To understand why some women have children within a a short time with multiple different partners?

I taught for many years on an estate where there were many families of single mum plus children from multiple partners.
My conclusion was that the mums felt “ good” when pregnant as they were looked after and cared about by health care professionals etc. It never seemed to be about money, ie more child benefit

Unfortunately, we live in a society where being dim is rewarded in this way.

I think it's more accurate to say that we live in a society that tries to protect dim people from the natural consequences of their actions.

It's debatable whether this is an integral part of human social development, or an artificially imposed artefact due to morals, ethics and religion.

As Queenie in Blackadder wisely said "We can't go around chopping peoples heads off just for being stupid, can we ?"

"The irony is the mugs paying for it are the ones who are limiting their own fertility because they are so concerned about being able to afford kids".

As a recent BBC article showed, a middle class couple on over £60k a year might say they could not possibly afford children, however, I know several families (even in high cost areas) who would feel like they could thrive on £60k pa. So how 'affordable' children are is quite subjective.

I do understand some people are annoyed that they might be 'paying' for these families to live off social security, but the reality is, again, so much more complex. As far as I'm aware there has been social housing and welfare since after WW2 and many of these families are actually in work, it's just we don't value that work as highly. Not every child from these families will never work, many will go on to contribute financially for much of their lives, some will become carers to sick, elderly or disabled relatives and save the state a fortune. All will be paying tax everytime they pay VAT in this country etc. The media skews the true picture completely.

Like others said, it’s a sign of low intelligence. And greed. Unfortunately, we live in a society where being dim is rewarded in this way. The less you do, the more you get.

Yes, you can blame the man, they are probably even more dim. You never see a baby daddy type and marvel at the intellect that would be lost to humanity if he didn’t pass his genes down. But, it’s a fact of biology that the woman has to carry the can, and the baby. So you have to ask why these women keep having kids by multiple men, that they have no means of paying for. Because they are dim, selfish and greedy. Because someone else will always pay. The irony is the mugs paying for it are the ones who are limiting their own fertility because they are so concerned about being able to afford kids.

Sometimes they have nothing else. No proper education, no motivation/drive and it's the 'easiest' thing to do to get a house, money etc.
Some seem to think that having a baby in a relationship is mandatory. Or that a baby will ensure he stays/changes/loves you. Despite it not working the first or second or even third time

There is no thought to the potential, then actual, child/ren who is/are the ones that suffer the consequence of the mothers actions. Because anyone actually believing having multiple children with multiple men, often after 5 minutes is just not very smart, very selfish and probably won't have the abilty or desire to raise children to be better than that

The new rules came in, in 2017 after baby 3 no tax credits now universal credits unless twins or worse raped

so going onto have loads of kids isn’t the money grab it was years back and yes we now have kids in poverty because of the parents having more or more so the women as the man has fucked off.

It's a cycle from grandmother to granddaughter. I see it in the run down estates. They think this is their lives but most only have 2 kids now as there is no money in having more as 20 odd quid Child benefit isn’t covering it as that isn’t capped for low earners or ones on UC.

plus who is getting housing cos they are pregnant not round here they ain’t, it’s a hostel or shared housing with others or a right run down B&B as a lot of the homeless flats have been knocked down as they where unsafe and nowt was re built

I think porn has had an effect so that men refuse to use condoms in too many instances.

I can’t imagine any sensible, mature, person of normal intelligence meeting someone (of either sex) who had multiple children by multiple partners and seeing them as a viable potential partner. I’d agree with it mostly being a IQ issue.

Everyone I know would run a mile!

She didn't wait five years to be with someone else did she though? It must have been less than that if including the pregnancy. Hardly any time at all, especially when factoring in older children to consider.

Even worse then if she just jumped straight into a relationship after splitting up with her first partner! So straight onto another baby .

Yes that's what I thought or HPV virus

@ffsfindmeausername yep I didn't word that well- you don't get given social housing I know, but it does push you higher up the list and are more likely to get it in a quicker timescale than someone with no children -

Cos they don't know where to get condoms.

In that example of the 25 year old having 3 kids with different men, what if one of them had AIDS or Chlamydia? Does no one think about STDs anymore, it's like they don't exist.

It's not always straightforward. I used to support people trying to access housing and benefits and it's really grim for many. The process can be long and arduous and elements do seem designed to encourage you to just go away. Unanswered phone calls, left on hold forever.

I'm sure for some they're in a relatively ok position but I saw mostly people holding on by the skin of their teeth.

Quite coincidentally, I was thinking as this thread progressed that I have greater issue with Saville's mate King Charlie and the cost to taxpayers for he and his spawn; particularly the costs associated with the Duchy of Cornwall and associated estates.

And I see Channel 4 has just dropped a documentary exposing the Royals' secret millions. I'll watch this with interest.

Errrr, so what? Sounds like she had 3 children with one man then split up and waited 4 years before being with someone else?

Are some people even against women having a second relationship multiple years after their last if they have children? That's really regressive imo

Aren't they given housing benefits through as they need to live somewhere

you no longer "get given" social housing these days by having a baby, those days are long gone in the UK. Back in the 90s I had teen friends that purposely had babies as they wanted to leave home and knew it would guarantee them a council house. Not anymore which I think is a good thing as its one of the reasons the teen pregnancy rate has massively reduced in recent years.

Yep, puts me in mind of my NDNs...she's got a child to her current partner, her youngest is 3yo. But the older three DC have a different Dad. So she must have got with second partner whilst her third born was 4yo.....who's thinking of moving on when you've a child not even school aged...? She certainly moved on fast!🤔 they are 12, 10, 8 and 3.

Maybe tell us where you're from and we could have an idea about whether all the things you've listed are a good idea or not ...

They're just not very bright.

Play around with the annual UK survey data on Families and Households released in February by the UK Office for National Statistics, and you find an extraordinary thing: the proportion of lone-parent families in 2020 is now down to levels not seen since the 1990s.

I think it's an exception here too. Birth rate is extremely low. They just get plonked on the news very often.

Because they can and because someone else will always pick up the slack. Either the state/taxpayers or grandparents or the combination of the two.

We don't have the welfare state where I'm from. Ok, sort of. There are some benefits for genuinely ill/disabled (emphasis on GENUINELY, not some weird bullshit ailments), and for people looking for work. That's about it. Your kids are your problem. Sure, a woman can have as many of them as she wants, but she has to work and pay for them herself, together with their daddy(-ies). If they cannot - they'll taken into foster care. The end. No benefits, no social housing, no free childcare. Your kids are literally your business.

And that's why we don't have generation upon generation of families with huge broods. Sure, with exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions. As soon as they realise, that you'll have to work and support your offspring yourself with no bonuses from the state - even the thickest of them somehow miraculously manage to avoid all those 'accidental pregnancies' (and contraception is not free either where I'm from).

Oh dear indeed.

Is your argument so weak you have to resort to name calling?

I would like to know how you are going to stop her from having body autonomy?

Forced abortion your thing? Forced sterilisation?

The impact on the children is another issue, the impact on the tax payer is another issue but you can't stop women from having babies if that's what they want to do.