Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Over 30  > Women in their 30's not having time for men      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 antirepublican
Joined: 12/31/2014
Msg: 251
Women in their 30's not having time for menPage 11 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
msg 260: Every man has a different upbringing, life experience and thoughts on the subject so I can't speak for demidar. I'll tell you some of my own because they are radically different than most men my age.

Who put men into serfdom?
Nobody. It is part of the evolution of the human species. It happens in most lower mammals.

Do you still want to spend time with women?
In what capacity?

Only inasmuch as I can benefit from the association. The association ends when the benefit is secured. Some men go so far as to try to deny women any benefit. My stance is that it doesn't concern me whether she profits or not so long as I get mine. One caveat though... I don't accept personal checks and I don't accept pvssy as payment for services rendered. A lot of men get called misogynist when they are not. They love women and want women. They are just confused about how to play the game and resent that the waters are muddied. I, on the other hand, am a pure misogynist. Most men that bash women are smarting from what women did to them. I dislike women simply for who and what they are. Very different.

Or live in a totally male environment?
Already do. Myself and my male cat.

And please give me an example of women not being responsible for their actions?

I also am interested in how YOU define treating women as equals.
Who has stepped up and who has stepped down?

This is also one of those points that I am different than most other men similarly situated. I don't give a tinker's tinkler about equality or who is responsible. I don't care who has stepped up or down. All that matters to me is where I am and what is in my immediate reach.

If women are no longer able to exploit men and keep them in serfdom, surely that means to achieve equality men have come up and women have lost.

That being so men should be deliriously happy?
Yet you are not.

Here again, they are not happy. I am content with it because I see benefit to the status quo. At the risk of veering off topic, note my screen name. I am a big government liberal. Most in the men's movement are libertarian or traditional conservative. They think that events of the recent past have cost them respect and opportunity. I don't want to be "the man of the house." I don't want to live right so everyone but me can be free. The more political feminism gains the richer and happier I get. Other guys don't see it that way.

In my view women have lost something. When they joined the workforce in mobs, they lost the chance to freeload. A few still can but most families require two paychecks now and the woman can't go back even if she wanted to. Strong and independent is still the party line but the opportunity to coast on the back of a workhorse husband is gone. Bad or good is for others to decide. Working women pay the most for my services and men hardly hire me at all so I'm okay with it.

Others will disagree with me but men have never had it better.
 ozsealady1
Joined: 6/13/2013
Msg: 252
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 3/18/2015 1:12:54 AM
OK antirepublican.....
You want to spend time with women only in as much as you can benefit and the association ends when the benefit is secured.

What benefit?
To what precisely are you referring?


You are a plumber and I phone you to come and do a job.
You do the job and I pay you.
Is that what you mean?
If so, how is that different to your relationship with men?
 ozsealady1
Joined: 6/13/2013
Msg: 253
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 3/18/2015 1:13:34 AM
OK antirepublican.....
You want to spend time with women only in as much as you can benefit and the association ends when the benefit is secured.

What benefit?
To what precisely are you referring?


You are a plumber and I phone you to come and do a job.
You do the job and I pay you.
Is that what you mean?
If so, how is that different to your relationship with men?
 dahlingdarling
Joined: 5/11/2012
Msg: 254
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 4/11/2015 6:06:04 PM

" Naturally. DID women ever REALLY need men, : After over 20 years of women saying that , men are doing the one thing the feminists never thought would happen , saying the same thing back . About time men woke up . They forgot one thing when they started the war against men , men are the ones that win the wars .


Egh seemingly guys have already been saying they don't need gals, gals are useless, etc. Feminists seem to merely turn it back on guys as an attempt to state gals can do for themselves unlike the much touted male notions that gals are nothing/can do nothing without men. In my opinion "I don't need you" is not a war cry unless you detest gals being independent.



It's not a war cry at all ' Lets see , the legal system is biased against men .

First off 'I don't need you' doesn't equate to making the legal system biased so it seems you're doing some logic leaping to twist this discussion so you can rant about your own agenda. Second off the legal system is biased against men, women, races, and classes depending on the scenario. To seemingly prop it's solely against guys is self-victimising and showing your own bias.


The entire social system is biased against men .

This extreme statement shows quite a skewed perception and again your own bias. So the slut double standard is biased against guys?


Corrupt family and divorce (reason why marriage is at an all time historic low in the USA) courts are biased against men .

This is a misleading statement family/divorce courts are seemingly generally biased against who earns more. Just because guys often fit that descriptor doesn't mean the courts are biased against men for being men.


The education system is biased against males ( if a young male shows the least bit of individuality they medicate it out of him so that he can be average like the rest )

First off, new knowledge of behavioral disorders being medically addressed is not bias. It may be zealous and mislabeling but it's not bias against men for being men. This is an issue of an active kid being labeled ADHD and medicated.

Second off the education system has repeatedly been shown to be biased against gals so there is gender bias both ways. Again to seemingly prop it's solely guys shows your own bias. Do tell me how it is biased against males when administration/teachers ignore boys sexually harassing gals?(1) Do tell me how it is biased against males when harassing, violent, threatening behavior is tolerated by boys because "boys will be boys"? (1) Do tell me how it is biased against males when assertive behavior by gals is often seen as disruptive and may be viewed more negatively by adults because girls' misbehavior to be looked upon as a character defect whilst boys' misbehavior is viewed as a desire to assert themselves.? (2) Do tell how is it biased against males when boys are far more likely to receive praise or remediation from a teacher than were girls? (3) Do tell how is it bias against males that boys usually receive more teacher questions than girls, boys are more likely to get follow up questions, and boys are allowed to speak over girls?

There is gender bias both ways though it is understandable you don't see it. Many teachers didn't see such until their lessons were videotaped and to quote one teacher "As a teacher, I was struck by the Sadkers' research on classroom exchanges and was forced to acknowledge the disproportionate amount of time and energy, as well as the different sorts of attention, I give to male students. (4)

(1) Bailey, S. (1992) How Schools Shortchange Girls: The AAUW Report. New York, NY: Marlowe & Company.
(2) Reay, D. (2001) 'Spice girls', 'Nice Girls', 'Girlies', and 'Tomboys"; gender discourses. Girls' cultures and femininities in the primary classroom. Gender and Education, 13 (2), 153-167.

(3) Sadker, D., Sadker, M. (1994) Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto, ON: Simon & Schuster Inc.

(4) Jones, K., Evans, C., Byrd, R., Campbell, K. (2000) Gender equity training and teaching behavior. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27 (3), 173-178.


Those are the facts of the matter .

Those aren't facts but extremist and bias claims coming from a self-victimizing mindset.
 MaleFeasance
Joined: 3/13/2015
Msg: 255
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 4/13/2015 10:41:20 AM
I don't understand why this is so complicate. If people want to be in relationships, they have to put in time for the relationship. If they don't want to put in the time, then either be celibate or have casual sex. Those are the options. Deal with it.
 notthedoctor2
Joined: 3/19/2015
Msg: 256
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 4/13/2015 2:53:14 PM
OP, your schedule is problematic, as is your rigidity. In order for a woman to see you even twice a week, she would have to do so on Friday and Saturday nights even though she is more likely to be free during the week. Few people want to commit to both weekend nights unless the relationship is serious. Even then, the woman (or a man ) might want to get together with friends instead, and for most people that's not going to happen on a Tuesday night. Weekends are busy.
 notthedoctor2
Joined: 3/19/2015
Msg: 257
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 4/13/2015 3:53:08 PM

Men have provided for and protected you though out the ages .


Men provided for women? Well, they kind of had to, didn't they? What, with women not being permitted to hold paying jobs or own property and such. Let's not forget the widespread practice of male only inheritance. I guess little sister WOULD need someone to support her, since big brother got all the family money.


you are equal and can protect yourselves .


Women only need men to protect them from other men. Truth.


Interesting fact is if every man walked off the job for two days , it would take two years to clean up the mess .


Laughable. Women in the paid workforce are only part of the global economy. You fail to consider the vast amounts of UNPAID work women do. Women provide countless hours of free nursing, child care, and elder care in homes all over the world. Besides, industry may be male-dominated, but if all the female nurses, doctors, dentists, child care providers, teachers, PSWs, (I could go on), walked off the job, it would certainly be a grim state of affairs.


The education system is biased against males ( if a young male shows the least bit of individuality they medicate it out of him so that he can be average like the rest )


And by "individuality" you mean what? Creativity? Originality? Leadership skills? Academic or artistic brilliance? Who the **** is medicating that?

Darling nailed it when it comes to certain things going on in the education system. It is well known that boys get more "face time" from teachers than girls. Most teachers don't even know they are doing it until they are asked to track themselves for some reason. Not all the attention is positive, for sure, but what is a teacher to do when a majority of disruptive, attention seeking behaviour comes from the boys?
 Dinno76
Joined: 10/28/2015
Msg: 258
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/12/2015 11:27:54 AM
Women do not need men . Men do not need women. This is good for society.
 tangofish
Joined: 6/16/2015
Msg: 259
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/12/2015 6:08:44 PM
How do you figure dinno? Human connection is necessary for society. Human connection is necessary for survival, necessary for sanity, necessary for procreation.
 call_me_tater
Joined: 12/30/2014
Msg: 260
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/13/2015 4:30:00 AM

Women do not need men . Men do not need women. This is good for society.
3 falsehoods.
Care to elaborate?
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 261
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 8:24:28 AM

Women do not need men . Men do not need women. This is good for society.

Agreed if you are using a romantic context. People should want, not need when dating. Need should come in after a relationship is in it's long term stages.

How do you figure dinno? Human connection is necessary for society.

That has nothing to do with dating or romance. It's a general need.

Human connection is necessary for survival, necessary for sanity,

Again, this isn't in a romantic sense. If you were somewhere you saw and interacted with no other humans for months, this might make sense, but I'm sure most of us here do that daily at least once.

necessary for procreation.

Technically even this isn't true anymore - and for sure we as a planet don't need any more people. A couple may want a child and in that case they are both needed for procreation...but the species can stand a little break from procreation right now.
 tangofish
Joined: 6/16/2015
Msg: 262
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 9:36:08 AM
I think I'm the general sense of gross domestic happiness, its important for society (on the whole) to engage in not only the desire for romance, but the practice of maintaining healthy relationships.

You would argue that a society simply be autonomous and without any motivation to seek out a mate, romantic relationship, or significant other?

That society would be severely depressed, crippled by the process of simply existing.

You need more than the family you're afforded as birthright. You need a family that you create as a process of journey through life.

Sure, you can simply exist in an autonomous motion. But in order to live, you must pursue that inner desire, the need to not only find yourself, but find that other person who will help you become so much more.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 263
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 10:47:53 AM

I think I'm the general sense of gross domestic happiness, its important for society (on the whole) to engage in not only the desire for romance, but the practice of maintaining healthy relationships.

I never said that was a bad thing. My issue was with the word "need".

You would argue that a society simply be autonomous and without any motivation to seek out a mate, romantic relationship, or significant other?

No, I would argue that we all need to be content and whole on our own first. No one needs another to complete them. Being open to it while having a general interest in humanity so that should it happen we go with it is fine. To seek it out like we're missing something without it is another story.

That society would be severely depressed, crippled by the process of simply existing.

Living without a mate isn't simply existing unless you are of the mentality that it's what life's all about. A lot of people aren't involved with someone and yet live full happy lives.

You need more than the family you're afforded as birthright. You need a family that you create as a process of journey through life.

That sounds like programming from society, elders, church or somewhere else. I'm not against relationships should one come along that is a good blend with or addition to your already full life. I'm not going to agree that without one you are missing out on life.

Also: friends, community, acquaintances, neighbors, co-workers and pets all factor in as extension beyond family - an SO or spouse isn't the only way this can be accomplished, whether or not it's what you want.

Sure, you can simply exist in an autonomous motion. But in order to live, you must pursue that inner desire, the need to not only find yourself, but find that other person who will help you become so much more.

What inner desire? One that others told me I'm supposed to need? Conditioning. Again there are a LOT of ways to travel through life with others. Romantic relationships is only one way, and while it's nice if done right, it's just not the most important way. That's something we've been taught, mostly to benefit someone else if you follow it.

No one is autonomous or alone unless they are in a place where they don't ever see any living things, or they are in solitary confinement and even then you get visits. The two extremes are not "in a relationship" or "isolated". There's a lot of middle ground in between.
 tangofish
Joined: 6/16/2015
Msg: 264
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 11:15:46 AM
I'm not going to humor your response regarding the definition of need as it pertains to the most basic function of supporting life. Yeah, we can be so limited in our thinking by identifying nutrients, water and oxygen as being all we need.

Are you aware of what happens to the human mind once it has sustained years of isolation from social interaction?

Define need then, womeninprogress, define the need that a socially isolated human would require in order to regain functionality.

Now define need as it pertains to meeting a desire and finding happiness in not only yourself, but in a significant relationship that is An addition to the family you're afforded at birthright.

I'm not going to argue crude semantics with you regarding what it takes to keep a human body alive. I will argue with you regarding what the human body and mind need in order to feel alive. And I would appreciate you read my response, so we can avoid errors in your argument toward me, where you noted that you need to find yourself first.

If you read my original post you will find that I said as relationship is a need of addition. I never said a relationship will be a destination, there is no relationship that is destination, this is just as true as it pertains to the relationship between self, between environment, between anything of significance.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 265
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 11:32:32 AM

I'm not going to humor your response regarding the definition of need as it pertains to the most basic function of supporting life. Yeah, we can be so limited in our thinking by identifying nutrients, water and oxygen as being all we need.

That's your choice. However if we don't die without it, it's not that much of a need.

Are you aware of what happens to the human mind once it has sustained years of isolation from social interaction?

WHO is being isolated from human interaction for years in this scenario?

Again, this isn't even close to the same as being single - however apparently a lot of people compare the two, including you. Programming. Do you really believe that being single and stranded on a desert island like Tom Hanks is exactly the same? In this society it's not even possible to be isolated like this...and most of us aren't.

Define need then, womeninprogress, define the need that a socially isolated human would require in order to regain functionality.

First, give me an example of a socially isolated person. I would define that as someone who wants to interact with humans but is unable to or can't find any. Who is this happening to?

Now define need as it pertains to meeting a desire and finding happiness in not only yourself, but in a significant relationship that is An addition to the family you're afforded at birthright.

You're basically not getting my point. Many relationships are significant, romantic relationships are not unique to that. You may prioritize them in your life, but that doesn't mean generally that everyone does. What we're experiencing here is YOUR programming from your family, region, friends, society as it pertains to you.

If you are healthy, have family, a job and means to support yourself, food and water, clothing and have people around you - having no one to date doesn't invalidate all that. Sorry. Being single is a FIRST WORLD problem. Some people don't have clean drinking water.

I'm not going to argue crude semantics with you regarding what it takes to keep a human body alive. I will argue with you regarding what the human body and mind need in order to feel alive. And I would appreciate you read my response, so we can avoid errors in your argument toward me, where you noted that you need to find yourself first.

You keep saying single and isolation from humanity are the same. I can't agree with that. I'm not sure how they are in any way comparable. You used the word desire. I will agree with that - you may desire a romantic relationship, many do. You don't need one. No one does unless it's "to" accomplish something that it depends on.

I don't debate with emotions, I tend to use logic. Sorry if that annoys you. I always use Mother Theresa as an example. Or any number of clergy in a certain religion (provided they are ACTUALLY following chastity of their faith). How exactly are those people living lives that appear to be full and happy? Explain this. According to your theory they should be miserable, disconnected, and likely institutionalized.

If you read my original post you will find that I said as relationship is a need of addition. I never said a relationship will be a destination, there is no relationship that is destination, this is just as true as it pertains to the relationship between self, between environment, between anything of significance.

Here is your original post:

"How do you figure dinno? Human connection is necessary for society. Human connection is necessary for survival, necessary for sanity, necessary for procreation.'

Dinno was talking in the context of dating, as was the discussion in response to the topic. Your response would have to be in the context of dating also, since you didn't specify otherwise - and as such didn't really have much to do with his post. I responded with a disagreement of that. If your post didn't have anything to do with dating, then you should have said so.

This was a long response for someone who wasn't going to dignify my post with a response. So you agree that a relationship can be with anything and isn't necessarily romantic or in some cases needed at all?
 tangofish
Joined: 6/16/2015
Msg: 266
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 12:24:14 PM
As I said before, I will not argue what is rudimentary. And you've reduced the point to something of semantics.

The discussion was originally in response to women in their 30s not having time for men. Dinno then replied in his limited ideology, spawned from some type of defeated theory derived from pessimism, based on his frustration as a result of failure, and is a defense mechanism of the mind to accept failure as a valid destination.

This is, much like your argument, created out of a need to argue that your desire to want more than a relationship with yourself be inconsequential to life.

Every substantial relationship is consequential to life.

A brain dead person on life support is alive, but are they truly alive? The answer is no. Is a person driven mad by years of social isolation alive? The answer is no.

Is a person who denies themselves the beauty of what life has to offer, because they're afraid of failure alive? The answer is no, they're dead in that aspect of life. They will be dead as long as they believe that they are so limited, they will be dead to what life represents. And that is to say that the essence of life is to struggle to grow despite how painful the experience is. The essence of death is to give up on growth, and shrivel into isolation and defeat.

Expound that with the philosophy that life for us exists as a construct based on the relationships we have with the universe as a whole, as it relates to the relationship we have with self, thought, emotion, behavior.

And if you subtract the beauty of what it is to have the love of a significant other. The love of another who represents the family you build in addition to the family you are birthed to. Then you deny what it is to have that form of substantial connection to the universe. In doing so you deny yourself what it is to be alive.

And that is all, I will not reiterated to you, the rudimentary position you seem dead set on advocating. It is semantic, and I've proved it useless to credit as anything else.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 267
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 12:58:44 PM
I'm not arguing, this is a discussion. If you see it as argument due to being offended by anything don't take it personally. You keep asking about things that are far too detrimental to be compared with merely being single....so either you are saying being single is the same as being brain dead on life support or in complete isolation for years from everyone, or we are in agreement and there's no disagreement.

I am not subtracting anything from the picture. I am simply saying that being in a relationship isn't the be-all, end-all and it' s not the only place in which happiness exists - it doesn't trump any other type of relationship you would participate in - it's one of MANY ways to have a full life. If you want to see that as me saying no one should be in one or want one then that's on you.

When I say hey there's more to life than a romantic relationship - people always respond with "people need to be around other people in order to live satisfying lives" which is a really extreme way to view being single. Furthermore I am saying that when you want someone in your life it's a healthier place to be than when you need someone (previous to actually being involved, that's different and people do grow to need each other specifically over time).

Back to the thread.

 tangofish
Joined: 6/16/2015
Msg: 268
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 1:34:54 PM
Dunno took a very basic, very rigid position, I argued the opposite position, while staying in line with the rigid parameters.

Then you decided to support the rigid position by using the literal definition of need as a basis for support.

I then argued your literal definition, as it pertains to necessity. And how a literal definition has no value to the subject because of the rudimentary basis for conclusion.

It then turned into a philosophical debate of life verses death.

The frustration I have in replying to you, comes from my having to dissect and reverse engineer and then reengineer the content to make sense of it. Going from rigid thinking to philosophy.

As it stands, this is the conclusion:

You believe that a significant other, the family that would be created as an addition to the family you're born into - isn't necessary for life.

I believe that any significant relationship, especially one as significant as the abovementioned relationship. Is in fact necessary for life - on the basis of my philosophy. My philosophy being that life can be measured by substantial connections in the universe. And death can be measured by the limitations created out of fear, frustration, failure, and f**k it. The four F's, (and yes I did just make that up on the spot.)
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 269
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 1:44:14 PM

As it stands, this is the conclusion:

You believe that a significant other, the family that would be created as an addition to the family you're born into - isn't necessary for life.

Yes, minus this family you're creating (which all depends on the choices of the couple, in some cases you're just dating someone without marriage or children resulting), that's what I am saying. Unless you are including friends as extended family...I know that some of us have friends that are like family and have family that is less than ideal.

I believe that any significant relationship, especially one as significant as the abovementioned relationship. Is in fact necessary for life - on the basis of my philosophy. My philosophy being that life can be measured by substantial connections in the universe. And death can be measured by the limitations created out of fear.

I agree that connections with "others" will improve the quality of who we are. I don't agree that a romantic connection is the only connection that matters, or that it's more important or significant than any other type.
 tangofish
Joined: 6/16/2015
Msg: 270
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 2:05:54 PM
When did I say that the romantic connection is more important than any other, or that it was more significant than any other?

I'll go ahead and wait for you to put that into quotations for me.
 LetitiaLeGrande
Joined: 3/22/2015
Msg: 271
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/15/2015 4:27:09 PM
the romantic connection does not last. How can it be more significant than any other?
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 272
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 11/16/2015 7:10:06 AM

When did I say that the romantic connection is more important than any other, or that it was more significant than any other?

I'll go ahead and wait for you to put that into quotations for me.

AGAIN, if that's not what you meant - then we agree here. I took it as that way - because you referred to it in responses.

Here are a couple of your quotes:

"You would argue that a society simply be autonomous and without any motivation to seek out a mate, romantic relationship, or significant other? That society would be severely depressed, crippled by the process of simply existing.
You need more than the family you're afforded as birthright. You need a family that you create as a process of journey through life. Sure, you can simply exist in an autonomous motion. But in order to live, you must pursue that inner desire, the need to not only find yourself, but find that other person who will help you become so much more."

That was not about romantic relationships in particular? If not you may want to word it differently. That's how I took it considering it was in response to a statement about romance and you didn't deviate from it in your response.


"Are you aware of what happens to the human mind once it has sustained years of isolation from social interaction?"

In the context of romantic relationships being important as you stated in the quote above, you then posted this - the two together suggest they (to you) are equal. Being single is the same as being through years of isolation from social interaction - how else would I take this? I asked who is going through this. Crickets.

So you haven't addressed this as otherwise. When I say people need people generally but romantically we don't "need" to have a mate to be socially healthy your response has been to compare the latter to dire social circumstances, which to me indicates you see it as more significant than everything else.

I'll say one more time that if you don't think romance is any more important than any other relationship and that romantically we don't "need" a partner though we might want one - we agree, and therefore we're done here.
 BrianBeastman
Joined: 10/24/2012
Msg: 273
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/10/2016 7:55:33 AM
what do you mean "had a successful marriage"? Had meaning past tense? Meaning you aren't married anymore? Meaning you didnt have a successful marriage at all? I am just wondering if I am reading this wrong or are you really that big of a knack?
 Long_Shot_Kick_D_Bucket
Joined: 11/15/2015
Msg: 274
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/12/2016 9:08:42 PM
One of the premises of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is love and belonging. IMO, I do believe we seek out relationships for a healthy mental balance. There is need and that of being needy (or being over reliant on something); the latter making for an unhealthy relationship to where one is stifling the other for attention, thus losing individual identities. Usually I find that the one's who say I don't need a man/ woman in my life (period!) have been jaded by love and are bitter at the prospect of. I've read this on some profiles and wonder why then they are on a dating site (scratches head)!

As far as the original post, we have to remember as we get older we have more responsibilities; family, kids, careers, bills, etc. In a relationship it is one of those things you have to balance. When two people are in love they will make time for the other...period! If one is always not able to make the time and only wants to do things when it's convenient for them then drop them. They are self absorbed...me me me!!
 blueandgold5325
Joined: 1/8/2016
Msg: 275
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/14/2016 1:34:42 PM
They so have time. Only for tall dark and handsome men. Biologically, women are much more visual than men. I don't get responses on here and many guys don't have luck. So that kinda tells ya how shallow women are these days.
Show ALL Forums  > Over 30  > Women in their 30's not having time for men