Lotsa variables here, Amy. Does she still love him? Does he still love her? Is he getting his rocks off elsewhere? Has she? What the hell do her friends have to do with it? She's the one who has to live with him and bring up their son. Her friends can go shovel doodoo against the tide. She's the one who has to figure this out. First, they (both of them) need to decide whether or not they still love each other enough to make it work. And then go from there, possibly with professional help for a little while.

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders ...
90% of all homeless and runaway children ...
71% of all high school dropouts ...
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers ...
63% of youth suicides ...
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger ...
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions ...
85% of all youths sitting in prisons ...

...come from fatherless homes.
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/econ/nodad.htm

>"you're in for 21 years of providing an intact and loving family environment for the kid, even if you aren't getting any hot loving from the one you made him with."

Agreed. That's what vibrators are for.

For that matter, did either one of them ever love the other one to begin with?

Lady, don't break up your son's relationship with his dad, or your just going to create worse problems than you have now. It's true, kids are resilient, but they do develop the cutest little dents and warps along the way, don't they?

Maybe they need one of those old-style movie marriages wherein Mummy and Daddy have an "arrangement". Then sonny will have a few more years before he figures it out.

I'm afraid this boy is just one more casualty of adult selfishness, but with any luck he'll be okay.

My take is for what ever reason the father does not want to have a relationship with the mother any longer. He knows that withholding sex is a relationship killer. If he cared, and there was a physical issue, then he would talk to her about the problem and be picking up bottles of viagra or what ever treatment. He wants his wife to make the decision to end the marriage.

If I was her, and wanted to continue the marriage, which she appears to - not having had sex for 2 years with him - I would work to make myself more attractive, not only physically but also emotionally.

It is very much thinking outside of the box, but have seen that you are friends with the Eades. If she ate the diet that the Eades advocate along with the supplements recommended she would not only be thin and beautiful but also more pleasant to be around. I've seen it to many times in my family and group of friends - a low carb/paleo diet improves attitudes and appearance.

Anyway, hope she succeeds. I hate to hear about marriages that end with young kids involved.

We don't know what the man wants in this situation or how he feels. I would not be surprised to hear that he hates his wife for entrapment.

Seen this situation before in a man I dated who'd been married for 15 years, now divorced, 3 kids, originally married her out of entrapment. IN that case she didn't hold up her end of the bargain and gained 50 lbs (the bargain being to endeavor to please one's spouse instead of lying around like a slug).

Absolutely, Amy. No divorce, unless the child is hurt worse by the parents staying together.

It's nice that the genders are reversed here, because it allows for a moral case-study that isn't tied up in the "men are pigs" paradigm. I agree with Dan Savage, adults have a right to sexual fulfillment from their partners, or a a license to seek it elsewhere. If they're "together for the kids," he should be man enough to allow her some freedom to get what she needs (besides a partner and father for her kid) elsewhere.

Thanks for saying you don't believe most accidental pregnancies are accidental. I know there are some.

But women have been saying this accidental pregnancy stuff for decades and getting sympathy from it.

Also when a guy is not getting sex from his woman in a marraige he is told to suck it up you married her.

As Siskel & Ebert used to say-Amy I'm giving this article two thumbs up!

and when did some couple counselling cease to be an option? Complicated question, could be anything. Could be his bod isn't working, and when guys have that problem sometimes they aggressively get it back, and sometimes they can't stand thinking about it. We would be universally criticizing him if the roles were reversed, I think this applies to her. But lotsa questions.

IS she asking, "what should I do to make my marriage work?" or is she asking "Why should I stay?" If it's the second, she has already made up her mind, and is looking for validation. If she describes their relationship as an affair, then she got preggers, and married from that... Then maybe this wasn't what she was looking for to start. But she still has to consider the kid foremost, unless things are really bad between them.

In addition, it's not as a common as loss of libido, but there are wild things that have changed a lot physically, and still expect to be treated the same. Works that way for guys too. If you've packed on 100# and there's no longer the glint in your partner's eye? look in the mirror. But dunno if that's the case here.

My ex didn't want sex for two years and wouldn't see a doctor or a counselor. Turns out, he just wasn't that into me. I left and found someone who is, but then, I didn't have kids.

They decided to have a kid and get married (and complain about entrapment all you want, but if he cared enough, he would have either gotten snipped or brought his own condom to the party). They can either try to find the spark again, give it up and live separate but married lives or live in quiet, seething resentment and misery, but they owe it their kid to stay together until he's an adult. That boy doesn't care one bit whether mom and dad do it for each other anymore, but I bet he wants them both there when he cuts his birthday cake.

Also, they need to stop making babies.

Because you are in communication with the LW, Amy, I will assume that your conclusion that she entrapped this guy with pregnancy is correct. However, just as I believe that that one should share the reponsibility for venereal disease, it is difficult for me to imagine a scenerio where the father had no choice or knowledge about what happens when you lay pipe, particularly with someone who is having "an affair". That is the last person you should trust. Nonetheless, I don't really get how the mother is the villain in this story. I think that it is perfectly natural to think about getting out of a relationship where there hasn't been sex in two years.

And this story is a real switcheroo...usually it is the woman who loses all interest in sex after having children. I would tell her to DTMFA as well, except for the child involved. The only option I can see, in my limited imagination, is an open relationship, because, having your man tell you that you are invading his personal space when you want to kiss him means it is OVER.

OK, no sex for two years, husband pushing her away--my sympathy. Really, that's rough. But she'd shatter the kid's apparently healthy home life and tear him away from a loving father for her sexual fulfillment? I thought parents were willing to give up their lives for their kids!

Keep throwing the logic at her, and the studies. Show her how wrong her and her friends' notions are--especially emphasize that kids from well-off broken homes have equal trouble coping. OK, kids ARE resilient, and I know plenty of people with divorced parents who turned out okay, but how can she pretend divorcing in her situation wouldn't be deeply and unnecessarily traumatic for her child? Even if the kid eventually made a great, resilient adjustment to a broken home, not seeing Daddy as much and getting used to Mommy's new friends / husband, how could she subject him to that pain and confusion in the first place if she had an alternative? An alternative that wasn't easy for her, but kept her kid happy and put him first? Couples or individual therapy, trying to come to an "arrangement" with her husband that allows her sex but keeps the family together, masturbation, even celibacy--she has so many options here that are much better for her child.

Say removing her kid's kidney would magically give her a thrilling sex life and eventually result in a full recovery for her kid, and changed nothing else about their lives. Never mind that removal of a kidney is major surgery and risks immediate and lifelong complications. Pretend it's guaranteed to be the most perfect kidney removal ever. Would she ever do that to her kid, for no reason other than her own sexual satisfaction? She should look at it that way. She's blatantly putting her needs ahead of her child's. Too bad there's such backward thinking justifying all kinds of selfishness these days.

Having been on pretty much all sides of divorce (child of dual divorcee; dated several divorced women (including being the guy she left for -- surprised me too)).

I still counsel that a total neglectful marriage is as bad as an abusive/ argumentive marriage.

As long as both parents don't parade their lovers through and past the kids; and do the best to not parade parental strife; it isn't so horrible.

I still sit my ex-gf's kids. I prefer I'm a stable regular, not her trying to find an answer.

Here we go again.

This:

... [He] even pulled away and said she was "in his space" when she tried to kiss him.

Is obviously because of this:

Woman, now 40, was having an affair with a guy and (whoops!) got pregnant. I should add that I believe that "accidental" pregnancies are not so accidental. ... But, maybe you think it would be cute to have a kid, or the kid would cement the relationship (force the man to stick around in a committed way). And this man did marry the woman afterward.

Who knows if they loved each other before this. But the man certainly doesn't love her now. You can't love someone who you can't trust. There's a word for someone who forces their biological desires on someone else regardless of the other party's consent. It starts with an 'R'.

he should be man enough to allow her some freedom to get what she needs (besides a partner and father for her kid) elsewhere.

Fair enough. I assume you feel the same way about a man married to a fridged wife. If she doesn't put out she should be 'woman enough' to let him get his needs fulfilled elsewhere.

They decided to have a kid and get married

No she decided whether or not to have a child after the pregnancy occurred. He had no legal standing.

(and complain about entrapment all you want, but if he cared enough, he would have either gotten snipped or brought his own condom to the party)

Tell that to the million or so women who get an abortion every year, or the thousands that put their child up for adoption, or the thousands that simply leave their newborn child at a hospital or fire station. I can only image what the numbers would be if we had systematic female circumcision which reduces genital sensation, and the only forms of birth control women had available were either sterilization or the female condom. A device that completely covers womens 'naughty bits' with a layer of latex.

However, just as I believe that that one should share the reponsibility for venereal disease, it is difficult for me to imagine a scenerio where the father had no choice or knowledge about what happens when you lay pipe,

If they have equal responsibilities [such as preventing the spread of std's] regarding their reproduction, then; they should have equal rights regarding their reproduction. Also the fact that you think other people should be responsible for your body and the choices that you make with it is ludicrous.

Even ignoring those glaring hole in your logic, your statement implies that the only reason couples have sex is for reproduction. This is an ridiculous position. If couples have sex twice a week over the course of a twenty year relationship resulting in two children, sex was had .001% of the time for procreation. The other 99.999% of the time, it was for the sake of the sex.

Do we see bikini-clad models and think lustfully of diapers? Does a woman see a gorgeous guy and think of a minivan and a fat ass? Sex is an end in it's self. Unplanned pregnancy is no longer an irreversible malady hopeless to challenge. If one partner defrauds the other during the relationship, the lives of both partners shouldn't be irreversibly damaged. Every new choice our medical advancements offer poses an obligation by those involved to stand by their word, and it’s about time the courts recognized it. There are enough people on the planet; surely there is room for justice. If men could opt out from the beginning, this pattern would be broken.

If woman violates her promises as wife or partner, she can face the consequences alone. Like welfare reform, she’d become responsible for body and the decisions she makes about it. She would weigh her choices more carefully. If she refuses abortion on supposedly moral grounds, she’ll have to come to grips with what her principles cost.

Mommy Dearest could do something else...if her husband doesn't want to have anything to do with her in that way, try to get him into counseling, even if she has to use the phrase "for the child's sake." Or she could find some action on the side.

But breaking up her child's family just because her husband doesn't want to have sex with her? If a guy did something like that, every woman in sight would be damning him for a selfish greedy piggy-pig-pig. Guess the ol' double standard's alive and well,isn't it?

I don't have high hopes for this family given that the mom is looking outside to tell her what to do; my sense is that usually when people do this, they already know where they stand and they're just seeking validation. But for what it's worth, I'd encourage her to stick it out for a minimum of 6 months more, masturbating as needed. During that time, try to find a way to get outside their everyday lives and enjoy each other for a few contiguous days and find a good therapist (they're hard to find, but quality really matters) - not a couples therapist, an individual one. It sounds like she needs to get her shit together.

Mike Hunter

If men could opt out from the beginning, this pattern would be broken.

It's called don't fuck.

More specifically, don't fuck a woman you aren't willing to make a child with.

And if consequence-free sex is so important to you, then the responsibility is on you to control where your sperm go. Do the world a favor and get snipped.

"You can't love someone who you can't trust."

Whatever else anyone here might think of Mike Hunter's posting, this part is undeniable. It's pretty clear to me that the LW's husband is pulling away from her because he wants to avoid another "accidental" pregnancy. After all, everyone here keeps saying don't do the crime if you can't do the time. LW hasn't said anything about what birth control they were using, but we know for a fact that it failed once already. Okay, there's the laying-pipe speech and all that... but for the married guys here, do you really want to have to use a condom every time you have sex with your wife?

This is the elephant in the room that everyone here is ignoring except for Mike. The LW absolutely must do something to try to restore her husband's trust in her. She owes it to him. I take it that neither of them is interested in having any more children. Assuming that that's the case, why doesn't she start by getting her tubes tied? That will guarantee that that particular problem won't come up again. That might be enough to get her husband interested in at least making an attempt to work on his resentment from the last time.

No she decided whether or not to have a child after the pregnancy occurred. He had no legal standing.

Whine, whine, whine. Women have more options concerning what to do with the fetus once it's conceived. This is not news, it's biology. When men can gestate, they can decide whether to get an abortion. That's why it's important to be paying attention before you have sex.

Like brian said, if you don't want to be a daddy, watch where you put that thing. Your option is to get snipped or wear a condom that you haven't left out of your sight. Once she's pregnant, if the kid has your DNA, it is yours and you are responsible for it.

do you really want to have to use a condom every time you have sex with your wife?

It happens. My ex had to with his wife because hormonal birth control made her batshit, and they were still planning on having kids. But your point is valid. If they don't plan to have more kids, she could get a tubal.

Of course, it might just be too late for them.

Or an IUD thingy, like the Mirena.

But it sounds like, yeah, he doesn't love her anymore. He's probably angry that he's in this situation, too. I mean, life with kids is something you never get to take a vacation from. Every day you come home, and there it is. And let's take into account the age here, too. Mom is 40, so I'm gonna say Dad is around the same age. If he's made it to the late 30s or 40s without settling down, I think that's a good sign that he never wanted to.

But he's an involved father, and that would be a painful loss for the kid. As my brother is divorcing with two young children, I see it. I'm gonna have to say, she has to stick it out. And for Pete's sake, get into counseling. For once I agree with Abby & Annie: go without him if he won't go. Get yourself some knowledge to figure out how you can deal with the situation better. And if they decide to do an "open marriage", as a stipulation, they both need to get in place birth control - snipping for him (which as I understand it, is easily reversed) and a tubal or IUD for her.

Hopefully, she's not already made up her mind and isn't just writing in for validation. However, I had an awesome quote from the Marquis de la Grange that I've been dying to use: "When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice."

from the Marquis de la Grange that I've been dying to use: "When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice."

LOL- if this is what LW had in mind, she's barking up the wrong tree....

Monica, Mike Hunter already showed what a sexist pig you are, and then you come along and make it even more obvious yourself with that "whine, whine, whine" bullshit. And a stupid sexist pig too, one that can't tell the difference between biology and social and legal norms.

God help the poor sap who is sentenced to live with you.

Don't bother answering; your answer won't be worth any more than you are.

I don't think a woman wanting sex from her spouse is ANY different than a man wanting sex from his. I don't care if the man won't give it up for the woman because he's unhappy, or the woman won't give it up for the man because he's working all the time.

If you think women have a duty to fuck their husbands or let them look elsewhere, then men have a duty to fuck their wives or let them look elsewhere-no matter the reason.

That's not my personal opinion, but plenty of people here have weighed in on wives who won't put out. I think, you can't divorce with a little kid because you're not sexually fulfilled. There are 3 acceptable reasons to divorce with a little kid: infidelity (dad bringing something home to mom that kills her or ruins her health is bad for the kid. Also, kids ALWAYS know, and hate the cheater. Or turn into one. Or both.) Addiction, and abuse. None are the case here, that we know of. So suck it up and stick it out, lady. With counseling, preferably. You could always go alone, then tell DH he can either start going with you, or start forking over half his pay in child support till he retires. That might motivate him. Because you both need to spell out why there is no sex, to each other, and find a solution of some kid, and that takes a 3rd party.

Maybe Jim and Mike can fuck each other. Then no annoying little fact that sperm contribute to babies to worry about :)

God help the women who end up with you, otherwise.

Jim and Mike have this naive, schoolyard notion that life should be fair. I'm sorry, I know this is hard, especially since your teacher kept making sure the bigger kids gave you your ball back, but life ain't fair.

Children die of cancer while cranky old people run marathons. Women who don't plan to have children suffer with often paralyzing menstrual cramps every month for 30 years for no reason at all. And men don't carry babies for nine months, so they have no say over what happens to that baby after the sperm leaves their bodies. That's why they have to make the most of the power they have before their partner gets pregnant:

1. Wrap up.
2. Don't fuck.
3. Fuck men.

Those are your choices. If you had a vagina, you'd have a few more.

And thanks for your concern for my fiance, but he's OK. We're using protection, but even if we weren't, we're both OK with making babies, so it all works out. Life's pretty awesome when you take responsibility for your actions.

MonicaP writes: "Of course, it might just be too late for them. "

Sigh, you're probably right. I was just trying to suggest a way in which the LW could perhaps get the situation off of the dime and start making progress towards putting it back together. But yeah, sometimes, too late is too late.

An aside to corneredmom, who writes: "snipping for him (which as I understand it, is easily reversed)". From what I've read, the success rate of vasectomy reversal is only about 75%. But at the age we think the LW's husband is at, that may not matter to him.

One other thing: Amy says that the LW has apparently always been the pursuer in the relationship. We all know how that usually goes. It may be that he was never really all that interested in her in the first place.

momof4 and Monica you both disgust me. You are sexist and cruel women both. I feel sorry for the men in your lives. You obviously dont see them as people.

I second whoever cited Dan Savage (maybe we should call it "Savage's Law"). If your partner wants to stay married but refuses to put out at all, they should at least be cool enough with your getting it elsewhere if they want the marriage to last.

"God help the poor sap who is sentenced to live with you."

Hey! That's ... that's ... (gasp!) SHAMING LANGUAGE! Jim, even the Butthole guy sucks less than you do.

Here's a comprehensive article on how single parenting (single motherhood or single fatherhood) damages children, from the lefty publication The American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_consequences_of_single_motherhood

Basically, having an intact family seems pretty essential to a child's well-being.

Here's a comprehensive article on how single parenting (single motherhood or single fatherhood) damages children, from the lefty publication The American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_consequences_of_single_motherhood

Basically, having an intact family seems pretty essential to a child's well-being.

A quote from the article, by Sara S. McLanahan:

Family disruption also reduces the time parents spend with children and the control they have over them. When parents live apart, children see their fathers a lot less. About 29 percent do not see them at all. Another 35 percent see them only on a weekly basis. Mothers often find their authority undermined by the separation and consequently have more difficulty controlling their children. One survey asked high school students whether their parents helped them with their school work and supervised their social activities. Students whose parents separated between the sophomore and senior years reported a loss of involvement and supervision compared to students whose parents stayed together.

Brian:

It's called don't fuck.

More specifically, don't fuck a woman you aren't willing to make a child with.

Other posters who espoused the same view have already admitted that they are hypocrites and don’t practice what they preach. This may work for a loser like you that is forced into celibacy. But the fact is that sometimes contraception fails or is sabotaged and unintended pregnancies happen. When they do both parties should receive the same legal protection regardless of gender. If you believe that people should not be able to unilaterally surrender their parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has occurred then that’s fine. It’s time to outlaw abortion, abandonment, and charge women who put their children up for adoption child support.

And if consequence-free sex is so important to you, then the responsibility is on you to control where your sperm go. Do the world a favor and get snipped.

Do me a favor and kill yourself. Remember: ’down the stream not over the river’. I know cowards like you, and have yet to find one that will talk shit to me in person when this subject comes up. It’s pretty easy to run your mouth while you’re hiding behind a computer.

MonicaP:

Whine, whine, whine.

The only people whining are entitled women who are afraid that they may lose their female privilege if men obtain equality under the law.

Women have more options concerning what to do with the fetus once it's conceived.

Women have all of the options after a pregnancy has occurred. This has nothing to do with the fetus by the way, and everything to do with legal obligations. Obligations women can unilaterally surrender and men can not.

This is not news, it's biology. When men can gestate, they can decide whether to get an abortion. That's why it's important to be paying attention before you have sex.

This issue has nothing to do with abortion. A woman an unilaterally surrender her parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has already occurred by either abandoning her children or putting them up for adoption. Differences in biology do not excuse differences in legal protection. One has nothing to do with the other. This argument should be familiar to anyone who has seen op-ed pieces in favor of government enforced segregation that were printed during the 50's and 60's. Segregationists claimed that blacks were biologically different from their white counterparts, and therefore could not [or should not] have the same legal rights. Similar arguments were made about women by people who opposed woman's right to vote during the suffrage movement in the 20's. As one poster already said: 'I grew up with the feminists hammering into my brain that differences in biology do not excuse making one group of people second-class citizens. Now I'd like to see the feminists live up to that high-flying rhetoric. But I'm not holding my breath'.

Like brian said, if you don't want to be a daddy, watch where you put that thing. Your option is to get snipped or wear a condom that you haven't left out of your sight. Once she's pregnant, if the kid has your DNA, it is yours and you are responsible for it.

No shit you dumb bitch. We’re not arguing about what the law is, we’re arguing about what the law should be.

Jim and Mike have this naive, schoolyard notion that life should be fair. I'm sorry, I know this is hard, especially since your teacher kept making sure the bigger kids gave you your ball back, but life ain't fair.

Just because life isn’t fair doesn’t give you or anyone else a license to make it even more unfair by passing unjust laws. If tomorrow the government passed a law making it illegal for women to go outside without their husband or male relative; would, take your own advice? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say: ‘Oh well life isn’t fair’. Somehow I doubt it. Even if you would we have this small issue of constitutionality. You know 'the supreme law of the land'. The 14th amendment of the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, and right now that isn’t happening.

Children die of cancer while cranky old people run marathons. Women who don't plan to have children suffer with often paralyzing menstrual cramps every month for 30 years for no reason at all. And men don't carry babies for nine months, so they have no say over what happens to that baby after the sperm leaves their bodies.

None of which has to do with unequal legal protection. Something that we aren’t only able to do something about, but; are constitutionally compelled to fix.

1. Wrap up.
2. Don't fuck.
3. Fuck men.
Those are your choices. If you had a vagina, you'd have a few more.

It’s good that you finally agree with me. If I had a vagina I’d be entitled to additional legal protection that I am not afforded now; because I have a penis. That’s both immoral and unconstitutional.

And thanks for your concern for my fiance, but he's OK. We're using protection, but even if we weren't, we're both OK with making babies, so it all works out.

I fear for the man who’s in a relationship with you. He must be a spineless beta male. You get what you settle for.

Life's pretty awesome when you take responsibility for your actions.

Something an entitled privilege princess like you knows nothing about.

Momof4:

You could always go alone, then tell DH he can either start going with you, or start forking over half his pay in child support till he retires. That might motivate him. Because you both need to spell out why there is no sex, to each other, and find a solution of some kid, and that takes a 3rd party.

Yea because relationships based on the threat of extortion always work out. That’s what you’re endorsing here; come to counseling with me or I’ll take half of your paycheck, if you refuse men with guns will come to your door and take you to jail. Right out of a street level enforcer’s handbook . Doing that will only highlight the fact that she’s a heartless bitch, who will stab him in the back the second she isn’t feeling fulfilled. Which is why this guy is too repulsed by her to even kiss her in the first place.

Maybe Jim and Mike can fuck each other. Then no annoying little fact that sperm contribute to babies to worry about :) God help the women who end up with you, otherwise.

Or maybe you can just suck me off. You can’t get pregnant that way. On the other hand you probably are a fat little bush pig. I mean four screaming meat sacks have clawed their way out of your shame cave. There’s no way a cunt like you could make it though something like that intact.

i don't know. my parents got divorced when i was 10 and i was devastated, but later i realized it was the best thing for me. i think that even had my parents' marriage been a good one, and they'd stayed together 'for the sake of the children' until i turned 18 - i would have felt worse, knowing that my parents were miserable for 8 years just because of me. that's what i would have needed therapy for.....i'm not advocating random divorce or anything, just a thought.

I say shhot him in the back while he is sleeping, at the trail accuse him of sexually abusing you by making you wear high heels and then get on Oprah befor her last show.

With an luck you'll be out of jail and have full ownership of you property, I mean kid, by june

I don't care what all the studies say about how bad it is to be raised by a single parent. Most social science studies are wrong or exaggerated. The study winds will change soon enough and everyone will start believing again that it isn't that bad to be raised by single parents.

I don't doubt that kids raised by single parents do worse, on average, than those raised in intact homes. I don't base that on a study. To be a single parent, you have to be a victim of stupidity or tragedy. Tragedy is rare.

I include in the stupidity column parents who divorce for whatever reason. Poor marriage-partner-choosing skills indicate some lack in general in realistic, mature problem-solving and planning skills. Kids raised by single parents tend to do worse because single parents tend to be worse people.

The most important thing you can give your children is for you to live a successful, stable, decent, balanced life. Kids absorb what you are.

As it becomes easier to divorce, we should expect that the child-rearing quality gap between single parents and couple parents will widen. As cheesier and cheesier reasons become acceptable for divorce, more crappy people get divorced. And the average quality of long-term married people necessarily goes up.

The sexless couple who triggered this thread will screw those kids up together or apart. Staying together won't add a hell of a lot of value. One way or another, they will model for their kids how to be a horrible failure in relationships.

Actually, I've given birth 3 times, asshole, via 3 c-sections, and I am 5'10 and a size 8, even after the kids. So my pussy is still nice and tight, and my husband can't get enough of it.

The only screaming meatsack around is you, whining about how unfair it is your sperm might possibly impregnate a woman you choose to have sex with. Wah wah wah.

Is bush pig some sort of really racist way of implying I'm black? You weren't real clear on your insult, might want to brush up on your skills. It's either bush as in my pubic hair (implying my pubic hair is fat??) or a reference to bush meat, as in African animals, meaning I'm a fat african. Either way, pretty pathetic attempt at an insult. And neither are true :)