|
Post by Ninja on May 27, 2008 10:07:26 GMT -5
Well, maybe I don't have baby rabies, but I fear I might get them. I am childfree and can be very vocal about it. There's not a doubt in my mind that the childfree life is for me and I've never been really insecure about that. But today, I realized something. I live with my parents and have no boyfriend. Nor am I interested in actively searching for one before I finish college, which will be in three years if everything goes according to plan. I'll be 25 then, and will probably live with my parents for a few more years after that before I move out. I'll be able to save money and find a decent place to live, which will take some time. The housing market in the Netherlands is clogged and the houses that ARE for sale/rent, are build for families with children with a pricetag to go with it. Finding a place I can afford on my own will probably take a few years, and I don't want to be dependant on the income of a roommate to make rent. Hardly anyone here is willing to take that risk: it's a culture thing. Anyway, I just realized that if I want to have a child, I need to hurry. The ideal age for childbearing is 27, so if I want to spawn, I'll only have two years after I finish college to get myself a spermdonor...erm...husband and start trying! Whoa! I don't want children, but this realization creeped me out a little. I have never been in a hurry to find a boyfriend so I can get married after college and rent/but a house together (most dutch adolecents move out this way), since I don't have an internal 'countdown'. But if I change my mind, I have to start manhunting now! Eeek!!! I really don't know what to do. Is it my hormones talking? *worries*
|
|
|
Post by gamerpheonix888 on May 27, 2008 10:13:37 GMT -5
I guess it is hormones, I mean wouldn't you as a person want to marry for love and not babies? 'Cause if you wanted sperm there is a spermbank.
If you want to get rid of the feeling you could always try babysitting and see for yourself: "Could I take this child for 18 years at least?"
|
|
|
Post by Ninja on May 27, 2008 10:21:51 GMT -5
I guess it is hormones, I mean wouldn't you as a person want to marry for love and not babies? 'Cause if you wanted sperm there is a spermbank. If you want to get rid of the feeling you could always try babysitting and see for yourself: "Could I take this child for 18 years at least?" I know using a man as a spermbank is degrading and wrong, and I know I wouldn't be able to take a child for 18 seconds, let alone 18 years, but for some reason I just paniced. It's gone now, but I think it wasn't really baby rabies: it was more of a general fear of time flying by so fast. It's frightening to see how fast days can turn into weeks and weeks can turn into months. I feel like an ant having to scramble to catch up with the others. If I feel this way now, what will it be like when I'm 40? Curse you, hormones! You've tortured me enough during puberty! I'm through with that! I've done my time! Leave me alone already! *shakes fist*
|
|
|
Post by preraph on May 27, 2008 11:33:45 GMT -5
I think you're having economic fear, not baby rabies. You are just afraid you'll never be able to survive without a spouse and have to have a spouse to marry. You need to concentrate on finding a guy who doesn't want children, that's all, and also just concentrate on becoming self-sufficient so you can afford a place by yourself and never have to be panicky.
|
|
|
Post by Ninja on May 27, 2008 11:56:54 GMT -5
I think you're having economic fear, not baby rabies. You are just afraid you'll never be able to survive without a spouse and have to have a spouse to marry. You need to concentrate on finding a guy who doesn't want children, that's all, and also just concentrate on becoming self-sufficient so you can afford a place by yourself and never have to be panicky. I think it was more a fear of time flying by so fast. I feel like I'm too young to be having babies now (I'm 22), but I realized that if I wanted one at the ideal age, I would only have 5 years left. That really isn't much and previously, it had always felt like I was going to be in my early twenties forever. Yeah, strange, I know It is possible to make it on my own, especially without a kid. But it will take time to find a house, a few years at least, depending on my future salary. The more rent I can cough up, the easier it will be. Buying a house is not an option in our current housing market. Even the worst areas are too expensive for a single person who is still at the bottom of the corporate ladder. Not only are homes (both rental and buyable ones) very short on supplies, but our government is building of the wrong kinds! There have never been so many single and two person household in our country before, yet they stubbornly keep ordering for large 'family' homes that no one wants to pay for. Why spend money on space you're never going to use? They need to open their eyes already and start meeting the real demands of the population.
|
|
|
Post by gamerpheonix888 on May 27, 2008 12:11:01 GMT -5
I think you're having economic fear, not baby rabies. You are just afraid you'll never be able to survive without a spouse and have to have a spouse to marry. You need to concentrate on finding a guy who doesn't want children, that's all, and also just concentrate on becoming self-sufficient so you can afford a place by yourself and never have to be panicky. I think it was more a fear of time flying by so fast. I feel like I'm too young to be having babies now (I'm 22), but I realized that if I wanted one at the ideal age, I would only have 5 years left. That really isn't much and previously, it had always felt like I was going to be in my early twenties forever. Yeah, strange, I know It is possible to make it on my own, especially without a kid. But it will take time to find a house, a few years at least, depending on my future salary. The more rent I can cough up, the easier it will be. Buying a house is not an option in our current housing market. Even the worst areas are too expensive for a single person who is still at the bottom of the corporate ladder. Not only are homes (both rental and buyable ones) very short on supplies, but our government is building of the wrong kinds! There have never been so many single and two person household in our country before, yet they stubbornly keep ordering for large 'family' homes that no one wants to pay for. Why spend money on space you're never going to use? They need to open their eyes already and start meeting the real demands of the population. It's like that here too, mostly they're making homes for rich people. They COULD do low income housing (that way constructor workers would get jobs and whatnot) but they aren't, they want my hometown to become more and more of a tourist spot and bring in the money. I think I've seen a notoble rise in the homeless....
|
|
|
Post by Ninja on May 27, 2008 12:46:19 GMT -5
I think it was more a fear of time flying by so fast. I feel like I'm too young to be having babies now (I'm 22), but I realized that if I wanted one at the ideal age, I would only have 5 years left. That really isn't much and previously, it had always felt like I was going to be in my early twenties forever. Yeah, strange, I know It is possible to make it on my own, especially without a kid. But it will take time to find a house, a few years at least, depending on my future salary. The more rent I can cough up, the easier it will be. Buying a house is not an option in our current housing market. Even the worst areas are too expensive for a single person who is still at the bottom of the corporate ladder. Not only are homes (both rental and buyable ones) very short on supplies, but our government is building of the wrong kinds! There have never been so many single and two person household in our country before, yet they stubbornly keep ordering for large 'family' homes that no one wants to pay for. Why spend money on space you're never going to use? They need to open their eyes already and start meeting the real demands of the population. It's like that here too, mostly they're making homes for rich people. They COULD do low income housing (that way constructor workers would get jobs and whatnot) but they aren't, they want my hometown to become more and more of a tourist spot and bring in the money. I think I've seen a notoble rise in the homeless.... What I think would be ideal, is to build low-income homes, but restrict the ammount of people allowing to live there. If you rent a government subsidised home (they have those here, don't know how it works in other countries) that is meant for two people and then you have a baby, you are forced to move out and make room for others. Can't afford an expensive family home? Sure you can! You have the money to raise a child, do you not? I'm sure you two thought the financial side over before tossing that birthcontrol, right? People abuse the system here: they move in as a couple and nine months later... *poof!*... a baby appears and they still get to keep the low rent house! What I hate, in my country at least, is that there is no middle ground when it comes to 1-2 person household homes. Either they are swanky luxurious appartments in the heart of the city, or they are run-down flats with barely enough room to keep a pet fish and paperthin walls that you can hear everything through. I just want a normal place in a friendly neighbourhood. It doesn't even have to be that big!
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on May 27, 2008 13:23:07 GMT -5
There have never been so many single and two person household in our country before, yet they stubbornly keep ordering for large 'family' homes that no one wants to pay for. Why spend money on space you're never going to use? It's the same here. There is an affordable housing crisis in my area. There are lots of retirees wishing to downsize and lots of young people starting out, but many of them end up leaving the area because they cannot afford to live here. The building industry here has basically come to a standstill, but when it was booming, all that was being built was huge McMansion-type homes for families--nothing suitable for couples or single people.
|
|
|
Post by Ninja on May 27, 2008 13:28:06 GMT -5
There have never been so many single and two person household in our country before, yet they stubbornly keep ordering for large 'family' homes that no one wants to pay for. Why spend money on space you're never going to use? It's the same here. There is an affordable housing crisis in my area. There are lots of retirees wishing to downsize and lots of young people starting out, but many of them end up leaving the area because they cannot afford to live here. The building industry here has basically come to a standstill, but when it was booming, all that was being built was huge McMansion-type homes for families--nothing suitable for couples or single people. It's almost like they don't want to see that there are other households than the classic mom/dad/kid/dog kind.
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on May 27, 2008 14:09:27 GMT -5
It's almost like they don't want to see that there are other households than the classic mom/dad/kid/dog kind. And WEALTHY classic mom/dad/kids/dog kind of households at that. An "average" middle-class income family would never be able to afford these homes.
|
|
|
Post by Ninja on May 27, 2008 14:31:24 GMT -5
It's almost like they don't want to see that there are other households than the classic mom/dad/kid/dog kind. And WEALTHY classic mom/dad/kids/dog kind of households at that. An "average" middle-class income family would never be able to afford these homes. Don't forget to add "white", "straight" and "Christian"! Well, the latter not so much where I live. As long as you're not muslim... we can't have potential terrorists in our neighbourhood, now can we?
|
|
|
Post by nokidsplease87 on May 27, 2008 15:14:23 GMT -5
It's the same here. There is an affordable housing crisis in my area. There are lots of retirees wishing to downsize and lots of young people starting out, but many of them end up leaving the area because they cannot afford to live here. The building industry here has basically come to a standstill, but when it was booming, all that was being built was huge McMansion-type homes for families--nothing suitable for couples or single people. Same here. We can barely afford our 1 bedroom apartment, but at least they pay our trash, water, and gas bills, not to mention general maintenance and such we don't have to worry about. I can't imagine going and spending twice as much to rent a house (certainly can't fathom buying one..) and paying utilities and everything on top of that, just for a little more square footage that we don't really need at the moment... There are countless areas popping up around here, calling themselves "estates" and the like, where people buy the land, put up a huge mansion-style house, then 6 month later they're putting a for sale sign in the yard. No one can afford these places and they're destroying perfectly good farmland / forests / etc with these "estates". Its really sickening. Heck, my fiance's parents' house is worth $100k, even though its this tiny one story ranch house! Its got two bedrooms that are about the size of one regular bedroom cut in half, 1 1/2 bathrooms, tiny kitchen/dining room, average sized living area.... $100,000. And the suburban area its in isn't even a very nice one. There's no way I'd pay that much to live there. (Of course, the fiance is inheriting it eventually... No idea what we're going to DO with it, though... But its paid off at least). /rant lol
|
|
|
Post by preraph on May 27, 2008 15:38:09 GMT -5
I used to work for a homebuilder, and the reason they mostly build the McMansions now is because they can sell whatever they build, and since the biggest cost item in building a house is the foundation and all that, and that costs the same whether it's one-story or two-story, they can build a two-story for not that much more money on their end, but they can charge way over twice as much as they'd get for a one-story. So I'm afraid the nice little starter homes are a thing of the past unless government interferes and requires it, and they won't because you can always rent an apartment instead, though to me, that is no substitute.
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on May 27, 2008 17:11:07 GMT -5
Heck, my fiance's parents' house is worth $100k, even though its this tiny one story ranch house! Its got two bedrooms that are about the size of one regular bedroom cut in half, 1 1/2 bathrooms, tiny kitchen/dining room, average sized living area.... $100,000. And the suburban area its in isn't even a very nice one. You couldn't even begin to buy any kind of house, condo, anything--even in the crappiest area--for $100K, even though property values have gone way down from a few years ago. If we hadn't bought our house when we did, we would have probably never have been able to buy anything later. During the real estate boom of a few years ago, my house was probably worth $650K. It's just a very plain, OLD, tract house in a middle class area. 1800 square feet, 4 small bedrooms, 2 ba, SMALL kitchen, living room and dining area. Small back yard. I don't know what it would be worth now. But of course here you pay for location. It's Southern California and it's near the ocean. ;D
|
|
|
Post by preraph on May 27, 2008 17:50:13 GMT -5
Yes, California certainly is expensive, but at least they still have the cozy little houses and some great ranch-type houses. I'd love to live there. If I could afford it at all, it would be worth it just to live in an progressive environment around nice folks such as yourself.
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on May 27, 2008 19:32:11 GMT -5
Most of California really isn't all as liberal and progressive as generally perceived by those who don't live here--although overall CA does seem more liberal than a lot of places. Some parts of California are extremely liberal, but other parts are extremely conservative. Gay marriage just passed here and already the Religious Wrong and other ultraconservatives are trying to get it overturned.
|
|
|
Post by kentuckykimmie on May 29, 2008 7:01:44 GMT -5
Ninja, I had fleeting moments like you are describing before and they were generally precipitated by an event. For intance, someone I knew who had their own home/husband/good jobs etc... and just announced the first impending birth, and they would be 2 years younger than I was, and I was divorced and childfree and still renting an apartment, and it made me feel "behind". Those moments will pass though. You should try and remember that EVEN IF you get married and have the 2.5 kids JUST to get a "dream house", or for whatever reason than the right one for you, you will never be happy, I don't think. I envision you being the happiest when you land the job you deserve after graduation, have paid attention to your finances and saved up some money in the next few years, and are able to either rent or buy an adorable little home or apartment with a cute little terrace and can decorate it anyway you like, and know that you did it on your own. I can't imagine a greater feeling of accomplishment. IF you happen to meet "mr right" along the way, and IF you decide you want the 2.5 kids later on, at least it will be YOUR decision, and not just something to do to get a material thing that you have to share with people you don't even want to be around. I'd rather rent a one bedroom flat in a not so good area and live peacefully alone, than own a mansion in a ritzy area and have 2 or 3 kids to run after and care for the rest of my life. and a husband I can't stand to be around to top it off, what a nightmare!
|
|
|
Post by cnu5000 on Jul 21, 2008 6:25:48 GMT -5
Where I live you have to be wealthy to afford a big house. Also a big house is a maitainance nightmare and people have to work long hours to afford them.
Where I am there are a lot of over forty babies rabies. I think sometimes people feel something that the option is closing.
|
|
|
Post by nativenewyorker on Jul 21, 2008 7:11:19 GMT -5
Ya know it's funny but I never had that quarterlife baby-rabies. If anything I was terrified of ever getting pregnant, though I always used birth control.
It wasn't until I entered my 40's that I started to wonder what it would have been like. Though I've teetered a bit as a fencesitter, I truly believe that in my heart I did the right thing.
|
|
mar
Full Member
Posts: 237
|
Post by mar on Jul 21, 2008 10:03:17 GMT -5
Fortunately, I NEVER had the maternal instinct - except for the cats we had (smiles). WHEW !
|
|