Bastards-
 

is there even such a thing anymore? Do people still think in those terms when it comes to marriage and children? In the US in 1980 roughly 18% of children were born "out of wedlock". In 2006 that number was almost 40%. Do people even believe in marriage anymore? It's costly to do and undo. I was curious if people are just not interested in getting married any longer. Does anyone know if marriages in that age range have dropped? Are the statistics in other countries similar? I wonder... of those children born "out of wedlock", how many were born into families with adults in committed relationships?

I know that many of my friends here in Québec have absolutely no intention of getting married, ever. Back home, people are still getting married though.

I do definitely want to get married one day. I'd rather be married before having children, but if I'm not it's not the end of the world.

Right but that does not have the answer to my questions.

I only know the term "single parent" is heard a lot more often than "bastard" is now. :shrug:

I have to say, I felt strongly about being married before having children.

It's not particularly a moral thing, but I do think that if you don't feel you can commit yourself wholly to another person, you've got no business having a child - as that's exactly what having a child is.

In the UK, I hate to say it, but it seems to me that there's becoming a class divide between those with kids who are married and those who aren't. There seems to be a lot of people in the UK these days who treat having kids as an unfortunate but unavoidable result of casual sex. They seem to think nothing of having multiple kids with multiple partners and allowing the state to support them all. I think this is causing a backlash of people across all of the traditional social classes who feel strongly about being married before they have kids as a way of distancing themselves from this. That's to say, they don't see anything wrong with being unmarried parents in itself, but they want to separate themselves from the section of society who take such a flippant view of having children.

Having said that, I have lots of friends who aren't married and who have kids/are expecting/are trying to get pregnant and it doesn't matter a bean to me or make me think any differently about them. In fact, I've a couple of friends who got married with no intention ever to have kids, and that I find harder to get my head around. I don't really understand the point of getting married if you don't want kids.

The term tended to have ramifications in what your share of the inheritance was.

Laws have changed, so an offspring from the other side of the sheets has a claim on the family piggy bank.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about this topic. The stats that Lil quotes are just stats, that don't include any of the human stories behind any of the numbers. I tend to agree with Lou, that if you're ready to commit to spending the 20 yrs (and beyond) to raising a child, it helps if you're willing to commit to having another adult around to assist in the process.
A few yrs back, I knew a co-worker who had a son (then 8 yrs old) that she had deliberately borne out of wedlock. Her story (as short as I can make it) was that she had been in a bad marriage before (with children), & she & her current BF wanted a child together but didn't want to spoil their "relationship" by getting married. It appeared that they had approached this as adults, & that the lack of a wedding ring had nothing to do with this man's commitment to being in his son's life. I felt it was not my place to judge whether they were wrong or right.
I have learned a lot about my own family history in recent years, not all were things I wanted to learn, & I don't feel like going into detail here again. The one conclusion I have reached is that times have indeed changed, that being conceived and/or born out of wedlock does not carry the stigma it once had...and that having two parents may or may not always be the ideal situation for a child, depending on circumstance.

I personally don't get it. Like Loula said if you can't commit to a person for for life with a marriage license what makes you think you want the even bigger responsibility/commitment of raising a child?

23 years?

You're still in the honeymoon.

That's why I added the last question. I wish there was information included in this data that showed us the real story. In my experience in the US, while the rates of children born out of marriages has increased, I do not see the amount of stable lifelong committments (like Sharni's) increasing. I personally could care less about marriage, what I am seriously worried about is the number of children being raised by single moms with multiple siblings with a variety of fathers. I question the stability of these families and the amount of responsibility these parents really have towards raising their children. I have a personal stake in this because I see it daily in situations where schools are now basically raising children with very little assistance from over-worked parents who show very little responsibility for the person they are creating.

I see both groups here at my grandkids' school.

Exactly why it's impossible to cast a big blanket stock answer that would cover all the questions that have been brought up here. I had so much more I wanted to say in my previous post, that I simply didn't have the time to cover, & had no desire to test everybody else's patience by doing so.

the mothers who show very little responsibility for the person they create are the villains here. people don't blame the babies any longer. in fact, they get more opportunities now than ever before, oliver twists no more if they choose.

a marriage means nothing if the only thing keeping it together is a piece of paper and government's stamp of approval and acceptance. a commitment to have a child is nothing like the commitment you make with another adult. and the desire to have a child doesn't require the experience of marriage or partnership to manifest or flourish, no matter the sex of the single parent. it's the intention of the parent, and depth of that parent's concern and involvement which matter.

kids will, on average, do better in life if they come from a childhood with two stable adults in it. that doesn't mean married parents, or even a mom and dad. it could be grandparents or guardians or much older siblings. but kids who come from single parent households only stand half a chance if the parent gives a crap.

sadly, i agree lil. the undereducated, apathetic parent is on the rise. we keep bailing them out because we must; every child deserves a shot at an education. yet our tolerance of the apathetic parent is sounded loud and clear every time we write a bigger check because she had another baby

a conundrum. what could be a solution?

The answer is simple and brutal.

If the child is going into a "bad" environment, the child should be adoptable by the thousands of childless couples who would kill for a kid and be wonderful parents, instead of becoming one of a generation of unloved thugs.

Call it a stolen generation or whatever, but the end justifies the means (this time).

Had an interesting conversation with one of my Lost Boys yesterday. My Lost Boys all come from mothers with multiple babies by multiple fathers. This was the Lost Boy with the pants. He was speaking about his dad's house and then said his dad has 9 kids. I said how does he take care of 9 kids and he hemmed and hawed. I said, "When you grow up what kind of dad do you want to be?" We discussed a variety of parenting situations and he said he wanted to live with his kids. I asked him why his dad didn't. (I was pretty brutal in this conversation.) Then I asked him again how he would be a different dad and then told him, "Men have no business making babies with women they don't want to live with." And you could see the realization hit his face.

Sharni that little piece of paper is much more than a little piece of paper. Have you stopped to consider what happens to your assets when you die with out that little piece of paper? While married couples should have wills having one is the only way for you two to insure that your assets go to each other and not each others parents, or siblings.

I personally hate the "It's only a piece of paper" statement. It's a legal, binding contract. Besides that, the whole belief that it is just a piece of paper, is sort of contradictory. If it is such a non-issue what's the big deal about going down to the court house and getting that little means nothing piece of paper?

I've heard a lot of people say that they don't want that little piece of paper because they're afraid of how it will change their relationship. Yet these same people will go and have kids without seemingly a care in the world about how doing that will change their relationship. Also if you don't think relationships change on their own with or without a piece of paper you're deluding yourself. My wife and I got married hoping things would stay the same but knowing they wouldn't.

I've wanted to respond to this question for some time, but wasn't sure how to without offending anyone. So please understand that these are my perceptions and opinions, and there might not be a lot of fact to support them.

I'm single and childless - there is one fact, so my opinions might differ from those of you in different situations.

I was a little suprised by Lou's response because my perception and experience of persons in Great Britain were different. I've found the people I know tend to have more of an opinion like Sharni's. Perhaps less of a belief in a the marital institution. They live in committed relationships often with children but without a marriage. At first I was suprised by it, but I accept it as being different than the "American" tradition.

Also, as a single childless person, I don't necessarily believe you need a marriage to raise a child. I think to have an adult (or MORE!) interested in raising a child to be a productive member of society is more important. There have been times in my life where the motherhood need sparked within me and rather than run out and find a husband to create my own I've considered adoption. I've never had an overwhelming urge to reproduce, but to parent. I hope that makes sense. I have the means to raise a child and the desire, but it is incredibly hard for a single person to adopt. And I refuse to just find a baby daddy just so that I can fill my desire to raise a child.

I know none of this really answers Lil's question. But I think the root of the problem is that people all too often are making babies they didn't intend to be making. Apparently these folks all missed that health ed discussion on how sex is the means to reproduction.

maddy- I understand you completely. I always assumed I'd be a parent, knew I was meant to be. However I was not sure about the spouse part. I felt less desire to be married/partnered off, than to parent.

My new bumper sticker:

18 minutes = 18 years
Don't make children with someone you can't even live with.

Define "bad environment"


When she gets married she hopes he'll change and he hopes she won't. Usually they are both wrong.

1) Different countries have different laws regarding estates.

2) I did not start this thread to discuss the merits of marriage. People tend to think that the choice they made is what everyone should do. As some have voiced here.

3) I am curious if the children born pre-marriage numbers have any impact on the abortion rate. Are more women in general getting knocked up? Are fewer women protecting themselves? Do these numbers have anything to do with Aids statistics? Is this just a matter of birth control or is this a change in cultural/ societal beliefs?

My assets will go to my partner and kids....Married people arent the only ones that have wills you know :rolleyes:
By Australian law we have the same rights as a married 'piece of paper' couple!


I personally hate when people think they can tell others how they believe they should live their life! My life, my choice, build a bridge and get over it!


Kids change your relationship, married or defacto, and i know many of both types who have the belief their life will just cruise along merrily the way it was when they were kidless. So your point is?? What does this have to do with having 'the piece of paper'
If that was pointed at me personally, i certainly did not think having kids was going to be a complete walk in the park, and i knew things would change.

Bilbo and I behave no different to a married couple, we are seen in the eyes of the laws to be a 'married' couple. I do not see the point in a 'piece of paper' nor do i see it making a difference to our relationship!

Really??? They pay them a lump sum? What was the purpose of that? To reduce abortion rates?

We could send you our extras!!!!

Sharni I honestly don't care how others live their lives as long as it doesn't directly effect how I live mine. If you're happy then fine. I still find it contradictory when people say that a simple piece of paper doesn't mean anything when it obviously does. Because if it truly doesn't mean anything then what is the big deal about getting one?

You are right that an unmarried people (in the US at least), can get all the legal rights as married couples. That's if they are willing to get a lawyer and have him draw up all the contracts etc. and once you've done that it would have been cheaper just to go spend the $30 on a marriage license.

You and Bilbo are obviously committed to each other. Before I got married 11+ years ago I didn't understand the big deal either. I did it because I knew it was what my wife wanted, and it would make her happy. Today I love being married, it changed how I viewed our relationship, and it makes me happy to call her my wife. Even though just as you as far as the government was concerned we were already married. Common law marriage is a wonderful thing.

Lastly I'm not judging you. If you're happy, and you're raising your kids to the best of your ability then I couldn't care less what lifestyle you care to live. That doesn't preclude me from saying when I don't understand or necessarily agree with something.

I just dont see the point in paying lots of money to get a pice of paper that will not change how we live or feel. We consider ourselves married, we are happy, and it works for us

Being married makes no difference to ones commitment is my point.

Its just as easy to get a divorce as to walk out of a defacto relationship. If the commitment isnt there in either relationship it wont last, regardless of if you have the 'piece of paper' or not

I'm not arguing that at all and agree 100%. But like I have asked if it's no big deal what's the big deal?

i think i see the problem. connotation
it's just a piece of paper.

just does not mean no big deal...like when you're trying to get your kid to try something new -- "you like cheese and bread right? well this is just both together. try it"

just means merely, as in nothing more than. this "piece of paper" - to many who even have them - means so much less to them than does the actuality of their lives together that its value as a lasting or binding contract is about as powerful as words on a chalkboard. even silly. so to say "why bother" is to say i don't need anyone's ok, and i don't need to pay a "fee" just to make my relationship "official"; it's "official" to us, 'nuff said.

In this day in age,kids can grow up realizing they are being raised by a single parent,a same sex couple, or a whole village of relatives.Nothing is entirely wrong.Whatever works,can work quite well,and that what counts. I find the word "Bastard" quite reprehensable.Remember.those who choose to call a child of a single parent a bastard,are probably quite willig to divide society into derogatory terms for all of us. My granddaughter lives with her mother who never married her father.To think of her in any other terms,is not an option.

Like many things--the meanings have changed over the years along with society (social/economic/moraes). Bastards from the medeval period where children whom stood little chance of inheritence. Further legal claim to property where denied to bastards. Socially speaking, it mattered more to what the woman's station in life was as to how she was regarded. A "Lady" was little better then a breeding cow in higher society to provide heirs, cement political alliences, and carrying on names. If it turned out she was caught in extra-marital activities, it put into question her children's father legitimacy. The poor classess didn't so much have these complications, since war/rape where common, and mortality rates so high.

Time passes, and yet still the question, "whose kid is it?" was being asked. Again issues of property where the chief concern. Few fathers wanted illegitment children to prosper from their lifes labors. Yet durning the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, social strata began to become more level. Which society wide bastards became more looked down upon. In most cases the bastard took on the "sin" of the mother. Somewhere along the line it became important to have your father's last name as proof of legitmacy.

20th century roles around and for the majority of the waining years till the 70s being legitment was a concern. Again bastards suffered the stain of their mother's "sin". And as a whole non-martial relations where looked down upon. Coming out of the 50s and 60s stigma of lower classess, blacks mostly, and poor white where associated with bastards...the father disappearing as a mark of scorn.

During the later 80s and certainly the 90s, the social stigma of bastard changed to more acceptence being replaces economic responsibility. It became more important for society to find the father and insure his financial support of his children. More so people where seeing mothers who had more and more children by different fathers. The trend continuing into 2000

Nowdays--its pretty much excepted as the norm. However, I've noticed that its becoming harder and harder for younger ladies to find life-partners if they have pre-existing children from other relationships. Not sure the reasons, but can only deduce that perhaps either the quality of men have changed or that economics have changed.