Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-10-2010, 03:14 PM
 
530 posts, read 897,801 times
Reputation: 254

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ep- View Post
nah, if you are a kickass person youll be ok

there are guys that wont date ya but there are also guys that will. might be harder but you should be fine

True, but this is a true story. No lie. I have to compose myself to even tell it.

I am happily divorced with 2 kids, but ready to reenter the dating game. That being said, a friend of mine introduced me to his cousin. The cousin was very handsome. I was like, ooh, 34 / 35 whatever, singly, nice looking, had a good job in upper management, A truck & 2 cars. No kids, what was the problem.

HIS GIRLFRIEND -- EX-GIRLFRIEND I SHOULD SAY. They long distance dated for 1 yr. She told him she had 2 kids. They decided she would relocate from her native city to where he was and she did. She moved with 2 kids, but within 2 months she moved in the other 8!! That's right 10 kids!!!!!!! After that he had a hard time getting rid of her & he's single because she stalks him, stalks his job, harassing the women. His family thought if he found someone else really nice he would put an end to that. I was like, ummm that's too much drama for me to stick around for.

But hey it’s a good set up for her. The sad part is, she'll never know if it was the 10 kids or the lie about only having 2 that ruined it.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2010, 03:33 PM
 
8,518 posts, read 15,616,747 times
Reputation: 7711
How does a woman with 10 kids find the time to stalk someone? I know people with fewer kids who barely have time to exercise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2010, 03:35 PM
 
530 posts, read 897,801 times
Reputation: 254
ALSO, never forget single women have choices too. Some men look at me and think, single mother, 2 kids = desperate. NOT SO MY FAIR FRIEND. I was unhappily married in a terrible, horrible, terrible, bad & did I say terrible marriage for years! When I got out, I wasn't looking to get back in anything like that. In the beginning I didn't date at all for 3 yrs, then I did, but very casually & my kids never knew. And now I want to be married, but I'm not so willing to just be with a man to say I have one. So...I met this man & he was so good to me! He was a single parent too. We dated a while. We finally introduced the kids & did that whole thing & then we broke up. Looking back why we broke up wasn't even that big of a deal. We could have resolved it. Anyway, fastforeward 2 yrs. We run back into each other get back together now he has a 2 yr old. I was like okay. This kid was by his old girlfriend before me so obviously they had got back together too. Ok so that's 2 baby mama's. Okay. I'm good. You have 2 kids, I have 2 kids. We weren't togehter when that happened, fine. So now were happy & all is well when SNAG! Another woman comes out the wood work and has an infant. We have been back together this time for almost a year & this chick has this baby. That means she was pregnant when we got back together & who's is sleeping around with everyone unprotected! Needless to say that was it for me. That 3rd baby & 3rd baby mama tapped me out. I could have probably even have done 3 babies, same baby mama, but 3 baby mama's? (and those of you wondering yes, my kids are both by the same man, my ex-husband & I both conceived and birth them after marriage. I'm not hating on people who have kids first. I'm just saying 3 babies, & 3 baby mama's was too much for me) But really there were 2 issues at work here. I really liked him, I liked his family, his mother, father, brothers, and cousins. I liked them. I liked him. We had fun together & we could have worked, but really, I wasn't in love with him. So I let him go. It was sad for both of us. He asked if I thought our timing was just off. I think so & maybe we weren't meant to be. Funny thing is my good friend married his brother that I introduced her too. The first time I saw or spoke to him again in 2 years was at her wedding that was this year. I am still single, but I'm not unhappy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2010, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Tucson
42,831 posts, read 88,047,000 times
Reputation: 22814
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
How does a woman with 10 kids find the time to stalk someone? I know people with fewer kids who barely have time to exercise.
No kidding! I'd like to know that, too! The kids probably take care of one another, she gets the checks, and she's home-free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2010, 04:54 PM
 
530 posts, read 897,801 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
How does a woman with 10 kids find the time to stalk someone? I know people with fewer kids who barely have time to exercise.
Hey, I don't know & I don't want to find out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 08:20 AM
 
8,518 posts, read 15,616,747 times
Reputation: 7711
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisTime2010 View Post
ALSO, never forget single women have choices too. Some men look at me and think, single mother, 2 kids = desperate. NOT SO MY FAIR FRIEND.
Excellent point. One of the arguments you'll see on this forum is that single mothers have a lower market value that childless women and therefore should lower their standards. Problem with that argument is that the single mother may not apply the same valuation model. What's also true is that the single mother is taking greater risks than the childless woman. If the latter goes out into the dating scene and gets together with the wrong guy, the only person it really impacts is her. But the single mother has to worry about the consequences not only to her, but also her kids. Because there's greater risk, she actually has to raise her standards, not lower them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 10:38 AM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,962,613 times
Reputation: 1849
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
I concocted the dog walking scenario to show how ridiculous your original statement was. You said that if you're a single parent and your partner isn't helping with your child, then they're dead weight. But if we follow that logic, then it follows that a friend who doesn't help with that child is also dead weight. Further, it follows that a friend who doesn't help me with my dog is dead weight as well. You also said that a person who isn't reciprocating the time and effort you allocate to them is dead weight. That part I agree with. However, how does that relate to a child? If I'm a parent and spending time with my kid, that doesn't mean you're supposed to as well. So you seem to be confused as to where the "dead weight person's" effort is supposed to be reciprocated. It's not supposed to be towards my kid or my dog, but towards me.
Well, to me, if a partner isnt contributing to the upbringing of the child, then the tradeoff for being with that partner is either a poor one, or one driven by a generally selfish motivation. Likewise, if a friend is only consuming your time and resources without reciprocation by helping with your dog or without doing anything else to compensate you for the time that you're reallocating from the care of the dog to invest in them as a friend, then yes he is only hindering the welfare of the dog...its just that dogs tend to be of less importance to us as a society anyway. But time is money at a certain point.

The way it relates to child rearing in my opinion is that upon parenthood, its no longer about you. The children are, or at least should be, the first priority; and because they cant, in any way, provide for themselves, they would be the first to be effected by any displacement of resources. Any of the parents resources, being consumed by another person would in turn be resources that cant be consumed by the child, who should be priority 1 in my own opinion.

Quote:
Actually we weren't in agreement. I used the example of traffic to further illustrate how lame your argument is. I'm rushing to get home to my kid and someone yields to me in traffic. According to you, that gesture which probably only saved me a few seconds qualifies as raising my child. Sorry, but it doesn't no matter how much you want to stretch the meaning of the word.
Apology accepted, although I think that if you truly believe what you're saying you shouldnt have to apologize for saying it. This implies to me that you dont really believe what you're saying. And for good reason. You used the example of traffic because you knew that it followed a certain course of logic that asserts that any gesture done in the interest of the parent concordantly helps the child. You're now attempting to call it "stretching the meaning" of sorts because you realize that, even on a microcosmic scenario such as polite deference in traffic, the underlying truth that whatever aids the parent aids the child, is still upheld. It was a great example in my opinion.

Quote:
Nice try, but it does address your post. You claim to have never heard a couple praise themselves for being able to raise kids without help. That tells me you're out of touch with the real world. As for my so-called bias against nuclear families, show me evidence of that. I happen to be strongly in favor of nuclear 2-parent families. Just because I'm more understanding of single parents doesn't mean I endorse that form of parenting or think that's better than being part of a nuclear family.
I havent heard couples praise themselves for being able to raise kids without help...thats partially because they'd sound silly doing so when they are already openly helping one another to raise the child anyway. What?..do you want me to lie and say that Ive heard couples engage in self aggrandizement just so that I can say that Im this worldly fence straddler who see's both sides of everything?...

That carries no weight to me, and I have no interest in fence straddling in hopes of winning everyone's favoritism. I can only relay what Ive heard personally. To keep it simple - if two people are conscientiously raising a child together, they have already openly acknowledged that it takes a village.

You may have heard couples who self aggrandize - I havent..no difference in truth, only difference of experience...cant really argue that. On the other hand, having "met single parents who have NEVER" self aggrandized *in your presence* doesnt really mean much when those same single parents could be, or could not be, the one's who self aggrandize in the presence of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 10:47 AM
 
36,226 posts, read 30,671,050 times
Reputation: 32504
Quote:
I'm not hating on people who have kids first. I'm just saying 3 babies, & 3 baby mama's was too much for me) But really there were 2 issues at work here. I really liked him, I liked his family, his mother, father, brothers, and cousins. I liked them. I liked him. We had fun together & we could have worked, but really, I wasn't in love with him. So I let him go. It was sad for both of us. He asked if I thought our timing was just off. I think so & maybe we weren't meant to be.
Sounds like more than your timing being off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 12:35 PM
 
8,518 posts, read 15,616,747 times
Reputation: 7711
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
Well, to me, if a partner isnt contributing to the upbringing of the child, then the tradeoff for being with that partner is either a poor one, or one driven by a generally selfish motivation. Likewise, if a friend is only consuming your time and resources without reciprocation by helping with your dog or without doing anything else to compensate you for the time that you're reallocating from the care of the dog to invest in them as a friend, then yes he is only hindering the welfare of the dog...its just that dogs tend to be of less importance to us as a society anyway. But time is money at a certain point.
Notice how you frame things. You say a friend is consuming my time and resources. That's not how I view friendship. My time is something I give away to the things and people that matter to me, but you make it sound like it's something that's taken from me. That just illustrates how selfish you are. The flaw in your argument is in thinking that I'm reallocating time from the care of my child or my dog to invest in that friendship. Whether that friend is in the picture or not, the amount of time I allocate to my child or dog is the same. The free time that I allocate to my friend might be taken from something else, like going to the gym or watching TV. If we follow your logic, my friend should compensate me for being the reason I missed my favorite show or didn't go to the gym. If you truly believe this, then you have perhaps the most selfish definition of friendship I've ever heard. Why should my friend compensate me for something I chose to do on my own? I'm the one who chose to skip a night in watching TV to go hang out at the bar with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
Apology accepted, although I think that if you truly believe what you're saying you shouldnt have to apologize for saying it. This implies to me that you dont really believe what you're saying. And for good reason. You used the example of traffic because you knew that it followed a certain course of logic that asserts that any gesture done in the interest of the parent concordantly helps the child. You're now attempting to call it "stretching the meaning" of sorts because you realize that, even on a microcosmic scenario such as polite deference in traffic, the underlying truth that whatever aids the parent aids the child, is still upheld. It was a great example in my opinion.
LOL. I never apologized and I firmly believe everything I've said thus far. I don't have to attempt to call your definition a stretch since it so clearly is a stretch. The problem here is you can't convincingly prove your definition of "raising" is a good one since it flies in the face of common usage. The example I gave about traffic is more than sufficient to demonstrate how pitifully weak your argument is and patting yourself on the back won't change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
To keep it simple - if two people are conscientiously raising a child together, they have already openly acknowledged that it takes a village.
False. All they've acknowledged is that it takes more than one person. This is just another example of you stretching the meaning of something in order to accommodate your weak argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
You may have heard couples who self aggrandize - I havent..no difference in truth, only difference of experience...cant really argue that. On the other hand, having "met single parents who have NEVER" self aggrandized *in your presence* doesnt really mean much when those same single parents could be, or could not be, the one's who self aggrandize in the presence of others.
You could easily use the same argument about couples. Just because you've never heard them self-aggrandize doesn't mean they don't do so outside of your presence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2010, 11:13 AM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,962,613 times
Reputation: 1849
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
Notice how you frame things. You say a friend is consuming my time and resources. That's not how I view friendship. My time is something I give away to the things and people that matter to me, but you make it sound like it's something that's taken from me. That just illustrates how selfish you are. The flaw in your argument is in thinking that I'm reallocating time from the care of my child or my dog to invest in that friendship. Whether that friend is in the picture or not, the amount of time I allocate to my child or dog is the same. The free time that I allocate to my friend might be taken from something else, like going to the gym or watching TV. If we follow your logic, my friend should compensate me for being the reason I missed my favorite show or didn't go to the gym. If you truly believe this, then you have perhaps the most selfish definition of friendship I've ever heard. Why should my friend compensate me for something I chose to do on my own? I'm the one who chose to skip a night in watching TV to go hang out at the bar with him.
Woah..bud, whats with the personal attack? I mean, you already know Im game for the personal attack thing, BUT I just want to be clear here: You did initiate the exchange of personal attacks. I dont want you coming back later accusing me of being mean spirited or for personally attacking you. I doubt it will matter anyway as this thread will be closed within a couple of pages after I reciprocate my personal attack to you in my next post, but I did want to point that out.

But yeah, to address your statement - regardless of the wording of my statement, the premise remains the same: If a friend is only consuming time and resources, without in some way reciprocating those resources, they are dead weight. Its great to have some pollyanna, kumbayah view of friendships. It truly is, and we need more optimists in the world etc. But realistically, it doesnt change the reality that all successful and longterm relationships are give and take. Unless one person is being abused or dominated, give and take is essential to any friendship. Simply investing one's time and resources into another person, without them reciprocating that same effort in some form or fashion is a recipe for wasting time.

I never said that friendships should be compensatory..I just said that there should be reciprocity between friends...which there must be, particularly if one friend is a single parent. If someone decides to go to the gym, that is their choice, and that choice can and will only affect the person who made the choice. A friend wouldnt compensate anyone for going to the gym, because, the person isnt investing their time into the friend. They are investing their time into the gym. Therefore, if anything, the gym would be dead weight...(it actually wouldnt be dead weight...I just said that to make a funny...lol) The gym, because it is aiding the health of the single parent, would also be helping the child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane View Post
LOL. I never apologized
Quote:
Sorry, but it doesn't no matter how much you want to stretch the meaning of the word.
Are you saying that I misconstrued this as an apology for the statement you were making. What else was it supposed to mean?


Quote:
and I firmly believe everything I've said thus far. I don't have to attempt to call your definition a stretch since it so clearly is a stretch. The problem here is you can't convincingly prove your definition of "raising" is a good one since it flies in the face of common usage. The example I gave about traffic is more than sufficient to demonstrate how pitifully weak your argument is and patting yourself on the back won't change that.
And "Patting myself on the back?" What am I doing to pat myself on the back?...Where are you getting this from? Im just trying to have a civil dialogue with the rest of the city-data posters. Im not understanding why you have become seemingly ornery for no reason. I suspect that you've already began phase one of your monthly meltdown which is usually precipitated by your projected accusations of any poster who disagrees with you having "weak arguments" and so forth - (And Ill just be frank here: I didnt even know we were "arguing"..can we just discuss the topic in a civil manner? Seriously, who's arguing? There's no prize for winning any contest here.. lol) ...

But nevertheless, I dont really see a problem here at all...Your statement verbatim coincided what I said about resources that help the parent, helping the child..we are in agreement about that part. Your traffic scenario was a microcosmic but classic example of how aiding a parent helps a child. You can certainly minimize its importance by calling it a stretch...thats fine, but Im just saying that it applies just as any other scenario in which a parents receives help, which helps their child.




Quote:
False. All they've acknowledged is that it takes more than one person. This is just another example of you stretching the meaning of something in order to accommodate your weak argument.
Right...acknowledging that it takes more than one person is acknowledging that it cant be done alone..thats kind of the point. The rest of this statement was merely another irrelevant accusation.

Quote:
You could easily use the same argument about couples. Just because you've never heard them self-aggrandize doesn't mean they don't do so outside of your presence.
Thats why I said that Ive never "heard" them..which is coincidentally the first acknowledgment you made about my comment initially when you said "Oh so we are going with the 'heard' argument"....thats really all we can go with when speaking anecdotally as I did....I never said that couples dont self aggrandize. I said I have never heard them do it, and then I explained why I believe that is..thats really all I can do.

I think that in an effort to perpetuate this sort of useless back and forth banter that the two of us always engage in, you may have thought I was trying to relay anything more than a personal observation and seemed to have used it as a launch pad to perpetuate the exchange. I think I said earlier: We simply have different experiences...and each of our experiences presumably carry truth to them.

Last edited by solytaire; 08-12-2010 at 12:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top