Regards,
Posted on 11/15/2025 7:25:53 AM PST by Taxman
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Well yeah there’s the mainstream churches and then the conservatives. Every denim has its conservative cohorts. I am Presbyterian and any naparc.org affiliated church enforces a biblical sexual ethic, for example.
I believe you could have rephrased that. In the old days before contraception, women had children as long as they were sexually active; and short of denying their husbands, there was little they could do about it. Benjamin Franklin, one of the smartest men who ever lived, was the eighth child of his mother.
Bingo.
Plus women being raised as pure narcissists. The combination is deadly to continuing society.
The idea was that "men are not trustworthy!" That "women can't rely on consistent provisioning by loyal men - so women have got to provide for themselves!"
Getting repeatedly "pumped and dumped" by the top-tier (top 15%) of all men further reinforced that dogma.
And by the time they have reached their mid-30s, it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy!
Regards,
“Flies spread disease...so keep yours closed!”
And for the girls: “Take a dime with you on dates. Hold it between your knees.”
Regards,
Yes, in the abstract! Just like you can drag any drunk driver out from behind the driver's seat of his wrecked car and ask him, "Is it safe to drive a motor vehicle when you have a B.A.C. of 0.2?" And they'll all answer in unison, "Of course not!" Doesn't change the fact that they will assiduously ignore that fact, suppress their awareness of it, or argue that they will be the exception.
I’m further gonna guess that they make a conscious decision to have/not have kids.
That "conscious decision" and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks!
20-year-old women are not more mature / do not make "better" decisions than 20-year-old men - maybe even less so, insofar as (if they're halfway pretty) they'll have experienced much of life (and ALL of dating) on "easy mode."
Regards,
FALSE ANALOGY!
You could have asked any pastor, rabbi, general religious thinker, or corner druggist of the 1940s if 1) mass-producing and distributing "The Pill" and passing out condoms to junior high school students; and 2) loudly proclaiming through the mass media that "ain't need no man!" / removing ALL societal disapproval of promiscuity, illegitimacy, and divorce would have a deleterious effect upon Western Civilization, and they would have been appalled at the very notion!
But by now, the Overton Window has shifted so much that you would be hard-pressed to find a clergyman daring enough to make any sort of negative pronouncement on the subject!
Regards,
I’ve heard that the chances of a man marrying a woman goes down significantly if they’ve been going together for over 2 years.
***********************************************************
Me and wifey were together for 13 years before getting married, lived together for 12.
Finally married her on practical grounds, and she was my Best Buddy. I wanted her to be taken care of if I went first, and that little piece of paper takes care of a lot of stupidity on the part of others. Thirteen years later we’re still doing fine.
Fun part: I basically kidnapped her one Saturday, told her get in the car we’re going to Laughlin NV. Told her after we were on the road we were going there to get married. Her response was basically “how fast can you drive”. Done that day.
Not always... there was a cultural habit among the poverty-stricken Irish to delay marriage so as to limit the number of mouths to feed. Also, things like family obligations due to their being no welfare and things like wars tended to interrupt many a courtship.
Back in the ’30s-’40s, one of my Irish-descended aunts “went steady” with her fiancé into their mid-thirties—but he was drafted and spent much of WW2 in Europe in an essential role, so much so that he was held over in France to do after-accounting of supplies. He finally got home months after the war ended, they finally got married, and had their first child at age 42. Another aunt on the other side of the family took care of her invalid, widowed mother until her mom's death when she was in her mid-thirties, and finally married and had her kids in her late thirties.
In both those stories of decent, lower-middle class American people who grew up in the Depression era, the men bided their time waiting for their sweethearts (we have a stack of very sweet love letters from their times apart), as both of them worked to save money for a house for their eventual marriage. The women got jobs as secretaries or clerks, and the men went into trades. An out-of-wedlock pregnancy would have resulted in losing a job and not getting a good reference (women) and wrecking their standing in their churches, neighborhoods and possibly their families (both).
Exactly what it was intended to do.
You are committing the very grave "Naturalistic Fallacy!"
This would be equivalent to my indignantly arguing that I am a "slave" to gravity because I can't simply leap into the air and float along the breeze like a bubble!
By that same twisted logic, men, too, are subject to biological and cultural slavery. For example, men have a much higher sex drive, but society "frowns" on men running through the streets impregnating every female they encounter.
After all, in nature, some species - even the very advanced Dolphin - would become extinct (fail to maintain replacement levels) if the males of the species didn't rape the females.
Likewise: Men have a life expectancy far lower than that of women. This is blatantly unfair and so society should allow men an extra six to eight years during which they can simply breeze through life, taking whatever they want off the grocery shelves or out of the shop windows, that they need to sustain themselves!
And your reference to barbaric Islam is a prime example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
But even if I were to accept your premise that women are "enslaved" by their biology (because only women can bear children): Humanity is not ready for / cannot come to grips with a female sex totally unshackled from that obligation.
Apparently, if truly given the choice, women of all nations and cultures would rather have at most 1 or 2 children. Women - unless forced by men - would thus choose to not maintain replacement levels. Humanity would go extinct.
Regards,
That means they’re underwater by 95% on the hardware alone.
Often, the time to pay them off takes decades.
For large investments, it is extremely rare to pay them off in a few years.
Thanks! Shoulda known that.
Unfortunately, it might very well be that, given complete freedom, women would, on the whole, rather not bother with reproduction.
Given a secure State providing material security (protection and provisioning), women might, on the whole, decide that they don't really like men all that much.
Or they might "decide" (it wouldn't be a conscious decision - but rather the inevitable result of millions of tiny, unseen decisions) that they prefer a world with only one man for every hundred women.
Thus "freed" from their biological constraints, women could choose freely - and make men entirely redundant.
Regards,
But that has resulted in millions of women being alone, childless and miserable.
The Wall always wins!
The unsavory developments of the past 50 years have benefited 85% of all women, and at most 15% of all men (and generally only the most reprobate of all men).
However, it appears women in general in the USA, and probably most, individually , do not overall benefit from these changes.
I posit women in general, are less happy today than they were in say, 1960. Rather hard to measure, to be sure.
Such terms as “happyness” are very difficult to know with any precision.
Albion Wilde: I believe you could have rephrased that.
Then you rephrase it!
What would you suggest? "...older mothers bear more culpability than older fathers?"
"...older mothers are more responsible for birth defects than older fathers?"
And we are not talking about Ben Franklin's era.
We are talking rather about the post-Pill era.
Regards,
“lie of Feminism.”
I don’t see how
I’m conservative and see women thinking that taking care of children isn’t enough is the problem. I’m not saying don’t get educated or work - I’m an engineer. But when kids are abandoned in favor of careers, nobody wins
Bwahahaha, that should have been “freeped” Code Pink! I hate autocorrect!
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.