I just wanted a child more than a spouse, so that is what I did. I adopted. Still single. Very happy!!

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 very 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

Obviously you have money and never had to come up with creative financial solutions, jerk. Anyway, in my mind "smart and successful" people usually earn more, so that is what I meant. Obviously you are neither of those. (Also, having someone else's money does not mean you are smart or successful, but that is anther topic.)

Being single or married is a choice. If you meet someone, things work out, and you WANT to be married to this person...more power to ya! If you want to be single and it’s your choice...more power to ya as well! I didn’t get married and pregnant (not through IVF) until 40. I have dated until then and had a string of long-term relationships. One lied about wanting to have children, one had micro penis, one was not a love of my life. It’s a combo of having a choice, being financially secure, and some luck. Raising kids and having a family is no easy feat...being single and dating is WAAY easier.

I'm not going to be with a guy unless he adds some value to my life or I at least like spending time with him. I haven't found that yet so I'm single. I haven't looked in years though. I have no issue being single forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone choosing to be consciously single for the first time in my life, it baffles me that there would be any judgement at all about whether a person is single or partnered. There is no innate virtue in marriage (believe me), just as there is no innate dysfunction in being single.

Being single f***ing rules and I enjoy it a lot. Maybe if people weren't so intent on being coupled up for its own sake, there'd be fewer miserable couples, more content and well-matched couples, and a happier milieu overall.

Most of the conversations I have with my girlfriends (all married or in LTRs) is their complaining about how checked out/dismissive/lazy/rude/thoughtless/dishonest/sneaky etc etc etc their partner is. I do not think I am unusual.

News flash: men are not the answer to all life's problems.

Men are typically the cause of problems. Especially violence and suffering

Agreed. But most of the women commenting about how being 'single' is in someway a deficit couldn't find or support themselves out of a paper bag. They need the men and the husbands to live otherwise every single woman would just have kardashian-level friends with 'benefits' and baby producers.

Anonymous wrote:As someone choosing to be consciously single for the first time in my life, it baffles me that there would be any judgement at all about whether a person is single or partnered. There is no innate virtue in marriage (believe me), just as there is no innate dysfunction in being single.

Being single f***ing rules and I enjoy it a lot. Maybe if people weren't so intent on being coupled up for its own sake, there'd be fewer miserable couples, more content and well-matched couples, and a happier milieu overall.

Most of the conversations I have with my girlfriends (all married or in LTRs) is their complaining about how checked out/dismissive/lazy/rude/thoughtless/dishonest/sneaky etc etc etc their partner is. I do not think I am unusual.

News flash: men are not the answer to all life's problems.

Men are typically the cause of problems. Especially violence and suffering

As someone choosing to be consciously single for the first time in my life, it baffles me that there would be any judgement at all about whether a person is single or partnered. There is no innate virtue in marriage (believe me), just as there is no innate dysfunction in being single.

Being single f***ing rules and I enjoy it a lot. Maybe if people weren't so intent on being coupled up for its own sake, there'd be fewer miserable couples, more content and well-matched couples, and a happier milieu overall.

Most of the conversations I have with my girlfriends (all married or in LTRs) is their complaining about how checked out/dismissive/lazy/rude/thoughtless/dishonest/sneaky etc etc etc their partner is. I do not think I am unusual.

News flash: men are not the answer to all life's problems.

Anonymous wrote: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.

First logical contribution of the thread. Bravo!

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.

Talk about exceptions to the rule

You'd be surprised at how many people become successful personally, professionally, and romantically by being the exception rather than conforming to the general expectations.

A successful single woman doesn't need a man and that's why they are single. They want a man, but they love their life and won't compromise. Marriage is all about compromise.

THIS!

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.

Talk about exceptions to the rule

it could be a lot of factors ranging from career, not putting oneself out there, having a more reserved personality, working in a job that doesn't allow for meeting a lot of people, depression or anxiety etc. There are as many reasons as there are people. I'm in my 40s and single and don't care what anyone thinks about it. I am content with my life; I don't make a ton of money but I do manage to save and travel. I'm living the life I want. If someone else wants a different life, then go live a different life. Most of the married people I know either are miserable or were miserable before their divorce, so I can't say there's much enticement there! If I met someone who I really had chemistry with then I would be open to a relationship, but not being in a relationship doesn't define me.

Anonymous wrote:Mostly unlucky.
There aren’t necessarily that many good partners to choose from if you were too busy to pair off early or if you were with the wrong partner early.
One woman I know is stupidly picky, but just the one.

You might think the rest of us are lucky, but my DH is a crab ball and a half - I don’t think that many people would survive marriage to him.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Better than sitting at home and doing jack-all.

The people exploited for feel good poverty tourism tend to agree

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.

Better than sitting at home and doing jack-all.