Memorandum10 wrote: » It depends what you mean by over the hill, is 12 years past peak attractiveness over the hill?
Memorandum10 wrote: » Studies and the real world can verify this.
Memorandum10 wrote: » Women on average.
Memorandum10 wrote: » can't post links as a re reg unfortunately Does it bother you that women are usually at their most attractive in their early twenties?
Memorandum10 wrote: » Studies I've read.
Memorandum10 wrote: » The age at which women can inspire the most attraction in men.
yourdeadwright wrote: » The person you said 35 was 12 years past peak attractiveness is on crack
SusieBlue wrote: » I think I'd be a lot lonelier and I'd definitely have way less socialising opportunities if not for them all being in the same boat too. I never thought about it that way before.
Tucker Hot Bell wrote: » My friend's mother was 30 when she gave birth to her older daughter in the 1970s, and the hospital classified her pregnancy as geriatric (perfectly healthy child). So be it. 40+ years on, having babies over 30 - and no health issues for the babies - is extremely commonplace. Yeah the risks increase all right but it's disingenuous to claim they're extremely high when the woman is only just over 30.
ToddyDoody wrote: » I'd love to be the person in the group who laughs way too loud at that.
Deebles McBeebles wrote: » You're lucky to have that little group Susie. When all around you are in LTR it definitely does not help.
lawred2 wrote: » For some reason - I had you very much pegged as being a small bit older than that.. Single life is great. I really enjoyed being single. All the time in the world to do what I want. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit to succumbing to the occasional bout of loneliness. I've no time to myself now to ever do anything. Almost everything I do is centered around my kids. It's exhausting. But I wouldn't swap it for anything. I do miss having time to play golf though.
TomasMacR wrote: » this sums up the opposite end of what you seemed to be protesting at the end of your first paragraph. it's all pro's and cons...but if you are honest with yourself, being with someone that adds to your life in terms of joy and happiness does just that. we aren't meant to be on our own no matter how much we convince ourselves, that's why you have f*ck buddies, it's as much for companionship as it is for pleasure albeit temporary...you're kidding yourself. I asked someone earlier similar to yourself, if you actually met someone who you were physically attracted to and you got on great, would you be open to developing it into something which could form a loving relationship? I didn't get a response from him. If the answer is genuinely yes, possibly then most of your post is just denial. If it's no, then there's something wrong with you, intending to stay single deliberately is very odd.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » So, I'm a little into my thirties now and still single. What I didn't expect was to actually be enjoying it. I'm able to pretty much do as I please. I can pursue my own interests, travel when and where I want and do sod all when I want. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say no to meeting someone but I figure I should try and enjoy single life while it lasts.
Deleted User wrote: » Just for the people who are in a relationship and say they can do whatever they want, would you be comfortable buying an extra car without clearing that with your partner? :P
lainey_d_123 wrote: » I must be imagining all the women I know who had healthy first babies at 37+, so. And here's a fact that will blow your mind - plenty of women don't actually want children. Especially the ones who are actively choosing to be single.
Zorya wrote: » Have only become aware of the context of the word. Anyways, I can imagine the reimagining of c*nt, but sure lookit, I'll mount my own private campaign to do so :pac:. But.... put some of this pungent ungent on your grungy clunge to expunge the gunge before I take the plunge - nah. Can't get behind that ungy sound at all.
sbsquarepants wrote: » Bring your wellies, we're gonna be knee deep in cúnt - just doesn't have the same ring to it!
Zorya wrote: » As a related aside I find that word clunge to be gruesome sounding. I don't get out much so I read it on boards for the first time, and I hope it is not commonly used. C*nt is a much nicer word, frankly. Clunge. Ughhhh.