Posted on 12/22/2005 8:37:43 AM PST by Sonny M
Unless it happens to be an older man and a woman 20 years his junior. Don't you see the problme here. If marriage is good then it's good for all regardless of the ages involved. Why are you so against people finding happiness with each other?
and I'm arguing against people who see women as a class as less than themselves at best, or meriting contempt and derision at worst.
I've not seen anyone make statements such as these. I have seen people state that SOME women, liberals mostly, do merit comtempt. (After all, all liberals merit contempt)
Through this thread I have tried to beat my head against people who are blaming women (under the guise of blaming feminism) for their own failed relationships.
I've not seen any of this on this thread. Who are you refering to?
I see bitterness alright, but it wasn't from the women who came to this thread merely asking to not be lumped in with all the 'horrible Harpies' that the men here think represent all women.
Again with one exception (who you roundly slapped upside the head quickly. thank you) I've not seen this on this thread. In fact most of the women on this thread appear to be wonderful people. (I hesitate to say all since I didn't read some posts closely)
I object to using a woman as a means to your end.
You kind of have to have a women to have babies. What's wrong with respecting the natural order of things? And if she wants children also, which would be a requirement to get the the marriage point with me anyway, wouldn't she also be using me to achieve her desired ends?
I object to the fact that you have some woman's life all mapped out for you and you don't even know her yet. Her input on this possible future is not needed, and will only get in the way.
Now HOTD, you have to admit that you're not making sense here. It's not like I'm planning on forcing someone into slavery to be a brood mare or anything. I'm looking for a woman who wants kids, just like I do. If her plans don't agree with mine then OBVIOUSLY she's not the right women. It's remarks like these that make you seem bitter
If a guy right out of college said "I want to find a women who wants to be a stay at home mome and have babies with me and build a life with me" would you accuse him of the same thing? Or is it just older men who are not allowed to want children?
I object to the idea that women are worthless if they aren't a womb for your seed or a caretaker for your children,
In regards to marriage, a women who doesn't want children is worthless to me. What's the problem with that. Should I be forced to marry the first women that comes along? Would you want me to marry someone who couldn't possibly give me what I want out of life and have both of us be miserable until we die? Or would you rather I find someone who is looking for the same things as I and who wants to build a life with me?
and I find your rejection of women who are your age, who have perhaps suffered the same loss you have, and are trying to raise kids alone herself would be undesirable because the kids aren't your spawn.
I've never met a woman yet who understands the need to ensure the survival of your line. I am the last of my line. I have the right to pursue happiness by seeking a wife who will help me to preserve my name and genes
Excuse me but I hardly think that should matter. They're kids. They need a dad.
They certainly do. What gives you the right to force me to be that dad? Why are you trying to force me to raise someone else's kids instead of my own? Wouldn't the resentment of these kids I am forced to be saddled with totally out weigh any benefit from having me around in the first place?
I reject that since 'female companionship' is as easy to find as the corner bar, men have no reason to seek a deeper more committed life with a woman unless he wants kids.
For most men these days it just isn't worth the risk. You get married to someone who is sweet and innocent or so you think and the next thing she's running around behind your back and divorcing you for everything you have. Why risk it if you're not going to have kids? This is not my ideal choice of life but it is what society is today. Reform divorce laws (repeal no-fault divorce), recover the importance of being a virgin until marriage, restore the sanctity of marriage (adultery should be a crime punishable by imprisonment. Run around with someone else's spouse and you should lose everything), roll back most feminism and the sexual revolution and then things will be different.
Beyond childbearing, she will just interfere with your golf game, I guess.
If we are not going to have children together then why should I take the risk that she is who she says she is and that she's not just out for a quick income?
I object to the idea that marriage has been destroyed by the fact that you can't just cut and run from it, that it's expensive when kids are involved. Marriage ~should~ be expensive to leave when kids are involved.
You totally misunderstand. Marriage has been destroyed by the fact that you CAN cut and run from it easily, kids or no kids. Marriage is supposed to be forever and with the exceptions of adultery, abandonment or abuse there should be no divorce. None of this "I just don't love him anymore" or "she got fat and I want out" noise. If you say "I do" then you had damn well better work to make it Heaven on Earth because there's no way out except dying. If one partner breaks the marriage contract they lose everything, kids, house, joint finances, all tangible properties of the marrige, everything. They get their clothes and get shown to the door.
Have a Merry Christmas
DEAR LOSING FAITH: Long-lasting Lithium batteries for your B.O.B. are highly recommended. Stock up!
Why?
I'm gonna leave that unread. I'm no longer interested.
Good day... Merry Christmas to you.
Read what the others have posted....they're seeing the same thing.
You want a baby factory. And she can be 20 years younger, but hey! You want kids by God, and any woman in your own age range is just not good enough if she is barren....even if she's your soul mate.
It's purely creepy. That's the only way I can put it.
He was agreeing with her darlin' (at least that's the way I read it).
I look forward to someday having grandkids. I see the fun that my in-laws have with my daughter.
I have always wanted kids. 3 or 4 at least. But my wife's health problems prevented that. I treasure my daughter more than most can imagine. She is both my only child and the only piece of her mother that I have left to hold onto. She is bright and beautiful and mischievious like her mommy was. On days when I can't make it through I can hold her or hug her and get strong again for her.
I don't understand why some seem to think it's wrong to want more kids.
I'm curious about something. You said your wife couldn't have any more children. Now that she's gone, you're insisting that you must have more children. However, if your wife hadn't died you would not have had more children. So what then?
I don't mean to intrude into the conversation, and appreciate your indulgence if you choose to answer. I've been lurking on the thread and have wondered this since you started posting.
If your greatest desire in this life was to have kids with a woman you love, then would it make sense to find a woman to love who wants kids also? What is so creepy about finding someone who shares your dreams and goals in life?
HOTD married her husband partly becuase they had similar interests. (correct me if I'm wrong here) If they had met and he hated animals, no horses, no dogs, no cats, nothing and was not open to have pets of any kind ever, would it have been possible for him to be her soul mate? I don't think so.
Could you marry a die-hard democrat liberal communist? (triply redundant I know). I couldn't.
If it's not creepy for you or HOTD to reject suitors based on their dreams and goals why is it creepy for me to do so?
Do you see the double standard you are applying here?
Now how many safe childbearing years does a typical 45 yr old woman have? How can she be my soul mate if we have different goals and dreams?
Secondly there seems to be an assumption that I am not considering love in this at all. That is a wrong assumption. How could I spend the rest of life with someone whom I didn't love whole heartedly? How could I love someone who didn't also love my child. Love is built on a common interest base. Common values, goals and dreams. If someone is so different from me that we could never go in the same direction (I want kids and she doesn't) how could we ever travel life's road together.
I know that God will bring me a women who will love me and my daughter like her own flesh and blood, who will want to have children with me, and who will want to be a wife and mother first. Why is it wrong for me to want that? Why is that "creepy"?
Because,
in spite of all your words,
you're still simply
shallow.
And creepy....
You reject women in your age range because they can't produce for you. You want a brood mare....lable it what you want, but fertility is #1 and all else falls second.
If I posted here that "I want a 25 year old and not one day older because I need a strong buff stud who can keep up with me physically, take care of my property, animals and house....plus be really purdy to look at"...
Do have ANY idea how many "You selfish, shallow twit!" Posts I would get (and a lot of Atta girl! Pms ;) )
You can't see it because you have this holy "I want my own children" opera playing in your head.
Well,
I agree that maybe you need to consider that you've had your child and look for a nice woman in your own age range.
You know, be an adult about it/ sarcasm.
Actually Maureen Dowd may be actually be incredibly intelligent and business savy.
First, take a large troublesome segment of the population = lonely women.
Then, shower them with compliments; lumping them all as wealthy, educated, intelligent, smart, fun, etc.
And conclude that all of their problems are none of their fault.
You have a business product everyones raves about and guaranteed to purchase!
I hereby submit that the word "soulmate" be banned from usage here by intelligent people - the word is now overused and quite often used by people who don't know what it means - today it stands for 'everything i want/demand without having to change ANYTHING about myself", when what is should mean is "Someone I feel deeper and deeper in love with after a long period of time".
You cannot look for a "soulmate" - you GROW ONE. Ask a 20-something girl what a soulmate IS. The answers will surprise you in their shallowness and are all about HER. We men are expected to be perfect from minute one, the minute we deviate one iota from the "soulmate" blueprint (ie catering to her every whim, desire, or tantrum), then it's divorce court and a shrill, bitter, mean enemy for the rest of your life. That's without kids and a sizeable fortune.
"Soulmate" is about as useful and attractive as those cheesy "dream catchers" everyone was selling for a while - they're meaningless and trite and only serve to flag someone as having little imagination. Yes, I would lose interest in a woman if she had one hanging from her rearview mirror.
Therefore, the word "soulmate" should be stricken from the language.
(Can you guess which word is over-quoted in personal ads these days? When I was stupid enough to try the online thing, the word was enough to make me move on, regardless of what else they had to offer - I refuse to be scrutinized by someone shallow enough to demand "perfection" without any effort. A lot of women seem to think "soulmates" are their right, and have no clue how they happen, and are grown. They seem to think they come with the granite counters in their McMansions.
No, they are grown, alongside children, emergencies, strife, the good and the bad, sitting beside a hospital bed, or every night washing dishes together.
Soulmates are not a commodity, they are a rare blessing that are earned. I'd like to think i have what it takes to reach that goal, with the right woman...but it's still not a guarantee. I'll settle happily and comfortably with best friend and lover.)
Not really, no one here has mentioned it, but the NY Times quietly demoted her.
She draws more complaints then praise from those lonely folks.
It doesn't help that, even on the left wing side, she is considered a dumbed down version of Krugman.
I'll gladly answer. I love talking about Michele.
My daughter was born in 2000 after waiting about 10 years for Michele to work up the courage to try again after a very painful miscarriage in 1990 (baby died but pregnancy didn't end). We had decided early one to have three or four kids. That miscarriage derailed us for a long time.
Complicating the picture is Michele's epilepsy. After the miscarrige her chemical balance got way out of whack and she was having about 20 seizures a day for the next two years or so. She finally became rebalanced around 1998 and returned to work and a more 'normal' life
We decided to try agian in November of 1999 and we were pregnant by February 200. Michele had a wonderfully good pregnancy. seizure free and very very happy. Delivery was a snap (so she says) and we planned to have another child.
After Autumn was born her neurologist retired. The new guy was married to the head of the pre-surgery unit at IUmed center. He said that Michele was a prime candidate for a lobectomy to basically cure her epilepsy.
So do we have more kids now or do we wait a couple years and get Michele well. Of course we waited.
The surgery was a huge success. From Jan 2003 to Sept 20 2005 she had 12 seizures. Far fewer than the one a day to one a week she had been averaging.
Here's where the problems come in. After the surgery they put her on an SSRI. Apparently it is common practice. We figured we'd be on the drug for a year and then get off and resume our family. Didn't end up that way.
Th SSRI family of drugs caused mania in Michele (happens in .04 pecent or something like that). To counteract the mania they put her on Ativan. It caused severe depression. When she went into the hospital to treat the depression, rather than look at the drugs she was on to perhaps find the cause of it they just upped her SSRI. She was pretty well balanced until Sep 04
Taking drugs was always a sore point for Michele. She hated it. So in Sep 04 she was feeling pretty good so we started to come off the ativan. Ended up getting her out of balance again and I finally looked at the drugs themselves. (What's happening with my wife, she's never dealt with any of this before). So, John engineer gets on the web and finds that SSRIs cause mania and Ativan causes depression in some people. Tracking her drug changes and manic depressive episodes perfectly pointed to the drugs as the culprit.
Talked to her psych and he agreed so we got on a plan to come off the drugs. Unfortunately in the mean time Michele was exposed to a preacher type who supposedly dealt with deliverance and healing but actually did cult type mind control/hypnosis. The combination of the drugs she was on (hypnotics) and the mind control really messed her up (Please see wellspringretreat.org for details on this sort of thing).
I figured that once we got her properly stabilised and cured of the drugs and cult exposure we'd start again. Unfortunately it wasn't to be.
Michele died of a seizure in bed on Sep 20, 2005. It was unrelated to the mental struggles she had been going through. Just her time to go home is the only thing I can come up with.
If Michele had lived but was unable to have any more children I would have treasured her as my wife and the love of my life. When I said "I Do" I meant it. We decided early on to make our marriage good and it was. (I can go on and on about how we were to each other but it always means more from a third party. Freeperette andie74 was Michele's best friend. Ask her about us if you desire) So here I am, a relatively young man with a young daughter. Life in shambles. Michele had always told me that if she died first she wanted me to remarry. And Autumn needs to have a woman in her life as mom. And I still haven't fulfilled the biblical direction to go multiply.
So it's a foregone conclusion that I will remarry. Now it's just waiting on God to bring the perfect woman for me into my life at the right time. It just so happens that the perfect woman for me will want to have children with me.
Some seem to have difficulty with that. I still don't know why
shallow.
And creepy....
Again I ask why. If God created me to want to have kids why is it shallow or creepy for me to want to have kids?
If I posted here that "I want a 25 year old and not one day older because I need a strong buff stud who can keep up with me physically, take care of my property, animals and house....plus be really purdy to look at"...
Now if you found this 25 year old stud and he fell in love with you and was everything you ever wanted and wanted the same things you want, would it be wrong for you to marry him? (assuming you're single that is)
You can't see it because you have this holy "I want my own children" opera playing in your head.
Let me ask this. Do you have children? If not did you ever want children? From HOTD's pictures it looks like she has none and I seem to recall reading that it wasn't a big deal for her. Perhaps your own "I don't really care if I have kids" perspective blinds you to the views of someone who deeply desires children?
I can't come up with any other reason why you seem to think it's wrong for me to want children yet everyone else can have what they desire. (HOTD gets her horses etc)
Pretty much.
335 posted on 12/22/2005 2:57:57 PM CST by Richard Kimball (Tenure is the enemy of excellence.)
Now how is your post to me any different than RK's post to Rosie that he got slapped down for by HOTD?
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.