How common is it for people to never find an other half or have kids?

Ellie2008

eviltwin wrote: »

I carried and delivered my children and as much as I love being their mother its far from my purpose or anyone else's. It's great you feel that way but don't patronise those who don't share your opinion.

I’m with her. Did my life have no purpose before I had kids?! What about when the grow up & leave me?!

Chris_5339762

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm mid 40s now so even if I became a Daddy tomorrow I'd be nearly 70 by the time he/she would be finished college so I don't think it will be happening.

My father was old when I was born so that's another reason I wouldn't be keen on repeating history.

Its definitely another thing to think about. Im in my mid 30s and my parents are in their early 70s. I have to deal with that horrible part when they are slowly going downhill just a little, and I know its a one-way street. Whats hard is people of my age who I work with saying their parents are thinking of retiring. Statistically, they'll have their folks around for 10 years (say) more than I do.

This is it

368100 wrote: »

My beef is people sounding like theyre making out theyre not a functioning human being in their own right. In my opinion a relationship is much healthier if two people are together but have their own lives too....or am I not allowed an opinion?

You can have all the opinions you want make a statement on a discussion board, be prepared to discuss it.

Describing a partner as "other half" is a term of endearment in my opinion. What that has to do with having "their own lives" I have no idea, it has no bearing on it at all as far as I'm concerned. It's a commonly used description of a partner.

SharpshooterTom

I'm nearly 33.

Never had a girlfriend, never kissed anyone, never held hands with a women, never had sex, still a virgin, never been on a date etc. I guarentee that's probably more rare.

At the end of the day life is a popularity contest, some people are popular, some people aren't. I was never good at making friends. I've fully expected that I'm probably going to die this way, so I've just learned to live with it and enjoy other things.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm nearly 33.

Never had a girlfriend, never kissed anyone, never held hands with a women, never had sex, still a virgin, never been on a date etc. I guarentee that's probably more rare.

At the end of the day life is a popularity contest, some people are popular, some people aren't. I was never good at making friends. I've fully expected that I'm probably going to die this way, so I've just learned to live with it and enjoy other things.

Just go to some professional service and get most of that sorted 😉

SharpshooterTom

Enoch Yummy Flamingo wrote: »

Just go to some professional service and get most of that sorted ��

Nah waste of time that. I'm not comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone who knowingly doesn't want to have sex with me and is only doing it for money, feels fake. Rather die a virgin tbh, which I probably will anyway.

d8491prj5boyvg

Always Tired wrote: »

You find a lot more often that those with thriving creative careers in music, writing, film etc can be quite happy to not settle down.

Ah here, of course! Living a life jammed full of work and social commitments (to put it midly!) with people worshipping the ground you walk on, quite often. That would go a long way towards offsetting any loss of not having kids. But remember, that's the upfront trade off. The benefits of family are a slow burn so at the time you think you're better off because the glamour is more salient.

It's also pretty moot. 0.000001% of the population, if even that, live like that.

Sunny Disposition

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm nearly 33.

Never had a girlfriend, never kissed anyone, never held hands with a women, never had sex, still a virgin, never been on a date etc. I guarentee that's probably more rare.

At the end of the day life is a popularity contest, some people are popular, some people aren't. I was never good at making friends. I've fully expected that I'm probably going to die this way, so I've just learned to live with it and enjoy other things.

There are things you can do to change all of that Thomas, literally no doubt about it. At the age of 32 resigning yourself to spending your whole life alone is totally unnecessary! Not saying that to make you feel better. Maybe go for some counselling? If you think you can’t make friends or have no chance of finding a girlfriend it’d be an important step.

d8491prj5boyvg

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I'm nearly 33.

Never had a girlfriend, never kissed anyone, never held hands with a women, never had sex, still a virgin, never been on a date etc. I guarentee that's probably more rare.

At the end of the day life is a popularity contest, some people are popular, some people aren't. I was never good at making friends. I've fully expected that I'm probably going to die this way, so I've just learned to live with it and enjoy other things.

Sorry to hear that and these things can be tougher for some than others but you will definitely die a virgin if you accept it and "learn to live with it". Alternatively you can try to make a positive change. If you think you are unattractive lift some weights. Download an app. Some of us have a steeper hill to climb but we all need to put some work in and not just accept defeat

ThomasFlynn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Nah waste of time that. I'm not comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone who knowingly doesn't want to have sex with me and is only doing it for money, feels fake. Rather die a virgin tbh, which I probably will anyway.

Having done all of the above, I can tell you that a lot of sex, relationships and marriages are fake. Go out and get laid - see for yourself it isn't as big a deal as you think it is. Life is for living. We are all born alone and die alone.

SirChenjin

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Tip: Print it out and go through it, underlining the key points.

I use highlighters

markodaly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not telling anyone they’re wrong in self-reporting studies that their biggest achievement in life is raising their own children. I wouldn’t expect anything different from a self-reporting study. As you so astutely pointed out earlier - living in an age of the self, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who is at all clued into society that people who have children would consider raising their own children to be their greatest achievement. It’s an entirely subjective evaluation. An objective evaluation would consider what is actually a person’s greatest achievement, and that is generally based upon achieving something that hasn’t been done before, or something that requires a prerequisite knowledge in a discipline in order to make an extraordinary contribution in that discipline or an extraordinary contribution in their chosen field of employment. The critical point you’re missing here is what a person’s achievement means to people who aren’t them. That’s why nobody is handing out rubber medals to parents for simply being parents, that’s something which is generally expected of parents anyway, that they parent their children.

The tone of your posts reveals something more telling though. After all, you have a predisposition to use the word 'idiot' in your posts to describe parents.
And nobody is looking for medals to be fair. That is your own velocious benchmark.

I’m not disputing that the studies are the studies. Fantastic stuff, great,

So we agree, having children increases life expectancy.

I never argued anything like what you’re suggesting. From my point of view I don’t view it as simply a question of one or the other, as though having children precludes a person from actually achieving something worthy of recognition. Simply reproducing and raising a child or children in and of itself isn’t worthy of recognition. It’s something that as I said humans have been doing for millions of years without any specific prerequisite knowledge or understanding as to the underlying biology actually functions. How the underlying biology functions is irrelevant for most people. It’s relevant to a small number of people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to understanding human biology and behaviour and so on. Whether they have children or not is neither here nor there with regard to their achievements in their chosen discipline.

And here you are wrong. As I reported earlier most people state that their children are their biggest achievements. Raising children should be recognised by society and it is, through our taxation policy, the provision of public schools, child benefit, legislation and special rights protecting children and so on. State policy, the government, NGO's, the UN, other international bodies and most people recognise that raising a child is worthy of recognition, you do not, which is fine but you are utterly wrong.

You may not wish to recognise the contribution to society of the 0.001% of extraordinary people, but that’s precisely what makes them extraordinary - they’re doing something or have done something that most people in society simply haven’t done or aren’t doing. I don’t know that anyone lives a mundane life tbh, maybe it’s just my experience but the amount of people who imagine that they live mundane lives who are actually extraordinary people in their own right, never ceases to amaze me. I don’t know by what standards you measure whether someone lives a mundane or an extraordinary life, but if we’re agreed on one thing at least - simply the fact of whether or not they have children isn’t a factor worthy of consideration in evaluating their achievements.

I never said this. Another strawman argument from you.

Well there’s no doubt that’s certainly part of it anyway, and I’ve never hidden the fact that I am a massive hypocrite in many contexts and circumstances. It’s somewhat similar to the way in which you have accused other posters of getting defensive and hysterical when they disagree with you as though they aren’t as entitled to express an opinion as you are, and not only that, but to accuse me of attacking you and then you go to the effort of trawling through my post history in an attempt to undermine my opinion? I would suggest you don’t load the weapon if you can’t handle the backfire.

Well, that clears that up then. Do as I say, or ill write a boring thesis to explain why you are wrong. Is that it?

I’m not sure whether I can continue to take your argument seriously at this rate to be honest. So far you’ve accused me of all sorts and still you suggest that I don’t put words in your mouth? If that’s not a measure of hypocrisy, perhaps you have another term for what is exactly telling other people not to do what you’re doing and will in all likelihood continue to do if this conversation continues?

Lovely, but a skillful if not sly way of ignoring the study and the data. Funny that.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong in being selfish btw, and therefore I see no reason to justify my actions on that basis to people who point out that in their opinions, my actions are selfish. Like, seriously, imagine if you will for a minute that you would like to have another child. Are you going to consider the idea that you’re contributing to climate change as a legitimate reason not to have another child? It’s backed by science and you’d be a massive hypocrite if you went ahead in spite of what you now know, and decided to have another child. That’s essentially the predicament you would find yourself in, by your own standards. How you justify having another child to yourself is entirely your own business really. For me though, in the same way as I can’t bring myself to care all that much about why people choose not to have children, I can’t bring myself to care all that much about why other people choose to have children.

Climate change eh? Maybe I should jump off the Cliffs of Moher to save some carbon footprints. It may well be easier than having to wade through the high-minded verbal diatribe you call an argument in this thread.

But again, you are straw-manning me. You brought Climate change vs having kids into the debate so don't attribute that logic to me when you made the argument.

I think you get lost in the verbosity of your comebacks you actually argue against yourself by the end of the paragraph.

Can’t argue with any of that, which is why I argue that if anti-natalists truly believed in their own philosophy and ideology, they’d start with themselves. However while I don’t imagine we’re in any danger yet of anti-natalists ever gaining the political recognition they need in order to impose their ideology on the rest of society. That’s why I think too you’re somewhat overstating the importance of reproduction and raising children as though they will all make extraordinary contributions to society. We know from history that the facts are - they won’t. They will consume more resources than they produce, which has led us to where we are now, essentially- trying to close the gate on human behaviour after the horse of climate change has bolted. Do you imagine most people are taking scientists opinions seriously? I don’t, and that’s why I would argue that what you call the scientific evidence you have which backs up your opinions, is largely irrelevant to most people - they will make decisions based upon their own circumstances, and your pointing out correlations in statistical data isn’t going to have most people who aren’t thinking it already that they’d best get coupled up and reproducing because statistical evidence suggests they might be happier and live longer.

Cant argue with any of that..... proceeds to write a 200+ word paragraph arguing anyway.

I have to ask then, what specifically did you mean when you had this epiphany after your child was born that you realised you were part of something bigger than yourself? Because the way you were making the point it was as though you assumed everyone who has become a parent has experienced the same thing you did, and you suggested that it was something indescribable as though only by virtue of becoming a parent could one experience this great epiphany that you appear to have experienced. My experience as I’ve suggested already appears to have been a far more mundane affair compared to yours!

People have different experiences throughout their lives and generally, people can only share those experiences if they have lived them. People can relate to getting married, having kids. There are also life experiences which are terrible, people whose family committed suicide, parents who had to bury their children. This is why there are support networks in place for these people so that people know that they are not alone and that there are others out there who have gone through the same life experiences as them.

Are you saying someone who has no kids can really 'relate' to a parent whose child has died?

Childless couples will not experience what it's like to have children, they won't know what it's like because they can't. That is not to say, they will not experience other things, good or bad.

If your own experience was mundane that is fine, but I find it curious that you seem to want to diminish and wash away an experience different to yours. That just comes across as insecure.

That appears to be the nub of your argument, that somehow, solely by virtue of the fact that they have done something which humans have been doing for millions of years, which requires no prerequisite or specialist knowledge whatsoever, makes what they have achieved somehow more valuable to society than the achievements of someone who actually achieves something which requires actual effort on their part, and the greater the effort, it surely stands to reason that they would achieve greater recognition of their achievements as opposed to someone who manages simply to do something which humans have been doing for millions of years already. No need to try and pretend having children is doing some great service to humanity either really, is there? If you’re offended by that I would suggest it’s simply because you’ve invested so much of yourself in the idea that being a parent is your greatest achievement. Being a parent is by no means my greatest achievement, it’s just something which I chose to do because I wanted to, not because I thought there was ever anything more to it than that that I needed to justify my decisions to anyone else or feel the need to suggest my life choices were more significant than anyone else’s.

I went to the trouble of clearly stating that I did not mean this, but you go ahead and repeat it anyway for the sake of it.

Here I'll post it again for you as you have a great deal of difficulty actually comprehending the written word.

This is not an argument of having children is somehow more worthwhile than getting an Olympic gold medal, or getting involved in research that will cure cancer. I never made this argument comparing the extraordinary vs the parent raising their kids.

I did however made the argument that raising kids is more worthwhile than people voluntarily not having kids, because the people doing both having and not having kids are by and large ordinary people doing ordinary things, working their 9-5 jobs, living a pretty mundane life, which is by and largely self-indulgent.

I include parents AND childless couples in this by the way. However, being a parent raising kids, in my opinion, elevates the parents above the childless couple in general. If people get offended and taken aback by that, fine. It is a free country, after all, be offended. But let's not pretend that people choose not to have kids because they want to cure cancer or win a Nobel prize or write poetry. They do it because mostly, they don't want to and couldn't be arsed. Which is fine, but again did paint it in some other altruistic way as if everyone is in an episode of star trek, that these people are doing something really really worthwhile for humanity.

Having children is definitely more worthwhile than winning an Olympic medal..saw a clip of Mike Tyson recently, where he was showing his belts, and he was like "these things are garbage..once you have children you realise these don't matter, and what's important is your children's well-being etc"..

One eyed Jack

markodaly wrote: »

The tone of your posts reveals something more telling though.

And here you are wrong.

I think you get lost in the verbosity of your comebacks you actually argue against yourself by the end of the paragraph.

Cant argue with any of that..... proceeds to write a 200+ word paragraph arguing anyway.

That just comes across as insecure.

I think we’re done here.

Thelonious Monk

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Its definitely another thing to think about. Im in my mid 30s and my parents are in their early 70s. I have to deal with that horrible part when they are slowly going downhill just a little, and I know its a one-way street. Whats hard is people of my age who I work with saying their parents are thinking of retiring. Statistically, they'll have their folks around for 10 years (say) more than I do.

That's grand, sure they've done what they were supposed to do and you're in your mid 30s with your parents still alive and well (hopefully well!). Mine are a bit younger but I'm just glad they're enjoying their lives now regardless of their age.

368100

This is it wrote: »

You can have all the opinions you want make a statement on a discussion board, be prepared to discuss it.

Describing a partner as "other half" is a term of endearment in my opinion. What that has to do with having "their own lives" I have no idea, it has no bearing on it at all as far as I'm concerned. It's a commonly used description of a partner.

Might be common.....I just think it's a bit sad.

Wibbs

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm mid 40s now so even if I became a Daddy tomorrow I'd be nearly 70 by the time he/she would be finished college so I don't think it will be happening.

My father was old when I was born so that's another reason I wouldn't be keen on repeating history.

Funny enough and though my dad was older when I came along, I'd in some ways prefer that. If I were a parent I'd prefer to bite the bullet when they were younger, say in their twenties so they would be freer to live their lives after I'd fecked off(maybe even with a bit of an inheritance to get on the way), or at the other extreme have them young so when I did start to fail or drop dead they'd be well into middle age themselves. Though the only problem with the older dad is it usually means a younger mum, so you get a staggered effect of a gap between them.

368100

368100 wrote: »

Might be common.....I just think it's a bit sad.

This abbreviation used to bother me because it suggested both people weren't whole without the other. Nowadays though its just a term and nothing more. I don't think it's meant to be taken so literal. In saying that I don't use it myself but I'm not a fan of letters in place of words or phrases. Tbh, lol, fml, gtfo, and whatever else you can think of kind of sets my teeth on edge for reasons I haven't yet figured out.

Blaizes

Wibbs wrote: »

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm mid 40s now so even if I became a Daddy tomorrow I'd be nearly 70 by the time he/she would be finished college so I don't think it will be happening.

My father was old when I was born so that's another reason I wouldn't be keen on repeating history.

Funny enough and though my dad was older when I came along, I'd in some ways prefer that. If I were a parent I'd prefer to bite the bullet when they were younger, say in their twenties so they would be freer to live their lives after I'd fecked off(maybe even with a bit of an inheritance to get on the way), or at the other extreme have them young so when I did start to fail or drop dead they'd be well into middle age themselves. Though the only problem with the older dad is it usually means a younger mum, so you get a staggered effect of a gap between them.

Pros and cons to having them when younger or older. I’d say younger has pros like having more energy, but older means more life experience and being a more well rounded person hopefully! Now 32 or 34 I think is the average age at which a woman here has her first, my mother had had us all by that age. But you see much older parents now, know a guy who has become a father at 46, he’ll be near retirement when the child is in college. Partner is younger though. Then there are people if 46 who could nearly have or do have grandchildren.

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

Having children is definitely more worthwhile than winning an Olympic medal..saw a clip of Mike Tyson recently, where he was showing his belts, and he was like "these things are garbage..once you have children you realise these don't matter, and what's important is your children's well-being etc"..

Mike Tyson the wife beater? While I don't doubt him considering his children more important than any other aspect of his life, "garbage" seems a bit disingenuous. Doubt he'd like those achievements taken from him and thanks to them, he could provide a good life for his children (until he declared bankruptcy) when he didn't have any prospects in that regard otherwise.

dd973

Lest we forget those who find soulmates or marry do so due to their innate mastery of life and fate, luck has feck all to do with it.

In addition to all single, childless people being closet deviants who shouldn't be trusted near small kids.

Gimme A Pound

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

Mike Tyson the wife beater? While I don't doubt him considering his children more important than any other aspect of his life, "garbage" seems a bit disingenuous. Doubt he'd like those achievements taken from him and thanks to them, he could provide a good life for his children (until he declared bankruptcy) when he didn't have any prospects in that regard otherwise.

Garbage was the word he used..

dd973

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Nah waste of time that. I'm not comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone who knowingly doesn't want to have sex with me and is only doing it for money, feels fake. Rather die a virgin tbh, which I probably will anyway.

See your point, but after paying for it you realise that it's only a bodily function and isn't the big deal you might have made the whole thing out to be in your head, I wish I'd paid for it more often in my early 20's when I was surrounded by sexually active and coupled up peers and feeling really pissed off and inferior about my involutary celibacy.

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

Garbage was the word he used..

I know. That's what I'm saying.

Gimme A Pound

markodaly wrote: »

I have lived a very hedonistic self-indulgent life before my own kids were born. Sure in your 20's and 30's kids are the last thing on your mind, but all the travelling, sex, drink, drugs, the partying wears thin after a while. You begin to realise is that it? Is this me for the next 50 years until I **** myself in a old folks home and die?

I suppose one becomes ready to move on from the self-indulgent lifestyle and start something else, something harder but ultimately much much more rewarding than a night on the beer, or a line of coke.

Seeing your own child for the first time after it being born is something indescribable, that cannot be put into words. You realise that you are part of something much bigger than yourself and that in an age of the self, having kids is one of the last vestiges of true sacrifice.

Genuinely mean it when I say it is lovely to read of how much joy being a parent gives you. You seem to be speaking as though your "is this it?" epiphany prior to becoming a dad is universal however. But it isn't. There are people who don't experience that realisation. Saying there's more to life than e.g. the holidays and concerts your childfree friends opt for... well more to life for you and many others certainly, but not for those friends of yours. You're looking at them thinking "how could they not want to take the next step and have children?" but that's how YOU feel, not them. They're clearly happy with the life they've chosen and I think it's better if people who don't want to have children don't have children. It's not an appealing life to everyone.

And you are making sacrifices and it does give you a new insight and it can be tough, and there is a fulfillment there that a person without children won't experience, but it's not something others want to invest in, and it's unfair to take a dim view of them because they don't share your outlook. There are various reasons people don't have children - not just so they can keep partying and travelling. Shur we nearly all lose interest in that on a regular basis - kids or no kids. Most of us aren't loaded either. Just take it that the decision is for a good reason (e.g. health issues). And remember, some seemingly contented childfree folk actually can't have children.

JDD

As for the "but they must eventually be miserable because we are programmed to procreate, and intentionally going against that will only make you miserable in the end", that's nonsense. We're programmed to do lots of things - most of which we suppress for the good of society, and I daresay some people don't have the inclination to do half the things that are instinctual to others.

I sometimes think the fact that less people are deciding to have children is in fact a natural adaptation to the environment. Perhaps the fact that humans are overrunning the earth and ruining the environment has resulted in the human race adapting and genetic need to procreate because less in some people.

I literally cannot understand how people with children live longer than people without. Unless its the fact that you no longer have enough money to ruin your liver, or you can't stand the hangovers, or you take more inherently risky activity when you are not concerned about leaving an orphan. I dunno. I have two uncles and an aunt that are single. I don't know whether by choice or just didn't find anyone. They seem happy enough to me, and they're all in the 70's/80's now.

Sunny Disposition

Having a partner and children is life affirming, no question. Sure, there are other ways of being happy but it’s definitely good not to be alone.
Young people should be told this more, too many people put off finding someone and even more put off having children. Definitely should be encouraged.
More important than telling people they can be happy on their own, something that is actually more common now.

Sunny Disposition

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Having a partner and children is life affirming, no question. Sure, there are other ways of being happy but it’s definitely good not to be alone.
Young people should be told this more, too many people put off finding someone and even more put off having children. Definitely should be encouraged.
More important than telling people they can be happy on their own, something that is actually more common now.

The thing is though that many people actually can be happy on their own.

Thelonious Monk

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Having a partner and children is life affirming, no question. Sure, there are other ways of being happy but it’s definitely good not to be alone.
Young people should be told this more, too many people put off finding someone and even more put off having children. Definitely should be encouraged.
More important than telling people they can be happy on their own, something that is actually more common now.

A lot of people are not cut out to have partners or finding someone and many people don't anyway. How about telling people that that's ok too, and trying to make sure people are involved in groups and friendships etc instead of telling them they should find someone and have children?
Personally I've no interest in having children ever, or even a partner right now, so in my case it's actually very good to be alone in that sense, I don't think I could be more content and would worry a partner or kid would piss all over my zen!

bronte

markodaly wrote: »

I have lived a very hedonistic self-indulgent life before my own kids were born. Sure in your 20's and 30's kids are the last thing on your mind, but all the travelling, sex, drink, drugs, the partying wears thin after a while. You begin to realise is that it? Is this me for the next 50 years until I **** myself in a old folks home and die?

I suppose one becomes ready to move on from the self-indulgent lifestyle and start something else, something harder but ultimately much much more rewarding than a night on the beer, or a line of coke.

Seeing your own child for the first time after it being born is something indescribable, that cannot be put into words. You realise that you are part of something much bigger than yourself and that in an age of the self, having kids is one of the last vestiges of true sacrifice.

If your life was nothing but meaningless partying for years before you had kids I can see how you would view it as some kind of almost "spiritual enlightenment". Do not assume that those of us choosing to forgo the experience have lived life the way you have. Many have made huge sacrifices in their younger years. Many end up caring for older parents while their childed siblings make excuses because they're busy with parental duties. The idea that people choose not to become parents to maintain a hedonistic existence is both ill-informed and laughable.