Choosing between two lifestyles...

[RubyCharm]

If you could choose between the following two options ONLY, what type of life would you rather have?

 

[Regular Guy]

Are the results above to be explained by the fact that:

- this is a diamond forum (!)
- the use of language in portraying these 2 options
- both of the above
- something else?

 

[Dancing Fire]

i''d prefer option #3...

married with children and have enough money to retire early.

 

[RubyCharm]

Date: 6/15/2009 11:50:29 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Are the results above to be explained by the fact that:

- this is a diamond forum (!)

- the use of language in portraying these 2 options

- both of the above

- something else?

Hahaha, probably "both of the above." I saw the "Nice and rich or ZaZING! and poor" thread, and was wondering if people would be more willing to sacrifice having children in order to have other things (such as more time and money to spend on themselves) or vice versa. In the thread that I''m referring to, a lot of PSers were willing to sacrifice being with a partner they loved and were truly passionate about in order to have financial security and stability. So, I wondered if something similar could happen with children (who, in a way, are a financial burden...)

 

[jstarfireb]

Married with money and time, no kids...by MILES. But this is influenced by the fact that I don''t want kids to begin with. Incredibly easy choice for me.

 

[RubyCharm]

Date: 6/16/2009 12:21:48 AM
Author: jstarfireb
Married with money and time, no kids...by MILES. But this is influenced by the fact that I don''t want kids to begin with. Incredibly easy choice for me.

Although I like kids, I don''t want to have any children of my own. My FI and I wouldn''t mind being a childless by choice married couple. In fact we''re looking forward to it

... some food for thought...

Ann Landers'' famous "The Childless Couple"

There is nothing sadder than a childless couple. It breaks my heart to see them relaxing around swimming pools in Florida, sitting all suntanned and miserable on the decks of their boats -- trotting off to Europe like lonesome fools. It''s an empty life. Nothing but money to spend, more time to enjoy and a whole lot less to worry about.

The poor childless couple are so wrapped up in themselves, you have to feel sorry for them. They don''t fight over the child''s discipline, don''t blame each other for the child''s most obnoxious characteristics, and they miss all the fun of doing without for the child''s sake. They just go along, doing whatever they want, buying what they want and liking each other. It''s a pretty pathetic picture.

Everyone should have children. No one should be allowed to escape the wonderful experience that accompanies each stage in the development of the young -- the happy memories of sleepless nights, coughing spells, tantrums, diaper rash, debts, "dipso" baby sitters, saturated mattresses, emergencies and never-ending crises.

How dismal is the peaceful home without the constant childish problems that make a well-rounded life and an early breakdown; the tender, thoughtful discussions when the report card reveals the progeny to be one step below a moron; the end-of-the-day reunions with all the joyful happenings recited like well-placed blows to the temples.

Children are worth it. Every moment of anxiety, every sacrifice, every complete collapse pays off as a fine, sturdy adolescent is reached. The feeling of reward the first time you took the boy hunting -- he didn''t mean to shoot you, the lad was excited. Remember how he cried? How sorry he was? And how much better you felt after the blood transfusion? These are the times a man with a growing son treasures -- memories that are captured forever in the heart and the limp.

Think back to the night of romantic adventure when your budding daughter eloped with the village idiot. What childless couple ever shared in the stark realism of that drama? Aren''t you a better man for having lived richly, fully, acquiring that tic in your left eye? Could a woman without children touch the strength and heroism of your wife as she tried to fling herself out of the bedroom window?

The childless couple live in a vacuum. They fill their lonely days with golf, vacation trips, dinner dates, civic affairs, tranquility, leisure and entertainment. There is a terrifying emptiness without children, but the childless couple are too comfortable to know it.

You just have to look at them to see what the years have done: He looks boyish, unlined and rested; she''s slim, well-groomed and youthful. It isn''t natural. If they had had kids, they''d look like the rest of us -- worn out, wrinkled and exhausted.

 

[E B]

ETA: Nevermind, I misunderstood the question!

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/16/2009 1:21:25 AM
Author: RubyCharm

Date: 6/16/2009 12:21:48 AM
Author: jstarfireb
Married with money and time, no kids...by MILES. But this is influenced by the fact that I don''t want kids to begin with. Incredibly easy choice for me.

Although I like kids, I don''t want to have any children of my own. My FI and I wouldn''t mind being a childless by choice married couple. In fact we''re looking forward to it

... some food for thought...

Ann Landers'' famous ''The Childless Couple''

There is nothing sadder than a childless couple. It breaks my heart to see them relaxing around swimming pools in Florida, sitting all suntanned and miserable on the decks of their boats -- trotting off to Europe like lonesome fools. It''s an empty life. Nothing but money to spend, more time to enjoy and a whole lot less to worry about.

The poor childless couple are so wrapped up in themselves, you have to feel sorry for them. They don''t fight over the child''s discipline, don''t blame each other for the child''s most obnoxious characteristics, and they miss all the fun of doing without for the child''s sake. They just go along, doing whatever they want, buying what they want and liking each other. It''s a pretty pathetic picture.

Everyone should have children. No one should be allowed to escape the wonderful experience that accompanies each stage in the development of the young -- the happy memories of sleepless nights, coughing spells, tantrums, diaper rash, debts, ''dipso'' baby sitters, saturated mattresses, emergencies and never-ending crises.

How dismal is the peaceful home without the constant childish problems that make a well-rounded life and an early breakdown; the tender, thoughtful discussions when the report card reveals the progeny to be one step below a moron; the end-of-the-day reunions with all the joyful happenings recited like well-placed blows to the temples.

Children are worth it. Every moment of anxiety, every sacrifice, every complete collapse pays off as a fine, sturdy adolescent is reached. The feeling of reward the first time you took the boy hunting -- he didn''t mean to shoot you, the lad was excited. Remember how he cried? How sorry he was? And how much better you felt after the blood transfusion? These are the times a man with a growing son treasures -- memories that are captured forever in the heart and the limp.

Think back to the night of romantic adventure when your budding daughter eloped with the village idiot. What childless couple ever shared in the stark realism of that drama? Aren''t you a better man for having lived richly, fully, acquiring that tic in your left eye? Could a woman without children touch the strength and heroism of your wife as she tried to fling herself out of the bedroom window?

The childless couple live in a vacuum. They fill their lonely days with golf, vacation trips, dinner dates, civic affairs, tranquility, leisure and entertainment. There is a terrifying emptiness without children, but the childless couple are too comfortable to know it.

You just have to look at them to see what the years have done: He looks boyish, unlined and rested; she''s slim, well-groomed and youthful. It isn''t natural. If they had had kids, they''d look like the rest of us -- worn out, wrinkled and exhausted.

My dad was indeed worn out, wrinkled and exhausted as he lay on his death bed. I imagine childless or not, if we are lucky to make it that are, we all will be. The difference is that some of us will have our child''s kiss to send us off to the next journey as I did for my father.

That being said....

If I could HAD to choose between the two you posted, pre Amelia I''d choose childless and stable. Post Amelia, I''d really have to think about. Not because I wouldn''t want to have her, but because providing for her is very important to me and I don''t think I''d want her to suffer.

However, my brother and I grew up poor - but always had food on the table somehow (so maybe we weren''t THAT poor). So I think in the end, I''d choose to have her, even if it meant financial struggle. Keep in mind my daughter is only 14 months and has not had the opportunity to run off with the village idiot yet.

BTW, yes, it sucks being wrinkled, crappy looking and exhausted. I just find after having a kid I look at her far more than I look in the mirror. And she must be looking at someone who is laughing with complete awe, a whole lot of the time.

The key difference between the thread that I started and this one is that while I love my husband with all my heart, I love my daughter with all my being. The passionate love for a man and the passionate love for a child are two different things, in my book.

 

[trillionaire]

yeah, I don''t want kids, so easy choice. I think kids are great and all, endlessly fascinating, but so is the world. I like the idea of freedom of movement, and I believe that children need stability. My aunt and uncle are my relationship role models. They are hopelessly and passionately in love well into their 50''s, they live full and happy existence without kids and are far more connected than any other couple I have ever met. I love SO so much, he is enough for me. I don''t need a child to enrich what is already so rich and growing richer by the year. I love the idea of just us, forever and always. How romantic!

 

[Linda W]

I''m too old for these quizzes. I''m a grandma.

 

[butterfly 17]

Date: 6/16/2009 12:02:34 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
i''d prefer option #3...

married with children and have enough money to retire early.

I prefer this option as well, but since you only posted the two, I picked number one.

 

[lucyandroger]

TGal, that was a really beautiful post.

I chose children because as I look back at my life thus far (only 24 years), the moments that I cherish the most are not the luxurious vacations or partying at all hours of the night but the time spent with my family sharing in each other''s life milestones, bbqing in the backyard, or laughing over a game of scrabble. I can''t imagine my life without people I love to share it with and I can''t imagine my life as a widow (or my SO''s life as a widower) with no one else in the world.

 

[monarch64]

I chose the childless by choice option...not because I don''t like or want children, but because at this point in my life I worry whether I could provide well enough for a child/children. Struggling financially is bad enough when the only person I''m responsible for is me, but struggling financially and going through the heartache and frustration of being responsible for someone else''s life I don''t think I could handle. However, like everything in life there are gray areas and variables...my mind might change if I could predict financial success for myself.

 

[Shoopy]

I voted married with no children but not so I can have more things or retire.

I grew up in a household where we were strapped for cash and hurting financially. My mom was able to pull us out of that slump on her own but it was still really hard. I wouldn''t want to put any children through that. So if I knew ahead of time that having children meant we would always struggle with no chance of ever pulling free then I would rather not have any children.

 

[purselover]

I voted no children, I wouldn''t want my kids to suffer, I was lucky to grow up with everything I need and tons more and wouldn''t want anything less than that for my own children.

 

[Mara]

how old am i supposed to be?

if i''m a spring chicken i prob wouldn''t mind the kids and running around struggling because i wouldn''t be old and decrepit and need 10 hours of sleep like i do now.

if i was my age i am now, i''d prob choose option B. since those are similar discussions to what we have now that we are older and contemplating kids. like...is it too late. is it worth it right now. will we regret it. etc.

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/16/2009 11:07:53 AM
Author: purselover
I voted no children, I wouldn''t want my kids to suffer, I was lucky to grow up with everything I need and tons more and wouldn''t want anything less than that for my own children.

I actually was raised until age 9 or 10 with not much at all. Well, enough to survive and be fed and clothed and housed. But other than that, not a whole lot of extras. My Mom told me when I was older she wished she had more to give me when I was young. I was shell-shocked asking her...what do you mean we didn''t have much? My childhood memories are entirely happy.

Nowadays things are so much more material than when I was being raised (and I am 34 so not quite a skeleton yet), but kids and their social circles expect different things than when I was little. I take the above question to mean struggling but not homeless or not able to feed the kids etc. So if the parents are loving and the kids are happy, it would be worth it...for the KIDS.

Parents are another matter.

 

[neatfreak]

Pre kids I would have chosen the freedom and $ for sure.

Now that I have my little guys though I would choose children without a doubt. They bring so much joy into my life that I can''t even imagine not having them.

 

[RubyCharm]

My dad was indeed worn out, wrinkled and exhausted as he lay on his death bed. I imagine childless or not, if we are lucky to make it that are, we all will be. The difference is that some of us will have our child''s kiss to send us off to the next journey as I did for my father.

I think there are many wonderful reasons why people decide to have children. However--and I''m in no way implying this is your father''s case; this is just my general opinion--having children mainly because you don''t want to die alone is not a good reason. Sadly, a lot of people die with a sense of loneliness, regardless of whether they had any children. Staying child-free is not an instant passport to a miserable death, just as having children is not an instant passport to a more peaceful death. In the end, with or without a child''s kiss, what would be important to me is to be kept comfortable and free of pain, and die knowing that I had a happy and fulfilling life.

That being said....


If I could HAD to choose between the two you posted, pre Amelia I''d choose childless and stable. Post Amelia, I''d really have to think about. Not because I wouldn''t want to have her, but because providing for her is very important to me and I don''t think I''d want her to suffer.


However, my brother and I grew up poor - but always had food on the table somehow (so maybe we weren''t THAT poor). So I think in the end, I''d choose to have her, even if it meant financial struggle. Keep in mind my daughter is only 14 months and has not had the opportunity to run off with the village idiot yet.


BTW, yes, it sucks being wrinkled, crappy looking and exhausted. I just find after having a kid I look at her far more than I look in the mirror. And she must be looking at someone who is laughing with complete awe, a whole lot of the time.


The key difference between the thread that I started and this one is that while I love my husband with all my heart, I love my daughter with all my being. The passionate love for a man and the passionate love for a child are two different things, in my book.

I agree with you that the love for a man and the love for a child are two different things (although I got inspired by your thread, I never said those two things were the same). However, I don''t see either type of love as being any less important than the other. My mom always told me that she loved us all (meaning my father, my brother, and me) with all her being. She always put her marriage first, because she knew that if her marriage wasn''t strong, we--the children--would be able to feel it. She''s been married to my father for over 25 years.

 

[purselover]

Date: 6/16/2009 11:15:27 AM
Author: Mara

Date: 6/16/2009 11:07:53 AM
Author: purselover
I voted no children, I wouldn''t want my kids to suffer, I was lucky to grow up with everything I need and tons more and wouldn''t want anything less than that for my own children.

I actually was raised until age 9 or 10 with not much at all. Well, enough to survive and be fed and clothed and housed. But other than that, not a whole lot of extras. My Mom told me when I was older she wished she had more to give me when I was young. I was shell-shocked asking her...what do you mean we didn''t have much? My childhood memories are entirely happy.

Nowadays things are so much more material than when I was being raised (and I am 34 so not quite a skeleton yet), but kids and their social circles expect different things than when I was little. I take the above question to mean struggling but not homeless or not able to feed the kids etc. So if the parents are loving and the kids are happy, it would be worth it...for the KIDS.

Parents are another matter.

I think you''re right in a happy house children often aren''t aware of what they''re lacking. I didn''t think of it that way, so thanks for the interesting perspective!

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/16/2009 11:11:25 AM
Author: Mara
how old am i supposed to be?

if i''m a spring chicken i prob wouldn''t mind the kids and running around struggling because i wouldn''t be old and decrepit and need 10 hours of sleep like i do now.

if i was my age i am now, i''d prob choose option B. since those are similar discussions to what we have now that we are older and contemplating kids. like...is it too late. is it worth it right now. will we regret it. etc.

btw, don''t let anyone tell you when you have kids that you will "get used to" being up early and that your clock will set and that you will become an early bird. All lies! I was thinking about this yesterday. Amelia is 14.5 months old and I thought, why isn''t this getting up stuff easier? Why do I still love sleep so much? I will admit, my clock IS set to wake me up at the same time every day which is the time I need to go in and feed her. However, if I even close my eyes for a second, I can easily knock back out for another 4 hours.

It sucks.

 

[chrono]

I cannot knowingly start a family without financial independence. I refuse to bring innocent lives into the world where it is a struggle to feed, shelter and nurture them.

 

[RubyCharm]

Date: 6/16/2009 11:11:25 AM
Author: Mara
how old am i supposed to be?

if i'm a spring chicken i prob wouldn't mind the kids and running around struggling because i wouldn't be old and decrepit and need 10 hours of sleep like i do now.


if i was my age i am now, i'd prob choose option B. since those are similar discussions to what we have now that we are older and contemplating kids. like...is it too late. is it worth it right now. will we regret it. etc.

I suck at making good polls

I should have been more specific. Basically, you're supposed to answer from the perspective of someone who's at an age in which he/she can still make this type of decision and those two options are the only choices.

I've never wanted to have any children, regardless of my financial situation. However, I'm just approaching my mid-twenties now, so I don't know whether any maternal instincts will kick in later. Therefore, it's always been very important to me that my FI be OK with not having children at all, if that's ever the case. I don't worry about running out of time and realizing too late that I actually wanted to be a mother after all. There are so many children without a home that, if I ever changed my mind and were unable to conceive my own children, I would be happy to adopt.

 

[Maisie]

I have had problems with depression and anxiety my whole adult life so I think I would have been better off not having children. I also carry a genetic problem (which I didn't find out about till after I had my family) which would also influence my decision not to have a family.

If I could go back and live my llife differently I wouldn't have had children. But its nothing to do with money.

 

[packrat]

I''ve always wanted to be a mom, so I''d still choose the children option.

 

[meresal]

Date: 6/16/2009 11:55:42 AM
Author: Chrono
I cannot knowingly start a family without financial independence. I refuse to bring innocent lives into the world where it is a struggle to feed, shelter and nurture them.

ITA.

I was brought up in a house where there were summer camps, day care, birthday parties every year with friends, yearly family vacations, and endless sports teams. I could never raise a child in a home where they could not paticipate in things they might enjoy, due to financial burdens that my husband or I created. It would literally haunt me.

 

[partgypsy]

What is the deal with all these (somewhat similar) polls? No offense but are we getting close to beating a dead horse here?

Why does the choice have to be between children and hardship? Comfort versus struggling? It is not one or the other. The choice for everyone, which is the same for everyone, is to choose a life of meaning.

My choice if I didn''t or could have children would be c) live a life of austerity but meaning (monk on a mountaintop, artist in a garrett) and devote myself to it.

 

[isaku5]

Date: 6/16/2009 2:19:47 AM
Author: Linda W
I''m too old for these quizzes. I''m a grandma.

Today, is a bad fibro day (and it wasn''t the kids or grandgirls that caused it

) so I''ll choose #3 - too sore to care

 

[RubyCharm]

Date: 6/16/2009 5:01:03 PM
Author: part gypsy
What is the deal with all these (somewhat similar) polls? No offense but are we getting close to beating a dead horse here?


Why does the choice have to be between children and hardship? Comfort versus struggling? It is not one or the other. The choice for everyone, which is the same for everyone, is to choose a life of meaning.


My choice if I didn't or could have children would be c) live a life of austerity but meaning (monk on a mountaintop, artist in a garrett) and devote myself to it.

I'm sorry, but I haven't spent that much time here on PS or browsed thru every previous poll to realize that I was beating a dead horse by making this particular poll. If this thread annoys you, just ignore it. It's that simple. Nobody is forcing you to participate or even read it.

 

[Maisie]

I like these threads. I find them interesting.