A question for the single ladies

sollar · 04-06-2011 11:13PM

mariebeth wrote: »

having my own child someday is non-negotiable.

Well you might have to negotiate with the perspective parent

.

I am a friend · 05-06-2011 01:23PM

mariebeth wrote: »

Other than that, I want my own children in the future, so if it was a case of he has his children and doesn't want any more, then I couldn't go out with him, because for me, having my own child someday is non-negotiable.

It's very important to have your own 'standards' and I hope you get all you hope for but a lot of posters on here with narrower views than Mariebeth seem to assume that what they want, they get.

Ladies, from experience (and that of my friends), life is not that linear. You meet the man, get the house etc etc and maybe he or you can't have kids. I hope this does not happen to any of you and as I said it's good to have standards but life just doesnt come wrapped up in a bow.

I am back with my ex now and we are having my first. We broke up 18 years ago, were strictly friends since, I was invited to their wedding, bought presents for his kids etc and here we are. I didn't used to want to be with a separated man (ESP with kids) but I would not trade him for the world. He has been incredible to me and my parents through horrendous times lately and he is the best support you could ever find.

If I am being honest I would rather less baggage but would prefer baggage plus a good man than being alone with my aspirations for my life. Plus, a big bonus is the he will know how to change the nappies

)))

05-06-2011 01:30PM

I imagine ladies and gents are similar enough in this regards, a good deal depends on the specifics. Personally I wouldn't view a seperated lady with two kids from a marraige and a lady with two kids with two different fathers as the same proposition.

Presumably most single ladies would reckon similarly about men with kids?

metrovelvet · 05-06-2011 04:17PM

I am a friend wrote: »

It's very important to have your own 'standards' and I hope you get all you hope for but a lot of posters on here with narrower views than Mariebeth seem to assume that what they want, they get.

Ladies, from experience (and that of my friends), life is not that linear. You meet the man, get the house etc etc and maybe he or you can't have kids. I hope this does not happen to any of you and as I said it's good to have standards but life just doesnt come wrapped up in a bow.

I am back with my ex now and we are having my first. We broke up 18 years ago, were strictly friends since, I was invited to their wedding, bought presents for his kids etc and here we are. I didn't used to want to be with a separated man (ESP with kids) but I would not trade him for the world. He has been incredible to me and my parents through horrendous times lately and he is the best support you could ever find.

If I am being honest I would rather less baggage but would prefer baggage plus a good man than being alone with my aspirations for my life. Plus, a big bonus is the he will know how to change the nappies )))

At the risk of sounding glib, sometimes you can benefit too from it being someone's second time around, firsts are often experimental, like pancakes, huge learning curve.

You are right though, life is not symmetrical, and that is what makes it full of infnite variety, even within its repetitions. You cant step in the same river twice, and that is a blessing.

Saying that, at this point Im so used to doing everything alone, and my way, its easier, and it seems easier than ever growing dependant or leaning on an affection or loyalty that can be pulled away in a flash, a changing of a mind, or a curve ball outta nowhere. Its not something I would want to gamble on.

I took my newborn home alone, after a section. It was a lonelyness that throbbed. But at the same time, made be invulnerable to ever being hurt again. Whether priorities clash, your mom's funeral or their previous kid's graduation or surgery, these choices amplify the imperfection and asymmetry of modern life, of modern arrangements and freedoms that people fought for from liberation from religious and socially conservative restraints. And now we have what we fought for, but we want what we had before.

I could say things like my grandmother couldnt go to her parents funeral, my mother didnt go to her father's, my brothers couldnt come to my sons Christening, no one could come to two operations, except for one terrificly loyal friend of mine, and it has nothing to do with people's kids, but life itself is a constant violation of one's dreams, and that it seems what people want more than anything to hold onto.

LegacyUser · 07-06-2011 06:07AM

I would not like to go out with a man who's marriage broke down and who has a couple of kids. I know it would be a difficult relationship with his ex wife and kids. How would things work out if you had a child or children with him.
If I met someone and found out they had a child I would find out were they married, do they see and support the child and make a judgement then. If I found out later they had a child and they did not tell me or some one said /// has his child I would be asking questions & I don't think we would be a couple.
I would like to meet a man I could marry and have a family with. I know relationships like this can be hard as I have seen this.
I watched a friends of mine having a few preg before having a live child, another go through ivf, another going through no work and money worries and another have a prem baby.
This is all hard enough with out dealing with an ex wife and another family.

omah · 29-08-2011 10:17PM

some interesting issues here - one thing is clear - life and dating gets more complex the older you get and the more our society is changing.

Emme · 30-08-2011 10:23AM

omah wrote: »

some interesting issues here - one thing is clear - life and dating gets more complex the older you get and the more our society is changing.

Definitely, and I think this quote is relevant:

metrovelvet wrote: »

life itself is a constant violation of one's dreams, and that it seems what people want more than anything to hold onto.

The fact is that fewer men want to "date" as they get older, their lives get filled up with other things and women get in the way. Instead they prefer to "hookup" on their terms only or go out and have a one-night-stand.

Soul-destroying if you look at it one way so you have to look at it in other ways and adapt to circumstances as best you can without losing yourself. Unfortunately you do have to let go of your dreams and any fixed ideas you may have grown up with regarding relationships.

During a particularly dark girly gossip session one woman said:

"All men these days seem to offer us is crumbs. Is it better to accept crumbs from an attached man who has the excuse of commitment to somebody else for taking up his time, or crumbs from a single man who blatantly puts you at the bottom of his list of priorities?"

I don't believe in dating attached men but it was a good point, some single men of a certain age have such a poor regard of women that they can treat them as badly as they wish yet there seems to be an infinite number of women lonely and desperate enough to accept that sort of treatment.

To be honest, I think that many single men of a certain age are so busy fighting their own demons (addiction, debt, emotional instability etc.) they aren't able to form a coherent relationship with women. The ones that can are taken. If a woman still wants to be with one of the former men she will have to be prepared to make an inordinate amount of compromises which will probably not be worth it. Or else date younger men if that option is available.

Wibbs · 30-08-2011 11:51AM

Emme wrote: »

To be honest, I think that many single men of a certain age are so busy fighting their own demons (addiction, debt, emotional instability etc.) they aren't able to form a coherent relationship with women. The ones that can are taken.

Ahh I dunno E. Too easy an answer IMHO. I know enough of these men and yea some are certainly windowlickers or plain old eejits and that's why they're single, but I know way more who are anything but. Pretty much the same ratio of good guys to eejits you'll get in younger men.

I'd agree with you here though;

The fact is that fewer men want to "date" as they get older, their lives get filled up with other things and women get in the way. Instead they prefer to "hookup" on their terms only or go out and have a one-night-stand.

IMHO and IME The big difference between younger men and older ones is cynicism and that cynicism is more likely in the men with more experience not less. Younger men are more open. Older men with little experience ditto. I'd say they see women in general as more "special". A guy with a lot of experience is less likely to apply special to someone just because she's female, so is just more picky I reckon.

A guy with a full life and little complication may be less likely to increase the chance of complication by getting long term with someone. Particularly if he's had one too many experiences of exes being flaky/demanding/disloyal etc. And it doesn't take many exes like that. Women IMHO have a much better coping mechanism for "broken hearts" and bad relationships. While you will hear women say "all men are bastards", more men actively believe "all women are bitches" or at least suspect same. Women appear to have a much better reset mechanism on this front. More optimism for their emotional future. Plus more women are judged on their relationship status than men so tend to actively seek them out. Men less so, so long as he's getting some "action" somewhere. And even there it's not nearly as big a deal among his peers as it might be at 22. Plus older men know guys their age in marriages and a fair few of them may not be the best marriages, so they figure feck that.

That would be my experience of male and female mates through the years. Some of the women I've known have gone through some serious tools in their past, even a bad run of them and yet still keep an open mind, subconsciously if not on the surface. With the men I know? With many all it takes is one or two utter wagons to put them off for good or forever hold themselves back.

I know one guy, 36, successful and interesting and actually handsome would be the best description. He's had two failed long termers. One I didn't know her so well so could only judge on his side so no judgement at all. The other I knew well and he was well shafted by her. He's had some dodgy short term ones since. He is quite adamant he won't settle down for long. To his credit he makes this clear to women he meets from the get go. Funny enough this puts very few of them off. I suppose they reckon they can change his mind. Dumb. I know another guy, in his late 40's and he's been in love three times in his life with big gaps between them. He's with the third one now so... Another guy just turned 40 and he has zero interest in anything beyond a one night stand. None of these are debt ridden loopjobs with a drinking problem either. Two of them are good fathers to boot.

Something else is defo going on. I'd say it's simply down to convenience and "the quiet life" and lack of responsibility.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 12:10PM

robinph wrote: »

Well the father could be the primary carer for the children, OK it's Ireland and that is basically impossible if the mother is still alive but still.

You'd be very surprised. I have full custody. I know plenty of fathers who have either full or joint custody of their kids too, and all are the primary carers. In all cases, the mother is alive (and not only alive, but in most cases, also sober and sane.)

While I'd be the first to point out the flaws of the family law system, there have been plenty of men prepared to take it on in order to do the right thing by their kids. It was right that my kid live with me. Eventually everyone came around to seeing that, including the mother and the courts. I'm not the only one either.

I find the attitude of some people on this thread to be quite sad really (though I've encountered Metrovelvet before and am not remotely surprised at her pathetic attitude towards fathers.) I think it will be those women - locked into some fantasy that one day a white knight with no previous history at all will sweep them off their feet and have lovely babies with them - who end up confused and disappointed by their ongoing single status.

How can anyone make a blanket statement that they would never be involved with a man who was a parent? Surely individual circumstances are everything - does he have custody, how old is the child, etc, etc. I'd urge some of you to rephrase what you're saying in the opposite gender and see how it sounds.

This crap just sounds like more of the sort of shopping list nonsense that we see Irish men complaining about in the evergreen threads about Irish women. He has to be so tall, so rich, so educated, drive such-and-such a car, live in such-and-such a district. Now in addition, he can't have ever had a child. You'd hope people would grow up and out of such limiting shopping list mentalities as they get older, you really would.

Emme · 30-08-2011 12:12PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Another guy just turned 40 and he has zero interest in anything beyond a one night stand. None of these are debt ridden loopjobs with a drinking problem either. Two of them are good fathers to boot.

Good for them, but they're possibly too emotionally scarred or not motivated enough to have any involvement beyond a one-night-stand. I agree that some women treat men terribly and they're the ones who never seem to be single! Even so, "wagons" can't be blamed entirely for men's reluctance to get involved beyond casual shagging or one-night-stands.

Wibbs wrote: »

Something else is defo going on. I'd say it's simply down to convenience and "the quiet life" and lack of responsibility.

Convenience. Strange word that. There was a furore in the papers recently over the lack of "convenience" in Irish towns but this was referring to public toilets. This interpretation of the word "convenience" could lead one to believe that if men view one-night-stands as a form of convenience then women are no more than vessels for dumping rogue sperm into when the bags get too full! :mad:

The lack of responsibility is probably driving this trend more than anything else. Responsibility is something that some nationalities are better at than others. A good indicator of a nation's capacity for responsibility is it's economy and the way the people in that nation treat money.

stargazer 68 · 30-08-2011 12:16PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

How can anyone make a blanket statement that they would never be involved with a man who was a parent? Surely individual circumstances are everything - does he have custody, how old is the child, etc, etc. I'd urge some of you to rephrase what you're saying in the opposite gender and see how it sounds.

Have to agree. Wait until you get a bit older then see how you feel - your 'pond' will be very much smaller!!

Emme · 30-08-2011 12:20PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You'd be very surprised. I have full custody. I know plenty of fathers who have either full or joint custody of their kids too, and all are the primary carers. In all cases, the mother is alive (and not only alive, but in most cases, also sober and sane.)

If a man has full custody of the children or they live with him I would see that as a good sign and proof that he is a responsible person.

If you're too selfish to share a man or woman you like with children then you deserve to be on your own.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 12:30PM

Emme wrote: »

If a man has full custody of the children or they live with him I would see that as a good sign and proof that he is a responsible person.

I'd like to think you're right. And it's going to happen more and more in future. More men will seek and get custody of their children. I'd hate to think that they could be dissuaded from doing that by the idea that it would put them at a disadvantage in the dating game beyond the simple reality that they have to stay home and mind the kids.

Emme wrote: »

If you're too selfish to share a man or woman you like with children then you deserve to be on your own.

I think that's maybe a little harsh. Some people really shouldn't have kids. Other people can be very selfish and shallow in their motivations. I'd rather see such people hook up with each other to be honest, rather than have kids or seek to get involved with someone who has kids.

Wibbs · 30-08-2011 12:56PM

Emme wrote: »

Good for them, but they're possibly too emotionally scarred or not motivated enough to have any involvement beyond a one-night-stand.

Lack of motivation mostly with a side order of world weariness.

I agree that some women treat men terribly and they're the ones who never seem to be single! Even so, "wagons" can't be blamed entirely for men's reluctance to get involved beyond casual shagging or one-night-stands.

Oh no, but they or more to the point(and the point I was making) some men's response to experience of them is one reason. Others? Well nowadays it's easier for men to get casual shagging for a start. The old line of "why buy a book when you can join a library for free" aspect.

This interpretation of the word "convenience" could lead one to believe that if men view one-night-stands as a form of convenience then women are no more than vessels for dumping rogue sperm into when the bags get too full! :mad:

Eh no. Bit of a misrepresentation there. In any event even if this was the case(and it isn't) it takes two to tango.

The lack of responsibility is probably driving this trend more than anything else. Responsibility is something that some nationalities are better at than others. A good indicator of a nation's capacity for responsibility is it's economy and the way the people in that nation treat money.

That's most of Europe screwed then.

If you're too selfish to share a man or woman you like with children then you deserve to be on your own.

What? I agree with Cavehill Red on this score but I would add some people don't want children. Simple as that, no selfishness required. They might argue having more kids in an already crowded planet is biological selfishness of a kind. This notion of wanting no kids = selfishness is largely a crock.

Emme · 30-08-2011 02:09PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I think that's maybe a little harsh. Some people really shouldn't have kids. Other people can be very selfish and shallow in their motivations. I'd rather see such people hook up with each other to be honest, rather than have kids or seek to get involved with someone who has kids.

What I meant was that if you meet somebody who doesn't have children and you're both happy having no children in the future then that's ok. But if you meet somebody who already has children and you like that person then their children shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Some men and women won't get involved with a person if they have children. Fine, but 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.

Relationships are about compromise and today's society doesn't always encourage people to do that.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 02:21PM

Emme wrote: »

What I meant was that if you meet somebody who doesn't have children and you're both happy having no children in the future then that's ok. But if you meet somebody who already has children and you like that person then their children shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Some men and women won't get involved with a person if they have children. Fine, but 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.

Relationships are about compromise and today's society doesn't always encourage people to do that.

Have to agree with that from start to finish.
What I find strange and sad is when I encounter single women in their late 30s/early 40s complaining that all the 'good men' are taken, yet they still wouldn't look sideways at lads who have children they see and care for, or lads who have less formal education than they do, or lads who are happy in their jobs and don't necessarily wish to become CEO of some Hedge Fund.
They wander through life lamenting their singlehood, yet are surrounded by perfectly nice blokes who are invisible to them due to their pre-existing prejudices. I'm not saying this is a one-way thing. I know plenty of guys who miss out on great girls who they don't see because they don't conform to the lad's narrow concept of beauty.
In both cases, people are missing out on amazing people and experiences because they fail to let the person and the interaction be the deciding factor instead of limiting and futile shopping lists in their own head.
You're spot on to say that life and relationships are about compromise. The most important compromise can often be the initial one - where you compromise your unrealistic expectations and ideals in order to permit the real world in.

Miss Olenska · 30-08-2011 02:50PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This crap just sounds like more of the sort of shopping list nonsense that we see Irish men complaining about in the evergreen threads about Irish women. He has to be so tall, so rich, so educated, drive such-and-such a car, live in such-and-such a district. Now in addition, he can't have ever had a child. You'd hope people would grow up and out of such limiting shopping list mentalities as they get older, you really would.

I don't have a "shopping list" re: men's finances, education or looks. Kids is a whole other matter. You can't compare women being wary about kids to them being fussy about money or social status. And I would imagine as many men would be wary of single mothers.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 02:54PM

Miss Olenska wrote: »

I don't have a "shopping list" re: men's finances, education or looks. Kids is a whole other matter. You can't compare women being wary about kids to them being fussy about money or social status. And I would imagine as many men would be wary of single mothers.

I did say it wasn't a gender-specific phenomenon. But yes, I absolutely can and will compare someone's irrational blanket prejudice against parents to their equally blanket and irrational prejudices based on status or wealth, because all of them function to prevent the possibility of relationships based on reasons other than mutual incompatibility.

Ickle Magoo · 30-08-2011 03:03PM

Unless they just really don't like or want to be around kids...in which case it's not irrational at all to automatically rule parents out as potential mates in a long-term relationship.

I understand the resentment towards folks that choose specific criterion to rule in or out their potential partners and sometimes that rules us out - but really, that's their prerogative...

Manys a happy match that has been created because people haven't had to compromise their wants and hopes to the nth degree...just as manys a miserable match was made based on "making do" because they thought they had no choice but compromise.

Compromise IN a relationship is indeed key - but if you've had to compromise ON the relationship then it just ain't going to work, ime.

Miss Olenska · 30-08-2011 03:03PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I did say it wasn't a gender-specific phenomenon. But yes, I absolutely can and will compare someone's irrational blanket prejudice against parents to their equally blanket and irrational prejudices based on status or wealth, because all of them function to prevent the possibility of relationships based on reasons other than mutual incompatibility.

It's not irrational though. When I think of having kids, my immediate thought after that is "Whatever for?" It's instinctual. I have never understood the children thing. I am 27, I don't really see this changing. I'm also happy enough alone, so don't think this will be an issue for me in the future.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Unless they just really don't like or want to be around kids...in which case it's not irrational at all to automatically rule parents out as potential mates in a long-term relationship.

I understand the resentment towards folks that choose specific criterion to rule in or out their potential partners and sometimes that rules us out - but really, that's their prerogative...

Manys a happy match that has been created because people haven't had to compromise their wants and hopes to the nth degree...just as manys a miserable match was made based on "making do" because they thought they had no choice but compromise.

Compromise IN a relationship is indeed key - but if you've had to compromise ON the relationship then it just ain't going to work, ime.

Very well said!

looky loo · 30-08-2011 03:03PM

Mawbish wrote: »

Hey y'all,

I'm sorry if this question has been posed before but here goes...

After discussing matters of love and boyfriends with a friend the other day we came to the realisation that we've given up on the 'Cinderella' fairy tale and we accept that men have faults just like we do but an interesting thing came up - we've noticed that as we're now in our 30's that the majority if not all of the men we meet these days have at least one or two children with previous partners and while it would not be an issue in itself the romantic idea of meeting Mr Right settling down and then having a child together as an adventure that we experience for the first time ever together.

I'm not a die hard romantic - far too practical for that! LOL

But my friends have more or less decided that they're going to discount men who have children from previous relationships in the hope that they can have that 'adventure' together.

Does anyone else feel this way or have had friends say something similar?

From personal experience of dating someone who had children, I would say to anyone, think very carefully about it. You are not only having a relationship with the person, you are also having a relationship with the children and dare I say it on an outer perimeter their ex.

You have to be prepared not to be first, you have to be prepared not to be able to plan as children get sick, ex sometimes messes up plans and you also have to be prepared that if you get attached to the children of said person, if it doesnt work out you have alot of people to get over.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 04:12PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Unless they just really don't like or want to be around kids...in which case it's not irrational at all to automatically rule parents out as potential mates in a long-term relationship.

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.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I understand the resentment towards folks that choose specific criterion to rule in or out their potential partners and sometimes that rules us out - but really, that's their prerogative...

Indeed. 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.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Manys a happy match that has been created because people haven't had to compromise their wants and hopes to the nth degree...just as manys a miserable match was made based on "making do" because they thought they had no choice but compromise.

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.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Compromise IN a relationship is indeed key - but if you've had to compromise ON the relationship then it just ain't going to work, ime.

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.

30-08-2011 04:16PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If we substituted skin colour for parent in many of the statements made on this thread, there would be outrage and rightly so.

Wtf? skin colour is entirely different to being a parent

Wibbs · 30-08-2011 04:21PM

Emme wrote: »

What I meant was that if you meet somebody who doesn't have children and you're both happy having no children in the future then that's ok. But if you meet somebody who already has children and you like that person then their children shouldn't be a deal-breaker.

Unless you don't want children yourself. Many don't. So those two sentences are kinda contradictory. So for example if imaginary woman from first couple meets imaginary man with kids it is going to be a dealbreaker. I mean we all have dealbreakers to some degree. Some wouldn't even consider dating a smoker for example, which is cool, but kids are a far bigger compromise than a ciggie habit. You can give up the fags, but you can't really give up kids.

Some men and women won't get involved with a person if they have children. Fine, but 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.

I have to cry utter tosh on that notion. "Children for a while"? Kids aren't for a while. They're a huge aspect of a parents life(or should be). if you can't compromise to accommodate a partner's children then it just means you're not so good at compromising to accommodate a partner with kids.

Relationships are about compromise and today's society doesn't always encourage people to do that.

I'd very much agree with you there alright.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Have to agree with that from start to finish.
What I find strange and sad is when I encounter single women in their late 30s/early 40s complaining that all the 'good men' are taken, yet they still wouldn't look sideways at lads who have children they see and care for, or lads who have less formal education than they do, or lads who are happy in their jobs and don't necessarily wish to become CEO of some Hedge Fund.
They wander through life lamenting their singlehood, yet are surrounded by perfectly nice blokes who are invisible to them due to their pre-existing prejudices. I'm not saying this is a one-way thing. I know plenty of guys who miss out on great girls who they don't see because they don't conform to the lad's narrow concept of beauty.

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.

In both cases, people are missing out on amazing people and experiences because they fail to let the person and the interaction be the deciding factor instead of limiting and futile shopping lists in their own head.
You're spot on to say that life and relationships are about compromise. The most important compromise can often be the initial one - where you compromise your unrealistic expectations and ideals in order to permit the real world in.

Yes but beyond any(daft) checklist attraction comes into it. Me I've never compromised on who I'd consider attractive to me and would consider a relationship with. I either feel it or I don't. End of. Looking back I've not cast that narrow a net either. I've very few dealbreakers. Kids would be one. Excessive drama Llamas and handwringers would be another. Even there I'v been attracted to women with those dealbreakers. The mothers being the nice women, but I realised early on that it would not be fair to pursue things with them for their sake and for their kids. If I had sooner or later their child would be looking for and deserve a "father" and that's just not me. Too often compromise can also mean settling for. Feck that I've seen to many men and women do that.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 04:22PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Wtf? skin colour is entirely different to being a parent

They're both prejudices.
In fact, given the sexual attraction element of relationships, it's more understandable that someone might rule out dating people of an aesthetic they don't find attractive than it is that they would rule out a myriad of people of different ages, intellects, careers, physicalities all because those people had children, not for a minute considering whether that fact would in any significant way impact on their relationship.
After all, if someone's kid(s) were late teens, do their own thing, come and go as they please, feed themselves, maybe even live outside the home, how would that possibly be a dealbreaker for anyone considering a relationship with them? Just seems blinkered, prejudiced and a little demented (especially when they then go on to lament the 'woe is me, there are no men/women out there' line.)

ShizDink · 30-08-2011 04:32PM

I get the whole romantic notion of going through having a child with someone for the first time. It's the new virginity

I know I should not hold it against a guy if he already has children, but I want his first time having children to be my first time having children. That is how I feel and I can't change that, I've tried. The thing is, I've noticed guys reacting to me differently when I say that I don't have any children (now that I'm in my 30s and pretty much everyone has kids). So it goes both ways. I'm holding off having a child until I have found the right person, so I expect the guy that I find perfect to do the same for me.
It's a modern form of romance.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 04:36PM

ShizDink wrote: »

I'm holding off having a child until I have found the right person, so I expect the guy that I find perfect to do the same for me.
It's a modern form of romance.

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?

30-08-2011 04:38PM

Sorry, but I can't regard inexperience as "romantic", on either count...

Malari · 30-08-2011 04:39PM

ShizDink wrote: »

I get the whole romantic notion of going through having a child with someone for the first time. It's the new virginity

It is? Goddamn. I'm going to die a virgin :rolleyes:

@Cavehill Red: I get what you're saying, but at the end of every argument you seem to lump women who don't want to date men with kids, in with women who have a long list of "must haves" for a partner, or women who constantly moan there are no men available. For some it's a deal-breaker. For some it's one of the only deal-breakers. And some (ShizDink, eg) seem to be quite happy to get on with their lives until such a person comes along who they don't have to compromise to be with.

Cavehill Red · 30-08-2011 04:49PM

Malari wrote: »

@Cavehill Red: I get what you're saying, but at the end of every argument you seem to lump women who don't want to date men with kids, in with women who have a long list of "must haves" for a partner, or women who constantly moan there are no men available. For some it's a deal-breaker. For some it's one of the only deal-breakers. And some (ShizDink, eg) seem to be quite happy to get on with their lives until such a person comes along who they don't have to compromise to be with.

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.

A question for the single ladies

Comments