I usually agree with a lot that you write, Taffy, but have to disagree here.

It's not necessary to leave children, as one can leave a body of work that will be used by specialists for decades to come. Or a person without children will have saved a lot of lives (through medicine for example) or improved a lot of lives through being a teacher. Etc etc. Leaving flesh is a natural thing, like animals do: They procreate. Humans can go much higher than that in terms of meaningful participation to this life.

And a lot of adult children do not mourn their old parents; they can't wait to put their hands on the money/inheritance. I am sure you know many people in your own family (like everybody) who started fighting among siblings before the parents died (and kept going afterwards), totally oblivious to the old chap dying in his rocking chair.

About the necessity of marriage for children, I tend to agree. Tend to. But yourself, Taffy, had children with one or maybe two wives before the present one, and you divorced (I think you wrote that some 6 months ago)? Were all your children adult when you divorced?

No, I think you have answered Turnoi, for I didn't write that. You can live a good and rewarding life as a childless man or woman, which is something I have always believed. I have never planned to find a girlfriend. I have never planned to find a wife or marry. I have never planned on having any children. In fact I have never planned on having sex, so Pattaya would tumble down brick by brick if it awaited the likes of me to fill its coffers.

Yes, I agree, you should marry to rear a family but you shouldn't bring up said family on public funds.

Turnoi likes to tinker about and keep busy so I imagine he would have kept happy without a wife or family. But isn't it curious that the worst marriage partners of all make the least able to cope as single people.