patrick.net

MershedPerturders says

New Renter, do you have XX chromosome or XY?

XY and I have the phenotype to prove it.

"He draws us back to first principles to look at why marriage existed in the first place: it was about what was good for the family and society. Ancient Greek marriages had solid foundations because they were rational business arrangements, roles were very clearly defined, couples could not get divorced, and love was not a factor in the decision."

in Ancient Greece, most MARRIED men engaged in homosexual love for fun and satisfaction.

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal." -Leo Tolstoy

New Renter says

MershedPerturders says

New Renter, do you have XX chromosome or XY?

XY and I have the phenotype to prove it.

Granted even among us ducks sit can be hard to tell.

Wow, I read some of those "I Hate My Wife" testimonies. Very sad. But you could probably read just the opposite "I Hate My Husband" because men do the same things:

Get fat, watch TV all weekend, don't bring home enough money, don't want sex. In fact, I have a girlfriend who divorced her husband for just those things. He's 300 pounds and watches TV from the time he gets home until 3:00 in the morning and never comes to bed, did very little work around the house, (she used to mow the lawn and take out the trash even!) she made more money than him. After 20 years of putting up with that she divorced him. In other words, it's not just the women who are lousy marriage partners.

I'm amazed nobody mentioned Kevin Federline.

Conversely, there was a movie about a tiny studio apartment in Manhattan time-shared by near-strangers, can't recall the title now. In real life, that apartment was reportedly home to a gay male couple who later got married, two kids.

One poster here described his bitter divorce and sounded like Paul from the NT comparing American values today to 1960. It sounded like the ex-wife was angry and said things to hurt him so he'd never trust again, and it worked. That has nothing to do with changing values or 1960, there have always been bad marriages and bitter break-ups. Second marriages after divorce represent the triumph of hope over experience, and some succeed very well. The NT and Catholic church prohibit them, but the government recognizes them, which is enough for most people. Not everybody gets it right on the first try, which is why pencils have erasers.

MsBennet says

After 20 years of putting up with that she divorced him. In other words, it's not just the women who are lousy marriage partners.

She made a bad bet.

MsBennet says

Wow, I read some of those "I Hate My Wife" testimonies. Very sad. But you could probably read just the opposite "I Hate My Husband" because men do the same things:

Get fat, watch TV all weekend, don't bring home enough money, don't want sex. In fact, I have a girlfriend who divorced her husband for just those things. He's 300 pounds and watches TV from the time he gets home until 3:00 in the morning and never comes to bed, did very little work around the house, (she used to mow the lawn and take out the trash even!) she made more money than him. After 20 years of putting up with that she divorced him. In other words, it's not just the women who are lousy marriage partners.

Nobody said that, but it's the women who usually pressure for marriage and who file for divorce.

and regaring the comments on 'men are bad partners too'... seems every negative attribution women just DEMAND total and absolute gender equivalence, and everything else they demand special treatment. IT's getting totally out of control. Women worldwide want American men due to their good attitudes towards family and marriage. They are the most ideal partners by worldwide standards.

I knew a guy who was married three times. That gives one pause, but he explained it once. The first was a back seat knock up, they should never have been married as teens. The second, the wife, who was agnostic, became metaphysical and religious to the extreme after a couple of years of marriage. She had groups of religious nutters over to the house speaking in tongues and holy rolling all the time. He walked in on her one day, she was on a step ladder, and one of the men in her congregation was under her with his head up her dress ministering to her private parts in a way that had nothing to do with religion. Chalk up divorce 2.

His third marriage was to a very nice gal and as far as I know has lasted a few decades.

"In a male-led society divorce is often single digits. in an "equal" or female led society, divorce is over 50% and one parent homes are even more common than that."

Female led society - now which would that be?

The US divorce rate is quite low among upper-middle class people, including dual career families. Divorce in this country is to a great degree a feature of social class.

New Renter says

New Renter says

MershedPerturders says

New Renter, do you have XX chromosome or XY?

XY and I have the phenotype to prove it.

Granted even among us ducks sit can be hard to tell.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/qwjEeI2SmiU

just_passing_through says

New Renter says

New Renter says

MershedPerturders says

New Renter, do you have XX chromosome or XY?

XY and I have the phenotype to prove it.

Granted even among us ducks sit can be hard to tell.

Did someone order a pizza?

New Renter says

Do you also feel children are ready for warfare? They are certainly biologically ready to handle an AR-15 at 15 or even 8. Such children have yet to develop a sense of mortality making them willing to conduct dangerous (or suicide) missions and are easier to mold into killing machines. That lack of understanding consequences is exactly why children need to be protected:

That's actually an interesting point. Kids can join the army at 17/18, but a 19 year old cannot bone a 17 year old (state dependent I think) for their protection, something seems off here.

Yes, if you're going by their milkers and hip width only. But that doesn't take into account brain formation and higher cognitive acuity, which are important in the mate selection process. It's not just a social matter, it's a biological matter. Sure, a sixteen year old can drop out a kid, but they shouldn't.

Let me put it another way: any girl who was thirteen three years ago should not be looking to get nailed down.

I can't believe its almost midnight and we are STILL arguing this!

curious2 says

It sounded like the ex-wife was angry and said things to hurt him so he'd never trust again, and it worked.

It worked because she woke me up to reality. It worked because she's the face of things to come. Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q6c_dinY3fM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LJc8Mzg0C-c

Watch these two videos and you'll see that she did nothing other than enlighten me. She unwittingly forced me understand the source of my deep confusion. She made me a better man. Her deception forced me to learn.

BRP001 says

Her deception forced me to learn.

...perhaps the wrong lessons. Of the two video links you posted, the first was quite interesting, but the second (Paul Harvey) was plain silly. Blaming "The Devil"? The world has a long history of bad marriages, for example the Roman emperor Claudius was murdered by his wife. Husbands murdering their wives or ex-wives are practically a cliché. No discussion of marriage can be complete without this possibly misattributed exchange:

Nancy Astor to Winston Churchill: "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."

Churchill's reply: "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."

Marriages can go badly, just as planes can crash and trains can derail. Your first video made a good argument that critical theory incorrectly blames all problems on the founders of the American republic who in fact accomplished great progress, yet you seem to make the same error blaming all problems on social changes since 1960 that have also included great progress. Returning to 17th century England and the divine right of kings wouldn't solve the problems critical theorists describe, and it wouldn't make everybody's marriage better either. Times change, technologies change, but human nature does not change. Your prudence is well founded on experience, but that isn't an argument for returning to prior orders that had their own possibly worse problems.

curious2 says

Blaming "The Devil"?

I was looking at it metaphorically, as in, "What happens to society when its people subscribe to ideals that run counter to its success?"

If progress is defined as the perpetuation of single parent households, out of wedlock births, increasing infidelity, no-fault divorce that results in someone getting badly screwed over by someone else’s search for self-realization, an economy on the edge of collapse, a certain gender opting out of responsible societal behavior, unsustainable debt, rampant proliferation of porn, entitlements on the verge of bankruptcy, millions losing their homes and, millions falling into bankruptsy, the spread of joblessness and poverty causing an ever increasing reliance on welfare, then we’re progressing just fine. I agree that not all marriages are meant to be, but I also believe that, when hypergamy, hypogomy, and infidelity are left unchecked by no-fault divorce, a whole lot of bad things can happen to the uninformed, naïve idealist. My words are meant to warn those would be dupes and to correlate other potentially related, long in the making, statistically and temporally aligned ‘progress’.

Certain sectors and aspects of society are progressing, while others have been and continue to regress. All of us considering marriage should think long and hard about the easily dissolvable ‘commitment’ in marriage and the potential impacts that easily obtained dissolution can have on our lives and futures.

BRP001 says

a whole lot of bad things can happen to the uninformed, naïve idealist.

That has always been true, and probably always will be.

Again, you're blaming the wrong villain. It would make more sense to blame the people who misled you. Pining for the McCarthy era is a misguided waste of time. This thread contains much sound advice, including your caution, but Archie Bunker and Paul of Tarsus aren't the gods you're looking for.

BRP001 says

Marriages can go badly, just as planes can crash and trains can derail.

“Welcome aboard, ladies and gentlemen. You may or may not have known this, but there’s a very good chance this aircraft/train will not reach its destination – if you know what I mean (wink wink). I’m thinking 50/50 give or take a few. You highly educated folks with money don’t have too much to worry about however. We’ve put you in the area of the plane where you’ll likely survive any mishaps. Now if the worst does happen, no one is to blame. We did our best to get you there safely, but you know how these things can happen. Whether or not we were at fault for the crash is irrelevant. You’re still going to have to pay us with your life. I know that sucks, but you’re the ones who were stupid enough to get onboard. For those of you with that get out of death free card…that preflight agreement thingy…you should understand those can be voided and also expire after a while. Enjoy the trip folks!”

Who is making you get married???

How about living together and not getting married.

zzyzzx says

Who is making you get married???

How about living together and not getting married.

In some jurisdictions, they consider that to be common law marriage and they make men pay the women- even though you are not married.

lostand confused says

zzyzzx says

Who is making you get married???

How about living together and not getting married.

In some jurisdictions, they consider that to be common law marriage and they make men pay the women- even though you are not married.

What about round-robin serial monogamy?

Peter P says

lostand confused says

zzyzzx says

Who is making you get married???

How about living together and not getting married.

In some jurisdictions, they consider that to be common law marriage and they make men pay the women- even though you are not married.

What about round-robin serial monogamy?

What, like an annual key party?

New Renter says

Life expectancy was 47 for adult males, 35 for affluent Londoners, and 25 for the less well off. Most children died early. A 13 year old bride may have several mishaps before having a child survive longer than 3 years of age. So lets say her first viable child is born when mom is 17. That kid may well be an orphan by the time it's 8.

This notorious fallacy is one of the most widely misunderstood statistics today.

A societal life expectancy of 25 years, or 35, or 47, does not mean that people were old and gray with one foot in the grave at those ages.

And it definitely doesn't mean that someone who has already made it to age 17 (i. e., escaped the many illnesses that affected infants and young children -- and grown up healthy enough to bear a child, to boot) has a mere eight more years to live!

This is elementary statistics and it drives me crazy to see people misunderstand it. The life expectancy was low because of all the infant deaths combined with sicknesses and plagues that could take people at any age. The age of an "old" person, whom you might expect to die at any time and who you could say has lived a full life, is in the 80s now and was perhaps 70 ("threescore and ten", in the Bible) in pre-modern times.

Historically in Japan life expectancy has been calculated based on how many years a person of a given age is expected to have left to live (余命). This curve is typically very flat in low-tech societies where an illness could take you at any time, and becomes steeper as infant mortality is eliminated and the majority of the population can expect to reach old age.

The last time age 25 (or 30, or 45) was genuinely "old" was when the Olduvai Gorge was not yet populated, before we had evolved into humans. There were no gray-haired 25-year-olds in Elizabethan times or in ancient Babylon or Egypt.

(Aside: how is it that British men in general lived 12 years longer than "affluent" Londoners?)

"Serial monogamy" would only work in theory if people never aged. However, given the fact that people do age, it seems like a ticket to eventual isolation and breakdown.

lostand confused says

zzyzzx says

Who is making you get married???

How about living together and not getting married.

In some jurisdictions, they consider that to be common law marriage and they make men pay the women- even though you are not married.

Yeah, but fewer than you think. I think like 7 states or so have it, but I'm not sure. CA is not one of them. I think living together is the best solution, that way you can minimize government interference and make your own contracts if you wanted to. Plus, if you need a piece of paper, an expensive ring or your peers acknowledgement that you are a desirable person, that's usually a strike out in my book. We are currently cohabitating and coparenting but I have no desire to get married (neither to buy a house). Ok, I compromised on a nice ring in a moment of weakness, but that's as far as I will move ;)

marriage is so 1960's

I do see some of the downside you may see.

It seems to go against human nature somewhat, and may contribute to how sexually obsessed our culture is. And it may even lead in some ways to the growth of pornagraphy, homosexuality and to the decrease in procreation that has occured.

But,while this is unnatural on the level of the individual, it might be a natural evolutionary development relative to the entirety of the human species.

World population 2 billion to 7 billion in something like 60 years. THat had to somehow slow down from what naturally occurs at the level of the individual.

Well, when the girl comes "of age", her body is saying-I am ready to have a baby. In all non humans, other senses are well developed and males sniff her out and stay with her till she is ready to breed and then separate once the deed is done-or not depending on the species.

In humans, we roughly followed the same pattern until recently and feminist inspired laws turned having sex with someone under 18 as rape-even though she might be very fertile and filled with harmones pushing her to do the same.

Are we, in a way, arguing about whether the Taliban may be right about some of their beliefs?

Beliefs are human man made things. The body and its rhythms are not-they are part of nature. While science has evolved tremendously -the body still does follow its natural rhythm-like a bud that flowers and then withers away and dies.

Now maybe science may evolve to where we can prevent people who are under 18 from "flowering" and having hormones pump through them-but until then we are as guilty as the Taliban with our barbaric laws and beliefs-and it shows as the country that throws more people in jail than any nation on earth.

Now I am not talking about kids , but say the difference between someone who is 17 years and 364 days old and someone who is 18-that one day can make one a rapist or a free man/woman-per our system.

Now back then, yes when they were younger , they were married off and having babies, not having free sex-so that is a different society. My grandma had my mom when she was 16-by then she was a farmer's wife, doing chores and popping kids. Now unlike the feminists would claim-so was my grandpa-he was a year older and working hard. She lived to her 80s just fine - a very proud and independant woman.

marcus says

Are we, in a way, arguing about whether the Taliban may be right about some of their beliefs?

No, this is about consentual sex and the age of which someone is likely able to give it.

I believe it can likewise work for very young and very old mothers (with the sweet spot somewhere in between and also depending on the physique of the individual), it's the individuals choice (and responsibility) and nobody should try and impose their agenda on people's personal decisions.

I must say, just because a female mammal goes into season, it is known to be a bad idea to have her breed in the first couple of seasons. And, if we shall return to breeding whenever a female comes into season, we should also use the other survival-of-the-fittest systems and have males compete for the right to sire young. We would ba a nation full of Lesners and GSP's in two generations.

lostand confused says

In some jurisdictions, they consider that to be common law marriage and they make men pay the women- even though you are not married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

Common-law marriage in the United States can still be contracted in nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas) and the District of Columbia. New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriage for purposes of probate only, and Utah recognizes common-law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order. Common-law marriage can no longer be contracted in 27 states, and was never permitted in 13 states. The requirements for a common-law marriage to be validly contracted differ from state to state. Nevertheless, all states — including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries — recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that permit it.

Note there is no such thing as "common-law divorce" — that is, you cannot get out of a common-law marriage as easily as you can get into one. Only the contract of the marriage is irregular; everything else about the marriage is perfectly regular. People who marry per the old common law tradition must petition the appropriate court in their state for a dissolution of marriage.

Maybe someone should make a movie for teen age girls about a girl that is in love with both a vampire and a wolf man. I think the teenage girls would love that. But I digress.

curious2 says

By 30, they may wish they could remove those piercings and tattoos.

Yeah, probably. Only it's a little harder to relegate that stuff to the back of the closet like a pair of Speedos or double-knit sport coats with lapels generous enough to land an F35 on. They probably go through life with a "yeah-I-meant-to-do-that" resignation about it.

I think kids do this stuff to be fashionable. It's got less to do with being jaded than it does with trying to fit in or being the same as someone else - which, believe it or not - is an immutable urge innate in all homosaps.

It is a crime against humanity to disallow prostitution. It is probably the most natural form of commerce. It is no less outrageous than denying gays the right to be married.

marcus says

That might mean.... (stfu c2).

A real math teacher would be able to calculate from the numbers in the article and available data: "SeekingArrangement.com is the world’s largest Sugar Daddy website with over two million members worldwide. In 2011, 40% of the website’s total population was comprised of college students. But after a 58% increase in co-ed signups in 2012, the total population increased to 44%." And, if you're going to continue pretending to "Ignore" me, you'll have to do better than merely abbreviating "curious2" to "c2".