Writing Was Everthing

I agree with you Larry.

"I told men that I wouldn't go out with them because they had never been married. Other women will simply decline dates or go on the next selection in the personals column."

Generalizing that other women share this shallow perspective is silly. Sounds kind of high-schoolish, but then I suspect you're just being mischievous. I'm taking my loser ass over to Film and make my Oscar picks.

As a generalization, I think it holds some water. Generalizations necessarily have exceptions, and you two Larrys may well be it. But I find that most of my friends who have made it to their 40's without being in a committed relationship (I use "committed" here to mean marriage or long-term, cohabitating, "common-law" marriage) do have some extra baggage that makes a relationship at that point difficult. (Not impossible.) It seems like there are a limited number of options:

1.) Person is not interested in a committed relationship, so doesn't mind not having been in one. One person's lack of interest in a committed relationship would necessarily spell a problem if the other person does want a committed relationship.

2.) Person is interested in a committed relationship, but hasn't managed to find one. It seems that looking and not finding for an extended period of time would logically result in emotional baggage, but I'm willing to be corrected on that one.

3.) Person wasn't interested in a committed relationship, dillied and dallied happily, had a change of heart and decided that he/she was ready to be in a committed relationship after all, finds soul mate, lives happily ever after.

Note, I don't think these apply to just men, but anyone who has gotten that far without a committed relationship.

Plainoldme:

I haven't read up the first two pages of this thread, but I read what you said in the last pages, and I can't help but feel you are enjoying being the "enabler" as is the case with relationships such as yours.

You need to take a good look into your own motives and a long, hard, objective look at this relationship, take back your power, hold your head high, and move on.

This man has no intention of committing himself to anyone, so cut the cord and seek someone who is seeking the same avenue as you are, or else, be happy being who you are.

Nobody can make you do anything you don't want to do.

Sozobe:

People fail to get married for many, many reasons. One obvious one you ignore is that they may have been in relationships they HOPED would lead to marriage that didn't work out (my situation).

One size doesn't fit all in discussing this highly complex issue!

Oh, it's definitely complex. That situation seems to fall under #2, though, no? Looked, didn't find/ didn't work out...?

I"m getting pretty offended too. You're the one with the problem lady.

Maybe the guys you've met just don't want to commit to a neurotic air head.

I'll just mention briefly that there are women who will happily get involved with single, never-been-married, over 40 men. The women are usually thrilled to find a guy who doesn't have kids and ex-wives all over the place.

We've all got baggage of one sort or another. Claim your own baggage and get on with your journey. That seems the most practical approach to me.

A few months had seen the beginning and the end of their acquaintance; but not with a few months ended Anne's share of suffering from it. Her attachment and regrets had, for a long time, clouded every enjoyment of youth, and an early loss of bloom and spirits had been their lasting effect.

More than seven years were gone since this little history
of sorrowful interest had reached its close; and time had
softened down much, perhaps nearly all of peculiar attachment to him, but she had been too dependent on time alone; no aid had been given in change of place (except in one visit to Bath soon after the rupture), or in any novelty or enlargement of society. No one had ever come within the Kellynch circle, who could bear a comparison with Frederick Wentworth, as he stood in her memory. No second attachment, the only thoroughly natural, happy, and sufficient cure, at her time of life, had been possible to the nice tone of her mind, the fastidiousness of her taste, in the small limits of the society around them. She had been solicited, when about two-and-twenty, to change her name, by the young man, who not long afterwards found a more willing mind in her younger sister; and Lady Russell had lamented her refusal; for Charles Musgrove was the eldest son of a man, whose landed property and general importance were second in that country, only to Sir Walter's, and of good character and appearance; and however Lady Russell might have asked yet for something more, while Anne was nineteen, she would have rejoiced to see her at twenty-two
so respectably removed from the partialities and injustice of
her father's house, and settled so permanently near herself.
But in this case, Anne had left nothing for advice to do;
and though Lady Russell, as satisfied as ever with her own discretion, never wished the past undone, she began now to have the anxiety which borders on hopelessness for Anne's being tempted, by some man of talents and independence, to enter a state for which she held her to be peculiarly fitted by her warm affections and domestic habits.

Compare and contrast the erstwhile experience of our heroine above described by Jane Austen and our our own dear heroine Plainoldme- does not the name itself say something about the person ?

Geez, Wilso -- so harsh? I did not realize being unmarried was a stigma either, but I can see that it might be so. I am amazed that people ever find their mates. It is such a chance-y thing.

Let me just say here that it would be OK with me if I were looking for a man and he had never been married. That would mean he was waiting for his one true love. (Me, of course.) If he had been married I think I'd assume a near constant and running comparison with his ex would be going on in his head and that doesn't sound very palatable.

I think we should celebrate that Plainoldme has had a positive response from someone with whom she might be compatible. I hope the meeting goes well and there are sparks between them. Good for you POM... break a leg.....errrr..... be your own sweet self and ignore self-doubt.

I don't think any generalization holds water, sozobe, especially this one. Generalizing about others is simply stereotyping them, which is exactly what she is doing. How can you stand up for that, I know you dislike stereotyping people. Its exactly the same as if I refused to date a woman because she was divorced or had kids - she is obviously a total failure at relationships, why bother with her. Of course that would leave about 3 women over the age of 20 in the state of Florida for me to date, so maybe my consideration is practical.

And everyone who has made it to their 40's and is looking for a relationship has more baggage than anyone in their 20s or 30s - the baggage for me and Larry will be different than the baggage of a divorced mother, but it certainly doesn't point towards us being less capable of sustaining a long term relationship. To say it is is just generalizing, and is absolutely useless for the purposes of judging any one person. Thats my point here - using some ill-informed opinion about men in general and applying it towards one human being in particular.

You're right, LarryBS, about my general dislike of stereotypes. I dunno if you saw that I recently wrote "knowing when to butt out" on the "What do you suck at?" thread... I was thinking of this, among other things. I didn't like how Plainoldme was being jumped on, and I have a bad habit of rushing to the defense of people who can defend themselves just fine, thanks.

I'm still a bit surprised at the vehemence shown, but since I'm so far removed from what is being discussed -- with my husband for more than 10 years, met him when he was 21 -- I probably have no idea what I'm talking about. It just seems to me, though, if I were ever in the market (which I hope not to be -- knock on wood) that I would be somewhat suspicious of a guy who got past 40 without a committed relationship, for the reasons I listed. I mean, I also would be biased toward someone who had pets, and against someone who was Republican -- all gross generalizations, which are sure to have exceptions, but when one is sifting through personal ads, I just don't see how horrible it is to use those kinds of criteria. May well lose out on Mr. Right, of course, but I do think I understand where Plainoldme is coming from.

That's for sure.

I started to post a reply here this morning, and it went on and on and on, and I was thinking, isn't this off topic? besides, I was getting into a life confessional to make my point, which I was grasping at, and erased the whole thing because to stay and clarify it would make me late for work.

In short, I think 42 or 43 is a babe in arms. Although I admit having thought in my past that someone over 35 and not married was a little wierd. But that's nothing, I remember thinking a nurse I used to work with was in deep personal trouble because she was, gag, 26 and not married. Well, that was in the early sixties, and I didn't marry myself until I was a 37 year old woman, with some long and some short relationships that had not worked for one reason or another. Don't get me started, and some of it was my fault, even long at fault. I agree with piffka, a relationship that works and lasts is a gift, please, you that have them, enjoy every second.

On POM's side, I immediately thought of an old boss and lover, oh dear, should I admit that - miscellaneous no-no's accrueing as we speak. Still not married, the cad, must be 70 by now. Quite a successful and interesting guy. I knew well he wasn't commitment material. And she may be right, there may be, to generalize, a certain pickiness, or other difficulty, among forty year old non marrieds of either sex. But, some of my best friends still have never been married and they are wonderful people just the same, while some friends who have been married, even more than once, are self involved irascibles.

But to be in one's forties and have room for commitment, it is not only possible, it extends further than that.

The point you areall missing is that just because someone has never been married does not mean they have never been in a long-term committed relationship. I have dated women for years at a time without marrying them but boy was I committed to them. The fact that we didn't marry doesn't mean tjat we weren't very much in love and committed (in one case for six years, and still best of friends to this day).

I think what may worry women (and please... this is just a surmise since I have not been in this position... no need to get angry at me!) is that a man who hasn't been married may not want to be married and can therefore be X'd out as marriageable material.

Y'see? If the woman's object is to find someone and marry and she believes the man's object is not, then why bother? There certainly has been a whole realm of men's jokes about how awful it is to be married, tied to the old ball & chain, etc.

Thanks, sozobe, for the words of encouragement. I haven't had my coffee with him yet but it is only 2:00 on Sunday. Have romantic notions of an upping of the ante to dinner...would be lovely to eat by the ocean this afternoon.

Generalizing that other women share this shallow perspective is silly

Why should you think that I am generalizing? Listen, women talk much more openly about sex, dating and the eternal battle of the sexes much more openly and more often than men do. A common piece of advice slightly older women give each other is avoid men over-40 who have never been married unless you are simply looking for what I call a part-time relationship.

And I still say you are generalizing on the basis of your own bad experience. I can't speak for Larry BS, but I personally find it offensive to be categorized by you as a loser in this way. Either cut it out or come up with some really intelligent arguments for your position--something you haven't done so far.


Again, I am not generalizing. I think thou dost protest too much. And the man was NOT a bad experience. The first two years were the best I have ever spent with a man.

As for categorizing you as a loser, I never said any such thing. You are projecting.

You presented a rather high number for the unmarried state of men over 40. Generally, the number printed is that 95% of the American population will be married at some time.

Consider that perhaps you have remained unmarried because you may be a bit bellicose; because you take umbrage where none is given; beause you over-estimate certain of your traits.

The point you areall missing is that just because someone has never been married does not mean they have never been in a long-term committed relationship

My former boyfriend was actively in a non-residential relationship with me from February, 1994 to sometime in 2000. I am not certain when I officially broke up with him because I was trying to ease him out of the relationship by not sleeping with him (besides, I had totally lost interest after the not moving in during year 4).

He had lived with a woman for five years when he was in his 30s and with another woman before that.

I knew that breaking up with him would be a long, drawn out business: he clung to other women for an average of half again as long as the relationship. In other words, he took one year to fully remove himself from a two year relationship. I think his problem is committment. He was never committed to me until I said goodbye. He was in the process of "getting over (god knows why! she was over weight, had huge hairy facial moles and could never decide whether she was lesbian or bi-)" someone when I met him, largely because she had ended the relationship only 6 months previous to our meeting!