eos_nyxia

@SeedI tend to be of the mind that if you are uncertain and what you have right now is GOOD, you probably just shouldn't. Appreciate what you have and either let go of those "what ifs", or perhaps time will do that naturally for you. Perhaps it is true that I have read and heard too many regret stories to be optimistic though. If you have enough right now, and if you're going to struggle financially and emotionally with more than one, then you probably shouldn't. If your body is going to struggle with the effects and results of birth (due to a previous traumatic birth and possibly age), and also you won't be prepared to deal with a child with developmental disabilities (let's be real, how many people actually are??), you also probably shouldn't. (Probably an unpopular opinion though.) If you're worried about your relationship being overwhelmed or thrown off balance, particularly if there already has been an asymmetrical division of labour and energy (like you're way more burnt out than your husband), then I personally definitely would not. It just seems like a recipe for more burnout and resentment. With the other questions, it's hard to say for sure though, obviously. Unfortunately, it seems like the "regret" stories are often blotted out by people who are pro-having-children because it IS still taboo enough, even though it would help prospective parents make a better-informed decision. Personally, I'm childfree, so I am biased. I would say: always pick self-actualization through yourself and the people who are here (as opposed to someone else who isn't even born yet) and living your life over motherhood, especially if you're on-the-fence. There is always the option to nurture non-biological children, animals, etc.... There is SO MUCH that the world as it is already needs. (But in your case, you don't have to choose, you are already blessed with a "good" experience of motherhood.)

You know, I've never actually heard anyone say anything positive about being stuck with parental duties as a child. Not anecdotally from personal experience, and not in the field of psychological studies (where they call this "parentification"). I'm sure that there is a big difference between giving a few minor responsibilities in a structured way, and expecting a 6-10+-year-old girl to feed, clothe, bathe, educate, and nurture their siblings, and stopping them from accidentally harming themselves, as well as just generally not being a bad influence. (This was my brother's ex-wife. Add to this list: ward off the effects of alcoholic and otherwise irresponsible or extremely busy and absent caregivers.) And traditionally, this load was only expected and dumped on female children, no? A large, usually poor traditional household with a lot of responsibilities often relied on the labour of female children otherwise they would not have been functional (for example, rural farm households). Although in general, children had adult responsibilities and were thought of as adults at much younger ages. Around my great grandparents' ages (like during the Great Depression), kids were working in factories to support their families, foraging for food or working with machinery on farms at the ages of 11-13 old, smoking and drinking like adults, and in some cases, boys were responsible enough to be thought of "the man of the house" around this age. It was a completely different era, but it seems to have had a strong effect on both my grandparents' and father's era in terms of what was thought of as acceptable childhood responsibilities. After all, the concept of "teenager" didn't exist in the early 20th century. We also used to hardcore condition (basically indoctrinate) little girls into motherhood-as-primary-life-purpose too on top of whatever they would have been inclined to do naturally, with giving them baby dolls, societal values, etc. Just based on my reading and observation of people's experiences, the parentification issue is a common enough reason why women choose to be childfree, either because they staunchly do not want them (the sentiment is: "I was forced to be a mother at a young age, no way I'm going to choose to do that now"). Or they would otherwise want kids, but they're completely burnt out from mothering and just generally taking emotional and physical responsibility for other people their whole lives. Too much of this wrecks people's mental health as adults. Conversely, I've never personally met an only child who was mad about it. My mom: happy to be an only child, because she got all of the attention and the very limited resources her parents had, and had no sibling responsibilities. My husband: not technically an only child, but had a much older half-brother who was completely out of the picture, so was raised as an only child. Had no issue with it. Just off the top of my head. If kids get lonely.. don't they just make friends? At least you get to choose your own friends? There's no real guarantee that siblings will like each other and have compatible personalities, either as children or adults... Like my dad: has a lot of siblings. They do not all get along. Not as children and not as adults. This concern about sibling loneliness, it seems to primarily be a parental concern, is it not? (Someone feel free to correct me with counterexamples, I am actually curious.)

In any time period, I suspect that there were always women who preferred sex work to the preapproved life path of marriage, monogamy, and children, even despite the risk and the likelihood of encountering extremely unpleasant people, coercion, and societal judgment. For some people, there is no real joy or meaning to be found in the standard issue female life path, period. For some, this is torture. Like slavery. I can also understand why some women might choose sex work over working some shitty job, potentially burning yourself out, and also having nothing materially to show for it in the end. What's the reward for that, assuming that you're actually, truly ok with sex work? Wow, society thinks you're bare minimum ok and doesn't judge you. Great prize there. You can make a lot of money quickly (especially with escorting), save it all up and set yourself up for life, and potentially end up working in some other career if you wanted to, no? Or even perhaps retire early. Likewise, the possibility of ending up in an apartment full of cats is like... a non-existent threat for some of us. For some people, that's literally ideal, lol. People are different, why is this surprising? (....not that in this day and age, you actually always have to pick one or the other. Porn stars, escorts, and other sex workers do marry and have kids, you know.)

I also really never understood this perspective that even "inexperienced" women (at least in terms of body count) inherently prefer experienced men, but then, I actually don't know how much of an anomaly I am either. My natural disposition is that I tend to be pretty neutral about it, and "inexperienced" very much has its own appeal with the male gender. But... the vibe and context behind one's experiences (and the lack of it) is all-important IMO. Is someone bitter because they haven't had the experiences they wanted in life? That... tends not to get better with age. Is someone getting "weirder" and more out of touch with being around people in a romantic/ sexual way, as a result of being alone? This also tends not to get better with more time. Is someone chronically in very long-term relationships, or were they in a few interspersed with periods of being single, and why? Sometimes people are addicted to not being alone, and this often comes with its own set of comorbid issues. Or there are certain reasons why all of their relationships have a certain lifespan (or why their relationships get stretched out endlessly into oblivion). If anything, at this point, when facing the prospect of dating within the last 5ish years, the idea of getting overly attached to someone with a drastically different dating/ sexual background is more daunting the older I get. It's certainly not a plus. As a result, I've tended to attract and be most attracted to people with a similar background, and cautious and wary around the opposite. So: men who have had a lot of sexual and romantic experience, men who have dated around a lot, men who have roving eyeballs (and act on their impulses) definitely have not been more attractive, whereas it was more of a neutral factor before (not the roving eyeballs thing though). You can think of this as the conservative, self-preservation streak in action. While I could have gone either way in the past based on my own natural disposition, the experienced tend to be more assertive, extroverted, and approach more (not just in a romantic/ sexual way, but tending to be more forward with all people who are of interest for whatever reason). Otherwise, who is going to approach them? Sometimes it would actually be me. None of this has much to do with men with a different background being "bad", as in, I don't feel the need to moralize about my life choices in this way to feel better and more secure about myself and for the world that I live in to appear more orderly and make sense, lol. The cage that makes you feel contained and that gives you a ground to rest upon in an open void, is the same thing that becomes hard to leave later, assuming that you want to leave. This is what ideology tends to do. It makes you a slave while convincing you that you're the master still. If you were at one point, you're probably not anymore. If you were, you would just drop it all instantly the moment it became clear that it wasn't serving you, and that it was no longer actually protecting you or making you happy.

As a woman with a "low body count", I wouldn't have dated someone who was overly preoccupied with it for its own sake, who fetishized it, or thought it meant something that it really didn't (from my perspective). For example, if he assumed that we shared some kind of morality that we don't share (e.g. morally conservative sexuality, especially if just for women but not for men, lol). Hard pass because we actually have nothing in common. IMO it's really important to look at the actual motivations and circumstances behind a certain behaviour, rather than just looking at the superficial result and assuming the motivation because >>insert cultural ideology<<. Don't assume that cultural patterns are the actuality until you can be very, highly certain that they are the cause. However, this requires that you not default to ideology because it's convenient, it makes you feel more secure, and saves mental time and energy. In my own case, my own motivations had a lot to do with: meeting someone who I shared a great deal in common with at a very young age, which was possible because I had a very centered, acute sense of Self and motive, and so did he the huge amount of time and energy I've spent resolving and making sense of early life trauma and finding it unwise to add more baggage in the form of extra experiences to the mix. (which not so coincidentally, usually makes me "damaged goods" by definition to males who think that a "low body count" is a promise of some sort of cleaner slate) the yogic perspective of limiting and minimizing accumulated body memory, which not only helps you in the process of dissolving previous body memory and association, but it actually can be extremely helpful (if not necessary) for specific goals related to energetic/ spiritual and intellectual development that require a huge amount energy and focus in a singular, novel direction. (But done blindly and dogmatically, ascetic tendencies and self-restraint can also be rather useless as well.) It has had very little to do with being a "good girl" and being good in the eyes of sexually conservative men, which is a losing game anyway. It's kind of like... when I was a young woman, I wouldn't have dated someone who was overly preoccupied with my age either. (Aka. older men who are chronically fixated on younger women.) I always thought the reason for this should be obvious: you'll be on the losing end of this sooner rather than later. You're not ever really "winning". And it has nothing to do with you personally anyway. You're just a series of interchangeable parts, or a checklist, for people who think this way, whether you "win" or "lose". So basically, it's all "losing". No one likes being treated this way, unless they themselves are treating others this way first (presumably to protect themselves or others like them)!

Not gonna lie, I used to be moderately jealous of those people. Yea. If you're mind heavy, it's healthy to be able to put all that stuff aside for a while, and to just get into your body and feeling in some way, but to not keep these functions all segregated. Or at the very least, keep the thinking rather goal-orientated and under wraps. Not a chronic thing. Honestly, "understanding" is pretty optional. Some people manage to skip this preoccupation properly and their life is way easier, and possibly happier as a result. Understanding can bring great pleasure but it very often doesn't, lol.

I know I tend to write a lot, don't feel pressured to respond to it all, lol. But just curious, do you have any idea why this is? It seems like some countries in the Middle East are more stable, and some far less so.

This is going to sound terrible, but often people (both men and women) feel like if they had to go through something, then their kids and younger people should have to too because it's just "something that's done". In a way, this is the essence of conservatism of the mindless variety; it demands obedience and not understanding or questions. This includes what women do to their daughters. And then it just becomes this neverending cycle. It's like they completely forget what it was like to be subjugated once they get to a certain age, though it is possible that they were one of the ones who actually fit the mold of expected identity and behaviour better from the start. If they like this, often they just don't get it, and have no reason to care because they are not forced to: they are comfortable enough as it is. But most likely, no. It's suppressed and it comes out in very ugly ways. People can be like that here too about coercing women (but also men) into have children, getting married, etc. Except here, the law is not on their side.

I'm guessing your country is under Sharia law, but less severe form? The more extreme examples that I can think of would be: 1) Saudi Arabia, where you can still get YOUR HANDS CHOPPED OFF if you steal. Even if they don't actually implement this aggressively, the fear is put into people. 2) Iran within the first 10ish years of the Iranian revolution in the 90s. What you mentioned about the "morality police" immediately made me think of Iran. A few more examples that I can think of for religious/ cultural fundamentalism off the top of my head: 1) Christian Fundamentalism in the US, specifically all-Christian communities and cities. I've heard some horror stories from agnostics and atheists who did not want to hide their lack of belief, or god forbid, self-identifying, semi-open occultists. 2) Here in Canada, we've had a regular handful of cases where honor killings happen amongst religious Indians or Middle Eastern people, which occasionally sparks conversations about the nature of "religious tolerance" here. To my knowledge, often it is male members (like fathers and brothers) killing women or teenage girls who dare have boyfriends or sexual relationships outside of pre-approved relationships (essentially marriage). Less severe is... I'm not sure. I don't know as much about this. I've heard about cases like that here in the States and Canada, even though it's against our laws. Really persistent parents and relatives basically brainwash their kids, live in very tightknit communities, and make it very hard to leave or basically do anything on their own. TBH when your whole society is like that, like a consensus society where people are heavily punished for stepping out of line, it's like an extended cult, lol. The government just happens to be in on it too. I think over here, many people have a decent idea of how hard it can be to leave a cult, especially if you grew up in one. And that's without the government making it real hard for you to leave. So many places in the world like this still.

@Mesopotamian You're from, Iraq, right? Isn't that country extremely conservative in terms of religion and sexuality? I don't think people here in general know what it's like to live in your country, so they're probably going to give you completely irrelevant advice, practically speaking... Like, can't your ex's family come after you in a violent way, like metaphorically chase after you with an axe? (Or maybe literally?) Could you potentially lose your life or be physically maimed? Will you lose your place in your community and be ostracized by everyone once they know that you've had extramarital relationships, to the point where you can't actually safely live in your hometown because everyone knows your business? Can you be tried in a court of law for having a sexual/ romantic relationship, and will you go to jail? If so, you should probably ignore first worlder's comments about getting laid, lol. You need to protect yourself first.

I suspected as much. I wonder how well they even manage at that... it is rather hard to imagine myself in their shoes. =/

You (collectively speaking) reap what you sow though. And if you insist that this is some intrinsic (aka. "biological"), insurmountable thing, then you get more and more people who are a reflection of such. You need to give people the opportunity, the means, and the space to develop in certain ways, for the most part. (And if you have tunnel vision as a result of your beliefs, it's not like you'll actually see counterexamples anyway, even if they do exist.) Confirmation bias 101. Isn't this what happens when women have no other actual options for survival outside of men, except maybe for extreme fringe behaviour and professions? (E.g. prostitution) People don't tend to go too far out of their way to break social norms and ostracize themselves unless they are forced to, and certainly not if they don't have some extremely rebellious streak. As an older example from a "1st world culture", my grandma (who is over 90 at this point), was a housewife for the whole time she was married. She did work a little, but she was not the main breadwinner. She was very vocal about how much she "lived for her kids" and "did everything for her kids", and how much unconditional love she had for them, etc. My dad had a different interpretation: he found her controlling and suffocating (and perhaps even classically narcissistic, my words, not theirs), especially when it came to the religion issue (My dad's family is mostly Catholic, and he became a "spiritually open-minded" atheist around college age). My parents used to have long talks about how she would have probably been a much better mother if she wasn't pushed into the housewife and mother role, because she could have benefited from some sort of a mental and emotional life outside her children. Perhaps there is some truth to this; her world was very small and myopic, in a way. Especially if you push a woman into the mother role, and she doesn't truly want to (even though she "should" or is "supposed to", because it makes you a good or at minimally acceptable person)? You are absolutely asking for emotional issues that will then get passed on to her children. Full stop. A different time for a different world, when Islam was arguably the most progressive monotheistic religion in the world. The Next New Thing often tends to be. (Well, maybe not in this world. It depends on the era. Is it a more bureaucratic era or a genuinely progressive era and culture?) And Joseph supported Mary even though he was not the father! (Y'all probably too young to appreciate this:) This stuff is really scary. I think I remember reading that it is most often women who actually perform these surgeries, and it is female relatives who restrain the girls.

The addiction to polarization as a form of spectacle (and often on some level, entertainment) often reveals that there is not much underneath it at all. This is a worldwide thing (especially when it comes to the news and politics), but it seems to also very much be a North American thing too? It is a placeholder for one's time and energy, even while people believe that they are truly somehow dealing with "the real issues" in some productive way. That's at least a large part of it. If there are new issues to be polarized about, and one issue dies down as a point of central focus, but then another focus comes up, and then another, then it is an indications that polarization is functioning as an addiction to filling the void of one's focus. Not all polarization is gratuitous though. The question is if it's being used judiciously, is it actually effective, and is it needlessly self-indulgent? (In terms of causing yourself and others chronic suffering and distraction with no actual end in sight for anyone.) Sometimes people need to scream in public, for far longer than other people think is reasonable or necessary, in order to heal and reintegrate themselves (or specific aspects of themselves) into society. It's often a quicker way to deal with said issues rather than keeping it all to themselves in perfectly polite, civilized and acceptable ways, much to the inconvenience of people who would rather not listen to your screaming, or only listen as ammo for forming their own judgments about your self-worth, or specifically their intrinsic value in relation to your intrinsic value (with you always being on the losing end, rather predictably). They also often have specific goals in mind for social change. Is this necessarily the most effective way to facilitate social change? Very rarely is it, but sometimes a hammer and bludgeoning does get the job done. However, just as a counterexample to polarization: I often feel like here in Canada (and possibly in the States as well), Indigenous people are far too polite about their traumas (on average). Even their protests strike me as too polite and reserved. Maybe they should be using their words like sharper, more calculated weapons, as in, it would force people to listen better... but it is not their way. It is also not very appropriate to speak over people and to dictate to them how they should deal with their traumas in order to be acceptable to YOU, especially on their behalf, lol. That's just being part of the problem. Also realistically, it often takes at least a couple of generations for intergenerational trauma to start to substantially dissolve collectively (or to at least get enough psychological distance from the original trauma) to cause psychological unraveling and resolution, especially if the issue was widespread and systematic on a cultural level. Often, there is a deeply fatalistic acceptance and profound grit that comes from being too close to the source of the trauma, experientially and at the level of identity that comes from this direct experience, assuming that they get to this point. (For example, being a genocide survivor, or a Residential School survivor in the case of Indigenous people here, or 2nd gen.) I have noticed that this is often where the "integration" process ends for people, But give credit where it is due, this is a massive achievement on a personal level. At least, this is how it has been in the past 100-150 years or so. I'd like to think this process can finally accelerate now, and we can support each other better in this process. Me too.

I have tendencies from both extreme spectrums!!! Seriously though, I'd like to think that appreciation for the complex and simplicity can comfortably and effortlessly coexist. We make up the rules and everything, etc.

You are absolutely in the wrong place, haha. To everything else you said, it might be helpful to focus on the cause/ purpose first, and to concern yourself with the means after. Keeping in mind that going half-hearted and half-openly into anything tends to always give you lukewarm results, but also, yes. You can also make new problems which take years to resolve, if ever.

Read about the stories of mixed-race children growing up in East Asia, or South East Asia. I do not know as much about other places to comment directly. We are always "othered". We will never effortlessly fit in fully no matter what, even in metropolitan centres. Some people say that mixed-race looks are idolized because of the good number of celebs there are mixed race (aka. Eurasian). It's actually more complicated than that. First of all, even if you're the "right" kind of mixed-race, East Asia is still pretty racist by most people's standards here, if not because these cultures are much more monolithic. If you feel like you have no place in the place you grew up as a disenfranchised man, how do you think mixed-race East Asian children feel, being singled out for existing everywhere they go, all the time? I'm not saying that every experience is always negative, but the worst-case scenario is being bullied mercilessly in school, harassed in public, and discriminated against at the institutional level in all sorts of ways. God forbid you are black or darker-skinned and have children there. The very least you can do is to know what your future children will likely be up against, unless attitudes somehow change extremely quickly. They probably will not. To my understanding, there is some stigma and even pushback in Asian countries where there is a significant sexpat industry. Children thought to be of these unions are looked down upon (I am thinking of Thailand in particular). Perhaps it's not entirely dissimilar to me getting asked as a kid if my mother was a mail-order bride just because she was Asian. Please consider what this might do to a child's psyche. "Good othering", or well-intentioned othering: it feels like you are kind of like an exotic circus animal. Or like an alien dropped you on Earth. You exist to be a public spectacle. If this is not clear, growing up with this is a VERY different experience than being some white person (since that does tend to be the favoured ethnicity, see: East-Asian continental brand racism) in East Asia, where you feel like your differences might be an asset. You are secure enough in your own formative racial identity, so there is no issue for you personally there. I mean, I spent 2 months of every year growing up in Hong Kong, a city that was a British Colony for over 150 years. It's probably the most Westernized East Asian city I've ever been to. And I STILL got treated like I never really belonged there. And I have East Asian relatives and family friends, grew up with the culture, learned a decent amount of the language, etc. etc. etc. At least when it comes to being well-adjusted about the race thing, arguably any multicultural metropolitan city in the West is better, but especially places like Hawaii/ the West Coast, IMO.

I don't understand what you're getting at? It's not about what prospective fathers are comfortable with, it's about prospective fathers not looking forward into the future and anticipating potential problems based on their choices, their behavior, and their mindsets. Or simply not having the tools or prerequisite ability to do so, because they lack perspective. If you're just from one race/ one culture, of course you won't just get it. You don't really need to in order to get by and live your life. Probably most people don't care enough at the end of the day, and when it really comes down to it, it's about getting theirs first. Getting the wife, the life, the kids you feel that you deserve. You could really just say this about people in general though. Misogynistic and/or ""subtly racist"" motivations for doing things (or for that matter, legitimately being "anti-male") tends to find a way back to kids in the form of intergenerational trauma. I look at dudes really going out of their way to find a wife in some poorer country from a completely different culture which is alien to the one that they grew up in, maybe they bring them back here or they stay here. Just based on listening to them talk.... yea, it's an emotional train wreck for their future kids. Pick your poison, there are quite a few. At least if you stay here, you have a much better chance of knowing what you are actually getting into, lol. But by all means, roulette away...

I wonder how many of the guys in here are prepared to deal with the reality of having a mixed-race child. (I guess I'm thinking mainly of white men going to East Asian countries because they have certain ideas about what East Asian women are like.) Reading through these comments makes me glad that I had the father that I did, at least in this particular way. Kids who have had dads with attitudes like the ones that I've seen in threads like these.... tend to have some serious identity issues. And serious self-loathing, whether directed inward or out.

Brand new Slowdive: An accidental find from a couple weeks ago:

....because bridal pedicures for traditional Indian weddings aren't a thing? Haha.

Current Listening Mood: Music to float away to another world: If the elements of the original track were underwater, shaken, suspended, and slowly floating down toward the deep:

Other Stuff: I feel like I'm kind of late to the Mike Oldfield game. Also look, it's Karl Jenkins (of Soft Machine). Part of my musical DNA or w/e. My brother had Adiemus on repeat when I was about 12, and I got pretty sick of then. There's as lot of other stuff worth listening to though that's not Adiemus. Tubular Bells = brought to you courtesy of LSD. Metal Revival: Oh look, it's time to roleplay being 16-17 again! I never had this particular album on rotation that much, but apparently now, it's time. Mostly it has sentimental value because it was favourite of a friend of mine way back when. Not coincidentally, I've been having insane dreams about him lately again. It flows well, it makes good use of the same 2-3 major motifs. To the point that it's kind of repetitive, but then... I've also weaned myself off novelty for novelty's sake. There was a point at which I simply started to tolerate Gothenberg Scene style synths, kind of like tolerating death metal growls. Some people make it work well enough for them, but did I ever really love the sound in its own right? Maybe not. I hadn't heard this until recently, surprisingly. This is WAY better than most of the music I remember listening to in this ballpark genre back then. High effort, etc. I'm gonna listen to old Ulver, it's gonna be a metal album! ...no metal, just chill. It's good music to wander around to in the woods at dusk.

"Catchy Stuff": Hailing from the Orkney Islands: Without the voices: I learned late last year that 1) Matt Berry made music 2) I had actually heard his music before, but didn't realize he was an actor (I saw him in "What We Do in the Shadows") . Eternal post-Kraftwerk synth roll: Featuring baby Cretu and baby Sandra, pre-Enigma. I have a similar sort of relationship with it: not sure if the instrumentals are too cheesy and about as subtle as a whack over the head, and everything is so emotionally out-there. But at the same time, that's the appeal. Zero irony, zero reservation, and a whole lot of intangible things going on emotionally and lyrically. Also, her voice was intriguing back then too.

This isn't what I was referring to when I was referring to weaponized incompetence. I was specifically referring to it within the context of a heterosexual relationship, where men avoid tasks related to domestic labour and childcare, and then the woman has to pick up all or most of the slack to get anything done. And then considering the total energy expenditure in maintaining a home and relationship on top of both people working, it becomes extremely lopsided when you look at both sides. So you end up with things like exhausted, hardworking women who spend pretty much all of their time either working or taking care of their kids and husband, while the husband has more free time and energy and gets to have things like hobbies, cracking open beers with friends, more sleep, checking out after work to play video games, or whatever else it is that they want to do with said free time and energy. On a purely logical level, this is a pretty shit deal for a woman. And I would say that women generally do consider whether it's worth breaking up their marriage because they're unhappy. Maybe many do not (since you brought up the most sociopathic examples), but I would say that this tends to go directly against the aspect of our socialization which encourages us to always consider others' feelings, needs, preferences, and desires above our own. Eventually, one way or another, something's gotta give. Women from older generations are more likely to just suck it the fuck up. And I guess this is what many people consider to be "good marriages"? What, because they haven't divorced? On a personal level, I don't really have this particular sort of workhorse-like fortitude anyway, and cannot do what people like my mother have done. Certainly not as well as she did. I tend not to assume that weaponized incompetence is this super deliberate, conscious thing, and is moreso related to men's societal conditioning. (And I would prefer not to assume maliciousness anyway.)

@Roy I am bringing up some worst-case scenarios that I have read about and comparing it with your worst case scenarios. I am not talking about how more equitable circumstances would play out. (In this case, where are the actual problems?) In some cases, depending on where you are geographically, there is far more limited (or non-existent) infrastructure when it comes to parental leave. The other things you described (working part time, SAHM) is not so feasible for people who are too close to the poverty line even when both people are working full time and are locked into this sort of loop in order to support their kids, and obviously includes people who don't have the skills to handle their money. The purpose of bringing up what I did wasn't to measure tit-for-tat and to make it into a gender war, exactly. It was again, to bring up some worst-case scenarios on the other side, and to say that on some hypothetical universal scale... the risk of permanent bodily damage via pregnancy, and also the risk of physical and sexual abuse is a much worse cost than getting screwed out of years of your resources. Like if I had to hypothetically pick one or the other, I know which one I would pick. Also, unpaid emotional and physical labour does matter. One partner getting completely burnt out while the other one avoids responsibility does matter. If I was focusing tit-for-tat, I could easily say the same thing about men who entered relationships and marriages with women who screwed them over in the end. Like, you really should have seen it coming because it was your responsibility to know them better from the outset, huh? Otherwise, you wouldn't have gotten into the situation with "divorce rape", or gotten someone pregnant that you couldn't trust. Don't you know, when things really go to shit, no one is on your side, the law might not even be on your side, so act accordingly? Tit-for-tat = You know after you get a woman pregnant that you are responsible for the consequences, and pregnancy is always a possibility. It's not like this is some sort of hidden detail or conspiracy if you actually look around? Legally, you have no real power and you just have to accept that because that's the way things are. It's the society we live in. If she's untrustworthy and you get screwed by the law? (Like she pokes holes in the condom or something?) Yea, you should have been more aware and not stuck your dick in crazy. This is what happens when you think with your dick and you don't vet people for character. You shouldn't have trusted her to be on the pill, or to not make errors with it. You should have been more prepared. You should have seen it coming. Be prepared for all possible consequences or don't get involved. Etc. etc. Really, this could go on and on. This was actually the perspective that I would have held when I was much younger, and I could not for the life of me understand how men were so reckless with their dicks and feelings, because I learned very early in life that if you throw yourself blindly into trusting people, or if you only see what you want to see with people, then yea you're probably gonna get screwed because you lack experience and you don't know what to look out for. Having a shitty childhood will do that for you. Not coincidentally, I married someone who just gets it because he also had a shitty childhood. I'm trying to put myself in other people's shoes though. On a practical, self-survival level, either you learn how to identify problems before they actually happened or you get screwed. Such is life. Should the foundation of your legislation and social infrastructure be based on assuming that the worst possible outcome is probably going to happen? Probably not. It'd be a terrible society to live in. Should all the various worst possible outcomes be addressed and prepared for still? Yes. It's one reason why the law exists and should exist. I admit that I am not that sentimental about birth and child-rearing. I think that it COULD be beautiful and transformative, but all other sorts of adverse life experiences could potentially end up being profoundly transformative. Like cancer. Or being abused as a child. You COULD potentially have an easier birth, but it's still giving birth regardless. It's a roulette. TBH I don't think this sort of perspective means very much from someone who doesn't actually have to do the birthing; you get to just shoot your sperm and get on with your life, physiologically speaking. It means the most from someone who actually has done it, or if woman who goes into it with eyes wide open, and has decided that despite the costs and the fact that getting the sort of family you desire is a roulette, it is still personally worthwhile. Straight up on paper, pregnancy and childbirth is not a good deal for a woman, if we're just talking about cold, hard logic. It's a process driven by impulses and emotion, but also enculturation. It makes us profoundly emotionally and physically vulnerable, and mostly we're just expected to suck it up because it's always been done and because it's been necessary to continue our species. This really is not a revolutionary argument, but it might be outlandish in this space because of how this forum leans perspective-wise...