Well, from my 45 years of experience being single, there are several "marriage waves" that a person can ride. One is the high school one. Virtually everyone in high school is single and so lots of people meet and pair up then. After that comes the college wave, ditto. Then comes the first years out of college/career establishment phase. A lot of people who meet during this time meet as they are both starting out work. This phase is a little more difficult, because some careers are going to take a lot of time and energy to establish. There are issues that can arise in a woman's life at each of those stages that makes it hard for her to ride the wave to matrimony. After that, the pickings get slim, because a large proportion of the people in your age/social marriage class have gotten married. I think there is a fourth wave, the divorce wave starting in the 40's, and then finally a widowed wave. I'm not sure which wave you rode Mary, but after 35, things get really difficult on the dating scene, no way to sugar coat it. Men who want and are able to accomodate committed relationships tend to get into them by the time they reach 35 or so. Notice I said TEND, this is just a generalization and there are exceptions. And therein lies the challenge, you are looking for the exception in the haystack. They are there, but you have to root around, which is an emotionally trying and time consuming process. If your friends are really serious about the hunt for a good relationship, they will have to do some rather "unpleasant" marketing of themselves, and they will need all the support they can get from you. You are the perfect one to give it, since you're not the "competition." My best friends have been absolute gems this year supporting me trying to find someone decent to date and have a relationship with. It is just unbelievably hard but I won't go on and on about it here because that isn't the subject of this post. I just wanted to tell you Mary that your friends are lucky that they have you. I would have curled up and died long ago had it not been for my wonderful friends. BTW, a book that I have been using to assist me is called "How to Find a Husband After 35, Using What I Learned in Harvard Business School." It is one of the most "out there" books you will ever find on the subject of dating, but I don't mind it so much, you don't have to agree with everything the author writes about. Basically the author's premise is that you can use the same guerilla marketing techniques someone might use to get a new project or business going to get a marriage going. Having worked in a situation where I reviewed lots of resumes, interviewed and hired lots of people, I can say that I do believe that the two processes are similar. I've had to market myself in order to get a job, and I've used my techniques to help friends get jobs. So tell your friends if they can get a job, they can get a man, and if they can make a good "hire" they can choose the right partner. That approach sounds cold and calculating, and to some exent it is, but the book also has lots of suggestions on how to reach out to your friends and neighbors to assist them in your "quest" which for me has actually been kind of spiritually uplifting. My friends now all know I am looking to get married and they are being very supportive. Another book I found helpful that I picked up in the bargin book bin was "The Dating Secrets of the Ten Commandments" and it is written by a rabbi who used the spiritual guides of the Ten Commandments as starting points for a series of essays on male/female relationships. See, that book really isn't about "dating" as much as relationships, but which would sell better, "The DATING Secrets of the Ten Commandments" or "The RELATIONSHIP Secrets of the Ten Commandments." One is a racy anomaly, one sounds preachy. It's all about marketing! :-) Anyway, the rabbi doesn't take himself too seriously, there are a lot of funny bits in the book with some of the serious ideas. It is a little on the schmaltzy side, a little overdone, but there are a few pearls in there.

Sorry to get on the soapbox here, but I can't let some of this stand as "fact." A lot is being left out of this debate. I do not think either sociology or biology has solved the "nature/nurture" debate. Not all animals rape to get sex. Many animals have complex mating rituals. There are many successful mating strategies, rape is only one. Nature is full of biological diversity, it's not one thing or the other. And I don't know where the child molesting, old woman raping and bestiality comes in, since that isn't procreation based. It is violence based and power based, which is related to procreation/survival. But violence and power is only ONE procreation strategy. There's seduction, sneakiness, hormonal cues, and some animals just have sex all the time. Others aren't in the mood at all for most of their lives. And as far as bestiality, I dunno. Dogs sometimes try to hump cats, but sometimes, even when the opportunity is there, they just don't. Not in the mood I guess. And men aren't the only beasts. As for the hard wired nurturing mommies, if she doesn't want the baby, a woman can kill it very easily, and some do. Even primate societies couldn't survive with the level of violence your estimation of "natural" behavior would engender. The brakes aren't just goody goody, they ensure survival of the species. How can a human population survive without consequences, consequences come from your fellow humans whom you need to survive. Higher primates have many types of social rituals, not all of them violent. It's a balancing act. Primate observers have observed the most horrific violence in those societies, and yet it does not happen all the time, why? Because in a species that needs to live together as a group to survive, there are ALWAYS consequences of some sort. Even primates do not do violent things to their friends, because they do not want to get away with it, the relationship meets other needs they have besides their sexual urges. Yes sex is a powerful urge, but it is not the only urge. Survival doesn't just depend on sex--you have to survive and your offspring have to survive for your species genepool to continue. How could we survive if every person was trying to rape and pillage every other person? That's illogical. Human life without consequences is an oxymoron. Imagining a "natural" life for humans where there are no consequences has never existed and never will. It is actually unnatural. Human existence is social, and social behaior is built on consequnces. What those consequences are is a varied as the human genepool. Violence can be counter productive to survival in the long run, which is why violent events in nature are only part of the picture. Animals are violent, but not all the time. You can rape and pillage some people some of the time, but you can't rape and pillage all the people all the time indefinately. And I know enough decent men and women to know that some are just decent to the core, hardwired that way. Whether it is in their genes or what is still somewhat of a mystery and will keep the biologist and psychologists up to their ears in grant money for many years to come. Sorry, but there is just as much evidence to suggest that our hardwiring also includes compassion, a very valuable survival mechanism, in addition to violence. Humans are social animals. As long as we have societies, there will be a need for compassion. It exists in primates right along with the violence. They have the whole spectrum available to them, and so do we. Luckily our brains give us lots of survival tactics, thousands more than even the smartest primate. The biggest problem with violence is if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, while the sweet quiet guy lurking in the corner canoodles your conquest and passes on his genes to the future. Consequnces or not, he doesn't rape because he doesn't have to.

Henrik was due to visit last christmas, but with family coming, and my husband having passed a little over a year before, re-thought the idea, and needed to consider my children. He called and I relayed this back to him, and he wasn't too happy. He said he was really looking forward to visiting, didn't expect me to pay for the ticket, and doing any work would only be me requiring to pay for what was needed. I let him know I didn't think my family would be comfortable with his being here, to which he became annoyed and left me pi**ed off. We haven't spoken since, whereas he was calling almost monthly. I still think of him and what might have been a friendship or maybe more. Please tell me I need to 'GET OVER IT'(said by Cher in one of her movies). Would love a dinner, movie, etc., with a male other than my son! Dating sites? Don't want an older man, and that's what the choices would be for someone my age. Am I doomed to be alone the rest of my life? I'm a very young 71 year old! Single cruises anyone? I would love to take a river cruise to Europe !

You said we did not read this carefully, so I went back and read it carefully. It doesn't make sense. '...He did not date her. He never took her out anywhere they met ata sports bar and she would come in on the nights the deputies were there. Yes he made a mistake BEFORE we were engaged and married. When she came back some time later to tell him she was pregnant he DID tell her then that we were then engaged it was a few months later. She told him then that she was going to get an abortion. She then fell off the earth. Then even later she contacts him to tell him she kept it. He told her he was getting married. She was furious but she did try to get him to spend time with her. He said no. We got married.' Then later you said: 'She admitted to me clearly that she had "hoped" that he would stay with her because she was pregnant. NOT. He told her from the minute he found out that it was not going to happen and they were both at fault.' To recap: they met two nights in a row in a sports bar and had sex. They never had a date. So logically, there was no expectation of affection, friendship, love, or commitment. She disappeared out of his life, he disappeared out of hers. She never saw him again (per your DH) until two or three months later she popped up and told him she was pregnant. He said he was engaged. She said she was getting an abortion. She disappears again out of his life and he out of hers. Again they apparently both agree that there is no expectation of friendship, love, or commitment. Their actions indicate that they both accept it was a one- or two-night stand that meant nothing, that the pregnancy was unfortunate but meant nothing to either of them, and that they each had their own lives and no interest in each other. And yet, you said: "She admitted to me clearly that she had "hoped" that he would stay with her because she was pregnant. NOT. He told her from the minute he found out that it was not going to happen and they were both at fault." If she hoped he would stay with her...(and stays means he never left her, as in he continued the relationship after the two one-night stands)...why would she tell him he was getting an abortion and then drop off the face of the earth. Why wouldn't she be 'furious' that she was told otherwise. But that's not what happened. She told him she was pregnant and getting an abortion, he told her he was engaged and wasn't going to marry her--and then she (according to the story you heard from your DH) dropped off the face of the earth. Then out of nowhere about six or seven months later, she calls him and says the baby was born and she kept it. He says that he is just about to get married and suddenly 'she is furious' and tries to get him to spend time with her. But she does not let him see the baby much and she does not want child support. This also does not make sense. Why would she suddenly be 'furious' on their 4th contact in abt 10 months? If she wasn't furious when he stopped picking her up in the bar (if he did stop), and she wasn't furious when she told him she was having a baby and he responded that he was engaged, why would she suddenly be 'furious' once the baby is born and she hears for a second time he's getting married? If she's going to be furious that he's getting married, why wasn't she furious the first time she heard it when she told him she was pregnant? If the girlfriend and your DH really didn't have any contact except two one-night stands, and a quick conversation about pregnancy and abortion, why would she suddenly be furious about him about to get married when she hadn't had any contact with him for six or seven months and there'd never been any understanding of love, friendship or commitment between them? Do you really believe that she just dreamed it up in her head without any input from him? As you describe it, they were two rather disinterested strangers in the night at the time of conception, spent a few minutes together around month three discussing the pregnancy, abortion and his engagement; and then after the baby was born she popped up and is furious that he's getting married? Kelly, Kelly, Kelly...this does not make sense. Why was she furious? Because she believed there was going to be a different outcome, because she felt betrayed. And she felt that way because he led her to believe that she meant something to him. However, the story makes sense another way. He was seeing her and you at the same time. He proposed to you but kept her on the side and kept his engagement a secret, but he keeps seeing. She comes up pregnant and tells him and expects to get married, move in together, or move the relationship to another level of commitment. He waffles and sooths her with some excuse or some promise to delay her expectations and she's satisfied and continues to gestate and they continue to see each other. There's no talk of abortion, that's a story your DH came up to explain to you why he didn't confess the pregnancy earlier and to hide his continued involvement with the girlfriend. Then after the baby is born she expects him to step up to the plate, or she finds out about you. In any case, your DH is cornered and lets her know he's going to marry you, not her. She becomes furious at this point because she realizes she's been betrayed and used. There's another red flag. Per your story, she's a welfare no-account who hangs around bars and sleeps with strangers without caring about a relationship or commitment. Easy come, easy go. So she spent two nights running with a sheriff's deputy and then never saw him again. No big deal. So she's pregnant. She'll just have an abortion. No matter. It's just a thing that happens when you hang around bars and pick up strange men and have sex with them and then don't intend to see them again. Although maybe it's something you can use to get a man to marry you. So she's a calculating floozy who picks up strange men in bars and sleeps with them without a commitment unless she gets pregnant, in which case she wants to marry them, even though per your story she's spent two nights and one additional conversaton with him, when he told her he was engaged--maybe a total of 24 hours? Yet that's enough for her to disappear out of his life for months and months while carrying his child, then pop up out of nowhere and suddenly be furious that he's not going to marry her and that she "hoped" he would because she was pregnant. How would she know he was marriage material, a nice person, someone she wanted to spend the rest of her life with. How would any affection have time to develope if they only spent two nights together and then had nothing to do with each other at all for the next nine or ten months? If that were the case, there'd be no 'hoping' he'd marry her, there'd be no fury when she realized he wasn't going to. Also--considering she's a dellusional promiscuous bar floozy--your DH never questioned this was his child. He seems pretty confident that the dna test is going to prove him the father. Confident enough to spend money on the mother and attempt a relationship with the child. If she were just a easy bar pick-up, he'd be wondering if it were his child or not, or why she thought it was his child. There must be other candidates for fatherhood. And he'd hold off on the getting involved in her life until he knew for sure. Except it looks like he already knows for sure. And he knows because they've had more of a relationship than he's letting on to you. She's not a dellusional promiscuous bar floozy, she's someone he knows pretty well and has known for a while...and maybe if he plays his cards right he can keeps this going. Get his wife involved in his girlfriend's life--appeal to everyone's noblest sentiments by making it all about what's BEST for the baby. Interesting that she didn't want child support or anything from him except to see him alone with her baby (their own little family). Child support would not have created ties that would complicate her moving. He would send it to FOC, they'd record it and forward it to any bank of her choosing anywhere in the world. And not accepting child support does not avoid complications of her moving her child away from him. Whether he pays child support or not, if he's the bio father, he has rights, one of which may be to prevent her from moving. So what's the real reason she didn't want child support? Maybe because he's providing more than state guidelines to her secretly? Or maybe because she's accepted that he's married and he two timed her and she just wants to get away and not have to think about him again. I don't know. I just think that someone who 'hoped' a man would stay with her because she was pregnant and who was furious when she realized he was marrying someone else, and who will only get him visit his daughter alone in her apartment when her son is gone--would also insist on support, because support officializes a ties she seems to want. I don't know the particulars, but I do believe that you have been mislead. The story doesn't make sense. I know yo have to defend him, have to believe what he's told you. It must have been very painful for you to know he cheated on you with her just before you became engaged. This can't be fun and you seem to be making the best of things and seem to be trying to be a good sport. I just fear that you are gullible and are likely to be hurt.