What is your opinion on stay-at-home dads?

 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!
Reason I ask is because I'm starting to think this wouldn't be a bad idea. If my significant other wishes to work while I'm at home, taking care of the kids, cleaning and cooking, wouldn't this be okay?

[Significant other, in this scenario, would be a woman, just for argument's sake.]
[In this scenario, significant other makes enough money to support myself and two kids comfortably.]

What are you thoughts?
Last Edit: February 02, 2015, 07:37:21 PM by Snake


Anonymous (User Deleted) | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Kupo
IP: Logged

6,364 posts
 
I don't see anything wrong with that.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Do whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.


 
Luis
| Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: exige
ID: Luis
IP: Logged

6,172 posts
 
It's fine


Statefarm | Heroic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Sapid Statefarm
PSN:
Steam: Statefarm
ID: Statefarm
IP: Logged

3,727 posts
Moms spaghetti
You do you.

But I'd try to bring in two incomes


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!
Do whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.

Why wouldn't it be financially sound?


Statefarm | Heroic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Sapid Statefarm
PSN:
Steam: Statefarm
ID: Statefarm
IP: Logged

3,727 posts
Moms spaghetti

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?

More disposable income
More money to put aside for future schooling


Unless the wife makes big bucks.


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?

More disposable income
More money to put aside for future schooling


Unless the wife makes big bucks.

I should have probably mentioned that, in this scenario, the wife makes quite a good amount of money. Otherwise I would obviously be out there working to help out.


Statefarm | Heroic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Sapid Statefarm
PSN:
Steam: Statefarm
ID: Statefarm
IP: Logged

3,727 posts
Moms spaghetti

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?

More disposable income
More money to put aside for future schooling


Unless the wife makes big bucks.

I should have probably mentioned that, in this scenario, the wife makes quite a good amount of money. Otherwise I would obviously be out there working to help out.

Gold digger huh


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?

More disposable income
More money to put aside for future schooling


Unless the wife makes big bucks.

I should have probably mentioned that, in this scenario, the wife makes quite a good amount of money. Otherwise I would obviously be out there working to help out.

Gold digger huh

No, ahaha. I just don't see myself making too much money, based on the education decisions I'm making ATM. So my other would have to make quite a bit more money than me for us to support an ideal family.

[I mean, obviously if I fall in love with someone who doesn't meet that criteria, I'll still be with them. Having children might be out of the question, but that's okay.]


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Do whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.


Why wouldn't it be financially sound?

Because trying to support two adults and several kids on one salary is difficult.


PSU | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: PSU
IP: Logged

6,089 posts
 
My opinion? I wish I could do it.

While my wife makes great money, I still enjoy having a salary myself to be able to put away for the future if something bad were ever to happen.


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!
Do whatever you two are happy with. I don't think it's financially sound, and it may very well hurt your retirement down the road.


Why wouldn't it be financially sound?

Because trying to support two adults and several kids on one salary is difficult.

I added to the OP that she makes enough money to support us comfortably. Sorry about that.


Ushan | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Ushan the Panda
PSN: Ushan-the-Panda
Steam: Ushan
ID: Ushan
IP: Logged

7,158 posts
(ã£à² â€¿à² )ã£
Ê•ã£â€¢á´¥â€¢Ê”ã£
(ã£â—•â€¿â—•)ã£
(㣠͡ ° Íœ Ê– Í¡ ° )ã£
(㣠͠° ÍŸÙ„Íœ ͡°)ã£
(ã£Â´Â°Ï‰Â°`)ã£
Nothing wrong with it.


Epsira | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: interiminitiator
ID: Epsira
IP: Logged

4,019 posts
 

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.

I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.

I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.


In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈ðŸ‘
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,060 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
I'm a bit old-fashioned in the sense that I think the man ought to be the breadwinner when kids come along. Sometimes, however, that isn't possible and there's nothing wrong with being a househusband in principle.

You know your own life better than I do.


R o c k e t | Mythic Smash Master
 
more |
XBL: Rocketman287
PSN:
Steam: Rocketman287
ID: Rocketman287
IP: Logged

22,970 posts
I neither fear, nor despise.

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.

I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.


In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.

It's a personal choice in that regard.

"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.

I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.


In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.

It's a personal choice in that regard.

"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.

I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".

Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.


Epsira | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: interiminitiator
ID: Epsira
IP: Logged

4,019 posts
 

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.

I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.


In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.

It's a personal choice in that regard.

"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.

I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".

Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.
I also believe that there's few people whom I could have successful romantic relations with. But I'm also content if that person doesn't exist, because to a certain extent that sentiment is characterized in mind.
If I actually met someone like that I don't think I'd marry them, and certainly not have children.
I'm someone who doesn't take marriage very seriously despite it retaining relevancy.

Sorry to derail more.
Blame my rampant weebism.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,942 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.

I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.


In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.

It's a personal choice in that regard.

"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.

I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".

Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.
I also believe that there's few people whom I could have successful romantic relations with. But I'm also content if that person doesn't exist, because to a certain extent that sentiment is characterized in mind.
If I actually met someone like that I don't think I'd marry them, and certainly not have children.
I'm someone who doesn't take marriage very seriously despite it retaining relevancy.

Sorry to derail more.
Blame my rampant weebism.


I'm sorry, you confused me. You're saying that if you met someone who could be "the one", you wouldn't be with them?

[While I do enjoy the deralied conversation topic, but it's not relevant to the OP. I'm sure we're bound to get some more romance-themed threads as we near VDay.]


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!
Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.

Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,942 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!
Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.

Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?
Obviously she should be there full time during infancy and ideally when they're very young. It's very important psychologically for the baby and child.

The father is important too, but it's fine if he's gone for longer portions of the day. But it's important that dad is around too.

Why is it more important for the mother to be there full-time and not the father? Couldn't they be interchangable in the psyche of the children?

[Genuine question, I want to make sure I've covered all my bases when planning my future.]


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,942 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


 
Elai
| Gay Tupac
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

18,968 posts
male, he/him

dracula can eat my whole ass!
Though the mother should be there during the infancy and young ages.

Interesting. To what extend do you think she should "be there"? Along the lines of seeing your kids when you get home from work, or were you thinking something more prominent?
Obviously she should be there full time during infancy and ideally when they're very young. It's very important psychologically for the baby and child.

The father is important too, but it's fine if he's gone for longer portions of the day. But it's important that dad is around too.

Why is it more important for the mother to be there full-time and not the father? Couldn't they be interchangable in the psyche of the children?

[Genuine question, I want to make sure I've covered all my bases when planning my future.]
No. The mother being around full time during infancy is the way we've always done it. I mean the kid can't suck on your nipples. A mother is a mother. There's no substitute.

Now, when they aren't infants? A loving parent is a loving parent. Doesn't matter.

Now that's interesting. I was considering adopting kids instead of "creating" them (odd word choice, I know) from ages 3-upward. This definitely gives me something to contemplate...

What happens if there are two fathers, though?


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,942 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Epsira | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: interiminitiator
ID: Epsira
IP: Logged

4,019 posts
 

But I'd try to bring in two incomes
Why?
Splitting economic burden can factor in longer marriages.

I'm a proponent of individual choice, so I agree with the concept.


In my head the marriage last until we both die. I still believe that when you marry, that's it. Unless someone dies, you're with them until that point. My significant other would have to understand and agree to that.

It's a personal choice in that regard.

"Til death do us part" implies when one of the two dies. But hey, I could easily see someone never marrying again after losing the love of their life.

I've been told I have antiquated notions of romance before because I believe in "the one" (or, "the few"). So I would only really marry someone if I thought they were one of "the few", and if they died I don't think I would be able to survive, let alone find another "one".

Anyways, we're getting off topic and I'm getting sad about things that haven't even happened.
I also believe that there's few people whom I could have successful romantic relations with. But I'm also content if that person doesn't exist, because to a certain extent that sentiment is characterized in mind.
If I actually met someone like that I don't think I'd marry them, and certainly not have children.
I'm someone who doesn't take marriage very seriously despite it retaining relevancy.

Sorry to derail more.
Blame my rampant weebism.


I'm sorry, you confused me. You're saying that if you met someone who could be "the one", you wouldn't be with them?

[While I do enjoy the deralied conversation topic, but it's not relevant to the OP. I'm sure we're bound to get some more romance-themed threads as we near VDay.]
If I met this dream person I'd be happy having a relationship with them, but if they don't actually exist I'm okay with being solitary.
I think I'll be making a few of those threads soon enough.

Anyway, I'll ask something relevant to the topic.

Do gender roles in marriage retain importance?