Guys, if a woman doesn't want to have kids, is there any point in ever paying for her or financially supporting her?

[MCheetah]

The whole point that modern people seem to forget in the dating world is that the ONLY reason men pay women money and basically bribe their way into her hearts, is to ensure the future mother of his kids is well taken care of. Like, THAT'S the whole point! Why the man of the house "brings home the bacon" and "puts food on the table." For the family! Especially once she HAS the kids. It's assumed she would stay at home and raise them.

But if a woman doesn't want to have kids, is there any reason to ever buy her anything or pay for anything for her? There will be no future kids, so why would a man even financially support a woman like this?

Should a guy financially support a woman who has made it adamant that she doesn't want and will not have kids?

Now, I personally don't want to get married, and I do not want kids either (I'm short and my genetics are dogsh*t; me conceiving children would be a crime against humanity). But I also never give a woman I'm interested in a dime, either. So this question isn't about me. What do YOU think?

I was going to make this male-only, but assuming no thots or chicken-head women come in here, then girls can weigh in on this issue, too.

I also want people to actually ANSWER the question, so I'm not making it a poll, either.

Updates

1 y

So many good answers here. From:
pjnickles,
hahahmm,
UdontNeedtoknow,
Apple1996,
Jouth.

[pjnickles]

Itend to agree, but wouldn't call things bribes. That's a bit harsh.

Married or not, unless she's a wheelchair bound quadraplegic, who gets disability, which IS money, albeit a paltry sum compared to working, she can work and make her own money.

If kids come along, and she wants to stay home until she can return to work, the man SHOULD finance that. It's the right thing to do.

After that there's day care which should be split equally and she can take her happy ass back to work.

Bottom line... no man should finance a woman unless there's children, and even that has limits. Period. Once they're able to fend for themselves, and day care or supervision isn't needed, which as I said, should be split equally, it's back to work, because kids aren't cheap and it takes TWO incomes.

Any man that would just GIVE money to a woman for nothing, is a fool. Any amount given, as paying for a date, as in buying dinner, movies... whatever, is tantamount to a john/whore relationship. If the relationship escalates to sex, or even a far as marriage, there still no reason, if there aren't any kids, to give her money.

Go get your own damned money! Where is it written that a man has to give money for anything/everything? Turning it around, why would a woman want money for anything/everything? Either work for it, or it's selling your ass, plain and simple. Time is money they say. So my time isn't worth anything? Does that make what time we give each other, supposedly because it has value, a wash? If it's sex, aren't we both getting the same satisfaction out of it, so it's a wash?

The only thing worth money is kids and that should be split equally, unless as I said, there's the first year's where she stays home, daycare after, or a responsible adult after that until they become self sufficient. Go back to work. I'm not an ATM!

[MCheetah]

"Any man that would just GIVE money to a woman for nothing, is a fool."

There's a lot of foolish men nowadays. In current year, we call 'em Simps.

And I 100% agree with you, by the way. If a woman wouldn't talk to me unless I paid for her dinner or some sh*t, then she's a woman who's not good enough for me, to begin with.

Even IF men would have to pay for her, then that means the MAN is the prize! Not her! She would have to convince the MAN to be spending his hard-earned money on her! Whether that be looks, sex, personality, charm, etc. I don't like it, but that's traditionally how things used to go.

Nowadays though, women want to be wined and dined while still thinking they're "strong independent women" and that all they have to do is literally show up. Like a man going to a job interview for a position where he LOSES money! And even after spending the money, he still doesn't "get the job." It's such damn foolishness and then you have absurd mega-cucks like GMANN56 on here thinking they're owed respect by being literal simps and cuckolds. As if you can buy a woman's respect.

Thank you for your words, good sir! Nice to see some men still have their balls in-tact!

[UdontNeedtoknow]

No there isn't. She will just use you as a resource provider and nothing more. 90% of women don't know how to para bond her soul with her partner anymore. I'm sure there are some who are not like this, but they are probably ugly and getting old. So that is the reason why there like that. Show me a attractive woman who will gladly live in poverty with her good and loving husband. Those high quality women don't exist anymore more.

[Apple1996]

A man should only be supporting her if she is at home raising his kids. If no kids then both of them should be working

[OlderAndWiser]

Why do couples stay together beyond the childbearing years?

[Lliam]

I've been in quite a few relationships. I never wanted kids. I never had to "pay" a woman to be in a relationship. All those girls were self sufficient. That includes my wife.

Healthy relationships are equal partnerships.

I suspect you are talking about situations where the man is the main or only bread winner. And you are then characterizing his partner as a kept woman who lives comfortably at the man's expense.
That would be an unusual arrangement if she wasn't cooking, cleaning and taking care of kids, but I guess it would be up to the man to decide if she is worth it. He's happy, and that's all that matters. Maybe the two actually love each other and he makes plenty of money to support his two person family. Why would you automatically assume that she is a cynical gold digger?

Thinking of a relationship as a transaction is fucked up. You get to choose who you want to be with. It's nobody else's business. If you worry that you are being taken advantage of, you are either a poor judge of character and picked the wrong partner or you, yourself, aren't emotionally available. Maybe you don't think you are worthy of being loved. Or maybe you don't even believe that love exists. Everything is just a transaction.

What if two people genuinely like each other? They enjoy each other's company and are best friends. They have common interests and values, and have fun together. They have mutual respect, regard, trust, and even love. They are sexually compatible. They are genuinely dedicated to keeping their relationship happy and healthy. In that case, they are exceedingly lucky to have found each other. So what if one has more income than the other? Is money and materialism all there is to life?

Based on my experience, I believe that the majority of men and women want the same things. The minority who harbor negative stereotypes toward the opposite gender have a sour grapes attitude. They don't want to admit that their own attitudes need adjusting. I, myself, have learned that through painful experience.

[MCheetah]

"I suspect you are talking about situations where the man is the main breadwinner. And you are then characterizing his partner as a kept woman who lives comfortably at the man's expense.
That would be an unusual arrangement if she wasn't cooking, cleaning and taking care of kids. Thinking of a relationship as a transaction is f*cked up."

Welcome to Dating in the Modern World. Specifically, what women want in the Modern Dating World. I already said I don't want marriage or kids, so this has no personal relationship to me. But it IS reality out there for so many men.

[hahahmm]

Men find women valuable. That is what gives them value. I can't agree that if a woman can't have kids she has zero value. But this is a personal decision type thing. That said, obviously if you want to have kids and she does not that's a major problem and then yeah. maybe she has zero value to you.

Ideally... a man would only support a woman who is proven not to be a feminazi. A traditional type woman who believes in team work. But there is no such thing as a woman who doesn't want a man to take care of her to some degree. Even rich women expect the guy they're with who has less money to spend cash on her. If she does not it's because he's a gigilo or otherwise not a quality dude (in terms of relationships) so she has low standards for him. This is also why women prefer to marry/date UP. And if they can't find a social/economic upgrade they get bothered.

Or to put it another way... I don't think you will find a quality relationship with a quality woman that ends up with you paying $0. And if we had a time machine and went back to pre-industrial times, the guy who was the best hunter and brought back the hardest to kill animal would be the guy getting his pick of the women. Not the dude who picks berries with the women and helps them braid their hair. There is some DEEP biological reasons for why things work the way they work that isn't even really about money the way some guys think it is.

That said... again.. I would advise any guy not to spend money on a feminazi or to even take them seriously. Hell, I would not even be casual with one. It's not worth the risk of her making false accusations & railroading you on rape/molestation charges.

[hahahmm]

To put it another way: If a woman DID want to have kids with you but she wouldn't be good in a serious relationship and/or wouldn't make a good mom and/or wouldn't make a good wife then you'd be mistaken to have a baby with her. So there's more factors to consider than whether her womb is fertile and she's eager. Way more. Personally, I find it valuable to have somebody on my team to do various things with as a couple. But sure there's guys who don't value that.

[Avicenna]

I see where you are coming from on this, but it might make sense if you really like or need her companionship or perhaps also if she adds more financially than it costs you (for example, being able to buy a house you wouldn't be able to buy alone). But that also implies a high level of trust.

[Avicenna]

And that isn't exactly what you're talking about here

[MCheetah]

But then that would just be someone being used and exploited by a lazy individual, and society definitely wouldn't tolerate that if it was a woman financially supporting a guy leeching off her. So why should it be acceptable when women do it to men?

[Avicenna]

That's a good point, but here's the thing- society's opinion is really irrelevant here (although I think society would have a negative view of a woman doing it as well). It's up to the individual to determine what's acceptable to them. And maybe having her around for companionship and regular sex is important enough for him even though she's likely to dump him for someone else when he is no longer useful. Or maybe he'll grow tired of it too.

[Avicenna]

I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with a woman who has no interest in having at least one kid with me.

[Dinklex3]

Each couple is different with their own preferences.
Some people want a house wife. They just want their wife to cook and clean. & That works for them
They are your partner. There's more to the equation than "you don't want kids, I'm not going to pay for anything". So many more factors play into a relationship, it's not just black and white.

I've said this before, but i wouldn't mind a house husband. Having a nice meal set for me, cleaning, and having a gym buddy. I don't plan on having kids either.

[MCheetah]

Yes, but there's a difference between being a homemaker and helping to raise kids and just sitting on your ass and being cared to like a child yourself. Unless someone had severe physical or mental handicaps, I don't see why it would be socially acceptable for another grown adult to care after them like they're a toddler? I argue this against a woman taking care of a man as well, but considering how extremely rare that is and how very few women would ever do this for a man, it's not that applicable. 99% of the time, it's a man simping to a lazy woman, and for some reason, many people don't see anything wrong with this.

[Dinklex3]

There is a difference.
Just because someone doesn't work a job doesn't mean they are sitting on their asses all day. & Just because someone is offering financial support doesn't mean they're taking care of the person like a toddler?
Usually the ones at home are the ones cooking and cleaning for the ones out at work. Toddlers don't do that.
Usually when people are stay at home wives or husbands they go out as well instead of just sit on their ass and watch tv all day like you seem to think.
Cooking can take 6-8 hours (I only cook big meals on my days off because it takes so long to cook).
On my days off I'll bring my s. o's breakfast, lunch, or whatever else they want.
A co-worker's wife used to always come to work to have lunch with him. She was turkish and would always cook for us as well and bring us snacks.
A lot of the stay at home spouses cook, clean, and get involved with the community. They also use their time to work out with or without their partners to stay in shape and be healthy.
There are other ways to support someone other than just money. And not having a job doesn't automatically equate to them as lazy. There is more to the world and relationships than just finances.
Just because someone would do something you wouldn't do for your partner doesn't mean they're "simping".
We all have different preferences, belifs, religions, cultures.
Its pretty close minded to think that way.

[MCheetah]

"Usually the ones at home are the ones cooking and cleaning for the ones out at work."

No. I'm saying they AREN'T doing that. It would make more sense if they were doing that, as it's basically stay-at-home mom work. Also, how long does it take to cook and clean? Like two hours at the most? No one is spending 8 hours a day cooking, every day. That doesn't justify being a womanchild. If they want to do that, they might as well live with their parents and cook and clean for THEM.

"A lot of the stay at home spouses cook, clean, and get involved with the community."

I'm going to have to "Press X to Doubt" on that one. You just can be fine with it all you want, but I just can't respect someone who is that lazy. It sounds like the most Millennial thing ever. Like someone saying "Adulting is hard!" And like I pointed out, almost no man could get away with this. It's an unfair advantage for women to be able to be this lazy and selfish, while also being able to work a job and be independent if they want, or being a hybrid of both. But a man pretty much HAS to work, and if he was a lazy bum like this, would be raked across the coals by the community and his girlfriend's family (and rightfully so). If we live in a gender-equal society, women shouldn't be able to be leeches and exploit men like this, especially when no one would accept a man being just as lecherous.

Being a "stay at home wife/husband" only makes sense if there's actual children involved. Otherwise, it's sheer laziness and being a womanchild.

[Dinklex3]

You asked why someone would like a stay at home spouse and MY THOUGHTS on the matter correct?
I provided you with reasons why and what I continue to see.
Plenty DO cook and clean while the other is working and that is one reason why people don't mind stay at home spouses.

Cooking definitely can take a while especiially if you're on a specific diet. And as I said before people bring their spouses lunch and eat with them.

As for your last remark cooking, cleaning, and being involved with the community isn't lazy. I dont know why you continue to say this.
You appear to be very closed minded, only believing what you want to believe as hard facts regardless of others input. You appear to be a bit hateful towards women as well.
I gave you plenty of situations on why people don't mind having a stay at home spouse and you just continue to call them lazy regardless of what their doing and how they're contributing just because they aren't making money.
"Adulting is hard" people say that all the time. Including men AND myself. We say that when we're stressed and WANT to be lazy, but can't. Why? Because that's life and being an adult.
People who have stay at home spouses CHOSE to be in a relationship like that. Both men and women. So why are you blaming women and branding them as leeches when that couple CHOSE that life style TOGETHER. As I've said before everyone is different and we all have different beliefs, preferences, religions, and cultures.
If that is how certain people want to live and if that specific couple has more traditiinal values then let then be? How does that affect you? If you don't want a stay at home spouse then don't get one. Why shame others for not having the same views as you and call them "lazy"?

[Dinklex3]

You guys rant about "gender-equal" society on this site as if everyone has to think and act the same way and don't have the FREEDOM to chose to be more traditional or have preferences based on their culture or religion. "Gender-equlity" doesn't mean all men and women have to think the same way and have a relationship that YOU think they should have. Google it since you clearly don't know what it means.
Classic GAG I guess.
Have a good nig

[MCheetah]

Not agreeing with you and capitulating to you doesn't make one "closed minded," ironically enough. But sure; think what you want to think.

I also never stated anything as "hard facts." I rightfully gave my opinion on that matter that it IS lazy, because that's what I choose to believe. You not changing my mind or agreeing with you doesn't matter or not. It's not like I can't change my mind on the matter, but your arguments of basically "cause they feel like it" aren't doing it.

And if you don't like my opinions on things (cause that's all you're ranting about; me not agreeing with you) and have to resort to name calling and insulting me because I don't think men (or women) should have to raise an adult like they're a child, then kindly piss off.

[Dinklex3]

It has absolutely nothing to do with you "agreeing" with me.
Instead of taking my opinion how it is when i provided you with situations on what people are doing and why it appeals to them you basically say "no. Doesn't happen"
Lol. & Chosing not to acknowledge different cultures, religions on WHY some are doing this. You just say "nope they're lazy" or "They're simps".
You don't think that's close minded?
I say you appear hateful based on your little snide comment of "thots" and "chicken heads"

There is nothing to "agree" with me on as I was informing you on how it can appeal to others and why they do it since that was your question.

[sunflower00]

Questions like these confuse me because I really don’t know anyone in situations where their husband pays for everything for them, I don't know if it’s where I live or something. You shouldn’t really ‘pay’ someone to have your kids, or not spend a single penny on them because they won’t be having kids either. I think it’s fine to take each other out on dates and buy things for each other if you love each other, but not a one sided thing

[MCheetah]

Lots of people, including some in this post, think there's nothing wrong with it being a "one-sided thing, and that "love means having to pay up, sucker."

[sunflower00]

Another thing I’m shocked about is the way that a lot of people leaving opinions here seem to think the only thing a woman brings to a relationship is having kids, and if she isn’t going to have kids then she’s ‘basically just a roommate’ - they must have some pretty sad and lifeless relationships and I do feel bad for them. I think in most situations the man is usually the main provider in a relationship if the woman is staying at home to look after the kids, cook, clean, etc. and I guess the same could work if she was just cooking and cleaning without the kids part but I don’t know why anyone would do that, because you would get extremely bored and it’s nice to have financial independence and not rely on others for money. However, I don’t mean this to come across bad, but it seems like you’ve maybe had some negative experience as I’ve noticed in a lot of your replies here you seem quite angry and have the opinion that almost all women are gold diggers and lazy which isn’t the case at all. Of course you get men and women who are lazy, don’t have a job and leech off their partner but this isn’t how the majority of relationships work and I don’t think you should worry about it too much

[MCheetah]

No. I am just annoyed by the double standards that so many people find it acceptable to have someone leech off another working adult and will use and exploit them, when they are perfectly capable of working themselves. If it is an arrangement agreed upon by the two people dating each other, that is fine.

But I'm more so talking about women who expect men to "cater to them" and "pamper them," as so many women expect me to do nowadays. And this "paying the woman in the relationship" dynamic only comes from motherhood, back when most women didn't work and stayed at home to raise the kids. But we don't live in that era anymore, yet many women still want to be financially catered to, which is what a gold digger or sugar baby is, but will get offended when you call them that (even though that is literally what they are doing to these men).

And when the genders are reversed and a woman is working all day, just to have some lazy guy leech off her hard work, everyone sees it as a bad thing (and I agree it is). But not when a woman does it to men, for whatever stupid reasons they have. And I hate double standards like that.

[sunflower00]

It’s a bad thing either way, whether it’s a gold digging lazy woman or man it sucks. It’s super annoying and unfair. Both should work and earn money in my opinion and that’s how my current situation is, and it works great

[MrCall]

? What about the pleasure of her company and joy she will bring to you?
I mean, what kind of jerk would make his wife work just to pay the bills, not because she wants to? I mean, man, you take care of your own people. That is called "self respect". Other than kids, a woman can make you shine and bring you joy and comfort when you come after a long day.
If it is dating, you have no obligation to help her out in like paying bills or debt or the like. You just follow your own heart

[MCheetah]

Why do some people think "love" means being a simp? I mean, what kind of person work respect would happily be someone else's slave just in the name of so-called "love?" As if you can't love someone without being their paypig and allowing them to be lazy and financially leeching off you when they're perfectly able to work and there's no kids involved for them to stay at home for. I mean, I know you're young and all and may not even have your own place you pay rent at yet, but no, there is no "respect" in being used by someone who doesn't want to be independent and exploits you (most likely out of laziness). Also, that fairy tale idea of "love" you speak of, doesn't exist.

[annabananna]

I thought about this and I honestly can’t think of a reason why you would. If you don’t have kids than there is no reason for you not to be serious about your career as a woman so you should be able to make your own money.

[annabananna]

I don’t have a chicken head but I do currently have more grey matter due to pregnancy so there could also be something I’m not thinking of that could make there be a reason.

[MCheetah]

Some women don't like the idea of independence. They just want to be sugar babies, but without the social stigma that comes from being lazy and exploitative. (And I guess, a tiny percentage of men out there might exist who are the same way, but it'll be a lot more rare.)

[sirderpsalot123]

I don't think so. I can feed myself, clean, and the same way she's offering her body (some women love to use that) I'm also offering mine. Birthing a child is the only I can't do. If she gives a man a child, taking care of her is the same thing as taking care of the child.

[exitseven]

Everyone had different ideas about life. Kids are a huge responsibility. They take time and energy and boatloads of cash. Many couples decide not to have kids and instead go on nice vacations and drive expensive cars.
I knew a few guys that did not have kids. One guy told me he was too selfish. I think he made the right decision.
Everyone has a different idea about marriage too. Just because one person does not work doesn't mean that they do not bring a lot into the partnership.

[MCheetah]

"Just because one person does not work doesn't mean that they do not bring a lot into the partnership."

That's possible but seems less likely in real life. Like yeah, maybe if one of them was handicapped and all and couldn't work. But then what would they be doing at home all day, then? Also, handicapped people can work from home and be self sufficient, so even that example doesn't really work.

As Lliam said on this page, relationships are supposed to be mutual partnerships. And like I said, the only reason a man logically would support a woman as if she's a child herself, is so she can stay at home and watch the kids. If there's no kids in the equation, what logical reason would a man (or even a woman) have in basically being someone's caretaker? That isn't an equal "partnership."

This question has seemed to upset pathetic simps and losers, apparently.

[Adam1978]

I don't get why those women should be anything else than friends. Unless you also don't want kids. But if that's the case is a relationship really worth all the hazzle?

[Drumlin2001]

I would date someone who dosent want kids, as long as they accepted my 2. But they would need to support themselves. I'm not going to pay for them to have a free ride

[worldscolide]

Short answer, absolutely not. All she is at that point is a roommate you occasionally have sex with if you're lucky.

[northerngal]

Inn my opinion if a marriage fails and there are no kids the proceeds of the marriage should be divided and everyone goes there separate ways. End of story.

[hahahmm]

Okay but in real life usually the person with the most money ends up losing 60% of their wealth in divorce and in 99% of cases that person is the husband, So for men... the math works out very differently! Ha ha.

[northerngal]

@hahahmm You are living in the past. Times are changing. Women are becoming breadwinners more and more. I have a good friend who is a family attorney and i would argue that those numbers you mention are in the process of changing.

[hahahmm]

The latest often quoted study is from 2015 and says that 70% of divorces are started by women when the woman isn't college educated. 99% of she is college educated. Numbers won't change that much in a few years unless you think 100% of females who graduated with high income potential careers got married in the last 6 years and divorced and are now paying the man. Not buying it.

But I'd be all for more of the women who earn money having to pay alimony, child support and every other dime that can be vacuumed out of their purses cause it will never equal the mountain of money men have paid women through tax funded programs, alimony, child support and the like.

[northerngal]

@hahahmm You know people who hold grudges and stay angry over some perceived injustice... or even real injustice only end up hurting themselves in the long run. Best to let things go after a while.

[hahahmm]

Excellent advice to the feminists who have declared war on men because it's not going to end the way that they expect. More and more men are waking up to the reality of the world these women and their simp male supporters have created.

[RandomGuy1030]

Women dont date men who make less. I saw one study that showed women who do do that have it twice as hard when it comes to getting an orgasm

[hahahmm]

@RandomGuy1030 Right. There's also a study that found that women are happiest when the man they are with is unhappy & they're unhappy when he's happy. If a guy wants to imagine that women are the same as dudes he better not look into that too deep tho...

[RandomGuy1030]

@hahahmm that explains nicely why so many players are depressed looking

[RandomGuy1030]

And why, in my opinion, a look of sadness is the most alluring look a guy can have. So much so women make pouting faces thinking men find it alluring

[Twalli]

I think men should always be able to pay, yet not be expected to pay. I don't intend to have kids, but I do plan to get married. FYI, I am shorter than you so hearing you say you're short is kind of hollow to me. The genetics thing is true for me too. I have no problem raising kids, but I wouldn't wish my genetic issues on my worst enemy. The idea that men paid for everything was because women owned nothing. They were their dd's father's property and then their husband literally bought them.

[Jouth]

there's never any point in supporting a woman.

What are you? Her fucking Dad?

[MCheetah]

Well, simp men apparently think it's "misogynist" not to financially support a childless adult, I've learned.

[Jouth]

you're learning now?

Good job

[front2back]

If a woman doesn't want kids, is there a point to her being a woman then? Even adopted ones?

Might as well date a female android at that point, same experience.

[SnakeBoop]

Not every man wants kids either, so while its important to you, it doesn't mean its the be all and end all in life.

[admles]

If she isn't staying home looking after the kids, then she better have a job.