6 ms·

> Amy, a white thirty-year-old mother of three, ages six, five, and three, had a boyfriend who worked steadily but insisted on spending on selfish pursuits. Thi

> Amy, a white thirty-year-old mother of three, ages six, five, and three, had a boyfriend who worked steadily but insisted on spending on selfish pursuits. This is what eventually broke the young couple up. ‘He wouldn’t spend money for the kids’ food. I had to send my kids across the street to my mom’s to feed them and stuff. That’s what I got fed up with. I shouldn’t have to live like that…I said it’s time for him to support these kids instead of [me] being on [assistance], and he didn’t like it.’” Translation: “I was impregnated by 3 other guys, and they all left me, and now I finally found a boyfriend but it turns out he doesn’t want to spend his money to feed my kids.” Sweetie, we’re not married, so there’s no reason for you to expect I feed your children. My earnings are my earnings just like your earnings are your earnings in this feminist culture of independence.

9dev 2y ago
When dating someone with children, but you don’t want to go all-in with that person, please just leave: you’re not only making the life of your partner miserable, but also destroy their child’s or children’s. You will invariably end up walking away at some point, and the children will witness all of the ensuing mess. If, however, you have an intention to stay, there is no reason to make a distinction between their money and yours, and you will come off bigoted and thrifty. And of course you can also choose to be a sexist like the parent commenter, but that only makes you look like a fool.
- leereeves 2y ago
  He's made his expectations in the relationship clear. It's entirely up to her whether she accepts that or leaves. There's nothing "sexist" about that. The only sexism here is expecting a man to pay for dating by supporting her kids.
  - squigz 2y ago
    > He's made his expectations in the relationship clear. It's entirely up to her whether she accepts that or leaves. Pretty sure she did that.
  - 9dev 2y ago
    First, let's make a distinction between TFA and the comment I was replying to, which implied that dating a woman with children did not imply any responsibility towards her children. And this is what I'm objecting: Dating someone with children does, in fact, imply that responsibility, because the children aren't involved in the decision of you dating their parent, yet are immediately affected by it. The children evidently have previously experienced a separation of their biological parents, and I have yet to meet someone that wasn't traumatised in one way or another by this. So if you enter a relationship with their parent without the honest intention to stay, you wilfully cause pain to children for your personal pleasure. Think about this for a moment, it isn't hyperbole. On the other hand, if you actually mean it, love your partner, and want to build a shared future, there's no reason to draw this weird line between their money and yours; you're a family now after all. Obviously that doesn't mean you need to let someone take advantage of you! But that isn't what I'd call family either. As I said: Dating someone with children has far more implications than sleeping around in your twenties. It requires commitment and readiness to build a stable, lasting relationship. It's absolutely okay to not be at this point (or never getting there), but please: Keep away from single parents, then. The consequences of your actions have long-lasting effects on their children. Edit: Oh, and this: > There's nothing "sexist" about that. The only sexism here is expecting a man to pay for dating by supporting her kids. Nah, sorry. A comment that starts off by calling a grown up woman "Sweetie" and then proceeds to assume she must have been "impregnated" by three different men without any reason to think so, is just some misogynistic bullshit.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Dating someone with children does, in fact, imply that responsibility, because they children aren't involved in the decision of you dating their parent, yet are immediately affected by it. really depends on too many factors to make a judgement call. Are they living together? Are the kids still in contact with their previous father? Have they discussed the kids to begin with and established barriers? is the relationship purely physical or are there emotional stakes? It's a complex topic, and I wouldn't distill it down to "you inherit all the duties of your date". >Think about this for a moment, it isn't hyperbole. Situations in which this is justified: - the mother hides the kids from you - you establish barriers from the beginning and agree... until you don't - You think you can handle the kids and it turns out you can't. Be it financially, emotionally, or otherwise. People can change their minds - No matter your attempts, the kids simply never warm up to you. As you said, they are involved and a kids' opinion on a potential father will impact what may otherwise be a compatible couple. The mother isn't necessarily a perfect actor. The kids certainly aren't. And you probably don't know your limits until you get some field training. I think a lot of your arguments hinge on this assumption that the default these days is a deep connection instead of casual dating with messy communication, and that the kids will fall in love with the potential father 100% of the time if the mother does. > Dating someone with children has far more implications than sleeping around in your twenties Ehh. There have been broken up relationships that were non-eventual for a child, and messy 20's relationships that haunt you and your partner for decades to come. Again, the situation is too complex to distill into "one is better/worse than the other".
endofreach 2y ago
[flagged]
- tuatoru 2y ago
  What are your expectations of women?
- silverquiet 2y ago
  At what date do you take financial responsibility for the children? Because that sounds nuts to me as an expectation. There must be a happy medium between you and the GP, but maybe not - maybe that's why so many women will remain single mothers.
- leereeves 2y ago
  A man stands up for himself and won't let himself be exploited by someone like you. Dating someone doesn't create any obligation to give them or their family money. Neither from the woman to the man nor from the man to the woman. Dating didn't even create such an obligation in the old days of strict gender roles where men were expected to provide. And all you've written here is just a string of insults attacking someone for refusing to allow themself to be used.
pwthornton 2y ago
I don't know why you assumed they weren't his kids. The article implied they were. It is unclear, but there is no evidence that they aren't his and certainly no evidence that her kids all have different fathers. This is incel talk.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Your comment would have been so much more effective without the last sentence.
paulryanrogers 2y ago
> Sweetie, we’re not married, so there’s no reason for you to expect I feed your children. Dating a single parent isn't a strictly transactional affair. And it may be financially beneficial (for everyone) to not marry yet still cohabitate and pick up the slack in childrearing. YMMV.
- leereeves 2y ago
  It may indeed be financially beneficial, but that is an arrangement they must both agree to.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Agreed. Afraid a lot of threads here are talking about different things. Casually dating for a while shouldn't carry a lot of responsibilities from either party. Yet as things deepen or carry on for extended periods, it's reasonable to expect a more equal division of labor.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      these he-said she-said problems are hard to resolve with one party (and that is part of why those relationship forums have the worst advice ever). The issue here can lie anywhere from "they weren't aligned on how far they are in the relationship" to "she did not take into account the expenses he did pay but only remembered the refusals". The tone of the article makes the reader want to think the boyfriend was a selfish step parent who can't budget, but who knows the real truth?
lins1909 2y ago
Your translation is dishonest and dumb. Having three kids doesn't mean they were from three different guys.
- stemlord 2y ago
  It was uncharitable to illustrate each child being from a different guy but the way the article worded it, it definitely seems like they are not the boyfriend's kids, so it isn't necessarily dumb to assert that the article has an uncharitable take on the boyfriend
JoeMerchant 2y ago
Whether the boyfriend in question was the father was not explicitly stated. Further, I'd argue that if you want to date a lady, her kids come with that as a complete package. My two cents.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  No, dating a lady does not obligate you to support her children from other men. What a ridiculous take. Accepting their presence and being good to them, sure, but those aren't the same as being made to support them. If I started dating a woman and quickly asked her to fork over money to support my aging parents or my own family responsibilities, it would be rightly viewed as an unfair and manipulative emotional/financial hijack of responsibility. The opposite doesn't hold true?
  - em-bee 2y ago
    that's the kind of attitude that forces women to reject her own children just so that she can find a new partner. sure, as long as dating only involves paying for the shared dinner whenever you spend time together, that doesn't create an obligation to do more, but as soon as you start supporting your partner beyond that, you have to accept that some of that support goes to the children.
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      What you're saying is absurd. Millions of women manage to take on an active dating and relationship life, without rejecting their children or piling unreasonable obligations onto their partner. Yet somehow you seem to imply that men are at fault if they don't rapidly open their arms to responsibilities that they never created. It's called being and adult and regardless of sex/gender it means taking ownership of what's your responsibility. Yes, there is a point at which, in this case, a man will take on certain financial and care responsibilities over children that aren't his if he's with a woman who has them but the "when" of that is a subjective line that comes from mutual agreement, not some automatic social debt.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> Translation: “I was impregnated by 3 other guys, and they all left me, and now I finally found a boyfriend but it turns out he doesn’t want to spend his money to feed my kids.” This just in, when you date a single mother, you will probably end up being involved in her children's lives and supporting them. Didn't think we needed to spell that out but here we are.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  You simply dating her and naturally being involved in her childrens' lives doesn't make you responsible for financially supporting and raising them. This is a ridiculous viewpoint and one that implicitly places men who date a woman with children as automatic cash cows out of some grossly twisted notion of patriarchy. I wouldn't think something so bloody obvious would need to be spelled out but here we are.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - em-bee 2y ago
    nor does dating make you responsible for financially supporting your partner. but if you do financially support her, then you have to consider that her financial needs include supporting her children. if your goal is to meet her needs then you must cover that, or change the goal and agree to only cover part of her needs.
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      You're essentially stating the obvious of informal adult relationships: Communicate what each is offering or can offer and see if it works for both for the sake of an agreement. The previous comment I replied to bothered me specifically because it seemed to take the position that by dating a woman, a man is automatically obligated into supporting her children and childcare needs, which is... plainly ridiculous.
      - 2y ago

9dev 2y ago

When dating someone with children, but you don’t want to go all-in with that person, please just leave: you’re not only making the life of your partner miserable, but also destroy their child’s or children’s. You will invariably end up walking away at some point, and the children will witness all of the ensuing mess. If, however, you have an intention to stay, there is no reason to make a distinction between their money and yours, and you will come off bigoted and thrifty. And of course you can also choose to be a sexist like the parent commenter, but that only makes you look like a fool.

leereeves 2y ago
He's made his expectations in the relationship clear. It's entirely up to her whether she accepts that or leaves. There's nothing "sexist" about that. The only sexism here is expecting a man to pay for dating by supporting her kids.
- squigz 2y ago
  > He's made his expectations in the relationship clear. It's entirely up to her whether she accepts that or leaves. Pretty sure she did that.
- 9dev 2y ago
  First, let's make a distinction between TFA and the comment I was replying to, which implied that dating a woman with children did not imply any responsibility towards her children. And this is what I'm objecting: Dating someone with children does, in fact, imply that responsibility, because the children aren't involved in the decision of you dating their parent, yet are immediately affected by it. The children evidently have previously experienced a separation of their biological parents, and I have yet to meet someone that wasn't traumatised in one way or another by this. So if you enter a relationship with their parent without the honest intention to stay, you wilfully cause pain to children for your personal pleasure. Think about this for a moment, it isn't hyperbole. On the other hand, if you actually mean it, love your partner, and want to build a shared future, there's no reason to draw this weird line between their money and yours; you're a family now after all. Obviously that doesn't mean you need to let someone take advantage of you! But that isn't what I'd call family either. As I said: Dating someone with children has far more implications than sleeping around in your twenties. It requires commitment and readiness to build a stable, lasting relationship. It's absolutely okay to not be at this point (or never getting there), but please: Keep away from single parents, then. The consequences of your actions have long-lasting effects on their children. Edit: Oh, and this: > There's nothing "sexist" about that. The only sexism here is expecting a man to pay for dating by supporting her kids. Nah, sorry. A comment that starts off by calling a grown up woman "Sweetie" and then proceeds to assume she must have been "impregnated" by three different men without any reason to think so, is just some misogynistic bullshit.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Dating someone with children does, in fact, imply that responsibility, because they children aren't involved in the decision of you dating their parent, yet are immediately affected by it. really depends on too many factors to make a judgement call. Are they living together? Are the kids still in contact with their previous father? Have they discussed the kids to begin with and established barriers? is the relationship purely physical or are there emotional stakes? It's a complex topic, and I wouldn't distill it down to "you inherit all the duties of your date". >Think about this for a moment, it isn't hyperbole. Situations in which this is justified: - the mother hides the kids from you - you establish barriers from the beginning and agree... until you don't - You think you can handle the kids and it turns out you can't. Be it financially, emotionally, or otherwise. People can change their minds - No matter your attempts, the kids simply never warm up to you. As you said, they are involved and a kids' opinion on a potential father will impact what may otherwise be a compatible couple. The mother isn't necessarily a perfect actor. The kids certainly aren't. And you probably don't know your limits until you get some field training. I think a lot of your arguments hinge on this assumption that the default these days is a deep connection instead of casual dating with messy communication, and that the kids will fall in love with the potential father 100% of the time if the mother does. > Dating someone with children has far more implications than sleeping around in your twenties Ehh. There have been broken up relationships that were non-eventual for a child, and messy 20's relationships that haunt you and your partner for decades to come. Again, the situation is too complex to distill into "one is better/worse than the other".

endofreach 2y ago

[flagged]

tuatoru 2y ago
What are your expectations of women?
silverquiet 2y ago
At what date do you take financial responsibility for the children? Because that sounds nuts to me as an expectation. There must be a happy medium between you and the GP, but maybe not - maybe that's why so many women will remain single mothers.
leereeves 2y ago
A man stands up for himself and won't let himself be exploited by someone like you. Dating someone doesn't create any obligation to give them or their family money. Neither from the woman to the man nor from the man to the woman. Dating didn't even create such an obligation in the old days of strict gender roles where men were expected to provide. And all you've written here is just a string of insults attacking someone for refusing to allow themself to be used.

pwthornton 2y ago

I don't know why you assumed they weren't his kids. The article implied they were. It is unclear, but there is no evidence that they aren't his and certainly no evidence that her kids all have different fathers. This is incel talk.

yencabulator 2y ago
Your comment would have been so much more effective without the last sentence.

paulryanrogers 2y ago

> Sweetie, we’re not married, so there’s no reason for you to expect I feed your children. Dating a single parent isn't a strictly transactional affair. And it may be financially beneficial (for everyone) to not marry yet still cohabitate and pick up the slack in childrearing. YMMV.

leereeves 2y ago
It may indeed be financially beneficial, but that is an arrangement they must both agree to.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Agreed. Afraid a lot of threads here are talking about different things. Casually dating for a while shouldn't carry a lot of responsibilities from either party. Yet as things deepen or carry on for extended periods, it's reasonable to expect a more equal division of labor.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    these he-said she-said problems are hard to resolve with one party (and that is part of why those relationship forums have the worst advice ever). The issue here can lie anywhere from "they weren't aligned on how far they are in the relationship" to "she did not take into account the expenses he did pay but only remembered the refusals". The tone of the article makes the reader want to think the boyfriend was a selfish step parent who can't budget, but who knows the real truth?

lins1909 2y ago

Your translation is dishonest and dumb. Having three kids doesn't mean they were from three different guys.

stemlord 2y ago
It was uncharitable to illustrate each child being from a different guy but the way the article worded it, it definitely seems like they are not the boyfriend's kids, so it isn't necessarily dumb to assert that the article has an uncharitable take on the boyfriend

JoeMerchant 2y ago

Whether the boyfriend in question was the father was not explicitly stated. Further, I'd argue that if you want to date a lady, her kids come with that as a complete package. My two cents.

southernplaces7 2y ago
No, dating a lady does not obligate you to support her children from other men. What a ridiculous take. Accepting their presence and being good to them, sure, but those aren't the same as being made to support them. If I started dating a woman and quickly asked her to fork over money to support my aging parents or my own family responsibilities, it would be rightly viewed as an unfair and manipulative emotional/financial hijack of responsibility. The opposite doesn't hold true?
- em-bee 2y ago
  that's the kind of attitude that forces women to reject her own children just so that she can find a new partner. sure, as long as dating only involves paying for the shared dinner whenever you spend time together, that doesn't create an obligation to do more, but as soon as you start supporting your partner beyond that, you have to accept that some of that support goes to the children.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    What you're saying is absurd. Millions of women manage to take on an active dating and relationship life, without rejecting their children or piling unreasonable obligations onto their partner. Yet somehow you seem to imply that men are at fault if they don't rapidly open their arms to responsibilities that they never created. It's called being and adult and regardless of sex/gender it means taking ownership of what's your responsibility. Yes, there is a point at which, in this case, a man will take on certain financial and care responsibilities over children that aren't his if he's with a woman who has them but the "when" of that is a subjective line that comes from mutual agreement, not some automatic social debt.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> Translation: “I was impregnated by 3 other guys, and they all left me, and now I finally found a boyfriend but it turns out he doesn’t want to spend his money to feed my kids.” This just in, when you date a single mother, you will probably end up being involved in her children's lives and supporting them. Didn't think we needed to spell that out but here we are.

southernplaces7 2y ago
You simply dating her and naturally being involved in her childrens' lives doesn't make you responsible for financially supporting and raising them. This is a ridiculous viewpoint and one that implicitly places men who date a woman with children as automatic cash cows out of some grossly twisted notion of patriarchy. I wouldn't think something so bloody obvious would need to be spelled out but here we are.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- em-bee 2y ago
  nor does dating make you responsible for financially supporting your partner. but if you do financially support her, then you have to consider that her financial needs include supporting her children. if your goal is to meet her needs then you must cover that, or change the goal and agree to only cover part of her needs.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    You're essentially stating the obvious of informal adult relationships: Communicate what each is offering or can offer and see if it works for both for the sake of an agreement. The previous comment I replied to bothered me specifically because it seemed to take the position that by dating a woman, a man is automatically obligated into supporting her children and childcare needs, which is... plainly ridiculous.
    - 2y ago