Perspective of a childfree individual

"The baby trap" by Ellen Peck is a fantastic book. Alas, it's out of print. But if you happen to find it, HOLD ONTO IT! It's a gem! And it would still be on my bookshelf today if it weren't for my stinkin' in-laws. It's a book that I think is SO great, it should be REQUIRED READING in public school. Really.

It's tragic how, in this day in age, with all our modern advances in technology and medicine (and more to the point CONTRACEPTION), how CLUELESS people ARE at the FACT that having kids is a CHOICE! Some people really have no idea that's what it is! So many think having kids "is just something that happens". WTF? Get your head out of the middle ages! I truly believe that if books like "the baby trap" (or pretty much ANY book from THIS LIST ) was requisite learning in schools, there would be far less shitty parents out there (or less people having kids period) and less problems in society as a whole, as I believe that by educating people with the fact that there IS a choice (and that there's no guilt or shame in saying NO if you so wish), it would at least buy a little extra time to stop and think. Perhaps afford people more time in their lives to do...well...ANYTHING ELSE *lol*!!! Anything from getting/finishing one's education, seeing the world, expanding your talents(or discovering one you never thought you had), or the likelier and more practical direction of just figuring your life out. Too many people wind up struggling needlessly to acheive this (or attempt to acheive) this in the wrong order as a result of not knowing...or knowing only after it was too late. It's tough to get sight of the EXISTENCE of such a choice when right from the beginning, people are almost "programmed" from virtually every angle of life to have kids, usually starting out when that person is a kid themself. Especially females, where many "toys" geared towards them are really training implements to stimulate a female's intrinsic "nesting" impulse. Domestic activity "playsets" (playing house, tea sets, strollers, toy ovens, shopping carts, ironing board sets, etc.), dolls that are PREGNANT or HAVE BABIES. Baby-shaped dolls that encourage you to learn feeding & how to change diapers. Dolls that teach you how to dress. And once the child is grown it doesn't stop there! The media paints the picture of parenthood in glowing pastel shades in their printed ads and within a fuzzy soft-focus lens in their commercials. Diaper ads/commercials, which so often have nothing to do with the things diapers are made for, make parent/baby interactions look almost transcendant. The whole image of "Mom & apple pie" is one that's synonymous with "Americana". But little do people realize that it's a MYTH whose TRUE origin was a marketing campaign courtesy of the ad dept. of American commercialism. It goes to show you THAT'S how DEEPLY embedded this is in the nation's psyche. Commercialism itself praises having babies, the idea behind their logic of course being more babies=more future consumers. Of course we're all witnessing the effects of it's consequences, as this video illustrates. Gossip rags glorify the pregnancy of a celeb(even the ones who were only famous for 15 min), giving motherhood a glamorous or even "sexy" (gag!) spin on it. Making it a FAD almost. A baby is now the hot fashion accessory. Because...like...carrying a mini doggie in your handbag is, like, sooooo last year.


Movies/TV shows portray having babies as a "fix-to-all-that-ails-ya" for your life, whatever one's problem might be. Whether it be a soul-deadening case of ennui, or a relationship on the brink (the movie "the good girl" with Jennifer Aniston is a prime example that includes these very 2 issues, incidentally, both problems are magically & mysteriously solved with the arrival of a baby). Alternatively, there's the program "16 & pregnant" whose true message often soars right over the heads of it's intended audience. What is often learned instead is that having a baby can be a sure ticket to tv fame. And the pro-natal bias even follows you into the working world. Can you believe some promotions (or even the decision to be HIRED) can be based upon whether or not you have kids? The perpetuation of the stereotype that a "family man" is more responsible, trustworthy and works harder than a "confirmed bachelor". Which is exactly what it is, a STEREOTYPE! Hello? MORE responsibility DOES NOT make you more responsible!!! Look at Flavor Flav! *lmao* Look at the Duggars...that's not responsibility(OR doing God's work as the Duggars' claim), that's LITTERING!!! And don't get me started on "Octo-mom"! While being unmarried and/or childfree can actually cost you a promotion, or in some cases, a JOB, because you're stereotyped as irresponsible, selfish, lazy and forever stuck in "party-mode" (why aren't the negative stereotypes for parenthood given equal consideration?). And with society in general, it seems no matter what social circle you're in, if you DON'T have kids, you're viewed as weird and are subject to a barrage of questions/pressure until you 1)conform or 2)find a new circle of friends. FAMILY is often WORSE than friends in that area, unfortunately you can't trade in family members as easily as you can friends *lol*!!! And if that isn't enough, the GOVERNMENT is ready to BRIBE you to have kids in the form of a "child tax credit"...And if you're poor, Uncle Scam sez: have more kids! Because welfare will pay you MORE for every kid you have! (I have a relative who used to have kids SPECIFICALLY FOR getting a bigger welfare payment! He was ordered by them to stop at 9!)

Feminist groups are no refuge, in fact, they (of all people) are TRAITOROUSLY pro-natal! Their opinion goes as far to say you're NOT a REAL woman UNLESS you FULFILL YOUR DUTY to reproduce! Sounds like something out of the 50's! What happened to being "liberated" in your freedom to make a choice? I've heard enough of their crap opinion to understand that they equate a baby as the ultimate medal of honor in femininity. That doesn't make me feel very "liberated". THAT makes me feel reduced to a walking, talking uterus with a head! So much for finding support/understanding THERE! Poor lady-sheep have lost their way SO badly, they're actually moving BACKWARDS *lol*. I probably missed several other sources of pressure to have kids, but I'm ALREADY talking WAY more than I planned to *lol*!

Just as not everyone on earth is cut out to be a parent (which I believe there'll never be hope of the world becoming a better place until people OFFICIALLY ADMIT that AS FACT), not everyone is cut out to be childfree. Contrary to common belief, childfreedom DOES NOT equal being ANTI-CHILD (at least as far as I'M concerned). Nor is true childfreedom about pushing(or coercing one into) the ideal that nobody should have kids the same way so many childed people have tried to push (or coerce) the idea on ME to HAVE them. I'm aware that there really are SUPER parents out there who DO have kids they LOVE, kids they WANT and PLANNED for and who DO their absolute best to raise them into wonderful ADULTS, and I wish with all my heart there were MORE of them out there. However the fact is, there AREN'T. Not only are TOO MANY people having TOO MANY kids, they're HAVING them for the WRONG REASONS...And in the long run, society suffers (This is but one of my 1,000 reasons I'm opting out on kids, I don't want to contribute to the world in that way).

What really gets under my skin is how people judge my decision as THOUGHTLESS & SELFISH when I witness many of THEM becoming parents NOT because it's THEIR choice, but because of a result of a thoughtless act. Pregnancy now merely reduced to a SIDE EFFECT of having sex instead of the careful, serious life choice it SHOULD BE. Whereas I gave the decision an EXCRUCIATING amount of thought. I mean...seriously...it's a question I've weighed in my mind since I was around 8 years old, if THAT says anything to ya.

As far as being "selfish" for not wanting kids, I know there are SOME childfrees out there who actually fit the descrip. however I feel many of my reasons ARE NOT self-based...and the pisser is, many of the people who judge ME as selfish for MY reasons for NOT having kids are THEMSELVES selfish in THEIR reasons for HAVING them!

To illustrate an example, here's a little exercise you can try at home, boys & girls. This might help give you a little insight on what I mean. If you have a list of what you feel are THE BEST reasons for having kids, go on ahead and make that list, only THIS TIME EXCLUDE the words "I WANT...". For extra credit, exclude the words "I", "me", "my" or "myself"...



Stumped? Yeah...



If you can come up with at least 1 or 2 reasons EXCLUDING those words (coming up with 3 would SHOCK me), then (as far as I can tell), odds are you are parent-material. Kudos to you. Bust out the confetti. Roll out the party wagon *lol*

If you CAN'T, then that indicates to me your reasons for having kids ARE self-based, as (according to MY experience) hearing a reason to have kids that DON'T start out with "I want", "myself", "I" or involve any variation of the word "me" is as rare as a unicorn that farts rainbows...Now, this is NOT pointed out to shame you for having kids for the wrong reasons. What can I say about that? It is what it is. Nor is any of this intended to alienate or insult any of my childed friends. I'm only saying that if this is indeed the case with you, you forfeit your right to judge me on my supposed selfishness and therefore must STFU.




I've experienced alot of judgement and hatred for my decision to not have kids, and I really can't understand why. The word "childfree" seems to evoke such negative feelings among the general public for some reason. And myths such as childfree=child HATRED (SO NOT true as far as I'm concerned!). To me childfreedom is simply a CHOICE! Being "childfree" DOES NOT in ANY WAY say that it's WRONG to have kids. It simply says it's wrong for THAT INDIVIDUAL to have kids, for reasons that are all their own. I'm saying people should not automatically assume that one should have children just because they CAN. And I'm saying that subscribing to the belief that the ability to parent is an INBORN trait, like learning to walk, is RIDICULOUSLY, INCREDIBLY WRONG!!! It's a MYTH and it needs to end NOW! It's hard-wired in a human's brain to mate, but we all know reproduction/parenting are NOT interchangeable things. Parenting is a SKILL that MUST BE LEARNED. People so easily mistake one's set of working parts for qualifications/credentials for being a parent. Now THAT'S pretty THOUGHTLESS if you ask ME! The ability to parent is a learned skill, and it's one that not everyone is naturally...well, a "natural" at doing. Childfreedom means simply opting out of parenthood. More often than not, it's usually done AFTER PAINSTAKING consideration. It's ironic to me how many people become parents without taking a fraction of the consideration a childfree takes in deciding not have kids.


I know better than to stereotype all parents as self-indulgent, egocentric, thoughtless, wasteful, ignorant breeders. I know that many are, but it would be wrong & unfair for me to say ALL of them ARE. By the same token, I know not all childfrees make their choice out of consideration of the future (as I do). The ugly truth is, stereotypes still exist only because there are enough living examples that exist to reinforce them. In the few childfrees I have managed to find, there's a small sliver of them who really ARE douchebags that I DO NOT wish to associate with! Some who really ARE child-hating, self-absorbed SNOBS who are NO fun & pretentious as FUCK! Not to mention, I've heard enough bad experiences about that annual childfree convention (and the kinds of people who attend them) to keep me away. And have you ever joined a childfree social gathering? One word: yawn! *lol*

So, the idea that childfree=the belief that having kids is wrong isn't QUITE accurate. Nothing's wrong with having kids so long as it's for the right reasons and you go in KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT the HELL YOU'RE DOING!!! I don't personally AGREE with the decision to have kids, but as an individual who's free to make their own choice, I respect that and (unless my opinion is asked) I leave them alone (I wish I were treated with that same respect). In my mind, it's more about encouraging PREVENTION of what might be a not-so-great decision and/or AT LEAST a little INTELLECTUAL HESITATION about the decision than saying "I hate kids!!! Parents=dumbshits!!!" . So I don't get how someone like me gets treated as a VILLIAN or a THREAT. Perhaps I'm a bitter reminder of the freedom they traded off on what they might now feel is a bum deal? Perhaps I'm viewed as a living antithesis to their "values" and "ideals", and that makes them uncomfortable??? (well, boo-freaking-hoo!*lol*) Perhaps they see someone like me as a wrench in their quest to find reinforcement/assurance/approval for their life choices (which is a bullshit cop-out to look ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF for)??? Well, what do you want me to say? Sorry? *lol* That's just not happening. There's nothing to apologize for. If I wanna be free, I gotta be me!

Oh, and one last thought on the concept of what TRUE SELFISHNESS IS...
Oscar Wilde, an author/poet WAY ahead of his time, and who is one of my favorites, spoke about selfishness. He said something along the lines of: "Selfishness ISN'T living in however manner YOU wish to live, TRUE selfishness is wishing for OTHERS to live in whichever manner YOU wish to live"...Think about THAT one if ever you feel the urge to sell the idea of "the joys of parenthood" (or attempt to guilt me, judge me, coerce me, or tell me how selfish I am for wanting no part of it) to someone like me...

Why I lost faith in marriage...

I think marriage in and of itself sucks *lol*. I don't endorse the idea anymore. If I leave my husband, God help me I'm not marrying again. If anything, I should go out and tour on a "don't be like me" campaign about the pitfalls/disadvantages of marriage the same way Sarah Palin's underaged knocked-up daughter was trying to do with her underaged peers about humping around *lol* My faith in it is gone. It's an obsolete institution. I used to have the same ideals about it as the rest of you. Now, I have a view from the inside for the past 7...going on 8 years now? I'll have to look. The margins of time have all melted into one another, I don't even know anymore. I've learned many things about this kind of relationship, although I don't really think I want to go into ALL of it...Maybe just the most standout issues:

Marriage fosters an attitude of complacency SIMPLY by BEING WHAT IT IS!!! In fact, that's something I experienced early on in my marriage. He changed immediately once "the chase" was over. He was like "Stay romantic? Stay in shape? Fart in private??? WHY??? It's not like you're GOING anywhere!!!" And the sad truth is, he's RIGHT!!! I'm NOT! The idea of "forever" can lead to the dangerous tendency of taking that person for granted. It's almost NATURAL for it to happen in an environment like marriage. Because they ARE gonna be there. They PROMISED to. FOR LIFE. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. WHERE'RE ya gonna go???


The deal IS "for better or worse", but HOW BAD is "WORSE" expected to GET before it's considered OK to cut your losses and quit?

The problem within the idea of "no matter what happens" is that there exists a VERY WIDE MARGIN of variables, so it begs the question: HOW MUCH SHIT is TOO MUCH to put up with? I almost feel guilty for bringing any of this UP because I'm MARRIED and I VOLUNTARILY SIGNED ON to be in for the long haul no matter what. I'm expecting to hear "oh well, if you can't hang maybe you shouldn't have gotten married". And...maybe I shouldn't have *sigh*

What's more is, when a relationship (d)evolves into a marriage, I've observed the whole dynamic of sex changes. When you're dating? It's usually because you want to express your feelings for that person, because it's still fun to do, or maybe it's because you're just plain horny *lol*. In marriage? It's now become potential leverage. A bargaining chip. Or (for those hardcore churchies) merely a reproductive function. Which the other partner can revoke at anytime for any reason, with or without cause, and it's considered acceptable for you to be denied. And when one partner wants it more than the other, it's largely considered acceptable for the couple to round down to the lowest common denominator. If not, the one who isn't hot for it "puts up with" putting out, making it feel more like a doctor's exam than any real loving. OR, being horny, but then not particularly feeling horny for THEM, yet at the same time not wanting to break your vow of fidelity, so what used to be 'making love' is now reduced to using your spouse/being used as a sexual backscratcher. A tool. THOSE are the choices?

When a partner uses sex as leverage, however, they're committing real damage,IMO. It goes further than merely holding out on a bang, it's taking their very STATUS as your spouse for granted, if you really think about it...Basically saying "Yeah, I know what you want, and I know I'm the only one you can come to for it, and I'm intentionally holding out, BECAUSE I CAN! SO WHAT???" Can anyone see the dysfunction in that (using sex as currency, leverage or as a means to an end), or is it just me? Putting a "cuz we're married" label sticker on it doesn't make it any more ok in my eyes...

When you're dating, you're together, but still have seperate interests, activities and seperate lives. Living with JUST enough distance to generate that sense of desire and mystery. And with dating, while there CAN be exclusivity, you live with the risk of losing them if you blow it and there IS no promise of forever. Why is the promise of forever so desired anyway? How can you guarantee forever when you can't even promise tomorrow??? HOW the hell can you HAVE any IDEA about tomorrow? You may not even wake up tomorrow!!!

And the promise of "forever" doesn't seem practical or even realistic when people naturally change. You shouldn't be expected to be that person you were a dozen years ago. The rate and direction can't be controlled, and forcing to tamper with or inhibit that is retarded, especially if it's for the sake of keeping a couple together. Life ITSELF is a "grow or die" environment, and marriage is no exception. There are times in life where you change, and: 1)if you work at the relationship, 2)if your partner is still on the same general wavelength as you (or is at least willing to be) and 3)if the conditions & timing are right, the couple will adapt, grow together, even be stronger for it. But you can't assume that'll ALWAYS HAPPEN EVERY TIME, or happen seamlessly(an assumption too many people make when you think of spouses as just TWO HALVES OF A WHOLE instead of a PAIR OF 2 COMPLETE WHOLE INDIVIDUALS). Sometimes the 2 will grow in seperate directions. OR 1 person will grow and the other gets left behind. It can happen, through no fault of either party. If instead of leaving that person behind, they choose to stay, there has to be some hope of the other party "catching up" or else you're not solving the issue, you're just hitting the snooze button on it...I know that now...

This experience also has me seriously questioning the role of "compromise" in a marriage...If a relationship is all that great, should it even be CALLED FOR(I for 1 am starting to doubt that it should)??? And if so, how much is too much? What if what's being asked of you to compromise is your identity? IMO, that is an inalieable right. To be asked to sacrifice WHO YOU ARE for ANYONE is unrealistic, unreasonable and non-negotiable. If changing WHO YOU ARE means keeping your partner happy, then you have to wonder if they ever really loved you for who you are? I don't think so...I think they used you as a template to project the potential of what they wanted onto you. Instead of seeing you "as-is", they saw you as a "fixer-upper", and that spells doom...well, at least that's the way I see it...


In marriage, besides taking the "forever" idea for granted, you run the dangers of merging your lives to the point of becoming HOMOGENOUS. TOO MUCH intimacy. I've had married guy friends confess that to me in the past. Where the feelings for their wives have degraded from being the woman they desired, head over heels for and were completely nuts about, into mere companionship, friendship and co-parents because they KNOW ABOUT/SEE/DO TOO MUCH. And also they shared with me the same problem I have now: marrying someone whom you THOUGHT was a good catch, only to find out they LIED about many of the things they claimed to share in common with you, turning into someone else once the ink dried. I'm stuck trying to get back in love with the man that was left behind the mirage. And it's tougher than I imagined. Don't get me wrong, I love him very very much. The thought of hurting him makes me want to cry. But we're just plain not right for each other. I don't feel like I can be myself around him. What if he pretends to agree/be ok with something about me, only to reveal to me later he HATES it? It's happened before, and I always have that suspicion in the back of my mind since. He wants me to change alot about who I am which I feel is unfair cause I made it clear what he was signing up for beforehand. And whenever there is something about me that I know is wrong and needs changing, he makes me feel like crap instead of being constructive/supportive. He almost enjoys pointing them out, whereas I do my best to be constructive/supportive to HIM...Especially when he's TRYING TO CHANGE one of HIS bad habits...Although, when he tries for 5 minutes, gets bored then goes back to watching tv, it's not up to me to pick him up and carry him (although there are times where I wonder if that's what he's expecting). We have different views of life and the future. And I haven't been in love with him for about a couple of years. BUT...in spite of that, I'm still trying to make it work...because....that....forever thing I went on and on about earlier *lol* and my promise to stick around no matter what...

Or at least, until I feel I've exhausted every possibility or found an answer to my question "at what point does it become ok, if at all, to call it quits?"