Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)

Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?

Then you wouldn't be bothered if your man thought of your primary value as being a "baby machine," Taino?

Just wanting to make sure...

Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

Well, I think I see three basic stands here on the children versus "romantic partner/spouse" question. The vast majority fall in the "kids always come first" category, though I'm not sure they've teased out the logical implications of that (see my new thread: "Is the Primary Purpose of Couples to Breed?"). The second category might be (roughly) described as "I don't believe either the children or my partner are more important. I don't think anyone should be made to feel less important - my love for them should be different but equal." (Sommer and possible Joanne fit in that category, I'm thinking.)

Then there's the category, of which I am possibly the sole member here on CS, which holds that the primary unit is the couple, and that therefore one's highest value is one's lover/spouse. (I want to make clear that I'm speaking of someone for whom you've made a life-long commitment and whom you love very deeply in a romantic sense, not just someone you're dating or are even beginning to fall in love with.)

Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?

Well, my love did by me new "runners" (as they call them in Canada) for my birthday, and that certainly was a great help in securing our relationship.

Is the primary purpose of couples to breed?

On the "Would you leave your love for your children?" thread, I raised a question substantially different but nonetheless related to the OP's inquiry: Should one's romantic partner/spouse be one's highest value?

Though virtually everyone, with a few possible exceptions, replied to the above with a resounding "NO! Kids always come first!", my suspicion is that if their romantic partner had said to them: "Honey, I want to be with you so we can have babies!", most of these very same respondents would find that off-putting and perhaps even offensive. Surely most women would not like to be thought of by their spouse or lover as primarily a "baby-machine" (or vice versa)?

And yet I believe this is precisely the view that logically follows from the premise "kids are more important."

My view is somewhat different. I believe that romantic couples are the well-spring from which a family life flows. Their love for each other is, as the Ayn Rand-lover, Wonderworker, might put it, the "Fountainhead" of all relationships.

Can you imagine standing on the altar, and your beloved declares to you: "My dearest, I love you more than the Moon, the Sun, and most stars. However, when we have children, you will need to take second, or possibly even third or fourth place in my heart behind them." Would you reply: "Ah, baby, you say the sweetest things!"

RE: How you handle it?

Have you ever known me not to have something (either profound or perverse) to say, J?

RE: How you handle it?

And without the beard!

RE: How you handle it?

It's like you're reading my mind, brother!

RE: How you handle it?

Oh, I really doubt that's the conclusion Stresie would draw from that...

There's a school of thought which holds that people who are able dismiss traumatic events (such as the loss of a loved one) are able to do because (possibly) A) they're rather shallow individuals; B) they're selfish/narcissistic. That school of thought would not be a popular one, and certainly not one attended by Dr. T.

I personally am of two minds about it. I wouldn't rule out the above thesis in some cases, but I suspect that saying a gianormous "YES!" to life is possible and could result in a more expeditious recovery from painful events WITHOUT necessitating psychologically deficient attributes...

RE: How you handle it?

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

Wow, it's been a long day...

Anyway, what I'm asking is for those individuals who believe that romantic love tends to be transitory (and perhaps even generally to end disastrously), to examine that view with an eye toward identifying its basic premise - that romantic love is not particularly reliable - and further consider what impacts that view may have on one's approach toward finding romantic love.

Consider an analogy. Let's say you believed that using JB Weld for engine repair failed most of the time. Would that belief color your actions with respect to using JB Weld on engines? I'm thinking that you probably would not go through the trouble to attempt that except under duress.

Why would not the belief that romantic love usually fails not have a similar affect on your actions?

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

This is a very common attitude here on CS, A, as I wrote earlier. It seems highly improbable that it would not color one's attitudes and actions with respect to a romantic relationship.

I would not expect the woman I love would not be shaken and fall off, nor would I ever be with a woman for whom I had that suspicion.

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

Why would it be any less "selfish" to value your children more?

You should read your words once again, Contrary. They have meaning.

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

But if you listen to your own words, Contrary, I think you'll hear a confirmation of my thesis that there is a negative bias about the value of romantic relationships here.

"A partner is only a partner until you or they decide not to be anymore, then the next one comes along."

I see that attitude often here, I think it has a lot to do with why so many people here are and remain single.

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

Thanks, Sommer! You really are one of a kind - never afraid to stand against the wind, so to speak.

But I think if we asked this same question of people who are very happily married, and have been so for some time (such as my aunt), the replies would likely be different - certainly not so knee-jerk (that is, self-evident in tone).

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

I'm glad our brother brought you back, Sommer. Very nice meditation.

When I say that for me my spouse would be my highest value, that doesn't mean I'd abandon my kids for her (except in a life or death situation, possibly).

I can see some awkwardness coming from the philosophic conviction that one's romantic partner should be one's highest value. To a single mom you'd probably sound like the Anti-Christ, waltzing into her life announcing "I should be your highest value, go get me a beer and leave your kids waiting fearfully on some street corner after school." I think that would be a fairly short union.

To me, your romantic partner is your closest partner. You share things with him or her on a deeper level than you could ever (or should ever!) do with your children. Your life, ultimately, is far more entangled with your spouse than with your children, who go on to live their own lives separately from you (with any luck!).

I don't think CS would probably be the best place to ask this question, because - no offense intended - there are lots of divorced and separated people here, some of whom have developed considerable distrust and skepticism with respect to romantic partners.

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

I would say that, and I love my children dearly. But I do think the highest love should be one's romantic partner. And strangely enough, I'm not alone in believing/feeling that. I recall the wife of a famous author (Mrs. Michael Chabon - sorry, don't recall her name), who wrote eloquently and at length on that question, concluding that she held her husband above all others. For me, that's what a true marriage is about - looking into each other's eyes and declaring "I love you above all others."

I don't think any question is off-limits to a thinker, though they can be "odd" or "hugely annoying" at times. A hypothetical like this is for psychological/philosophic exploration only, of course. In real life, you'd almost never face that choice.

I remember watching a movie where a lady had to choose between her son and her husband in a life or death situation. She chose her husband. I recall feeling rather sickened by that (being a child then!), but now, though it seems nightmarish, I wouldn't condemn her decision...

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

RE: Would you leave your love for your children?

The OP's question has been interpreted in an apparent variety of ways on this thread, which is only appropriate, since it can be interpreted in a number of ways.

I'll simply it to what I think is the essential question: Which represents the highest value in your life - your spouse/love or your children?

Of course, if your spouse/love gave you the ultimatum: Me or our/your kids, you'd choose the kids, because that would make him insane or unreasonable. However, the question regarding highest value is different in that it doesn't contain an ultimatum.

I once asked my aunt, who had an incredibly loving marriage, who was first in her mind - her husband or her kids. She answered without hesitation that her husband was her highest value.

My answer would be the same. Except it would be "wife," of course.

RE: Making love on the beach

I've been working on that, Prairie (ironically, by spending time in an even COLDER climate! )

RE: How you handle it?

I used to think that. Until my god, Dionysus, started "recycling" my lite beer sacrifices all over my porch.

RE: How you handle it?

Yes, John...but no offense, man, you're a freak! Of course, I mean that in a good way. Almost no one could deal with what you've gone through and emerge with that attitude. More power to you!

RE: How you handle it?

Somechick: "I delt with the loss of my late husband one day at a time.It wasn't easy but with some encouageing words from a CS member I came through it and I'm now OOPS!!begining a brand new chapter in my life."

Okay...to begin that new chapter in your life..."dealt," "encouraging," and "beginning," will start you on the right course, Some.

RE: How you handle it?

Like all the solutions in life reduce to an axe and a shovel!

Clearly you've never been in situations where bailing wire, duct tape, and a sturdy rope are also needed, Joanne!

RE: How you handle it?

People like that are said to be those who live the longest.

I believe we could solve that problem by simply killing them, but maybe that's just me?

RE: Making love on the beach

I guess I should try to see it with fresh eyes, John. My problem is...no matter how wonderful the summers, there inexorably follows the WINTER...

RE: Making love on the beach

Damn...I need to discuss this immediately with a certain other...thanks for inspiration, T!

RE: Making love on the beach

Oh, come on, T - admit it! Sand got in there and ruined everything! You're just imagining the good parts!

RE: The Patronage System of Government

Institutional incompetence is in fact worshiped in the U.S. As is "patronage" (Eisenhower called it the Military-Industrial-Complex; today it would be more like the Financial-Military-Industrial-Service Complex.)