good luck!
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelk316
I recently broke up with my boyfriend with whom I had a child with.
My mother was lecturing me today and she basically said that I am tarnished and no good men would want me so I should never date again.
But mostly I fear having men around my daughter which is the reason i am going let her father have custody of her.
Now i feel im going to be alone for the rest of my life.
What do you guys think about single mothers and dating.
its irresponsible to bring a kid to this world only to use him to glue the relationship.
As opposed to bringing a kid into the world just to make you happy and fill a void in your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigmaingr
I'd propose, though, that people (specifically men) who get married are more likely to remain committed to a relationship and any children produced from the relationship.
But what kind of commitment is that? I've seen plenty of men who stay in unhappy marriages because they have kids and because it's too expensive to divorce. And then the marriage becomes a hollow shell of a marriage where the two people have no real relationship and one or both is having an affair with someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Obviously, the system is broken and many people abuse it.
You're always going to find abusers in any system. Take a look at how we give out unemployment benefits. Sure you can find someone who's sitting at home collecting a check and not actively looking for work. But does that mean everyone on UI is like that? Of course not. That's wrong with this whole debate. Too many people are looking at the extreme examples like Octomom instead of going on a case-by-case basis.
Well, abstinence is 100% effective when it's practiced. If by "does not work" you mean that abstinence is dismissed as impractical because people today are generally undisciplined and irresponsible, then I agree with you.
Looking at the epidemic of STDs and unplanned pregnancies happening today, I don't think "safe sex" practices are working out very well either. The same argument could be made about all birth-control and safe-sex options; they seem to only work in a make-believe perfect world.
I was refering to the actual practice of abstinence. I believe raging hormones will trump a pledge card anyday.
This makes no sense. Why should my friends help me with my kid? He or she isn't their responsibility. The time and resources that I invest into a friendship is for the purpose of maintaining that friendship, not to get some extra help from them in raising my kids. If we follow you line of reasoning, my friends who don't walk my dog for me are dead weight.
Friends are helping you with your kid, whether conscientiously or not, if they are aiding you in anyway financially while you are raising a child...Regarding the dog - any friend that doesnt reciprocate the time and resources you exert towards them is dead weight..that or you're content being used...dog walker and all.
Quote:
LOL. So I guess if I were a parent and someone let me cut in front of them in traffic which allowed me to pick up my kid sooner, then that driver is helping to raise my child.
No argument here...I was thinking that exact thing myself. This is why people allow women and children to board vehicles first or to eat first...rather than simply making allowances for the children only. It is a course of logic acknowledgment that in child rearing, whatever helps the parent helps the child...Its also why one of the first things Barack Obama upon taking office was to finance the single mother back to school initiative, whereby single mothers receive govt. aid to return to school and receive free training in higher paying technical and IT vocations. In order to receive this aid, being a single mother was the requisite. The logic was that, that free aid will in turn help the child or children, when a single mother becomes qualified for a higher paying occupation through training funded by the govt and with collaborative participation in the program of companies like Apple and Cisco. I certainly dont think such an enactment was funded just because single mothers thought they were entitled to free govt aid.
Quote:
Oh so we're using the "I heard" argument. Well I've heard plenty of couples praise themselves for being able to raise their kids without help. Likewise, I've met single parents who NEVER patted themselves on the back for going it alone. You're painting with a broad brush.
Ive actually never heard a couple praise themselves for being able to raise their kids without help...being a couple kind of voids that proclamation anyway. If it takes a village to raise a kid, and a couple knowingly works in tandem in their efforts to raise their kid, then half the acknowledgment of that proverb has been made simply by openly being together as a couple, to raise their child.
Last edited by solytaire; 08-09-2010 at 10:18 AM..
Friends are helping you with your kid, whether conscientiously or not, if they are aiding you in anyway financially while you are raising a child...Regarding the dog - any friend that doesnt reciprocate the time and resources you exert towards them is dead weight..that or you're content being used...dog walker and all.
If your idea of friendship means expecting them to walk your dog and help with your kid, then I suspect you probably don't have any friends. Cause if you did and applied the standard you describe above, I doubt any rational person would tolerate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
No argument here...I was thinking that exact thing myself. This is why people allow women and children to board vehicles first or to eat first...rather than simply making allowances for the children only. It is a course of logic acknowledgment that in child rearing, whatever helps the parent helps the child...Its also why one of the first things Barack Obama upon taking office was to finance the single mother back to school initiative, whereby single mothers receive govt. aid to return to school and receive free training in higher paying technical and IT vocations. In order to receive this aid, being a single mother was the requisite. The logic was that, that free aid will in turn help the child or children, when a single mother becomes qualified for a higher paying occupation through training funded by the govt and with collaborative participation in the program of companies like Apple and Cisco. I certainly dont think such an enactment was funded just because single mothers thought they were entitled to free govt aid.
No, I think you're trapped in your own ridiculous definition of what it means to raise a child. But keep digging your hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Ive actually never heard a couple praise themselves for being able to raise their kids without help...being a couple kind of voids that proclamation anyway. If it takes a village to raise a kid, and a couple knowingly works in tandem in their efforts to raise their kid, then half the acknowledgment of that proverb has been made simply by openly being together as a couple, to raise their child.
Then you've been living in a cave or just tuning out the people who don't reinforce your bias against single parents.
If your idea of friendship means expecting them to walk your dog and help with your kid, then I suspect you probably don't have any friends. Cause if you did and applied the standard you describe above, I doubt any rational person would tolerate it.
It wasnt my idea for a scenario....you concocted the scenario, and I simply said that if a person isnt reciprocating the time and effort you allocate toward them, then yes they are dead weight.
Quote:
No, I think you're trapped in your own ridiculous definition of what it means to raise a child. But keep digging your hole.
What are you even saying No to? Think what you'd like... your thoughts of my hole (smh), and my ridiculous definition and so forth are negligible...because we were in actually in agreement about your statement regarding traffic, and I actually thought it was a rather good point you made. Yet, in this instance, it seems you are disagreeing simply to be disagreeable.
Quote:
Then you've been living in a cave or just tuning out the people who don't reinforce your bias against single parents.
A similarly useless statement, and thinly veiled personal attack that didnt really address the content of my post. I have a bias against single parents, and you have a bias against nuclear families...water is wet...whats new?
It wasnt my idea for a scenario....you concocted the scenario, and I simply said that if a person isnt reciprocating the time and effort you allocate toward them, then yes they are dead weight.
I concocted the dog walking scenario to show how ridiculous your original statement was. You said that if you're a single parent and your partner isn't helping with your child, then they're dead weight. But if we follow that logic, then it follows that a friend who doesn't help with that child is also dead weight. Further, it follows that a friend who doesn't help me with my dog is dead weight as well. You also said that a person who isn't reciprocating the time and effort you allocate to them is dead weight. That part I agree with. However, how does that relate to a child? If I'm a parent and spending time with my kid, that doesn't mean you're supposed to as well. So you seem to be confused as to where the "dead weight person's" effort is supposed to be reciprocated. It's not supposed to be towards my kid or my dog, but towards me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
What are you even saying No to? Think what you'd like... your thoughts of my hole (smh), and my ridiculous definition and so forth are negligible...because we were in actually in agreement about your statement regarding traffic, and I actually thought it was a rather good point you made. Yet, in this instance, it seems you are disagreeing simply to be disagreeable.
Actually we weren't in agreement. I used the example of traffic to further illustrate how lame your argument is. I'm rushing to get home to my kid and someone yields to me in traffic. According to you, that gesture which probably only saved me a few seconds qualifies as raising my child. Sorry, but it doesn't no matter how much you want to stretch the meaning of the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
A similarly useless statement, and thinly veiled personal attack that didnt really address the content of my post. I have a bias against single parents, and you have a bias against nuclear families...water is wet...whats new?
Nice try, but it does address your post. You claim to have never heard a couple praise themselves for being able to raise kids without help. That tells me you're out of touch with the real world. As for my so-called bias against nuclear families, show me evidence of that. I happen to be strongly in favor of nuclear 2-parent families. Just because I'm more understanding of single parents doesn't mean I endorse that form of parenting or think that's better than being part of a nuclear family.
I recently broke up with my boyfriend with whom I had a child with.
My mother was lecturing me today and she basically said that I am tarnished and no good men would want me so I should never date again.
But mostly I fear having men around my daughter which is the reason i am going let her father have custody of her.
Now i feel im going to be alone for the rest of my life.
What do you guys think about single mothers and dating.
Recent breakup? You think maybe your emotions are out of wack right now? I would suggest do nothing til this pass. Take time for yourself, enjoy your child & try not to think about her father or dating.
The tarnished thinking is dated. And don't have men around your daughter. Not in the beginning anyway. Date while she is at your mothers or with the sitter. And try not to have a date come over until she is in the bed. Don't have your dates stay over (if you ever do) while your daughter is home. Just adhere to some basic do's and don'ts until you feel comfortable.
Giving your daughter to her father? Maybe while you are taking time to think about life and everything, maybe you could explore personal individual counseling to help make you better & to clear some things for you. It might help to put things in perspective.
Be alone the rest of your life? Don't think too far ahead. Try to stay focus and in the now. What is good for you now. You can't see the rest of your life. It could possibly be better than you've ever dreamed!
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
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.
