patrick.net

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".

Peter P says

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.

And let's not forget about marriage, it is an "arragement" of commerce as well, not really much different.

If I were a feminist I would be jumping up and down. The prohibition of prostitution weakens human rights.

I would not be surprised by 20% at all. Through word of mouth when they learn from a friend what they can get for how little they have to do many would jump on the bandwagon. They don't prostitute as much as they want to do the call girl stuff. I went to a strip club on valentines day a few years back (place was dead), and these girls really liked playing around, the attention was nice, cheaper than today's girlfriend/wife. I should go more often than once about every 5 years. Still, in today's day and age, when the laws favor women, that's legal prostitution because the man pays no matter what!

Feminism has indeed taken over the colleges, saw it first hand back in the 90's. Took over the K-12 schools as well, that's why Marcus clearly has the feminist indoctrination, it's not your fault Marcus!, if you don't go along with their programming they'll notice, and I know it's hard enough being a man in the teaching profession already.

See most women love men for what the man can do for them, i.e. give me money!, they don't actually love the man himself. This is, in my book, her greatest weakness and why 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Less and less women know what love is because more and more kids grow up in fatherless homes. As the family unit slowly dies off so does love.

Although some of the comments above offer profound insights, the distribution seems a bit skewed towards male Users and against female wives. It's worth keeping in mind that something like 90% of violent crime, including domestic violence, is perpetrated by men, and in the case of domestic violence it's almost always against women. Today's news includes yet another tragic example. And, before anyone tries to excuse the fathers by saying they're reacting to judicial bias favoring wives in court, consider the fact that these fathers too often abuse and even kill their own children too. Allegations of abuse can be fabricated, but too often they're true, and that probably explains a great many divorce filings.

morally there is nothing wrong with prostitution.

why is it that it's legal for me to pay a woman to have my finger inside her mouth but when i use my **** it's illegal? this makes zero sense.

hiring a woman to give you sex should be the same as hiring a maid to clean your house or give you a foot massage or a back rub. the only problem with prostitution that I can see is the health concerns but that's only because it's illegal so STD testing is not done. if prostitution is legalized, mandatory STD testing will be administered by health clinics and untested prostitutes face jail time. this will make prostitution a lot safer and a lot cheaper (like anything that's off the black market).

then we also have a lot of jealous wives that do NOT want to realize this reality and will fight nail and teeth against this HAHAHA. but if you think objectively you'll see there is nothing wrong with prostitution.

Mark D says

a lot of jealous wives that do NOT want to realize this reality and will fight nail and teeth against this HAHAHA. but if you think objectively you'll see there is nothing wrong with prostitution.

Much of wives' concern results from a well founded fear of STDs. A majority of the 30 million adults with HIV are women, including typically wives who got if from their husbands, including typically husbands who got it from prostitutes. If vaccine research develops more vaccines against STDs, including especially vaccines that cure people already infected, the fear of STDs (and the related fear of prostitution) will be greatly reduced.

Just checking in to see if the misogynists are still here. Yup, they are.

If prostitution is legalized, sex workers will be less discouraged to get health checks. Also, if hookers are not sheltered/controlled by the underworld, they may be in a better position to demand protections, no pun intended.

Mark D says

morally there is nothing wrong with prostitution.

Yes. And I think it is immoral to criminalize prostitution.

Mark D says

then we also have a lot of jealous wives that do NOT want to realize this reality and will fight nail and teeth against this HAHAHA. but if you think objectively you'll see there is nothing wrong with prostitution.

But gigolos will be legit as well.

MsBennet says

Just checking in to see if the misogynists are still here. Yup, they are.

Just checking to see if the pseudo feminists who think equality means getting a job if you want to or if you decide to stay at home-then the govt grabs the man's assets and gives it ot the wife so she can enjoy life with her ill gotten wealth are here. Yup they are.

You know the main thing wrong with our society is that shame has all but disappeared. It used to be people were proud of hard work and labor. Now-just get knocked up by a basketball star or marry a monied guy for a few years and you are set for life. What a sad state of affairs-all under the guise of equality. Dignity and self confidence are very nice things to posess-more gold diggers-err alimony/excessive child support awardees should try it. But why-the govt encourages grifting and taking somebody's hard earned money and all the while calling them misogynists-like they are the bad guy.'

This sense of entitlement has seeped through to every layer of society-it didn't just come out of thin air. No sense of what is right and fair-just live off someone with no shame . Yeah a few men get alimony-3% of alimony goes to men-but the stats clearly show which gender benefits. if the feminists were so concerned about equality, they should be the one screeching to get theses laws overturned. but they fight them at every turn.

Russell Brand was entitled to 20 million dollars when he divorced Katie Perry-but he walked away from it and decided not to take it. Not many do that on the entitled side, do they?

marcus says

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.

You ideas to too far fetched for even Hollywood.

BayArea says

To be honest, I am a bit discouraged at just how many people I know who don't seem to be too happy in their marriages. It always seems to be the same story. Things started off great. There was excitement, adventure, strong physical and emotional chemistry. Then 2-3yrs into it, those feels started to fade. Some couples moved on to the next phase of their lives and had some glue, er I mean kids which kept things fresh and exciting.

To be honest, most people don't know who they are (as individuals) when they decide to get married (it's usually a case of "this person is so awesome that I don't want to lose them/I'm afraid of being alone") and yes, most band-aid the relationship down the line by adding more stuff to the mix.

I recently got engaged after a ten-year courtship. During the first five years I can honestly say that we both needed to grow up, develop ourselves and iron out some issues, which we did. We now sometimes sit back and laugh because we've come to realize most of the couples we know are either dysfunctional or on completely different pages (but don't realize it). It's quite liberating.

Another key: Both of us let go of the consumerist mentality and generally don't give a shit about judging our lives based on what we see or hear from the outside world. We have very little debt, and no recurring monthly expenditures beyond the basics. We're even confused about creating a wedding registry because we simply don't want any more stuff, or for anyone to feel obligated to get us anything at all. That last part will definitely be on the invite, BTW.

Sorry for the long-winded response but I figured a different perspective was needed (and really, what is with all of the HIV talk on a marriage thread?)

TechGromit says

You ideas to too far fetched for even Hollywood.

You do know I was kidding right? There already is the "twilight series" of movies there are about exactly what I described. The novels and the movies were (are) very big with teen girls.

curious2 says

You're cherry-picking statistics by focusing solely on California

that's because this is a Bay-Area centric web site.

Patrick himself, came from outside of the region and got frustrated about the Hip and Cool Bay Area Real Estate Cool-Aid, so he started this blog.
curious2 says

To focus on the tiny % who live in California is to mislead yourself and others. California statistics aren't even representative of this country, let alone the world.

That goes for Bay Area Real Estate, too. But so what? That's what this blog is, all about the Bay Area, Cool And Hip.

curious2 says

It's worth keeping in mind that something like 90% of violent crime, including domestic violence, is perpetrated by men,

90% of women didn't shut up.