PDA

View Full Version : Spouses or kids?



Chiara
14-03-2005, 01:44
Interesting post somewhere else on the site where a guy says the most important thing in his life is his (soon to be) wife followed by his grandchildren, and presumably his kids are in there too but what struck me is that they somewhat lower down the chain than the fiancee.

What do other people think? Maybe this is where being female kicks in but as far as I am concerned, however much you love and adore your partner, no one but no one is more important to you than your kids ever.

This isn't a criticism of the poster, he did say grandkids after all an no one knows his own particular situation but I would be interested to know what others on here think.

Goose0009
14-03-2005, 07:43
How hot is his Fiancee?

yankee@moscow
14-03-2005, 08:00
I don't have any kids that I know of. So, that doesn't make them very important at this point. How hot is his fiance?

DJ Biscuit
14-03-2005, 12:52
I don't have children, don't want children and therefore will never have children. The most important people in my life are those I chose to love and be loved by.

Chiara
14-03-2005, 13:51
Thanks but how about a reply from someone who actually has kids?

pengwn9
14-03-2005, 14:04
I have kids. I like them just fine.

Alas, no fiance in my life currently. Can't help you there.

CRAYOLA
14-03-2005, 14:34
It would seem pretty obvious at a glance. I have kids but no partner. Anyhow, I would do anything to protect and provide for my children. However, your spouse is someone you not only love but commit to forever before God(if you so believe). You say that this is the person that comes first and foremost in your life and will continue to do so till you perish. To me that statement to which you refer sems to fall right along with that sentiment. Pretty steep standard for me personally.

M-C
14-03-2005, 19:30
Kids come first, anyday. Actually it's a completely different quality of feeling, needless to say, my daughter is still quite small, or I might be a bit more mitigated;)

druna
15-03-2005, 05:08
kids most important

waste not want not
15-03-2005, 11:32
Kids are first no matter what.

Hot looks? Look around you guys, that is not the problem. To find a good women is another story.
Single parents have a hard time regardless whether or not you are male or female. Finding a person to take on a relationship involving kids is not a easy task.

M-C
15-03-2005, 12:15
Of course it's difficult to find someone when you have kids, the first place is already taken, no matter what. Lots of people object to playing second fiddle, although, I'd say it's easier in lots of ways......

koba65
15-03-2005, 12:39
Originally posted by pengwn9
I have kids. I like them just fine.

Alas, no fiance in my life currently. Can't help you there.


Things didn't work out with the Cambodian?

pengwn9
15-03-2005, 14:21
Originally posted by koba65
Things didn't work out with the Cambodian?

The little twirp ran off with an older woman. We expatellas are just too hot to handle.

Vanilla
15-03-2005, 14:30
One day kids will have their own life and leave the house. I don’t want to make any statement, but I believe that you love your wife / husband and want HIS / HER children, so affection to kids is of a “secondary” nature.

Cherry
15-03-2005, 14:35
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
I don't have children, don't want children and therefore will never have children. The most important people in my life are those I chose to love and be loved by.


why not?

Halyavshik
15-03-2005, 14:43
Originally posted by Vanilla
One day kids will have their own life and leave the house. I don’t want to make any statement, but I believe that you love your wife / husband and want HIS / HER children, so affection to kids is of a “secondary” nature.

Interesting observation, Vanilla, but what about couples who stay together for the sake of the children ?

sfjohns67
15-03-2005, 14:52
Tough question. My love for my daughter feels completely different than that for my wife. I love my daughter in a natural, effortless way that seems almost primal, as if I really can feel her as an extension of me, whereas my love for my wife feels more cultivated, something I've had to work at in order to develop and refine.

My daughter is still a helpless baby (and will probably seem that way to me for a long time), therefore my gut reaction would be to put her first, especially with respect to the aforementioned "primal" aspect of my love for her. On the other hand, though, I know the time will come when the degree to which she is cognizant of relationships, particularly that of her parents, will require me to put my wife first. Why? Because I strongly believe my daughter growing up in a house with a 100% united parental front, no exceptions, will serve as a solid basis for her confidence in herself and her own relationships for her entire life.

Ghost
15-03-2005, 14:52
Couples who have made the conscious decision to stay together because of the children could arise from the belief that if they split up, they might risk losing the children to the other one, OR causing a rift between their relationship with the children. Or both.

I agree with Vanilla (surprise). You love your partner first, then your children (who come in at an almost impossible to detect short second).

Ghost
15-03-2005, 14:53
Odd reading SF's serious post while also looking at the sheep in women's clothing, and the Lebowski quote that refers to a bowling pedophile.

Vanilla
15-03-2005, 14:53
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Interesting observation, Vanilla, but what about couples who stay together for the sake of the children ?

How about children watching their parents sleeping in different bedrooms and exchanging a couple of words a month?! Is it a better model?

sfjohns67
15-03-2005, 14:56
Originally posted by Ghost
Odd reading SF's serious post while also looking at the sheep in women's clothing, and the Lebowski quote that refers to a bowling pedophile. Time to shift your paradigm, my man!

Sadie
15-03-2005, 15:02
Originally posted by Halyavshik
but what about couples who stay together for the sake of the children ?
i think it's a wrong thing to do, one phrase stuck in my mind forever: it's better for the kid to have two happy homes than one but unhappy. I couldn't agree more.

Fa-Q!
15-03-2005, 15:02
Might be interesting to consider that it's a well-known scientific fact that, in the event of danger, a man's first instinct is to protect his woman, whereas, a woman's first instinct is to protect her child. Not that that's an answer to the particular question. Ghost and Vanilla both have some good points. I'll only say that holding your very own baby in your arms changes whatever outlook on life you had before the experience.

Halyavshik
15-03-2005, 15:05
Originally posted by Vanilla
How about children watching their parents sleeping in different bedrooms and exchanging a couple of words a month?! Is it a better model?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's necessarily the right thing to do, but I believe many couples stay together out of the belief that a divorce is a terrible thing to put a child through.

That would seem to imply that they put the children first, over their own difficulties and each other.

Vanilla
15-03-2005, 15:13
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
Might be interesting to consider that it's a well-known scientific fact that, in the event of danger, a man's first instinct is to protect his woman, whereas, a woman's first instinct is to protect her child. Not that that's an answer to the particular question. Ghost and Vanilla both have some good points. I'll only say that holding your very own baby in your arms changes whatever outlook on life you had before the experience.

That is true, but again, your spouse is someone you want to age together, share your memories, it is your equal whom with you had/have/will have so much in common. The child is a prove of the utmost feelings between the two of you and it cannot, at least should not, take the first place. Though, I can agree with SFJ67, it may be a different kind of love.

pengwn9
15-03-2005, 15:18
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
I'll only say that holding your very own baby in your arms changes whatever outlook on life you had before the experience.

Children don't stay babies for long. A wise Russian said to me over the weekend ""Small children small problems. Big children big problems". They want you to buy them a car, pay for their college and then they move out. It all changes. You change.

Children are a permanent yet temporary part of your life. If you focus your entire existance on your kids, what are you going to do when they're gone? They WILL leave you. You must have a life of your own all along or you will be vacant and empty when they go. You can't let your life always revolve around your kids.

Vanilla
15-03-2005, 15:18
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's necessarily the right thing to do, but I believe many couples stay together out of the belief that a divorce is a terrible thing to put a child through.

That would seem to imply that they put the children first, over their own difficulties and each other.


The easiest way out is to accept things as they are. Some people take it, others keep on looking for the happiness.

Fa-Q!
15-03-2005, 15:32
Originally posted by Vanilla
The easiest way out is to accept things as they are. Some people take it, others keep on looking for the happiness.
:agree:

Sadie
15-03-2005, 15:35
Originally posted by pengwn9
Children are a permanent yet temporary part of your life. If you focus your entire existance on your kids, what are you going to do when they're gone? They WILL leave you. You must have a life of your own all along or you will be vacant and empty when they go. You can't let your life always revolve around your kids.
I think pengwn that the patterns of families are quite different here and where you are from. Say Russian families or take Italians tend to stick together throughout their life whilst western culture is a bit different in this sense. This is the type of family I am used to and will try to build myself. It is not about focusing your existance on children or giving your entire self to them, it is more like a very close connection between the most dear people on earth. Such people don't leave you. This or that way they stick together.

CRAYOLA
15-03-2005, 16:24
I think when two people commit to one another and then produce children, one comes to expect that because of that initial dedication, they will also share a desire for the betterment of their offspring. However, it is different when there is no relationship amd we speak of two individuals. That is when the children come first.

Vanilla
15-03-2005, 16:49
Originally posted by CRAYOLA
However, it is different when there is no relationship amd we speak of two individuals. That is when the children come first.

I dont get it:rolleyes:

Fa-Q!
15-03-2005, 16:57
Crayola means that if you just meet someone and do the nasty and produce a kid without ever loving the person you did the nasty with, you'll love the kid more than the person you did the nasty with. That's an obvious fact, Crayola.

Vanilla
15-03-2005, 17:10
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
Crayola means that if you just meet someone and do the nasty and produce a kid without ever loving the person you did the nasty with, you'll love the kid more than the person you did the nasty with. That's an obvious fact, Crayola.

LOL

Vanilla
15-03-2005, 17:25
[

M-C
16-03-2005, 14:35
If your kids come first, it doesn't mean you don't do anything else with your life, like you don't want to read your favourite book, eat your favourite food or listen to your favourite music all the time. Besides, even though the quality of emotion is generally higher, given that you love without expecting anything in return, there's no guarantee that the relationship will be an easy one....