Hello Friend,
If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.
It will be the most efficient use of your time.
And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.
Thank you for visiting and have a great day!
Woman with kid(s)??
- Thread starter DoubleA
- Start date
MinusoneAFC
Don Juan
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 0
Dating chick with kids on eharmony
Okay not be dumb or anything but this chick I have been chatting with his 9HB, but has two older kids. I got first date with her next week. How do I know if this chick would be open in to just FukBud or casual dating, nothing serious. Personally for me I don't want any LTR, just trying to more experience in dating hotter chicks.
Okay not be dumb or anything but this chick I have been chatting with his 9HB, but has two older kids. I got first date with her next week. How do I know if this chick would be open in to just FukBud or casual dating, nothing serious. Personally for me I don't want any LTR, just trying to more experience in dating hotter chicks.
DoubleA
Senior Don Juan
Why don't you tell her from the jump that you're only looking for casual dating etc, etc., etc. If you don't she'll more than likely hit you with the full court press. Most single mothers I'm sure look to be someone's wife at some point. If she's older she might be all about stroking.
Just lay the cards on the table in a way you don't tip off your hand. Nah mean?
Just lay the cards on the table in a way you don't tip off your hand. Nah mean?
NewMan
Master Don Juan
Code:
Okay not be dumb or anything but this chick I have been chatting with his 9HB, but has two older kids. I got first date with her next week. How do I know if this chick would be open in to just FukBud or casual dating, nothing serious. Personally for me I don't want any LTR, just trying to more experience in dating hotter chicks.If you want to make things casual there's a few things I would recomend.
1) be honest from the start - but don't bring it up. i.e. don't volunter info - she will broach the subject soon enough (prolly after you've hit it). So if she asks you what you are looking for - just tell her - nothing serious right now, things are hectic. I would advise that you always add a reason why nothign serious. Good reasons are work related - such as I've got a lot going on at work right now - I'm trying to establish myself.
2) A lot of guys make a mistake of spending to much time with the chick - this sends the wrong signal - and soon enough your bf and gf. If you just want her as a fvck buddy, then there's no need to see her every other day. That's sending her the wrong signal.
3) date other women - really important.
4) she will want to have the 'where is this going' conversation. You want to delay this for as long as possible. The idea here is to make it difficult for her to break off the fvck buddy thing. So you want to make sure you take care of bidness in the sack, make sure you've made a solid connection, having a lot of fun (change things up) and finally give her a glimmer, just a glimmer of hope that there is quite possibly a future. Basically you want to be the complete package minus the commitment.
5) Don't meet her family (or her yours) ever.
NewMan
Master Don Juan
I personally have an issue with SM's....
I'm going through it right now.
There will always be the factor that the kid is not yours - plus if you do want to start that family, you will always have an outside influence (meaning the kid's father if he's in the picture).
I just wonder how this could effect any kids that you possibly have in the future.....
It's something I'm fighting with right now - whether or not to persue my relationship further or not.
Tough decisions.
I'm going through it right now.
There will always be the factor that the kid is not yours - plus if you do want to start that family, you will always have an outside influence (meaning the kid's father if he's in the picture).
I just wonder how this could effect any kids that you possibly have in the future.....
It's something I'm fighting with right now - whether or not to persue my relationship further or not.
Tough decisions.
TooColdUlrick
Master Don Juan
i'm done with SM's. the whole concept of having them as a FB is usually a red herring. they're going to start thinking (if they didn't from the start) that if you're good enough to be fvcking them on a regular basis, you're good enough to be a substitute daddy.
yeah, they're easier lays. but there's a price to pay for everything. plus, i don't want to get attached to a single mommy.
yeah, they're easier lays. but there's a price to pay for everything. plus, i don't want to get attached to a single mommy.
Gina8147
Don Juan
Depends on the situation!
I agree with the fact that the father of the children could have been a bum; however, that is not always the case.
Sometimes there are situations where men leave women to find a "younger" model (hint: swampwiz), so in this particular situation, what was wrong with the wife? Nothing.... What is wrong with the children? Nothing but being lost without a father figure.
It isn't always about the money. It is about the family unit.
I am a married woman with children, and if something did happen to my husband, I would like to think that there are decent guys out there that would want a meaningful relationship with someone that is dedicated to their role.
Gina
I agree with the fact that the father of the children could have been a bum; however, that is not always the case.
Sometimes there are situations where men leave women to find a "younger" model (hint: swampwiz), so in this particular situation, what was wrong with the wife? Nothing.... What is wrong with the children? Nothing but being lost without a father figure.
It isn't always about the money. It is about the family unit.
I am a married woman with children, and if something did happen to my husband, I would like to think that there are decent guys out there that would want a meaningful relationship with someone that is dedicated to their role.
Gina
zergkiller
Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2006
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 1
…let no man put asunder…
…let no man put asunder…
I’m 62. My parents got a divorce when I was about 4 and my sister was 2. Divorce should be as illegal as murder. Marital crimes such as infidelity should be punished by some sort of flogging. When divorce was virtually illegal, as it was in the 1940s, the divorce rate was perhaps 10%. Today, it is about 50%. Something like that anyway.
Divorce damages the children unbelievably. It gives them “problems”, and diminishes their marketability when comes their time to mate. I knew a girl in France who knew her family line for 500 years. There was no divorce at all.
I married, for the first time in my life to a woman with two great boys. The events that occurred were simply horrific. And when the boys left the house, so did she. I checked her out before we “married”. She had never left a mate. She had been with two men before me. Her husband had fathered two boys, decided he didn’t want any children and abandoned them leaving no money. When he was finally caught, he did pay child support. The money was to go into an account for the boy’s education. After two years, her ex-husband sued to have the support reduced, claiming that I had hidden packages and letters he sent to his sons. That was a lie. In the hearing, the boys (12 and 14) had to say they wanted to live with me, since he claimed that he wanted them to live with him. That also was a lie, he never even wanted to visit them before I came along. And then it came out that my “wife” had spent the child support.
You might think that a man would hate another who had married his daughter, impregnated her twice and then abandoned her for another woman, and finally married a third. But when the hearing occurred, her father and most of her family sided against my “wife” and her children’s wishes and I became “the problem”. I had been teaching the boys about money and investing. The now 13 year old took all his money, silver bars and coin collection, sold everything and took a plane from Texas to Los Angeles. By himself…knowing no one there. My “wife” who was educated and extremely level headed for the most part went hysterical for an entire day.
After almost three days, my “wife” finally had to call her mother to tell her that we didn’t know where the boy was. He was there. Apparently, he got a look at the first purple haired monstrosity in the LA airport and took the first plane to his grandmother’s house. His grandmother didn’t call her daughter to tell her about it. She just left us all worried sick for almost three days.
As you can see, almost all of her family structured themselves against me. I was the interloper. The divorce occurred some time later. Poor ol’ zerg. You know what? The romantic side of me says that there are acquired skills to be learned here, and that with my experience, I could do a better job the next time. But then, there is another voice in my head that says: “Nah! You’re single, 62, no children and will die among strangers in a home somewhere.”
While you guys are checking out these fabulous babes. You might want to ask about her teeth, whether or not she can cook, and oh yeah: did she come from a broken home? ;-)
zergkiller
…let no man put asunder…
I’m 62. My parents got a divorce when I was about 4 and my sister was 2. Divorce should be as illegal as murder. Marital crimes such as infidelity should be punished by some sort of flogging. When divorce was virtually illegal, as it was in the 1940s, the divorce rate was perhaps 10%. Today, it is about 50%. Something like that anyway.
Divorce damages the children unbelievably. It gives them “problems”, and diminishes their marketability when comes their time to mate. I knew a girl in France who knew her family line for 500 years. There was no divorce at all.
I married, for the first time in my life to a woman with two great boys. The events that occurred were simply horrific. And when the boys left the house, so did she. I checked her out before we “married”. She had never left a mate. She had been with two men before me. Her husband had fathered two boys, decided he didn’t want any children and abandoned them leaving no money. When he was finally caught, he did pay child support. The money was to go into an account for the boy’s education. After two years, her ex-husband sued to have the support reduced, claiming that I had hidden packages and letters he sent to his sons. That was a lie. In the hearing, the boys (12 and 14) had to say they wanted to live with me, since he claimed that he wanted them to live with him. That also was a lie, he never even wanted to visit them before I came along. And then it came out that my “wife” had spent the child support.
You might think that a man would hate another who had married his daughter, impregnated her twice and then abandoned her for another woman, and finally married a third. But when the hearing occurred, her father and most of her family sided against my “wife” and her children’s wishes and I became “the problem”. I had been teaching the boys about money and investing. The now 13 year old took all his money, silver bars and coin collection, sold everything and took a plane from Texas to Los Angeles. By himself…knowing no one there. My “wife” who was educated and extremely level headed for the most part went hysterical for an entire day.
After almost three days, my “wife” finally had to call her mother to tell her that we didn’t know where the boy was. He was there. Apparently, he got a look at the first purple haired monstrosity in the LA airport and took the first plane to his grandmother’s house. His grandmother didn’t call her daughter to tell her about it. She just left us all worried sick for almost three days.
As you can see, almost all of her family structured themselves against me. I was the interloper. The divorce occurred some time later. Poor ol’ zerg. You know what? The romantic side of me says that there are acquired skills to be learned here, and that with my experience, I could do a better job the next time. But then, there is another voice in my head that says: “Nah! You’re single, 62, no children and will die among strangers in a home somewhere.”
While you guys are checking out these fabulous babes. You might want to ask about her teeth, whether or not she can cook, and oh yeah: did she come from a broken home? ;-)
zergkiller
zergkiller,
The broken home was not the issue here and certainly not an excuse for their behavior. The issue was that you were dealing with a selfish woman that didn't value you as her man. Furthermore, you allowed her parents to get involved in your "family" life.
The 13 year old that did all that crap? Now, that's scary and a huge reason why I don't want any woman that has minor children. I have zero patience for punks.
The broken home was not the issue here and certainly not an excuse for their behavior. The issue was that you were dealing with a selfish woman that didn't value you as her man. Furthermore, you allowed her parents to get involved in your "family" life.
The 13 year old that did all that crap? Now, that's scary and a huge reason why I don't want any woman that has minor children. I have zero patience for punks.
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
I realize I'm invoking the wrath of the Cougar here, but,..
No single mommies, no how, no way, end of story.
Didn't have time to elaborate last night on the psycho-evolutionary basis for women seeking out potential father surrogates so I'll hit you with it now.??Allow me to put forth as objective a retort as I can here.
I've aleady detailed in many prior posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them. So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely aware of is a bit naive.
It's simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it''s offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and their potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic hosts for his reproduction (she's gotta be hot), but this criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no ones ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 17 times the amount of testosterone women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men.
That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. With so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding with, but also to know that his progeny will benefit form both parents involvement.
One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.
Social Convention
To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "perogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman. This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.
This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders 'savior' mental schemas for men's breeding schedules) and even marriage itself.
Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.
Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.
Reproductive Schedules
This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fvck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women.
Cheating
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.
In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.
Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.
I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence.??For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner, this is an evolutionary jackpot.
The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.
The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with a single mother when compared to a woman without children.
However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past' the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother's bad decisions with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. It's important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children's fate.
No single mommies, no how, no way, end of story.
Didn't have time to elaborate last night on the psycho-evolutionary basis for women seeking out potential father surrogates so I'll hit you with it now.??Allow me to put forth as objective a retort as I can here.
I've aleady detailed in many prior posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them. So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely aware of is a bit naive.
It's simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it''s offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and their potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic hosts for his reproduction (she's gotta be hot), but this criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no ones ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 17 times the amount of testosterone women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men.
That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. With so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding with, but also to know that his progeny will benefit form both parents involvement.
One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.
Social Convention
To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "perogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman. This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.
This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders 'savior' mental schemas for men's breeding schedules) and even marriage itself.
Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.
Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.
Reproductive Schedules
This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still fvck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women.
Cheating
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.
In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.
Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.
I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence.??For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner, this is an evolutionary jackpot.
The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.
The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with a single mother when compared to a woman without children.
However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past' the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother's bad decisions with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. It's important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children's fate.
Desdinova
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 11,665
- Reaction score
- 4,726
First of all zergkiller, welcome to the forum!
- A child who is raised by a mother and father who are happily separated from each other
- A child who is raised by parents who are unhappily married. They stay together for the sake of the child having the family unit, regardless of the fact that they fight everyday (sometimes violently).
Which environment is healthier for the child? The unhappy home, or the two happy ones?
It's hard to tell exactly how your relationship went down the 5hitter without knowing your life story, but the fact that you based her on "never leaving a mate" shows that you really had no clue what you were looking for in a long term mate. I'm not saying she's 100% innocent, but a person needs to be INCREDIBLY fussy when they're choosing who they're going to settle down with.
Times have greatly changed since the 1940s, and people need to adapt to the changes, which is why relying on chivalry to attract and keep a woman doesn't work anymore. Stick around, and you'll learn a great fortune of information from this website. Take a good read through the DJ bible, and compare it with what you did in your past relationships.
I have to disagree. Let's get into your point of view:
I've heard it as the norm that people who come from divorced parents are horribly damaged. Here's where the debate comes into effect:
- A child who is raised by a mother and father who are happily separated from each other
- A child who is raised by parents who are unhappily married. They stay together for the sake of the child having the family unit, regardless of the fact that they fight everyday (sometimes violently).
Which environment is healthier for the child? The unhappy home, or the two happy ones?
You married an already damaged woman. It wasn't her upbringing that damaged her, but her terrible choice in her first husband. You, the knight in shining armour, came into the picture to save her and her kids! She took your horse and fvcked off.
It's hard to tell exactly how your relationship went down the 5hitter without knowing your life story, but the fact that you based her on "never leaving a mate" shows that you really had no clue what you were looking for in a long term mate. I'm not saying she's 100% innocent, but a person needs to be INCREDIBLY fussy when they're choosing who they're going to settle down with.
Times have greatly changed since the 1940s, and people need to adapt to the changes, which is why relying on chivalry to attract and keep a woman doesn't work anymore. Stick around, and you'll learn a great fortune of information from this website. Take a good read through the DJ bible, and compare it with what you did in your past relationships.
Good Post RT.Rollo Tomassi said:
With regards to the above quote, the Good Dad male is often being decieved. Prior to this she would fvck Good Gene males and that was what she wanted while ignoring the Good Dad males (who most but not all tend to be AFC's due to societal conventions) . Now that she has a kid and the Good Gene Male has left or couldn't support her, the woman will device a new strategy. Having reached her late 20's or early 30's and her sexual marketability has declined + having someone elses kid brings her marketability down as well, she has to resort to attract the Good Dad male who is often an AFC who never dated much. Therefore the AFC Good Dad will often marvel at the fact that all of the sudden he got a hot Milf he could never bone before coming on strong to him and thus he won't mind taking care of her kid if he gets plenty of her pvssy in return (Its an exchange, she is giving him her body to fvck in exchange for supporting her kid). That is why men love chasing milf's, you don't need as much game to have in order for her to committ long terms as a oppose to a single younger woman with no children.
Of coarse this is all temporary because as soon as the woman gets the Good Dad into her long term commitment care of her child ala cohabitation or marriage, her true self will rear and this often won't end pretty. Her man might end up working hard to support someone else's child while she goes out to seek her Good Gene Male again while giving sh1t to the Good Dad. The Good Dad will feel that he is the faliure since he comes from the belief system that he is worthless and the woman is the prize. Thus he will end up working harder to save the relationship only to make it worse. Thus she ends up having the best of both world.
DJD
Vulpine
Master Don Juan
I'm only going to add that bad parents are bad parents regardless of whether they are married or divorced. I'm not saying anyone here is guilty of bad parenting, I'm pointing out that you can't blame a kid's behavior on a divorce.
Bad parents are just bad parents. They can be happily married, unhappily married, whatever. When parents let their children run amok, it's not because they had too many meatloafs for dinner or their parents were swingers. Some people just suck at child rearing. Next time you see a kid in a supermarket throwing a temper tantrum in the candy isle, pay attention to what you think. Is it: "I wonder if he/she's married or single." or "Great job, lady/dude. Way to handle that."
Bad parents are just bad parents. They can be happily married, unhappily married, whatever. When parents let their children run amok, it's not because they had too many meatloafs for dinner or their parents were swingers. Some people just suck at child rearing. Next time you see a kid in a supermarket throwing a temper tantrum in the candy isle, pay attention to what you think. Is it: "I wonder if he/she's married or single." or "Great job, lady/dude. Way to handle that."
Desdinova
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 11,665
- Reaction score
- 4,726
Very good point. Another thing that can be thrown into the mix is whether or not the child has personally dealt with their toxic upbringing through therapy or self-improvement. Unfortunately, people who deal with their parents' "mistakes" seem to make up a small percentage of our population.
Vulpine
Master Don Juan
For example, I resented my parents for having been divorced for a good long time. It was only when I was old enough to understand the reasons did I drop my resentment. I suppose you could call it a "self-improvement" of sorts - I was turning a negative outlook into a more positive one. My father was a drunk, and therefore, a lousy parent and an extremely bad influence. My mother, for both self-serving reasons and the protection of her kids, removed the negative influence via divorce.Desdinova said:
In her case, her divorce proved to be a better move as a parent than "working it out" and staying married. I can say for the sake of relevancy to this thread that, although she was a good parent, she sucked as mate/relationship material. With all the responsibilities of single motherhood, any man in her life had lower status and priority than the family pets.
It's funny to say it like that, thinking back, but it's oh-so-very true. Which only strengthens my "just say no to single mommies" standpoint.
