Well, a woman is a fool if she marries a man with no paternal instinct...even if she gets turned-off when suggestions that she might need to wear long underwear manifest from excessive St.Bernardism. One of the events that rung the death-knell of my marriage was when I was in a relatively relaxed mode with my 2bx and he took that as an opportunity to bring up the concept of quitting his job in the not too distant future. I said something about paying for our D's college and he said something like "Oh, she'll be alright. She always lands on her feet." What a PAL
This is the kind of thing I was wondering about earlier. Does the maternal instinct ever shut off? Or is it perfectly reasonable to subsidize a grown woman to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars without even questioning it, and perfectly unreasonable and PAL-like to question it?
Originally Posted By: Imconfused0807
I thought about what you said here and you've kind of won me over. No I wouldn't fight tooth and nail to keep my girls. Not because I don't love them as much as Miss IC, but they NEED their mother...those are her babies and...and the biological bond that they share, I don't have it in me to try and break that.
Children NEED their father too, at least as much as their mother and possibly more so as they get older. I may be biased or simply odd, though, since I would much rather have spent my childhood without my mother than without my father, but "maternal instinct" and "knowing how to teach a child to be a happy, useful member of society" are two very different things and children need the latter much more than they need a biological connection.
Not that biological connections aren't important, mind you. But it's not the only consideration, at least to me.
a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.
