Thanks for sharing. Its actually quite scary that a person can wake up to suddenly realize that his (or her) marriage isn't working - but then again its true that people change over time and that can be scary too.
It kind of makes one wonder if marriage is becoming an outdated concept and whether it might instead make more sense to enter a 'mutual parenting agreement' on a per-child basis. ... but perhaps that is straying a little over to the weird side.
It is never easy taking such a large step out of one's comfort zone. That feeling you get when you look upon a house in a new light - or with that nagging thought about how your association with it is no longer open-ended.
The truth is that relationships end for a wide variety of reasons - and each involves its own set of challenges.
Of course, in your case there is also a child involved and his or her needs and wishes shall also prove a challenge to cater to. There is no easy answer and its easy for an outsider such as myself to pontificate on the importance of ensuring that s/he still feels the love of the parents. The child's life is changed and while some things will grow easier to cope with with time - new challenges stemming from such will rise to ensure that life is no cake walk.
Of course its a bit of a frying pan and fire situation as remaining in the unhappy relationship would not have assure the child's happiness either. So you will need to make do as best as you can - and get the child as on-board with the process as s/he appears to be interested in being.
Nothing of what I said stems from a person who has walked in your shoes. Take all with a colossal pinch of salt. You are certainly not alone in your situation however.
Its great that a lot of respondents are on time - even though that wasn't the question. :c)
I admit that I don't like to wait any longer than quarter of an hour - and I don't like being more than five minutes late. Any longer and I feel that somebody is being taken for granted. That's me though.
Get your mind out of the gutter. My point is that you're being unpleasant without cause and that's not naughty but simply nasty... If you have nothing valid to contribute to this thread or at least be adequately human then you should simply sit this one out before you do more to show how little people should think of you.
I realize that the last post went somewhat off-topic so let me address the core question in this one.
Only in the context of an imminent exposure to a vulnerable grouping of persons should a prospective employee's background be explored - and such responsibility should be shared by both the State and the prospective employer.
In the event that the employer successfully makes the case that a situation of exposure to the vulnerable is involved in filling the vacancy concerned, the State may run checks on individuals, at charge to the prospective employer, to run the background of the person against the specific exposure scenario listed.
So... a person with a p*dophile-related conviction applying for a teaching position with a potential exposure to younger students would fall foul of this check - while the same person applying for a carer position for an elderly home - not so.
In this way a person who is convicted of such a crime, in the process of being reintegrated, would be advised of what kinds of job positions their conviction may impact success rates for.
This was a very particular scenario, and one could rightfully ask if a convicted thief applying for a position as a storekeeper or any position where a thief's background might or should be highlighted.
Opinion here - but yes it should - but that the depth of such conviction incidents should be variable depending on how many such convictions exist. Perhaps the same should be so for other kinds of offenses - with some being less lenient in search depths than others.
As for this law... from what is mentioned in the original post - I see little evidence of the finesse I've indicated as desirable in the passing of this law... and so it may get messy - even if that shouldn't be an issue with regard to a majority of ex-inmates truly trying to start anew.
Reality check: In the US, of the 2.3 million votes behind bars, less than 16% of them are in for 'violent crimes'.
Why would any State want to limit the ability of 2.3 million persons, many of them a very convenient source of dirt-cheap near-enough-mandatory labour (benefited from by big corporations, not so much 'society') to vote?
And, once you mull the significance of the above over, what is the 'worst' among the violent offenders going to do when it comes to vote?
Even if one forgets that voting is one of the only civil ways granted for a civil populace to defend themselves against State subjugation, voting is called a 'duty' for a reason...
Prenuptial agreements is no more a bad idea than taking out an extended warranty on a new product.
For as long as they are crafted in the interest of both parties (and not handled by any single party) then they should offer a degree of peace of mind. Unfortunately I learnt this too late.
There is certainly truth to the claim that our first reactions to others say more of ourselves than of those others. That being said, the first thing to 'partake' of those others is usually one's eyes. Beauty or any notion related to beauty is that which draws others in, and it is the substance within that keeps them in.
It may seem a little shallow but that's how things work and few can truthfully say that such doesn't apply to them. Chances are that you and I are no exceptions as, presented with our favourite dish on the left side, and being presented with the same thing but pureed on the right, we'd likely snub the dish on the right every time. And who could blame us?
Considering the current 1% approximate fatality rate, no fewer than 525 billion people would need to be infected so as to eradicate 3/4 of the current 7 billion or so population.
FabAngel, I am happy to know that you found my advice to be of interest.
I would be happy to be a good friend to you. I won't say best as I'd hope that you'd have better friends than me (somebody who can be there for you both in the time and place needed). ^_^
Great answers, and that's quite a lot of detail went into (kudos!).
Interestingly specific about the choice of footwear but I guess its no different from guys for whom high heels is a must on women. So is your mentioning it here an indication that you consider the footwear condition to be in any way unreasonable or were you simply pointing out the high importance to you? :c)
As for physical and mental health and fitness - those are generally very fair starting points.
You probably have a pretty good idea of what you are looking for... and perhaps you have an even better idea of what you're 'not' looking for.
While it is fairly natural for any person considering a potentially long-life mate to be selective in his or her approach, at what point does the desire to meet one's perfect match become more of a hindrance than is worth the while?
The floor is yours.
What 'one' thing would you say is 'most' important in whom you're looking for ('or' one thing you absolutely 'don't' want in whom you're looking for)?
What 'one' thing among your preferences would you say is the biggest candidate for being seen as unreasonably choosy?
...
I'll go first of course.
I guess the strongest thing for me would be something that I 'wouldn't' like in a potential mate and that is that she be a smoker. Yes, I know that smokers can be delightful personalities but the habit really puts me off.
If I were to select one thing I'm actively looking for that I'd consider to be unreasonable then it might be my insistence that the 'we' resulting from a relationship have as little impact on the 'me' and 'her' as feasible. Still - that is because I've been hurt before in that department and lost a fair bit of 'me' that I since regained.
The superpower involved here is being able to endure nights of technical sleeplessness and still function properly. That is a skill that I could learn, even if I appreciate my sleep. ^_^
That being said I 'think' that I 'may' be able to provide hints towards more sleepy nights, and it begins with taking note of your brain activity (and caffeine or similar intake).
A quiet mind is more likely to rest and so the disengaging from thoughts about your day, your worries and unresolved issues will help your mind to reach a state more conducive for your body to follow suite.
To put it a little simply - ideally achieve emptiness of thought. Next best thing is to aim for simple thoughts (think about something silly like a triangle floating in your mind's view). Next best thing is to think about sensations and just experience without reading into those feelings. Next best thing is to just think pleasant thoughts.
You meditate so you probably know the benefits of this a lot more than I do.
Another factor is cleansing the sleep space. If you use the same space for both sleep and work then those things can interfere with each other. Even a smaller dedicated space where you do pretty much nothing other than sleep can help put your body and mind into sleep mode.
You 'are' enough and even if you should find yourself alone with the whole World against you - you need to be your own best friend and be there for yourself. Love yourself.
If that takes some lipstick on a mirror then so be it. Nothing wrong with that and nobody is harmed in the process (not even yourself).
Since this seems to be a topic intended for other members to share a little something about themselves, here is one for me.
I have:
Found myself tearing up during emotional scenes in movies and the like. I 'think' that they are often born of a sense of frustration and helplessness (being stuck as an observer even though I 'know' its not real).
online today!SeekingAlone Forum Posts (21)
RE: Dating after separation...
Thanks for sharing. Its actually quite scary that a person can wake up to suddenly realize that his (or her) marriage isn't working - but then again its true that people change over time and that can be scary too.It kind of makes one wonder if marriage is becoming an outdated concept and whether it might instead make more sense to enter a 'mutual parenting agreement' on a per-child basis. ... but perhaps that is straying a little over to the weird side.