How important is it to guys that you don't have any children?

[phineas]

It amazes me how many people hold things against people who had little or no control over the situation.

 

Someone who's divorced is automatically a bad candidate for even dating because they picked poorly or didn't stick it out?

 

So someone who married a person who developed a drug or alcohol problem should have seen it coming or should have lived with it forever?

 

So when my now ex husband started running through our money and then stealing to feed a drug habit I was supposed to be fine with that? I was supposed to stick it out and make it work when he threatened to kill me and leave my body in a georgia swamp so deep no one would ever find it?

 

I'm sorry, but lots of people make poor choices. They take jobs they shouldn't or date people who are no good for them or invest in businesses that loose money.

 

But if that mistake creates a child, all of a sudden its an insurmountable evidence of character flaws.

 

I think its funny that people say that they look for responsibility and kindness and caring in a partner, but parents, who are always responsible, kind and caring, aren't worth dating.

 

Such bullspit.

 

If I met someone like you & you met my requirments for a GF I would have no problem dateing you or having a relationship if the following other conditions were met:

 

You treated my kids like your own because I would be prepared to do so also.

You were ok doing stuff you could only afford to do on your own.

 

with the money i got left over from everything I pay now, I could afford to take someone out to dinner & a movie once a month.

 

If you expected me to take you out more & pay every time I wouldn't consider you a good candidate for a future partner.

 

A future partner is someone who, should we live together would pay a percentage of living expenses based on their pay vs. mine & apply the extra cash to the household, entertainment ect.

 

my STBXW moved in & things were good. She contributed to the household expenses.

 

But after we married, her money became her money & my money became our money & I am now financially ruined.

 

Won't do that again.

[Eeyore79]

Divorced people aren't all hopelessly damaged.

Of course they aren't; some of them are perfectly nice and good relationship prospects. But it requires a lot of filtering to separate the goodies from the baddies, and it's much easier to just not date divorced people at all. Not to mention that it isn't ideal to date someone who has to pay alimony, any more than it's ideal to date someone who has to pay child support, or someone with other financial problems. Another issue for me is that I want to get married, and it would feel less special to me if the other person had done it before.

 

I will say, in a broader sense, plenty of people get pregnant (and get people pregnant) young and turn out to be fine, mature, fantastic people.

I tend to think that if people get pregnant young, outside of a serious relationship, then they shouldn't keep it. This is, of course, my subjective opinion - others obviously have different opinions, but I don't really want to date someone whose opinions on this particular subject differ from mine. I realise that guys have less choice about what happens with an unplanned pregnancy, but they really should have been more careful with contraception in the first place, or dated a more sensible girl.

 

If I met someone like you & you met my requirments for a GF I would have no problem dateing you

It seems that in general, people who are divorced and/or have kids are more accepting of other people in the same situation, whereas people who aren't divorced and have no kids are less likely to be so accepting. I tend to feel that a partner should roughly match what I bring to the deal: i.e. no divorces, no kids, no serious debt, and a decent job of some sort. A mismatch in any one of those areas is a dealbreaker for me. I guess people who have divorces and kids in their past still feel equally matched with someone else who has the same.

[InceptorsRule]

 

I will say, in a broader sense, plenty of people get pregnant (and get people pregnant) young and turn out to be fine, mature, fantastic people.

 

I don't think you're really trying to understand the perspective of people who don't want to date single parents. Single parents, however they got that way, bring a lot of issues into a dating relationship that simply aren't there when neither party has kids. And, if they're divorced and/or the other parent is in the picture it can be WAY more complicated.

 

Think about a guy who wants to date a woman with a young kid, whose ex is still in the picture. Not a very comfortable position for "new guy" to be in, is it? In addition to the kids, new guy has to worry about all the drama that the ex's periodic presence might create, and obviously, it's a constant reminder that new guy will always have potential romantic competition from the ex. People who have split up, even somewhat bitterly, will still often have very ambivalent feelings of love/hate towards each other, and there is always the danger of "something happening" if they are constantly in contact with each other due to issues related to the children.

 

 

Plenty of people who don't even do anything as seemingly stable as go on to marry the person, have more children with them, and sincerely try to build a life together. I used to volunteer at a center for pregnant teens. Most of them were surprisingly intelligent, decent, and lovely people.

 

Interesting you would say this. I think the majority of adults would agree that teenagers, as a group, have notoriously poor judgment, not just about relationships, but about a lot of other things as well. That doesn't make them non-intelligent, or not decent, or not lovely people. It means they're immature. Well, that's because they're teenagers.

 

 

 

Many had no greater issues than half the other girls their age (before being pregnant especially). I think it's one of those things that is stigmatized beyond what it needs to be. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to educate teens so it happens less. . . we should. I just don't think things like divorce, children out of wedlock/as a teen, etc, are these badges of shame we should pin on individuals.

 

This has nothing to do with a "badge of shame." It has to do with a recognition of the fact that the presence of kids, and one or more exes, creates a FAR different relationship dynamic than otherwise. It's also a question of whether the person with the kids has a pattern of having made bad life choices.

 

My wife was previously married, although she didn't have any children from that first marriage. However, I can say with 100% certainty and now 20 years of hindsight, that my W made some absolutely horrible decisions pertaining to her first marriage and how she chose to end it. In fact the baggage she brought into OUR marriage severely affected our marriage although I wasn't really aware of that effect until relatively recently. Without going into the details let's just say that had I known all the relevant details about my wife's behavior prior to when she and I got married, there is little doubt in my mind our marriage would not have happened.

 

And this is someone who I love very much and who I believe loves me very much. But no doubt her decision making at THAT time--20 years ago, not now--was absolutely HORRIBLE. And she didn't even have any kids!

 

So believe me I am not just speaking theoretically here. Divorce leaves some pretty huge scars under the "best" of circumstances, even if they aren't always readily apparent. Add kids and you've generally got even a bigger mess and that much more "baggage", in addition to the actual kids themselves. That is a HUGE burden to place on a new person trying to start up a relationship with the single parent, simply huge, esp. when added to all the other issues that make establishing a meaningful relationship with someone a little bit harder than falling off a log.

 

 

Again, that doesn't mean I think everybody needs to date them. . . or anyone. But we don't need to get all moralizing about it. That's just my opinion, based on my experiences. Everybody's got their own bag.

 

 

It is not "moralizing." I don't think anyone has stated that single parents are inherently lacking in morality, that's not the issue at all as I see it. YMMV.

[Stung]

Those of you who enter into relationships with parents know what you're getting. Know that there is a possibility that you might be financially responsible for the kids and possibly even the ex. Know that you may not be able to have kids because your partner has kids and can't afford others. Know that you will come second to the kids. Know that your partner might have to attend family events with the ex and that you may not even be invited. Know that your partner might expect you to take care of the kids but won't appreciate it.

 

Yes, I did know what I was getting. I was getting an honorable man who had already proven to me time and time again that he was a good father. And because I paid attention and used my brain and my eyeballs to evaluate his situation individually, I knew he had the desire and money for more children, and that he appreciated my good relationship with his daughter, and that he would never attend events to which I was not invited--why on earth would I not be invited? I am his wife, I am my beautiful stepdaughter's third parent. And how would we suddenly become financially responsible for his ex out of nowhere?

 

You check into ANY potential partner to see what you're going to get, that's kind of a no-brainer. If he was the kind of guy who'd saddle me with all the responsibility for his kid and not even express appreciation, who would go to all kinds of events I was excluded from, who would demand commitment from me yet deny me the possibility of having children of my own, he would have been a douchebag. There are plenty of childless douchebags running around, last time I looked.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Stung

[EasyHeart]

In my 20s and early 30s, a woman having a child probably would have been a dealbreaker, if only because I knew I wasn't ready to be an father at that point in my life.

 

Now that I'm older, divorced women and single moms aren't automatic rejections, but I've learned to go slowly with them. Recently divorced women are off-limits, because they are rarely ready for another relationship. And I'm very cautious with any women with children because it complicates the relationship: it's a package deal and you have to want the woman AND the children. Sometimes I've dated women who's kids I just didn't like. But more commonly, my problem has been that I really like the kids, but not the mom. In those cases, you're not only breaking up with the mom, but the kids, too. I have one ex that I dated for 2+ years -- I don't miss her at all, but I miss her kids every single day.

 

I think it's hugely important for any single parent to keep the children out of the relationship for 3-6 months. Make sure the two adults like each other and want to pursue a serious relationship before you let your kids bond with anyone.

[Eeyore79]

It has to do with a recognition of the fact that the presence of kids, and one or more exes, creates a FAR different relationship dynamic than otherwise.

 

This is exactly the point. A lot of people who have kids are absolutely lovely people with whom I'd be compatible, but I don't like the relationship dynamic when kids are involved. I don't like coming second to the kids, I don't like my partner seeing his ex all the time and being inextricably linked to her, I don't like the effect the kids have on my life and I don't really want them around, etc. This has nothing to do with how nice the single parent in question is, and everything to do with me not wanting someone who has kids or exes in their lives.

 

I'm sure there are lots of people who are perfectly happy with the relationship dynamic when kids are involved, but it's not for me. If you have kids, there are lots of nice people out there who will be more than happy to date you, but there will also be some who, like myself, don't want any relationship where kids would be involved.

[Sanman]

I agree with some of the sentiments here. I am looking for someone who is settled enough to enjoy life, but I don't want to be completely constrained and you would need to be with a child. I love to travel and want to do so with a partner. I way not want to live in a suburb or area with good schools. I prefer the city at the moment. Will we not be able to move out of the area if there are job reasons, etc if there are custody issues? The bottom line becomes that in many cases there are roots there that are not mine. This means I have to make major compromises if I want to be in a long-term relationship.

 

To a lesser degree, I also question how sensible the person is. If it is one child from a younger marriage and hasn't impacted her career and other life areas, then I might consider it. If not, it is likely that there is took much baggage for the type of relationship I am looking for.

[brainygirl]

Zen- thanks.

 

Yes, I had my first child at 17, I also graduated high school on time and one the honor roll, I also completed four years of university level college in four years while working three jobs, I also have two master's degrees.

 

The point being that at 28 I am certainly not the same person I was at 15 or 16 when I got pregnant. I'm not even the same person I was at 23 when I married the father of my children because some people were feeding me bad advice and I bought into the whole "for the kids" crap.

 

The people who say "I will not date someone with ___________ issue because they have baggage and show bad judgment" are not accounting for the fact that people grow and change through life experience. I may have showed some poor judgment in my past and found myself in some sticky situations, but I also got myself out of them, without help from anyone else.

 

Am I saying that its wrong to flat out refuse to date single parents? Not really, but I wonder, if you exclude wide groups of people from your dating pool for 'surface' things like physical characteristics, or past behavior, what does that leave you? Is the group you are left with big enough to contain someone who not only hits your surface requirments (kids, money, past, weight, height, education) but also the soul requiremnts?

 

That, and yeah, it pisses me off that I've worked harder than a lot of people, and have achieved more, and somehow I'm lower quality?

 

Phineaus- I don't tend to insist on being wined, dined and treated. For one thing my independent streak is too well set to allow it, and for another I feel like I shouldn't ask from others what I can't or wont do for myself.

 

I do have "money rules" with guys. I won't help you with bills or buy cars or pay your childsupport, that's your responsibility. As a single mom with a good job, there are lots of men out there looking to take advantage of the fact that single moms are undatable and I have no intention of being a sugar moma.

 

And yeah, its personal. When you say you wont date me because of this or that, its personal. I don't care what group you are talking about, its personal.

[OliveOyl]

I have to admit I agree with the previous poster who answered "Yes" to this question. The fact that someone's people picker is so far off target that they end up divorced isn't a good sign. Maybe their people picker is still malfunctioning, and that's why they think they want to be with me when I'm really not right for them, and they'll end up divorcing me too.

 

I do think there are some circumstances in which divorce is unavoidable, but they should be the minority of cases, like when someone is constantly violent or an incurable addict. Still, in 99% of cases there would be some indication of those problems before marriage, so if the person failed to notice those indications that also points to problems.

 

To be honest a good percentage of divorces occur not because someone's "people picker" was malfunctioning... but because one or both spouses changed during the course of the marriage. Very common especially in marriages that last at least ten or fifteen years.

 

I'm sure the medical establishment would agree there is no such thing as a broken "people picker" or there would be drugs out now there for fixing them. Hopefully they wouldn't affect libido too though

[Sphere]

A) I don't think people divorcee's should be judged and shunned away from the dating game because their marriage was a failure. I would date a divorcee providing she was in a good mindset, wasn't bitter, had moved on and was looking towards a brighter tomorrow.

 

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it?"

 

This is a motto I like and I motto I take forward with me in all aspects of my life. It also applies to relationships, I have no desire to get married, to me it's an out-of-date tradition that should be done away with. If I am happy in a relationship with a girl then why do I need a piece of paper and a ring that in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant? Marriage to me isn't needed to make a relationship stronger or better in fact statistics suggest that it does the opposite.

 

B) I would have be in a relationship with a girl for over a decade before I even contemplated bending down on one knee.

[Eeyore79]

The people who say "I will not date someone with ___________ issue because they have baggage and show bad judgment" are not accounting for the fact that people grow and change through life experience.

 

Am I saying that its wrong to flat out refuse to date single parents? Not really, but I wonder, if you exclude wide groups of people from your dating pool for 'surface' things like physical characteristics, or past behavior, what does that leave you?

 

Yes, people grow and change, but the kids never go away. Me not dating people with kids isn't personal, it's simply a lifestyle choice - I don't want the lifestyle of having kids, with the associated commitments and issues.

 

Having kids isn't a "surface thing"; it's a pretty fundamental part of that person's life which I don't want to be part of. Surely it's more sensible not to date a single parent, rather than to date them and hate their kids, and make everyone unhappy?

[carhill]

Yes, people grow and change, but the kids never go away.

 

IME, this has been true, well into the children's adulthood. If anything, the family expands, and it is 'their' family, often including ex'es and their genetic extended families too. Then there's grandchildren and great-grandchildren. People with children are justifiably proud of their genetic legacy and it occupies a high priority in their lives. Some balance genetic priority with that of a new life partner better than others.

 

My personal failure was not setting firmer, more clearly communicated boundaries regarding what I would accept wrt being de-prioritized, hence my earlier example about the dog. I was clearly settling for an incompatible dynamic (over and over throughout the years) and it was my own fault for doing so. Happily, that period is over. I surely will be happy to date a *compatible* single mother, and have no issues with bidding farewell to the incompatible ones.

[zengirl]

I don't think you're really trying to understand the perspective of people who don't want to date single parents. Single parents, however they got that way, bring a lot of issues into a dating relationship that simply aren't there when neither party has kids.

 

I don't want to date single parents for purely logistical reasons. I also don't like to see them being called broken or damaged because of it, as some folks have done. That was my point. Everybody has their own damage. The bigger issue is whether or not they've repaired the issues behind what caused their unhappiness at other stages in their lives---which takes a lot of screening with EVERYONE.

 

Eeyore79 Of course they aren't; some of them are perfectly nice and good relationship prospects. But it requires a lot of filtering to separate the goodies from the baddies, and it's much easier to just not date divorced people at all. Not to mention that it isn't ideal to date someone who has to pay alimony, any more than it's ideal to date someone who has to pay child support, or someone with other financial problems. Another issue for me is that I want to get married, and it would feel less special to me if the other person had done it before. Of course they aren't; some of them are perfectly nice and good relationship prospects. But it requires a lot of filtering to separate the goodies from the baddies, and it's much easier to just not date divorced people at all. Not to mention that it isn't ideal to date someone who has to pay alimony, any more than it's ideal to date someone who has to pay child support, or someone with other financial problems. Another issue for me is that I want to get married, and it would feel less special to me if the other person had done it before.

I get most of this. I think it requires the same amount of filtering as always, if we're just speaking about emotional issues. (Kids are their own issue, logistically.) Especially, as you get older. I would see someone who never got married at 40 more potentially dangerous than someone who'd been married but was divorced. I certainly hope/imagine I'll be married by then, and who to date won't be an issue for me though. Logistics would be a separate issue entirely, and they are a major obstacle to dating people with kids or people who still have any other strong ties to their exes. I totally 100% get that, having seen many versions of it, some that worked out and some that didn't, and having grown up a child in a divorced and re-married family. But, as I said, we all have our own perspectives. BTW: Most young divorcees I meet (men and women) don't pay alimony, as they both had incomes going into the marriage and coming out. Edited August 14, 2010 by zengirl

[lab_brat]

I'm a single mother (27) with a beautiful 6 year old, i work to support us both, go to school, love my life and wouldn't change a thing. I'd like to marry one day, but even if i don't my life will still be fantastic

 

I haven't really had an issue with it; I'm always honest about my situation upfront (one child, 24-7 care, no ex in the picture), so a potential date can make his own mind up about it. If he decides not to go ahead for whatever reason, i'm ok with that. I don't particularly want to know the reasons behind it, but i firmly believe that if you don't want to date someone with kid/s then you shouldn't because it just won't work. My only issue finding dates is a lack of time really, as i never go out to meeting places anymore, though I'm sure if i made dating a priority i could work that out.

 

Having said that, i agree with the majority, I'd be cautious about dating someone with kids. I'm lucky in that i don't have ex issues, theres no visitation or child support by mutual agreement, havent seen him in 5 years, so theres no drama there. Also, I'm lucky to have an easy-going, well-behaved child, whereas some people's kids these days are just badly behaved, evil little nightmares. I definitely wouldnt rule it out, but if i liked them i'd get to know the person first, find out more before i got serious.

[Eeyore79]

I could deal much better with a partner in lab_brat's situation, where the other parent is entirely absent. There would be no ex issues, the ex wouldn't be in my partner's life at all so I wouldn't feel jealous, I wouldn't have to have contact with the ex and pretend to be ok with it, we wouldn't be prevented from relocating because of the ex, etc. Plus the guy that lab_brat ends up with will be the only father her child knows, which is far more acceptable than being merely a step-parent - the guy will be able to accept the child as his own because there's no other father in the picture. So I guess, when I think about it, I really have more of a problem with the ex hanging around than with the kids themselves.

[InceptorsRule]

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=241514

 

 

OK the "answer" to why so many single guys don't want to get involved with single moms/divorced moms with kids, is probably right here in this other thread which I've cross-linked, above, and is currently active in the Dating forum. Most likely all of you have read it already but if not take a look.

 

The OP in the linked thread is a single mom of two who got involved with some guy, had unprotected sex with him, and got pregnant after only two months. She's keeping the child, apparently holding out hope that the pregnancy will keep the guy in the relationship, when for obvious reasons he's trying to distance himself from the whole mess to the extent possible.

 

OP in this other thread at first claimed she was on bc, then when someone else called her out on it, admitted that well really she wasn't. She has no explanation for why, as a mother of two, who does pregnancy counseling herself, she would have unprotected sex with a guy she barely knows.

 

All you can say is "WTF" really to the whole thing.

 

Of course over on that thread any iota of criticism of the woman's judgment or conduct or motives in all this is shot down by the "Love Shack harpies" but that's par for the course.

[zengirl]

The OP in the linked thread is a single mom of two who got involved with some guy, had unprotected sex with him, and got pregnant after only two months. She's keeping the child, apparently holding out hope that the pregnancy will keep the guy in the relationship, when for obvious reasons he's trying to distance himself from the whole mess to the extent possible.

 

OP in this other thread at first claimed she was on bc, then when someone else called her out on it, admitted that well really she wasn't. She has no explanation for why, as a mother of two, who does pregnancy counseling herself, she would have unprotected sex with a guy she barely knows

 

In that thread, the man and woman both knew they were having unprotected sex. Distance himself? That's pretty jerky behavior. It's an unfortunate situation, but it takes two.

 

Besides, I don't see how that applies to people who've been married, divorced, and had planned children. Or really single parents at all. That's more a, "Hey, don't go having unprotected sex" lesson as well as an "Understand the potential consequences of even sex you think is protected and be ready to act like a decent human being about it or don't have sex" (as nothing is 100%, though hopefully it'll never be an issue if you're smart and careful).

Edited August 14, 2010 by zengirl

[InceptorsRule]

I'm a single mother (27) with a beautiful 6 year old, i work to support us both, go to school, love my life and wouldn't change a thing.

 

You see I think one of the things that is somewhat off-putting to people who have never been married or had kids is this "bravado" attitude that many single moms seem to think they need to express: "I wouldn't change a thing" means: "I don't really need a man in my life" and/or "My child doesn't really need a father/step father." Or it is certainly easy to construe that as being part of the message. I don't know if the bravado is genuine or false, though.

 

Why would you NOT "change" the fact that your own child does not have the benefit of a functional, healthy, two-parent relationship--if you could? I realize that you can't, at least not right now. But why would you even SAY that you wouldn't change it, if you COULD change it?

 

The whole attitude simply does not ring true. It doesn't make sense. Not that is, if you are the type of woman who has a real interest in being in a serious LTR with a man. If you want a serious LTR with a man, then that means you would have to want something in your life to "change." Specifically, it means that you would want a good man in your life and hence also in your child's life.

 

From the perspective of potential dating partners, specifically single unattached men, why would they want to get seriously involved with a woman who has a significant psychological investment in proclaiming that she "wouldn't change a thing" about being a single parent?

 

If you really don't need a man in your life, involved with you and your child, (or a serious female partner if you happen to be lesbian), that's fine; but don't complain that you are having difficulties finding good serious guys to be in an LTR with.

 

 

 

I'd like to marry one day, but even if i don't my life will still be fantastic.

 

That's interesting, but if you mean what you say, and actually put it into practice in real life, you are going to scare lots of guys off.

 

No one wants to think that their presence in your life makes no real difference to you. But that's what you're actually saying. If you can "take it or leave it" that means marriage really isn't that important to you, which means the guy involved is just not that important to you. Which again is perfectly fine if that's your life choice but what kind of guys are you going to find who willingly buy into that? Players? Doormats?

 

I've been married 17 years and I can ABSOLUTELY say that I am very confident my life is FAR FAR BETTER for the presence of my wife in it than it otherwise would have been. In fact I can't even IMAGINE what my life would have been like WITHOUT HER. I feel SO FORTUNATE to have been LUCKY enough to have found her at times in our lives when we were both r ready to get serious about each other and actually manage to make it through all the pitfalls of courtship, marriage, child raising (still on going actually) and all the other cr*p of life that people need to go through.

 

It would absolutely KILL me if for some reason or somehow my wife was NOT in my life anymore. I would NEVER say my life could be "fantastic" WITHOUT MY WIFE in it. As Kelly Clarkson says, "My Life Would Suck Without You." That's how I feel about my wife.

 

Of course at age 27 I hadn't even met her yet, but then I didn't have kids then either.

 

But I NEVER had the attitude that I could "take it or leave it" with respect to a meaningful LTR with the "right person." That attitude is not the "right" attitude one should have if one is looking for any kind of a serious relationship, you're just wasting your time. Sure go ahead date around and have flings, but unless you are willing to open up emotionally to the importance of another person in your life you are going to have trouble sustaining a quality, "intimate" relationship.

 

 

I haven't really had an issue with it; I'm always honest about my situation upfront (one child, 24-7 care, no ex in the picture), so a potential date can make his own mind up about it.

 

??? How is it possible there is no ex in the picture with a six year old child??? No CS, no visitation???

 

 

 

If he decides not to go ahead for whatever reason, i'm ok with that. I don't particularly want to know the reasons behind it, but i firmly believe that if you don't want to date someone with kid/s then you shouldn't because it just won't work. My only issue finding dates is a lack of time really, as i never go out to meeting places anymore, though I'm sure if i made dating a priority i could work that out.

 

No it is not generally the "kids" per se that scare dating partners off. Because frankly you shouldn't even be having your kid contact a new bf or gf for quite some time until you're in a pretty established relationship. I think it's more the attitudes towards relationships that single moms express that can be off putting.

 

Having said that, i agree with the majority, I'd be cautious about dating someone with kids. I'm lucky in that i don't have ex issues, theres no visitation or child support by mutual agreement, havent seen him in 5 years, so theres no drama there.

 

What. Why would you agree to no CS if it is a legal obligation. How is it in the best interests of your child not to have that money coming in. Even if you don't need it to live on right now, you could be banking it for the child's future needs (college, rainy day, cultural enrichment, etc.)

 

Why would you make an agreement to trade CS and keep your child away from her father. She's entitled to have a father, she's not your property.

 

Is he some kind of sexual predator, criminal, or drug addict?

 

Wow. That actually strikes me as pretty inexplicable. Yeah I'd DEFINITELY be scared of dating you, NOT because you have a child, but because apparently you have the capacity to rather coldly excise your own child's father completely out of her life. I don't really care if the father didn't want to live up to his responsibilities--that just makes him as irresponsible as you.

 

As the child's mom, you have an obligation to do your best to try to ensure that the dude pays the CS AND have SOME KIND of a relationship with his daughter. If you're not successful, well then at least you can look in the mirror knowing you tried your best.

 

 

 

Also, I'm lucky to have an easy-going, well-behaved child, whereas some people's kids these days are just badly behaved, evil little nightmares. I definitely wouldnt rule it out, but if i liked them i'd get to know the person first, find out more before i got serious.

 

The more posts I read from actual single moms, the more scary the prospect of dating them seems to be.

[carhill]

Most likely all of you have read it already but if not take a look

 

Thanks for that. Sleep intruded

 

Great reminder for myself, having pursued such women as a younger man, to accept that such women are *attracted* to the 'party boy who loves chicks' and *leave them alone*. Different path. Hope it works out for her.

[InceptorsRule]

In that thread, the man and woman both knew they were having unprotected sex.

 

No. In that thread, the OP initially stated that they were having protected, not unprotected sex. She then revised that because there was no other explanation of her getting pregnant. If she could dissimulate to LS what makes you think she couldn't do the same to her bf?

 

The fact of the matter is that WE do not know what the bf "knew." And regardless, the OP has not explained what her intention--as the single parent--was in having unprotected sex, if not to deliberately get pregnant.

 

I agree that her bf was irresponsible, which is a reason women should never have unprotected sex with guys they barely know. However this thread isn't about why single moms shouldn't have unprotected sex with guys they barely know. (That should be obvious shouldn't it?) It's about why single people often are scared to date single parents.

 

One obvious reason if you're a single guy is because a woman with kids looking for a step dad might tell you she's on the pill when she's not, and then after a couple of months of hot sex, lull you into a false sense of confidence that you don't need to use condoms for bc any longer. Because you can "trust" her. That's pretty obviously what happened in the other thread--unless and until the OP in that thread comes up with a better, more coherent explanation of her behavior.

 

 

Distance himself? That's pretty jerky behavior. It's an unfortunate situation, but it takes two.

 

Why is it "jerky" behavior? OP in the other thread has been trying to use the pregnancy as "leverage" to force the bf to maintain a romantic relationship with her. It's every single guy's worst nightmare, other than getting AIDS or something like that.

 

 

 

Besides, I don't see how that applies to people who've been married, divorced, and had planned children.

 

It depends on the circumstances of the divorce and how much baggage they carry out of the divorce(s).

 

The problem is women in that situation tend to be like many of the LS women. They can do no wrong, any problems in prior relationships were the man's fault, they don't need a man to be happy, and on and on and on....

 

Yeah if a divorced woman with kids actually had the attitude of "Wow my life has been messed up which is not good for my kids. I really need to change and I am looking for a serious man to whom I can devote myself and have a happy future with, and who can be a good step-dad to my children. I need to be better at picking men and once I have finally found a good one I need to be better at maintaining a happy health family relationship. I will do anything to make that happen," then OK, you might have a point. But such women are very few and far between.

 

 

 

 

Or really single parents at all.

 

LOL you just completely contradicted yourself by making a distinction between married and single parents and then just decided it doesn't make any difference.

 

 

That's more a, "Hey, don't go having unprotected sex" lesson as well as an "Understand the potential consequences of even sex you think is protected and be ready to act like a decent human being about it or don't have sex" (as nothing is 100%, though hopefully it'll never be an issue if you're smart and careful).

 

 

LOL. This is kind of silly. Just look at the attitudes expressed by single moms/divorced moms every day at LS. If they're a representative sample of what's out there, then a single guy with other options would have to be out of his gourd to contemplate a serious LTR with a single mom.

[zengirl]

The fact of the matter is that WE do not know what the bf "knew." And regardless, the OP has not explained what her intention--as the single parent--was in having unprotected sex, if not to deliberately get pregnant.

 

She said he knew. I mean, we can't ever know anything about the people on internet message boards. I claim to be a 25 year old woman, but I could be a 92 year old man for all you actually know, but what's the point in speculating on stuff like that?

 

I agree that her bf was irresponsible, which is a reason women should never have unprotected sex with guys they barely know. However this thread isn't about why single moms shouldn't have unprotected sex with guys they barely know. (That should be obvious shouldn't it?) It's about why single people often are scared to date single parents.

And. . . men should not have unprotected sex with women they barely know.

 

One obvious reason if you're a single guy is because a woman with kids looking for a step dad might tell you she's on the pill when she's not, and then after a couple of months of hot sex, lull you into a false sense of confidence that you don't need to use condoms for bc any longer. Because you can "trust" her. That's pretty obviously what happened in the other thread--unless and until the OP in that thread comes up with a better, more coherent explanation of her behavior.

Technically ANY woman could theoretically do that. But I don't think it's obvious what happened in that thread. But. . . wait, why are single parents who divorced jerks to blame for their bad people-picking skills, but this dude deserves sympathy if that WERE the case? I am highly confused.

 

Which leads to the issue I have with dealbreakers when people use the assumptions they make from them (i.e. not actually, "The issue with single parents is I'm not ready to deal with a kid just yet" but instead, "Being a single parent shows that someone blahblahblahassumptioncakes") is that I guess most people are just horrible judges of character who need some sort of checklist as a guide. It's interesting.

 

Why is it "jerky" behavior? OP in the other thread has been trying to use the pregnancy as "leverage" to force the bf to maintain a romantic relationship with her. It's every single guy's worst nightmare, other than getting AIDS or something like that.

It takes two. If you sleep with someone, you better be ready to deal with a pregnancy if it happens. (None of these methods, even when used, are 100% perfect.) It might not be ideal. It might be scary. But you better have the stomach to deal with it, and he's not dealing.

 

The problem is women in that situation tend to be like many of the LS women. They can do no wrong, any problems in prior relationships were the man's fault, they don't need a man to be happy, and on and on and on....

Sometimes it's the woman's fault, sometimes it's the man's, sometimes it's both. . . sometimes life just happens. It really depends. It wasn't my Mom's fault she got divorced. Dad cheated and also had some issues with alcoholism and other things and he left her. It wasn't my Step-father's fault he got divorced either. He literally came home one day to a Dear John letter and his wife was gone. Really, all depends in life. No gender has a monopoly on having their heart broken OR being a jerk. And some marriages aren't nearly as clear-cut as these two examples. Edited August 14, 2010 by zengirl

[brainygirl]

With regards to the "bravado" thing . . . . I don't think you are understanding that.

 

When I say (and I have, although maybe not here) that I wouldn't change things it means, "the alternative to this is much much worse"

 

I would much rather be where I am, mid west with good paying job and house and car of my own, who I am, a teacher, single mom and nerd who likes scifi a little too much a reality tv not all, than what I would be if I had stayed in my marriage (probably a battered woman with an arrest record or a husband in jail, no reliable or well paying job and possible homeless or dependent on his parents).

 

Are there things in my life that I would like to change? Yes.

 

I'd like to have a partner someday. I think the RIGHT man in my life and my kids' lives would be wonderful. But I'm not going to approach that with an attitude of "needing". My sons have grampas, uncles, ministers, coaches and my friends to look up to.

 

In this day and age, romantic relationships have very little "need" to them.

 

And I don't understand the "Ex" thing. Do you really think that the guy who treated me badly, stiffs me on childsupport, and lies when ever his mouth is moving is really someone who is a romantic rival? Really? How insecure can you be?

[Woggle]

I think what he is trying to say is that he doesn't want to date a single mother who is on some girl power trip which is what many of them are like these days. They want to show the world how useless men are in the family and that misandrist attitude is off putting to a man because we are men as well. If I get together with a single mom will she leave me to show the world how independent she is?

 

I am not saying anybody here did that but it is quite common.

[InceptorsRule]

She said he knew.

 

Right, which is not nearly the same thing as HIM saying that he knew, or someone who doesn't have an axe to grind against the guy.

 

Remember: she also said that they used birth control, then she said they didn't, and she never explained why they stopped using it. So "she" is not a very reliable source of information, is she?

 

 

 

I mean, we can't ever know anything about the people on internet message boards.

 

No, but when someone makes an initial post in which they claim bc was used, then follows up with another post admitting that, no, well we really didn't, then we do know for a fact that that poster is not very reliable about what the facts actually were.

 

 

 

I claim to be a 25 year old woman, but I could be a 92 year old man for all you actually know, but what's the point in speculating on stuff like that?

 

 

There's no "speculation" involved here at all. We know that she didn't tell the truth initially about whether birth control was used, and that she hasn't come up with an explanation for why she decided it was OK to have sex with the guy two months in when she knew there was no bc. You see the problem is we just don't know what she told the guy to make him willing to have sex with her without a condom. Maybe she told him exactly what she initially and incorrectly told LS--that bc was being used.

 

This is a woman with two kids already. This pregnancy happened because she wanted it to happen. If she didn't, she would have used her own bc or insisted on a condom. Or not had sex with the guy. She clearly indicates that she was/is hoping the pregnancy would draw them closer together. 2+2 = 4.

 

 

And. . . men should not have unprotected sex with women they barely know.

 

Technically ANY woman could theoretically do that. But I don't think it's obvious what happened in that thread.

 

She had sex with a guy she barely knew without using bc. Apparently more than once. Women only do that when they want to get pregnant. She didn't say it was a single drunken mistake, an oversight. Apparently they had sex w/o bc repeatedly. She wanted to get pregnant, she wanted another baby, and she wanted it with the guy she let impregnate her.

 

Obviously the bf did NOT want her to get pregnant. What about any of this is not "obvious"?

 

 

But. . . wait, why are single parents who divorced jerks to blame for their bad people-picking skills, but this dude deserves sympathy if that WERE the case? I am highly confused.

 

Since they didn't bother getting married I'm not sure why you're talking about divorce?

 

 

Which leads to the issue I have with dealbreakers when people use the assumptions they make from them (i.e. not actually, "The issue with single parents is I'm not ready to deal with a kid just yet" but instead, "Being a single parent shows that someone blahblahblahassumptioncakes") is that I guess most people are just horrible judges of character who need some sort of checklist as a guide. It's interesting.

 

No, I'm sure there are single parents who are A-OK. But there are plenty who are seriously screwed up, only the problem is if you start dating one, you might not find out how screwed up until after they've "forgotten" to take their bc pills and gotten pregnant. Then you're on the hook for 18 years.

 

 

 

It takes two. If you sleep with someone, you better be ready to deal with a pregnancy if it happens. (None of these methods, even when used, are 100% perfect.) It might not be ideal. It might be scary. But you better have the stomach to deal with it, and he's not dealing.

 

Yes he is "dealing" with it just not the way the single mom wants him to.

 

 

 

Sometimes it's the woman's fault, sometimes it's the man's, sometimes it's both. . . sometimes life just happens. It really depends.

 

She's responsible for getting herself pregnant, he's responsible for the legally mandated amount of Child Support. That's all he's responsible for. He was the sperm donor. It could and have been anyone, and she would have spread her legs for anyone else who was equally attractive because she wanted to have a child.

 

 

It wasn't my Mom's fault she got divorced.

 

Usually there are at least two sides to every story.

 

 

Dad cheated and also had some issues with alcoholism and other things and he left her.

 

Well I'm sure that sucked for you but the bottom line is she picked him.

 

 

It wasn't my Step-father's fault he got divorced either. He literally came home one day to a Dear John letter and his wife was gone.

 

He picked her.

 

Just like I picked my wife, and it wasn't my fault that she cheated on me before we got married. At least twice that I know about. Never knew about that until recently when it all came out. Had I known about it at the time the odds are I would have dumped her in a heart beat, and never married her; which is why (the way she tells it) she waited a couple of decades to finally tell me about it.

 

Yet here we are.

 

 

Really, all depends in life. No gender has a monopoly on having their heart broken OR being a jerk. And some marriages aren't nearly as clear-cut as these two examples.

 

Either women have control over their bodies and their lives, or they don't.

 

I believe they do, and women need to stop blaming men for what the women choose to do with their bodies.

[mr.dream merchant]

No wonder Zengirl is so angry all the time when it comes to men's views on women. Look @ her family background. You want to know what kind of woman you're getting? Take a look @ her household. What kind of family does she come from? What's her mother and father's history? Divorced? Cheaters/Cheatee?