Posted on 12/13/2023 6:14:15 AM PST by Rummyfan
OMG.
The cuck is basically doing undergrad level stuff as it were, for an uneducated and neutral audience.
She is grad level capable and performing for an audience that is either already somewhat educated or quick learners.
Also, he probably doesn’t want to be lynched.
FWIW—you might like Chesterton’s What’s Wrong with the World, which made many of these points about a century ago.
She is brilliant.
Whether she is brilliant brilliant or brilliant cucky is something that would require a close reading of her book and decent outside knowledge.
Probably about 30-60% of her claims either I know or resonates so strongly with what I know that I readily concede the point. Stretching for another 10% is easy—that the other 40% seems to hold together so well is impressive, but I am not drinking the coolaid on the strength of one witness.
Hence, a man in his mid-thirties is finally a well-heeled buyer entering the showroom.
Women aren't cars. A good marriage is one that satisfies both parties, not just the "buyer".
If he has learned anything from his approx. 15 years of dating experience, he will now approach the matter in a more mindful fashion. His hormones have calmed somewhat, and his urges are now a mere 15 times stronger than those of the average woman - so he can finally think straight and make informed, rational choices.
In my experience many (not all) American men of any age struggle with "informed, rational choices". That is why America is going to the dogs. And with that extra "dating experience" comes a higher risk of STDs. Technique can be taught, but herpes is forever. A man of 35 is "used goods" just like a woman of 35 is. I got married at 27 to a man of the same age. He was my first sexual partner; I am probably his second or third, so I don't have to worry as much about him comparing me to previous girlfriends.
Rather, he could offer a house and home (complete with nursery) at the drop of a hat, without the woman being expected to accept any compromises.
Speaking as someone who is currently in her mid-30's, that is not the situation I'm seeing right now. Most men my age, liberal or conservative, are not in a position to own a home, let alone on one income. Most expect their wives or live-in girlfriends to work, preferably full-time. When women are expected to do "men's work", they naturally expect the man to become more attractive and agreeable, which is not something previous generations of American men had to do, so young men today have no blueprint to follow. So it's not really their fault they were born at the wrong time, but at the same time I didn't see any reason to shackle myself to a man who brings only a small income to the table, without looks or a pleasant personality to compensate. Especially not when men with at least one of those things can readily be found elsewhere.
Yes and no. Not sure she would have been invested in the motherhood thing, but I’m also 72 with no kids or grandkids.
“You never should have dated her.”
Agreed—I was young and stupid.
That error made me smarter.
;-)
(As a young man I did not have a good male role model to teach me “the ropes”. I had to learn the many lessons the hard way.)
I'll take that as an admission that you are unable to mount a coherent argument refuting any of the individual points I raised.
Q.E.D.
Regards,
I am wondering that since I’m a married woman with kids (and one grandchild) that my circle includes women of the same mindset. I honestly can’t think of one woman in my life that is a childless, unmarried woman. The only “single” women I know are either widowed or divorced but have children.
Perhaps because you are divorced without kids, you know that side of things, and I know the other. Our worlds do collide, but rarely, and maybe only in the virtual world. Who knows?
Either way, I never meant to suggest that your insight wasn’t true, just that my own observation is also valid. We likely live in different worlds.
You understand what an analogy is, don't you?
A voluntary commercial transaction is one in which both parties are more or less satisfied with the outcome (some have said: Where both parties feel equally unhappy).
A romantic involvement and esp. the establishment of a long-term relationship has some similarities with a voluntary (commercial) transaction.
It is called the Sexual Marketplace, after all.
In earlier times, this was even more the case. Marriages were informed by the economic interests of the two parties (namely: of the household of the bride and the household of the bridegroom). Economic resources were combined and/or divvied up. Relationships were forged that were expected to last many decades and, hopefully, generations. The failure of the marriage could have disastrous results for the two families involved.
I think that it does not bode well for modern-day marriage that it is regarded largely as a vehicle chiefly for the satisfaction of prurient whims and the realization of "Disney" romantic notions. The advent and (now) dominance of online dating - which only exacerbates these tendencies - may prove to be the final blow.
In my experience many (not all) American men of any age struggle with "informed, rational choices". That is why America is going to the dogs.
I agree. (BTW: That neg. characterization applies equally well to the female of the species). My statements about rational decision-making were, admittedly, more prescriptive than descriptive.
A man of 35 is "used goods" just like a woman of 35 is.
This statement of yours is patently false. At least with respect to reproductive fitness, a woman at that age is already entering the "geriatric pregnancy"-phase, while a man of the same age still has decades of fertility ahead of him. For evolutionary reasons, men have developed a fine "sensor" or "detector" for female fertility, which is why a man instinctively finds an 18-year-old woman more appealing than a 35-year-old. An intelligent man will thus view a 35-year-old woman as automatically less "eligible" - both on a visceral level (reptilian brain) and a cerebral level (knowledge of reduced fertility). He thus not only knows (book-learning) that about 90% of her viable eggs have already been spent, he also feels it.
The possible presence of previous children only strengthens my case. There is a reason why unwed mothers used to be ostracized by society, and why rational men would eschew wifing them up. Add to that the fact that child-bearing takes a toll on a woman's physical assets.
Speaking as someone who is currently in her mid-30's, that is not the situation I'm seeing right now. Most men my age, liberal or conservative, are not in a position to own a home, let alone on one income. Most expect their wives or live-in girlfriends to work, preferably full-time.
As a man about twice as old as you, I must, of course, defer to your better first-hand knowledge of the current dating market (ouch! there's that word again!).
Especially not when men with at least one of those things can readily be found elsewhere.
Not at 35! At that age, a woman will have great difficulty finding a suitable "match."
If you'll excuse the personal remark: You seem to have a rather pessimistic view of marriage per se. Do you perhaps harbor concerns about the marriage prospects of your own children? Do you see your son(s) facing insurmountable difficulties? Your daughter(s)?
Regards,
Actually she’s only 4 years younger than him and strangely enough they seem to have a lot in common.
As old as were all getting I kind of hope this one will work out for him, they had both worked together for about 30 years at the VA hospitals in LA.
He was an engineer and she was the department secretary.
I guess we will see.
“I’ll take that as an admission that you are unable to mount a coherent argument refuting any of the individual points I raised.”
I don’t have to refute. God pretty much covered it when ordering his people to not take “strange” (foreign/from other cultures) wives. I guess I’ll just stick with that.
But y’all have fun with your compliant exotic wives. Libido trumps Scripture ...?
While it is certainly true that men have a longer fertility window than women, studies have shown that sperm quality as well as volume decreases with age, with increased paternal age being linked to increased incidence of autism in children. It is not a coincidence that the increase in autism happened as men delayed fatherhood in favor of career advancement and as Viagra extended men's reproductive years beyond what God and nature intended. We have enough "special education" kids in this country without adding more because some men are too arrogant to accept their natural limitations. Once again, the children are paying for the sins of their fathers.
Whether any man under, say, 80 can father children is indisputable. Whether he should is another matter.
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.