I know it's shallow, but the only single women within a 20 mile radius look like this: 
And I, hunk that I am, look like this: 
I...I just can't settle.
Posted on 12/11/2003 7:55:35 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
A pair of magazine articles recently revealed some intriguing facts about marriage and singleness in America. U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes that Americans are getting married later in life. And, according to reporter Michelle Conlin in BUSINESS WEEK, "The U.S. Census Bureau's newest numbers show that married-couple households . . . have slipped from nearly 80 percent in the 1950s to just 50.7 percent [of the population] today. That means that the U.S.'s 86 million single adults could soon define the new majority . . . What many once thought of as the fringe is becoming the new normal."
As a result, the way we view many things -- singleness, marriage, friendships, and institutions -- is changing dramatically. For instance, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT's article focused on the so-called "Tribal Culture," in which single friends form highly organized groups that serve as a kind of substitute family. One such group, in Denver, has 110 members. But that number pales in comparison to some of the groups that are forming online at websites like Friendster.com where literally thousands of people meet to form social networks.
The existence of these "tribes" and these statistics tell us something about ourselves, the way we're wired. We are social beings: We need family and community -- even in a culture that prizes autonomy above all things. But BUSINESS WEEK's reporter sees a quite different meaning in the trend she calls "the new normal." Conlin argues that benefits like insurance and Social Security, which have always gone to married couples, should also be extended to singles, cohabiting couples, and homosexuals living together. She writes, "Just because matrimony is good for society doesn't mean that outmoded social benefits are."
Now, first let me say that it's important for Christians, when examining this trend, to avoid pointing fingers or acting as if singles are somehow inferior to married people. Surrounded by a culture fearful of commitment and more interested in "hooking up" than dating, even those who are interested in getting married often have a hard time finding anyone who shares their interest. Also, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, not everyone is called to be married.
However, there's a genuine cause for concern when people cite widespread singleness as an excuse to promote policies that denigrate traditional families. The benefits we give to two-parent families should have nothing to do with how many families there are. It's a recognition of the great importance of a stable family structure to our society, in all kinds of areas -- the strength of the workforce, the emotional health of kids, and even the physical health of adults. These benefits are one way that we encourage standards that reflect the way we were designed to live -- standards like lifelong faithfulness to one person and a committed mother and father for every child. The more we insist on ignoring these standards, the weaker our culture becomes.
Marriage already has enough strikes against it in a culture that largely considers it just one more "lifestyle choice." We don't need to discourage it even more. "The new normal" so-called may change a lot of things, but it shouldn't change the way we look at a God-ordained, time-tested institution. Tribes may have their place in the chaos of postmodern culture, but they are no substitute for marriage and the family.
Well, these guys ended up paying child support to their ex-girlfriends. They simply dated a girl who already had kids, and end up paying child support after they break up. Watch out, that nice little law will be nationwide before you know it.
Men are simply wallets in the view of a lot, if not most women, and the courts.
So you support the notion that it's OK to absolutely destroy a man's life in divorce court?
So if a guy has a problem with the current divorce laws, he has a bad attitude?
Typical typical typical
I'm listening to him right now :) I don't agree with everything he says, but he's a genius when it comes to this divorce/marriage stuff.
When I read your posts, I kinda figured you were a Leykis 101 student.
There are federal dollars involved that are kicked-back to the states for child support money collected. No state will ever pass such a law: it ain't about the children, it's about the revenue.
There are too many pheromones wafting around this thread anyway. I'm going to go stare at a Karl Rove loves Hillary, or baseball thread.
It's a learned behaviour. It didn't happen in a vacuum. Attitude returned in kind.
A jerk deserves a jerk...have at it.
*jerk jerk jerk jerk* - hmmmm, just not as satisfying somehow. I'll stick with women. Y'know...the sexiest thing about a woman is her eyes, and a good kiss beats a big rack. But, to know which is which, you must sample, sample, sample.
Furthermore, in cases where the mother moved out after 1 month, the fact that she is already receiving child support from the biological father in no way means that the child should be deprived of the lifestyle the 'temporary daddy' could have provided. Thus, there are women in Seattle who are getting 4+ seperate child support payments for each of their kids, until the kids reach age 18. Here's the kicker.... every guy that she suckers into letting her brood shack up with, gets to donate child support with no limit in sight.
Now lets do some math. 2 kids x $400/month x 4 boyfriends = $3,200/month + gov't benefits. For doing absolutely NOTHING. Nice, huh? On what planet is this considered fair?
I would imagine that most of the conservative princesses on this forum would consider that fair. And if men don't like it, they are "jerks" or "whiners."
The females will just say "Well, I'm not like that." Well guess what, nobody is like that until the become like that ! I'm sure all the single mothers collecting a windfall of child support every month say "Oh, but I'm not like that."
Every woman that has ever destroyed her husband for the rest of his life at one time said "Oh, but I'm not like that."
Like I said in my first post, you can throw out examples of gross unfairness and stores of detroyed lives at some women all day, and you'll just be called a "jerk" or a "whiner." Or they'll talk about how their marriage is filled with wonderfulness.
But the actual issue is never addressed. Reminds me of the way the Dems twisted logic and the English itself when they defended Clinton in '98.
Hear, hear! Nobody who single and is upfront about their quest for nooky du jour need apologize.
Yeah, I'm definitely into Leykis 101. And like you, I don't agree with all of what he says; but I do concede that he has several very valid points to his arguements.
But most of all, I respect him because he has the balls to speak the truth, and go head to head against those who want to shout him down. I'm a big believer in the old addage "Don't p*ss on my leg and tell me it's raining". Just wish I could listen to him down here in Austin. I think the local liberals would run all the way to Mexico with their heads on fire. Liberals just can't stand to have an opposing viewpoint.
But you are perfectly correct in that women do not have the corner of the market of idiotic behavior.
The stories I could tell about the behavior of my ex are nearly as hair-raising as yours.
Furthermore, in cases where the mother moved out after 1 month, the fact that she is already receiving child support from the biological father in no way means that the child should be deprived of the lifestyle the 'temporary daddy' could have provided. Thus, there are women in Seattle who are getting 4+ seperate child support payments for each of their kids, until the kids reach age 18. Here's the kicker.... every guy that she suckers into letting her brood shack up with, gets to donate child support with no limit in sight.
Now lets do some math. 2 kids x $400/month x 4 boyfriends = $3,200/month + gov't benefits. For doing absolutely NOTHING. Nice, huh? On what planet is this considered fair?
Now that is just plain wrong.
www.kotk.com
Doesn't work all the time because the server sucks. Leykis is on 6 - 10 PM Eastern
I know it's shallow, but the only single women within a 20 mile radius look like this:
And I, hunk that I am, look like this:
I...I just can't settle.
Reminds me of a theory people in my circles called
"The Willardson Theory of "Why Hot Babes Date Jerks"
The Willardson collary holds that being a jerk is a genetic trait, skipping every other generation. Consider a jerk you know, chances are the parents of the jerk are normal, likewise the offspring. So, either consciously or unconsciously no hot babe wants their kids to be jerks; so the only way she can be certain to prevent this is to date only jerks
Excuse me, the only person responsible for raising children is the biological or adoptive parents. As a conservative, I don't expect anyone else to pay my( or if I had) kids way other than me and the father.
Oh, there are psycho's out there all right. Statistically speaking, women are the overwhelming consumers of Zoloft; but that could simply mean that men are undiagnosed.
Regarding those god-awful tabloid pop quizes... my wife used to want to take those compatability quizes over and over. From the email, from the internet, from some chick magazine. I finally lost it with her ... I said "(explictive, a whole string of them, few if any repeated) it boils down to a simple question. Are you happy? Do you trust some (another list of new and somewhat unique profane explictives) idiot, whom you never met, will never meet, without any credentials of merit to determine if you are happy?" For the most part, we are a pretty happy couple. Like pretty much every couple on the planet, we have our moments. Now my wife knows not to bring up those god-awful quizes.
From my point of view, why play a game, if you cannot win, and only stand to lose? The quiz will always (I mean 100% of the time) create tensions in the relationship; I have never heard of a relationship benefitting from one of these pieces of tripe. Yet, women for god only knows what reason, not only flock to take the quiz, they then proceed to sabotage their relationships in order to meet some unknown author's fantasy of how someone else's life should be.
Can you think of one straight man who would do something similar? Now we may find inspriation in Playboy ... but take a quiz? Forgetaboutit!!
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.