i am an SMC and I love being slutty! Looking at you, PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if that single mother has a "village" then it's fine. Keep in mind that things don't always stay the same - she could meet someone and get married. The person she meets might have other kids. Etc.

Why does a single mother need a village when very few married women have villages (if we are to believe all their gripes and complaints posted here.)

Right, all they do is complain about how they can't even count on their husbands to step up.

So, don't act like one devoted woman is de facto inferior to half of the screwed up couples who take up the relationship thread on this forum!

SMBC here. I'd say f*** off to everyone who thinks they can just spout opinions on what's ethical, and what circumstances make a choice ethical. Just plain f*** off. See you at school pick up.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Single mom to a 13 year old daughter, stable home and great family. I am also waiting until my kid is in college to date.

Anonymous wrote:I think if that single mother has a "village" then it's fine. Keep in mind that things don't always stay the same - she could meet someone and get married. The person she meets might have other kids. Etc.

Why does a single mother need a village when very few married women have villages (if we are to believe all their gripes and complaints posted here.)

I'm a single mother by choice. So far, so good, although the child is only 11. I'm not sure a parent can claim to have done a good job until their child is a 30 y.o. contributing citizen.

I grew up during the 70's, when people were still marrying and having children out of social obligation. I knew so many terrible parents - alcoholics, narcissists, borderline personalities. The suggestion that I couldn't do better than those people, married or not, never crossed my mind.

Adopted a newborn ar age 46. She will be 9 soon. Best thing I ever did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is so special about being a single parent by choice?
Is that a new phrase that simply means she is somewhat less slutty than someone who did not want to be a single parent

1) you should try using a less gendered word when you are judging other people’s private lives (or do you find men who surpass your approved number of partners to be studs??)

2) the term usually connotes that you are not a single mom because of some surprise/accident or because a man failed to fulfill his responsibilities. Rather you thought long and hard about whether you could parent well by yourself, and decided (often with the concurrence of objective professionals), that you were up to the task.

Sounds almost like other single parents did not think long and hard about whether or not they could parent well by themselves

Anonymous wrote:What is so special about being a single parent by choice?
Is that a new phrase that simply means she is somewhat less slutty than someone who did not want to be a single parent

1) you should try using a less gendered word when you are judging other people’s private lives (or do you find men who surpass your approved number of partners to be studs??)

2) the term usually connotes that you are not a single mom because of some surprise/accident or because a man failed to fulfill his responsibilities. Rather you thought long and hard about whether you could parent well by yourself, and decided (often with the concurrence of objective professionals), that you were up to the task.

What is so special about being a single parent by choice?
Is that a new phrase that simply means she is somewhat less slutty than someone who did not want to be a single parent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain how single parenthood would be unethical in ways dual parenthood would be ethical?

+1 What makes single parenthood by choice unethical?

Because having a parent of each gender is most likely optimal

…she said, scientifically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain how single parenthood would be unethical in ways dual parenthood would be ethical?

+1 What makes single parenthood by choice unethical?

Because having a parent of each gender is most likely optimal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

AND been vetted by a trained social worker, their medical doctor, had their home inspected by the health dept and fire dept, been drug tested, had their finances and psychology examined, as well as multiple criminal background tests.

All of this is MUCH more than biological parents are subjected to, so I would say that adoptive parents are above average when you think about it.

Having 10million dollars greatly reduces the risk since in the worst case scenarios you have the resources to hire as much help as you need. I really want a second but don’t have a good answer to high risk what ifs - what if the kid has special needs, what if it’s twins, what if something bad happens to me during the pregnancy that affected my ability to be a parent to my existing child (I’m her only parent…). If I had 10 million dollars, I’d be much more likely to have a second.

Personally I see adoption as much more high risk than having a child. That is one reason I ultimately did not pursue it.


I seriously considered adoption but that was way too high risk for me.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

AND been vetted by a trained social worker, their medical doctor, had their home inspected by the health dept and fire dept, been drug tested, had their finances and psychology examined, as well as multiple criminal background tests.

All of this is MUCH more than biological parents are subjected to, so I would say that adoptive parents are above average when you think about it.

Anonymous wrote: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!

So really you don’t agree.