If you had a babymoon/will go on a babymoon, how long were you married/a couple?

[Anonymous]

jindc wrote:I have no problem calling it a babymoon because I never had a honeymoon. And frankly who cares what it's called? I don't believe it's "baby industry consumerism". I won't be having a babyshower (nor did I have a bridal shower or party). There's an industry around everything, an advantage to planning early is avoiding rip offs.

And sure, regardless of baby coming we could use a trip....But, when you have other financial needs (IVF was ours), it's difficult to rationalize planning a vacation when you might need more than one cycle and those costs add up. And 11:08 specifically called out my thread. I'm not pregnant enough to plan a vacation?

Many people here seem to suffer from "I did this, look how easy it was". Everyone is different. Everyone has different circumstances. My 2-week European honeymoon / post-latest deployment vacation got spent on IVF. My situation isn't normal, but it also isn't that rare on these boards.

So, I apologize if clicking on my thread annoyed people.

I don't think anyone is pointing back to you JinDC, they're talking about the people that have replied to you. You seem like a really reasonable and down to earth person and I truly hope you enjoy your babymoon/pre-baby trip/whatever the hell people want to call it. It sounds like you and your husband really deserve it!! And congratulations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate it when people think that having kids means they can never go on vacation again. You can still go on vacation, even to exotic places, with your children!! They actually travel very well when they're tiny and breastfeeding, and you can stick them in a carrier or backpack while wandering a city or hiking or whatever.

Newsflash: A "babymoon" is a romantic vacation that a couple takes to focus on their relationship before the baby arrives and requires large amounts of their attention. Travel with children is not a "babymoon." I'm not opposed to travel with kids, but that is an entirely different type of trip, and not responsive to OP's post.

Newsflash: You're missing the point. I was replying to the people who said "oh we definitely took a babymoon because we're not going to be able to take a vacation again for 18 years".

You're probably referring to me, since I specifically mentioned 18 years.

In my case, I was talking about a very specific kind of vacation (scuba diving in an exotic location), which is what we planned to do for our honeymoon, until I got pregnant. I know you can travel with kids; heck, when my sister and I were little, we lived in England for five summers (my dad was teaching there) and traveled all over Europe while we were there. We've discussed taking a family trip back to this amazing lodge we stayed at in Belize, so I'm not opposed to traveling with children/adolescents. But there are some activities that don't lend themselves well to having small children along, such as scuba diving in exotic locations. I have no interest in bringing my daughter along on a live-aboard in the Maldives, but maybe that's just me.

Even for DCUM, there's a lot of nastiness on this thread. If you enjoy global travel with your children or don't like the term babymoon, that's fine, but why do you feel the need to dump all over the honest questions and answers that have been posted here? Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jindc wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:08 - couldn't agree with you more! Absolutely cringe at the word. I can't believe the whole baby moon thread has gotten so long, especially since it was started by a person who is not even out of their first trimester!!!!!!

I'm sorry I offended you with my 10 1/2 week pregnant self and desire to ensure I'm allowed to take time off work and that my DH's military duty doesn't conflict with the days I'm allowed off in order to us to finally take a vacation, just the two of us, after years of family/friend obligations, wars, and inability to afford being away just the two of us.

Because of that post, I found a site more suited to our interest/price point than where I originally had looked at, so it was very helpful. Especially since many places book up in the high season (same goes for Europe, folks).

Not all of us have unlimited resources to include time off or bosses/jobs that allow us flexibility in time off - if you have such a luxury, you are very fortunate but should understand that many of us do not.

To be fair, I think many of us are responding to the question specifically asked in the title of the thread: "If you had a babymoon/will go on a babymoon, how long were you married/a couple?"

I have no problem with couples taking time to themselves. It sounds like you and your husband could use a trip alone, regardless of baby coming. So, plan your trip! Have a blast! I'm just tired of it all being wrapped up in baby-industry consumerism.

This. Just call it a vacation, because you want to take a vacation. Why does it have to have some special twee name?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

I just replied to another poster, but come on. Babies grow up, and then they do require plane tickets and food beyond breastmilk. Not everyone can/does nurse, either (newsflash).

Can you honestly not fathom the extra costs of traveling with additional human beings? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate it when people think that having kids means they can never go on vacation again. You can still go on vacation, even to exotic places, with your children!! They actually travel very well when they're tiny and breastfeeding, and you can stick them in a carrier or backpack while wandering a city or hiking or whatever.

Newsflash: A "babymoon" is a romantic vacation that a couple takes to focus on their relationship before the baby arrives and requires large amounts of their attention. Travel with children is not a "babymoon." I'm not opposed to travel with kids, but that is an entirely different type of trip, and not responsive to OP's post.

Newsflash: You're missing the point. I was replying to the people who said "oh we definitely took a babymoon because we're not going to be able to take a vacation again for 18 years".

You're probably referring to me, since I specifically mentioned 18 years.

In my case, I was talking about a very specific kind of vacation (scuba diving in an exotic location), which is what we planned to do for our honeymoon, until I got pregnant. I know you can travel with kids; heck, when my sister and I were little, we lived in England for five summers (my dad was teaching there) and traveled all over Europe while we were there. We've discussed taking a family trip back to this amazing lodge we stayed at in Belize, so I'm not opposed to traveling with children/adolescents. But there are some activities that don't lend themselves well to having small children along, such as scuba diving in exotic locations. I have no interest in bringing my daughter along on a live-aboard in the Maldives, but maybe that's just me.

Even for DCUM, there's a lot of nastiness on this thread. If you enjoy global travel with your children or don't like the term babymoon, that's fine, but why do you feel the need to dump all over the honest questions and answers that have been posted here? Seriously.

What are you talking about? You can't scuba dive while pregnant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

I just replied to another poster, but come on. Babies grow up, and then they do require plane tickets and food beyond breastmilk. Not everyone can/does nurse, either (newsflash).

Can you honestly not fathom the extra costs of traveling with additional human beings? Really?

OMG, I said IF YOU'RE NURSING. Calm the fuck down, I'm sorry you're so damn poor and don't care about giving your child interesting experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

I just replied to another poster, but come on. Babies grow up, and then they do require plane tickets and food beyond breastmilk. Not everyone can/does nurse, either (newsflash).

Can you honestly not fathom the extra costs of traveling with additional human beings? Really?

OMG, I said IF YOU'RE NURSING. Calm the fuck down, I'm sorry you're so damn poor and don't care about giving your child interesting experiences.

Oh yes, because poor people don't "care" about giving their children interesting experiences, that's it. Have you ever been poor, oh clueless one? The truly poor are worried about paying their bills and keeping a roof over their heads and their children fed. No need to be such a raging, classist bitch, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

I just replied to another poster, but come on. Babies grow up, and then they do require plane tickets and food beyond breastmilk. Not everyone can/does nurse, either (newsflash).

Can you honestly not fathom the extra costs of traveling with additional human beings? Really?

My child is almost six, and as I mentioned above, aside from plane costs, it is cheaper to travel with her than without. I anticipate this to remain the same for at least 6 more years. But, of course, everyone is different, and some poeple are more into taking their kids to learn about the world than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

Side issue, but I never travelled without getting my kids their own plane seat. And I did travel - fairly extensively - when my kids were little. In some cases it was necessary, like to attend a funeral. In other cases, it was a vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

I just replied to another poster, but come on. Babies grow up, and then they do require plane tickets and food beyond breastmilk. Not everyone can/does nurse, either (newsflash).

Can you honestly not fathom the extra costs of traveling with additional human beings? Really?

OMG, I said IF YOU'RE NURSING. Calm the fuck down, I'm sorry you're so damn poor and don't care about giving your child interesting experiences.

Oh yes, because poor people don't "care" about giving their children interesting experiences, that's it. Have you ever been poor, oh clueless one? The truly poor are worried about paying their bills and keeping a roof over their heads and their children fed. No need to be such a raging, classist bitch, honestly.

Holy crap, I was being sarcastic. I am sicking and tired of you arguing with me. I just wanted to make one small point, and here you are going nuts. I'm done here.

[Anonymous]

Together 8 years, married 5 and we never took an official honeymoon (or "babymoon" for that matter) but enjoyed traveling together before I got too big to enjoy and before the little one arrives.

As for exotic scuba trips, I guess this is less common in the US but, my husband is from Europe and we plan to leave our son with my in-laws for a few weeks every summer so that he can learn about his other culture. This will also give us a chance to have adult time. When I was growing up, I was fortunate enough to go on some pretty cool trips with my parents but they also went on quite a few without me and I think the time apart was important for both of us.

[Anonymous]

Jindc,
Nobody is offended. But we are all entailed to our opinion. So if we can't stand all of the commercialism surrounding a "baby moon" nor the term itself, then that's our opinion. Also don't assume what people can/can't afford. Some of us just have different first trimester priorities - like actually getting thru it and the NT scan. As for a vacation before a baby comes, if that is something I can do, great, if not, then so be it. I mean the most important thing is a healthy baby in the longrun, so if i get to vacation or just go get a pedicure, i will be satisfied. Not all of us had huge wedding productions; not all of us will have showers either. And a lot of us don't feel like we need to overcompensate for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

I just replied to another poster, but come on. Babies grow up, and then they do require plane tickets and food beyond breastmilk. Not everyone can/does nurse, either (newsflash).

Can you honestly not fathom the extra costs of traveling with additional human beings? Really?

OMG, I said IF YOU'RE NURSING. Calm the fuck down, I'm sorry you're so damn poor and don't care about giving your child interesting experiences.

Oh yes, because poor people don't "care" about giving their children interesting experiences, that's it. Have you ever been poor, oh clueless one? The truly poor are worried about paying their bills and keeping a roof over their heads and their children fed. No need to be such a raging, classist bitch, honestly.

Holy crap, I was being sarcastic. I am sicking and tired of you arguing with me. I just wanted to make one small point, and here you are going nuts. I'm done here.

Actually, I'm the original person with whom you were, um, communicating, and I didn't make that last comment. (Though I share the PPs sentiments, although I probably would have phrased things a bit differently). My point was that exclusive nursing is a relatively brief time, so it's not useful to cite that as a reason for cheap travel, if you even nurse at all.

Your last comment was beyond rude. I'm not poor at all, damn or otherwise, and I care considerably about giving my child interesting experiences. (But boy are you hostile.) I was just pointing out that there can be additional expenses incurred while traveling with children. That's not rocket science, even if it clashes with your individual experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who've traveled extensively with kids:

That's excellent for you. Not everyone can afford extravagant trips once they have children, and not every trip is well-suited to including children. It can take more than organization to keep costs down, depending on where you go.

If you're traveling with a baby, then you don't have to pay for an extra airplane seat or hotel room. Nor do you have to pay for food, if you're nursing. Where are the extra costs, PP?

I just replied to another poster, but come on. Babies grow up, and then they do require plane tickets and food beyond breastmilk. Not everyone can/does nurse, either (newsflash).

Can you honestly not fathom the extra costs of traveling with additional human beings? Really?

OMG, I said IF YOU'RE NURSING. Calm the fuck down, I'm sorry you're so damn poor and don't care about giving your child interesting experiences.

Oh yes, because poor people don't "care" about giving their children interesting experiences, that's it. Have you ever been poor, oh clueless one? The truly poor are worried about paying their bills and keeping a roof over their heads and their children fed. No need to be such a raging, classist bitch, honestly.

Holy crap, I was being sarcastic. I am sicking and tired of you arguing with me. I just wanted to make one small point, and here you are going nuts. I'm done here.

I wasn't even the one arguing with you. But telling someone to calm the fuck down and then trying be sarcastic doesn't really work, see? At that point, people are taking what you say at face value. Perhaps you don't understand how sarcasm generally works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate it when people think that having kids means they can never go on vacation again. You can still go on vacation, even to exotic places, with your children!! They actually travel very well when they're tiny and breastfeeding, and you can stick them in a carrier or backpack while wandering a city or hiking or whatever.

Newsflash: A "babymoon" is a romantic vacation that a couple takes to focus on their relationship before the baby arrives and requires large amounts of their attention. Travel with children is not a "babymoon." I'm not opposed to travel with kids, but that is an entirely different type of trip, and not responsive to OP's post.

Newsflash: You're missing the point. I was replying to the people who said "oh we definitely took a babymoon because we're not going to be able to take a vacation again for 18 years".

You're probably referring to me, since I specifically mentioned 18 years.

In my case, I was talking about a very specific kind of vacation (scuba diving in an exotic location), which is what we planned to do for our honeymoon, until I got pregnant. I know you can travel with kids; heck, when my sister and I were little, we lived in England for five summers (my dad was teaching there) and traveled all over Europe while we were there. We've discussed taking a family trip back to this amazing lodge we stayed at in Belize, so I'm not opposed to traveling with children/adolescents. But there are some activities that don't lend themselves well to having small children along, such as scuba diving in exotic locations. I have no interest in bringing my daughter along on a live-aboard in the Maldives, but maybe that's just me.

Even for DCUM, there's a lot of nastiness on this thread. If you enjoy global travel with your children or don't like the term babymoon, that's fine, but why do you feel the need to dump all over the honest questions and answers that have been posted here? Seriously.

What are you talking about? You can't scuba dive while pregnant!

Uhhh... that's why I said we were planning on going scuba diving until I got pregnant. I was responding to the spin-off discussion around the suitability (or lack of) of some forms of travel with small children. We actually have been diving since our daughter was born; we brought along our moms to babysit, and paid for their room and board. So that's one expense. It was unbelievably worth it and I'm sure we'll do it again, because in contrast to a PPs accusations, I'm not "damn poor" nor do I care little for giving my child "interesting experiences." (Although clearly I've hit a few nerves with some of my comments on this thread. Oh well.)