Correlaton between active dancer and being childless?

[ruanishtar]

Yes my name is Jason and I have been practicing dancing for about 3 months. From the people I have run into it seems that there are many students/teachers that do not have children. Some are too young to tell if they ever will have children but it seems that if you were an avid dancer it might stand to reason kids might interfere with that lifestyle. I am writing to ask people with much more experience than I if they have seen a lot of childless people/couples in the dancing world. To me it is great to see people nurturing a hobby/profession they love rather than a child they felt obligated to create to fill a void in their lives.

[Laura]

Well, I don't know who around me has kids and who doesn't (and sometimes when I find out I'm suprised one way or the other), but as a data point I'm childfree and dance.

[Chris Stratton]

People generally don't (or at least shouldn't - which means those who plan things don't) have children until there is a degree of stability and security in their lives, relationships and careers. A lof ot people involved in dancing are single, and perhaps to some degree in the process of trying to figure out what their lives are going to be like.

Amongst competitors it does seem like having children tends to be delayed, either until they've already achieved their goals (the Hiltons, retired from competition, recently had baby) or have reached a point where they can put what they hope to accomplish in enough perspective that they can find room for other obligations, feel comfortable taking some time off, etc.

People with a singleminded focus on dancing probably would not make good parents, so it's best they wait until their priorities change. In some cases that might end up meaning never... but the world has a shortage of attentive parents, not babies.

[Sagitta]

Welcome to df ruanishtar! Like Laura I do find quite a few social dancers have children and are married. I guess that for professional dancers, it is like any other career, as Chris said. Many couples postpone having kids until they are settled.

[jon]

There are plenty of childfree dancers. There are plenty of childfree non-dancers, too. I have no idea how to compare, particularly since I don't make a point of asking people about their reproductive status unless I'm interested in dating them.

All I really care about is that they not bring young children to dances! In particular one of the local swing dancers has decided it's OK to bring her infants to every dance she attends. It was bad enough when they were just squalling (and not being immediately removed from the room), but now they're toddling around amidst the dancers. This nonsense needs to stop. Dances are adult entertainment, not a childcare center.

[ShyDancer]

All I really care about is that they not bring young children to dances! In particular one of the local swing dancers has decided it's OK to bring her infants to every dance she attends. It was bad enough when they were just squalling (and not being immediately removed from the room), but now they're toddling around amidst the dancers. This nonsense needs to stop. Dances are adult entertainment, not a childcare center.

Not to mention dangerous to dancers on the floor and the children if they decide it might be fun to go running into the middle of a crowded floor!
I would never consider taking my children to an adult social, there are plenty of kids classes around.
And if you cant get a babysitter, well then your first priority should be as a parent NOT a dancer, regardless of how much you love to dance.

I have 2 young children, it doesnt stop me dancing at all. I only started dancing after they were born so having them didnt have an effect on my dancing.
Although Im lucky that my partner or mother are always available to look after the kids so thats never been an issue either.

[pygmalion]

There are some dances out there that advertise themselves as "kid friendly." If that's the case, take your kids, I think. Otherwise, hire a sitter. It's a pain and makes the dancing more expensive, but really. The little darlings aren't nearly as darling, if they aren't yours.

[Pacion]

I personally believe in "it depends" on whether to take your children or not, how old the child is, the type of event etc.

My parents took us partically everywhere with them. We knew we had to behaviour otherwise once we got home, we would not have been able to sit down for a week :?

I have been to places where there were children and the children were causing chaos whilst the parents a) did nothing b) were clearly thinking how cute the children where or c) pretending that the children did not belong to them and still did nothing. I have also been to places where children were there and dancing themselves. So, I think it should be upto the parents to KNOW their children and recognise that the child will either be a pleasure for those around them or a terror.

At my first salsa weekender, one of the local teachers brought his son on the final afternoon (Sunday). The boy was about 5 years old. We spotted this boy doing his little thing in a corner :shock: I don't believe one female left there that evening not having fallen in love with him and not one guy left the venue not wishing they could be him! :lol: I feel very grateful that the teacher brought his son along, who incidentally he says he never taught - the son just watched the classes.

One of my fondest memories was seeing the boy and his father doing footwork/shines. It was beautiful - there was such innocence :D

I was at an all day event a couple of years ago where my sister took her son along. He was totally taken with the music and alternating on the shoulders of the men in the group. His ethusiasm was so infectious, other people got up and danced too!

So I say, bring children as long as the child knows how to behave in public/the parent have a handle on the child. :banana:

[pygmalion]

Good point, Pacion.

I remember spending a couple hours in a dance workshop with a couple who brought along their sweet tempered, quiet infant. There was absolutely no problem, and, on the few occasions when the baby wanted attention, either the Mom or the Dad excsed him/herself, and took care of it. Perfectly fine with me.


On the other hand, I remember a dance workshop I attended where a young couple couldn't keep their three year old off the floor. Both Mom and Dad insisted on dancing, and their little one kept joining them on the floor and disrupting the class. After the fifteenth time tripping over him, he didn't seem too cute to me.

I think it's a matter of using your best judgment. The only problem is that parenthood sometimes changes people's best judgment a bit. Sometimes parents get used to the noise and interruptions that kids make, so they don't notice how disruptive it can be, it seems. The people around them aren't so lucky. Grr.

[Pacion]

On the other hand, I remember a dance workshop I attended where a young couple couldn't keep their three year old off the floor. Both Mom and Dad insisted on dancing, and their little one kept joining them on the floor and disrupting the class. After the fifteenth time tripping over him, he didn't seem too cute to me.

He wouldn't have seem so cute to me either, which is where the parents were wrong. If the child had stayed on the side and 'played' or the parents were perhaps on the sidelines to give him attention, your memories would be better ones :?

[JohnK]

Line in a recent Bravo channel "reality show" to a couple about to have a baby: "say goodbye to your life as you know it"...

I'd suggest the "childless dancer" effect has less to do with dancers making active choices to not have children and more to do with adults-with-children not having the free time to spend on A), learning how to dance, and B), going out dancing.

I'll bet dancers-with-children were most likely dancers-before-children.

I don't have kids myself, but the lives of my friends that do revolve around the kiddies until they're out on their own. Not that there's anything wrong with that :D ...

[etchuck]

Debbie Ramsey and Wesley Boz run their monthly dances at the Raleigh YW/M?CA and they have on-site childcare. Oh yeah, Debbie and Wes do have two kids. You can guess it's no coincidence that child- and family-friendly accommodations were specifically arranged in this instance. I certainly wish there could be more situations where one can bring young kids (not under 4 though) to dances.

[pygmalion]

I think on-site child care is something that more dance organizers should look into, if they can.

[ruanishtar]

Yes it is true children should not be brought where adults are being taught without supervision. I mean no matter how cute they are is it still not considered distraction? Technically speaking I am not sure why people have children in the first place. I have never heard a child that wasn't created complaining. It seems strange people cannot end another's life but they can create one. Who do you know ask to be born? Anyone who creates a child is in some way or another playing the role of God. In fact are they not making someone in their image? Are they not ruler/programmer/creator/leader/provider to this individual due to the biasness that comes from them being the chosen people (offspring). I mean if a child playing T-Ball is so cute why don't just go watch one at random? A person probably would say "They aren't mine" which is a common capitalistic statement. To me creating children is selfish and as far as bringing them to dance classes it just shows an additional inconsideration to the child, group, and to themselves for lacking the ability to consider others in the process of making a decision.

[dancingdragon]

All I really care about is that they not bring young children to dances! In particular one of the local swing dancers has decided it's OK to bring her infants to every dance she attends. It was bad enough when they were just squalling (and not being immediately removed from the room), but now they're toddling around amidst the dancers. This nonsense needs to stop. Dances are adult entertainment, not a childcare center.

I couldn't agree more. It's my pet rant at the moment!!! It seems to be an epidemic in the town I live in - bringing children not just to dances, but to all kinds of venues that I would consider "adult" such at the theatre, good restaurants, cafes etc. I choose not to be surrounded by children and it does annoy me when parents seem to think that they don't have to alter their pre-child lifestyle in any way. Get a baby sitter for God's sake! I don't have children and the jury is still out on whether I will have them - I don't feel as strongly about it as ruanishtar but I definitely think that just because you can have children doesn't necessarily mean you should.

This town is "a great place to raise kids" and consequently there are a lot of people in my studio who have kids and do bring them along. I don't have a problem with it if the kids can behave themselves but sadly this seems to be pretty rare these days. But to be honest, it surprises me to hear so many people expressing a similar sentiment, because I thought I was just a scary old kid-hating freak! And me in my prime breeding years too...

[pygmalion]

I love children. I always have spent a lot of time with them, voluntarily, tutoring, being a Big Sister, being a mentor, you name it.

However, I don't necessarily think children should be allowed along to "adult" events. It seems to me that many parents are oblivious to how uncomfortable young children can make childless adults. I think this is often true even if the chidren are well-behaved, but it's even more true if the children are out of control, which they often are these days.

On the other hand (you knew this was coming, didn't you? :wink: ) parents of young children also have the right to dance and enjoy themselves. There's no earthly reason why they should be exiled to stay in the house or attend child-only events for fifteen or twenty years while their kids outgrow the disruptive stage. Hence my suggestion that more dance venues attempt to provide on-site child care at a reasonable cost.

[Pacion]

Well, :roll: I have heard/read what everyone has said on the subject and guess what :roll: if my children are wellbehaved, and they will be :wink: they too shall come to the Ball. :D

I consider myself to be a considerate person and if they are well behaved and in this instance are "seen but not heard" and someone wants to fuss about it :roll: they can take a flying jump! :twisted:

I guess (versus "I believe" or "I think" :wink: ) you can tell that I feel very strongly too about this. :banana:

[squirrel]

I don't like children too much if they don't behave themselves! And I don't think they should be brought to dance events if they don't!
Otherwise, I have no problem if they come! I saw some children who could dance fantastically!

[DancingMommy]

From the people I have run into it seems that there are many students/teachers that do not have children. Some are too young to tell if they ever will have children but it seems that if you were an avid dancer it might stand to reason kids might interfere with that lifestyle. ... To me it is great to see people nurturing a hobby/profession they love rather than a child they felt obligated to create to fill a void in their lives.

Ok first part first - Jean Marc Generaux and France Musseau have children. Corky & Shirley Ballas have children. Azamat Evgamukov is the sone of dancers. Perhaps the reasons why you don't see couples that have children in the dance community include:

1) Some partnerships are platonic and/or one or both parties are gay. That would be a BIG reason why they don't have kids 8)

2) Some people like to keep their private lives PRIVATE

The second part makes me REALLY MAD!!!! :evil: Here's why:

1) We who have chldren do not do it because "they felt obligated to create to fill a void in their lives". We have children because we LOVE children and want them. CHildren are not status symbols.

2) We actually do devote time to our dancing (a hobby right now) even though we *do* have kids. FWIW, I have two daughters - 2 years old and 4 months old. Just because I've been pregnant for close to two years did not mean I suddenly list the ability to dance. URGH! During my first pregnancy I danced up until a couple weeks before I was due. If you look for it, there's a thread around here somewhere that addresses this.

calm clue ocean... calm blue ocean... calm clue ocean... calm blue ocean...

OK, now that my blood pressure is back to normal....

You must not make the assumption that because children aren't normally seen out and about at dances that they don't exist......

[pygmalion]

Count to ten, DancingMommy. Okay, count to thirty-five. :wink:


Being child free is a valid choice. Having children is also a valid choice. There's no need to place value judgments on the emotional stability of others, just because they've made a different choice. Not everybody wants children. Ever. There's nothing wrong with that. However, just because people have children doesn't mean they felt a lack of ANYTHING in their lives. Let's just respect each others choices, eh?

And, while we're at it, can we find a way to make the dancing thing work for both groups? 8)

[DancingMommy]

I mean no matter how cute they are is it still not considered distraction?

Well, let me just say this... Our coach welcomes our kids to his studio. And his some no-name either. In fact... He has two daughters himself, lol!

Technically speaking I am not sure why people have children in the first place.

Then don't have any. As for us who DO have children - tread easy. Besides, if no one ever had children then the population would really go downwards, now wouldn't it????? :shock:

I have never heard a child that wasn't created complaining. It seems strange people cannot end another's life but they can create one. Who do you know ask to be born? Anyone who creates a child is in some way or another playing the role of God. In fact are they not making someone in their image? Are they not ruler/programmer/creator/leader/provider to this individual due to the biasness that comes from them being the chosen people (offspring). I mean if a child playing T-Ball is so cute why don't just go watch one at random? A person probably would say "They aren't mine" which is a common capitalistic statement. To me creating children is selfish and as far as bringing them to dance classes it just shows an additional inconsideration to the child, group, and to themselves for lacking the ability to consider others in the process of making a decision.

I'm not sure where you are coming frm on this little tangent, but I might give the advice to steer clear of making sweeping generalizations about chldren and people's reasons for having them and methods of rearing them.

[Laura]

Dancing Mommy, chill -- you've fallen for flame bait so badly that you've posted your last post four times.

And, while we're at it, can we find a way to make the dancing thing work for both groups?

It's easy to make it work. That's what babysitters or on-site child care or attentive parents making sure their kids aren't bored are for. Kids who are old enough to know right from wrong don't generallly misbehave because they want to make their parents angry at them, but because they're bored and not being monitored and so cook up ideas that seem fun to them but are mischevious to others. If the kids want to come and dance, let them come and dance. If they get bored and start acting up and interefering with other dancers and their parents can't get them re-engaged with dancing or playing quietly off the dance floor, then the parents should pack everyone up and take them home -- even if it means cutting their own fun a bit short for the evening. If the kids don't want to be there at all, then a babysitter is in order if on-site child care isn't available. And if babysitters are hard to find, perhaps dancing couples with children could band together to form evening "play groups" for their kids so that the babysitters could be shared, or so that couples could take turns watching each other's kids, or to help organize and fund a trial period of on-site care to help convince the dance venue owners that it's a good businness & community idea. I don't see what the big deal is here, it's all just common sense. Of course, as my mother always says, the problem with common sense is that it's just not common enough.

[pygmalion]

Very well said, Laura. :D

I would amend that it's quite possible to make it work, but not always easy. Making child care arrangements is not simple and it's not cheap. Just like everything else, if you're motivated enough, you can make it work.

[DancingMommy]

Dancing Mommy, chill -- you've fallen for flame bait so badly that you've posted your last post four times.

Not me it was my browseer... I swear! 8) I'm cool.... I'm calm... muahahahahah


And, while we're at it, can we find a way to make the dancing thing work for both groups?

...help organize and fund a trial period of on-site care to help convince the dance venue owners that it's a good businness & community idea. I don't see what the big deal is here, it's all just common sense. Of course, as my mother always says, the problem with common sense is that it's just not common enough.

:idea: :idea: I'd be happy to do this. :) I've done childcare work before. I think this is quite noteworthy and Jenn has the contacts to possibly make this happen in our area..... :hoping:

[Pacion]

:lol: DancingMummy and her browser :wink: Seriously, I can delete it for you if you want :D

It would be/could be interesting to see if/what childcare could be provided at dance classes or events particularly in this rather fractured society of ours - so many single parent families with grandparents/siblings living some distance away. I say grandparents/siblings because I know some people are very wary of leaving their children with strangers.

[Pacion]

Besides, if no one ever had children then the population would really go downwards, now wouldn't it????? :shock:

I think society (the West anyway) is already seeing the effects of fewer children = an ageing population, no one to fill the gap to pay taxes, money towards the social security/welfare etc. Hence, some countries have been, and others are considering, giving a bonus/extra assistance to couples who have a child and this "bonus/assistance" increases with the more children they have. So, in some countries, the government is seeking ways to "reward" the people for having children and others are "penalising" because their population is exploding.

In addition, some countries are having a 'careful' immigration programme because the existing population is ageing much faster than it is being replaced, with children coming of age. Therefore they need "ants" to work and pay the taxes to help pay for the ageing population :|

[DancingMommy]

:lol: DancingMummy and her browser :wink: Seriously, I can delete it for you if you want :D

It would be/could be interesting to see if/what childcare could be provided at dance classes or events particularly in this rather fractured society of ours - so many single parent families with grandparents/siblings living some distance away. I say grandparents/siblings because I know some people are very wary of leaving their children with strangers.

Thanks! I appreciate it... We have a policy on our Delphi forums not to delete as it causes a glitch but feel free since you know the ins/outs of this place. :)

[Vince A]

I dance. I have kids. No problem.

[ruanishtar]

As far as kids in the dancing studio I personally have never encountered any that were distracting. My original question was is there a correlation between less kids among avid dancers? This is a request for an observation not really an opinion. But tangents occur like mine.

I like kids a lot too (Dancing Mommy) but there are many children in the world that need parents. To me having a child is like digging a hole. You then should spend the next 20-30 years (or longer) filling it back in. Like kids have needs but before they were created they didn't. And there are many people who already exist that have needs so why make more needs? Why not help fulfill the ones that are already here? That is what I meant when I said why not go watch kids play T-Ball that are not related to you? And remember there are 6 billion people in the world with many animals/plants going extinct. So the world is certainly not under supplied in humans. Millions starve everyday.

And just to note there are many better things people can do without having children. One of those things is being a professional dancer. In reality this takes talent but to have children does not. Some great people who had no children are: George Washington, Mother Teresa, Katherine Hepburn, Leonardo DaVinci, Alexander the Great, Socrates, Michael Angelo, Florence Nightengale, Apostle Paul, Jesus Christ, Greer Garson, Plato, Aristotle, Bob Barker, Tom Cruise, and a lot of others. This does not mean that if you have kids you cannot be well known but I think to create a child is forcing someone to exist that might not necessarily want to. If a person truly loves kids in general I think adoption and volunteering are much more respectable. I have spent a lot of times helping kids in my family for the past 10 years. I have seen a lot of turmoil. One kid's father was an alcholic and killed himself. Another's mother abused him. Two children are obese and take prescription medicine. Three other's also have alcoholic parents who have been in jail and are unreliable. I know it is possible to create a child and give it a loving home but there are people in this world who currently exist that need one.

So it is great Pygmalion that you have volunteered time to help children. Your name is also a great movie that starred Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard. I have it on video cassette and I think it is better than My Fair Lady which was based on it. Of course most people who like dancing would prefer the musical version. If you like Wendy Hiller another movie to rent is Seperate Tables in which she won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. Leslie Howard's most famous role was as Ashley in Gone With The Wind.

[DancingMommy]

Is that sort of like "Dance-us, Kid-us, No Problem-us"?

[pygmalion]

As Leslie Howard's most famous role was as Ashley in Gone With The Wind.

Check out Leslie Howard and Bette Davis in Of Human Bondage. That's my favorite of his roles ( and Bette Davis was GREAT!), although The Scarlet Pimpernel, with Merle Oberon, is right up there. :wink:

[Vince A]

Is that sort of like "Dance-us, Kid-us, No Problem-us"?
Yes-us!

[etchuck]

Personally, I would like to see a proper balance for working parents in the workplace as well as on the dancefloor. I'd charge per person (including babes in arms) for admission to a dance, which may help parents of very young children to think twice about bringing very young children, but not discriminate against those who cannot afford to get a sitter of their own. It's not anything against very young children or those parents; one of the places where I ushered had that particular policy for concerts and plays as well. Certainly any monies gained by the added admission could be used to defray the cost for a GOOD babysitter and proper at-dance childcare.

But I think there are many parents who also have to juggle their roles with their other non-parent lives, no matter what area of life. It can and does work out. What I would not be in favor of is any notion that in order to be successful you must sacrifice any dreams of having a family of your own. To have such a choice is particularly burdensome on young women, no matter what career area they are engaged in (not that men don't consider it, but women are the ones who have to be pregnant for 9 months).

Again, I agree.. it is a choice to have children or not. It is also a choice to adopt children if one wants to. Or volunteer your efforts to help others' children. If you want to be both a successful parent and a successful dancer/lawyer/doctor/academic/whatever... it will require reshuffling of time and priorities. But don't say you must give one up to do the other, because that's not always true.

It's about what makes you happy and being able to maintain your happiness (and sanity :) ) with dancing or children or both.

[jon]

if my children are wellbehaved, and they will be

The thing is that "well behaved" means one thing to a parent, who has of necessity become inured to their child's behavior, and something entirely different to people without children and people who are going to dances in part to get some time away from their children. It does not mean "quietly fussing", it means "quiet". It does not mean "toddling around amidst the swing dancers", as were the two infants last night, it means "sitting in one place". And neither of those are realistic expectations of even the best-behaved 2 year old, for example, so the bottom line is that kids shouldn't be in the same room with the dancers.

I consider myself to be a considerate person and if they are well behaved and in this instance are "seen but not heard"

They'll be heard plenty, when the inevitable accident occurs and they get drop-kicked across the dance floor after wandering into the way of some of the dancers who aren't on the lookout for two foot high obstacles.

[Laura]

By the way, if you are bringing young children to a dance event, you might want to seriously consider making the child wear ear protection. I've been to many studio parties where the sound system is cranked up too loud. There are many comfortable options that reduce the sound levels by significant amounts -- my favorites are the foam ones that you compress, put in your outer ear, and then they comfortably expand. And besides, if you get the kids used to the idea and value of wearing ear protection, when they're teenagers and start going to concerts they'll be more apt to wear ear protection then, too.

[pygmalion]

I love the way you express yourself, jon. 8)

That's what I meant, earlier in the thread. Parents get used to their kids' noise and interruptions. People without kids are NOT used to it, and shouldn't have to get used to it when they go dancing. They don't have kids, after all.

Also, as you said, children are just that. Children. I don't think it's fair or realistic to ask young children to be quiet for the two or three hours that dances last. Most of them aren't wired that way. They need to get up, walk around, make noise, check out what Daddy's doing, get underfoot ... That's what even the best-behaved kids do. Heaven forbid we should discuss the misbehaving ones! :shock: :lol:

I think a reasonable compromise is to provide someplace, maybe nearby, where the kiddies can be kiddies while Mom and Dad dance.

[Laura]

I have to ask -- what ever happened to baby sitting? When I was a kid my parents went out all the time (nearly every weekend) for a dinner or a party or a dance or a movie and they had one of the local neighborhood teenage girls come over and stay with us. And when I was a teenager I did the same for other families in the neighborhood. Do teenagers no longer exist? Or are we talking about finding care for babes-in-arms and pre-potty-trained little ones?

[pygmalion]

I think we're talking about the three camps of parents, here.

Camp one stays home with the kids, and rarely if ever goes out.

Camp two leaves the kids with a sitter. Lots of people in that camp.

Camp three takes their kids everywhere with them.

(I have three sisters with kids, one in each camp. And each of them thinks they're smarter and morally superior to the others. What a laugh!)

[Laura]

It seems to me that a combination of #2 and #3 makes the most sense, but then I don't have kids. But it seems to me that it all depends on the time, place, activity, and available child care options.

A friend of mine wanted to take a foreign language class, but the only one she could go to meets once a week in the evenings. I told her I would watch her kid so she could do it...obviously a college classroom for three hours isn't the kind of place you'd take a 3-year-old week in and week out.

[DancingMommy]

I like kids a lot too (Dancing Mommy) but there are many children in the world that need parents.

Many of which are not adoptable for one reason or another. I have many friends who are in the process of adopting children from overseas. In fact,, I have one friend who has adopted a child from ukrainse, one couple who has adopted from Guatemala, and one couple who is adopting from China.

And there are many people who already exist that have needs so why make more needs? Why not help fulfill the ones that are already here?

We try where we can, but as Jesus told his disciples, "the poor will always be with you". Just because there are children out in the world somewhere that need parents, does not mean that there is anything that I can do about their situation. There are others better equipped. As far as "why not go watch kids play T-Ball that are not related to you?", it isn't the act of being a spectator that is the point of having children. My god, if it was, I would have stayed as a preschool teacher. All the fun and none of the reseponsibility at the end of the day.

Just because there are 6 billion people in the world, does not mean that the worl has too many. It's faulty logic. There are many countries with negative population growth: Russia, Italy, France for starters. And just because some animals/plants are endangered is no reason to not have kids (for me). That makes "no nevermind" to me.

And just to note there are many better things people can do without having children. One of those things is being a professional dancer. In reality this takes talent but to have children does not.

There are quite a few pro dancers with chldren.... See my earlier post re: JM Generaux/France Mousseau. It may not take "talent" to have kids, but to raise them into productive members of society, takes patience, love, commitment and more than just talent.

As far of your list of luminaries that didn't have children, you can cross Mother Teresa off your list, since she was a NUN and nuns don't have kids. While we're at it, neither did St. Cecilia or St. Terese, St. Faustina, St. Jean d'Arc, St. Francis of Assisi, or many other mystics/religious.

Tom Cruise *does* in fact have TWO children with his ex-wife Nicole Kidman. Just because they are adopted children doesn't mean they are any less his children.

Not everyone is *called* to have children - that's a fact of life. But for those of us who are, it's rather insulting to be told that *our* children should never have been brought into the world, are burdens on society, are a hole that needs filling up, etc.

In fact, all those great people you mentioned *were* someone's child at some point. Where would the world be if Einstein's parents had decided that they didn't want kids? Or Edison's? Or Abraham Lincoln's? Who decides whose children are going to be worthy of breathing air? That is not a decision one can make and for the record, all children are a blessing - regardless of how they came to be or under what circumstances.

If a person truly loves kids in general I think adoption and volunteering are much more respectable.

I would agree that adopting when possible is a GOOD option. I'm adopted myself. As I stated before, a bunch of my friends are choosing to adopt. But you have to understand that there are a LOT of children who are UNadoptable. It's really horrid. But you can't say that people who want children but can not adopt sholdn't have children. That's between them and God.

In my family, there are a bunch of alcoholics and obse children too. My dad and his brothers were abused/put in foster homes, etc by their alcoholic mother. It didn't make them any less a person or less valuable. It also didn't meant that they shouldb't have kids.

You can have your opinion about this, but understand that there are a lot of us in the world that don't share it.

I'm hoping you take this in the best possible way. I don't want you to think that I don't understand your position (I do). I just don't agree with it.

Back to your regularly scheduled dancing..... 8)

[DancingMommy]

I have to ask -- what ever happened to baby sitting? When I was a kid my parents went out all the time (nearly every weekend) for a dinner or a party or a dance or a movie and they had one of the local neighborhood teenage girls come over and stay with us. And when I was a teenager I did the same for other families in the neighborhood. Do teenagers no longer exist? Or are we talking about finding care for babes-in-arms and pre-potty-trained little ones?

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I wouldn't let anyone watch my kids. Too many wierdo's out there. Even relatives aren't safe. Last night on the news there was a story about a 14 year old who was killed in her apartment. She was being watched by her uncle, but he left her and her 12 year old brother alone in the apartment so he could "go out".... ***?

The only approved baby sitters for mine are my folks. If they can't watch them, I don't go out or I bring them with us (depending on where we're going).

And the teenagers in my neighborhood are "hood rats". They are the most obnoxious creatures ever. The ones across the street from me roar up and down the street all hours of the day and night, scream obsecenities and profanities and have knock down drag-outs with their parents(?) inside their own home that are SO loud I can hear them in my house. No thanks!

[Laura]

When I was 14 I was babysitting for neighborhood kids. Has the world really gotten that bad?

[DancingMommy]

I used to babysit for neighborhood kids too, but not only would I not get one of my neighborhood kids to st for me, I wouldn't even let my own kids do babysitting (if they were old enough). Too many pervs in the world. :(

[ruanishtar]

It's cool that you disagree. I didn't think when I stated my viewpoints people would just melt and agree with me. But I still am very firm on not procreating. No where in the New Testament does it say to have children. Jesus tells people to be childlike in attitude which I try to do when taking dance lessons. Paul the Apostle even says it is better for people not to get married (1 Corinthians) and since it says you shouldn't have sex before marriage that indicates no children. Also if the Bible is correct than the more people that are created the more that go to hell. There are verses that indicate many more people go to hell than heaven (like 90% to 10%). Of course if your agnostic this would not make or break the philosophy.

Besides anyone who is faced with life will face death. In reality you are dead before you are born but don't know it and thinking back before I was born I do not remember telling anyone to send me to Earth. And if Einstein had not been created I would not know or care because you can't know what never was. Whenever I think about creating children it just makes me think that people are making people on account of themselves. Like I want a child so never mind what the child wants or what they are going to look like etc. It is something I want and you can't buy it at Wal Mart so let's make a child. It is funny how you almost automatically love this creation more than other similar creations that stand in line at the store next to you. Maybe it is because it is yours and you own it and can program it and are trusted by it more than anyone else due to that is all it knows. So as innocent as people make babies out to be (which is true) the creators usually have an alterior motive. Motives can be their friends have kids or my parents want me to have kids or I want my genetics passed on or who will take care of me when I am old or I am tired of living for myself so let me live to take care of someone else or I do not use protection correctly or I can get a tax break or I have regrets so I can prevent my child from making the same mistakes I made etc.

Whatever you want to do (Dancing Mommy): do it. You know why because you are going to do it anyway. Disagreeing is fun and healthy as long as we don't go ballistic. And I hope your children are doing well and you are enjoying dancing.

[Chris Stratton]

Could we move the religions arguments to dancer's anonymous before I'm tempted to say something about the book of waltz, or make a comment about stoning your neighbours (dress)?

[ruanishtar]

I might check that Bette Davis/Leslie Howard movie out. I like old movies better than the new because directors often thought to get people into the theater you have to show quality films. These days it is all about marketing and hype and when all you have are bad movies relativity kicks in and bad movies look good due to no competition. Though I did like Schindler's List, Sling Blade, and a few others.

Other cool old movies I like (and please list some of yours) that you may enjoy: The Heiress, Come Back Little Sheba, Wuthering Heights, The Good Earth, East of Eden, Watch on the Rhine, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte, Elmer Gantry, The Search, Captains Courageous, Grapes of Wrath, Long Days Journey Into The Night, and the Pawnbroker.

If you like foreign films some with good stories are La Strada, Nights of Cabiria, Babette's Feast, Fitzcarraldo, and Seven Beauties.

Despite enjoying dancing I am not very much into musicals. I like the Court Jester, Grease, Wizard of Oz, and A Star is Born (with Judy Garland/James Mason).

[ThatHaitianSwede]

Could we move the religions arguments to dancer's anonymous before I'm tempted to say something about the book of waltz, or make a comment about stoning your neighbours (dress)?

Yeah, I was about to say . . . :shock:

*Ahem* getting back onto the topic, I would wish that many people who have kids, NOT stop dancing. I certainly agree that kids shouldn't be brought to dances unless they can behave themselves, but I find it boring and depressing that some people completely give up their own fun for their kids. Although it is prolly true that many of those people, were dancing in the first place b/c of their sinlge status. If you have a passion for the dance, you never stop...

[Vince A]

Thanks everyone . . I was about to jump in, but . . .

[pygmalion]

I like old movies better than the new because directors often thought to get people into the theater you have to show quality films.

You might enjoy this thread. Lots of non-dance movies there.
Your favorite non-dance (*gasp*) movies (http://www.dance-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=796)

Could we move the religions arguments to dancer's anonymous

Thanks for getting there first, guys. While many, if not most, of our threads get off-topic at some point, we really try hard not to let them veer off into religion, politics, or other (non-dance) controversial topics. We have people here of every background you can imagine, and someone's bound to get testy or, worse yet, offended. Besides, we're here to talk about dance, right? 8) :)

I would wish that many people who have kids, NOT stop dancing. I certainly agree that kids shouldn't be brought to dances unless they can behave themselves, but I find it boring and depressing that some people completely give up their own fun for their kids.
It's really an uphill battle for people with kids to do lots of things that child free people take for granted. for example, there's a USABDA dance this Friday. A child free person can pay $6 - $8and go dance for three hours.
For a parent to go, there's calling all around to find a reliable baby-sitter, then paying $10 an hour for at least four hours, if you count transit time. The same dance that costs a non-parent $8 max will cost a parent $48 min. Is it any wonder that there are few parents of young children to be seen at these functions. :roll:

[ruanishtar]

Perhaps that is one reason I have seen people without children. The fact that it costs more to attend due to baby sitting. So the people without children are more likely to attend.

All the instructors at one dance studio I attend (that I know of) do not have children. In fact I do not think any of the working staff do either. Most are still young enough to have children and I know of one who is probably determined to have kids eventually. This would be about 10-14 people and I have been to quite a few others that I have noticed people without children. Of course whether there is a correlation of less children or not it doesn't effect how I feel about dancing. I am still new and am still learning about the people, steps, manners, and enjoyment of dancing.

In the future I will stay away from religion and try to stay on subject. :)

[Sagitta]

Perhaps that is one reason I have seen people without children. The fact that it costs more to attend due to baby sitting. So the people without children are more likely to attend.

..................

Of course whether there is a correlation of less children or not it doesn't effect how I feel about dancing. I am still new and am still learning about the people, steps, manners, and enjoyment of dancing.

In the future I will stay away from religion and try to stay on subject. :)

Thanks. :)

[Laura]

It's really an uphill battle for people with kids to do lots of things that child free people take for granted.

Well, I'm sorry to say, but if you choose to have kids, you choose to take on that kind of responsibility.

for example, there's a USABDA dance this Friday. A child free person can pay $6 - $8and go dance for three hours.
For a parent to go, there's calling all around to find a reliable baby-sitter, then paying $10 an hour for at least four hours, if you count transit time. The same dance that costs a non-parent $8 max will cost a parent $48 min. Is it any wonder that there are few parents of young children to be seen at these functions. :roll:

While I can sympathise with the frustrations of running around to secure a trusted babysitter, getting the kids all set, and getting yourself psyched up and ready to go out after a day of working and then coming home to scrape oatmeal off the wall or defuse sibling rivalry or drive around to ballet lessons and hockey practice, I refuse to feel sorry for people with kids complaining that they have to end up spending more money in the end than those who are child free. We all make choices, and choices have consequenses, and children are not inexpensive in Western society.

[pygmalion]

True. I wasn't suggesting that parents deserve sympathy, necessarily, (although I am sympathetic) but saying that this might be why there's an appearance that active dancers tend to be childless. And suggesting that the expense issue might be why so many parent/dancers have the annoying habit of bringing the kids along. And suggesting that perhaps groups like USABDA and others might be able to increase their active membership (and maybe reduce the annoying kids on the loose syndrome) by lightening the burden for parents a bit -- arranging child care could be a minor expense, when shared. But it can be a show-stopper, when not shared.

There are many sides to the issue, and none outweighs the other, in my view.

[Chris Stratton]

Babysitting at socials seems like a good idea, but is having the kids out to nearly midnight wise?

I know it's something my parents never did, but I've started to notice families who do appear to stay on that kind of schedule after gaining children.

I guess leaving early might seem like a more attractive option if there started to be a whole group of dancers with young children who could bias the whole thing forward to say 7-10pm - still late, but not as unreasonable.

(Obvious answer: condo complex built around dance hall and childcare facility. Social every weekend night, kids get a sleepover party, parents get to dance and then go home to an empty house...)

[pygmalion]

This thread has really made me think about how dance organizations can be more ... receptive to people of all backgrounds, both child-oriented and not. Three ideas:

A USABDA chapter could sponsor an occasional "Parent's Night Out." A lot of places do it -- my gym and my TaeKwonDo class, for example, both do it. They sponsor an event every three months or so which focuses on activities for kids, so the parents can get away.

How about a singles night? (Although this one might not look that different from your ordinary social LOL) You could have cocktails, mixer/meet and greet activities designed especially for the unattached to meet new people, and add some dancing. Not bad. (Obviously, this one is aimed at the child free crowd, and will most likely exclude all the irritating little ones. :twisted: :lol: )

Or, dance organizations could arrange regular baby-sitting services. Gyms do it. Churches do it. Why not dances? Either the organization subsidizes it, or requires the parents to pay. Either way, it ends up cheaper than a one-on-one baby-sitter, and gets a lot more people dancing.


Hmm...

[pygmalion]

Another idea. (Thanks, Chris. 8) ) Alternate times for the socials. Instead of making every social a dance that lasts until 11:00 or midnight, have a mid-afternoon social every other month, or every third month.

[Laura]

Sometimes I've seen such socials held on Sunday afternoons and called "tea dances." I think they sound like a fun idea.

[Sagitta]

Ending dances at 9/10/11. Way not cool!! Dances should not end until 3/4/5/6 in the morning. I keep on encouraging people to do this. Then shower, have breakfast and go to work. What could be a simpler life for the childless folk. And for those with kids...you are just in time to make their school lunches, get them ready for school etc etc. :wink: :)

[Pacion]

if my children are wellbehaved, and they will be

The thing is that "well behaved" means one thing to a parent, who has of necessity become inured to their child's behavior, and something entirely different to people without children and people who are going to dances in part to get some time away from their children. It does not mean "quietly fussing", it means "quiet". It does not mean "toddling around amidst the swing dancers", as were the two infants last night, it means "sitting in one place". And neither of those are realistic expectations of even the best-behaved 2 year old, for example, so the bottom line is that kids shouldn't be in the same room with the dancers.

I consider myself to be a considerate person and if they are well behaved and in this instance are "seen but not heard"

They'll be heard plenty, when the inevitable accident occurs and they get drop-kicked across the dance floor after wandering into the way of some of the dancers who aren't on the lookout for two foot high obstacles.

Jon, I hear you. But, just trust me :wink: in what I have said, until proven otherwise. I am from a large family, like I said, with roughly no more than 1.5 years age gap between us. My parents took us practically everywhere with them and no one had complaints. Because WE BEHAVED! Not a question of my parents being "inured to their child's behavior". Think of us like the "Von Trapp family" :wink: (except, we didn't have to form a line to welcome guests to the house or sing Do Re Mi, :roll: unless we wanted to :D )

[DancingMommy]

Babysitting at socials seems like a good idea, but is having the kids out to nearly midnight wise?

I know it's something my parents never did, but I've started to notice families who do appear to stay on that kind of schedule after gaining children.

I guess leaving early might seem like a more attractive option if there started to be a whole group of dancers with young children who could bias the whole thing forward to say 7-10pm - still late, but not as unreasonable.

(Obvious answer: condo complex built around dance hall and childcare facility. Social every weekend night, kids get a sleepover party, parents get to dance and then go home to an empty house...)

If you build and they (we) will come.... 8)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[DancingMommy]

Ending dances at 9/10/11. Way not cool!! Dances should not end until 3/4/5/6 in the morning. I keep on encouraging people to do this. Then shower, have breakfast and go to work. What could be a simpler life for the childless folk. And for those with kids...you are just in time to make their school lunches, get them ready for school etc etc. :wink: :)

And the lovely middle of the night feeding for the baby, lol! ;)

[pygmalion]

Yup, DancingMommy. People with no kid experience have no clue, God bless 'em. :wink: :lol:

Early afternoon dances may be uncool, but maybe they can get more parents out there dancing. Isn't that what we're about, here? Getting more people dancing? 8)

[DancingMommy]

I would LOVE a Sunday afternoon dance... or a Saturday one for that matter. I crash out at 10pm most nights anyways.

And I'm serious about the childcare thing. Perhaps we could work something out....

I've got this crazy idea... What if at our local USABDA, we tried to get teenagers to volunteer (lol) to watch the kids from 2 years on up to about 5? If each parent donated $5/kid, the teens could split the $$$....

Just a thought.... But we'd need a child friendly place... Hmmmm What about the YMCA? Our Seminole Y is undergoing construction, but there are 23 Y's in the greater Orlando area (I think)....

The Methodist church downtown has a nursery I think.... We've had our annual USABDA comps there before.....

What about having a USABDA sponsored kids workshop???? If we did that, then maybe we could spread the addiction... I mean desire 8) for dancing among the younger generation.

Just random thoughts.....

[MacMoto]

We have a monthly Sunday afternoon salsa social in Scotland, from around 4 - 8pm. I LOVE it. It has a really relaxed atmosphere and totally sleaze free. I wish there were more of these afternoon socials.

There are afternoon tea dances up and down the country where older folk enjoy social ballroom dancing, but afternoon dances don't have to be just for pensioners!

[pygmalion]

How about an interest survey, DancingMommy? There might not be a market (although I suspect there is.) The place to start, I think, is to ask. 8)

[DancingMommy]

Hmmmmmmmm I'll think about that. I'll email John Davis about that later on, I think. 8)

[pygmalion]

John stepped down as President, so I'm not sure who the right contact would be. :?

Just having dealt with the powers that be, if you suggest something new, they're going to want proof in triplicate and signed in blood that it's a good idea.

[DancingMommy]

ROFLMAO! He did? When did THAT happen????? Yeesh.... We went to the dance last month (I was in the "Fruity Rhumba" dress) and no announcement was made. I *was* wondering when a new prez would be elected, kwim?

[Warren J. Dew]

I'd note that even among people who know how to dance, a kid can take up so much time that there isn't much left over for dancing any more. I've known a number of people who mostly disappeared from the local dance scene when they had kids.

[edit - oops, didn't see all the pages of responses, where this point has already been made. Oh well, the next point doesn't seem to have been]

A few of them do reappear when the kids are old enough not to require constant attention. At one competitor's practice in the area, there are two or three couples who often show up with one or two kids. These kids are generally very well behaved, don't make noise, and stay off the dance floor, so nobody minds.

[Pacion]

At one competitor's practice in the area, there are two or three couples who often show up with one or two kids. These kids are generally very well behaved, don't make noise, and stay off the dance floor, so nobody minds.

:banana: :lol: I knew such kids existed :lol:

[etchuck]

At one competitor's practice in the area, there are two or three couples who often show up with one or two kids. These kids are generally very well behaved, don't make noise, and stay off the dance floor, so nobody minds.

:banana: :lol: I knew such kids existed :lol:

(If I were a parent, I would respond by saying...)
Strangely enough, they don't seem to be my kids. :)

[etchuck]

I would LOVE a Sunday afternoon dance... or a Saturday one for that matter. I crash out at 10pm most nights anyways.

And I'm serious about the childcare thing. Perhaps we could work something out....

I've got this crazy idea... What if at our local USABDA, we tried to get teenagers to volunteer (lol) to watch the kids from 2 years on up to about 5? If each parent donated $5/kid, the teens could split the $$$....

Just a thought.... But we'd need a child friendly place... Hmmmm What about the YMCA? Our Seminole Y is undergoing construction, but there are 23 Y's in the greater Orlando area (I think)....

The Methodist church downtown has a nursery I think.... We've had our annual USABDA comps there before.....

What about having a USABDA sponsored kids workshop???? If we did that, then maybe we could spread the addiction... I mean desire 8) for dancing among the younger generation.

Just random thoughts.....

Be careful. Sounds like you should be a chapter volunteer. :)

[Genesius Redux]

What a lot of attention this thread has gotten!

If I understand the original intent of the question--it's whether a serious approach to dancing precludes children. I've known many dancers who have kids, who actively compete, who coach, who even run dance studios.

There's no reason that you can't dance competitively if you have kids. You have to make arrangements if you're going to be out of town, but like anything else, you do what you make time for. As far as studios making special arrangements for dancers with children--dancing in the mornings or afternoons or a special set of family dances--I'm sure that, like so much else that any studio does, this is a matter of economics. If there's a good reason (enough clients with kids who will attend), those kinds of options get explored.

I've never run into any problems with children at comps or dances. It's not fair to the kids to bring them to events that they won't have any fun at or that they're not ready for, but most people I've seen who bring their kids to dance venues have their kids directly supervised and very well-behaved. In fact, the deplorable numbers of parents who bring their kids to restaurants they're not ready for could take a lesson from most of the dancing parents with kids out there. I'm sure everyone has had the experience of wanting to have some quiet time in a restaurant and being approached and pestered by bored kids whose parents let them run all over creation, and who seem to think the rest of the world ought to put up with and supervise their kids. The parents with kids at dance events, by contrast, usually watch their kids, and the kids themselves seem much less apt to get bored and more inclined to control themselves.

Ultimately, then, I think that a child's behavior reflects on the sort of parenting and guidance the child has been getting. In my experience, most people who have been dancing understand what discipline and work is all about, so they make pretty good parents and have pretty good children.

BTW, when I say "discipline" and "well-behaved" I'm not talking about Stepford children or some sort of military code of conduct--I'm talking just about normal, happy, well-adjusted kids--"discipline" in the classic sense of "having been taught something."

Cheers,

Genesius

[cocodrilo]

Although my sweetie & I don't have kids, I LOVE them and spend many hours a week tutoring them! I just haven't thought that the lifestyle of a businessowner(not dancer) would be conducive to raising kids. Also, I have never had the urge to have kids. I love picnics when kids come, but to dance events, as Laura previously mentioned, the sound level is WAY TOO HIGH and could possibly damage ears of youngsters(especially at the parties I produce- Latin = LOUD!).

In Japan, the notion of having a babysitter is completely unimagineable, and if anyone were to look after the kids, it would be the mother-in-law(of the wife who wants to go out dancing). Would she be willing to babysit while darling son stays at home with a cup of instant ramen and wife is out kicking up her heels? Not for a minute. The majority of salsa folks are single or have very accommodating in-laws. For ballroom, most folks are seniors, so the kids are grown up.

[pygmalion]

Yes. I've noticed that many of my Asian friends (not just Japanese, but Chinese, Indonesian, Cambodian, etc.) never, ever use a babysitter... unless you count Mom-in-law, who comes to stay for months or years at a time. :shock: The American individualist in me shudders! :oops: :lol: I can't imagine living with Mom-in-law for years at a time ... voluntarily. :lol: But many, many people see that as the natural order of things. To each culture its own, I guess.

I wonder if Asian Moms-in-law would find it any more acceptible if son AND daughter-in-law were out dancing together. Hmm. :?

[etchuck]

I wonder if Asian Moms-in-law would find it any more acceptible if son AND daughter-in-law were out dancing together. Hmm. :?

I would think so. It would be perceived as the son taking care of his wife, and that would make the son's mum really happy. (I remember what your father did to keep our relationship romantic...)

[pygmalion]

LOL. Good point. My parents would go to great lengths to get/keep me happily settled. :lol:

[cocodrilo]

I wonder if Asian Moms-in-law would find it any more acceptible if son AND daughter-in-law were out dancing together. Hmm. :?
You may find this surprising, but romance is not a priority in the Japanese lifestyle, after marriage. It is also surprising tonote that not many Japanese couples spend their free time together. I teach a class at a community center and one woman in her 60's said that, before her husband passes away, they did EVERYTHING together. All of the other ladies in the class were shocked! (This is partly because, in that generation, "nice" ladies didn't drive, so now they need their husbands for wheels!)Women like to go out for lunch, stroll in a garden, do tea ceremony & shop. Men prefer golf, fishing, Japanese board games and drinking. I also have noticed that very few of the Japanese people I know ever travel abroad with their spouses. They go all over the world, but with their friends, siblings or relatives.(Same here. I haven't traveled with my husband since 1988! But we DO do things together- I will be practicing with his Bosa Nova/jazz band tonight!)

[pygmalion]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The idea of a life-long romance is a relatively recent uh... development, and only in some cultures. Most places, marriage still is a social, legal or politic contract. No love or romance required. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Being pragmatic about the approach to marriage might lead to fewer divorces, if you think about it. Different expectations, so you don't get disappointed if your mate isn't your lifelong companion, friend, confidant, soul mate, lover, sharer of household chores, co-parent, financial partner ... and so on. :shock: When you look at it that way, it's amazing ANY Americans stay married. The stakes are way too high! :lol:

[cocodrilo]

Divorce rate's pretty high here these days, too. The Jpaanese have traditionally married for security and to start a family (and was socially taboo, especially for a woman, to remain single!) and in the future when they disagreed with their spouses, "endured". Nowadays, people aren't "enduring" anymore. I think it helps to get to know the person well enough before you marry them, i.e. by living together beforehand, but this is just not accepted here and rarely done(the young couple wants to, parents say "NO!").
For me love & romance are high on MY priority list, but I am also the type of person who loves to be alone, and I need my own space, so my sweetie doesn't mind when I take off for my travels.

[pygmalion]

Yes. I remember reading that the Japanese divorce rate is currently at an all-time high -- lower than in the US, but still higher than ever. :?

[DancePoet]

I know of a couple with two kids that are dance instructors and competitors, too. They seem to take turns watching the kids, bring the kids to events, and dance with them. The 3 year old son just loves it when dad carries him through a waltz! Waltz is the childs favorite.

[cocodrilo]

I know of a couple with two kids that are dance instructors and competitors, too. They seem to take turns watching the kids, bring the kids to events, and dance with them. The 3 year old son just loves it when dad carries him through a waltz! Waltz is the childs favorite.I think that's great! Kids are so impressionable and influenced by the things their parents expose them to. Those kids will most likely grow up to be champion dancers!

[mhgroove]

Divorce rate's pretty high here these days, too. The Jpaanese have traditionally married for security and to start a family (and was socially taboo, especially for a woman, to remain single!) and in the future when they disagreed with their spouses, "endured". Nowadays, people aren't "enduring" anymore. I think it helps to get to know the person well enough before you marry them, i.e. by living together beforehand, but this is just not accepted here and rarely done(the young couple wants to, parents say "NO!").
For me love & romance are high on MY priority list, but I am also the type of person who loves to be alone, and I need my own space, so my sweetie doesn't mind when I take off for my travels.

Cocodrilo,

I didn't know the Divorce Rate in Japan was almost as high as it is here in America. Wow... I must admit I agree with most of your post expect living together. Living together doesn't set up or give you idea how your partner is going be before you get married. For most men, living together means we get everything we want without actually getting married. Lots of guys will keep that arrangement for a long time......

I will admit I'm a Christian and my viewpoint on living together come from that perspective.

[pygmalion]

Yes. The divorce rate in Japan is about one third of all marriages. In the US, it's about half, with the divorce rate of couples that have twenty-five to thirty years of marriage rising faster than any other demographic in both countries.


I don't know that living together helps, either, mhgroove. From all I've read, US couples who live together before marriage tend to get divorced at a higher rate than couples who don't. Not sure why.

[cocodrilo]

For me, spending 24 hours with a person, noticing their habits and them noticing mine is a very important way to try to understand the person who I love enough to want to attempt spending the rest of my life with. I lived with one guy when I was 19(I had my own place then) and we moved into
a condo together. We were VERY serious and I was more or less thinking "this is the GUY!", yet as our relationship progressed, there were things we learned about each other, which we discovered by living together, that were mutually incompatible. We eventually broke up and that was for the best. My husband & I lived together for over a year before we got married. We both have had things about us that irk each other, but have come to accept those things &/or have tried to make changes where we thought it necessary for the relationship. A lot of give and take.

[Anonymous]

For the record, I rarely dance, but like dancing. I ride horses regularly instead.

I hate kids. I don't want kids or a husband, and to anyone who does that typical simpering polite "aww, HUH, you'll change yer mahnd" stuff,

POW! Right acrost yer mouth.

I know that sounds mean, but how many people don't like or want kids, and are always told that because they have a uterus, it must be put to work, eh?

Grrh. It's 2004.

[pygmalion]

Exactly. There's a whole "child free" movement of people out there, men and women, who have decided that the child free lifestyle is what they want.

Not everybody was cut out for parenthood. So why does society feel the need to pressure child free people into having children they may or may not want? Grrrrr.

[cocodrilo]

For the record, I rarely dance, but like dancing. I ride horses regularly instead.

I hate kids. I don't want kids or a husband, and to anyone who does that typical simpering polite "aww, HUH, you'll change yer mahnd" stuff,

POW! Right acrost yer mouth.

I know that sounds mean, but how many people don't like or want kids, and are always told that because they have a uterus, it must be put to work, eh?

Grrh. It's 2004.
You're hilarious! :lol: I have had similar conversations regarding the uterus issue with Japanese men on many an occasion. A lot of them still feel that a woman's place is in the home!!!(To that I reply "YOUR place is in the home! Get a LIFE!")
Even the European catholic priest who married us(we preferred a simple wedding, not wanting to blow $30,000 on a typical Japanese-style gig), when asking how many children we hoped for and me replying that we weren't planning on having children quipped "Isn't that being a bit selfish?". I couldn't believe it! A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body and how she wants to spend her life! This is NOT the EDO ERA!!!! :evil:

[jon]

So why does society feel the need to pressure child free people into having children they may or may not want?

Lots of reasons. People who stand out as different from the crowd often come in for criticism. Many people believe in a "responsibility" to have kids, often religiously based (whether their religious tradition actually says that, in contrast to whether their culture inculcates it, is a different issue). Sometimes because it validates parents who are unhappy and/or stressed about their kids and think others deserve to suffer as they are. And other reasons.

[jon]

Even the European catholic priest who married us(we preferred a simple wedding, not wanting to blow $30,000 on a typical Japanese-style gig), when asking how many children we hoped for and me replying that we weren't planning on having children quipped "Isn't that being a bit selfish?".

Talk about hypocritical - a (supposedly) celibate priest telling someone they're selfish because they don't plan to have kids?!

[DancePoet]

DancePoet wrote "I know of a couple with two kids that are dance instructors and competitors, too. They seem to take turns watching the kids, bring the kids to events, and dance with them. The 3 year old son just loves it when dad carries him through a waltz! Waltz is the childs favorite."

Cocodrilo wrote: "I think that's great! Kids are so impressionable and influenced by the things their parents expose them to. Those kids will most likely grow up to be champion dancers!"

Perhaps championship dancers is possible, but as long as they grow up enjoying dance as part of their lives that's what's most important. In the meantime this couple seems to have a good way of incorporating their children into their dancing style.

[DancePoet]

And whether folks choose to have kids or not isn't as important as two people coming together and co-creatively putting together a life they can enjoy where they are able to maintain their own individuality and yet have a closely co-commited relationship, too.

[ruanishtar]

Having no children is not selfish. How could it be?

[pygmalion]

Even the European catholic priest who married us(we preferred a simple wedding, not wanting to blow $30,000 on a typical Japanese-style gig), when asking how many children we hoped for and me replying that we weren't planning on having children quipped "Isn't that being a bit selfish?".

Talk about hypocritical - a (supposedly) celibate priest telling someone they're selfish because they don't plan to have kids?!

I make no comment about priests. No comment.


I will, however, say that my Mom, who had seven kids herself, thinks to this day that it's selfish not to have children -- multiple children. People with one child are just as selfish as people with no children, in her book. Having no children or an only child just doesn't fit her world view of moral living. *shrug* To each his/her own, I guess. (I've come to that inner peace after a mere few years of therapy! :wink: :lol: )