Is it normal i want a man free child

33% Normal

Hello peeps i have this question well it turns out that my desire to have a child is getting stronger. I have this instinctive maternal instinct to give birth to and raise and tend to a child. i already have pictured in my mind the discipline, activities, and upbringing my child will have.

However, i have no desire to have the male father husband in life. is this selfish? im open to criticism

have yall seen the movie species? the part where the female alien violently kills the man right after she tries to get impregnated by him. she wants his child only.

i only want to selectively pick the most handsome man, possibly genetically screen him, but make sure he is stunning, so that he will give me a beautiful child. and thats it.

is this a healthy or normal thought??

Voting Results

33% Normal

Based on 73 votes (24 yes)

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!

[ Report Post ]

Comments ( 61 )

dom180

9 years ago

How long have you felt this way? The bare minimum amount of commitment for a kid is 18 years, but many parents continue to provide emotional support for their children until one of you dies.

I have some suggestions. One person has already suggested getting a dog, and I think this is a good idea because dependent pets like dogs are good training for raising kids. Alternatively, I think you should try babysitting. Babysitting can help you scratch the itch and it will let you know if you're prepared for the messy and difficult bits of taking care of a baby.

A lot of people have said it's unfair for the child to lack a father figure. I don't think a kid needs a mother figure and a father figure. I think all they need is a person to look after them and give them the values to look after themselves. Plenty of single-parent children grow up completely normally. My one concern would be your ability to work full-time and provide adequate care of your kids at home if you have no-one to split the load with.

You put a lot of emphasis on your kid having the right genetics, and that really makes me cautious. You seem very interested in the aesthetic and genetic qualities of a child and less interested in the emotional support you can give them as they grow up. It's quite objectifying to the kid. You care about things which don't really make much of a difference to your kids emotional well-being, which makes me think that you want this child more as an accessory to your perfect life than anything else. If there is any selfishness in your desire, I think this is where it comes from.

Comment Hidden ( show )

4

4
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  I already have experience with kids. I have an extremely high tolerance for them, actually. Not to brag, but I can hold stress very efficiently, and keep a cool head. I babysat for my nieces, nephews...etc even as infants, for years, raising them.
  So a dog for "training purposes?" out of the question
  
  As far as the financial concerns, I will ENSURE that I have an allotted amount of money in a savings account solely for my child. S/he will also learn the importance of money and working for it at an early age, progressively in small steps. To more fully answer your question, yeah there will be babysitters (I have strong family ties with brothers/cousins. male figures etc) but ultimately I will be the primary caregiver.
  
  Well of course I will be interested in the appearance, wouldnt you?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - dom180
    
    9 years ago
    
    That's great! Bear in mind that babysitting doesn't replicate the experience perfectly, because most of the stress of parenthood comes from never having a break. Your supportive family would be a really good help, though.
    
    The way you talked about the appearance of the kid in your OP did worry me. It sounded more like a sexual fantasy: find a hot guy, fuck him, get pregnant. I feel like if the superficial things are that important to you, you might not be mature enough for parenthood yet.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      9 years ago
      
      all else clarified, you have yet not answered my question. when choosing a partner, how important is appearance to you?
      
      Why?
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - dom180
        
        9 years ago
        
        A long-term partner? Not very important at all.
        
        You don't want a long-term partner. You want a man to father your child and then exit your life. You will never have to look at that man again. Do you think you will care how attractive he was when you are raising the child? Will the good looks of the child be at the forefront of your mind when they are born? Would the idea of being a parent be less attractive to you if your baby didn't have the looks you wanted? If the answer is yes, I think you are excessively focused on the superficial and I think that focus is evidence of not understanding what parenting is really about.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
        
        -
        
        Anonymous Post Author
        
        9 years ago
        
        No of course parenting wouldnt be affected. of course i iwouldnt treat my child any less than that. im just thinking. what if my child was physically beautiful. fancy that. its human nature. what parent would willingly want an ugly child. none. like i said its human nature and theres even research on that
        
        its like this. it reminds me of this analogy. do u have a girlfriend? from my experience ive seen husbands say all the time of their wives yes i love my wife i love her but come on inside the vast majority of men would prefer it EVEN MORE if their wife had a smokin body a drop dead gorgeous wife. sure they fancy that idea. just how i fancy that. if i had a child i would love him regardless but couldnt help it
        
        what do you think of parents who brag about their beautiful children or who do toddlers and tiaras beauty pageants
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
anti-hero

9 years ago

Based on the word peeps and your total lack of grammar, you don't need a child with or without a partner.

Comment Hidden ( show )

3

3
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  oh for christ sake, really? that's the most thoughtful comment you got? oh dear.
  
  *clears throat* Ahem.
  
  Allow me, anonymous author, to reiterate my retorts using more eloquent diction. Such culled vocabulary and flawless grammar would determine whether or not I am in a predisposition to become a loving mother. Such vocabulary would reflect my innate loving emotions and attentive abilities in tending to children
  
  Past the superficial exterior, are you suggesting that only the elite educated who have been BLESSED to be born and raised in an environment that have given them opportunities to be educated and thus type flawlessly are entitled to become parents?
  
  Having children is a fundamental right, with limits of course, but nonetheless, a right, even if just one child
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  1
  
  1
  - anti-hero
    
    9 years ago
    
    If you had read my other comments, you'd see I was defending you.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      9 years ago
      
      True kudos to that but why did you insult me in your first comment above?
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      -2
      
      -2
      - anti-hero
        
        9 years ago
        
        It is my opinion that anyone who writes like that is stupid and/or lazy. What about being stupid and/or lazy would make me think that person should have a child?
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        -
        
        Anonymous Post Author
        
        9 years ago
        
        ha just because i used slang word the word peeps you think it reflects how smart i am waht if it was a typo or what if i was referring to those easter candies i am fond of and have delicious wonderful memories with
        
        this thread is over son
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
        
        See More Comments =>
anti-hero

9 years ago

Given the lot of shit heads walking around, a lot of these kids are better off without a father.

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
- Crvsades
  
  9 years ago
  
  Most of those shit heads you talk about come from fatherless homes, so your argument is invalid. But that's a fact that is too difficult for your feeble mind to grasp, you malnourished, pathetic excuse for a human being.
  Meanwhile, you can log into all your other accounts
  and down vote every comment that goes against what you believe. You fucking simpleton.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -1
  
  -1
  - anti-hero
    
    9 years ago
    
    I have no other accounts unlike you sweetheart. And you have no facts or stats to back that up. you mindlessly parrot things you have heard. So your entire life is invalid. Fucking sheep.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    1
    
    1
  - Anonymous Post Author
    
    9 years ago
    
    tone it down with the insults geesh i take you less seriously in this conversation thread
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
TheOneWhoComesFromEnordro

9 years ago

Don't let what these people say get to you. Yeah, it could be very problematic for a child to grow up without a father but many do and alot of them come out okay (Including myself, I suppose). I believe that as long as you can love your child and do everything for him/her (Including finding a father substitute such as a uncle, grandfather, etc), then it's fine. It seems that the ones who are against single mothers would rather you'd get married only for the whole thing to fall apart and the child to still grow up without a decent father. Did you know the divorce rate is above 50%? Personally, I think it's better for a kid to grow up with a single parent than to lose his/her father or mother during childhood via divorce and think it's "his/her fault" why father and mother don't love each other anymore and aren't together.

PS: If you're still unsure, you could always adopt. Atleast then, the child wouldn't be "Illegitimate" and be made fun of by it's peers. No one would give you as much trouble or grief either. AND, a child would be getting both a mother and a home.

Comment Hidden ( show )

2

2
handsignals

9 years ago

http://i.imgur.com/55MAlAO.png

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  Is that an honor to that late lunatic
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
KeepsakeDoll

9 years ago

Only problem is that even if the man is handsome, there's always a chance that the child will grown into someone who you don't view as good looking due to problems or whatever.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
disthing

9 years ago

Buy a dog.

Comment Hidden ( show )

1

1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  I already have one. Actually, I have a dog and cat that Ive raised to get along.
  
  I cant get another dog that would affect my current dog/cat relationship
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
Crvsades

9 years ago

Yes you are being selfish. You are depriving your future child of the chance at having a father figure in his life.
A child mus t have both a male and a female model to grow up with because this society contains men and women and it will be hard for the child to socialize with the gender that is lacking in his life during his childhood. If you don't want to be sexually involved with a man (i assume you are asexual), then find a man who is equally uninterested in sex and have an arranged relationship or marriage. For the sake of the child and also for your benefit. Because people are stronger socially when they are in a family union. They have more financial stability and are more group-oriented. Family structure can be found in all species, especially in mammals and primates. The family is the foundation this society has been built on.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- anti-hero
  
  9 years ago
  
  Since when has "group orientated" been a good thing? Whatever happened to the individual? You mindless prick.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -1
  
  -1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  People are stronger socially when they are in a family union? What an utter fallacious argument.
  
  Many many individuals are introverts, naturally born, some can argue, genetically born with those traits. It does not matter if you stick force or throw them in a group of people with the assumption or hope they will turn amiable. Many individuals enjoy their solitude in childhood, preteens, teens, adult and beyond.
  
  Sure if my child turns out to be a natural introvert, I will accept him for who he is (of course life will take its course and be naturally exposed to family values and social tendencies), but I will never force him to be an extrovert or teach him that others around him will be better off in life, simply for having a father.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - Crusades
    
    9 years ago
    
    People are not born introverts.It's not an innate feature. They become like that because of the influence of their surroundings and their experiences. Being an introvert is not a trait, it's a state of mind.
    "Sure if my child turns out to be a natural introvert, I will accept him for who he is". - Yet another example why a woman cannot raise a child by herself. Because women are too accepting of their child's negative habits that might harm both him/her and their mother in the future. Love alone is not enough to raise a child. Antisocial behavior can be corrected. And for that someone who is strict can intervene. And that is when the father's role comes in. With discipline and strictness, wisdom and good will the child can be put on a right path again. Because in some cases introverts turn asocial and from being asocial they can become antisocial, sometimes even sociopaths.
    There is not one positive thing about being an introvert. Having no friends, no colleagues, no acquaintances makes it difficult to get around in life. Humans are social creatures by nature.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    -1
    
    -1
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      9 years ago
      
      Let us clarify the definition of introvert, because you do not understand it.
      
      Being an introvert does not mean one is shy.
      Being an introvert does not mean one is passive.
      Being an introvert does not mean it is associated with all those negative traits you assume it is.
      
      Many famous and successful persons in history were and are introverts. The list is too long for me to list here.
      
      Some of the most heinous serial killers including John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were extroverts, appearing gregarious on the outside, yet sadistic with anti social sentiments on the inside.
      
      You are touching on a complex behavioral topic with lots of gray areas that you bluntly define.
      
      For the sake of this debate, review the definition of introverts, and all the scholarly and scientific articles published
      
      Also, you are now verging on a certain prejudice against women, saying yet "another reason why they are not fit to raise children" If you are going to stereotype then im not going to argue with idiots
      
      You are simply not worth my time debating if you are going to rant on stereotypical arguments, which trust me ive seen before and am tired of.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      1
      
      1
RoseIsabella

9 years ago

What you're desiring is very selfish! What about what the child wants?

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- anti-hero
  
  9 years ago
  
  The child doesn't exist. How can it have wants? If it did, how do you know it's wants?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  2
  
  2
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  The child has no possible perception on a father figure unless whats society has subconsciously embedded in him/her, THAT will affect him/her
  
  what say you on lesbian or gay couples where one gender is lacking?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - RoseIsabella
    
    9 years ago
    
    Lesbian and gay couples still have two parents.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    -2
    
    -2
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      9 years ago
      
      female and male figure?
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      3
      
      3
Anonymous Post Author

9 years ago

Give me the statistical trends on fatherless children in other countries. Children in Africa, for starters?

Are you truly giving me feedback, or on the verge of an anti american rant with stereotypical sentiments against my country?

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
gorillaphant

9 years ago

I'm sorry your father sucks.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  My father is one of my role models, so out goes your idiotic statement.
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -2
  
  -2
[Old Memory]

9 years ago

It is selfish and harmful for the child. I would even say it is some sort of pre-birth child abuse.

Fatherless children are more prone to negative types of behaviors and development.

Don't harm a child for your own selfish wants.

Comment Hidden ( show )

-2

-2
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  pre-birth child abuse?
  
  Whats your comment on the "pre-birth child abuse" of dead beat dads who abandon the mother, before the child is even born? IS that not a form of pre birth child abuse?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - Crusades
    
    9 years ago
    
    Dead beat dads? Well who chose these men? Women did! Why don't we look at things from a female perspective?
    What criteria do women have when choosing a man? Because i often hear the stereotypical " i like bad boys" from women all the time.
    Women choose men based on how good they are in bed or how the look like, not based on how good of a father they can be. And that is a fact!So many studies have been done on this and most concluded the same thing.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      9 years ago
      
      trust me its VERY irritating to see women pick dead beat dads whine about them complain cry but yet allllow themselves to keep getting pregnant by them
      
      this is a fact and i wont argue with you on that one ill stick my claws back in
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
    - RoseIsabella
      
      9 years ago
      
      Excellent point! I hate it when chicks do this.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      -1
      
      -1
Nokiot9

9 years ago

You should adopt a child. There are millions of infants across the world without parents. You sound pretty selfish though... U probably won't even consider it.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
green_boogers

9 years ago

Stunningly beautiful seems be your only concern, despite the IIN commentary. Why not get a sperm injection at the doctors office? Many IIN men are stunningly beautiful. They could FedEx some fresh sperm to you if you wish.

Comment Hidden ( show )

0

0
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  ha! oh honey child I would need lots of proof from
  
  these
  
  mythical
  
  "stunningly beautiful IIN gentlemen"
  
  ive yet to encounter
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - green_boogers
    
    9 years ago
    
    Yes, of course.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    0
    
    0
Dulse.

9 years ago

I see it everywhere, everyone has an incredibly strong desire to reproduce.

The thing is, we are already exceeding our carrying capacity on this earth. We need to make some tough choices.

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I believe it is incredibly important to consider this.

Our collective future is at stake if we continue breeding like we do. Something has to be done. FAST.

Comment Hidden ( show )

-1

-1
- EccentricWeird
  
  9 years ago
  
  When you say "we"... I think your concerns as to who is "exceeding the carrying capacity on this earth (sic)" are a bit misplaced.
  
  Rank Country Fertility rate
  2014 est.
  (births/woman)
  1 Niger 6.89
  2 Mali 6.16
  3 Burundi 6.14
  4 Somalia 6.08
  5 Uganda 5.97
  6 Burkina Faso 5.93
  7 Zambia 5.76
  8 Malawi 5.66
  9 Afghanistan 5.43
  10 Angola 5.43
  11 South Sudan 5.43
  12 Mozambique 5.27
  13 Nigeria 5.25
  14 Ethiopia 5.23
  
  .
  .
  .
  
  194 Spain 1.48
  195 Belarus 1.47
  196 Cuba 1.46
  197 Estonia 1.46
  198 Cyprus 1.46
  199 Croatia 1.45
  200 Bulgaria 1.44
  201 Austria 1.43
  202 Germany 1.43
  203 Czech Republic 1.43
  204 Serbia 1.42
  205 Italy 1.42
  206 Hungary 1.42
  207 Greece 1.41
  208 Japan 1.40
  209 Slovakia 1.39
  210 Andorra 1.38
  211 Latvia 1.35
  212 Slovenia 1.33
  213 Poland 1.33
  214 Romania 1.32
  215 Ukraine 1.30
  216 Lithuania 1.29
  217 Montserrat (UK) 1.29
  218 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.26
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
  - Dulse.
    
    9 years ago
    
    Oh, I see. I was speaking about humanity generally. If you average it out across all countries, we are still rising in numbers.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    -1
    
    -1
- Anonymous Post Author
  
  9 years ago
  
  what are you proposing?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  0
  
  0
- green_boogers
  
  9 years ago
  
  Like have a war?
  
  Comment Hidden ( show )
  
  -1
  
  -1
  - Dulse.
    
    9 years ago
    
    Just some way to have less kids. That's it. Not sure how it could be done.
    
    War is rather terrible and we should learn from all the past bloodshed. Doubt it will happen, but I wish like almost everyone else that war would be a thing of the past.
    
    I wish there was a way to get people comfortable with the idea that having kids is not a right but a privilege. I know enforcing some kind of eugenics policy could be terribly abused and end miserably, but what else is there? What are we actually going to do?
    
    If we want to have a nice future for humanity we should really try to control our numbers a little more. I've studied this stuff quite a bit and I am not sure how we are going to manage otherwise.
    
    I would advocate for stricter laws on who is able to have children somehow. That's it. I understand however that this is probably never going to happen, and because of this, our future looks pretty risky.
    
    Comment Hidden ( show )
    
    -1
    
    -1
    - Anonymous Post Author
      
      9 years ago
      
      Maybe a one child policy i would support that. two at most, so the sibling will have a brother or sister to grow up with and not be that lonely child
      
      i still hold firm that having a child is a fundamental right for all humans but with a limit. one two at most, but still they should have the opportunity to do so in their one lifetime
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - Dulse.
        
        9 years ago
        
        I hope we can figure things out. I hope that could work.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        0
        
        0
    - Dulse.
      
      9 years ago
      
      I think if we cannot give everyone food water and shelter already, why should we continue breeding so much? It's not going to help our situation.
      
      If people want kids perhaps they can adopt instead. We should really consider getting more comfortable with these sorts of things.
      
      Comment Hidden ( show )
      
      0
      
      0
      - EccentricWeird
        
        9 years ago
        
        48% of the world lives in sub replacement fertility. That's us. We don't need a law to prohibit us from breeding even less, because we're already going extinct. Telling people in this half of the world to go extinct just to make more room for the already vastly overpopulated and overrepresented peoples in Africa and Asia is a dreadful and extremist position. People are not just interchangeable socio-economic units, and the balance of worldwide diversity must be maintained moving forward, or else we've lost a part of humanity for all time.
        
        We all need to agree to keep a replacement fertility rate of roughly two children per woman. That means we need to breed slightly more, but other parts of the world need to breed much less in order to maintain balance and peace in the world, without anybody going extinct in the world. That's only fair and sane. You can't just use the already crushed and belittled women of third world as a sort of livestock, a perpetual population factory just because we cannot be bothered to do our biological duty ourselves. Why don't you just lay off the handful of people having a couple of kids here, suggesting brilliant draconian fertility laws for an already extinction level fertility rate, and instead help the women in the third world you're so casually using as baby factories perhaps do something else with their lives once they've had just the 2.1 kids, instead of pushing the ecological envelope and praying to export the surplus to an extinct West.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
        
        -
        
        Dulse.
        
        9 years ago
        
        You make good points. Thanks for your input. We need to focus on the third world; that's where this is a problem. I should be more specific when I post next time.
        
        I don't understand how what I said suggested that I wanted to use the women in the third world as livestock for breeding, tell me how that works. To be very clear, I do not support that.
        
        Comment Hidden ( show )
        
        1
        
        1
        
        See More Comments =>

Are You Normal?

Is it normal i want a man free child