Anonymous wrote:OP here. We're not talking about an infant, tolddler or even ES age child here. We have a fully functional teen, yet DW insists on doing everything for her. She is way too involved in her life and day-to-day life for the child's age and the child is chafing at it.

Added to this is that the be all and end all of everything is the goddamned house. I pay 1/3 of my salary towards it every month, so you damn right I hate it. DW puts nothing towards it even though she makes just as much money as me. DW never wants to do anything fun. She wants to clean the house and have the perfect lawn, which means me doing the work or paying for it. She is uninteresting. The only things she talks about are shopping, work and the neighbors.

When I suggest we do things, or she listen to a certain piece of music or read a book she says she "doesn't have time." No, DW, you will not make time that is the difference and it is destroying your marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because once the kids reach the age of survivability, there is no biological imperative to keep you around. In fact, we need a new partner to diversify the gene pool. Feel free to move on to do the same.

The biological imperative is to raise the existing kids to successful, stable adulthood so that they reproduce. As a woman, you need the man for this much more than he needs you.

You're confused. Mother nature doesn't care about your success lol does your uterus work? Good enough.

She does care about success. Otherwise you'd just walk away from the baby the instant you gave birth.

Sigh. You need to read what you respond to. The point is--she cares until the child is about 5. Chances are she'll make it to 15 in a social setting, produce several offspring, and die at 25. The younger children's future is iffy, but the older ones stand to repeat the cycle. Mother Nature is not very complicated in that regard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because once the kids reach the age of survivability, there is no biological imperative to keep you around. In fact, we need a new partner to diversify the gene pool. Feel free to move on to do the same.

The biological imperative is to raise the existing kids to successful, stable adulthood so that they reproduce. As a woman, you need the man for this much more than he needs you.

You're confused. Mother nature doesn't care about your success lol does your uterus work? Good enough.

She does care about success. Otherwise you'd just walk away from the baby the instant you gave birth.

Anonymous wrote:How do childless even find a "DC Urban Moms and Dads" parenting site? Well, I digress...

Here's the thing: Some can't have kids. Medical, whatever. I understand that. The childless by choice faction I guess I'll never understand, coming from a big, loving family and having a loving family myself. Yes, you avoid a lot of the bullshit of kids, diapers, puke, teenage rebellion, etc. But you also miss out on birth (the single greatest thing in the world), infancy, adoring eyes looking up at you, snuggles at night, bathtime, molding children, etc. But here's the part a lot of people don't mention: Who is going to look out for you when you are 89 and can't get up stairs? Or drive? Life is cyclical -- I nurtured, loved, took care of everything for my children when they were newborns and couldn't do it, and I have no doubt they will look out for me when I am in my old age and can't do it.

Anonymous wrote:How do childless even find a "DC Urban Moms and Dads" parenting site? Well, I digress...

Here's the thing: Some can't have kids. Medical, whatever. I understand that. The childless by choice faction I guess I'll never understand, coming from a big, loving family and having a loving family myself. Yes, you avoid a lot of the bullshit of kids, diapers, puke, teenage rebellion, etc. But you also miss out on birth (the single greatest thing in the world), infancy, adoring eyes looking up at you, snuggles at night, bathtime, molding children, etc. But here's the part a lot of people don't mention: Who is going to look out for you when you are 89 and can't get up stairs? Or drive? Life is cyclical -- I nurtured, loved, took care of everything for my children when they were newborns and couldn't do it, and I have no doubt they will look out for me when I am in my old age and can't do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "unqualified to comment" childless poster. If you don't want my opinion stop reading. But I believe that children are supposed to be the fruit of a true love and life partner. They should not be a substitute, or supersede, the marriage of two people who are madly in love. It's just my personal opinion so feel free to discount it. But what I'm saying is ladies, don't use your husband as a vessel for children. The children should be a living symbol of your love for each other, not a substitute. You can value your children and your spouse equally and make both an equal #1 priority. The love may be different but should not be unequal.

+1

Also a childless (by choice). You hit the nail on the head. Hubby and I had the children talk long before we got married. I made it clear and upfront that I never wanted kids, and he agreed. If we had wanted kids, I would certainly make time for my husband, and I would expect husband to make time for myself. I feel that people put their kids first too much to the point that they stop having a marriage. If you don't put yourselves first once in awhile, you lose that passion and all the reason you fell in love with your spouse to begin with.

This is funny coming from 2 childless posters. Unfortunately, little kids demand that you physically put them first. They need to eat dinner and get bathed and have someone brush their teeth. Given the choice, I would happily choose to sit with my husband and listen to music and drink some wine. However, that's not life with children. And to make that your priority is effed up.

Exactly. And teens can be even more demanding with their emotional issues and anxieties and their activities that take up a huge amount of time, money and energy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the OP's premise and many of the other people who posted in here. Now that I'm in my mid 30s, I'm seeing a lot of single female friends "settle" for the most convenient guy so they can get to the kids stage of life.

And yes, parenting seems have morphed into this all encompassing affair where the parents neglect the marriage in order to focus intensely on the child. People seem to have a much harder time of letting go here. I work with a lot of Europeans and their mindset about family life seems to be much more balanced - the spouse will ALWAYS be more important than the child.

I am a DW. If my DH wants to be put first then he needs to put me first ... by not dumping all the work on me.

OMG YES. EXACTLY.

I'm the bachelor PP. Here's the thing, and I'm not saying my experience speaks for everyone. But, I would ask the DWs to truly look back at whether husband was really excited about "all the work" stuff. Or, did you push for things to change? In my own experience, I watched past partners (women) simply want to take on more responsibilities than I did. I was content and consistent about who I was and what I wanted from day one. There was another thread on DCUM a few months back where the OP (a DW) was saying women take on more "emotional labor" then men. But, the men in the thread pointed out they didn't care about choosing throw pillows, how perfect the house looked, what color to paint the unfinished office and when to do it, etc. etc. Men are simple creatures and we rarely change from what we want from day 1.

Listen, Bucko. I am a DW and I couldn't give a fuck about throw pillows. You are pretty daft if you think the emotional labor in a marriage with children is about paint and throw pillows. Please, please, please remain single. It is best for everyone. You need to just have new relationship after new relationship. You are not built for the day to day of a real marriage. You are too immature. Unfortunately, so are most men. We need to change the way we raise you people.

Why is your way better? You fancy "more responsibilities" superior? You haven't provided normative, let alone empirical evidence, justifying such a claim. If I could find a woman who would love to build a life together, travel together, save for retirement together, pursue our collective and individual passions together who wouldn't feel the need to turn into Mrs. Doubtfire, I'd be game. I'm super loyal, I'm just not interested in committing into a relationship that involves becoming responsible for 1,000 things that have nothing to do with the person herself.

Dude, WTF are you talking about? Where do you get superior? I'm talking about day-to-day reality of raising children and maintaining a relationship with your spouse. It's fucking hard. Misunderstandings occur. Everyone has to talk and compromise and realize that what you thought was going to happen when it was just the two of you in those sunny, happy, let's-plan-our-lives days is not always what you get. Honestly, seriously, no snark at all, based on what you just typed, you need to find a woman who doesn't want any children. You really have no clue. People who don't have children never do. I didn't. DH and I were just talking about it the other day.

I agree w you and yes I want a woman who doesn't want children. Finding an attractive one who has her career shit together is like trying to find a unicorn. All broads seem to want to breed. Why, I'll never know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "unqualified to comment" childless poster. If you don't want my opinion stop reading. But I believe that children are supposed to be the fruit of a true love and life partner. They should not be a substitute, or supersede, the marriage of two people who are madly in love. It's just my personal opinion so feel free to discount it. But what I'm saying is ladies, don't use your husband as a vessel for children. The children should be a living symbol of your love for each other, not a substitute. You can value your children and your spouse equally and make both an equal #1 priority. The love may be different but should not be unequal.

+1

Also a childless (by choice). You hit the nail on the head. Hubby and I had the children talk long before we got married. I made it clear and upfront that I never wanted kids, and he agreed. If we had wanted kids, I would certainly make time for my husband, and I would expect husband to make time for myself. I feel that people put their kids first too much to the point that they stop having a marriage. If you don't put yourselves first once in awhile, you lose that passion and all the reason you fell in love with your spouse to begin with.

This is funny coming from 2 childless posters. Unfortunately, little kids demand that you physically put them first. They need to eat dinner and get bathed and have someone brush their teeth. Given the choice, I would happily choose to sit with my husband and listen to music and drink some wine. However, that's not life with children. And to make that your priority is effed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "unqualified to comment" childless poster. If you don't want my opinion stop reading. But I believe that children are supposed to be the fruit of a true love and life partner. They should not be a substitute, or supersede, the marriage of two people who are madly in love. It's just my personal opinion so feel free to discount it. But what I'm saying is ladies, don't use your husband as a vessel for children. The children should be a living symbol of your love for each other, not a substitute. You can value your children and your spouse equally and make both an equal #1 priority. The love may be different but should not be unequal.

Oh my God, you don't know how to leave well enough alone, do you? It's real easy to sit on your high-horse of zero experience. If you haven't been in it, then shut the fuck up.

Anonymous wrote:I am the "unqualified to comment" childless poster. If you don't want my opinion stop reading. But I believe that children are supposed to be the fruit of a true love and life partner. They should not be a substitute, or supersede, the marriage of two people who are madly in love. It's just my personal opinion so feel free to discount it. But what I'm saying is ladies, don't use your husband as a vessel for children. The children should be a living symbol of your love for each other, not a substitute. You can value your children and your spouse equally and make both an equal #1 priority. The love may be different but should not be unequal.

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an answer for you but I agree with you. (I'm a woman, FWIW, no kids, don't want them.) It just so often seems like a woman wants to get married now because she's madly in love with her husband, but because the husband is a means to an end (children). Then the children come and the husband is secondary, always. I don't get it. Your spouse is supposed to be your number one teammate and life partner. And don't you want your kids to have a marriage to someone they are madly in love with? Don't you want to set an example of what true love looks like? I'm with you OP.

Anonymous wrote:Women don't marry for love, they marry for the paycheck the man can provide and babies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like a lot of undesirable women attempt to compete with more desirable women on the basis of "I'll always remain into sex! I won't put anything, even kids, before you! Hell, I won't even ask for kids! Please want me!! We can be each other's soulmates!"

Puke.

You've just turned that undesirable woman into a desirable one.