Jump to content

Can you be in a traditional relationship without kids?


Recommended Posts

A traditional relationship is what it is, you can’t change the definition because you want the name. But you don’t need to be in a traditional relationship if you don’t desire to. Your relationship can be how you see it, but it won’t be a traditional relationship if it doesn’t fit the traditional relationship criteria, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Traditional to me is the man provides and the woman takes care of the home. Kids are optional.
Short answer, yes. Expectations need to be clear, boundaries are ment to be solid.
Kids don't make or break the concept. One is a homemaker and the other a provider.
Yes. Plenty of people struggle to have ***, or have lost ***, yet still embody the same values and roles, and remain traditional. *** are like the icing on top if two people seek that, and can have them.
Traditional depends on your culture, your core beliefs and values you believe in and follow. As we evolve as a society, the social norms change, what is accepted and expected changes with each generation and society is exposed to various different perspectives of life, religion and cultures so it is nearly impossible to define what is a traditional relationship since we all have experienced different situations so different emotions and feelings are attached to our thoughts, to our beliefs. So no, traditional relationships are not as widely shared, not as common nor the social norms.
Yes. At the can u “the cost” of he will. Trad + dogs and cats = #%^*+[ and the basis of an idea 💡

"Traditional" in itself is very much cherry picking.

Like, traditionally humans are polyamorous and the concept of monogamy is a fairly recent idea.  

Relationship dynamics have also changed a lot over time - largely based around economy and survival.    

What often gets referred to as "traditional" relates to a few years in the 1950s! A very small percentage of time some have hung onto.  In itself, this was part of the 'Boomers' generation.  This was post World War II and it's important to understand that at the time, there was economic prosperity and exciting tech advances - the economy was growing, wages were accelerating and housing prices were affordable.  There was also a lot of job security.  It was perfectly feasible to run a household on a sole income, which in itself lent itself to people being able to stay at home with offspring

Why this is particularly important is that we don't have some of the conditions that makes this as viable.  Like, now we've stagnated wages, spiralling housing costs, not as good job security and fewer people can run a household on a sole income.  This is before we even get into some of the negatives of the aforementioned era and why it didn't last. 

I can't and don't have kids unfortunately but I do have a dog that's basically our child
11 hours ago, GBirdie said:
A traditional relationship is what it is, you can’t change the definition because you want the name. But you don’t need to be in a traditional relationship if you don’t desire to. Your relationship can be how you see it, but it won’t be a traditional relationship if it doesn’t fit the traditional relationship criteria, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Tradition is not fixed... it varies from one country to another, and from one time period to another.
If we think about weddings, for example - the white wedding only became a "tradition" in England, and countries influenced by English culture, following the wedding of Queen Victoria.
In China, traditional wedding dresses are red, the colour of luck.

I have six biological *** and three adopted and it does not take *** to make a traditional relationship that is not what a traditional relationship consists of
Honestly…after having lost two, I don’t know if I would even want to try having kids again.
×
×
  • Create New...