Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find that men in their 40s often just want to date around and have fun period, and are only willing to settle down if they should so happen to meet a woman who is extremely compelling. Otherwise, they want to have a great time and will do so with women aged 25 to their own age (if the woman still looks good).
You're kidding. Maybe it's just NYC in particular? Holy cow, not my experience. At all. Though I did live 25 miles from Manhattan at the time, and obviously the suburbs are a far cry from Manhattan...Anyway, when I was dating in my early 30s, I had a dating range that went up from there, of course (and down from there), because up to 10-ish years is really no big deal for me either way, and most of the guys I met were looking to get very serious...often, much faster than I was.
And as I said, I was already in my early 30s at that time, and in fact, I had a son who was nearing his teens.
One thing people just don't seem to be figuring out here is that although men *can* biologically have children into their 50s, 60s, 70s and beyond given an adequate sperm count and good reproductive health, do they *want* to? How many 45-year-old guys do you all really know who have never been married and are saying, "Well, that's okay...I'll hold out for someone even better, even younger and even more blah-blah-yadda-yadda (insert_stipulations_here) because if I'm 48, or 50, or 55 when I START having children, that will be awesome by me"?
We always say men don't have a time cutoff for kids. But realistically, most do. *Most* men I know *did not* want to become fathers past the age of about 45. How many dudes do you all know who are thrilled to start having children at 50 or 55 knowing they won't be out of the house until, at the bare minimum, Dad is 68 (and that's if the kid goes away to college)? How many men do you know that want to pay for college during retirement? I'm not saying these guys don't exist. They must. But not in any sort of majority, I am very certain of that.
Yet another reason sweeping generalizations just don't work. I wonder if some of us are projecting here (myself included). Our own experience seem like they're "everyone's". But they're just...not.
You were the one who did. I was answering you directly. You stated that the women you knew in their 40s and 50s who weren't married had regrets. That is what I was answering.
Kindly quote where I told the OP what to do. I do not know whether the OP is male or female, nor do I know the OPs age, and to my knowledge the OP has not even mentioned his or her marital status.
You are starting to make things up, why?
I DID say that that never-married women in their 40s and 50s have regrets, and that I never met one over the age of 48 who is happy to be single.
If you disagree with me, so be it, state why and people can discuss. But don't invent things.
You're kidding. Maybe it's just NYC in particular? Holy cow, not my experience. At all. Though I did live 25 miles from Manhattan at the time, and obviously the suburbs are a far cry from Manhattan...Anyway, when I was dating in my early 30s, I had a dating range that went up from there, of course (and down from there), because up to 10-ish years is really no big deal for me either way, and most of the guys I met were looking to get very serious...often, much faster than I was.
And as I said, I was already in my early 30s at that time, and in fact, I had a son who was nearing his teens.
One thing people just don't seem to be figuring out here is that although men *can* biologically have children into their 50s, 60s, 70s and beyond given an adequate sperm count and good reproductive health, do they *want* to? How many 45-year-old guys do you all really know who have never been married and are saying, "Well, that's okay...I'll hold out for someone even better, even younger and even more blah-blah-yadda-yadda (insert_stipulations_here) because if I'm 48, or 50, or 55 when I START having children, that will be awesome by me"?
We always say men don't have a time cutoff for kids. But realistically, most do. *Most* men I know *did not* want to become fathers past the age of about 45. How many dudes do you all know who are thrilled to start having children at 50 or 55 knowing they won't be out of the house until, at the bare minimum, Dad is 68 (and that's if the kid goes away to college)? How many men do you know that want to pay for college during retirement? I'm not saying these guys don't exist. They must. But not in any sort of majority, I am very certain of that.
Yet another reason sweeping generalizations just don't work. I wonder if some of us are projecting here (myself included). Our own experience seem like they're "everyone's". But they're just...not.
Sorry, but the relationship forum is 90% sweeping generalization and complaints about the other sex.
To the OP. Basically, the gals you described don't WANT to be dating for whatever reason. I'd leave it alone unless they ask but it seems they don't really want to share the reasons they aren't actually dating.
You're kidding. Maybe it's just NYC in particular? Holy cow, not my experience. At all. Though I did live 25 miles from Manhattan at the time, and obviously the suburbs are a far cry from Manhattan...Anyway, when I was dating in my early 30s, I had a dating range that went up from there, of course (and down from there), because up to 10-ish years is really no big deal for me either way, and most of the guys I met were looking to get very serious...often, much faster than I was.
I was talking specifically to a fellow New Yorker, as another woman who is likely dating the same types of men, and our conversation is specifically about divorced men in their 40s and up. (Because she brought up divorced men specifically).
I can't speak about the rest of the country, never even attempted to do so.
I really don't mean to come off as sounding mean but you really can stand to pay a little more attention to context when you answer posts to people...
Kindly quote where I told the OP what to do. I do not know whether the OP is male or female, nor do I know the OPs age, and to my knowledge the OP has not even mentioned his or her marital status.
I wonder why you won't just answer the questions I posed.
I was talking specifically to a fellow New Yorker, as another woman who is likely dating the same types of men.
I can't speak about the rest of the country
And there you go! We are in agreement. As far as "never even attempting to [speak for the rest of the country]", you said repeatedly "most" women, etc., which I'm sure posters here did not take to mean "most" women in NYC only. You made quite a few generalizations and I am 99.9% certain (we'll leave off .1% for people who are truly obtuse) that people will assume that most means, well, most.
Now! As far as actually not being able to speak about the rest of the country, etc., we are in agreement. It was my point exactly. I am only one person and I was able to give quiet a few exceptions to the generalizations you made, and yes, you did make them. I mean come on. If you're going to challenge me to multi-quote all of them in this thread, I'll just have to sit here and chuckle. Sorry, you're getting silly.
Here we go again, another post in the "women are morons who are incapable of thinking" category.
Women are just as capable as men to distinguish between fantasy and reality. If you don't believe that men run the risk of developing unrealistic expectations from viewing porn or reading fantasy novels, then there is no reason for you to believe that women's brains are so fragile that they should be confined in a strait-jacket of steely-eyed realism from early childhood. Fantasy is not dangerous to most people; it's a natural outlet, especially for children who are only coping with the trauma of adjusting to the real world. An excess of anything is a bad thing -- and teaching a little girl that she "isn't all that" and should keep her standards and aspirations low is just as damaging as raising her as a spoiled brat with an inflated sense of entitlement. Can't we have some kind of moderation here? Allow children to be children, and both children and adults to fantasize from time to time about a life that doesn't so closely resemble hell? Is that really too much to ask?
It's bad enough when our resident misogynists infantilize women; it's worse when women validate their ludicrous ideas.
If the bolded is all you read into my post, I can't help you. It said nothing about women being capable of thinking or not. I said nothing nor implied anything about what MEN think or some deep psychological analysis about children undergoing trauma. Please feel free to speak your mind about your opinion, but don't attribute what I didn't say to me, thank you.
Your distortion of what I am saying is likely attributable to an age difference. When I was growing up, only a minority of women were still choosing careers over or with motherhood. Television, books, popular culture, all still valued a woman by whether or not she could find a husband. It may be difficult for some of you to believe that it really hasn't been that long since women had the options they have now.
The Prince Charming story was what most girls lived for until a few decades ago, and it hasn't completely gone away despite the strides women have made.
Just look at the billions made in an industry that thrives on the fact that brides dress up like princesses and go through this ceremony where one man hands her off to another man. Yep, there are changes and variations on the theme, but it's still happening, isn't it? Not long ago I saw an article about some sort of study with little girls asking them what they want to be when they grow up, and they may say veterinarians, doctors, pilots or whatever, but almost all of them also want to be a "bride".
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 09-20-2010 at 01:15 PM..
Here we go again, another post in the "women are morons who are incapable of thinking" category.
Women are just as capable as men to distinguish between fantasy and reality. If you don't believe that men run the risk of developing unrealistic expectations from viewing porn or reading fantasy novels, then there is no reason for you to believe that women's brains are so fragile that they should be confined in a strait-jacket of steely-eyed realism from early childhood. Fantasy is not dangerous to most people; it's a natural outlet, especially for children who are only coping with the trauma of adjusting to the real world. An excess of anything is a bad thing -- and teaching a little girl that she "isn't all that" and should keep her standards and aspirations low is just as damaging as raising her as a spoiled brat with an inflated sense of entitlement. Can't we have some kind of moderation here? Allow children to be children, and both children and adults to fantasize from time to time about a life that doesn't so closely resemble hell? Is that really too much to ask?
It's bad enough when our resident misogynists infantilize women; it's worse when women validate their ludicrous ideas.
Oh really?
Redisca, Western women go through their entire lives trying to live out a fantasy. This fantasy is what they call, "the Amercian dream," and recently, this fantasy has taken on some new updates due to TV shows such as Sex in the City.
Nevertheless, in this dream, women hope to marry a young price charming (i.e.,Doctor) who will whisk them them away to exotic vacation spots, pays all their bills, and shower them with fancy dinners and expensive gifts.
The thing is, not every woman will marry a man like this, and even if she did, this type of woman (one that operates in a fantasy) does not have the work ethic to make a marriage work over the long haul, so eventually they wind up divorced.
As for the women who don't find a guy like this, they become single old bitter women because when they were younger, they refused to "settle."
Last edited by calicali01; 09-20-2010 at 02:10 PM..
Or height, Im 5'8.5 and 5'10 in boots when I go out .but thats not good enough for some of them( not all the time but I have had this numerous times and these women are like 5'2 and Im still not tall enough). so they go out with a violent guy ,the bar starr, the moron etc, and then think types like myself soon to be MBA professionals with no debt and swanky condo paid off are going to come around and pay their bills later in life when they are used and spent, but a whole cast of other dudes
I'd rather be single, or go for something younger
I had one ex Gf that told me she wants to find "perfection", this was 5 years ago, she's still single to this day not gettiing any younger while my income and status is rising
Millionaires aren't the only ones who get married.
Really? I didn't know.
As others and I pointed out, if you're waiting for a wealthy man, you better have the "assets" that he wants. One of the women in the first post of this thread is a woman in her 40's, very successful, and is waiting for Mr. Perfect, with the same professional/educational accomplishments, that can buy her a $50,000 ring (I don't know many average guys with that kind of coin to just splash out on a piece of jewelry), then she isn't being realistic. A well-to-do male, never mind the other qualities of good looks and character, will be attractive to a wide pool of women, including those who are in their 20s and 30s.
Last edited by Wolfpacker; 09-20-2010 at 03:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was answering you directly. You stated that the women you knew in their 40s and 50s who weren't married had regrets. That is what I was answering.
You made quite a few generalizations and I am 99.9% certain (we'll leave off .1% for people who are truly obtuse) that people will assume that most means, well, most.
