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.
>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".
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.