Posted on 03/06/2005 8:52:39 AM PST by nuconvert
The male perspective on (ugh) commitment
BY DAVE BARRY
(This classic Dave Barry column was originally published on Aug. 25, 1991.)
Today, in our continuing series on How Guys Think, we address the painful issue of: Why Guys Won't Make Commitments.
The fundamental question is: How can a guy say he's ''not ready'' to make a permanent commitment to a woman with whom he is obviously compatible; a woman with whom he has been intimate for years; a woman who once drove HIS dog to the veterinarian in HER new car when it (the dog) started regurgitating violently after eating an entire birthday cake, including candles, that SHE made from scratch for HIM (the guy), the result being that her car will smell like a stadium restroom for the next five years, at the end of which this guy will probably still say he's ''not ready''? And how come the same guy was somehow capable, at age 7, of committing himself to a lifelong, passionate, win-or-lose relationship with the Kansas City Royals, who have never so much as sent him a card?
I bring this issue up because of a letter I received from a woman named Suzanne, who's in love with a guy named Gary. Recently, after a two-year relationship, Gary told Suzanne that he felt -- this is classic guy thinking -- they should either break up or get married, and naturally, being ''not ready,'' he stopped seeing her. So now Suzanne, according to her letter, is depressed to the point of ``lunging at any chocolate within 20 feet.''
''Dave,'' she writes, 'I don't understand why some men seem to have more access to automatic teller machines than to their own emotions. Gary reads your column, so could you please write a piece about the myth of `hearing bells'; or why guys hate to give up their freedom; or how some guys wouldn't know a good wife if she hit him on the head with her diaphragm.''
Suzanne also asked me to ''hide subliminal messages in the column'' to encourage Gary to make a commitment.
Of course, as a professional journalist, I would never resort to psychological trickery (Gary! Marry Suzanne!). But I do think we need to explore the commitment problem, which has caused many women to mistakenly conclude that men, as a group, have the emotional maturity of hamsters. This is not the case. A hamster is much more capable of making a lasting commitment to a woman, especially if she gives it those little food pellets. Whereas a guy, in a relationship, will consume the pellets of companionship, and he will run on the exercise wheel of lust; but as soon as he senses that the door of commitment is about to close and trap him in the wire cage of true intimacy, he'll squirm out, scamper across the kitchen floor of uncertainty and hide under the refrigerator of Non-Readiness.
This is natural behavior. (Give her a ring, Gary!) Guys are born with a fundamental, genetically transmitted mental condition known to psychologists as: The Fear That If You Get Married, Some Single Guy, Somewhere, Will Be Having More Fun Than You. Married guys assume that unmarried guys lead lives of constant excitement involving Jacuzzis full of international fashion models, whereas, for most unmarried guys the climax of the typical evening is watching ''America's Most Alarming Criminals'' while eating onion dip straight from the container. This is also true of married guys, but statistically they are far more likely to be using a spoon.
Single guys rarely achieve this level of domesticity, which is why they are unhappy. I base this statement on my bachelor friend Randall. At one time he and I were bachelors together in an apartment furnished entirely with piles of laundry and a rabbit who drank beer. This was a stimulating period in my life, characterized by a great deal of personal growth and exploration and illegal naked swimming. But eventually I wisely settled down and got married, whereas Randall never did. So I called him to confirm that he is now experiencing a painful void in his life.
''Randall,'' I said. ``There must be a painful void in your life caused by a lack of intimacy and commitment.''
''No there's not,'' said Randall.
(Don't listen to him, Gary!)
Of course, Randall was only making a brave effort to hide his deep-rooted anguish.
''Randall,'' I said. ``There is no need to hide your deep-rooted anguish.''
''What?'' said Randall.
(Men have been getting married for millions of years, Gary! Don't break the chain!)
Randall's pathetic self-delusion is typical of noncommitted guys. (Raymond L. Wombert, of Toledo, Ohio, broke the chain, and the next day he was hit by a cement truck!) We can only hope that, as men learn to get more in touch with their feelings, they will overcome this foolish fear of vulnerability and realize the benefits of meaningful commitment. (Suzanne may have already won $10 million in the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes!)
I myself have been married for 2,368 years, and can state without hesitation that every single day has been more exciting and romantic than the one before. (My wife reads this column.)
LoL
Barry pong
-Eric
=== or how some guys wouldn't know a good wife if she hit him on the head with her diaphragm.''
Yes, well ... nothing spells "committed spouse material" like a diaphragm
Women should first stop trying to eat their cake and have it too if they're going to bitch about males who do likewise.
Once they've had enough of you, they take half your stuff and personal savings,all done with a sense of entitlement and court orders, of course.
Go back to the old days when we kept our wives barefoot and pregnant.:)
Ducking.
You'd better do more than duck. How 'bout a helmet and kevlar vest?
In a society in which half of all marriages end in divorce and in which over 70% of those divorces are initiated the female partner, I don't, for a second, think that it's men who have a problem with committment. Perhaps women should look a bit more realistically at the marriage vow before they "commit" to it. Then again, perhaps the marriage vow itself should be amended to say the reality of what happens; "till death do us part - or unless a better option comes along sooner".
With the divorce/custody laws the way they are and given the manner in which family courts wreak havoc upon husbands/fathers, I'd have to say, "If you're a male considering getting married, you ought to be committed - to an institution that could treat such lapses into insanity".
I'll mention one case, but there's thousands more just like it. This one is from a buddy in Michigan. His wife had an affair with another man. When hubby finds out, the wife files for divorce and gets a court order kicking hubby out of his own house. When the divorce is fina:
-1- he's lost his house and half his other equity
-2- he gets stuck paying the legal bills of both sides
-3- he pays almost 30% of his after tax income in child support
-4- is only allowed to see his daughters every other weekend and on Wednesday evenings (oops, sorry, the court intended him to be able to see his kids then - but the ex doesn't allow it - he hasn't seen his kids in two years - the court doesn't seem interested in solving that part of the equation).
So, if you're a man considering marriage and you're willing to endure those four things if you future wife entertains the whim to leave you ... then by all means, go get committed.
Wow. Dave's eliciting some heavy responses today.
And here, I thought this was very funny........
"Whereas a guy, in a relationship, will consume the pellets of companionship, and he will run on the exercise wheel of lust; but as soon as he senses that the door of commitment is about to close and trap him in the wire cage of true intimacy, he'll squirm out, scamper across the kitchen floor of uncertainty and hide under the refrigerator of Non-Readiness."
Are you suggesting they trap them with pre-marital children??? :)
Unless you are planning to start a family there really is no reason to be married......
If you need a person to ensure your financial future I guess that would be another reason to be married but in today's world when both male and female have to pull there own weight when it comes to finaces what really is the purpose of being married?
But everyone should at least try it 2 times...LOL..
Exactly!
All she needs is a whim and a scum-sucker (lawyer) and she can own all you have ever worked for and a major portion of all you ever will.
Not an especially attractive committment.
Even if a man is planning on having children there are few reasons to get married (the downside risks outweigh the possibility of benefit). Name a benefit a man receives that he doesn't already have by virtue of the standing relationship. Perhaps among them would be:
-1- the ability for a wife to visit you on your deathbed when you're unconscious
-2- the ability to pass government-sponsored survivor benefits to your wife
... I can't think of many more, but would like to hear them.
For a man the only way to make a custody situation worse is to throw a marriage dissolution on top of it. Without marriage he at least retains the equity he has built up. Granted, if the wife outearns the man then the pendulum would swing in the other direction.
If you want children then draw up a private contract between the mother and the father rather than deal with the blanket contract that the state offers (the clauses of the state contract are never clearly stated - family court decides for you upon dissolution of the marriage; so you won't know until then).
In your own child-rearing contract clearly state what is required of each parent. Also state what conditions and responsibilities will prevail if the two parents decide to abrogate their initial contract (a 50/50 split of time would seem to be most equitable but if the parents dicide differently then write it up and commit in writing to it).
You do raise a valid question: "What really is the purpose of being married?"
And "everyone should at least try it 2 times" would be humorous if it weren't so succinctly, though sadly, to the point. There are some to whom it means so much that they never do it; and others to whom it means so little that they do it with as many spouses as possible.
The Presumption Against Marriage
June 10, 2004
No writer that I know, and I am absolutely no exception, has the right to speak as an authority for all men. No matter what I say about honor and pride some guy somewhere is going to spend his last dime on a dominatrix or propose to a coke whore. There’s no getting around it. It’s a fact. We can quibble and pretend dominated males are exceptions but there are legions of guys out there who will put up with any abuse that a woman sends their way. That being said, I would like to address this column to those not pining for the submissive’s chair or anxiously awaiting a girl on a white horse who’ll allow them to pay off her car note and college loan without saying thank you.
The fundamental question is, “Should a man nowadays get married at all?”
My take on the issue is that the appropriateness of marriage has to be determined on a case by case basis but that presumption, in this day and age, should always be against marriage. To put it more simply, the tie cannot go to the runner. Men, when in doubt, walk away. If you have serious reservations about a woman and you marry her, a number of things may happen. One of them is good. Your negative intuition could turn out to be wrong and you’ll end up having a wonderful, blissful life with your bride. Unfortunately, lots of bad things could happen as well:
1. Your intuition was right and she divorces you. She thereby acquires half, if not
all, of your assets and possessions. The state is thoroughly biased against men and seems to have no threshold for its love of male suffering. This is a very real and tragic possibility.
2. Your intuition is right and she’s unreliable. You experience strange men calling the house and hanging up should you be the one to reach the phone first.
3. Your intuition is right as your experiment with paying for her college education ends in her befriending evil radical feminists who call the house and scream “rapist” at you as a greeting. They then follow up this pleasantry with asking if their “play kitty” is home.
4. Your intuition is right and she spends money like a gay party boy on Fire Island leading you slowly but gaily into Chapter 7.
5. Your wonderful children to be get aborted as she decides they’d take up too much time during the day.
6. You spend all your free time with her at the mall or, far worse, with her family and friends.
Well, you see my point. It’s bad scenario a-go-go. So, in the spirit of the boss from the film Casino: “Why take a chance?”
That’s easy for me to dismissively say but then there’s tons of dopes like this writer who are smart enough to know better but then get married anyway. When I got engaged at Christmas time, Eric Ericson emailed me and said something to the effect of, “Have you lost your mind?”
As it turned out, I had not. I sanely and soberly weighed the pros versus the cons and determined that this particular woman was unlike all the others I had met and that she gave me the best chance of fulfilling my dream of fathering a couple of little critters and having a faithful, intelligent person as a partner. Yet, even with such a rational determinations made in advance, the situation changed and in April I found myself in the midst of an ugly soap opera on which I turned out to be only a temporary, non-recurring character. I was written out of the series before summer hit. For the future, I’ve decided, that unless its near-perfect there is no way I’ll get engaged again.
My decision is not respected by many of the women I know who attempt to use what I call “shame-based” therapy as a means of coercing guys like me into finding a wife. I am at the point where I can vigorously beat back their attempts to manipulate me but I thought I’d share my responses the reader in the hopes that my words can be of benefit in case they encounter similar harassment.
First, I say that the situation had changed with men and women. It used to be that when a man got married he got a deal. A woman would remain faithful to him or, at the very least, cook and clean for him. You’d get something in exchange for what you brought to the table. Today, men get very little in comparison with the past. I have met no end of women who ask in advance if I cook because they themselves do not. When I tell them that I cook everyday they are quite impressed (although I leave out my belief that pre-made salads, brats, and pizza are the height of fine dining).
Promiscuity is another issue. The promiscuity of the modern female makes marriage a very dubious proposition indeed. Who the heck wants to marry a girl that’s had more sleeping partners than a bed at the Motel 6? Not me that’s for sure. I’d rather die a cold and lonely death than marry a skank–Paul Craig Roberts produced a magnificent column on this phenomenon a few years ago. I’ve never understood the argument that “all their experiences make them good in bed” either. If they’re attractive, how good do they have to be? If you ask me, no amount of tricks she’s learned can make up for huge “Tyrone” that her ex-boyfriend had tattooed upon her back (and he was smart enough not to marry her).
Another huge factor to me is the obesity epidemic. While I acknowledge that its not really an epidemic by most definitions, weight increases seem to heavily effect married women. I’m 34 years old now and I’ve met countless females who ballooned to MGM proportions after getting hitched. To me, this is deplorable. I knew one who showed me a picture of her when she was 22. She was better looking than most movie stars. Her body was hard and trim and her face was pure allure, but by age 28 she had gained 65 pounds and wore pants that William Perry could have fit into. I’d look at her husband sorrowfully when she talked of having children. The act of conception with her would have required the courage of St. George. No mere oral dose of Viagra would do. It would require hypodermic injections to get old Bumpty into Humpity form.
My last argument is also my most recently derived one. If its at work where I’m getting harassed about my lack of romance (read: susceptibility), and it usually is, I tell them: “I have plenty of masters here. Why do I need one at home?” No more accurate words could be spoken. I’m ordered to do things all day long at work. When I get home I want to relax. I’m not going to waste time doing unnecessary chores or shopping for things I do not need. The homage we domestically have to pay to our wives is outrageous. Why are they my boss? Here’s what I say now, “Let’s take an IQ test and if you win then you can tell me what to do.” I’ve had no takers yet as I’m not giving out a big enough point spread.
In summation, with women, unless they’re without flaw, my advise it to ride the train for as long as you can but let some other sucker pay for its maintenance and servicing, and always make sure you get off of the route before it reaches matrimonial terminal.
The Presumption Against Marriage
June 10, 2004
“Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn’t they’d be married, too.” – H.L. Mencken.
A great sage predicted I’d take some serious abuse for what I wrote about marriage the other day. He was right but, for the benefit of our readers, I’m going to provide public refutation to some of the arguments and whines that were thrown my way en masse–if nothing else, their vaginations actually strengthened my overall position.
Burn the Heretic!
As I have noted in a previous article, Supine or Fall, whenever a man stands up for himself on gender issues he is immediately accused by women of being unmanly. Why? It’s because we stood up to them, and that’s not right. That’s not manly. We’re supposed to let them walk on us. These women, and those lickspittle male orcs who hobble in their wake, would be wise to remember that the western world now embraces equality between the sexes (at least officially), and that no one should be de facto superior to anyone else. Walking on men, in theory, is not allowed.
Furthermore, it’s a man’s duty to define and defend himself, and I can think of no occasion when this is more true than in making personal life choices. Marriage can be life joy or it can be life sentence, but there’s no room to make allowances for political correctness when thinking deeply about such eventualities. Why would any women be aghast at our pontificating over it? Should we not stop to smell a flower before picking it? I say stop and smell, inspect its structural base, and chemically analyze the ground around it before making a purchase. Perhaps some women became irate at me because they secretly realize that marriage does not offer men the advantages it once did, so their awareness causes them to go after heretics like myself who threaten to make this knowledge public.
I’ll recall the case of Darren Blacksmith here. Darren wrote a “just say no to marriage” piece and got kerosene poured all over him. His offense was such that he quit the business. Luckily, this would never be my response. I’m incorrigible. Harassing me only produces more words. It’ll take more than a few china dolls to deter me from tackling this subject, and if I keep hearing from them, Part III will be even better than Part II!
Nuance Lost:
As much as I hate the word, “nuance,” with its outraged tobacco-addicted, post-modernist French professor connotations, I think that the nuance of my argument was lost on some of my critics. Emotions run so scarlet on marriage that many a female reader did not understand the point that I was trying to make. Marriage certainly can be a very good thing and it is, on the aggregate, beneficial for society, but, in this day and age, PRESUMPTION must be against it. Our default position should be–“it’s not a good move.” That does not mean it isn’t a good move for every body in every situation. There are over three billion women on this planet and many of them could make excellent wives but you should be vigilant and nowhere is this more true than in the uber-spoiled United States. Men have too much to lose if things don’t work out. Think of my friend Robert and the trauma that he went through. Western independent females, as a rule, do not make the best wives. They’re too me oriented for that line of work. One must be very careful indeed. Sit and observe closely before making any decisions.
Who’s Fault is this Predicament?
Is it the fault of free marketeers like myself clamoring for government to get more of its vile fingers into our private lives? Hell no! Ask the individuals who keep voting for political figures who brag about increasing taxes and adding to the burden with which government sabotages our lives. Many of those who automatically look to the state to provide solutions are the same ones who complain about the decline of marriage today. If they didn’t elect redistributionist judges and politicians, men would not fear marriage the way we do. It shouldn’t be, “if you can’t marry a man, marry the government.” Let’s change it to “solve problems amongst yourselves.” I think that’s an ideal solution. If the divorce courts end their war on men then we will once again become more friendly regarding matrimonial vows. Until then, it’s best to harken back to the wisdom of Benjamin Disraeli: “Every woman should marry–and no man.”
An Elite Club:
Women of the sistahood view marriage as being an elite club and want nothing more than full-time membership. They, whether they deny it or not, admire their friends who are married and this admiration can sometimes even be transferred onto their friend’s husbands. Women who are married, even if it’s to users who care nothing about them, are higher on the social plane than women who are single. This is implicit acknowledgment of the sweet deal many women receive through marriage. Personally, I do not begrudge them their social hierarchies and care little about affairs apart from my own, but, these same women, then try to fit guys like me into their social parameters, which is absurd.
Male Diversity Verboten:
This attempt to coerce men into accepting their worldview is quite disturbing but it is also rather comical. Ironically, it indirectly benefits fellows like me as the fact that I’ve been married before makes me seem far more legitimate than most of my friends. I am a man who could be amenable to their terms and line of reasoning, or non-reasoning as the case may be. After all, I made the vow once and bought rings twice, so I must be on their wavelength. Am I not? Not. [1] Yet, my friends, like the infamous Dianabol, are knocked out of the box repeatedly because they’ve never been married before. Why should he be part of the caste of untouchables? They’d say because he’s a 40 year old perpetual bachelor. Therefore, he must be a loser. I even heard a girl say this very thing about him the other day. She assumed that since he was never married before that there must be something wrong with him. Why did she not assume that there may be something very right about him? Dianabol is a prince of man. He exercises five days a week and drinks for four on the weekends. He works constantly, makes serious coin, and has an apartment that looks like it came out of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” [2] Dianabol’s a profoundly educated man with a high thrill seeking personality who strikes the great majority of girls as being the epitome of fun, but his uncomplicated (legally speaking only) past precludes him from some of their considerations. Guess what? Its their loss.
What’s in it for Me?
I found out yesterday that I’m not supposed to be asking this question about marriage. It appears that many women believe our default position should be “why ask why” on the topic (rather than “why me”). One girl even called me selfish for putting forth the proposition! Shouldn’t I be selfish about my own interests? Maybe I’m not supposed to have any interests. Perhaps my having interests is really a plot to dehumanize women. It seems that the message sent is, “you will marry a chick the size of Toronto and you’ll like it!” Ah, no. I think I’ll pass. I don’t want her, you can have her, Toronto’s too big, and socialistic, for me.
Contrary to what many a woman may say, I believe that, “what’s in it for me?”, is the central question one should ask before signing one’s life away. If you derive no benefit then run, don’t walk. Again, of course, there’s the nuance thing as it’s situational. My life certainly is worth signing away in a fight against Hitler or Pol Pot, but I refuse to fall down upon my sword in a scrape for Calphalon pots or Lancome makeup.
Well, you’ve heard what I have to say about the matter, but never forget the triumphant words of Zsa Zsa Gabor before making your own decision, “A man is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished.”
[1] Of course, I say that now but got engaged a second time at Christmas. I suppose if the right youthful Laotian national comes along next year I may have to eat my above words. I’m just letting you know in advance due to a history of snap decisions on my part.
[2] His ex-girlfriend decorated it!
The Presumption Against Marriage, Part II
June 10, 2004
“Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn’t they’d be married, too.” – H.L. Mencken.
A great sage predicted I’d take some serious abuse for what I wrote about marriage the other day. He was right but, for the benefit of our readers, I’m going to provide public refutation to some of the arguments and whines that were thrown my way en masse–if nothing else, their vaginations actually strengthened my overall position.
Burn the Heretic!
As I have noted in a previous article, Supine or Fall, whenever a man stands up for himself on gender issues he is immediately accused by women of being unmanly. Why? It’s because we stood up to them, and that’s not right. That’s not manly. We’re supposed to let them walk on us. These women, and those lickspittle male orcs who hobble in their wake, would be wise to remember that the western world now embraces equality between the sexes (at least officially), and that no one should be de facto superior to anyone else. Walking on men, in theory, is not allowed.
Furthermore, it’s a man’s duty to define and defend himself, and I can think of no occasion when this is more true than in making personal life choices. Marriage can be life joy or it can be life sentence, but there’s no room to make allowances for political correctness when thinking deeply about such eventualities. Why would any women be aghast at our pontificating over it? Should we not stop to smell a flower before picking it? I say stop and smell, inspect its structural base, and chemically analyze the ground around it before making a purchase. Perhaps some women became irate at me because they secretly realize that marriage does not offer men the advantages it once did, so their awareness causes them to go after heretics like myself who threaten to make this knowledge public.
I’ll recall the case of Darren Blacksmith here. Darren wrote a “just say no to marriage” piece and got kerosene poured all over him. His offense was such that he quit the business. Luckily, this would never be my response. I’m incorrigible. Harassing me only produces more words. It’ll take more than a few china dolls to deter me from tackling this subject, and if I keep hearing from them, Part III will be even better than Part II!
Nuance Lost:
As much as I hate the word, “nuance,” with its outraged tobacco-addicted, post-modernist French professor connotations, I think that the nuance of my argument was lost on some of my critics. Emotions run so scarlet on marriage that many a female reader did not understand the point that I was trying to make. Marriage certainly can be a very good thing and it is, on the aggregate, beneficial for society, but, in this day and age, PRESUMPTION must be against it. Our default position should be–“it’s not a good move.” That does not mean it isn’t a good move for every body in every situation. There are over three billion women on this planet and many of them could make excellent wives but you should be vigilant and nowhere is this more true than in the uber-spoiled United States. Men have too much to lose if things don’t work out. Think of my friend Robert and the trauma that he went through. Western independent females, as a rule, do not make the best wives. They’re too me oriented for that line of work. One must be very careful indeed. Sit and observe closely before making any decisions.
Who’s Fault is this Predicament?
Is it the fault of free marketeers like myself clamoring for government to get more of its vile fingers into our private lives? Hell no! Ask the individuals who keep voting for political figures who brag about increasing taxes and adding to the burden with which government sabotages our lives. Many of those who automatically look to the state to provide solutions are the same ones who complain about the decline of marriage today. If they didn’t elect redistributionist judges and politicians, men would not fear marriage the way we do. It shouldn’t be, “if you can’t marry a man, marry the government.” Let’s change it to “solve problems amongst yourselves.” I think that’s an ideal solution. If the divorce courts end their war on men then we will once again become more friendly regarding matrimonial vows. Until then, it’s best to harken back to the wisdom of Benjamin Disraeli: “Every woman should marry–and no man.”
An Elite Club:
Women of the sistahood view marriage as being an elite club and want nothing more than full-time membership. They, whether they deny it or not, admire their friends who are married and this admiration can sometimes even be transferred onto their friend’s husbands. Women who are married, even if it’s to users who care nothing about them, are higher on the social plane than women who are single. This is implicit acknowledgment of the sweet deal many women receive through marriage. Personally, I do not begrudge them their social hierarchies and care little about affairs apart from my own, but, these same women, then try to fit guys like me into their social parameters, which is absurd.
Male Diversity Verboten:
This attempt to coerce men into accepting their worldview is quite disturbing but it is also rather comical. Ironically, it indirectly benefits fellows like me as the fact that I’ve been married before makes me seem far more legitimate than most of my friends. I am a man who could be amenable to their terms and line of reasoning, or non-reasoning as the case may be. After all, I made the vow once and bought rings twice, so I must be on their wavelength. Am I not? Not. [1] Yet, my friends, like the infamous Dianabol, are knocked out of the box repeatedly because they’ve never been married before. Why should he be part of the caste of untouchables? They’d say because he’s a 40 year old perpetual bachelor. Therefore, he must be a loser. I even heard a girl say this very thing about him the other day. She assumed that since he was never married before that there must be something wrong with him. Why did she not assume that there may be something very right about him? Dianabol is a prince of man. He exercises five days a week and drinks for four on the weekends. He works constantly, makes serious coin, and has an apartment that looks like it came out of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” [2] Dianabol’s a profoundly educated man with a high thrill seeking personality who strikes the great majority of girls as being the epitome of fun, but his uncomplicated (legally speaking only) past precludes him from some of their considerations. Guess what? Its their loss.
What’s in it for Me?
I found out yesterday that I’m not supposed to be asking this question about marriage. It appears that many women believe our default position should be “why ask why” on the topic (rather than “why me”). One girl even called me selfish for putting forth the proposition! Shouldn’t I be selfish about my own interests? Maybe I’m not supposed to have any interests. Perhaps my having interests is really a plot to dehumanize women. It seems that the message sent is, “you will marry a chick the size of Toronto and you’ll like it!” Ah, no. I think I’ll pass. I don’t want her, you can have her, Toronto’s too big, and socialistic, for me.
Contrary to what many a woman may say, I believe that, “what’s in it for me?”, is the central question one should ask before signing one’s life away. If you derive no benefit then run, don’t walk. Again, of course, there’s the nuance thing as it’s situational. My life certainly is worth signing away in a fight against Hitler or Pol Pot, but I refuse to fall down upon my sword in a scrape for Calphalon pots or Lancome makeup.
Well, you’ve heard what I have to say about the matter, but never forget the triumphant words of Zsa Zsa Gabor before making your own decision, “A man is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished.”
[1] Of course, I say that now but got engaged a second time at Christmas. I suppose if the right youthful Laotian national comes along next year I may have to eat my above words. I’m just letting you know in advance due to a history of snap decisions on my part.
[2] His ex-girlfriend decorated it!
Oops...sorry about that, folks. My second posted comment, #18, should have been "...Part II," and I shouldn't have let that one get away before correcting it. ...thought I'd stopped it in time. Anyway, I hope you enjoy Bernard's good work.
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.