That has not been my experience with women with children, and in fact, most single mothers (from my experience) seem to regard finding a father figure as being the the predominant criteria. As I’m generally uncomfortable with children even in casual exposure, it would be unconscionable of me to present myself as being accommodating of that situation at my own exclusive benefit.
Stranger
**Dropmom **always said, until I didn’t need her advice before, “Be nice. Be happy. Be funny.” From the experience I’ve had with dating sites (observing because it’s funny), that seems to be how you will find HUMAN BEINGS who are nice, happy, and funny. You really, truly want to avoid the others. Trust me. :eek:
In my experience, a lot of people are single not because there “are no good men/women out there,” but because they think they’re too good for or can do better than the men/women who have expressed interest in them. I’ve used quite a few dating sites, and always, always met women in person, usually within a week or two of joining. How? I was genuine, polite, not pushy, and gave anyone who responded a shot. I really have no sympathy for anyone who complains about being single in the same paragraph as saying something like “I met no appealing women there,” or “there were no attractive men around.” Hello?! The problem is YOU, and your big, fat, ego!
Yeah, but since when do lizards have standards? 
Children don’t make anyone substandard (and I didn’t see anyone but you saying that). Children make you a bad match for someone who doesn’t do well with kids, for whatever reason.
While I agree about keeping an open mind, standards are not arbitrary to the person who holds them. I am not going to be attracted to someone who doesn’t at least match me in intelligence no matter how hard I try. The best you’re gonna get from ignoring these standards is an unsatisfying relationship. You can’t manufacture a “spark” with someone just because you think you “should.”
Been there, done that. It was a disaster I have no desire to repeat.
As a childless woman myself, I can relate to not relating to children. Let me post this as some food for thought. Only about 20% of women remain childless through their 40s. This includes lesbians and women who are trying unsuccessfully to conceive (also nuns and the long-term incarcerated). If you really want a woman who is and wants to remain childless, it looks like you are down to about 10-15% of women–before you add in any other criteria. I’d like to know more childless women as friends, but I just don’t meet that many–and I can count the childless lesbians in my pool of potentials!
So give it some serious thought before you box yourself in. If you’re actually one of those guys who just doesn’t want to deal with kids until you have one of your own, you might want to rethink that if you’ve made it to a certain age. If you’ve got issues about kids you’re planning on getting over someday, maybe get over them sooner rather than later. Because if you’re down to 10-15% before you factor in anything else, you have narrowed your selection perhaps more than you realize. For comparison, if you were that picky on looks, you’d be insisting on dating 8.5s and above.
If you really truly do want a 100% childfree woman, you may need to make that your starting point, because they are rarer than you might think.
so… anyone thats having success in the online dating world… what sites do you use? i’ve been on 3 seperate sites for 2 years and havent found a single date yet. i usually try to strike up a conversation with at least one person a week, which almost always results in a visit to my profile and no reply. I’ve never once recieved a message, but did manage to get rejected from a certain “harmonious” paysite. even the single moms dont seem interested…
The problem isn’t standards, but expectations. You’ve got to realize that the only real reason to join a dating site is if you can’t get a date in another manner, for whatever reason. Since the standards most people have are really not that different, this means that there is a disproportionately higher number of “undateable” people. The people who do well on these sites are those who tap into those people. The people that have the hardest time are those who choose their ideal date, instead of the minimum they would be willing to accept.
And standards are variable, even if not arbitrary. What you think you want is often not what you would actually want out in the real world. Some posit that this is why love exists; it allows you to overlook the flaws you thought were so important in the outset. Once you are in love, a lot of other things no longer matter. Online dating sites remove you one step from the actual situation. It’s easy to say you won’t date someone unless they have trait X, but find out later that the person you are attracted to in person doesn’t quite have trait X.
I mean, a lot of the so-called standards are quantifications of traits you would just naturally pick up on. An easy example is age: in real life, you aren’t really looking for someone of a certain age, but someone who looks and acts like you think a certain age would act. Attraction in real life is based on instinct, and we humans are notoriously bad at figuring out those instincts and putting them on paper. Why do you think we are still studying the psychology and physiology of attraction? Why do you think we are still studying psychology at all?
So, I said all that to say this: Lowering your standards on your profile is not the same as lowering your standards in real life. Because we know so little about ourselves, we inevitably have to cast a wider net online to find the people we would be attracted to in real life.
Ha ha ha, that’s quite funny. I hope you’re not being serious.