Men late 30s+ is it a red flag is there relationships only lasted 1 year or less?

[Georgia2014]

What difference does it make how long the relationships lasted, they all had the same ending right?

 

Your being too judgmental.

 

Its a yellow flag not a red one.

 

To me it means he can't make a commitment for longer than a year which is not what I want.

[most_distant_galaxy]

I would think that maybe they weren't looking for something serious. Or that they made a series of bad choices and they dont learn from their mistakes. Or that they are attracted to the wrong people and what they want doesnt align with what they seek.

 

Id rather someone who has had at least one long term relationship and therefore more experience in particularities and problems that long term relationships tend to have.

[Under The Radar]

Holy **** ...... There seem to be a lot of judgments in this thread.

 

[writergal]

I agree with you about that Under.The.Radar.

 

My sister's husband had short relationships with women before he met her. Well, they've been married for over 10 years and have 3 kids.

 

My friend's husband had one 6 year relationship before they got married.

 

"Short or long relationships" is not a reliable indicator of that person's compatibility with YOU. YOU are the only reliable data, as to how long your relationship will be with the person you choose to date.

 

All you can do is communicate your expectations and needs to the person you are dating. It's up to them whether or not they will commit to you long-term or not.

 

And no, OP, 1 year of a relationship history doesn't mean that guy isn't capable of having a long term relationship. There are so many factors involved that affect a relationship's length. If you judge men by their relationship history you could miss out on the opportunity to date a great guy despite the fact that hasn't had many long term relationships.

Edited December 10, 2014 by writergal

[Ninjainpajamas]

If you've only been in a one year relationship and you're a man in your 30's, you have no relationship experience whatsoever IMO....the first year is a breeze comparatively and then it gets more complicated as time goes on and that's when you'll really learn about what relationships really are about. It doesn't really start until about year 3 or 4...so you're just learning at year one level experience still.

 

So if it's less than a year by 30's, you're choosing the wrong people without learning, nobody has really saw you for the long term potential or you don't want it to last beyond that...so unless you're someone who's just always really struggled getting to first base with the opposite sex, I see no reason not to have had a relationship over one year...

 

And you've got to be kidding me if you're telling me it's because the person was just so good at filtering out the wrong people and didn't waste their time or they just knew better out of all the dumb shlt people do...and they just knew better, what a joke, if they're so damn smart with relationships it should be a breeze finding a person by your 30's that lasted beyond a year...so yeah right, there's obviously a reason beyond that, none of which are good unless you've got a really solid reason.

[ponchsox]

No wonder why I'm single. People are way too judgemental. I have a buzz cut since I have a bald spot. Strike one. My longest relationship was 1.5 years. Strike two. Why even bother.

[Frank2thepoint]

Not to give you a hard time, but why are you ending up with semi-stable, manipulative, women? Not one decent relationship in over a decade despite substantial dating experience? There are lots of fantastic women (and men) out there. Is your picker broken when it comes to finding compatible women? What does that say about your ability to recognize a good dating option in front of you?

 

Just playing devil's advocate...

 

Anything can be viewed as a red flag.

 

Not everyone is blessed or lucky to find that special someone to have enough understanding to partake in a LTR. Relationships are difficult because it compromises two people with their individual experiences, merits, flaws, and personalities. Trying to get all of that to jell between two people is some kind of magic. Yes there are wonderful people out, but one point in their lives they were at a low point and could not muster to be in a relationship. Between my third and last relationship I took a 7 year break from actively seeking someone. I had several things I wanted to tackle and address. One of which was figuring out what I wanted from a woman, what I was willing to tolerate and not tolerate. Another was improving myself, by taking time to review the mistakes I've made in past relationships. The other things were getting my finances in order, improving my skills for my career, and a few other items that were on my list. But I did date women when the opportunity arose. Some women I didn't see any potential, some I did. Also, I've met women that were in low points too. Bad timing.

 

Another issue is my environment. I'm in NYC. It's a very big city with many singles. You know what the opposite of not having enough options. It's having too many options. It's like the cereal aisle in the supermarket. I've read some statistics provided by Match.com, claiming 50% of NYers are single. Not sure how accurate that is, but that's a sizable portion even if it was 40%. Which leads to New York magazine providing some statistics about the landscape of dating and relationship in the Big Apple. 31 percent of singles are looking for a serious relationship. 38 percent are just happy being single and dating. With 22 percent being single and not dating. Yeah, more people rather just date around than commit. Here is the most dismal part. Of the single men, 38 percent want a serious relationship, while among single women, only 25 percent want a serious relationship. More men want a serious relationship than women in NYC, and I'm one of those men. Basically, and statistically, I'm f*cked.

 

Concerning my picker, well I've become quite adept at weeding out the bad apples. One of which are the flakes. As for the rest that are not completely crazy or bad, I give those women a chance. Everyone has some flaws, including myself. The ones I can't weed out, are the confused, the lost, or deceivers. I've gotten women that showed enthusiasm, interest, initiative to make me think they genuinely wanted to start something. But they freak out or something switches in their head, and all of a sudden they aren't ready for anything serious. I've had women ask me out, blow up my phone, talk with me for hours via text or phone, and openly flirt. I'm not shy. Actually I'm quite aggressive, and have no problem chasing a woman. I initiated and reciprocated. I don't wait for endless back-and-forth messages before I ask the woman out. I do it as soon as possible and I make it clear, without stuttering. I've had women compliment me on my confidence and vulnerability. I've had women say I'm a really great guy, but most never gave me the opportunity to prove it to them. But with all of that, they still manage to panic, and utter "I'm not ready for anything serious".

 

 

Whoa!

 

 

Roll this back here!

 

 

Your choices are not a woman's fault, they are your own.

 

 

We all have carpy relationships - it's how we all learn.

 

 

Take responsibility for your own choices.

I do.

 

I'm not perfect, but I definitely won't submit myself to the misconception that I am the common denominator with all of the women, therefore the problem is me. That's a defeatist mentality. And that's also is an unfair assessment that I bare the blame for my failures with women. I've made mistakes, I've learned from many, and I know I still have some I need to work on. But so does everyone else. My choice to give the ostensibly good women a chance, I definitely take responsibility for. But I don't take responsibility for their actions.

[xxoo]

So all guys who are in their 30's who haven't been in a relationship over 1 year is unstable? The women they were with might have something to do with it. Or maybe they are independent?

 

1. I wouldn't say unstable. See number 3 for elaboration.

 

2. He picked them.

 

3. Being independent is valid, but may not be conducive to long term relationships. People can be awesome humans and still not be a great choice for dating when looking for a committed relationship.

[GravityMan]

It ultimately depends, but in most cases...yes it is a red flag. Or at least a yellow flag. I'd also like to point out that "red flag" doesn't necessarily mean that he is a terrible person. He could be a great guy who's just a poor candidate for LTRs. The "red flag" is in a relationship context, not in the guy's character.

 

If you like the guy, give him a chance. He might just end up being that diamond in the rough.

[Frank2thepoint]

The thread's topic points out yet another piece of unreasonable high expectation some women have for men. Demanding for a man to have been in minimum one year relationships in order to be considered a good candidate for a woman, is unreasonable and elitist mentality. I disagree with thread's message, but I'll look at the positive outcome of the thread. It made me aware of what another absurd thing women will focus when considering a man for a LTR.

 

With this knowledge, a man has no other option but lie about his relationship history, pad some extra time onto them to make him look more appealing. If his relationships lasted under one year (such a mine), then just mentally add six months to a year to the figures. Hell, round one or two past relationships to 3 or 4 years to really add some luster. There is actually no way to disqualify/disprove a man's claim about this, especially if he is smart to not maintain contact with ex girlfriends, so the new woman will never learn the truth.

[xxoo]

The thread's topic points out yet another piece of unreasonable high expectation some women have for men. Demanding for a man to have been in minimum one year relationships in order to be considered a good candidate for a woman, is unreasonable and elitist mentality. I disagree with thread's message, but I'll look at the positive outcome of the thread. It made me aware of what another absurd thing women will focus when considering a man for a LTR.

 

With this knowledge, a man has no other option but lie about his relationship history, pad some extra time onto them to make him look more appealing. If his relationships lasted under one year (such a mine), then just mentally add six months to a year to the figures. Hell, round one or two past relationships to 3 or 4 years to really add some luster. There is actually no way to disqualify/disprove a man's claim about this, especially if he is smart to not maintain contact with ex girlfriends, so the new woman will never learn the truth.

 

Unless she gets to know your family and friends, of course

 

The real issue is: is this a man who is willing and able to connect and commit to a long term partner, and integrate her into his life? Your posts suggests a man who is not willing and able to do those things. The very idea of lying about your past suggests someone who is not ready and able to connect in the way that a woman looking for a long term partner would hope. No relationships longer than a year suggest the same.

[Frank2thepoint]

Unless she gets to know your family and friends, of course

 

The real issue is: is this a man who is willing and able to connect and commit to a long term partner, and integrate her into his life? Your posts suggests a man who is not willing and able to do those things. The very idea of lying about your past suggests someone who is not ready and able to connect in the way that a woman looking for a long term partner would hope. No relationships longer than a year suggest the same.

 

You're not addressing the real issue of the thread. A man that hasn't had any relationships last longer than 365 days is considered a poor choice for women that want a LTR, despite the fact that the man is actually a really great guy, honest, faithful, has healthy boundaries, and is unwilling to suffer disrespect (hence his past relationships didn't last up to a year). So what should such a man do? Give up, face ostracization by women that truly believe this absurd rhetoric?

 

Even your quoted post has the undertone of derision, because you assume the worst. You would place the sole blame on the man for the failure of a relationship that did not make it past the one year mark, without considering that there are two personalities in a relationship, which influence each other very much. Just like no woman should suffer in a bad relationship just to keep up appearances or fulfill the status quo that she in a relationship, to be accepted by her peers, neither should a man suffer either.

[xxoo]

You're not addressing the real issue of the thread. A man that hasn't had any relationships last longer than 365 days is considered a poor choice for women that want a LTR, despite the fact that the man is actually a really great guy, honest, faithful, has healthy boundaries, and is unwilling to suffer disrespect (hence his past relationships didn't last up to a year). So what should such a man do? Give up, face ostracization by women that truly believe this absurd rhetoric?

 

Even your quoted post has the undertone of derision, because you assume the worst. You would place the sole blame on the man for the failure of a relationship that did not make it past the one year mark, without considering that there are two personalities in a relationship, which influence each other very much. Just like no woman should suffer in a bad relationship just to keep up appearances or fulfill the status quo that she in a relationship, to be accepted by her peers, neither should a man suffer either.

 

I think a man should get real with himself and the woman he wants. Be very honest. How is it that, in 15-20 years of adult life, he never dated a woman suitable of a relationship?

[most_distant_galaxy]

I think a man should get real with himself and the woman he wants. Be very honest. How is it that, in 15-20 years of adult life, he never dated a woman suitable of a relationship?

 

I agree. But you see, women suitable for a relationship are usually considered boring or too easy to conquer. Unavailable, bitchy or manipulative women are considered more interesting. Also sometimes there is this egoistical idea, that the women who are unavailable, bitchy, manipulative will change because the man is unique (this goes for both sexes of course). Sometimes men tend to believe such "challenges" are more rewarding and these women are worth more.

[Frank2thepoint]

I think a man should get real with himself and the woman he wants. Be very honest. How is it that, in 15-20 years of adult life, he never dated a woman suitable of a relationship?

 

I concur. But in my case, I know what I want and pursue it. Unfortunately for me, I keep running into barriers. To answer your question on not finding someone suitable, read my other post in this thread where I provide hard statistics of dating in NYC, along with a link to more numbers, since you probably don't believe a word I've written about my experiences. In fact, I'll invite you to read how another member on LS has an understanding of my predicament.

[writergal]

I think a man should get real with himself and the woman he wants. Be very honest. How is it that, in 15-20 years of adult life, he never dated a woman suitable of a relationship?

 

Oh boy. Listen, it's not as though single people are available 24/7 to date even if you live in a huge city like NYC or a small town like Des Moines. I think it's ridiculously judgmental to accuse someone of being undatable (which is what you imply with this post) if they haven't dated a lot in a 15 - 20 year period of their life.

 

The whole premise that someone with a year dating history is undateable is false. Relationship history means nothing in the scheme of dating. Anyone -- jerks or nice people -- can have long or short relationship histories. So, relationship history is not an accurate or good indicator of how relationship-ready a person is. You have to date the person for yourself, to see if they want to have a relationship with you that lasts. That's the only way to find out if a person is relationship ready with you; you need to date them.

 

It's like job resumes. Just because someone may have worked for one company for 20 years, doesn't mean they would necessarily be a good fit for a new job in their field. Someone with similar job experience -- like an internship or a few years in the field -- may be a better fit. Who determines that? The person who does the interview makes that determination.

 

So, just because you meet a guy whose only relationship lasted one year, doesn't mean he's not good relationship material for you. You have to date him to find out if that's true or not.

[Phoe]

No, it is not a red flag. There are so many completely normal reasons for why a relationship might end before a year.

 

Nothing odd about it. At all.

[Frank2thepoint]

I agree. But you see, women suitable for a relationship are usually considered boring or too easy to conquer. Unavailable, bitchy or manipulative women are considered more interesting. Also sometimes there is this egoistical idea, that the women who are unavailable, bitchy, manipulative will change because the man is unique (this goes for both sexes of course). Sometimes men tend to believe such "challenges" are more rewarding and these women are worth more.

 

It's a good thing you said what it's in bold. Because of my strong boundaries, and unwilling to tolerate such behavior from a woman, is the reason I have not had a serious relationship last longer than a year. Of course the natural follow-up response to that is why did I choose to date such women? I didn't. To be more specific, that's not how they presented themselves to me in the beginning. Sure in retrospect there were little signs or red flags, but that's in retrospect. During the beginning, there were more good than bad. Same goes for the women I've dated, but much more condensed in time, only spanning a few weeks.

[xxoo]

I think it's ridiculously judgmental to accuse someone of being undatable (which is what you imply with this post) if they haven't dated a lot in a 15 - 20 year period of their life.

 

I didn't imply that at all.

 

If I were interested in him, my first assumption would be that many other women also found him to be desirable partner over those 15-20 years, but something stood in the way of him entering into a long term relationship.

[Exb]

A lady just posted these words

 

Kind

Nice

Patient

Respectful

Good

Honest

 

creep her out. Why do guys even bother?

[Frank2thepoint]

Not what I said at all

 

I'm saying that if I'm attracted, and I think he has great character and would be a great husband and dad, it would be VERY difficult for me to believe that I'm the first woman in 15-20 years to see him that way. So the idea that he just didn't have many women willing to date him would be a hard sell.

 

Because some women don't have their sh*t together, and when they meet a guy that does, they freak out. It happens more than you are willing to acknowledge it.

[writergal]

Because some women don't have their sh*t together, and when they meet a guy that does, they freak out. It happens more than you are willing to acknowledge it.

 

OR the guy who has his sh*t together, freaks out when he meets a gal who is still in transition.

 

All this thread highlights is how judgemental people can be where dating is concerned and I find that very depressing. Why can't two people date who like each other? I get it that people have standards, but some standards like not dating someone who hasn't had a relationship beyond a year seems illogical.

 

You can't judge a book by its cover, or by a person's dating history. Sure, if they are a pedophile, rapist or molester then don't date them! But for normal people, I think the length of someone's past relationships is irrelevant information because your focus should be on character, not how long that person stayed in a relationship.

 

I dated a guy off / on for 2 years who was married for nearly 10 years and it still didn't work out. Not once did I think "Oh he must be stable if he was married for nearly 10 years" especially since all he did was complain about his ex-wife for the 2 years he dated me. So that's why I don't put any credence into a guy's relationship history when I meet him and we decide to go on a few dates.

[xxoo]

It's a potential red flag, which to me means pose the questions and see what kind of introspective response he gives (if any).

 

Of course people will judge based on past behavior. That doesn't mean it can't be overcome, but there needs to be some self awareness first.

[angel.eyes]

I dated a guy off / on for 2 years who was married for nearly 10 years and it still didn't work out. Not once did I think "Oh he must be stable if he was married for nearly 10 years" especially since all he did was complain about his ex-wife for the 2 years he dated me. So that's why I don't put any credence into a guy's relationship history when I meet him and we decide to go on a few dates.

 

Choosing to date someone who is still hung up on an ex speaks to your people picker. Spending two years when he's emotionally unavailable adds to that picture. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but blaming the other person for poor outcomes without looking at your role is part of the problem.

 

The types of concerns and challenges that arise two years into a relationship are very different than those faced at four or six months. If you're looking for a life partner, whether someone can handle long-term challenges becomes relevant.

 

You're welcome to use whatever criteria you wish (or not) to pick dating partners. So are others. Some folks are more interested in maximizing the likelihood of meeting someone likely to go the distance. Others are more focused on attempting to give all comers a shot.

 

It's a personal preference. Of course, outcomes are likely to reflect the selection criteria used.

Edited December 11, 2014 by angel.eyes

[writergal]

Choosing to date someone who is still hung up on an ex speaks to your people picker. Spending two years when he's emotionally unavailable adds to that picture. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but blaming the other person for poor outcomes without looking at your role is part of the problem.

 

The types of concerns and challenges that arise two years into a relationship are very different than those faced at four or six months. If you're looking for a life partner, whether someone can handle long-term challenges becomes relevant.

 

You're welcome to use whatever criteria you wish (or not) to pick dating partners. So are others. Some folks are more interested in maximizing the likelihood of meeting someone likely to go the distance. Others are more focused on attempting to give all comers a shot.

 

It's a personal preference. Of course, outcomes are likely to reflect the selection criteria used.

 

It doesn't speak to my "people picker" though and I think that's silly to say that. I've dated guys before who weren't hung up on an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend. I'm not putting all the blame on the guy either.

 

Criteria differs for every person. There is no guarantee that someone you date who appears emotionally available with long relationships in their past will work out long-term. There is no correct way to choose a partner for long term. People are unpredictable.

 

Makes me think of that Ben Stiller / Jennifer Aniston movie "Along Comes Polly." Stiller's character - an insurance risk assessment expert - bases all of his relationship and life decisions on data. On his honeymoon with his wife, she has an affair with the scuba instructor. His people picker chose his wife because her data showed her to be a safe choice. Boy was he wrong! Later after that honeymoon debacle, Stiller meets Aniston's character who is free spirit and lives her life without worrying about everything. And she shows him that no amount of data can predetermine a positive outcome of any situation, especially where relationships are concerned. Sometimes, you just have to wing it and hope for the best. And Stiller and Aniston's character fall in love by the end of the movie.

 

The OP is acting like Stiller's character, hung up on the data of relationship length of men. If the data shows her that men in their 30s haven't had a long term relationship, the OP believes that those men aren't worth dating. Fine, that's her personal preference.

 

The fact that I spent 2 years doesn't mean I chose the wrong guy. It's a two-way street. He appeared to be emotionally available (i.e. he told me he was) when we first met, but the more time I spent with him, it became apparent to me that he was still reeling from his divorce. Plus, he changed the way he felt about me. My people picker isn't broken. Even if he'd handed me a sheet full of data about his marriage and post-marriage divorce dating life, I would STILL have dated him because we were mutually attracted to each other in the very beginning. We both believed we'd each found someone worthy of a long-term relationship. But like everything in life, there is no guarantee for a positive outcome no matter how many numbers you crunch, or theories you study.

 

Human beings are unpredictable. Period.