Did anyone read the Atlantic article on settling through the link? Why is marriage automatically linked to child bearing? The author makes the assumption that the most fundamental reason for/result of marriage is having children. I'm a happily married 26-year-old woman who was fortunate enough to not have to settle, as I'm very much in love and lust, but who was wise enough to know, even before meeting my husband, that one of the most attractive things about a partner is their ability to be be half of a good team with you.

We don't want children. Not now, not ever. I never did, and he never did, and happily, we met. At 26 (he is 38), I am asking my new husband to get a vasectomy, and he is agreeing with a shrug.

So while I agree, if not necessarily to "settling," that there's more to a wise match than romance, I am vexed by the necessary equation of marriage to the production of children.

Perhaps this is why some women have a difficult time finding a husband, whether the perfect match when they're 25 or the OK match when they're 35 or the tolerable match when they're 45 -- they're not even looking for life partners, an adult to complement them and engage them and excite them as a fellow adult in perpetuity. They're looking for sperm that comes with a live-in babysitter and accountant. I can't imagine that this attitude, whether it's copped to or not, will lead to satisfaction in any form -- certainly not romantic satisfaction, but also almost certainly not to satisfaction even with the person you "settle" for.

Here's an idea: instead of looking for a man to have a baby with, look for a man who makes you want to have a baby with *him*. Another idea: consider never having children: you'll have plenty of free time to find the right man and then enjoy him, all by yourself, after you find him.

A commonly held assertion is that humans are naturally driven to procreate. Men in their way; spreading seed, as it were. And women in theirs, birthing healthy progeny and ensuring they are provided for.

You say your husband doesn't want children, I'm sure that's very true. But he does want sex. And sex-drives exist to facilitate procreation. (At the risk of good taste, you get pretty... randy a few days after your period, no?) I like sex, it might even be my favorite thing. But I accept the nature behind it. You may have taken the baby variable out of your marriage on a conscious level, but your bodies haven't. That's not to say you secretly want a baby or anything, but I wouldn't be surprized if you did someday.

And I'd be curious what kind of money your 38 year-old husband makes. That's not meant to be accusatory, in fact it echoes my post "There is no shortage" and the natural inclination for older men to be attraced to younger women and all women to be attracted to men who can provide... All for the purpose of procreation.

I read the article a month ago, so it's not fresh, but I don't recall thinking it was all about procreation - it was way more about holding out for a man that meets all of one's perhaps unrealistic criteria instead of someone you could enjoy sharing your life with.

Lekkers:

Did anyone read the Atlantic article on settling through the link? Why is marriage automatically linked to child bearing?

Because it is statistically far, far more usual for people to want to breed than to not want to. They're following the majority, as these sorts of things do.

Lekkers,

As a 47 year-old attractive childless divorced woman, let me tell you that your post is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful ones I've seen in the literally hundreds I have read on the Atlantic Article. I love your last paragraph!

I know without a doubt I am going to find a man I am compatible and in love with, although reading some of the comments in these threads, with the animosity between the sexes, discourages me at times. Lots of bitterness and smugness, particularly from *some* of the men.

Just wish I'd had your maturity at 26!