To want to become a single mother by choice?

[Eversograteful]

I have made up my mind that I 100% do not want to get married. Ever. Even after kids.

My reasons:

• I’m well educated. So don’t need to rely on anyone else for income.
• I have savings and I’m saving up enough to buy a house and get a mortgage which will be 100% mine (then passed on to my kids later).
• I’m planning on living off my savings for maternity leave then returning to work after 6 months to one year.

My other, more emotional reasons for not wanting marriage:

• it’s patriarchal, marriage was designed by men to control woman’s sexuality (my opinion)
• I don’t like the idea of becoming a “Mrs” some else’s last name
• I find the idea of marriage in general sexist especially the part about changing your name
• I find weddings a mixture of boring (for everyone else), cringy (for me) and expensive and I’m not prepared to waste £20,000 on one day when I could be saving up for a house deposit with that
• I don’t like the idea of your entire identity being deleted forever and getting deleted for a man’s identity

I just don’t like anything about marriage, couldn’t care less about being protected and I don’t care about having to work by myself and for myself to build up wealth for my children. Honestly, I’d be quite prepared to become a single mother by choice as I feel it’d almost be easier as

• I could parent the way that I want
• I could sleep how I want and feel rested and relaxed during baby stage without being distracted by my husband and dealing with relationship issues
• I don’t want to deal with relationship problems, I want to parent + focus on my work and paying the bills
• I get to make parenting decisions by myself

Single mothers have spoken about how much easier it is not to consult anyone else and just do things

I don’t have kids of my own (yet) but I’ve been yearning for my own family (children only) since I was sixteen - I even have the names picked out!. Strangely I’ve always been turned off by marriage since I was a child (even though my parents are married). It’s only recently I’ve decided it’s something I definitely do not want.

AIBU for dreaming about having children on my own?

@Eversograteful because atomic bombs are created to give everyone a big hug

It's fascinating that the religious element is what's drawn you in after ignoring hundreds of replies. I wish you'd answer some of the personal questions, I'm intrigued by your age and background!

Of course not. I never said any of those things that you are accusing me of.

RE Christian marriage, I was talking about the historical situation that has - as a matter of fact - existed in the British Isles for the past 1000 years and more, until non-religious marriages were made legal in the mid 19th cent. Before them, since before AD 1000, if people wanted to be legally married, the very, very large majority had to be married according to Christian conventions.. That was the only kind of marriage that the civil law - which regulated property and inheritance- recognised.

It's nothing to do with my opinions or beliefs; that's historical fact.

Medieval Catholic ceremonies varied from place to place. They incorporated a vast number of different local pre-Christian SOCIETAL customs. That was the way in which the early Catholic church grew and won influence, by working with existing structures. This won confidence - and new believers. But the 'core' of the marriage ceremony was always the same - and still is today (and in Cof E also): the bride and groom make binding promises to each other.

In my previous post I was using the Church of England phraseology - which dates from the 16th cent - as factual evidence of the situation that existed in a large part of the UK. The C of E marriage service- as this Catholic Encyclopaedia makes clear, is very similar to the pre Reformation Catholic marriage ceremony in England: "we find ourselves confronted by the curious anomaly that in the British Isles the Catholic marriage service resembles the Anglican [C of E] service more nearly than it does the form provided in the "Rituale Romanum".
source: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09703b.htm

Even today, in both C of E and Catholic wedding ceremonies are extraordinarily similar. This is the Catholic version:
To the groom:
"N., are you resolved to take N. to be your wife:
to love her, comfort her, honour and protect her,
and forsaking all others, to be faithful to her
as long as you both shall live?"
Full text of Catholic marriage service here: www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Marriage/OCM-Marriage-Texts.pdf

Compare the C of E vows here:
To the groom:
"N, will you take N to be your wife?
Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?"

In both churches, the bride is then asked exactly the same question.

Full text of C of E marriage service here: www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-solemnization-matrimony

Yes, there are different prayers at the beginning and end, but the core - the promises made by bride and groom - are almost word for word exactly the same.

Re Paul. He was writing at a time when early Christians believed that Jesus was going to return and the world would end, so of course he urged his followers to focus their minds on spiritual things, rather than on worldly matters. But he did not tell people to avoid marriage altogether. In fact, he gives a lot of advice about it. Here is just one example:
As well as asking women to respect their husbands, Paul also asked husbands to love wives equally with themselves: "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church"

I don't think Paul ever said that the point of marriage was pleasing your spouse. This is what his text says, and it's surprisingly MUTUAL:

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:3–5 )"

That has absolutely nothing to do with the OPs 'control of female sexuality'.

@SW1amp

The more you post, the more you are coming across as an angry, narcissistic know it all

If your intention was to articulate a rounded and reasoned case for why you could side step the worst aspects of a 2-parent set up by going it alone while still giving a child a stable and fulfilling upbringing, you are failing more with each post

What gets clearer from each post is that you will not contemplate any sort of self examination, let alone constructive criticism, and it’s like watching a slow motion car crash

Clearly some damage has been done to you in the past.

For the love of god, don’t pass it on to another generation because you think it’s easier to pay a sperm donor than examine your life and views

I could say the exact same about you. You’re unwilling to accept any other viewpoint but your own to the point where you’re now using therapy as a stick to beat me with in the hopes that I agree with you. Maybe you’re damaged. I know I’m not. I love the fact that you’re also calling me names, yet I’m the one that’s angry. Funny that.

You want me to go find a therapist who will get me to agree with you? Correct?

So that at the end of therapy I become convinced that marriage is a good thing. I should want to do things for my husband because I should love compromise for no reason and that I should want to have children if a man is present from help me. If I come out of therapy expressing such views, then that means the therapy has worked. Correct?

This is the most barking mad summary or assumption of what therapy entails that I have ever read

You quite clearly don’t have the first clue what therapy is, but you very clearly need some

It’s not you against the world, OP
You are allowed to hold views, including ones that you don’t need to be married, without dripping with hate and bitterness
You can hold views but understand and appreciate those views aren’t always healthy and don’t originate from a place of logic or rationale thought. You can acknowledge that bad things have happened to you and shaped your world view to an extent as to be harmful

But I suspect your narcissistic streak runs deep enough that you won’t ever actually do any of those things because you are so convinced you know best at all times

No, @MabelsApron is asking a perfectly valid question. You want this for you - which is fine if it only affects you. But you are a bringing a child into this and they have their own set of needs , which should be considered also.

No one can stop you cutting off your child’s access to their other parent, to part of their medical history, their genetic code, their sense of belonging. But if you wish to be a good parent part of that involves, at the very least, considering, acknowledging and dealing with the implications of that.

There will obviously be different answers to those implications based on the particulars of an individuals circumstances. It’s not hard to imagine situations where no contact would be entirely appropriate but choosing to deny your child access to their father so you don’t have to discuss your parenting choices is not one of them. Again not because of you - but because of your child’s rights.

Also intrigued as to how you would react to having a son if that happened? Considering your low opinion of men.

If you do go down this route and use a regulated fertility clinic (please god do use a regulated clinic and not some bloke off Facebook) you'll have to undergo counselling and complete a welfare of the child form .... just an FYI if you're so against therapy.

Oh and before you say it, anyone undergoing fertility treatment has to do the welfare of the child form and anyone using donor gametes needs to do the counselling

Which parts of the bible and religion am I picking and choosing?

'Paul says don't get married' and some odd idea that the church and bible supports children our of wedlock 'cause jesus'. As though and immaculate conception is the norm and it proves the Bible is cool with sex and children our of wedlock 🙄. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Funny how you focus on that. Not what I actually wrote in reference to anything else.

No one can stop you cutting off your child’s access to their other parent, to part of their medical history, their genetic code, their sense of belonging.

Thankfully the Human Rights Act means we all have a right to that information eventually, so the cut off would only be temporary, not that it makes it moral.

I could sleep how I want and feel rested and relaxed during baby stage without being distracted by my husband and dealing with relationship issues

OP, There's not a single person on the planet that sleeps better with a small baby in the house. 😂😂

Op I couldnt manage my kids without my husband. Not all marriage is a nightmare. People get married to give children a secure family upbringing. Your child will love their dad and need their dad and if a dad is not in their lives it affects them profoundly. Kids are massively hard work and so much harder without another parent to share that load with.

I have some family support nearby, but mainly I was planning on relying on nursery and crèche to care for my child while I’m at work (?).

Also this - bear in mind that most nurseries generally won't accept babies under 4 months in age. And don't under-estimate how difficult it can be being up half the night with a baby and then trying to go to work the next day. Lots of people do parent young children solo - but most did not set out to do it alone. There's a reason why in most cultures the family unit is seen to be 2 parents, because doing it alone is incredibly hard...

@scottishnames

Of course not. I never said any of those things that you are accusing me of.

RE Christian marriage, I was talking about the historical situation that has - as a matter of fact - existed in the British Isles for the past 1000 years and more, until non-religious marriages were made legal in the mid 19th cent. Before them, since before AD 1000, if people wanted to be legally married, the very, very large majority had to be married according to Christian conventions.. That was the only kind of marriage that the civil law - which regulated property and inheritance- recognised.

It's nothing to do with my opinions or beliefs; that's historical fact.

Medieval Catholic ceremonies varied from place to place. They incorporated a vast number of different local pre-Christian SOCIETAL customs. That was the way in which the early Catholic church grew and won influence, by working with existing structures. This won confidence - and new believers. But the 'core' of the marriage ceremony was always the same - and still is today (and in Cof E also): the bride and groom make binding promises to each other.

In my previous post I was using the Church of England phraseology - which dates from the 16th cent - as factual evidence of the situation that existed in a large part of the UK. The C of E marriage service- as this Catholic Encyclopaedia makes clear, is very similar to the pre Reformation Catholic marriage ceremony in England: "we find ourselves confronted by the curious anomaly that in the British Isles the Catholic marriage service resembles the Anglican [C of E] service more nearly than it does the form provided in the "Rituale Romanum".
source: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09703b.htm

Even today, in both C of E and Catholic wedding ceremonies are extraordinarily similar. This is the Catholic version:
To the groom:
"N., are you resolved to take N. to be your wife:
to love her, comfort her, honour and protect her,
and forsaking all others, to be faithful to her
as long as you both shall live?"
Full text of Catholic marriage service here: www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Marriage/OCM-Marriage-Texts.pdf

Compare the C of E vows here:
To the groom:
"N, will you take N to be your wife?
Will you love her, comfort her, honour and protect her,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to her as long as you both shall live?"

In both churches, the bride is then asked exactly the same question.

Full text of C of E marriage service here: www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-solemnization-matrimony

Yes, there are different prayers at the beginning and end, but the core - the promises made by bride and groom - are almost word for word exactly the same.

Re Paul. He was writing at a time when early Christians believed that Jesus was going to return and the world would end, so of course he urged his followers to focus their minds on spiritual things, rather than on worldly matters. But he did not tell people to avoid marriage altogether. In fact, he gives a lot of advice about it. Here is just one example:
As well as asking women to respect their husbands, Paul also asked husbands to love wives equally with themselves: "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church"

I don't think Paul ever said that the point of marriage was pleasing your spouse. This is what his text says, and it's surprisingly MUTUAL:

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:3–5 )"

That has absolutely nothing to do with the OPs 'control of female sexuality'.

Paul gave advice on marriage for people that were already married when listening to him.

Otherwise he advised against marriage and never instructed anyone - Go get married as this is what God wants. Neither did Jesus for that matter.

Oh - and early Christians are the same and today’s Christians in the sense that they all all believe that Jesus will return. If focusing on spiritual things and not worldly matters was important then and not now, why do Catholic priests and nuns still avoid marriage, even today?

I love the fact that you’ve quoted a bible verse that agrees with me. Paul says “a wife has no authority over her own body” “a husband has no authority over his body”. Therefore in a good marriage you exist to fulfil your husband’s sexual desires - how he likes it, when he wants it and vice versa. Which is what I’ve been saying throughout this thread but people swore I need therapy

@SW1amp

You want me to go find a therapist who will get me to agree with you? Correct?

So that at the end of therapy I become convinced that marriage is a good thing. I should want to do things for my husband because I should love compromise for no reason and that I should want to have children if a man is present from help me. If I come out of therapy expressing such views, then that means the therapy has worked. Correct?

This is the most barking mad summary or assumption of what therapy entails that I have ever read

You quite clearly don’t have the first clue what therapy is, but you very clearly need some

It’s not you against the world, OP
You are allowed to hold views, including ones that you don’t need to be married, without dripping with hate and bitterness
You can hold views but understand and appreciate those views aren’t always healthy and don’t originate from a place of logic or rationale thought. You can acknowledge that bad things have happened to you and shaped your world view to an extent as to be harmful

But I suspect your narcissistic streak runs deep enough that you won’t ever actually do any of those things because you are so convinced you know best at all times

I didn’t say this is what therapy entails but it’s clearly what you think it involves hence your suggestion that I need therapy so I can go convince myself that I’m damaged and come out of it wanting a husband and commit my all to him. Before having a child.

Bloody hell, you're really into this bible thing, aren't you?

I'd wait until you're at least 18 before you decide

@Darkpheonix

Which parts of the bible and religion am I picking and choosing?

'Paul says don't get married' and some odd idea that the church and bible supports children our of wedlock 'cause jesus'. As though and immaculate conception is the norm and it proves the Bible is cool with sex and children our of wedlock 🙄. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Funny how you focus on that. Not what I actually wrote in reference to anything else.

Once again. How is that picking and choosing? Where in the New Testament is it written that children born within marriage are acceptable but children born outside of it are not? Which church teaches that? I don’t know any.

Also how is saying that the bible is generally against marriage picking and choosing? It’s clearly written in there

It’s debated amongst Christians whether sex outside marriage is wrong or not as the bible is unclear.

Are you saying that actually you want to be a single parent because you wish to remain celibate so you can remain, undistracted from God.

A baby will distract you too. Nuns and priests don't have kids either.....or they shouldn't do. So not sure how that backs you up either

@Hope478

Bloody hell, you're really into this bible thing, aren't you?

I’m responding to comments that brought it up and answering questions on it.

I’m glad someone brought this up though because the bible and Christianity are wrongly used to justify things that people believe should be done a certain way.

People aren't saying you might benefit from therapy because you don't want a husband.

People are suggesting that stating you aren't prepared to have a relationship with an adult because it requires compromise isn't a healthy view.

It is totally fine to say marriage isn't for you, or co habitation. There plenty of successful single people out there. But to believe all partners would demand sex from you which you would feel you have to provide is a much more unusual view.

It is very rigid thinking that you couldn't do any kind of co-parenting with any adult while believing you have the flexibility needed to raise the child itself.

Why do you want a child? What would you be giving a child? These are more important questions than discussions about Paul, who lived several thousand years ago.

@Darkpheonix

Are you saying that actually you want to be a single parent because you wish to remain celibate so you can remain, undistracted from God.

A baby will distract you too. Nuns and priests don't have kids either.....or they shouldn't do. So not sure how that backs you up either

Some nuns and priests do have kids (from before they became Catholic).

As to your question I never said that

You may want to look up the debates around Paul's words.

If debates are where your place your faith and plan your life around or, might be worth doing.

Some nuns and priests do have kids (from before they became Catholic).

They donr have kids that they raise single handedly that are conceived while they are nuns and priests. Or shouldn't. O am sure some have and the children have been hidden.

Nuns and priests dont have to have been celibate their whole lives. So again, your point is irrelevant.

The fact that this turned out to be religious in motivation, is very very odd indeed.

@Darkpheonix

You may want to look up the debates around Paul's words.

If debates are where your place your faith and plan your life around or, might be worth doing.

Debates around Paul’s words have been refuted by many people - mainly because he never contradicted anything Jesus said.

You’re asking a controversial question because it’s kind of veering into the “who deserves to have children” type of conversation which is inappropriate and (for good reasons) highly controversial. I’m pretty sure I don’t need to elaborate on why this type of conversation is dangerous

I believe that children would be better served, on the whole, if every person wanting to bring one into this world asked whether or not doing so was in the child’s best interests, not whether or not it was what they deserved for themselves.

I am a child of abusive parents and I cannot have biological children. Both points influence my view that people need to have this “type” of conversation.