Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
I was attracted to the topic of dating women with children and got quite a bit more than that.
 
Funny to think that the review of the film Turbo was going to also cover Sister's Sister as well!
 
Here are some of my notes on this show from the part of interest to me, and my comments about those notes. I think my notes are accurate to what was said in the show although it wasn't supposed to be verbatim.
 
 
- FDR2465 The Truth Behind Your Sister's Sister - A Philosophical Movie Review
- 26 Aug 2013 16:21 GMT
- Stefan Molyneux looks at friends helping with children, the reason behind marriage, dating women with children, how babies from young mothers were handled in the past, adultery, no fault divorce, alimony, the collapse of marriage and the subsidy of sex. 
 
- 29:00 When you have a baby, ladies, your value in the dating pool drops way down low
 
She loses points, sure. But a very special lady can recover them.
 
- Never date a woman with kids; That's messed up! 
 
Well, I did that. Could we say instead that it's problematic and challenging?
 
There was a great deal to learn and deal with and I wouldn't recommend it for non-philosophical persons.
 
 - Trouble of how involved you can get with the children during dating..
- What if you have 2 kids that are hers and 1 who is yours. Favoritism difficulty arise much?
 
Funny you should say that. She did have two kids, and now we have three. And I've never encountered any favoritism difficulty at all. I reflect on that from time to time because it's an issue I hear about but it's simply not part of my relationship with my kids for me or for them. I guess it could have been, if things had been done differently.
 
- You may threaten alimony from the X in many situations
 
Not in our situation.
 
- Single women with kids might get sex, but that's about all they can hope for now
- Needs to be said...even though it's so obvious, like a round world.....
 
I'll accept that single mothers from failed relationships have a hard task ahead of them putting things right by establishing a pair bond. But it is far from impossible. Liabilities are not fatal, it depends on what assets you have to use to offset them.
 
- These men are low-rent, low-self-esteem, ridiculous men
- Confident, successful, a winner, mature: he'll have the brains to see how unproductive and expensive and he wont do it
 
Can't accept that about myself but am willing to be corrected. My self-esteem has been a slow build all my life and this will go on. But I've always been proud of my confidence and maturity, more so now than ever realising what I was up against. I've never done so well as with the support of the family I have now. I think it would be a sure sign of doubt in myself if these comments had bitten me harder since it's a very contemptuous generalisation directed at my family and I. But I don't feel any defense mechanisms coming on, it's all clear on the western front.
 
 
- If you're not there for the first 5yrs you'll never have any authority
 - "YOu're not my dad!"
 - Yet, you'll be spending plenty of time with them
 
I met my eldest children when they were 7 and 9 and I am in authority. I am listened to, I have credibility, I am confided in, and of course I spend large amounts of time with them. Need I say it is the authority of reason, not the authority of seniority or height or financial controller? We do peaceful parenting, drawn from my work in economics, philosophy, libertarianism. Like the charge of favoritism above, I reflect on this one from time to time and expected early on to be hit with a "you're not my dad" but it never came, and now I know it never will.
 
- Why do that? Because you're such a hopeless looser of a man that you figure this is the best you can do. And payback for this is sex
- If you could do better, you would do better!
 
I hope I'm not out of line in suggesting that Stef's life experience with this might date from his own solo mother and the men she saw. My payback is in love and respect, in cooperation and support. Sex has never been this expensive for me but if it were then 'hopeless looser' would be a fair call.
 
- Teen women who have babies are basically saying 'I"m an idiot'
 - Terrible taste in men and no deferred gratification. 
 

I don't know in what universe pregnancy and childbirth are gratifications! It was poor taste in men, this has been corrected. It was poor judgement, costly to her and to the children, but this was put right. And I think it's fair to say that not all that many women can come back from making such a big mistake and then set things right 9 years latter.

 

Mine did, we've been raising an impressive family for over four years now. I'm sure she did the right thing and I'm proud of my judgement in joining this family and making it new again. Don't want to be in a Frankenfamily with Emily Blunt and I appreciate some understanding here of the risks and adversities, yet they can be overcome. If you meet somebody, share their values, fall in romantic love, there is no need to rule them out as this podcast would have it. But nobody is saying it's going to be easy.

Posted

Whilst I think it's great that you and your partner have managed to overcome these obstacles. They are still the exception that proves the rule. I've met my fair share of teenage single mums (through my work) and for the most part they attract 'low rent' partners and thereafter it's an uphill struggle for them to become of quality themselves to a quality man that is willing to take this option. However, still very happy to hear of the occasional exception, good for you man.

Posted

Thanks buddy. I think as an observation and generalisation it's hard to dispute.

 

But for this audience of very clever people listening we can make our own fate. In my imagination solo mothers or guys contemplating dating them are listening to the FDR show, pick this one out, and are shamed. Perhaps to the point of leaving the conversation or of forsaking what could have been a great relationship. I'm not thinking of the population of mums you are referring to whom would probably turn cross-eyed at the mention of the word "philosophy."

 

 They are still the exception that proves the rule.

 

Be damned if I ever understood what that expression amounted to except my logic circuit being shot!

Posted

"The exception [that] proves the rule" is a frequently misused English phrase. The original meaning of this phrase is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "The exception that proves the existence of the rule."

 

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

 

To help you understand.

 

1. There are a lot of obstacles

2. Because we have philosophy (or some other exception), we overcame the obstacles (The Exception)

3. Most people do not have this exception/benefit

4. Most people will not be able to overcome these obstacles (The Rule)

Posted

Thanks for that Wesley, it actually does make sense after all. But I don't think I've ever seen it used properly, ever.

 

Must say that it doesn't fit my linear thinking brain for a "NOT on Sunday" to imply a "ELSE, yes" let alone prove it. I have similar problems where I like to say "My house" implies to my wife (but not me) that it is not hers simultaneously. On the up side thought I think that's what lets me code.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.