Posted on 01/17/2025 5:26:12 PM PST by nickcarraway
you’re making free republic look like a tabloid magazine my grandparents used to read...
Of course it was intentional...thus the small mind reference.
I wondered how long it would take. Please, take a bow.
I would have given ANYTHING to be a stay at home parent...
‘ I would have given ANYTHING to be a stay at home parent...’
Why?
Yes, I think I beat the ‘odds’.
I knew a lot of really sh!tty men, before I met my husband. They all just wanted to use, and not commit.
I finally met my husband, and we’ve been happily joined at the hip for over 32 years, now.
But it couldn’t have happened to me, if I had carried resentment, and thought that precedent necessarily indicated the future.
You can have a different future, too; if you just DECIDE to.
I believe profoundly that the way people DECIDE to *think* determines their futures.
When you realize you are in a hole, that’s a good time to stop digging.
You are probably around the same age as me. You need to watch some youtube stuff about dating/relationships now. Its not exactly the same as when we were.
And generally when men won’t commit, its usually because they don’t have to, they are the top 10-20% of men and have no reason to. Women will still date and have sex with them but will be dropped if they want to get serious. Perhaps those were the guys who wouldn’t commit to you.
There are plenty of men who will commit to women, but those aren’t the guys women are after because they are average guys. Now those guys don’t even show up on womens radar as even being real people with real feelings. Today, average guys are invisible to average women. All women think they can shoot for the 8/9/10 guy, and an average girl may actually get a top guy to sleep with her but not marry her. She thinks she now deserves a top guy and her bar is raised, but she cant get one for a relationship, just sex. A top guy having sex with you is easy, getting commitment is hard. But she thinks they are the same, its alpha widow thinking. But because of this she thinks she can get a guy way out of her league, and the ones she can get commitment from, she now feels are beneath her - kicker is, they aren’t, her self value is grossly overinflated. Why? Sex with a top guy isn’t an accomplishment, getting commitment from one, is, and she didn’t achieve that.
So then they “settle” for a guy who is really more on their level or slightly above, but because they feel they arent getting the guy they deserve (alpha widow thinking again) they are resentful and have all these rules these poor bastards must follow, sex is weaponized and turned into reward systems, etc. The future guy pays for what the prior guys did, etc..
Its gotten a lot more unpleasant than when dating 30 years ago. And please stop making assumptions about what I have or haven’t been through, you really have no clue. I’ve had plenty of friends, family and acquaintences experiences to base beliefs upon, others sharing their stories about whzt they’ve been through to help men avoid going through what they have, and just understanding that female relationship strategies are not the same as mens, understanding hypergamy, understanding on some things AWALT is very true.
‘ When you realize you are in a hole, that’s a good time to stop digging.’
Selling your shovel then?
Borrowed it from the barn. Gotta get it back to the manure pile. God bless you and your family.
Here is a thought exercise:
Has it occurred to you that that the human baby is probably the most defenseless animal on the planet? It can't even hold its own head up steadily until it is about five months old.
If we were to put a newborn human baby and, say, a newborn horse, in a barn together, which one would have the better chance at survival? Most animals are on their feet and running around within days, if not hours, of being born. The human baby, however, can hardly move at all for at least several weeks, and can't roll over until six months. How can it possibly survive alone?
When we look at animals that tend to produce litters (dogs, cats, pigs, etc.), that is, animals with multiple pairs of teats, they have an instinctual behavior to nurture their young until their offspring are capable of fending for themselves.
Since you mentioned neanderthals, I wonder how the first human babies were able to survive in the wild without being slaughtered by other animals because of their early weakened state? Did human females, just like their counterparts in the animal kingdom, also have an instinctual desire to nurture their young? Their bodies were also built for nursing, but for just one offspring at a time.
What was the religion that drove the ancient neanderthal women to care for their young and not leave them in the wild to be preyed upon?
Is this "science?"
Now suppose we move past the ancient neanderthals a bit. Let's move the thought experiment ahead a few millennia.
Humanity has matured beyond the Neanderthal to the Cro-Magnon to the Homo Sapiens. The brain has evolved, the body has evolved, but the female still nurtures their young. Now, however, people live in clans for mutual protection. In order for the clan to survive and perpetuate, the males hunt and gather while the females nurture the young and ready the water and fire.
Is this "gender roles" or "imposed societal values" or just practical distribution of chores to keep the clan alive?
Now let's move the thought experiment ahead a few more millennia.
The clans have combined and spread. Over the generations, some gene lines have produced strong men and women, others have produced smart men and women, and still others have produced weak men and women. And some gene lines can even produce a "runt" of the litter, too, amongst their strong or smart siblings.
Families organize around their best traits. The quick and agile become hunters, the strong and large become laborers, the smart become planners and organizers, and the weaker become cooks or artisans or watchers who man the homestead. The son of the hunter becomes a Hunter or a Fisher; the son of a smith becomes a Smith or a Cooper, the son of a cook or a baker becomes the Cook or the Baker.
Before we know it, we have a village filled with families named Baker, Brewer, Butcher, Carpenter, Cook, Cooper, Farmer, Fisher, Fletcher, Gardner, Hunter, Mason, Miller, Potter, Tailor, Weaver, and so on.
To prevent the strong from dominating the weak, to prevent the smart from cheating the dumb, to prevent the old and incapable from suffering amongst the rest, rules of order are formed. To protect the standings and accumulations of families, rules of inheritance are formed. To protect the claims of lineage and descendant wealth, rules of marriage are formed. To protect marriages from corrupting the ancestral line, religions are formed.
Finally, let's move the thought experiment ahead one more time to today.
Is this still an "ancient idea" or a definition of a civilization that arose because the human baby is the most defenseless animal on the planet?
-PJ
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.