[portpecos]

> Amy, a white thirty-year-old mother of three, ages six, five, and three, had a boyfriend who worked steadily but insisted on spending on selfish pursuits. This is what eventually broke the young couple up. ‘He wouldn’t spend money for the kids’ food. I had to send my kids across the street to my mom’s to feed them and stuff. That’s what I got fed up with. I shouldn’t have to live like that…I said it’s time for him to support these kids instead of [me] being on [assistance], and he didn’t like it.’”

Translation: “I was impregnated by 3 other guys, and they all left me, and now I finally found a boyfriend but it turns out he doesn’t want to spend his money to feed my kids.”

Sweetie, we’re not married, so there’s no reason for you to expect I feed your children. My earnings are my earnings just like your earnings are your earnings in this feminist culture of independence.

[9dev]

When dating someone with children, but you don’t want to go all-in with that person, please just leave: you’re not only making the life of your partner miserable, but also destroy their child’s or children’s. You will invariably end up walking away at some point, and the children will witness all of the ensuing mess.

If, however, you have an intention to stay, there is no reason to make a distinction between their money and yours, and you will come off bigoted and thrifty.

And of course you can also choose to be a sexist like the parent commenter, but that only makes you look like a fool.

[leereeves]

He's made his expectations in the relationship clear. It's entirely up to her whether she accepts that or leaves.

There's nothing "sexist" about that. The only sexism here is expecting a man to pay for dating by supporting her kids.

[squigz]

> He's made his expectations in the relationship clear. It's entirely up to her whether she accepts that or leaves.

Pretty sure she did that.

[9dev]

First, let's make a distinction between TFA and the comment I was replying to, which implied that dating a woman with children did not imply any responsibility towards her children.

And this is what I'm objecting: Dating someone with children does, in fact, imply that responsibility, because the children aren't involved in the decision of you dating their parent, yet are immediately affected by it. The children evidently have previously experienced a separation of their biological parents, and I have yet to meet someone that wasn't traumatised in one way or another by this. So if you enter a relationship with their parent without the honest intention to stay, you wilfully cause pain to children for your personal pleasure. Think about this for a moment, it isn't hyperbole.

On the other hand, if you actually mean it, love your partner, and want to build a shared future, there's no reason to draw this weird line between their money and yours; you're a family now after all. Obviously that doesn't mean you need to let someone take advantage of you! But that isn't what I'd call family either.

As I said: Dating someone with children has far more implications than sleeping around in your twenties. It requires commitment and readiness to build a stable, lasting relationship. It's absolutely okay to not be at this point (or never getting there), but please: Keep away from single parents, then. The consequences of your actions have long-lasting effects on their children.

Edit: Oh, and this:

> There's nothing "sexist" about that. The only sexism here is expecting a man to pay for dating by supporting her kids.

Nah, sorry. A comment that starts off by calling a grown up woman "Sweetie" and then proceeds to assume she must have been "impregnated" by three different men without any reason to think so, is just some misogynistic bullshit.

[johnnyanmac]

>Dating someone with children does, in fact, imply that responsibility, because they children aren't involved in the decision of you dating their parent, yet are immediately affected by it.

really depends on too many factors to make a judgement call. Are they living together? Are the kids still in contact with their previous father? Have they discussed the kids to begin with and established barriers? is the relationship purely physical or are there emotional stakes?

It's a complex topic, and I wouldn't distill it down to "you inherit all the duties of your date".

>Think about this for a moment, it isn't hyperbole.

Situations in which this is justified:

- the mother hides the kids from you

- you establish barriers from the beginning and agree... until you don't

- You think you can handle the kids and it turns out you can't. Be it financially, emotionally, or otherwise. People can change their minds

- No matter your attempts, the kids simply never warm up to you. As you said, they are involved and a kids' opinion on a potential father will impact what may otherwise be a compatible couple.

The mother isn't necessarily a perfect actor. The kids certainly aren't. And you probably don't know your limits until you get some field training. I think a lot of your arguments hinge on this assumption that the default these days is a deep connection instead of casual dating with messy communication, and that the kids will fall in love with the potential father 100% of the time if the mother does.

> Dating someone with children has far more implications than sleeping around in your twenties

Ehh. There have been broken up relationships that were non-eventual for a child, and messy 20's relationships that haunt you and your partner for decades to come. Again, the situation is too complex to distill into "one is better/worse than the other".

[JoeMerchant]

Whether the boyfriend in question was the father was not explicitly stated. Further, I'd argue that if you want to date a lady, her kids come with that as a complete package. My two cents.

[southernplaces7]

No, dating a lady does not obligate you to support her children from other men. What a ridiculous take. Accepting their presence and being good to them, sure, but those aren't the same as being made to support them. If I started dating a woman and quickly asked her to fork over money to support my aging parents or my own family responsibilities, it would be rightly viewed as an unfair and manipulative emotional/financial hijack of responsibility. The opposite doesn't hold true?

[em-bee]

that's the kind of attitude that forces women to reject her own children just so that she can find a new partner. sure, as long as dating only involves paying for the shared dinner whenever you spend time together, that doesn't create an obligation to do more, but as soon as you start supporting your partner beyond that, you have to accept that some of that support goes to the children.

[southernplaces7]

What you're saying is absurd. Millions of women manage to take on an active dating and relationship life, without rejecting their children or piling unreasonable obligations onto their partner. Yet somehow you seem to imply that men are at fault if they don't rapidly open their arms to responsibilities that they never created.

It's called being and adult and regardless of sex/gender it means taking ownership of what's your responsibility. Yes, there is a point at which, in this case, a man will take on certain financial and care responsibilities over children that aren't his if he's with a woman who has them but the "when" of that is a subjective line that comes from mutual agreement, not some automatic social debt.

[em-bee]

ok, i was exaggerating, but this has happened, maybe less in western cultures but in places where women are more dependent on having a husband that supports them.

when someone with children tries to find a new partner, that partner needs to be clear from the first day that if this relationship is going to go forward, the children are part of the deal. if the potential partner is not willing to accept that, then that is a non-starter for any long term relationship.

a single parent should not have to spend a year dating someone before it is clear whether their partner is willing to contribute to parenting the children if that is what they are looking for.

if a person is misleading their partner about their intentions then yes, they are absolutely at fault. do not date someone with children if that is not the route you want to go.

in any relationship it is the responsibility of each person to support their partner with all their personal issues. that is the purpose of a relationship. unless we are talking about a casual relationship, like being friends.

[johnnyanmac]

>that's the kind of attitude that forces women to reject her own children just so that she can find a new partner.

It's a harsh reality, but reality nonetheless. kids are already on the decline. Many men may literally be unable to help support a family of 5, especially with all 3 kids being so young. You gotta swing for the fences with someone who can do that support, or otherwise try to align with someone ready to bear that responsibility of a family they did not help birth.

Men are already absolutely worthless per unit on dating sites, so there won't be much sympathy on a male-oriented forum about dating troubles.

>as you start supporting your partner beyond that, you have to accept that some of that support goes to the children.

I suppose that's why many partners pass on a potential partner with children. May as well not pretend it's not a roadblock.

[paulryanrogers]

> Sweetie, we’re not married, so there’s no reason for you to expect I feed your children.

Dating a single parent isn't a strictly transactional affair. And it may be financially beneficial (for everyone) to not marry yet still cohabitate and pick up the slack in childrearing. YMMV.

[leereeves]

It may indeed be financially beneficial, but that is an arrangement they must both agree to.

[paulryanrogers]

Agreed. Afraid a lot of threads here are talking about different things. Casually dating for a while shouldn't carry a lot of responsibilities from either party. Yet as things deepen or carry on for extended periods, it's reasonable to expect a more equal division of labor.

[johnnyanmac]

these he-said she-said problems are hard to resolve with one party (and that is part of why those relationship forums have the worst advice ever). The issue here can lie anywhere from "they weren't aligned on how far they are in the relationship" to "she did not take into account the expenses he did pay but only remembered the refusals". The tone of the article makes the reader want to think the boyfriend was a selfish step parent who can't budget, but who knows the real truth?

[ToucanLoucan]

> Translation: “I was impregnated by 3 other guys, and they all left me, and now I finally found a boyfriend but it turns out he doesn’t want to spend his money to feed my kids.”

This just in, when you date a single mother, you will probably end up being involved in her children's lives and supporting them. Didn't think we needed to spell that out but here we are.

[southernplaces7]

You simply dating her and naturally being involved in her childrens' lives doesn't make you responsible for financially supporting and raising them. This is a ridiculous viewpoint and one that implicitly places men who date a woman with children as automatic cash cows out of some grossly twisted notion of patriarchy.

I wouldn't think something so bloody obvious would need to be spelled out but here we are.

[em-bee]

nor does dating make you responsible for financially supporting your partner. but if you do financially support her, then you have to consider that her financial needs include supporting her children. if your goal is to meet her needs then you must cover that, or change the goal and agree to only cover part of her needs.

[southernplaces7]

You're essentially stating the obvious of informal adult relationships: Communicate what each is offering or can offer and see if it works for both for the sake of an agreement. The previous comment I replied to bothered me specifically because it seemed to take the position that by dating a woman, a man is automatically obligated into supporting her children and childcare needs, which is... plainly ridiculous.

[em-bee]

how is that ridiculous? if you intend to enter into a long term stable relationship, then that is effectively starting a new family. and if one partner in that new family already has children, then they are part of it and you are on the way to becoming a step parent. do not date someone with children if that is not what you want.

this is different if it is a casual relationship, then whatever. but then at least be clear from the start that this relationship will not be more than that.

there seems to be a disconnect of expectations here.

how is a relationship supposed to work if the parent has to take care of the children all the time? you'll be lucky if you get to see each other even once a week. and what are the children going to feel if they see their parent with someone who does not care about them at all? they are going to think that this person is just as bad as the other one that left them, or worse they are going to steal the other parent away from them too.

it's not rational, but children who lost one of their parents are not rational. they have experienced trauma and have anxieties. you are going to have to work with that. children need all the love they can get.

it is asking a lot. i grant you that. and it is certainly not for everyone. but it is what the children and that parent need. so it's not ridiculous at all.

[pwthornton]

I don't know why you assumed they weren't his kids. The article implied they were. It is unclear, but there is no evidence that they aren't his and certainly no evidence that her kids all have different fathers. This is incel talk.

[yencabulator]

Your comment would have been so much more effective without the last sentence.

[lins1909]

Your translation is dishonest and dumb. Having three kids doesn't mean they were from three different guys.

[stemlord]

It was uncharitable to illustrate each child being from a different guy but the way the article worded it, it definitely seems like they are not the boyfriend's kids, so it isn't necessarily dumb to assert that the article has an uncharitable take on the boyfriend