Do you have children?

[Smellincoffee]

I take it you're single? There's no reason why single guys can't adopt nowadays, is there? I suppose the laws vary from state to state?

Yep. I suppose I could adopt, but that's not a challenge I would want to take on without a partner -- and I don't think it would be doing right by the kid, either, when they could potentially be adopted by a couple who can offer them more resources/time. I'm still in my thirties (for a few more months), so there's still time to meet a woman who is open to adoption.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Having a family is ultimately an exercise in self-denial, anathema in our modern worship of the Self.

SEAN: So if I asked you about art you’d probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo? You know a lot about him. Life’s work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can’t tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You’ve never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. Seen that.

If I asked you about women you’d probably give me a syllabus of your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can’t tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy.

You’re a tough kid. I ask you about war, and you’d probably, uh, throw Shakespeare at me, right? “Once more into the breach, dear friends.” But you’ve never been near one. You’ve never held your best friend’s head in your lap and watched him gasp his last breath, looking to you for help.

And if I asked you about love you probably quote me a sonnet. But you’ve never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone could level you with her eyes. Feeling like! God put an angel on earth just for you…who could rescue you from the depths of hell.

And you wouldn’t know what it’s like to be her angel and to have that love for her to be there forever. Through anything. Through cancer. You wouldn’t know about sleeping sitting up in a hospital room for two months holding her hand because the doctors could see in your eyes that the term "visiting hours" doesn't apply to you. You don’t know about real loss, because that only occurs when you love something more than you love yourself. I doubt you’ve ever dared to love anybody that much.

I look at you; I don’t see an intelligent, confident man; I see a cocky, scared shitless kid. But you’re a genius, Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine and you ripped my fudgin’ life apart. You’re an orphan right? Do you think I’d know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?

Personally, I don’t give a **** about all that, because you know what? I can’t learn anything from you I can’t read in some fudgin’ book. Unless you wanna talk about you, who you are. And I’m fascinated. I’m in. But you don’t wanna do that, do you, sport? You’re terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Marriage and a family is not for the faint of heart or those who prefer to focus on themselves. As Smellincoffee said it is a path of self denial that has no end.

 

[Narz]

Even with a committed and loving partner with good communication it's no joke. By oneself I can't imagine (well I can a bit, I lived alone w my elder daughter for one school year) and with a hostile party it's a nightmare (knowing your kid is in care of someone you don't trust is something I wouldn't wish on any1).

Being a single parent (choosing it I mean) I would not recommend unless you got crazy amount of financial and social resources and incredible emotional stamina.

Ideally set up as much support as you can for yourself (extended family, friends, good neighbors, financial cushion) beforehand, every extra ounce or support you'll appreciate.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

The following is all entirely my personal opinion which I can not back up by any sort of facts or data. But I feel it might be something interesting to consider.

This being said I feel that it has less to do with the age and more to do with the genre. Basically, strategy game attract a certain type of person. A person who is analytical, tends to think things over and plan and generally has a strategic mindset. This means that on average we are far more likely to recognize the fact that as Birdjaguar said marriage and children are a huge responsibility and investment, and one that basically ends your life as a free man. Which is something most parents really, really just don't.

Like, this is a tangent in its own right but I feel that there is evidence to support that most people who have children basically bumble into it because they wanted to emotionally or out of the wrong reason (like to save a failing relationship or due to social pressure) and just end up not being ready for it personally or financially. And that this is the reason for many of the woes of modern society and youth and has been since time immemorial. But I digress.

Bottom line is that I think that due to the sort of personality that is attracted to strategy games the average CIV enjoyer is far more likely to either be stuck waiting for the "right" time and the "right" conditions when one is "ready" which often ends up as newer or decide to be childless due to knowing they are not fit or ready for such a responsibility. Things that the average parent just does not consider. Which in turn skews us toward being childless.

But that's just my opinion based off a sample of one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There are a couple of people on the forum who I've noticed have really cut back on their presence since becoming parents (not gonna name names). Of course that's a normal and reasonable thing, since RL is actually more important than a gaming forum.

On the other hand, there are some people who incorporate their parenthood into their hobbies. I know a family in a barony north of here with at least 3 generations who are active SCA members (could be 4 by now, if the youngest ones I knew have married and had kids).

I've mentioned my reasons a few times already over the years for opting for no human children. They're reasons I consider valid and reasonable, and don't appreciate anyone arguing with me or trying to guilt-trip me over it - as one person did, to the point of claiming that I was "depriving the world of someone who could have been awesome". Well, it's flattering that someone thought that I would produce an "awesome" kid. But I know that the experience would not be awesome, and with my family's medical history (on both sides), having children is one of the most irresponsible things I could ever do.

Today is the 10th anniversary of my mother's death, from cancer. She's the third, maybe the fourth woman in her side of the family within the last 3 generations to have cancer, and the third to die from it. There's just my aunt and me left, and given my age now, I really hope that this is one more area where I take after my dad's side rather than my mom's. Though my dad's side carries some scary stuff, too. Under the circumstances, I think I'd have been insane to risk passing this on to yet another generation. I made the decision in my early 20s, when I knew that the older of my mother's two sisters was terminal. It wasn't an easy decision, but I haven't regretted it.


So... I have a mug that says "All My Children Have Paws." I became a cat mom. I'm aware that some people scoff at such a label, and some others find it insulting, as though I'm mocking people who have human children. But it's something that the vets consider valid, and the paperwork I signed for Maddy's cremation 2 weeks ago identifies me as her Cat Parent/Guardian. And given that I've been raising cats since 1977 - nearly 47 years - I think I've earned that.

 

[Narz]

The following is all entirely my personal opinion which I can not back up by any sort of facts or data. But I feel it might be something interesting to consider.

This being said I feel that it has less to do with the age and more to do with the genre. Basically, strategy game attract a certain type of person. A person who is analytical, tends to think things over and plan and generally has a strategic mindset. This means that on average we are far more likely to recognize the fact that as Birdjaguar said marriage and children are a huge responsibility and investment, and one that basically ends your life as a free man. Which is something most parents really, really just don't.

Like, this is a tangent in its own right but I feel that there is evidence to support that most people who have children basically bumble into it because they wanted to emotionally or out of the wrong reason (like to save a failing relationship or due to social pressure) and just end up not being ready for it personally or financially. And that this is the reason for many of the woes of modern society and youth and has been since time immemorial. But I digress.

Bottom line is that I think that due to the sort of personality that is attracted to strategy games the average CIV enjoyer is far more likely to either be stuck waiting for the "right" time and the "right" conditions when one is "ready" which often ends up as newer or decide to be childless due to knowing they are not fit or ready for such a responsibility. Things that the average parent just does not consider. Which in turn skews us toward being childless.

But that's just my opinion based off a sample of one.

All this is true. I certainly bumbled into kids.

Also gaming is a great way to NOT meet women (not saying it's impossible, I'm sure they've been humans produced from a Civ originated love affair but it's gotta be rare) as opposed to say a coed sports league or even walking one's dog. Not to mention arguing w strangers on a nerd forum, I've yet to hear a woman say she hopes to meet her dream guy multiquoting on page 842 of a political thread.

And excessive gaming is also a good way to turn off (and tune out ) one's partner if one does happen to get one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

All this is true. I certainly bumbled into kids.

Also gaming is a great way to NOT meet women (not saying it's impossible, I'm sure they've been humans produced from a Civ originated love affair but it's gotta be rare) as opposed to say a coed sports league or even walking one's dog. Not to mention arguing w strangers on a nerd forum, I've yet to hear a woman say she hopes to meet her dream guy multiquoting on page 842 of a political thread.

And excessive gaming is also a good way to turn off (and tune out ) one's partner if one does happen to get one.

It might seem this way if you hang out primarily on sites or in groups where there aren't many women and the ones who are there are already in a relationship with someone. The number of relationships I've seen begin either in gaming circles, SF fandom, or in the SCA suggest to me that if you want a compatible spouse who understands your hobbies, you should look for one in settings where those hobbies occur. There's one couple I know of who live a short distance from here, who met in the SCA. She joined the same year I did (1986), and ended up marrying one of the guys who had already been part of the Shire for years before that. So they've been together a very long time (no kids, but that's more to do with certain personal reasons than anything due to gaming - they are both gamers as well, and taught me to play Civ I).

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Not to mention arguing w strangers on a nerd forum, I've yet to hear a woman say she hopes to meet her dream guy multiquoting on page 842 of a political thread.

The funny thing is I can imagine bonding over the experience.

Like, if not for the inpersonality of the internet and the fact we are all genderless blobs of data I can almost imagine meeting my dream girl by shouting at each other over a stupid argument. Just as long as we both understand that in the end its just good fun arguing for the sake of it because arguing is fun.

 

[Gorbles]

Like, this is a tangent in its own right but I feel that there is evidence to support that most people who have children basically bumble into it because they wanted to emotionally or out of the wrong reason (like to save a failing relationship or due to social pressure) and just end up not being ready for it personally or financially.

This is nothing but vibes. Which, in fairness, you did say upfront.

Certainly, there's social pressure to have kids vs. say adopting, but nothing in this thread says adopted kids aren't counted (and we have at least one poster that includes theirs).

Really feels like you're trying to rationalise away a "burden" just because you don't have it. It's a choice. You shouldn't be shamed for yours just as you shouldn't invent reasoning as to why others chose to.

EDIT - and I'm not touching the "strategy players just know things better than other people" with a stick, lmao.

 

[Narz]

It might seem this way if you hang out primarily on sites or in groups where there aren't many women and the ones who are there are already in a relationship with someone. The number of relationships I've seen begin either in gaming circles, SF fandom, or in the SCA suggest to me that if you want a compatible spouse who understands your hobbies, you should look for one in settings where those hobbies occur. There's one couple I know of who live a short distance from here, who met in the SCA. She joined the same year I did (1986), and ended up marrying one of the guys who had already been part of the Shire for years before that. So they've been together a very long time (no kids, but that's more to do with certain personal reasons than anything due to gaming - they are both gamers as well, and taught me to play Civ I).

I did have a gf who's sister met her husband on some neverwinternights group (I think that was the name of the game).

 

[PPQ_Purple]

This is nothing but vibes. Which, in fairness, you did say upfront.

Certainly, there's social pressure to have kids vs. say adopting, but nothing in this thread says adopted kids aren't counted (and we have at least one poster that includes theirs).

Really feels like you're trying to rationalise away a "burden" just because you don't have it. It's a choice. You shouldn't be shamed for yours just as you shouldn't invent reasoning as to why others chose to.

EDIT - and I'm not touching the "strategy players just know things better than other people" with a stick, lmao.

My point was that from a purely analytical perspective having children is all sacrifice and no benefit. You give up your freedom, your money, your sleep and quite a lot of other things in order to essentially devote your existence entirely to that of your child. At least you do if you are even remotely akin to a decent parent. And all you really get in return are intangible emotional things that may or may not pan out depending on how the kid turns out.

So from a pure analysis perspective it makes sense to either go without or to wait until you are mentally, emotionally and economically ready for the burden. Which is why every time society gives people a choice in the matter via easily accessible contraception a huge amount of people end up not having any. They either choose not to have any or they wait and wait until they are ready and realize only too late that they newer will be.

Having a baby is a huge deal both in the moment and for a very long time. And the people that do it tend to either not understand it, have no choice in the matter or understand it and willingly choose to take a leap of faith that in spire of all logic and math being against them things will work out.

And I feel that people who gravitate toward games of strategy are more likely to approach the situation in an analytical way and generally be more risk averse to taking the plunge. Thus they will tend to end up in the overthink but newer take the plunge camp.

Mind you, I am saying this from the perspective of someone who wants to have children. But like, eventually, some day, when I am ready.

 

[Farm Boy]

You'll never be ready. There is no perfect time. It changes who you are, one night cry at a time*. You'll be a different man, before and after.

Its weird the first time somebody calls you Dad. Then you realize one day that you answer to it faster than your name.

*thinking on this, and second guessing myself, I'm going to need to go back on there being no such thing as a perfect time. They're just easy to miss. After a sick baby can't stop crying for hours in the middle of the night, you have been sleep deprived for 3 months running with no interruption, he doesn't want you but wants his mother who's at work... in the moment he settles his head on your shoulder, finds comfort, and sleeps... that might be a perfect time, for a time

 

[Birdjaguar]

You'll never be ready. There is no perfect time. It changes who you are, one night cry at a time*. You'll be a different man, before and after.

Exactly.

 

[Narz]

So from a pure analysis perspective it makes sense to either go without or to wait until you are mentally, emotionally and economically ready for the burden. Which is why every time society gives people a choice in the matter via easily accessible contraception a huge amount of people end up not having any. They either choose not to have any or they wait and wait until they are ready and realize only too late that they newer will be.

It's more nuanced than that, easily accessible contraception has made an impact for sure but the main driver IMO is A : how expensive it is to raise a kid now vs before (usually both mother & father have to work and home ownership is a distant dream for many) and B : how communities have collapsed over the past 50 years making raising a kid much lonelier & overwhelming.

No one will argue that having a kid isn't a lot of work & sacrifice but if you watch documentaries on tribal people you see how kids are raised more in groups than isolated by nuclear families (or more and more often by single parents), we're not meant to parent 99% in isolation (outside of school & if we're lucky an occasional visit from an aunt or uncle or grandparent). And it's a bit of a vicious cycle, the harder it is to have kids & the fewer people who do have them the more isolated it becomes for parents & kids.

Having a baby is a huge deal both in the moment and for a very long time. And the people that do it tend to either not understand it, have no choice in the matter or understand it and willingly choose to take a leap of faith that in spire of all logic and math being against them things will work out.

Things generally do work out somewhat, child mortality is very low & your kids might not turn out how you hope they generally turn out in some ways that make you happy (I don't have any adult children yet so I can't speak on that).

And I feel that people who gravitate toward games of strategy are more likely to approach the situation in an analytical way and generally be more risk averse to taking the plunge. Thus they will tend to end up in the overthink but newer take the plunge camp.

Gaming is a form of escapism so that makes sense.

Mind you, I am saying this from the perspective of someone who wants to have children. But like, eventually, some day, when I am ready.

You'll never be ready. There is no perfect time. It changes who you are, one night cry at a time. You'll be a different man, before and after.

You'll never really be ready but on the other hand one should try & get ready (financially, emotionally & choose the right partner!)

 

[sophie]

My fiancée and I have talked about it a few times. We would like to have a kid. Finances and space are the main barriers to entry at this point.

 

[Moriarte]

I can't imagine too many people today voluntarily lift the burden of parenthood given how much it costs. I think the reason world population growth is stalling is precisely that - economics doesn't add up. People talk about sperm count, liberation, distractions like gaming, careerism, seclusion due to wide societal atomisation, whatever. If the money question spins out of control, well, those other factors have just become secondary. As a father of two I am noticing first hand, in slow motion, how impressively parenting costs have risen since Covid. Then again there are countries like Nigeria, which recently crossed 200 million population without much money to show for it. However, I think another combination of factors contribute to their population explosion, which can no longer contribute to ours. Widespread religion dictates to be fruitful. Rural economics benefits from more hands. (70% of population in agriculture) It's too late for us to step into that river again, on both counts.

 

[Fat Bastard]

Why do you come into CFC asking personal questions like that, as if this were Facebook?

A clinical psychologist once said to me "You're either a parent or a child, which is it?". Not that I mean to judge its a normal question.

My point was that from a purely analytical perspective having children is all sacrifice and no benefit...

Mind you, I am saying this from the perspective of someone who wants to have children. But like, eventually, some day, when I am ready.

May I remind you its not all doom and gloom having a kid, some of it's fun!

 

[Gorbles]

My point was that from a purely analytical perspective having children is all sacrifice and no benefit.

"purely analytical" means nothing in this case. You're only seeing the sacrifice, and you can't see the benefit. I'm not trying to knock you - you said you want kids. I'm saying that while you can be sensible about it, make plans, budget, and so on . . . there's nothing analytic about raising kids. Born or adopted. Is there a cost? Sure. But there's a cost in work, a cost in posting online, a cost to any action. But that's not on the kids. That's the choice you make. To raise someone else, to be their own person.

Farm Boy is right about never being ready, too. Nomatter how well anyone does prepare, not knocking that. But you simply aren't. There's always learning to be done.

 

[Tee Kay]

I wish I could have said yes. I really do. More than anything.