Great post Amy, loved it. I'm 35 and my mother and sister keep harping on me to just marry someone and have kids or just have kids. I don't want to just marry someone, because I'd be miserable. I would like to get married and have kids, but my biological clock isn't going to make me do it. I'm happy with where I am in life. I have my own house, a good job, pets that I love and wonderful friends and family and it's a great life. I'm not sad and lonely, I don't have the time to be lonely. I don't want to be with someone just to be with them, if I ever do marry it will be because I love them. I also don't want to bring kids into the world with no father, even though I make enough money to afford to do so, I feel it isn't fair. I love my dad, he's one of my closest friends and a wonderful father. I would want the same for any child that I brought into this world. I find that a lot of women cannot understand that not having children, not being married isn't the end of the world. I have 2 nephews and a niece that I love and spoil. Even though my sister tells me it isn't the same as having my own, to me it's close enough and her kids have a dad in the home. Enough ranting, I just get tired of hearing what I need to do with my life in order to be happy, i.e. husband and kids, when I'm already happy with my furry kids, who I am legally allowed to put in a crate.

Why does every article like this begin with something like "while wedded bliss is great for some women" before heading into a litany of complaints about "drudgery," "compromises," and "considering [others] needs?" Can't one be happy with one's own choices without denigrating others? I worry not so much for the happy spinsters, or the blissfully wedded folk, but for those on the fence who might read this as confirming their suspicions that marriage and parenthood are sucking them dry.

This reminds me of something Kate Hepburn once said. She was asked what was the perfect romantice arrangement. Her response?

"Live close by, and visit often!"

Amy:

No, commitment isn't for everyone, and what's wrong with that?

Plummeting birth rates.

Enough men and women care more about their own desires than about their society, then their society will die.

Which you should keep in mind when you next post about Eurabia.

The downside, from a genetic point of view, is that the people we most want reproducing (because their traits are more beneficial to a post-agrarian society) are the least likely to actually do so.

So now we have a world run by the stupids.

What, you've got a better explanation for all the lifers in the Senate keeping their jobs?

Of course, part of the reason this attitude is so prevalent is alluded to in her own article.

The declining quality of people in general. If she'd found an acceptable mate, she probably would have accepted the proposal rather than turning it away. But in her mind, any man she marries is going to turn into a piece of shit inside of two years.

Whether that's based upon observation or is merely her rationalization for avoiding permanence is up for grabs. But I know men who won't marry an American woman because of the belief that they become leeches who will bleed you to death.

Somewhere along the way, we started making people who were entirely unacceptable for long-term commitment.

Gee, if having kids is the solution, why all the fuss about having 14 of them?

Oh, right, the married part will make it all right.

Just like the problems these kids have will magically disappear when they say "I do".

Just like Tarika Wilson would be better off marrying a succession of drug dealers.

Where are these people when prominent Americans are paraded with kids born out of wedlock? I see no ruckus at all when some football or movie star says she's having twins with her boyfriend.

The whole phenomenon is just the urge to get you to conform, so that some people don't have to think about differences. That's all.

Re: Rad's link.

>>Only a DNA test is going to sort this out properly. If I am the father, I have the right to know."

That's from a 12 year old boy. It's astounding, but then again when I hit 7th grade a girl named Kelly jumped my bones before I knew what was happening.

I was going to post that comment that Kate Hepburn made, but Lynne beat me to it! o.O

That said, I think a lot people go into marriage/parenthood with unrealistic expectations, and when things don't pan out the way they think they should, they throw in the towel (guilty as charged, btw).
BUT, finding someone you know is the one, is awesome. BF and I don't have children together, but we have children from previous spouses, and we're making things work between us, because we want to. There is a lot of give and take in a relationship, read: WORK, and a lot of people don't want to be bothered with the work it takes to keep things together. And too, I think because our parents' generation provided us with more than they had, because of what they didn't have, a lot of this generation think it's their right to do what they want, when they want, with whomever they want. Hence the over-inflated senses of entitlement that are so prevalent. The amount of people that are Borderline Personality types that refuse to accept and even believe that they have ANY responsibility for themeselves and their situtations just exacerbates the whole "spolied child" syndrome. Men get some flak about not being married and having kids, but not near as much as women. Why is this okay? And, too, you don't see men wringing their hands and agonizing over why they can't have marriage and a career. The onus is on the women, because we're the ones who bear the offspring. And now that some of us don't want that burden, we're taken to task for it. It's not fair, but what's the solution?

"So now we have a world run by the stupids."

But that has ALREADY happened. Assuming I popped out a kid I don't want, and that my kid wasn't one of the stupids himself (because it's always OTHER people's kids who are stupid), my non-stupid kid would still be doomed to live a life hopelessly outnumbered by the idiots surrounding him.

Check out the next blog item down - here in the USA the government has just taken a giant step to further enslave the productive to the needs and desire of the stupids and the crooks. I'm just hoping I don't experience breadlines in my own lifetime - I'd never doom a kid to what's coming down the road. If there was a Galt's Gulch somewhere to escape to, it might be different. (If I even wanted kids, which I still don't.)

I crave kids. I miss having someone call me "mom" and Mother's Day. I miss the birthdays, taking the child to see Santa. I want to hold my own baby in my arms. I want to see my child walking up the aisle and graduating from school.

I can't imagine denying oneself that experience because of some negatives. The emotions have come to haunt me and I would not want anyone to watch tv and see kids and realize that their negativity prevented them from having the same experiences most other women have had.

Now, I don't want to go to the supermarket and see women with their kids, go to the library and see women with their kids, go to the mall and see women with their kids. Talk to women who have kids about their children.

I'm sure some women regret having their kids. My guess is some of those were not ready or educated well enough to raise loving children.

Too many women are disregarding the advice of experts who claim that your reproductive system produces poorer quality eggs in your 30's and 40's. It's not just a biological clock. It is science.

As someone married for forty years who still finds the arrangement satisfactory, let me assure you all that I would never try to push my choice off on someone else. Just not qualified to give advice on this subject.

However, here is a piece of advice I am sure about: if you do decide to marry, breed, and sign your offspring up for music lessons, do not--repeat DO NOT--let them pick an instrument that is larger than a viola and smaller than a piano. Cumbersome delicate instruments present massive problems in transportation, either public or private.

This advice is not at the core of the decision whether to marry or not, but it should not be ignored.

Do people really go around pushing their 40ish friends into marriage? I can't think of a single conversation I've ever had with any unmarried friend about this. I think these columnists must either seek out pushy people or make this stuff up. Most likely the latter.

I like being married, I like being a mother, but I'd probably be just as happy if neither thing had happened. I wouldn't have had kids by myself, though.

Not to pick on Lynne--but read William Mann's biography--he shatters the myth of that great romance.

"It's not just a biological clock. It is science."

Time and biology aren't science?

Radwaste, just because one would like the birthrate to be at or above 2 for one's given ethnic group, doesn't mean one advocates having 14 unhealthy children without the means to take care of that.

No, it is not just the unmarried part. There are lots of reasons why even those who support population maintenance are against 14 kids:

1) The unmarried part, which you mentioned
2) The fatherless part (not only is she not married, the father isn't even around as a boyfriend or a weekend visitor)
3) The not having enough money, therefore mooching of the state part.
4) The having a litter of 8, creating 8 unhealthy children, especially in light of #3
5) The sum total of 14, which will result in a lack of proper attention for each child, especially since they are not staggared the way they are in most large familes.

I'm torn. I fully respect the right of individuals to not marry and have kids, while at the same time I do worry about what it means with changing demographics.

I also know women who undermine themselves, who say, resigned, when they haven't found a partner, "I guess I don't really want marriage", or say to the guy they slept with, "What? No! I don't want a relationship, -ha ha ha-, you thought I wanted a relationship? No, no..." because they think that's what he wants to hear, and it is. And I worry about them, who are in a different boat than the women who really don't want a traditional family.

I can't imagine denying oneself that experience because of some negatives.

And there we have it in a nutshell

'Why should I deny myself what I want simply because it harms someone?'

Enough men and women care more about their own desires than about their society, then their society will die.

So people who don't want a spouse and kids should get married and have them anyway, for what, exactly? To generate a new generation of people who are going to be forced into lives they don't want? That particular society deserves to die.

Katherine Hepburn-my idea of sexy!

Oh, and Emma Thompson, too. And Tracy Ullman. Tina Fey! Shoot, I almost forget her. Anne Nicole Smith (not really), really (not really).

Axman, does your kid play the cello or something? My parents and I always cherished the portability of my violin.

Whenever I read something like this, I'm reminded of my cousin. His mom didn't want kids. But her husband, her mother, and everyone else in her life convinced her there was no alternative. So they had a son. When he was 10, she couldn't take it anymore, left her family and moved cross country. So if an article like Mulvey's convinces those "on the fence" to just stay there, I think that's a good thing.

> Enough men and women care more
> about their own desires than
> about their society, then their
> society will die.

Skippy, you're a difficult man to admire.

> the people we most want
> reproducing (because their
> traits are more beneficial
> to a post-agrarian society)
> are the least likely to
> actually do so.

Aside from the transparently bogus science, your comment is crippled by religious themes of redemption from original sin and fascist enthusiasms for control. (And who do you mean "we", paleface?)

> The declining quality
> of people in general.

For some reason it never seems so "general" to me. There are always specific people who come to mind.

> It is science.

When you start a comment with "I crave kids", it's kinda weird to end it with an appeal to rationalism.

> I think these columnists must
> either seek out pushy people or
> make this stuff up.

Word.

> This advice is not at the
> core of the decision whether
> to marry or not, but it
> should not be ignored.

Is somebody keeping track? Axman may have written the comment of the year.

> I do worry about what it
> means with changing
> demographics.

Holy cow! There's a bold new personal responsibility at work in the lives of our young citizens! It's no longer just about integrity, fortitude, courage, accountability and stoicism. Nowadays, to be a good person, you have to look to the sciences of marketing! When you're deciding whether or not to chase tail for the weekend, you gotta think about the demographics!

If only they'd understood this during the Middle Ages, things woulda been different.

(I shouldn't mock too harshly: Nicolek is right to be "torn" between personal and social interests.)

> That particular society deserves
> to die.

Word.

"he people we most want
> reproducing (because their
> traits are more beneficial
> to a post-agrarian society)
> are the least likely to
> actually do so."

Can't fight history, the barbarian hordes always win out over the intellectual elite. It's breeding habits, baby.

Great timing with this post, Amy! Just this afternoon I went out for a walk with an absolutely beautiful 40 year old female friend of mine. She's single and perfectly content.

She has a good job, travels around the world [when she wants to], has a large group of friends, and has absolutely no problem getting dates. But she's quite content where her life is now and not caving into societal pressures to alter it for just anybody.

P.S. I'm going to send her a link to your posting!

Can't fight history, the barbarian hordes always win out over the intellectual elite. It's breeding habits, baby.

Which confirms my belief that it is an act of futility to bring a child into this world, only to be overwhelmed by the barbarians.

>> that it is an act of futility to bring a child into this world, only to be overwhelmed by the barbarians.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Give me a year when life was better, or more secure. (OK- excluding 1945-1960). We are not all fucked.

PS- Miracle @ St Anna- George W Bush worst fucking movie I've seen in years. (Spike- really. This was really sophmore.)

OK- I'm a little drunk. Disreagrd the GWB analogy. But the movie, which I really looked forward to, sucked. Bad.

Nina, when you get tired of taking care of these hypothetical kids, will your mother and your sister take them off your hands for a bit so that you can get some sleep, take a shower, check e-mail...? Will they also help put together college funds for your kids? Ye gods.

How about this: Tell your family that if they're that focused on you having biological children (because it does seem to be about that), they can band together and write you a $10,000 so that you can freeze some eggs (or some ovarian tissue). Then you can have bio-kids into your 50s, just like guys! Wouldn't that be great?

(Seriously, sorry you're having to deal with this type of pressure. Our life situations aren't that different, although my parents would have a...different reaction were I to announce plans to get knocked up without being married. Good for you for knowing your own mind.)

Just looked it up on Ebert, he was enthusiastic in an Ebert kind of way.

About halfway through the Band of Brothers episodes... And am easily reminded that 1959 was an absolutely wonderful year to be born. Never even had to register for the draft!

Getting old has made this even creepier. It's so obvious now that tragic young men absolutely had to go in their and clean that shit up. And I'm wicked glad to glad to have missed the assignment.

Sofar, *both* kids played cello. I felt sorry for my wife, who did almost all the transporting. But I felt even sorrier for the parents of the kids in the orchestra who played harps, xylophones, and string basses.

Crid, I appreciate your thought that mine may be the comment of the year, but remember: the year is young yet. Many clever people post on this blog. We've got a lot to look forward to in the next 10 1/2 months.

(Previous cmt for Eric, not responding to Marion)

Axy - Remember, Best of the Month is good for a T-shirt

I just hope these gals are paying into health insurance - after living lives of selfish taking, I hope they don't expect "breeders" and their "spawn" to pay for their medical care when they can no longer work or travel.

So long as you don't have kids, people feel justified in asking why not. For some reason, when you do have kids, these same people don't feel justified in asking why you have them, or when you are going to put them up for adoption.

It's so true, Norman! It always used to be the case (maybe still is, in some areas, for all I know) that a woman with no children who wanted to get her tubes tied had to go through a psychiatric evaluation. Which is just funny, in itself, because if she IS crazy, you don't want her having kids, right? But the people going to doctors for fertility treatments never have to get their heads examined.

And Ben-David, I pay property taxes that help educate other people's kids, while not producing children of my own who will take up seats in those classrooms. And no, I do not ever expect breeders or their spawn to pay for my medical care. You can call my life selfish - I could easily say the same for people who have kids - but I don't see where you get "taking" out of it. Most people on welfare have kids - in fact it's usually the reason they are on welfare in the first place.

Gawd, that is so true, Norman!!! The rudest question I ever got was when we had been married for one year and my husband was best man at a wedding-- groom's mother asked me if we had any kids, and I said no-- her immediate response was, "Why not?" in a tone of voice which DRIPPED with demanding entitlement to an answer to this none-of-her-fucking-business question.

I can't remember what I said, but now I sincerely wish I had replied, "Because the last one wasn't very tasty."

MonicaP:

So people who don't want a spouse and kids should get married and have them anyway, for what, exactly? To generate a new generation of people who are going to be forced into lives they don't want? That particular society deserves to die.

You don't want to be alive?

Well, just so long as you recognize that demography isn't just a good idea, it is the law.

My more immediate point, though, is Amy's disconnect.

On the one hand, she frequently posts about Islam's threat to the West in general, and Europe in particular.

Then, in practically the next breath, she extols the childlessness that is causing the West to die.

And Ben-David, I pay property taxes that help educate other people's kids, while not producing children of my own who will take up seats in those classrooms. And no, I do not ever expect breeders or their spawn to pay for my medical care. You can call my life selfish ...

It is selfish. You expect other people to pay the entire cost of education, from which you will benefit. You do not expect breeders or their spawn to pay for your medical care, but you do expect to have breeders and their spawn around to make your medical care possible.

I think you can add thoughtless to selfish.

Hey Skipper, I'm making a sharp distinction between the death of individuals and the death of societies. Humans have existed in more or less their current form for 200,000 years, and societies have evolved and died countless times. I like the one I live in, but any society that forced me into being a baby machine with someone I didn't want to be with wouldn't be worth much to me.

Our society is already dead. It's just too stupid to realize it.

Who came up with the idea that everyone has to have a college education to be useful? I'll tell you who, colleges did. Why do you think college tuition is spiraling upward?

That's the next bubble - the education bubble. The vast majority of graduates have degrees that are utterly useless when it comes to increasing lifetime earning power.

The demographic problems from decreasing birthrate become less severe when we cut social welfare programs. In time it would be self-correcting: people would go back to having kids in order to have someone to support them in their old age. That's after the revolution that comes after all those old folks voting us into bankruptcy. Disliking revolution myself, I'm for replacing low birthrates with immigrants (preferably the best and brightest, or at least hardest working, of other countries) until we get our social welfare house in order.

People urging others to have kids is just another example of trying to feel good about one's choices by attempting to convince others to make those same choices.

"You do not expect breeders or their spawn to pay for your medical care, but you do expect to have breeders and their spawn around to make your medical care possible."

It actually doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other. When my health runs out I'm going to croak. This is true whether there are people around to take care of me or not.

Pseudonym -

That's the beauty of the new health-care regime being imposed by the so-called "Stimulus" bill.

The government's simply gonna make it illegal to keep the old farts alive.

We'll solve our health-care crisis through attrition.

Is it just me, or does that smack of eugenics?

Brian, haven't you heard? Eugenics is good!

Not if you're one of those that has been flagged for removal?

Oh, but that will never happen to those proposing it. They of course will always be the blessed elite! They have no flaws!

Brian... you know all those ads that say college goers earn X amount more over their lifetime? I always figured it is because they were upper middle class to begin with.

Nicole -

That's a possibility. But my plumber charges almost the same amount as I do per hour. I'm a programmer/network engineer with a degree. He went to plumbing school.

Oh, and he's more than a decade younger than me.

Somewhere along the way, I made some decisions that didn't work out so well, I think.

"Brian... you know all those ads that say college goers earn X amount more over their lifetime? I always figured it is because they were upper middle class to begin with."

WORD!!! I would love to see the trend in job qualifications steer away from all these useless-yet-expensive 4-year degrees and move toward technical certifications. I despise the whole bureaucratic/credentialing thing. It is so often just a way for H.R. to make sure you come from a nice middle-class background. To me, it only says that either 1) You qualified for financial aid and don't mind being deep in debt, or 2) Your parents had the money to send you to what often amounts to four years of drinking camp. (Yes, I know there are people who work their way through college. They're still there, doing it, hi guys, let me know when you finally get that degree that some pointy-haired jerk in H.R. says you need to be qualified for a crappy job in their cube farm.)

Most people going to 4-year universities want vocational training, or they just want to have fun. It's ridiculous to spend that kind of money on either one, unless you are so loaded to begin with that it doesn't matter.

The answer, in a free market, is for people and employers to start seeking alternatives to this outdated model. But (like home ownership) the federal government is going to start viewing a college education as something everyone is entitled to, and the taxpayers will end up footing the bill. This will provide no incentive whatsoever for colleges and universities to increase the quality of the education they provide (right now most of them just trade grades and degrees for cash) and the current model will only become more entrenched and useless.

He went to plumbing school.

Here in NJ becoming a plumber requires, after school, a few years as an apprentice, which means hard work, long hours and very low pay. Only after that are you a master plumber. It a huge investment of time. I have a friend who tried it, but couldn't make ends meet (he has a family). He ended up opening a plumbing-supply store instead.

"Holy cow! There's a bold new personal responsibility at work in the lives of our young citizens! It's no longer just about integrity, fortitude, courage, accountability and stoicism. Nowadays, to be a good person, you have to look to the sciences of marketing! When you're deciding whether or not to chase tail for the weekend, you gotta think about the demographics!"

I just found that comment hilarious, crid. You are such a good writer.

Why can't we all just be comfortable with diversity and respect each other's choices? Not everyone wants to have kids, or is cut out for it emotionally, and I certainly don't believe it's wise to criticize or pressure those who don't into having them - any more than I would suggest someone who fears water become a diver or someone who can't carry a tune try to become an opera singer. If it's not your passion, then that's perfectly fine.

However, I do agree with the earlier poster that those who don't want children need not go into such detail about what a living hell or existence of drudgery they suspect it is. That does come across as kind of demeaning to those of us who enjoy being parents.

Maybe that's just defensive, since you're always being pressured by well-meaning but tactless people?

I read recently that some researcher took scans of moms brains looking at their smiling kids, and the same areas lit up that light up when one smokes crack. Kids are addictive, apparently, and really hit our pleasure centers. Pretty smart of mother nature.

Cracks' not for everyone, though, and neither are kids.

I"m with lovely though, on being real tired of the condescension moms get from nonmoms who are just pretty certain their lives are more glamorous, interesting, exciting, and better than ours. If you loved your life that much, you wouldn't be worried about making sure people knew how great it was, really.

brain scan site:

http://www.popsci.com/science-confirms-obvious/article/2008-07/mom-lights-when-her-baby-smiles

Maybe before long an MRI can tell us who will not be good moms, before they breed! How useful would that be.

Re brains lighting up, see "Men really do see half naked women as 'objects', scientists claim," at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4636689/Men-really-do-see-half-naked-women-as-objects-scientists-claim.html

The article has a photo of Kelly Brook that would make a statue drool, and surprises like "studies had shown that men interviewing sexually attractive women behaved very differently towards them than other women and men."

But the kicker for me is "the constant bombardment of society with sexualised images of young women could be to blame." Why is it necessary to blame something? Men have looked lustfully at women for all of recorded history, and probably before that too. It may need to be controlled in polite society, but it may also be an essential part of being male. Assigning blame implies something is wrong with it; what studies support that unstated hypothesis? And don't tell me that Kelly Brook dressed and posed as she did just to please her mother, or that the western patriarchal military-industrial complex made her do it. Assigning blame for being male is another step along the road of emasculating men. I don't think we should be going down this road.

Shorter response to study: "Duh!"

It's already known that attractive women are more effective in sales than unattractive women.

EVERYONE likes looking at beautiful women.

This is, of course, unfair to uglo-Americans.

Tough shit.

Yes, and taller men do better in the corporate world, and so do men with more testosterone (supposedly measured by the length of your ring finger being longer than your index finger...just to be safe, I won't date men like that either. lol)

I think, however, that you men don't appreciate how unequal the temptations are in marketing. As a wife of an obviously cheating-prone husband, I was acutely aware of every come-hither type of sexualized ad..and there are a LOT of them!

I'm not sure you would like it so much in reverse. Of course, there's not an easy way to market high testosterone and successful males to women. But, if there were - if your wife was constantly being come on to by that equivalent - I suspect you'd see it as another way society was attempting to ruin families.

I kind of see the marketing of female skin that way. Not that I'm for suppressing free speech, but it's not HELPFUL to most familes, let's put it that way, and if we're supposed to be for supporting stronger marriages, I really don't see why you guys would applaud it. Seems in conflict with those views.

Amy:

I've thought about that, Skipper, thanks to your remarks, but my having a bunch of babies I'm not cut out for when Muslims in thrall to Allah and the people who play on their illiteracy and primitivity -- and who take advantage of Western nations' welfare systems -- is not going to cut it.

Ask yourself why the Muslim immigrants are in Europe in the first place.

It is because there aren't enough Europeans to do the things Europeans want done.

I do not mean any personal criticism here (same goes for MonicaP); rather, when your personal decisions become sufficiently common, then your society dies.

IIRC, the US total lifetime fertility for 2nd or greater generation women is 1.85.

Hey Skipper, there have always been women, like Amy, in every generation who didn't choose to have children. The real problem we have is that most intelligent women who WANT children can't afford to have more than 1 or 2.

So, if you want to fix the problem, you should lobby for these immigration changes and anything else that would lower the tax burden on families.

In the 50s, the average middle-class family paid 10% of their income for all taxes - state, local and federal COMBINED. That allowed women to stay home and raise big families. Now, it's closer to 40% (I believe), partly because we are carrying the financial load for everybody else. This necessitates most mothers having to work outside the home.

So, it's not that many educated women don't WANT to reproduce to further our kind...it's just that we're too smart to throw ourselves into poverty to do so.

I mean, I agree with you that it's foolish for our culture to render itself extinct - you've made some very interesting points. But don't blame Amy for not having children she has no desire to raise. It would be much better to advocate ways of encouraging women who love children - and are great parents - to have more of them.

lovelysoul:

I am not blaming Amy for anything; she is a proxy for a very serious phenomena. Plus, she poses an interesting dilemma.

She has the wherewhithal to have children; I am certain she (and millions of others similar to her) could be perfectly good mothers, but choose not to.

As a firm believer in individual freedom, I cannot attack that decision. However, making Amy's Decision (it shall now have an official name) raises the problematic issue of how much She owes to the society that made her life possible.

Anything? Nothing?

What if we know in advance, like the Europeans do, that all their money will become worthless unless they have someone to spend it on, and that someone must belong to a group that desires the destruction of European society?

(FWIW, I put the birth dearth largely at the feet of men. My guess is that plenty of women want to have enough children, but way too few men are willing to step up to the plate. However, total lifetime fertility by its very nature belongs to women.)

Skipper - you can but that blame at the feet of men all you want, but you're mistaken.

I've met very few women that are worth starting a family with. Needless to say, they were already taken.

Most of the women I know I wouldn't give a nickel for. Sure, they might want a baby, but they're so immature and irresponsible that we'll just end up with more Caylee Anthony's.

Men just don't feel like being responsible for holding some broad's head together, and then getting all the blame when she finally goes around the bend.

sad times :( my favorite neighbor moved back to LA to film for band of brothers. *sighhh* he'll be back soon enough though!

Hola, he estado mirando por el blog y no encuentro una forma de ponerme en contacto contigo. Me podrías decir una forma, por favor? Muchas gracias.