I had ran into a buddy of mine earlier this afternoon who I haven't seen in about 2 years. He's a professional, works hard, stays in shape, and is the "in-demand" type of guy that every corporation wants to hire. We caught up quickly because he had to get back to work, but among the standard, job, health, "still riding motorcycles" sort of questions, inevitably the issue of him dating came up.
He said, "Yeah, I'm kind of seeing some one right now. Not terribly excited. Has a 4 year old child."
Without yelling too loud so as not to disturb the public, I said, "Really? Jesus Christ, another fucking single mom?"
He replied, "Yeah, well, at our age (41) most women have children. It's either that or date a 24 year old child and I'd rather just blow my brains out."
He was right, and it's a paradox most of my male friends face. Once you're over 35 or so you can no longer tolerate the mental pain and anguish that is known as "20 something girls." But if you do date older, it's practically a guarantee the women has spit out some other guy's child. And so millions of men every year choose between a rock and a hard place, wondering what it was like in the 50's when you could have BOTH a sane, young, 20 something girl who was NOT towing some other guy's mistake around with her.
But then something dawned on me as I headed back home.
First, this wasn't my only male friend I knew who was 35+ and childless. I knew many more. Matter of fact all my male friends are childless and over +35. And they all had the same complaint - it was practically impossible to find a woman 30+ who wasn't a single mom.
Second, why was it nearly all of my male friends didn't have children? Wouldn't I know one or two single dads??? I needed multiple hands to count the number of single moms I have as friends, but when it came to single dads it dawned on me I know NONE.
This stark contrast made my economic spidey senses start to tingle. And so, once I got set up at my cushy security guard gig, I delved into the world o' teh interwebz, and my my, the information I found.
On the face of it, logic would dictate that there should be an equal number of mothers as their are fathers. It takes two to tango, and by biological necessity one child has ONE father and ONE mother. But the huge anecdotal evidence I had in front of me, where I knew NO single dads, but a ton of single moms, suggested it was possible for there to be more moms than dads. And if you permit yourself the right combination of cynicism, misanthropy, and pessimism, you're mind can easily find the reason why there might be more moms than there are dads, resulting in a mismatched market where there is a flood of single moms, and not enough childless women.
A sole woman having multiple children with multiple fathers. Or another way of putting it, fewer men impregnating more women, disproportionately lessening the number of childless women compared to childless men, resulting in a shortage of childless women (or the reverse, a surplus of single moms).
At first I tried to find some data on the number of childless men and women in America. This proved problematic and there was no obvious data available. However, I did find some data in Australia and extra feministy Norway. For men Down Under, between the ages of 45-59 13% of them are childless compared to only 10% of women of the same age. This 3% difference is not necessarily enough to trigger the drastic price changes that usually come with genuine shortages or surpluses in economics, but leave that one to Norway.
In 1985 only 14% of Norwegian men were without children by the age of 45%.
By 2013 this had increased to 23%.
Naturally, this could have been for any number of reasons. Economics, progressive credentialism, politics, etc., But if you looked at what happened to Norwegian women of the same age, you see it's largely a female decision. In 1985 only 10% of Norwegian women were childless, compared to 13% in 2013. Norwegian women were having roughly the same number of children, but with much fewer men.
Mother's Day" news release and "Father's Day" news release. Alas, I should NOT have been looking for statistics on "childless" men or women. I should have been looking at the opposite side of the same coin - the number of mothers and fathers in the country. And it's about as lopsided as Norway.
As of 2010 and 2012 there were 85.4 million mothers impregnated by 67.8 million fathers. Yes, I know men die earlier, but we are talking a nearly 26% GAP between the number of fathers and mothers. If we take the nominal figures (and ignore deaths of fathers) these 67.8 million fathers effectively took 17.6 million single, childless women off the market by impregnating them. And when you consider there is roughly only 120 million post-pubescent American men in the country, 67.8 of which are already fathers, leaving only 52.2 million childless men, that 17.6 shortage is HUGE! There is an effective 33% SHORTAGE OF CHILDESS SINGLE WOMEN FOR THEIR EQUIVALENT CHILDLESS SINGLE MEN!
The result is nothing short of insulting.
It's not just my buddies' "bad luck" they can't find childless women, but it has been women, consciously and purposely sleeping with men AND bringing their babies to term, who then either file for divorce, or never got married in the first place, returning to the dating market thinking having another man's child is not an insult or repulsive to men who were infinitely more responsible. Worse is the utter absence of shame or responsibility, or even being cognizant of what they've done. I'm all for giving women the green light to slut it up, ride the cock carousel, and do whatever they want to do sexually. But without the traditional norms and social values, specifically shame and the insistence on a nuclear family, women actually think they've done nothing wrong bringing a child into a broken home, and are even insulted when you have a microscopic modicum of self-respect and say, "yeah, I'm not dating a single mom."
Alas, the tragedy is no matter how right we may be, and no matter how much sanity this brings all those responsible childless men explaining "YES, there is indeed THAT MANY SINGLE MOMS," it doesn't change the fact there's that much of a shortage of childless single women. And with such a shortage, the price you are going to pay is immense. So immense, you (as you no doubt have noticed), mathematically you are likely to be forced to date and marry a single mom.
Just do yourself a favor and insist on her knowing who is settling, who is in charge, and who has the final say in all matters adult.
Cappy, I have so many comments but if I make one, some day a SJW might get mad at me.
So I'm going to make multiple.
- Know *why* the sperm donor is no longer in the picture, AND be sure he actually IS no longer in the picture -- you don't want to be caught in a situation where she's still, ah, providing access.
- Look for the c-section scar for a snug fit. (Not a problem for me and Girthablanca)
- This also gives a good shield for the harpies near your age who want to whinge about men dating younger women. If you Don't Want Kids(tm) and don't want to deal with it... your options are limited.
Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here being an asshole all week.
Allow me to conjure the image of every young single mother I've personally met whose husband died doing something respectable, leaving her tragically widowed and back on the market: hmmm. ZERO IMAGES FOUND.
The Manosphere is entirely correct in its analysis of this situation: millions of young, dumb women are spending their youths getting pumped and dumped by every smooth talking degenerate they come across, until such time as they pop out Mr. Neck Tattoo's heir and realize that he's never going to support his meatpuppet, let alone the meatpuppet's incubator.
That's when it becomes time for Operation Beta Paycheck: become a born again virgin who didn't spend the last fifteen years pogo-sticking her way through a Mugshots.com lineup, and pawn the situation off on some sucker who spent those years working and building a future.
Sound like a good deal? Didn't think so. Your time and resources are finite. Don't waste them bankrolling Neck Tattoo Jr.
I had a 10-year relationship with a single mom. When we finally split the sheets I volunteered the tuition to keep the step-kids, then mid-teens, in their Christian school, since the public ones were so bad. We were usually broke so no noises about child support at least.
She said, quote, "that's the least you can do." The idea that I had sacrificed a decade raising another man's children never entered her mind. When I brought it up, outrage. The reality that she had brought NOTHING to our relationship never entered her understanding.
Had there been an manosphere in '98 this would NEVER have happened. My stepchildren at least give me love and respect because they understand what I tried to do. Their mother? Cordiality tinged with disdain. She was already banging somebody else when I moved out.
I explained to both of the girls that single moms are basically fuck-meat to us men, and not to count on finding a churchian white knight to pay for their mistakes. Lesson well learned, and I did what good I could. JD
Well, one thing to have done would be to have married that Single Mom back when she wasn't one, and was boringly young. But the man wouldn't have. The woman also wouldn't have. They were both wrong. Marrying young, meaning around 25 or earlier, is ranked right up there with pink hair and jumping out the window: a crazy, insane, thing to do. But maybe it's not.
I hear you, that the women ditched the babies' fathers. That's women going their own way, and it is a crime against the child.
To avoid having a woman take his baby and running off with it, a guy, before he lays one finger on a woman, should screen out the ones who 1)won't marry and have his baby, fairly soon, and 2) who insist on working.
A woman with your baby who has agreed to not work, not at all, and therefore has little work history, and is taking care of and also home schooling several of your kids, is a woman you are stuck with. But she is also stuck with you. This being stuck with people is called "married" and it is a thing. It may not hit the happiness bull's-eye every time, but it's got to be better than THIS.
Just as the worst hotel beats the best campsite, for comfort, it takes a very bad marriage indeed to not be better than what you describe.
Anybody who thinks partying leads to domestic happiness thinks the moon is made of green cheese and the Brooklyn bridge is for sale. A man should reproach himself for eighty percent of the partying he did after he should have been married. He was destroying his life. Nobody did that to him; he did that to himself.
Delaying marriage is causing what you so rightly deplore.
A guy of 40 is indeed in a bad position, as you say. But there are still possibilities.
Marrying takes a certain stupid, starry eyed idealism, and that mentality is an aspect of early youth. It is not amazing that it is hard to feel such things at the sensible and seasoned age of 40. When the two YOUNG marrieds are not literally, medically, insane people and have some sense of responsibility, this can work, until death do you part.
A man who truly cannot see himself playing Daddy to a single woman's kids must be one lonely dude to date her at all.
If he isn't into being a step Dad, let him find the in-between woman: not in the boring 20s, and yet still without a child; one around 30. Some of those have the sense to know the party's ending, and some may have learned a few things in the previous ten years. But he should not let the woman indulge her hobby of working. Working is fun for women. They get out of the house and like making their own money. If a woman can give up this pleasant habit, she is worth marrying. Very soon it will be hard for her to re-enter the workforce, and the man can have a stable happy home long-term. She will have one too. Being a Single Mom isn't easy. She will be spared that. But she must pay for it by accepting someone else's support and that can be hard for her. It is a switching of gears to be home with children. Well, don't date anybody who can't switch. The lower employed women will give up their boring, ill paid jobs better than the professionals or semi-professionals.
A man must have the sense to see a less accomplished woman as BETTER. Many men LIKE that professional prestige and paycheck. They bypassed the receptionists and secretaries. TOO BAD FOR THEM when this more powerful woman left, when the receptionist would have stayed. Snobs.
There is entirely too much time wasting. Screen people. At the beginning. Go on to the next, if there isn't what you want there.
The college educated women disdain the blue collar men? WELL lots of men disdain literate but not "successful" women too.
>young, 20 something girl who was NOT towing some other guy's mistake around with her.
If you can get a woman pregnant, have her give birth, and get someone else to pay the cost of raising the child (while you repeat with another woman), how is that a mistake? (speaking from an evolution viewpoint) Whether it's another dumb man, or welfare/taxpayers, why not get someone pregnant and stick someone else with the bill?
I'm a 20-something woman, have been reading and quietly supporting most of the manosphere. This is the first piece I have questions big enough to comment. If you are looking for 30+ childless women, are you looking for someone who doesn't want children with you? I understand unwillingness to support another man's child. But biologically if she's over 35 and childless, there's only a small chance she can have a child with you. And you still have a few decades to father a child. You don't want to go younger, and I can understand that looking at most of my peers. But then do you not want children of your own, or are you willing to play with the slim chances of an older woman?
Makes me wonder what these women were thinking at times, and I am a woman (a 30-something childless one at that!). I never understood this mentality and made damn well sure I never became one of them. Unfortunately, this meant I didn't get a single date in high school, college, and throughout the rest of my twenties. My way of seeing if a guy really cared was to refuse handing my body over to them. I was made to feel like a loser, closed-minded, and a prude, though my thoughts were definitely in the gutter a lot of the time.
I just wanted someone who actually cared about me and didn't see me as a mere cock-warmer or an emotional band-aid while they looked for "the one" elsewhere. I had a couple of crushes in college where this ended up being the case on an emotional level. They never expressed romantic interest towards me, but I was a shoulder to cry on about some slut ex-girlfriend who slept with several of his friends, before he took off elsewhere in search for a new girl while telling me to never fall in love.
It happened to me again recently with a guy who practically BEGGED me to hop into bed with him, while telling me not to invest too much in him (um, sex IS investing a lot in someone!) That was hard to do, considering how attentive and sweet he was at the beginning. After being alone practically my entire adult life, I had someone I liked showing interest in me for once, and I fell hard (not into bed of course).
He didn't tell me about the other girls he was seeing, but he did put it on his blog for all to see. I could tell from his comments the types of women he was dating, what he thought of them, and whether they were good for a long term relationship, something he didn't want with me. I wasn't mentioned anywhere. I was apparently not in their league (and now that I see it, they were way out of his league as well), and it made me feel used. Also, he claimed he was okay with waiting on getting physical after endless begging, then hopped into bed with someone 12 years his junior when I took a little too long and his interest faded. I was labeled the "clingy fling" because I didn't just go away like he wanted.
(will be continued)
I felt very stupid after that last one, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm better off becoming a spinster. As I get older, I'm also running into the trouble of guys carrying too much emotional baggage (like the last one) and baby mommas towing behind for my comfort.
There ARE single dads out there, just ask two of my newly divorced male cousins, both of which followed what was in their pants and didn't consider the future. One knocked up their fiance, someone everyone knew he would've broken up with if he hadn't done that. I fear for their kids who will now probably have a parade strangers courted by both now separated parents in an attempt to regain what was lost. Dad went through that with his parents, and it severely damaged him emotionally. I'm surprised he kept his marriage together. His siblings couldn't.
I can't believe the lengths one of my female cousins is willing to go to hook a husband. Playing wifey-wife for man without a marriage license doesn't change the fact that you're just shacking up. She tried that for three years with one guy in her early 20s and is now doing it AGAIN at 30. She's on her second year now. I give it one more year, and I won't have to hear about the wonderful "banging" they're doing, his perfect body, or the fact that he might be "the one" during the holidays anymore.
She's a wonderful little actress too. She pretended to LOVE her brother's fiance (the one that was knocked up) when they were together, but the moment they split, her true feelings came out. It certainly fooled me. I'm waiting for her to get desperate and pregnant with next guy. That's going to be LOADS of fun (not).
Sorry about this being wordy, but this is a subject that hits close to home. Good luck to your friend. He's going to need it.
This is not what I would consider a recent development. Science of genetic data tells us that throughout history this has been the case: http://www.livescience.com/47976-more-mothers-in-human-history.html
Theories abound as to why this dynamic persists but like most patterns of human behavior we can trace it back thousands of years.
I have a few qualms and thoughts about this too Captain.
In the Dirty Thirties it wasn't uncommon for single women to throw their kids out when they remarried. It happened to my grandmother - at the age of 12. She literally had no childhood - she got pitched on the street and spent her youngest years working and raising her younger brothers and sisters in the midst of a depression. Today's screeching, bitching femcnuts love to cluck about 'powerful, capable women...'. They have no freakin' idea what one is. She was a regal lady in her last years, who always smelled like fine leather and perfume and was always flawlessly made up and put together. If they ever make a time machine, I am going to go back in time and have a word with her stepfather and mother - by hand. As JD proves at 5:21 - there is no shame or humiliation in doing good by kids. Nor is there any shame in trying to make a relationship work. If you did your part and your marriage fell apart - whether you are a woman or a man - you have nothing to be ashamed of.
I propose an acid test with regards to single moms with kids and pondering serious relationships with them. It is my contention that if you are going to pay for their upbringing and share a home with them - you MUST have a say in their parenting and the mother HAS to agree to this without reservation - just as if you were their natural father. She must understand that if you are to replace the father, that means you impress YOUR values on them, YOU will discipline and spank them if required, and you will have carte blanche in setting household rules and expectations just like any father would in a household. Not only that - YOU will be the head of the family and she will defer to you as a wife should, understanding that your top priority will be the care and well being of your family. If she balks at any of that - you end the relationship right there and move on because her only interest in you will be as an ATM. That isn't good for you, it isn't good for her or the kids.
That's my two cents - as an old world stubfart that knows nothing about the subject.
NB, in this climate, your sexual market value must be very high, and it must also not look as if you fuss about your looks, at the same time. This involves eating intelligently and keeping mildly fit, but without being a fitness nut (that's narcissism) and NOT talking about it. Nothing is more disgusting than a woman who chats candidly about her hair and weight concerns. Shush.
Go blonde, and spend the money to have that done professionally, artistically, subtly. Yes. Blonde.
Dress like a lady. But that you obviously do already. But you may not be blonde. You don't sound blonde.
Dress more expensively, up two notches. Skirts. Not pants. No rings, none at all.
But in very quiet taste. YES people can tell the price of your clothes. From a block away, NB. YES the men read every single minute detail of your appearance, as a message about you. The least educated teenage delivery boy knows the story. Oh yes. This is the hunter sex. They can see one leaf move in the forest and know what it means.
Get your teeth bonded so they are white, white.
Have trim hands but no fancy manicures, which look self-centered and high-maintenance. Yes. Wear nail polish. Pale, modest color.
Wear good French perfume. Not tons, but wear it. Every single day.
Learn to walk in a low but thin heel. No sneakers, no stilts.
Then, do nothing. See who approaches you. Don't shop. Don't look around. Wait.
They will be approaching you very differently now. Power is nice, NB, get some. Do NOT talk to anybody, just a civil smile but no talking, who isn't up to your level.
Now that you are a classy blonde.
Every woman is one pair of tinted contacts and one trip to the hairdresser away from looking GOOOOOD.
But they don't think.
YOU can think. It's impressive.
Men know ALL about increasing THEIR OWN value, and sweat blood every day in the workplace to do just that. They HATE when women don't bother to increase THEIR VALUE. They HATE that so many women think "they just have to be themselves" and not try. Or turn self-care into fuss-potting and complaining and self-focus. Get your image done and think about something else. Don't become self-fascinated. Men can read that, too.
Men want a wife who is as mature and organized and serious as they are themselves. That includes appearance. Men aren't allowed to complain and they expect the same in women.
But the social problems you cite are real, and not your fault.
This unnatural situation is maintained and sustained in two critical ways.
1. Welfare state/child support. Without the guaranteed financial support of the government many or guaranteed income from child support payments, women would take measures to avoid getting pregnant. The fact is women have so many forms of affordable birth control at their disposal, the "accidental pregnancy" is a joke. Any women who gets pregnant in the Western World does so consciously or indifferently. They keep making the giant hypergamous leap across the pregnancy canyon, so to speak, because they know if they don't reach the other ledge and fall down into the canyon there will be a net to catch them.
2. Social engineering via feminism
There is a huge push to take away all stigma from single motherhood through magazine articles, TV shows, movies, etc. They almost make it a trendy thing to do. They also encourage men who otherwise could find a childless, never-married woman to instead "man up" and care for a single mother and her children in order to compensate for the absence of the real father. If there were social consequences for their behavior, or if they knew that becoming a single mother would severely limit their future options for a long-term relationship, they would avoid it.
The situation will only change when either one or both of these elements weakens.
Nothing wrong with "Dating" a single mom (provided she is hot and has a non-toxic personality) as long as you follow certain rules:
4.Don't get involved with her kids
Anon second comment: I actually have met one woman like that, her husband was killed in the sandbox. In spite of her saying she was over him and that they had been in the process of falling apart anyway, she was not over it and was excessively needy. She also had three mulatto kids -- which did not work for me at all.
She was just as needy and clingy (but very nice) as the kindergarten teacher I dated whose husband had left her for a younger, prettier woman -- who also said she was "over him", but she wasn't, and I was basically rebound guy. It ended badly.
Anyway, these types of women are just another brand of crazy, that's all. The ones who end up in single mommery for reasons beyond their control tend to be generally nicer and better people, but just as nuts. Just different nuts :-)
This is where you have to evaluate the pain level of dating a 20something female as compared to raising another man's spawn.
This is where you have to have strong leadership and direct the 20something female the way you want her to go. You cannot simply let her direct the relationship in any way she wants, because that's what all the other guys do. Plus, if you are looking for your own children you need to go young.
If it was easy to do, we'd still be back in the 50's. It's not easy, but it depends on how bad you want it.
Realize that you are all enjoying the decline, and this is one of those natural consequences. If it troubles you, like it does Roosh, go do something about it.
All real men should boycott moms. That's about the only way this insanity might end. Plus, they're mostly trash.
way way easier solution
i think guys are fooling themselves if they think any women are particularly interesting, no matter how old. young ones can be vapid, but single moms aren't single because they are so eminently irresistible or entertaining. think girls go from 25 to 35 studying the real world?
save thoughtful conversation for guy friends, and find girls that are more appealing to your baser self. it's a win-win. harness the efficiencies of specialization!
I have found I get hit on once a week by single moms. At work, on the street, in stores, in parks. Are they crazy? Why would any man get involved with a woman who wants you to raise another man's child?
Reasonable candidates might be a liberal arts majors with no debt and two years of seeing what that has got her, in terms of crowded living with roommates and the joys of office politics. Such a one might find marrying a man, having children, and not working (she's probably already not working!) an honest living. This sort won't leave you. You are her only option. Before you go any further than having coffee, she should be ok with marrying, several children pretty fast, and not, not working. (Her career didn't happen anyway.)
But don't chase or plead. Put yourself in a position where you are the one who is approached. And tell her it must be SHE who makes the calls for the second and third coffees.
Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Don't you do the saluting.
After a while, later, have yet another child just to be quite, quite, sure. No part time jobs. Only the most useless courses, for amusement. Nothing practical.
Feed her rich desserts. You want her plump and staying.
And be nice. While she is home schooling your brood, of course she can have a maid to do the laundry and errands. She's a lady not a slave. A lady who was rescued from cougar-hood by you. Be nice. But she must not work.
To sum up what The Question said above, use Rollo Tomassi's saying on The Rational Male Blog. It's ALPHA FUXS/BETA BUX!!! You as a childless male taxpayer are supposed to pay for someone else's bastard spawn according to female hypergamy, feminine imperative and feminist indoctrination. You as a man are not a human being with value in this system because you are only valued as a monstrous beast who is only allowed to live and function as long as you keep paying into the system and you are an Automated Teller Machine.
I want to remark that other people's children may be annoying, but one's own just are not perceived the same way.
Other people's children smell wrong. They don't smell BAD. They just smell WRONG. Wrong for you. It's mammalian physiology and it's normal. Your own children smell right. Their cries and screechings sound all right too. It's other people's children's cries that sound like chalk on a blackboard. You may not adore to hear your own children cry, but it's not the same. It's all in the family.
People shouldn't be afraid to have children, because they are annoyed by other people's children. It will not be the same thing at all.
Your own food tastes good, but do you love to see other people chew? No. It's like that. What's yours is all good.
I'm curious how the percentages would change when broken down to identify single/unmarried mothers and fathers from single/divorced mothers and fathers.
The Manosphere offers only a partial victory. It seems to imply that real victory is impossible, and so offers a way to cope with the shreds and shards of what's left. This is giving up. But I don't think men should kid themselves that all is well over there. There is no point fudging: real victory is to have a tribe of your own. A tribe of your own means you are pleased with your wife and children and they are pleased too to be your wife and children, with everything that comes with that. It's your tribe.
I respect all people and both sexes.
I do not think a man should marry a woman who won't change her last name to his, and no hyphenated combinations of both names. His name. Only. And I ALSO don't think a man should waste much time or money on any woman who wouldn't dream of marrying him, more or less right now. And having his children. More or less in the quite foreseeable future.
There are ways of making remarks into the air about your views, in a jokey way, that get these issues right out into the open fairly early in a conversation. Without being confrontational, or contentious, or arguing, a man can state his views airily into the air, talking past a woman, and the ones who think he is nuts will run. Good. Let them run. The idea is to see who does not run. There is no point dating for six months and finally finding out what the woman thinks and feels about these things.
A woman who isn't about to do those things for a man isn't worth very much of his time, energy, or money. No harming in chatting, but buying actual important things for such a person? Such as dinner, genuine solid food, and alcohol? No. Coffee and cake only. Early in the day.
Are you the Red Cross, to be feeding strangers? Leave that to the Red Cross. You should only feed people who aren't strangers. Meaning, family. Meaning, people who, if things work out, would be willing to become a member of your family.
A woman who is never going to be family should only get coffee and cake. And what's the point of even that?
In her turn, a woman should say to a man who wants more from HER, that she spends her evenings only with family. A meaningful smile after that means, "if you want to see me later than sunset, become part of my family. That does not mean being my boyfriend. It means marrying me."
A smart woman spends her days with anybody she thinks is nice, but evenings with family. Only.
While having raised her value as high as she can get it. There is no substitute for being worth the price you are asking.
whatever you do, if you are a man, never ever adopt your wife's /girlfriend's children. This puts you on the hook for child support. why giver her one more reason to dump you? You will be there supporting them but she will know if she dissatisfies you, they are no longer your problem.
With that said, just marry young and have your own:
OK, we've got, if the data match well (OK, if), then we'd assume that the average single mom has children by two different fathers. It's like that Detroit sticker where the single mom has about 15 kids by four or five different, incarcerated, men.
I would guess reality is that about half of single moms have children by one, about a fourth by two, and the rest by three or more, but that's just my guess at the distribution. This would explain why so many single moms aren't getting child support--can the dads afford two or more different payments?--as well as why single parenting drives our welfare spending.
I have a better idea. Instead of being "forced" to date and marry a single mother, how about instead refusing to date anyone until finding a situation that actually enhances your life? There are worse things than being single. One that comes to mind is ending up with someone with a lunatic ex and her snotty kids who all see me as a walking ATM.
I worked with a single mom with three different dads. She got something else to put a ring on it. She was a 4.5 or 5 on the 10 scale. She was picky as heck too. She wasn't obese thought so...
There are tons of single, never been married, childless women in their early 30s. I think youre not looking in the right places. Also many of these women are well educated and can (and have) provided for themselves since after college. Sure there may be lots of moms, but theres also enough selection of the childless women too. You may have to use online dating and search tools on these websites to weed out the women with children, but to say you cant find enough women to date is silly, you really just need one. And in defense of the single moms, no one wants to be in this situation. If they left the fathers it was probably an abusive situation, or something else you would or could be compassionate about, but theres still enough choice out there that you would never have to date a mom if it was something you weren't into.
This is an ugly topic, yet one that obviously needs direct attention. One writer mentioned that a solution would be to totally ignore single moms, except ones that had a legitimate loss of a HUSBAND. Any "girl" who will sleep around, automatically disqualifies herself as being available, period!
If she is unfaithful enough to sleep around, she will also be unfaithful to you AFTER you get together. If her character level is so low as to allow her to be a slut before you get to know her, after you know her won't be any different. Were talking about mental programming here, meaning that what a girl learns as she's growing up, she will continue to do after dating age. She won't magically change just because she met you.
This is like insurance. As ?long as its available or required, be sure the price will go up and fraud will proliferate. If insurance were not required, the market would seek its own level. Women are like this. They KNOW they get away with all sorts of corruption, so they do! As horrible ad it may sound, what is hard core needed, is to have it very publically drummed into girls heads that if they xchoose to spread their legs, strong consequences are heading their way; and I mean strong! "Men", who run away from the mothers, are also dealt with strongly and without apology.
One problem...of one side decides to screw the other side by divorce, there HAS to be a hard core investigation as to why, who wants it and possible solutions. Having a baby needs to be taken with exceptional seriousness, sleeping around needs to be shamed at highest levels. I know some will think of " The Scarlet Letter" from the past, but there was a reason that story was written. Having babies is not something to be taken haphazardly. This is another life being brought into the world, not a pet! "Men" (and I use the term loosely) who impregnate and run, I'd have no problem cutting off the nuts, literally! Either that, or tie them to a tree in southwest Florida in the swamps for a week, an if there's anything left alive in 1 week, let them loose. There needs to be extreme penalties for this vulgar behavior. What these guys do affects everyone, not just them. Either they pay, or they PAY! She, too, will be totally accountable.
In my lifetime, I've seen so much female scum wandering around, it makes it hard to sleep. It is THEM that has to keep their legs closed. No male can do anything, except rape, UNLESS SHE GIVES HER PERMISSION!!! SHE is the one who is ultimately responsible for a lot of this.
There's an old comical sqying;:
Smart man + Smart woman= Marriage
Smart man + dumb woman= Affair
Dumb man + Smart woman= Sugar daddy
Dumb man + Dumb woman= Pregnancy
There's no penalty for bad behavior anymore. It's rewarded.
As much as I don't want to say it, it may be better to be alone than have a bad "relationship".
To close, there's also one more saying that might help to get the point across. It is:
Better to want and not have, than to have and not want.
Tough words, to be sure, but we're living in very bad times, times never before seen on earth.
Please guys, think carefully, investigate thoroughly, and ask many questions. Of your questions are met with disdain, keep moving and don't look back. A restful night's sleep with the one you TRUST is priceless. Sleep with an anchor, is like loving death. Remember the old question, "Why do men die sooner than women? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO!" SOME WISE MAN, YEARS BACK, CAME UP WITH THAT!
If a single woman has kids, RUN! Don't date her. Don't have a relationship with her. Don't f her, & whatever you do, don't marry her!
They're called "damaged goods" for a reason.
Get rid of the welfare state & I guarantee you the single mom problem will fix itself.
Post a Comment