The first thing I'd suggest is to ditch the "victim mentality". Your life is yours, what happens in it is your choice. Other people can change circumstances but they cannot change you.

If someone says it is gods will that you are single, tell them it is gods will they are narrow minded. Or tell them that god said to be fruitful and multiply and then invite them over for a drink...

Many women will not look twice at a guy who still lives with their parents if the guy is beyond early-mid 20s. That could be a hurdle for you to get by but there will also be people who are able to see past the surface to the reasons for the situation.

Also, don't go looking for someone 20 years younger. If it happens it happens, but don't look for it. Don't look for anything. Go out, socialize, have fun... to meet people you have to go where people are. Don't go looking for a girlfriend or wife, just meet people and see what happens.

I should state again that I am not a religious person. I am not arguing anything specific about who Jesus was or wasn't. There is a lot more clarification in your second response to me and I do see your points. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said in the first response.

I saw that you said (roughly) Jesus never said any of that, other people said he did... I responded to this. I know that you cannot believe everything everyone says, but you also cannot dismiss something just because it is second hand. I can very clearly tell you what my ex and I talked about last night. The fact that she isn't here telling the story doesn't make it any less accurate.

I know there are many problems in the bible also. The god described in the old testament was a power crazed being destroying anyone he felt like... floods, plagues, crumbled cities, etc. While this same god in the new testament is the loving, forgiving type ... Fatherhood changed him that much? What ever happened to the "I am the same yesterday today and forever" bit?

I was raised in a christian home and in my teens I studied many religions, I chose to be a part of none of them. There are way too many questions that none of them could give a sensible answer to.

Oh Oh, I have some...


You're so ugly, you have to put a bag on your head to get your dog to hump your leg!

You're so ugly, when you walk into the bank they turn off the cameras.

You're so ugly, when you were born they put tinted windows on your incubator.

You're so ugly, you have to sneak up on your mirror.

You're so ugly, your doctor is a vet.

You're so ugly, when you were born the doctor took one look at you and slapped your parents.

You're so ugly, you have to Trick or Treat by phone.

You're so ugly, when your mother went into labor your father went into shock.

You're so ugly, when we play peek-a-boo - first I peeked, then I booed.

You're so ugly, you can sink your face in dough and make monster cookies.

You're so ugly, they call you Taco Bell, when people see you they run for the border.

You're so ugly, you make blind kids cry.

You're so ugly, farmers use your picture as a scarecrow.

You're so ugly, every time you go out you get chased by the dog catcher.

You're so ugly, when you threw a boomerang it didn't come back.


Wow... that's just mean!

By this logic, everything we know about much of history is a lie as well.

I am sure that most people know who Harriet Tubman was. She played a vital role in the Underground Railroad leading hundreds of slaves to freedom. She is frequently quoted and held as an important figure in American history. She could not read or write. Are you saying that because she never actually penned any of her own words that we should not believe she ever spoke? To claim that Harriet Tubman said anything is a misrepresentation? We cannot rely on anyone else to pass on messages she gave? Really?

Go back several hundred or thousand years, how much of the population was literate? Are you saying that the only truths we can find about a person are in that persons autobiography? We should not put any weight into what others say about them, only what they actually write about themselves? Really?

How far do you want to take this line of "logic"?

I once read a book called "More Than a Carpenter", it made a good point about Jesus. He could only be one of three things.

1. Lord
2. Liar
3. Lunatic

He claimed to be god in the flesh.

Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?" John 14:6-9

Having made this claim, break down the possible truths in it.
1. He was right and he knew it.
2. He was wrong and he knew it.
3. He was wrong but thought he was right.

Start with #2, the Liar possibility...

While it is possible, most liars would not suffer the fate he did while proclaiming the lie. He never cracked. He didn't back down at the trial before his crucifixion. Even on the cross, he cried out "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34

If he was wrong I doubt he knew it... which leads to #3, the Lunatic.

Look at the Sermon on the Mount. It is regarded as one of the best sermons ever given by anyone. And it is more than just a sermon. Look at what was taught in it. It is a road map to a good life rivaling anything that modern psychology would teach as how to have a well rounded life. Could a lunatic have come up with this on his own 2000 years before the rest of the world could put it together?

That only leaves you with one choice left. he was right and he knew it...

Having said all this I must point out that I am not a christian. I was raised in the church and have studied many religions and find something lacking in them all; however, this book has stuck with me for the last fifteen or so years.

Only for a few more months, but I am under 30 as well.

This is not the thread you are looking for... move along.

I think close is all I could say as well. It is what I have said all along, but close is a relative term also. When I was 16, close meant about 1 year. Now approaching 30, it is several years. A five year gap would not bother me one bit right now, however at 15... yeah umm...

I don't think the focus should be on the number as much.

That's getting way off the topic of cheating and into a discussion about civilization at large. We do suppress some of our baser instincts to have a (somewhat)civilized culture. There is no way around that though. To a degree we do have to give up individual freedoms for the betterment of the whole. Why can't I drive on the sidewalk?

The old saying of "my right's end where your face begins" applies here. Yes, we can do pretty much what we please. There does need to be a distinction made when our actions affect other unwilling participants though. That is where cheating ties into all this. The faithful partner was an unwilling participant because the cheater did not live up to their commitment.

Sex is not a survival instinct either, at its basest form it is reproductive. Most cheaters are not looking to reproduce at that moment so the "natural instinct" argument doesn't really work here. It is irresponsible, undependable people having their fun at the expense of someone else. No, that is never okay.

$.02

If you don't want to be in a monogamous relationship no one is forcing it. If you are in one, than you and your partner made it that way, not society or laws.

The term "cheating" implies that the faithful partner did not consent to the action, that it broke a trust in the relationship. If your relationship is an "open" one than it is not cheating and you can do whatever your relationship has agreed on.

To me it comes down to the individual ability to accept responsibility. If you commit to something, do it. If you don't intend to, or don't think yourself capable of doing something... don't commit to it.

^^ This!



Get up, dust yourself off, and move on.

The age thing is an excuse for disrespect. Nothing good can come off that.

Support can be gained from family or friends. I am not saying anyone is pathetic , weak, or anything else derogatory; however, step back and look at what you have said. If a person truly believes that their "only hope in life is for that special someone to find them", they are likely in for a rough road.

OKCUTIE67 said it really well.



"Want" and "Need". If someone is incapable of being happy with them self, no "special someone" will truly fix that. All it will do is place your view of yourself squarely on someone else's shoulders. That is not fair to you or them. It may make you feel good about yourself for a while, but what happens when the other person is having a rough time. Who is there for them? Your self image is wrapped up in them, you cannot support them...

Not wanting to be single is very different than needing someone. I am at a point in my life where I am starting over. I did not want this to happen; however, I do not need a woman to validate me. I am a good man, and a great father. I do what I know is right. I hold myself to a high ethical and moral standard. I am happy with the person I am.

Your life is what you choose to make it. Get out of the house. Go out with friends. Take a class that interests you. Do something to make yourself feel good. When you feel good about who you are other people will be attracted to that. At that point you can figure out if there is an attraction to YOU and if it worth giving a relationship a shot.

wow... that was a long post...

I do have a lawyer and am confident that I would be awarded custody if it came to a fight. I was more looking for opinions on the idea of the three kids going three separate ways. I am in contact with the biological father in MD and he will allow my son to see me and whichever siblings I end up with.

The thing I am having a hard time with is the idea that if I take my daughter but not my oldest son, they may not see each other anymore. I am planning on moving back home to MD and it would be a while before I could come back to TX to visit him and I am not sure my ex would make any attempt. I am worried about doing what is right for the kids, I do think my ex would take care of our son or I wouldn't even consider leaving him with her.

I don't know what would be the "right" thing to do.

It's not "happy being single" as in you don't want to be part of a relationship. It's just plain old being happy with yourself, regardless of your relationship status. If you aren't comfortable in your own skin and are seeking someone else to make you feel good about yourself, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

I am way too young to say I give up forever as well. I am taking a break from it and have to focus back on myself and my kids. The rest will sort itself out.

LexFonteyne,

Unfortunately, I agree with just about everything you are saying; however, call me a hopeless romantic or whatever, but I don't think that is how it has to be. I know that there are women out there that wouldn't make it a game like that... there have to be, right?



This part I do understand all too well.

I am looking for thoughts on this topic. I tend to be long winded when explaining things or asking for help so bear with me.

I guess we need to start with a little background so the question can be understood. I got married eight years ago. I have known her for fifteen years now. When we got involved again eight years ago she had a baby and was pregnant (two different fathers). I have raised both boys as my own since birth. The older boy's father has passed away now, but he allowed me to adopt him many years back. The younger boy's father stayed involved with his son. My ex and I also share a daughter.

I am now in the middle of divorce. I want to keep the kids, I would be a better parent in many ways (I don't want to get into details here). The first problem is that I have no rights to my middle son. My ex is giving his biological father custody and he is moving back home to Maryland. My ex has agreed to allow me to keep my daughter, but I think she will fight me for our oldest son.

Does anyone have experience with children who are split up in a divorce process? The childrens ages are 5, 7, and 8. If I am able to keep custody of my daughter, should I do it if it means separating her from her brother?

Any thoughts or comments are appreciated.

I know that not all women are like what I described and I do know that one day I will find a good gal for me. When I started writing that post it wasn't intended to be a "it's womens fault" type post, that's just how it came out. I was just trying to answer why it can be so hard to find one of us.

Another reason we are hard to find is because we generally aren't looking. I am recently out of a bad marriage myself and I have no intentions of doing it again any time soon. The couple friends that I have who I would say are good guys have never really searched either. If you want to find a good guy, look for the shy ones. It's no guaranty but it's a good starting point.

Sadly, I think this is true. I know I am a few days late to the party but I wanted to chime in on this one. Us good guys are out there, but no we are not the norm. We have been conditioned NOT to be that guy. But this post is right, being that guys leads to your girl wanting you to change.

Perhaps I (and the girls I have dated) am just too young, maybe in a few years the games can end. I hear women talk about wanting the "good guy" all the time. I am one, many of my male friends are as well. Women walk over you. Being that nice, loving, forgiving, compassionate guy ... you get turned into a doormat.

They say they want the guy that will hold them while they cry about Bambi dying. The guy who will listen when they talk about anything and be interested (if not in the topic, in the fact that she is interested). The guy who isn't afraid to have emotions or hug and kiss his children. Time and again, what happens when these guys are found? They are told to be more "manly". They are cheated on. They are left for the deadbeat "tough guy". They are discarded. Then when they are down and need someone, they are told to tough it out, men don't cry, we drink beer and go fishing...

He is right, there is little incentive to be "that guy"...

Now that I am done sounding bitter ... how about that weather, wow!

Hah, I just reread that and I do sound like a whiny ... well you get it. I will not change what I wrote, it is the truth as this man has seen and experienced it .

I will be thirty five in a few years =)

I was playing though, I put no time frame on finding a serious relationship ... other than not right now.