I'm in the midst of a D, my STBX is living with his girlfriend, I can't seem to buy a date, I'm not truly looking, but when is it the "right time" to date? I've heard wait until after the D is final, wait 2 years....wait, wait, wait....obviously my STBX didn't wait. I feel like no one wants me or would even be remotely interested in me, I feel like I have nothing to offer anyone. Am I doomed to spend the rest of my life alone, become an old maid? That thought scares the pants off of me. I'm not saying that I must be married at all times, but I want a relationship that I can depend on my partner, not be dependant on my partner. Am I asking for something that is impossible to find?

Normally, I would jump all over your hubby for living with his G/f while still married. And I am going to do that! Not only is it a bad idea for him, it is a worse idea for her. I noticed that you were the WS. Can we assume the divorce is a result of that affair?

How long to date? At least until you are divorced and it is final. After that I suggest that you do things with groups including the opposite sex but wait a while to date. I tried to date before a year was up and kept pulling back since I realized I wasn't ready and the women I dated realized it also.
Now, I am more ready to date and it is going a whole lot better. At only 43, you have a lot of good years ahead of you.

Ah, Dana, this one is easy to answer. You write:

"I feel like no one wants me or would even be remotely interested in me, I feel like I have nothing to offer anyone. Am I doomed to spend the rest of my life alone, become an old maid? That thought scares the pants off of me"

When you feel like you have somethig to offer, when you are no longer afraid of being alone and are comfortable with the idea that you can be happy alone or in a relationship, you will be ready to date again. Don't do so until you understand these things.


I understand Justin's admonition about not dating until the D is final, but I see from your post that you have had no contact with your H since 4/03. The D is just legal formality at this juncture, since you have been emotionally divorced for two years, five months. Is that enough recovery time for you? Probably not, but only you know that.

I also agree that at 43, you have a lot of good years ahead of you. But understand that dating for those of us over 40 is very different from what it was when we were in our 20s and 30s. Be patient.

The "right time" to start dating is different for different people. The two years after divorce is a good general rule of thumb, but circumstances differ.

Personally, I believe, once you reach a point where you don't feel that you "need" to have someone in your life, you are healthy enough as an individual to have someone in your life.

It's ok to date soon after a divorce, but you have to realize that it will all be mixed up in your healing process and that any relationship that develops should not be permanent.

Good Luck!

When the student is ready, a teacher will appear.

A review in probabilities

OK, so in the forties, lets get the new relationship probabilities estimated:
At midlife, in easy round numbers:

80% of the population has been married once.
The other 20% of the population will never get married, or are predisposed to the same gender.

If the divorce rate is 50%, then 40% of the population is available again, assuming that all the divorces are MLC's in the late 30's and early 40's.

Of the 40% of the population remaining, 20% are of the opposite sex to you. . .

Of the 20% of the opposite sex available, you don't want to pick the WS and since we don'tknow the percentage of WS versus BS in the mix, we will assume its 50-50. Therefore, half of the 20% of the available population is 10%.

So, now in the 20's in college when very few were married, the available population was 50%, or all the opposite sex. Now the available pool is reduced to 10%.

In that 10 percent, there are 16 personality types. if you assume the best match is 2 letters different, then there are 7 out of 16 possibilities. . . .

which leaves a 4 percent availability pool. . . .

pretty depressing!

wiftty

Gee. Thanks for that uplifting and encouraging set of statistics.

CS

Wiftty,

I have one word for you analysis: Nonsense!

Whlie, Wiftty's analysis isn't correct, but he does make an excellent point. Guys and gals, as we get older there are fewer and fewer potential partners available. We can either accept this or we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend reality doesn't apply to us.

There are eight women in my office in my age range, who are single. All are divorced. All are heterosexual. One is in a cohabiting relationhsip, but has no intention of ever marrying again. The rest have no desire to date and would not even consider marrying again. I have men friends who feel the same. Still there are plenty of people out there in their late 40s to 60+ looking for a companion or an SO, so don't despair. But do understand that it's going to take longer and .....

I'd like to throw something out for consideration. I've read here and experienced in my own life that people over 35 who have been married and are now single again, approach dating and relationships in the exact same way they did when they were in high school or college. I'm not so sure that this is appropriate. The dating game of yesteryear and the expectation of how a relationship should progress when we are 21 cannot be the same as when we are 45. We aren't kids anymore and we have some mileage on us. Our needs are different now and so is what we want from a relationship. So doesn't it make sense to rethink our ideas about how, who and why we date and how our relationships progresss?

I'm not sure of the best approach to this yet, but I'm growing more convinced that unlike in our salad days when we sought romance for romance's sake, we should now seek friendships and expect that one of those friendships will progress into something deeper, and that we don't attempt to force this, but rather allow it to happen as it will. Maybe if we do this, we wouldn't get into that date and dump cycle that has thrown Faith1 for a bit of a loop.

I'd like to read other's thoughts on this and alternative ideas to dating and relationships.

Quote

When you feel like you have somethig to offer, when you are no longer afraid of being alone and are comfortable with the idea that you can be happy alone or in a relationship, you will be ready to date again. Don't do so until you understand these things.

CheckUrHeart! So well said!!!

I was going to say the exact same thing, but you beat me to it! This goes along with what I said about "healing" on another thread--you can't be a good partner to anyone if you're still feeling the hurt and pain from your previous relationship.

LOL!

in estimation and probabilities, there is no such thing as correct or incorrect, there are initial estimates, worse than initial and better than initial, all with assumptions because that's how its done.

do black swans exist?

if not, is that only because one has never seen a black swan?

is lack of evidence proof of an absolute certainty?

wiftty

"in estimation and probabilities, there is no such thing as correct or incorrect"

Careful there wiffty. There most certainly is. Actualy the probability (P) is a calculation of the accuracy of an estimate or hypothoesis. For a one-tailed hypothosis, the null hypothosis is accepted if P <= 0.05. In a two-tailed hypothosis, P <= 0.10 is adequate. Lower P's are acceptable for some estimations. Remember that error is cumulative, therefore lowering P. If you have some factors in an analysis that are not terribly reliable there are descrete methods in some applications to allow you to account for this -- understanding that x% of respondants will not answer a survey honestly is an example. But if many of your factors are unreliable, then the probability that you will accept a false conculsion is too high and you must reject it. Most of the numbers you use in your analysis are assumptions, with no basis in fact. Moreover, we do not know what method you used in your analysis; it may not have been appropriate. Therefor, your conclusion has dubious validity. But even if it were correct, I live in a metro area of 4.2 million. So your 4% estimate gives me a pool of 168,000. That ain't bad. Even in a small town of 10,000, there'd be 400 people in the pool.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Tru dat!

Quote

do black swans exist?

if not, is that only because one has never seen a black swan?

is lack of evidence proof of an absolute certainty?

wiftty

....WIFTY, you used this same example on one of my threads about 3 years ago. It's amazing that I remembered it...but as I read it today, I realize how strange that last line reads:

Is lack of evidence proof of an absolute certainty?

You don't have to prove an absolute certainty. Proof and evidence is usually reserved for hypotheses, not "absolute certainties"....LOL

If one was to truly determine whether Black Swans existed, the proof wouldn't have anything to do with whether someone SAW one or not. I would assume that someone would research whether black Swans can actually occur GENETICALLY...

My Mom has a saying that could be easily applied here, although I admit, it doesn't have the pseudo-scientific feel that WIFTY's has:

Trust none of what you hear or read and only HALF of what you see.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Careful about what? LOL! being off in an estimation or a probability within a generalized discussion on a web bulletin board? or from the statistics police? I listed all the assumptions, I never said I tested them nor did i say they were facts. [color:"blue"] one readers comment: he does make an excellent point. [/color]


correct mathematical theory . . . I believe that I laid out all the ASSUMPTIONS for a generalized MB discussion which is all the discussion was about. [color:"blue"] one readers comment: he does make an excellent point. [/color]



LOL! orapples? [color:"blue"] one readers comment: he does make an excellent point. [/color]



[color:"blue"] one readers comment: he does make an excellent point. [/color]

LOL!

aeri, its just a generalized probability discussion about current population size in relationship to past population size to keep perspective on our emotions and emotional expectations. the black swan discussion is directly relevant to event probability, which is related to the pool size. . . . the event probability goes down in relationship to the pool size, but that does not mean that the perfect person is not in the pool, he/she could be standing on the diving board. . . . from when we were last dating. . .

any desires to discredit the generalized probability discussion with facts is fine, except that there were no facts claimed, only assumptions for an estimation for a bulletin board discussion for a reminder of perspective.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> its all a matter of perspective

wiftty

wiffty, I did scientific reasearch for 10 year, so I know a bit about hypothosis testing and probablity. You statements are not true, that's why I warned you to be careful. You seem a tad argumentative about this which is uncharacteristic for you. So let's not bother ourselves with discussions of mathematics. Perhaps I should have zeroed in on your bottom line: that you find this depressing. Is there something else going on with you that you'd liek to share with us?

Quote

one readers comment: he does make an excellent point.

Considering how many times he mentioned this, I think it's pretty safe to say that WIFTY wants to be validated for bringing up a good point....soooooooooooo:

YES--you brought up a good point, WiFTY!

Let's discuss perspective

I began with a discussion about how at a point in our lives, the mating pool with an MBTI factor for success thrown in, is a small percent of the population. Whether or not the precise mathematics are valid or not, the general estimation is rather small. The learning point is to understand that one has to look farther and wider to find a compatible mate. This point has been made recently in response to people who are disappointed with their perception of the speed of finding an adequate partner, and whose expectations may be a bit too high.

Check immediately challenged the basis and the fact of the discussion from his perspective, his knowledge of statistics perspective, yet acknowledged the point of the discussion as a valid point. . . which is a clear desire of Check to establish and assert awareness of his perceived position of wanting to be considered someone to listen to. People who tell others to be careful, seem to think that they must be guardians for others. If Check thinks that warning me that i might be tailed by the statistics police, that's fine, but i see no black and white lights in my vicinity. no problem, except for the orapple point, he had to make the assertion that the basis was wrong, but the point i was trying to make was valid.

When people disagree, put down or discredit the discussion as the opening gambit, they are trying to establish a position as more knowledgable, yet when they agree with the point or observation, its quite obvious that they are interpreting the discussion on a personal level first, ego related. . . then on an intellectual level second. my only point that after all the disagreement with methodology and basis of assumptions and fact and calculations on my post, he still agreed with the point.

The metaphor of the black swan is to establish that event probability for human behavior is not a certainty based upon past behavior. The future of human behavior and human events are uncertain, and much more uncertain that most (generalization) people tend to realize. Therefore, just because one hasn't found an ideal mate match, does not mean that one cannot be found. . . it justmeans that one has not yet been found. . . and when the student is ready to learn, a teacher appears. . .

I don't need to be validated by anyone on this board, nor do i find this depressing, because its just reality. This is just a bulletin board for discussion, differing points of view, some with egos, some without. My goal of posting is to help some people keep a realistic perspective. . . with some examples for people to think about.

wiftty

WIFTY:

I think what most people find very unpalatable about your posts is the fact that they are SO negative, as "realistic" as you may think they are...

A couple of thoughts:

First, the numbers above are quite vague - when we talk about "percentage of the population", are we talking about "population" meaning "all people" or only those in our age group? How narrowly is the age group defined? Have we already ruled out people who are a different race, religion, or other factors? I could go on and on, but my point is that without defining the starting point, the subsequent reduction factors are unclear.

Second, there are some arbitrary reduction factors, such as 50% for former WSs. That should not be an a priori reduction by half, it should be one of those MANY things we decide on a case by case basis. Some will accept it, some won't, but it's not as automatic a factor as gender or sexual orientation.

Finally, even if we accept the numbers as they are, I don't find them depressing at all <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. If it is true that in my age bracket, having weeded out all the obvious noncompatibilities, there are 4% who are compatible with me personality wise, then I think that is pretty darn good. It is saying that one out of every 25 women I meet has been "screened" to be available and compatible with me, which is right in line with Harley's idea of "date 30 people before settling".

Anyway, even though the numbers don't make much sense to me, I think the result is not at all depressing.

AGG