“I get why she’s single” : T/F?

[Anonymous]

All the older women I know who couldn't find a man adopted from a third world country

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is fertile and unmarried and over 30 is a man repellant.

I'll let Amal Clooney and Meghan Windsor know what you think of them the next time we chat.

Look what type of guy it took to make them agree to marry. They didn't need a man, they needed a superman

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with having standards. Personally I'd rather have either of these than a middle of the road schlump. The fact that both of them were rich single women is just icing on the cake. I'm willing to bet Meghan's going to be preggers next year (at 37!) and I'm hoping for twins.

Of course she'll be pregnant...even if It's fake and she uses a surrogate. That is literally going to be her job...produce an heir. Feminist everywhere rejoice

Wow, someone's jealous.

Just for reference - there's already five direct heirs to the throne and none of them will be sourced from Meghan.

Those being:

Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis

Which means Meggie can have as many beautiful babies with her hot royal ginger as she likes - zero pressure. As for her job, I'm thinking she'll keep on being a humanitarian like quite a few 'feminists' you could learn something from.

The job of anyone with a title is to produce a heir

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, since we’re anon. Would you assume a woman who used IVF to have a DB at 40 and had no long-term relationship in the 5 years prior was single for a reason, or just unlucky? Are “most” never-married women between 35-50 “single for a reason”?

I would think, "Wow, she must be pretty smart and successful to be able to afford IVF and treatments (not to mention raising the kid) all on her own."

I would also wonder why she waited til 40, which gives her bery low odds. She should have done it at 36 or even 38. So I guess I would consider her a bit uninformed or naive.

But beyond that no judgments!

I would think you are not smart for thinking one must be smart to afford ivf

IVF = 10s of thousands of dollars in treatment not covered by insurance

Single woman = single income towards treatment

Unless she was being financed by family, a woman would have to be independently wealthy if not outright rich to afford what two individuals as a couple could barely do. Therefore she was smart enough to have a lucrative career which afforded her such disposable income.

Smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is fertile and unmarried and over 30 is a man repellant.

I'll let Amal Clooney and Meghan Windsor know what you think of them the next time we chat.

Look what type of guy it took to make them agree to marry. They didn't need a man, they needed a superman

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with having standards. Personally I'd rather have either of these than a middle of the road schlump. The fact that both of them were rich single women is just icing on the cake. I'm willing to bet Meghan's going to be preggers next year (at 37!) and I'm hoping for twins.

Of course she'll be pregnant...even if It's fake and she uses a surrogate. That is literally going to be her job...produce an heir. Feminist everywhere rejoice

Wow, someone's jealous.

Just for reference - there's already five direct heirs to the throne and none of them will be sourced from Meghan.

Those being:

Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis

Which means Meggie can have as many beautiful babies with her hot royal ginger as she likes - zero pressure. As for her job, I'm thinking she'll keep on being a humanitarian like quite a few 'feminists' you could learn something from.

Considering my husband is not a racist who was barely able to finish school despite all the private tutors and who clearly has Mommy issues, I'd say Meggie is going to be the jealous one

[Anonymous]

Having dated in DC most of my adult life, I would NEVER believe that there is something wrong with a woman for her to be single still. This is a very hard area to be a single woman, and I know many single women who are excellent catches. DC men have a smogasbord of great women to date, and they know it, paralysis of options, leaving many women single far longer then they would ever be in other locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, since we’re anon. Would you assume a woman who used IVF to have a DB at 40 and had no long-term relationship in the 5 years prior was single for a reason, or just unlucky? Are “most” never-married women between 35-50 “single for a reason”?

I would think, "Wow, she must be pretty smart and successful to be able to afford IVF and treatments (not to mention raising the kid) all on her own."

I would also wonder why she waited til 40, which gives her bery low odds. She should have done it at 36 or even 38. So I guess I would consider her a bit uninformed or naive.

But beyond that no judgments!

I would think you are not smart for thinking one must be smart to afford ivf

IVF = 10s of thousands of dollars in treatment not covered by insurance

Single woman = single income towards treatment

Unless she was being financed by family, a woman would have to be independently wealthy if not outright rich to afford what two individuals as a couple could barely do. Therefore she was smart enough to have a lucrative career which afforded her such disposable income.

Smart.

I think the ok was probably pointing out that plenty of smart people aren't in well paying fields and plenty of not so smart people end up in high paying jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women in this set usually had lots of options, but blew off amazing husband prospects for dumb reasons in their youth.

Now, they’re ready to settle down and getting passed over by all the men they think they’re entitled to (successful, handsome, provider types).

This is right on the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be honest, since we’re anon. Would you assume a woman who used IVF to have a DB at 40 and had no long-term relationship in the 5 years prior was single for a reason, or just unlucky? Are “most” never-married women between 35-50 “single for a reason”?

I would think, "Wow, she must be pretty smart and successful to be able to afford IVF and treatments (not to mention raising the kid) all on her own."

I would also wonder why she waited til 40, which gives her bery low odds. She should have done it at 36 or even 38. So I guess I would consider her a bit uninformed or naive.

But beyond that no judgments!

I would think you are not smart for thinking one must be smart to afford ivf

IVF = 10s of thousands of dollars in treatment not covered by insurance

Single woman = single income towards treatment

Unless she was being financed by family, a woman would have to be independently wealthy if not outright rich to afford what two individuals as a couple could barely do. Therefore she was smart enough to have a lucrative career which afforded her such disposable income.

Smart.

I think the ok was probably pointing out that plenty of smart people aren't in well paying fields and plenty of not so smart people end up in high paying jobs.

Pp not ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is fertile and unmarried and over 30 is a man repellant.

I'll let Amal Clooney and Meghan Windsor know what you think of them the next time we chat.

Look what type of guy it took to make them agree to marry. They didn't need a man, they needed a superman

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with having standards. Personally I'd rather have either of these than a middle of the road schlump. The fact that both of them were rich single women is just icing on the cake. I'm willing to bet Meghan's going to be preggers next year (at 37!) and I'm hoping for twins.

Of course she'll be pregnant...even if It's fake and she uses a surrogate. That is literally going to be her job...produce an heir. Feminist everywhere rejoice

Wow, someone's jealous.

Just for reference - there's already five direct heirs to the throne and none of them will be sourced from Meghan.

Those being:

Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis

Which means Meggie can have as many beautiful babies with her hot royal ginger as she likes - zero pressure. As for her job, I'm thinking she'll keep on being a humanitarian like quite a few 'feminists' you could learn something from.

Humanitarian? She's a tv actress

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is fertile and unmarried and over 30 is a man repellant.

I'll let Amal Clooney and Meghan Windsor know what you think of them the next time we chat.

Look what type of guy it took to make them agree to marry. They didn't need a man, they needed a superman

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with having standards. Personally I'd rather have either of these than a middle of the road schlump. The fact that both of them were rich single women is just icing on the cake. I'm willing to bet Meghan's going to be preggers next year (at 37!) and I'm hoping for twins.

Of course she'll be pregnant...even if It's fake and she uses a surrogate. That is literally going to be her job...produce an heir. Feminist everywhere rejoice

Wow, someone's jealous.

Just for reference - there's already five direct heirs to the throne and none of them will be sourced from Meghan.

Those being:

Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis

Which means Meggie can have as many beautiful babies with her hot royal ginger as she likes - zero pressure. As for her job, I'm thinking she'll keep on being a humanitarian like quite a few 'feminists' you could learn something from.

Humanitarian? She's a tv actress

There you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having dated in DC most of my adult life, I would NEVER believe that there is something wrong with a woman for her to be single still. This is a very hard area to be a single woman, and I know many single women who are excellent catches. DC men have a smogasbord of great women to date, and they know it, paralysis of options, leaving many women single far longer then they would ever be in other locations.

Agreed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is fertile and unmarried and over 30 is a man repellant.

I'll let Amal Clooney and Meghan Windsor know what you think of them the next time we chat.

Look what type of guy it took to make them agree to marry. They didn't need a man, they needed a superman

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with having standards. Personally I'd rather have either of these than a middle of the road schlump. The fact that both of them were rich single women is just icing on the cake. I'm willing to bet Meghan's going to be preggers next year (at 37!) and I'm hoping for twins.

Of course she'll be pregnant...even if It's fake and she uses a surrogate. That is literally going to be her job...produce an heir. Feminist everywhere rejoice

Wow, someone's jealous.

Just for reference - there's already five direct heirs to the throne and none of them will be sourced from Meghan.

Those being:

Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis

Which means Meggie can have as many beautiful babies with her hot royal ginger as she likes - zero pressure. As for her job, I'm thinking she'll keep on being a humanitarian like quite a few 'feminists' you could learn something from.

Humanitarian? She's a tv actress

There you go.

Again actress

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having dated in DC most of my adult life, I would NEVER believe that there is something wrong with a woman for her to be single still. This is a very hard area to be a single woman, and I know many single women who are excellent catches. DC men have a smogasbord of great women to date, and they know it, paralysis of options, leaving many women single far longer then they would ever be in other locations.

Agreed

This so true in DC. Double that for AA women.

[Anonymous]

I don't see being coupled as objectively better than being single so no, I don't assume anything negative about a single woman any more than I assume something positive about a woman or the state of her relationship just because she's married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman who is fertile and unmarried and over 30 is a man repellant.

I'll let Amal Clooney and Meghan Windsor know what you think of them the next time we chat.

Look what type of guy it took to make them agree to marry. They didn't need a man, they needed a superman

Precisely. There's nothing wrong with having standards. Personally I'd rather have either of these than a middle of the road schlump. The fact that both of them were rich single women is just icing on the cake. I'm willing to bet Meghan's going to be preggers next year (at 37!) and I'm hoping for twins.

Of course she'll be pregnant...even if It's fake and she uses a surrogate. That is literally going to be her job...produce an heir. Feminist everywhere rejoice

Wow, someone's jealous.

Just for reference - there's already five direct heirs to the throne and none of them will be sourced from Meghan.

Those being:

Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince George
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis

Which means Meggie can have as many beautiful babies with her hot royal ginger as she likes - zero pressure. As for her job, I'm thinking she'll keep on being a humanitarian like quite a few 'feminists' you could learn something from.

Humanitarian? She's a tv actress

After she became "famous" she did some poverty tourism and posed for some pictures with poor kids.