So what are the chances of meeting a life partner at 45 ?

[darlingish]

In a nutshell met ex h at 18 and was married at 19 , had 4 dc and now at 45 I'm single !
Been separated 18 mths and started divorce proceedings.
Was very unhappy for many years and am blessed to be free now .
Met a lovely man in the spring and had my first romance and although I love him to bits and vice versa it cannot last for many reasons .
Wrong time wrong place .
When he leaves which he will early next year we will be friends for life and may well come back together one day but certainly for the next 5 years he will be on the other side of the world .
So ... I have 4 dc, 2 at home still .
I have a a demanding job .
No family support so very busy , ie up at 6 and don't stop until 11 every day as ex rarely sees his dc.
I do know that I need to be happy on my own and not rely on a man to make me happy , so that a future relationship will enhance my life not be the sole making of it iykwim.
Kind of feel like the next ten years is my time to get happy , enjoy life and my dc and do the dating I never did in my youth .
I read on the internet that apparently a woman finding a life partner in her mid forties is more likely to be killed in an accident !
It's made me think OMG .
I know it's ok to be single but after the summer romance I've had with my lovely man friend I would so love to share the rest of my life with the right person ( pref him but hey ho ) .

So what are the odds ?
Is it really that bad out there ?

Nice one, @slight. Always doubt people's good faith, it brings them right in.

If you don't think my grandmother - surrounded by her loving children and grandchildren, and the husband who adored and would do ANYTHING for her because of her countless ACTS of love for him and the family - was happier than a divorced 45-yo woman wanting a life partner but severely disadvantaged in the dating market and blaming that on men, then you're delusional and to be pitied.

I do wish each of you well though. Projection isn't always accurate, @slight.

Wow. You talk about projection!??? And yet, your benchmark for happiness is your grandmother!!? You conclude that she was as fulfilled as a woman can be, because she was surrounded by children and grandchildren (and a husband!) she must have been happy?! And we are not, we can't be, because whatever else we have, we don't have husbands!

Well, we have freedom, we are financially independent, we have friends. This is one thread where we are discussing this subject. Not being able to find a man doesn't make me unhappy and that's what older men can't fathom.

I have family!! I have great, funny, clever children and I am fond of my own parents and siblings etc too. You don't believe me because you can't see how a woman could be happy without a husband, she is an object of pity in your eyes, but I am content on my own. I have no fear of being alone. It may well happen. I'd like to meet somebody but only if he is a really decent human being. I would choose being single for the rest of my life a hundred times over life with an entitled, older misogynist who thinks that women ten years younger than he is are 'older women'.

You are a misogynist of the highest order to assume that a woman without a husband must be pitied. I left a husband! A tall, wealthy, handsome, educated one for that matter. I chose to. I have not regretted it for an instant. NOT one single solitary instant.

I do wish you well though. Even thought you're a bit of a sad case.

What on earth are you doing on mumsnet? This is hardly the natural habitat for the poster who thinks that women should look to their grandmothers' for clues to happiness!

All the best.

Just want to say that my 65 year old DH does not think like manohman does.

GIN

That is true, I did once briefly date an older man and he wouldn't have come out with this nonsense! He didn't think that a woman needed a husband. He could see I had a nice life with or without him. And he never resented anybody male or female their financial freedom or opportunities in the workplace. Although he was always tired by ten thirty, he was younger in his mindset for sure. This manoham is like my father, only my father knows now to be careful what he says because my brothers would eat him for being sexist/ridiculous. My father is in his 70s though. I can't believe manoham is ''only'' 55.

Thanks Helena.

"Ive just finished reading City of Sin London and its Vices by Catharine Arnold. Covers the sexual history of London from the Roman slave girls right through to the 1960s 70s 80s and mentions stuff that happened as recently as 2009"

Helena have you read Elaine Showalter's The Female Malady? If not, I recommend it. She's very good on the way in which women have historically been more likely to be diagnosed with MH problems for two intertwined reasons. First, behaviour which is seen as normal in men is medicalised in women - see for example women confined to asylums for "promiscuity". Second women have often struggled with conflicting roles - both the angel in the home and weaker therefore needing the moral guidance of men but also the moral arbiter supposedly curbing men's excessive animality. The roles imposed on them also lead to mental ill health because they are so unsatisfying and restricting.

Also worth reading Hall's and Davidoff's Family Fortunes. They demonstrate the ways in which gendered roles are class based - so this idea of woman as the moral guardian confined to the domestic sphere is largely by and for the middle classes. Upper-class women and aristocratic women tend to have much more freedom and working-class women, well they worked. But they also show the way in which that public/ private male/female division stemmed in large part from Evangelical Christianity and a backlash against the excesses of the 18th century.

The model of male--female behaviour put forward by Evangelical Christians was then taken up by men of science in the mid-19th century. Science then was actually fairly new (as distinguished from natural philosophy and natural history which are now labelled as science, though that's not what they were called at the time). So for men of science it was important to prove that their study was useful. Unfortunately one of the ways they went about this was to try to solve the problems caused by both men and women questioning gender roles. The interaction between science and society, sex and gender is then much knottier and difficult/ impossible to cover on internet forums but Ornella Moscucci and Nelly Oudshoorn cover it well in their work on the intersexed.

@slight: You don't discuss or argue in good faith. You're intelletually dishonest, or maybe just sloppy (oh, yeah, and you had no comment on my pointing out that you conflated me and some other commenter and so completely mischaracterized my comments). It's impossible to correct all your distortions and willful misunderstandings in every post. Examples:

"she must have been happy?!"

No. I know she was happy. I was in her presence many times.

"And we are not, we can't be, because whatever else we have, we don't have husbands!"

I didn't say that or, as far as I know, even imply it. This thread is about a woman who WANTS to find a partner. Women who are happy enough without husbands should not marry. Why take the chance?

"You don't believe me because you can't see how a woman could be happy without a husband, she is an object of pity in your eyes,"

I never said I don't believe you. I do, on most points, but you just make shit up and attribute it to me, so it's hard.

"An entitled, older misogynist who thinks that women ten years younger than he is are 'older women'."

I defy you to show me where I said that. Women 10-15 years younger are indeed "younger," and my sweet spot. Total fabrication. Is that the way to convince people? And again with the preference=entitlement crap. I'm entitled to nothing at all from other people but that doesn't fit with your buzzwords I guess.

"You are a misogynist of the highest order to assume that a woman without a husband must be pitied."

Again, a product of your mind, not my pen. I pity a woman who thinks my grandmother wasn't happier than a woman alone who WANTS a husband but can't seem to find one. And blames "shallow" men for her difficulties.

Then other posters read what you write, assume it's accurate, and pile on. Thanks a lot, @slight.

I'm here because I clicked a link to the thread and thought some might be interested in what I have to say. Leaving aside my age compared to a given reader's age, and of course my highest-order misogyny, I am, objectively, a pretty good catch. Echo chambers are boring, I know what I believe and don't need to hear others repeating it. I'm beginning to think this is an echo chamber.

The "projection" jab was me saying that, because you're not engaging in good faith, naturally you assume anyone who disagrees with you isn't either. That's not always true.

Not sure if I'm bucking the trend here but I'm 46 and my last two partners have been 13 and 10 years younger respectively. One relationship lasted for 8 years and the other for five.

I've never done OLD, reading about it on here scares me a bit tbh, so I tend to meet men when I go out, or via work etc. It's younger men who are attracted to me. I did go out with one chap for a few months recently who was 42, not overweight, reasonably fit and healthy etc and I found he just wasn't lively enough - wanting to go to sleep at 10.30, sex was a bit meh and I found that I was bored a lot of the time and felt like a pest whenever I suggested doing anything.

Personally I don't have a 'type' it's just a matter of liking something about someone, whether it's their humour or whatever.

The five year relationship guy who is now 36 would happily commit to me longer term, he's willing to forgo having children and all that stuff to be with me, it's me who won't go for it although we do still meet up and have sex sometimes.

Sorry a lot of that probably isn't relevant to this thread but I just want to say that absolutely you can meet someone, no matter what your age.

Manoham, you need to read your OWN POSTS back. YOU are the one who confuses women 1) discussing OLD on one thread on mumsnet and sharing their observations with 2) being unhappy - and comparing 'us' to your grandmother. You said I was to be pitied if I didn't believe that I was as happy as your grandmother omg. Nuts.

And then you tell me I don't "argue in good faith". As well as being a misogynist, you're not over-burdened with intelligence. The two often go together.

@thel: ""sweet disposition" cringe

So I'm wrong to want to be around a pleasant woman. Well, my chances will improve greatly if I abandon that one, that's for sure.

I love where you say that "objectively" you are a good catch. Ha ha.

You mean, subjectively.

Not even to an unpleasant fat woman your own age.

How could any woman with an IQ over 90 remain 'pleasant' in your company????????

"So I'm wrong to want to be around a pleasant woman. Well, my chances will improve greatly if I abandon that one, that's for sure."

It's pretty clear that you don't like women.

I know some tall, dark, handsome, masculine, dominant men who do terrible things. They're not on Mumsnet losing their shit. I'm just saying.

I apologised to DrStill about 2 pages back for attributing one of your dreadful comments to him. BUt as you were the one who said it, what do you want? 100% CREDIT for being an asshole. I'm giving you that.

And if other posters pile in, it's because your arguments and your poiints are offensive, not just to me or to other people on the thread but to all women.

Assuming we all want husbands! If only we were thinner, and more sweet natured! maybe some fat old guy in his fifties would marry us and then we could hope to be half as happy as your grandma

I've dated men up to 30 years older. I'm a kinky sexual submissive. I've been told by more than one dominant man that I am "very feminine", have "feminine energy", am "so very female" and "just an absolute woman".

And I still think manohman is a dozy twat.

@slight: "You said I was to be pitied if I didn't believe that I was as happy as your grandmother."

More fabrication. You don't do nuance I guess.

Then, instead of addressing my documented points one by one, you just pull out "you're stupid hahaha." Nice but you forgot "lives in mom's basement," "little dick," "never seen a woman naked," and "can't get laid." You're slipping. And still sloppy.

You're being ridiculous. And you're the one using buzz words. You brought your grandmother in to this! which was 1) ridiculous, 2) sexist given the time she married and the choices she would have had & 3) completely irrelevant on this thread given that we don't know her, live in a different time 4) what the hell does it prove? that a married woman was allegedly happier than some single women? You don't know how happy we are, so you can't compare. And yet, you did! So I'm not slipping! YOU are! You're inviting me to tell you you have a small dick, . I can pick apart the nonsense you type. I couldn't be bothered thinking about the size of your old dick. I am presenting your own ridiculous posts back to you and you're ashamed and therefore very defensive and accusatory.

I'm hidinng this thread now unfortunately given that there are other posters whose posts are interesting and funny. You have ruined it.

I fear that you are enjoying this discussion, which can never go anywhere given that you say something ludicrous, then deny it in the next post, accuse me of using buzz words (NO the word misogyny is not a buzz word). You drag in your red herrinng grandma as though that proved something to somebody, and the piece de resistance, you "objectively" label yourself a catch. Too funny..

I think rather than anecdote (My grandma was happy! No, I am!) it's probably better to look at data and peer-reviewed research. Being a logical and analytical person, I prefer these. Anyway this www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201405/23-ways-single-people-are-better-the-scientific-evidence is a good starting point, though as the author says, more research is needed. However, at the moment, the evidence points to single people being healthier than those who were married. And funnily enough, slimmer.

Losing my shit, lulz. I'm calmly making my points and replying to reasonable statements and questions. You are the ones resorting to personal insults and blatant mischaracterization of - and bald-faced lies about - whatever I say.

I like pleasant women. You describe yourself as pleasant, like it's a virtue. And then ridicule me for the way I say it. I like feminine women. You brag about how your man calls you feminine, like it's a virtue. Then ridicule me because I say that my grandmother, who was OPPRESSED!!!, showed some femininity. But then, I'm a "misogynist of the highest order," ergo wrong about everything, even things you clearly believe. Your self-awareness level has gone into the negative range.

Agree with me or not (yeah, I know, not). But it's just nasty to resort to dishonesty and meanness to try to justify your disagreement.

Anyhow, goodbye, good luck. Get even fatter, sharpen your sarcasm, cultivate your bitterness and victimhood ("Men don't want me so they suck!"), I'm sure great things lie ahead.

"And funnily enough, slimmer."

That's not surprising at all. If you live alone, you don't have the temptations of fattening food that others have bought or have to share meals that aren't good for you.

That's fine, I'll go. Anyone paying attention or reading carefully can see that you are the one who continually moves the goalposts, refuses to grasp even the clearest nuance, and just lies about what I say. I laid a few examples out and you simply refuse to - because you can't - show where I'm wrong about your dishonesty. Have fun.

SlightFox, will PM you if that's OK

Thankyou for the recommendations Gabilan. I will definately look them up