Dating someone young-ish and divorced - Page 2

33girl · #1 10-04-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Munchkin03
A lot of kids I went to HS with are married and divorced. Their parents didn't want them to live together (or to be unmarried and having sex). So, they ended up getting married at like, 20 or 21. Of course, getting married this young when you're not 100% behind it can only lead to disaster.

Dani, I honestly think that's the case w/ most of the guys you're running into around here.

MTSUGURL · #2 10-08-2005, 05:51 PM

I've dated someone that was divorced with no children, divorced with children, and nearly divorced with a court date.

My decision since has been: No man if there are children unless the wife died. Dealing with the exwife is hell. I don't mind divorced without children depending on the reason for the divorce, and I will NEVER again date someone with just a court date without it being finalized.

NOT ALL EXES ARE EVIL. Just the ones I had to deal with.

LeslieAGD · #3 10-08-2005, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by honeychile
At this rate, the guys you're going to find who HAVEN'T been married and are over, say, 30 years old are scary guys, or have had some major trauma.

I know a lot of guys who are approaching 30 and have not been married. If you figure that many people are in school until they are 23-25 and then focus on finding a job and/or starting their career, it's pretty normal that most people are getting around to relationships around 30.

honeychile · #4 10-08-2005, 11:44 PM

Okay, for those of y'all who are having trouble with my over 30 remark:

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 30, he is scary.

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 40, then he should be avoided at all costs!!

I'm sure that there is maybe one or two really marvelous men (not guys) who would be the exception, but if you're into playing the odds, these are they.

James · #5 10-09-2005, 04:03 AM

Honeychile,

Maybe its because you are Southern and somewhere deep down you believe in biological destiny?

That marriage and babies are such a predetermined necessity for everyone that they are in a hurry to settle down?

To elaborate, some people want to meet someone, settle down and get married. Thats a major life goal. They are poised to do that but life gets in the way.

They want to settle down, but they go to college so thats not a good time.

They want to settle down, but they go to graduate school, so thats not a good time.

They want to settle down but, the person they have been with for two years is is absolutely awful, so thats not a great time.

In this type of situation the person wants to and would have settled down if life hadn't gotten in the way.

In fact, almost every relationship is an audition for Mr. or Mrs. Happily Ever After.

If life keeps getting in the way this type of person may start questioning their adequacy, become bitter or even a little desperate.

I think if you share this general point of view I understand why you may have your rules for ages etc.

I find this to be more of a woman's point of view than a man's. I know I am generalizing, and i can see some of you twitching to type that you are not that type of woman . . . but thats my general observation.

Maybe i am wrong and men are really the giddy ones when it comes to weddings and marriage.

I think women are generally taught that settling down and marriage is an inevitable right of passage, an end to itself in the process of life.

It seems that women know that the Big day is coming and keep trying to fit the men they are with into that Ever After role. As each man fails they go to the next man and begin the courtship steps again to find out whether he is the One.

Men seem to regard this slightly differently. Our belief that we are going to get married is generally more abstract . . much like we know we are going to die someday but we don't dwell on it.

But seriously, men are taught to go out with girls they like and to only think about marriage when an extraordinary girl makes them think about it.

I think that a sutble but important difference. Women are looking to get maried and trying to find a man to fit that role. Men are looking for companionship, and if that role (marriage) develops then it does.

Oddly enough, the majority of men I know that got married, got married because they were afraid of losing the woman they were with. They didn't marry them out of the great passion of wanting to spend the rest of their lives with them, but rather the fear of the pain of losing them.

I don't think many of those women actually gave ultimatums or anything, I just think that when you talk anough about the future and marriage. . . the guy generally gets the point.

Well anyway, its 4am so I am rambling.

Quote:

Originally posted by honeychile
Okay, for those of y'all who are having trouble with my over 30 remark:

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 30, he is scary.

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 40, then he should be avoided at all costs!!

I'm sure that there is maybe one or two really marvelous men (not guys) who would be the exception, but if you're into playing the odds, these are they.

AKA_Monet · #6 10-09-2005, 12:36 PM

James,

While there are some issues you have stated that I agree upon, I do think that Honeychile and you are talking about two different things. There are some similarities, but there are more differences.

I think Honeychile's observation of an age range of 30 for men is a limiting factor assessment. Depending on the type of man a woman wants to marry--usually those with a positive upwardly mobile career goal in mind--it takes these types of fellas a good 7-8 years post-college work to get to that level, if not more...

So what you said about women "fitting the man" into a "marrige role reason" is somewhat accurate from perception.

I think that women do operate with a biological clock. Now, granted, some women don't, but many do. And these irresponsible news reports don't help us much. That biological clock starts at hayle 12 and ends at late 30's--if not younger for women...

Men also work off a biological clock, but theirs is slightly different. They get this "spread my seed" mentality and "meaning for the future". Most of those types of men don't start thinking about that until there late 30's up into late 50's--if not later with Viagra.

There are real biological factors that are going on with fecundity that have not been fully explored by the "medical establishment". It has been more explored by the psychological, sociological and anthropological establishments.

The other thing we all are operating on is we no longer have this agriculture society where folks need to crank out a bunch of kids to work on the farm. We have become a more civilation society with large conglomerated cities with a business and economic structure that makes it literally impossible for 2 people to survive sanely together, either with or without a legal agreement. Sure, you make more money combining incomes, but what's the benefit behind that? You have the work together with another personality that either allows you or does not allow you to live you life a certain way. Hence the first marriage divorce rate of 48%.

Basically, a little under half the marriages made over a hundred will be divorced within 5 years. I've seen higher stats of 60%, weighted for differences in age, race, religion and financials.

Needless to say, the marriage licensing folks have a bit a problem with this.

The real question is what stabilizes a marriage? I have not seen a direct answer to that question. And literally, there is not that much research on that topic.

And guess what, how do these folks, like marriage counselors, etc. make their money?

honeychile · #7 10-09-2005, 12:49 PM

James, please reread my post. I included "If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college)," purposely - because no woman wants to marry someone who is still basically a child.

I'll add more later - I have to run right now.

amycat412 · #8 10-09-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by honeychile
Okay, for those of y'all who are having trouble with my over 30 remark:

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 30, he is scary.

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 40, then he should be avoided at all costs!!

I'm sure that there is maybe one or two really marvelous men (not guys) who would be the exception, but if you're into playing the odds, these are they.

I agree except I'd up the age from 30 to 35. In LA and NY, its perfectly normal for first marriages to happen in mid to late 30s. So it depends on where you live, but I would say if a man was 30 and had not had a serious, long, significant relationship. RUN.

Munchkin03 · #9 10-09-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by honeychile
Okay, for those of y'all who are having trouble with my over 30 remark:

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 30, he is scary.

If a guy has not lived on his own (not including college), lived with someone, been engaged, or such by the time he is 40, then he should be avoided at all costs!!

I'm sure that there is maybe one or two really marvelous men (not guys) who would be the exception, but if you're into playing the odds, these are they.

Good call. I would, however, go with Amy's suggestion that the age be upped 5 years in big cities.

James · #10 10-09-2005, 06:08 PM

But what about the 40 Year Old Virgin? Great movie . . .

Quote:

Originally posted by amycat412
I agree except I'd up the age from 30 to 35. In LA and NY, its perfectly normal for first marriages to happen in mid to late 30s. So it depends on where you live, but I would say if a man was 30 and had not had a serious, long, significant relationship. RUN.

Munchkin03 · #11 10-09-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by James
But what about the 40 Year Old Virgin? Great movie . . .

I'm sorry, but even a 25-year old virgin is unacceptable. I spent the last years of the 1990s having bad sex. No more.

AchtungBaby80 · #12 10-09-2005, 06:24 PM

I wouldn't avoid a guy just because he was divorced...rather, I would avoid him if he'd been divorced multiple times by the age of 30, or if he had a particularly nasty and vindictive ex-wife who couldn't keep her nose out of his business.

33girl · #13 10-09-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Munchkin03
I'm sorry, but even a 25-year old virgin is unacceptable. I spent the last years of the 1990s having bad sex. No more.

Wait till you get to be my age and people tell you it's up to you to "teach" the younguns. Who I am, Annie Fricking Sullivan?

honeychile · #14 10-10-2005, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 33girl
Wait till you get to be my age and people tell you it's up to you to "teach" the younguns. Who I am, Annie Fricking Sullivan?

I think you owe me a drink the next time we're together! That, or some computer wipees, to clean the monitor!

I can live with upping the age by 5 years. I can NOT live with a guy who has never had to do his own laundry, make his own dinner, sew a button, set a table, blah, blah, blah. I just broke up with a guy whose mother has RUINED him for marriage because she didn't want to take the chance of his not knowing how to properly use a washer. HUH?! How's he supposed to learn?! I'm all for children, but not marrying them...

And there really are divorced guys of all sorts - with ex-wives of all sorts. It takes two people to break a marriage (says the divorcee, not proudly), and if the person is interesting, it's well worth hearing his story. Oh, the stories I have heard!!!

CutiePie2000 · #15 10-10-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kddani
Lately i've met a few decent guys when i've been out. Intelligent, good looking, nice, etc. Catch is, divorced. It seems there's more and more guys in my age range (25-34ish) that are divorced. I think i'd have a hard time getting past that, as i've never even been close to being engaged.

Anyone date someone that's divorced (while still in the 20's, early 30's)? Just curious as to anyone's thoughts/experiences.

Like as not, after about age 24-26, you will come across more and more divorced guys. I've dated quite a few divorced guys, 1 who was separated (yes, I suppose that makes me an adulteress...whatever), and some who had a child (never married). If they have kids, I think it's a bigger issue than if they just had a "starter" marriage and no kids. The kid issue will come up time and time again (weekends, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc).

I didn't really love it that the guys had divorces, but I guess you can perhaps view it that they don''t have a problem committing??