The Importance Of Being Childfree
Sometimes I am getting contacted by men, who have children and who cannot understand, why this is a reason to reject them. They seem unable to see, that while the children are a part of their life, the attachment to their children drastically restricts their suitability and availability as partners.
They react to my statement, that I am not willing to share a man's love, with the claim, that their love for their children is different from their love for a woman.
After some thinking, I have come to the conclusion, that this is the truth, but not at all as it is meant by these men.
From their perspective, they give a woman all they believe a woman needs. They are clueless, what they refuse to a woman. Their unfortunate fallacy is the oblivion or denial, that what a father gives to his children really is the best of all, which he has to give. What is left for a woman after the father's reciprocally satisfactory exchange with his offspring is nothing better than emotional and affective garbage. The woman gets only, what is available due to being unclaimed by the children. The man's choice is not, what to give to the woman. His choice is to give to the children first all they want and need, and then he offers the left-overs on a take it or leave it basis to the woman.
Children are loved for who they are. Women are perceived and loved as a source for sexual homeostation. Women get dumped and cheated for nothing worse than not satisfying a man in bed. Children are rarely at risk of being discarded for such undignified reasons, children are usually only disowned after transgressions.
There are fundamental differences between the childfree and the breeding relationship model.
1. A childfree couple is each other's source for all needs fulfilled by the integrated combination of physical, emotional and intellectual intimacy. The relationship has two modi:
1.1. The day modus, in which the non-physical intimacy is based upon sharing the same activities, hobbies and interests causing shared pleasures and joys. The more both partners are alike, the more they can share to enhance this form of intimacy. This modus requires the choice of a partner by focusing on similarities.
1.2. The night modus, in which two bodies can be attracted to each other by many traits, even by being very different.
2. Parents love their own genes in their offspring, they value recognizing themselves in the similarity discovered in their children. Parents take the most pride in the success of raising their children, when the children become like themselves, when they vote for the same party, have the same religion, the same value system and choose the same career. Many parents are disappointed, when their children are very different from them.
For many parents in general, but especially for men, who remain attached to their children after having lost the partner, the two modi are two distinct roles not to be fulfilled by one person as is the mutual expectation of childfree companions.
2.1. The children are experienced as fully satisfactory partners for the day mode. For a man sharing his favorite activities with a son, no matter if those are cultural, sportive, social or a hobby, his similarity needs are saturated. Children can fully substitute a woman in the day modus.
As a result of the long duration of the parental care, the attachment by emotional and intellectual intimacy between parents and children usually becomes irreversibly strong.
A parent gets addicted to care for the wellbeing and to long for interaction with the children in a similar way as an alcoholic is addicted to his bottle. An empty nest parent is like a dry alcoholic.
2.2. A man feeling satisfied about having all his day modus needs supplied by his children misses a woman only for the night modus. Nothing better is available for a woman than the limited role as and place of a bed mate. It is logical, that a man in this situation is biased to select a mate only by her suitability for her sole purpose as a bed mate. As such, he chooses her by the attraction of differences. He is willing to tolerate the same differences, which if noticed in a son would make him feel a failure as a parent,
It is easy to ignore and to tolerate, what is of no importance. He has no reason to be bothered about her personality or to be interested in similarities.
The woman has not the least chance to ever be allowed to be significant for his day mode. The children's long established primacy is too strong to ever yield that role. Competing with them is a futile attempt bound to fail.
The children not only have the advantage of decades of growing attachment, but on top of this, the new woman cannot replace the children in fulfilling the similarity needs, because she is chosen to be different, while similarity is only valued in the children.
From a father, there is nothing available as a new relationship except the restriction to the night mode. A childfree woman, who is an intellectual Epicurean, wants a man especially for the day modus, she accepts the night modus as a side effect and collateral benefit, but not as the predominant purpose of the relationship. What she considers, experiences and needs as the best part of a relationship, is not available from a father. It is already reserved for and occupied by his children.
Only a childfree man can be my mindmate and fulfill my relationship needs.