You went to the crappiest therapist EVER. Given her behavioral issues any therapist who didn't earn their degree from Shrinks & Stuff would tell you that she is an abusive spouse and to, not walk, RUN out the damn door, sperm tucked safely in your pants, and never look back. A baby means you're stuck with this woman for life. If you can't leave for you, leave for the kid you don't want tailspinning between 'Mommy loves you' and 'Mommy wishes you would die, die, die and take Daddy with you!' Despite what some stupid people think, kids don't cement a marriage. They're cute but they're kind of self involved for those first 18-40 years and require a lot of money. This is assuming this batshit crazy woman doesn't take it all in a custody battle. Serve her with papers before she self pregnates or, depending on your state, you might still be financially responsible for a kid even if it isn't yours biologically. This pisses me off, if she was the man, your therapist would've slipped you the '10 Signs of an Abuser' list and given you a number to call when you were ready to run. Like Amy said dude- RUN NOW.

I know most of us said this on the original thread, but it bears repeating: LW, please, please do not have a child while your marriage is in this state. You CANNOT fix the problems in your marriage by having a baby. I'm going to quote your letter here because the language you use is seen a lot in letters from people with abusive partners:

I havent left yet because I sense, despite all of this, that there is something wonderful in her. Granted, that sense is getting pretty weak now but she can draw me back in so easily just by being like she was when we met. She pulls a lot of people in..

Giant, waving, neon red flag here. Even if there is something wonderful, the "despite" takes precedence. I've seen that same sentence in letters to advice columnists from abused women; they stay because their men can be so great despite everything else. People like this aren't awful all the time, because then you'd just leave. It's the slot machine principle: the randomness makes you stay because you're hoping for those three lemons, even though the odds are way against you.

Another red flag for me is the therapist's advice. I'm no authority on actual professional therapy, but even so, the advice to comfort your wife while she's screaming and throwing things just seems...off. That may have worked when she first started going off the rails, but you're way past the "I'll comfort her and she'll calm down and we'll talk it through" phase. At best you'd be placating her into thinking she was getting her way, setting you up to be screamed at on a later date. Maybe it's just the way I'm reading that part, because he does say that you shouldn't respond to her, which is much better advice. Even better than that would be to disengage completely by leaving the room or even the house if need be. Good solutions to marital problems don't come about with screaming and verbal abuse.

To wrap up what has been an unintentionally long post, I'll reiterate my first point: for the love of little green apples, do not have a baby with this woman. If she wants one so badly, tell her she can do whatever she pleases because you're out of there. Take Amy's advice, pack your satchel and go.

Some people are just bent on suicide. This guy is just taking his time to kill himself.

I mean, even the term, "genetic defect" is shunted aside. The woman's an alien. You will be assimilated!

"Something wonderful" being what he calls his penis?

Highly suggest that he reads The Wizard of Oz and Other Narcissists: Coping with the One-Way Relationship in Work, Love, and Family.

Mister, I remember reading somewhere (Dr. Laura, maybe) that you can't love somebody into sanity. And you know what? You can't. I wouldn't be surprised if she's got bigger problems than baby rabies, and you can't fix those, either. Furthermore, allowing yourself to be wrecked along with her doesn't make you a saint. It's possible, and often better, to feel compassion from a safe distance.

The LW is hopefully getting out. Most abusers have a wildly charming and loving side which is what makes the victim question leaving. There is a history, good times, fun, etc. Most abusers don't meet someone, punch them in the face, and then go set up house. Abuse is often gradual. I don't care how reserved he is. She's threatening to go to a sperm donor if he won't impregnate her and that's just the least of her lovely behavior. Happy marriages are not built on tirades, threats, ultimatums and more tirades. A therapist advised the wife to move past her losses? I think that should be LW's advice. Keep whatever fond memories you choose to keep but get out.

Clearly, all she wants is a baby, and you're just a tool to get her what she wants. The minute that she has what she wants, you will be cast aside to be little more than a servant to provide for her and her baby whatever she wants next.

Get out! We traced the call and it's coming from inside your toxic relationship!

I know. I was in a relationship in which shortly after we had kids, I began to be treated more as an obstacle when it came to making parenting decisions, and I started feeling more and more like a sled dog that was constantly getting whipped to to shouts of "mush! mush!" so that I could provide my ex-wife with the stay-at-home lifestyle that she felt that she deserved so that she could be the primary parent while I became the primary provider of financial security and little more. The marriage had ended and was replaced with her role of Mommy to the kids. When she had to keep working, her anger turned towards me. She seethed. Her family encouraged her to dump me because I wasn't caring enough. Her mother accused me outright of not loving her daughter. When I asked her if her daughter loved me, her response was, "Why should she!?" I kid you not.

Trust me... Get out... your wife seems like 10-times the psycho that my ex-wife was from what you've told me. The biggest, meanest bullies I've ever met in my life always new how to turn on the charm to try to get what they wanted. Don't be fooled by her occasional charm... It's a trap that you don't want to fall into.

The guy's an idiot.

RUN MAN RUN.

First you say thanks for the advice, and then go on to explain why you decided to ignore it all.

Not one person advised you to stay with her, what does that suggest to you?

You are nothing more then a sperm donner.

If she get pregnant before you serve her with divorce papers in most states you WILL be considered the father and have to pay child support.

This woman is unstable, leave, file for a restraining order, file for a divorce and never speak to her again with out recording the conversation.

I'm willing to bet everythig I own this woman has already thought about killing you on more that one occasion.

Stay with her and your life is over, figurativly and quite possibly literally as well.

You stay with her and one of three things will happen

1. You give her a child - she accuses you of abuse and you pay child support for 23 yrs(it isnt just 18 anymore) while fighting her allegations and visitaion manipultions

2. She get pregnat on her own - and you have to pay child support for 23 yrs as the mn married to the woman at the time of brth os the legal father

3. She kills you while you sleep and claims at her murder trial that you were abusing her

These are your only options if you are still with her and she winds up pregnant.

When we tell you to run for your life we mean it literally, man

Run now and NEVER EVER EVER go back

C'mon, LW. As I said last time, you can't have this both ways. You can't stay in the relationship while it grows increasingly more toxic, saying you still care about her (or don't...or aren't sure). Yet, you're not going to do anything nice for her, least of all have a baby, which is what she wants more than anything else in the world.

Frankly, I'd be pissed off at your stand about the baby too. The woman is grieving the loss of a child, which YOU agreed to have, knowing she was running out of time, then you throw on the brakes.

Now, because you're being an ass, she's going to do IVF alone. And she hates your guts for this, obviously. (Not that she wouldn't use your sperm if you'd loan her some). Doesn't excuse her abusive language towards you, but get this: she doesn't like you anymore.

What are you still DOING there? Are you trying to get her to prove her love for you - prove you're more important than having a baby? Clearly, you are NOT.

She wants a baby more than she wants your relationship...precisely because you have not been supportive of having a baby. See, it's a viscious cycle. It's a standoff.

If you believe there's still something good about her deep down, then the only way you are ever going to see that again is to give her the baby. She is NOT going to love you more after IVF treatments. It will only be a reminder that she had to go somewhere else, besides her husband, to have a child. What are you thinking????

Google Borderline Personality Disorder and do it now!!! Seriously! You will find an amazingly bright light start to go on above your head.

Believe me I know. Do not have kids with her.
Unless she has been certified as having mental health issues, she will get custody and you will be kicked to the curb. You will pay child support and be in for 18 years of hell.

She wants your sperm not you.

If you don't take this advice you'll be sorry!

We've got broken-record syndrome here. RUN FAR, run fast. There. I said it again. And I'll keep saying it as long as you've got ears, LW. This relationship is TOXIC. Please save yourself. Don't worry about her. She'll do whatever it takes to save herself. You should do the same.

Borderline Personality disorder is nicknamed the Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde personality for a reason.

Lovelysoul, you sound almost sympathetic. I want to know: What the hell is a woman doing, trying to impregnate herself with someone else's sperm, without her (perfectly fertile) husband's permission? Proxy cuckolding, up front and in his face? This is beyond bizarre - this is loony!!

If look at this from her point of view: she has a new husband who is already so put off by her behavior that he won't even have sex. Into this relationship she wants to bring a child? And he should be supportive and "give her the baby"? WTF??

Have a child with her and learn something new: If it's tough defending yourself, try defending your child. I guarantee you it's 1000x scarier.

She's in very deep mourning. Losing a baby (i won't get into the how of it, this thread's not about that) is devastating. You do not get over it. Ever. Period. She's not grieving well, and dude she does hate you and will forever, but grieving is what it is, and you need to leave and let her get on with her life the way she wants to. You get no points for staying and making both of your lives miserable. She will thank you for it at some point if she's not so far round the bend she can't ever get back to normal. Go. leave. Now.

Don't they do a psych screening for IVF?

A few points..

It's not unlikely that she's going to try to have someone else get her pregnant, regardless of whether she's married. She's told you as much (e.g. sperm donors).

Her psychological condition may be progressive - i.e. she may get worse. Don't assume that it's just wanting to have a baby. Many women desperately want to have kids, and can freak out a bit, but not like what you've described.

You have the responsibility to inform any fertility services a/o practitioners of her mental state.

You need to consider whether she would endanger a child. This isn't solely about you and her.

They had a kind of deal, it seems to me. He impregnated her before, so naturally, she believed they would keep trying. A doctor told them that she didn't have much time, so they started trying even before marriage. Then, immediately after marriage, he throws on the brakes.

I don't know if she's a borderline personality or not. Although everyone else is quick to diagnose her as mental, I kind of doubt this because of the LW's own statements as to her true character. I think he knows she's not really a bad person. That's why he's staying.

I simply think she's grown to hate him because he's reneged on their agreement. That's why she says such awful things. She's furious.

It would be the same in reverse. If you agreed to NOT have children, then you marry and your wife immediately gets pregnant, despite your wishes. You'd probably lose all respect for her. You'd probably be pretty angry and might say some ugly things.

Either way, when you start hating your spouse - having such deep resentments towards each other - it's time for one or both of you to get out. This is not going to be fixed. They are in a standoff -she wants him to adhere to the agreement before she runs out of time, and he wants her to prove the agreement doesn't matter by delaying having a child - even if that means never having one.

It's just not feasible. All they're doing is creating more and more resentment and toxicity.

I agree with momof4. You also have to understand what the grief of losing a child does to people.

Years ago, I had friends whose baby drowned in a pool. They already had a little girl, and the baby was about 18 months old when he died.

They were both consumed with grief, of course, but the mom's reaction was to replace the dead baby. She desperately wanted to get pregnant again. It was what she needed to heal.

The father was hesitant, and they almost split up. Very ugly things were said on both sides. It's kind of a similar situation, really, as he could've easily made her out to be "crazy", which in a sense she was temporarily...with grief. He could've used that to refuse to have another baby.

But, in the end, he relented and got her pregnant, and they had another little boy, and they are happy and still together. That was like 10 years ago now.

The LW's wife feels the only way she can heal is to have another baby. That may be "crazy", but it's where she is right now, and he either needs to respect that and take the risk she'll be ok after she gets pregnant, or get out of the way because she's going to do it, with or without him.

I don't know what she was "really like" in the beginning, but from what the LW says, she wasn't like this until a little while after the loss of the first pregnancy.

It makes me wonder if she suffered some kind of mental imbalance as a result. Its not completely unprecedented. Something to think about.

Either way though, the bottom line is that next time she "throws the engagement & wedding rings" at you and says to sell them...DO IT.

Use the money to pay for a divorce lawyer, and pay for some therapy to figure out why you were willing to put up with that shit for so long.

Then if they were really expensive and there is some money left over, take a little vacation and unwind, and figure out just what you'd like to have a baby with, and look for THAT person.

Actually he implies that she's always been like this, just not so angry.

Lovelysoul are you aware that babies are human children?

He doesn't want to impregnate her because he's concerned about her mental condition, and he has a lot more experience w/ this that you do.

Then, Janoodle, he needs to get out! Either she's crazy, and always has been, or she's grieving, and her behavior is temporary. He seems to be implying that he believes the latter, while also claiming the former.

None of us are there, and he is obviously in the the best position to know, but it can't be BOTH. It's either one or the other, and they each have a very specific solution. Yet, he's doing NOTHING.
That's not an answer.

There is no delusion like self-delusion.

Janodle, hang around here long eough and you'll see that lovleysoul sees male/female interactions as a zero sum game that women must never EVER be allowed to lose

Why, luj, because I see it logically? You men are the ones who should be grasping that with your logic-oriented brains, yet you're acting more like females just bitching about her.

He has only two options: Leave or have a baby with her. There's no in between. I'm trying to help him process that fact. Only in some distorted view would that make me a man-hater.

"They had a kind of deal, it seems to me. He impregnated her before, so naturally, she believed they would keep trying."

Yeah LS, but it was fraudulent from the get-go, on her side.

Do you really think a wife has a duty to get pregnant and birth a kid the way you say this guy has a duty to get her preganant? If not, why not?
He doesn't owe her a baby, any more than she owes him one. In her particular case, no child deserves the hellish childhood she would absolutely without doubt subject him too.

And blaming him for her behavior is pathetic and disgusting. While you were so busy casting doubt on him, did it ever occur to you to wonder why she was so much of a loser that no one had consented to have kids with her until she was looking at 40?

He owes her nothing and he owes any child of his a decent mother, which she can never be.

You and MOM4 say grief over a child does horrible things to a person. True - and he lost a child here too. Grief over a child does not explain this kind of behavior, and if it does, if a person does react that way, that is still a red flag and reason to dump her. She's weak and helpless aginst her own rage.

Maybe this is the problem:

"I don't know if she's a borderline personality or not. Although everyone else is quick to diagnose her as mental, I kind of doubt this because of the LW's own statements as to her true character. I think he knows she's not really a bad person. That's why he's staying. "

You clearly have no experience with these people. They come in both genders, believe me. Ask a woman who has been married to one - it's unbelievable until you have exerienced it in your own life. Unfortunately people tend to tolerate this crap more in women, and support men less who find themselves in these relationships - you're one example of that - but believe me, women in relationships with this kind man suffer plenty too.

The LW is still in love with her. That's what wrong with him. As it happens, these people are very, very good at getting people to fall in love with them.

What makes you a man hater LS is the fact that every time we have a discussion in which men and women are at odds you side with the woman no matter how reprehensible her behavior.

If the LW was a woman writing in about how her husband went nuts after a miscarrige and was abusing her and trying to force her into another pregnacy you would NEVER try to 'help her proces' that one of her options is to stay and do as shes told because she 'made a comitmnet'. You would tell her to call the cops

There are certain aspects of our human condition that are so emotional that you cannot interject logic into them.

Take my friend who lost her baby, for instance. I could've talked until I was blue in the face about how it might've been better to wait on having another child. I could've advised months or maybe years of grief counseling.

But she had a deep hunger...in her womb and in her soul. She had an ache in her empty arms to hold a baby again, the pain of which I could barely fathom. Her wound was so deep, open and bleeding.

Reason wasn't going to make that situation better. Only one thing was going to make her better...make their family better...heal the loss...and that was to have another child.

This is the situation the LW is in. I didn't put him there, and I can't tell him what choice to make. But he has the same choice my friend's husband had: to get on board with baby making or get out.

Either choice is valid, but doing nothing is only making the whole situation worse. He can't wish, or rationalize, or counsel it into being different. That's what he's trying to do and, in this situation, it's simply not going to work.

*****and he either needs to respect that and take the risk she'll be ok after she gets pregnant****

No, no, NOOOOO! You do not EVER bring a child into the world taking a "risk" that the mother will suddenly become mentally stable, which clearly, right now, she is NOT. WTF are you thinking?

LW, DO NOT have a child with this woman, and get the hell out of there, NOW. It's over, you just don't want to see it. Wake the fuck up, dude.

I agree that he needs to leave or have a baby with her. She's not going to be ok with not having a baby.

Personally, I'm leaning towards "leave".

But he can't expect that things will work out if he stays and doesn't at least try to get her pregnant. They won't. She will always resent him. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

He should leave.

I think that lovelysoul's point is that women deserve babies, and that's all that's important.

"What makes you a man hater LS is the fact that every time we have a discussion in which men and women are at odds you side with the woman no matter how reprehensible her behavior."

I'm not "siding" with her. Rather than just call him a moron, I'm trying to give credibility to what he is saying - that there's something redeemable and good at the heart of her.

Maybe that's delusional, or maybe it's true. You have no idea, nor do I. I've seen it go both ways, like with my friend. It could be temporary insanity, brought on by grief and a deep longing to have a child, or it may be long-term insanity.

He has to figure that out, and I respect his ability to assess this better than we can. If I were a man-hater, I'd just call him an idiot rather than trying to help him realistically process his options.

I look at this practically, like I do any other situation. If a woman said that her husband was enraged at her because she'd decided to get pregnant against his wishes - against what they'd previously agreed - but that she suspected he still had a good heart and wasn't inherently abusive, I'd see it the same way. I'd say you can't renege on the understanding without expecting consequences. And if it was so important to her to have children, she'd need to find someone else rather than try to force him into a life he didn't choose.

My fiance actually had this happen with his first wife. They'd agreed beforehand not to have kids, and immediately after marriage, she changed her mind. So, he left. They were married less than a year.

The choice to have children or not is so personal and emotional that you're wasting your time trying to change someone else's feelings about it.

I think we need to revisit Loojy's point here:
"If the LW was a woman writing in about how her husband went nuts after a miscarrige and was abusing her and trying to force her into another pregnacy you would NEVER try to 'help her proces' that one of her options is to stay and do as shes told because she 'made a comitmnet'. You would tell her to call the cops"

Remarkable point, L. Why does the LW not get the same consideration? Because he's a man, and since he's not driven by estrogen, he doesn't deserve it? This issue is being controlled by the person most likely to loudly display histrionics?

I wonder how she'd function under the scenario of no sleep in 48 hours because she and a child both have the flu. Hmmmmm.....Or God forbid, the child is born with special needs (she IS 40-ish) and she's denied that euphoric baby-honeymoon she thinks she's owed.

She's going to try to have the baby. She hasn't left this open for debate. He says she's given him a week to agree to try naturally, or she's going to do IVF and be impregnated with someone else's sperm.

If he stays married to her, and the IVF works, he's going to be a father anyway, right guys? Legally, he's going to be the child's father.

So, he had better make up his mind fast. Just staying married, while trying not to have a child with her, is absurd. She's made up her mind, and, like I said, it's pointless to try to talk her out of it. If he doesn't want to have a baby with her, he had better leave.

Just because someone has good in them doesn't mean you should be a 24/7 therapist. If someone needs therapy they need a psychologist and psychiatrist, not a husband slash amateur therapist slash punching bag. That is not good for either party.

Lovelysoul nothing in either letter said she started getting abusive AFTER he "changed his mind" at least not that I saw, much rather it sounds like he is changing his mind because of the abuse. It sounds like she started getting abusive after they married. Maybe before she was on her best behavior?

The biggest clue is the LW says he saw hints of this long before. "she was very emotional"

She "tries" in our marriage by buying things for us or arranging fun things to do.

I hope by putting tries in quotes the LW realizes that she does those extra things because she cannot treat him with respect in every day life. That is not trying, it's more like paying pennance.

No one wants their spouse to be nice in order to pay back for all the bad things, they want them to be nice in the first place.

Some people go out of their way to make grand gestures, because they don't do the right thing in every day life for all the little decisions. That is what it sounds like here.

She should get a divorce and go adopt a black baby - and make him a baby slave like Crid calls 'em. Problem SOLVED!

(For anyone who reads that and thinks I'm being racist - it was a sarcastic reference to a post from the other day http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/04/28/salmanson.html#comments).

sorry for double post: Actually I thought of depression brought on by losing the baby or even post partum depression, but the LW said in both letters that there were clues long before the pregnancy. So I don't see that being the root problem.

in any event, the girls needs to see a real psychiatrist and psychologist not a therapist.

LW sounds like a white knight. If he stays, he can "cure" her into not having the baby rabies and being OK, because he can see the good underneath. This reminds me of this week's question about women who go after bad-boy men and want to change them with the power of their love.

LW: If you're not going to have a baby with her, she has no use for you. She doesn't need you: She needs someone who is going to make a baby with her. If you stay with her, be prepared to raise some stranger's baby. What she wants is a baby, baby, baby, baby. It's all she's thinking about. She has even told you are you interchangeable. All she needs is sperm.

You have three options:
1) Stay and try to make a baby.
2) Leave and let her try to have a baby with someone else or on her own.
3) Stay, refuse to have a baby, and risk either raising a child who isn't yours or having her hate you forever.

I came late to this thread, and Jamonit's comment happens to be the first one that I landed on when scanning down.

> I think that lovelysoul's point is that women
> deserve babies, and that's all that's important.

And I'm thinking, yep, this is a Wednesday on Amy's blog, and there's nothing new under the sun.

> it was a sarcastic reference

Failed sarcasm. Even the new boy (/girl), Jamonit, sees the madness at work here. Perhaps once you've exited your years of estrogen-cranked fertility, you too will have a little more sensitivity about these things.

See also, newcomer Janoodle:

> are you aware that babies are human children?

"Perhaps once you've exited your years of estrogen-cranked fertility,"

I have no desire to have children naturally. The thought of being pregnant actually makes me panic. There is no yearning in my loins and I don't understand women who have that. So. While you can call me out for the low blow I posted, you cannot ever point at my arguments and say they're motivated by some kind of baby-rabies induced anguish (baby-rabies = so good! I'm takin' it!).

This guy needs to run the other way. That woman should not have a child.

Why don't they test people for psychological illness when they go get in vitro, like they do for adoption or surrogates before agreeing to carry a fetus?

Oh please. Women and men deserve to be with partners who are on the same page with them about reproduction.

When I started dating my fiance, he told me he never wanted children. His family has a genetic, horribly disfiguring disease that could be passed down, and he decided long ago that he didn't want to risk that.

We discussed this the way mature adults do. I was 42 or so, and a little disappointed, as I hadn't completely ruled it out yet, but I understood that if I was going to continue in a relationship with HIM, having another child was absolutely out of the question. However, I certainly had the option of ending the relationship and finding someone who wanted a baby.

The LW dated a woman who was/is clearly desperate to have a baby. Not only was he aware of this beforehand, they even visited a fertility doctor who advised them not to wait, and he agreed, and they even made a baby.

It shouldn't be a big shock to him that she still desperately wants a child, yet he is essentially saying, "Let's wait, as I now think you may be crazy, and I'm not sure our relationship will survive."

If she was 30, and/or without medical issues, this would be reasonable. However, as it stands, by delaying, he is effectively preventing her from possibly ever having a child...while insulting her at the same time.

That just can't be done. Some things you can't take back...pull out from. Even when you're right, to say and do them drives your relationship into a ditch...or completely over a cliff.

He doesn't have any more right to prevent her from having a child than she does to force him to have one. If they aren't on the same page about this incredibly important and emotional decision, the relationship needs to end.

God damn it, LW, if you're reading this, quit wasting time on the damn Internet and go hire a divorce lawyer NOW! Your wife is a textbook BP/NP and she is never going to change, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever. Did I mention never ever? Your wife is not feeling grief over the lost baby because that would be an emphatic emotion, which she is incapable of. The only emotions she ever feels are greed and jealousy. BP/NPs can feel nothing else. As evidence, I cite the fact that despite the supposed overwhelming crushing sense of grief, she can still put all that aside and turn on the charm when she wants something from you. It's 100% manipulation. She does not care if you live or die; in fact, if she calculates that she would be better off if you were dead, you will be. Yes, I know it's a blow to the ego to admit that you made a colossal mistake choosing her. Been there, done that. Lots of guys have. You aren't the Lone Ranger.

Don't make me reach through the Internet and smack you upside the head. Go get that lawyer RIGHT NOW! Seriously. Even if you have to take the day off from work. It's that important. And after you've done that, go read http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/ .

Ah. Things are a little more clear now. I have two thoughts on this:

1- I would like to know your wife's side of the story here. Not that I distrust you, but we ARE only reading one side of things and often when it comes to love, marriage and the loss of a child, emotions are running a wee bit high. (pardon the understatement) It is not uncommon for people to gloss over events that we'd rather not dwell on, either because they make us look bad or because we're not taking them seriously enough.

Which brings me to #2- LW, having an abortion is NOT the same thing as having a miscarriage. I understand wanting to keep something like this private, but an abortion effects a woman *profoundly*- even one performed for medical reasons. (see Ashli's blog here: http://thesiclecell.blogspot.com/ She named her child Tennessee- if you do a search for it you will read a bit about her experience. She also had an abortion for a medical reason.)

LW, I know it's easy to lay everything at your wife's feet and say "this is your fault, I want a divorce". But before you do that, I think you might want to consider both of you finding a counselor who specializes in post-abortion depression. Here is a little information on the subject: http://leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap1.html I think you might find it enlightening.

There are many services out there that offer FREE post abortion counseling, hopeafterabortion.com is one of them, I know there are many more.

Best wishes to you and your wife.

~J

"The guy's an idiot".

Harsh, but true.

> you cannot ever point at my arguments
> and say they're motivated by some kind
> of baby-rabies induced anguish

Sure I can. These demon stupidities, perhaps fueled by hormones (but maybe not!), are playthings of projection and team identification. There are fat men sitting on couches, drinking beer and watching TV who have their righteousness deeply stoked by the perception that Kobe (or Shaq or Manning or Adrian Beltre) just got a raw deal from that ref.

> This guy needs to run the other way. That
> woman should not have a child.

So you seem to understand that the impulse to motherhood isn't so golden after all. Tell LS, OK?

Cousin Dave is right. To quote Al Bundy: "Run silent, run deep. Just run."

The catch 22 of this situation is that any woman who wants a child, hasn't been able to have one, loses one, and is running out of time will become a little unhinged.

If her behavior is strictly related to the baby or lack therof, she can be helped. Grief counseling, or, as Jewel's suggests, post-abortion counseling can help, but...an even larger catch...is that getting pregnant will probably help her the most.

But if she has borderline personality disorder there's no helping her. As those who've dealt with it can attest, counseling can only help him in dealing with her personaliy disorder and abuse, but it won't cure her.

>>So you seem to understand that the impulse to motherhood isn't so golden after all. Tell LS, OK?

You might want to modify that statement, Crid.

That impulse IS golden when it produces...you.

But - in these circs - it's not. That impulse is already making two people very unhappy, they're not remotely listening to each other and making a third person is not a good solution.

My friend was certainly unhinged after her baby drowned. Then, afterwards, the more her husband resisted having another baby, the more unhinged she became. She was aching and desperate and grew furious with him for refusing, seeing it as a lack of compassion for the pain she was experiencing.

In her mind, having another baby was the only thing that could fill the void left by her loss, which is not uncommon. Throughout history, women often responded to a lost child by immediately getting pregnant again. In fact, they were often encouraged to do so.

The difference is that my friend's husband had been married to her for a few years already, and knew her to be a basically stable person before the tragedy. It was a risk, but he took the chance that having another baby would heal her, which it did.

I'm not saying that's the case here, as we really can't know. LW says she was "emotional" beforehand, but not abusive until he started resisting having a baby. It doesn't sound like he's really had enough prior experience with her to know what her "normal" personality is. What was she really like before the abortion? How does she treat other people in her life? Is she abusive with them too?

Borderlines usually have a long history of drama and abusiveness by this age. If she is lacking that, I would lean more to this being strictly baby/grief related.

so, LW I see you just got the smackdown from Cousin Dave, so you have to know what is coming, but I'll put it a different way.

If you want to think about someone, think about the kid that isn't born yet. Does that child deserve to have such a piece of work for a mother, or an enabler for a father?

What will happen if the next child has genetic defects too? Does that child deserve to have you not make a decsion while you can?

Are you willing to bet that child's existance on the possibility that your wife will suddenly change when she is a mother into some other person, and not change back into a screeching throwing person?

Are you willing to believe that there is no potential that this person who gets extrememly emotional and violent won't have post-partum depression, and potential harm the kid and/or you?

Are you willing to bet the farm on the idea that after she has the kid she so desires, with or without you, you arent going to find that she doesn't actually desire you at all, only what you can give her?

Put on the big-boy pants and make a freaking decision. If you imagine you are going to protect, THEN PROTECT. The life of a child that doesn't exist. Your own life, because your wife has already shown she can violent. AND? Her life. Your decision affects her as well. You can't make her be reasonable, but you can refuse to be a part of this.

At some point in time being mr. sensitive is only going to cause problems for everyone. I think that point is past. This is a problem for you to solve and the course is clear. Probably more clear than most.

If you don't leave now, there will be 3 people who can blame you for it. One of them will be completely innocent. What you do or don't do will effect their entire life.

You aren't a kid who can be led around, and you don't have the excuse of inexperience. Listen to reason, and make the choice. So you can live with yourself.

"So you seem to understand that the impulse to motherhood isn't so golden after all. Tell LS, OK?"

I have never said anything remotely intimating that "the *impulse* to motherhood" is *golden*. I think the impulse to have a child is not rational - it's deeply emotional and leads to a lot of selfish decisions when one is so consumed by it. Specifically: bringing children into the world and into very sub-optimal lives, b/c the woman *wants* a baby. B/c she *deserves* a baby. Fuck that! Parenting is to be completely selfless, and those folks miss the point when they bring a kid into the world b/c they have a hole in their lives, while not realizing they're starting their kid off with a grave disservice.

I have said that a child, who already exists, who isn't adopted out of the foster system, would have a better life with a single parent, than if s/he stayed in the system until 18 y/p. Whether you think we need to improve the adoption process to guarantee every orphan child goes into an optimal family situation is separate from that statement. Given these exact options: foster care or single-parent, I pick single parent.

...Which you then equated to slavery. It's hard to follow your logic when there are such huge assumptions and mis-reading. But I'm willing to move on for now b/c we do both agree this woman shouldn't reproduce and that the man should do everything in his power to see that she doesn't, at least while he is married to her and legally responsible for a kid.

She is an unstable person. Babies need stable parents in a stable marriage (= "optimal"): when you have the power to control the outcome, please do.

LS, I'm not buying it, for two reasons. One is, BP/NPs can be very charming for as long as it takes for them to get something that they want. Once they have it, or they conclude that they aren't likely to get it through that approach, you see the real person. The LW mentions that things really started changing right after they got married, which is classic BP/NP behavior.

The second one: I'm going to somewhat challenge this business about want-a-baby turning a basically nice woman into an evil witch. I very, very, very much want a McLaren F1. Does this grant me the moral authority to smack my wife around because she won't give me one?

And a note for Jewels: You are correct in that's it's always better to hear a bit from the other side. I suppose that's one of the challenges that an advice columnist faces. And yes, it is possible that the LW is the BP/NP here and he's making the whole thing up. However, this LW doesn't read that way to me. For one thing, although BP/NPs will sometimes try to portray their adversary as BP/NP, it never quite comes out sounding genuine... it's usually "too perfect", as if it were copied verbatim from a psychology textbook.

LS has your freind and her husband ever dicused how they will tell their youngest child he was nothing more than a repacment for the dead baby they already had?

Because if their oldest chid is old enough to rembmer the circumstances it wil pop up when the kids get into a bad fight

I very, very, very much want a McLaren F1. Does this grant me the moral authority to smack my wife around because she won't give me one?

According to LS the answer is yes so long as the abuser if a woman.

Hey Amy just to throw LS for a loop, post a story on lesbians in abusive relationships

"I very, very, very much want a McLaren F1"

Well that's nice. We can equate wanting a really fast car to the enormous hole, and desperate, illogically emotional and painful hole in a person's heart and life after the loss a baby, and subsequent inability to have another one.

Motherhood isn't the golden path! But, I do believe many women experience something very real and very strong which makes them want to have babies. Of course this doesn't mean they can act like psychotic assholes. But please don't compare the desire for babies to cars. It makes you sound kinda like a jerk.

And while we're at it. All I want is a goddamned BMW X5 M! (*whiny voice*) I want something stylish, German, good in bad weather, and with a place to throw the hundt! Oh and 555 HP! Wahhh.

> That impulse IS golden when it
> produces...you.

Your punctuation and layout and all that portend a deadly blow, but it's just more failed sarcasm. I mean, there's just no reason for you to say that. (It sounds like a cousin argument to the "Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one" line we so often hear from idiots... To which I like to reply "But opinions can be backed up with something besides shit.")

Yes, Jody.... I'm pleased to be here, and I think my good character, penetrating insights, personal courage and ennobling compassion are the shining beacon for a planet of lost and troubled souls. And as if that weren't enough, my stunning good looks gladden the hearts of forlorn children, bashful teenagers, overwhelmed adults, and wistful, sentimental seniors. For everyone I encounter, I become the quintessential personification of a life well-lived, a fellow well met. When I walk through a forest, birds sing Bach in proud yet mournful new registers, and their surrounding treetops blossom as never before. Clear? Got it?

(And I'm grateful to parents who accepted the unpleasant truth that their are standards in life.)

For what other argument could you possibly, possibly be making? By the reasoning of your snot, the topic itself is off-limits: ANY human being who survives to sentience but DOESN'T commit suicide immediately is in a condition of original sin... Even if parents, or a single parent, routinely whipped the child in blinding alcoholic fury.... It doesn't matter! We absolutely MUST feel gratitude to parents. No matter what mischief a person has made in life --Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, whatever-- if they cause a baby to happen, all must be forgiven in the context of this gratitude. Because motherhood is golden.

Or am I missing some nuance of your argument?

"These circs" are not all that special... They don't deserve your winged italics.

He shouldn't impregnate her. Hell, he shouldn't even fuck her. Even a handy would be distasteful.

Next..!

Dave, you may be right that she hid her true behavior all along. Still, I think by age 42, most BP/NPs have a track record - usually many divorces or failed relationships, lots of family drama, and drama in general. Sure, they always have charming explanations, and usually paint themselves as the victim, but it's something for the LW to revisit. He may have always accepted her version of events and now should reconsider whether she has had contentious and abusive relationships before.

Does she have friends and family? If so, what do they say? Big red flags if she's estranged from them, and from a lot of other people in her past. What exactly does he mean when he says she "pulls a lot of people in?"

I sense he really wants to stay with her. After all, the original letter was some time ago. So, it's important that he sees this clearly. No one wants to walk away from a marriage when they're conflicted about whether or not it can be saved. He needs to examine whether this is just a baby/grief issue, which has a good chance of being resolved, or if she has a true, life-long personality disorder.

One offers hope. The other plainly doesn't. Sometimes seeing that the problem predates you and the specific issues you're having with this person frees you to leave. If he needs "permission" to give up on the relationship, that may help.

"LS has your freind and her husband ever dicused how they will tell their youngest child he was nothing more than a repacment for the dead baby they already had?"

I think any subsequent child might feel that way at some point in his/her life? And an older sibling, in a moment of rage would probably bring that up. Kids do that stuff, if not this, then something else. It seems like a natural thing to go through as a child whose life was preceded by such a tragic loss. With enough reassurances and repeated "We love you so much and wanted YOU so much" the kid will get over it.

Surely parents who had a child who died would choose to not have a child to avoid that kind of difficult sibling dynamic?

Like. My fiance was a biological child. His older sibs were adopted. Should they have aborted him because they'd be afraid he'd feel superior for being their "REAL" kid?

"LS has your freind and her husband ever dicused how they will tell their youngest child he was nothing more than a replacment for the dead baby they already had?

Because if their oldest chid is old enough to rembmer the circumstances it wil pop up when the kids get into a bad fight."

They don't view it that way, Luj, and you shouldn't judge them unless you've walked in their shoes. They love their son very much, just as they loved the one who died.

The little girl left the pool gate open, while mom was getting dressed, and her little brother toddled out. I know they pray she doesn't remember that part and won't someday blame herself. Tragedies happen.

Btw, I don't know what a McLaren F1 is, but I doubt it's comparable to a child.

Good christ people, get off LS's case. She didn't say he SHOULD impregnate her, she said he had 2 options (true). make a baby or leave. No hanging around expecting someone else to not want what they want.

She also said the wife was yelling nasty shit cause she hated him. True. She did NOT say it WAS OK FOR HER TO DO, just that that is exactly what she is doing, and why.

She was merely pointing out the facts. He needs to make his own decision. The LW didn't sound like she's been unbalanced all along (sorry, emotional doens't equate with psycho abuser) and people do whacky shit when they're grieving. They scream at loved ones. They refuse to touch a single item. They throw all the items away. Etc etc etc. Throwing rings wouldn't even be sort of the oddest thing I'd heard of someone grieving doing. Whether he wants to take it and try to help her is HIS business-I wouldn't since he seems to not want a child, but hey, he gets to decide, not me.

If he wants to stay they need a better counselor. "get over your loss" is a substupid thing for someone to say.

> We can equate wanting a really fast car
> to the enormous hole, and desperate,
> illogically emotional and painful hole
> in a person's heart and life after the
> loss a baby, and subsequent inability
> to have another one.

Well, WHY THE FUCK NOT, Gretchen?

Because YOU, lady, are a reproduction robot in drag... You, like so many of your sister 'bots, wear a thin skin of fleshlike polymers to disguise yourself as you move through the sentient human realm.

But in your silicon-programmed heart of hearts, you truly believe that the feelings of womanhood are trans-righteous and cosmically certified. Women really feel stuff in ways that normal people don't, so the mere laws and strictures of humanity simply don't apply... Because the women feel something "real"! They feel something "strong"!

Besides, it's apparent that you have no idea what Dave's talking about.

Luj, that's about as dumb as saying parents who lose a kid but still have others alive don't hurt as much. There's nothing wrong with loving other children, and it doesn't take away from the other children you love at all. If parents worried about what siblings might say to one another when pissed some day, the human race would die out.

Ok, I have to take a stab at this: genetic issue, she's in her 40's, so I'm guessing Downs. Could it be she's guilty over killing her child? That could contribute to the wackiness. Esp if he was more for it. Maybe blaming him is easier. WHo knows.

I am hurt that you think I look like I am in drag. I mean. If you want to call me a robot, FINE. But at least let me be a Seven of Nine or a Number Six?

Also: I have no kids. And I really don't want them, at least right now. And, no offense to the moms (b/c this makes my mom mad when I say it...) I don't think pregnancy is this beautiful, wonderful magical thing. It really grosses me out. I think it's heinous and I only WISH I was part robot dude. REALLY. Then I could just build one online like a BMW. A little Build Your Own Cylon site. Then I could avoid having some crotch parasite suck my life from me for nine months (Thank you Mommy Wants Vodka for "crotch parasites").

So I don't have these urges. Nor do you, quite apparently. It doesn't do it for me - the whole mommy thing. But I don't see it as some self-righteous calling. I do believe for a lot of women there is a deep psychological need to make babies. Otherwise I don't understand why women over centuries would risk their lives to reproduce. Societal expectations to have kids aside (which are less now than before) I think there's a biological driver at play. Pregnancy and childbirth are icky and painful and potentially deadly. It's typically rational to avoid situations like that. But we're all still here, yeah?

> I do believe for a lot of women there is a
> deep psychological need to make babies.

How can I make you understand? Cousin Dave is a typical bloke, a regular guy, flesh and blood... A man with needs, Gretchen!

Why can't you show him a little COMPASSION!?!?!

"Substupid" is a fun word.

Thanks, momoffour. You're right. I'm not trying to tell him what to do - just laying out the options.

Having a baby is a biologically driven need that many women have...like "spreading your seed" is for guys. Fortunately, for you guys, the clock doesn't really run out on that (especially now, with viagra), but, for us, there can be a panic that develops until this biological imperative is fulfilled.

Women of all ages experience this. I felt it in my 20s. Finally having my first child was a settling experience both emotionally and physically. I was calmer, more relaxed. I had met my biological obligation. Sounds weird, but that's the way it felt for me....kind of like, ok, now I can die happy knowing I passed along my genes.

Really, as much as this blog deals with biology this shouldn't be so strange to understand. For guys, having wild conquests in your youth probably fulfills the same relentless biological urge.

Of course, some women don't feel this way at all about motherhood, but for those who do, the urge is so strong it can lead to an almost temporary form of insanity - a craving to have a baby so strong that literally nothing else matters. This sounds like it *may* be what the LW's wife is going through.

If so, that would be the most hopeful possibility because it's fixable. For his sake, I really hope that's the case rather than that she is BP/NP nutjob...although those of you who see that in this situation may be right.

I think it's good for the LW to have both possibilities to look at as he makes his decision.

" ... for those who do, the urge is so strong it can lead to an almost temporary form of insanity - a craving to have a baby so strong that literally nothing else matters."

Sounds to me like a meth problem. Entirely self-inflicted, and not good for anyone. I am skeptical of the whole baby-rabies thing - I think women build that up in themselves. It doesn't just land on people, like bird poop.

>>For what other argument could you possibly, possibly be making? By the reasoning of your snot, the topic itself is off-limits: ANY human being who survives to sentience but DOESN'T commit suicide immediately is in a condition of original sin... Even if parents, or a single parent, routinely whipped the child in blinding alcoholic fury..

And he's off!
Tilting at the windmills of his own whirling mind!

Crid,
You are such a banana.

You even - in your self righteous lather - rewrite your own sentences.

You originally said: So you seem to understand that the impulse to motherhood isn't so golden after all. Tell LS, OK?

Now you claim I believe alcoholic sadists get a pass because I believe "motherhood is golden".

I did NOT say motherhood is golden.

I said that this "impulse TO motherhood is golden" WHEN it produces someone like ""you" -a wanted child who is well raised as the result of responsible parenting.

Christ, you've told us enough times about your own Ma's selfless sacrifices & lack of complaints about what others might perceive as unfairness in life!

The "impulse to motherhood" itself is a remarkably strong one. As Gretchen just wrote: "Pregnancy and childbirth are icky and painful and potentially deadly. It's typically rational to avoid situations like that. But we're all still here, yeah?"

I said that whether this impulse can be judged to be a Good Thing or Not A Good Thing depends on the fucking circumstances. Literally.

" ... for those who do, the urge is so strong it can lead to an almost temporary form of insanity - a craving to have a baby so strong that literally nothing else matters."

I find this need for motherhood fascinating because it's so alien to me. I've never felt it myself. My husband I plan to have a child, but if we didn't, that would be fine, too, so I don't truly get the overwhelming emotion behind it. I was told that I would understand when I turned 30, but 30 came and went, and here I am. If it's hormonal, I wonder whether adoption fills that need.

> I think women build that up in themselves.
> It doesn't just land on people, like bird poop.

This child is a Sister.

> Tilting at the windmills

I simply do not trust you. Have learned not to trust you.

> The "impulse to motherhood" itself is
> a remarkably strong one.

Oh! It's remarkably strong! Well whydiddincha say so?

> whether this impulse can be judged to be
> a Good Thing or Not A Good Thing depends
> on the fucking circumstances.

And so it is with the lust for the products of the McLaren factory. But you (ladies) will not take the point.

There's no unspoken, protective magic about the will to motherhood: None. Our language should reflect this even when we agree: The impulse is golden as long as it's not answered impulsively. There are no special chits to be awarded to a woman who says she wants a baby. Gretchen mocks our need for "power to control that outcome" and she glibly disavows any authority, inferring that the "the enormous hole, and desperate, illogically emotional and painful hole in a person's heart" surrounding a child might offer some explanation, and perhaps some exemption.

I think that is so naughty.

"My husband I plan to have a child, but if we didn't, that would be fine, too, so I don't truly get the overwhelming emotion behind it. I was told that I would understand when I turned 30, but 30 came and went, and here I am"

I am 25 and having the same experience/feelings. Dave and I agreed we'd have children someday as we would like them, but I made it explicit that I have no really tug to do it biologically. That might mean in 5 or 10 years, when we decide it's time I might not be willing to be the vessel by which those children come to be. Meanwhile, many women around us have that URGE! and I'm dumbfounded. I'd love to adopt and really look forward to that process. But. If something happened and we didn't have kids, I think I'd be okay as the alternative life path is appealing and would seem satisfying but in a different way.

It always made me feel dysfunctional. So many women talk about not being able to wait to be pregnant and have kids...and they don't even have bfs. Where the fuck is this coming from!?!? I am left to wonder...am I a cold-hearted bitch b/c I don't have Mommy Syndrome? Yet I see it around me all the time so I can't deny that *something* is going on. Whether it's biological or in their heads as PJo mentions, I'm not sure.

>>Our language should reflect this even when we agree: The impulse is golden as long as it's not answered impulsively.

When "we" agree. Oh that's rich, Crid.
Anyway, your latest truism is shit too. And fatuous.

The difference is, when young men are willing to coerce a woman to see to their need to spread their seed... we call it rape and throw them in jail... EVEN THOUGH it's a remarkably strong biological need. Why is there a pass for women who will pretty much go crazy to get a kid no matter the consequence. Just because it's soft power? The LW is probably lucky his wife hasn't gone to the point where she tied him down and just took what she wanted... or made sure every condom has a slight hole or what have you.

> When "we" agree. Oh that's rich

So, we don't?

> shit too. And fatuous.

But my impulses are "strong"! They're "remarkably strong!"

Crid I disagree with most of your ideas lately.

However.

I might need to employ your hardcore tactics next time I come up against a single woman who is undergoing IVF. They expect a round of golf claps and girl-power appraisals. Because though I believe that the baby-rabies thing exists, I don't think giving INTO IT is okay in a lot of instances. That whole sub-optimal situation thing.

Example: My (almost) sister-in-law's good friend who is single and going for IVF. I said "wow she's an asshole" and SIL couldn't believe it. I was like the antichrist at that moment. Complete with Christian Louboutin-clad hooves and creepy fake skin like Crid said. I don't think she's forgiven me for that.

"I'm not saying that's the case here, as we really can't know."

In this case we do know. If even half of what he relates is true, this is not a normal grief-crazed person. He basically went down the list of Cluster B disorder symptoms. Those are basic peronality traits and about as curable as eye color.

A lot of what you are saying is valid, when it applies to non-Borderline/narcissistic people. That is clearly not the case here.

He doesn't have two options. Having a child with this woman is not an option.

"the enormous hole, and desperate, illogically emotional and painful hole in a person's heart" surrounding a child might offer some explanation, and perhaps some exemption.

No exemption, but explanation is necessary. LW needs to understand that this powerful need to be a mother isn't something he can switch off or erase with love and patience and reason. She needs a baby, and he can abandon all sense and have one with her, or he can end the relationship.

'Frankly, I'd be pissed off at your stand about the baby too. The woman is grieving the loss of a child, which YOU agreed to have, knowing she was running out of time, then you throw on the brakes.'

It's hard to get in the mood with someone doing a Linda Blair on you, I'd think...how is a man supposed to be able to respond sexually to someone screaming and throwing things at him? I don't get why people the man's being called an 'idiot' and saying she's justified in hating him etc. Would it have been better to have not aborted the baby? Is it really wise to get pregnant again when she can't control her emotions?? That would creep me out, to have my spouse shrieking at me in the daytime and trying to seduce me at night, how screwed up is that?

And going out to get a sperm donor? Jesus.

The husband isn't allowed to feel what he feels about the situation? People must assume that men don't grieve lost children, but that's not the case. A lot of these posts are reading 'the woman should get what she wants no matter what her partner feels about the situation-his duty is to impregnate her'.

"for those who do, the urge is so strong it can lead to an almost temporary form of insanity - a craving to have a baby so strong that literally nothing else matters."

I think when it goes that far, it's not healthy. We tried to have a second child and were not successful. For a couple of months during that time I could not go to LLL meetings, but had to have another leader substitute for me, seeing all the newborns made me sad. Even so, I was not in some uncontrollable state, taking it out on everyone around me. You can control your emotions, you know. Same with PMS...while it may be ugly there is no excuse to lash out at people over it. Self-control, I recommend it. If you can't control yourself, you need help.

And now we're talking about rape. What is up with guys equating babies to slavery and rape, which are not nearly as awful as what those things truly are?

Swiss: The wife is an asshole. She totally sucks. LS is too nice to her, but I do think it's important we try to understand a person's behavior. Rapists are psychoanalyzed all the time. It's like how a lot of sexual abusers were sexually abused as kids: we talk about that to understand the pattern of behavior, but not to justify it. To prevent it, yes. To help guide treatment, yes.

No matter what the wife wants, no matter how real the yearning in her loins may be, no matter how deep her pain from the dead baby goes: it doesn't give her a free pass. No one has said it does. No one has the right to treat their partner so horrendously and have it justified away, Bi-Polar disorder/dead baby/whatever or not. But wouldn't a BP diagnoses, if she has it, mean she can be treated? That at least in part, her behavior was rooted in a mental illness that can be helped and not because she is just a mere, run of the mill jack ass?

On the opposite side of the spectrum, most rapists cannot be cured of their proclivities. Almost always they re-offend. Also: the husband is there by choice. If he stays, knowing how she behaves, he is a willing participant in her antics. No, he isn't to *blame* for her nuttiness but if he left, it would end (and if it didn't, he could take out an RO). Career rapists go after people who have absolutely no willing participation in the act. Please don't bring up false rape accusations to rebut. Or morning after regret. Try harder.

He can stop this all right now; she doesn't have him locked up in a cell in the basement. If some guy is holding you down and shoving it into you, maybe with a knife to your throat, it would seem a bit more complicated, no?

'the woman should get what she wants no matter what her partner feels about the situation-his duty is to impregnate her'.

No one has said that. But the reality is that she is determined to get pregnant with or without him, so he needs to make a choice. He can either be a daddy or leave. This behavior isn't going to go away on its own.

Oh, please run. I'm recovered after being divorced seven years from a similar young lady. I had to write two books to do it. I have sole custody of our nine year old son, but only because she's in prison. She'll start the shit all over again when she gets out of prison (it's all MY FAULT don't you see).

Incidentally, she could get out as early as this summer. So I am reading a book entitled Without Conscience by Robert Hare and People of the Lie by M Scott Peck. Trying to reinforce the fact that the ex-box is CRAZY and not let her manipulate her way back into my (now) normal life.

Run now. You are headed for Crazy Town whether there are drugs involved or not.

Gretchen, don't count on being able to have kids in 5 or 10 years. Womens' fertility drops dramatically... at 30 you're still ok but 35 is cutting it close. At 38 most women cannot get pregnant even with fertility treatments. Keep that in mind if you do decide you want kids.

I know our society likes to say "you have plenty of time! work on your career!" but the fact is... you don't.

Hey lovelysoul, thanks for the example of the woman only being consoled by having another baby - but I really think that the fact that it worked out in your friends' case is probably a rare exception. The husband was certainly right about being concerned with having another baby when his wife was having serious issues (which, of course, must have effected her ability to parent the child they already had).

I completely agree with Amy and most of the responders on this one. If you're not sure about the stability of your marriage, your spouse's abilities as a parent and your desire to be a parent, PLEASE DON'T BRING A KID INTO THIS WORLD. PLEASE!!!!!!! And yes, as stated above, you very well could be held responsible even if your wife gets pregnant via IV without your permission. Your wife is SELFISH, SELFISH, SELFISH if she is will do this to you without you being on board. Someone who would threaten you the way she has DOES NOT LOVE YOU! SHE DOES NOT WANT YOU AS A HUSBAND, SHE WANTS YOU AS A PROVIDER (SPERM-DONOR, FINANCIAL SOURCE) FOR WHATEVER BABY SHE CAN PRODUCE. YOU NEED TO TELL YOURSELF THAT YOU DESERVE BETTER. GET OUT NOW!

> this powerful need to be a mother isn't
> something he can switch off or erase
> with love and patience and reason.

Same as a man's need for a good sports car!

> What is up with guys equating
> babies to slavery

Didn't say that.

Said that if America survives another two hundred years, it will look back at the family practices of this time with the same befuddlement with which we regard the owning of slaves by our forefathers.

That's what I said...

...OK, there may have been some other stuff about the coercive nature of the human spirit and all that. But no, childhood isn't necessarily slavery.

No matter what the wife wants, no matter how real the yearning in her loins may be, no matter how deep her pain from the dead baby goes: it doesn't give her a free pass. No one has said it does. - Gretchen

Acctually, lovelsoul did say that. Thats why we all piled on her

I never said it gave her a "free pass". She is obviously behaving immaturely, reacting out of anger and frustration, and that's not ok.

These people are in a major standoff - each trying to manipulate the other into what they want. Have any of you ever been in a standoff? It can get very ugly, and it usually doesn't end until one person folds or quits.

She wants him to have a baby with her, like they planned. He wants her to drop the baby idea right now, even if that renders her infertile.

She thinks he can't possibly love her if he wants that. He thinks she doesn't love him if she puts the baby ahead of their relationship.

They're both right. The way it stands, nobody is being very loving or trying to meet the other's needs. In fact, it's degenerating into hate.

She "tries" by planning fun things, but underneath she resents him, and is probably growing to hate him for being so intractable on this issue. So, she loses it, cries, and calls him names in some vain (and irrational) attempt to make him give in to her needs.

This only makes him more intractable...which only makes her more hateful...and so on.

Why neither of them is leaving this non-working, increasingly toxic relationship is the curious part.

Like I said, standoffs don't end until someone gives in (like my friend's husband) or quits. The likelihood that she will give up on the baby idea is zilch, so if this is going to end between them, he will have to be the one to give in.

He doesn't seem opposed to having a baby because he already did it once with her...just not anymore...or not yet. But it doesn't matter because she's made it clear she's not going to wait around for him if that's his choice.

They could both just leave and do what they want, yet they stay locked in this ridiculous standoff. What are they each getting out of it?

If he expects to "win" here, he's not going to. Neither of them are. Causing someone you love to grow to hate you is never winning. Even if it comes down the way you want, you've already lost.

I can see her end game - a baby. I just can't see what he hopes to gain from the stance he's taking - not giving in but not getting out. It's like the dumbest strategy on earth.

"Acctually, lovelsoul did say that. Thats why we all piled on her"

No she didn't. We know you can't type, maybe you should learn to read? No free pass, no acceptability, anywhere in her posts.

I'm totally with you on one point, lovelysoul. LW is going to have to be the one that makes the final decision. Because at this point, there is only the final decision. His trying to change her behavior at this stage will not amount to anything. He can only do whatever he can do.

I just can't see what he hopes to gain from the stance he's taking - not giving in but not getting out.

Exactly. With ultimatums laying out a timetable for him to agree to get her pregnant, he will not win. And if he doesn't give in, she'll get her sperm somewhere else. Again, no win for him. There is only picking up the pieces of whatever's left when he either agrees (please, god, no) or gets the hell out. Hoping she'll change will get him nothing except bills for a kid that might not be his.

The husband was certainly right about being concerned with having another baby when his wife was having serious issues

I agree with factsarefacts on this one. The enormous mountain of grief that must come from losing a child will likely not be scaled by coercing someone into having another child. There's really no analogy that equates, but I would think it's a bit like losing your husband and telling people the thing that will help you get over it is finding a new one. Possible, but not bloody likely. Bringing a new life into the world as a possible cure for emotional issues is not responsible, no matter how strong the biological urge. I'm pretty sure that grief counselors usually advise letting yourself grieve before making major changes in your life.

lovelysoul: for those who do, the urge is so strong it can lead to an almost temporary form of insanity - a craving to have a baby so strong that literally nothing else matters
crella: I think when it goes that far, it's not healthy.

I think so, too, crella. I'm not sure how anyone could think it's okay to decide to have a child while you're temporarily insane. Having nothing else matter except having a baby biologically is not healthy. Healthy people will grieve the loss of the child they couldn't have and, at some point in the future, decide on another option. Biology doesn't make behavior forgivable. We are a species capable of controlling the behavior that stems from our biological urges. If you'll forgive me the Freud for a bit, that's the ego, working to be the moderator between our primal urges (the id) and our desire for perfection according to societal norms (superego). The ego steers them both to try to attain the most realistic outcome that placates the opposing sides. Severe emotional issues throw that whole balance into chaos, causing that temporary insanity. Not healthy, and not conducive to the good raising of a child.

I don't know if luj is still on this thread, but I had to comment on this:

sperm donner

Best. Typo. Ever.

> I said "wow she's an asshole"

Props.

lovleysoul wrote

The LW dated a woman who was/is clearly desperate to have a baby. Not only was he aware of this beforehand, they even visited a fertility doctor who advised them not to wait, and he agreed, and they even made a baby.

It shouldn't be a big shock to him that she still desperately wants a child, yet he is essentially saying, "Let's wait, as I now think you may be crazy, and I'm not sure our relationship will survive."

If she was 30, and/or without medical issues, this would be reasonable. However, as it stands, by delaying, he is effectively preventing her from possibly ever having a child...while insulting her at the same time.

That just can't be done. Some things you can't take back...pull out from. Even when you're right, to say and do them drives your relationship into a ditch...or completely over a cliff.

He doesn't have any more right to prevent her from having a child than she does to force him to have one.

So what we have here is LS saying that the guy agreed to make a baby and knew what she was like so shoudnt be suprised that shes a nut job, that by refusing her tirades he is insulting her, its his fault that she hasnt had a baby yet, and his need to wait out the crazy is something, and I quote "That just can't be done"

Seems to me LS did pretty much say that the wife is justified in her behavior

Hi lovelysoul, it is not my intention to dump on you because I've read many of your posts and really think that your moniker is quite apt.

You wrote: "Why neither of them is leaving this non-working, increasingly toxic relationship is the curious part." I agree, and think that there are a number of possibilities:

(i) By hook or by crook, she wants a biological baby and a man (or someone else) to support her in her endeavor. She is probably aware (hell, she may have already investigated) that her husband may be on the ropes financially to her and her baby even if she went and got spermed up at a clinic without his permission.

(ii) He may be afraid of being alone. He may take the standard wedding vow (through thick and through thin, till death do us part, etc.) very seriously. She very well could also have these emotions.

While I can sympathize with post-partum depression and biological urges for motherhood, manipulating another human being into being a parent is one of the most selfish actions I can think of (selfish to the other person and selfish to the child). And I have grave reservations about someone so selfish being able to be a high quality parent.

Seriously, Gretch, good going.

If the husband had said, "My wife has been on an emotional roller coaster since the abortion -- one minute she's yelling at me for putting the peanut butter back in the fridge the wrong way, the next she's bursting into tears and telling me that she's a terrible wife who doesn't deserve me and urging me to find a younger, more fertile woman," then I might say that the guy should drag her to a shrink with expertise at treating women with depression who recently went through a significant hormonal event (pregnancy/abortion would qualify). But I read a whole lot of blogs that deal with infertility indirectly or directly, and this woman's behavior is NOT NORMAL for infertility/conception sadness/strain alone. I can sympathize with a powerful wish to have a child; I have that wish, too. And we're waiting to see if a visit with a fertility doctor is in the cards for us, so I can understand, to some degree, the fear that it's never going to happen (though I have a few years before my 40s). But I still think the LW should run, run, RUN.

The IUI she's trying is unlikely to work at her age. The next step will be IVF. There's a decent chance that the IVF doctor is going to say, "Wait, you're using donor sperm despite the fact that you're married to a fertile man with no known genes for disease? Has he consented to this?" At which point the wife will be back on the husband to provide his seed. Unless she turns out to have a mental disorder that is simultaneously severe yet 100% treatable with drugs (unlikely, let us just say) she's not someone who should be a mom. Plus, the guy is still under the delusion that she's a truly wonderful person with just one or two little problems. That person she is when she's screaming at you that she's evil, LW? That's who she is. The fact that she's nice and caring to you at times means that she's realized that 24/7 nastiness drives people away fairly quickly. You're in an abusive situation, and you need to leave.

Luj, when I said, "This can't be done", I meant that there are some things you can't say or do and ever hope to recover your relationship. I'm not suggesting that saying or doing them is even untrue, or wrong, but the hope that you will be able to recover is what's foolish.

Telling your man that he's underendowed and not as good in bed as your last guy...hey, it may be TRUE, but you're an idiot to say so. Don't expect there won't be repercussions. The relationship will never be the same.

I think telling a woman that you impregnated only a year ago - who, in fact, had the baby lived, would BE the mother of your child right now - that you've decided that she's not actually fit to be a mother because she's "crazy"....well, it may be TRUE, but you're an idiot if you think that's going to play well.

Honestly, how does he expect to recover from this? Did he think his newfound "honesty" would bring them closer?

That's what I don't get about what he's doing. He's insulting her, while preventing her from having a baby, yet, he's saying, "She doesn't seem to love me anymore." duh!

After you say such things, you're better off leaving because you're not going to get the warm/fuzzy part of the relationship back....not unless you're honestly and convincingly able to say you didn't mean it.

Factsarefacts, I appreciate you laying out his reasons for staying. Believe me, I understand all those. Sometimes, especially when people are very ethical and traditional, they need "permission" to go. That may be why he's here.

And I think we all agree that if she's just a NP/BP psycho, he HAS to go.

That's why I asked him to look at her life in total. Seeing that this isn't something you caused, and really can never fix, is freeing.

But the other possibility, however slight, remains that she may just be temporarily nuts over the loss of the baby, and may even be lashing out from a place of grief or guilt because of the abortion.

I don't think the LW would be writing if it was as clear cut as option A - if she's just a psycho. Maybe he would - maybe he's extremely indecisive - but plenty of people on this board, this time and last, laid out the signs and urged him to leave. If he was looking for support in that decision, he had it. Yet, he's still there.

This says to me that he's torn because he knows this behavior isn't typical of her, and that, in fact, if she had the baby, she might be ok.

Although many here find it rare, it is not at all rare for a mother in nature to seek an immediate replacement for a lost "child". I grew up on a farm, and this is very common. A mother animal will stand at the fence crying for days over a lost foal, calf, lamb, etc...until they find a "replacement." My dad would often match up distraught mother animals with a replacement if he could...if he had a "child" whose real mom had died. Then, life in the field returns to normal.

Historically, mothers who lost babies were encouraged to try for another right away. There was no such thing as "grief counseling". Everyone understood that the quickest recovery was to repair the loss as soon as possible...to bring life back to "normal" for that mother who was used to having a baby in her arms.

My hunch really is that this woman is suffering from extreme grief and a sense of betrayal from the man she loves and married with the expectation of building a family.

Hopefully, I'm right because I suspect - regardless of what we say - he's going to stay with her.

Crid: I felt kind of bad for calling her friend an asshole - b/c I don't know the woman and perhaps she's very nice, but her choice to make a new baby, when she has no stable relationship makes me sick. SIL asked "Oh, why do you know her?" and I said "No, but she has to be messed up if she's doing that." I was subsequently given the Evil Eye - b/c clearly, I'm just not a progressive enough feminist! Dave was shocked I said that to his sister. I have no class!

At 40-something years old, if you have a number of failed relationships behind you, but you actually *want* a relationship: you're doing something wrong. There is something (or some things) kind of wrong with you.

Relationships aren't easy, but they're not rocket science. When you keep failing it's got a lot to do with you're ability to *pick people* and treat them well. SIL said the woman cannot look at a baby without resenting the mother and getting upset. That's not healthy or sane, baby-rabies or not. She needs to lock it up and get a fucking cat. (Translation: that's like telling you, Crid, to just shut up and settle for a VW GTI, so it didn't win me many points with SIL; I'm all insensitive like, you see? :-) )

Having a baby won't fix your psychological problems or make a man love you. Despite what that dumbass new J. Lo movie says. I understand the desperation behind a woman's emotions but like Crella said, when it makes you act stupid and hurt people you need to fucking relax. You're internal desires, no matter how painful, don't justify having a baby on your own or being bad to your husband. Also: I think these baby-insane women place too much value and self-actualization on becoming a mother that when it appears it won't happen, it's a dramatic, painful re-direction of their future. Like if you are an aspiring marathoner and lose your legs. Suddenly, a major way you define yourself is gone. Years of dreaming and working towards that goal are impossible.

But again, I'm just trying to understand them. I don't think it gives them a free pass to act a certain way.

"Like if you are an aspiring marathoner and lose your legs. Suddenly, a major way you define yourself is gone. Years of dreaming and working towards that goal are impossible."

I think that's probably a very apt description, Gretchen. And, although we often see those heartwarming stories of legless people soldiering on, the reality is that many in that situation do not handle it well emotionally.

"many in that situation do not handle it well emotionally."

I'd wallow in self-pity and become an alcoholic.

I'd wallow in self-pity and become an alcoholic.

I laughed and thought, "Me, too! Pass the Maker's Mark." I'm a terrible person.

I have friends who are breaking up because he, at age 50, developed prostate cancer and went through treatment, which, unfortunately, left him impotent. Understandably, he is grieving and depressed and has responded a lot like LW's wife -withdrew affection and starting being really mean and critical of her. Finally, she couldn't take it anymore. She wanted him to just be happy he was alive - and that she was still there - but, for him, it's a "painful redirection of their future".

I think very few of us would handle such a major loss to our identity as well as we'd hope.

She is obviously behaving immaturely

No, she's not. She's a lunatic.

Best. Typo. Ever.

Posted by: NumberSix

I aim to please.

Thought I had to stare at your post for about 5 minutes until I noticed the typo - my brain just doesnt make the spelling connections, and the spell check feature is prctically usless to me. It catches the simple mistakes, but on larger words is apt to substitute a completly different word

Gretchen: "On the opposite side of the spectrum, most rapists cannot be cured of their proclivities. Almost always they re-offend."

Well as they say, never let facts stand in the way of a good argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates

Overall sex offender re-offence rates are around 5% --- in other words, the vast majority never commit another sex offence again.

Letterwriter, you are a fool and a tool. Any sensible adult in their 40s would know what to do here.

Please proceed with your self-destructive nonsense without troubling the world further with this inane, self-absorbed desire to have us bear witness.

>>Well as they say, never let facts stand in the way of a good argument...

Lobster,
I totally take your point, but this is a notoriously murky area statistically.

From your own link:

"Another perspective on the problem is offered by Anna Salter, one of the foremost experts on sex offenders in the country. She writes the following in her popular book Predators:

"The dry research figures only confirm what I have seen over and over in this field: there are a lot of sexual offenses out there and the people who commit them don't get caught very often. When an offender is caught and has a thorough evaluation with a polygraph backup, he will reveal dozens, sometimes hundreds of offenses he was never apprehended for. In an unpublished study by Pamela Van Wyk, 26 offenders in her incarcerated treatment program entered the program admitting an average of 3 victims each. Faced with a polygraph and the necessity of passing it to stay in the treatment program, the next group of 23 men revealed an average of 175 victims each."

LW- Listen to Sterling.

Cousin Dave great web-site shrink4men

Lobster:

Why do men rape vs. why do women want babies?

It's a loaded question and there isn't one single answer. But most men who go and RAPE someone, have serious psychological issues and most rapes are fueled by hatred and a need to control. It's not about sex.

Many women AND men who have babies together aren't clinically sick. Now it's debatable if I think they're sane to do that to themselves b/c evidence shows having kids does hurt many relationships but that's not a piece of evidence that holds weight, just some frivolous side commentary.

A woman wanting a baby can be a dangerous force to come up against, and cause a lot of anguish for those around her. She might do something dumb that is bad for another human - like have a kid without a dad in the picture! And Crid could argue this is a way to force her psychosis on another living being against his/her will (though do kids complain they were born??). But I simply cannot equate wanting a child and having one with rape or slavery. The guy can LEAVE. He has a CHOICE, no matter how brutal her verbal abuse, and no matter where that slung ring lands: it's not an intimate violation of his person.

LEAVE DUDE. LEAVEEEEEE. She shows all the manipulative symptoms as my dad. It doesn't get better b/c these people are too dysfunctional to ever see their own piece in the problems. They're not ever genuinely sorry for being nuts and mean.

> Well as they say, never let facts
> stand in the way

&

> this is a notoriously murky area
> statistically.

I love it when someone in here does the reading, especially does the reading and is responsibly challenged buy another reader. It's makes it feel like everyone's effort has some purposeful quality, and that we're not just all horsing around between projects.

> (though do kids complain they were born??).

OH GODDAMMIT!

WHAT?? WHAT? What could the purpose of this argument possibly be?????

Goddamit Tressider, I want an apology from you and I want it right now. I *smelled* this insanity out there.... I FUCKING KNEW this madness was at hand. You and Gretchen were standing a hair's breadth apart and one of you was wearing the devil's perfume. (I guessed the wrong one: It was your boldfaced, quotation-marked "you" that drew the fire.) Yeah, lady, I gotcher "banana" right here.

But for fuck's sake, I was completely right. This woman isn't just a reproduction robot with especially lifelike camouflage: Gretchen's a command-and-control unit with the quad-core intel expansion pack, full-bidirectional infiltration subsystems, and the latest subversion microcode upgrades, fresh off the production line at MIT.

She truly, truly believes women deserve love and admiration just for squatting and dropping a baby— That's a woman's purpose, to witlessly give life... After all, kids don't "complain they born".

I think that's just pathetic.

Gretchen, go sit next to LS. And keep your voice down.

*****The difference is that my friend's husband had been married to her for a few years already, and knew her to be a basically stable person before the tragedy. It was a risk, but he took the chance that having another baby would heal her, which it did.*****

Yes, it was a risk, and they were damned lucky it turned out okay, since the child they brought into the world had no say in it and would have been the one to suffer for it had it gone horribly, horribly wrong.

When it comes to bringing a new person into the world, I believe it's prudent to err on the side of caution. In the LW's case, his wife is batshit insane and he's a total enabler. There is NO WAY bringing a kid into that hornet's nest is a good idea, and no matter how many times you try to paint the possibility of sunlight and roses here with your shining example of the ONE time it worked out, the bottom line is this is a risk that should not be taken, because there is an innocent life involved.

Geeze, why are you bringing me into this?

I don't think that's Gretchen's view. After all, she called some woman an asshole for having a baby without a dad.

However, it's true that kids don't usually complain about being born. This is just one of those relative gray areas you don't comprehend or acknowledge. Is it still better to be alive, even if you had a shitty start in life? Sure it is!

Nobody could've had a messier, shittier start than me (well, maybe Rielle Hunter's baby...ok, a few others), but I don't complain about my life. I'm grateful for my life and have turned it into a useful, happy one, as have many kids not born in optimal conditions.

That doesn't mean we condone purposely bringing kids into shitty conditions. It's just a relative question, like is it better to have stage 4 breast cancer or the flu?

You'd probably say no one should ever be sick at all so how dare we make the comparison.

"There is NO WAY bringing a kid into that hornet's nest is a good idea, and no matter how many times you try to paint the possibility of sunlight and roses here with your shining example of the ONE time it worked out, the bottom line is this is a risk that should not be taken, because there is an innocent life involved."

First of all, it wasn't a "hornet's nest". This was a functional family that suffered an unspeakable tragedy. They are surely NOT the only ones to lose a baby, experience crippling grief, guilt, and anger, then have another baby.

Some of you are the ones that must live in "sunlight and roses". Apparently, almost no one here has ever gotten really angry at their spouse....or gone a little cukoo when faced with the death of a loved one (much less a child!).

Do you all really live in worlds where you've never said, "I hate you?" Have you never had a fight with a loved one or spoken words you didn't mean in a highly emotional state?

And, it's important to remember that we're only getting one side here.

This lady may be a psycho, but based on what little we know, I'm not ready to make that call. I'm amazed at how quick she's been "diagnosed". I think some of you are projecting your own experiences with people with personality disorders onto this situation.

However, if you take things that someone says when they're really really mad, they might mimic things a true psycho would say, but that's because you're taking the worst behavior of that person in one of his/her worst moments and expanding it to be the "norm". Yet, we don't know what this person's norm is.

Frankly, to me, "You're evil", and "I know why your last girlfriend dumped you!" could either be a sign of a disordered personality or someone who is really angry in the midst of a very heated argument. Doesn't prove this person has a life-long psychological disorder or is a threat.

Wedding rings are tiny. He didn't say she hit him, just that she threw them in his direction and said, "Sell them!" A bit dramatic, but still not hard evidence of a psychological disorder.

This lady is obviously very pissed off and resentful, and, in her defense, she has some valid reasons to be. He says he "married her for comfort" (What?!) Then, immediately after tying her to him with bounds of matrimony, he tells her he wants more time before having a child, knowing full well that TIME IS THE ONE THING SHE DOES NOT HAVE!

Who does that? C'mon. By my calculations, all this has happened in less than a year. From pregnancy to abortion to marriage to "sorry, now we're not having kids."

That's enough to throw anybody a little off balance. Could it not be that LW has some issues too, and maybe provokes a lot of these fights and then is painting himself out to be the victim?

DUDE: stop using my posts for crackpot reading experimentation.

LS: Let's go have a nice drink and talk about how our uterusi (?) RULE THE UNIVERSE! GIRL POWER!

Ugh. He's getting tedious on this, no?

And on that note. Everyone should go check their 401ks.

> Is it still better to be alive, even if you
> had a shitty start in life? Sure it is!

Well, then BUNNY, who cares? Beat your kids. Starve them. Leave 'em alleys, OK? Your work is done. Motherhood comes through! THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL.

I've tried for months, but I just can't find the words to confront your compressed, twisted mind. It's so SHAMELESS.

"It's a loaded question and there isn't one single answer. But most men who go and RAPE someone, have serious psychological issues and most rapes are fueled by hatred and a need to control. It's not about sex."

Hate to disagree on something that is not the main point of this argument but this "rape as power" adage is tired 70's feminist rhetoric. It IS about the sex and from what I have read, rape rates are way down in countries with good access to pornography and/or legalized prostitution.

>>I've tried for months, but I just can't find the words to confront your compressed, twisted mind. It's so SHAMELESS.

If les mots justes elude, Crid,
why not just STFU?

> why not just STFU?

Practice makes perfect. One day this zombie will be compelled to acknowledge the transparency of her narcissism, and the ignominy will silence her evermore. I'm doing the Lord's work.

"Well, then BUNNY, who cares? Beat your kids. Starve them. Leave 'em alleys, OK? Your work is done..."

You're the only one who makes these hideous leaps in logic. I've dealt with people who fight like this - take something to a staggering extreme that's completely without merit.

It's a technique to shut down all productive dialogue, and it's more indicative of a personality disorder than anything you can charge me with....if that's even what you're implying with your narcissism crack. No one can really ever be sure what you're talking about.

> take something to a staggering extreme

The extremity is all yours. you think people should be grateful for life itself BECAUSE THAT GRATITUDE ACCRUES TO A PARENT WHO DOES NO MORE THAN DELIVER. Or am I wrong?

That's monstrous. Being hectored by a such an isolated mind about the nature of "productive dialogue" is an assault I can withstand. This doesn't even aspire to neurological stupidity... Penguins tending their brood, elephants tending their calves, even sea slugs tending their slimy eggs would think you're nuts.

"But ... most rapes are fueled by hatred and a need to control. It's not about sex."

Nah. If that were the case, he would simply punch her, like he would if she were a guy.

It is about the sex, or more specifically, the orgasm.

Carolla used to have a wonderful sarcastic scenario for people who'd argue that rape wasn't a sexual crime, along the lines of what Spartee's saying.

"The extremity is all yours. you think people should be grateful for life itself BECAUSE THAT GRATITUDE ACCRUES TO A PARENT WHO DOES NO MORE THAN DELIVER. Or am I wrong?"

Yes, you are wrong. I mean, I can feel gratitude that my birth mother didn't abort me (although she probably would have if abortion had been available in her area), but that doesn't mean that I respect her choices. Am I grateful that she didn't have that option? Of course! I'm happy to be alive.

I understand that this doesn't make her a saint or noble or, really, anything more than what she truly was - a screwed up woman who gave birth to me by accident. Yet, I'm grateful for my life, and it makes me realize that other lives, brought about by similar circumstances, are no less valuable.

About rape, I have some experience, and I find the whole power/sex debate foolish. Who says it's "either/or"?

Of course, rapists want sex, but a high percentage of them also want to have physically dominant sex. I don't know who made it out to be either about sex or dominance (power), but it's really about both.

There are no meek rapists. It's all about power over the victim. But, of course, it's also about sexual fulfillment. This really isn't in conflict. Rapists are people who get off sexually on having power over their victims. Rape usually involves humiliation and degradation. That's what turns the rapist on sexually. So, rape is about both sex and power.

I just read the review of that book you linked, Amy. That is so wrong. Are they serious? The trauma of rape for a woman is mostly about what her husband will think?!!

True rape is about subjugation and the sexual pleasure derived from it. It's about sex AND power. The two really can't be separated. Anyone who has experienced rape will tell you that.

> I'm happy to be alive.

That's deeply personal arithmetic.

> that doesn't mean that I respect her choices.

Consideration of decency towards kids consists of more than 'respecting someone's choices'. This isn't afternoon of shopping in the big city, where a friend bought an ugly scarf.

> other lives, brought about by
> similar circumstances, are no
> less valuable.

When people are raised by incompetent parents, a decent fellow will let them make their own judgements, instead of chirpily announcing "You oughta be grateful".

My hunch really is that this woman is suffering from extreme grief and a sense of betrayal from the man she loves and married with the expectation of building a family.

And what is this hunch founded on? From where I sit, it seems your hunch is based on your belief that it's within normal parameters for women to go temporarily insane when wanting a baby. Actually, I don't totally disagree with you on the point, just your interpretation of what it means. I'm not denying that she is suffering from extreme grief and a sense of betrayal. That seems abundantly clear. But in light of what the LW said (and I think he's downplaying what were early signs of her problem because he wants to believe this is temporary), her reactions are a symptom, not the cause of her issues. He said in the follow-up that she was always "extremely emotional" and had extreme reactions to situations. That's two uses of the word "extreme" in one sentence. Her jumping-off point was extreme ups and downs in her emotional reactions.

I'm not diagnosing the wife with a specific problem, nor have I ever on any of these threads. I'm not a clinician, so I don't have any business sticking her with a diagnostic label. But I do aver that she is not emotionally healthy. Why? Because emotionally healthy people don't have the reactions that she did, even to what has to be the overwhelming grief of losing a child. Emotionally healthy people will try to work through their grief, even though they may have ups and downs, not wallow in it and use it as a weapon against the man she wants to impregnate her.

I think the combination of hormonal changes and grief was a trigger for her, releasing her even more extreme behavior. Before, she was like that girl at the party who is sooo much fun while she's doing shots and dancing on the table, but then she has too much and starts screaming and crying and throwing up on your shoes. People like her when she's fun, and the other stuff isn't too bad and doesn't last long, so they think it's an aberration. In reality, both behaviors stem from the same place.

I do, however, still agree with you, lovelysoul, that the husband may be the biggest pussy I've ever read about. I do get that she feels betrayed, because they did have a deal. He agreed to her terms and then changed the rules mid-game. That would piss me off, too, and I'm fairly stable. Add to that her already likely fragile emotional state and the grief, and even Gandhi would be tempted to bitch-slap him. He (hubby, not Gandhi), like her, is clinging desperately to his fantasy of what he can get out of his marriage, even though the odds of his actually attaining that ideal are slimmer than Lara Flynne Boyle with the stomach flu.

I aim to please.

I'd heard that about you, luj.

I'm glad you took my comment in the spirit it was intended, because I reread it and worried you might think I was being snippy. You've posted here before about your dyslexia, and even if you weren't dyslexic and still made spelling mistakes I wouldn't point them out because I think it's rude, though I do have to grit my teeth when people put that (sp?) thing next to a word. If you know you didn't spell it right, either fix it or don't, but that thing just makes you seem lazy. Sorry about the rant, but I just saw someone do that on another site and it makes me crazy.

Anyway, that one really made me giggle, so thanks. It was a horrific yet amusing mental picture.

"Read the book, lovelysoul. Because you prefer not to believe something doesn't mean it isn't well-founded."

Most of the "rape is about sex" stuff is just as ridiculous as the "rape is about power" stuff.

Whoever said it can't be both? It's like claiming dancing is about music, not movement...or, no, it's about movement, not music.

You can't really have one without the other, so it's a silly debate.

Rape is common in wartime or in conditions where the victim can be dehumanized. A lot of rapists use that as proof that rape lurks in the heart of all men. It's like how some people justify stealing -"hey, EVERYONE does it!" Or would do it if they could.

Murder is also common in wartime, but rarely does anyone try to claim this means we're all inherent murderers, just waiting for the opportunity.

As for LW's dilemma, I think the most basic question is whether she's mad because she's crazy or is she crazy because she's mad?

What he's done is kind of like how Lucy holds the ball for Charlie Brown, then just as he's ready to kick it, she yanks it away. I can see where that could make someone crazy mad.

I can also see that she may just be mad crazy.

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter, as the love between these two people is gone. There's no point in him staying just to conduct an autopsy.

"What he's done is kind of like how Lucy holds the ball for Charlie Brown, then just as he's ready to kick it, she yanks it away. I can see where that could make someone crazy mad."

Because it's reasonable to expect a man should still be willing to uphold his end of the bargain to give you a baby when you're calling him "pure evil" and throwing your wedding ring at him saying 'sell it'? Look at the timeline: She *agreed* to "wait" on the baby until their relationship was healthy (anyone can see that's a worthwhile goal), then *she* reneged (sp?)* on that agreement and decided she didn't want to wait, then *she* did that psycho stuff to him. This is absolutely nothing like Lucy and Charlie Brown. There are two ends to any bargain, and a man offering "I will give you a baby" is based on an informal unspoken agreement that that means the other party isn't going to call you "pure evil" and throw their wedding rings at you ... when she did that she broke her end of the bargain.

* That was for you NumberSix. I'm not lazy; just very busy.

They should've *agreed* to wait on marriage until their relationship was healthy. Again, this has all been within a year - pregnancy, abortion, marriage, and now he's like, "I'm not sure YOU'RE stable." Hello????

Also, it's unreasonable to ask your partner for something you know they can't give you.

I could ask my fiance to buy me a jet, but I know he can't afford one. He could ask me to try to look like Gisele Bunchen, but I can't.

To ask a woman you know is running out of time to give you more time is emotionally cruel. That's the one thing she doesn't have. If he felt that way, he should've never married her.

Hey, Lovelysoul, where does the kid's interest figure in to a seemingly deranged woman's quasi-right to have this guy inseminate her?

Put another way, is that lady a good candidate for adopting kids? If not, maybe that guy is doing the right thing by not bringing a kid under that woman's dictatorial control.

Spartee, if she is truly deranged, of course she shouldn't have any sort of child, adopted or natural. Right now, she's "seemingly deranged" but that's solely because of how LW is depicting her behavior.

And, lest we forget, this guy already made a baby with her, which would be a year old now if he/she had lived. Was he taking some backwards "wait and see" approach - make a baby first, then determine who this person is? Apparently, she was stable enough in his view to have a baby with a year ago.

Now, he says "the primary issue for her is about lack of time in trying to have a baby." Well, duh!

"There are no meek rapists."

I helped punish some in formal hearings. They were plenty meek, and not just in those hearings. And even the victim's descriptions in some cases demonstrated the guys were not only not "violent", in the way we normally understand that term, but really more of a persistant nag than an attacker in the sense you outline.

This notion of mustache-twirling bad guys committing Rape of Lucretia violent assaults being the norm in rape is wrong-headed. Most rapes, IIRC, are not at all violent in the way most people think of the term. There is no hitting, choking, or expressed threats of harm. Rather, there is a gal who said "no", and the guy then pushed to some further degree which satisfies the legal definition.

Now, we deem that a violent cime. Properly so. Cuffs for him, in some cases at least. But we should not let legal/political definitions necessary to classify rape as a crime make us think that the rapes are violence in the more general term, as people more commonly understand the term. The worry I have is that people will start to expect that more demonstrable violence actually occur before they will judge it rape.

You know, the whole, "did you fight hard enough...?" stuff.

Well, if you get raped - TRULY raped - by a "meek rapist", you're an idiot. If he's so meek, you should be able to get away.

I think it would depend on what the "pushed to some further degree" meant. Pushed against a wall (power), or did he say, "Please, pretty please, can I have sex with you?"

A rapist doesn't usually need to beat someone up -doesn't really want to do that unless he has to, as it's distracting. He's busy trying to have sex (because rape is about sex), and if he can effectively overpower her (because rape is also about power), that's all he needs.

A 200+ pd guy could easily overpower me - hold me down - without getting too violent.

There are sadistic rapists who WANT to beat someone up, but they are in the minority.

>>A rapist doesn't usually need to beat someone up -doesn't really want to do that unless he has to, as it's distracting. He's busy trying to have sex (because rape is about sex), and if he can effectively overpower her (because rape is also about power), that's all he needs.

A 200+ pd guy could easily overpower me - hold me down - without getting too violent.

Totally agree, lovelysoul.
If you try to stick - bizarrely - to the notion that "it's just about sex," you can't really explain why rape is not the norm.

I'd just add that the energy behind the crime often springs from an urge for power that's been frustrated.

Right, Jody. The sense of power a rapist feels is because he (or sometimes she) is taking something that isn't freely offered. In fact, they get a specific thrill from taking it that they wouldn't get if it was being offered.

Some people get a high from stealing. It gives them a sense of power. A rapist steals sex, which is why it's absurd to take sex out of the equation. He's not taking your wallet or your car keys. He's taking your body.

"To ask a woman you know is running out of time to give you more time is emotionally cruel. That's the one thing she doesn't have."

What you don't get is that it's not *him* being cruel --- it's *life* being cruel. He's just the messenger. If anything he's trying to inject some rationality. *Life* is cruel, some women who want to have babies just never get to on time --- shit happens, and it's sad and tragic, but it's not his fault. He's just saying "look, the situation is such that you should not have that baby now" (which is true, because you don't bring a baby into mini-hell-on-earth, you can't raise a baby when you can't even control yourself), and that is the truth, and it isn't his fault. She should *not* be having a baby at that age when she's so emotionally unstable and abusive and incapable of even having a normal relationship, and that has absolutely nothing to do with him: It would be true *no matter what* man she was with.

And why is she 'running out of time' anyway? She's had over 20 years to meet someone and have a baby. Is it also his fault she's now so pressed for time in the first place that he should be somehow *obligated* to live a life of pure hell with hell-woman to give her her last-minute baby in spite of how obvious it is that this cannot turn out well? Is he obligated to live the next 20 years in misery, and subject a child to 20 years of misery, because she waited until the last minute?

If rape is just about sex...then why do they need to take sex forcefully? Is sex so hard to come across? For someone who needs to get laid that badly, there are plenty of ways to get it. Without having to pay for some chick's steak dinner first. And without forcing it on her. Prosties are illegal across the country but that doesn't mean men who are looking for them can't/will not find them. If you're into it, you know where to look. And probably where to find ones that come with a cute little framed STD-free report from her doctor. There are also plenty of women online who want no-strings hook ups. That's free! And no one goes to jail!

I was mistaken and broad: it's not *just about control*. It's about the combination of factors: a lack of empathy for another person, desire to take sex forcefully, and the sex. The Big O. Whatever.

Mentally healthy men don't actually get off on rape. Maybe some guys like that role-play thing, and enjoy it because they do know it's fake. But the process of rape is inherently violent, whether they have to punch her lights out or not. As Jody said: Guys can overpower women with very little effort.

I mean, Jesus Christ. Are all guys potential rapists, but they just restrain themselves b/c they don't want to go to jail or b/c they'd like not to be viewed as impolite? Or are guys so cheap they aren't willing to shill out some cash for this live-giving sex from a prostie? (And, if a guy is willing to rape someone, he isn't above paying for it). I know guys have stronger sex drives than women and all that - but to say they rape just cause they're horny...wow.

The clock isn't running out on its own. He's making it run out. She just got pregnant a year ago. Odds are good she still can.

He MARRIED her, then withdrew his cooperation to have a baby, which he had extended less than a year before and prior to even marrying her.

She's good enough to marry but not have his baby. That's basically the message he's sending, which is cruel. Still, somehow, he thinks she should be flooded with loving feelings towards him, not anger. Why?

If I knew Amy had just an hour to get to a very important meeting which was going to change her life forever - maybe a deadline for a book deal that she's been trying to achieve for years - and I purposely come over, tie her up so she can't make it and loses her chance at her dream, and then I say, "Well why are you so angry at me?" Does that make any sense?

He MARRIED her, effectively taking her off the market for anyone else, yet deciding unilaterally to let the clock run out on her baby plans.

I really think he has some control issues. Otherwise, he would've left already. He's getting some sort of perverse enjoyment from obstructing these plans. Maybe he likes that she's begging him.

As Jody said: Guys can overpower women with very little effort.

Lovelysoul said that bit Gretchen.
And I agree.

Just because straight sex is - (on average!) - between two people (on average!) of unequal physical strength (on average!), does NOT mean that rape is simply a matter of being horny - with attitude!

Frankly, if he had done this to me, I'd call him "pure evil" too. I'd say, "Why the fuck did you marry me then, you pure evil bastard?"

"Oh, and here's you damn wedding rings...sell them!"

Weird having a parallel discussion about rape, but no, men don't rape because they're horny. They rape because, deep down, they're angry with women - angry that women have control over whether or not to give them sex. They view this as unfair, and set about to shift the balance of power by taking sex by force. Specifically, the taking part is the main thrill.

In fact, if you wanted to mess with a rapist's head, you wouldn't resist, you'd pretend to enjoy it. That would immediately make it less exciting for him.

This isn't true for a normal, horny guy.

As I see some women here have come to an unsupported (did anyone see a *fact* in those posts?), but very ardent consensus about an aspect of human sexuality primarily found among males (99% of accused/convicted rapists are males, I believe). I am not dressed for church, so I am not ready to argue matters of faith.

The prevailing view (but not universal) among women here is that rape is about power, etc.

I posit that view is something that cannot be disproved or proved via scientific method. So it is not really a matter open to scientific examination. It is a statement of faith, often spoken of with very sincere conviction and emotion. But sincerity and conviction do not make it fact.

Guys, one last thought: does lovelysoul's description of your gender's sexuality have much relation to the reality you experience?

I don't see it.

I'm trying to get lovelysoul's point about the bait-and-switch, but I just can't. It would be one thing if the LW had refused to try for a baby from the get go, but he didn't-they made a baby, and when that didn't work out he changed his mind based on his wife's precarious mental state. That's not a bait-and-switch.

Ultimately, whenever you have a situation where one party wants something and the other doesn't, the person who doesn't is going to get their way. If one person doesn't want to have sex, you can't have sex. If one person doesn't want to be in a relationship, then you're not in a relationship. If one person doesn't want to have a baby, then you can't have a baby. Sucks but such is life. And knowingly having a baby with an unwilling partner is immoral.

That being said, LW needs to get out. He's playing with fire knowingly here, and such behavior is unconscienable, especially when it might result in an unwanted baby.

"Frankly, if he had done this to me, I'd call him "pure evil" too. I'd say, "Why the fuck did you marry me then, you pure evil bastard?" "Oh, and here's you damn wedding rings...sell them!""

Well you're welcome to; just don't expect that any reasonable man on the receiving end of such a tirade is going to respond by thinking to himself, "wow, I think this woman would make a wonderful mother for my children".

A marriage certificate is not a license to be abusive. And he may have "promised", but when it comes to bringing a baby into the world, the welfare of that child trumps that --- some promises should be broken (never mind his own happiness that you think he is obligated to give up just because of a piece of paper).

He's absolutely entitled to happiness, and if he thinks his wife is crazy and abusive, he should GET OUT!

But he doesn't, and I think that proves he knows she's not crazy. At the very least, he's afraid she's not crazy - that she will be fine without him - and that's why he can't leave.

This guy was too much of a weasel to make reading the second half of the blog post worthwhile. I can't understand people who write letters like that, either to friends or to advice columnists:

'She's a hydra-headed viper who wakes me up in the morning by breaking a beer bottle over my head, and she spent all my mother's chemotherapy money on trips to the Indian casino. After I asked her to help me move the sofa so could vacuum by the wall, she called me "twee-dicked nancy boy" in front of our friends at church, and now she says want us to have kids who ride in the small bus, because they seem so docile and manageable. So, Amy, what do you think I should make babies with her? '

Maybe the second half of the blog post was less mundane.

Why would someone who wrote a letter like that, one that accurately described the proportions of misconduct in the relationship, need anyone's help in choosing a path?

Am I wrong? OK, the woman's insane. But isn't the letter a prototype of under-socialized teenage posturing?

At the very least, he's afraid she's not crazy - that she will be fine without him - and that's why he can't leave - LOVELYSOUL

Would you say the same of a woman being abused by her husband? Oh wait, we all ready know the answer to that.

In fact youve gone on record as saying if a couple get in a fight and the cops are called that the guy should be arrested even if he is the one brused and beaten and she hasnt been touched

"In fact youve gone on record as saying if a couple get in a fight and the cops are called that the guy should be arrested even if he is the one brused and beaten and she hasnt been touched"

I have never said that. Prove it. You can't because I've never said that.

This guy is not battered. He's living with someone who hates him for a specific reason - because of the way he has jerked her around.

Do the math. They had to have only gotten married 6 or 7 months ago. Then, he tells her she'll be a rotten mom - that's rich, considering they're grieving the loss of a baby.

I think he knows he's playing a big part in the breakdown of this relationship, and if he had any decency, he would end it, give in, or at least give a specific time frame for her to prove herself to him, then she can move forward with IVF if she wants.

lovelysoul, you have said you endorse "primary agressr" laws. Laws which mandate the arrest of the male in a DV call no matter the circumstances cops find when they arrive.

Luj, I did not know the PA laws always mandated the arrest of the male. I thought it was whoever the cops deemed to be the primary aggressor. I certainly do not support the male being arrested if he is beaten and bruised and the woman doesn't have a scratch.

Fair enough then. Though I thought I had articulated that point the last time the subject came up, so, sorry

Come on, you two... What's the point of a thread this long if someone doesn't stay pissed off?

I thought the point if this thread was to tell the LW what a spineless peice of crap he is and detail the many ways in which his life will crash and burn if he doesnt get out NOW

Maybe it was. We all seem to agree that far at least

Frankly, if he had done this to me, I'd call him "pure evil" too.

Ah, lovelysoul, you get me sort of on your side for a bit, and then you say things like this. Really? You'd call him pure evil? You think he deliberately set out to deceive her? You think he gets his kicks by marrying women pushing forty who are desperate for babies and then denying them that? Just a little while ago, you and I were agreeing that this guy was just spineless. Spineless =/= evil. He's too much of a coward to end his sham of a relationship because he thinks he won't find anyone else. He's too much of a coward to realize that the thing he hates about her is the reason he picked her in the first place: she's desperate and would have taken anyone. Jesus, this is the same crap that women who write to Amy say: they're still with the assholes because they're afraid there's no on else out there and they're terrified of being alone. The guy's not evil, he's a frightened wimp.

He MARRIED her, then withdrew his cooperation to have a baby

He withdrew for a reason! Agreeing to have a baby does not mean that you have agreed no matter what the circumstances. Granted, there were not great circumstances before, but the guy hit the end of his ridiculously long fuse. Even wedding vows spell out the parameters for marriage. Would you expect someone to stay married to a person who spends all her money on the cocaine that she shares with her lesbian lover while they disembowel nuns? That's an extreme example, but everyone has limits. The only mistake the guy made in withdrawing his compliance is that he hadn't already explicitly said "Sure, I'll have a baby with you, unless of course you go completely batshit crazy." One would think that's implied, but I seem to be wrong about that.

Like Shannon said, the partner with the veto wins. Emotionally stable people would have discussed why it was he changed his mind and why she was acting so insane. But these are not stable people.

Lobster, thanks for another giggle. Well, I'm assuming you meant it in a teasing way. I like this board because it doesn't tweak my admittedly sensitive antennae for apathy in writing. At least, I don't see it in any of the semi- to regular posters. So, to recap: tee-hee.

Oh, come on. LS is a breeder apologist of the highest order. I can't possibly be the only person who sees this.

*****He MARRIED her, effectively taking her off the market for anyone else, yet deciding unilaterally to let the clock run out on her baby plans.

I really think he has some control issues. Otherwise, he would've left already. He's getting some sort of perverse enjoyment from obstructing these plans. Maybe he likes that she's begging him.*****

Did it EVER occur to you that the dumbass LW got her knocked up the first time because he "thought it would make things better", discovered it didn't and breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when it didn't work out? That he recognized that Round Two was going to be even worse?

It's quite possible he realized the motherfucking HUGE bullet he dodged and decided that hey, he didn't want to be shot at again. At any rate, he seems to have recognized that his wife is unstable, and he's not going to knock her up. Kudos to him.

Now, if he'd just grow the rest of his spine and kick her to the curb, the problem would be completely solved.

There's blame on both parts, but mostly lately I see you blaming him for not giving her a baby.

Let me tell you this, dear - if it were truly about her wanting to PARENT, she'd adopt - but no, it's about the most selfish act in the world - creating your own personal DNA replicant.

I don't have a problem with that, but don't tell me it's because she "REALLY WANTS A BAYBEE" - she wants a mini-me. If she wanted a kid, she'd get one, and not one necessarily of her own DNA (and frankly, considering her mental issues, as well as the LW's enabling behavior, I don't see that producing a stellar member of society).

Stop acting like she's being abused. She can get out just as easily as he can.

I would agree with you, Numbersix and Ann, except for the math. They married less than a year ago... because a year ago she was pregnant, then 3 months later, she aborted, and THEN they married. So, as far as we know, they may have married only 3 months ago.

If this had been a long marriage, with him growing increasingly more uneasy with her mental state, I could see this, but I don't buy that he didn't notice until now that she was nuts.

He didn't have to marry this woman. By choosing to, he understood full well that she wanted to continue trying for a child. She has apparently been up front about that since the very beginning, as they were visiting doctors early on and agreed to try together.

If this was a guy, and 3 months ago, he married a beautiful, hot woman who had sex with him every night, and now, 3 months later, she's put on 100 pds and tells him she no longer likes sex, we'd be a little more sympathetic to why he might be really angry.

Maybe the LW did not mean to jerk this woman around - to pull a bait and switch - but he needs to be empathetic to how it feels that way to her, and accountable for how that is undoubtably effecting her mental state and love for him.

No one owes you love. Women often make this mistake, thinking that their spouse HAS to love them, no matter how they change the game. It's not true.

Women also often set up obstacles for guys to *prove* their love. They'll ask their guy to give up his friends, his fast cars, his weekend golf game....basically all the things he loves and desires most in life...in order to *prove* that he loves her more than all those things.

Unfortunately, this usually has the reverse effect, causing him to love her less, which sets up a vicious cycle.

I'm wondering if LW demanding a delay in the babymaking is less about her being "crazy" and more about him wanting her to prove her love for him, since he seems to feel unloveable.

> LS is a breeder apologist of the highest
> order. I can't possibly be the only person
> who sees this.

Oh, Dear Angel! You aren't, I promise!:

> he needs to be empathetic to how it
> feels that way to her

That right there there is the central, perhaps single neuron in this woman's skull: Women's feelings are sacrosanct. When a woman's listening to her feelings, then everything's going as well as it can on this crazy ol' world of ours. And after that, whatever... Society has to shrug and roll up its sleeves and do everything it can to mitigate the damage. Because we're on Planet WomanFeeling.

OTOH—

> He didn't have to marry this woman

That's true. It's not just that he's destined to Hell because he signed the wrong contract... He found this woman, and the damnedest people find each other.

One last time— Read just the first two lines of the first email. Is there anything else you need to know? Isn't it completely obvious the guy's making a case? To a stranger? About his wife?

Yes, he says she's "gone baby crazy". Uh, since when? Since after the last time he knocked her up less than a year ago? Wasn't she baby crazy before when they were visiting doctors and, you know, getting pregnant together?

Obviously, she wanted a baby long before he married her. This is not new. Yet, he acts as if it's a sudden development.

I find it curious that he's picked the one thing he knows she wants more than anything to make an issue over.

That's the way an insecure woman would do it. She'd wait until she has the security of marriage (less chance for him to leave), then she'll ask him to give up whatever he wants more than anything to prove his love to her.

It's never something like taking out the trash more often. A woman will hone in on what her man's true desire is. If he loves that McClarin F1, or hanging out with his buds one night a week to play poker...whatever he wants most in life, THAT will be the test.

This woman wants a child. Some can't relate to that, but others can't relate to wanting a sportscar or playing golf or flying an airplane. It's very easy to suggest that someone give up their dreams and passions when they aren't YOUR dreams and passions.

And when you do that to someone you supposedly love, you have to expect consequences - like maybe they won't love you so much. Yet, the LW seems to be totally suprised that she would take this so hard! That's what's odd about this. He can't be so clueless.

I think he wants to see if she'll wait...or maybe give up on her dream of motherhood altogether. In his mind, that'll prove she loves him more than a baby. Only, like all these "tests", it's not working. In fact, they almost always backfire. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more he tries to make her *prove* she loves him the less she does.

"Let me tell you this, dear - if it were truly about her wanting to PARENT, she'd adopt - but no, it's about the most selfish act in the world -creating your own personal DNA replicant."

That's very presumptious, Ann. Not everyone is cut out for adoption. It's a very personal decision. I'm adopted, and I understand not everyone can love or bond with a non-biological child as easily as their own. You have no right to judge someone as selfish for not adopting.

Since she was just pregnant, she is likely still fertile, and that is obviously her first choice. Adoption may be plan B. That's a completely normal progression and she shouldn't be condemned for trying to have a biological child first.

"Well, I'm assuming you meant it in a teasing way."

Of course!

but I don't buy that he didn't notice until now that she was nuts.

Neither do I, and I never said he didn't notice. I said that he finally reached the end of his fuse. I also said way earlier in the thread that I think he's downplaying some of her early symptoms to make himself feel better for not realizing sooner. He was fine with the baby thing early on in their relationship. He went through all the medical stuff with her and she did get pregnant. I think it was stupid to attempt to procreate with someone so unstable (whom he picked for himself, being desperate and afraid of being alone), but that was his choice. He obviously didn't have a huge problem with having a baby with her. But somewhere after she started screaming her head off at him while simultaneously trying to seduce him, he hit his limit. On a normal person, that limit would have been miles sooner, but this guy ain't normal.

but he needs to be empathetic to how it feels that way to her

Barf. What he needs to do is explain himself to her. She's welcome to explain her feelings to him, but I'm pretty sure he's gotten the idea already, which is why he's writing in. He knows that she feels like he betrayed her. She's told him that much. What he needs to do is explain to her how her fit-throwing affects him. If he can't get through to her how insane the whole situation is, then he needs to tell her he's leaving. Her feelings about his perceived betrayal don't matter at this point. They may have early on, but, like I posted earlier, they are way, WAY past logical discussion about the progression of their relationship.

That's a completely normal progression and she shouldn't be condemned for trying to have a biological child first.

That's right. What she should be condemned for is going batshit crazy over having a biological child. I hate to repeat myself, but I need to trot out the phrase "emotionally stable" again. Read his first letter again. He says she's "always been difficult," but that it's gotten worse lately. In his later letter, he says she has always been extremely emotional and had extreme reactions. Her current insanity seems to me to be a new level of old behavior. To an emotionally healthy woman, I would say to do whatever you can to have that child biologically if it's that important to you. Adoption is great, and I wish more people would adopt, but it's not for everyone. This woman doesn't just want a child, she wants the external validation of her existence she thinks will come with the baby.

Let me fuss over this wording, because... Well, because I like to fuss over wording.

> she wants the external validation
> of her existence she thinks will
> come with the baby

I'm not sure how external it is. It's certainly not a pure rebound shot: Women like this aren't motivated solely by the respect or notice they'll get from others by having a child... Even though they may crave that attention and luxuriate in it if it comes. Instead, they often approach it as an unspoken contract between themselves and the entire universe: Their whole cosmology is about about making babies. There's no text, there's no metaphysical or philosophical haggling, and no consideration of the existence of other souls (including, ironically enough, the child's)... They really, really don't care how other people feel about it. Theirs is not a reflective experience.

This is the reliable source of my continuing annoyance at LS: Her obliviousness. Consider that recent lead to a paragraph:

"This woman wants a child."

...As if this were a circumstance for which the rest of the world (and the Gods beyond) would make allowances. (Oh! A woman wanted a child! Well why didn't you say so?) As if it weren't the unremarkable, mundane topic of these dozens of comments.

It's hormonal... Probably in both the rhetorical and literal senses. (Men have extreme behaviors directed by hormonal forces too, so I don't mean this to be [otherwise] condemnatory.) Radio guy Prager once said the need many women feel for making babies is "erotic", which clarified matters for me more than such a close-to-the-topic word might be expected to do: It's not about rationality, and it's sure not about decency or kindness. (Darwin warned us there'd be days like these.)

I'm removed from this feeling both by masculinity and a comfortably detached interpersonal nature. You can call those character faults, but I'll save that battle for another day. There's nothing to admire about autopilot attitudes like those of this women, and we should say so out loud every time they appear.

Well, on this Mother's Day, I'm so glad that I had the irrational, erotic, totally selfish impulse to have children, who are making me breakfast right now.

You cannot understand the love and bond that exists, the very essence of building a family, and it's a shame that so many feel superior to that. It's clear from the use of derogatory terms like "breeders" that those who can't relate to motherhood feel their lack of relation to the idea makes them somehow superior, as if you're all living such unselfish, worthwhile lives.

Many wonderful mothers out there felt a calling to be mothers from the time they were little girls playing with dolls, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Your calling may be different, and no one begrudges you that, but there's no need to put down mothers or suggest that the desire for motherhood is irrational.

> You cannot understand the love and bond that exists

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigghhhhttt... It's all about you and your feelings.

> there's no need to put down mothers or suggest
> that the desire for motherhood is irrational.

There is when it's expressed incompetently.

I'm not sure how external it is.

I don't know that external is the exact word I'm looking for here, either, but I couldn't find a better one. To clarify, what I meant by external was that she desperately wants someone who has to love her. She can't find a way to fill the hole herself, so she needs someone else to do it for her. Some women do this by becoming Mrs. Someone Else. The surest bet is to create such a person herself. It's not exactly external, I guess, because the impulse is coming from within her (as is the baby), but neither is it the internal validation someone gets from being secure in herself.

You cannot understand the love and bond that exists, the very essence of building a family, and it's a shame that so many feel superior to that. It's clear from the use of derogatory terms like "breeders" that those who can't relate to motherhood feel their lack of relation to the idea makes them somehow superior, as if you're all living such unselfish, worthwhile lives.

Why the switching back and forth from "you" to the third person and back? Did you decide mid-paragraph that it would be better if you didn't accuse everyone on this thread of feeling superior to you? If so, then you should have edited the entire paragraph. I don't like people who revel in their smugness about not having children, either. I was talking on another thread about how I hate when people do and say things like that to make a point. It's not about not caring what society thinks of them (as is often the excuse with people who rub their lack of desire for children in others' faces); it's about making sure that society thinks something very specific about them. Two sides of a coin, in my opinion.

The desire to have children is selfish, because, unless you know for sure that your offspring will cure a disease or bring about peace among nations, you can't know how they'll impact the world. It's a gamble that they'll be worthwhile people. I've never heard a sane person say that she had a child because it was the selfless thing to do or that it was best for the world that she have this child. We have a need to have children and a need to love our children so that they will go on to create more children in the future. It's entirely self-serving, both on an individual level and as a species. Having this selfish impulse is not inherently bad.

There is when it's expressed incompetently.

And the award for most succinct summing up of a thread and all its comments goes to Crid. Look for your trophy in the mail in seven to ten business days.

"The desire to have children is selfish, because, unless you know for sure that your offspring will cure a disease or bring about peace among nations, you can't know how they'll impact the world. It's a gamble that they'll be worthwhile people."

Since when is our existence measured by whether we're "worthwhile people"? Are you a "worthwhile person"? Are you sure you're not just taking up space and using up the earth's resources by your selfish desire to breathe, drive your car, fire up your computer?

I certainly knew that my children would be worthwhile to the people in their family - their grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. I knew they would be loved and show love, bring joy and show joy, to all those relatives, and that has been true.

From the moment they were born, their existence has made the lives of their family members more meaningful and fulfilling. That's about the best most of us do. Rarely, do any of us leave behind anything of significant meaning - a cure for disease, an important invention, or even a novel. Our lives aren't really "worthwhile" except to the people we love and who love us.

I always wanted to be a mom because I had such an amazing one. She loved all things having to do with children, and her love was contagious. I'm sure my desire to be a mom came, in part, from my desire to emulate her.

And she was an incredible teacher BECAUSE she had that special love and way of relating to children, which is a gift. Usually, women who feel that way not only make great moms to their own children, but spend much of their lives showing love and kindness to other children. My mom made a positive impact on countless lives, and that is worthwhile.

> Look for your trophy in the mail in seven
> to ten business days.

I don't do trophies, and have the naked mantel (in Hollywood!) to prove it. It's fun to pretend I wouldn't bother.

But, um... You still married?

> my desire to be a mom came, in part,
> from my desire to

You will never take this point: As we discuss these matters, as Amy parades these cases before us, and invites us to factor morality against practicalities, we are not talking about you.

There's more to life, for the rest of us at least, than your emotions.

There's more to life, for the rest of us at least, than your emotions.

No there isn't, no there isn't! It's always with eager anticipation that I read LS's posts. Her condescending smugness! Her narcissism! That acute lack of self esteem that drives her to justify her meaningless life to anonymous posters! All those preachy platitudes about not judging others while hypocritically preaching from her own Florida shores! I just can't get enough, crid!

I mean, truly - what else exists besides HER emotions? Surely, there is nothing else worth reading or knowing, yes? Those gems! Those farts that she passes as thought and logic! Those fucking feelings she has! They are treasures, I tell you - treasures of the rarest find that only few can cull from years of thought and reasoning.

And really, who better than to plumb into that depth of tangled and befuddled tissue mass that more intelligent beings than I term a brain, than our dearest lovelyhole?

I'm sure my desire to be a mom came, in part, from my desire to emulate her

And that was purely selfless, right? You had children solely for the reason that it was best for others? Nothing about having them made you feel good? You can argue the selflessness of becoming a parent all you want, but it won't change the fact that we want to have children so that we will have children. It's a biological imperative necessary for the propagation of any species. Our species just happens to be the only one to actually make it a conscious choice.

Are you a "worthwhile person"? Are you sure you're not just taking up space and using up the earth's resources by your selfish desire to breathe, drive your car, fire up your computer?

To myself, my family, and my friends, yes, I am a worthwhile person. To the rest of the world? Not so much. My existence affects an infinitesimal part of the world's population, so I can only assume that the majority of that population would not be affected by the lack of my existence.

I certainly knew that my children would be worthwhile to the people in their family - their grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. I knew they would be loved and show love, bring joy and show joy, to all those relatives, and that has been true.

I'm sure it is. But as I said about myself above, your children's existence affects precious few people. They may very well do something in the future that will be utterly groundbreaking, but most of us do not. I'm not debating the point that your children are wonderful or that people love them; I'm simply saying that you didn't bring them into the world knowing that it was the best thing for the world. Neither did my parents. Neither did any sane parents I've ever heard of (there are always those crazies that say they knew their child would grow up to do something great). That is what I'm saying about the desire for children being selfish. Selfish doesn't mean that it's bad. I very much want children someday, but I'm under no illusions that I'm doing the world some big favor by having them.

Rarely, do any of us leave behind anything of significant meaning - a cure for disease, an important invention, or even a novel. Our lives aren't really "worthwhile" except to the people we love and who love us.

I find it interesting that you're arguing for my point at the same time you're arguing against it. The lines of yours I just quoted are just what I was saying in my earlier post and in this one. That's exactly it. Most of us don't have any lasting impact on the world, so bringing more people into the world is a selfish act. Our kids (ideally) make us happy. Selfish, yes? No one is attacking you for having kids, yet you are reading that into these posts. You don't have to find reasons that validate your having children, because it being selfish doesn't make it bad.

My mom made a positive impact on countless lives, and that is worthwhile.

That's wonderful. It's too bad that, according to your arguing against that having children is selfish, she didn't enjoy a minute of it.

> That acute lack of self esteem that drives
> her to justify her meaningless life to
> anonymous posters!

Whoa, pilgrim... Who else are we supposed justify meaningless lives to on a blog like this? I mean, she pisses me off too, just sayin'....

> No one is attacking you for having kids

Yeah; that. LS, this blog is not a critique of your life. M'kay? We talk about the best ways for people to behave. Sometimes we talk about how the rest of the world should respond to individual miscreants. But we are not talking about YOU, even if you are in fact a reprehensible miscreant... We don't know. We don't care. 'Nonymous blog. The internet.

> Our lives aren't really "worthwhile" except to
> the people we love and who love us.

First of all, I hate shitty quotation marks.

Secondly, this comports perfectly with what Prager once called the demon of feminine nature: "The presumption that her feelings, or the feelings of her loved ones, are of paramount importance."

(This had a big effect on me.)

Thirdly, it's not fucking true, not a word of it, and you have to be a bitter monster to think otherwise.

BTW, I've added a few enhancements to Prager's critique. If you'd like a copy in a convenient, stapled brochure, send a S.A.S.E. to the usual address.

Obviously, many people DO leave a lasting impact on the world. None of us really know if that will be our ourselves, or our children. Maybe we'll stumble upon the cure for cancer, or have a flash of genius and invent something extremely important.

But, by your logic, we should just stop reproducing because the odds are against our offspring being that rare "worthwhile" person, which is frankly stupid. A certain percentage of the children born today will undoubtable make enormous contributions to humanity. We just don't know which ones.

Motherhood is probably the most selfless, selfish act anyone can engage in. Yes, we know our children will be cute and cuddly and bring us joy, but they also wreck our bodies, deprive of us of sleep, worry us nearly to death, and demand an enormous amount of money and time....

And, after ALL that, there's no guarantee they will love us, or give us anything back in return but a stack of bills.

So, it's not entirely accurate to call it selfish when it requires so much selflessness. Really, it's a risk, like almost anything we do in life that also has the chance to end up being rewarding.

You guys are pretty much risk averse. Crid, expecially. If it can't PROVEN things will turn out perfectly - whether in childbearing or romance - then best not take the chance at all. Don't marry, don't have children, because God forbid, you screw it up and leave some negative footprint on the world.

That's all well and good. It's certainly playing it SAFE. Not much of a life, but then, you can come to blogs and psychoanalyze and criticize everyone else for their choices...all the ones you're too afraid to make yourselves.

And, yes, my mom loved being a mom. That's the whole point. Her maternal instinct not only made it possible for her to love her own children, but others too, as if they were her own. Maternal instinct is a GOOD thing. The fact this also gave her personal fulfillment doesn't make it any less worthwhile. You can do a lot for others while also enjoying yourself. Only by some warped logic is it only valuable if the giver is miserable.

I'd like to add that it's not the women who are "baby crazy" who make bad mothers. Whenever you have a passion for something - whether it's becoming a mommy or an engineer - you usually excel at that.

In my experience as a GAL, it's the women who are ambivalent, or who have it just happen to them that are the worst mothers. If they didn't long deeply for a child beforehand, they're not as likely to take care of it once it's here.

We don't know if LW's wife is crazy or not, but the fact she wants a child so badly is actually a good sign, not a negative one.

Her yelling and screaming is another matter. None of us are there, so we don't know how bad it is, or if the the LW may be exagerrating, but that is really the concern as far as her sanity is concerned, not her desire to be a mother.

I didn't interpret Crid as saying we should stop reproducing or as being against motherhood, but rather as speaking against the elevation (and effective worship) of maternity (or other surrounding feelings) to some supposed particularly special and unique metaphysical level of sublimity.

Also, LS, a man has a right to make a careful choice about who will produce his offspring, every bit as much as vice versa for a woman. It will be his child too, and if he does not feel a woman is suitable mother material for his unborn children then absolutely nothing in the world, not even a marriage certificate, should make him feel compelled to reproduce with someone he feels would make a poor mother. Whether you think his judgment wrong or not. And if the gender roles were reversed in this, I suspect you'd see that more readily; I can't imagine you'd advise that if a man was behaving like this toward his wife but still demanding that she carry his child that you'd advise the woman that she's obligated to make a baby for him and think the woman "evil" for denying access to her womb for a raging lunatic. I'm 33 and have recently decided I'd like to start a family soon, and believe me, every woman I date I am thinking carefully "would this woman make a good mother for my children" and evaluating very carefully on that very crucial criterion. And "basically emotionally stable and together" is crucially high on the list of characteristics. I will not and should not be compelled to pick a bad mother for my children. That's how it should be, and how I think LW should be thinking --- in his early 40s, it is late yes, but he does still have time and he must realise that and not panic. There are lots of other women out there who are 'running late' and still want babies and are more emotionally together than this one. I "want a baby" too. I'd even say the desire is strong, possibly "hormonal" and perhaps "erotic". I want to be a father and all that goes along with it, and I want to create a stable home environment in which I can raise a relatively happy, functional family ... and the right choice of partner is absolutely critical to that. If you look at your wife and can't anymore imagine that she's *the* life partner to create that happy home environment, then zip up your pants and leave. In your worldview, it seems the man has almost vanished into a level of insignificance little higher than "wallet and sperm, to serve the great and exalted maternal agenda". We're talking about a father here, a man, a person, making the most important decision of his life --- who will bear HIS children. I repeat, HIS children. I do think some are judging you a bit overly harshly here, and you have a few points, but I still don't really agree with you.

"We don't know if LW's wife is crazy or not"

We don't 'for sure', but we do have the claims of the LW to go on, and *based on* an assumption of reasonable veracity of his story we *can* draw certain conclusions --- that she's probably batshit loony and not mentally stable enough to make children. If we had to assume every LW's story was false we could never have any discussion on this forum. Anyway, it's not *his* fault she can't get her shit together. The world is 100% completely unforgiving to men who "can't get their shit together" emotionally, no matter how much a man might want a baby too; apparently women are held to a lower standard though? Women "are allowed to" become unhinged and abusive and "that's OK"? You think an abusive woman should have children but not an abusive man?

"I'd like to add that it's not the women who are "baby crazy" who make bad mothers."

*In general* I think that's a valid point. But not in all cases ... sometimes baby-crazy women really are just crazy.

"Women "are allowed to" become unhinged and abusive and "that's OK"? You think an abusive woman should have children but not an abusive man?"

I think we shouldn't casually throw around terms like "abusive". If I did that about a man without enough information, I'd be creamed, though I probably have jumped to conclusions like that, but I'm trying not to.

Like I said, if this was a man who married a hot, beautiful woman, and then she changed the whole game by putting on 40 pds after the wedding, we'd understand his anger.

In fact, we just had that case, and the man was cold to his gf, shutting her out emotionally and refusing to have sex with her. Yet, the consensus was that this was understandable under the circumstances.

He didn't yell or scream at her, but let those who have never yelled or screamed, or said hurful things, in a heated argument cast the first stone.

These people aren't arguing over paint colors. They are at a very important and emotional impasse. That tends to bring out the worst in people.

What I didn't hear from LW's story is that she was abusive all along. He said she was "emotional" and had "strong reactions to things." That can mean a lot. A woman who cries at sad movies, or gets upset over a dead dog lying in the road could be described as "emotional with extreme reactions to things." In fact, men often find women's reactions to be too emotional, especially men who a psychiatrist might call "reserved". Obviously, he doesn't get as worked up over things as she does, but that doesn't mean she's abusive.

You all can disagree, but it sounds to me that it's just as likely that the LW decided against having children for his own reasons - maybe he realized after the abortion (which he said he took very hard) that he just wasn't ready - yet he's trying to not be the bad guy here by making this all about HER not being ready.

It's ok for him to change his mind, but just own it. He doesn't have to make her out to be unfit or crazy. He can admit he's not ready to be a father, and obviously, that will likely end the relationship, which is better for them both, rather than each of them trying to lay blame on the other.

"What I didn't hear from LW's story is that she was abusive all along"

It's totally irrelevant whether she was abusive "all along", nor did I say she was; assuming the LW is giving even only a somewhat accurate portrayal of events, she is abusive *now*.

"but let those who have never yelled or screamed, or said hurful things, in a heated argument cast the first stone"

Throwing wedding rings at a partner and calling them 'pure evil'? I will certainly line up to cast a stone, thank you. And I've dated a few crazies, but no woman I've been involved with has ever been nearly that deranged or abusive either even in the most heated arguments. There is no "license" to treat people around you like that (well, you can, but don't expect them to stay).

"It's ok for him to change his mind, but just own it. He doesn't have to make her out to be unfit or crazy."

So basically your conclusion is based on the assumption that he is spinning the story falsely (the way you have interpreted the letters is clearly quite disconnected from what the letters actually say ... because taking them at face value, one can only reasonably conclude she is unfit/crazy). Now sure, stories always get twisted to some degree or another, but what if you assume, for a moment, that his portrayal is, say, "mostly very accurate"? Just consider that as a thought experiment.

Me: "assuming the LW is giving even only a somewhat accurate portrayal of events, she is abusive *now*"

And, I meant to add, that that is certainly enough to call a production line halt in the baby factory. Character flaws that make one a poor parent don't have to have been there "all along" for them to be a problem.

"Throwing wedding rings at a partner and calling them 'pure evil'? I will certainly line up to cast a stone, thank you."

I'm not married but what I meant is, I have a temper like few people I know, but, like most sane and emotionally reasonable people, there are certain lines I know I would never cross *no matter how* angry I was ... and this is definitely one of those lines. The people in our lives are not emotional punchlines, and our humanness and fallibility is not a license to treat them as such.

Correction, "punchlines" => "punching bags" (sorry, having one of those days where the wrong words keep injecting themselves into my statements)

Well, I think most therapists would say that a person can become very angry and emotional when there's cause without it necessarily being a personality disorder.

A friend of mine is a marriage counselor, and she obviously sees people who are in extreme emotional states, like if one partner has cheated on the other. Horrible things may be said then - all kinds of accusations, crying, yelling, etc.

I mean, in certain situations, it's to be expected. I don't think she diagnosis most of these people as being truly "crazy". Being very angry and emotional isn't crazy if there's a valid reason. And lots of these couples work through this anger and go on to happier times.

Of course, if you're angry and emotional ALL the time - like if she was just yelling over paint colors - then she'd be crazy, but yelling because she feels lied to and betrayed is, to some degree, normal.

I mean, this is his new bride - these people are practically still on their homeymoon - and he's telling her that, after marrying her, he's decided she's unstable.

Even if it's true, only a fool would expect that was going to be met by a calm, passive reaction.

Here comes the usual array of diversions! Sumbuddy got the clipboard? OK then, Let's CARVE this turkey!


[1.] Appeal to universal (bogus/unshared) mysticism:

> Obviously, many people DO leave a lasting
> impact on the world. None of us really
> know if that will be...

Golly, we're all just the same inside, and nobody knows anything that I don't know....

Except that actually, there ARE people who know things that others don't. There are people who know how to attach and marry and make a sturdy home to ensure their child has the best possible start in life, such that "lasting impacts" will be virtuous. (We're still talking about Amy's letter-writers, right? They don't know these things. Do not.)


[2.] Translation / Distortion:

> by your logic, we should just stop reproducing
> because the odds are against our offspring
> being that rare "worthwhile" person

I never said anything was "rare". Quite the opposite: You're arguing that the only ones who could ever love you are your own family.

And as you were the one who brought us the word "worthwhile", you have no business dressing it up in quotation marks as evidence of our cynicism.

"By my logic", a child deserves a loving mother with a loving father. If decent parenting is rare, it's because we make too many allowances for people who do it badly.


[3.] Obfuscating hocus-pocus:

> Motherhood is probably the most selfless,
> selfish act anyone can engage in.

Selflessness and selfishness aren't so entwined that we need to pretend we can't tell one from the other.

Motherhood is selfless when approached selflessly. This isn't difficult to discern. I know a bunch of women who do it selflessly. They talk to me about their husbands, and the ways they support each other.


[4.] Narcissism:

> there's no guarantee they will love us, or
> give us anything[...] it's a risk, like almost
> anything we do in life that also has the
> chance to end up being rewarding.

You can only imagine the "risk" involved as happening for yourself, as you can only imagine the reward for motherhood as the mother herself being loved.

Bad parenthood has terrible costs for everyone on the globe, and for many other species besides. As we talk about the ways that good people handle problems decently, we're not talking about the ways that life can be made fun and rewarding for you on a personal basis. We got bigger fish to fry.


[5.] Imaginary folk wisdom:

> You guys are pretty much risk averse.

There's no base of chatter in workaday life that men are disinclined to risk, and that righteous women should crank up their casino impulses.

Pulling truisms out of one's ass is not helpful.


[6.] Lowballing:

> don't have children, because God forbid,
> you screw it up and leave some negative
> footprint on the world.

You describe a spirit warped by incompetent parenting is a mere "footprint".

If only.


[7.] That freaky "GAL" thing again:

> In my experience as a GAL,

No idea what that's about, or why it's supposed to be persuasive, but you use it every time.

Maybe you read it in a magazine article in the dentist's office once, or in some other tender, impressionable hour, complete with CAPITALIZATION, and it stuck.

Crid, I didn't use the term "worthwhile". Number6 did, which is why I quoted it. Also, she was the one saying motherhood is selfish, so I was merely pointing out that we have no guarantee of getting anything out of it for ourselves. That isn't narcissistic. I was answering her charge that we only do it for ourselves.

A GAL is a guardian ad litem. We represent abused and neglected children in court. As a result, I've met a number of awful parents, and it's my observation that they tend not to give parenthood much thought at all. They aren't "baby crazy" beforehand and even less so afterwards. If you've never particularly wanted to be a parent, there isn't much about a crying, pooping, demanding child that is going to make you more inclined.

By contrast, a person who feels a strong pull to be a parent - has long felt a particular passion for motherhood or fatherhood - is usually a very good parent. Just as someone who feels drawn to be a teacher, an astronant, or a doctor is usually exceptionally good at what they do.

We all have our niche in life, and our limitations. And it's ok to ENJOY doing what you do as long as you're good at it. Number6 seems to imply that the drive to be a mother is, in itself, a sign of instability, or one that must be joylessly undertaken to prove it unselfish.

I've also met a lot of foster parents. They are wonderful people to take an unrelated child into their homes - some would say selfless. Yet, they don't do it without some fulfillment of their own. These aren't people who hate playing with kids. They love being around children, and interacting with them, so, by Number6's logic, they do it purely for selfish reasons.

That's just not true and is degrading to the sacrifices that all parents make for their children. Parenting is hard work, and a pretty thankless job most of the time, but knowing that you're helping a soul develop into a thoughtful, caring, productive adult is rewarding. It's also rewarding for that budding adult to know they have a parental love and support. When done well, it's a win/win situation...for the child, the parent, and society.

If that's selfish, then we need a lot more of that kind of selfishness.

Actually, Crid, I'm pretty sure I was the one who brought "worthwhile" into the conversation.

But, by your logic, we should just stop reproducing because the odds are against our offspring being that rare "worthwhile" person, which is frankly stupid.

You obviously aren't reading my posts all the way through. When exactly did I (or Crid, for that matter) say that? I'm all for people having children. I love children and would like to have my own someday. By my logic, we should stop pretending that motherhood is a completely selfless situation. You can't tell me that you had kids purely for other people's benefit. I'm using the words "selfless" and "selfish" here literally. And I have repeatedly said that motherhood being selfish does not make it bad. Realizing that fact will only make people more self-aware.

Your quotation marks in an earlier post are not accurate, lovelysoul. You say the LW said she was "emotional" with "strong reactions." Not an accurate quotation of the text. What he said was that she was "an extremely emotional person" and had "extreme responses to situations." Two uses of the word "extreme" in once sentence is quite telling to me. He also described her as a loose cannon. Just the kind of person we should advise to have children, right? Because she really, really wants them and that's all that matters.

Whenever I see that GAL thing, my first thought is that the letters are switched and it reads like Gay and Lesbian Alliance. No, that can't be right. It must be the Guild of American Luthiers. Oh, wait, it's guardian ad litem. Why didn't you just say so? The Latin makes it sound every bit as snooty as the acronym. A government agency has decided you are well-equipped to speak for the best interests of a child. That's great, it really is, but it doesn't give you a pass to decide everyone should have children regardless of their precarious mental states, temporary or otherwise.

lovelysoul, you are reading things into my posts and the posts of others that are not there except in your head. Your defensiveness about being a mother does not help get your point across. I will repeat that I think having kids is great, providing that you're a stable person that can deal with them properly. I'm not sure why you keep saying otherwise.

> I'm pretty sure I was the one who brought
> "worthwhile" into the conversation.

Oh. Sorry.

> A GAL is a guardian ad litem.

Oh.

> I've met a number of awful parents, and it's
> my observation that they tend not to give
> parenthood much thought at all.

Why then do you argue endlessly on behalf of senseless risk? Why? Why?

> a person who feels a strong pull to be a
> parent - has long felt a particular passion
> for motherhood or fatherhood - is usually
> a very good parent.

Says you. I want real evidence. I want demonstrations of social aptitude and an understanding that there's more to love than heroic ego. Mere feelings authorize nothing.

lovelysoul posted while I was still typing, so I apologize for not addressing everything at once.

Number6 seems to imply that the drive to be a mother is, in itself, a sign of instability, or one that must be joylessly undertaken to prove it unselfish.

No, NumberSix does not. You inferred that. I would like you to point out where exactly in my numerous posts I said that the desire for children is a sign of instability. Go on, I'll wait.

I said that the need for children that turns someone into a crazy person is a sign of instability. But these tend to be people who were unstable to begin with and the kid thing throws everything even more out of whack.

They love being around children, and interacting with them, so, by Number6's logic, they do it purely for selfish reasons.

I never said that, either. I reiterate my request for you to actually read my posts before commenting. I said that motherhood isn't purely selfless. That doesn't mean that it must be purely selfish. As you yourself said earlier, it is a mix. Any good mother-child relationship is mutually beneficial. It should make you feel wonderful that you're raising great kids. I've never argued otherwise. You are the one who keeps arguing that motherhood isn't the least bit selfish, except when you started hedging.

It's also rewarding for that budding adult to know they have a parental love and support. When done well, it's a win/win situation...for the child, the parent, and society.

Again, you're actually arguing for my point while you think you're arguing against it. Good parenting rewards everyone involved. When have I said different?

If that's selfish, then we need a lot more of that kind of selfishness.

It is selfish. It makes people feel good to help raise children. Please point out to me where I said that was a bad thing.

Forgive me, N6, if I misinterpreted, but it didn't seem to me that you were being very flattering to mothers, making it sound as if we really shouldn't procreate except to fulfill our selfish desires.

Obviously, humankind would die out if it wasn't a bit of both. As I said, I think it takes a lot of selflessness, but, for those who are cut out for it, there's also enjoyment. If you're not happy being around children - if their cute little antics don't make you laugh or touch your heart -then you really shouldn't have them. Some people only see the negative and can't comprehend why parenthood would be enjoyable at all. For them, it would be sheer torture - nothing but selflessness.

I obviously have mixed feelings about LW's wife's sanity or ultimate fitness to be a parent. This is someone who has had a very rocky year - a long-awaited pregnancy, the tragic discovery that the child has a genetic defect, the agonizing decision to abort, getting married while still grieving, then being told by her new husband she's unstable and he doesn't want kids with her anymore.

Was his assessment that she has "extreme responses to situations" made in the last year or so? I suspect even the most normal person might have some extreme reactions to all she's been through within this brief period.

I think we can agree to disagree on this. I'd love to hear more from the LW and find out what he decides.

but it didn't seem to me that you were being very flattering to mothers, making it sound as if we really shouldn't procreate except to fulfill our selfish desires.

Why should I be flattering to mothers? All mothers, I mean. Motherhood itself is not a sacrosanct state of being. I was being unflattering to mothers who propagate the lie that motherhood is inherently selfless. As you were, earlier in your posts, before you started reasoning it through. The vast majority of mothers I know are great at it and have great kids. But the situation itself does not guarantee that. That's been my point all along.

Was his assessment that she has "extreme responses to situations" made in the last year or so? I suspect even the most normal person might have some extreme reactions to all she's been through within this brief period.

That's true. Just the thought of being with this guy makes me want to start rending garments. Hopefully, the most normal person wouldn't have chosen a man so desperately in need of validation from a relationship.

The LW does say that she was always extremely emotional and had extreme responses, but he could be rewriting the past. I don't think that's the case, but it is possible. What I think happened is that the LW ignored all the signs he is now seeing amplified. I do not, however, think she was outwardly as bad then as she is now. The combination of hormonal changes and overwhelming grief broke the veneer she shows to the outside world. If she's not that cold and calculating, it at least broke the filter she uses to try to not be so nutso. Like I said, the letters read to me like hubby just recently started remembering that this really isn't brand new behavior for her. I think, since he's so desperate to have the validation of a wife and family, that he would have put up with it if it were. He would have reasoned that it would pass once they had a new baby. It took a big honking rock to break through his thick skull.

for those who are cut out for it, there's also enjoyment

A good point. It's funny that the women who choose to have children for the most selfish of reasons (someone who has to love them no matter what) tend to end up as the mothers who get no joy out of actually having the kids. It would feel like they're being selfless and martyred, I'm sure.

I'd love to hear more from the LW and find out what he decides.

Me too! I wonder if he'll write to Amy again. I like that he wrote to her again after the first column. He was madly rationalizing in his letter, but he did want to explain things. I want to hear more about both of them. The more information we have, the more we can shape our opinions. Not that it matters a great deal to him, I guess, but we're certainly interested. I guess we'll have to stay tuned for the continuing story.