PDA

View Full Version : Life Would you allow your wife/girlfriend to be a surrogate?


Bump
04-24-2011, 06:05 PM
Imagine some rich couple that cannot reproduce or simply does not want to go through the hassle of pregnancy. Now imagine this couple offering $750,000 to your wife or girlfriend to give birth to their child with donor eggs and sperm.

This rich couple would require that your wife be held to a very strict diet, no smoking and no alcohol or any other drugs, including caffeine. This couple would require that your wife or girlfriend check in once per day with them and regular office visits with their doctor.

Your wife or girlfriend would have to follow a strict sleeping schedule and must follow every little guideline that they might require. Think of it as an extreme corporate job following every little rule and policy down the last detail. It would be stressful for sure.

Her meals would be paid for and any medical expenses.

Once the child is berthed, the doctors will take it away and hand her the check and you will never see or hear from them ever again.

These people are assholes and would probably make terrible parents and would assume that money would take care of any problems that their child may have. They aren't paying for a surrogate because they really want a child, they are doing for an image thing.

$750,000 for nine months of work, would you?

AndChiefs
04-24-2011, 06:08 PM
It's hard to imagine anyone saying no to this question.

Bump
04-24-2011, 06:08 PM
forgot the NO option

ooops, poll fail I guess

HoneyBadger
04-24-2011, 06:21 PM
Hell I would, and I'm not even a girl.

alnorth
04-24-2011, 06:30 PM
This is kind of a fanciful question, because surrogates get nowhere near that kind of money, more like a couple or few tens of thousands. There are no shortage of women willing to carry a kid for money. (Incidentally, from what I understand you gotta be careful about where you do this. In some states, the surrogate can change her mind and keep the kid. Other states allow for legal binding agreements before pregnancy.)

MIAdragon
04-24-2011, 06:32 PM
Nope, let's forget the impact on her body the emotional impact that would come from giving away the baby would be massive, not worth it.

Reerun_KC
04-24-2011, 06:33 PM
Nope, not worth it. MIAdragon touched on alot of the key points...

The physical impact is great on a womens body. After my wife and I had our second, we decided then that it was time NOT to have anymore. It was just so taxing on her.

MIAdragon
04-24-2011, 06:33 PM
This is kind of a fanciful question, because surrogates get nowhere near that kind of money, more like a couple or few tens of thousands. There are no shortage of women willing to carry a kid for money. (Incidentally, from what I understand you gotta be careful about where you do this. In some states, the surrogate can change her mind and keep the kid. Other states allow for legal binding agreements before pregnancy.)


My aunt paid north of 100k to have this done 4 years ago.

alnorth
04-24-2011, 06:36 PM
My aunt paid north of 100k to have this done 4 years ago.

Yep, and a lot of that money probably went for stuff other than the surrogate's bank account, if you went to a professional surrogate company who knew what they were doing. It is a pretty big deal, you gotta get special insurance in place who accepts surrogacy (obviously expensive because the insurance goes in knowing they are covering a pregnancy), the lawyer needs to be paid, there's the surrogate's expenses, etc.

bevischief
04-24-2011, 06:54 PM
I can't have kids and at this point don't really want one or more, health issues for both of us. We have dogs. My brother in law luck out and found a teenager that was looking for good parents. My niece is 2 and they still interact with the birth mother's family.

MIAdragon
04-24-2011, 07:20 PM
I can't have kids and at this point don't really want one or more, health issues for both of us. We have dogs. My brother in law luck out and found a teenager that was looking for good parents. My niece is 2 and they still interact with the birth mother's family.

http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/lohan-wtf.jpg

luv
04-24-2011, 07:32 PM
I don't think that a boyfriend would have any say in the matter.

cdcox
04-24-2011, 07:37 PM
I don't think that a boyfriend would have any say in the matter.

You don't own the woman until you marry her?

luv
04-24-2011, 07:41 PM
You don't own the woman until you marry her?

A husband should certainly have a say.

HMc
04-24-2011, 07:47 PM
well you might want him to have a say if you want him to hang around

bevischief
04-24-2011, 07:47 PM
I have said for years I don't have to carry the kid for 9 months, her choice. I only have to deal with the weird food cravings... Now if they want to make me the 1st man to have a kid, for me I am not paying taxes for the rest of my life and and very large bank account, like not to have to work every again...

cdcox
04-24-2011, 07:48 PM
A husband should certainly have a say.

I agree there should be a discussion between a married couple when either one of them wants to do something of this magnitude. I just think that "allow" in the thread title is a little too paternal.

Just Passin' By
04-24-2011, 07:49 PM
I agree there should be a discussion between a married couple when either one of them wants to do something of this magnitude. I just think that "allow" in the thread title is a little too paternal.

So you don't know of any relationships where the man makes the decisions?

luv
04-24-2011, 07:51 PM
well you might want him to have a say if you want him to hang around

If it's anyone significant, then, yes, I would consider their thoughts and feelings. I realize not everyone gets married nowadays. And, either way, he would not be "allowing" me to do anything. The decision is ultimately up to me.

cdcox
04-24-2011, 07:58 PM
So you don't know of any relationships where the man makes the decisions?

My wife and I always discuss things and rarely have diametrically opposing views on important issues. Both of us would probably cooperate with the other to help each other achieve goals that we set. If push really came to shove, my wife would probably defer to me on most issues. If I started talking about allowing this or not allowing that (and she knew I wasn't joking) she would probably think I lost my marbles.

Thig Lyfe
04-24-2011, 08:02 PM
Yes.

http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/135556/make-it-rain-guys.gif

Just Passin' By
04-24-2011, 08:03 PM
My wife and I always discuss things and rarely have diametrically opposing views on important issues. Both of us would probably cooperate with the other to help each other achieve goals that we set. If push really came to shove, my wife would probably defer to me on most issues. If I started talking about allowing this or not allowing that (and she knew I wasn't joking) she would probably think I lost my marbles.

That's fine if it works for you, but I was referring to your take about "allow" being too paternal, given that some relationships do have the man making the decisions. However, since this is likely going to head into the same territory that the nude photos thread went into, I'm all for leaving it as is.

crazycoffey
04-24-2011, 08:10 PM
just for money? my two cents would (as mentioned by others already) it wouldn't be worth all troubles and suggest she didn't do it.

If it were for a family member who couldn't have kids and she really had her heart set on it, I'd support her decision.

cdcox
04-24-2011, 08:11 PM
That's fine if it works for you, but I was referring to your take about "allow" being too paternal, given that some relationships do have the man making the decisions. However, since this is likely going to head into the same territory that the nude photos thread went into, I'm all for leaving it as is.

Once in a while I'll hear someone talking that way, but it always sounds weird to me. Dad clearly wore the pants in our house when I was growing up, but I never heard him talk that way once.

Joie
04-24-2011, 08:25 PM
We would discuss and make the decision together. Just like all other major decisions.

They wouldn't want to rent my womb anyway, that would be like renting a car and having to pay a mechanic once a week to keep it running.

Lonewolf Ed
04-24-2011, 08:34 PM
So you don't know of any relationships where the man makes the decisions?

None of my married friends do, unless you count deciding which of his socks he will put on first, left or right.

threebag02
04-24-2011, 08:39 PM
I don't think that a boyfriend would have any say in the matter.

He'd have all the say in the world. There is a chick on every corner.

dtforever
04-24-2011, 09:23 PM
Nope, let's forget the impact on her body the emotional impact that would come from giving away the baby would be massive, not worth it.
This couldn't be further from the truth. But that is just based on my personal experience with this scenario.

Rain Man
04-24-2011, 09:26 PM
My wife and I always discuss things and rarely have diametrically opposing views on important issues. Both of us would probably cooperate with the other to help each other achieve goals that we set. If push really came to shove, my wife would probably defer to me on most issues. If I started talking about allowing this or not allowing that (and she knew I wasn't joking) she would probably think I lost my marbles.

If I started talking like that, my wife would crack down on me like I was a Chinese kid in Tiananmen Square.

MIAdragon
04-24-2011, 10:23 PM
Once in a while I'll hear someone talking that way, but it always sounds weird to me. Dad clearly wore the pants in our house when I was growing up, but I never heard him talk that way once.

Because the ones that do, don't need to talk like that.

Okie_Apparition
04-24-2011, 10:31 PM
Oh sure, birth a child to a couple who may bugger it. Or worse, raise it on lies. There is a Santa, toothfairy & a Easter bunny. Only for it not to trust(rightfully) adults. Morals for money is dooooooooooom

MIAdragon
04-24-2011, 10:32 PM
This couldn't be further from the truth. But that is just based on my personal experience with this scenario.

I disagree, also based personal experience with this exact scenario. I don't see how you can refute the maternal bonding that takes place between the unborn baby and mother. Now take said baby away and what do you get, butterflies and rainbows? I'm guessing you haven't been lucky enough to experience the boom boom to bombs away first hand, it doesn't happen like you see in the movies. But feel free to be wrong.

MIAdragon
04-24-2011, 10:34 PM
Oh sure, birth a child to a couple who may bugger it. Or worse, raise it on lies. There is a Santa, toothfairy & a Easter bunny. Only for it not to trust(rightfully) adults. Morals for money is dooooooooooom

No Santa?!!?

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/5/16/129185377218280898.jpg

DJ's left nut
04-24-2011, 10:45 PM
No chance. I have a job that pays well and she's soon going to have her masters in nursing as well. The money would be nice, but honestly I don't really need it.

Meanwhile, baby's are hard has hell on a woman's body and can create some issues that never truly go away. And that's not even getting into the stress of pregnancy combine with the fact that the entire affair is monetary (I mean think of how angry pregnant couples get at each other when the upshot is a child of their own).

Simply put - there's no way in hell I'd allow it. I'd be more likely to be okay with it for a close family friend that couldn't have children that would simply provide me with the costs of the childbirth than I would a situation where it strictly for money. There has to be a benevolent purpose to that or the damage it would cause would simply be too great.

DJ's left nut
04-24-2011, 10:49 PM
I agree there should be a discussion between a married couple when either one of them wants to do something of this magnitude. I just think that "allow" in the thread title is a little too paternal.

I disagree.

That's a decision where I'd damn well better have veto authority.

I don't get to tell her "yes - do this", but as her husband, I most assuredly have a vested interest in the outcome and should absolutely have the right to say "no you will not".

It's not my body, but its my house, my bank account, my past and my future. Yeah, a decision of this magnitude needs to be unanimous and with that in mind, 'allow' is an appropriate word, IMO.

Okie_Apparition
04-24-2011, 10:53 PM
There are relatives you wouldn't leave your 10 year old with & you want to put a new born in the hands of strangers? You might never sleep well again

crazycoffey
04-25-2011, 04:37 AM
I disagree.

That's a decision where I'd damn well better have veto authority.

I don't get to tell her "yes - do this", but as her husband, I most assuredly have a vested interest in the outcome and should absolutely have the right to say "no you will not".

It's not my body, but its my house, my bank account, my past and my future. Yeah, a decision of this magnitude needs to be unanimous and with that in mind, 'allow' is an appropriate word, IMO.

and, if she was driven enough to do it behind your back, is it divorce worthy? not trying to pick, just curious

threebag02
04-25-2011, 05:32 AM
Triffling whore would need to GTFO.

DJ's left nut
04-25-2011, 06:41 AM
and, if she was driven enough to do it behind your back, is it divorce worthy? not trying to pick, just curious

Without question.

Apart from the impact on your relationship from the act itself, could you ever trust her again?

shirtsleeve
04-25-2011, 06:56 AM
Surrogate mother. No way.

Sexual surrogate? Sure, why not? The couple can work out their stuff and the mrs can have a great time for $750,000.00!

Not to mention the money I'd make from the video (or non release of said video)

MDHQ
04-25-2011, 07:33 AM
Sure, why not? A year of discomfort for $750k? Sure!

crazycoffey
04-25-2011, 07:44 AM
Without question.

Apart from the impact on your relationship from the act itself, could you ever trust her again?

but it's for her sister who can't have kids of her own, and your wife really felt compelled to help a family member. She still loves you and hopes you'll understand....

Inspector
04-25-2011, 08:24 AM
Once in a while I'll hear someone talking that way, but it always sounds weird to me. Dad clearly wore the pants in our house when I was growing up, but I never heard him talk that way once.

In my house, I have the final word. I am the ultimate authority. Nobody ever questions my ruling.






As long as my wife OK's it first.

luv
04-25-2011, 08:57 AM
I disagree.

That's a decision where I'd damn well better have veto authority.

I don't get to tell her "yes - do this", but as her husband, I most assuredly have a vested interest in the outcome and should absolutely have the right to say "no you will not".

It's not my body, but its my house, my bank account, my past and my future. Yeah, a decision of this magnitude needs to be unanimous and with that in mind, 'allow' is an appropriate word, IMO.
Wow. You let her out of the kitchen at all? Does she need to get your permission to wear a certain outfit in the morning? You're right, it's HER body. You are her husband, not her keeper. Now, if she values you and your relationship, then I am sure she would listen. However, I don't think it would be a matter of her needing to get permission from you. If she wants to do it and you divorce her, then I'd say your marriage probably had some issues to begin with.

Ebolapox
04-25-2011, 09:10 AM
Wow. You let her out of the kitchen at all? Does she need to get your permission to wear a certain outfit in the morning? You're right, it's HER body. You are her husband, not her keeper. Now, if she values you and your relationship, then I am sure she would listen. However, I don't think it would be a matter of her needing to get permission from you. If she wants to do it and you divorce her, then I'd say your marriage probably had some issues to begin with.

spoken by a woman who's never been married.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:13 AM
spoken by a woman who's never been married.

If getting married means I have to give up my rights to decide what to do with my body, then I never will. I will not marry someone who thinks he can tell me what I can and can't do.

eazyb81
04-25-2011, 09:14 AM
Wow. You let her out of the kitchen at all? Does she need to get your permission to wear a certain outfit in the morning? You're right, it's HER body. You are her husband, not her keeper. Now, if she values you and your relationship, then I am sure she would listen. However, I don't think it would be a matter of her needing to get permission from you. If she wants to do it and you divorce her, then I'd say your marriage probably had some issues to begin with.

Yes, it obviously would be a matter of needing permission, since he just said it would be divorce-worthy if she went ahead and did it on her own.

I thought DJ spelled it out pretty clearly, and I would guess that his assessment of the situation is similar to how most guys feel.

And on your final point, if a wife goes behind her husband's back to do something crazy like this, then yeah, the marriage probably has some issues. Normal women would not disregard their husband's opinion on such a major issue if they valued their marriage.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:17 AM
Yes, it obviously would be a matter of needing permission, since he just said it would be divorce-worthy if she went ahead and did it on her own.

I thought DJ spelled it out pretty clearly, and I would guess that his assessment of the situation is similar to how most guys feel.

And on your final point, if a wife goes behind her husband's back to do something crazy like this, then yeah, the marriage probably has some issues. Normal women would not disregard their husband's opinion on such a major issue if they valued their marriage.

Completely agree. I just think it should be a discussion. If she really and truly wants to help someone out, then I think he needs to consider her thoughts and feeling as much as she needs to consider his.

Ebolapox
04-25-2011, 09:17 AM
If getting married means I have to give up my rights to decide what to do with my body, then I never will. I will not marry someone who thinks he can tell me what I can and can't do.

oh, absolutely not. but to be married successfully, you have to lose a big bit of self-dependence and really buy into the partnership schtick. it's definitely not for everybody.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:19 AM
oh, absolutely not. but to be married successfully, you have to lose a big bit of self-dependence and really buy into the partnership schtick. it's definitely not for everybody.

A partnership is not one person asking and the other person deciding. IMO, it's something that should be discussed, BOTH points of views taken into consideration, and a mutual decision made.

Some people are fine running their houses as a dictatorship. I'm just not one who would be a fan of that. Works for some people, though (regardless of which one is in charge).

Ebolapox
04-25-2011, 09:22 AM
A partnership is not one person asking and the other person deciding. IMO, it's something that should be discussed, BOTH points of views taken into consideration, and a mutual decision made.

Some people are fine running their houses as a dictatorship. I'm just not one who would be a fan of that. Works for some people, though (regardless of which one is in charge).

fwiw, nowhere did I mention that it's a one-sided partnership or dictatorship. don't get it twisted.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:27 AM
fwiw, nowhere did I mention that it's a one-sided partnership or dictatorship. don't get it twisted.

My apologies. I get something in my head, and I can sometimes get others' thoughts distorted.

That, and I'm not a fan of really small children. One of the attorneys brought his two-year-old to work with him today, and he's running around here and yelling. Starting to irritate me a little.

Deberg_1990
04-25-2011, 09:48 AM
My apologies. I get something in my head, and I can sometimes get others' thoughts distorted.

That, and I'm not a fan of really small children. One of the attorneys brought his two-year-old to work with him today, and he's running around here and yelling. Starting to irritate me a little.


I know your fairly young now, but i cant imagine being 35, 40 and 50 years old without any children or partner share life with. Seems awfully lonely.

To each his own...at least you will have more money for yourself. : )

luv
04-25-2011, 09:51 AM
I know your fairly young now, but i cant imagine being 35, 40 and 50 years old without any children or partner share life with.

To each his own...at least you will have more money for yourself. : )

I will be 35 this year. Yes, I'm a loser. I'll keep my opinions to myself. :(

Deberg_1990
04-25-2011, 10:05 AM
I will be 35 this year. Yes, I'm a loser. I'll keep my opinions to myself. :(

heh, didnt mean it like that. If your happy, thats fine..everyones different. Who knows, your life may change if you ever meet your "true match" like Clay. : )

luv
04-25-2011, 10:07 AM
heh, didnt mean it like that. If your happy, thats fine..everyones different. Who knows, your life may change if you ever meet your "true match" like Clay. : )

I'm happy, but I think it's a "because I kind of have to choose to be at this point" type of thing.

And I've met Clay. I'm still single. :p

-King-
04-25-2011, 10:08 AM
A partnership is not one person asking and the other person deciding. IMO, it's something that should be discussed, BOTH points of views taken into consideration, and a mutual decision made.

Some people are fine running their houses as a dictatorship. I'm just not one who would be a fan of that. Works for some people, though (regardless of which one is in charge).

If you were married, would you be fine with your husband going around donating his "kids" behind your back?

luv
04-25-2011, 10:11 AM
If you were married, would you be fine with your husband going around donating his "kids" behind your back?

Different scenario. The "kids" are his. This is donated sperm and egg. All your wife would be providing is the oven.

But to answer your point, no. I never said it was alright to go behind one's back. The point I was trying to make is that both views need to be looked at and a mutual decision made. Not one person forbidding and leaving the other no choice.

Dicky McElephant
04-25-2011, 10:22 AM
Nope. The wife wouldn't do it based off of the fact that the soon to be parents are complete assholes and don't deserve a kid.

stumppy
04-25-2011, 10:31 AM
For that kind of money I'd be lining up future, current and past GF's.

Molitoth
04-25-2011, 10:58 AM
Some woman would be fine doing this... but I know for a fact my wife would not. I chose NO.

We just gave birth to our first, and are planning on a second. After that, I know I would be down for an easy million. =P

Iowanian
04-25-2011, 11:21 AM
If getting married means I have to give up my rights to decide what to do with my body, then I never will. I will not marry someone who thinks he can tell me what I can and can't do.

Remember that when he wants to put his, own personal handown part into the lady garden of a stranger for sport....not your body, not your problem and you have no right to say anything differently.



I would never tell my wife to put her body through some of this, but if she wanted to do it(more likely to help a family member)....I'd discuss the pros-cons with her, but I damn well have Veto power in my house. I'd be the one dealing with and raising our existing kids if she died of complications, and any consequences of the birth.

Chief Roundup
04-25-2011, 12:19 PM
Allow her those are strong words.
She is the one that is going to have to do all of these things and suffer through the pregnancy. It is totally up to her. I wouldn't demand anything from her.
I take it you are not married and probably will never be married.

threebag02
04-25-2011, 01:42 PM
If I have to give up my body, I want someone who can tell me what I can and can't do.

Fixed

Just Passin' By
04-25-2011, 01:48 PM
If getting married means I have to give up my rights to decide what to do with my body, then I never will. I will not marry someone who thinks he can tell me what I can and can't do.

When you get married, you generally give up a lot of the type of 'rights' you're referring to. You no longer have the right to donate your body to the local football team on Saturday nights, for example, and the husband no longer has the right to donate his body to the local volleyball team, either. One aspect of marriage is the sacrifice of individual autonomy and freedoms for the purpose of creating and strengthening a pair-bond and family unit, after all.

dtforever
04-25-2011, 01:57 PM
I disagree, also based personal experience with this exact scenario. I don't see how you can refute the maternal bonding that takes place between the unborn baby and mother. Now take said baby away and what do you get, butterflies and rainbows? I'm guessing you haven't been lucky enough to experience the boom boom to bombs away first hand, it doesn't happen like you see in the movies. But feel free to be wrong. I didn't see it in a movie, and I know I am 100% correct relative to my personal experience.

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 02:10 PM
Wow. You let her out of the kitchen at all? Does she need to get your permission to wear a certain outfit in the morning? You're right, it's HER body. You are her husband, not her keeper. Now, if she values you and your relationship, then I am sure she would listen. However, I don't think it would be a matter of her needing to get permission from you. If she wants to do it and you divorce her, then I'd say your marriage probably had some issues to begin with.

Don't ever get married. If you don't think that your husband should have veto power over something like this, you will NEVER have a strong marriage. That is absolutely unfathomable to me that anyone would think that way.

notorious
04-25-2011, 02:10 PM
$750K for 9 months.



That's an easy one. Yes.



None of the genes are ours so I wouldn't have a blood connection. My wife would be heart-broken but that would pass,too, when she realizes it is someone else's genetics at work.

crazycoffey
04-25-2011, 04:53 PM
Don't ever get married. If you don't think that your husband should have veto power over something like this, you will NEVER have a strong marriage. That is absolutely unfathomable to me that anyone would think that way.

veto power, LOL.

Marriage is full of compromise, and NOBODY should have "VETO power". you discuss things together as adults, you say you are really against it if you want, but if she wants to do it anyway, you can live with it or decide it's divorce worthy.

be pretty shitty of you to divorce your wife because she wanted to help her sister out.

I have two step sisters, the oldest had many medical problems growing up and had her uterus removed at the age of 18. The younger sister has already stated she will carry a baby for the older sister, whenever she is ready. If the man the younger sister gets married to, had a problem and "tried" to "veto" this decision, he's going to be in for a rude awakening. And the younger sister has a big heart, good head on her shoulders, she's not going to be a spoiled wife, that has to always have her way. But I guarantee no man will stop her from helping her bigger sister.


I realize this is an edited version of the original OP, but just another angle to view the question.

luv
04-25-2011, 04:55 PM
Don't ever get married. If you don't think that your husband should have veto power over something like this, you will NEVER have a strong marriage. That is absolutely unfathomable to me that anyone would think that way.

If my husband and I have a good relationship, then he wouldn't need veto power. It's unfathomable that you make decisions for your wife instead of with her.

teedubya
04-25-2011, 04:56 PM
Can I then dump her ass and take half?

Just Passin' By
04-25-2011, 05:47 PM
veto power, LOL.

Marriage is full of compromise, and NOBODY should have "VETO power". you discuss things together as adults, you say you are really against it if you want, but if she wants to do it anyway, you can live with it or decide it's divorce worthy.

be pretty shitty of you to divorce your wife because she wanted to help her sister out.

I have two step sisters, the oldest had many medical problems growing up and had her uterus removed at the age of 18. The younger sister has already stated she will carry a baby for the older sister, whenever she is ready. If the man the younger sister gets married to, had a problem and "tried" to "veto" this decision, he's going to be in for a rude awakening. And the younger sister has a big heart, good head on her shoulders, she's not going to be a spoiled wife, that has to always have her way. But I guarantee no man will stop her from helping her bigger sister.


I realize this is an edited version of the original OP, but just another angle to view the question.

Not all men just hand their balls over to the S.O..

Just Passin' By
04-25-2011, 05:48 PM
If my husband and I have a good relationship, then he wouldn't need veto power. It's unfathomable that you make decisions for your wife instead of with her.

How do you compromise on

Surrogate/no surrogate

Affairs/no affairs


and others of this nature?

luv
04-25-2011, 07:11 PM
How do you compromise on

Surrogate/no surrogate

Affairs/no affairs


and others of this nature?

Surely you're not equating having an affair with being a surrogate.

Just Passin' By
04-25-2011, 07:14 PM
Surely you're not equating having an affair with being a surrogate.

You cannot compromise on an either/or issue. Either one side caves or you come to a split. It's just the nature of the beast.

luv
04-25-2011, 07:22 PM
You cannot compromise on an either/or issue. Either one side caves or you come to a split. It's just the nature of the beast.

I agree that it's something you're either going to do or not. I don't view it as "caving" if the issue is discussed logically and a mutual decision is agreed upon, though. If a mutual decision is made, and both parties agree, then I think progress is made.

Just Passin' By
04-25-2011, 08:16 PM
I agree that it's something you're either going to do or not. I don't view it as "caving" if the issue is discussed logically and a mutual decision is agreed upon, though. If a mutual decision is made, and both parties agree, then I think progress is made.

It only takes one side to say "No", and that's the end of the story. It's not about sexism, and it's not about the dreaded patriarchy. It's about common sense. Assuming she wants to do it and he doesn't (which is what we're talking about here), There are 3 main options:

1.) Have child, stay together

2.) Don't have child, stay together

3.) Have child, divorce


If you are split on the issue, #1 requires the man to cave, #2 requires the woman to cave, and #3 is what happens when neither caves. There is no 'mutual decision' here.

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 08:16 PM
If my husband and I have a good relationship, then he wouldn't need veto power. It's unfathomable that you make decisions for your wife instead of with her.

If you're a good parent, you don't have to punish your kids, either. You simply tell them what to do, and they do it. That's the way it works in the world of make-believe.

In the real world, there are absolutely deal-breakers in a marriage. If a husband is against his wife carrying a child for another couple, and the wife does it against his wishes, that is 100% divorce-worthy. Maybe the husband should be able to run out and adopt a 17 year old Russian girl in need of a good home against the wife's wishes. After all, I wouldn't want my wife making that decision for me.

Rain Man
04-25-2011, 08:17 PM
$750K for 9 months.



That's an easy one. Yes.



None of the genes are ours so I wouldn't have a blood connection. My wife would be heart-broken but that would pass,too, when she realizes it is someone else's genetics at work.


And when she hears the plaintive murmur of the motherless Lamborghini that also needs a loving family.

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 08:18 PM
It only takes one side to say "No", and that's the end of the story. It's not about sexism, and it's not about the dreaded patriarchy. It's about common sense. Assuming she wants to do it and he doesn't (which is what we're talking about here), There are 3 main options:

1.) Have child, stay together

2.) Don't have child, stay together

3.) Have child, divorce


If you are split on the issue, #1 requires the man to cave, #2 requires the woman to cave, and #3 is what happens when neither caves. There is no 'mutual decision' here.

No shit. Nobody's even brought up the possibility that there are other children involved. Hey, son. Yes, mommy is pregnant. No, it's not my child. Yes, we will be giving that child away. No, I don't have any say in the matter. Yes, we promise not to give you away, too.

Psyko Tek
04-25-2011, 08:42 PM
A husband should certainly have a say.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

you just kill me sometimes

luv
04-25-2011, 09:09 PM
No shit. Nobody's even brought up the possibility that there are other children involved. Hey, son. Yes, mommy is pregnant. No, it's not my child. Yes, we will be giving that child away. No, I don't have any say in the matter. Yes, we promise not to give you away, too.

When did I say that?

Rausch
04-25-2011, 09:10 PM
This wife or my next one?...

luv
04-25-2011, 09:15 PM
If I was married and my husband was adamant on me not doing so, I'm about 99.9% sure that I wouldn't do it. Not because he didn't "allow" me to, but because I would respect my husband's wishes. I don't consider that "caving". I consider that compromising. I'm sure there will be other issues where he will have to give up doing something as well.

I am not disagreeing with the outcome. I'm disagreeing with you all saying it's the same as having an affair, you saying that you have "veto power", and that you should have control over your wife. If you are dead set against it, then you should discuss your reasons with her, listen to her reasons for wanting to, and decide, together, what would be best for your relationship/family.

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 09:21 PM
If I was married and my husband was adamant on me not doing so, I'm about 99.9% sure that I wouldn't do it. Not because he didn't "allow" me to, but because I would respect my husband's wishes. I don't consider that "caving". I consider that compromising. I'm sure there will be other issues where he will have to give up doing something as well.

I am not disagreeing with the outcome. I'm disagreeing with you all saying it's the same as having an affair, you saying that you have "veto power", and that you should have control over your wife. If you are dead set against it, then you should discuss your reasons with her, listen to her reasons for wanting to, and decide, together, what would be best for your relationship/family.

A woman has more of an obligation to her spouse and children than she has to anyone else in the world. (Same goes for a man.) Having a baby isn't getting your nose pierced. It's a life-changing event that has huge ramifications for the entire family. If I want to go packpacking across Europe for nine months, my wife has veto power. I can override her veto, but I'm not going to be surprised when I'm divorced upon returning.

Fire Me Boy!
04-25-2011, 09:26 PM
Don't ever get married. If you don't think that your husband should have veto power over something like this, you will NEVER have a strong marriage. That is absolutely unfathomable to me that anyone would think that way.

Saul, for the sake of married men all over who disagree with you, please don't presume to know what makes all marriages tick. You know what makes yours tick, but there's only about a million ways people can have a successful marriage.

Sometimes marriages are strong because of a mutual respect for each other, and the word "veto" just isn't in the vocabulary.

I don't know if I'd like it or not, but I can damn well tell you that if my wife really wanted to do it, I'd support the hell out of her.

Just Passin' By
04-25-2011, 09:27 PM
If I was married and my husband was adamant on me not doing so, I'm about 99.9% sure that I wouldn't do it. Not because he didn't "allow" me to, but because I would respect my husband's wishes. I don't consider that "caving". I consider that compromising. I'm sure there will be other issues where he will have to give up doing something as well.

I am not disagreeing with the outcome. I'm disagreeing with you all saying it's the same as having an affair, you saying that you have "veto power", and that you should have control over your wife. If you are dead set against it, then you should discuss your reasons with her, listen to her reasons for wanting to, and decide, together, what would be best for your relationship/family.

Well, to break it down

I'm about 99.9% sure that I wouldn't do it. Not because he didn't "allow" me to, but because I would respect my husband's wishes.

That's veto power. You can call it compromise in order to avoid admitting that it's about "allow", if that makes you feel better. It's still your husband having a veto, absent that magical .1% of course.

I'm disagreeing with you all saying it's the same as having an affair

We noted that the line of reasoning (it's my body!") is the same, not the specific acts. That holds true.

If you are dead set against it, then you should discuss your reasons with her, listen to her reasons for wanting to, and decide, together, what would be best for your relationship/family.

That's cave/cave/divorce. The discussion is nothing but a sop.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:28 PM
A woman has more of an obligation to her spouse and children than she has to anyone else in the world. (Same goes for a man.) Having a baby isn't getting your nose pierced. It's a life-changing event that has huge ramifications for the entire family. If I want to go packpacking across Europe for nine months, my wife has veto power. I can override her veto, but I'm not going to be surprised when I'm divorced upon returning.

I would be more inclined to be a surrogate if it was for family. Say I had a sister, a cousin, or even someone who has been my best friend since childhood, who could not physically carry a child and asked me to. I might put up a bit more of a "fight" in that scenario. Mainly because it would be helping someone I love, and I (and my family) would continue to be a part of that child's life.

However, I am not in that hypothetical situation, so I don't feel the need to argue on it. I think we agree more than I thought we did. I think we were just looking at what having veto power means in different ways.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:31 PM
Well, to break it down



That's veto power. You can call it compromise in order to avoid admitting that it's about "allow", if that makes you feel better. It's still your husband having a veto, absent that magical .1% of course.



We noted that the line of reasoning (it's my body!") is the same, not the specific acts. That holds true.



That's cave/cave/divorce. The discussion is nothing but a sop.

Well, I apologize for thinking of veto in a negative way. When it comes down to it, I am agreeing with you. You still choose to try to argue? Are you wanting me to say you're right? Will that feed your ego enough to drop it?

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 09:31 PM
Saul, for the sake of married men all over who disagree with you, please STFU.

Sometimes marriages are strong because of a mutual respect for each other, and the word "veto" just isn't in the vocabulary.

I don't know if I'd like it or not, but I can damn well tell you that if my wife really wanted to do it, I'd support the hell out of her.

Then it's not a deal-breaker for you. I didn't say that it is for me, either. That doesn't mean that deal-breakers don't exist.

What if she wanted to get a sex change? Are you going to be okay with her new dong? I mean, far be it from a husband to say, "If you do this against my wishes, I'm divorcing you". It's her body, after all.

Just Passin' By
04-25-2011, 09:34 PM
Well, I apologize for thinking of veto in a negative way. When it comes down to it, I am agreeing with you. You still choose to try to argue? Are you wanting me to say you're right? Will that feed your ego enough to drop it?

I don't need the ego fed, Luv. Had I seen your 10:28 post to Saul before hitting the submit button, I wouldn't have made my post at all.

crazycoffey
04-25-2011, 09:34 PM
Saul, for the sake of married men all over who disagree with you, please don't presume to know what makes all marriages tick. You know what makes yours tick, but there's only about a million ways people can have a successful marriage.

Sometimes marriages are strong because of a mutual respect for each other, and the word "veto" just isn't in the vocabulary.

I don't know if I'd like it or not, but I can damn well tell you that if my wife really wanted to do it, I'd support the hell out of her.


guess that means you gave your balls away to your spouse also, LMAO

crazycoffey
04-25-2011, 09:36 PM
Well, I apologize for thinking of veto in a negative way. When it comes down to it, I am agreeing with you. You still choose to try to argue? Are you wanting me to say you're right? Will that feed your ego enough to drop it?

yes he does...

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 09:39 PM
I would be more inclined to be a surrogate if it was for family. Say I had a sister, a cousin, or even someone who has been my best friend since childhood, who could not physically carry a child and asked me to. I might put up a bit more of a "fight" in that scenario. Mainly because it would be helping someone I love, and I (and my family) would continue to be a part of that child's life.

However, I am not in that hypothetical situation, so I don't feel the need to argue on it. I think we agree more than I thought we did. I think we were just looking at what having veto power means in different ways.

I'm not really interested in the justification for it. That's between you and your theoretical husband. What I am saying is that there are things that should require agreement between both spouses in order for these "things" to be done.

You're a paralegal, right? I would compare this to "strict liability". If I open a Pepsi, take a drink, and then spit out a dirty syringe that was in the bottle, Pepsi is liable. It doesn't matter how many precautions they took. They can show the judge 100 things that they did in order to prove that they were careful, but it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that a syringe got into one of their unopened bottles.

The same thing holds true in this situation. The woman's reasons can be totally justifiable. They can be noble and thoughtful, and whatever else, but it doesn't matter. If the husband doesn't agree to have the family turned upside-down, she deserves to be divorced if she does it against his wishes.

Fire Me Boy!
04-25-2011, 09:39 PM
Then it's not a deal-breaker for you. I didn't say that it is for me, either. That doesn't mean that deal-breakers don't exist.

What if she wanted to get a sex change? Are you going to be okay with her new dong? I mean, far be it from a husband to say, "If you do this against my wishes, I'm divorcing you". It's her body, after all.

I'm not arguing the "it's her body" thing, I'm arguing mutual respect and support for the person you love.

So in your (utterly ridiculous) example, would I divorce her if she decided that she needed a sex change? Very probably - you never know until you go through it, but there are a number of couples in similar situations that have stayed together because of love for the person.

But I can tell that divorce aside, if she felt that was right for her, then I'd support her as best as I could. That's what you do when you love someone. Whether or not I could continue to be with her is irrelevant. I'd support her.

All that said, I'd support my wife doing such a thing for far less money. The bigger issue for me (and her, I think), would be that the parents are jackasses who shouldn't be parents.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:39 PM
I don't need the ego fed, Luv. Had I seen your 10:28 post to Saul before hitting the submit button, I wouldn't have made my post at all.

Ah. Gotcha. We cool. :)

luv
04-25-2011, 09:43 PM
I'm not really interested in the justification for it. That's between you and your theoretical husband. What I am saying is that there are things that should require agreement between both spouses in order for these "things" to be done.

You're a paralegal, right? I would compare this to "strict liability". If I open a Pepsi, take a drink, and then spit out a dirty syringe that was in the bottle, Pepsi is liable. It doesn't matter how many precautions they took. They can show the judge 100 things that they did in order to prove that they were careful, but it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that a syringe got into one of their unopened bottles.

The same thing holds true in this situation. The woman's reasons can be totally justifiable. They can be noble and thoughtful, and whatever else, but it doesn't matter. If the husband doesn't agree to have the family turned upside-down, she deserves to be divorced if she does it against his wishes.

Okay, so you're still arguing. So, you are dead set against it regardless on who you'd be helping. Good for you. I think I'm ready to agree to disagree (even though I thought we'd come to an agreement).

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 09:45 PM
I'm not arguing the "it's her body" thing, I'm arguing mutual respect and support for the person you love.

So in your (utterly ridiculous) example, would I divorce her if she decided that she needed a sex change? Very probably - you never know until you go through it, but there are a number of couples in similar situations that have stayed together because of love for the person.

But I can tell that divorce aside, if she felt that was right for her, then I'd support her as best as I could. That's what you do when you love someone. Whether or not I could continue to be with her is irrelevant. I'd support her.

All that said, I'd support my wife doing such a thing for far less money. The bigger issue for me (and her, I think), would be that the parents are jackasses who shouldn't be parents.

How is my example ridiculous? Deciding to become impregnated, carry, and give away a child against your husband's wishes is just as outrageous as getting a sex change.

I support my wife, but if she decides to do something like that against my wishes, her priorities are out of order, and she can do it on her own.

Saul Good
04-25-2011, 09:46 PM
Okay, so you're still arguing. So, you are dead set against it regardless on who you'd be helping. Good for you. I think I'm ready to agree to disagree (even though I thought we'd come to an agreement).

I don't think we disagree. Was just trying to clarify.

luv
04-25-2011, 09:54 PM
I don't think we disagree. Was just trying to clarify.

I see, I think that's what I was trying to do initially in order to explain my initial overreaction to "it's my body". Basically, it is, and I do have ultimate say, but the type of person I'm in and the type of relationship I'm in will determine what I decide to do. Anyway, before over-explaining myself again...lol.

Iowanian
04-25-2011, 11:14 PM
Saul, for the sake of married men all over who disagree with you, please don't presume to know what makes all marriages tick. You know what makes yours tick, but there's only about a million ways people can have a successful marriage.

Sometimes marriages are strong because of a mutual respect for each other, and the word "veto" just isn't in the vocabulary.

I don't know if I'd like it or not, but I can damn well tell you that if my wife really wanted to do it, I'd support the hell out of her.


Yes...in some arrangements, the woman is the boss and the man does the cooking and dishes. In some arrangements, the man hides in the closet while other men stove pipe her.



Veto is absolutely alive and well in marriages and it goes both ways. Don't believe me? Go tell your wife you're going to buy a fishing boat that is 2 price levels out of your league and you're doing it saturday because you want it. Try it. Does the wife ever "veto" sex or do you get it every single time you want it?

Buying a house? Pick one she doesn't like and see how that works out.

In something as serious as this issue, there is absolutely a need for mutual belief in what is being done, because while the wife goes through the discomfort of pregnancy, it's not always a picnic for the man. He's dealing with a wife with a changing body, emotional and hormonal mood swings, potential health issues, dealing with the questions.

In my situation, my wife and I discussed the topic because of this thread. We've pretty much decided that we are done having kids, however if a family member needed a surrogate, she'd be open to listening or helping. That said, it's my responsibility to look out for the best interest of our family, the well being and stability for our kids. If I felt it was bad for our kids, for her health, or our marriage or whatever, Veto is a viable word. If we both agreed on the circumstances and reasons for doing it, then you try it.

I wouldn't buy a farm without her blessing, I wouldn't ride a bull without her blessing, she's not going to put her body through 2 years of carrying a baby, labor and risk to her physical health without her husband being on board. That's not how a healthy home works either.

Bump
04-26-2011, 12:25 AM
Saul, for the sake of married men all over who disagree with you, please don't presume to know what makes all marriages tick. You know what makes yours tick, but there's only about a million ways people can have a successful marriage.

Sometimes marriages are strong because of a mutual respect for each other, and the word "veto" just isn't in the vocabulary.

I don't know if I'd like it or not, but I can damn well tell you that if my wife really wanted to do it, I'd support the hell out of her.

You know, the 75%, or whatever it is, of married woman who cheat on their husbands at some point, really wanted to do it. Then that should be ok with the husband too? Because she really wanted to do it and that's all that matters.

luv
04-26-2011, 08:21 AM
You know, the 75%, or whatever it is, of married woman who cheat on their husbands at some point, really wanted to do it. Then that should be ok with the husband too? Because she really wanted to do it and that's all that matters.

Why do people keep comparing being a surrogate to cheating or having an affair?

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 08:33 AM
Why do people keep comparing being a surrogate to cheating or having an affair?

Because becoming impregnated, carrying, delivering, nursing, etc. another man's child against your husband's wishes isn't much better than cheating if better at all.

luv
04-26-2011, 08:35 AM
Because becoming impregnated, carrying, delivering, nursing, etc. Another man's child against your husband's wishes isn't much better than cheating if better at all.

Well, she's also carrying another woman's child. Maybe that might turn some guys on?

And why would she have to nurse it? There is such a thing called formula.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 08:39 AM
Maybe having an affair turns some guys on. If the wife can convince her husband to go with it, more power to her. If she can't, she doesn't do it, or its grounds for divorce.

luv
04-26-2011, 08:43 AM
Maybe having an affair turns some guys on. If the wife can convince her husband to go with it, more power to her. If she can't, she doesn't do it, or its grounds for divorce.

No affair is had. A man's sperm and a woman's eggs are surgically put into your wife/girlfriend's body.

I would compare it more to a man going into the military. He gets paid for it, it's helping others, and she won't be able to have sex with him for months at a time when he's deployed.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 08:52 AM
No affair is had. A man's sperm and a woman's eggs are surgically put into your wife/girlfriend's body.

I would compare it more to a man going into the military. He gets paid for it, it's helping others, and she won't be able to have sex with him for months at a time when he's deployed.

That's a fair comparison. If I decided to enlist, and my wife didn't want me to, she would be completely justified in divorcing me if I did it anyway.

chiefsnorth
04-26-2011, 09:37 AM
No, I think the rich couple should pursue adoption. There are plenty of kids out there who need homes. Unfortunately a lot of the people with good family situations can do it because of the expense or because they aren't willing to adopt outside of their race or some other cultural factor.

There seems to be a lot more international adoption these days though, which is really cool.

DJ's left nut
04-26-2011, 10:39 AM
Wow. You let her out of the kitchen at all? Does she need to get your permission to wear a certain outfit in the morning? You're right, it's HER body. You are her husband, not her keeper. Now, if she values you and your relationship, then I am sure she would listen. However, I don't think it would be a matter of her needing to get permission from you. If she wants to do it and you divorce her, then I'd say your marriage probably had some issues to begin with.

I find it funny that you feel the need to remind us all that you're not married every single time you offer up marriage advice - as though it isn't evident from your posts. Tell me - are you intentionally obtuse or are you really this stupid?

At what point did I suggest that I would physically restrain my wife from doing something? Are you that incapable of discerning the generally accepted meaning of words? When I say I would allow my wife to do something, it means I would consent to it and she would remain my wife. If she comes to me and tells me that my father is a cretin and she wants to kill him, I'm gonna go ahead and put my foot down on that one. However, if she were to then take a day off work, drive to KC and kill the man, I haven't 'allowed' it by refusing to chain her to the headboard.

When a married couple say they 'allow' something, it means they give their approval to it and in so doing, are advising their spouse that the activity does not put their relationship at risk.

This militant approach you take is just asinine. With an attitude like yours I would strongly suggest you either A) Just switch teams - you can find all the hyper aggressive bull-dikes you'd like to spew unthinking idiocy back and forth with, B) Find a broken soul who has been shattered by life and has no will of his own or C) Get a LOT better looking. Militant feminists are just as out of place in a working relationship as aggressive chauvinists. With every additional word you type, you make it clear that you're no better than the "Don Draper" types that see their wives as trophies.

Or, for the good of us all, just stay the fuck out of marriage threads when you clearly don't have a goddamn clue what you're talking about. There's a reason you aren't married and it isn't because you don't adhere to 19th century social morays as they relate to the marriage relationship - it's because you don't recognize that a marriage requires all parties to sacrifice in order to thrive. Just as my wife has veto power over my desire to fuck my secretary or move to Mexico (both things done with my body), I'm going to expect the same authority a decision which greatly impacts our ability to function as a thriving unit, be that her choice to have someone else's child or her desire to shave her head head and carve a swastika into her forehead.

I think that's eminently reasonable. Then again, I've been there so what the fuck do I know?

Allow her those are strong words.
She is the one that is going to have to do all of these things and suffer through the pregnancy. It is totally up to her. I wouldn't demand anything from her.
I take it you are not married and probably will never be married.

In fact I am. And a strong marriage requires that both parties treat each other with the same respect they are offered. As I've noted, I have given my wife the authority to decide many things I can/cannot due with my body. In return, I expect and have been granted the same. I've spent over 1/3 of my life with this person so I think I'm probably pretty qualified to speak to the intricacies of a functioning relationship.

but it's for her sister who can't have kids of her own, and your wife really felt compelled to help a family member. She still loves you and hopes you'll understand....

That wasn't the question and I've already addressed it. I said I'd be much more likely to be fine with it were it for a benevolent purpose. Don't move the goalposts when you don't like the answer.

luv
04-26-2011, 10:46 AM
I find it funny that you feel the need to remind us all that you're not married every single time you offer up marriage advice - as though it isn't evident from your posts. Tell me - are you intentionally obtuse or are you really this stupid?

At what point did I suggest that I would physically restrain my wife from doing something? Are you that incapable of discerning the generally accepted meaning of words? When I say I would allow my wife to do something, it means I would consent to it and she would remain my wife. If she comes to me and tells me that my father is a cretin and she wants to kill him, I'm gonna go ahead and put my foot down on that one. However, if she were to then take a day off work, drive to KC and kill the man, I haven't 'allowed' it by refusing to chain her to the headboard.

When a married couple say they 'allow' something, it means they give their approval to it and in so doing, are advising their spouse that the activity does not put their relationship at risk.

This militant approach you take is just asinine. With an attitude like yours I would strongly suggest you either A) Just switch teams - you can find all the hyper aggressive bull-dikes you'd like to spew unthinking idiocy back and forth with, B) Find a broken soul who has been shattered by life and has no will of his own or C) Get a LOT better looking. Militant feminists are just as out of place in a working relationship as aggressive chauvinists. With every additional word you type, you make it clear that you're no better than the "Don Draper" types that see their wives as trophies.

Or, for the good of us all, just stay the **** out of marriage threads when you clearly don't have a goddamn clue what you're talking about. There's a reason you aren't married and it isn't because you don't adhere to 19th century social morays as they relate to the marriage relationship - it's because you don't recognize that a marriage requires all parties to sacrifice in order to thrive. Just as my wife has veto power over my desire to **** my secretary or move to Mexico (both things done with my body), I'm going to expect the same authority a decision which greatly impacts our ability to function as a thriving unit, be that her choice to have someone else's child or her desire to shave her head head and carve a swastika into her forehead.

I think that's eminently reasonable. Then again, I've been there so what the **** do I know?




Keep reading, sunshine. I think we're resolved to the fact that I was viewing "allow" and "veto power" as meaning that the husband have absolute, unyielding power. No, I've never been married. Yes, I'm sure it's because I'm so strong willed (/sarcasm). Or it could be that I enjoy arguing or playing devil's advocate on a message board. Maybe.

DJ's left nut
04-26-2011, 10:50 AM
veto power, LOL.

Marriage is full of compromise, and NOBODY should have "VETO power". you discuss things together as adults, you say you are really against it if you want, but if she wants to do it anyway, you can live with it or decide it's divorce worthy.

be pretty shitty of you to divorce your wife because she wanted to help her sister out.

I have two step sisters, the oldest had many medical problems growing up and had her uterus removed at the age of 18. The younger sister has already stated she will carry a baby for the older sister, whenever she is ready. If the man the younger sister gets married to, had a problem and "tried" to "veto" this decision, he's going to be in for a rude awakening. And the younger sister has a big heart, good head on her shoulders, she's not going to be a spoiled wife, that has to always have her way. But I guarantee no man will stop her from helping her bigger sister.


I realize this is an edited version of the original OP, but just another angle to view the question.

This speaks to a man's moral compass then, not ultimate say in the marriage.

Let's see if we can make an appropriate analogue (though it's difficult). Let's say my sister has fallen on hard times financially and that she has a special needs child that needs constant care and supervision. Let's say she comes to me and says:

"Hey DJ, I'm gonna need you to take this kid for the next 9 months. The first several months will be a little annoying but its summer time and he will out and about alot so it won't be that big of a deal. However, over the last 6 months, the kid will be an ever-present part of your life. He's a strong, unruly child so he's going to take a physical toll on you and your wife as well as an emotional toll. Some of the physical damage done will likely never be un-done and the physical damage could be truly catastrophic. The emotional turmoil could be equally significant. Oh, and I know that you have a strange physical condition that presents a physiological, hormonal attachment to children you are in close contact with for 9 months and that this attachment could lead to even greater emotional damage done to your marriage, but I'm sure you'll bounce right back."

I'd say that's a 'unanimous' decision that my wife and I have to make together. If I go to her and she says 'no, absolutely not', well that would speak to my wife's moral compass and perhaps it would make me take stock of things. At that point, my question has to be "is my sister's happiness more important to me than my marriage and my wife's happiness?" In light of my newfound awareness of my wife's moral compass, perhaps I would decide that the former is more critical than the latter, but I would still be compelled to honor my wife's wishes in this matter.

At that point, I make the decision and I live with the consequences. In either event, I would absolutely give my wife veto authority on a decision of that magnitude and I would absolutely own the decision I make in light of her response.

But again - feel free to move the goalposts as you see fit if it helps you feel more righteous.

DJ's left nut
04-26-2011, 10:54 AM
Keep reading, sunshine. I think we're resolved to the fact that I was viewing "allow" and "veto power" as meaning that the husband have absolute, unyielding power. No, I've never been married. Yes, I'm sure it's because I'm so strong willed (/sarcasm). Or it could be that I enjoy arguing or playing devil's advocate on a message board. Maybe.

That's quite alright, sweetheart. Your inability to articulate a point without needing 25 posts on a subject to back-peddle and refine in order to appease the mob you've riled up isn't going to get me to back off my response.

You'd be far better served to just shut the hell up. What you've described is either someone ignorant of the discussion matter or simply a common, run-of-the-mill troll.

In either event, you're simply not useful in these discussions. A devil's advocate needs to be able to, I dunno...advocate. This would require a perspective and/or understanding that you simply do not have. You'd probably better leave this job to someone like CrazyCoffee, who at least has some basis of comparison to draw upon.

shirtsleeve
04-27-2011, 12:28 AM
OK, I am a n00b. But after reading this thread, and the fun twists it could have taken, I am kinda in a loss for words.

This whole board reads like a political forum so often, with everyone looking for an arguement. Kind of a surprise from a board that isn't separated.

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 07:24 AM
That's quite alright, sweetheart. Your inability to articulate a point without needing 25 posts on a subject to back-peddle and refine in order to appease the mob you've riled up isn't going to get me to back off my response.

You'd be far better served to just shut the hell up. What you've described is either someone ignorant of the discussion matter or simply a common, run-of-the-mill troll.

In either event, you're simply not useful in these discussions. A devil's advocate needs to be able to, I dunno...advocate. This would require a perspective and/or understanding that you simply do not have. You'd probably better leave this job to someone like CrazyCoffee, who at least has some basis of comparison to draw upon.

harsh, but not at all false. it's difficult to give thoughts on marriage when one has never been married (or even in a relationship for, oh, more than 5-6 years, and even that isn't really 100% comparable). it's like a first grader giving someone their thoughts on infectious diseases or nuclear proliferation during the cold war... it's simply a topic they're not qualified to talk on.

bevischief
04-27-2011, 07:40 AM
OK, I am a n00b. But after reading this thread, and the fun twists it could have taken, I am kinda in a loss for words.

This whole board reads like a political forum so often, with everyone looking for an arguement. Kind of a surprise from a board that isn't separated.

ROFL

luv
04-27-2011, 08:08 AM
harsh, but not at all false. it's difficult to give thoughts on marriage when one has never been married (or even in a relationship for, oh, more than 5-6 years, and even that isn't really 100% comparable). it's like a first grader giving someone their thoughts on infectious diseases or nuclear proliferation during the cold war... it's simply a topic they're not qualified to talk on.

I didn't realize people were in here for qualified professional advice. FWIW, there were people who agreed with me, so I'm not the only stupid idiot in the thread. I believe DJ did a perfectly good job putting me in my place, but thank you for attempting to assist him.

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 08:13 AM
I didn't realize people were in here for qualified professional advice. FWIW, there were people who agreed with me, so I'm not the only stupid idiot in the thread. I believe DJ did a perfectly good job putting me in my place, but thank you for attempting to assist him.

eh, just pointing out the inadequacy of attempting to delve into a subject one knows little about.

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 08:13 AM
hell, you could consider my posts as defenses of you--making excuses for your lack of knowledge of the subject.

luv
04-27-2011, 08:21 AM
eh, just pointing out the inadequacy of attempting to delve into a subject one knows little about.

That never happens here, I know.

luv
04-27-2011, 08:23 AM
hell, you could consider my posts as defenses of you--making excuses for your lack of knowledge of the subject.

My mistake. You comparing me to a first grader makes me feel so much better. Thank you.

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 08:24 AM
That never happens here, I know.

eh, you don't see me attempting to advocate how much it sucks being a woman on the rag, yeah? gotta stay true to yourself. you'll never see me advocating a certain brand of tampon over another, or how much giving birth sucks.

and yeah, I'm pretty much trolling now :doh!::evil:

JOhn
04-27-2011, 08:27 AM
harsh, but not at all false. it's difficult to give thoughts on marriage when one has never been married (or even in a relationship for, oh, more than 5-6 years, and even that isn't really 100% comparable). it's like a first grader giving someone their thoughts on infectious diseases or nuclear proliferation during the cold war... it's simply a topic they're not qualified to talk on.

This reminds me of the people who have no kids, or none that are grown ect trying to give advice on raising kids.

even more stupid is when they or anyone not familiar with special needs children giving advice, seriously makes me want to punch them the fuck out

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 08:27 AM
My mistake. You comparing me to a first grader makes me feel so much better. Thank you.

LOL

if it's true, feel free to be offended. if not, why let it ruin your day? hell, don't let it ruin your day anyway. I'm just some dude on a public message board.

Ebolapox
04-27-2011, 08:28 AM
This reminds me of the people who have no kids, or none that are grown ect trying to give advice on raising kids.

even more stupid is when they or anyone not familiar with special needs children giving advice, seriously makes me want to punch them the fuck out

yep, that's the thing--it's all about perspective. if you don't have the proper perspective, you're likely to look very, VERY clueless.

threebag02
04-27-2011, 08:39 AM
Like sands through The hourglass.

Just Passin' By
04-27-2011, 01:19 PM
This reminds me of the people who have no kids, or none that are grown ect trying to give advice on raising kids.

even more stupid is when they or anyone not familiar with special needs children giving advice, seriously makes me want to punch them the fuck out

ehh.... It's not as if people haven't been around marriages, families and children all their lives. We're talking social interactions here, not advanced physics. Degrees aren't necessary.

keg in kc
04-27-2011, 01:29 PM
I wouldn't be married to any woman who was okay with me "allowing" her to do anything. We'd discuss it, and if I didn't like the idea for whatever reason, I would hope she'd consider that strongly, out of respect and out of love. It would be a decision we'd reach together, not something I'd dictate to her or something she'd decide on her own.

But....I'll never be married again.