Ashton the

Ashton:

Please excuse the unsolicited email from an AOL user in Kentucky. I read your comments about RR and would like to address them. Feel free to reply, delete or ignore and then have a good day.

I just think that women that have never had children have no idea what they are missing.

While spending time, including five-day babysitting jaunts, may not be exactly like having one "of your own" I was sure when I kept some of my six nieces/nephews that it gave a close enough picture to convince hubby and I we did not need one ourselves.

Do you question other's decision not to procreate out of a true concern for our happiness? To share ones' misery? To ensure the longevity of mankind? (which incidently, seems to be doing fine). Or because you just cannot imagine a life without children?

Do you truly, truly believe everyone is suited to be a parent? I mean, not all of us are suited to be world class runners. Or nurses. Or actors. Why would you think every single woman should be a mother?



They make the choice without even knowing what they are giving up.

You're right. I also made the choice to not have a tattoo without ever knowing what I am giving up. And tattoos and babies have a lot in common; both last a loooong time. If one decides that its "not for her", there is no turning back. A baby can NOT be sent back where it came from.

Would you prefer that those of us who knew at an early age that parenting looked like a long, hard, aggravating, thankless job to go ahead and birth anyway? Only to resent what resulted from it?


I just find it somewhat selfish for Rachel to say that she just doesn't have the time.

Well, then call me selfish too. My husband and I also do not have the time. He owns his own Structural Engineering Firm, I own my own antiques business, and on the weekends we have restored seven historic buildings and homes. (Perhaps your grandchildren can enjoy them some day). We also work out four hours/week, volunteer in our city on Habitat and neighborhood projects, take Salsa classes, hold weekly dinner parties, and spend time with our families.

You call not having children selfish. Have you heard the reasons people give for HAVING them lately? "To have someone take care of you when you get old". "So I didn't have to go to work (wives use this one)". "I wanted to see what it would look like". "I love all the little clothes". No kidding. People have actually given me ALL of the above reasons. I admired their candor.

And what is so unselfish about claiming another portion of the earth's resources for yourself and chidlren?

What is so unselfish about asking to be first in line at airports, movie theaters and buffets "because I have chidlren?"

What is so unselfish about expecting either a larger welfare check or larger tax break to take care of your OWN children?

What is unselfish about eating at restaurants where "children eat free"? (Who do you think pays for that...yep us. Well, not hubby and I. We will not go to restaurants where children are not charged.

Finally, what is selfish about hubby and I paying $ 6500 per year in school taxes for schools we will NEVER use. As his best friend (a mother) told him last year: "They should at least send people like you a thank you note".

We'd settle for not being called shallow, selfish, cold or barren. Well, that and the right to peace during an expensive dinner out.


Further: Did you know that your marriage is more likely to last without children?

That in a survey of her readers in the 1970's two thirds of Ann Landers readers confessed they would not have children if they had it to do over?

That depression is nearly twice as common among parents than non-parents?

No, I didn't think so.


Take Care,

Teri

Are you serious? are parents really more likely to be depressed? is that just because of post-partum depression?

And as for the whole, I love the little clothes thing, there's something that you can dress up too, that costs a LOT less and no care, except careful handling. What are those, hmm, let me think, oh yeah, DOLLS. Children are not toys, people.

God. That's a new one.

Hehe...
Parents are more likely to be depressed because suddenly they are in charge of something that has NO ability to care for itself whatsoever, will now work every day of their lives for the next 20 years at least to pay for said child(ren), don't have the opportunity for spontanious sex, fun or vacations, and can no longer pursue their own interests in any sort of depth.

I cannot imagine that. Overnight your life changes. It morphs into a hell that is unescapable except by death.

Childfree living ROCKS. Free time, money, spontaneity, your choices are yours, life is yours. I can't imagine it any other way.

frndofbear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You're right. I also made the choice to not have a
> tattoo without ever knowing what I am giving up.
> And tattoos and babies have a lot in common; both
> last a loooong time. If one decides that its "not
> for her", there is no turning back. A baby can NOT
> be sent back where it came from.

A tattoo has nothing in common with a baby. I have a few of them. Some, I probably would not have gotten when I was younger but am glad I have them. As permanent a tattoo is, there is no comparison to a child. A tattoo does not throw a temper tantrum in public. I do not have to work two horrid jobs to support a tattoo in the same manner the single moms have to do with their children when the husband or boyfriend splits. There is no crying in the middle of the night. The only "damage" to my body was where the ink was engraved. Does that explain it enough??? I guess the tattoo thing had to be mentioned as a "good girl", something I never want to be, does not get those things...

I guess the tattoo thing had to be mentioned as a "good girl", something I never want to be, does not get those things...


You read a lot more into my comparison than was there. Tattoos and babies DO have a lot in common from my perspective: I never wanted either one, and both are (usually) permanent decisions.

Most of my friends are tatted, so the "good girl" remark does not apply here.

Why so touchy?

theres a lot of bad press about tattoo's a sort of its a sign of rebellion, that they are irresponsible, My fiance, has several saturn on one wrist, a my little pony on the other, and a mantis near her ankle.


there can be a lot of commonalities in tattoo's and babies but there are so many more differences. so i can see what frnd is trying to say, but i can also see what ame is trying to say.

let me be the middle man, its more like having horns added to your body. or cleaving your tongue, its permanent in a finite way, whereas kids are permanent, eternally. so in that regards, different yet similar..

(i think it was a mis communication)

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Yep, I have several tattoos. They are like having a kid in that it is a permanent decision, but I agree with Merc in that's where the 'likeness ceases'(to quote Dorothy Parker & Cobalt60). A tattoo is a quiet, beautiful work of art that I enjoy, and cannot be stolen. A brat is, well a brat: messy, noisy, expensive, and later hateful. I'd have horns, or pointed ears, but I would NEVER breed.

God, I loathe the name ashton, BTW d

Parents have the pleasure that child free couples miss out on.

dirty diapers, bawling squawking brats, been thrown up on, being kept awake for months on end the list is endless.

People who would rather pretend to be going out rather than put up with a visit from the parents and children.

frndofbear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess the tattoo thing had to be mentioned as a
> "good girl", something I never want to be, does
> not get those things...
>
>
> You read a lot more into my comparison than was
> there. Tattoos and babies DO have a lot in common
> from my perspective: I never wanted either one,
> and both are (usually) permanent decisions.
>
> Most of my friends are tatted, so the "good girl"
> remark does not apply here.
>
> Why so touchy?

Why am I so touchy? Because too many comments are made about women and tattoos. Your opinion is fine but do not imply that my choice to ink my body is the same as having a baby. An inked woman who wants to paper shred her "past" to get the corp man and be the "good girl" can get the things removed. You cannot remove a kid. Like Rowan says, a tattoo cannot do the same things a screaming baby does and will not ruin my life. I notice how WOMEN are usually about other women having tattoos. It is about competition for those males that I have no interest in...since I have no need to play those female games.

Tats are awesome, baybeez are EWWWWWWWWW.

I have tats, and if tats make me bad, then so be it

Elizabeth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tats are awesome, baybeez are EWWWWWWWWW.
>
> I have tats, and if tats make me bad, then so be
> it


Tell me about it! Rarely, is a male taken to task over tattoos. I moderate another site and had to ban an obnoxious CF woman who loved to look down on most childfree for possibly being Wiccan or atheist and for actually not keeping her views secret. She felt "we" were attacking the good Christians of this country. She went on about the tattooed CF women as well. Never mind that she had her own little sexual secrets in the closet: threesomes, screwing friend's husbands, an underage lover, Interent "sex", etc...

While they're both perminant, here's the difference between tats and babies...
A tat will never shit, piss or vomit on you. In fact, a tat has no bodily functions of any sort!
A tat will never ask you to buy it anything. It will never scream "I HATE YOU" in the middle of a crowded store.
A tat requires no eductation, or care beyond some lotion while it's healing and some sun screen if you're going out side.
A tat does no physical harm. It won't give you stretch marks,chafed nipples or incontenence!
Tat's can't move (okay, my great uncle does have a hula lady on his bicep he can make dance). You never have to watch them, nor do you have to worry about them being kidnapped.

Feh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While they're both perminant, here's the
> difference between tats and babies...
> A tat will never shit, piss or vomit on you. In
> fact, a tat has no bodily functions of any sort!
> A tat will never ask you to buy it anything. It
> will never scream "I HATE YOU" in the middle of a
> crowded store.
> A tat requires no eductation, or care beyond some
> lotion while it's healing and some sun screen if
> you're going out side.
> A tat does no physical harm. It won't give you
> stretch marks,chafed nipples or incontenence!
> Tat's can't move (okay, my great uncle does have a
> hula lady on his bicep he can make dance). You
> never have to watch them, nor do you have to worry
> about them being kidnapped.


Ain't THAT the damn truth!!!!