4 ms·
I'm 45, no kids, by choice. It's not because of my career, it's just because of the life I choose to live. I would simply not live a single day of my life the s
by weddpros 9y ago
I'm 45, no kids, by choice. It's not because of my career, it's just because of the life I choose to live. I would simply not live a single day of my life the same if I had children. I do live every single day of my life as I choose (and like).
If you have kids, you don't have that choice anymore. You can adjust your needs, your expectations to the presence of kids... but it's a different story, isn't it?
For me, it's all about freedom. YMMV
- robalfonso 9y agoI think its the difference between committing to one large choice over the long term vs. the flexibility to have many small choices over time.
- SirLJ 9y agoI am sorry for you, because you'll never experience unconditional love in this life...
- pravda 9y agoCan't say that. Maybe he has a dog.
- SirLJ 9y agoUnfortunately it is not the same...
- weddpros 9y agoGlad if you're happy with your life, but don't be sorry for me, I'm very happy with mine. Also, thinking about what unconditional love may be, and reading a bit about it, doesn't entice me to change my mind (it's very badly defined...)
- kohanz 9y agoI'm a parent, but even love of a child is not "unconditional". There are too many ugly counterexamples to easily disprove that. The bond between parent and child is special, for sure, but I do believe you can build such bonds with people that are not your offspring - you just have to spend a ridiculous amount of time together and sacrifice a lot for them and that's rare for people that aren't your children (because you're not biologically programmed to do it).
- SirLJ 9y agoAgreed, everything is possible, but how likely to happen with someone who is not your child (either biological or adopted), as you said it is very rare indeed...