Is no kids and never been married a red flag for an attractive woman? (single, young)

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Yup, or, she just hasn't met the right person who wanted the same thing with her, if she did want that. Better not to do it at all then do it with someone you know isn't right.

From your perspective, yes.

People who get to 40 and still haven't met "the right person" haven't made marriage and children a priority.

Nothing at all wrong with that, everyone gets to decide their own life path.

But you do have to realize that someone who hasn't met "the right person" by the time they're in their 40's has decided not to.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

From your perspective, yes.

People who get to 40 and still haven't met "the right person" haven't made marriage and children a priority.

Nothing at all wrong with that, everyone gets to decide their own life path.

But you do have to realize that someone who hasn't met "the right person" by the time they're in their 40's has decided not to.

I don't agree with this at all. If you wanted to settle and think, oh hey, I want kids and to be married and he/she is good enough , then sure, I'll agree with you... people can call that the "right person". But if you actually want to do that with someone you've fallen in love with, and have fallen in love with you, and you're both a good fit for each other, want the same thing, AND would work well together in a marriage in raising a child, then no, it isn't simply a decision to make. Having all those things occur is very rare. Most people don't find it more than once in their life and plenty never do as falling in love (not loving someone, but falling in love) is a pretty rare thing indeed.


I've met two people in my life (and I'm pretty social) that I would have liked to marry and have a family with, neither were interested in it with me. One wanted kids (very much), the other didn't, the previous one so far hasn't (she is 44 now). It is just the way things go sometimes. Sure, there were people I could have married and had a kid with and we would have been fine at it, but it would have been grossly irresponsible to do so since I wasn't truly in love (even though I cared for her deeply).


Now, I would agree with you if you mean by making "marriage and children a priority" means they just have to find someone that is good enough to get the act done.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I don't agree with this at all. If you wanted to settle and think, oh hey, I want kids and to be married and he/she is good enough , then sure, I'll agree with you... people can call that the "right person". But if you actually want to do that with someone you've fallen in love with, and have fallen in love with you, and you're both a good fit for each other, want the same thing, AND would work well together in a marriage in raising a child, then no, it isn't simply a decision to make. Having all those things occur is very rare. Most people don't find it more than once in their life and plenty never do as falling in love (not loving someone, but falling in love) is a pretty rare thing indeed.


I've met two people in my life (and I'm pretty social) that I would have liked to marry and have a family with, neither were interested in it with me. One wanted kids (very much), the other didn't, the previous one so far hasn't (she is 44 now). It is just the way things go sometimes. Sure, there were people I could have married and had a kid with and we would have been fine at it, but it would have been grossly irresponsible to do so since I wasn't truly in love (even though I cared for her deeply).


Now, I would agree with you if you mean by making "marriage and children a priority" means they just have to find someone that is good enough to get the act done.

Yes, that's what I mean.

The OP is about whether that's a red flag, that the woman wasn't married and had no kids.

My thought is it's not a red flag at all. What he's got there is a woman for whom marriage and kids wasn't a priority.

I have, in my life, met innumerable (I really mean that) men I think I would be happy spending a lifetime with. I am happily married, and have been for 30+ years and I'm not at all looking, just saying, there are many men out there I would have been happy with.

[TJenkins602]

Originally Posted by ThisTown123

The latter can't be it, because there are people who have no problem getting romantic partners and then those partners wind up

1. Being alcoholics
2. Drug users
3.Cheaters
4 Abusers
5. All of the above

And yet, THEY don't struggle finding a romantic partner.

But yet the substance free, non-abusive, non-violent loyal partner, etc. may be having problems finding someone because "they are difficult to deal with in some way?"

Hmmmmmmmmm....

Well, maybe. the key phrase is "in some way".

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by spider99

In the world of dating, men chase and women lure for the most part. I can totally see how a even a decent looking guy with his act together could end up never being married and with no kids for these reasons.

However, a woman woman with her act together that is decent looking has had an endless flow of men that would love to wife them up if we're being honest here. I ask this mainly because almost every woman my age (40's) that fits this description is REALLY hard to date from what I have experienced.

Also, this question is for other men.

I think people should stop looking for red flags of this sort.

For one thing, many very attractive women are approached mainly by sleazes, egotists who only want them to show them off without caring to get to know them as a person, men with control issues, guys who are insecure and intimidated by their intelligence or even modest accomplishments, and other undesirables. They have a hard time finding the down-to-earth good guys, especially considering that some of those guys are too shy to approach women. They can end up spinning their wheels a lot, dating shallow guys, guys who want to dominate them, etc.

For another thing, even "decently-attractive" (whatever that is) women can have a hard time struggling with invisibility on the one hand, and approaches by marginally-employed guys prone to drama or other issues, who consider the "decently-attractive" or average women to be "in their league". And then, there are the petite, or "cute" baby-faced women who only attract the attention of teenagers.

There is no endless flow of men wanting to wife women up, except for maybe the top 20% or so of women. Get that out of your head. Banish that thought from your mind. And are you really holding some women's child-free status against them? You're saying that's a red flag, but having a baby-daddy or two somewhere in the wings is not a red flag?

And let me also remind you, that in order to find out that a woman "has her act together", men need to first talk to her. They need to approach her, or respond if she tries to start up a chat, and follow that up with another conversation or date, and get to know her. She's not wearing a badge that says "I've got my act together". Men need to speak to women (an insurmountable hurdle, for some), and then show an interest in who she is (you'd be surprised how many men's minds this thought never crosses), rather than burying women in an avalanche of non-stop words. Getting to know someone to find out if they have their act together is a process that takes time and willingness to hear what others have to say about themselves. IDK, should women wear badges stating their accomplishments, to make it easier for men to find "together" women? "Homeowner here", "CEO", "Lawyer", etc.? Trust me, some of those women do get overlooked a lot.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Yes, that's what I mean.

The OP is about whether that's a red flag, that the woman wasn't married and had no kids.

My thought is it's not a red flag at all. What he's got there is a woman for whom marriage and kids wasn't a priority.

I have, in my life, met innumerable (I really mean that) men I think I would be happy spending a lifetime with. I am happily married, and have been for 30+ years and I'm not at all looking, just saying, there are many men out there I would have been happy with.

If I have never fallen in love in my life, I think I would feel this way too, that there were plenty of people that would be 'good enough' companions and co-parents if I didn't care about how I actually felt about them. I would never, ever, be "happy" in such a situation since I know what I would be missing. Each to their own.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by timberline742

If I have never fallen in love in my life, I think I would feel this way too, that there were plenty of people that would be 'good enough' companions and co-parents if I didn't care about how I actually felt about them. I would never, ever, be "happy" in such a situation since I know what I would be missing. Each to their own.

You're assuming most people aren't capable of "falling in love" with many different people.

There are some who only fall in love one single time, and never again.

There are some who never fall in love, ever.

There are others (like myself) who are capable of falling deeply in love with several people. Brain chemistry. Everyone's different.

But for those who say "I'd rather be single than settling", well, that means marriage and children aren't a priority. Which is absolutely fine. It's just information.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

You're assuming most people aren't capable of "falling in love" with many different people.

There are some who only fall in love one single time, and never again.

There are some who never fall in love, ever.

There are others (like myself) who are capable of falling deeply in love with several people. Brain chemistry. Everyone's different.

But for those who say "I'd rather be single than settling", well, that means marriage and children aren't a priority. Which is absolutely fine. It's just information.

Unless they've actually deeply fallen in love with several people, I'm not sure how anyone can say that. But even if true for some people, falling in love is decidedly not a choice. We don't choose to fall in love.


And I don't believe it means "marriage and children aren't a priority", it means to me that our personal priorities don't take precedence over what is best for the yet to exist child. Having children should not be so selfish a choice.


But you're right, people can and do settle and are with people they would probably not want to be with except they get something out of it they do want. That's pretty tragic IMO.

[gazzaa2]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I don't agree with this at all. If you wanted to settle and think, oh hey, I want kids and to be married and he/she is good enough , then sure, I'll agree with you... people can call that the "right person". But if you actually want to do that with someone you've fallen in love with, and have fallen in love with you, and you're both a good fit for each other, want the same thing, AND would work well together in a marriage in raising a child, then no, it isn't simply a decision to make. Having all those things occur is very rare. Most people don't find it more than once in their life and plenty never do as falling in love (not loving someone, but falling in love) is a pretty rare thing indeed.


I've met two people in my life (and I'm pretty social) that I would have liked to marry and have a family with, neither were interested in it with me. One wanted kids (very much), the other didn't, the previous one so far hasn't (she is 44 now). It is just the way things go sometimes. Sure, there were people I could have married and had a kid with and we would have been fine at it, but it would have been grossly irresponsible to do so since I wasn't truly in love (even though I cared for her deeply).


Now, I would agree with you if you mean by making "marriage and children a priority" means they just have to find someone that is good enough to get the act done.

Part of the reason the divorce law is stupidly high is because people jump into marriage without everything aligning and then find out they're incompatible when the infatuation phase wears off, or they get bored.

A lot of people get married for the sake of getting married and the big wedding etc, rather than think about a lifetime with that partner. This reality has ruined the sanctification of marriage in modern times. Never being married isn't a red flag per se. The best women (and best men) don't tend to stay on the shelf for long, it's fair to say, which is kind of what the OP is driving at.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by gazzaa2

Part of the reason the divorce law is stupidly high is because people jump into marriage without everything aligning and then find out they're incompatible when the infatuation phase wears off, or they get bored.
.

Well, divorce rates are pretty much at a 35 year low. Thankfully. I personally believe that correlated (and I believe is caused) by people waiting until they are older to get married, which is a great thing. They have more dating and relationship experience, and more maturity, in which to make a once in a lifetime (usually) decision.