Having Children = Infidelity

[Night Pumpkin]

I know this sounds strange, but let me explain. Infidelity is essentially cheating on one's partner. Giving the affection that belongs to someone to someone else. Many couples start of loving each other deeply. But then they take each other for granted. And they stop dating each other and only work to take care of the kids. So in a way, the kids become like a third person in the marriage - someone who is the cheater. I think that in some cases, having children is more harmful to the relationship than cheating with another adult. I am not against having children. After all, I am very much pro life and anti abortion. However, I think that if children take away the affection that couples should be giving to each other, it should be considered infidelity.

 

Anyway, when I start a relationship, i want to start a strict rule that we must go on dates atleast 2 times a week. No matter what. That we would cut time with the kids to date atleast 2 times a week.

 

What are other people's thoughts on this....

[Batya33]

The technical definition of infidelity is having sexual relations with a person who is not your spouse (or I can expand that to someone who is not your exclusive romantic partner). Without sexual relations, it is not infidelity. It might be neglect of your partner or lack of attention to your partner but nothing in the marriage vows say that you cannot give caring and affection outside the relationship. That is what is given to families, platonic friends, or in for example community service. That "affection" doesn't "belong" to your spouse - the prohibition on infidelity is that the marriage vows say you cannot have sexual relations outside the marriage - if I want to lavish affection on my friends, on a pet, on my parents, that isn't affection that "belongs" to my significant other such that I am "cheating" on my spouse by doing so.

 

If a couple decides to have children they decide jointly that they will take on the responsibility, caring and affection required to raise children. That joint decision means that that level of time spent with the children cannot be considered neglect if the couple agreed to it. Obviously if the parents stop paying attention to each other that can be a problem whether or not there are children involved - but that is not unfaithful either.

 

I would hope that sharing child-rearing would increase the total amount of affection in the family - that given to the children and to each other - love begets love. The examples you give are the negative parts of relationships - there is no reason to take each other for granted or neglect each other just because there are children involved.

 

I think your flaw is in the way you define "infidelity."

 

It's fine if you want to have at least two dates a week and meet a woman who is comfortable with that situation. For me I would want one date a week - at least a few hours of couple time - (but I would imagine that wouldn't happen for much of the first year) - but if I insisted on a rigid two dates per week and considered it "infidelity" to care for children I would likely decide that I wasn't a good candidate for parenthood.

[the yang to the worlds yin]

I think partners come and go but children will always be your children.

 

Children should first and foremost come first.

[Baby Carrot]

I think you are making a funky interpretation of what "cheating" is.

 

"Giving the affection that belongs to someone to someone else."

 

Naw I don´t agree. Affection is not something material you can take away from one person and give to other, like a bouquet or something.

 

You can give affection basically to everybody. The question is, if you´re willing to. The affection and care you give to kids, is not the same kind of affection and care you give to your spouse. Is not like you´re sleeping with the kids instead of sleeping with your partner is it? I know, yikes. But, do you see my point?

 

Kids are absorbent, and probably many people can´t quite balance who they are paying more attention to. And as kids are helpless and small, well, of course they are a priority. All the time.

 

a strict rule that we must go on dates atleast 2 times a week. No matter what.

I find that way too rigid. No matter what? What if the kid is in the hospital badly burnt or injured? You can´t take your standards to that extreme, can you?

[DN]

Love is not finite - it expands in direct proportion to the amount required.

[Dako]

DN is so right.

 

You can love many people.

Cheating iinvolves breaking a promise.

[Night Pumpkin]

It was interesting that some people seem more concerned about a physical infidelity than an emotional one. For me, I would be more concerned if my partner cheated on me emotionally than physically. Isn't emotional infidelity more harmful ??

 

I disagree that children should come first. For me, a marriage must always be a higher priority than children. Because if a marriage if not happy, then the children probably won't be happy. Children are usually hurt more by divorce or marital breakdown than the partners are. So if one doesn't make marriage a priority above children, then the marriage is likely to disintegrate, and the children will be left worse off.

 

Also, it is difficult to believe that affection is something limitless that one can give to several people. Its an unwise idea to be too thinly spread. A person who is everybody's friend really is nobody's friend. One has to be choosy about who you give your affection to.

 

The example you gave is extreme. Most people will never have burnt children or children who are in the hospital. But even if that were to happen, I think the twice weekly date night should continue. If the marriage disintegrates, everything else will go with it...

[the yang to the worlds yin]

Do you have children? I'm guessing it's hard to understand otherwise. But once you make that choice to have a child, they will need constant care, supervision, guidance, and a friend at times. That takes time and energy, but you made that choice when having them. A good parent understands this, and will understand that in order to accomplish this, they must make it the highest of priorities.

[Night Pumpkin]

What does that mean ???

 

Love is not finite - it expands in direct proportion to the amount required.

[the yang to the worlds yin]

It means that there is no limit to love.

[Baby Carrot]

The example you gave is extreme. Most people will never have burnt children or children who are in the hospital. But even if that were to happen, I think the twice weekly date night should continue. If the marriage disintegrates, everything else will go with it...

Only as extreme as your original statement.

 

i want to start a strict rule that we must go on dates atleast 2 times a week. No matter what.

[Dako]

I've never had children, but it only seems fair to give priority to life you created.

Otherwise, why have them?

[DN]

When I got married did I love my parents and sister less? No, I did not.

 

When my daughter was born, I fell instantly and completely in love with her. Did that mean I loved my wife less all of a sudden? Of course not, if anything I loved her more. And the same thing when my second daughter was born. And my grandson - and my granddaughter.

 

It's a great feeling to know that there are a whole bunch of people who love me back.

 

As to priority - children are dependent on us and for that reason they are important. But they are not exclusively important. They need to realise that the world does not revolve around them because one day they may have children of their own to whom they must be able to teach that same lesson. And so they need to realise that they have a place in the scheme of things but that they are not the scheme itself. And they learn that by observing their parents loving each other and their siblings as much as they themselves

[Night Pumpkin]

That's a very American way of thinking. Not everyone in the world thinks like that.

 

I've never had children, but it only seems fair to give priority to life you created.

Otherwise, why have them?

[Dako]

Well, since I'm an American, it's genuine.

[Hope75]

I think this says it all.

 

When you get married, you love your spouse and add them to your family.

 

When you have children, your love grows to accommodate the children.

 

I've often heard parents say that when they are expecting their second child, "How will I ever love him/her as much as my first? How can I ever love that way again?" and they are surprised when the child is born, and they just do. And the same with a third, fourth, fifth child, etc.

 

I will agree with you that a partner or spouse should not be ignored or put on the back burner when you have children, but I agree with DN that you will have enough love for all of them- and if you balance carefully, they will all know that and feel that.

 

I don't think having children constitutes infidelity in the very least.

[Batya33]

That's a very American way of thinking. Not everyone in the world thinks like that.

 

I'm not sure where the claim was made that "everyone in the world" thinks a certain way. In certain societies abuse of female children is considered acceptable and in others, children are expected to work full time starting at a very young age. And, even if children are not made a priority in a family, that still does not mean that giving children affection is akin to infidelity in a marriage.

[Ellie2006]

I agree with what most of the other posters have already said; love is encompassing and infinite -- just bc you love your children, this does not mean you will have less love for your spouse.

 

Perhaps your definition of "infidelity" is a bit skewed??

 

I do want to say that I think your idea of making sure to go out on dates w/ your spouse is a great one! Your status as co-parents is just as important as that of each other's lovers.

 

Just my two cents.

[valenski]

The affection one has for their spouse is different from that they have for their children so that blows the infidelity theory right out of the water. Then you cant blame people for wanting the best for their kids, yes sometimes they neglect their spouses but the spouse understands. There is nothing like having a family and spending time together with them,there is no joy like it in this world.

[annie24]

yes, along the lines of what DN was saying, I really believe our capability to love grows as we get older and more mature. babies love their moms, as much as they love milk and elmo. their entire world is mom, milk, and elmo, and those are the things they love the most. when I was in high school, I was IN LOVE with my boyfriend. I loved him to 100% capacity of my heart, the fullest I could at that age. But now, 10 years later, love means something bigger to me. loving someone at 26 is different than loving someone at 15.

 

I think you may feel differently when you have kids of your own. Whereas 2 dates a week sounds perfect to you now, before having kids, maybe when you have them, you will be so busy with work and stuff, that you and your wife will choose to have one of your "date nights" watching seasame street with the kids, because you love spending time with them. I have seen couples with newborns do this too, given the chance between going out on the town, or spending a night in with the baby, they go for the baby to spend time as a family.

[Night Pumpkin]

I can't believe that one would consider watching sesame street a "date." A date involves dinner, dancing, walks, new activities, new foods, travel, hot air balloons, and other things...

 

And yes, 1-2 date nights every week is possible. My sister used to babysit for two families, and in both thier families they would have 1-2 date nights a week (thats why she was babysitting of course). Not a week went by without a real romantic date (my sister hence made a lot of money off those two couples)...

 

anyway, i just don't understand the way of thinking of some of the posters here...maybe I was just brought up in a completely different tradition than the rest of the world....

[Ellie2006]

Hey there,

 

I don't think anyone was disagreeing w/ your idea about incorporating "date night(s)" into your marriage. IMO, we are perhaps defining infidelity differently??

 

So would you say, if a couple is able to put their romantic love for one another above their love for their offspring, then they would maintain fidelity in their marriage?

 

In turn, are all married couples committing emotional infidelity by having children? So in order to stay true to one another, are you proposing that couples remain childless so that their love for one another can remain intact?

[AntiLove_SuperStar]

I think children general increases the chances of infidelity, but it is not infidelity per se.

 

Having kids = higher chance of affairs in many a case I've seen.

 

Sad but not that shocking

[DN]

The increased chances of infidelity may come about because one partner focuses all of their time and emotional energy on the children and neglects their partner. The neglected partner then feels used and resentful and will look for emotional and/or sexual connections outside the marriage to fill the void.

[Batya33]

I can't believe that one would consider watching sesame street a "date." A date involves dinner, dancing, walks, new activities, new foods, travel, hot air balloons, and other things...

 

And yes, 1-2 date nights every week is possible. My sister used to babysit for two families, and in both thier families they would have 1-2 date nights a week (thats why she was babysitting of course). Not a week went by without a real romantic date (my sister hence made a lot of money off those two couples)...

 

anyway, i just don't understand the way of thinking of some of the posters here...maybe I was just brought up in a completely different tradition than the rest of the world....

 

I can see one date night a week as being a definite - but two - well, that can be difficult if both parents work outside the home and that other date night would cut into time with the kids.