Hulk Hogan won another $25 million in punitive damages from Gawker. [Dlisted]
Updates on the situation in Brussels. #JuSuisBruxelles [Buzzfeed]
Lainey’s new blind item is so cryptic! Rachel McAdams? [LaineyGossip]
Robert DeNiro is going to do stand-up. Hm. [The Blemish]
Who wants to buy Kato Kaelin’s suit? No, really? [OMG Blog]
Tyra Banks looks totally ‘80s in these photos. [Celebslam]
Kendall Jenner did not punch a paparazzo. [ICYDK]
Wiz Khalifa is done with his Kanye West beef. [Mashable]
Bobby Flay has a new blonde girlfriend. [The Hollywood Sigh]
Why being childfree is actually nice for some people. [Mode]
Kanye West is taking over a city block in New York. [The Frisky]
The Go-Gos are breaking up!!! [Seriously OMG WTF]
I’m so upset about Brussels. This has to stop. It’s scary ..
On another note – The former mayor of Toronto passed away today. I’m upset about it – not because I was a fan of his but because we just found out that my Mother-in-law’s cancer has returned for the 3rd time (on her tailbone) and I’m just feeling not optimistic about it this time 🙁 I guess it’s just closer to home ..
Sorry to hear about your mother in law. Sending you positive vibes!
My grandma’s cancer returned three times. She’s 86 now and doing quite well.
Child-free and happy as can be. I babysat my niece Saturday. She spent the night. The amount of energy to keep her busy was insane. Also, the amount of stress I had making sure she was safe and sound the whole time in my care was a lot to deal with. I can’t imagine doing that 24/7. I know some people want their children to take care of them when they are older, but is that really happening anymore? I know a lot of older people who are alone because their kids are just “too busy” to care.
Yeah, I don’t know how people do it, honestly.
My aunt had to plan out solidly scheduled days whenever she had me because I was just ALWAYS on the go. She said she never understood the beauty of napping until she started watching me.
Our niece is about 8 months old now. Watching her for a couple of hours tires me out – mainly because I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing, and I’m constantly on high alert, worrying that she’ll get hurt, or sick, or upset, or whatever.
I think when it’s your own kid, it’s probably just as terrifying… but you are able to work up to the energy levels more? Like you have the time to prepare while pregnant, then for the first little bit kids aren’t very mobile… you get a bit more used to the routine, and are better at guessing what they need.
” constantly on high alert, worrying that she’ll get hurt, or sick, or upset, or whatever.” LOL. You pretty much described the first 4 months of first time motherhood for me. As for the energy, having a child made me feel 10 years younger, and way more energetic. The effect lasted years. I used to wonder if having 3 would have made me feel like a kid.
@ Lady D
Wow having a child made you feel 10 years younger? That’s amazing. I feel drained after babysitting lol. I guess some people are just meant for parenthood and some aren’t. I love kids, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a 24/7 job and it’s just too much for me.
Ha I’ve two and I’m the opposite of Lady D. Having two young kids to chase after has left me feeling exhausted and I think I’ve aged 5 years since my littlest was born due to lack of sleep.
They’re literally sucking the life out of me!
Jesus! i thought I was the only one that always needs a nap after dealing with my niblings myself
I may be in the minority’s, but after getting married at 31 (like I vowed I would do, just like my dad) I had already lived and worked in four major cities and satisfied my need to experience new places. Living the high life, SoCal real estate, Houston oil magnates, San Francisco, winery owners, been there, done that. I agreed (somewhat reluctantly) to be the stay-at-home parent if we ever had kids and could afford it. At 33 that happened and we had our first son. After a miscarriage we had our second son when I was 37. We have many friends who remained childless along with many who reproduced. Everyone made the decision that was right for them. I applaud this in people who really know who they are and what they’d like to do with their lives. Knowing your earning potential also has a lot to do with what you choose because yes, raising kids is expensive!
For me, I was the crazy-active parent and having two sons who matched my personality was exhausting but at the same time perfect. I was the one who taught them to throw and hit their first baseball, dribble a basketball, throw a football, learn to swim, and their favorite, learn to ice skate. I didn’t neglect the arts … we colored and drew with crayons, listened and danced to music, played make-believe policeman or fireman at the parks complete with home -made uniforms (can’t tell you how many times I had to slide down “fire poles” at the park), and read every night from the piles of library books we had hauled home. I loved all of it and they did, too. At least they reminisce that they did.
I kept up the house, cooked most of our meals and taught them manners in case we did go out to eat (if they acted up we’d leave the restaurant – period – and they’d get a chance to try good manners the next time). Yes, these kids consumed my days. I believe that children are a product of their environment, and like the old C,S&N song you MUST “teach your children well.” Our goal was to teach our sons to be critical thinkers, considerate of others, self-sufficient, and put good in the world (since it will come back to you).
Young children are quite draining for parents, but you learn very quickly what works. “Little kids, little problems,” and as they get bigger so do their problems and the challenges of raising them in a permissive society where anything goes. Sex, substances, driving, talk about worrying! Make their first seven years count because, like sponges, they are absorbing everything they are exposed to.
I feel for teachers who must manage classrooms where the kids were neglected. It is unfair for parents to expect someone else to teach their kids the things they should have been taught at home. If you are going to have kids count on giving it all you’ve got for at least 18 years, and if it’s not in you don’t have them.
And, yes, I now care for my 87-year-old mother by flying from my home to hers every couple of months to oversee her care or bring her to stay with us for a month or two at a time. My three brothers work full-time and cannot (or will not) be as involved. Going back to work for me outside the home has evolved into organizing mom’s caregivers month-to-month (when I’m not there) in between each life-threatening health problem she’s had for the last six years since dad died. What a hands-on education this has given me. I can find my way around hospitals blindfolded and talk with doctors about most cancer, diabetes T1 & T2, natural health remedies (as opposed to drugs), heart valve replacement, bypass surgery, gastric bleeds, skin infections, strokes, dementia, better nutrition instead of meds, on and on. My best friend did the same for her mom (until she passed) and continues to for her dad (89 yrs old). Mom’s generation expected this of their kids. Lol, I tell my sons I don’t.
The child-free article is alright, but it misses the primary reason why childfree is becoming a social and political issue, and that’s the elevated costs of caring for them. Humanity has basically built up a system in which its presumed that there will be enough young people to bear the costs of providing for the older ones. So it basically depends upon keeping the population at least stable, if not slowly growing. That basically demands that most people reproduce and only a small number of people remain childless. As those numbers grow, you have an increased base of older people who do not have children to subsidize their care. And when there are no children, they become largely subsidized by the state. Couple the increased tax burden of providing for the elderly with the general decline of fertility rates overall and you create the alleged “demographic death spiral” that’s threatening places like Japan and parts of Europe. So basically, the question becomes how to respect individuals who really don’t want children with the strong need society has to keep the population relatively steady. But I always find it weird that articles addressing being childfree almost never bring up the eldercare issue. It just seems largely glossed over in most cases. Is that because people just don’t like to think about getting older in general?
There’s no guarantee that your children will care for you in your old age either. I know that you’re talking about Social Security and such too, which is a serious social issue. I’m on the fence about it because I don’t think the system I’ve payed into will be around for me when I retire. It’s so bloated and unstable already, I have a hard time believing that it’ll be viable in 30 years. My disillusionment is hardly unique.
Maybe we should consider how to support our young people better. I have no intention of reproducing and a big part of that is the sheer cost. It costs too damn much and I have other things I want to do in life. Why should I give up everything in order to put another person on the planet? As yet no one has been able to answer that for me I’ve been very fortunate in life and given a lot more than many, and I still can’t stomach the cost of raising a child, let alone children. Between student loans and a poor job market, we’ve created a perfect system to convince my generation to not have kids. But, oops, we totally need them to work and have kids to perpetuate the system that’s failing them.
But that doesn’t really get at my point. Statistically, while some children do not care for their aged parents, most adult children do contribute to the eldercare of their parents, whether monetarily or through time (like caregiving). Childfree people lack these resources in old age and thus overwhelmingly utilize state resources to cover their aging costs – and that creates a public tax issue. Like I said, the system is largely dependent upon the population remaining stable, if not growing. And there’s no really good solution, short of penalizing the childless (such as rationing care, which is one such proposal). Part of the difference, culturally, is that largely in the West, childbearing is seen as a personal preference that others should not have an opinion on. In other cultures, however, having children is viewed as a duty or obligation towards the health of the state and filial piety is deeply ingrained (children who fail to provide for aging parents become pariahs and get ostracized). My issue with the linked article is that it doesn’t mention aging issues at all. Childfree people need to be made aware that aging costs will present a more pressing issue to them than to people with children and they should plan accordingly. I have practiced elder law and seen the negative outcomes that occur when that planning doesn’t happen, and it’s expected to get far worse as fewer people have kids of their own.
@SAM, in my country you get pension money taken out of your paycheck automatically whether you want it or not. Supposedly that’s what’s gonna take care of you in your elder years. Of course the State is always getting robbed by people in power and the first ones affected are the pensions. The earth is already overpopulated, we don’t need to bring more people to it. What we need is a change in the economic model and better administrations that stop taking public resources for their own gain.
Diana: That’s not how that works. The social pension system is dependent upon a stable populace. There needs to be roughly enough people paying in to support the current elderly. And that’s the issue that growing childlessness is creating. When more people take out of the pension system then pay in, you create a deficit that has to be made up elsewhere. And it’s becoming a major issue. The Japanese economy is already struggling with it, and it’s expected to become a major issue in other places as well. So your point is actually factually not correct. It’s not about people “robbing the system.” It’s a basic mathematical imbalance.
My mom is retired. She gets a pension. She still pays taxes, A LOT of them to be honest. Where is her tax money going then? You literally have to pay taxes until you die. A young person working pays taxes too regardless of being childless or not. That childless person will be paying taxes until the day they die too. So now we’re supposed to make childless people pay even MORE tax because they chose not to have kids? Ummm what about all the tax money going to free child care (in some areas) and school programs? My tax money pays for other people’s kids. Should I get a break on my taxes since I don’t have kids? I have to pay an “education tax” to help with the schools in my area, yet I have no children. I am paying more than enough tax, and when I’m old I’ll still be paying tax. This whole thing about “childless people being penalized” and having to pay more is ridiculous. In that case, I want a refund for all my tax dollars that went to government programs for kids.
Word: Again, you miss my point. Numerically speaking, a childless person consumes a disproportionate share of tax dollars reserved for providing eldercare. Almost all Americans receive eldercare as they age, and most are funded at least in part by government programs (Social security, medicare, etc.) However, when you look at the numbers, a person with children takes far less tax dollars in eldercare services. Why? Because for most of them, their children will kick in at least part of the cost. If they need nursing home care, typically the children contribute a portion towards it. If they need a caregiver, either a child serves in the role or they contribute towards the cost. This doesn’t always happen, but it is the general normal course. Compare that to the childless individual. If they were fortunate to earn a good living and save a great deal, they may be able to cover their own aging costs. However, most of them, statistically, don’t. They do not have children to defray their costs. Thus, they tend to rely far more heavily on government subsidization to cover their aging expenses. That is the crux of the issue. As more people forgo childbearing, it creates an increased demand upon tax dollars to cover the costs of aging – and given that as childlessness rises, there are less young people to pump money back into the economy, it creates a crisis. Don’t take my word for it, do your own research to see what the issues are. You now have developed nations that for years didn’t intervene in reproductive affairs now taking aggressive pro-childbearing stances (Denmark is now running ads encouraging more people to have babies, Singapore now has official natalism policies, etc.).
And your argument makes little sense. Childless people directly benefit from public education of children. Educated children go on to become high wage earners who put far more money into the tax base that will eventually subsidize the childless. Not to mention the various social goods that public education creates (lower crime, etc.). So yeah, that argument doesn’t really work.
I think my argument CAN work depending on what country you live in. Each country has their own rules and regulations. We can’t fit one scenario in to all. I’m not missing your point. I get what you are saying. I just don’t think it’s fair that childless people should be punished for not having kids. People who have children also take up a lot of resources and tax dollars. Not everyone’s children are going to grow up and be able to financially take care of their aging parents. Some children end up as adults on social assistance and are nothing but burdens on tax payers as well. Not all children are willing or able to take care of their aging parents. How many adult children end up moving back home and living off their parents because they can’t find work? In fact, aren’t trends showing a shift? More elderly people are now having to fend for themselves with very little help from their children. Yes, in some cultures there is social pressure to take care of parents but that in and of itself is also changing. We can not pressure people into having kids just for the sake of helping out the “aging population”. All you will end up with are unwanted children, born out of social pressure. I’d just like to mention that most people who do not have children, end up having a lot more money saved for retirement. Children are very expensive. Either way, we can not police reproduction.
Word: Although childless people tend to enter retirement with more savings, they also tend to deplete those savings faster, as they do not have any children to subsidize them. That’s the point.
And I’m not arguing for punishment of childlessness, although I am arguing that if the situation were to become dire enough economically, you might see that come to pass out of economic necessity. And your first point is not correct – every economy relies upon the young to subsidize the old on some level. That requires, at the most basic level, that the rates of old and young remain relatively equal, most of the time. It’s fairly consistent across the board – not, as you argue, a situational thing. It’s happening pretty much the same across the board. Europe has largely been able to starve it off due to its willingness to take in large numbers of immigrants, but that’s changing pretty rapidly.
And obviously, not all children go on to care for their parents. But MOST do, which is my entire point. When you just look at the numbers, the childfree consume far more government resources as they age then those with kids – that’s just numbers, which you haven’t disputed. And at no point have I advocated for forcing people to bear children they do not want. However, that is not the same thing as encouraging and incentivizing having children, which is what more places are now doing.
And to your point about children being expensive – yes, they are. But that expense is offset by the economic revenue they generate as they age. So you’re not adding that into the equation, either.
@ Sam
Also, I’d just like to mention that I have no problem paying for educational taxes and children’s programs. I think educating children is very important. But if I’m willing to pay taxes to help someone else’s children, I would expect in my old age, these same children would help out the same people who once helped them. I mean, many people have more than one child, some have 3 or 4. More than enough to help out others lol ! Have a nice day.
@word: There are plenty of Duggar children to go around. 🙂
@word – Valid point regarding paying taxes (regardless of having children) to support schools and other programs for children and working parents. In the US, having children results in larger deductions and tax refunds, versus being child-free.
I have long term care insurance to help defray any future care costs (bought it at age 30 and pay very low premiums). And I will never see more than a small portion of what I have paid into social security through the past 25-plus years.
I would also add that I am one of the few people I know who actually cared for parents (daily, while working full time) for years, instead of sending them almost immediately to a care home once they were unable to do most ADLs on their own. And most of those did not contribute — they let state aid pay the bills, once assets were depleted.
Sam, I appreciate your point of view, but I feel you’re missing an important factor: quality of life. There is so much more to existing than saving for retirement/eldercare. Many many people feel that raising children (biological or otherwise) gives their life meaning, but another large group of us don’t. I work in the public sector, vote/advocate/donate to express my belief in a society that offers equal opportunity to other people’s children. But to quote OITNB, “children…they haven’t traveled and they don’t drink.”
@Sam
Thank you for bringing up an opposing view point and you’re right it’s not one that’s often addressed. We live in a very interconnected world and we don’t often consider all the different parts of our world that will be effected by changing one piece.
I don’t believe in guilting people into having children nor any kind of federal or state level form of monitoring or punishment but I do agree in spite of people often claiming the earth’s population is too great we do need a stable and growing population. To try and reinvent a world that would function better with a smaller population would also require billions upon billions of dollars to try to change the structure and would take decades with great loss and infrastructure damage.
It’s a puzzler. I think the problem is we have been steadily starving our middle class and as a result so many of the past dependable stages of adulthood are being abandoned in favor of things that cater to the young and poorly employed. Apartments instead of houses, bikes instead of cars and etc. If we can’t offer some stability to this segment of the population then we can’t be shocked when they choose to delay or even stop reproduction.
Yeah, and a growing population using up the planet’s resources faster and faster won’t do any damage and changing this connection won’t take decades with great loss.
@Melly M
Obviously there’s a drain on natural resources but having a smaller population doesn’t fix that. It just creates new problems. Half the population means we don’t have enough in terms of taxes or revenue to fix the struggling infrastructure issues we already have, not to count the manpower needed to actually perform tasks such as food collection and healthcare.
@Sam
I appreciate your perspective but I think you are missing other alternatives. If child-free women are hurting European countries why not open your countries and allow immigrants in? Or make one million Visas available to any pregnant woman in the world to come live there? Lastly make IVF free so women who want to have as many children as possible can do so.
Most childless couples I know set money aside for retirement and retirement housing. Most elderly people actually live in their own homes. It’s a myth that most live in care homes. Some women don’t believe they need to bring children in the world just to wipe their butts when they get old. I personally find it offensive when mothers say that about their children, they are not obligated to take care of you. Nor should you have children if you can’t take care of them IMO.
Anyway, there are many, many options to increase your population than forcing women who don’t want children to do so. That’s as ethical as forcing a woman who does want children to abort them (China). No, the real issue is SOME European countries and Japan want their country to stay nice and pure with only “their people”.
Evolution, including social evolution requires diversity. You need new genes to be added into the population for growth. An infusion by immigration of a culture that values high reproduction rates will solve their problem.
My problem with some child free articles is that there always needs to be a list of reasons. Meanwhile, parents never need to explain why they want kids.
I’m child free because I don’t want kids. The end. No further explanation needed.
Good point!
Yeah it’s weird. I’ve actually always felt guilty for wanting/having kids when the world is so overpopulated. Not having kids seems like the much less selfish route.
Once you research it the world’s not really that populated. I don’t think it should have any effect on whether you do/don’t or want/don’t want children, just that it’s an overblown topic that’s not often fairly elaborated.
Response to The Eternal Side-Eye,
I don’t know…with the rate we are cutting down rain-forest for resources/fertile land, the mass over-fishing problem, the thousands of species going extinct every year…there’s probably too many people. Yeah the earth might be able to support more…but at what cost? When it’s all city and there’s no wild spaces left? No large animals except in zoos? Sad.
Totally. The insinuation being “what’s wrong here?” Or “why is this happening?” Or “what the hell is your problem?”
If it’s any consolation, those irritating insinuations tend to dwindle around the early-mid 40s. At least for me they did. Of course, that ending is accompanied by comments about how you’re missing out, time is running out, etc.
My aunt (a lovely lady, age 90) asked me last year if I shouldn’t have a child, to care for me later. I am in my late 40s, mind you. I responded very politely, because she was genuinely concerned. Other than that, no one mentions it anymore.
+1000000
With the rate of child abuse, child abandonment and sexual abuse by a relative I would think people who want kids should be the ones to make a list as to why they want to have a child and how they will take care and protect said child. However like 80-90% of children are unplanned. Now THAT is scary.
Good point. Maybe the reason why people who choose to have kids don’t get those kinds of questions is because it’s not the majority decision (most people seem to have or want at least one kid at some point) and because not wanting children is sometimes judged as a sign of selfishness or not getting along well with others. But if you think about it, it’s possible for people to choose to have kids for selfish or shallow reasons too.
I really wish they’d stop using mother Theresa as an example of a good childfree person. That sociopath is the last person I want representing me. Horrible, horrible woman.
Right? Shame she’s still held up as an icon.
@Jenns I wholeheartly agree with you, i don’t know why everithing has to be a list, it just is. It is choice so personal i don’t think you can apply a list of reasons and put them on a group of people so diferent with their own life trajectories.
Gawker publishes pretty gross stuff sometimes and Nick Denton seems like a sleaze ball, but Hulk Hogan is SO gross and racist. Neither party should win here, and he definitely shouldn’t be getting $135M or whatever we’re up to now.
No, actually, he totally should win and be getting money.
It does not matter one bit that Hulk Hogan is a sleazy dude. It does not matter that he is a racist. He had his privacy violate in a truly awful way for clicks. I do not want a system where a victim can be denied compensation because they are not a decent person. The victim’s status should not matter. I do not like Hulk Hogan as a person. However, I am also wise enough to get that he was violated in this case and that the offending entity should totally be held responsible for it. I have no doubt this amount will be reduced on appeal, but it’s also totally possible the amount is justified. But Hogan’s nastiness is not an excuse to deny him compensation when a legitimate wrong has been done to him.
Interesting question: what do you think of the theory that this is one huge hustle? I’ve seen folks point out that Hogan knew that Bubba liked to film people in his home, and that Hogan settled with Bubba for just $5K for filming him. Bubba in fact initially testified that Hogan knew about the taping, but ultimately pled the 5th.
Hustle or not, I can’t believe Gawker published any of that tape. A blind person could have seen the consequences coming.
I can certainly see it being a hustle, but how could you prove it? Hogan could easily argue that Bubba is broke and that $5,000 was the best he could do.
And I’m not sure if Bubba’s testimony would have added anything. Even if Hogan knew he was being taped, that doesn’t really negate his claims. There is a vast difference between consenting to taping with the understanding that the tape was for a select few people and Gawker displaying it for viewing by millions of people. When Reddit leaked dozens of celebrity nudes, many of them (from the way I’ve heard them described) were taken by the women themselves, consensually, but obviously for their intimate partners. Consenting to being filmed or photographed in one context doesn’t mean you give consent in another context. Does that make sense? For that line of argument to work, Hogan would have not only needed to have known he was being filmed, but that Bubba would distribute the tape for wide release.
I just don’t see how Gawker could defend itself. Even if they had published a report on the tape’s existence without actually showing it, I think they would have prevailed. But they simply showed too much. There was no newsworthy reason to air the actual tape, in my mind.
Exactly Sam. Gross racist jerk or not Gawker and Nick Denton were wrong.
From what I understand, up until now the owner of said tapes have been able to do what they please with the item – and didn’t Bubba leak the tape to Gawker himself? But the nude pics leak was different anyhow, because those were hacked and essentially stolen. The crux of Hogan’s argument was that he was unaware that he was being taped and had an expectation of privacy, but if he knew he was being taped that made the recording itself legal.
Obviously, as things stand right now, the decision against Gawker is the correct one. Even the sleaziest people have the right to not have a secret sex tape aired online. But I’m just pointing out, there are some interesting theories out there.
Agree with you wholeheartedly.
Yeah, I agree with Sam. It’s not sympathy for Hulk as an individual though- I just think it’s wrong to make someone’s sex tape or nude/sexy photos public to the world without their consent (or an other form of outing private sexual information about people without their permission). The excuse they used to justify it was gross too, basically “If x person is a public figure and has ever publicly talked about their sex life, it’s ok to make actual videos or pics of it public without their consent.”
I still think the amount their being sued for is over the top though.
I read some comments on other websites that he will never get this kind of money and it will be reduced to less than 10 M, if half of that.
Does anyone here know why Myth Busters went off the air? I’m bummed, that show was fun and informative. I thought their finale with comments from astronaut Chris Hadfield, James Cameron, Stephen Colbert, and the President among others, was awesome. He talked about how MB turned out a generation of children interested in science, and that America would benefit so much for it.(paraphrasing) There was video from a woman who saved her and her 9-year-old’s life when their car sunk in the river. They survived because mom remembered a Myth Busters show on escaping sinking cars. MB went 70,000 feet in the air, and re-floated a sunken yacht with ping pong balls. They made a freaking train car implode, and sent a water heater 100+ feet in the air proving they did explode. The proved and disproved some amazing myths. MB epitomized fun and informative.
The official reason was that the hosts signed a contract to do some production work for CBS, and they couldn’t do both at the same time, so they elected to end the show.
Myth Busters was on for a long time. The writing was on the wall when they cut the ‘B’ team from the show, but honestly the viewership simply dwindled (per Adam Savage, at least). And unofficially, I think it was also that Savage and Hyneman were a little tired of working together. They had a good working relationship, but we’re very clearly different personality types.
That truly was a wonderful show. I confess I have not watched it in a long time but I used to watch it all the time.
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson ordered the MB’ers back to work. He didn’t want it ending either. Obama in his speech mentioned 1000 myths explored, 900 explosions, 83 miles of duct tape….These guys built a boat out of duct tape and it worked. They used an entire elementary school with mirrors on a river bank, to see if the ancient Greeks could set enemy ships on fire with them. The whole school got to yell “myth busted” as loud as they could. It was cute watching the kids, all science classes should be like that.
Jamie mentioned that he was constantly asked how to get girls interested in science. His answer for years was “go ask girls.”
I loved Mythbusters! Such a fun, informative show. I did start to lose interest when they cut Kari, Tory, and Grant, the pacing of the episodes felt off and just not the same. I didn’t even watch the last couple, so I will have to go back and check them out at some point.
I’m going to be 30 this year and I’m unmarried and I don’t have any kids. I’m at that point in my life where I’m unsure if I’ll ever actually have kids and have no idea when I’ll settle down, if I ever do at all. I’m still focused on school and my career, though I do believe I’d like to have a family some day.
It’s cool to read articles that are pro being kid-free, but I hate that we live in a society where we need articles like that, as if women and men who choose not to go that route need an explanation made for them. Having kids isn’t for everyone. Sometimes its a choice, sometimes its something that can’t be helped, sometimes life gets in the way. I have a cousin who is up my ass and acts like I’m damaged somehow because I’m not one of those women who lives her life by a timeline, so being 29 and unmarried and child-free makes me a weirdo to her. If articles like that help people change their way of thinking, that would be awesome.
You are perfectly fine doing what you are doing now. Ignore those who feel the need to manage YOUR life. You’ll be pulled one way or the other and finally decide, but the important thing is being happy just being you. (To thine own self be true.)
Do what you feel is right for you. Hard as it can be, try to tune out people like your cousin (it gets easier to ignore them as you get older).
I was married in my early 30s, and have no children (but lots of pets). And, I have no regrets, though I felt a lot of social expectation to marry earlier and have children.
Je suis de tout cœur avec le peuple belge.
I think The Lainey riddle is about Rachel McAdams visiting Argentina in February to see Diogenes Vazquez
I hope if Hulk sees any of that money that he shares some of it with the family of the kid who Nick crashed in his car. Graziano, I think?
…..but is he suing the ‘friend’ who set him up?