# Would you date someone with a kid if you don't have one?



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Would you? Why or why not?


----------



## xJoshx (Apr 29, 2010)

Hard choice to make, upsides and downs. I would prefer it since I believe that most mothers would be the caring type of person which I like, and that they have had to make a commitment. Downside is, that the kid (depends on age) will take up a good portion of there time. So you just have to work around it.

Though, mothers are not overly outgoing, so its generally perfect for someone with SA in my opinion.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

No. The father (if alive or known) is always going have some part in the child's life. I don't have the social skills to handle that interaction, especially if they have joint custody.

There are better matches out there for me.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

If the parent was married but widowed with an infant, then *maybe*. Under all other circumstances *no*.

I would not a date someone who has a kid for these reasons:

1.

I think it's child abuse to force an unbiological parent figure into child's life, especially without express consent from the child. And if the child is too young, they obviously don't have the capacity to give consent, so it's dishonest to assume you have the child's consent.

2.

I think it's sexually perverted and psychological abuse to sleep around with other people in front of your child who are not the child's biological parent.

3.

I'd assume the person with a child is either not married, divorced or polygamous. My values don't mesh with any of these life styles.

4.

I see parental and dating lifestyles outside of marriage as a larger conspiracy to weaken western society, family structure and men's place in the world.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

The fact that a person has a child has _no_ bearing on their personality or morals.


----------



## Mr. Frostie (Nov 2, 2008)

This might come across as harsh, but its an automatic dealbreaker for me. I would not want to raise another guy's kid. Its too much time, energy, and money to invest in preserving someone else's genes.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

I knew we had this discussion not all that long ago...

http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f40/would-you-date-a-single-parent-80437/


----------



## Cleary (Nov 10, 2007)

drealm said:


> If the parent was married but widowed with an infant, then *maybe*. Under all other circumstances *no*.
> 
> I would not a date someone who has a kid for these reasons:
> 
> ...


Please elaborate on the 'child abuse' and 'sexual perversion and psychological abuse'.


----------



## Cleary (Nov 10, 2007)

I think I would... but I wouldn't see it lasting longer than a few months since I don't want to be a mother or anyone's step-mother. 

I would just prefer to date somebody childless.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

Yes, unless it distressed the kid.


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

No. Unless we _really_ clicked, like soul-mate material. But honestly, I couldn't handle the responsibility of being a surrogate parent. Even if the relationship didn't become serious, I would still feel pressure to provide some type of care for the child and be a good role model, and that's something I can't live up to. I can barely take care of myself and don't have the character any kid should emulate.


----------



## Georgina 22 (Jan 4, 2009)

I wouldn't mind dating/being in a relationship with someone who has a child but go further and marry that person who has a child from a previous marriage, no. 
I'd rather marry someone who is on his own, so that we can have our own family. I won't have to be the step mother to the child and I don't want to be like the one stuck in the middle between the two exes because they share the same brat. lol


----------



## BetaBoy90 (Jan 5, 2010)

Sure as long as she has no problem putting him/her up for adoption if I pursue her


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Georgina 22 said:


> I wouldn't mind dating/being in a relationship with someone who has a child but go further and marry that person who has a child from a previous marriage, no.
> I'd rather marry someone who is on his own, so that we can have our own family. I won't have to be the step mother to the child and I don't want to be like the one stuck in the middle between the two exes because they share the same brat. lol


That is pretty much how I feel. I could date someone with a kid but I'm not sure if I could stay in a long, long relationship with someone with one. I really don't know, but I think not.


----------



## Toad Licker (Nov 2, 2007)

No, but only due to my age. I'm just not in to doing the parent thing I'd rather relax and enjoy myself.


----------



## Brit90 (Apr 30, 2010)

I'd have to say no. If I'm completely unwilling to have a child and I'm female, why would I want to take on someone else's kid? 

But, those who are willing, really are troopers.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

Cleary said:


> Please elaborate on the 'child abuse'


Children are property of their biological parents. Children give consent to their biological parents by default of having their DNA. A stranger has no such DNA claim and thus cannot assume authority without the child's consent. Violating consent alone, is a first offense. However, going on to parent a non-biological child is even worst. There's a conflict of interest between the surrogate's own self-interest and investment in the non-biological child. This conflict of interest would never occur between a biological parent and their own child, because self-interest and investment are aligned. Therefore all parties responsible for putting a child in the hands of surrogates should be criminally prosecuted by the elders of their own family.



Cleary said:


> and 'sexual perversion


Sexual affection shown between a stranger and a parent is completely for the adulterer's and stranger's self interest. As opposed to affection shown between two biological parents, which benefits the parents but also aligns with a child's sense of safety and well being.

However what makes sexual affection between a stranger and parent perverse, as oppose to just promiscuous, is the fact that the child didn't consent to be a spectator of these sexual escapades. This is the equivalent of giving your children pornography. If a parent and stranger were to completely compartmentalize their lives so that no trace or suspicions of sex were taking place, I think it would be fair to remove the "perverse" title and just call such activities "promiscuous".



Cleary said:


> and psychological abuse'.


Psychological abuse, as I was referring was something I mostly pictured as scenario involving a son and adulterous mother. I think every son has an inborn sense of protecting his mother's chastity. A father is the natural protector of his wife's modesty but should that father be absent, it falls to the son. A son doesn't have the respect, authority or power to influence his mother's life like his father. Yet he still feels like a failed guardian when her modesty is damaged. I consider this psychological abuse, because a son will still exhibit strong symptoms of disgust, which are at the mercy of his mother.


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

If ya asked me straight after watching Jerry Maguire then I would!


----------



## MindOverMood (Dec 12, 2009)

I just couldn't, personal preference.


----------



## nemesis1 (Dec 21, 2009)

I'd prefer to date someone without kids but hey, who am i to be picky.

Beggars cant be choosers and all.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

Before I had a child I dated one man who had 2 children by a former marriage (a boy 8 and a girl 6) - it was 24 years ago (I was 20 at the time)... my relationship with their father lasted a year and I bonded really deeply with them... circumstances intervened (he was a truck driver and I came to find out that he drank heavily, so I had to leave that relationship). I was recently friended by his daughter on FB and then later his son... they are 30 and 32 now. The daughter still remembered me and was shocked that I still knew her and her brother's birthdays... she still remembered me making them alphabet pancakes and letting them help in the kitchen. She told me that having me in their life was the only time they ever felt they had a stable home... she said that it was that time that taught her what being a mom was really supposed to be like. It broke my heart that I wasn't able to be there for them growing up... but that's life and that part of life sucks... the boy said that he remembered me playing catch with him, taking him to the beach and really listening to him... treating him like someone who mattered instead of just a kid who got shuttled from his mom's and back to his dad's every weekend. So I was glad that I dated someone who had kids... even if it didn't work out.

My first husband had a son who was 11 by the time we were actually able to fight for visitation - his mom was a real whack job. But I went out of my way to be friends with her so that she would trust me and her ex (my husband)... we had him every weekend until my husband died... then they moved out of state and I never saw him again... he knew I loved him... even if his mom made it impossible for me to stay in his life.

My last husband had two kids also... again I loved them and loved being their step-mom - my biggest regret again is that when my husband went to prison and I was 1600 miles away I was not able to protect them from the way his family was and the way their mother was. My former step-daughter is now 16 and having her first baby tomorrow... my former step-son from that marriage is on meds for PTSD caused by his mom's drinking, having abusive boyfriends in and out of her life and her various illnesses. 

So I have to disagree.... biological parents are not always better than steps... or fosters or adopteds... it depends on the parent... 

Now, yes, I'm 45 and I have a son by my ex husband who is in prison and will not get out of prison till my son is 19... he had a mental break, was addicted to alcohol and drugs and became abusive... so I did what I had to do when my son was 2 years old to protect him and myself from that Hell... and now I am a single mom... 

I didn't date for 8 years after my divorce... I finally dated someone two years ago and it lasted a year before His SA destroyed our relationship... but it was a celibate and chaste relationship and my son learned what really boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are supposed to be like, what courting is, what dating is... there was never anything illicit or sexual for him to see except hugs and a few kisses. He gained a lot of safe and valuable information from that relationship and unfortunately had to see it fail.... he saw me sad, he saw me greive for it and he has seen me get up and dust myself off and try to move forward. 

No, I won't date just anyone, they won't meet my son until I really know it is real and it will take me a lot longer next time to really trust in that real-ness. But he's ok... and I'm ok... but yes, I would date someone with kids because I would not want someone to judge me that way just because I have a child without knowing me or my child.

Kids always come first... unless you get married... you don't get married unless you know that the kids are happy about the person you are marrying... I would never marry someone that my son didn't like... I would trust his instincts. Heck... the guy I dated last year... it was funny... I would have never had a first date had my son not walked up to him in Church and asked him to go with us for Chinese... that's how I got my first date with my ex-boyfriend... that is one I will always find amusing.


----------



## lonelygirl88 (Dec 25, 2009)

Dub16 said:


> If ya asked me straight after watching Jerry Maguire then I would!


lol or after watching 'The Holiday'


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

drealm said:


> Children are property of their biological parents. Children give consent to their biological parents by default of having their DNA. A stranger has no such DNA claim and thus cannot assume authority without the child's consent. Violating consent alone, is a first offense. However, going on to parent a non-biological child is even worst. There's a conflict of interest between the surrogate's own self-interest and investment in the non-biological child. This conflict of interest would never occur between a biological parent and their own child, because self-interest and investment are aligned. Therefore all parties responsible for putting a child in the hands of surrogates should be criminally prosecuted by the elders of their own family.
> 
> Sexual affection shown between a stranger and a parent is completely for the adulterer's and stranger's self interest. As opposed to affection shown between two biological parents, which benefits the parents but also aligns with a child's sense of safety and well being.
> 
> ...


It's the 21st century and I'm going to assume we're talking about North America. This is really backwards and downright scary. The divorce rate is like 30% and people are still able to function. Staying together or being "chaste" because of "old values" isn't exactly doing anyone any good.


----------



## seastar (Mar 27, 2009)

Never. I can be quite high maintenance and so I would not be able to emotionally cope. On a completely selfish and emotional level, I would want him all to myself. I want the fairy tale.


----------



## IcedOver (Feb 26, 2007)

I wouldn't date any woman with a child. I'm a little more anti-child than most, but we're not going to open up that argument again. Plus, I don't believe I could be really physically attracted to a woman who has had a kid; it would be at the back of my mind. It's just my personal preference. If the only women available to me to date had borne children, I guess I'd never date. But I've never dated before and it's likely I'll never date anyway, so it's not a big deal.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

I see some people saying they'd date someone and even get "into a relationship" with someone with a kid, but that they wouldn't marry that person... Why would you waste your time then? Why get into a relationship when you _know_ you don't want to go the distance? I think that's outrageously unfair to the partner, unless you're both aware of those circumstances from the getgo.

To answer the original question, I'd prefer not to, but her having a child isn't a dealbreaker. I'd want to meet the kid early on, though. If the kid doesn't like me or I don't like them, then it's not going to work. It also depends on how the biological father is.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Just Lurking said:


> I see some people saying they'd date someone and even get "into a relationship" with someone with a kid, but that they wouldn't marry that person... Why would you waste your time then? Why get into a relationship when you _know_ you don't want to go the distance? I think that's outrageously unfair to the partner, unless you're both aware of those circumstances from the getgo.


I'd date someone with a kid because I've never done it and I'd want to learn from that, but I only assume I wouldn't want a relationship with that person because for a multitude of reasons. A date is much different than a relationship. Still, because I've never experienced it before, I may just want a relationship with that person, BUT I personally feel like I should experience what it may be like before I can ever be certain. For this reason, I'm willing to date someone with a child. I don't see why it'd be wrong for me to do so. dating isn't a commitment like a relationship. If I saw from the beginning that the child was already getting attached to me or something, and if I felt deep inside of me that I didn't want that, I'd make sure to end it and to never date someone with a kid again until I'm ready for that commitment. Call me a jerk if you want, I don't care.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

joinmartin said:


> "Children are property of their biological parents."
> 
> *A child is an individual. A human being who may or may not have a soul (if one exists or if it doesn't). They are under the protection, love and care of their parents, guardians or some other form of care. They are the "property" of nobody.*


No, children are a means of income. If children weren't property, wives and husbands wouldn't fight over them in divorce court and have the losing party be compensated for loss of children.



joinmartin said:


> "Children give consent to their biological parents by default of having their DNA."
> *
> How do they do that then?*


They're free to discard their genes if they don't want to be parented by their biological parents.



joinmartin said:


> "A stranger has no such DNA claim and thus cannot assume authority without the child's consent. "
> 
> *How can you be sure of that? If you go deep into our DNA you discover we come from all sorts of different places. So there would be a chance that some sort of relationship existed between the stranger's family and the child's family if you went back far enough. That would be a claim of authority.*


This is a dangerous albeit sound argument.

To this I'd argue back that a parent invested labor of their sperm or eggs into the child; relatives or strangers of similar genetic disposition did not. Therefore relatives or strangers can lay claim by DNA matching, but not by labor invested.



joinmartin said:


> But stepping outside the bounds of explaining everything in life through a science textbook, we're talking about someone dating someone who happens to be the parent or guardian of a child.
> 
> Dating. Not necessarily marriage. If the relationship got serious then yes, the child has a say in things. But the authority is with the adult for the most part. The adult has their life and this is part of their life.


What's a "serious" relationship? And why does "only a serious relationship" matter? A peripheral relationship is the same for the third party regardless of how it's perceived by the first person.



joinmartin said:


> "Violating consent alone, is a first offense. However, going on to parent a non-biological child is even worst. There's a conflict of interest between the surrogate's own self-interest and investment in the non-biological child."
> 
> *Sweeping reasoning, assumptions being made about what people's intentions are or might be.....what happens in situations where the biological father has decided, for whatever reason, to leave the family and someone new steps up to the plate and raises the child out of genuine love for that family and for that child? Is that a conflict of interest? Or are you going to assume that that person will be acting out of self serving interests?*


_*
"Or are you going to assume that that person will be acting out of self serving interests?"*_

I'd argue it's always out of self interest. The only way to be proven wrong, would be to see a stranger enter a relationship, then suffer the loss of their partner (the child's parent) and then raise those children themselves.



joinmartin said:


> "This conflict of interest would never occur between a biological parent and their own child, because self-interest and investment are aligned."
> *
> How can you know that for sure? Does a biological parent always have and always express genuine love and respect for a child? No. Do biological parents act within their own self interest instead of in the interests of the child? I cannot be sure. But there certainly have been incidents that would suggest this has happened.*


You're correct, biological parents by default aren't good. However, biological parents do by default have an incentive to be good, non-biological parents don't.



joinmartin said:


> "Therefore all parties responsible for putting a child in the hands of surrogates should be criminally prosecuted by the elders of their own family."
> 
> *Why? You are assuming that someone who is not a biological parents will always act in a negative way towards a child and in their own self interests. This is your assumption. So should these people be prosecuted on the basis of your assumptions about people's nature?*


There's no incentive for a stranger to be a good parent. There's only disincentive, which is companionship being withdrawn by their partner (the parent of the child).

Prosecuting non-biological parents would be preemptive prosecution for crimes yet committed. Which I beleive makes more sense than supporting laws that incentivize crimes and then persecuting incentivized crimals for said crimes.



joinmartin said:


> "Sexual affection shown between a stranger and a parent is completely for the adulterer's and stranger's self interest."
> 
> *Erm.. with the greatest of respect, how do you know this? And you just changed the terms from "stranger" to "adulterer". Are you projecting based on personal issues here? Why would a "stranger" automatically be an "adulterer".*


The fact that most single parents explicitly state in their dating ad's that their children will be "out of the picture" is a good straw poll for my reasoning. And conversely, people whom say they'll date single parents as long as they don't "need to raise their kid" is an equally supportive show of self-interest.

I was using adulterer to refer to a _divorced_ parent. A divorced parent isn't an adulterer by law, however I still consider them one.



joinmartin said:


> "As opposed to affection shown between two biological parents, which benefits the parents but also aligns with a child's sense of safety and well being. "
> *
> So, when two biological parents make love mutual affection is always displayed and the child's best interests and safety are always protected? Really? Every single time?*


No, but there's no harm done because interests are aligned. There's no way to neglect children at the cost of loving your wife, at least not that I can think of.



joinmartin said:


> "However what makes sexual affection between a stranger and parent perverse, as oppose to just promiscuous, is the fact that the child didn't consent to be a spectator of these sexual escapades."
> 
> *Erm...hang on a second here. Since when was it being automatically assumed that the "stranger" and the parent were making the child watch them whilst they engaged in sexual activity?*


Most single parents just flat out suck at keeping their sex life shut up. They make jokes about bedroom antics in front of their children, they exchange sex stories with friends in front of their children and often do first and second base in front of their kids.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

joinmartin said:


> "This is the equivalent of giving your children pornography." Again, you're automatically assuming that they are making the child watch them having sex.
> 
> "If a parent and stranger were to completely compartmentalize their lives so that no trace or suspicions of sex were taking place, I think it would be fair to remove the "perverse" title and just call such activities "promiscuous".
> 
> *With the greatest of respect, You are in charge of what you think and feel is morally correct in your life. But you are not in charge of what is and what is not morally correct in the rest of the world.*


 With all due respect, someone's flesh and blood isn't the "rest of the world".

Like I said before, if parents want to lead a promiscuity sex life, nothing can stop them. But compartmentalization isn't hard, it doesn't take a genius to rent a hotel room instead of cavorting over the family mantelpiece.



joinmartin said:


> "Psychological abuse, as I was referring was something I mostly pictured as scenario involving a son and adulterous mother. I think every son has an inborn sense of protecting his mother's chastity. A father is the natural protector of his wife's modesty but should that father be absent, it falls to the son."
> 
> *So the assumed responsibilities of the father become the assumed and imagined responsibilities of the son. I have a mother and I have a father. My duty as my mother's son is the protection of her happiness not the protection of her chastity.*


 Not all medicine tastes good, yet it's still good for you. I'd rather my own mother hate me for keeping her modest, then praise me for helping her become a prostitute.



joinmartin said:


> "A son doesn't have the respect, authority or power to influence his mother's life like his father."
> 
> *How do you know that's true in all cases or at all? Can I stand up to my father if needs be? Yes I can. I'll admit that because I can do it doesn't mean all sons in the world can do it but you can't automatically know that a son cannot stand up against their father or command the respect, authority or power you prescribe as being important.*


 I was referring to a son standing up to their mother. Perhaps I'm just impotent, but I failed to.



joinmartin said:


> "Yet he still feels like a failed guardian when her modesty is damaged. I consider this psychological abuse, because a son will still exhibit strong symptoms of disgust, which are at the mercy of his mother."
> 
> *Generalisations, assumptions. How do you know how a son or any sons would feel. How can you know the son thinks in the same way you do about "modesty" and "chastity" and all the other stuff? People have different morals and those morals can often be fluid things influenced by a whole manner of different things.*


 Correct, I can only represent myself. But I must present my opinions as facts to be debunked, otherwise a person's opinions have no conviction.



joinmartin said:


> Not attacking you. You have the authority to decide what your morals are and what is morally acceptable in your own world. But I felt the need to say what I have said because there are challenges and opposing arguments and one of them is mine and I wanted to voice it.
> 
> As for whether I'd date a woman who had a child, yes and I have done. People have lives and they are not sat there waiting for you to turn up in their life. You find people as you find people. Where parenting is concerned, you have what I like to call "the right of blood" and "the right of love". Sometimes you get both. Sometimes you get just one. A biological parent does not necessarily a father make. Blood is not enough on its own. DNA is not enough on its own.


 
 Good sir, I tip my hat to you.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

skybirdsky said:


> It's the 21st century and I'm going to assume we're talking about North America. This is really backwards and downright scary. The divorce rate is like 30% and people are still able to function. Staying together or being "chaste" because of "old values" isn't exactly doing anyone any good.


I think your post contradicts your own conclusion.



skybirdsky said:


> The divorce rate is like 30%


As a result of living in:



skybirdsky said:


> 21st century North America.


But you claim:



skybirdsky said:


> people are still able to function.


When the:



skybirdsky said:


> divorce rate is like 30%


I don't know how the divorce rate being:



skybirdsky said:


> 30%


Is a sign of:



skybirdsky said:


> people are still able to function.


Nor do I see why your blaming



skybirdsky said:


> being "chaste" because of "old values"


As the cause of:



skybirdsky said:


> divorce rate is like 30%


And I don't see how it's:



skybirdsky said:


> backwards and downright scary.


To support:



skybirdsky said:


> being "chaste" because of "old values"


Over:



skybirdsky said:


> The divorce rate is like 30%


...

I'm not trying to belittle you with your quotes. I just don't understand your logic. This is the best analysis I could muster.


----------



## VIncymon (Apr 16, 2009)

Classified said:


> No. The father (if alive or known) is always going have some part in the child's life. I don't have the social skills to handle that interaction, especially if they have joint custody.
> 
> There are better matches out there for me.


Nice way to put it without getting controversial.

Basically the back & forth between the mother and the biological father .. is something i would rather live without.

If the woman were widowed... then that's a different story all together.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Drealm, I can't help but notice it appears as if your trying to magnetize everyone with your incredible logic... and stuff...


----------



## VIncymon (Apr 16, 2009)

boing !

The points come out a bit sharp, but drealm is expressing an opinion shared by many... just in a sharper way.

For example, drealm's long analysis of all the complications with raising someone else's child are all pretty legitimate.

1. Conflict between the biological parents.

2. The fact the you are not the biological parent, being a sort of disincentive.

3. Conflict with the kids calling you , the nonbiological parent 'daddy'

4. Sons do have a hard time coping with the idea of some strange man 'taking care' of mom.

5. In continuation of point 4, kids aren't entirely savvy on the concept of sex .. so the concept of mom/dad doing _*the bad thing*_ with a stranger, may also be difficult for them to cope with.

... I would not want to be the source of all that internal conflict for the kid involved, that is why would rather not choose this path.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

bwidger85 said:


> I'd date someone with a kid because I've never done it and I'd want to learn from that, but I only assume I wouldn't want a relationship with that person because for a multitude of reasons. A date is much different than a relationship. Still, because I've never experienced it before, I may just want a relationship with that person, BUT I personally feel like I should experience what it may be like before I can ever be certain.


I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it if you're not sure about it. That's the whole point of dating, to see if it's going to work for you.

What I'm talking about are the cases where the child is a DEALBREAKER -- as in you won't bend or won't even _consider_ a future with them because of the child's existence. That's when I think it's very wrong to string them along. I would equate that practice to dating a girl you're not attracted to, the only goal being to gain exprience so that you can be better at dating girls that you're actually interested in. That girl's not going to feel too good about that, and the same thing can be applied to single parents. I just don't see why anyone would date or get into a relationship in that case, when they know there's no chance of going anywhere.


----------



## TRENNER (Sep 21, 2009)

When I was single, I wouldn't. Having a stepkid can make a relationship much more complicated. Also, I felt that a woman who had been a mother was way ahead of me in life.

If I outlive my wife, I'll be open to dating single moms (and grandmoms) in the future. Having grown kids isn't the same as having an 8 year old. Also, having finally been married myself now, being a parent doesn't seem so far ahead of me.


----------



## Futures (Aug 27, 2005)

Never. Instant deal breaker for me. I don't even want a kid of my own, so there's no way I'm going to get involved with a girl that had one with some other guy.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Just Lurking said:


> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it if you're not sure about it. That's the whole point of dating, to see if it's going to work for you.
> 
> What I'm talking about are the cases where the child is a DEALBREAKER -- as in you won't bend or won't even _consider_ a future with them because of the child's existence. That's when I think it's very wrong to string them along. I would equate that practice to dating a girl you're not attracted to, the only goal being to gain exprience so that you can be better at dating girls that you're actually interested in. That girl's not going to feel too good about that, and the same thing can be applied to single parents. I just don't see why anyone would date or get into a relationship in that case, when they know there's no chance of going anywhere.


Ok, I understand what your saying now. Yeah, to be honest, I really don't know. I wouldn't know until it came to that point. Even after all I said, if there was a really good connection the girl I was dating and I was overly attracted to her, I would seriously consider that, but I just have no idea what that'd be like till that moment came. I guess I'm just confused because: A) I've never experienced it B) I don't know what'd I do if I really, really liked the girl-I just don't know. But yeah, with the intent to get serious with a girl with the intention of breaking up with her is pretty self-absorbed. I do feel my instance is different.

If you liked the girl supremely, what would it matter if you were in a relationship with her? Do you really need to have vacations to California every month? Do you assume your going to get jealous because you simply see the father? I wouldn't be in a relationship with a girl if she spent a considerable amount of time with the father, but let's be realistic: they AREN'T going to spend a lot of time together besides trading off the kid every now and then. Who cares if they briefly talk on the phone for child arrangements anyways? It isn't like my parents ever started having sex or having long chats over the phone because we were born and they were divorced. I don't know now, I wouldn't mind being a role model for another person's child if I loved the woman I was with, even if that meant I had to babysit every now and then. It isn't like I plan on traveling the world anytime soon. If it become my overall responsibility to watch her child, and that took me away from an education or other main personal things, then I'd be against it unless it was my child. I just don't see that happening unless we were married or something. Or maybe I'm just being naive? So basically, yeah, that kid is HER responsibility unless we get overly serious like getting married or something. Whoa, now I'm confusing myself... yeah...I just don't know... lol

I mean, wouldn't it be her responsibility to watch the child and not mine? Any insight? Think about it: am I supposed to be the one who watches the kid while she goes to school if it was HER kid? Wouldn't it make more sense, being that it is her kid, that she'd watch her own child while I continued doing what I did already? So what is the problem? I'd spend money on a kid if I was in a relationship with the mother, and not because I was forced to, but probably because I'd want to. I mean, how much damn cash you need to be happy anyways? Isn't it about the connections of being with people that bring us the most joy anyways? Oh yeah, I'm saying this on a SA forum... nevermind.. jk


----------



## rocky (Oct 14, 2006)

yes i would. i have a very close friendship with someone i've known for years that i met online who has a little girl. we send pms and a few cards in the mail, but i've never actually spoken to her. i wish she lived closer to me, i think she's an amazing woman and i would love the chance to date her.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> Drealm, I can't help but notice it appears as if your trying to magnetize everyone with your incredible logic... and stuff...


I'm not trying to derail the thread. I'm only responding to those who quote me. But if you'd like I'll opt out.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

drealm said:


> I'm not trying to derail the thread. I'm only responding to those who quote me. But if you'd like I'll opt out.


No, you have every right to post w/e you want. I was just being difficult.


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

drealm said:


> I'm not trying to belittle you with your quotes. I just don't understand your logic. This is the best analysis I could muster.


LOL you seem to be blurring objective with subjective. I'm stating my opinion on your post which I find backwards, that is a subjective interpretation of your opinion. You can't exactly fault people for not making a logical argument when that wasn't even their purpose in the first place. You can't exactly be proven "wrong" or "right" but I just have issues with your views, but of course you can go and keep having them (which I'm sure you will be anyway). That's what a discussion board is.

I am getting this vibe from your posts that divorce is this huge big bad monster that's just going to result in everything breaking down. Which is why I said the divorce rate is like 30% (and if you're ever so inclined and eager, feel free to look this up, I heard this from a prof a while ago, don't remember exactly where) yet people still function normally which means divorce is not the Titanic that sinks families.

Many kids from divorced families, single-parent families are fine and happy while others whose parents are married but constantly fighting are unhappy. All sorts of cases exist, so labeling being a step-parent to a child as some form of psychological abuse is kinda of absurd to me.

And someone already pointed out that some kids have irresponsible biological parents/fathers who deserted/abused them etc. Sure you can have the step-parent doing it too, but it says to me more about a specific person's character than massive generalizations.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

skybirdsky said:


> LOL you seem to be blurring objective with subjective. I'm stating my opinion on your post which I find backwards, that is a subjective interpretation of your opinion. You can't exactly fault people for not making a logical argument when that wasn't even their purpose in the first place. You can't exactly be proven "wrong" or "right" but I just have issues with your views, but of course you can go and keep having them (which I'm sure you will be anyway). That's what a discussion board is.


I thought you were claiming 30% divorce rate is caused by overly protective chastity and modesty standards. My mistake.



skybirdsky said:


> I am getting this vibe from your posts that divorce is this huge big bad monster that's just going to result in everything breaking down. Which is why I said the divorce rate is like 30% (and if you're ever so inclined and eager, feel free to look this up, I heard this from a prof a while ago, don't remember exactly where) yet people still function normally which means divorce is not the Titanic that sinks families.


1.

Divorce and rejection of marriage has already lead to a massive decline in western birth rates.

2.

Western society doesn't feel the effects of divorce yet because we're a prosperous society with the highest standard of living in the world. The third world by contrast is severely poorer, yet doesn't have a fraction of our divorce rates. This is because massive divorce rates and rejection of marriage are only possible in extremely wealthy societies. The US is becoming a third world nation, eventually massive divorces will catch up with American society.



skybirdsky said:


> Many kids from divorced families, single-parent families are fine and happy while others whose parents are married but constantly fighting are unhappy. All sorts of cases exist, so labeling being a step-parent to a child as some form of psychological abuse is kinda of absurd to me.


I've seen none of this. And the only people I've seen justifying this life style are people who don't suffer the consequences of it, namely parents, not their children.



skybirdsky said:


> And someone already pointed out that some kids have irresponsible biological parents/fathers who deserted/abused them etc. Sure you can have the step-parent doing it too, but it says to me more about a specific person's character than massive generalizations.


This is apples and oranges. How can thee worst possible biological parent be compared to thee best possible step parent?


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

Lower birth rates isn't exactly a negative effect on society if people are happy. People especially women are focusing more on their careers. Unless you're talking evolution, which it could be a problem, but really I personally don't care that much about it.

I find it highly surprising you don't know anyone at all who grew up with a step parent and were able to get along with them. I know countless examples. And I know of bad examples too. Is divorce desirable for a kid? Probably not. However, the alternative isn't great either. I know of many examples where parents stick together supposedly for the child, but they actually suffer and have distorted views of marriage and love based on seeing their parents go at it all day long bickering, fighting, abuse, and what-not. Hardly a happy environment for a child either. Personally, my parents love each other, but they fight endlessly due to a bad clash of personalities and I feel it highly straining playing mediator constantly so I can't imagine how it would be if there isn't even love (which is true for my friend's case and she actually wishes her parents would just get divorced).

Of course, the best case scenario is this happy traditional nuclear family with 2 loving parents, a white picket fence, a golden retriever, and 3 kids all smiling for a photo op. But this isn't possible for everyone and divorce and step-parents may not be always the worst choice for the parent and kid.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

My parents aren't together anymore and I'm not ****ed up at al... wait. Bad example.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

skybirdsky said:


> Lower birth rates isn't exactly a negative effect on society if people are happy. People especially women are focusing more on their careers. Unless you're talking evolution, which it could be a problem, but really I personally don't care that much about it.


While declining western birth rates may not seem like a problem, it's compounded by the fact that western children are being replaced by immigrants. Western society doesn't have a continuation plan. If you believe a place is defined by it's people and not it's coordinates, then we've already lost.



skybirdsky said:


> I find it highly surprising you don't know anyone at all who grew up with a step parent and were able to get along with them. I know countless examples. And I know of bad examples too. Is divorce desirable for a kid? Probably not. However, the alternative isn't great either. I know of many examples where parents stick together supposedly for the child, but they actually suffer and have distorted views of marriage and love based on seeing their parents go at it all day long bickering, fighting, abuse, and what-not. Hardly a happy environment for a child either. Personally, my parents love each other, but they fight endlessly due to a bad clash of personalities and I feel it highly straining playing mediator constantly so I can't imagine how it would be if there isn't even love (which is true for my friend's case and she actually wishes her parents would just get divorced).
> 
> Of course, the best case scenario is this happy traditional nuclear family with 2 loving parents, a white picket fence, a golden retriever, and 3 kids all smiling for a photo op. But this isn't possible for everyone and divorce and step-parents may not be always the worst choice for the parent and kid.


I view disdain for marriage as a step backwards. It's the equivalent of arguing we should return to horse and carriage because the first model T ford is loud, costly and difficult to operate. A model T ford, in spite of it's flaws had the potential to become something greater. Similarly marriage has the potential for greatness. Casual dating is an entry level investment that can only offer low yields and will never offer major potential for society or individuals.


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

Lol so are you implying that there should be less immigration into North America? The whole "them" vs. "us"? Putting aside personal biases (not born in North America), I would rather see people as people period. And somehow I'm failing to see the connection between decreasing the birth rate of immigrants and increasing that of "Western children" in helping "Western society". Seems a bit anti-multiculturalism and even hinting on the edge of racist to me to be honest.

Basically at the end of the day, you can't control what people want and what works for them. Everyone has a choice and you can't deny results when they do work. Societal norms are changing, and it just seems like you can't cope with this. While we all like to hang onto "old values" and things that seem familiar, sometimes you can't exactly control it besides your own situation/marriage/children. 

While I agree that people may be too hasty in marrying someone without thinking it through and then divorcing, I still think it's a better option to divorce someone who is CLEARLY not the right person and going to lead to massive chaos down the road than "suck it up and stick it through".


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Misery can spread like a disease. If you have a miserable marriage the children could also be affected. I used to think very narrowly about marriage and divorce, but now I see that titles are far less great than an individuals happiness. Marriage is just a tradition and that is it. Divorce is just a big fancy thing people do who want to get rid of that entitlement along with other things. I could stay unmarried for the rest of my life with someone I love and be perfectly normal and happy. Things are bound to change so I can care less about following any tradition. I have no idea where this thread is going...


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

skybirdsky said:


> Lol so are you implying that there should be less immigration into North America? The whole "them" vs. "us"? Putting aside personal biases (not born in North America), I would rather see people as people period. And somehow I'm failing to see the connection between decreasing the birth rate of immigrants and increasing that of "Western children" in helping "Western society". Seems a bit anti-multiculturalism and even hinting on the edge of racist to me to be honest.


Multi-culturalism is the co-existence of multiple cultures. How is supporting the decline of western culture in favor of a supplanted foreign culture considered multi-anything? Or is the definition of multi-culturalism just anything non-western? Foreign culture supplanting western culture is mono-culture.

This isn't a racial thing anyways. By western society I was referring to the customs, practices and knowledge of western society. When a people die, all their contributions go with them.


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

drealm said:


> Multi-culturalism is the co-existence of multiple cultures. How is supporting the decline of western culture in favor of a supplanted foreign culture considered multi-anything? Or is the definition of multi-culturalism just anything non-western? Foreign culture supplanting western culture is mono-culture.
> 
> This isn't a racial thing anyways. By western society I was referring to the customs, practices and knowledge of western society. When a people die, all their contributions go with them.


Uhh, how are "immigrants" = ONE foreign culture? Lol it is a matter of "them" vs. "us" and you're entitled to your views, so you don't really have to hide it. And what do you define by "Western culture" exactly? Your description is very vague at best. Customs, practices, and knowledge are constantly changing with time. Hardly helpful. The make-up of a culture also changes over time. What types of people are you exactly referring to? I think I have a pretty good idea, but take a go at it.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

I dated a lass about 6 years ago now who had a 2 year old. It wasn't a problem, great kid to be honest. 

Very loosly I would rather not preferably but it's not a huge deal, If I meet someone I like who has a kid and they like me then I'm going to gratefully accept the relationship and treat it as I would any other. I'm 27 now, getting on for a guy and it's hard to meet women where I live my age who don't already have kids in all honesty.


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

out of curiosity, just a question for those here with a kid - when/if you date, do you expect the person you want to date to play a parenting role in your child's life? do you purposely seek that out?


----------



## Keith (Aug 30, 2008)

Ive dated a woman who had two kids they were awesome well behaved kids we had a lot of fun together.So yeah i would date someone with kids again. My two closest friends both have kids so I'm not frightened away by children I'm pretty used to them.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

skybirdsky said:


> Uhh, how are "immigrants" = ONE foreign culture? Lol it is a matter of "them" vs. "us" and you're entitled to your views, so you don't really have to hide it. And what do you define by "Western culture" exactly? Your description is very vague at best. Customs, practices, and knowledge are constantly changing with time. Hardly helpful. The make-up of a culture also changes over time. What types of people are you exactly referring to? I think I have a pretty good idea, but take a go at it.


The majority of immigrants to Europe are middle eastern. The majority of immigrants to the United States are Hispanic. We do not have an equally divided melting pot. This isn't a matter of "us" vs "them", it's a matter of "us" and "them", as opposed to just "them".

You're asking for a soundbite definition of western culture. I'll oblige, but the definition I offer will be incomplete.

I define western culture as the present day diffusion of _formerly_ European ideals. Emphasis on the word _formerly_. You don't need to be European to practice western ideals.


----------



## starblob (Oct 23, 2005)

In all honesty it would make me a bit uneasy. I remember as a kid I hated when my mother would bring home a new boyfriend. I also hated the woman my father was with after he left my mother. I found the whole experience of having these people who I didn't like and was not comfortable around really upsetting. I felt completely powerless and hurt a lot of the time. 
I would have to spend time with his child/ren and get to know how they felt about the relationship and of me. If they didn't want me around I really think I would back off and end the relationship for their sake.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

starblob said:


> In all honesty it would make me a bit uneasy. I remember as a kid I hated when my mother would bring home a new boyfriend. I also hated the woman my father was with after he left my mother. *I found the whole experience of having these people who I didn't like and was not comfortable around really upsetting. I felt completely powerless and hurt a lot of the time.*


The deepest kind of betrayal a parent can make.



starblob said:


> I would have to spend time with his child/ren and get to know how they felt about the relationship and of me. * If they didn't want me around I really think I would back off and end the relationship for their sake.*


Medal of honor awarded. Will be shipped to you ASAP.


----------



## Ambivert (Jan 16, 2010)

No I wouldn't. I don't want to pick up the slack for some other guy's brood because they were irresponsible. It would have to be my own flesh and blood. That's how I feel, won't sugarcoat it


----------



## jane (Jan 30, 2006)

counterfeit self said:


> No I wouldn't. I don't want to pick up the slack for some other guy's brood because they were irresponsible.


How do you know the parents were irresponsible? It kind of seems like the scenario you have in mind is two teenagers who accidentally get pregnant and never get married. Maybe not getting married is the responsible choice, or maybe the father/mother is a widow, or maybe they were married but it didn't work out.

If all the respondents to this thread are in their early twenties, are people who can't take care of themselves or who aren't ready to have kids, than of course the answer is going to be no. I'm sure you'd get a different answer if we were all 30-something.


----------



## jane (Jan 30, 2006)

drealm said:


> The majority of immigrants to the United States are Hispanic. We do not have an equally divided melting pot. This isn't a matter of "us" vs "them", it's a matter of "us" and "them", as opposed to just "them".


I know this is off-topic, but I think the fear that immigrants will take over America is unfounded. Americans have been distrustful of Irish immigrants, of Chinese immigrants, of black immigrants, and hispican immigrants, and their fears were never realized. In Canada, it seems like people can keep their non-Canadian identities (like les Quebecois who are always threatening to secede). Viewed from the north, America seems like a real melting pot- you put in people from different countries, but all you get is Americans. Immigrants don't take away from your country and your culture, they just add to it.


----------



## mcmuffinme (Mar 12, 2010)

Maybe, but probably not right now because I'm so young. If the person is special then it wouldn't matter if they had kids to me. I would feel a bit awkward around the kids because they'd probably see me as trying to take the place of their mother and it'd be uncomfortable.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

starblob said:


> In all honesty it would make me a bit uneasy. I remember as a kid I hated when my mother would bring home a new boyfriend. I also hated the woman my father was with after he left my mother. I found the whole experience of having these people who I didn't like and was not comfortable around really upsetting. I felt completely powerless and hurt a lot of the time.
> I would have to spend time with his child/ren and get to know how they felt about the relationship and of me. If they didn't want me around I really think I would back off and end the relationship for their sake.


I hate that you had to experience this growing up... it was unfair and you mom does not sound like she was concerned about your feelings and reactions at all.... I wish it had been different.

I know as a single mom I would never date anyone who made my son uncomfortable as kids have a radar that some parents lack... I would trust his judgment.

I also would never bring home someone unless they seemed like they were wanting to be a regular part of my life... introducing my son to someone who would also abandon him would be damaging as he is always looking for a male role model or some guy to 'be like' since he obviously can't 'be like his dad.'


----------



## Cyrus (Oct 25, 2009)

Yes. But only if the child was over the age of 3 or 4 or something. If she'd just had a baby then no, I'd be uncomfortable with that, but a toddler or above I wouldn't mind.


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

drealm said:


> The majority of immigrants to Europe are middle eastern. The majority of immigrants to the United States are Hispanic. We do not have an equally divided melting pot. This isn't a matter of "us" vs "them", it's a matter of "us" and "them", as opposed to just "them".
> 
> You're asking for a soundbite definition of western culture. I'll oblige, but the definition I offer will be incomplete.
> 
> I define western culture as the present day diffusion of _formerly_ European ideals. Emphasis on the word _formerly_. You don't need to be European to practice western ideals.


Just because it's not a mathematical equal pie doesn't make it dichotomous. And repeating an idea many many times doesn't make it more logical or right. How can it just be "them" if by definition, even the kids who are born in the "new country" are considered American citizens right away? And if this vague description of supposed "European ideals" (which are changing even in Europe right now pff) is the supposed current right now, don't forget there were "Aboriginal ideals" way before that. So really, having a definition is pretty pointless because times are constantly changing and advancing. That's the idea of a forward society, not one that's stuck on conservative values, not letting go.

Lol, but never mind, obviously you have a deeply ingrained views of what you think is "pure" and "Western" so I won't bother wasting my time talking to a brick wall. I'm not really surprised, given what I read about in the news, these views are pretty common. No wonder there's so much intolerance in this world today and friction amongst cultures. Kinda disappointing given all the work people have done in the past to try and overcome this. I guess some people never change.

---

ANYWAY, back on topic, while a parent has a responsibility to ensure the happiness of a child, I think children can be way too selfish as well. Especially if their recently divorced/widowed parent etc is only in their mid 30s, or even late 20s. What, are they supposed to be single for the rest of their life just to make the kid happy? That's hardly fair. Of course, the kid should be a primary concern when dating/picking a new partner and it's a sensitive topic to approach carefully, but it's not all about "me me me and only me". In today's society, it's not the easiest thing to raise a kid alone.

Also, I've seen this with OLDER adult kids. We have a family friend who was like 65 years old and his wife passed away like 10 years ago. He was extremely lonely and wanted to date again. His adult daughters (who are married with kids) talked him out of it because they didn't like the idea. Right, because they're going to be the ones who spend time with him talking, taking care of him, being a partner every day...uh huh.


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

I wouldnt have a problem dating someone with a kid if the situation ever arose. So long as you like the person and respect the added responsibilities that go with it.

Plus, there's bound to be more chocolate around. Ya cant go wrong.


----------



## gold132 (Mar 27, 2009)

no..unless i was absolutely in love with them


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

skybirdsky said:


> Just because it's not a mathematical equal pie doesn't make it dichotomous. And repeating an idea many many times doesn't make it more logical or right. How can it just be "them" if by definition, even the kids who are born in the "new country" are considered American citizens right away? And if this vague description of supposed "European ideals" (which are changing even in Europe right now pff) is the supposed current right now, don't forget there were "Aboriginal ideals" way before that. So really, having a definition is pretty pointless because times are constantly changing and advancing. That's the idea of a forward society, not one that's stuck on conservative values, not letting go.


Repeating ideas for the sake of repeating ideas doesn't make them right. Being consistent isn't "repeating ideas".

If the definition of western culture is pointless it can be extrapolated that definitions of races, ethnics, nationalities and religions are also pointless. But such a stance doesn't allow differences to be acknowledged.



skybirdsky said:


> Lol, but never mind, obviously you have a deeply ingrained views of what you think is "pure" and "Western" so I won't bother wasting my time talking to a brick wall. I'm not really surprised, given what I read about in the news, these views are pretty common. No wonder there's so much intolerance in this world today and friction amongst cultures. Kinda disappointing given all the work people have done in the past to try and overcome this. I guess some people never change.


A brick wall is better than a stick hut.

Why should people change? Is sameness better?


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

Lol there's no point to semantic games. Fine, you're consistency repeating the same idea without adding anything new ideas to a subjective opinion and trying to create the illusion that it's an argument. 

The issue is that you're trying to pass off a subjective opinion as an objective argument. You can't really knock subjective opinions because that's what they are, subjective, e.g. "I dislike immigrants and they have too many kids and I'm scared they're going to take over 'Western' society." It gets really annoying when people try to twist their opinions into arguments, e.g. "Immigration and their increased birth rate are wreaking havoc on the current 'Western' society".

That's right, we shouldn't change. Black people should go sit at the back of the bus. Women should not vote.


----------



## Nameless (Feb 6, 2009)

drealm said:


> So unless I take an opposite position to my original position, I'm "repeating ideas"? Isn't the point of taking a position to "take it"?
> 
> There's a conflict, therefore it's an argument. This argument is only an "illusion" if both parties are secretly in agreement with each.
> 
> ...


I'm surprised that you are still allowed to post here.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be able to say whatever they want. But for some reason, SAS doesn't seem to have a problem with sexist comments, the moderators are more considered about sex or swearwords. To be fair, it's not a problem limited to SAS.


----------



## skybirdsky (Apr 16, 2010)

drealm said:


> But I do agree women shouldn't vote.


LOL this just takes the cake. But I'm glad you're finally understanding the difference between objective and subjective. Good for you.

Geez, why did I even bother discussing anything? Obviously I was talking to someone who clearly has derealization with current society. When you're ready anytime now, you can face reality. Otherwise, have fun in la-la land.


----------



## drealm (Jul 7, 2009)

skybirdsky said:


> LOL this just takes the cake. But I'm glad you're finally understanding the difference between objective and subjective. Good for you.


Nothing was ever framed as objective or subjective.



Nameless said:


> I'm surprised that you are still allowed to post here.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be able to say whatever they want. But for some reason, SAS doesn't seem to have a problem with sexist comments, the moderators are more considered about sex or swearwords. To be fair, it's not a problem limited to SAS.





skybirdsky said:


> Geez, why did I even bother discussing anything? Obviously I was talking to someone who clearly has derealization with current society. When you're ready anytime now, you can face reality. Otherwise, have fun in la-la land.


Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views. - William F. Buckley, Jr.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

****Thread Lock Watch****
I need to reiterate that moderation DOES look after posts deemed sexist and intolerant, not just cussing.

The topic of this thread is dating someone with a child even you don't have one. Keep it on topic.


----------



## mbp86 (May 11, 2010)

No, I don't want to even think about kids until I'm in my late 30s.


----------



## General Specific (Mar 4, 2008)

No because I'm not ready to be a father figure.


----------



## BrokenDreams (Nov 22, 2008)

I married a woman with a nine month old baby. I loved him like he was my own. It was a wonderful experience for me. He is 30 now and we are still close even though his mother and I divorced 16 years ago. He sees his biological father rarely and every time they inevitably end up in a fist fight. To me, he is my son and to him, I am his dad.

I also dated a woman with 2 teenage kids a few years after my divorce. We dated for about 2 years. Again it was a great experience.


----------



## theCARS1979 (Apr 26, 2010)

*maybe*

Perhaps , Maybe one, but not more then one. 
Steve


----------

