Changing dating strategy? Any ideas please?

Gloomendoom

Smartsaver7 wrote: »

I agree , previously you were somewhat protected if you were married financially if one split up , the law has changed on that with non married partners having rights

Unmarried partners may have rights, but they don't have as many rights as married partners do.

A quick perusal of some of the threads on here should dispel that myth.

indiepanda

Smartsaver7 wrote: »

I would have liked the happy family thing, it does hit you sometimes that one will never be there for the birth of a child, see one grow up or have grandchildren, friends and colleagues lives were always alien to me in that respect, at the time you feel how lucky you are having freedom to do what you want but as you get older your feelings change, but it is what it is. Sadly due to medical reasons I now cannot have kids even if I met someone who wanted them.

I feel for those people who wanted families and weren't able to have them for whatever reason.

For me the choice not to have children wasn't so much a desire for freedom (though I do enjoy that) but more a fear that I would turn into my mother if I did and thinking a child deserves better than that. (My mother made it clear she felt motherhood caused her depression, even though it turned out she was first sick ten years before having a family). It was possibly an excessive reaction, people have had more challenging parents (the depression wasn't the only issue) and yet gone on to be good parents, but I am quite risk averse.

Plus I seem to be missing the maternal gene - you know, the one that makes you want to hold and fuss over babies and that sort of thing? I react that way to puppies and kittens, but I have never felt comfortable with babies, I come from a small family and never got used to them.

I used to get told I would regret it when I got older if I didn't have children (haven't yet) but I thought better to do that, than to regret having them and have my children pick up on that. At least if I feel any pain as a result long term, it's only me that suffers.

Lily-Rose_3

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Unmarried partners may have rights, but they don't have as many rights as married partners do.

A quick perusal of some of the threads on here should dispel that myth.

I am happy to be corrected here, but I think that if a man is not married to the mother of his child, and his name is not on the birth certificate, he has no rights over the baby. I think the mother can actually deny him access, and there is nothing he can do about it. Must be awful. And bad for the grandparents in question too. (I mean the parents of the baby's father.)

Smartsaver7 wrote: »

I would have liked the happy family thing, it does hit you sometimes that one will never be there for the birth of a child, see one grow up or have grandchildren, friends and colleagues lives were always alien to me in that respect, at the time you feel how lucky you are having freedom to do what you want but as you get older your feelings change, but it is what it is. Sadly due to medical reasons I now cannot have kids even if I met someone who wanted them.

I'm sorry to hear that.

indiepanda

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

I don't find that combination particularly strange, though it doesn't match my own as I've never seen any reason for a complex legal contract (which is ultimately what marriage is) in a committed loving relationship. Possibly I'm overly sentimental, but for me love should be enough.

That said, you might find there are more people that meet your combination of wants than you think.

I am not religious and have to admit my hope was always to meet someone to love and live with in a relationship akin to marriage - but wasn't that fussed about getting married. In fact, the idea of a wedding with lots of people staring at me I find quite terrifying, and I used to say if I did marry it would be an overseas affair with enough guests to act as witnesses and no more.

Smartsaver7

Yep a beach in Antingua with a guy wearing a white suit officiating and a steel band was also my plan

duchy

Smartsaver7 wrote: »

It all depends where you live, if you both live in a city like London no you don't need a car , if you live somewhere rural where there is no public transport after 7pm or at weekends like I do one does need a car unless one can afford a taxi everywhere. When I was using dating sites most meets were quite a distance and in locations not near a station , jumping on a bike also not an option mainly as I haven't got one.
Nearly all of my dates required both of us to drive to the RVP and we usually met half way.

Indeed but that's attitude not geography. The post I quoted wanted all dates within walking distance which is pretty unrealistic (although not impossible my partner lived four houses away from me when we first met )

Gloomendoom

Lily-Rose wrote: »

I am happy to be corrected here, but I think that if a man is not married to the mother of his child, and his name is not on the birth certificate, he has no rights over the baby. I think the mother can actually deny him access, and there is nothing he can do about it. Must be awful. And bad for the grandparents in question too. (I mean the parents of the baby's father.)

You may be correct.

I wince when hear people say/write that "Marriage is just a piece of paper". Regardless of your religious views, it's a very significant piece of paper.

Gloomendoom

indiepanda wrote: »

I am not religious and have to admit my hope was always to meet someone to love and live with in a relationship akin to marriage - but wasn't that fussed about getting married. In fact, the idea of a wedding with lots of people staring at me I find quite terrifying, and I used to say if I did marry it would be an overseas affair with enough guests to act as witnesses and no more.

I hate being the centre of attention (odd when you consider my job) and I was the same when I got married the first time. At my insistence, it was probably the most understated wedding that it is possible to get. An obscure Scottish registry office and five people present, three of which I didn't know.

The second time was bigger and I actually enjoyed every minute of it. My face hurt from grinning all day. It really isn't that bad.

Smartsaver7

indiepanda wrote: »

I feel for those people who wanted families and weren't able to have them for whatever reason.

That was why I got rather miffed when guys with young families I knew were happy to throw it all away for an affair

indiepanda

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I hate being the centre of attention (odd when you consider my job) and I was the same when I got married the first time. At my insistence, it was probably the most understated wedding that it is possible to get. An obscure Scottish registry office and five people present, three of which I didn't know.

The second time was bigger and I actually enjoyed every minute of it. My face hurt from grinning all day. It really isn't that bad.

Don't get me wrong, a wedding with some guests is one of the things I would probably have been willing to compromise on if I ever met Mr Right.