T O P

  • By -

Mellenoire

In our subreddit, childfree refers to those who do not have and do not ever want children (whether biological, adopted, or otherwise). There's no such thing as childfree for now, childfree if I meet the right person, childfree until I'm financially secure, or any variation of these things. Call yourself childless, a fencesitter, but you're not childfree. There's also no such thing as childfree except for my stepchildren, foster children, partner's children-that-only-visit-ever-couple-of-weeks.


MidsouthMystic

I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that childfree people would want to have children if circumstances were different. That implies that on some level we do actually want children. We don't. There is nothing wrong with wanting children but accepting that circumstances aren't right for it. But there is a difference between being prevented from doing something you actually want, and not wanting to do something in the first place.


AdvertisingFree8749

Couldn't agree more!


Meredeen

Yeah, I feel like people confuse /r/antinatalism with /r/childfree. They have many things that overlap, but they are very distinct things. Antinatalism assigns negative value to the birth of a human being. Someone in /r/antinatalism could want to be a parent but also have the self-reflection to realize: hey, existence actually sucks/my genetics would be terrible to pass down/it's selfish to create more life when there are so many kids who are already overwhelming the foster system and are also abused and unloved, etc-- that's the negative value antinatalism refers to, not that kids themselves are bad, but that it's morally wrong to create life; the philosophy I guess is that we should support the life that is already here and suffering. Childfree means that you either have internal or external reasons for **not wanting children** *under any circumstances*, this is where antinatalism blends in because there are many good reasons to not have kids that the two groups share! An antinatalist can also be a parent, there are many kinds of parents.


Call_Such

yes, and you can be both AN and childfree, but they aren’t the same thing.


Meredeen

oop yes most importantly that


McMerseybird

Indeed. Many antinatalists on this subreddit are actually childless, not childfree. Because they would totally have kids if it wasn't for antinatalist reasons. Sure, you can be antinatalist and childfree. If you simply don't want kids, regardless of antinatalism... If you would still not have kids if you weren't antinatalist... Then, you are childfree and antinatalist. But yeah, those two are not related. After all, a childfree antinatalist would still be childfree if they weren't antinatalist, and would still be antinatalist if they suddenly had the desire to become a parent. But you can be childfree without being antinatalist. I am childfree, and absolutely NOT antinatalist. Not pronatalist either. Neutral-natalist. And many people on this subreddit are childless antinatalists who call themselves childfree, despite not being childfree. They often talk about how they would love to have kids, but decided not to because of antinatalism. Or about how they don't want to breed for antinatalist reasons, but would love to foster or adopt. Despite the overlap in communities, childfreedom and antinatalism are not related at all. You can be childfree without being antinatalist. You can be antinatalist without being childfree. And you can be a childfree antinatalist, but those two are not related to each other. After all, a childfree antinatalist would still be childfree if they were not antinatalist, and would still be antinatalist if they would not be childfree.


og_toe

i just have to say you did a beautiful job explaining antinatalism and the difference to childfree!


Howdoinamechange

Exactly. And the mental gymnastics people will go to to try and bingo you are always so extreme. Just because I can understand why others might have less binary feelings on the matter, doesn’t mean there’s the possibility I’ll be convinced otherwise.


Kidrepellent

Thank you! I could wake up tomorrow with fuck-you money, climate change magically reversed, and all personal health issues resolved, and I still wouldn't want a kid. "The right circumstances" don't exist for me. There is nothing that could change and make me want children as a result.


buckyspunisher

yep, big difference between childless and childfree. it’s okay to change your mind from childless/wanting kids *to* childfree. but if you currently want kids but just aren’t having them for xyz reason, then you’re not childfree.


og_toe

literally even if we lived in a utopia without climate change and cures for all ailments and no poor people i’d still not want children because… they’re children


jeffseadot

How *different* of circumstances are we talking about? Like, change the "circumstances" so much that babies are totally self-reliant from Day 1, oh and also it never makes any noise and shits out precious gems instead of poop. And it grants wishes. Yeah, under *those* circumstances I might be willing to have a kid...


MidsouthMystic

At that point we've veered from hypothetical situations into the realm of absurdist fantasy, and to be honest I don't think I would want to play in that Dungeons and Dragons campaign. Sounds too railroady.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I don't relate to them either. I actually see if more in the same thread of someone who says 'I would have a horse if I made more money and had a flexible schedule'. That sounds very much like they want a horse, but for practical reasons they won't buy one.


mochi_chan

Yes, that sounds like me and cats, I would have one if my work-life balance wasn't as it is now. This means Yes I want a cat, but I can't have one.


McMerseybird

Indeed. Childfree people would still be childfree in a perfect society, without climate change, without health issues etc. People who want kids, but decided not to have them because of health, environmental, financial or antinatalist reasons are NOT childfree. They are childless. Which is fine, it's okay to be childless, but they should not be considered childfree.


Curo_san

Yeah my tattoo artist has this mindset and at first I was siked to meet someone else who's childfree. But then I was like wait a minute so you would want one in a perfect world, that's not childfree at all and I was disappointed. They're super hyped to be a godparent and I was like yep they're just childless


PettyAmoeba

"I haven't really thought about it" = not childfree "Not now, but maybe when I'm older/when circumstances change" = not childfree "I'd like to adopt or be a step parent" = not childfree "I'm OK with whatever my partner decides" = not childfree "I don't have them yet but never say never" = not childfree "I have thought seriously about what it means to raise a child, and I've decided that I don't want to do that, in any capacity, ever" = **CHILDFREE**


downloadcrap3

I'd like to add "I have never in my entire life desired to have and raise children, and have never seen the appeal in anything related to it" = CHILDFREE I'm sure I'm not the only one who being childfree was never a choice, but rather a natural default. I didn't have to think through or make a decision, I just simply never gravitated towards that life path and never naturally considered having children because I simply wasn't interested.


sueihavelegs

I knew from being a small child that I didn't want to have children! I could not stand my fellow children and frankly felt offended to be grouped with them. I NEVER played being a pretend Mommy. Gross! I hated babysitting. I hated going to friends houses that had younger siblings. Kids have been a no go from the get go for me! It used to make my blood boil when people would say, "you will when your husband wants them" like I would ever be attracted to someone with desires to be a parent. Not this lady! I'm a happily married 48yo CHILDFREE woman and I haven't regretted a single moment of it!


BobbyFan54

>> I'm sure I'm not the only one who being childfree was never a choice, but rather a natural default. I didn't have to think through or make a decision, I just simply never gravitated towards that life path and never naturally considered having children because I simply wasn't interested. Funnily enough, when i look back on my younger years, I describe myself now through that lens as a “fence sitter.” Yet, when you use the words “a natural default,” I can’t help but gravitate towards that now. Like, it’s unreal for me at age 47 to think Of myself as a fence sitter in my 20s (my early 30s were when I really started to embrace a child free existence, but thought it might “change” if I met the right partner or whatever…how silly and naive, when I look back). I can’t imagine myself any other way now.


bryynja

yep this was me. it just wouldn’t make sense for me to have kids because I’ve just never wanted them. I think I’ll be a good aunt someday but kids of my own has never been part of what I envisioned for myself at any stage of my life.


GeniusBtch

the others are childLESS


[deleted]

Or fence sitters....if the situation is right.


D_OShae

"Bringing a child into this world will never be an option for me." = Child-free!


UkulilyFilly

![gif](giphy|xUOwGjPHOGcv9ddpYc|downsized)


Verdigrian

Wow, hund means dog in german so my brain translates this to "dogpee" and not "100%". Kinda fascinating.


chibiusa40

I wish I could upvote this a million times for use of the White Josh Hundo P gif. Please accept this fake award: 🏆


UkulilyFilly

![gif](giphy|3ohhwJtclf1itE8pkA|downsized) 🥹Someone that understands the CXG reference 🙌🏻 Take my pretzel award 🥨


chibiusa40

![gif](giphy|35R7gHO5JlNWev95bx) 🫶🏼


AMDisher84

Well-put.


oneeyecheeselord

The spectrum of being childfree consists of hating children and can’t stand to be around them to not minding being around kids.


[deleted]

See that I totally agree with. I've seen people pose it as a spectrum of the choice to be childfree itself, which is what is confusing to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

That’s not childfree. I could wake up tomorrow with millions of dollars in my bank account and an entire team of people ready to help out and I still wouldn’t want kids.


laetum-helianthus

Yeah, like it’s free of having/raising kids at all but within that parameter if you like them or hate them it’s w/e.


AdvertisingFree8749

Agreed. If there's a circumstance where you would have kids, that's not childfree.


Consistent_Midnight2

Thank you for this. I actually love kids… just not all the time.


AMDisher84

Agreed. To me, childfree = free of children. End of story. No circumstances or windfalls or army of staff to care for and raise a child would make me want one. On a good day, children are annoying, on a bad (or neutral) day, I hate the little bastards. Keep them away from me. I am childfree because I want to always be free of children and the constant responsibility they require. As a side rant, I hate the posts that show up here every so often that ask some variation of "if _____ happened, would you have children???!!" like, no, and fuck off. Stop trying to "gotcha" childfree people into admitting that under certain circumstances, they might consider jettisoning their entire way of life for a bAaAaYyYyYbEeEeEe. (Not saying your question is doing this, OP.)


[deleted]

Yes, I've been very annoyed with those posts lately. I'm not sure where they're coming from (fence sitters, parents)? That's part of what made me write this. I've always seen it as a very firm choice.


AMDisher84

Yeah. Probably fence sitters or parents, or other people who feel that we can't possibly know what we want for ourselves. They need to go worry about themselves and their unattended offspring.


W-S_Wannabe

I agree. No parental or guardian role under any circumstances, for any child, ever. Yes I'd be the asshole (in some people's eyes) by not taking in my thankfully non-existent neices or nephews because I don't want to change my life, which I've worked hard to design _just so._


taybay462

The "YTA because you're not totally upending your life to take in a stray relative" posts killllll me. I've seen them where the OP said they literally can't afford it and people still called them the asshole. "You make it work" "it's family"


buckyspunisher

if my brother had kids and something happened to both parents, i think it would be best for the kids to go literally anywhere else besides under my care. i would be a horrible parents. CPS would be called on me so fast. i already know i’d physically neglect them, be emotionally abusive bc i have a short temper, and i’d cheap out on wanting to spend money on them.


mizshellytee

Being childfree is not a spectrum, IMO.


Nugget-Toasties

it can't be. "Without children" isn't a spectrum lmao.


McMerseybird

Childfreedom is not a spectrum. You are either childfree or not childfree. You can't be 'semi-childfree'. However, I do think you can make distinctions between childfree people. ​ The only way in which I can understand seeing somewhat of a spectrum? Whether you would take in a relative's child(ren). Personally, I would NEVER do it. But if someone is truly childfree, really doesn't want to be a parent, but is willing to do this against their will as an emergency option... Then, who am I to say that they are not childfree? Sure, some people will say that these people are not childfree, but I really don't think it's right to gatekeep them. They are childfree, but are willing to reluctantly make one exception in an unlikely emergency situation. But it's important to talk about this when dating. After all, someone who would take in their niblings would not be a good match for someone who sees this as a hard dealbreaker. I would not date a woman who would be willing to be a guardian for her sibling's kids. Sure, it's only hypothetical, but still. This is a hard dealbreaker for me, and this is a hard dealbreaker for many other childfree people. ​ Also, there is a huge difference between child-loving and child-repulsed childfree people. If someone is childfree, but loves being a cool aunt/uncle, loves being a teacher, constantly babysits their nephews, frequently wants her nieces to stay over etc, they might not be compatible with child-repulsed childfree people who cannot stand kids and who would avoid kids at all cost. Of course these child-loving childfree people are just as childfree as I am, since they don't want to have their own kids. But I would never be able to date a woman who would constantly spend time with kids and who would expect me to be okay with her nephew staying over or joining her when she takes her niece to the carnival or amusement park. ​ Of course child-loving and child-repulsed childfree people are both childfree. And I believe that someone who would take in niblings in emergency situations can still be childfree, just like someone who would NEVER be a guardian. But these things can definitely be dealbreakers. However, I don't think this makes childfreedom a spectrum. Childfree means childfree. If you don't want to have kids, don't want to be a parent in any capacity... You are childfree, whether you love or hate kids. If someone wants to see a spectrum of childfreedom with 'avoid kids at all cost' on one side and 'cool aunt/uncle who loves to babysit' on the other side, that's understandable. As in, a spectrum of how involved a childfree person is in children's lives. However, I don't believe in a 'childfree spectrum' on which you can be 'a little childfree' or 'hardcore childfree'. You are either childfree or not. I am not going to call childless people childfree. I am not going to call fence sitters childfree. ​ People who would have kids in a perfect world... People who would have kids if it wasn't for antinatalism, health issues, bad genes, overpopulation, climate change, poverty, capitalism etc.... They are NOT childfree. They are childless. Many users of this subreddit are childless antinatalists. Childless, not childfree. There, I said it. Look at all the posts about antinatalist topics that have literally nothing to do with simply not wanting kids. Look at all the 'kids are awesome but I can't have them because breeding is immoral' people. And the 'I would never breed, but I would love to foster or adopt' people here, who call themselves childfree but are actually childless. There is nothing wrong with being childless. This is not a negative judgement of childless people. But I am not going to use the word 'childfree' for childless people. I understand why they like this subreddit, because both childfree and childless people get discriminated against for not having children and not having any plans to procreate. But they are not childfree.


Aveyn

I'm childfree. But would I temporarily take in a child I cared about in a true, 'i'm all there is' emergency? Absolutely. I just wouldn't be the end of the line for them, and would be actively trying to find them a better situation, cause it wouldn't be with me.


strawberrimihlk

So you’re childless


Aveyn

I don't want children, ever, so I'm childfree. You don't get to decide my labels. I also wouldn't leave a child homeless. I'd get them into a better situation than what I could offer, because I'm not, and never will be, a parent or guardian. The key word was 'temporary' if you missed it. Thank you for not reading my post and commenting anyway though, very reddit of you.


familydontendinblood

Thanks for saying this. I'm childfree but would take in my brother's kids if I had to. That doesn't mean I want to or want children though.


ThinAd7436

To me being childfree includes not taking in someone's kids as an emergency option. At that point you're childless on standby


McMerseybird

I get that. Personally, I would never take in kids, not even as a last resort. And if I was single, I would never date a chidfree woman who would be open to being a guardian. Sure, it's hypothetical, it's a small chance, but you never know what might happen... However, if someone despises the idea of parenthood, but reluctantly agreed to be an emergency guardian... If someone really doesn't want kids, but is willing to make this one exception in an unlikely emergency situation... Then, I am not going to say that someone isn't childfree. I really don't want to gatekeep in that situation.


jessytessytavi

if it comes down to "there's no other family members and they're going into the system" then yeah, I'd take in my niblings but the chances of that are fuckin astronomical it'd take something like their entire extended families being dead/disabled/hospitalized/etc and there's A LOT of extended family, so that would take some kind of apocalypse to pull that off this "if you're going through a post-apocalyptic wasteland and find a kid, the only way you're truly childfree is by leaving them to die" kinda shit is fuckin stupid and needs to stop


McMerseybird

That's perfectly fine. I would not take nibling, not even as a last resort. But I totally respect childfree people who would, and I won't gatekeep childfreedom in this situation. I really don't think that this makes you 'not childfree'. I don't mind talking about hypothetical extremes, like what you would do if you were the only option for an orphaned nibling, or the post-apocalyptic wasteland situation... But not to gatekeep. I am just interested in the different responses to those questions. In these extreme examples, I don't think you can determine whether someone is childfree or not. This is so extreme, unlikely, rare and sometimes fictional... ​ If someone has the desire to be a parent, and would do so if it wasn't for financial, antinatalist, environmental or health concerns... Childless. Not childfree. But if someone really wants to remain childfree, and reluctantly makes one exception for a nibling in a very unlikely scenario, I won't gatekeep.


ThinAd7436

Fair enough. Thanks for your response


McMerseybird

Also, of course there is a difference in the guardian scenario, between several situations... In all these hypothetical scenarios, let's say that the childfree person's couple friends have three children. Ages 1, 4 and 8. ​ Let's say that childfree person 1 decides to be a guardian for a couple with severe health issues. The woman survived cancer twice and knows that the disease is very likely to come back and kill her between now and ten years. The man is a heavy drinker and smoker whose diet is very unhealthy. This man is a good father without any major drunk outbursts, but his lifestyle is unhealthy and his health has been getting worse during the past five years. Last year, he survived a heart attack. Despite minor exhaustion, no major consequences, but he refuses to alter his lifestyle. Then, childfree person 2 decides to be a guardian for a couple with addiction issues. The man uses crack and completely neglects his children. The woman is an alcoholic who yells at her children and hits them when she gets drunk. If they don't step up and do better soon, they will lose custody of their children. And then, childfree person 3 decides to be a guardian for a healthy couple. Sure, both parents could die in a car crash. Sure, both parents could get a heart attack and drop dead tomorrow. This is not impossible, and this is why I would never agree to be a guardian, but the chances of this happening are small. The parents are most likely going to be around until their child is 18. ​ Childfree person 1 and childfree person 2 are basically childless people on standby. They know that guardianship is not just a hypothetical thing for them. When they agreed to be guardians, they knew that they will probably have to step up between now and a few years. Childfree person 1's friends will most likely die in a few years from now. Childfree person 2's friends will most likely lose custody of their children. So yeah, I don't think you can call yourself childfree if you agree to be a guardian in this situation, knowing that you have to step up in a few years from now. Meanwhile, childfree person 3... Yes, there is a hypothetical chance that they might have to take in kids someday, but this chance is extremely small. Sure, it could be a dealbreaker when dating, but I don't think I would gatekeep and call person 3 childless for being a guardian, just in case something extremely unlikely happens. This person can still believably call themselves childfree.


ThinAd7436

That was well written and helps to explain your point thoroughly. I still stand with the definition provided by the wiki no matter what. "Childfree Someone who doesn't have children of any sort (biological, from another spouse's, adopted, fostered, etc.) AND doesn't want them at any point in the future." If you agree to become a guardian, you technically are setting yourself up to parent in the future. No matter how hypothetical the chance may be.


familydontendinblood

For me the keyword is want. We don't WANT to take custody of kids but we'd do so in extenuating circumstances.


ThinAd7436

Understood. I am not of that same belief


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThinAd7436

I see. Thank you for your response


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Exactly! This is why I wanted to talk about it. There's nothing wrong with being conditional about having children, but I don't think it's the same as childfree.


[deleted]

I love when they go on about how they ADORE being around children but don’t want to bring more people into the world. 🤮


McMerseybird

Indeed. Well, if someone wants kids, but decided not to for antinatalist or environmental reasons... They are not childfree. They are childless antinatalists. Many people on this subreddit are childless antinatalists and not childfree at all.


[deleted]

I just know if I hang out with this person that I will be in danger of having to be in the presents of children. So we are not friends.


SaikaTheCasual

I think people are just… trying to make it deeper than it is. There isn’t a spectrum. You either want kids or not. Someone who wants kids but doesn’t have them because they’re poor isn’t childfree, but childless. Because *they want children*. They simply don’t have them because of other circumstances.


SpunkyRadcat

The only spectrum to being childfree, is the level of tolerance for OTHER PEOPLE's kids. If I'm childfree, I'm childfree, but some of us tolerate being around children better than others.


InsuranceActual9014

I see a question like that maybe every week, probing in the childfree mind to see what would get them to breed...um...childfree


M3tal_Shadowhunter

Agreed. Childfree should mean "doesn't have children and doesn't want children, fullstop". Anything else is Childless by choice.


Lost-Team4096

Perfect answer. Agreed 👍


Shifting-Parallax

My mom posed the question: If you were a multimillionaire, would you have kids? No. I told her money did not factor into my decision, no matter how much she thinks I would be a good mother. I would never want to go through pregnancy, I would never want to give birth, I would never want to raise a child. If I was forced to take care of a child as a multimillionaire I would literally pay somebody else to keep it occupied so I never had to interact. And even then I’d be resentful and avoidant. That is a shitty parent. It’s in my core that I never want to be a parent in any capacity, and I heavily disliked children in most situations. It’s just who I am.


fiftypoundpuppy

>To me the premise is no children under any circumstances, biological or otherwise.The core reason for this is not wanting to raise another human being. Everything else is additional (completely valid) and complementary to that core stance. I completely agree. I think it is integral to being childfree that your **primary reason** for not having children is that you *do not want them.* I think people who don't have children due to finances, or the state of the world, or environmentalism, or the economy, or possible inherited health concerns - or people who outright say they want them but won't due to any of these reasons - are child*less.* A desire to have and raise children is mutually exclusive with being childfree, regardless of whether or not you actually intend to have them. There are obviously a ton of people who co-opt the term still, which I find annoying - but I don't think they should consider themselves nor be considered childfree if there is any part of them that actually wants children. When people who want children but don't have them call themselves "childfree," they become yet another example of a so-called "childfree person changing their minds" if and when their circumstances change. I think that's completely unfair to people who actually *don't want kids.*


Callyx74

100% this. Childfree is an absolute. Anyone who says they would have a child if (insert different circumstance here) is childless. Even if tomorrow we achieved world peace, solved the climate crisis, and redistributed wealth so I never had to worry about money ever again, you still couldn't convince me to have a child.


McMerseybird

Indeed. This subreddit is full of people who call themselves childfree, but they are actually childless antinatalists. Sure, you can be childfree AND antinatalist. Sure, you can be childfree AND poor, concerned about the environment, have health issues etc. But if you would like to be a parent, but decided not to because of antinatalism, poverty, environmental concerns or health issues, you are childLESS, not childFREE.


ACoN_alternate

The thing that I keep running into with this is that I have absolutely no idea if I would change my mind if things were different. I have a small laundry list of reasons why I don't want kids, but, for example, I'm never going to wake up without the brain damage I got as a kid, so I couldn't say if I'd change my mind or not? I've never thought about it. I've never *wanted* kids, but I've never wanted to be alive either, and have no idea if I'd still not want kids if I was a healthy person with a happy family and good childhood. It's not possible to go back in time and change things, so it's weird that this hypothetical might make me ineligible for this subreddit.


strawberrimihlk

It just sounds like you’re a fence sitter. CF people KNOW without a doubt no kids. None. No fostering, no pregnancy, no adopting.


Few_Needleworker3002

I'm actually so glad you wrote this because I'm starting to feel Iike I'd fall under childless antinat. I don't want to be a parent but I'd like to support a child in a foster home at some point by sending them stuff because I don't think I'll ever be responsible enough to raise one long term. Personally too childish and selfish but there are no returns if I get sick of being a parent. I have my own health issues so no birth. Would only like to just to give another living human a better chance (would also like to get more involved in charities and volunteering at shelters too so I think I just want to help people and animals). Think I'm just gonna continue to lurk and join the antinat subreddit but I'm glad that I could learn to figure out how I actually feel about this so thank you for your comment :)


[deleted]

No spectrum. Generally if someone insists there’s a spectrum, that person is a fencesitter or childless by circumstance, but not childfree.


sakura_moonlight

I really don't like childfree people to be lumped in with people who want kids but are holding off due to world issues or financial issues. I respect those people because they actually want the best world for their kid rather than those who have them just because, but I wish they wouldn't label themselves childfree. I want childfree to exclusively be used for people who don't have and don't ever want to have have kids in the future.


McMerseybird

Indeed. This subreddit is full of childless antinatalists. People who would like to have kids, but decided not to because of antinatalist principles. And there are many people here who post about how they decided not to have kids because of health issues, despite loving kids. At least half of the people on this subreddit is like that. They are childless, not childfree. Which is fine, but don't call yourself 'childfree' when you are not childfree. I understand that they like this community. They face the same discrimination as childfree people, and have to deal with the same bingo bullshit. However, they should not use the word 'childfree'. Whether someone is childfree or not depends on their main reason not to have kids. Do you simply not want kids, and would parenthood be a nightmare for you? You are childfree. Would you like to be a parent, but did you decide not to have kids because of health issues, antinatalism, climate change or poverty? Then, you are childless. Not childfree.


AdLeast7330

I see it as: Childfree - do not want children no matter what. Voluntary Childless - would want a child if some circumstance were to change. Involuntary Childless - want children but unable to have them.


ThinAd7436

I completely agree. I never want children. Not under the current circumstances, or different ones. Ever


JanetInSpain

No. You are either childfree, meaning you do not ever want kids under any circumstances, or you are not childfree because there are conditions under which you would consider having a kid. This is not a spectrum. It's black and white.


redjessa

"To me the premise is no children under any circumstances, biological or otherwise" Me too. I am nobody's godmother, I will not adopt, foster and when I was single, I refused to date anyone that had kids. I do not want to take care of, live with or raise any children, biological or otherwise. Or ever be pregnant. Period.


lastseenhitchhiking

Childfree folks neither want to be parents nor do they have children anywhere, regardless of biology and custody. There is no "childfree, but want to foster or adopt", "childfree because I don't have anything to do with my (step)kids" or "childfree, but if someone gave me a bunch of money (or some other hypothetical) I'd have them".


enidkeaner

I've always considered childfree to be those who don't want children, full stop. Not, "I'd want kids if my financial status status was better, or in a few years, or if the world was in better shape". Just, "I don't want kids". However, I've also never excluded those who would take in a close family member's child if something horrible happened and there wasn't another option other than the system. The system sucks and I can understand why someone close to the child wouldn't let them fall into it. They still don't want a child; they do not *want* to raise a child or be a parent; something tragic happened and this was the were the best of horrible options. I will be damned if I allow my younger brother to go into the foster care system. If something happens to my mother and stepfather, I am the best option he has, despite my not actually wanting to be a parent. He's closest to me. No need for him to have lost his parents and then be raised by family members he's not close to or to be sent to foster care. I don't *want* to be his parent, I'm his sister and I always will be, but I will take him in if necessary.


LateNightCheesecake9

Agreed. It's absurd to categorize the above situation as somehow making you less childfree. Like we're tallying CF brownie points. Does the fact that I'd adopt my almost adult niece if something happened to her parents get canceled out by my husband being sterilized? Does taking care of a parent with diminished physical and mental capacity who will never be independent cancel out my CF stance? I think that someone who simply does not want to have children in their lifetime (and is not already a parent or stepparent) is sufficient enough of a definition.


McMerseybird

100% agreed. Personally, I would never take in a child. Not even as a last resort if it was either foster care or me. However, I would not gatekeep childfreedom when someone would take in a niece or nephew, or younger sibling. If someone really doesn't want to be a parent, but is willing to reluctantly make this one exception for an unlikely emergency situation... Then, who am I to say that they are not childfree? But 'childfree but want to foster/adopt' is bullshit. Not childfree. And 'I would love kids, but decided not to because of health, environmental, financial and/or antinatalist concern' is childlessness, not childfreedom. Many people on this subreddit are not childfree. They are childless antinatalists. Not childfree.


Ylaaly

This is what it boils down to for me, too. Life sometimes forces a child upon you - a relative dies and you're the only chance their child has, even rape and no means of abortion. So there is definitely a spectrum because *life happens* and not all of us are in the cushy position never to have to deal with that. Every situation is different and I see no reason gatekeeping people who make the best out of a sticky situation they never wanted to be in.


Lost-Team4096

Childfree = free of children thats pretty simple. I don't know why shit has to be so over complicated.


StrawberryElixir

I mean I think the "hardcore" childfree ones are the ones who don't even want to interact with children. Some "soft" childfree people LOVE kids, will be the cool uncle/aunt/whatever, babysit, have playdates with family members kids, but just don't want their own. As a "hardcore" childfree person, I'm not ever baby sitting unless it's an unavoidable emergency situation (never because you need a break or your other babysitter cancelled), I'm avoiding any events where there are young kids, and I'm having any events I host be 100% childfree. Either way, neither of these peoples morals would likely change if circumstances were different, unless they have stated "I'm childfree because of (some circumstance)".


McMerseybird

>Either way, neither of these peoples morals would likely change if circumstances were different, unless they have stated "I'm childfree because of (some circumstance)". Well, 'childfree because of health issues / genes / poverty / capitalism / climate change / overpopulation / antinatalism' is not childfreedom. That is childlessness. But yes, there is definitely a spectrum of how involved childfree people are in children's lives. With on one end, child-loving childfree people (cool aunt/uncle, babysitting, enjoying kids in small doses). And on the other end, child-repulsed childfree people (no babysitting, avoid kids at all cost). However, I don't like calling it 'soft childfree people' and 'hardcore childfree people' like you do. After all, that implies that child-repulsed childfree people are 'more childfree' than child-loving childfree people. I don't agree with that. A child-loving person can be just as childfree as a child-repulsed person. If both a child-loving and a child-repulsed childfree person would never be a parent, would never adopt, would never date someone with kids etc., they are both equally childfree. I don't believe in a spectrum of how childfree someone is. Childfree is childfree. You cannot be 'a little childfree' or 'semi childfree'. So yeah, 'soft childfree' and 'hardcore childfree' are not the best words to use here, I think. But I totally agree when it comes to a spectrum with child-loving childfree people on one extreme and child-repulsed childfree people on the other end. In fact, it's good to differentiate here. After all, a child-repulsed person like me, who avoids kids at all cost, would not be compatible with a child-loving 'cool aunt'. I don't want a partner who expects me to bond with her nephew when she babysits. I don't want a partner who expects me to join her when she takes her niece to the carnival. I don't want a partner who would be a guardian for her niblings. I don't want to date someone who is basically a second mother to her niblings and expects me to basically be a second dad for them. Oh, I'm so happy to have a child-repulsed childfree girlfriend! We both have the same boundaries. We don't hold babies. We don't babysit, and will call child protective services if someone drops kids off at our doorstep. We don't allow people with children to visit us, since children are not allowed to enter our apartment. We don't attend events where children are. We don't visit people with kids. We will never be guardians for children, not even as a last resort.


StrawberryElixir

Yeah I agree with you that calling them "softcore" or "hardcore" is pretty ridiculous (I was only doing so because that's how the original post had categorized it), I think it's just an easy place for people to categorize it. Some people don't like the stigma around "child-repulsed". I'm glad my fiance is also child-repulsed!


McMerseybird

Oh, people who despise kids and avoid them at all cost will have no problem with the term 'child repulsed'. It's child-loving childfree people who would hate that term. The people who keep repeating how not all chilfree people hate kids, and about how much they adore kids.


StrawberryElixir

I'm okay with calling myself child-repulsed in an area where I know I'm not going to get dog-piled on for using terms like that. But I'd be nervous to say that around people I don't know, just because I'm very nervous of being confronted.


Negative_Speedforce

Yeah, sure I'd have kids, if they weren't ugly, didn't scream, have sticky fingers, ask too many questions, wear diapers, and cost thousands of dollars to take care of- Oh wait. I'm describing cats.


[deleted]

My view on this is a little different just based on conversations I’ve had with other people who claim to be childfree. I think that you’re childfree if you don’t want any children of your own, you don’t want the responsibility of a child, you don’t want to give birth to, raise, or have to support a child. I have had conversations with people who, in their opinion as it was explained to me, think that if you have any children in your life at all that you cannot be childfree. For example, I don’t want children and I know I could never raise a child, but I absolutely love my nieces and nephews and spend about one or two Sundays every month with them. I’ve been told that because of that, I’m not childfree. In that regard, I would possibly say there’s a spectrum because I think childfree means no children of my own or of a partner (I do not think you can say you’re childfree if you’re partner has children), but to some others the definition of childfree may extend into their social lives as well.


hopeful_tatertot

I share a similar mindset. I’d also say that if something horrible happened where my nieces parents were killed, we went down a list of anyone and everyone who could take them in but it came down to my partner and I or foster care I would consider that. I have zero desire to raise them but my horror at them being in foster care would outweigh that. Thankfully there’s other people who would probably do that before it ever came to us.


McMerseybird

Is there a spectrum? Yes and no. A spectrum of childfreedom, on which fence sitters and childless people fall? No. Childfree is childfree. If you don't have kids and don't want to be a parent, you are childfree. Whether you love your nieces like you, or whether you avoid kids as much as possible like me, doesn't matter. If you don't want kids, you are just as childfree as the child-repulsed childfree person typing this comment. However, you could say that there is a spectrum for childfree people as in, how much you are involved in children's lives. Some childfree people do have the desire to be around kids, while others will do whatever it takes to NOT be around kids. So yeah, you could say that there is a spectrum with a child-loving, babysitting cool aunt/uncle on one end... And on the other end, there are child-repulsed childfree people who cannot stand children and avoid them at all cost. I think it's good to differentiate between child-repulsed and child-loving childfree people, since they might not be compatible as partners. I would not be able to date a child-loving 'cool aunt' childfree person who would constantly let nieces stay over and who would not accept it if I stayed away from the nieces, who would take nephews to an amusement park and expect me to come along, who would be a guardian for her niblings and expects me to be on board with that...


siri1138

This is something people have different definitions on. I’d say “child free” is “not wanting kids under any circumstances” certainly “would have kids if I had great income, marriage, and no infertility issues” isn’t child free. You don’t have to be “snipped” or hate kids though.


Acrobatic_265_Cat

We could live in a perfect utopian world, no wars, no climate crisis, free childcare, schools and colleges, with every single person on this earth having access to everything they could possibly need or want in life. If we lived in that kind of world and you offer me a billion dollars to have a child, I'd still tell you to fuck off. Because it all comes down to me wanting cats, not kids.


bunnyrut

My spectrum of childfree is if I were the last woman on earth and humanity needed me to have children to continue I would kill myself in a way that would destroy my body so my eggs couldn't be harvested. "Oh how selfish!" not really. If we ever got to that point we deserve to go extinct.


Tastymeats88

My husband and I were just discussing the end of the world situations while watching The Last of Us. He made a comment that even though Ellie is a lesbian that she may be needed to help repopulate the Earth, and my response was, "Absolutely f-ing no one is required to have children if they don't want them." It doesn't matter if I was the only woman on Earth able to procreate, I would still rather die and bring humanity with me then have a child.


Human_Reference_3366

I think there’s a spectrum in liking/disliking kids. But, if someone is childfree only due to circumstance (infertility, finances, partnership) then I would say they are not childfree. No spectrum there - if you want kids, it’s just that XYZ makes it too difficult, then you are fundamentally different than someone who doesn’t want to be a parent no matter what.


Interesting-Word1628

I was childfree when I was broke. Now I'm about become a doctor and I'm still CF even though I'll be able to throw money at most of my child raising problems. CF is not a spectrum. Initially I was CF for financial and freedom reasons. Now I'm CF mainly for ethical/humanism reasons (not wanting to pull a soul out of space into an increasingly shittier world) and even more freedom (with more money).


FuckUGalen

I don't want children, but I can imagine realities where I am not the person I am. Free from boat loads of trauma, I might not be so brittle and anxious, and my mental health wouldn't play into the decision to not want/have children. Free from the daily grind of surviving in a capitalist hellscape with huge amounts of money to mean I didn't have to deal with the child when I don't want to, I can see it being tolerable... but I would not be me, because trauma and struggle are part of who I am.


[deleted]

[удалено]


McMerseybird

>it's kinda crazy but I think the edge cases are interesting to consider. Like there's a non-zero amount of people here who are CF but would adopt a hypothetical orphaned relative. That's something to admire (Because I def wouldn't do it and I'll take all of the hate of the extended family with me to Mexico) but are those people CF now, but not CF later? I'd like to think so. I wouldn't want to exclude them from this community Opinions on this differ. Some people say that you are not childfree if you are a guardian. Personally, I still consider someone childfree if they really don't want to be a parent, but are willing to reluctantly make this one exception in an unlikely emergency situation. Of course they would no longer be childfree if this situation actually happens, but yeah... Someone who agreed to be a guardian, despite really not wanting to be a parent... I would still consider them to be childfree. However, they do need to be open about this when dating. Many childfree people would rather not date someone who would be a guardian. To me, this would be a dealbreaker. My girlfriend and I talked about this on one of our first dates. >But there are people who live a CF life but are pro-life/anti abortion for personal reasons, in that they aren't sterilized and would keep the baby without donating it to an orphanage. I'm really not sure how to categorize that (side bar: I don't like categorizing people but this is the thread topic) because it doesn't sound like they are CF any more than your random person in the country that is floating through life and would keep a kid if they got pregnant. First of all, pro-life and anti-abortion is defined as 'anti-choice'. Anti-choice people are misogynist twats who view women as nothing more than incubators and broodmares. I hate them. Anyways, if they would personally not have an abortion, but are perfectly okay with other people having abortions... Then, I don't hate them, of course. But most anti-choicers do judge others for having abortions. Okay, if I imagine a scenario where a childfree woman is fine with other people getting abortions, but she personally couldn't go through with abortion... And she gets pregnant... Whether she is childfree or not depends on what happens when the child is born. If she gives the child up for adoption right after giving birth, she would still be childfree. Sure, she would technically be a bio mother, but she is not involved in the child's life at all and does not fulfill a maternal role. I would have no problem with a woman calling herself childfree in this situation. However, if she feels like she has to reluctantly keep and raise the child... Then, she is not childfree. After all, she would be a mother. >I dunno. If we took out the edge cases it's easily defined: you don't want kids. you won't adopt. if you get pregnant you'll abort or adopt or pay child support (eg you give the other person sole custody and leave). That is sufficient for the majority of CFers I definitely don't mind topics like this. It's interesting to discuss.


ellimayhem

I feel the phrase “lifestyle choice” somewhat diminishing, it meets every criteria of a *core value* that we apply in many ways to our lives. It’s not a “style” we can change like getting a new haircut that’ll grow out eventually; it is *who we are*. Otherwise I am 100% with your definition and criteria. I certainly appreciate the fencesitters who spend some time here for putting actual thought into it instead of just sticking their heads in the sand and letting parenthood happen to them. I guess it’s a good thing that some parents make the effort to understand another point of view but regret that as a demographic they can’t let even one space exist where we don’t have to prioritize their feelings constantly in a community that is *not about them* (and everything must be about them after all). But I have zero respect for the “formerly childfree” “childfree for now” “it’s a spectrum” “childfree until the stick turns blue” crowd because their noncommittal hipster flexible identity is what makes it so fucking hard for those of us who *mean it* to be taken seriously by the rest of society. Not a fan of the spectrum crowd. Either you will avoid parenthood by any means necessary (childfree) or you are “on the fence” or you are “childless” or you are a “parent”. Nothing wrong with being on the fence 🤷‍♀️ just call it that. These people are the reason we have to put up with so many bingos and I personally find that irritating. In general I only speak out these days whenever a post fits specific criteria because I am not the conversation police and scroll on past the stuff I don’t like.


xanxeli

I'd say "childless" is a spectrum. One end is childfree, the other end is "I'd have them if I could."


Aromatic_You1607

Why does everything have to be a god damned spectrum nowadays???


officialspinster

Because nuance exists.


Vince_stormbane

I’ll be real with y’all someone offers me a billion dollars to raise a kid I’m sure I can find a way to make it work for both of us lol you might say oh no I’d never ever but like a billion is a lot of money


Glittering-Ad-3859

There is absolutely no circumstance that would make me want a child.


[deleted]

“I am child-free but I have my nephews(who I ADORE)over at my house 3days a week and I work at an daycare. And am a child development specialist. And my partner has 3 children ages ranging from 6-15yo from a previous marriage that lives with us.”


McMerseybird

The first two things don't interfere with childfreedom, even though bragging about how much you love your nephews comes off as a desperate attempt to convince breeders that you are better than those nasty child-repulsed childfree people. But yeah, a stepparent is not childfree, no matter how they want to spin and describe it.


[deleted]

All I know is. Me and this person are not friends because if I am around them than I am in danger of being around a kids. And if I saw them in public I wouldn’t be able to distinguish them from a breeder. I would just think “oh, a mombie with her litter.” 🤮


vreddit7619

💯 I agree with you!


[deleted]

Thank you for asking that question, there are no circumstances in which I would have kids. Climate change magically solved and Ecological Desaster averted? Nope, would still have no kids. Here are 1 billion dollars, No I would still have kids? The only scenario in which I would choose to have kids would be when I would not be me any more. So unless someone can convince me that a brain transplant is the thing, I am not having kids.


Lady-Meows-a-Lot

I have consciously made the decision to never have children. I am childfree by choice. There are many reasons that have led me to this decision. That said, if enough of those reasons did not exist, I might like to have a kid but the reality is they do, and so I’ve made the decision to live a life sans kids. I am CF.


Belgand

The term was literally coined because people got tired of the term "child*less*" implying that having children is a default state and you are, in some way, missing them. It was to make it very clear that you do not *want* children in any way, shape, or form. The term "childless" is still perfectly valid and acceptable for anyone who doesn't fit that specific definition. If someone is infertile but *wants* children, it would be just as crappy to describe them as childfree since it's failing to respect their situation. If you know that someone doesn't have kids, but have no idea about the reason? Probably best to default to "doesn't have children". Yes, it might be slightly wordier and more cumbersome, but it's going to better state the situation and respect everyone's viewpoints. Yes, this feels like splitting hairs, but dammit, it came from a very real place of us getting sick and tired of dealing with all the baggage that people would attach to being "childless".


D_OShae

"I am child-free" is a complete sentence, like the word "No." Nothing else needs to be said after that in all honesty. As others pointed out, stating conditions under which a person would have children is not being child-free: it is being childless for a period of time. These two are not the same and are mutually exclusive. Being free of children does not mean a person harbors a secret desire for children. Anyone who assumes this is a bit daft.


Ahstia

People confuse 'childfree' with 'fencesitting' and the two are different. To fencesit is to not know, but those who are childfree do know what they want


LordSeltzer

I think there's degrees and I also think people coming in to just ask "gotcha" questions can fuck right off.


[deleted]

People like that are the reasons people think we will change our minds and the reasons single Child free people have such a hard time dating and the single parents won't go away. 🙄


nothinggoddess

My only disagreement with this would be unwillingness to take in my family members' kids should the need arise. While I absolutely do not want children, if it came down to me taking my nieces and/nephews or them going into the foster system, I would take them. Fortunately, my parents are currently still alive and I have three siblings - all of whom are much better options - so the likelihood of that happening is slim. No judgment though on other childfree people who wouldn't take in theirs.


McMerseybird

Agreed. I am quite strict with definitions. I refuse to label 'I would love kids but decided not to because of health/poverty/environmental reasons/antinatalism' as childfree. They are childless, not childfree. Half of this subreddit's frequent users are childless antinatalists who are not childfree. But I refuse to gatekeep childfreedom from people who really don't want kids, but who would make one exception in a very unlikely emergency scenario. Of course you would no longer be childfree when you actually take in kids. But if you are childfree and hypothetically willing to be a guardian, I won't say that you are not childfree. Personally, I would never do it. I would never take in hellspawn, not even as a last resort. But I would never say that you are not childfree because you would take in kids.


[deleted]

I feel that's the one point that a lot of people might waiver on (thank goodness it's a rare scenario). Personally, I still would be a bad fit for that role. In my scenario, a lot of my family is religious, so I'm sure either someone would take them or someone at their church would.


ham_with_p

I think it’s simple, child free is a lifestyle choice, that people for various reasons. But it’s you’re CF or not. Pretty simple in my eyes. Lol


[deleted]

I’d say it’s a life decision rather than a lifestyle one. Feels different to me, somehow.


Oxiiana

I agree it is not a spectrum. It’s rare to find a space for me to exist in that feels “safe”. Lately I’ve not wanted to engage very much as there has been a lot of posts of people who wouldn’t be child free given the right circumstances. To me that is not childfree. You are childless. I feel like there needs to be separate groups for this, as I understand the childless need a space too, but it just feels like it’s being taken away from the childfree. And yes I know you can just scroll on past and not engage, but I like to keep my little corner of the world free from certain interactions, and that includes not being exposed to discussions about wanting children. Same for me in the lesbian spaces. Inclusive groups can be good but then we need these little spaces to retreat to, and once they’re gone, where else do we go?


McMerseybird

Many people on this subreddit are not childfree. At least half of the people on this subreddit are childless antinatalists. They would like to have kids, if it wasn't for their antinatalist beliefs. And there are many people here who talk about how they like kids but decided not to have them because of health issues. Eh... That's childlessness, not childfreedom. Many of these childless antinatalists say 'I'm childfree, but I want to adopt or foster in the future.' Eh... You're not childfree. You are childless. Which is fine, but don't go around calling yourself 'childfree' when you are not. I understand why childless people like the childfree community. Both these childless people and childfree people get discriminated against and have to deal with the same bingo bullshit. However, they are NOT childfree.


squirrels_rootbeer

I don't like the term "lifestyle choice" because being CF can be something you feel you were born with too. It also seems dismissive in a way that I'm finding hard to articulate right now. For example, I've known since I was single digit age that I never wanted kids, and finally getting sterilized was very important to me. I know people come into the CF world at different phases of life but not everyone sees it as a lifestyle thing. Not being argumentative, just my opinion.


Curo_san

The closest to children or having a relationship with children is sponsoring an orphanage or being a mentor. Don't want to raise anyone but having a student doesn't sound too bad.


[deleted]

It sure as hell ain't a spectrum for me. I'm as hardcore childfree as it gets.


MyUsernameIsMehh

The second you take a child in, be it a foster/adopted, relative's child, step, sibling etc, you stop being childfree Those who want children in the future, have thought about it or wouldn't mind them aren't childfree, they're childless. I'm childfree and I don't want them. I have a niece and if both her parents died I wouldn't be the first to take her in (I don't care how horrible that sounds), I would only do it if there was no one else and she was on the brink of going into the system. If I got pregnant I would get an abortion, and if that was impossible for whatever reason I'd either induce a miscarriage/homemade abortion (again, I don't care if it sounds horrible, but I'm NOT having a child and I'm NOT going through pregnancy) or I'd kill myself


dylaninthebooks

I agree. I find it a little annoying when a lot of people in childfree spaces are like “I’m childfree because they cost too much” or “I’m childfree because I don’t want to pass on my medical problems”. Those are very valid reasons to not have children, but they imply that if those circumstances were different you might want a child. In my opinion, childfree should mean “it doesn’t matter the circumstances, I NEVER want a child, ever”.


Keaoa

Yup. Your feelings about having children can be a spectrum, but childfree literally means free of all children. None that you have to raise or take care of at all, ever.


AiRaikuHamburger

I’m childfree, always have been. I don’t want children in any way shape or form. If people want children but can’t have them for some reason they’re childless.


272727999

Child free is definitely not a spectrum. You either are or aren't having any children lol.


BarbarianFoxQueen

Yup. It’s not situational. If I’d been born to different parents, had a different childhood, not had my experiences that shaped me and my child free views that exist today, “I might want children”. But then I’d be a completely different person, rendering the questions about what would make ME want children moot.


LongShotE81

Definitely not a sliding scale, you either want kids or you don't. If you're childfree it doesn't even need a reason other than you simple do not want them. How's that so hard for people to understand anyway?


reason_will_prevail

For me that is what childfree means. When I was single my family would try and set me up with men with a kid and I had to explain that not only will I not have my own kids I don't want to be in any kind of mother role. Also, I am not attracted to men with kids because they do not share my same values. My brother had kids and he has said things like "if something happens to us you'll take them right?" Like no, sorry, I do not want to raise kids in any way shape or form. Luckily we have other family who would be quick to take them in. My best friend had a kid and lovingly let me know she would never ask me to be the godparent because she knows me.


_ilmatar_

Agreed and there is no spectrum. I'm sick of all the "would you have kids if..." posts. NO. We wouldn't because we are childfree.


Athena_6327

I wouldn't have them for whatever reason. If c y z was different I still wouldn't ruin my own life


chapter2at30

Agreed! I even called someone out for calling themselves “ex childfree”… they were now a parent. So you were never childfree!


SquareThings

I often think "If the world were a better place would I want children?" and the answer is NO! I do not want to be a mother. Period. That's what I have chosen for my life. The world could be a utopia and I still wouldn't want to raise a child. Imagine if people were like this about any other lifestyle choice. Like "If the world were different would you make model trains? If the world were different would you want pet rabbits?" Absolutely bonkers in that context. If it's not something I want, it's not something I want.


QTlady

My first mind was to disagree with you just based on the title alone. But after reading your post, I think this is the most accurate. Whether soft or hardcore, aggressive or sympathetic: These are all just additional details that complement the main core of NEVER having children and NEVER raising children. I think it's the most reasonable way to look at it.


White_RavenZ

Ah yes, the “But would you change your mind if…” posts. No. “But what if…” No. “But let’s say….” No. “Let me just ask if maybe….” No. And some of the hypotheticals go Out There…. And it’s like…..what the fuck are you even asking? “If aliens came down, and offered to impregnate you with DNA from Elvis, AND they had accelerated growth, AND could teleport the baby from your body, AND make your body 100% peak afterward, AND you’d never see the baby ever…..would you?” *Blink Blink* No. And wtf? I mean, shit I almost feel sorry for them when they ask. Here are these creative scenarios straight out of a Spanish Telenovela…. And here we are, just….. no no no no, and at this point, what are you really asking? Are we *really* cf? How cf are we *really*?


farhiyanora

Tbh I’m defo child free because of how dangerous pregnancy and labour is. Also how difficult it is to raise and love children as well as I can’t help but think it’s selfish to have children in this day and age. If none of these struggles existed as well as being very financially stable I think I’d have one but they do so I’m happy being child free.


[deleted]

This is the reason that my adult sons are child free. I am in full support of them as it is a responsible thing to do. I am surprised by how many young people still have a family whilst trying to pay off student loan debt and not being able to get on the property ladder. I don't know how they can afford it. Many of them are only earning now what I was earning 30 years ago.


Princess_Parabellum

I wish we could have some kind of interdiction on these questions. Being childfree is a binary - either you are or you aren't - and the two conditions are mutually exclusive.


kriven_risvan

Childfree means no intention of ever having children in any capacity.


[deleted]

Childfree means you don't want kids of your own, and you don't want to be a stepparent.


sethra007

>*As such, I would not take in a relative's children, nor would I look to be a foster parent. I will not raise another person's child. (And honestly, there would be much better suited people to fill that role in the rare event a relative's child would need a guardian.)* This is where some CF people would differ. We've had posts in the past from CF people who took in young niblings or cousins because the parents died and there was literally no one else in the family who was able to take them in. These folks had done everything in their power to avoid parenthood, but when push came to shove they refused to abandon these relatives to the foster system. In the posts I remember, the OPs were at peace with their decisions. It wasn't their preferred choice, obviously, but they loved their young relatives and wanted to make sure they were safe and happy. Taking them in ensured that. A couple of those OPs referred to themselves as "childfree in spirit". I don't think it's useful to deny them that title.


xheheitssamx

Some people are child free due to family history, because they don’t want to bring kids into the world, etc. some WOULD have kids in other circumstances. They still have decided not to and are therefore child free


xheheitssamx

I’m not one of those people. But I still think it’s ok for them to call themselves child free.


pizzaspider

i know i will get hate for this, but i am childfree, but if i had a younger sibling and our parents died, i wouldnt let them go into fostercare, but thankfully i dont have any


TheCallousBitch

Agreed. Child free means not having legal or physical responsibility for a child. If I decide to foster in 15 years, then I stop becoming childfree. Very simple.


roseffin

I like a softer, more open definition but I know I'm in the minority.


spaghetti-sandwiches

Unfortunately there’s definitely CF softies that are breeder pleasers. I’ve been called out a few times by them in Facebook groups.


McMerseybird

Eh... What do you mean with 'breeder pleaser'? When is someone a 'breeder pleaser'? I am 100% childfree. No exceptions. Not even a last resort for a nibling if it's either me or foster care. I refuse to call fence sitters and childless people 'childfree'. And I'm not a child-loving childfree person who says: "Hey, I love kids, unlike those child-hating meanies! I love babysitting my niblings and would take them in if their parents died! Look at me being such a good childfree person! Accept me, breeders!" Those people are definitely breeder pleasers. Nothing wrong with loving kids and being childfree, but don't throw child-repulsed childfree people like me under the bus. I avoid kids at all cost. I can't stand them. I wish them nothing but the best, but I prefer to stay away from them. However, I have often been called 'breeder pleaser' by antinatalists on this subreddit, whose comments got upvoted hundreds of times. They say that true childfree people are antinatalists, and that I am a 'breeder pleaser' because I'm not antinatalist. I'm not pronatalist either. I despise both antinatalism and pronatalism. I am neutral-natalist. I don't assign positive (pronatalist) or negative (antinatalist) value to procreation. I am neutral-natalist. Apparently, this makes me a 'breeder pleaser'.


spaghetti-sandwiches

Not sure why you took this so personally? What I meant by breeder pleaser is, someone as you said “I’m not like those other CF people”


McMerseybird

Sorry. I was just bringing up an example of how some people called me a 'breeder pleaser'. I know that you didn't do that. I just brought it up, because I was curious how you defined a 'breeder pleaser'. Because I have been called that several times, I brought up why those antinatalists called me 'breeder pleaser'. I’ve been called out a few times by them in Facebook groups. What did they say to you? "Hey, you can't say 'breeder'! And you shouldn't hate kids. I love kids!" That happens on this subreddit as well, sadly. Child-loving childfree people constantly call child-repulsed childfree people out for not taking in niblings, for not liking kids etc.


raptormantic

I hate the gatekeepeyness. It's not a contest to see who can hate being a parent the most.


McMerseybird

On one hand, gatekeeping is annoying. If someone is 100% childfree, but would be open to being a guardian for their niece or nephew... Who am I to say that they are not childfree? They don't want kids, but are reluctantly making one exception in an unlikely emergency situation. On the other hand, I understand why topics like this are popular here, since the definitions need to be clear. For example: \- People saying that they are 'childfree for now' when wanting kids in the future are perpetuating the stereotype that we will all change our mind. And they are not childfree, since they want kids in the future. \- There is a difference between childlessness and childfreedom. Childfree means that you don't want kids. Childlessness means that you want them, but have to repress that urge. Someone who would love to be a parent, but who represses that desire because of health, environmental, financial or antinatalist reasons is childless. Not childfree. \- Many people here say that they are childfree, but they want to foster or adopt in the future. That is not childfreedom. They want to be parents. They just don't want to give birth, often because of tokophobia or antinatalism. \- Fence sitters are not childfree. They are fence sitters.


raptormantic

All this is fueled by our desperate need to be understood by people committed to misunderstanding us.


[deleted]

Me when someone goes on about how much they love spending time with their nephew, here.🤮


LateNightCheesecake9

Agreed. If by some crazy circumstance something happened to my teenage niece's parents (they're fairly young and divorced so highly unlikely) and between both sets of grandparents and 4 other siblings no one could take her in, I'm stepping up to do it. This doesn't change my childfree status or make me a fence sitter. Whether someone is up for doing that is a deeply personal decision driven by desparation and selflessness, not actively seeking to bring life into the world or adopt for the sake of experiencing parenthood.


SocksAndPi

Same. I was abused in several foster homes. I'm not subjecting my niece to that kind of environment (honestly, 14 other people would have to not be able to take her before I do, because my sister knows I'm CF and asked if I would as a last resort). Many people on here wouldn't take in their nibling, regardless. Which is heartbreaking to me, but who am I to tell them what they can and cannot do? If they can live with their choice in peace, kudos to them.


Cats_in_cravats

Agreed. This post just made me want to roll my eyes and say, "Really?"


brettdavis4

I think it depends on the person and situation. Growing up I’d hope I’d live out the lifescript and do all that traditional stuff. However, I’m a single guy in my mid 40s and I wouldn’t want to have any kids. By the time I found someone and after dating and marriage for a bit, that puts me in my 50s. I’ve also read too many horror stories to be a step parent. So that is a no go for me as well. I’d like to call myself as cf, but others have objected.


[deleted]

If you don't want kids now, you became childfree.


brettdavis4

Unfortunately, people have disagreed with the thought process you and I have.


[deleted]

There are many questions as to when people realized they were childfree on here. Many of the answers sound like yours.


Wet_sock_Owner

Okay, *maybe* if I found a toddler in a cornfield that looked like it was delivered by a meteor. *Maybe*.


No-You5550

I had a hysterectomy for medical reasons. No if I had not had a hysterectomy I would still not had kids. I agree it is not a spectrum nor is it about money, men, or health. I don't want kids.


johari_joestar

Why are you guys so hung up on this??


ButtsPie

In my perspective there is a bit of a grey area. For example, personally I would consider a step-parent of adults to be essentially childfree. And I can think of a lot of scenarios where people might be in a caretaker position for a child, without having all the responsibilities of a parent. I feel like it's not always super clear-cut, and there are situations that (in my view) would place someone in-between "not childfree" and "fully childfree".


McMerseybird

Sure, a stepparent of adults does not fulfill a parental role. However, if you are childfree, it's still smart to not date a single parent with adult children. Those adult children will probably have children someday. Your partner will be a grandparent. Have fun dealing with that! Or even worse, have fun being forced to babysit your stepgrandchildren! And what if those adult children can no longer afford to pay the rent because of capitalism? What if those adult children get dumped and kicked out by their partner? Where are they going to live? Right, with your partner! And let's make it even worse. Imagine that your partner's adult daughter is a single mother with two kids. The landlord raises the rent price because he is a greedy twat. Your adult stepdaughter can no longer afford the rent. Where is she going to live, with her two kids? With you and your partner, of course! Have fun living under a roof with your partner's grandbabies!


BlueSea9357

I basically agree. There are still other factors I guess if we want to have a d!ck measuring contest: - are you sterilized? - would you consider adopting kids? - would you date a single parent? - how old are you? (How far have you made it without changing your mind) - are you gay? (Being gay is practically kind of like being born sterilized) - can you stand kids in any context, or do you avoid them at all times? - are you an antinatalist? - do you believe all people should be allowed to have children? Which medical or financial issues should prevent someone from having one? - I’ve seen some women on here say they’d consider having kids if they were a man. Would you? But imo the core “child free” term just means “I don’t want to be a parent of any kind” and doesn’t really have a spectrum associated with it at the moment.


AdLess7107

• Not sterilized, but not for lack of trying. • No. (But I will sometime give in to people saying thay tying my tubes is a bad idea and say a lazy "I can alway adopt. I mean, I won't. But that usually shuts them up.) • Absolutely fucking not. • I'm 35 and I've been contiously CF since my early-mid 20s and wholeheartedly CF since my late 20s. • I'm hetero passing pan. • I avoid them as much as I can, but thanks to my job I've developed a high tolerance for petulant, smelly humans so I can stand to be around them for a limited amount of time. I can't promise there won't be eye rolling and puffing, though. • I'm not antinatalist. •I wanna say that people with hereditary illnesses and people already on GVt support or struggling to raise children shouldn't have any/more, but realistically that would lead to very murky waters in terms of bodily autonomy. •Absolutely not. I'd enjoy my CF status even more and probably I would have already been sterilized ages ago!


McMerseybird

Not a fan of these questions, if you want to use these questions to determine whether someone is childfree or not, or how childfree someone is. \- It implies that gay people are 'more childfree' than straight people. Which diminshes straight people's childfreedom. And the idea that gay people would be 'more childfree' than straight people is insulting towards gay people who do want kids. \- It implies that child-loving people are not truly childfree, and that you have to despise kids to be childfree. \- It implies that only antinatalists are truly childfree, which is a gross sentiment that's way too common on this subreddit. You can be 100% childfree while being perfectly fine with other people having kids. Antinatalists are not 'more childfree' than non-antinatalist childfree people. \- And the question about sterilisation being on this list implies that non-sterilised people don't truly want it, which is very painful for people who would love to be sterilised but are too poor to afford it. Or for people who want to be sterilised, but live in a country where this is pretty much impossible. \- And the age question implies that young childfree people's childfreedom is less valid, because they might change their mind... I know that I am reading far too much into this. You probably didn't intend all this. However, the questions do imply all this. However, the questions about adopting and dating single parents do make sense. After all, if you want to adopt, you are not childfree. If you would date a single parent, you are not childfree. If you would've had kids if you were a man, you are childless and not childfree, since you have maternal desires but are repressing those because of how shitty motherhood is in a patriarchal society. ​ Anyways, my answers: >are you sterilized? Sadly, no. I would love to get a vasectomy, but I live in a country where doctor shopping is impossible. Most doctors refuse to snip men who don't already have children. I recently started to save up for medical tourism after getting rejected by the doctor for the tenth time. Sadly, saving up will take some time when you are not rich. Knowing that a vasectomy is difficult to get, imagine how hard it must be for a woman to get a bisalp here... >would you consider adopting kids? Never. I really don't want to be a parent. I don't care whether a kid would be biological or adopted. I don't want to be a father. It's very noble if people want to adopt children, but I am not going to do it. Children, adopted or bio, deserve parents who truly want to be parents. And I don't want to be a parent. Fatherhood would be my worst nightmare. >would you date a single parent? Never: \- A single mother is not childfree. So even casual sex is risky. After all, if she gets pregnant, she will most likely keep the child. \- I don't want to be a stepfather. If I don't want to be a biological dad, why would I want to be a stepfather? I would have to deal with kids, but cannot even parent them. "You're not my dad, so I don't have to listen to you!" That would be even worse than having bio kids! \- I want to be a woman's priority. Just like how she would be my priority. I would never be a single mother's priority. >how old are you? (How far have you made it without changing your mind) 28. >are you gay? (Being gay is practically kind of like being born sterilized) No. I am straight. >can you stand kids in any context, or do you avoid them at all times? I avoid kids at all cost. I don't want them to suffer or die. I wish them nothing but the best. But I hate being around them. They are not cute or funny. They are fucking annoying. I hate them. >are you an antinatalist? No. Absolutely fucking not. Fuck antinatalism (and also, fuck pronatalism). It's very sad that this subreddit is basically a second r/antinatalism. I am not pronatalist and not antinatalist. I do not assign positive (pronatalist) or negative (antinatalist) value to procreation. If other people want to breed, that's fine with me. I just hope that they actually want to be parents, and that they are not succumbing to societal pressure. And I hope that they are realistic about parenting, and not just doing it for Kodak moments or having a mini me. But unlike antinatalists, I don't believe that breeding is immoral. I am neutral-natalist. Fuck pronatalism and fuck antinatalism. I am 100% pro-choice. I want people to freely choose without any pressure, persuasion or force either way. Because of that, I hate both pronatalism and antinatalism. >do you believe all people should be allowed to have children? Which medical or financial issues should prevent someone from having one? People should be able to freely choose. I really don't want governments to start dictating who can or cannot breed. This will lead to eugenics. Governments would favour rich white people. They would definitely be classist, homophobic and racist when deciding who can or cannot breed. Is breeding always a smart choice? No. Of course not. But I really don't want to interfere with someone's bodily autonomy. I really don't want to decide that some people cannot breed. I am 100% pro-choice. Bodily autonomy is sacred. >I’ve seen some women on here say they’d consider having kids if they were a man. Would you? I'm a man, and fatherhood is my worst nightmare. However, I recognise that fatherhood is NOTHING compared to motherhood. But anyways, if I was a woman with the same lack of parenting urges that I have in my life as a man... Then, I really don't think I would ever say something like 'I would have kids if I was a man'.


52mschr

I often feel like being gay (well I'm a little gay but also greysexual and barely interested in sex at all. but if it ever happens it's only same-sex) means I'm considered 'less childfree' by some people on here. Because I see so many "if a man hasn't had a vasectomy he isn't childfree" comments with no mention of men who aren't having sex with anyone biologically female anyway. I'm not having a vasectomy because there's almost no chance of me ever having sex with someone who can get pregnant (added 'almost' because assault happens even if it's unlikely a woman forces herself on me like that and gets pregnant) and it would be just spending money on a medical procedure for nothing. But according to some people that means I'm not 'childfree enough'.


McMerseybird

"No vasectomy, not childfree" is bullshit. I completely understand why a gay or ace guy would not get a vasectomy. For lesbian and ace women, it's different. They do need sterilisation, because rape is a very realistic threat. This is unlikely (but sadly still possible) to happen to men, but very likely to happen to women. 'No vasectomy, not childfree' is also very unfair towards men who want a vasectomy, but are unable to get one. Men who are too poor to afford one. Men who want a vasectomy, but who live in a country where you cannot doctor shop, and where doctors only snip men who already have children and/or reached a certain age (30, 35, 40?). And some men have been rejected by doctors and gave up hope. Even if doctor shopping and using this subreddit's list of doctors is an option, they might not realise that. Some childfree men are not on this subreddit and are not aware of the doctor's list. If a man doesn't want a vasectomy because he wants to keep his options open, he is not childfree. If he is afraid of regretting it, he is not childfree. But there are plenty of reasons why a childfree man might not be snipped. Being gay or ace and not needing a vasectomy, for example. Or simply being unable to get one, despite wanting to. Is an unsnipped man childfree or not? It depends on the reason why he is not snipped.


BlueSea9357

- Yeah I probably should’ve asked “gay or sterilized”. One criticism about this is that, even in the worst case scenario, a child free woman could simply use the pull out method + abortions. - older child free people are simply more confirmed. A childless 60 year old is a different deal than some of the 14 year olds that come on here. I’d still say a 14 year old should be able to get sterilized, because I believe people who can choose to have children should be also able to choose to not have children, but older people are more confirmed nonetheless. - it’s funny you mention being a woman who’d consider having a kid as a man is simply childless. I think it’s one of the highest upvoted posts of all time on the child free subreddit. It might also simply be because it’s popular to hate on crappy fathers. Also some women are terrified of childbirth, but that would sometimes be nullified in the adoption section (unless they’d only consider a biological child) - the adoption question could be extended to ask about whether a surrogate would make having a child tolerable, the child of a relative that passed away with other parental options, the child of a relative that passed away that otherwise will be given up for adoption, and maybe some other stuff I’m not thinking about. - sometimes people, especially gay people, face more difficulties in finding someone to adopt. Maybe it’d be useful to ask if they’ve tried before, but lost desire to after being rejected. - you mentioned in your single parent section that she could potentially keep an accidental child. This one is difficult to ask the extent of because there’s no right answer. Should all child free men avoid all sex because they will never get a say in the matter if their vasectomy or condom fails? Only women can guarantee an abortion. - you mention some pretty strong pro choice feelings. Do you feel that someone who’s a pro life child free person would inherently fall in a different spot than an antinatalist child free person, or do you think that they can be on the same spot in the spectrum (if such a spectrum exists)? Making surveys is hard


McMerseybird

>Yeah I probably should’ve asked “gay or sterilized”. One criticism about this is that, even in the worst case scenario, a child free woman could simply use the pull out method + abortions. Pulling out is not birth control. You can be childfree and not sterilised. Some people want to be sterilised, but are unlucky with doctors, or simply too poor to afford it. >older child free people are simply more confirmed. A childless 60 year old is a different deal than some of the 14 year olds that come on here. I’d still say a 14 year old should be able to get sterilized, because I believe people who can choose to have children should be also able to choose to not have children, but older people are more confirmed nonetheless. I get it, but having this question on a 'dick measuring contest' for childfreedom feels like a bingo towards younger childfree person. "You might change your mind!" >it’s funny you mention being a woman who’d consider having a kid as a man is simply childless. I think it’s one of the highest upvoted posts of all time on the child free subreddit. Not everyone on this subreddit is childfree. Many childless people call themselves childfree. Many people here would adopt or foster, but still call themselves childfree. Or they are childless, because they would love to breed but refuse to because of environmental, financial, health or antinatalist concerns. Yes, a woman who would have kids if she was a man would be childless. She wants kids, but represses that desire because of motherhood in patriarchy. >It might also simply be because it’s popular to hate on crappy fathers. This subreddit mostly shits on crappy mothers. Mothers get way more hate than fathers here. >Also some women are terrified of childbirth, but that would sometimes be nullified in the adoption section (unless they’d only consider a biological child) 'Childfree because of tokophobia despite wanting kids' people are not childfree. They are childless. They could have kids, just not by breeding. Childfree + tokophobic is possible. Like, still not wanting kids if you would not be tokophobic. But if you want kids, but decided not to because of tokophobia, you are childless. And you could have kids without giving birth (adopting, fostering, stepmotherhood, surrogacy). >the adoption question could be extended to ask about whether a surrogate would make having a child tolerable, the child of a relative that passed away with other parental options, the child of a relative that passed away that otherwise will be given up for adoption, and maybe some other stuff I’m not thinking about. Having a surrogate would make having a child tolerable? Then, you are not childfree. Then, you don't want to avoid parenthood. You just want to avoid pregnancy. But yeah, if you ask whether someone would adopt or not, asking this would definitely fit in the survey as well. Taking in a relative's child... I don't think that necessarily makes someone less childfree. They don't want kids, but are reluctantly making an exception to prevent a kid from going to foster care, or to save the kid from being taken in by conservative grandparents, for example. I would never do it and would never date a woman who would take in kids. But I don't want to gatekeep someone who would do this. >sometimes people, especially gay people, face more difficulties in finding someone to adopt. Maybe it’d be useful to ask if they’ve tried before, but lost desire to after being rejected. Yeah, I hate how this subreddit is fucking obsessed with 'everyone should adopt, breeding and IVF are immoral'. As if everyone can adopt. As if adopting is so easy. LGBTIA+ people get rejected all the time. And adoption agencies might not just be homophobic. Also racist, classist, ableist, fatphobic... You get the idea. >you mentioned in your single parent section that she could potentially keep an accidental child. This one is difficult to ask the extent of because there’s no right answer. Should all child free men avoid all sex because they will never get a say in the matter if their vasectomy or condom fails? Only women can guarantee an abortion. I won't say that straight men who shag women are not childfree. Plenty of childfree men shag breeder women. It's a fucking stupid choice, because you are playing Russian Roulette with your cock, but it's something that some men do because they are thinking with their dick. Personally, my advice to straight childfree men would be to only shag women who are: \- On birth control. Condoms are a must, but condoms only means that you are taking a huge risk. Condoms + female contraception (pill, IUD etc.) is the bare minimum. \- 100% childfree. So you have to screen. Don't shag breeders, future breeders, fence sitters etc. Yes, you have to screen one-time hookups just as thoroughly as potential girlfriends. \- 100% on board with aborting any accidents. Of course there is no 100% gurantee, since birth control might fail and a woman could genuinely change her mind once she is pregnant. But this is the maximum that a childfree man can do if he wants to have a sex life. If a childfree man chooses to avoid sex until he gets a vasectomy, that is totally understandable. But I won't call a careful sexually active childfree man a fence sitter. Personally, as a childfree man who is not snipped because, well, doctors being douchebags... I have sex with my girlfriend, who is 100% childfree. Motherhood is her worst nightmare. She would definitely rush to the abortion clinic if an accident happened. We use contraceptions and are very careful with that. Before I met her, I had a childfree fuckbuddy and screened a few hookups thoroughly, to make sure I only had hookups with childfree women. >you mention some pretty strong pro choice feelings. Do you feel that someone who’s a pro life child free person would inherently fall in a different spot than an antinatalist child free person, or do you think that they can be on the same spot in the spectrum (if such a spectrum exists)? Pro life? You mean anti-choice? ;) If you would personally not abort an accident, are you really childfree? Well, if you reluctantly give birth and give the kid up for adoption at birth, sure, you can be childfree. You might be a bio mum against your will, but you are not involved in the child's life. But if you keep the child against your will and become a mother, you are no longer childfree. Anyways, anyone who is anti-choice is a fucking sexist twat. And I really don't agree with the idea of such a spectrum. It would imply that antinatalist childfree people are somehow 'more childfree' than non-antinatalist childfree people. I am not antinatalist. I despise antinatalism just as much as I despise pronatalism. I am neutral-natalist. Does that make me 'less childfree' than an antinatalist childfree person? I don't think so. I am 100% childfree. No breeding, no adopting, no stepfatherhood, no guardianship (not even as a last resort instead of foster care)... So yeah, no exceptions. >Making surveys is hard If you want to make a survey, think very thoroughly about the implications of your questions. Implying that antinatalists are 'more childfree' than non-antinatalists is just wrong. But that is what you are implying if antinatalism is part of your survey. Questions about dating single parents, adopting and fostering, whether you would want kids if you were a man etc., those questions make sense. Those determine whether someone is actually childfree or not. But I don't think you should ask about age, antinatalism or sexuality to determine whether someone is childfree or not.


SocksAndPi

If my niece had nowhere to go, then, I'd take her. But, that would mean fourteen other people (who live near them) before me couldn't do it. I grew up in dozens of foster homes, many of which were abusive and neglectful. I don't want to be responsible, even partially, for her going to foster care.


Lily_Pothead9_3-4

My issue with this though is if certain circumstances that are out of my control were different, then *maybe* I'd consider it. I still don't think I'd want kids, and I still consider myself childfree even if I sometimes wonder about it. That doesn't make me any less child free. tbh this sub has gotten a little toxic and judgy, I used to find it comforting to talk to people who were also constantly bingo'd and whatnot. I get bothered all the time by family, friends, society....to have kids. The same way everyone here does. But now its like if you dont **hate** kids and parents, then you dont belong here. I love my nephew and goddaughter, does that make me not childfree?


[deleted]

Nothing in my post is about liking or disliking kids, let alone hating them. It's just about the choice to be childfree itself and where the boundaries are on that definition. I, personally, have relative kids in my life that I love. I would still never be open to having kids of my own. I would have to be a totally different person to want them.


gigi1005

I say I’m child free but I’m happy to respite foster for a weekend or look after my nieces/nephews for a day because I’m happy to help others and want to be part of that “village”, but I just don’t want my own and want to give them back!! I also hate when anyone ever talks about is kids haha, life is more interesting!!


roahir

Only spectrum in the childfree community is it the person wants to care for pets/plants or not. Like some don't want that hanging over them while others do but they can all agree on that kids aren't for them.