Would a man be accepting to this situation, or is it useless to even try to meet someone? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Would a man be accepting to this situation, or is it useless to even try to meet someone?

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 27 (view)

Would a man be accepting to this situation, or is it useless to even try to meet someone? Posted: 11/21/2009 9:45:51 AM
Where is the children's father in all of this? How much of the time is he taking care of the children? I do my dating when the children are with their father. Very very occasionally I have had a family friend babysit and gone out at night on a date. But the children are always on their way or already in bed and I am back before midnight. Have to agree with some of the other posters re having dates in your home with the kids there. To me that is the relationship zone and implies that the children would know the man as your boyfriend/partner. Because I can almost guarantee a man coming over 3-4 times a week to your home is almost certainly going to 'meet' your kids and probably sooner rather than later. So I wouldn't be having anyone in my home who I wasn't exploring a relationship with, or that I wasn't comfortable with my children meeting; not because anything untoward might be going in in the living room, but simply because it's so highly likely they would hear his voice and/or come out to find out who was there at some point. So I guess the missing link is why it is that you can only go out so infrequently, as it seems to imply the children don't see their father very often.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 826 (view)

ADHD and ADD the real thing or a cop out? Posted: 11/20/2009 7:39:28 PM
^^^packagedealx3 is spot on. It often can go too far in fact and the term is called "hyper focus". Something that really engages them will keep their interest. In fact, what is likely to happen is that will become a little over focussed on it, to the exclusion of getting other things done that should be done and/or shutting out other people. It's a bit of a double edged sword in fact. It means they can hold a really good focus, however if it goes too far it come become a bit 'dysfunctional' in itself. The spanking thing is not part of the ADHD thing. Any child, without or without any sort of neurological differences know what they are afraid of. Spanking operates on fear and control and most kids can figure that one out, ADHD or not.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 824 (view)

ADHD and ADD the real thing or a cop out? Posted: 11/19/2009 9:07:05 PM
"Disorders" are NOT a cop out. They are real. They are not "excuses" for dysfunctional behaviour and relating, but they are a powerful explanation. The biggest single problem is this. You cannot 'cure' ADHD, nor can you cure many other disorders of this nature. All you can do is learn to live the most functional and 'best' life you can by finding ways to manage them. And the way you do that is NOT by taking a pill, any pill. The public's and indeed many in the medical field give the impression and operate on the assumption that the 'frontline' in treating ADHD is pharmaceutically. And this creates a huge problem. People then think that if they give their child a pill that that is it. All will be well. And of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. The analogy is this. It is like the common cold. There is no cure. There is only medications that can alleviate the symptoms, to allow you to function a bit better. But you need to rest. You need to sleep a lot. You need to drink lots of water and maintain a healthy diet. And in time cold will get better and eventually be gone. ADHD is no different. Now, in a large number of people, (estimates are around 40%), ADHD never in fact is "gone". They carry the disorder into adulthood and for the rest of their lives. But the medication is not the cure. It is no different to the cold and flu pill. Appropriately prescribed and managed (and it takes some time to find the right prescription for each individual), it alleviates some of the symptoms. It provides a support mechanism to make functioning 'normally' (or at least in a much more efficient and effective way) and nothing more. But you have to do the work of learning how to manage the behaviours. You have to have systems and routines in place that are appropriate to the way ADHD affects cognitive function. Any doctor that just declares it's ADHD, prescribes a pill and sends you on your way, thinking the issue is solved should be struck off. That is negligent treatment, plain and simple. And of course, you then are left with a situation where people think that ADHD is a "cop out" or that we are just trying to drug our children into submission. And who can blame them? That's definitely how it seems and in fact that's often how it is (ie. parents left to drug up their kids and that's it). It infuriates me (can ya tell??!! ) Until the medical and health professionals pull their heads out of their asses on this one, we are not going to get anywhere. The primary point of 'treatment' for ADHD after diagnosis should not be a psychiatrist/Dr who just prescribes pills until they get a pill and dose that don't cause adverse side affects and knocks the child out enough to satisfy parents and schools who are too lazy and/or too uneducated and/or overwhelmed to deal with the modifications an ADHD child might need. The primary treatment should be psychological - developmental, educational, social; both parent and child need to be taught and supported in finding the pathways to allow the child to flourish and live a happy full life. Those pathways are not anything like the 'normal' routine ones. Because it has been scientifically proven the ADHD brain is not anything like a 'normal' brain. And depending on how long the child was undiagnosed and how entrenched their coping mechanisms and dysfunctional/destructive ways of functioning are, it can be a very long, frustrating and incredibly hard road to turn that around. And hey, we're all about the quick fix aren't we? Who wants to hear about a long-term committed path of really hard work when they can just shove a pill in a kid's mouth? But, with the right support, education and management, a child with ADHD (and indeed an adult with ADHD) becomes pretty much indistinguishable in terms of 'normality' from someone who doesn't have the disorder. The 'pills' are great, but they are far more restricted in their scope and role in managing ADHD than what most people realise or are led to believe. /end rant /end soapbox!!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 14 (view)

too much time on writing...not enough on pics Posted: 11/10/2009 7:28:05 PM
For me, it's a quick cursory look at the pics and provided they're not totally unattractive to me (which rarely happens) it's onto the profile. A guy with really "hot pics" as you put it doesn't get a look in unless I am really attracted to his profile. But a guy with a profile that I am really attracted to but has 'so so' pics will almost always get a reply to find out some more about him. Seems a bit silly to say that girls don't spend enough time on the pics. It doesn't matter how much or little time I spend on them. If you're really unattractive to me, then it's a "No". If you're smoking hot but I am not at all attracted by what you have to say, then it's a "No". And yep, there are loads are loads of guys who clearly do not read profiles at all. That is abundantly clear when I read their profiles after they contact me to find that their own profile screams that they are not in the least bit interested in someone like me in terms of my interests, values etc. Add to that the number of smokers and men who don't live in my city, not to mention the ones who seem to think that if you're a single mother you must be desperate and happy to have an affair with an attached/married man and yep, it's pretty clear not much reading is taking place!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 20 (view)

When you read a good profile, what does it tell you and how? Posted: 11/10/2009 7:11:31 PM
Why take 15 minutes to write an ice breaking email when people look at photos first, and if they do not find you attractive, they don't care how compatible you might be, they will not reply, or worst yet, just delete your email. And you just wasted all that time writing the perfect intro email. Why take the 15 minutes? Well because for some of us (because I really doubt I am the only one), what you say is just as important as what you look like. Of course I am not likely to chat with someone with a view to dating them if I find them unattractive to me. But I have dated and chatted to many a man where I have been pretty ambivalent in terms of physical attraction because I am very attracted by what' s in their head. And I have gone onto have relationships with some of these men, who became more and more physically/sexually attractive to me as I got to know them. I have also been contacted by many a guy who I found very physically attractive, but whose profile and/or message did absolutely nothing for me - either I felt no connection whatsoever with what they had to say, could see our interests, lifestyles, values etc were dramatically different or their writing style or lack thereof was just a complete turnoff to me. And 100% of the time, those guys, irrespective of how physically attractive they look in their photos get a "no thanks" from me. Maybe it's an age thing, although I can't recall any time in my life where I dated someone where the only thing going on was physical attraction. So I guess it depends on your 'market'. It doesn't matter how cute you are to me, because as long as I don't find you repulsive, it all hinges on the profile and that first message. Short, tall, slim, athletic, overweight, blonde, brunette, grey, red head, blue eyes, brown eyes....have dated them all and had relationships with some. No common denominator physically. Only common denominator - was very attracted to their minds, characters and personalities. And yes, OP, I figured your real agenda here was to 'expose' what you perceive to be the truth about women's reasons for replying to guys who send out weak/poor messages.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 2 (view)

When you read a good profile, what does it tell you and how? Posted: 11/10/2009 11:04:46 AM
I have never gotten a 'weak' first message from a guy with a really great profile. And conversely I have never gotten a great first message from a guy with a weak profile. I find it hard to believe that the profile can be great and the first message very poor/weak/whatever. I suspect the reason for replying is not down to the profile content. Although I am interested to know where you supposedly read about women saying that they got a really bad message but the profile was so great they replied anyway. Methinks you may have a bit more of an agenda than you're letting on. Or maybe these women replied in order to 'reject' the guy and you are interpreting them saying they replied as being that they replied positively...

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 7 (view)

Which is it too old or not ? Posted: 11/10/2009 10:27:40 AM
Chancing of conceiving over 40 are very low. Can't recall exact stats, but it's something like 25% chance of conceiving for a woman in her 20s, but only if both male and female are completely 'normal' and 'healthy' reproductively speaking. By 30 this goes down to around 20%, by 35 around 15%. By 40 you're talking something like only 5-10% of attempts to conceive being 'successful'. By 45+, you're down to almost zero chance. Add to that there is a much much higher risk of chromosome and/or gene defects; Downs Syndrome being the most well known one. So if you rule out the risks of natural delivery as mentioned by PP, whilst it is no dangerous per se, it is a much higher risk venture, if indeed it is even possible to conceive and carry to term. Depending how much over 40 a woman is, she may well be meaning 'Yes' she is happy to be with a man who has children or that she wishes to adopt rather than wanting to have her own biological children. Mind you, thanks to the media women are given a far rosier and extremely unrealistic picture of the realties of conceiving over 40. Convenient that they often leave out the fact that these babies are often conceived via IVF and that the eggs are not the eggs of a 40+ year old woman! And money can buy you a lot of things the 'average' person will have no chance of accessing. I agree though OP that POF absolutely needs more categories regarding the 'Want Children' area. It is pretty useless as it stands. I have seen profiles of women who are 48 and undecided about children. Do they mean giving birth, adopting, not minding if you already have kids? I'd say you can rule out giving birth; unless the woman in question is a tad delusional. I would have thought adopting was less likely also, unless we're talking older children. Most likely mean they will date a man with kids. But unless they clarify, you just have to ask them. No other way around it!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 26 (view)

Single Parent and Racism (for the kids?) Posted: 11/3/2009 10:01:20 PM
Is that a big thing for single moms, the race of partner vs race of child? And if so, should I even bother? RegnisTheGreat, you're asking a question for which no single mother can give you a definitive answer. Even if a thousand or tens of thousands of single mothers posted here, no matter what the majority of those women said it would give you no indication whatsoever of whether or not you should "bother". Even if every last one of them said I would have no problem dating a man of a different race to my child, you will still get 'rejections' on the basis of that in real life and vice versa. Whether or not you "bother" is up to you. You should absolutely not be influenced either way by anything anyone else has to say about it. There is no one in a position to "know".

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 20 (view)

Single Parent and Racism (for the kids?) Posted: 11/3/2009 8:22:19 PM
I think race is frequently a factor; normally along 3 general lines: 1. Physical/sexual attraction: I know there are many arguments that say this is a 'choice' rather than an 'involuntary' preference. Maybe that's true; I am not entirely convinced. What I do know, based on my own personal experiences is that despite the implication that if it's a choice, that it is within my control to make a different one, just as I find other physical attributes 'unattractive' those attributes along the line of race are no different. And if there is a way to overcome that I am yet to find it. 2. Assumptions made about a particular race based on personal experience. This one's a bit tougher. It's not really reasonable or rational to determine that all men/women of a particular race are of a certain character based on a handful of people. However it is clear that when there are certain cultural traditions or religious practices that are very strongly connected to a particular race it is not unreasonable to chose not to date men/women of that race if those traditions are just too incompatible with your own. 3. Assumptions made about a particular race based on social conditioning, education (or lack thereof), upbringing, community attitudes, etc. Very unfair, but extraordinarily difficult to change. And whilst you may be able to shift that sort prejudice a little, but the chances of someone not only being able to realise how unreasonable it is, but also find themselves physically/sexually attracted to men/women of that race - very unlikely. Also there are still plenty of concentrations of populations that are completely racist and if someone lives in one of those communities they may simply be unwilling to deal with the backlash of dating someone from the race which that community rejects and certainly unwilling to subject their child/ren to the backlash. Racist parents teach their children to be racist as well and children can be unfathomably cruel to other children. And if you add to that a woman who wants more children, and she lives in a community where a child of mixed race is ostracised or she can't cope with having children that are of different racial backgrounds (ie. she wants all her children to 'look alike'), very little you can do to change that. And then of course there is the person who is afraid of what others/their family/community etc might 'think'. OP, sounds like the woman you emailed is either one of those people and/or actually fits into one of the other 3 categories but is afraid to say so. Does any of that mean you should 'give up' contacting Caucasian women? No more than you should 'give up' contacting women of any race I think. You'll probably get just as much 'rejection' by Asian women! And just as many 'Yeses'! It would be just as illogical for you to just decide that no Caucasian woman, whether she is a parent or not will be interested in you as it is for them to decide not to date an Asian man for some of the above reasons. Why limit yourself? I could care less what race a man is in relation to me or my children. I do however have some physical/sexual preferences that will affect my choices. So no, you don't give up. You contact those whose profiles you find interesting and attractive to you and the rest is up to them. Don't invest any time or energy in that which is outside your control. You get a "no", you move on. Oh, PS. Yes we live in a multicultural world. We do not however live in a world where all races, cultures and religions are accepted unreservedly by all people.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 422 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/31/2009 8:17:28 AM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Welcome to 'our' world! For the record I think that not wanting to date a single mother is a completely reasonable and valid preference. I can think of any number of perfectly good reasons why a single man with no children in particular might prefer to date childless women. And that's without ever having had any bad experiences. What gets me is the excuses that centre around ridiculous and often ignorant generalisations made by some men to justify it. I guess they think it sounds too pathetic or politically incorrect to just say "I'd rather date a childless woman because I have no children myself and I'd prefer to date someone who wants to start a family for the first time with me (or conversely not start a family if that's their preference). I'd prefer someone whose lifestyle is compatible with mine; where we're both 'on the same page' in life, as it were." So sick of the BS. Not wanting to date a single mother or father does not make a man or woman selfish, stupid, pathetic, etc, etc; nor does it mean they're 'missing out' or that it's 'their loss'. Claiming that women divorce men because of the 'goldmine' they get on welfare and CS. Now that is stupid. Claiming that if a marriage fails it is because the woman screwed up and has a "thing" about her that made the man quite trying. Now that is ignorant. And there are so many other 'gems' that get sprouted off on here time and time again around the 'way it is' if you date a single mother. Dating (NB. Freetime, I am referring to dating with a view to a relationship ) a single parent is a tough gig. There are many logistical issues that many childless people may never have encountered before and just may not be something they want to get into for a start. Then, if dating does progress to a serious relationship there's not just the risk of heartbreak for man and woman, but also the emotional risks of the relationship/s with the child/ren. Much more risk all around. So for me, I have great respect for any man who knows his mind, knows himself and his capabilities and capacity within a relationship and knows what he is willing to risk and is able to communicate that. Still sucks when I meet a guy that I am really attracted to and he to me (not just talking physical/sexual) but he just knows that dating a single mother is not for him. Meh, what are ya gunna do?

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 42 (view)

IVF Leftovers Posted: 10/30/2009 10:27:15 PM
Lol. Still crossing over! I think we're caught up now.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 40 (view)

IVF Leftovers Posted: 10/30/2009 10:09:38 PM
^^^Sorry SuperDad! We're crossing over. My first response was to Futureshock, not you! But you snuck in in the meantime.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 39 (view)

IVF Leftovers Posted: 10/30/2009 10:07:39 PM
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion . The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation. An aborted organism. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity. The key SuperDad is to know that those definitions are not all interchangeable with each having application to the medical term "abortion" which the only one applicable here. By the way "medical" here is not meant to imply intervention per se. It is merely to give correct context to the word. For example "Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity" or "Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation" are clearly meant to apply to other uses of the word 'abortion'.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 37 (view)

IVF Leftovers Posted: 10/30/2009 10:02:39 PM
Freezing them is also an abortion under this definition. Freezing is definitely "arresting" their development. Ummm...no. For goodness sake people, learn to use a dictionary and learn to understand the contextual differences that alter the meaning and parameters of words. If you are anti-abortion, that is fine. But that doesn't mean that the freezing of an in vitro embryo constitutes an abortion. Now, read this slowly..... An abortion, in the contextual parameters of this discussion and as defined medically is the termination of a pregnancy or if you prefer, the termination of a fetus or an embyro in utero. It does not happen in vitro. An in vitro embryo is incapable of development unless/until it is implanted in utero. Therefore, even if you insist on using that definition; despite the fact it is not intended to relate to the medical or 'natural' abortion of a fetus, it is still not applicable to an in vitro embryo, which by definition is incapable of development in the first place. And Futureshock you've gone one stop further in completely misinterpreting the definition by also misinterpreting the use of the word "arrested". It is clear from the context that it is being used to speak of the cessation/termination of development of an organism. It is not being used as a synonym for "delayed". But even if it were, you'd still be incorrect; because an abortion terminates the possibility of any further development. Freezing an embryo does not destroy it, therefore if implanted it is capable of development. So freezing is does not arrest (terminate) it's potential development. So you are wrong on all fronts.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 33 (view)

IVF Leftovers Posted: 10/30/2009 9:16:36 PM
^^^Well, with that extra time on your hands best your learn how to use a dictionary. Your education is sadly lacking it seems. All of the definitions of a word do not equate to the same thing, nor does every single definition apply to every single process/circumstance/subject. Did no one ever teach you that frequently words are capable of more than one meaning, dependent on context? Did you not wonder to your self what the word biology was doing there in front of the definition you chose? Did you bother to read all the way to the bottom where it is clear that the definition you chose does not relate to that which you were relating it to? Learning how to use a dictionary involves more than looking up a word and incorrectly assuming that all definitions are interchangeable. So you can stand by the dictionary all you like. Makes you no more correct than you would be without it unless you learn how to read it properly.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 410 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/30/2009 9:00:05 PM
Now pardon me, I'm going to go back to my "delusional" self and "ignorantly" go back to my 6 digit job, so I can pay my non-existent, well off, single mother ex her CS.......... Yep, best go back to doing what you know, since you have just made it abundantly clear you have NO CLUE whatsoever about the life circumstances of a single parent existing on welfare support for whatever reason vs the single parent who received a half million settlement and is also receiving alimony and CS. NO CLUE WHATSOEVER Anyone who thinks another would choose to divorce and be a single parent because of the 'goldmine' to be had by living on welfare and taking CS (if they fortunate to be getting even a tiny fraction of what is truly appropriate) is as ignorant as it comes. Nice twisting of your original argument BTW - making it about "living off the avails of others" vs your actual statement (you know, the one I responded to?) about the goldmine/financial benefit of divorcing someone.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 381 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/30/2009 12:27:21 PM
^^^^^Yep, me!!!! I'm one!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 31 (view)

IVF Leftovers Posted: 10/30/2009 11:38:35 AM
Throwing them away would definately "arrest" their development. Nice try, but no cigar. As has been pointed out, no implantation, no possibility of "development" in the first place. Ergo no arrestment of said development and therefore no abortion. By the way, you have conveniently used the definition that in fact is not provided for the purposes of defining the procedure of an abortion of a human embryo or fetus. The definition you used is clearly meant to describe a more general use of the term in the context of biology. The actual definition of abortion in the context of a human embryo/fetus is in fact: "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy...[or]....any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months." As an embryo not yet implanted is in fact not in utero nor a "pregnancy" and so it cannot by definition cannot be the subject of an abortion. So you haven't even managed to find an actual contextual definition of "abortion" that is relevant in any event.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 19 (view)

So broody and no where to vent that energy :( Posted: 10/30/2009 11:08:19 AM
^^^Really nice post Faithfey. Thank you for bringing some compassion and humanity back into this thread for the OP.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 378 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/30/2009 10:48:24 AM
^^^No one, male or female, ever "deserves" a divorce. There was not any abuse or infidelity in the failure of my marriage, on either side. And neither one of us "deserved" it. And the only person who financially gained as a result was my ex-husband, in spite of the fact he pays generous CS to support the children in the way they were supported prior to our divorce. They are with me 80% of the time (his choice). I would really like to see how many women would file for divorce if there was no possibility of financial gain through the process Yeah? Well I would really like to see how many women who have filed for divorce actually did financially gain as a result. I have met plenty of divorced women in my life and am yet to meet one who did it for the money and/or were financially better off as a result. Mind you, there is no such thing as alimony in this country. Totally counter-intuitive. If a woman with children really wanted to have maximum 'financial gain/wealth' then the way to do it is to stay married, not to get divorced. I would be a hell of a lot better off financially had I remained married. Funnily enough the wellbeing and happiness of our children, and my ex-husband's and my own need to do what it was that would be best for us and in turn make us the best parents we can be were the priorities. What would achieve greatest financial benefit didn't rate a blip on the radar.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 376 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/30/2009 10:03:07 AM
^^ yet naivity like this comment above abounds here!! Hey, Genius, if you could just take a break from condescending for a moment to ACTUALLY READ what I wrote instead of your distorted version you would realise that I was not commenting on the TINY percentage of women who "fall into a goldmine" as you put it. The VAST MAJORITY of single mothers do not fit into that category. Now, re-read my sentence....slowly...I'll even emphasise the salient bits for you to make it easy...... No female in her right mind mind leaves her mate to draw child support and welfare. Why on earth would anyone want that life for their children or themselves? If you had bothered to read my comment in context and the comments that preceded it, you would have realised I was not referring to recipients of half million settlements or large child support payments. Because those women are not collecting welfare, now are they; or if they are recipients of any kind of welfare, that is certainly not what allows them to be living/setting up any "nice new life". Since you were so gung-ho to drive forward your own agenda you seemed to miss my point, which was that a woman is not going to choose to raise her children, on her own for possibly significant periods of time whilst struggling to make ends meet on welfare and a tiny amount of CS, if indeed the father is paying any at all. And there is nothing "easy" about it and there sure are hell aren't any guarantees. And before any of the single dad go nuts, I know there are large numbers of them doing it just as tough. I am just clarifying a response to a point specifically leveled at single mothers. Trust me, there is nothing naive about me. But apparently you are plenty ignorant to the realities of the vast majority of single parents, male or female. Just what % of single parents do you suppose are earning six figures, or receiving half million settlements and large amounts of CS? If you're smart enough to earn six figures you're smart enough to know you are are in a tiny minority. Clear enough for ya?

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 350 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/29/2009 12:05:57 PM
WoW just because I don't agree with you you think I am over reacting. And then in the typical down under way you recommend turning to drugs. Yeah right. It's the 'Australian way' to recommend turning to drugs....says the man living in the nation that pushes legal drugs more aggressively and manipulatively than any other country in the world, hands down. But it's 'our way' to recommend drugs? You're either joking or delusional....but don't worry, in the good ole US of A they have a pill for that.....

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 349 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/29/2009 11:59:37 AM
It's pretty clear that the momen blame the man for the failed marriage, and you are no different as evidenced by the general tone of your response. Wow, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I don't "blame" ANYONE for a failed marriage. IT TAKES TWO to make a marriage fail. And none of your very bitter and biased rantings will ever change that. Who filed for divorce is irrelevant and says nothing about why the marriage failed. So what if it's more often the woman than the man? Meaningless as proof of why or how the marriage failed. Maybe the woman filed because the man was unfaithful, abusive, unwilling to try and work on saving the marriage or conversley maybe she was guilty of any/all of those things. Who filled out the form is irrelevant and tells us nothing about the reality of why each marriage failed. Statistics show that from 1975 to present, from 65% to 72% of the divorces filed, are filed by women. Talk about twisting statistics to present a very misleading picture! You conveniently failed to note that in fact it was 72% filed by women in 1975 and by 1988 it had declined t0 65%. So not only is it NOT "to present", but in fact is was an 8yr period that ended 21 years ago and it was on the decline. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good spin huh? Why would you get that impression? Of COURSE I am saying it is because she screwed it up. Is it lopsided to think so? Well duh! OF COURSE IT IS! Your poor choices in women do not equate to the reason each and every marriage fails is down to the woman "screwing up". 80% of single parent homes are single mother homes. WHAT A SHOCK!! Maybe that's because that's because 80%+ of single mothers are the custodial parent of their child/ren? That "maybe" is rhetorical by the way... As for the rest of your Ann Coulter drivel, her "statistics" and "facts" have been invalidated and shown for the meaningless, flawed and weak arguments they are time and time again. I got to watch my ex wife abuse my chidlren hurt them, drug them, use them to sell drugs. If true, that is awful. But before all that, you saw fit to be in a relationship with her, loved her enough and so much you married her and then chose to procreate with her not just once, but more than once! Instead of spending your time quoting woefully outdated and extraordinarily flawed 'research' maybe you should focus on how it is that you chose to marry and have children with such a woman.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 345 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/29/2009 9:47:06 AM
May be you to should team up and start a new thread on why men don't wan't a LTR with single moms. Dating and LTR, not the same. Maybe you should take a Valium and a breath and calm down. Wow, way to over react freetime2bme! I thought this thread was why don't men date single mothers, that's what is in the subject line. Now if it was why don't men want LTRs with women I would not have posted what I did. Newsflash! The 2 are not mutually exclusive. I know that you hold a viewpoint that 'dating' and those who want a LTR are completely separate and "not the same". But your anecdotal experience does not a "fact" make. Most of the single dads I know are happy just dating and are not looking for a LTR. That might be true of the single Dads you know, but do a quick search on this site and you will find a very different story. In these forums and in real life I have come across many many men and women, parents and not, who all view dating as the means to finding what it is they are ultimately wanting - a LTR. Number of men or women who are strictly interested in 'dating' as a casual, no strings thing, never leading to a relationship? Very very few. You only need look at this site at the number of profiles where men state LTR as what they are seeking and combine them with the number of profiles where men state that they see dating as the 'start point' to see whether or not a LTR will form to know that there are very large numbers of men, including single fathers who do not think about this the same way you do. I'm guessing the OP did not intend this to be a discussion about those who strictly want to date casually vs seeing dating as the start point of forming a LTR. In fact it is clear he didn't, given his later comment "all women posting get defensive and say it's our loss and they have no problems getting dates....dates. no marriage or very, very committed long term relationships"; ie. that the reason these women are not getting marriage or committed LTRs vs just dates is because they don't pay attention to the list he first posted. He makes it clear that LTR is the 'goal' of dating for most. So chill out pal. The vast majority of people do not separate dating from LTRs. They see them on a spectrum with dating at the beginning and LTRs at the end. Hence our comments.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 343 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/29/2009 3:25:33 AM
So, when I see a female that leaves her mate to draw child support and welfare, just because she refuses to work WITH him, and work as a TEAM, but would rather fight tooth and nail for what she wants and ignores the needs of the family, it makes me sick all over again. You do realise of course that this is not the reason why the vast majority of marriages fail? No female in her right mind mind leaves her mate to draw child support and welfare. Why on earth would anyone want that life for their children or themselves? I am less apt to accept a woman that has already screwed up a marriage. I am alsays looking for the thing about her that made him quit trying. That reads like you assume that when a marriage fails that it is the woman who "screwed" it up. Is that what you are implying? You also seem to assume that it is something 'wrong' with the woman that 'made' the man "quite trying". Marriage is a 2 way street. It is never ever as clear cut as that. And when a marriage ends, it is often because BOTH husband and wife realise there is simply no way to salvage it. You might want to think about what part you played in the failure of your marriages. You seem to think that it nothing at all to do with you. But for a start, you chose to marry these women, both of whom, by your account were very unstable and disturbed people. How did you end up marrying them? If you find out the answer to that you may not continue to attract and be attracted to that kind of woman. Men are being FAR more agressive in the divorce and taking the kids. Children should be not pawns that go to whoever is the more aggressive. Nor are they property to be 'taken'. Men and women are equally as guilty of losing sight of this. One thing and one thing only matters once it is established a marriage/partnership cannot be reconciled. What is the best possible living arrangement for the child/ren in order for them to have the most connected, healthy and best possible relationship with both their parents? And recognition that this may change many times over the course of their childhood. 50/50 should only be done if in actual fact both parents have equal capacity to care for the children. There is a growing body of empirical evidence that indicates it is only in rare cases that 50/50 actually produces the best outcomes for the children. For example, having custody of your children when you are going to have them in daycare or with a babysitter if the other parent has capacity to be caring for them is putting the parent's need to hurt/get one over the other parent ahead of the children's best interests. Custody arrangements should never be about the needs of the parents or what they think is 'fair' or 'equal' as against the other parent.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 337 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/28/2009 8:50:00 PM
Don't find many single dads going "if you want to date me you have to take my kids as part of the deal" Well firstly, that is because the vast majority of single fathers are the non-custodial parent. Therefore their dating lives and their parenting are able to be kept completely separate unless/until there is a serious committed relationship and in all likelihood co-habitation. Secondly, you are just flat out wrong about the single dads who are custodial parents and looking for a long-term committed relationship; ie. not interested in casual dating. Those fathers are no different to the mothers wanting same. Those fathers absolutely consider their children as part of the deal and say so, on these forums, on their profiles and IRL. Your comparison is entirely invalid unless you are comparing like for like; ie. comparing custodial mothers who are looking for a LTR with custodial men wanting a LTR. As 'TAKEN' has pointed out and you so often state in these forums, you are not looking for/wanting a LTR. So your situation is completely different. And as 'TAKEN' also pointed out and you have often stated, having these casual partners stay overnight in your home whilst your children are there is also something that works for your family and situation. Again, a completely different dynamic to what others might want/have.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 326 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/27/2009 5:32:35 PM
Single Mother = Failed Relationship = Too many complications for no potential reward Single Man almost certainly = Failed Relationship = Too many complications for no potential reward Since when did a single mother have exclusive domain over failed relationships?

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 318 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/27/2009 3:12:50 AM
You're the one who's trying to justify things here. Sorry, clearly you are confusing me with someone else. Unless you'd like to point out one thing I've said which is a justification? Make yourself feel good about your past "slip-ups". WRONG AGAIN. Having trouble keeping us all straight or something? I have never once referred to anything as a "slip-up". And the conception of my children was definitely not any kind of slip up or mistake. And I don't need to make to feel myself good about anything. I feel proud of that which I should rightly be proud of. I feel regret and sadness and 'bad' about that which I am not. I do not need to "make" myself feel anything. Oh dear, do you really think I need to justify myself here ? No I don't. Was just commenting on the justification you used when I called you out on your hypocrisy. Look around. I don't even have a back pack... You're the one holding the baggage.... Wake up and smell the coffee already... Now that IS hilarious. Thanks, really needed a laugh like that. That level of delusion never ceases to be funny. Ludicrous, but funny.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 234 (view)

A Twist on EXPECTING Sex by the 3 rd date. Would You Date Her/Him ? Posted: 10/27/2009 12:50:40 AM
Actually, that's disingenuous. You go so far as to say that your experiences with pure physical sex was "totally unsatisfying and made a choice not to do it again". That's hardly being as indifferent as you claim to be, in regards to casual sex. WRONG. Yep I find purely physical sex totally unsatisfying because really good sex for me involves my mind as much as my body. So purely physical sex is just "fine" or "ok". Nothing more, nothing less for me. Now, casual sex, which by definition is what we are talking about, is a high risk venture. You can be using all the right protections, but at the end of the day there is sill a risk of STDs and you are making that risk much higher by virtue of having sex with someone you know nothing about. So it's the old risk/reward analysis thing. Purely subjective of course. For me the reward does not justify the reward. So I choose not to do it. Not taking the risk for something that is just "fine" or "nice". Not when I know how much better and lower risk the alternative is. And by the way, I never said I was indifferent to it as a concept per se. As a concept I think it's great if that's what makes you happy. I am however indifferent to it on a personal level. That's an illogical claim. If you're not enjoying something that is enjoyable as sex and orgasm, then there's an issue somewhere. You're just in denial, and attempting to put the onus elsewhere. I can't think of one psychologist, or sex therapist who would give you a clean bill of health "sexually", if you find casual sex "totally unsatisfying". AND WRONG AGAIN. Your arguments are so flawed, simplistic and biased it's hardly worth responding to. You seem to think you are the 'authority' on this area and yet you sound more naive and ignorant with every comment you make. I am not in denial about anything. Casual sex/orgasm is fine. It's nice. But for me, it's just average compared to being intimate with someone who knows me a bit and whom I know and with whom with each experience we are learning more. I have a perfectly "clean bill of health" thanks. If it was a "preference" only, you'd still be able to enjoy casual sex. According to you, you can't. That means one situation of "sex" is bad, while another is "good". OMG could you get any more simplistic. NO WRONG YET AGAIN. Contrary to your extraodinarily myopic mindset around sex and relationships, it is not ever black and white, good or bad. My preference is not to take on the increased risks inherent in casual sex for a 'nice' experience. A really good sexual encounter for me starts long before the clothes come off and continues long after the clothes are back on. And I prefer that any day to casual sex. You are so insistent that there is something wrong with someone who doesn't like/enjoy/want/prefer [insert whatever fits for the individual here] casual sex, I really have to wonder why. It seems to me you are just trying to validate your own choices. Maybe you're not as comfortable with them as you kid yourself you are. I have no problem whatsoever with casual sex in and of itself. I cast no moral aspersions on it, see nothing dysfunctional in engaging in it. And yet you are determined to 'prove' that there is something wrong with someone for whom it holds insufficient allure for them to engage in it. Why is that? And please, don't bother coming back with "because there is something wrong with you" because any psychologist or sex therapist will tell you that that is just not true. If it was a "preference" only, you'd be able to enjoy casual sex, but, not choose to indulge in it, casually. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WRONG AGAIN; not to mention somewhat illogical. On your track of thought, if one really enjoyed something then why wouldn't they choose to indulge in it? There is no "requirement" that one enjoy something but choose not indulge in it in order to define it as a preference. Preference: "a person, object, or course of action that is more desirable than another, or the state of being that desirable choice"....... Now, for me, sex within a relationship is much more desirable than casual sex. And since I have that very strong preference and have had no difficulty in my life just going with my desired choice, why would I need to have casual sex? If pure sex and having an orgasm is all you need that's fine. But I am old enough and experienced enough to know now there is so much more to be had than what are just the basics. And I prefer to stick with that preference. It's simple really. Once you've had something far better the thing that seemed good before pales in comparison and you have no desire to go back to it. Oh and CONGRATULATIONS. The first post of yours where the term "straw man" hasn't been overused and misused to death.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 87 (view)

Is Dating over 30 tougher than it was when you were in your 20's? Posted: 10/26/2009 11:07:54 AM
^^^^^"especially women like [myself]"..... Plenty of platitudes coming out of you, but I note you never have the courage of your convictions. You never have any sort of actual discourse around what has led you to these conclusions. And you don't bother to answer direct questions. What you believe we have "lost" will never come back; as it was not a 'loss' to any emotionally and intellectually intelligent, functional and humane person, male or female. Guaranteed. So if/when you/'ve found/find this woman who "knows her place" and is happy to live her life subservient and servant to you, hold onto her for all you're worth. Or better yet, why not relocate to one of those "fortunate" countries you speak so highly of?

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 100 (view)

When should the woman offer to pay? Posted: 10/26/2009 9:18:20 AM
Making someone pay "every single bloody time" isn't "equal" at all. Whether you're female OR male. .....ermmmm...the guy said the woman should offer to pay every single time. He never said she should pay every single time. Big difference. I pretty much take it as it comes. Once we have established there are going to be several dates, tends to be loosely based around 'taking turns' and whoever did the 'inviting' and/or chose the venue/event pays. If the venue/date chosen is way out of the other person's means, then I think it is implied that the person who wants to go there/do that is doing the treating; and that is irrespective of gender. As a single, temporarily stay at home/studying parent, I am in a place I'd never imagined and have limited means for dating. The men I have dated are around my age and tend to be - as I was, and will be again - fairly well established and in professional careers. So they like to go out for a nice meal or whatever. I am more than happy to keep my dating life within my own financial means. I do not like not 'pulling my weight' in that regard at all. But I have accepted dates where it was made clear it was the man's treat. And when it comes to reciprocating, I do so, but it will be within my current means. The exception is if I know that there is simply not going to be a next date. If that is the case then I will not accept an offer to pay for me, no matter how insistent; unless we're talking a very small sum (like $10) and he is very insistent. That is because I know I will not be reciprocating.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 6 (view)

you just know Posted: 10/26/2009 9:01:24 AM
I "just know" when someone is definitely not right. As to when they are, after a failed marriage I think that one is far more complicated than it first appears.....

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 85 (view)

Is Dating over 30 tougher than it was when you were in your 20's? Posted: 10/26/2009 8:50:39 AM
I don't want to get anything else out of this site - no dates, no friends, no favorites no nothing. Like the outcome of your 'thinking' could be anything else........ You must be extremely popular in mixed company. Just curious, for the single mother - what is she supposed to do to support herself and her children if "women shouldn't work"? And for that matter, what about the single childless woman? How does she support herself? I'm convinced that things will go back to as they once were. ....not if you were to live to be a thousand......

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 279 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/25/2009 9:12:43 PM
"Stupid ones" - that's not an insult. That's a fact. No, at best it's your purely subjective biased opinion. At worst it's an insult. What it is not is "a fact". Rest of them were "replies" to your and their insults. [insert whiny toddler voice here] ..."You started it...." That's your response? And that's apparently a justification is it?

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 24 (view)

Men 35-44, are we in the sweet spot? Posted: 10/25/2009 9:05:58 PM
you live a long way from l.a. You got that right!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 23 (view)

How far would you go? Posted: 10/25/2009 6:08:05 PM
That's a very good point. a 16 year old can drive and be in completely in control of a death trap on wheels so yes they should be allowed to be home alone for a few hours Totally agree. Never said a 16 year old wouldn't be able to stay at home alone. In fact, if you read my posts you'd know that I am letting a 16yr old babysit my 2 & 4yr old for 5hrs at night very shortly; with plenty of support nearby. Of course, in this country at least, 16 is only when you can get a Learner's Permit to drive, allowing you to begin to learn. And you have to be with a licensed driver of some experience whenever behind the wheel. Before that you are not allowed behind the wheel of a car on the road.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 13 (view)

Does exclusivity applies in FWB relationship? Posted: 10/25/2009 11:36:12 AM
IMHO FWB, by definition does not ever include exclusivity. I don't see that as being the only difference between it and an actual relationship, but I think it's a big element for sure. Sounds to me like your FWB was kidding herself that that's all that was going on for her and got caught out when she responded like that to finding out you were sleeping with someone else.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 226 (view)

A Twist on EXPECTING Sex by the 3 rd date. Would You Date Her/Him ? Posted: 10/25/2009 11:30:21 AM
Your answer is text-book like, but it ignores the fact that "just sex" for the majority of women seems to be a big "NO-NO". Women often speak against "just sex" like it's something to be avoided, something bad in itself, of itself... hence the question. Also, most women will not date a man who wants "just sex" which leads a man to conclude the majority of women do have something against "just sex". And your point is.....umm...what exactly? If what you say is true and who knows if it is, then so what? I have nothing "against" pure physical sex per se. I hold no view that it is something "bad" in or of itself. But it really does nothing for me, so I choose not to do it. And that's just the way it is for me. Of course the way I know it does nothing for me is that I have done it a couple of times in the past found it to be totally unsatisfying and made a choice not to do it again. And if that is the way it happens to be for other women, doesn't make us wrong or dysfunctional or hung up. It is a preference. Simple as that. And 'men' will just have to either get over it or focus on that small number of women who are into it I guess. What can I say? Most men don't want to date me because I'm 39, have a 2 & 4yr old and am temporarily not working. Nothing I can do about it. Nothing I want to do about it, (in terms of caring for my children in their pre-school years). It's a preference and I totally understand it. It's a waste of time and energy trying to exert control or influence over that which you cannot control or influence. The thing is women are often not on the same page with men when it comes to sex. Your answer is text-book like, You seem to misunderstand my point completely. I am not talking about a 'big picture' concept of whether or not women are on the same page when it comes to sex. Of course they frequently aren't. Duh. Hence these sites and these forums! What I meant was if a man and a woman want to have purely physical sex and that is both what they want, then there is nothing wrong, bad, whatever with that IMHO.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 6 (view)

face to face date VS. messaging? Posted: 10/25/2009 4:09:47 AM
Another face to face gal here. The sooner the better. Agree that one phone conversation is needed. But alongside a couple of emails back and forth, one phone call is all I need to know whether I am willing to meet. It's always for coffee or a drink. If I am choosing, it's coffee. And it's always in a public place and we of course travel there separately. I see no point in wasting their time or mine in spending extensive periods of time 'getting to know one another' electronically as that can be obliterated in about the first 5 minutes of meeting them.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 18 (view)

Men 35-44, are we in the sweet spot? Posted: 10/25/2009 4:03:06 AM
Hmm, then what with all the desperate posts from men in their early 40s on here? Where is their sweet spot? When I was 22, those 40 year olds looked like antient dinosaures to me. With wrinkles and grey hair! And bald heads! And the protruding beer bellies! Forget the shoes, forget the wine list (I'm better at it anyway), they looked hopelessly old. Yep, pretty much my thoughts. Will be interested to hear how the guys are finding it. There is no way I would have dated someone over about 30 when I was 23-28. 33ish on seemed waayyy too old to me back then. BUT...... I have never been interested in the whole FWB/FB thing. I think if I had of been interested in doing that then age would have been way less of an issue. Although, can't recall ever coming across any 33+ men who were not overweight and/or balding and/or pretty disinterested in their personal presentation, making them look far older than their years. And when you're already talking about something like a 10+ age gap, that ain't good. I think to carry off the "sweet spot" you'd have be a guy who really takes good care of themself. oh the girls are going to hate this one. Why? We're not talking about relationships here. We're talking FWB/FBs. As long as there's plenty of condoms and birth control in the mix and everyone's on the same page; no harm, no foul, surely?

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 19 (view)

How far would you go? Posted: 10/24/2009 8:21:07 PM
^^^And here we go with all the justifications and detailed defensive anecdotes...... As I said out the outset, you can justify it all you like. This is one of those things that is purely subjective and for most based on their own anecdotal experience rather than anything a bit more empirical. Even for me it is a mix of both. You cant stop living your life being a hostage to the "what if's" of what could happen to your kids. Totally agree. But what you must do is decide what is an acceptable level of risk as your children are growing up. Your level is different to mine. Does it damage teenagers to be home alone, take on responsibilities or take away from their child hood as you put it? Not at all. I believe it makes them stronger and more well adjusted to coop with life later on. In your opinion. I don't happen to share it. After all thats our job as parents isn't it? To help them grow up. Of course. How we do it though is entirely a subjective thing. Just because you believe that putting a child in the care of another child or leaving a child home alone is "helping the grow up" or conversely by not doing that you are not allowing them to grow up, doesn't mean that by definition, it is. It is simply your choice. not keeping them children for as long as possible then boot them out of the house because the parent feels "well your 19 now your an adult, yesterday you were still a kid but today your an adult so get out, get a job, and start you life". Ah you see, that is just twisting my views and words. I said nothing about "keeping" them as children for as long as possible or anything as ridiculous as suddenly kicking them out at some stupid arbitrary age. Don't twist my words to defend your position. I am not overly protective, nor do I smother my children. Far from it actually. Their father probably thinks I am not "protective" enough. It is very arrogant and narrow minded to assume that just because a particular 'formula'/method was the right one for you that it can be the only way to raise a child. Verbally communicating these skills to a child is not as affective as them learning them first hand. Of course it isn't. But there are an infinite number of ways those skills can be taught. It's not a case of one or the other.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 236 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/24/2009 8:05:01 PM
I am actually discussing the matter in hand without insulting anyone. OMG, you really are something. You haven't insulted anyone? Jeez you're so friggin bitter...it's just disgusting You need to be smart for that first of all.... Which you clearly lack the "smart" portion of the equation How do you people even manage to use a computer ? Jebus Krist! ASSumptions No it doesn't happen to people with common sense and self control I am very responsible when it comes to playing with "genitals" .... unlike some here So I'll repeat myself "only stupid ones slip-up when it comes to serious matter such as this one." Unless you're raped and got pregnant, it's your choice, your fault, your mistake, your whatever, all on you! Yeah right, nothing insulting about any of that.....

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 16 (view)

How far would you go? Posted: 10/24/2009 10:14:54 AM
Starting around age 11 and some time a little older girls and boys can have their own baby. If they truly are not capable of looking after another child at all then why would nature allow this? Because people used to die in their 20s and 30s and the infant mortality rate was huge. No time to lose! The point is that this is not about the physical ability to do it. It's about the emotional and cognitive ability; but more importantly it's about the potential damage/fallout if something were to go wrong. We used to subject children to a lot of things we wouldn't dream of now (although sadly this of course does not apply to all countries) - put them down mines, make them household servants,...... We have come a long way since then. We now know better. Further more, we now live 80-90+yrs and children in most developed nations are now afforded the time and space to be children and not take on 'adult responsibility' in childhood. And I could care less about what "nature allows". Children being made responsible for the wellbeing of other children is just inappropriate and extremely high risk IMHO. It would be pretty cold comfort to tell yourself it's the "natural order of things" if your child were to be injured or for another child to be injured whilst in the care of your child. And if something serious were to happen your child may never get over the guilt of that. At the very least the extent of the emotional/psychological damage will be significantly greater (and possibly irreparable) than it would be for most adults.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 13 (view)

How far would you go? Posted: 10/24/2009 2:00:48 AM
^^diamondincnd, I am in Perth, Western Australia and I have had this discussion many a time with US and Canadian members. I know that there are babysitting courses in Canada and the US for children as young as 11 and frankly, as a parent and as a psychologist in training, I find it shocking and entirely inappropriate that that is the case. There is no way on this earth I would be leaving my child/ren with anyone under the age of 18. NO WAY. And I don't know of any parent IRL (in Perth) who would. I am about to let a 16 yr old babysit my kids for the first time and that is only because she lives next door and her parents will be home when she is here. Plus the children will be asleep in bed for most the time and a 'surrogate grandmother' (family friend of 22 years) lives 5 minutes away. I think that 13 is just too young, in terms of emotional and cognitive development to be placed in a position of responsibility for other children. I know that every time this comes up those with children this young get very defensive and regale us with stories about how their child and every other child they have ever known that age has been more than capable of babysitting and/or being left home alone. My response is this. Good for you. It's your choice. I think it's a poor one. And I would not ever do the same. As I said, at 13 I would perhaps be doing 'trial runs' of leaving a child home alone for very short spurts of time where I was very close by. But I would never leave them if there were younger children or even other children the same age there. It's not just because of how they might cope if faced with a true emergency. Training for an emergency and how a child that young would actually cope in a real situation are vastly different. It's also the post traumatic fallout and emotional damage that can occur later if an emergency occurs; particularly if another child were hurt or worse, or if serious property damage occurred. I am all for allowing children power and control over themselves and their environment and for them to gradually take on independence and responsibility. I just think that 13 is too young for that to be happening in what I consider to be such a significant way. So, there you have it. Let the flaming being!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 39 (view)

Where and how to meet single parents Posted: 10/24/2009 1:48:14 AM
Maybe it's an 'Australian thing' or maybe it's a 'Perth thing'; or maybe I've just a streak of luck, but I've met 2 nice single Dads online (and dated them IRL) - on a pay site, albeit not an expensive one. But the other thing that occurs to me is that any activity/sport/class kids do on a Saturday is often filled with Dads. Same sort of theory as seeing them at McDs on a Fri night - they are more likely to be with Dad on the weekend and so he takes them to the activities. I teach pre-school dance, plus the my kids do swimming and Gymbaroo and Saturday is always full of Dads. Of course the 'trick' is to identify the single ones!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 10 (view)

How far would you go? Posted: 10/24/2009 1:28:40 AM
Would I leave my 17 year old in school/home while my 13 year old had a doctor appointment in the city -- yes. Would I leave my 13 year old in school/home while my 17 year old had an appointment in the city -- there's the question. My answer re your 13yr old would be - Would I leave them in school to take the 17yr old to the city Dr's appt? Yes. But only if there was a reasonable margin of extra time budgeted for things taking longer than planned. And only if there were a plan B if I were unable to get back in time; someone who could be with them from when school ended until I got back. Would I leave them home alone whilst I was 1+hrs away and going to be gone for 3+ hours? Absolutely not. In fact it is unlikely I'd be leaving a 13yr old home alone ever, no matter how long I was going to be or how far away. I might consider a half hour max round trip to the local shop, but I don't think I'd be doing more than that. How much difference would it make if you didn't have a trusted emergency contact? It would make all the difference to me. No trusted emergency contact, no leaving the kids. Period. Irrespective of age of children. But you are going to get as many different views on this as you do posters no doubt.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 205 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/24/2009 12:29:46 AM
ASSumptions... Yep, you're full of them alright.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 202 (view)

Why don't men date single mothers...the answer Posted: 10/23/2009 11:31:52 PM
You're making ASSumptions without knowing anything about my upbringing. We go for the "like minded people", we don't go around and marry someone just because we like to have sex with them. Marriage is a one way ticket. Until death do us a part ... capish? And only once you reach to that level, we believe in "having kids" ~ So I guarantee you that I won't be in that boat of yours unless death itself makes me a single parent. Ah, I do so love that unique arrogance, ego and naïveté that can only come from someone who has been fortunate enough to have never had a significant relationship fail and who comes from a family where no one's marriage has ever ended by choice. I used to think along these lines once, having come from a family where no one had ever divorced. I realise it is futile to tell you that there are no "guarantees" in life. Even those who go for the "like minded", marry fully believing and committed to the idea that it is until death, reach to "that level" and then have children are not immune to the risk of failure. It is and will always be the deepest regret of my life, my greatest failure and deepest sorrow that my ex-husband and I were unable to save our marriage. And we tried believe me. I would never wish that upon anyone. May it never happen to you. But to say it never will is extraordinarily arrogant.

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 19 (view)

TV for Toddlers Posted: 10/23/2009 8:35:04 AM
All I can say for sure is that the above assumption is false. Well so far, for me, it has proved to be true. So there you go!

MePlusTwo

Joined: 7/9/2008

Msg: 17 (view)

TV for Toddlers Posted: 10/23/2009 8:23:56 AM
We are rarely home for any significant periods of time, but yes, we often do something similar if we are. The kids have a TV/DVD player in their playroom. They have it on and/or watch it whenever they want. I have found it to be the most effective way for them not to watch too much actually. Because it's not a 'taboo' or a 'treat' or gets any kind of special attention, they don't attach any significance to it. They frequently switch it off when they've had enough. They can play in that room for 1-2 hours (at 2 & 4 it's always time for more food after that!); creating the most amazingly complex, creative and imaginative games/role plays/etc you have ever seen and have no interest in watching the TV/DVD even though they could. They also play outside in our garden for long periods of time doing the same. So for us taking all the 'power' out of the whole TV debate has worked really well. And on the rare occasion they do want to watch TV/DVD for an hour or so or have it on in the background whilst they do something else, I am not worried in the least. I know it is insignificant in the greater scheme of things in terms of how much time they spend watching. It seems to me the opposite would be true. When people are in the habit of always having background noise then they don't know what to do with silence. I see your point. But it is not always the case. Certainly not with my children. Their ability to daydream and create purely from their own imaginations and with no outside stimuli is truly astonishing. If there are advertisements/commercials playing, your kid is being programmed to want more junk. I agree this can be a problem. My children only watch a Pre-school channel where all the shows have some sort of educational and/or physical fitness purpose cleverly disguised amongst lots of singing, dancing and colourful characters. And there are no advertisements/commercials for junk. Or they watch their DVDs - similar programs to the ones on their TV channel. So to date they are not exposed to the evil kiddy ads. And the longer I can keep that going the better!

Show ALL Forums