..to think that, except in very special circumstances....

[BertrandRussell]

....you should not have a baby with someone you have known for less than, say, 5 years? And you should both be at least, say, 2 years away from the relationship with the parent of your other children?

A lot of arseholes don't reveal themselves as arseholes until their partner is either pregnant or unril after the birth... so any waiting period up to 5 years might be rendered ineffective.

rainorsun
They've been here a while and have said they plucked the numbers out the air.
It's the principle of not rushing to move in and settle and have children with people you hardly know or are freshly out of a relationship because, unsurprisingly, it doesn't offer strong foundations, especially when there's multiple children involved

It appears that many men default to becoming controlling and abusive when women are compromised by the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth etc

my advice to most people would be don't have children with people who already have children, I think.

Maybe, I guess. But an astonishing proportion of the threads about arsehole husbands are by women who have been married to them for waaaay longer than 5 years. Also, the full-on arseholery sometimes doesn't seem to start until after the child is born (whenever that might occur in the relationship).

Well.I did it all wrong I married dh after six months and was pregnant six months after that, my sister was with her dh for four years before they got engaged ,and married 18 months later and then got pregnant ,guess which one of us has just got divorced?

DH and I had DS1 18 months after we met. We're still together, how would you know if you were going to have other children with a different partner?

....you should not have a baby with someone you have known for less than, say, 5 years?

Don't agree with that. In an ideal world perhaps, but especially for older would-be parents when the biological time clock is a-ticking, 5 years is impracticable.

Your second point I tend to agree with more. When I read threads along the lines "our baby DD1 is due any day now but we are having problems with hubz 16 month old from his previous marriage...", I think jaysus...

I was with my ex for 10 years, married for 8 years before I had our first child.....and he still turned out to be an unfaithful twat . Your timeline means nothing.

I'd like to be married before I have sex, but I wouldn't put a 5 year rule on knowing each other before having children If I wanted them.

What works for some doesn't work for others.

You’ve done a similar thread to this recently haven’t you? Or was that about marriage?
I agree in general that some people rush into things far too quickly. DH and I were married within 3 years and had our first DC within 4.5 years (now been together 10 years and have 3 DC) and I thought that was on the quick side. But everyone’s circumstances are different. People in their late 30’s potentially don’t have years to wait. People could have known each other as friends for years beforehand. And of course you can be with someone for 10 years before having children and they’d only become a prick once you’re pregnant...

Another faux-innocent, wide-eyed, hoiking up those judgy pants thread. Yawn. How predictable.

All you have to do is look at the dozens of threads on here where people have find out their husband of 20+ years is cheating to see that 5 years doesn’t prevent men from turning out to be arseholes.

I kind of agree with you @BertrandRussell.

I read so many threads and wonder what’s the rush.

Lots of women, pregnant with a new partner, with a child from another partner barely a year old, and very young step-children.

I find it messy and unnecessary and it affects the children negatively.

I’d go further and say I think blended families are ill-advised but I’m aware that’s extremely unpopular.

I'd like to be married before I have sex, but I wouldn't put a 5 year rule on knowing each other before having children If I wanted them.

Quite a tall order that one, in this day and age. Not saying it's remotely unreasonable but am assuming you're quite young as everyone I knew with those views were deeply religious and married in their early 20s.

my advice to most people would be don't have children with people who already have children, I think. yep, said this up-thread as well.

People obviously don’t want to hear that because they’ve met this new man and everything is amaaaazing and and and they just want to be a family in their own right. But the confusion it causes to existing children is immense, and I actually think that in twenty years time we’re going to have a generation of adults who resent the amounts of blended families they were forced to be a part of. Because let’s be honest here, for an adult it’s only about having children with one partner and then having children with another one, whereas for a child the possibilities are endless. One parent with their half siblings plus step siblings and the same on the other side - so they potentially have to be a part of two blended families who are each also a part of two or more blended families and so the cycle continues.

But this is the first generation where this is seen to be the norm, and I genuinely believe that it will have repercussions in the future.

I think a couple of years on both cases would not be the worst idea.

It would also help some people if they didn't insist that the arrival of a baby would magically change someone.

Another faux-innocent, wide-eyed, hoiking up those judgy pants thread. Yawn. How predictable.
There's no faux innocent about it
Common sense says that it's generally better to not have unprotected sex with someone you don't know that we'll who still has lots of drama with their ex or is coming out of a break up.

No relationship is perfectly protected. Anyone could turn out like an arsehole.

There's still running patterns in quite a few threads on here.

Quite a tall order that one, in this day and age. Not saying it's remotely unreasonable but am assuming you're quite young as everyone I knew with those views were deeply religious and married in their early 20s

Yeah obviously it may not happen that way, I would just prefer the security of a very relationship as sex to be is a massive thing.

Obviously a marriage may be pushing it I guess

Me and my son's dad had been together for around 7 years and he left and still acted like a dick for my pregnancy and for quite some time after our child was born

Although we're on good terms now, even after all that time together.

Look at how many people have spent years in a relationship to find out they were with an utter dick

Very close relationship**

I am also as sure as I can be that it DH and I split, I wouldn’t have children with a new partner. I do not believe it would be in the best interests of my current children.
But that’s me, and my life. Everyone’s circumstances are different.

5 years is a lot. We'd got married and had 2 kids in that time. I was 32 when we met and so was keen to move things along once it was clear we worked as a couple.

I suppose we did things 'properly' as we were together six years before DD arrived. Hooray! But then we're not married so I guess that puts us back to being irresponsible again

5 years is ages. I was with my DH 2.5 years when I got pregnant.

My best friend was with her partner for ten years before they had a baby and he was still an abusive twunt, so I don't see your logic OP.