I'm not having kids.

[AutotelicBrown]

I intend to have children myself, although it should take upwards of 10 years for me to reach the conditions I'd be satisfied with to actually get them. Not sure I'll be in a heterosexual relationship by then but I'll rely on surrogacy need it be.

Originally Posted by Izzy

I wouldn't do that only because I don't believe it is fair to the child to not be raised as well as they can be compared to 2 parents.

Are you basing that only on your common sense? From what you can get on the research front, other factors (like money that you already mentioned in the other post) are way more important than the difference of 1 to 2 parents to how well off the child will be, and even then that's only if the 2 parents have a healthy relationship to start with.

Aside from that, the biological link isn't nearly as important as actually having someone to care for the child, you can always live with someone else (not necessarily in a romantic relationship or maybe in a non-binary one) who is willing to help raise the children.

Originally Posted by Izzy

I should just pay the women to also be my wife and help raise them.

Not sure how it goes there, but in Brazil you'd pretty much need the trust of an actual wife to try that out as it's almost trivial for the mother to bring legal action and take custody of the children while the father has to pay alimony.

[Wayward Vagabond]

Originally Posted by MinaciousGrace

when you are lying on your death bed and realize you are going to leave no legacy on this earth before you depart and that your entire existence was a cosmic exercise in futility you will remember this thread

Unless you leave you're three initials on a scoreboard with a score so siq no one will top it. Then your legacy will live on

[drizzleRomanceGirl]

Originally Posted by Wayward Vagabond

Unless you leave you're three initials on a scoreboard with a score so siq no one will top it. Then your legacy will live on

+1

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by AutotelicBrown

Are you basing that only on your common sense? From what you can get on the research front, other factors (like money that you already mentioned in the other post) are way more important than the difference of 1 to 2 parents to how well off the child will be, and even then that's only if the 2 parents have a healthy relationship to start with.

Maybe the use of the word parents isn't necessary. Just the idea that 2 people raising a child would be better than 1. Unless for some reason you have infinite money somebody would have to be working which would leave gaps of time the child wouldn't be cared for or have to be left with someone else.

Perhaps in the end it would turn out fine, but it seems less optimal than having 2 people who unconditionally love and care for them.

Originally Posted by AutotelicBrown

Not sure how it goes there, but in Brazil you'd pretty much need the trust of an actual wife to try that out as it's almost trivial for the mother to bring legal action and take custody of the children while the father has to pay alimony.

What does that accomplish and what reason would they have to do something like that in this hypothetical scenario?

[AutotelicBrown]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Unless for some reason you have infinite money somebody would have to be working which would leave gaps of time the child wouldn't be cared for or have to be left with someone else.

If you amass enough money you can live off investiments with almost full free time. Definitely not trivial but it is an option nonetheless.

Also the argument can be degenerated to 'well, but having 3 people caring for the child is better then'.

But yeah, I understand and consider important the aspect of actually having time for the children myself.

Originally Posted by Izzy

What does that accomplish and what reason would they have to do something like that in this hypothetical scenario?

I'm assuming the hypothetical scenario the mother is getting into the 'deal' for anything other than her relationship with the father. Considering the easy alternative for her to get the monetary support from the father legally without actually dealing with having him around, and having the child for herself, I'd think it's easy to see why the mother would resort to that in any conflict that may ensue.

I'm not saying it's widespread practice, but it happens and I wouldn't want to jeopardize the opportunity to raise my children for something like that.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by AutotelicBrown

I'm assuming the hypothetical scenario the mother is getting into the 'deal' for anything other than her relationship with the father. Considering the easy alternative for her to get the monetary support from the father legally without actually dealing with having him around, and having the child for herself, I'd think it's easy to see why the mother would resort to that in any conflict that may ensue.

I'm not saying it's widespread practice, but it happens and I wouldn't want to jeopardize the opportunity to raise my children for something like that.

I really don't understand what you are saying.

[Dynam0]

Originally Posted by Wayward Vagabond

Unless you leave you're three initials on a scoreboard with a score so siq no one will top it. Then your legacy will live on

~my spirit will go on~

[top]

Originally Posted by choof

this is how marriage actually is

BAZINGA!!!

[AutotelicBrown]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I really don't understand what you are saying.

Sorry for not being clear, I guess I'll at least try to pass the bare essentials of what I'm trying to say. If I can't I'll just give up I guess.

I should just pay the women to also be my wife and help raise them.

You are pretty much passing the idea that the mother would agree with it based on money related reasons primarily (correct me if I'm wrong).

In case of separation for a couple with children, the parent with custody of the children will almost always get compulsory financial support (alimony) from the other parent for legal reasons. In practice, almost always the mother has priority for taking the custody while the father has to pay the alimony.

So, the mother can simply fill in for the separation and get both the children and the money while the father is forced to move away from them. Following from the first premise, this option may be preferrable for the mother and it actually happens here more often than not.

Probably trying too hard to elaborate something I said as a passing thought anyway, don't mind me.

[Izzy]

And I'm asking why the mother is leaving. That is the part I don't understand.

[AutotelicBrown]

Oh, I see. Well, the mother may want to leave for reasons similar to divorces in the general population, together with the fact there isn't much to lose if she believes raising the children by herself isn't a problem. The main premise is that the mother isn't really invested in the relationship with the father to start with.

[Skullbac]

I don't want children
Not because of the F part, but taking care of them 24/7