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 understand the height thing may seem odd; I just prefer women who are near-eye-level. I've dated short girls before, but always looking down at someone seems odd to me. I am ~182cm; so around 6'0''. It would not be an absolute deal-breaker if I met the right girl, but it is a preference. I definitely do not want children though; that may be a deal-breaker for her or me.
I am glad to see some encouragement already. A majority of my friends are either in relationships or married these days, so I feel a bit worried that I may be running out of time sometimes.
Thanks for the input so far!
You say "Chicagoland." Most people who live in Chicago, proper, do not say that, which leads me to believe you reside in suburbia. As such, your viewpoint is more likely to be skewed toward family-oriented couples and peers, because that's who suburbia, in general, explicitly seeks to accommodate. There are still a lot of single people out there.
At 30, myself, I would have hit all your criteria, except for the "doesn't want children" piece, although I did not have any at the time. To be totally honest, that one piece of criteria IS likely to be a significant filter, moreso than height. Particularly in the Midwest, which falls among the more family-oriented regions of the country, even in its cities, though cities tend to attract fewer of the family-oriented folks than other types of communities. Can you find women who've reached that stage of life and decided they don't want children? Of course. But they're more rare than the opposite, so that will, indeed limit you. Not in a "running out of time" sense. Just in the sense that it's not as common a stance.
You point out something friends have told me about the child subject; just leave it out for as long as possible. I may try that. One thought that came to my mind was if I did this and the topic did not come up for six or more months, if the woman really likes me she may compromise on that to stay with me. I always use condoms too.
You are not going to find many 30-something women who won't want that question answered within a few weeks unless they have zero interest in a long-term relationship.
You point out something friends have told me about the child subject; just leave it out for as long as possible. I may try that. One thought that came to my mind was if I did this and the topic did not come up for six or more months, if the woman really likes me she may compromise on that to stay with me. I always use condoms too.
Terrible idea. The worst ever, really, because of this:
Quote:
I definitely do not want children
Think about it. What if a woman were dating you, knew you did not want kids, but thought, "Well, if he realy likes me, he may compromise on the whole not wanting kids thing." That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? All you do is waste somebody's time.
People rarely give up on what they want, when it comes to preferences for children. The rare ones who do attempt to compromise and go with what the other person wants or doesn't want, when it's counter to their preferences in this camp nearly always regret it, resent the other person, and it causes relationship problems and often relationship demise. Being upfront in his area is essential. Yes, even if it costs you dates or potential relationships. Because if you have this incompatibility, it's not really a true "potential relationship," anyway, at least not a long-term one, if that's what you (and she) are looking for. It will always have a shelf life, because you want different things in a big way.
Trust me that one of the worst things you can do to another person is start a relationship under false pretenses, and that includes dodging it on whether or not you want kids to avoid bringing an unresolvable incompatibility to light. I get that you're concerned that this criteria narrows your pool. It does. But you just have to own that. Because being evasive and hoping that being in a relationship with you will be sufficient enough pressure to convince someone to change her mind on a major life and lifestyle choice is unrealistic.
It's not tremendously challenging to find women 27-33 without children in a city in a metropolitan area with a population over 500,000. Some markets vary though.
There might be friction though if the childless woman 27-33 is pushing for more accelerated time frames with a new man than she did with previous men. She might push for a quicker commitment and a shorter childless existence than she did. So a previous man could have enjoyed 5 years of constant, longer-term commitment free sex and a longer childless existence than the new man. For most men, that's not going to sit well with them. Many men will not express this sentiment overtly, but beneath the surface, there will be a resentment. A 33 year old man without kids is usually not in any greater of a hurry to have kids than a 23 year old without kids. Some 33 year old men might want marriage if they are tired of the hustle of single life.
I'm referring to child-free, not childless. OP is leaning toward child-free, so he is not interested in having children at all vs. not having children right now. Many people in their late 20s and early 30s are childless. My husband was childless at 35, but not child-free because he wanted a child with the right person.
A 27 year old childless woman focusing on her career, meets the OP's criteria, could end up wanting a child at, say, 33. This is not at all uncommon. The majority of decidedly child-free women I know are in their late 30s+, and it's men in this age range that have a less difficult time finding women who are child-free. Finding a late 20s childless woman in a metro city isn't uncommon. Finding a decidedly child-free woman is, however. Major city or not.
You say "Chicagoland." Most people who live in Chicago, proper, do not say that, which leads me to believe you reside in suburbia. As such, your viewpoint is more likely to be skewed toward family-oriented couples and peers, because that's who suburbia, in general, explicitly seeks to accommodate. There are still a lot of single people out there.
Yes, I used to live in Chicago. I am in the suburbs now though. Most of my friends (even single ones) either have children or want them, but that is even from people I met in the city itself. I believe a UN statistic I read awhile ago stated that ~95% of people end up having children at some point. So I am aware of how difficult this is to find. I worry I may be forced into celibacy at some point. Of course, these are UN statistics I am talking about, so who knows. From life experience so far, I see potential truth in such a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
You are not going to find many 30-something women who won't want that question answered within a few weeks unless they have zero interest in a long-term relationship.
It's not tremendously challenging to find women 27-33 without children in a city in a metropolitan area with a population over 500,000. Some markets vary though.
There might be friction though if the childless woman 27-33 is pushing for more accelerated time frames with a new man than she did with previous men. She might push for a quicker commitment and a shorter childless existence than she did. So a previous man could have enjoyed 5 years of constant, longer-term commitment free sex and a longer childless existence than the new man. For most men, that's not going to sit well with them. Many men will not express this sentiment overtly, but beneath the surface, there will be a resentment. A 33 year old man without kids is usually not in any greater of a hurry to have kids than a 23 year old without kids. Some 33 year old men might want marriage if they are tired of the hustle of single life.
But he doesn't want children AT ALL, not a "a childless existence until later in life." So it makes no sense to seek our long-term relationships with women who either want children or are open to children at some point. He needs to find women who want the same things he wants. Which does narrow the selection a bit. No judgment one way or the other. It just does.
I'm referring to child-free, not childless. OP is leaning toward child-free, so he is not interested in having children at all vs. not having children right now. Many people in their late 20s and early 30s are childless. My husband was childless at 35, but not child-free because he wanted a child with the right person.
Yep. I was childless until 38, for the same reasons. My husband was childless until 43, for the same reasons. But neither of us were desiring to never have children. When we got serious, we talked about the possibility that we might not be able to have biological children, and what we would do in that case, such as foster-to-adopt. But I easily got pregnant, and we have a four month-old, so, yay!
But if you met me at 35, you might assume that, because I didn't have children yet, I didn't want to. That would have been a faulty assumption. I always wanted children. I didn't specifically want to wait until I was 38 to have any, that's just how life shook out. But I always wanted them, I didn't undergo some sort of transformation.
Yes, I used to live in Chicago. I am in the suburbs now though. Most of my friends (even single ones) either have children or want them, but that is even from people I met in the city itself. I believe a UN statistic I read awhile ago stated that ~95% of people end up having children at some point. So I am aware of how difficult this is to find. I worry I may be forced into celibacy at some point. Of course, these are UN statistics I am talking about, so who knows. From life experience so far, I see potential truth in such a result.
You need to be living in the city. Suburbs are meant for married childless couples or those with children under 18 living at home. You are not doing your social life any favors living in a suburb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
You are not going to find many 30-something women who won't want that question answered within a few weeks unless they have zero interest in a long-term relationship.
OP is only 30 and could easily be dating a 24-27 year old. Expressing a non-interest in children in the short term will usually work well enough up until 30 among childless women in a major city.
I'm referring to child-free, not childless. OP is leaning toward child-free, so he is not interested in having children at all vs. not having children right now. Many people in their late 20s and early 30s are childless. My husband was childless at 35, but not child-free because he wanted a child with the right person.
A 27 year old childless woman focusing on her career, meets the OP's criteria, could end up wanting a child at, say, 33. This is not at all uncommon. The majority of decidedly child-free women I know are in their late 30s+, and it's men in this age range that have a less difficult time finding women who are child-free. Finding a late 20s childless woman in a metro city isn't uncommon. Finding a decidedly child-free woman is, however. Major city or not.
Since I am aware that people who are generally 35 and 40+ who do not have children and do not want children have taken ownership of the term child-free, I refer to myself as childless. Children are not at all a priority in my life, but I am still on the younger side. I am lukewarm on the idea of children, and have always been, but I would not tell someone I am dating exclusively that nor would I tell prospective dates that. I have expressed to dates that children are not a short term priority and that my focus is on building strong relationships. That works well enough and in conjunction with birth control use, my stance on children has not impeded my relationships. Keeping quiet as much as possible is best for the lukewarm/unenthusiastic man.
The man who definitely does not want children will lose opportunities if he expresses this sentiment too early in the relationship. So it does not behoove him to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa
But he doesn't want children AT ALL, not a "a childless existence until later in life." So it makes no sense to seek our long-term relationships with women who either want children or are open to children at some point. He needs to find women who want the same things he wants. Which does narrow the selection a bit. No judgment one way or the other. It just does.
You're right. Childless women are easy to find. Women who never want children are hard to find. I just don't think being too upfront about his stance on children (if he is as dead set against it as he claims) is going to be something that benefits him. He would either need to soften his stance or frame his stance in a way that does not cost him options.
Op should be honest. I am 100% childfree and would have gotten a total tubal ligation if I wasn't concerned about it bringing on early menopause. It's not easy for us childfree people to find someone like us and I know that my boyfriend isn't fully decided on the kid issue which is why I am against marriage until the mid-40's or so (I want my partner to be sure and to realize it is no longer an option with me so he's not even hopeful I could change my mind). But the more honest you are, the better your chances of finding the right person who wants the same things. By the way, I'm 30 next week.
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.
