As many, nay most, of you know when internet dating, one has the option to choose whether or not your prospective date has spawned children or not.
The options are:
No
Yes, we live together
Yes, we sometimes live together
Yes, we do not live together
I've noticed of late that a fair number of men opt for "no" and "yes, we do not live together".
These same men very often are looking for women in the late 20s to mid or late 30s age range.
Now, if a woman has a child or two, and is within that age range, chances are those children are young. Or at least not old enough to live on their own. This is particularly true of women in urban centers such as New York where the likely age for having ones first is 30+
So, these men would prefer that their prospective date has young children and doesn't live with them over having young children and living with them.
Something is deeply wrong with this picture don't you think beautiful people?
For example: there's me - option 1 - the youngish and lovelyish airheadgenius, going about my business and raising my two children, aged 5 and 7. I am responsible, amusing, capable, hard working and a whole heap of fun.
Or, there's "alternate-me" - that would be option 2 - who has given birth to a sprog but elected to not raise them. Not even have them live in the house.
How on God's green earth is "alternate-me" a better option?
Oh "alternate-me" sounds like more fun I hear you cry.
Oh yeah, she's a barrel of laughs - so flighty and fun that she decided to give away her offspring.
This brought to you by the "Bureau that monitors men that don't think things through"
(Also published on http://www.airheadgenius.blogspot.com Come on a my house. Stay a while. There will be candy)