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.
Well, like I said earlier on this site, there are two groups of adults: those who have children and those who don't. If you are in the latter group, and can't or won't join the former, you are morally obligated to support the former. So if somebody is in a position to help raise kids, they should. If not coparenting, then financially. If you don't know any single parents, then give to charities which take care of orphans and poor kids of single parents.
One of the great goals of human society is its own perpetuation, because we are the stewards of the Earth. Be it because there is a God that wrote the laws of physics with the intent for sentient beings to eventually evolve, or be it the result of random chance, that is how we find ourselves. So either you're directly a part of that goal by having kids, or you are an indirect part of it, by supporting families.
I guess my point is, to those who have the financial means to help raise children but choose not to do so, what else are you doing to support families and the perpetuation of the human race, as is your moral obligation?
Hmmm. So basically you want to me to take care of another man's little monster because he's too much of a wuss to do it himself. His failures and his mistakes become my own?
This isn't a dog, or a pet where talking about a human child. Last time I checked there not that easy to take care of.
There are generally two types of poverty- generational and situational. It's hard to talk about welfare without distinguishing the two.
Generational poverty is basically inherited. This is your basic underclass living in your inner cities, trailer parks and very rural areas. The whole micro culture is based around welfare programs and poverty culture. This is a low skill population with little to no financial or life skills and poor impulse control. Some work, some don't, but few will ever get out of poverty. This is why welfare caps were put into place, to create a disincentive to have more children. They're still going to breed like rabbits because that's what humans have done since the dawn of time. Welfare didn't make them breed more, they were going to do that anyway. Sometimes a child is born here who CAN succeed with the right intervention and there are programs in place to recognise and help those kids.
Situational poverty is reversible- job loss, sickness, divorce can throw someone into poverty. They have the life and work skills and this is often temporary. This is who welfare really benefits.
Two very distinct classes. Chances are, child status aside, not many people on this forum are going to be choosing mates from the generational poor. They tend to stick together anyway. They will never go away. This is not a new phenomenon due to welfare, pre welfare they were still there just dying the the streets. I don't know about you but I'd rather not have to see that.
All this talk of single moms being undateable and undesirable...
Will it always be the case for single moms? Do you ever become desirable again in the dating pool?
Depends on what you mean by desirable. If you're talking about desirable to a stable, well established single man with other high quality options, single moms become more desirable in about three scenarios:
1) When the kids are older and self sufficent to the point they can be left home alone.
2) When she is older (ideally 35+) as there is less competition from childless women of the same age.
3) When the man has children of his own.
Keep in mind that except for #3 (maybe) a single mom will NEVER be more desirable than a woman without kids. With that in mind, single more are usually great targets for guys who are looking for more short term situations and guys who may not be that proficent at dating and/or are not the greatest catches themselves.
Keep in mind that except for #3 (maybe) a single mom will NEVER be more desirable than a woman without kids. With that in mind, single more are usually great targets for guys who are looking for more short term situations and guys who may not be that proficent at dating and/or are not the greatest catches themselves.
That's not true at all.
What makes a woman desirable are her individual attributes and whatever attracted someone to her in the first place.
And I swear, what kind of low lives think single moms are only good for screwing?! I hope every last one of you knocks a single mom up. Karma for douches.
What makes a woman desirable are her individual attributes and whatever attracted someone to her in the first place.
If you don't think a woman's child status factors into her desirability, than you are clearly naive and not worth the effort of discussion.
Quote:
And I swear, what kind of low lives think single moms are only good for screwing?! I hope every last one of you knocks a single mom up. Karma for douches.
I'm not a single mom, so I don't have any expreience to answer the thread questions.
But I can say this, from what I saw with my own eyes.
There is this Wealthy man age 40, who is a single dad. He is capable or getting young girls to sleep with him due to the amount of money he have.
BUT he did not choose young girls, he also did NOT choose single mom. He choose an unmarried woman age 37, who NEVER have kids.
So in this case, this wealthy rich 'single dad' choose an older woman, age 37 is not young. BUT she did NOT have any kids. So obviously he Didn't want a single mom. He sure have alot of money though.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishe
I'm not a single mom, so I don't have any expreience to answer the thread questions.
But I can say this, from what I saw with my own eyes.
There is this Wealthy man age 40, who is a single dad. He is capable or getting young girls to sleep with him due to the amount of money he have.
BUT he did not choose young girls, he also did NOT choose single mom. He choose an unmarried woman age 37, who NEVER have kids.
So in this case, this wealthy rich 'single dad' choose an older woman, age 37 is not young. BUT she did NOT have any kids. So obviously he Didn't want a single mom. He sure have alot of money though.
No, that isn't obvious at all.
Good heavens.
He probably "chose" her because he fell in love with her.
I swear, so many people think this is about filling out a shopping list. It's about falling in love.
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.
