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
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 263
Women in their 30's not having time for menPage 12 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

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.
 papertiger4
Joined: 1/5/2016
Msg: 276
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/14/2016 2:42:17 PM

So that kinda tells ya how shallow women are these days.


So how many overweight and/or unattractive women have you messaged to date?
 blueandgold5325
Joined: 1/8/2016
Msg: 277
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:07:13 AM
Poster above me I got a logical question to ask you. So be ready!

If I throw a stick, will you chase it? I'm just wondering.

Women are so shallow, in fact shallow as a swimming pool. Looks looks looks it's all about looks, as the song goes.

Women are forgiving when it comes to looks? Yea and I'm in charge of the powerball thing lol

Freedom of speech I'll exercise it! Now you can go away. Bye bye! ?? Go vote for Hillary, you and paper tiger are presidents of feminists USA organization. You enjoy yourselves now.
 Chromis1
Joined: 9/9/2015
Msg: 278
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/15/2016 7:24:09 AM

Women are so shallow, in fact shallow as a swimming pool. Looks looks looks it's all about looks, as the song goes.


You've been here not even two weeks, and already so bitter?

Dude, we suggested to you over in PR what to do about your photos and you did zip. I'll suggest that you don't earn the right to wear bitterness on your sleeve until you've made the requisite effort.

And if women are shallow, then so are men and every bit as.

Tone down the attacks. If you don't, you won't be here long.
 LetitiaLeGrande
Joined: 3/22/2015
Msg: 279
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/15/2016 5:45:14 PM
It is true that a woman will have time for a guy she is interested in, no matter what age. Women are not more visual than men. We are all visual. However women mainly fall in love with their ears. Men need to get that.
The old refrain about people being shallow because they don't like YOUR looks gets very old and tedious.
 a_djentleman
Joined: 12/18/2015
Msg: 280
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/15/2016 11:03:10 PM
I farted.........................................
 NJgirl116
Joined: 7/3/2015
Msg: 281
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 1/15/2016 11:21:31 PM

Go vote for Hillary

No, thank you.
I've refrained from ALL news for the past two and a half years, so I'm not following the presidential campaign... but if Hillary is the best my party can put out there, I am not voting. And it will be my first time since age 18 to not vote.
 scubabird12
Joined: 2/4/2016
Msg: 283
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 3/4/2016 9:00:01 PM
Most of the women I know aren't going to put a guy front and center immediately, and sometimes ever. This is the 21st century, women have careers, hobbies, social networks, and everything else. A mature woman is going to have her life and want someone they can fit into it. The key is finding someone that you can fit into each others lives well. At first you might only get a date every week or 2. Over time it should become more and more frequent and if it doesn't have that conversation then. Don't waste your time either. But don't expect a woman to drop everything and spend all the time with you, especially if you are looking for a mature, professional woman.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 284
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 3/24/2016 6:45:23 AM

Most of the women I know aren't going to put a guy front and center immediately, and sometimes ever. This is the 21st century, women have careers, hobbies, social networks, and everything else. A mature woman is going to have her life and want someone they can fit into it. The key is finding someone that you can fit into each others lives well. At first you might only get a date every week or 2. Over time it should become more and more frequent and if it doesn't have that conversation then. Don't waste your time either. But don't expect a woman to drop everything and spend all the time with you, especially if you are looking for a mature, professional woman.

This.

Exactly! What do some of you guys want, a woman who's got nothing else going on and pesters you for attention all the time because you're too busy? GTFOH
 ebolakitty
Joined: 3/19/2016
Msg: 285
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 3/24/2016 9:13:59 AM

Dealing with someone who doesn't have their own thing going on and is dependent on others for stimulus is draining for me.


You are right about that. It can be kind of draining. The upside is that if you give them a bit of attention, they don't cause trouble as often. I was married to someone like that for twelve years. She used to clutch me as if she was freezing to death. I swear she could teleport. She was everywhere. BUT I can't remember an argument that lasted more than two sentences each. She wasn't much to look at but she was something to brag about and I did often. It's been almost 20 years and I miss her still. Point is that I would never have felt that way about a bloody toothed corporate beech or degraded, loud-mouthed working class trull. No life girls can really be something special if you resign yourself to the extra work.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 286
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 3/28/2016 12:36:43 PM

Usually some women have kids and jobs that make them absolutely busy, if a guy becomes interested while the women are in their 30's he has to be patient.

Of course, one issue that comes up is that he's active in the dating scene due to her being tied up so much with kids, and she doesn't want him to. Of course, women in their 30s won't necessarily have kids to tend to -- and one doesn't see a huge difference between available & not-so-available due to kids alone.

A lot of times, they (both guys & girls), have the free time. They just choose to spend it on other stuff rather than you, as they're not so dependent on going out on frequent dates in the beginning.
 Singlekitty24
Joined: 9/13/2015
Msg: 287
view profile
History
Women in their 30's not having time for men
Posted: 4/1/2016 1:25:55 AM
I understand your dilemma, and I am one of the women you speak of. I think we would love to take more time for a man when we fall in love. But it is not easy being single, female and having to support oneself, not to mention some of us with kids to support or even family that we care for. I work 60 plus hours a week/ I'm lucky to get one day off a week.Sometimes I go two weeks without a day off. It is not that I don't want time off, but we get used to working all the time, and it feels good knowing my job depends on me. Howver if I met the right person I would be willing to make time for them, and choose to cut back at work. I hope this helps and that you are not jaded by those you've met.
Show ALL Forums  > Over 30  > Women in their 30's not having time for men