Should single women over 35 settle if they want children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't stay with someone if attraction isn't there. Their other qualities are irrelevant.

I disagree, women often value qualities other than attraction, such as loyalty, ambition and charisma. Plenty of women would kill to be with a guy that hits those boxes even if he's not that attractive. Attraction for women grows over time if there's an emotional bond and other qualities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just go the sperm bank and do it yourself.

Not everyone wants or can be a single mother. This is a very privileged take.

Not really. Even if you are married you can become a single mom at anytime (death, divorce, etc.) Do you really think all single mom out there are privileged?

You can also die so why create a baby just to make him an orphan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't stay with someone if attraction isn't there. Their other qualities are irrelevant.

I disagree, women often value qualities other than attraction, such as loyalty, ambition and charisma. Plenty of women would kill to be with a guy that hits those boxes even if he's not that attractive. Attraction for women grows over time if there's an emotional bond and other qualities.

What guy knowingly commits to someone who is not attracted to him? He is either gay or he is being lied to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no right answer because "Settle" covers everything from "he's only 5'11"/is slightly balding/only makes $150,000 but is otherwise perfect and we're very happy together" to "He's not an evil person but I cringe every time I see him."

In those cases, the answer is obvious, but in real life it's never that clear cut. We are all flawed, but deciding when the flaws are deal breakers can be difficult.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is it better to be childless than partner up with someone you don't want?

By "settling" I don't mean "dating someone imperfect or bad on paper", I'm talking about getting with someone you're not that attracted to.

It might be helpful to consider yourself more objectively. You're probably not as special as you think. Consider that you're not likely the guy's first choice, either.

This^.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't stay with someone if attraction isn't there. Their other qualities are irrelevant.

I disagree, women often value qualities other than attraction, such as loyalty, ambition and charisma. Plenty of women would kill to be with a guy that hits those boxes even if he's not that attractive. Attraction for women grows over time if there's an emotional bond and other qualities.

Women want loyalty from men with options.

Not from men without options

[Anonymous]

No. Wait for finance bro who is 6'.5", blonde haired, blue eyed with a trust fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just go the sperm bank and do it yourself.

Not everyone wants or can be a single mother. This is a very privileged take.

Rich, white DC women talking about privilege. That’s funny!

How do you know I'm white?

NP here. I am white (if that matters to some here) and set 35 as the age by which I would try to meet someone I didn’t settle for. Then I’d have a child on my own. I decided adoption was the best option for me and adopted DD at age 38. I didn’t crack $100K salary until she was in high school, but it was fine.

We lived in a small, one bathroom house in an OK school district and took one big vacation a year. I always told her we may not have everything we want, but we have everything we need. For me it was priorities, not privilege.

NP.
You might not be privileged by DCUM standards where people constantly complain about struggling on $300k, but the fact that you managed to have one big vacation, a home and a child on your salary alone puts you in a different box than the average woman. Outside DC, the median salary for women is around $50k. Raising a child alone on that salary can be a struggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Wait for finance bro who is 6'.5", blonde haired, blue eyed with a trust fund.

OP.
I'm not looking for an objectivle attractive man. I just want someone I have chemistry with even if the guy isn't conventionally hot

[Anonymous]

You don't have to settle but it's better to rethink your criteria. Assuming there are multiple options at play or you're in a relationship you may not think is the one, you really need to prioritize the type of person who would be a good parent vs the hot guy who may not be that into you. I actually was in this situation in my mid 30s and broke it off with the hot noncommital guy and stuck with the nice guy who on our first date said "I know I'm not supposed to do this but I want you to know I really like you." We've been married 18 yrs and have 2 teenagers. The hot guy decided he loved me after I broke it off for the nice guy, but sorry, it was too late. I actually ran into him 2 yrs later at a grocery store with my infant son and he said "aww - I see you got what you really wanted" and gave me a hug. I never saw him again but know that he never married. He's a good person but was not on the path I wanted...and I know I made the right choice.

[Anonymous]

If your main goal is to have kids, it's not settling if you find someone to have kids with. But my goal was to have healthy, wealthy kids, so i found someone to have those kinds of kids with. Dogs I want some broke kids? No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't stay with someone if attraction isn't there. Their other qualities are irrelevant.

I disagree, women often value qualities other than attraction, such as loyalty, ambition and charisma. Plenty of women would kill to be with a guy that hits those boxes even if he's not that attractive. Attraction for women grows over time if there's an emotional bond and other qualities.

Sounds like a woman that settled and us trying to convince herself that attraction doesn't matter, or an ugly man trying to convince himself that he can bag the hottie regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't have to settle but it's better to rethink your criteria. Assuming there are multiple options at play or you're in a relationship you may not think is the one, you really need to prioritize the type of person who would be a good parent vs the hot guy who may not be that into you. I actually was in this situation in my mid 30s and broke it off with the hot noncommital guy and stuck with the nice guy who on our first date said "I know I'm not supposed to do this but I want you to know I really like you." We've been married 18 yrs and have 2 teenagers. The hot guy decided he loved me after I broke it off for the nice guy, but sorry, it was too late. I actually ran into him 2 yrs later at a grocery store with my infant son and he said "aww - I see you got what you really wanted" and gave me a hug. I never saw him again but know that he never married. He's a good person but was not on the path I wanted...and I know I made the right choice.

Why do people seem to assume that every woman in OP's place is trying to choose between the hot non-commital guy and the average nice guy that wants commitment? What about hot commital men, what about average non-commital guys? What about average commital guys that are attractive to the woman in question?

It took me a while to find a partner. I didn't care if the guy didn't look like young Brad Pitt, but there was no way in hell I would commit to someone I personally didn't find attractive just because he wanted me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't stay with someone if attraction isn't there. Their other qualities are irrelevant.

I disagree, women often value qualities other than attraction, such as loyalty, ambition and charisma. Plenty of women would kill to be with a guy that hits those boxes even if he's not that attractive. Attraction for women grows over time if there's an emotional bond and other qualities.

Women want loyalty from men with options.

Not from men without options

^This. I work in the NBA and all of NBA players are men with options. A LOT of women want to lock down these guys, but none of these guys wants to be committed to a single woman. These same women would NOT want to be with men that have no options.

[Anonymous]

No. Such a woman should accept that she missed her biological time to mate with someone she’s attracted to. Whether be it by her own decision making or through no fault of her own, peace and happiness will only come from embracing the lot in life she’s been given. As far as any decision she makes deviates from this, is how unhappy she will find herself. Wherever you go, there you are!