A question for the single ladies

ShizDink

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Two what-ifs arise from this:
Firstly, what if the perfect guy didn't know you existed and had never met you when he first had children? Is he suddenly not the perfect guy because he didn't take your opinions into account before he even knew you?
Secondly, what if you do exactly as you plan, then unfortunately you find out your perfect guy is actually a scumbag banging your mate and you split up. How would you feel about future men disregarding you because you didn't wait to have your first child with them?

That is the romance in it. I never said romance is sensible ... Cinderella meets Prince charming, falls in love and lives happily ever after. Romance doesn't take 10 years down the line into consideration. I am a romantic, it is slightly unrealistic I know, but I'm still holding on to the idea. If my perfect man previously fell in love with someone, enough to have a child with them, then I would not feel special. Bang goes the romance. I am waiting for my Mr. Perfect so that I can be his Ms. Perfect. Again probably not realistic but romantic none the less.

Cavehill Red

ShizDink wrote: »

That is the romance in it. I never said romance is sensible ... Cinderella meets Prince charming, falls in love and lives happily ever after. Romance doesn't take 10 years down the line into consideration. I am a romantic, it is slightly unrealistic I know, but I'm still holding on to the idea. If my perfect man previously fell in love with someone, enough to have a child with them, then I would not feel special. Bang goes the romance. I am waiting for my Mr. Perfect so that I can be his Ms. Perfect. Again probably not realistic but romantic none the less.

You never answered my what-ifs.

LeeHoffmann

if you can't compromise to accommodate a partner's children for a while it probably means you're not so good at compromising to accommodate a partner.

It doesn't mean anything of the sort. All it means is that people with children fall outside your criteria. Making value judgements on a whole category of people is very unwise and unhelpful here.

Malari

Cavehill Red wrote: »

See, firstly, I suppose I bristle at the idea that someone would be compromising on some sort of principle or standard in order to date a parent. What are we, lepers or something? We're likely more admirable, responsible, rounded human beings than many non-parents, I'd argue.
Furthermore, for me dealbreakers are behavioural. If someone screws around, or if they have chronic alcohol or drug problems. Those are dealbreakers. As I said earlier, if someone is prepared to overlook that sort of thing, yet would be prejudiced against all parents as potential partners without examining whether there is chemistry, whether it would be a viable relationship, and those other individual circumstances, I just find that demented, really.

Demented! Wow.

OK, no I don't think parents are lepers. Cliche alert: some of my best friends are parents. Of small kids, and of adult kids. They are ALWAYS in your life. As they should be. That's not something I want in a partner.

You know what? A lot of smokers are also "admirable, responsible, rounded human beings" but I still don't want to date one. It really says more about me than the smoker. I'm not making a judgement about people, I'm just saying I don't feel, in my experience, I would be compatible with them.

Cavehill Red

LeeHoffmann wrote:

It doesn't mean anything of the sort. All it means is that people with children fall outside your criteria. Making value judgements on a whole category of people is very unwise and unhelpful here.

Like parents, perhaps?

Malari wrote: »

Demented! Wow.
OK, no I don't think parents are lepers. Cliche alert: some of my best friends are parents. Of small kids, and of adult kids. They are ALWAYS in your life. As they should be. That's not something I want in a partner.
You know what? A lot of smokers are also "admirable, responsible, rounded human beings" but I still don't want to date one. It really says more about me than the smoker. I'm not making a judgement about people, I'm just saying I don't feel, in my experience, I would be compatible with them.

What's demented is that you are not only prepared but adamant on ruling out a whole cohort of diverse and different people without even trying to assess the viability of a relationship with them first. God only knows how many great matches you'll pass up as you cling to your shopping list.

Emme

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd somewhat agree with this. Certainly I know some extremes of this. Short tubby balding oulfellas trying it on with 22 year olds and such. Or women with "The Checklist". A checklist that gets longer the older and more single they become.

Older single women will quote a checklist as long as your arm, basically as an excuse because they haven't met anyone for ages. Then when somebody who falls way short of the checklist approaches them they melt. I've seen it happen. So women have a checklist that apparently grows as they get older but the reality is it shrinks.

On the other hand, men's checklists get waaaaay longer as they get older. This is most apparent with guys who weren't popular with women in their 20s but as they get older demographics favour them and they really want to cash in and take out their bitterness on women who never met them before and never did anything on them.

Ickle Magoo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Which is why I said individual circumstances ought to be paramount. I've just met a friend of mine who is married to a woman who has children from a previous relationship. He never foresaw having children of his own (and doesn't) and didn't like kids. But he wasn't dogmatic, so when he met the woman of his dreams he was able to forge a relationship with her, and is now delighted that he gets what he calls the best of all worlds - the experience of parenting without the responsibility of being a parent.

And it's his prerogative to change his mind - others are steadfast in their turn on's and off's and telling them they shouldn't be like that doesn't change that fact. You aren't going to magically convince people who don't want kids as part of their lives that it is in fact their perfect life based on a single anecdote - there are many here who have posted about being perfectly willing to have a relationship with a guy and have lived to regret it...so I guess that goes both ways?

I

Cavehill Red wrote: »

ndeed. Each to their own taste. My point was merely that there are plenty of single people out there (and in here) moaning about the lack of available partners, yet when you quiz them you suddenly unearth a lengthy shopping list of provisos which rules out the vast majority of the planet, thus explaining why they're single.

Or, you know, they just haven't met someone they click with. My auntie was single for years - did she get to 30 something and suddenly decide everything she wanted a relationship and her life to be should go out the window because just HAVING a relationship, any relationship was important? No...and she got married for the first time in her fifties...to another life-long singleton.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I wasn't proposing either extreme. But I think as people get older it is increasingly unrealistic to have a lengthy list of optimal attributes in one's mind. They become fixed and function to rule out the chance of happiness with someone who doesn't fit criteria that are, essentially, abstract.
I'd like to think we've moved away societally from the idea that people with children are somehow 'shopsoiled' or 'used'. The statement by the girl who wouldn't date a father because of what her own parents might think really saddened me.
I don't think my partner 'made do' when she met me, nor do I think that of anyone I know in a relationship with a parent. I think they were able to see past one attribute of the person's life to the whole person, and made their decision based on that.
We're long past a world of nuclear families anymore, and people should acknowledge that reality.

She didn't make do, of course - because she clearly didn't mind going out with a single dad. I was referring to your suggestion that people who do not currently want a partner who has kids, to ignore their own wishes and wants, fears and dislikes and do it for the sake of having a relationship because past a certain age, they can't afford to be fussy. I don't agree with that - I think that's the perfect way to kick off a really unhealthy resentful relationship that isn't going to last and thus cause a lot of people a lot of hurt.

My own personal view is on the first page - I don't agree with everything that's been said either but that doesn't give me the right to dictate the terms on which other people want to have relationships. Rather than convincing people they should be dating the people they aren't naturally attracted to, I'd use it as a filter for those that are unlikely to be a good match anyway.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I didn't suggest compromising on the relationship, but rather examining one's pre-existing prejudices when you meet a potential mate. If we substituted skin colour for parent in many of the statements made on this thread, there would be outrage and rightly so.
As regards a person with children, the individual circumstances are key. How old the children are, how independent, what involvement the other parent has in their lives (if indeed they are even alive - there are young widows and widowers too, you know), all these things matter.
I just think that people ought to see past their own shopping lists to the people in front of them, and maybe a lot more of them wouldn't be single.

If someone wants a relationship which entails sharing parenthood or travelling the world then one of them already having a child is going to put a serious halt to that being a possibility...and meaning they either forgo the relationship or compromise ON the type of relationship they can have...and that's not necessarily a good thing.

Just to add....people don't chose their skin colour; people do chose to be parents, albeit often passively. It's still a choice that they have to be responsible for and thus accept all the other consequences as a result of making that choice. I just don't think it's fair to foist blame or responsibility onto others for the choices we make that limit our pool of potential mates.

looky loo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Like parents, perhaps?



What's demented is that you are not only prepared but adamant on ruling out a whole cohort of diverse and different people without even trying to assess the viability of a relationship with them first. God only knows how many great matches you'll pass up as you cling to your shopping list.

How is it demented if poster says she knows what she wants? Have you thought through the adverse reaction on the children of bringing partners in and out of their lives.

Malari

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What's demented is that you are not only prepared but adamant on ruling out a whole cohort of diverse and different people without even trying to assess the viability of a relationship with them first. God only knows how many great matches you'll pass up as you cling to your shopping list.

A whole cohort of people with one thing in common.

Surely you have a deal-breaker or two that would group people together too, that would otherwise be perfectly well-rounded, wonderful individuals?

Miss Olenska

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What are we, lepers or something? We're likely more admirable, responsible, rounded human beings than many non-parents, I'd argue.

Wut?

Look, I'm sorry you feel ostracised because of your parental status. I have an illness that puts some men off. Life isn't fair.

Cavehill Red

looky loo wrote: »

How is it demented if poster says she knows what she wants? Have you thought through the adverse reaction on the children of bringing partners in and out of their lives.

It's demented because parents aren't all of a type or anything like it. Even how they parent varies wildly, or how much time their parenting takes.
It's akin to saying 'I couldn't date someone aged 34' without specifying anything further. Some parents, especially custodial mothers of infants, are heavily encumbered by their parenthood and that obviously would impact on the ability to go out, etc. Others, like myself, aren't remotely so encumbered.
I just find it bizarre and blinkered that someone could rule out every parent on the planet as a potential partner before exploring the individual circumstances and the interpersonal chemistry and viability first.

Ickle Magoo

Like that really fat girl that just doesn't do it for you?

Red, we ALL pass on a whole assortment of people throughout our lives based on our own criterion of traits that we find attractive & are willing to share our lives with - why just should one party being a parent be excluded from that - any more than someone's weight, or ability to commit or sense of humour, EQ or anything else that is likely to affect both parties and the relationship in general?

Cavehill Red

Malari wrote: »

A whole cohort of people with one thing in common.

Surely you have a deal-breaker or two that would group people together too, that would otherwise be perfectly well-rounded, wonderful individuals?

Not really, no. The ability to speak a shared language, perhaps. Communication is important. Other than that, no. I tend to find that prejudice rebounds on the prejudiced. To rule out swathes of humanity in that manner would be detrimental to my own experience as a human being, I reckon.

Cavehill Red

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Like that really fat girl that just doesn't do it for you?

Not really a close analogy. After all, when you're talking in a blanket fashion about parents, you're talking about all sorts of people from all cultures and walks of life. If they didn't tell you up front that they had kids, you have no other way of knowing. It's not the same as an obvious lack of physical attraction at all.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Red, we ALL pass on a whole assortment of people throughout our lives based on our own criterion of traits that we find attractive & are willing to share our lives with - why just should one party being a parent be excluded from that - any more than someone's weight, or ability to commit or sense of humour, EQ or anything else that is likely to affect both parties and the relationship in general?

But it's not about attractiveness, as you could easily find someone attractive without knowing their parental status. It's about a prejudice - to a degree understandable - towards a cohort of people based on their having other interpersonal relationships in their lives. The understandable bit for me is that people could be reticent about forging a relationship with the kid(s). I get that. That's sensible and prudent. But to rule out all parents before even getting to the point where you explore that level of individual circumstances just seems to me to be a blind prejudice.

Miss Olenska

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's akin to saying 'I couldn't date someone aged 34' without specifying anything further.

It's really not. People know what being a parent entails.

Ickle Magoo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not really a close analogy. After all, when you're talking in a blanket fashion about parents, you're talking about all sorts of people from all cultures and walks of life. If they didn't tell you up front that they had kids, you have no other way of knowing. It's not the same as an obvious lack of physical attraction at all.

It is when people just really don't want or like kids - what is the point of getting involved with someone when a huge chunk of their life you have no interest in or find hugely unattractive/limiting/annoying/whatever?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But it's not about attractiveness, as you could easily find someone attractive without knowing their parental status. It's about a prejudice - to a degree understandable - towards a cohort of people based on their having other interpersonal relationships in their lives. The understandable bit for me is that people could be reticent about forging a relationship with the kid(s). I get that. That's sensible and prudent. But to rule out all parents before even getting to the point where you explore that level of individual circumstances just seems to me to be a blind prejudice.

Of course it's attraction - outside of first time eyes meeting across a bar or whatever, attraction is very much part of an overall package. We fall in and out of love with people - they usually haven't physically changed but how attractive we find them at any given time is based on their actions and how happy we are in the relationship. If someone knows that they aren't going to be happy in a relationship with someone who is a parent, especially the parent the child lives with, then surely that is for them to know and live with?

Cavehill Red

Miss Olenska wrote: »

It's really not. People know what being a parent entails.

Just like we know what being 34 entails. It tells you the same amount of info about someone - ie almost nothing. Parenting varies wildly from culture to culture, person to person. In some parts of the world, it's done communally. Some people enjoy the support of many extended family members and nannies. Others are very isolated, and have to spend plenty of their time on their kids. The likelihood is that if you met someone out in a scenario where you might consider dating them, that parent is not one of those who is stuck with the kids 24/7.
What being a parent means is different for each person. I have a friend, great lad, wonderful fun, very popular with the ladies, good income, and he has a gorgeous daughter he only gets to see sporadically because of the geographic distance from where he is and where the child lives. Frankly speaking, if he didn't tell people he was a parent, he could date them for months and they'd be none the wiser. It certainly doesn't have more than a negligible impact on his dating life or his ability to have a relationship.
He's an honest man, proud of his kid, and he tells women up front that he is a father. He does it because he reckons the ones that are put off by that are shallow people that he doesn't want to waste his time on anyway.
My own approach was slightly more circumspect. I'd be inclined to leave it a date or two before mentioning it, as I wanted to see whether there was chemistry first, and whether a relationship was a runner or not. If I thought it might be, at that point I'd bring it up and see what happened. I wouldn't introduce anyone to my kid until some months down the line, even if asked. After all, it's me they're having a relationship with. Neither me nor my mate were ever in the market for mummies for the kids.

Miss Olenska

Cavehill Red wrote: »

He does it because he reckons the ones that are put off by that are shallow people that he doesn't want to waste his time on anyway.

What an unfair assumption.

Like I said earlier, I have an illness that has put some men off me. I didn't choose to have the illness, but I have accepted that it puts some men off without resentment. You CHOSE to have children, accept the restrictions that come with it.

Cavehill Red

Miss Olenska wrote: »

What an unfair assumption.

At one time, I'd have agreed it was unfair. It wasn't an assumption I made. However, over time I have to admit he's been right close to 100% of the time on that one.

Miss Olenska wrote: »

Like I said earlier, I have an illness that has put some men off me. I didn't choose to have the illness, but I have accepted that it puts some men off without resentment. You CHOSE to have children, accept the restrictions that come with it.

Firstly, I really have to kick to the kerb your ongoing insinuations that I feel somehow ostracised, resentful and bereft. I don't at all. I'm very happy and have a lovely partner who loves my kid and me.
Secondly, how do you know whether I chose to have children? Plenty of men find themselves suddenly fathers without being involved in any such decision-making process. Happens to some women too (though usually they get a sense of being pregnant in time to decide on a termination or not.)

looky loo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Just like we know what being 34 entails. It tells you the same amount of info about someone - ie almost nothing. Parenting varies wildly from culture to culture, person to person. In some parts of the world, it's done communally. Some people enjoy the support of many extended family members and nannies. Others are very isolated, and have to spend plenty of their time on their kids. The likelihood is that if you met someone out in a scenario where you might consider dating them, that parent is not one of those who is stuck with the kids 24/7.
What being a parent means is different for each person. I have a friend, great lad, wonderful fun, very popular with the ladies, good income, and he has a gorgeous daughter he only gets to see sporadically because of the geographic distance from where he is and where the child lives. Frankly speaking, if he didn't tell people he was a parent, he could date them for months and they'd be none the wiser. It certainly doesn't have more than a negligible impact on his dating life or his ability to have a relationship.
He's an honest man, proud of his kid, and he tells women up front that he is a father. He does it because he reckons the ones that are put off by that are shallow people that he doesn't want to waste his time on anyway.
My own approach was slightly more circumspect. I'd be inclined to leave it a date or two before mentioning it, as I wanted to see whether there was chemistry first, and whether a relationship was a runner or not. If I thought it might be, at that point I'd bring it up and see what happened. I wouldn't introduce anyone to my kid until some months down the line, even if asked. After all, it's me they're having a relationship with. Neither me nor my mate were ever in the market for mummies for the kids.

I think the reason you do this is because you know from experience telling women you had children has put them off. It is outrageous to me that you would do this, you are wasting someones time.

Miss Olenska

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Firstly, I really have to kick to the kerb your ongoing insinuations that I feel somehow ostracised, resentful and bereft. I don't at all. I'm very happy and have a lovely partner who loves my kid and me.

The leper comment helped me shape that view.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Secondly, how do you know whether I chose to have children? Plenty of men find themselves suddenly fathers without being involved in any such decision-making process. Happens to some women too (though usually they get a sense of being pregnant in time to decide on a termination or not.)

Even if you didn't chose, like I said, life isn't fair.

People who don't want kids are shallow. I've heard it all now. I would argue that they are very far from shallow in many cases because they are putting the feelings of their potential partner's kids to the fore, worrying about the effect on them. When you become a parent, you can't do anything you want any more.

Wibbs

Emme wrote: »

Older single women will quote a checklist as long as your arm, basically as an excuse because they haven't met anyone for ages. Then when somebody who falls way short of the checklist approaches them they melt. I've seen it happen. So women have a checklist that apparently grows as they get older but the reality is it shrinks.

On the other hand, men's checklists get waaaaay longer as they get older. This is most apparent with guys who weren't popular with women in their 20s but as they get older demographics favour them and they really want to cash in and take out their bitterness on women who never met them before and never did anything on them.

Well to be fair I'd agree with a lot of that. Like I said earlier women seem to have a better reset mechanism as far as being open to love than men do. What I have noted is the change in men not like the ones described. Actual good men who aren't bitter, just cautious(sometimes with good reason) and just don't want a serious longtermer because of that.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What's demented is that you are not only prepared but adamant on ruling out a whole cohort of diverse and different people without even trying to assess the viability of a relationship with them first. God only knows how many great matches you'll pass up as you cling to your shopping list.

Eh no. Let me break this down as best I can; I don't want kids. I don't particularly like kids. At my age I think I know my own mind on this. Now this could change. I'm not so wet behind the ears to imagine it wouldn't, but and it's a big but even if I wanted kids in the morning, I'd not want someone elses. I'd want my own and hers. It's called having a preference. And it's a pretty big one. If not the biggest. And one I'd simply not compromise on. If I had kids myself and I met a woman with kids then cool beans, brady bunch time. But if I had a kid now, I'd not expect someone else to automatically accept that.

Miss Olenska wrote:

Like I said earlier, I have an illness that has put some men off me. I didn't choose to have the illness, but I have accepted that it puts some men off without resentment. You CHOSE to have children, accept the restrictions that come with it.

+1 MO. We all accept that some won't dig us for whatever reason and that's cool and the gang as far as I'm concerned. Others will so it's hardly a restriction, unless I want to rev up my ire for the sake of it.

Wibbs

looky loo wrote: »

I think the reason you do this is because you know from experience telling women you had children has put them off. It is outrageous to me that you would do this, you are wasting someones time.

Ah now L to be fair CR leaving it to the second date is hardly leading them on. If it is then the woman in question is a bit of a loopjob if she's picking out the rings at that stage.

LeeHoffmann

Like parents, perhaps?

no value judgements were made on parents by me :rolleyes: Saying that dating a parents would be bad for me is not making a value judgement on the whole category of parents.

Cavehill Red

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no. Let me break this down as best I can; I don't want kids. I don't particularly like kids. At my age I think I know my own mind on this. Now this could change. I'm not so wet behind the ears to imagine it wouldn't, but and it's a big but even if I wanted kids in the morning, I'd not want someone elses. I'd want my own and hers. It's called having a preference. And it's a pretty big one. If not the biggest. And one I'd simply not compromise on. If I had kids myself and I met a woman with kids then cool beans, brady bunch time. But if I had a kid now, I'd not expect someone else to automatically accept that.

So not dating a parent would be a bigger preference for you than not dating, say, a junkie or a criminal? Curious hierarchy of preference there.
I'm also curious why you'd be prepared to date a parent if you were one, but not if you weren't. That seems to be a different position to the blanket prejudice many people on this thread have.
It would seem to me that scenario would be even more potentially fraught, as you have the relationships between the children to negotiate as well as those between adults and children. Just much more complicated, rather than Brady Bunch, in reality. Though I've seen it happen and seen it work, but it does take a lot of work, much more than the work required in a relationship where only one person has existing kids.
Your final line is concerning for the following reason (which I've generally heard from fathers rather than mothers as they tend to be the non-custodial parents): I'm not going to tell them I have kids at all and see how things go.
Personally, I'm not ashamed of my kid nor should I be, and I didn't go down that road. But I know those who do, and until people can get over their prejudice in this regard in the same way people eventually got past racism and homophobia, it's effectively a charter encouraging deceit.

looky loo

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah now L to be fair CR leaving it to the second date is hardly leading them on. If it is then the woman in question is a bit of a loopjob if she's picking out the rings at that stage.

lols...didnt mean it like that, but would like to know if someone had children before I dated them. For me its not something I want to do. So fair enough I get your point just speaking from a personal point of view.

Cavehill Red

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah now L to be fair CR leaving it to the second date is hardly leading them on. If it is then the woman in question is a bit of a loopjob if she's picking out the rings at that stage.

There was a thread in the Ladies Lounge before from the single mother's perspective on this, and the posts I made about how I went about disclosing that I was a father on that thread ended up the most thanked posts I ever made. Unfortunately, I can't search for them now to dig them out, but most of the women on that thread previously seemed to think that I was spot on leaving things to the second or third date.

looky loo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There was a thread in the Ladies Lounge before from the single mother's perspective on this, and the posts I made about how I went about disclosing that I was a father on that thread ended up the most thanked posts I ever made. Unfortunately, I can't search for them now to dig them out, but most of the women on that thread previously seemed to think that I was spot on leaving things to the second or third date.

As I said in previous post it is a personal preference to me to know if someone has children before I date. As I have already had the experience of dating a single dad.

Wibbs

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So not dating a parent would be a bigger preference for you than not dating, say, a junkie or a criminal? Curious hierarchy of preference there.

Eh who in gods name said I have a sliding scale of preference and junkies were preferable to some parent? I'd not date a junkie or a parent, for like you know, different reasons?

I'm also curious why you'd be prepared to date a parent if you were one, but not if you weren't. That seems to be a different position to the blanket prejudice many people on this thread have.

Well simply because I would already be one, loved and wanted my own kid(s) so adding to the mix wouldn't be an issue.

It would seem to me that scenario would be even more potentially fraught, as you have the relationships between the children to negotiate as well as those between adults and children. Just much more complicated, rather than Brady Bunch, in reality. Though I've seen it happen and seen it work, but it does take a lot of work, much more than the work required in a relationship where only one person has existing kids.

I'm sure it is complex, but much more simple is this I Don't Want Kids and I Certainly Don't Want Someone Else's. So if you're a parent you're off my radar. I dunno how more clear I can be.

But I know those who do, and until people can get over their prejudice in this regard in the same way people eventually got past racism and homophobia, it's effectively a charter encouraging deceit.

Racism and homophobia? Ah here now lets try and steer away from the rocks of hyperbole can we? BUt hey lets run with one of these. Homophobia. I'm not homophobic, however I'm not gonna go out with a bloke to prove it, because I might be "missing something" because of my checklist. My personal checklist has right at the top "No blokes" Call it a preference if you will. I'm not infantaphobic(should be a word), but I''m not gonna go out with someone's mother to prove it.

bronte

Isn't it widely agreed that differing on the kids thing is a dealbreaker?