PRIORITY #1
 

If you had to make a list of priorities in your life, would it follow A or B?

A:
Spouse/Marriage = #1 Priority
Children = #2 Priority

B:
Children = #1 Priority
Spouse/Marriage = #2 Priority

If you have neither spouse, child, or both: PRETEND. If neither would be priority #1 or #2 (and you put Cocaine as #1 or some stupid shit), where would these positions fall on the priority ladder?

Spouse/Marriage/Relationship is a clear #1.

Career/Financial Stability is #2.

Health is #3.

Children are a distant #4, as I believe a couple shouldn't bring children into this world unless they are in a stable period within their lives. If the first three aren't in order, then the presence of children will only cause the infrastructure to degrade further and this can be quite detrimental to a child's development. This planet is already overpopulated. There's no sense in being reckless with pregnancy.

Nnnnnn ;_;

You can only chose between "spouse/marriage" and "children." It's the entire point of the thread!

It is about the conflict of the two! IE:

"If your wife/husband and children were tied up on two different tracks and a train is about to come on both tracks, who do you save? (YOU CANNOT SAVE BOTH)" kind of situation

'Cause, see, I put Children first and Marriage/Spouse as a close second. I would never want to CHOSE, but if I HAD to.

It's supposed to be controversial, jeez.

I would definitely be the person to choose my spouse over my children (if I had any). Maybe it's because I haven't had children yet and I don't know the uh, joy, you get from having them, but I would care more about the person that I want to spend the rest of my life with. I would guess that people who HAVE children would be more inclined to prioritze their children first. Like I'm sure my parents would pick me and my sister over eachother.

If that's the case, then I'd choose my children. It's a situation in which my spouse would understand. Also, the children would have their whole lives and futures ahead, whereas my wife, perhaps no longer as much.

ChildREN implies more than one. You're unfairly influencing things Sasuuu

My dad always set an example of putting my mom before any of us kids. That might sound bad to some, but it's always made sense to me. So I'd probably put my wife before my children. As painful as being forced to choose would be, it's hard to say, and she may ask me to do the opposite... but in general, I'd put her first.

I think every GOOD parent will choose the safety of their offsprings over their couple or even their own life.

I'll save my children first. In this situation, even my wife will do the same if she is in my position (and if she refuses, she'll do it forcefully under my command). I'll understand it, and I'm sure she will too.

I think it's pretty fucked up these two priorities would conflict in the first place. What kind of a life situation can you think of where I'd have to place my children above my wife?

I guess, what I mean to say, those two shouldn't be distinct: the first priority in my life is my family. When I get married, or have children, my family is just going to grow larger.

You'd be very surprised. Of course, not a matter of life or death, but more of "which relationship would I rather fuck up."

And in an ideal world, I would be a smart, hot bitch! I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not.

I don't get this shit where people say "I'd put my wife/husband first." Are you people on crack? You brought your kids into this world. You're responsible for their very lives. I mean, even from a practical and non-emotional stance, it makes more sense.

Which relationship would I rather fuck up?

In that case, I'd worry more about my children than my wife. I'm not so sure this thread makes too much sense, Sass. :\

Or at least you're not too clear on your objectives.

What's so hard about this?

If you had to chose between your spouse and your kid(s), which would you chose?

((Zeph and I were arguing about it a few days ago, and I got the impression that I was batshit insane because I will always chose my kids over my spouse. My children would be my Priority #1, in lieu of my husband))

Yeah, I'd definitely choose my children over my spouse. I'm not sure what sort of people wouldn't, that's pretty insane. Your children need guidance whereas your spouse is (or should be) an adult.

Andrea Yates comes to mind with her famous act of filicide. Her husband has still got her back despite what she did.

It was one of the few stories that ever made my blood boil. I would have murdered her in a very, very, very slow fashion. Screw calling the cops, I would have lost it.

Eliminating any emotion from the decision, the best course of action would be to save your spouse if he/she is still of childbearing age. You can always make more kids, but you might have a hard time finding another spouse.

That said, I'd pick my children, because as someone already said, my spouse has already lived a fair amount of time, but my kids have their whole lives ahead of them.

I mean, in all honesty my list of priorities would go as follows:

1) My children (they carry on your name)
2) Myself (if my children die, I can always make more to carry on my name)
3) My wife

I think you unfairly altered the context a small bit, Sass. This isn't about a life or death situation. In MOST cases, if you had to choose between saving your spouse or your children, you spouse would probably TELL you to save the children rather than him/her. Thus clearing your conscience of any emotional choice at that very moment.



My point was that in a lasting relationship, who would you put more priority into loving?

YES I KNOW this isn't a perfect world. Most people end up hating their spouses, and most children end up hating their parents.
I just find it really fucking stupid that a lot of people will make their relationship with their spouse/significant other work for a while, and then when they have kids, the abandon the idea of supporting their relationship with their partner and focus only on the kids.

I just think that if you work at having a healthy relationship with your partner, then the kids will only benefit from that. Children are only a reflection of the parenting put into them and an example of what their parents were like (in most cases, I think). If you have a divorce and an unhappy love life, guess what your child is likely to end up with? (statistics say!) And I honestly am more concerned with that than raising them till they're 18 or so.

Seriously, you're supposed to spend the rest of your life with your mate, but a child is supposed to grow up and leave and live on their own. I'd honestly rather put more priority into the relationship I know is going to/supposed to last longer.

I only dramatized the scenario to emphasize the point. But I wanted to see what people had to say on the idea anyhow.

And really, would you chose any differently? I know I wouldn't.

I'm pretty sure that I should love my children for all eternity and unconditionally, not my spouse.

My spouse, sadly, will never get "unconditional love" from me. Unconditional love is blind, and it can destroy you and potentially your children.

My children are the product of me and my spouse. I would hope that I wouldn't bring children into the world without loving my spouse, but love between two adults can die, it can be violated, it can be tarnished.

A mother's love for her children is not like the love for her spouse. I believe that the bond between mother and child never dies - unlike romantic love (which may).

ADDITIONALLY, I think the mutual love for the children my spouse and I create will cause a kind of "whats best for the children" situation. I would never marry a man who would put me before our children. It's not right.

My priority is in loving everyone. It's not like I have a limitation on "how many people can I love in life?" I can love as many as I want, as much as I want to.

I understand your point about people just giving up on a relationship after being married and having kids. I think it's fucked up, and I see it a lot. But that's not a question of prioritizing, I think. I think it's a question of effort on the married couple.

I think that's a kind of tunnel vision. Out of the welfare of the children, I think it's best to always make a fucking effort to keep your marriage alive. Love your family as much and as frequently as you can. Don't put your spouse in the shadows once the kids have arrived. All the more reason to work together as a family unit.

No marriage/relationship is perfect, and as I AM SURE YOU KNOW, marriages don't come easy. You have to work at it to be good at it. You can't just leave your marriage on a shelf and expect it to grow and become strong.

You don't think, though, that in a normal family situation, the better the relationship with your partner, the more of a positive influence on the kids it is?

I simply feel that a lot of people yearn to care more for their children once their spousal situation dissolves because unlike their spouse, they can somehow discipline their child into loving them.

I'm not advocating fucking child neglect, but there's a fucking issue of commitment. If you can't commit to your spouse, why should it be any different for a little person who's only a product of your loins? A person who will probably end up learning to be just as noncommital as yourself?

Depends on how much you're willing to pretend.

Are you going to hide petty arguments from the kids? Are you going to raise them to think that marriages are candy and lollipops? Or that sometimes, people have conflicts, and that they should learn to confront them like adults?

(Not to say children should be told this, but children often emulate what they saw in their childhood later on in life)

I don't think a saccharine marriage is healthy to show the kids. I think there needs to be balance.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Can you explain?
Committal should be in the "marriage" part, as far as a couple is concerned.

You're not advocating child neglect and I'm not advocating spousal neglect. There's a happy balance in there somewhere, and like all things in life, you should strive for the balance. I am sure we agree there.

But if it came down to "who should get the higher priority in being loved," I stand by my children.

If I want to see them grow up as well-rounded, competent, contributing members of society, I have to ensure their health, education, love, and discipline. It is my responsibility as a mother. Once I have that child, I am committed for life. Children are not wedding vows, and they are not up for argument: they exist, they're there, and you can't ignore them. My children are the biggest responsibilities in my life, and I have to take that seriously. My spouse is a part of it, but he is not my life-long responsibility.

My spouse? I am not responsible for his actions. I am responsible for seeing to it that he gets what he needs from me, and that I always help him if/when he needs help. My duty as a wife is to be his other half - and for him to be mine. We're a team - we're a unit.

And as the "team leaders," I expect our priority would be the same if we had children: raise the kids to the absolute best of your ability. If a captain should fall by the wayside, you do your best to get him up and on his feet again - but sometimes, you've got to let the dead lie.

I think you and I are just fundamentally different: my goal in life is to produce wonderful children and watch them grow, standing beside my husband. I would hope that we'll both be proud of our MUTUAL accomplishment.

Maybe this thread should be one of Divest's "Shitty Situation" threads, because yeah, I guess I agree there shouldn't have to be a situation where you would have to divide the love/commitment you have for your kids.

Now if a spouse abandon's that love or betrays it, that's their choice. A BAD choice, however, in most situations. Also, if a child abandons his/her parent's love and commitment, it's the same thing. Maybe they can't get away from it till their legally able to, or they run away, but it's still also their choice.

But I guess if nobody is trying to pry themselves away from you, you shouldn't have to prioritize.

I still stand that the healthier a marriage, the healthier the growing environment is for the child.

I agree with this. Can you believe it?

I just don't think your priority should be your relationship with your spouse over the relationship with your kids. Opens to the door to all sorts of nasties.

#1 Health
#2 Financial Independence
#3 Relationships, Marriage
#4 Children

Hey! Ever wondered what the inherent flaw in your personality is?

Definitely Spouse over children.

You can always have more kids right? :D

But seriously, I will consider my spouse a part of myself, and In a situation such as you describe, I'm afraid id rather die than loose my spouse. Having had a parent pass away at a young age, I am of the opinion that our family as a whole, would be better off if one of us kids would have died rather than one of our parents.

This of course greatly depends on what the relationship with my spouse is like. But assuming all things being equal (as in I absolutely love everyone of them) I would choose my spouse.

Unfortunately, in this situation, if you
(1) save your wife/husband, he/she will
(1)(a) hate you forever for not saving the children instead
(1)(b) become depressed over losing the children and jump in front of a train

(2) save your children, they will
(2)(a) be guild-ridden and emo for the rest of their lives for indirectly being the cause of their parent's death
(2)(b) jump in front of a train to reunite with their dead parent, because they never loved you anyway

The best solution is obviously to lie down together with them.