Desperate for Alternative Perspectives
October 13, 2011 10:37 AM Subscribe
How seriously should I take sexual attraction when choosing the person want to have a child with? Due to unique circumstances, I find myself with two clear and available options, wherein one potential partner has a great job and a gentle/humorous/intelligent nature, and the other potential partner has a freelance job and chooses to work less and focus more on passions and is compassionate/generous/inspiring. If my enjoyment with them, desire to help them, sense of understanding is all equal, and only the sexual desire aspect is lacking, how do I realistically approach this?
I realize this question is all kinds of problematic, but I would sincerely appreciate some perspectives on the question, even if it is to tear it apart. I had a very difficult and warped childhood, with some cultural influences which are very different than the average American's (if there is such a thing.) And despite lots of progress in other areas of my life, I feel at a loss with this question.
Of course I have presented it simply, but that is the crux of the question. And although I know I feel like the answers should be obvious, they don't feel obvious. (One section of the people I am close to prizes passion, and the other section prizes security.) I know sexual attraction is important, but I also don't want to choose passion which could potentially make my life more chaotic and difficult and insecure. But I also don't want to be a person who chooses based on security and ease, but cringes when being touched by the person.
But because I had such a difficult life, part of me doesn't know if I could even handle financial insecurity coupled with parenthood. I don't want my kids to experience what I did and have them wonder if we would be able to afford groceries. But I also don't want them to experience what I did, and know that my parents had no sense of physical intimacy or passion.
One final question: One of my biggest fears is that my sexual aversion to one of them means that we are not a good genetic match. Is there any scientific basis for this? I hate to sound so ignorant, but I just don't know. I do know that the person who I feel no sexual attraction to has some familial illnesses that don't inspire confidence, while the other partner has a family filled with health. But I don't want to blow this genetic aspect out of all proportion if there is no good reason to.
Basically, I don't want to be seduced by either pragmatism or romanticism. As crazy as it sounds, please believe that I am in a situation where I really do have these two options, that I am in my late 30s (despite sounding like a foolish teenager) and really do want to start having children soon, and that I have strong but unique love for both people, and that I am not being devious or dishonest with anyone. Many thanks for any help.
I realize this question is all kinds of problematic, but I would sincerely appreciate some perspectives on the question, even if it is to tear it apart. I had a very difficult and warped childhood, with some cultural influences which are very different than the average American's (if there is such a thing.) And despite lots of progress in other areas of my life, I feel at a loss with this question.
Of course I have presented it simply, but that is the crux of the question. And although I know I feel like the answers should be obvious, they don't feel obvious. (One section of the people I am close to prizes passion, and the other section prizes security.) I know sexual attraction is important, but I also don't want to choose passion which could potentially make my life more chaotic and difficult and insecure. But I also don't want to be a person who chooses based on security and ease, but cringes when being touched by the person.
But because I had such a difficult life, part of me doesn't know if I could even handle financial insecurity coupled with parenthood. I don't want my kids to experience what I did and have them wonder if we would be able to afford groceries. But I also don't want them to experience what I did, and know that my parents had no sense of physical intimacy or passion.
One final question: One of my biggest fears is that my sexual aversion to one of them means that we are not a good genetic match. Is there any scientific basis for this? I hate to sound so ignorant, but I just don't know. I do know that the person who I feel no sexual attraction to has some familial illnesses that don't inspire confidence, while the other partner has a family filled with health. But I don't want to blow this genetic aspect out of all proportion if there is no good reason to.
Basically, I don't want to be seduced by either pragmatism or romanticism. As crazy as it sounds, please believe that I am in a situation where I really do have these two options, that I am in my late 30s (despite sounding like a foolish teenager) and really do want to start having children soon, and that I have strong but unique love for both people, and that I am not being devious or dishonest with anyone. Many thanks for any help.
This post is a little unclear: are you looking to have a child but not a relationship with this person? Or a co-parenting but not a romantic relationship with them? Or are you looking for a romantic partner with whom you also plan to have child(ren) with?
posted by brainmouse at 10:44 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by brainmouse at 10:44 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'm a bit unclear about the role this potential man may take in your future. You speak of him as "the person I want to have a child with" - but I'm not clear whether this man would be a husband or boyfriend, or just...the guy you want to conceive a child with and then you'd be a single mom, and they'd have a limited role in the child's life. I'm not saying either option is better or worse, only that I'm not clear, from the way you've phrased this, what it is you want this man's role to be.
And the reason for that may point to something that I suspect may be confusing you; you're speaking about this very formally and analytically, in the paragraph above, and it's all making me wonder -- what do YOU feel about these men? You're speaking about a very personal and emotional issue in language that I'd expect to hear someone using in a business or marketing presentation. What I've noticed is that when people do that, it's because they've been trying to over-intellectualize an issue, and over-intellectualizing tends to cut a person off from what they feel about an issue. Sometimes that's because they don't think that what they feel is valid, perhaps it's because they haven't considered how they feel about it; there could be any number of reasons. But I've always found that if they abandon that thinking about an issue and ask themselvs how they feel about it, the situation becomes a lot clearer for them, and a lot more honest.
Perhaps rather than asking which is the more secure person for you to have a child with, you should perhaps be asking yourself how you feel about each of these men.
Good luck.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:46 AM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
And the reason for that may point to something that I suspect may be confusing you; you're speaking about this very formally and analytically, in the paragraph above, and it's all making me wonder -- what do YOU feel about these men? You're speaking about a very personal and emotional issue in language that I'd expect to hear someone using in a business or marketing presentation. What I've noticed is that when people do that, it's because they've been trying to over-intellectualize an issue, and over-intellectualizing tends to cut a person off from what they feel about an issue. Sometimes that's because they don't think that what they feel is valid, perhaps it's because they haven't considered how they feel about it; there could be any number of reasons. But I've always found that if they abandon that thinking about an issue and ask themselvs how they feel about it, the situation becomes a lot clearer for them, and a lot more honest.
Perhaps rather than asking which is the more secure person for you to have a child with, you should perhaps be asking yourself how you feel about each of these men.
Good luck.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:46 AM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I'm a little confused too. My answer, as the question stands, is neither. When you find the right person, it will be obvious to you that they're the right person. The fact that you could go either way here indicates to me that neither one is the right person, and you should keep looking.
posted by MexicanYenta at 10:49 AM on October 13, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by MexicanYenta at 10:49 AM on October 13, 2011 [9 favorites]
It sounds like you are sexually attracted to the poorer person. And you love them equally.
My first thought is, I get that you are in a hurry but take more time to get to know them both better. But if that's not what you want to do, then why not go with the poorer, sexier one (since the love is equal) and you be the primary breadwinner?
posted by Houstonian at 10:50 AM on October 13, 2011
My first thought is, I get that you are in a hurry but take more time to get to know them both better. But if that's not what you want to do, then why not go with the poorer, sexier one (since the love is equal) and you be the primary breadwinner?
posted by Houstonian at 10:50 AM on October 13, 2011
You also have option three, someone else. Plus option four, a non-traditional arrangement (which isn't all that non-traditional, considering where people wind up in divorces) where you have a parenting relationship with one or both of these men, and a sexual relationship with one or both.
But is the difference between the two that you think one partner would be great for you, and the other would be a great parent?
If you're looking for a committed monogamous relationship leading to parenthood (also unstated, I'm assuming here) why not find a partner who you think you would enjoy being with and who would be a great parent?
posted by zippy at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2011
But is the difference between the two that you think one partner would be great for you, and the other would be a great parent?
If you're looking for a committed monogamous relationship leading to parenthood (also unstated, I'm assuming here) why not find a partner who you think you would enjoy being with and who would be a great parent?
posted by zippy at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2011
... my sexual aversion to one of them...
Do not have a child or long relationship to someone you're sexually averse to. It isn't fair to them or yourself.
One of the most important lessons you will teach your children, whether you want to or not, is how to be in a relationship. So be in a relationship with someone you care about, love and want to have sex with.
Be happy and that'll show your kid(s) that being happy is the normal way.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [22 favorites]
Do not have a child or long relationship to someone you're sexually averse to. It isn't fair to them or yourself.
One of the most important lessons you will teach your children, whether you want to or not, is how to be in a relationship. So be in a relationship with someone you care about, love and want to have sex with.
Be happy and that'll show your kid(s) that being happy is the normal way.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [22 favorites]
This is weird. You're talking about these men as if they only exist to have a list of traits that will be useful to you and your child. What is each one going to be like as a father, husband, life partner, etc.? These are full-fledged human beings like you. I'm sorry it's even necessary to point this out.
As others have noted, it's hard to tell what the real context of your question is, but if you're interested in the general question of how to choose between two potential romantic partners who both have many good qualities, here's a previous thread. The most popular suggestion was to flip a coin and notice how you hope the coin will land, then pick that person (no need to look at the coin).
posted by John Cohen at 10:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
As others have noted, it's hard to tell what the real context of your question is, but if you're interested in the general question of how to choose between two potential romantic partners who both have many good qualities, here's a previous thread. The most popular suggestion was to flip a coin and notice how you hope the coin will land, then pick that person (no need to look at the coin).
posted by John Cohen at 10:56 AM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
(for what it's worth, the post does not specify the genders of the parties involved)
posted by brainmouse at 10:58 AM on October 13, 2011
posted by brainmouse at 10:58 AM on October 13, 2011
cringes when being touched by the person
my sexual aversion to one of them
the person who I feel no sexual attraction to
If you're trying to build a life with this person, it won't work unless he or she has little or no interest in sex.
posted by cnc at 11:00 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
my sexual aversion to one of them
the person who I feel no sexual attraction to
If you're trying to build a life with this person, it won't work unless he or she has little or no interest in sex.
posted by cnc at 11:00 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
The only way this question makes sense to me is if this is the beginning of an arranged marriage and these are your two options. Because otherwise you should know that these aren't, actually, your only two options.
Ideally, your partner should be someone who fits your idea of a good mate (and if financial security is part of that, then you should obviously take that into consideration) and someone you are sexually attracted to. I mean, all sorts of marriages work when all sorts of things are lacking but ideally you want the whole package.
Financial situations can change, and so can attractiveness, but not "sexual aversion" I'd say. Do not get married to someone you find repulsive, physically. It's never going to get better and sex is a huge part of life for (most) people, even if you don't think it will be now, try imagining yourself fifteen years down the line in a sexless marriage. Actually, do not get married until you are sure, 100%, that the person you want to marry is the person you are with. Are you even dating either of these two men/women? Which brings me back to the feeling that this is some sort of arranged partnership situation, whether culturally or for the purpose of having children.
posted by lydhre at 11:01 AM on October 13, 2011
Ideally, your partner should be someone who fits your idea of a good mate (and if financial security is part of that, then you should obviously take that into consideration) and someone you are sexually attracted to. I mean, all sorts of marriages work when all sorts of things are lacking but ideally you want the whole package.
Financial situations can change, and so can attractiveness, but not "sexual aversion" I'd say. Do not get married to someone you find repulsive, physically. It's never going to get better and sex is a huge part of life for (most) people, even if you don't think it will be now, try imagining yourself fifteen years down the line in a sexless marriage. Actually, do not get married until you are sure, 100%, that the person you want to marry is the person you are with. Are you even dating either of these two men/women? Which brings me back to the feeling that this is some sort of arranged partnership situation, whether culturally or for the purpose of having children.
posted by lydhre at 11:01 AM on October 13, 2011
I'm going to go beyond the answers that say "neither of these people, maybe find someone else." I'm going to say, "Please do not have children yet."
Address the issues of your difficult life more thoroughly (much more thoroughly) and see if you can figure out why you feel pressured to solve this as a binary and choose between to equally unappealing partners.
Nothing about your question suggests to me that you are wild about either of these people. That makes me concerned for you, because you deserve a partner that you really enjoy. In all ways. Sexually, conversationally, intellectually, socially, etc.
The converse of this is also true. Your partner deserves to be wanted by you, in all of those ways.
Having a child without a relationship to the other person is one reason some women choose sperm donors, and why some single people adopt children. If having a child is more important to you than having a healthy partnered relationship, please, if you are female consider using a sperm donor down the line, or adopt whether you are male or female.
But as your question reads, not yet.
posted by bilabial at 11:02 AM on October 13, 2011 [8 favorites]
Address the issues of your difficult life more thoroughly (much more thoroughly) and see if you can figure out why you feel pressured to solve this as a binary and choose between to equally unappealing partners.
Nothing about your question suggests to me that you are wild about either of these people. That makes me concerned for you, because you deserve a partner that you really enjoy. In all ways. Sexually, conversationally, intellectually, socially, etc.
The converse of this is also true. Your partner deserves to be wanted by you, in all of those ways.
Having a child without a relationship to the other person is one reason some women choose sperm donors, and why some single people adopt children. If having a child is more important to you than having a healthy partnered relationship, please, if you are female consider using a sperm donor down the line, or adopt whether you are male or female.
But as your question reads, not yet.
posted by bilabial at 11:02 AM on October 13, 2011 [8 favorites]
Response by poster: Sorry I was unclear. I want to commit to a partner and raise a child together. And I definitely see these people as full human beings. I was just trying to be simple, in order to not muddle the question. I don't for one second see them as lists of useful traits. I just don't want to risk being swept away with an accidental sense of simplistic, modern pop-culture "passion." I've had a hard life, and I want to think everything through, without feeling like I am being a bad person just for looking at things from all angles. I promise I am not being unfeeling about this.
posted by teslateslatesla at 11:04 AM on October 13, 2011
posted by teslateslatesla at 11:04 AM on October 13, 2011
To answer the question, if you're averse to someone -- if looking at them makes you cringe -- don't have a kid with them.
Whether you choose to have a kid with the other, or choose a more anonymous sperm donor or whatever, that's a different choice and a different question, really.
The weird thing about a biological kid that you may logically understand but not quite get until that kid is around is how much of both parents you'll see in the kid. Not just "his eyes" or "her smile" but gestures, motions, mannerisms, quirks. And you don't get to pick which ones your kid gets. (Except the nose really does seem to generally be the average between the two parents somehow.)
So if you don't like looking at him now, just wait until it's that face throwing a temper tantrum because your kid got overtired and wants to WATCH TV NOW EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEDTIME I HATE YOU! Or when you go to brush your wonderful kid's hair back behind his or her ear and you see the guy's cheekbone poking through the baby fat.
posted by Gucky at 11:09 AM on October 13, 2011 [6 favorites]
Whether you choose to have a kid with the other, or choose a more anonymous sperm donor or whatever, that's a different choice and a different question, really.
The weird thing about a biological kid that you may logically understand but not quite get until that kid is around is how much of both parents you'll see in the kid. Not just "his eyes" or "her smile" but gestures, motions, mannerisms, quirks. And you don't get to pick which ones your kid gets. (Except the nose really does seem to generally be the average between the two parents somehow.)
So if you don't like looking at him now, just wait until it's that face throwing a temper tantrum because your kid got overtired and wants to WATCH TV NOW EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEDTIME I HATE YOU! Or when you go to brush your wonderful kid's hair back behind his or her ear and you see the guy's cheekbone poking through the baby fat.
posted by Gucky at 11:09 AM on October 13, 2011 [6 favorites]
OK. In that case, you don't want to try to be in a long-term relationship with a person who you have no sexual attraction to unless neither of you is interested in having sex.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:09 AM on October 13, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by mr_roboto at 11:09 AM on October 13, 2011 [9 favorites]
I just don't want to risk being swept away with an accidental sense of simplistic, modern pop-culture "passion." I've had a hard life, and I want to think everything through, without feeling like I am being a bad person just for looking at things from all angles.
I'm sorry if we made you feel that way. I thnk some of us were just thrown by the very practical and formal manner of your question.
I respect that you want to be cautious and consider all angles -- but do trust me that it really is okay for "passion" to BE one of those angles.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:15 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry if we made you feel that way. I thnk some of us were just thrown by the very practical and formal manner of your question.
I respect that you want to be cautious and consider all angles -- but do trust me that it really is okay for "passion" to BE one of those angles.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:15 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't understand how anyone (not asexual) could consider starting or furthering a romantic relationship to someone not sexually attractive to them.
If you're not attracted to him, just be friends. Sex (let alone a lifetime) with someone you're not attracted to seems like it would be mechanical at best.
On a tangent, this might be just accidental phrasing, but I'm struck by you saying your "desire to help them" is equal. Even "desire for mutual support with them" is still clinical, but more in keeping of a relationship between equals (that is, you and him).
Also, this seems like more of "Who should I date or continue to date or get more involved with?" than "Who should I choose as a potential father for my children or, hopefully, lifetime partner?"
posted by maurreen at 11:18 AM on October 13, 2011
If you're not attracted to him, just be friends. Sex (let alone a lifetime) with someone you're not attracted to seems like it would be mechanical at best.
On a tangent, this might be just accidental phrasing, but I'm struck by you saying your "desire to help them" is equal. Even "desire for mutual support with them" is still clinical, but more in keeping of a relationship between equals (that is, you and him).
Also, this seems like more of "Who should I date or continue to date or get more involved with?" than "Who should I choose as a potential father for my children or, hopefully, lifetime partner?"
posted by maurreen at 11:18 AM on October 13, 2011
They sound like they would both be good fathers. The important thing is your relationship with them. The kid is going to be around both of you a lot. Think about how awkward it is when you're around a frosty couple that barely talk to each other, or a couple that starts arguing at the drop of a hat. The kid will be around that constantly and won't understand it fully for a long time. So think about how you work as a pair, as a team, rather than their individual traits in a vacuum.
posted by Garm at 11:25 AM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Garm at 11:25 AM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Do you have marriage proposals/pledges of long-term commitment in hand from both these dudes? If not, could it be that you're assuming a lot here?
It reads to me that you are into passion-guy more than security-guy. Keep in mind that security-guy's great job might disappear tomorrow, and passion-guy might get an inheritance from his long-lost aunt or something...life's weird like that.
This steady reiteration of "I've had a hard life," along with your other recent question regarding the fact that you started therapy recently, leads me to believe that you are doing some work on yourself (which is great), and that this should continue to be a priority for you.
"I also don't want them to experience what I did, and know that my parents had no sense of physical intimacy or passion." That's right - you don't. Don't do that to them.
posted by Angus Jung at 11:32 AM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
It reads to me that you are into passion-guy more than security-guy. Keep in mind that security-guy's great job might disappear tomorrow, and passion-guy might get an inheritance from his long-lost aunt or something...life's weird like that.
This steady reiteration of "I've had a hard life," along with your other recent question regarding the fact that you started therapy recently, leads me to believe that you are doing some work on yourself (which is great), and that this should continue to be a priority for you.
"I also don't want them to experience what I did, and know that my parents had no sense of physical intimacy or passion." That's right - you don't. Don't do that to them.
posted by Angus Jung at 11:32 AM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Don't commit to somebody you don't want unless they don't want to be wanted.
That said, on the other count, you don't need someone else to be your financial stability. You can be your financial stability. If that other person is that fantastic (and has a flexible schedule), then one would hope he would also be flexible enough to be into the idea of doing more co-parenting and helping out that way, rather than just with cash.
The other guy sounds like a *friend*, not a partner. Keep it that way.
posted by gracedissolved at 11:35 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
That said, on the other count, you don't need someone else to be your financial stability. You can be your financial stability. If that other person is that fantastic (and has a flexible schedule), then one would hope he would also be flexible enough to be into the idea of doing more co-parenting and helping out that way, rather than just with cash.
The other guy sounds like a *friend*, not a partner. Keep it that way.
posted by gracedissolved at 11:35 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
my enjoyment with them, desire to help them
How about their desire to help you? Which one loves you more? Which one makes you feel safer? (I mean, not in a financial sense, but in the sense that they understand that taking care of you is just as much a part of the relationship as you taking care of them.) If neither of them seem like a good bet for that, neither of them will be the person you want to be up with you at 3am holding a screaming baby.
posted by MsMolly at 11:40 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
How about their desire to help you? Which one loves you more? Which one makes you feel safer? (I mean, not in a financial sense, but in the sense that they understand that taking care of you is just as much a part of the relationship as you taking care of them.) If neither of them seem like a good bet for that, neither of them will be the person you want to be up with you at 3am holding a screaming baby.
posted by MsMolly at 11:40 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Are you really asking whether you should marry someone you don't even want to have sex with? No. The romantic in me says no. The pragmatist in me says no. No no no no no no no. Also, no.
posted by milk white peacock at 11:45 AM on October 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by milk white peacock at 11:45 AM on October 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
How is this even a question?! cringes when being touched by the person. If these 2 men were the last men on earth - you pick the freelancer. From the sounds of it this is more than you just don't fancy him, you seem near enough repulsed by him. Given your fears I think the most sensible option is option 3 - find a guy with a good job who you actually like and want to be touched by.
What are your employment prospects like? The advantage of a freelancer (assuming he works from home) who chooses to work less to do other things could be less time out of your career when you have the baby. Some women take years off when they have a child (and often, the high cost of childcare is a big part of that decision), if your partner is already at home all day and not working full-time, that could give you the freedom to go back to work much sooner and provide the financial security that you desire.
posted by missmagenta at 11:55 AM on October 13, 2011
What are your employment prospects like? The advantage of a freelancer (assuming he works from home) who chooses to work less to do other things could be less time out of your career when you have the baby. Some women take years off when they have a child (and often, the high cost of childcare is a big part of that decision), if your partner is already at home all day and not working full-time, that could give you the freedom to go back to work much sooner and provide the financial security that you desire.
posted by missmagenta at 11:55 AM on October 13, 2011
Cringes when touched is not a good indicator. This will not get better after you have kids with this poor guy, and it will basically be obvious you selected him as a meal ticket and not someone you can genuinely partner. On the other hand, hot sexy irregular income guy is also probably not a good parenting partner for you, because parenthood brings out really basic needs in strong relief. Your overwhelming need for security will only get more anxious with pregnancy and infancy. The stress is enormous on the very best, most stable relationships. You already know this isn't that. Both of your options suck and are dooming both potential partners to failure.
In your shoes, I would see if I could negotiate and above-board co-parenting agreement with the more financially able prospect. If he's looking for a romantic partnership, probably not going to happen though. That leaves you with the option of parenting on your own, or not parenting. It will suck desperately if you don't get to have the child you want, but not more than it's going to suck to be either of these men once you do.
posted by DarlingBri at 12:10 PM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
In your shoes, I would see if I could negotiate and above-board co-parenting agreement with the more financially able prospect. If he's looking for a romantic partnership, probably not going to happen though. That leaves you with the option of parenting on your own, or not parenting. It will suck desperately if you don't get to have the child you want, but not more than it's going to suck to be either of these men once you do.
posted by DarlingBri at 12:10 PM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Even after a follow up it still comes across as picking out a movie or deciding on what kind of car you want to buy. This isn't a really great way to go about raising a family.
Even if you want kids, and you feel that time frame closing in, you could always adopt, or go about different ways of raising a family. Wait until things line up and you "know" by feelings that this is it, and that's what you want. You mention dysfunctional, but by the sounds of this arrangement or plan, you would be simply perpetuating what you experienced.
posted by handbanana at 12:13 PM on October 13, 2011
Even if you want kids, and you feel that time frame closing in, you could always adopt, or go about different ways of raising a family. Wait until things line up and you "know" by feelings that this is it, and that's what you want. You mention dysfunctional, but by the sounds of this arrangement or plan, you would be simply perpetuating what you experienced.
posted by handbanana at 12:13 PM on October 13, 2011
One of my biggest fears is that my sexual aversion to one of them means that we are not a good genetic match. Is there any scientific basis for this?
I'm not even sure what a "good genetic match" means to you, but no. Whether your children have congenital defects or chromosomal abnormalities has to do with things like your age, the father's age (because of the rate of genetic mutations that accumulate over time and replication of the genetic code), or exposure to teratogenic substances. Not whether you think the father is sexy or not. This website might help explain things to you further . Studies have shown that women are attracted to all sorts of things about men, including whether they wear the color red or not, which have nothing to do with genetics.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 12:13 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm not even sure what a "good genetic match" means to you, but no. Whether your children have congenital defects or chromosomal abnormalities has to do with things like your age, the father's age (because of the rate of genetic mutations that accumulate over time and replication of the genetic code), or exposure to teratogenic substances. Not whether you think the father is sexy or not. This website might help explain things to you further . Studies have shown that women are attracted to all sorts of things about men, including whether they wear the color red or not, which have nothing to do with genetics.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 12:13 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Why these two? Why settle for less?
Why would you want to raise a child with someone whom you consider sub-par?
How would you feel if your significant other had an aversion to your body? And always had that aversion, but he chose to stay with you because you'd stick around to take care of the kid?
How would you feel if your significant other is with you because you have great sex but he does not think you are up to standard as far as responsibilities go?
Which ever one you pick, you WILL HURT HIM! And your child will absolutely suffer the consequences of your decisions.
This is so wrong...
posted by Neekee at 12:23 PM on October 13, 2011
Why would you want to raise a child with someone whom you consider sub-par?
How would you feel if your significant other had an aversion to your body? And always had that aversion, but he chose to stay with you because you'd stick around to take care of the kid?
How would you feel if your significant other is with you because you have great sex but he does not think you are up to standard as far as responsibilities go?
Which ever one you pick, you WILL HURT HIM! And your child will absolutely suffer the consequences of your decisions.
This is so wrong...
posted by Neekee at 12:23 PM on October 13, 2011
Response by poster: I know this question sounds terrible, and I appreciate every single answer.
I'll just respond to a few questions, and then stay away from the thread:
I have a good job, and am not looking for a breadwinner. I just don't want to feel psychologically that the bulk of the burden would be on me, or live in fear of something happening to me, basically.
I do know I adore both of these people. It isn't a simple case of rich jerk and kind poor person. I wouldn't be asking this in that case. I actually feel like my deep fondness and non-sexual love of the first person could possibly balance my aversion. But I have no real way of knowing how that work . But I fear that if I choose passion, and the passion goes as it can do in life, I would suddenly be passion-less, security-less, and being a lone supporter of my children without even the fire to keep my spirits up. I know we can't know everything in advance, but I don't feel like this issue is so cut-and-dried.
Of course there is more I can say, but I am happy to read all the different perspectives, so thanks to everyone for taking the time.
posted by teslateslatesla at 12:24 PM on October 13, 2011
I'll just respond to a few questions, and then stay away from the thread:
I have a good job, and am not looking for a breadwinner. I just don't want to feel psychologically that the bulk of the burden would be on me, or live in fear of something happening to me, basically.
I do know I adore both of these people. It isn't a simple case of rich jerk and kind poor person. I wouldn't be asking this in that case. I actually feel like my deep fondness and non-sexual love of the first person could possibly balance my aversion. But I have no real way of knowing how that work . But I fear that if I choose passion, and the passion goes as it can do in life, I would suddenly be passion-less, security-less, and being a lone supporter of my children without even the fire to keep my spirits up. I know we can't know everything in advance, but I don't feel like this issue is so cut-and-dried.
Of course there is more I can say, but I am happy to read all the different perspectives, so thanks to everyone for taking the time.
posted by teslateslatesla at 12:24 PM on October 13, 2011
without feeling like I am being a bad person just for looking at things from all angles.
You are not a bad person because you reject someone for being unattractive to you or because they aren't able to financially support themselves and a potential family.
It's true that a partner can't be all things for you. That's what friends and family are for. But (a) able to support himself/a family and (b) someone you're attracted to are the two things that you can't get elsewhere if you commit to a monogamous relationship.
Concentrate on a partner that fulfills both those two things, and maybe concentrate less on extraneous things that are available in other social outlets.
posted by deanc at 12:26 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
You are not a bad person because you reject someone for being unattractive to you or because they aren't able to financially support themselves and a potential family.
It's true that a partner can't be all things for you. That's what friends and family are for. But (a) able to support himself/a family and (b) someone you're attracted to are the two things that you can't get elsewhere if you commit to a monogamous relationship.
Concentrate on a partner that fulfills both those two things, and maybe concentrate less on extraneous things that are available in other social outlets.
posted by deanc at 12:26 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
First: Never marry someone to whom you are not sexually attracted. If you don't want to touch them under normal circumstances, you'll never want to touch them when they're horribly ill and letting loose at both ends, when they've left their dirty socks on the floor by the hamper instead of inside of it, or when they accidentally destroy your $500 brand new video card (sorry, babe).
Putting aside the issue of sexual attraction, it sounds like you are approaching dating a lot like I used to. I'm an INTJ trained as a scientist and suspicious of things like passion. I kept chasing after and dating guys who were perfect on paper (good jobs, handsome, intelligent, assertive, destined for the top of academics or the workforce, etc) while having longer term relationships with the guys who didn't seem to be good life partners (artsy, unstable careers, laid back, etc). What I eventually found that sometimes what we think we want isn't what we actually want or need. This isn't to say that you should settle down with a man who wants to spend his life backpacking around Europe, or can't hold a job with benefits, but pay more attention to how you interact as a couple than how good he looks on paper.
If both of these men were equally sexually attractive, ask yourself these questions: Which man actually listens to you when you talk? Which one allows you to be entirely yourself? Which one makes an effort to accommodate you when you express your needs? If you and Mr Freelance found yourselves in a position where he had to take a stable job in order to provide you both with health insurance, would he be willing to do it? If Mr Stable Job found himself in a situation where you received your dream job in another country where his own career would falter, would he be willing to take it? Which one complements you more? It turns out that I'd go crazy with a high-energy alpha assertive type because I'd just end up being competitive with him. I need a calm, patient, caring partner who will help me get out of my head and slow down to enjoy to life.
Before I got married, my mother gave me the best piece of advice I've ever received in regards to relationships. She said that it doesn't matter that you agree on everything (because you won't). It matters how much you are both willing to compromise and communicate. Pick someone who you can see yourself as a partner to. Someone who will have your back no matter what you'll face.
Some people have ALL-CONSUMING PASSION and some of us don't. I've never had all-consuming passion with my husband and I still love him more than anything in the world. Still, you should have sexual attraction. You should, at some point, have an experience where you see him across a crowded room and feel that fluttering even if its just quiet butterflies instead of the fireworks that some others seem to experience.
posted by avagoyle at 12:29 PM on October 13, 2011 [14 favorites]
Putting aside the issue of sexual attraction, it sounds like you are approaching dating a lot like I used to. I'm an INTJ trained as a scientist and suspicious of things like passion. I kept chasing after and dating guys who were perfect on paper (good jobs, handsome, intelligent, assertive, destined for the top of academics or the workforce, etc) while having longer term relationships with the guys who didn't seem to be good life partners (artsy, unstable careers, laid back, etc). What I eventually found that sometimes what we think we want isn't what we actually want or need. This isn't to say that you should settle down with a man who wants to spend his life backpacking around Europe, or can't hold a job with benefits, but pay more attention to how you interact as a couple than how good he looks on paper.
If both of these men were equally sexually attractive, ask yourself these questions: Which man actually listens to you when you talk? Which one allows you to be entirely yourself? Which one makes an effort to accommodate you when you express your needs? If you and Mr Freelance found yourselves in a position where he had to take a stable job in order to provide you both with health insurance, would he be willing to do it? If Mr Stable Job found himself in a situation where you received your dream job in another country where his own career would falter, would he be willing to take it? Which one complements you more? It turns out that I'd go crazy with a high-energy alpha assertive type because I'd just end up being competitive with him. I need a calm, patient, caring partner who will help me get out of my head and slow down to enjoy to life.
Before I got married, my mother gave me the best piece of advice I've ever received in regards to relationships. She said that it doesn't matter that you agree on everything (because you won't). It matters how much you are both willing to compromise and communicate. Pick someone who you can see yourself as a partner to. Someone who will have your back no matter what you'll face.
Some people have ALL-CONSUMING PASSION and some of us don't. I've never had all-consuming passion with my husband and I still love him more than anything in the world. Still, you should have sexual attraction. You should, at some point, have an experience where you see him across a crowded room and feel that fluttering even if its just quiet butterflies instead of the fireworks that some others seem to experience.
posted by avagoyle at 12:29 PM on October 13, 2011 [14 favorites]
Guy here: Noted your age and appreciate the ramifications, but I would be horrified and disgusted if a woman gave the first thought to a relationship of any seriousness with me--much less one that involved trying to have a child--if they felt anything close to an aversion to being touched by me.
posted by ambient2 at 12:31 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by ambient2 at 12:31 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
I fear that if I choose passion, and the passion goes as it can do in life, I would suddenly be passion-less, security-less, and being a lone supporter of my children without even the fire to keep my spirits up.
Once security-guy is no longer able to be married to someone who is sexually averse to him (and this will happen, probably sooner than later), you'll be in the same position you describe above, except without experiencing any of the passion, ever.
posted by Angus Jung at 12:37 PM on October 13, 2011
Once security-guy is no longer able to be married to someone who is sexually averse to him (and this will happen, probably sooner than later), you'll be in the same position you describe above, except without experiencing any of the passion, ever.
posted by Angus Jung at 12:37 PM on October 13, 2011
I'm confused. Are you dating either? If neither, are they interested in you and aware of your thoughts? If one but not the other, does the one who is the current partner know of the other? If both at the same time, are they both aware of the other?
More importantly, is either potential Dad on board? Usually these questions are settled by dating people. Finding out if you like them and if they like you.
And maybe they ought to know what you are thinking. Both are presented as vessels for your future needs, not as three dimensional persons with decision making powers of their own. Are they aware of what is going on?
I don't mean to be harsh, but if I was either one of these people, I would want to be aware of the whole thing that's going on in your head right now.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:38 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
More importantly, is either potential Dad on board? Usually these questions are settled by dating people. Finding out if you like them and if they like you.
And maybe they ought to know what you are thinking. Both are presented as vessels for your future needs, not as three dimensional persons with decision making powers of their own. Are they aware of what is going on?
I don't mean to be harsh, but if I was either one of these people, I would want to be aware of the whole thing that's going on in your head right now.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:38 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
The glib answer is "which one would make a better father?", but consider: 9 years ago my sister married a guy she now says she was never all that hot for but who loves her and has been a great dad to their two kids. Last winter she dumped him for their 6-year-old daughter's best friend's dad because she "found the passion she'd been missing". That didn't work out and now she's desperately miserable, trying half-heartedly to live with a guy she doesn't love and doesn't deserve so she doesn't lose the chance to raise her kids in some kind of coherent family.
And consider: I proposed to my wife on her 40th birthday. She knows that (like you) I don't want to have children until we are really financially secure, and that as hard as I'm working to get there, we're not there now. She badly wants to have children, and is sad that we might not – but our relationship started out passionate and she knows that we truly want to be with each other. If we have kids, they'll have parents.
"I should find a man to have a child with" is a terrible trap women fall into. You should find a man to have adventures (and sex) and grow old with, and then, maybe, have a child with that man. If the man you love doesn't make enough money to support a family in the style you require, then make that money yourself – or don't have children, it's not the end of the world.
posted by Now I'm Prune Tracy! at 12:39 PM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
And consider: I proposed to my wife on her 40th birthday. She knows that (like you) I don't want to have children until we are really financially secure, and that as hard as I'm working to get there, we're not there now. She badly wants to have children, and is sad that we might not – but our relationship started out passionate and she knows that we truly want to be with each other. If we have kids, they'll have parents.
"I should find a man to have a child with" is a terrible trap women fall into. You should find a man to have adventures (and sex) and grow old with, and then, maybe, have a child with that man. If the man you love doesn't make enough money to support a family in the style you require, then make that money yourself – or don't have children, it's not the end of the world.
posted by Now I'm Prune Tracy! at 12:39 PM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
I know this question sounds terrible...
But it doesn't, though! It sounds a bit clinical, but that doesn't mean it's terrible. I feel bad for what I said earlier now; I didn't mean that you were bad to be thinking about practical things. I only meant that maybe you were thinking about practical things a bit TOO much, and maybe adding back some emotional, "irrational" thought may help you make a decision. It may sound contradictory, but it's not, I promise.
but that absolutely does not mean your question was "bad" or "horrible", and I'm sorry you feel that way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:42 PM on October 13, 2011
But it doesn't, though! It sounds a bit clinical, but that doesn't mean it's terrible. I feel bad for what I said earlier now; I didn't mean that you were bad to be thinking about practical things. I only meant that maybe you were thinking about practical things a bit TOO much, and maybe adding back some emotional, "irrational" thought may help you make a decision. It may sound contradictory, but it's not, I promise.
but that absolutely does not mean your question was "bad" or "horrible", and I'm sorry you feel that way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:42 PM on October 13, 2011
But I fear that if I choose passion, and the passion goes as it can do in life, I would suddenly be passion-less, security-less, and being a lone supporter of my children without even the fire to keep my spirits up
And financial security guy could lose his job or become ill in a way that makes him unable to work. Everything has the potential to go away. Things change all the time and you can't predict the future. But you can pretty much guarantee that if good job guy is such a turn off now, its not going to get better. Feelings can develop over time and as you get to know someone, maybe an attraction can grow that wasn't there before but from the sounds of it you already know him and love him and you still cringe at his touch... that will not improve with time.
I know this question sounds terrible...
I don't know that it sounds terrible but I think a lot of people are having trouble parsing the idea that you're in relationships serious enough to be considering starting a family, with 2 guys simultaneously.... unless this is some sort of poly arrangement and you're trying to decide who to kick out of bed.
posted by missmagenta at 12:47 PM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
And financial security guy could lose his job or become ill in a way that makes him unable to work. Everything has the potential to go away. Things change all the time and you can't predict the future. But you can pretty much guarantee that if good job guy is such a turn off now, its not going to get better. Feelings can develop over time and as you get to know someone, maybe an attraction can grow that wasn't there before but from the sounds of it you already know him and love him and you still cringe at his touch... that will not improve with time.
I know this question sounds terrible...
I don't know that it sounds terrible but I think a lot of people are having trouble parsing the idea that you're in relationships serious enough to be considering starting a family, with 2 guys simultaneously.... unless this is some sort of poly arrangement and you're trying to decide who to kick out of bed.
posted by missmagenta at 12:47 PM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Well, I don't know about genetic matches, but it's going to be hard to make a baby with someone if you don't want to fuck 'em. (Unless you bring modern medicine into the equation, in which case you might as well skip the middle-man and go to a sperm bank.)
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 12:47 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 12:47 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Tell both men how you how you honestly feel about them. See if you still have the option to choose. You may have the question decided for you.
Besides. How fair is it to rope a man into a sexual relationship that will never be fulfilling for him? If you are pretending the whole time, he will eventually feel inadequate or resentful.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 12:53 PM on October 13, 2011
Besides. How fair is it to rope a man into a sexual relationship that will never be fulfilling for him? If you are pretending the whole time, he will eventually feel inadequate or resentful.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 12:53 PM on October 13, 2011
Guy here: ...I would be horrified and disgusted if a woman gave the first thought to a relationship of any seriousness with me--much less one that involved trying to have a child--if they felt anything close to an aversion to being touched by me.
I'm a guy too, and if this was someone where there was mutual love/caring between us, I would be flattered and even moved, not horrified. But I still would not want it to happen.
This particular question hits a nerve with me because I was in a 15-year-long committed, monogamous relationship with someone whose I-don't-really-feel-passion-for-you-but-I-love-you feelings for me at the beginning (I was always deeply attracted to her sexually) became outright sexual aversion at the end. This experience has been very damaging for me.
posted by Angus Jung at 12:56 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm a guy too, and if this was someone where there was mutual love/caring between us, I would be flattered and even moved, not horrified. But I still would not want it to happen.
This particular question hits a nerve with me because I was in a 15-year-long committed, monogamous relationship with someone whose I-don't-really-feel-passion-for-you-but-I-love-you feelings for me at the beginning (I was always deeply attracted to her sexually) became outright sexual aversion at the end. This experience has been very damaging for me.
posted by Angus Jung at 12:56 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
How seriously should I take sexual attraction when choosing the person want to have a child with?
Raising a child may well be the hardest thing the two of you will ever do. You need to be supportive partners, you need to be trusting and trustworthy partners, and you need to be affectionate and intimate partners.
You also need to know that if you are not attracted to the person you're with, then you're going to have a harder time getting through those moments when you don't like them very much -- and there will always be times like that -- just as if you don't like a person very much, you're going to have a harder time getting through those moments when you don't find them attractive -- and there will always be times like that. The more distinct reasons why you want to be with your partner, the easier it will be to stay with them when some of those reasons go away (temporarily or forever.)
So that's the general advice. The specific advice to you: cringe? Well, hell, there's no question, is there? I suspect if he knew how you felt -- and he will find out eventually -- he won't want to stick around. That's like a time bomb waiting to happen.
Incidentally, you say you have two options. Do these men know you're dating the other? Just asking.
posted by davejay at 12:57 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Raising a child may well be the hardest thing the two of you will ever do. You need to be supportive partners, you need to be trusting and trustworthy partners, and you need to be affectionate and intimate partners.
You also need to know that if you are not attracted to the person you're with, then you're going to have a harder time getting through those moments when you don't like them very much -- and there will always be times like that -- just as if you don't like a person very much, you're going to have a harder time getting through those moments when you don't find them attractive -- and there will always be times like that. The more distinct reasons why you want to be with your partner, the easier it will be to stay with them when some of those reasons go away (temporarily or forever.)
So that's the general advice. The specific advice to you: cringe? Well, hell, there's no question, is there? I suspect if he knew how you felt -- and he will find out eventually -- he won't want to stick around. That's like a time bomb waiting to happen.
Incidentally, you say you have two options. Do these men know you're dating the other? Just asking.
posted by davejay at 12:57 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also:
This particular question hits a nerve with me because I was in a 15-year-long committed, monogamous relationship with someone whose I-don't-really-feel-passion-for-you-but-I-love-you feelings for me at the beginning (I was always deeply attracted to her sexually) became outright sexual aversion at the end. This experience has been very damaging for me.
There is much, much wisdom here, and not just about attraction; about any aspect of a relationship where you feel "oh, it's not SO bad" can become "oh, I fucking HATE that about you" later on.
posted by davejay at 12:58 PM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
This particular question hits a nerve with me because I was in a 15-year-long committed, monogamous relationship with someone whose I-don't-really-feel-passion-for-you-but-I-love-you feelings for me at the beginning (I was always deeply attracted to her sexually) became outright sexual aversion at the end. This experience has been very damaging for me.
There is much, much wisdom here, and not just about attraction; about any aspect of a relationship where you feel "oh, it's not SO bad" can become "oh, I fucking HATE that about you" later on.
posted by davejay at 12:58 PM on October 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Oh, and third option: find a person with practical qualities of the first, and passion of the second. You have millions of folks to choose from.
posted by davejay at 1:02 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by davejay at 1:02 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think most people are reacting to "cringes when being touched". There are meh feelings, and there are bad feelings. This is bad. It doesn't get better and, I promise you, life can be much better than this.
posted by moiraine at 1:42 PM on October 13, 2011
posted by moiraine at 1:42 PM on October 13, 2011
Before anything else, you should determine if your potential fathers are interested in not just committing to a partner and raising a child together, but committing to you and raising your mutual child together. You wanting to commit to them and raise a child doesn't mean they are on board with that idea.
It seems like having a romantic relationship with your co-parent isn't of any importance to you. Perhaps you could find someone who wants to be a parent but is in the same situation -- and there is no reason that person would have to be the genetic father of the child or even a man. Consider other alternatives, you could have a non-romantic co-parenting committed relationship with another single mother, a woman with viable eggs who is unable to carry a child to term herself, or possibly the man in your question.
If you can find someone else who wants a child without a sexual relationship, there is no reason you have to have sex involved at all, even to conceive -- it's less common, but it is an option.
I also don't want to be a person who chooses based on security and ease, but cringes when being touched by the person.
That doesn't sound much like ease to me.
posted by yohko at 1:44 PM on October 13, 2011
It seems like having a romantic relationship with your co-parent isn't of any importance to you. Perhaps you could find someone who wants to be a parent but is in the same situation -- and there is no reason that person would have to be the genetic father of the child or even a man. Consider other alternatives, you could have a non-romantic co-parenting committed relationship with another single mother, a woman with viable eggs who is unable to carry a child to term herself, or possibly the man in your question.
If you can find someone else who wants a child without a sexual relationship, there is no reason you have to have sex involved at all, even to conceive -- it's less common, but it is an option.
I also don't want to be a person who chooses based on security and ease, but cringes when being touched by the person.
That doesn't sound much like ease to me.
posted by yohko at 1:44 PM on October 13, 2011
I have a good job, and am not looking for a breadwinner. I just don't want to feel psychologically that the bulk of the burden would be on me, or live in fear of something happening to me, basically.
Then, again, look into co-parenting. Parents who are not lovers and have a parenting but not a romantic relationship can make great non-traditional families. Typically but not always this is done with a gay father (or mother), but there are a lot of communities dedicated to navigating this path and helping you find prospective parenting partners.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:51 PM on October 13, 2011
Then, again, look into co-parenting. Parents who are not lovers and have a parenting but not a romantic relationship can make great non-traditional families. Typically but not always this is done with a gay father (or mother), but there are a lot of communities dedicated to navigating this path and helping you find prospective parenting partners.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:51 PM on October 13, 2011
Never choose someone as a romantic partner if you are sexually averse to them. There's a difference between wanting them both but thinking one is hotter, and what it sounds like is going on here. So, that person is out. Which makes it either the other person or someone else entirely.
posted by J. Wilson at 4:55 PM on October 13, 2011
posted by J. Wilson at 4:55 PM on October 13, 2011
Go with whomever you think is going to be the better ex. Seriously. Not to be even less romantic than picking stability over passion, but the odds are 33 - 45% that you will split up with whichever person you pick anyway. So who is the person who will be easier to negotiate with when in comes to child support and custody?
Sure, I'm a sad sack and a cynic, but I think that when you answer that question, you'll have a clue to who the better parent will be, overall, even if you are one of the lucky 10% of couples who make it to their 60th wedding anniversary. (source)
If you are seriously looking for husband-and-father (wife-and-mother?) material, the person who makes you cringe when he touches you is clearly not a candidate. It's one thing to feel like the sex with someone is kind of ho-hum, it's another altogether to feel repulsed by someone. So unless you can have a platonic co-parent relationship, where you raise children together, but have sexual relationships with others outside that situation (splitting up before you ever get together, essentially) I just don't see how that can work. If it could work, then maybe you can have them both!
On the other hand, if the only thing that is keeping you from wanting to get with Door #2 is the fact that he doesn't make a lot of money, that doesn't seem like such a stumbling block. People's income can change dramatically over time, and having a kid can be one of the factors in making that happen. Unless you are worried that if he were to settle down and get a regular well-paying job, all his appeal would vanish. If that's the case, then I got nothing.
posted by looli at 6:30 PM on October 13, 2011
Sure, I'm a sad sack and a cynic, but I think that when you answer that question, you'll have a clue to who the better parent will be, overall, even if you are one of the lucky 10% of couples who make it to their 60th wedding anniversary. (source)
If you are seriously looking for husband-and-father (wife-and-mother?) material, the person who makes you cringe when he touches you is clearly not a candidate. It's one thing to feel like the sex with someone is kind of ho-hum, it's another altogether to feel repulsed by someone. So unless you can have a platonic co-parent relationship, where you raise children together, but have sexual relationships with others outside that situation (splitting up before you ever get together, essentially) I just don't see how that can work. If it could work, then maybe you can have them both!
On the other hand, if the only thing that is keeping you from wanting to get with Door #2 is the fact that he doesn't make a lot of money, that doesn't seem like such a stumbling block. People's income can change dramatically over time, and having a kid can be one of the factors in making that happen. Unless you are worried that if he were to settle down and get a regular well-paying job, all his appeal would vanish. If that's the case, then I got nothing.
posted by looli at 6:30 PM on October 13, 2011
I actually feel like my deep fondness and non-sexual love of the first person could possibly balance my aversion.
Either you're going to have to tell him that you cringe when he touches you, or you're going to have to lie to him, for the whole relationship. Neither of those sounds like something you'd do to a person you actually care about and respect.
posted by rtha at 7:14 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Either you're going to have to tell him that you cringe when he touches you, or you're going to have to lie to him, for the whole relationship. Neither of those sounds like something you'd do to a person you actually care about and respect.
posted by rtha at 7:14 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'm going to leave reservations aside to answer the question as asked. I'd pick security. Obviously this is a minority opinion. It may be really harsh, but looking at all the potential ways people could get hurt in the worst case scenarios...well, I'd rather be a rich, ugly divorced guy with a broken heart than a poor working mother with a baby and an irresponsible ex living paycheck to paycheck. I know that sounds awful. But assuming that of these two potential marriages, one MUST happen, I see marrying the security guy, even if it implodes, as having a "softer fall" for the hurt party than marrying passion guy. Maybe I'm awful for thinking that way. I also think sex probably comes and goes in most marriages anyway and relying on something other than passion is essential-although I would prefer "friendship and shared values" rather than "money" to be that thing. Strongly agree that a third option is always best, and "recoiling from his touch" had better be hyperbole...
posted by Nixy at 7:38 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Nixy at 7:38 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sexual attraction is literally advertising. Just like anything else, sometimes the advertising helps you make a good decision, but sometimes there's good advertising for a shitty product or poor advertising for a great product. It's evolutionarily advantageous for women to be as attractive as possible at all times in order to secure the support of their mate, it's evolutionarily advantageous for men to be attractive to as many women as possible because the direct cost of fathering a child is low (before things like child support, obviously).
So no, your lack of sexual attraction to man A isn't saying anything definite about your genetic compatibility. But it's definitely saying that you shouldn't enter into a monogamous relationship with him!
Guy B: Not being logical enough when making decisions would probably be a deal breaker for me, and that's OK! But in general you need to consider both of these men separately, not "which one is better?" but "is this one someone I absolutely want to raise a child with?"
posted by anaelith at 7:41 PM on October 13, 2011
So no, your lack of sexual attraction to man A isn't saying anything definite about your genetic compatibility. But it's definitely saying that you shouldn't enter into a monogamous relationship with him!
Guy B: Not being logical enough when making decisions would probably be a deal breaker for me, and that's OK! But in general you need to consider both of these men separately, not "which one is better?" but "is this one someone I absolutely want to raise a child with?"
posted by anaelith at 7:41 PM on October 13, 2011
I think the way sexual attraction influences a person's commitment to maintaining a healthy relationship varies from person to person, so it's important that you answer this question for yourself. Your goal is to choose the man you can have the best parenting relationship with, and you need to know the degree to which sexual attraction influences your ability to have that relationship with them. Your personal answer to this question may be clearer after a few thought experiments.
For the sake of simplicity, let's call them Ugly and Poor.
1) Which of these worst-case scenarios would you choose?
Ugly goes through a mid-life crisis. He switches to an inspiring freelance career with an inconsistent paycheck and fewer benefits. Will you still love him and want to be his partner then? Will you be able to support him in his endeavors, as a partner should?
Poor becomes clinically depressed and stops being inspiring. He lets his appearance slip and you start to find yourself cringing at his touch. Will you be able to tolerate his inconsistent wages then? Would you be able to help him through his illness?
2) Which of these best-case scenarios would you choose?
Ugly gets a makeover/grows on you and becomes much more attractive to you.
Poor gets a plum, stable job doing the work that inspires him.
3) Imagine that your spouse develops a chronic illness and can no longer earn a living wage. Would you rather support Ugly, or Poor on your salary?
4) Which of these men would you want your children to look like?
Etc. I'm sure you can think of other questions in this vein.
Also, how are you not being devious and dishonest with Ugly if you cringe when he touches you? It is dishonest to pretend you are attracted to someone. If he is okay with you finding him repulsive (you are literally cringing away from him), wow. Self-loathing is...not the kind of trait you want to pass on to your children. Like many others, I hope you were exaggerating.
posted by millions of peaches at 8:27 PM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
For the sake of simplicity, let's call them Ugly and Poor.
1) Which of these worst-case scenarios would you choose?
Ugly goes through a mid-life crisis. He switches to an inspiring freelance career with an inconsistent paycheck and fewer benefits. Will you still love him and want to be his partner then? Will you be able to support him in his endeavors, as a partner should?
Poor becomes clinically depressed and stops being inspiring. He lets his appearance slip and you start to find yourself cringing at his touch. Will you be able to tolerate his inconsistent wages then? Would you be able to help him through his illness?
2) Which of these best-case scenarios would you choose?
Ugly gets a makeover/grows on you and becomes much more attractive to you.
Poor gets a plum, stable job doing the work that inspires him.
3) Imagine that your spouse develops a chronic illness and can no longer earn a living wage. Would you rather support Ugly, or Poor on your salary?
4) Which of these men would you want your children to look like?
Etc. I'm sure you can think of other questions in this vein.
Also, how are you not being devious and dishonest with Ugly if you cringe when he touches you? It is dishonest to pretend you are attracted to someone. If he is okay with you finding him repulsive (you are literally cringing away from him), wow. Self-loathing is...not the kind of trait you want to pass on to your children. Like many others, I hope you were exaggerating.
posted by millions of peaches at 8:27 PM on October 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
One of my biggest fears is that my sexual aversion to one of them means that we are not a good genetic match. Is there any scientific basis for this?
Possibly
posted by retrograde at 8:31 PM on October 13, 2011
Possibly
posted by retrograde at 8:31 PM on October 13, 2011
The answer is neither. You just have to keep going. You might not find someone that possess the same level of security or passion, but you can find one that has an acceptable level of each.
posted by whoaali at 9:13 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by whoaali at 9:13 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't think you're anywhere near ready to commit to either one. Take some time and get to know them better, maybe things will become clear. Don't forget that "neither one" is a great option too.
Also:
I actually feel like my deep fondness and non-sexual love of the first person could possibly balance my aversion.
Tell him this. "I feel like my deep fondness and non-sexual love for you could possibly balance my aversion to you. Maybe someday I can stop cringing when you touch me."
Would your relationship change if you told him that? Because the only way a long-term relationship is going to work is if you can be completely, brutally honest with each other.
posted by mmoncur at 9:55 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also:
I actually feel like my deep fondness and non-sexual love of the first person could possibly balance my aversion.
Tell him this. "I feel like my deep fondness and non-sexual love for you could possibly balance my aversion to you. Maybe someday I can stop cringing when you touch me."
Would your relationship change if you told him that? Because the only way a long-term relationship is going to work is if you can be completely, brutally honest with each other.
posted by mmoncur at 9:55 PM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Being with someone you aren't sexually attracted to gets confusing, disappointing and ultimately, angry making. You keep wondering why you aren't attracted to them, and try to pretty them up, and change your perspective, but I suspect it is hard to keep away from feeling contempt after fifty years of marriage, particularly if you see couples who are sexually attracted to each other. It is like making a deal with the devil of settling. And if it isn't an arranged marriage, and they have the expectation of sexual attraction, you'll have to dodge that too. For one of my friends, that came to a head when some other woman really did find her husband attractive, and after five years it was like a mint julip in the rain after a long dry spell for him.
Dating someone who you don't think is willing or able not so much to commit to the costs of marriage, but the joint vision and goals mindset and decisions of marriage, is frustrating, lonely and ultimately resentful making. Because who wants to seriously be in a conversation where it isn't clear what the answer is to the diapers or paint? saving for our new home or is just your art studio? for a friend of a friend, she divorced him, because she loved him, but felt like they were not on the same page about the life they wanted to lead. He was committed to his art.... And that included his choice of jobs and his time and his money. They have a great co parenting relationship now, though he would get back together with her if he could.
the thing is, assuming this isn't an arranged marriage thing, in a way, you're asking which version of anger and resentment is easier to live with. The answer i think is financially insecure Guy. Because you avoid the guilty feeling you're going to have almost every day as you try to avoid having sex with the Guy you are not sexually attracted to. I think anger is an easier feeling than guilt to bear on a daily basis.
The too long didn't read version is this..... You will grow angry at financially insecure Guy if you marry him. But the Guy you aren't sexually attracted to will probably grow angry with you if he marries you. Both of these choices feel much heavier than the deep sadness one might feel from missing the chance to have a biological child. Because it is the only choice that lets you let each man find a partner who will love him for who he is, and/or support him in how he wants to live his life. If you found a sexually attractive, financially stable man next year, would you feel the urge to leave either of these men for him? if the answer is yes, then let both of these men go. It is so sad, but neither of these men is probably the right partner for you, or father for your child, even if you do love them both dearly. Or put another way, you are probably the wrong woman and mother of their child for either of them.
posted by anitanita at 10:19 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Dating someone who you don't think is willing or able not so much to commit to the costs of marriage, but the joint vision and goals mindset and decisions of marriage, is frustrating, lonely and ultimately resentful making. Because who wants to seriously be in a conversation where it isn't clear what the answer is to the diapers or paint? saving for our new home or is just your art studio? for a friend of a friend, she divorced him, because she loved him, but felt like they were not on the same page about the life they wanted to lead. He was committed to his art.... And that included his choice of jobs and his time and his money. They have a great co parenting relationship now, though he would get back together with her if he could.
the thing is, assuming this isn't an arranged marriage thing, in a way, you're asking which version of anger and resentment is easier to live with. The answer i think is financially insecure Guy. Because you avoid the guilty feeling you're going to have almost every day as you try to avoid having sex with the Guy you are not sexually attracted to. I think anger is an easier feeling than guilt to bear on a daily basis.
The too long didn't read version is this..... You will grow angry at financially insecure Guy if you marry him. But the Guy you aren't sexually attracted to will probably grow angry with you if he marries you. Both of these choices feel much heavier than the deep sadness one might feel from missing the chance to have a biological child. Because it is the only choice that lets you let each man find a partner who will love him for who he is, and/or support him in how he wants to live his life. If you found a sexually attractive, financially stable man next year, would you feel the urge to leave either of these men for him? if the answer is yes, then let both of these men go. It is so sad, but neither of these men is probably the right partner for you, or father for your child, even if you do love them both dearly. Or put another way, you are probably the wrong woman and mother of their child for either of them.
posted by anitanita at 10:19 PM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
Parenting is a complex thing that has little to do with sex-- sex (if you just want to parent) doesn't even have to come into it. I mean, you could be roommates who also parent. A lot of marriages seem to be like that. So the 'aversion' may be a non-issue. Also, you could have a kid with the non-stable one & then parent it by yourself or separately with him visiting (not sure if this is an option for you).
'Aversion' is a really strong word; sexual indifference is one thing, but aversion? Should not go together with 'love'. If you love, you love-- call me old-fashioned. If you are truly averse, your body is telling you 'no', and that's no small thing. If you're simply not turned-on, that's something else. If it's genuinely icky, I mean, pay attention to that.
As for the non-secure one, why are you expecting financial security from the father/partner? Sure, money helps parenting a lot, but if you can't support a child yourself, realistically, then think twice about depending on anyone else. Anyone can lose a job anytime, get an illness, etc. Success at maintaining themselves and thinking on their feet seems more important than present security in terms of trusting yourself/your child to someone's care.
I don't think aversion = genetic issues, it's psychological. It's a crapshoot trying to genetically engineer your kid that way, anyway, considering how genetics works (unpredictable mutations, etc). I'd choose someone I feel comfortable with, rather than sexual or non-sexual, because sex can be developed but comfort is what you depend on. But if you're simply uncomfortable physically with someone, that's a strong red flag to me. If you're open to touch, then sex can be added, but that openness or lack thereof is instinctive.The only exception in my friends/loved ones in terms of 'touch aversion' (even sexual) is people I really don't want to have sex with (for me), which would include my mom, uncle, crazy old friends I don't talk to anymore, ex-boyfriends, etc. I just want to reiterate that if you really love someone, generally you're ok with touching them ('that way') even if normally you'd choose not to-- that's what I'd consider normal. So if you're freaked out by the idea on any level, it definitely seems unfair to pair up with someone who (presumably) would actually want you.
posted by reenka at 11:50 PM on October 13, 2011
'Aversion' is a really strong word; sexual indifference is one thing, but aversion? Should not go together with 'love'. If you love, you love-- call me old-fashioned. If you are truly averse, your body is telling you 'no', and that's no small thing. If you're simply not turned-on, that's something else. If it's genuinely icky, I mean, pay attention to that.
As for the non-secure one, why are you expecting financial security from the father/partner? Sure, money helps parenting a lot, but if you can't support a child yourself, realistically, then think twice about depending on anyone else. Anyone can lose a job anytime, get an illness, etc. Success at maintaining themselves and thinking on their feet seems more important than present security in terms of trusting yourself/your child to someone's care.
I don't think aversion = genetic issues, it's psychological. It's a crapshoot trying to genetically engineer your kid that way, anyway, considering how genetics works (unpredictable mutations, etc). I'd choose someone I feel comfortable with, rather than sexual or non-sexual, because sex can be developed but comfort is what you depend on. But if you're simply uncomfortable physically with someone, that's a strong red flag to me. If you're open to touch, then sex can be added, but that openness or lack thereof is instinctive.The only exception in my friends/loved ones in terms of 'touch aversion' (even sexual) is people I really don't want to have sex with (for me), which would include my mom, uncle, crazy old friends I don't talk to anymore, ex-boyfriends, etc. I just want to reiterate that if you really love someone, generally you're ok with touching them ('that way') even if normally you'd choose not to-- that's what I'd consider normal. So if you're freaked out by the idea on any level, it definitely seems unfair to pair up with someone who (presumably) would actually want you.
posted by reenka at 11:50 PM on October 13, 2011
Pregnancy, childbirth and having a baby tend to make sex relatively inaccessible/unimportant.
This may be your experience; it is not every parent's. Please don't present your experience as a Platonic truth.
'Aversion' is a really strong word; sexual indifference is one thing, but aversion? Should not go together with 'love'.
I have friends who love me. Some of them are lesbians. I'm pretty sure the very thought of me naked would be offputting to them.
teslateslatesla, for what it's worth, most of the people I hear bitching and moaning about their marriage-with-kids at my work, amongst my friends, and so on, lack of sex and lack of intimacy rates way higher than lack of money. If anything, doing it tough on money seems likely to drive people together (albeit not always) in an "us against the world"; lack of sex seems more likely to drive them apart. Perhaps my anecdata isn't representative, but that's my experience, for what it's worth.
I can completely understand being the primary breadwinner seems emotionally daunting-welcome being a 50s husband!-and it can be stressful; I found it very tough as a Dad when I went back to work, when I would get home and discover I'd missed major "firsts" in my daughter's life, while knowing that the mortgage and whatnot rested on my shoulders. But personally, it's a responsibility I'd far rather have than a life of sex with someone who repelled me.
posted by rodgerd at 1:14 AM on October 14, 2011
This may be your experience; it is not every parent's. Please don't present your experience as a Platonic truth.
'Aversion' is a really strong word; sexual indifference is one thing, but aversion? Should not go together with 'love'.
I have friends who love me. Some of them are lesbians. I'm pretty sure the very thought of me naked would be offputting to them.
teslateslatesla, for what it's worth, most of the people I hear bitching and moaning about their marriage-with-kids at my work, amongst my friends, and so on, lack of sex and lack of intimacy rates way higher than lack of money. If anything, doing it tough on money seems likely to drive people together (albeit not always) in an "us against the world"; lack of sex seems more likely to drive them apart. Perhaps my anecdata isn't representative, but that's my experience, for what it's worth.
I can completely understand being the primary breadwinner seems emotionally daunting-welcome being a 50s husband!-and it can be stressful; I found it very tough as a Dad when I went back to work, when I would get home and discover I'd missed major "firsts" in my daughter's life, while knowing that the mortgage and whatnot rested on my shoulders. But personally, it's a responsibility I'd far rather have than a life of sex with someone who repelled me.
posted by rodgerd at 1:14 AM on October 14, 2011
It sounds as if you're thinking in extremeties. Relationships don't have to fall into that trap. There is a thing of balance and you can have a spark of passion and security in a partner as well. You don't ever have to settle. I settled when I was younger. I wasn't sexually attracted to my first boyfriend and paid dearly for it. We are sexual human beings and having sexual feelings with that person is a must for a monogamous relationship. Think balance and walk with faith that you will find what you're looking for.
posted by InterestedInKnowing at 9:34 AM on October 14, 2011
posted by InterestedInKnowing at 9:34 AM on October 14, 2011
Money can come and go. How would you feel if you had a child with the financially secure one and four years later, he's poor and unemployable, and the one you're attracted to is well set up?
If you know that you can't handle raising children in an environment of financial insecurity, you need to set up a better safety net for yourself than a husband/baby daddy.
posted by Salamandrous at 10:44 AM on October 14, 2011
If you know that you can't handle raising children in an environment of financial insecurity, you need to set up a better safety net for yourself than a husband/baby daddy.
posted by Salamandrous at 10:44 AM on October 14, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
Are either or both of these people potential or existing partners?
Are either or both of these people likely to be involved in raising the kid?
But if you are genuinely, absolutely, looking to pick between those two people, I would choose whichever one you're happiest to see at the end of the day.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:43 AM on October 13, 2011 [2 favorites]