Single parenthood by choice

[Anonymous]

I think it's fine as long as you are not conscripting others to step in as extra parent.

And about "farming out"--I'm old enough to remember fondly the days when two-parent families would routinely "farm out" the kids to one or more other families for the weekend so that the parents could go away for the weekend. It went both ways and was basically a souped-up sleepover. But it was a simpler time when kids generally had many fewer activities...

[Anonymous]

Having money makes a huge difference. With that networth, one could hire a great, full—time nanny (incl in a VHCOL places) if needed so the mom doesn’t burn out. Kids are a lot of work even with two parents around, but if cleaning and some of the childcare could be outsourced, that makes parenting and life in general a lot more manageable. I don’t work and I still needed part-time help so I could get everything done and for some self care when my kids were little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread a troll

?

[Anonymous]

You as the mom will need family and friends to support you (in addition to paid childcare/household help). If you have that, go for it!

[Anonymous]

SMBC at 50 with something less than $10m.

It’s amazing and challenging.

Know what you will do when the baby is sick or you run out of milk at 10pm.

Think about whom you have in your village with whom to celebrate all the milestones or agonize over the questions.

Who will be your other parent stand-in? For me, it’s my brother, totally unplanned. They adore each other. My child needs exposure to a parent-like person other than me. YNMV.

Best and most selfish thing I’ve ever done.

[Anonymous]

I know this is politically incorrect but the data are very clear that boys need their biological father (married to their mother).

Girls need to have attention poured into them by an older man to build up their self esteem so they don't drop their panties for the first man who looks their way. Normally this is dad but it could be their uncle or grandpa.

The dude who is banging mom but isn't dad is dangerous to both sexes of kid. #1 culprit to sexually abuse them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is politically incorrect but the data are very clear that boys need their biological father (married to their mother).

Girls need to have attention poured into them by an older man to build up their self esteem so they don't drop their panties for the first man who looks their way. Normally this is dad but it could be their uncle or grandpa.

The dude who is banging mom but isn't dad is dangerous to both sexes of kid. #1 culprit to sexually abuse them.

What on earth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is politically incorrect but the data are very clear that boys need their biological father (married to their mother).

Girls need to have attention poured into them by an older man to build up their self esteem so they don't drop their panties for the first man who looks their way. Normally this is dad but it could be their uncle or grandpa.

The dude who is banging mom but isn't dad is dangerous to both sexes of kid. #1 culprit to sexually abuse them.

Actually the data are very clear that kids of SMBC do as well as kids of two parent families.
Quality of relationships in families is what is important not the number or gender of parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you planning to adopt a child that otherwise does not have loving parents? I think one loving parent is certainly better than none and don’t see any ethical issues.

This is what I did.

To my way of thinking it was not ethical to create a new human, with no father on the horizon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is politically incorrect but the data are very clear that boys need their biological father (married to their mother).

Girls need to have attention poured into them by an older man to build up their self esteem so they don't drop their panties for the first man who looks their way. Normally this is dad but it could be their uncle or grandpa.

The dude who is banging mom but isn't dad is dangerous to both sexes of kid. #1 culprit to sexually abuse them.

I'm a single mom to a teenage boy. I was raised by a single mom. My dad wasn't in the picture. I didn't have sex until my mid 20s. I went to an all girls school for high school and college. Education was my #1 priority, not boys. I don't date at all. I will once my son goes to college.....if I feel like it. I'm a teacher and here's what I can tell you. Kids need just one stable parent and it doesn't matter if it is their mom, dad, grandparent, aunt, family friend, etc. Successful, happy adults can come from just one stable adult who cares about them. Anything else is a bonus.

[Anonymous]

I'm a SMBC and I love dating! I would be so bored with one man day in day out.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it as long as you aren’t too old if you’re adopting an infant. I feel bad for any kid in that boat since you only have one parent to rely on. I have an in-law who is mid-40s and has a dream of adopting a baby and seems in denial that her odds are slim of being selected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is politically incorrect but the data are very clear that boys need their biological father (married to their mother).

Girls need to have attention poured into them by an older man to build up their self esteem so they don't drop their panties for the first man who looks their way. Normally this is dad but it could be their uncle or grandpa.

The dude who is banging mom but isn't dad is dangerous to both sexes of kid. #1 culprit to sexually abuse them.

“Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

[Anonymous]

I think it's ethical (well, not UNethical, at least) but very unwise. These folks should take care of a difficult child for at least a week, solo, with no help and see how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ethical (well, not UNethical, at least) but very unwise. These folks should take care of a difficult child for at least a week, solo, with no help and see how it goes.

this was maybe a bit harsh. I'd say "high-risk," perhaps, rather than unwise. And I'm talking more about people who are like 36 and haven't met the right person yet and are thinking, vaguely, of freezing eggs, vs. someone who's thought long and hard about adopting a child in need and done all the research.