How long should you be together before starting a family.

[Skandi]

I was reading this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5260) And I wondered, how long should you be with a partner before you start to have children? This seems to stop a lot of my friends as they are the right age but have only been together for a year. Personally I'm rather conservative and would think somewhere between 3 and 5 years. ( I have been in a relationship that lasted 6 years however)

This opinion obviously makes the children before you are twenty impossible.

[Rachel]

I really don't know i guess it depends on how you define Together... Together as in married or together as in dating and then married... my fiance and I have been together for 9 yrs i have known him since i was 12 yrs old. and when we get married i guess it wont be very long till we have kids my guess would be two years due to that fact that we have been together and know each other so well for about 9yrs that the extra two would just make everything "offical"

[Aemma]

I hold similar views to Rachel's in this regard. We didn't start our family until 8years into our marriage (which doesn't even include the 2 years of being engaged/dating). So Tolleson and I had been together for 10 years before our bundle of joy came along. There were things that we both wanted to finish up before starting a family.

I do think that getting to know your partner is preferable, especially before starting to raise children. You don't know how often differences in child rearing philosophies become a pivotal point as to whether a long-term relationship is maintained or not. That and finances usually make or break a marriage/long-term committed relationship.

But by the same token, I do have a relative (Tolleson's oldest brother) who married his high school sweetheart since a baby was on the way. He was 17 and she was 16. They raised two great boys and are still very much happily married and have been for almost 30 years now. :) :thumbs up

[Loki]

Impossible to say imo. It all depends on the couple -- how well they click, understand each other and share a worldview. Also depends on whether both are ready for this kind of commitment. I think waiting just for the sake of waiting is illogical. :)

[Phlegethon]

No idea. I don't even like the idea of being together to start with.

[Aemma]

No idea. I don't even like the idea of being together to start with.


Ahh geez Phleg, I was expecting something like this from you:

"All it takes is 30 seconds! ;)"

Man, that rain is dulling your spidey senses! :D

[Rachel]

I think waiting just for the sake of waiting is illogical. :)

I agree some people wait and then find that they waited becasue they could not make a decision, mind you having kids and bringing kids into this world is not a choice that should be made on a whim, i find many people who are having kids today are having kids becasue of the attention that the gives to the adults and becasue it's FUN not becasue they love each other and want to show that love with a birth of a child whom they will cherish and rasie to the best of their ablity.

a lot of people should not under any circumstances have kids at all.

just my two cents

[Atlas]

I would say over 2 years, depending on the couple. I personnaly have never been with a girlfriend more than 6 months, it always goes to hell before. Guess I'm not on the way to have kids before 10 years.

[Spaniard_Truth]

If you want children, then the answer is as soon as possible, considering the average relationship doesn't last too long. It's annoying to invest time and effort in a relationship, carefully planning for the right time to have children, only to split up after 3 years and having to start all over again, and again and again. Sooner better than later.

For the same reasons, if you don't want to be tied by children to someone you'll probably break up with, you need to spend a looong time testing the waters, because it takes a long time to get to know someone and see their true colours.

My answer: One year, because I only care about having children, not wasting my time on an inevitably doomed relationship.

[Phlegethon]

Ahh geez Phleg, I was expecting something like this from you:

"All it takes is 30 seconds! ;)"

Man, that rain is dulling your spidey senses! :D

Nah, I am a hopeless romantic. And because of that everyone should stay single.

[Tabiti]

Enough long to decide to live together and maybe few extra years to understand would they manage to be parents, so it is strictly individual. I know couples, being together for 10 years, getting married and then divorced after a year, and people who barely knew each other but created great families.
My current relationship is over 4 years, but we still don't live together. Even if we move in separate apartment, we'll have to wait and decide which is the best moment for children(if such exists).
I'm against the institution of marriage myself, so things about "your perfect partner", weddings and so on don't disturb me at all.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think it would take at least a couple years to get to know the person, and be sure you want to stay together and have children. Not more than a few years though

[Rainraven]

I think after a year or two then you'll know whether your partner is the right person to have children with. I think then it comes down to the couple and what is right for them. I believe a two year wait is best as it also gives the couple time to be together, getting to know each other and enjoying each others company. Obviously once a child comes along there will be less of this 'couple time'. I think it's important to do this at the start of a relationship and make sure you are together for the right reasons and not just the children. My parents had my older sister very soon after they became married and so I think they missed out on the chance to do this. Once we had left home they realised the relationship between the two of them had been based on bringing us up and now they had no common ground between them. It was one of the reasons that led to them splitting up.

[Angantyr]

I am the poster boy for marriage and commitment and fidelity. My desire is to marry and have children and grow old with my beloved.

However, I am 44. So, I cannot wait forever to start a family. I want a dozen children and that will take some twelve years. :eek: (It is my crazy dream, but I really adore children.) That being said, I do want to spend some time with my future wife just being a couple.

So, may we will have our first child after two years.

[Angantyr]

I must confess that I am very disappointed with the posts that show a lack of respect for the institution of marriage and of the desire to have children. :( :( :(

Where is the desire for the preservation of European culture, honour and race?

[Tabiti]

I respect children more than nowadays institution of marriage, since leaving your genes is one of our main natural goals!
The other is matter of social moral.

[Amarantine]

I must confess that I am very disappointed with the posts that show a lack of respect for the institution of marriage and of the desire to have children. :( :( :(

Where is the desire for the preservation of European culture, honour and race?


hahah you are cute! But you want kids becouse you love them and love the person with whome live so in that moment you don't think about preservation of your own race (especially when the system don't give any kind of support).

[HawkR]

I myself will hopefully have started a family before 25, if everything goes right that is:)

But I don't think it's about "how long" but rather "how good". And the feelings of course, after 1-2 years! I know of to many couples who started a family during the first 3 weeks of the relationship, and well, yeah, you know how it went.

But to start a family before living together is INSANITY! It won't work, believe me. In Norway there's been a trend now to get kids at Junior High and after, so, damned I might be, but that's fucking insane!



(Oh, on a side note, my friend whom I mentioned is going for a racemix, but I don't know where she's from, I'll ask)

[Amarantine]

I respect children more than nowadays institution of marriage, since leaving your genes is one of our main natural goals!
The other is matter of social moral.

NO! Marriage is needed becouse of familly which are will be forever the "main cell of sociaty". If we don't have marriages, we will not have familly and familly is micro state system.

It is long time ago established what is and what is not social moral, today we use that to approve our weaknesses... and brain washinh of course...

[Tabiti]

If I start living with my bf and have children we would be family, no matter the lack of paper contract, am I right?

[Amarantine]

If I start living with my bf and have children we would be family, no matter the lack of paper contract, am I right?

hm to be honest, that is a tru!

[Rainraven]

If I start living with my bf and have children we would be family, no matter the lack of paper contract, am I right?

One of the most amazing families I know have unmarried parents. They ended up together due to a mistaken pregnancy but have now raised 4 great kids and are still going strong. I think a good relationship and family needs the right mentality. You have to be willing to put in the hard work and not rely on a piece of paper signed 10 years ago to keep you together :)

[Sally]

Assuming the couple is married or in a committed relationship (I realise that everyone isn't keen on conventional marriage), the length of time could vary before the individuals involved decide to start a family. I believe that there are many serious reasons (physical, economic, psychological or social) that could cause a couple to avoid pregnancy right away.

In my view of marriage, which is obviously Catholic and is based on natural law, entering a marriage with a firm intent never to have children is a definite no-no. Whether or not children are produced is not the issue; deciding adamantly against children invalidates a marriage, and can be a reason for obtaining an annullment.

[Angantyr]

If I start living with my bf and have children we would be family, no matter the lack of paper contract, am I right?

Marriage is not the paper contract.

It is the swearing of an oath of fidelity. It is a public declaration of intent to live as man and wife. It is a vow to be together for richer and for poorer. It is a hallowed framework in which to raise children together. And for some of us, it is a union blessed by the Gods.

[Rainraven]

Marriage is not the paper contract.

It is the swearing of an oath of fidelity. It is a public declaration of intent to live as man and wife. It is a vow to be together for richer and for poorer. It is a hallowed framework in which to raise children together. And for some of us, it is a union blessed by the Gods.

Why do you need a public declaration to show you will be together forever? Is it not enough just to know? While I like the idea of marriage I do not think it a necessary part of having a family and children.

[Tabiti]

We swear the oath by ourselves. Our love and moral is the oath, even the so called Gods hear!

[Angantyr]

Why do you need a public declaration to show you will be together forever? Is it not enough just to know? While I like the idea of marriage I do not think it a necessary part of having a family and children.

We do not live in isolation. We are part of a bigger family, a community. We will raise our children in a community where we will share our morals and values.

Merely, swearing the oath to each other in isolation is anti-social.

Moreover, culture demands a recognition of milestones in life. If we have no celebrations and community affairs, we are not a society with a culture, but a bunch of loners.

[Crose]

I voted 'other' because it really depends on the maturity of the individuals involved and whether or not they/you can provide a stable environment for children. Most relationships I've felt my partner was the child! :D Even then I would say a couple years after the so-called honeymoon phase. To grasp the true concept of dutch ovens and whether or not you like their 'brand'. lol ;)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I voted other.
we do not marry or do the LAT method,we adopt women.:lightbul:

[Äike]

I voted 2-3 years, less time then that is just too risky. In 2-3 years you get to know the person completely.

[Angantyr]

I voted 2-3 years, less time then that is just too risky. In 2-3 years you get to know the person completely.

You get to know a person completely.

I was married for five years, during which time my ex-wife committed adultery and stole money from our joint account to hide in her secret account as well as lied and a whole bunch of wonderful things. :mad:

It has become my opinion that you wil know a person better after one day of truth than five years of lies.

[Tabiti]

You can never know a person completely. There is a risk in any relationship and don't forget that people can change during the years and conditions.

[Atlas]

Yeah. Even if you've known your partner since kindergarden, he/she may disappoint you about something or easily change his/her mind when you wouldn't expect it.

Luck is half in everything we do/live, most likely.

[Svarog]

t has become my opinion that you wil know a person better after one day of truth than five years of lies.

So very true man, one more thing, as funny as it sounds, your mother will judge the person you're about to marry/date whatever way better than you on first look than you will after 5 years, the problem is that people change, they really do, you may know the person but you may not see when that same person goes through changes and turn into someone else, usually because we wish to ignore the facts even when we know there is something going on, there are no rules in this same as in the other similar threads, some people are together for 10 years and get kids and all collapse within weeks, some horny teenagers make a kid because they were too lazy at the moment and turn out to be good parents, i know the cases, really, there are no rules and all varies from case to case.

[Angantyr]

You can never know a person completely. There is a risk in any relationship and don't forget that people can change during the years and conditions.

Women change and they are disappointed when they cannot change their husbands.

Men do not change and they are disappointed when their wives change into something else.

[Tabiti]

Men do not change
I see the opposite every day - my father, some of my family friends. The % of changing is the same among genders.
Yes, some females tend to be affected very easily on outer influences and opinions (girlfriends) but you must know if your wife is that type before marriage.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Women change and they are disappointed when they cannot change their husbands.

Men do not change and they are disappointed when their wives change into something else.

Is that not logic.
I followed the behaviour of my ex from the start.
I watched the behaviour of my friends too.
As soon as the first child is born,the mother concentrates on the well being and protection of the child (as a rule,and like in nature) and bonding with the child.
Therefore, she studies the child and learns how to react to the child.
In other words she learns by experience.
Which means that she starts to drift away either to the left or the right from her hubby,who just goes straight until such time the baby reaches the age of about 8 to 9.
The problem arises when the husband keeps himself not up to date with the interaction of mother and child.
He feels "alienated",so he concentrates even more on his job--ie bring food on the table.
A woman must change into mother and give her attention to the baby first and husband 2nd.
The disappointment of a woman with her husband is not very logic.
The husband does not change.
His first and foremost job is providing for the family. He should not change, bar giving a bit more attention to the baby,which as a rule he gives at a later stage.

When you spend time looking at Nature,the Lion for instance, you will she that the Lioness spends most of the time in grooming the cubs and teaching them to hunt and make them independent.
The Lion seems to be a lazy bugger when it comes to hunting,which involves all Lionesses in his pride. But more often then not the Lion looks after the cub during that time or one of the females does,while he gives the prey a death bite.
You will never see a Lion become a "papbroek" and attent fully to a cub,changing its nappies.

We produce more often than not just one baby.
Lions often 3 to 4
And as you go down the line---snakes for instance---you see that they produce plenty babies,which results in the snake saying "good-bye" to the snake-lets after birth.,looking for another pimp. Of the 30 t0 40 baby snakes only a few make it. So neither the female nor the male snake is particular interested in teaching these babies how to survive.They have all the attributes-poison-hunt etc in them from birth.
Not so with mammals(humans included).
I can not find any excuse for the parents to dissolve the marriage on the basis of being "let down"

However, I do feel that the parents should be given the chance to remarry,
only when the children of the first marriage are independent (18 to 20)
By 21 they must leave the house and not rely on the parents.

All the above is easier said than done,but it worked for me,because I worked according to a plan.

I believe too that one should marry early-genes- strength-health-intelligence etc

[Turkey]

A: nine months:D

[Incal]

Not less than a year IMO.

[Sikeliot]

5+ years.

My dad never wanted to be a father.. and if my parents had waited a while before children rather than having me within a year of their wedding, they might have realized that as a couple with kids, they were not a compatible family.

[Boudica]

Whenever they are ready to, financially and mentally. If they are ready in both of these ways they can raise the children the best way possible in a society full of corruption.

[SilverKnight]

1-2 years enough to know each other.

[mymy]

I voted other, because it depends on people and individual element play big role. Not all people feel ready after same period...

[Riki]

How long should you be together before starting a family.

I voted others cause i think its different from individual to individual,and how you and the partner feel.
Me and my Wife, we only knew each other for 6 Months.
Yet we have been married now for 13 Years and we get along very well.
Curiously so as my Mum and Dad they dated for 7 or 8 Months and are still together after 45 Years.

[StonyArabia]

5 years or so. At least for me this has worked and soon hopefully the ceremony will take place soon.

[Mosov]

You should have children once you marry your partner.

[Sikeliot]

I say 4-5 years. Too many people have children right away, separate, and it causes problems for the kids. You want to make sure your marriage is stable before having children.

[Mosov]

I say 4-5 years. Too many people have children right away, separate, and it causes problems for the kids. You want to make sure your marriage is stable before having children.

will be hard to resist on the wedding night ;)

[Hurrem sultana]

everything is okay i guess,but i see relationships that are 5+ fail all the time

so if the relationship is too long without marriage the chance for breakup becomes bigger

[Hurrem sultana]

5 years or so. At least for me this has worked and soon hopefully the ceremony will take place soon.

you have a girlfriend? you never told us about that:eek::D

[mymy]

I say 4-5 years. Too many people have children right away, separate, and it causes problems for the kids. You want to make sure your marriage is stable before having children.

I would say there is no rule. My parents were best friends for 10 years, then dated 3 months, and got married because i was on the way. :D And they are still together. But, my uncle knew aunt only 6 months before marriage, and they are also still together...
I know one couple who dated more than 10 years but divorced after a year.

No rules, really.

[Hurrem sultana]

1-2 years enough to know each other.

i agree

[Loki]

It's impossible to put a time-frame on this. It will all depend on the strength of the relationship, and the wishes of both partners at the time.

[PetiteParisienne]

I also selected 'other'. Every couple is so different, as are every couple's circumstances.

[Europa]

3-4 years I'd say.Most important is the time you've lived together though.Most couples don't realise the importance of that and when get together in one flat or house problems begin,because of habits of their single life.Also don't forget that marriage is based on compromises and every day you have to adjust your characters to be able to manage the problems you'll be having.The older you get the more problems you'll have......rents,payments,children and so on.There are no rules you must follow,you simply learn every day.

[PetiteParisienne]

My husband and I met in 2008, got married in 2009, and in 2011 our first child was born. Our marriage is amazing and having our son has added so much to our lives.