# Unwed moms and unsexy men **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684 "2009-07-11T15:53:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/81 "2009-07-14T14:58:16Z")
> [@Sandwich](#): > > > [@Lumpy](#): > > > > It’s like being stuck in high school forever. Five percent of the guys have a James Bond-ish ability to have all the girls dripping with lust for them. Maybe half the guys can get laid if they work at it. And the bottom forty-five percent don’t have a chance. The idea of that being the permanent default condition of society is horrifying (unless you’re one of the lucky five percent.) > > Thank you Lumpy for articulating the real fear here. My advice to everyone who is concerned that this is a real problem: > > If you are a man aged over about 23, living in anything bigger than a hamlet, and are frustrated that you don’t have a girlfriend, then the problem is you. Pull yourself together. I don’t know what percentage of the population is “undatable by anyone” but I have to assume it is relatively small. Probably no more than 5-10%. That is not to be confused with “nice guys” who just struggle to find that special someone just like most of us do. After reading these boards, I have concluded that these people are incapable of “pulling themselves together” because their “selves” suck. Because they never played sports, their dad left them at an early age, they spent most of their youth isolated or picked on, they suffer from some sort of mental or emotional illness or are simply just not physically, mentally and emotionally attractive to the opposite sex, they never developed the social tools required to attract the opposite sex. What happens is that they see it happening for everyone else and assume that since it isn’t happening for them it just isn’t meant to happen. They then “opt out” and instead of doing stuff that would enhance their ability to meet someone - working out, paying attention to appearance, socializing, etc - they just let themselves go to shit, pursue isolating activities and just entrench themselves in their circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/82 "2009-07-14T15:17:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Also, it depends on how you define prostitute. That’s funny, because one of the ways I define “prostitute” is “one who marries solely for financial support”. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/83 "2009-07-14T16:10:33Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > That’s funny, because one of the ways I define “prostitute” is “one who marries solely for financial support”. 😃 See, this is why I love you. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/84 "2009-07-14T18:07:46Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > That’s funny, because one of the ways I define “prostitute” is “one who marries solely for financial support”. I agree. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/85 "2009-07-14T18:28:29Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > The only part of what YWTF said that includes marriage is “unless she promises to marrry you.” First of all, does it make a person “subservient” to wait until marriage to have sex? If so, please explain how? Second, if you eliminate that one clause, do you still have a problem with what YWTF said? Boys as well as girls should be taught to withhold sex until they are in a committed relationship and sure the other person loves them. Why should it only be women who hold out for love? When you put it that way I don’t really have a problem with it. There seemed to me to be a general thrust in this thread of role reversal, which I don’t approve of. The way women were treated historically as a subservient sex is not desirable regardless of which sex is being subservient. If you agree with that statement then we are in accord. > [@](#): > > Are you pretending ignorance of the law? The anecdote about your sister notwithstanding, the law in all states of the US is that failure to pay child support results in loss of passport, then drivers license, then prison. The fact that this has not happened for her either indicates that she did not pursue the matter in court (which is her problem), or that he is currently on the run from a warrant. Wonder which is is? No, I am not pretending ignorance of the law at all. I am recognizing that the law is woefully poorly enforced. And as I said, my Sister didn’t pursue him in court because there are like three other women in line in front of her, and the guy still at least has his driver’s license. I don’t know the status of his passport. > [@](#): > > Ah, yes, your sister “doesn’t bother going after him.” That’s not the fault of the law’s. I hope her baby daddy was really sexy! Are you intentionally missing the point? She doesn’t go after him because even if something were finally done she’d be fourth in line to divvy up his pittance. This guy has kids in multiple states, and none of those states is vigorously pursuing him. She doesn’t pursue it because the state has failed all of the other kids so she feels that it’s better to just sever the relationship with the jackass and raise the kid herself. > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > You keep talking about the “benefit” to men as a universal and global class, but then demonstrating the benefit to individual men. You’re mistaken if you think men in a “warrior culture” passively sit around letting more dominant men have their women. The large-harem paradigm is actually more an artifact of agricultural civilization in which a very few men have virtually unlimited power. I’m not talking about harems, I am talking about even less civilized than that, I am talking about men just grabbing women and raping them, or not even raping them because we are talking about a civilizational level prior to the concept of rape. Our notions of civilization arose around the concept of marriage and the idea that it was only to the benefit of men is rank nonsense. > [@](#): > > If hypersexualized men go around impregnating everyone they can, it benefits that individual at the expense of all the other men who don’t share that strategy. Monogamy is the attempt to permit every man a reasonable chance at one mate with the benefit to everyone of reducing violent competition for women. “Traditional marriage” claims to benefit women, and to some extent it does, but one can’t help noticing it also makes it easier for the majority of men to compete sexually without taking huge risks to find a mate. In this way society as a whole advanced instead of sitting around squabbling over who gets to fuck whom. I’m not talking about hypersexualized men, I am talking about normally sexualized men. The average man given the opportunity to have sex with lots of women, absent some social constraint will have sex with as many as possible. And you are correct that it helps the weaker men find mates by evening out the distribution, as I already stated. So we are pretty much in agreement here as you are just reiterating what I already said. > [@](#): > > It should also be noted that both the concept of monogamy and traditional marriage are very leaky vessels when it comes to guarantees of sexual fidelity. When thinking of social norms and sexual competition, it is less useful to think of marriage and monogamy not so much as the Berlin Wall than the Mexican-American border. Of course they are, because people like to fuck and they like to fuck new people. I see many women I’d love to have sex with on a daily basis. When I first got with my wife I told her under no uncertain terms I would not be monogamous with her, and I wasn’t for a few years. Then I told her I would be and I have been. > [@Cazzle](#): > > Hundreds of thousands out of the 300 million people in the US or hundreds of thousands out of the 6 billion in the world? Out of the 300 million in the US. > [@](#): > > That’s only fair if you’re also prepared to say that many attorneys\* are drug addicts, or many police officers\* are drug addicts, and we may differ wildly on this point but that’s not something I’d say. Many attorneys are drug addicts but it’s not fair to bring them up because this topic is not about them. This sort of rationalized equivalency is the bane of intellectual discourse, what attorneys do and do not do is irrelevant. This kind of statement is meant more to make people feel better than to actually give any cogent thought to the matter at hand. > [@](#): > > And you know what? I AM one of those single mothers who is not entirely self sufficient at the moment, under employed and receiving (partial) welfare payments… but that has nothing to do with the fact that I’m a single mother. My situation is related to the global financial crisis that has my employers reducing their wage budgets - there are no extra shifts being handed out just now, people who leave are mostly not being replaced and the few new hires that have come on board are on casual contracts with zero guaranteed hours, not part time contracts with a minimum number of hours guaranteed (like mine). If I was childless, I’d be in exactly the same situation - collecting welfare payments while looking for another job. Ok. And? What’s your point? > [@](#): > > \*A brief Google search turns up results suggesting those are the two professions most associated with alcohol abuse. This thread isn’t about alcohol abuse, it’s about whether or not single-Mothers somehow have risen to the top of the mating food chain. My argument is that no they have not. If something I have said applies to you, it applies to you, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. Any personal insecurities you or anyone else in this thread might have about being single-mothers is not relevant to the debate. If you’re not a drug-addicted prostitute then I wasn’t referring to you. As for your job, I hope you are able to make it work out or find a better job. I am glad there is public assistance for you. When I was single and destitute I never considered taking public assistance because even near the streets I always thought there were people who were more needy than I who needed it more. People like single-Mothers for instance. So instead of all this touchy-feely anecdotal stuff, can we get back to the topic at hand which is whether or not single-Mothers hold the power in the dating game. I still say that the answer is no. Now, if we want to refer to the wealthy sexy power-Moms who are doing it all by themselves and have a great career while still able to pick up their kids from soccer practice, then yes, they probably they can pick and choose the sexy boys without much trouble, but the reality is that those are outliers, most single-Moms are not in that situation. To point this out is not to denigrate single-Mothers at all. I have every respect for single-Mothers who do what they need to do to take care of their kids, I just think it’s silly to argue that they have their pick of the sexy boys and are somehow in a power position in the dating game. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/86 "2009-07-14T18:35:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > When you put it that way I don’t really have a problem with it. There seemed to me to be a general thrust in this thread of role reversal, which I don’t approve of. The way women were treated historically as a subservient sex is not desirable regardless of which sex is being subservient. If you agree with that statement then we are in accord. Teaching boys that they shouldn’t have sex unless they are in love and in a committed relationship is not making them subservient. I’m glad we can agree on this. > [@](#): > > No, I am not pretending ignorance of the law at all. I am recognizing that the law is woefully poorly enforced. And as I said, my Sister didn’t pursue him in court because there are like three other women in line in front of her, and the guy still at least has his driver’s license. I don’t know the status of his passport. You’re not pretending ignorance of the law. You actually are ignorant. There is no “queue.” If the other women haven’t gone after him for support either, then she would be first in line because she actually filed a court order and they didn’t. If he really is in arrears on 4 kids, then he would lose his DL and passport pretty quickly. The fact that he still has it makes me think that no one has bothered to go through the system to get their money. Sitting on your hands and saying, “The law won’t help me!” when you have a poor understanding of the law and haven’t even tried is… not the law’s fault. > [@](#): > > Are you intentionally missing the point? She doesn’t go after him because even if something were finally done she’d be fourth in line to divvy up his pittance. This guy has kids in multiple states, and none of those states is vigorously pursuing him. She doesn’t pursue it because the state has failed all of the other kids so she feels that it’s better to just sever the relationship with the jackass and raise the kid herself. That is simply not how it works. They will garnish his wages in whatever state he’s in, regardless of the residence of the child. They will take his tax returns. Even if he’s unemployed, he will still be expected to pay, and then the arrears will pile up. Tell your sister to get a lawyer, they have free ones for poor women, and file her claim. The defeatist attitude you are espousing is… not the law’s fault. They can’t pursue him for money if the children’s mothers aren’t asking them to. That’s how it works. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/87 "2009-07-14T18:47:39Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You’re not pretending ignorance of the law. You actually are ignorant. There is no “queue.” If the other women haven’t gone after him for support either, then she would be first in line because she actually filed a court order and they didn’t. If he really is in arrears on 4 kids, then he would lose his DL and passport pretty quickly. The fact that he still has it makes me think that no one has bothered to go through the system to get their money. Sitting on your hands and saying, “The law won’t help me!” when you have a poor understanding of the law and haven’t even tried is… not the law’s fault. The others HAVE gone after him. At least according to the info I have received from my sister. Maybe they haven’t pursued it hard enough, but well you can say the law is as you say it is, but the number of deadbeat Dads I have met in my life says otherwise. My impression from women who have pursued such things is that it is quite a ponderous process. So no, I am not completely up to speed on the law, but I have seen how it happens in practice, and your notion of legal perfection is not how it works in reality. > [@](#): > > That is simply not how it works. They will garnish his wages in whatever state he’s in, regardless of the residence of the child. They will take his tax returns. Even if he’s unemployed, he will still be expected to pay, and then the arrears will pile up. Tell your sister to get a lawyer, they have free ones for poor women, and file her claim. The defeatist attitude you are espousing is… not the law’s fault. They can’t pursue him for money if the children’s mothers aren’t asking them to. That’s how it works. I am not espousing a defeatist attitude at all. You are projecting and I am indulging you projection. My sister has decided that even if she went after him there is nothing to get, he’s broke, poor, unemployed and in debt to several women. To whit, he’s a total loser, and there is no point trying to squeeze water from a stone. Personally I think she is making the right decision to not try and beat her head against a wall for the principle of the thing. You call it defeatist, I call it pragmatic. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/88 "2009-07-14T19:11:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The others HAVE gone after him. At least according to the info I have received from my sister. Maybe they haven’t pursued it hard enough, but well you can say the law is as you say it is, but the number of deadbeat Dads I have met in my life says otherwise. I’ll go anecdote for anecdote with you about the men that I know who pay their support-- they vastly outnumber the ones who don’t. I do know numerous women with your sister’s attitude, who don’t bother even trying to go through the courts at all, but then somehow blame the legal system. > [@](#): > > My impression from women who have pursued such things is that it is quite a ponderous process. So no, I am not completely up to speed on the law, but I have seen how it happens in practice, and your notion of legal perfection is not how it works in reality. Legal perfection? Making an attempt to get a support order is not legal perfection. The laws exist, but they are not magical. You have to get off your ass and file before you get anything. If he’s got a drivers license, he will lose it. That might motivate him to do something, no? > [@](#): > > I am not espousing a defeatist attitude at all. You are projecting and I am indulging you projection. My sister has decided that even if she went after him there is nothing to get, he’s broke, poor, unemployed and in debt to several women. Doesn’t sound like he’s in debt to anyone, because no one has filed a support order, if he’s still driving legally. Yes, your attitude is defeatist. If you try to go through the legal system and still receive no satisfaction, then I’ll agree that you’ve done the best you can. Until then, you’re just speculating as to the outcome and assuming it will be negative. To whit, a defeatist attitude. > [@](#): > > To whit, he’s a total loser, and there is no point trying to squeeze water from a stone. Personally I think she is making the right decision to not try and beat her head against a wall for the principle of the thing. You call it defeatist, I call it pragmatic. Sounds like your sister really picked a winner there. I’m sure she had no idea he was a total deadbeat with other kids and no job prospects, but he was probably very sexy. Someone should have told him to keep his legs closed until he was in a monogamous relationship, right? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/89 "2009-07-14T20:36:45Z")
**mswas** and **Rubystreak** , this exchange is only going to lead to increasing accusations of ignorance or personal failures and has nothing to do with the question in the OP. Please take it to another forum. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/90 "2009-07-14T20:54:14Z")
? huh ? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/91 "2009-07-14T20:55:45Z")
Bottom line, someone has to HAVE money in order to take it from them. Suing someone who is destitute is a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/92 "2009-07-14T21:34:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Out of the 300 million in the US. So we can now conclude that one to three tenths of a percent is “many”. (Perhaps you should have pulled another random number out of the air for how many _single mothers_ are in the US and compared against that.) > [@mswas](#): > > Many attorneys are drug addicts but it’s not fair to bring them up because this topic is not about them. This sort of rationalized equivalency is the bane of intellectual discourse, what attorneys do and do not do is irrelevant. This kind of statement is meant more to make people feel better than to actually give any cogent thought to the matter at hand. Cogently, whether the percentage of single mothers who are “drug addicts” (which now includes alcohol, which will suprise, well, _everyone_ who uses the term) is different from that of _any random group in the population_ is what matters. Certainly, if we wanted to get more specific, comparing to the percentage of **non** -single mothers would probably be more relevent than any other group, but that doesn’t mean the other groups are similarly relevent with regard to blowing the last legs out of your desperate support for your insulting comment. Seriously, I don’t even know _why_ you have been bothering to defend this. If you had the stats to show that 48% of single mothers were stoners, you’d have slapped them down by now. That said, I agree with you on most of your other points (notably excepting the one that the defining property of a manly man is one who screws as many people or things as possible). Single mothers are most _certainly_ not weilding great power in the dating game; not as long as there are still single women _without_ kids running around. Because rather obviously, the majority of men aren’t all _that_ keen on the presence of a kid - particularly a young kid. (Those can screw up a dating schedule bigtime.) Add to that that such women most likely are, on average, a bit socioeconomically disadvantaged (because kids aren’t _free_), and you’ve got a group that will, on average, fare worse in competition to their unencumbered sisteren. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/93 "2009-07-14T21:39:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So we can now conclude that one to three tenths of a percent is “many”. (Perhaps you should have pulled another random number out of the air for how many _single mothers_ are in the US and compared against that.) Well first you’d have to shave it down by how many of those people are ‘female’. So we can assume about half so that’s 150m, then you can shave it down by how many of those females are of breeding age, so that’s probably about 2/3. Then we need to shave off that 100m how many of them have had kids. Then out of those who have had kids we separate out the single-Mothers, and suddenly hundreds of thousands is a more significant percentage. > [@](#): > > Cogently, whether the percentage of single mothers who are “drug addicts” (which now includes alcohol, which will suprise, well, _everyone_ who uses the term) is different from that of _any random group in the population_ is what matters. Certainly, if we wanted to get more specific, comparing to the percentage of **non** -single mothers would probably be more relevent than any other group, but that doesn’t mean the other groups are similarly relevent with regard to blowing the last legs out of your desperate support for your insulting comment. You don’t consider alcohol to be a drug? Most people I know do. There is no reason to be insulted by anything I have said. > [@](#): > > Seriously, I don’t even know _why_ you have been bothering to defend this. If you had the stats to show that 48% of single mothers were stoners, you’d have slapped them down by now. Slapped what down? I am not even sure what you are arguing here. > [@](#): > > That said, I agree with you on most of your other points (notably excepting the one that the defining property of a manly man is one who screws as many people or things as possible). I never said anything about a manly man being someone who screws as many people or things as possible, that’s a wild extrapolation. > [@](#): > > Single mothers are most _certainly_ not weilding great power in the dating game; not as long as there are still single women _without_ kids running around. Because rather obviously, the majority of men aren’t all _that_ keen on the presence of a kid - particularly a young kid. (Those can screw up a dating schedule bigtime.) Yup. > [@](#): > > Add to that that such women most likely are, on average, a bit socioeconomically disadvantaged (because kids aren’t _free_), and you’ve got a group that will, on average, fare worse in competition to their unencumbered sisteren. Yep. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/94 "2009-07-14T22:15:54Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > ? huh ? Right? I thought we were doing OK. But anyway, I think I’ve made my point adequately. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/95 "2009-07-14T23:29:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Bottom line, someone has to HAVE money in order to take it from them. Suing someone who is destitute is a waste of time. If you mean child support that isn’t the case in many locations. In Michigan I know not paying child support can get you arrested and rack up huge fees and interest. Which admittedly contradicts a point I made earlier somewhat. That said some deadbeats still slip through the cracks. Michigan ever finds my “dad” and he’ll be soo broke. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684/96 "2009-07-15T02:13:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Ok. And? What’s your point? My point is that many people are on welfare at the moment, people who wouldn’t normally be on welfare, and whether or not they are single parents isn’t relevant. You did, after all, say > [@mswas](#): > > If you have ever been on welfare, or ever been dependent on your parents since being a single Mother then what I said DOES indeed apply to you. Why should it? My status as a single mother is not the cause of my employment situation at the moment. > [@mswas](#): > > This thread isn’t about alcohol abuse, it’s about whether or not single-Mothers somehow have risen to the top of the mating food chain. My argument is that no they have not. If something I have said applies to you, it applies to you, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. Any personal insecurities you or anyone else in this thread might have about being single-mothers is not relevant to the debate. If you’re not a drug-addicted prostitute then I wasn’t referring to you. I guess I got confused about the bit where you said > [@mswas](#): > > […] what I said DOES indeed apply to you. I’m not really offended for myself (though it IS rather strange to see myself lumped in with drug addicts and prostitutes; I’ve never been part of a group that included them before), I’m distressed to think about all the other single mothers I know and the wide variety of circumstances that lead them to where they are, who lead decent, blameless lives yet as a group are considered likely to include many prostitutes (inc. strippers) and drug addicts (inc. alcoholics)… Why? Because their child’s father is absent. Doesn’t that say more about him than them? I’m thinking of P., who was in a long term, committed relationship (though, granted, they were not married) with a man she loved, they made the decision to have a child together, and three months before the child was born he announced he’d decided he wasn’t ready to be a father after all and walked out. K’s sister _was_ married and their child was two when her husband decided he was “not ready” for marriage and fatherhood and left, while L’s husband waited until their third child came along before he reached that conclusion. Not a drinking problem nor a stripping job amongst them, not a single one who _chose_ to be a single parent. Just a bunch of young women who didn’t realise the mate they’d chosen wanted to be Peter Pan. > [@](#): > > When I was single and destitute I never considered taking public assistance because even near the streets I always thought there were people who were more needy than I who needed it more. People like single-Mothers for instance. Well, oh heroic you! Is that how it works in America? Mary Smith’s welfare check is reduced and her kids go hungry because you claimed a share of public benefits? Because that’s not how it works here. Mary Smith gets her check and I get mine. I’ve always been of the mindset that I’m more likely to get another job and resume being a contributing member of society if I’m not destitute and showing up for job interviews consumed by fear for how I’m going to keep a roof over my head if I don’t get this job. Maybe I’m wrong for claiming money freely offered by my government to people in my situation, but I don’t let it keep me awake at night, especially at the moment when I am both a taxpayer and a recipient of tax dollars. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unwed-moms-and-unsexy-men/502684.md?page=4)