General Childfree FAQ

We're not out to convert, trust me. Most wannabreeders are not the kind of people we want on our "side".

We don't go around trying to convince people not to have children, and even if we did, I don't think it would work. People who want kids really don't give a crap what anyone else thinks or says about their decision, anyway. They also don't care if they are too broke, too immature, are in a crappy relationship or if they have genetic problems they will pass on to their children. They want what they want and they insist on having what they want right this minute, no matter what.  Seriously, those aren't people we want on our side!

If someone comes to us and asks about childfree life, sure, we'll tell them what we think. But certainly we are not ordering them not to have children or pressuring them to be just like us! We have better things to do with our lives.

Occasionally childfree people come to me to ask how to "convert" someone (usually their spouse or significant other).  When that happens, I suggest they read the fencesitters page, but I make it clear it's not our job to "convert" someone. Helping someone to make an informed decision about the difficulties of parenthood and the benefits of childfreedom is one thing. If that causes them to change their mind, it's only because they hadn't really thought their original decision over very well. I do not advocate trying to con someone, pressure them or trick them into a childfree life.

In all honestly, it's the breeders who are out to convert! Most childfree people I know don't even bring up the subject of kids -- breeders do. Most childfree people are content to stop after saying, "Nope, no kids for me!" but breeders aren't! They try to convince us that we'll regret not having kids, and we won't have anyone to take care of us when we're old, and worse, all the belittling crap like, "I pity you" and the reverse psychology like, "Well, it's a good thing you aren't having children!" Then they insist on calling us "childless" because they want to emphasize how they think we are "less" than they are for not having kids. I really wish they'd save the bullying tactics for their children and leave us out of it.

I would never try to convert someone to childfree because I think the best thing for the childfree movement is for it to be full of people who truly are childfree and happy that way, not people who we "converted" just to inflate our numbers. That's ridiculous.

I have heard that the term "breeder" did start in the gay community to mean anyone who was straight. Someone in the childfree community hijacked the term years ago and it stuck.

While some childfree people might be gay, most of the childfree I meet are not.  Not all childfree people are gay and not all gay people are childfree.

Technically, anyone who has children is a breeder. According to Mirriam-Webster Online, the definition of "breeder" is "one that breeds," and the definition of "breeds" is "to produce offspring by sexual union". That's exactly what (most) people who have children do, which means, in the strictest sense of the word, people with kids are breeders unless they used modern, unnatural, medical practices to create a petri dish babies. Those people are not breeders in the strictest sense of the word. Of course, since nature was trying to weed them out of the gene pool for a very good reason, I'm even more worried about them breeding than I am the rest of people with offspring!

The term "breeder" became popular in the childfree community because we generally prefer not to insult people who are doing a good job of parenting by lumping them in with the morons who don't. Most of us agree that there are two kinds of people with children: Parents (responsible people) and Breeders (irresponsible people). Sometimes you'll see abbreviations like PNB (parent not breeder) and BNP (breeder not parent) instead.

It's a case of we're damned if we do and damned if we don't:  If we don't use the word "breeders," good parents complain that we're lumping them in with the bad.  If we use the term "breeders," bad parents are mad because we're pointing out their irresponsible behavior and they don't like it.  No matter what we do, someone will be mad at us. The bad parents will be mad at us either way, so we stopped trying to please them and do what is least offensive to the good parents.

My rants refer to breeders, and most of the arguments you'll see on this page are statements that have been made to myself or others by breeders, not parents.

I don't think parents are unhappy. I do think most breeders are.

When I'm out in public, I can't help but see all the parents who seem miserable. It's unavoidable. Perhaps I'm biased, so why don't you try this next time you are out in public: how many people with kids in tow seem to be happy, having fun and enjoying themselves? It seems like 25% happy, 75% unhappy, at least to me. Most people with kids just seem to be dragging the kids along behind them or worse, ignoring the kids while they are on their phone or doing something else. The rest seem to be arguing with their kids or pleading with them to behave while looking tired and haggard. Few people I see on a daily basis would make good advertisements for parenthood, which is a good reason why I'm absolutely against ever having kids myself! I don't see all these joy-filled moments kids are supposed to bring the parents!

I do see some people who seem to be enjoying spending time with their kids, but at least in my experience, those people are few and far between. They also tend to be the ones spending QUALITY time with their kids, not just making the kids follow them around while they do all the things they'd rather be doing than parenting.

When breeders are harassing and bingo-ing childfree people and sending me hate-filled emails for daring to run a childfree site, that pretty much tells me they are unhappy. When I'm feeling happy and fulfilled in my life, I don't have to try and ruin everyone else's day. I'm sure the same is true once you have kids. People who are happy and fulfilled won't give a damn if someone else is childfree, even if that particular childfree person is being a jerk. They're too busy enjoying spending time with their precious children to even notice!

Maybe because it's a CHILDFREE site and most of us don't see any upsides to having kids! Besides, when was the last time you saw a parenting site list the "Upsides of Not Having Kids"? Oh that's right, parenting sites don't do that. So why would you expect me to?  

We are surrounded by people with kids, and all too often, people are complaining about their kids or how exhausted they are, how much they fight with their spouse (or ex) about the kids, etc. It's hard for us to get any other impression other than that parenting isn't all that grand.

This parent emailed me telling me I should write more about the positives of parenting, but she never got around to telling me what they were.  The whole email was about how bratty her two teenaged girls were. Wait, so a positive side of parenting is that I'd get to referee fights between teenaged girls? Oh goodie! Where to I sign up?!

The moral of the story is that people with kids can't even figure out what the upsides of parenting are, so how am I supposed to know what they are?!

I really don't care if it dies out or not. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care!  I know for a fact that everyone dies, and I'll eventually die, and so it won't really matter if there are still humans on the planet after I die, will it? It won't really matter if there are still humans on the planet after you die, either. We won't be here to care either way.  So why are you worrying about it? If you need something to worry about, worry about if we run out of oil or clean water or food. That's a wee bit more important. The LAST thing you need to be worrying about is if we run out of humans. Seriously, get a grip!

If the human race dies out, oh well.  What difference will it make to me if I'm not even here?

That's such a ridiculous statement! If you believe that, then you have no right to judge pedophiles, having never been one, right? If not having children means someone knows nothing about parenting, then no one should be allowed to have their first kid, since they wouldn't already be a parent, and not know anything about parenting, right?

Childfree people HAVE been around children before. We can't get away from them! Many of us have babysat our siblings, nieces, nephews, god-children, or neighborhood children. Some of us have worked with children, through day-cares, schools, maternity wards, pediatricians offices, etc. We also had parents ourselves, and unless our parents were complete fuck-ups, we do have a few clues about what worked and what didn't when we were kids. Most of us are educated so we are capable of reading and some of us have actually read parenting books and magazines while trying to figure out if we wanted kids or not.  Some even took classes on child-development or related classes while in college. We probably thought a lot longer and harder about parenthood than you ever did, so give us some credit for knowing a little about children and what it might take to raise them. You don't need a Ph.D. in child-rearing to know a few things about children and parenting, and anyone with two eyes can recognize the difference between good parenting and bad parenting!  We certainly know more about parenting than these parents who kill, abuse and neglect their children!

The only area that you could positively say we couldn't "understand" would be parental guilt. "But I HAVE to give Junior every toy he points at or he'll be miserable and make me feel guilty!!" you may cry. You're right, we couldn't possibly understand that. But that just means we're more objective about it than you are!  That makes us more qualified to judge, as we don't have feelings of guilt clouding our judgment. You can't say the same.

Regardless of the fact that most of us DO know about parenting and childcare, you'll rarely hear childfree people giving out parenting advice. Mostly what you'll hear is basic common sense, like, "Your kid is screaming because he's tired." That's something a parent SHOULD be able to figure out faster than a childfree person, but you wouldn't believe how many breeders can't figure that out! Everywhere you go these days, you see breeders dragging their exhausted and bored children everywhere they go because they are too selfish to do what is in the child's best interest: leave him at home with the other parent, a friend, relative or a sitter while you run your errands! Again, you don't have to be a parent to recognize when a parent is NOT acting in their child's best interests!

Other "advice" I hear from childfree people is: "If your kid is throwing a tantrum, you should take him out of the store or restaurant." That's not advice, it's common courtesy. Everyone knows that children do not ever HAVE to be in a restaurant or an R rated movie -- breeders choose to take them there because they are too selfish to, you know, stay home and read a cookbook, get take out, or rent a movie.

Any 14 year old crack whore could have kids. You're incredibly stupid to think they know everything about parenting and a 45-year-old person without kids knows nothing. Use your brain!

I DO have an inkling of how hard it is to be a working parent, which is why I don't want to do it! The thing is, you made your life choices and you have to live with them. Besides, if you're pulling your weight at work, we aren't complaining about you. But, if you are gone as often as Suzie Q in the example below and you still think you deserve to be paid the same and promoted at the same rate as someone who takes their job more seriously, then you're just being lazy and entitlement minded, and of course we'll hate you. You might as well just go on welfare if that's your attitude. Seriously, if you choose to not be a model employee, then you deserve to be on the mommy track. If your kids are more important to you than work, you should be glad to be on the mommy track so you have more time with the kids.

Many mommies start out this argument with how the FMLA is "fair" because childfree people can get that time off if they or a family member fall ill.  Sure I can get time off if someone in my family becomes sick, but so can Suzy Q. Additionally, she gets even more time every time she CHOOSES to get pregnant. It's not like I'm going to choose elective medical procedures every other year like she is! So if both Suzy Q's mom and my mom fall ill this year, we both get time off for that. Then when she has her baby the next year, she gets more time off and tells me to "suck it" because the law is even. No, it isn't. She's getting extra time because she's too stupid to practice safe-sex. It's especially not fair when she's on her third pregnancy in 5 years, leaving me to pick up all her slack at work on a regular basis.

But forget about the FMLA law for a bit. Most often our beef about pregnant women in the workplace is that it gets so frustrating to constantly have to pick up the slack because Suzy Q decides to have a baby. It's worse if you work with two or three Suzy Qs and you are the only reliable employee in the office! It's not JUST the maternity leave. It's the pattern we see so often that goes like this:

Suzy shows up at your office and you spend the next two months training her. Just about the time you figure you can finally focus on your own work and trust her to get her work done without your supervision, she's pregnant. That was her plan all along, you see -- get a job she doesn't even plan to keep just for the benefits (which is a whole other complaint we have). She then spends the next several months doing pretty much no work. When she's not yapping endlessly about her pregnancy, she's sneaking out of the office for doctor's appointments every other day, calling in sick and generally being too busy being pregnant to work. Then she has the kid and takes anywhere from six to twelve weeks off.

So Suzy Q had her baby. What's next? Some Suzy Qs unceremoniously quit the day they are supposed to return to work, leaving you in the lurch. This means that this last year the company was paying her to pretty much do nothing while you've been doing the job of two people all that time for one paycheck. Now you get to start over with the hiring process, training process and hope to god the next coworker isn't another Suzy Q. I'm betting this time, you'll be praying or a male coworker. That hurts me because I know that means childfree women don't have a fair chance to get hired because breeder women like Suzy Q have screwed us over! You can't even trust an employee who offers that they are "childfree" at the interview anymore, because breeder women giggle about how they will lie to get hired by claiming to be childfree, even when they fully intend to get hired, get pregnant and then quit! *sigh* Breeders just love to screw everyone else over.

IF Suzy Q returns to work, it's not much better. Now that she has a baby, that's all she talks about and she never shuts up.  She also wants special benefits around the office (I'd list them but that would take up a page and a half) and anything she doesn't get, she'll make a huge fuss.  She'll spend more time decorating her desk with pictures of her kid, calling to check on her kid, taking time off for doctor's appointments for the kid even when the kid isn't sick and, of course, talking to anyone who will listen about the baby. Bonus: the whole cycle will start all over again in about a year when she decides it's time for another baby. At that point, you'll hope she doesn't come back after the second child is born, and you'll be reminding her daily that child care for two kids is way too expensive for her to continue to work. You might even encourage the day care center to raise their rates in hopes to get rid of her.  I'm not saying I ever did that, but it's an idea:  "Hello?  Little Tykes Day Care Center?  Okay, good. Could you please raise your rates?  ...Yes, I know it's an unusual request, but it's really important!  I mean, you deserve to be paid better and anyone who is a good parent would be willing to pay more to make sure their kid is in such a healthy environment!  ...Okay, listen, I'm willing to cough up some of my own money to make it worth your while. How much will it take?  ...Wait!  Don't hang up!  Could you at least raise rates for Suzy Q?!   Hello?"  

Meanwhile, you're getting more and more resentful because you've been used and abused all this time. It's not like this is a quid pro quo situation; you cover for her all the time yet she's never reciprocating. Okay, you might get lucky if she covers for you that week you were on vacation and the two days you were out sick, but that's still no where near the number of days you covered for her. More likely when you were out sick those two days, she found excuses to keep from doing her own job and didn't even get around to doing yours.  You can't afford to be sick or you'll be swamped when you get back! Welcome to the world of working with breeder women!

Honestly, I don't mind covering for a co-worker sometimes. I'm not even one of those "score-keepers" who constantly expects everything to be "even-steven". But when the scales are seriously uneven, I can't help but start to hate Suzy Q. I've worked with women like Suzie before and they milk their pregnancies and babies for all they are worth and intentionally screw over their coworkers. Women like that are lucky someone doesn't slash their tires!  I'm not saying I've ever done that, either, or that I'm suggesting it!  Unless your spouse owns the tire shop, that won't really help you out much, anyway!

Yes, I understand that the employers might be partly to blame for situations like this, but you can't fully blame them. For one thing, many can't afford to hire a temp person to cover for Suzy Q, especially if by "temp" it means a full time person to take over her job because she's too busy with what she considers her "real" job (being mommy) to do any work! Additionally, most employers hands are bound by pesky discrimination laws that allow pregnant women to totally milk the system. YOU try firing a pregnant woman! Even if you have a legitimate excuse, she'll try to sue you and claim you just made up a reason to get rid of her because of her pregnancy!

Worse than unpaid maternity leave is the obnoxious demands for paid maternity leave. That's just ridiculously unfair to other workers. Breeders chose to get pregnant and have months to plan for it. Unlike getting struck down by cancer -- something I wouldn't chose and I wouldn't have advance warning about -- Suzy Q chose to get pregnant and/or not abort, and had 9 months to get ready for it. If I were going to buy a house, I'd have to save up money for a down payment, right? That's what mature people do -- they plan ahead. I would never expect my boss to just give me the money (as a gift, not a loan) for a down-payment because I was too lazy and irresponsible to save up the money! It's the same thing with this. If I got a wild hair up my ass and decided to take six to eight weeks off from work next spring, I'd start saving money now so I could afford to do it, especially if I hadn't saved up enough vacation time to cover it. That's called being responsible and mature -- things parents are supposed to be but often aren't. So why should a parent, who decides to have a child next spring, not have to plan ahead and save up money for their time off from work? If your answer is that babies are expensive and you couldn't afford it otherwise, then don't have one. Just because you WANT something doesn't mean you are entitled to it. I want a Maserati - I don't expect my employer to chip in to help pay for it, though.

Sure it would be wonderful if employers would say, "Everyone gets 6 weeks time off for every 24 months working here. Enjoy!" It would be awesome! Suzie Q can take that six weeks off to have a baby, and I could take those six weeks off to travel Europe! All employees would get the same benefits, no special treatment and no one would have to be upset! So fight for THAT, not paid maternity leave, and I'll respect you and support you.

Oh, but that's right: breeders would never agree to that. They'd whine it would be unfair to them -- they want six weeks paid maternity leave AND another six weeks off to travel Europe. They'd whine we were cheating them since they were stuck at home for the six weeks after childbirth and that's "medical recovery," not vacation. Fine, then don't chose to have a baby. Choose to go to Europe instead. Problem solved. Oh wait, I forgot, this is breeders -- they want their cake and eat it, too. THAT'S why we hate them.

First of all, if you're a housewife., househusband, on welfare or a jailbird, you'd damn well better not be calling ME a drain on society. Get a legitimate job to support yourself before you call ME a drain!

Do you see all those childfree with jobs? I know this is going to take a few brain cells, but try to keep up. When people have jobs, they are paying INTO the social security system and they are also paying income and in many cases, property taxes. All those people on welfare, the housewives and househusbands who don't work are NOT paying into the system. THEY are the ones being a drain on society and some day they'll expect a social security payout without contributing to it. Don't argue that "It's okay that I'm too lazy to work -- my kids will pay into social security when I'm old and that will make up for me!" because that's not the point -- they would be paying into the system for their own  (eventual) retirement, not yours.  If it was just yours, then only your first two children would be paying social security taxes and the third, fourth and so on kids wouldn't have to pay in, since their parents were already covered, right?   Even if your justification was true, it's almost as likely your kids will end up sitting at home not working using THEIR kids as an excuse not to contribute to the system.

Besides that, all the people collecting WIC, welfare checks, food stamps, free or reduced lunches at school, or any other welfare benefit for people with kids -- THEY are a drain on the system. Instead of putting money IN to the system they are taking money OUT of it. I don't see any childfree folks getting those benefits.

But if it would make you feel better, how about you lobby for the government to change the laws? You tell the government -- "Anyone without kids doesn't pay into social security, and anyone without kids doesn't draw out of social security. That will make things fair!" okay? Would that work for you? Will we all be happy then? While you're at it, it would be AWESOME if you would change the law so that anyone without kids doesn't have to pay taxes that go to WIC, Welfare, food stamps, schools -- you know, all the stuff that we don't benefit from. Then it would be fair. How would that work for you?

My point is, if you want to think that the childfree are a drain on society, fine.  But keep in mind all those people not working, using welfare, WIC, food stamps and schools are bigger drains on society than we are.  At least we're putting money into the system.

It's not that we hate people with kids who work.  We only have a problem with co-workers who use and abuse us, or they do very little work while standing around yapping all day long. I know that there are co-workers with kids who aren't abusing the system, so we don't mind them.  

As for the SAHM crowd, mostly we're just glad they aren't in the workplace getting in our way! The last thing we need at work is people who would rather be home surfing the net and watching soaps.  The only time we get annoyed by the SAHM crowd is when they claim WE are drains on society, when they whine that no one respects them, cry that they deserve to be paid over $100,000 a year, or when they claim to be doing more important things than anyone else in the world.  That's all ridiculous attention whoring and yea, we find it annoying.  Who wouldn't? 

The childfree tend to be divided on this issue, so I will just tell you MY opinion. (Actually this whole site is just MY opinion, so keep that in mind).  I do not like that most social programs are set up for people with children only. What if I fell on hard times? I shouldn't be left out in the cold because I chose to be responsible and not create children I couldn't afford?  

It was a little different back in the days when people were embarrassed to take handouts. Some of you may recall that back in the "olden days" someone would take a handout only as a last resort. Then they'd get back on their feet as soon as they could to save their pride. These days, people are not only proud to end up on "the dole" but many of them go out of their way to get on it! You hear teens saying, "Yea, I think I'll just have a baby and then I can get free money and stuff!" Ug, it's shameful and disgusting.

Of course, part of the problem is that society now encourages people to have babies they can't afford, first through religious groups that tell you that you're a waste of life if you don't have babies as soon as you can (and as many as you can). Then by the very social programs that will only be offered to you if you have kids. Such as a teen who can't afford college -- she can get free college if she has a baby she can't afford to raise. Don't want to work? Just go have a baby and sign up for free food stamps, WIC and welfare. Can't get medical treatment? Get pregnant, and then you can get any medical procedures you want for free.  

The only thing you get if you are responsible is a higher tax bill to pay for all the freeloaders! So of course most people want to be freeloaders -- it's the easy way out.

Personally, I'd rather have public social services saved for only people who actually fell on hard times -- not people who intentionally set out to get on the program. Death of a spouse, serious illness or injury -- I can accept that people need help at those times.  But even then, there should be a limited amount of time. Everyone else should have to get their handouts from family members, religious groups or private charities. And luckily, since there are so many people in favor of supporting those who refuse to support themselves, I'm sure there will be plenty of people donating their tax refund checks to these churches and charities. 

That way social programs would still be available but there would be less resentment about them. Additionally,  tax dollars could be shifted from supporting deadbeats to a much more important issue: universal health care for everyone. Wouldn't that be better for everyone in society?

It's not so much as wanting to ban children as it is about wanting some civility in public places. The options are a) parents start disciplining their children and/or taking them out of public places when the kids act up in public, b) businesses stop allowing parents and their children to act uncivilized in public places and ask them to leave when they create disruptions (the way they do when it is an adult creating the disruption), or c) banning kids from public places. Take your pick.

I certainly want children banned from R rated movies, bars and strip clubs (I've heard reports of babies in strip clubs) -- all places that children do not need to be under any circumstances. There are some places that *should* be adults only. Before you whine about the R rated movies, shut up! You can't have it both ways -- wanting everything to be rated and censored and then disregarding the ratings. Either we need to do away with the ratings or we need to start enforcing them. Either/Or. Stop trying to have everything work both ways (and always to your favor). 

The problem with this breeder whining that "If you don't like a crying baby, then stay home!" crap is that we're descending into barbarism!  If you start saying "whatever goes" and letting the assholes take over, then society degenerates.  There should be rules for conduct in public for everyone, even children, so that society maintains some civility.

Hmm, more and more smart people aren't having kids... I wonder why that is? Maybe smart people are smart enough to realize it isn't worth it!

Here's the painful truth:  There is absolutely NO WAY that smart people can outbreed the idiots.  It's impossible. Smart people who actually have kids stop at one or two because any more than that and you just don't have the time to raise them right.  Meanwhile, the idiots have five, six or eighteen children. So even if smart people wanted to TRY to outbreed idiots, they couldn't do it. Not without becoming idiots themselves!   

Yes, it's a pessimistic view but it's also a realistic view.  It's like trying to control the stray cat population -- it's impossible, despite our best efforts.  Unless we could pass some scary laws limiting the number of kids idiots can have, we can't win this battle.  Smart people are too smart to behave like alley cats!

Besides, I can think of no worse fate for a child than to bring him into a world where he'd be surrounded by morons and be one of the last eight smart people on earth (slight exaggeration, but you get the picture). That's just cruel and unusual punishment. 

But I'M serious, I don't like kids. Sure, I might end up loving my kid (operative word is might), but I know I wouldn't enjoy raising it. Besides, look at all the women who murder or beat their children -- it sure wasn't different for them. I honestly don't want to have a kid only to find out it's NOT different when it's my own, and then have to leave him in a hot car to die to get rid of him like other regretful parents have done. That's just sick. I'd rather go with my instincts, and my instincts say, "No thanks."

Is this why you had children? As an insurance policy? "Okay kids, here's the deal. I'll take care of you for 18 years, but after that, you are on your own until I'm sick, and then you have to take care of me. It's the rules!" Sounds pretty selfish! Is there anything more selfish than that?!

Why do you think I'm incapable of taking care of myself? And what makes you so sure that your kids are going to take care of you when you are old? If children are taking care of their parents, why are there so many people in nursing homes??

A couple of years ago, when my father had heart surgery and my mother needed help caring for him, my childed siblings, many of whom live in the area and have teenaged or grown children, couldn't be bothered to help them. Many of them never even called to check on him during that time!  I ended up going to stay with them for a couple of months while he recovered (and I live several states away, which means I had to pack up and move in with them temporarily). So trust me, having kids is NO guarantee they'll help you in your old age. They'll use their own kids as an excuse to be "too busy" to help you, and you'll be screwed anyway, unless you are lucky enough to have a childfree kid!  And you'd better be nice to that childfree kid or they might write you off!

Here is a clue for you: having children does NOT guarantee that there will be someone there to take care of you when you are old, or that someone will be there when you die. It's not even close to being true.

What expectations?! I seriously want to know, because from where I sit, all I see are fewer expectations than ever! The media portrays parents -- all parents -- as long-suffering saints, no matter how terrible they are.  Just look at the recent news stories about women with HORRIBLE children who threw huge fits on planes and they were thrown off because of it. The media treats the mothers like saints, even though they are both doing terrible jobs as parents!! Or look at how society treats parents who intentionally leave their children to broil in a hot car -- the mainstream media continues to perpetuate the lie that they are the victims in this situation.  

Just look around you and note how non-existent the expectations on parents are these days.  No expects parents make their kids behave at all.  Not at home and not in public.  No one expects parents to teach their children to respect their elders.  Parents don't even have to help their kids learn the most basic skills such as spelling and grammar. Teens today are idiots and they are damn proud of it, too!

If there were actually higher expectations on parents today, kids would behave better, be smarter and be more respectful than previous generations. This is obviously not the case.

But I'll play along for a minute.  Even if there are higher expectations on parents today, how is that my problem? You parents chose to take on that challenge.  If it is too hard, you shouldn't have done it.  Listen, I live up to my responsibilities and you need to live up to yours. Don't bite off more than you can chew and then expect me to help you chew it!  

You don't have to hit or beat your children to punish them. Besides, if raising children is so rewarding, you shouldn't have anything to complain about, anyway.

That's such a load of crap! You can train your child how to behave IN THE HOME like parents did for generations before you came along. Trust me, it is totally possible to sit down at the dinner table at home (with take-out if you can't figure out how to cook) and teach him not to throw food, scream and yell and run around the table during dinner. Kids love playing pretend, so just play, "Let's pretend we're at a restaurant!" when you're at home. Trust me, it can be done. Don't use idiotic excuses because you're too lazy to do the responsible thing!

What is really scary is that you'd even need to teach them different behavior when you eat out!  When I was a kid, we all sat down at the dinner table and quietly ate without throwing food, screaming or racing around the dining room.  So when we finally did eat out in a restaurant, there was no different behavior expect.  Don't allow your kids to act like hellions at home and you won't have to worry about needing to teach them different behavior in public!!  

Note: I know kids like to play but meal times are not "play" times.  Besides, kids need to know there are times to play (like with their toys or at the playground) and times to behave (at the dinner table, in the store).  The fact your kids don't know the difference shows you're doing it wrong.

I defend most online childfree ranting because for most of us, the ONLY place we can go to vent our frustrations at crappy parenting today is online. Many of our families or friends wouldn't understand since they have kids. So we come online and get this stuff off our chests. It's harmless venting. It's sort of like when people go online and piss and moan about their boss or stupid customers they deal with everyday. Many people find great stress relief in writing about whatever stressed them out that day. Better that they write about it than that they act it out, right?

I will admit that I don't like everything I see in childfree groups online, either. Not everyone in the childfree community is perfect like me!

With that attitude, it's obvious you're a pretty crappy (not to mention selfish) parent! If your kids are acting like brats in public and are tired and whiney, no one benefits. The people around you aren't enjoying themselves while listening to your kids have tantrums and your children certainly aren't enjoying themselves. But if you think making everyone around you miserable is your "right", you certainly have a bad attitude and are a total breeder.. 

People who really care about their children would like to see them happy. Parents would get a babysitter before dragging their children to something the children wouldn't enjoy; breeders drag their kids everywhere instead of spending money on a babysitter, and then later claim it's their "right" to make everyone (including their own kids) miserable. 

As far as telling everyone else to stay home if they don't like your anti-social behavior, why not take some of your own advice? If people in public are swearing and you don't like it, YOU stay home. If I'm out in public and I tell your kids to get the hell out of my way and you don't like it, YOU stay home. Gee, it isn't quite as much fun when people turn it around on you, huh?

You're selfish if you think that you deserve quiet in public places like restaurants! Go home if you want quiet!

The fact that kids are expensive isn't the point. Having children is a choice. You should be responsible for all costs of raising your child(ren), and if you can't afford it, don't have them. If I want to buy a Maserati I shouldn't expect a tax refund because my Maserati is expensive, now should I? If I can't afford the Maserati, I'll be an adult and wait until I can afford it to buy it. 

Annoyingly enough, the government provides WIC, welfare, food stamps, free schools, free breakfast and lunches at those schools, gives you tax breaks and you are still complaining? What more do you want? The government to pay for everything? Just because you have children shouldn't excuse you from paying the same amount of taxes as everyone else. Who exactly is paying for all these freebees for parents if parents are all getting refunds? Ever thought of that?! Every time people (with kids) want to raise property taxes, I never, ever hear those same people offering to put their refund checks towards the schools. Oh no -- they want that money -- the just want everyone ELSE to pay for their schools.  It's ridiculous.  

If you can't afford to raise the kid, you shouldn't have the kid. Period. Government handouts should not be necessary other than for temporary emergencies. Maybe if we expected people to support their own kids people would work harder (not just as their jobs, but at their education, too).

I'd agree with you, if our youth were actually getting educated. The fact is, they aren't. Just hang out online in any teen sites like Myspace or Xanga. The kids who hang out online can barely read, write or spell. And they are PROUD of that shit. Some of these crazy parents don't even want science taught in schools anymore. The teachers aren't allowed to discipline the students because the parents won't admit their children could do anything wrong and harass the teachers, principals and school boards if their children aren't treated like geniuses.  The schools aren't even allowed to flunk a kid anymore, lest it hurt the kids' feelings!

Those of us without children who want educated kids have no say in the matter. We're expected to keep our mouths shut and our wallets open.  That's madness!  

Let's pretend, though, for a second that the system is working and churning out educated adults.  We're wasting money educating people who only end up on welfare, in jail, as housewives/husbands, etc.  If the whole premise of me paying for schools is that these kids will grow up and pay my social security and Medicare (snort), you know, by WORKING, then what if these kids don't get jobs to pay my social security? Am I going to get a refund from them? Seriously, I'd like a refund please!  What, no refunds allowed? That's fucked up. I'm not even getting what I paid for!! 

Worse, these unemployed losers not only expected me to fund their own education when they are young, but now they expect me to fund their children's education, something they aren't even willing to do themselves! No fair! That's double dipping!  They just keep taking and taking and not giving anything back to society. If they aren't even planning to contribute to their own children's education, why should I have to? 

The bottom line is, I don't really mind paying for education if the kids are getting educated, which they aren't.  Fix the problems and we'll stop griping about them.

Because we find it appalling that people would spend so much money to create a child when the world is full of kids who need parents now! I just find it incredibly selfish to reject all these kids who need to be adopted because  Suzy Q and her dimwitted husband think their own DNA is somehow far superior to someone else's "rejects". (Never mind the fact that their own DNA was defective in the first place, rendering them infertile! Natural selection is trying to weed them out of the gene pool so their genes are most certainly NOT superior!)

So, if Suzie Q spends $100,000 on fertility treatments to have her own DNA replica, and she dies four years later, is she going to be okay if her kid ends up shuffled around the foster care system? After all, no one else should have to take her kid in -- they should instead have their own DNA, right?

It's pretty sad that people who supposedly care about kids don't give a damn about kids in foster care. Oh no, those kids are imperfect. *seething*

I also hate fertility treatments because most of the time, the same ones using them are the same religious wingnuts who are total, absolute, raging hypocrites.  They'll whine about breastfeeding being natural, yet they don't give a damn about what's "natural" when they don't get pregnant on their own. They'll claim to be all "pro-life" and against "selective reduction" when they get pregnant with six babies (it's not "God's Will" they'll say) but they totally ignore it when "God's Will" didn't let them get pregnant in the first place so they ran to get fertility treatments. In other words, they are PRO anything that coincides with anything they want, and CON anything that doesn't agree with what they want.   I can't stand people who are full of shit like that.

You are missing the point. I've already said I wouldn't make a good parent. I'm not good with children, and I never was. They drive me nuts! I don't enjoy being around them. This is the same reason I don't go to a shelter and rescue a dog - I wouldn't make a good dog owner. I'm not home enough!

You, on the other hand, like kids and think you are good at raising them. So why didn't you adopt?  What about the children in the foster care system? They deserve a home, and not with someone like me who doesn't like them, but with someone who likes children and believes they are good at raising them. Too bad only your own DNA is good enough for you. That makes you a horribly selfish and uncaring person in my book.

Do you really think we could get that law passed, even if we were totally serious? If we could get it passed, do you think there would be a way to enforce it?! Use some common sense, please!

Even breeders tell me that the "smart people" are the ones who should be having kids rather than the dumb people, and lets face it, the world would be a better place if the only people who had kids were smart people so we'd (most likely) have smart future generations. But logistically, it's impossible, for no other reason than this: smart people know how to use birth control; dumb people don't. In other words, the dumb will continue to breed like rabbits.  Funny how the only thing dumb people know how to do is fuck.  If only fucking were a little more complicated, nature would take the idiots out of the gene pool by simply making them too dumb to figure out how to reproduce!

Even if we could get the law passed and could enforce it, where do we draw the line? It gets really sticky here. And there would always be people who would skirt the issue and find ways to cheat the system.

We aren't generally serious about this anyway, so get over it. It's a nice idea in theory, but it's really not practical at all. Of all the things to get your panties in a twist over, THIS is what you picked? Lame!

Funny how you don't complain about age discrimination when your kid gets a discount at the movie theater, on airline tickets, admission fees to amusement parks or museums. While I could see charging less for a child for a meal (assuming they eat/waste less), I don't see the point in kids eating FREE.  I've never seen the point in kids paying less for movies -- they still take up a whole seat, and they still see the same amount of movie as the rest of us. Seriously, WE should be complaining about age discrimination!

I don't hear you complain about age discrimination in parks or schools. These days, they assume you're a child molester if you go near a park or a school if you don't have a child with you. Never mind the fact that most molesters are parents themselves.  As a taxpaying adult citizen, I'm not allowed to use parks anymore. Age discrimination!! If I wanted to stop by and check out my old elementary school, I wouldn't be allowed to because of age discrimination. I don't hear you complaining about THAT. Oh no no no. That's because you're a hypocrite!

I also don't hear you complaining about age discrimination about the age to drive a car or vote. I suppose you think we should let 4-year-olds drive and vote, otherwise it's age discrimination? Give me a break.

Besides, even if kids are discriminated against by their age, at least they'll grow out of it. It's not like someone who is disabled, or someone who has a different skin color -- things that won't ever change.

Oh grow up already! First, grab yourself a dictionary and look up the word "breeder" and you'll see that the word is correct and is *not* a slur. It's certainly less of a slur than the word "bitch" which is allowed on television and in music, despite being a slur.

Second, breeding (or having children) is a choice. A person with dark skin did not get to choose their skin color. It's not the same as harassing someone for something out of their control.

Third, people don't generally scream out "breeder" at others and even if they did, most people would think, "WTF?" more than anything.  No one beats anyone to death for being a parent or ties them to the back of their car and drags them to death for having kids!

Fourth, just the fact that you think being called a "breeder" on some website is the same as a couple hundred years of slavery and torture shows that you're the racist. I'd like to see you walk up to someone who actually lived through civil rights movement and tell them that your "pain" is just exactly the same as what they went through. Don't belittle what an entire race went through for hundreds of years just because you don't like a grammatically correct term about a life choice that you made for yourself!

Take some racial sensitivity classes, you moron. You obviously need it. 

Asking for equality and consideration is not being "a bitch".  If the world were different and people without kids were allowed as much time off as they wanted and you weren't, I'm sure you'd be complaining louder than anyone. In fact, breeders DO complain louder than anyone anytime they even perceive a slight injustice against them.  You're all, "OMG, the grocery store lets handicapped people park close, but not mommies!!  Let's all start harassing the store to put in mommy parking because they have no right to treat us worse than handicapped people! It's discrimination!!11!"  *eyeroll*

Of course you never cared when your parent coworkers expected you to buy them baby gifts or you had to cover for them every time they took time of due to their kids, because you knew that some day you'd get the same treatment.  It's different for childfree people because we know you'll never have to reciprocate and you're just using us.

It isn't just workplace issues, either.  It's the fact that you want all kinds of special treatment for having children, and then don't want to actually discipline them or raise them to be productive and civil members of society.  

Yes, I was, so what's your point?

Unlike your children, I was expected to behave, and no, my parents didn't beat me. I wasn't perfect, but I was courteous and respectful to my elders, and I was not loud and obnoxious in public. My parents wouldn't allow it. My parents taught me to be responsible for my actions, and if I did something wrong, I had to deal with the consequences of my actions.   I was expected to get an education, learn how to read, write and spell correctly.

Make your children behave and raise them to be responsible adults and we won't complain about them. 

Sure, and you'll probably change your mind, too! I'm sure one of these days you'll grow up and realize you don't want your kids anymore! Then I'll laugh and point!

This is just so ridiculous. By implying this, you're saying that a woman should always be pregnant and men should always be out impregnating as many women as possible, lest some child not be born. If that were true, all of society would never get anything done because we'd be having sex all the time.  Society as we know it would collapse, and we'd be accomplishing nothing more than what animals accomplish: eat, sleep, shit, and breed.  Yea, that's progress!  /sarcasm

And if you REALLY believe that, then you'd better have been pregnant every minute of your reproductive life (or if you are a man, you should have hundreds of kids now from getting women everywhere pregnant) or you're a hypocrite.  

If a childfree person did come to you and start a flame war with you, why did you feel the need to continue it? Parents are supposed to be mature, responsible people. A mature, responsible person would let it drop. Do you think I haven't gotten flamed by parents? Breeders try to start shit with me all the time and I don't care. I might try and reply to them a couple of times if I think they might be grown enough to converse with, but then I get on with my life.  I don't have time for this junior-high crap.  You shouldn't either, but you obviously do.

Don't accuse me of starting any flame wars because I did NOT invite you to visit my site, I didn't create this site for you, and I certainly didn't come to your sites and start fights or invite you to visit my site. I suppose someone could have posed as me and used the screen name "Phoena" and posted a link back here, but I guarantee you it wasn't me. I barely have time to run this site; I certainly don't have time to surf parent blogs or sites.

Since when is asking for people to be more kind and considerate to others around them "bitter"? Since when is asking for equality in the workplace "hateful"? Maybe you need to learn the definitions of words before using them.

What's the difference? Am I supposed to sit here crying that my parents might have decided to be childfree and I might not have ever existed? That's just ridiculous. You can't change the past, so worrying about it is pointless and stupid.

But if my parents HAD felt the way I do, they would be here talking about childfree living instead of me! So this line of thinking wouldn't be solving any of your problems.  Either way, there would still be childfree people on the internet and you'd still be picking fights with them.

Now who sounds bitter and hateful?  But if that's really how you feel, and you think saying this kind of thing to people is appropriate, I'll be sure to say that to your kids next time I see them.  "Too bad your parents didn't choose not to have you! The world would be a better place without you!  Ha ha!"  How's that sound to you?

Is this supposed to hurt? Oh, now I'm supposed to cry because you think I'd make a bad parent? Seriously, get over yourself. You don't mean enough to me to hurt my feelings!

Whether or not I'd make a good parent is a moot point, since I've chosen not to have them. But with your attitude, I'm really questioning whether or not it was a good idea that you had them. I can just imagine the bad attitude you are passing on to them.

I guess this means you had children because you wanted to prove you found some man desperate enough to fuck you, huh? Congratulations. I now know some guy out there got drunk enough to find you sexually arousing for 15 minutes before he sobered up. Whoop-de-do. Some accomplishment!

If you want to spend the rest of your life thinking I'm a virgin because I haven't "proven" my non-virgin status, go right ahead. Doesn't hurt me one bit.

That isn't true. Sometimes it looks that way, because more often it is women we see in public with badly behaving children because women spend more time with their kids than men do.  Also, women are more likely to try to find excuses to get out of work due to their children and/or pregnancy and screw us over in the workplace and badger us about our life choices.  This is why we may complain more about women than men.

But rest assured, we do see some men being shitty parents and some men who harass us about our choices, but they tend to also be anti-birth control, anti-abortion, pro-women-home-barefoot-and-pregnant; and basically anti-anyone who isn't them. Yeah, we don't like them, either.

For the record, childfree people tend to be liberal. It's the conservatives who hate women and do everything in their power to saddle women with kids so they don't have time to rock the boat.

Funny, I was just about to say the same to you! No, it's true. You might not want to believe it but I'm having a great life!  I have more free time to do things for myself and for other people (people outside my immediate family).  Sure, I'm missing out on all those great toddler tantrums, all the late night wake-up calls, all the potty-training fun, sibling rivalry issues, etc. etc. but I can live with that.  Something tells me it's worth missing out on. 

Honestly, I don't give a crap about overpopulation anymore. It's not MY children and grandchildren who will be suffering. If the people who have a vested interest in the future generations don't give a shit, why should I?

This assumption that there is no overpopulation because human beings need nothing more than 3 feet of space to live in is extremely ignorant. Perhaps we should take all the people, like yourself, who believe there is no overpopulation problem and stuff them in a 3 foot square of land and see how long they last with no goods or services. Perhaps that might enlighten you a bit.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has the figures as to how much square footage each human being needs to live in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to, and if you have it, please share it with me. I know the figure has to factor in much more than just the space one's physical body takes up. It involves a lot of factors, like farmland to grow food, pastures for raising livestock, trees and plants to create oxygen, and water treatment plants to make sure their water is drinkable. It also involves hospitals for each individual to be born in and graveyards for them to be buried in, landfills for them to store all the disposable diapers (among other things) in, stores for them to shop in, work places for them to earn a living in, homes for them to live in, factories to manufacture the goods you need to buy at the store, and of course, churches for zealots to "worship" in. Let's not forget all the Walmarts to buy all their kiddie crap in! And how are all these kids going to have their own bedrooms if they get nothing more than three square feet to live in?! Horrors!

Kristine from Chicago shared this:

"I've read that human beings needs 0.6 hectares of arable land per person for a western diet, 0.4 hectares per person for a vegetarian diet. I can't find that exact source, but I have found: http://www.cnie.org/pop/conserving/landuse2b.htm citing 47. Vaclav Smil. 1993. Global Ecology: Environmental change and social flexibility. London: Routledge.

"Also see Will Limits of the Earth's Resources Control Human Numbers? at http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/limithumans.pdf which gives a 0.5 hectare number, which is the average of what I've heard before. (It is probably hard to measure exactly, I suppose.)

"This is how much land it takes just to feed a person. Nevermind dwelling quarters, or factories to manufacture cars, computers, or Doritos as well as all the other stuff you mentioned. I suppose the human population could go back to subsistence living, but I for one would rather not."

FW shared this:

The lifestyle of an average American requires about 24 acres of land per person. Ecologists recommend that a minimum of 12% of the Earth's landmass be set aside for nature for optimum biodiversity preservation. For this to take place, each person would have to squeeze a living out of 4.7 acres. (The current global average per person is 5.6 acres- with the population increasing, it's only going to get worse.) If you want more information, go to the website http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm

Rika shared this link:

Ecological Footprint Test: Sixteen Simple Questions to Assess Your Use of Our Natural Planet.

Darren shared this information:

I can fill in the food factor: it takes 4 acres of land to feed a vegan, 16 acres to feed a vegetarian, and 64 acres to feed a meat eater. Without getting into an argument about which way is best, it takes more land to feed a meat eater because you have to grow the food to feed the animals s/he will eat. It takes not quite as much to feed a vegetarian because you still have to feed the cows if they do dairy, or the chickens if they do eggs, but since that doesn't constitute as much of their diet they don't need as much room.

But even if you are vegan (ie *no* animals involved in any stage of the food chain) it still takes 4 acres of land to feed you. So the person who said that we only need 3 sq ft of space? is reeeeeally skinny. Heh heh. I'm not sure about other factors, but that covers *just* the food issue.

When childfree folks ask for respect, what we want is for people with kids to stop harassing us about our choice.   We don't mean we need you to like our choice or give us ego strokes over what a great choice we made!  That's the big difference here.

My idea of respect is not having people constantly inquire as to why why we don't have kids, when will we have kids, why we should have kids, and snotty comments like, "It's a good thing you're not having kids!!"  I certainly don't walk up to people and demand to know "Why do you have kids? Why didn't you wait until you were older to have kids? You'll probably change your mind!! It's too bad you had kids!!" So why is it fair for people to do that to me?

By not harassing childed people the way we get harassed, we ARE respecting your life choices. We don't hassle you about their life choices and we wish you wouldn't hassle us.

Breeders, on the other hand, think we should respect their choice, and by "respect" they mean we should shower them with gifts and attention and constantly make them feel good about their choice. That's not "respect" -- that's sucking up.  I don't suck up to people, sorry.  

If I see some breeder woman in the store and it's obvious she's doing a lousy job of parenting, I'm going to respect her enough to keep my mouth shut -- telling her she's doing it wrong won't do any good, anyway -- but I won't respect her (nonexistent) parenting skills.  Don't lie, you wouldn't either!  

I DO respect the parents who are responsible and mature, have well behaved kids, take the job of parenting seriously, and don't demand respect or entitlements from the general public. That's why we don't refer to the bad childed people as "parents" -- out of respect for the good parents and not wanting to insult the whole culture of parenting. 

Why is this the new favorite insult from mommies? Any time someone says something that they don't agree with, they call the other person "ignorant." We should turn it into a drinking game! I guess coming up with something a) original and b) more accurate would be too hard for these geniuses!

Considering the majority of you who use this one on me aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, I'd say this is a classic case of projection.  I can not even count the number of dull knives that have emailed me to say, "OMG, like, how dare you say women who breastfeed should be sterilized!1! You're ignorant!"  Considering I never said that anywhere, who is the ignorant one now?

Smarter than people who start shitting out kids before they even reach the legal drinking age!

The fact that you aren't just rushing into parenthood is a good sign. The fact that you understand the concept of birth control is a good sign. 

But if you want an actual label, Childfree people would probably say you are one of the following, depending on your attitude:

-childless (for now)
-wannabe
-wannabreed
-wannabreeder

You don't really need a label, but if you one, there you go.

Most childfree people aren't against breastfeeding. There are many childfree people, though, who are offended by attention whoring mommies who whip out their breasts in public to get attention and to shock people. These are the same women who will scream about nudity on TV, but they think it's okay for them to show off their boobs in public and online just to harass and annoy people.

Discreet breastfeeding in public doesn't offend anyone because it's discreet so no one notices. Flaunting your breastfeeding in public is obnoxious and many of us think it makes you look just as trashy as Paris, Britney and Lindsey for exposing yourself in public for attention and to flaunt public decency laws.  

Personally, I feel this whole pro-breastfeeding argument is extremely sexist and exists just to hold women back.  If the misogynists can convince you that your kid needs to feed every 30 minutes for the next 4 years, and they convince you that you are the ONLY one who can do it, they have made that kid a shackle around your leg.  Women deserve better than to be slaves to their sexist husbands and ungrateful children.  The worst part is that there are far too many ignorant women who have bought this trap hook line and sinker and are now betraying their fellow women by trying to put the same shackle around their legs, too. Misery loves company, after all!  "Tit-nazis" are anti-feminists.

Lastly, people who like breasts often like to see firm, sexy breasts, not saggy, engorged breasts. I know it's horrible that people are evil and they'd rather see attractive people and body parts and it's very discriminatory against ugly people and ugly body parts, but that's just the way it works. Life isn't fair.

Until we all start wearing childfree pride T-shirts, that could be hard!

Check out the Social Groups page to see if there is a childfree social group in your area.  That would be a great place to start in your quest to find people without children.

My next best suggestion is to join some hobby groups in your area, especially child un-friendly things. Things like hiking or canoeing (I'd assume they wouldn't bring a lot of small children to things like that, but possibly some older children would be there), or woodworking classes (I would expect they'd keep kids away from the dangerous equipment), or stain-glass making (sounds a bit hard for kids), or motorcycle groups. You might not find childfree people, but you are likely to find people with older children (who have more time to do stuff), people who actually use babysitters (I think there are a few of those people left), people who are infertile, people who are non-custodial parents, or empty-nesters. AND when you first meet them, you already know you have something in common -- the hobby that you are involved in.

Most importantly, turn off your computer once in a while and get out of the house.  The internet is not a substitute for a real life.  I can't stress that enough!

Stop looking for a childfree man and just start looking for a good man. This is my experience and you can take it or leave it.  I've found that a lot of men could go either way on the child issue. You obviously don't want to date a guy who is desperate to have kids or already has them.  Still, there are a lot of guys out there who, if asked, would say they want kids, but they haven't ever really thought about it. They've been socially conditioned to the idea that they'll have kids, but they haven't really thought the whole thing through. When presented with the idea of a childfree life, a lot of guys warm up to it. I'm not saying you should *convert* someone.  You just give them information on a different viewpoint that they might not have considered before and let them make their own decision. 

A lot of people say to bring up the childfree issue on the first date, but I really don't recommend that.  It's too serious of a question for a first date!  Many guys get scared off by someone who seems so serious about the relationship that soon. Treat dating like you're just hanging out with this person until you find "the one" and relax a bit.   There are 100 other reasons why you might not make it to the 4th date, so I suggest just having fun for now and wait until you think, "Hey, we might really be compatible!" before bringing up the serious questions.

Like I said before, many guys just assume they'll have kids because that's what people do.  On my first date with my husband, if I'd asked him if he wanted kids, he'd have said yes. I never would have found out how perfect he is for me because I'd have shot him down over something that, it turned out, he was actually very flexible about.  

Instead, I went out with my husband a few times just for fun, not because I was looking for something serious.  As our relationship developed and we realized we were great together, then we talked about kids and the childfree thing.  He said he wanted kids and I said I didn't.  Obviously we talked about it a lot and he eventually decided his reasons for wanting kids had more to do with what he'd been taught than what he actually wanted out of life, and he realized he liked the idea of childfreedom.  I didn't "convert" him, but I gave him new information and, lucky for me, he liked the idea.  He made his own decision though.  I gave him plenty of chances to back out if he wanted a kid more than he wanted me.  But it worked out in my favor, thankfully. 

It's a good thing I gave him a chance and didn't dismiss him on the first date!  I'd have missed out on a wonderful guy!  

So stop dating looking for a husband and start dating to have fun and just hope you find love.  Don't chase someone off on the first date just because they might not have considered the childfree option.   If you're just dating for fun, you can have fun with someone who doesn't have kids yet, right? You never know - he might realize he didn't really *want* kids but that he was just thinking of having them because he thought that was "normal".  A little time with you and he might not want to be "normal" anymore!

Also, never, ever date someone who keeps score. Keeping score is just another game, and you don't want to be with a game player.  

You can also check these childfree dating sites. Who knows, you might get lucky!

If all you're looking for is to get laid, you can get that anywhere. But if you are looking to date, every childfree board is predominantly female. It's not that hard to find childfree women. Start hanging out on childfree boards and at childfree gatherings. 

You can also check these childfree dating sites.

Don't you dare pretend that's a one-way street!  In fact, it's at least as true of breeders as it is of childfree! I hear this from parents far more than I hear it from childfree people (and I hang out with childfree people more than I do parents).

A lot of people with kids (usually the worst parents) proudly proclaim how they are SO much more mature,  responsible and selfless than people without kids. They tell us we're just "drains on society" that we're obviously too immature to become parents.  They remind us that we're too afraid to take on responsibilities like they have.  They say we're just too selfish to have children because having children might cut into our time for having fun.

We could just as easily whine that "People with kids are always acting like they are so superior to the rest of us!" and it would be just as true!

But I'll play!  Many childfree people DO tend to think they are better people.  Preventing pregnancy is more of an accomplishment than getting pregnant. Any alley cat can get pregnant! I'm proud that I'm not just behaving on instinct but using some rational thought. 

I hear a lot about how people with kids are oh-so much more mature than childfree people. Then I look around and I see all the people who constantly fight with their "baby daddies" and "baby mommies" and I think, "Where is the mature part?"  I don't see it as "mature" to have a child with someone you can't even stand long enough to raise the child with.  I don't see it as "mature" to then fight endlessly with this person you CHOSE to have a child with.  I think there is more maturity in not creating a child just to put them in the middle of a war zone is MORE mature than putting the kid in the middle.  

Supposedly having children makes you more responsible, but if that were true, why are so many people using social welfare programs or mooching off relatives?  Are they living up to their responsibilities?  Us "irresponsible" childfree people with jobs and who are self-supporting *are* living up to our responsibilities, so we have every right to be proud of that accomplishment and to consider ourselves better than people who don't.

Certain people like to pretend that having a kid makes them less selfish because they have to do stuff for their kid.  I would argue that having a kid because you wanted one (and let's face it -- that's the reason people have kids) is SELFISH.  Once the kid is born, sure you take care of it, but not because you're a martyr -- you do it because you want something back.  You want the kid to love you and give you sloppy kisses and do cute things for you. You want other people to think your kid is well taken care of and cute.  You want your kid to grow up and say they had a great mom. Don't even try to pretend otherwise!  Just like I take good care of my cats so they'll snuggle with me and do cute things to make me giggle.  I don't go clean out my litter box and think, "Oh, look at me!  I'm such a martyr! I'm sooooo selfless!"  That's absurd.  Women who think that about taking care of their kids shouldn't have had kids in the first place!

You always talk about all these wonderful things that make parenthood "all worth it" so you obviously get something back that makes up for any of the extra work you have to do, so don't pretend you're being selfless when you do it.  You're getting a pay off for it, which makes it selfish.  

Here's a newsflash: Everything we do is selfish.  I do volunteer work that in no way benefits me or my family. It's still selfish. It makes me feel like I'm doing something to help others, it helps me feel I'm balancing out the karmic scales, and it gives me a great retort when some mommy tells me, "You're just a selfish bitch who is too lazy to do anything for others!"  *Everything* we do is selfish. We wouldn't do it if there wasn't some pay off for us in there somewhere.  

Let's not forget the full-of-themselves parents who arrogantly say to childfree folks, "Thanks for not breeding!  The world is a better place without your substandard genes, anyway!  People who have kids are far more important for perpetuating their genes to future generations!" I love the superiority complex there!  Someone could argue that behaving like an alley-cat isn't exactly more highly evolved, but if they need this to puff up their pathetic egos, so be it. 

The answer to the whining that childfree and/or childed people feel superior to each other is simply this: Everyone thinks they are superior to someone else and anyone who claims they don't is lying.