U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-05-2013, 11:57 AM
Status: "Fire Roger Goodell!!!!!!!" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Arlington, Virginia
15,150 posts, read 17,732,611 times
Reputation: 15867

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
Who are these experts at CNN? Is it Anderson Cooper who literally has no skin in the game giving this advice? Marry young- have your children young and get it over with- Being a parent of a 10 year old when you are pushing sixty is a bad idea. Don't listen to these people.
What?

I'm not even sure if it is biologically possible for a woman to concieve a healthy baby at 50.

 
Old 04-05-2013, 11:59 AM
 
165 posts, read 55,768 times
Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Crabcakes View Post
Did you ever think that some people who marry very young are settling? I am sure plenty of people who are 30 and over and look back and people they dated in their early 20s and know that they dodged a bullet or that those relationships were never meant to evolve into marriage.



I think you are making way too big a deal of this.

I think you are viewing young 20-something men as better mates than older 30-something men?

Again, where are all these early 20-something, desirable men racing to the alter?
The article wasn't about men not marrying young, it was about women not marrying young. Most men don't get married till 30+ anyway.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:03 PM
 
165 posts, read 55,768 times
Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dprince18 View Post
The article wasn't about men not marrying young, it was about women not marrying young. Most men don't get married till 30+ anyway.
This brings up a great point actually. There isn't a cultural shift in the way men behave in the dating market (except maybe enjoying more easy access to sex than ever seen before in American culture). It is the women who are behaving differently. We have an influx in single motherdom, directly correlated to the lax views on women sleeping around. We have women being taught to hold out and marry later and later.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,768 posts, read 4,077,389 times
Reputation: 4752
Quote:
Originally Posted by dprince18 View Post
"Finding yourself." This is feminist jargon. It does indeed mean sleep around if that's what it takes to find yourself. Query through any number of feminist blogs and come back and tell me I'm wrong.
I'm looking. Don't see anything about sleeping around:

How to Find Yourself -- A Life-Changing Experience | Experience Life Fully

Global Changemakers | Blog | Identity, being young and finding yourself in society

4 Steps to Freedom, Fun, and Finding Yourself

Tips for Finding and Being Yourself
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:13 PM
 
Location: ON, Canada
5,118 posts, read 2,537,920 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110 View Post
First, a link to the piece, so everyone can read it for themselves:

Opinion: Women, don't marry young - CNN.com

Second, the author makes absolutely no mention of a cut-off age, so I don't know where you are getting that stuff about "pre-25" or marrying in their 30s.

This paragraph sums it up:

The part about finding out who you are is here:

That has nothing to do with having sex or sleeping around. It has to do with who you are as a person: What your career goals are, where you want to live, what kind of lifestyle you want, and even whether you want marriage and kids in the first place. For some women, it may mean sexual experimentation, but that is not the sum of it by a long shot, nor is that something you can say about all women, and it is certainly not even implied by the author. The context in which it is said gives the lie to that.

So I'd say you are reading things in this piece that simply aren't there.
And that's a problem with relationships today...if you don't know who you are or what you want, how can you expect to find a partner who fits your life when you don't even know what life you want to have?

Many people are are more focused on getting into a relationship than worrying about if they have themselves figured out to have a healthy relationship.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,768 posts, read 4,077,389 times
Reputation: 4752
Quote:
Originally Posted by dprince18 View Post
The article wasn't about men not marrying young, it was about women not marrying young. Most men don't get married till 30+ anyway.
So who are all these 20-something women suppose to be marrying then?

How is this doing society a disservice?

What about all the people that get married early that end up divorced? The article clearly stated that couples who marry later are better off for several reasons.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Temple of Thought
9,719 posts, read 4,299,965 times
Reputation: 21501
Quote:
Originally Posted by dprince18 View Post
Don't sleep with a plethora of men and the young woman should be fine. My problem arises in the fact that women are being taught to not settle down when they are in their PRIME sexual attractiveness, aka the point at which they should be able to attract their highest value mate to commit. By doing so, they will eventually marry someone lesser than what they could have. Unless they cuckold him, they essentially do our society and humanity a disservice.

There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

First, you're equating sexual attractiveness to be the primary reason a man marries a woman. That is beyond sexist in its objectification.

Second, you're encouraging hypergamy, because you later talk about how men don't marry until they are older, themselves. Actually, as the article notes, it's 27 for women, 29 for men these days. But even if you were right, the implication is that women should trade their sexual attractiveness to get some kind of security or marry up, as men who are older are generally more well-established and wealthier than young men. Are you then going to complain if a woman marries a man for his money?

Third, the very notion of "lesser than what they could have" is offensive to humanity in general, because it implies that some people are somehow better human beings than others. That is not what marriage is about. It's not about net worth, alphas and betas, standing in society, or anything of that nature. It's about love, partnership, and building a life together.

Fourth, women are not brood mares. We are not required to "settle down" and breed just to make men happy, and the human race is in no danger of dying out.

If I were you, I'd concentrate on my own life, instead of trying to manipulate or control women into behaving as you think they should behave and doing what you think they should do.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,768 posts, read 4,077,389 times
Reputation: 4752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110 View Post
There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

First, you're equating sexual attractiveness to be the primary reason a man marries a woman. That is beyond sexist in its objectification.

Second, you're encouraging hypergamy, because you later talk about how men don't marry until they are older, themselves. Actually, as the article notes, it's 27 for women, 29 for men these days. But even if you were right, the implication is that women should trade their sexual attractiveness to get some kind of security or marry up, as men who are older are generally more well-established and wealthier than young men. Are you then going to complain if a woman marries a man for his money?

Third, the very notion of "lesser than what they could have" is offensive to humanity in general, because it implies that some people are somehow better human beings than others. That is not what marriage is about. It's not about net worth, alphas and betas, standing in society, or anything of that nature. It's about love, partnership, and building a life together.

Fourth, women are not brood mares. We are not required to "settle down" and breed just to make men happy, and the human race is in no danger of dying out.

If I were you, I'd concentrate on my own life, instead of trying to manipulate or control women into behaving as you think they should behave and doing what you think they should do.
Wish I could rep you 10 times!

Seems like this whole argument just serves some personal agenda the OP has.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:30 PM
 
165 posts, read 55,768 times
Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110 View Post
There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

First, you're equating sexual attractiveness to be the primary reason a man marries a woman. That is beyond sexist in its objectification. Hard to swallow (heh) but its the truth. A large portion of a woman's value is based on her sexual attractiveness. I know you'll deny deny deny, but that IS reality.

Second, you're encouraging hypergamy, because you later talk about how men don't marry until they are older, themselves. Actually, as the article notes, it's 27 for women, 29 for men these days. But even if you were right, the implication is that women should trade their sexual attractiveness to get some kind of security or marry up, as men who are older are generally more well-established and wealthier than young men. Are you then going to complain if a woman marries a man for his money? No. It happens all the time. Money = Status. A man's value, aka attractiveness, is based on a number of things. Charm, charisma, confidence, MONEY / STATUS, and looks. For a woman, looks is first on the list. This is fact.

Third, the very notion of "lesser than what they could have" is offensive to humanity in general, because it implies that some people are somehow better human beings than others. That is not what marriage is about. It's not about net worth, alphas and betas, standing in society, or anything of that nature. It's about love, partnership, and building a life together. In the end, you are here to procreate to further the human race. If a woman marries and reproduces with a man of lesser value to the human race, she is doing humanity a disservice. Yes, this a cold way to look at the world, but the world is truly not as soft and fluffy as some would have you beleive.

Fourth, women are not brood mares. We are not required to "settle down" and breed just to make men happy, and the human race is in no danger of dying out. Then don't settle down. I don't care. I have enjoyed the sexual market place as it is today. A little sour that the girls you want to bring home to mom are a hard find, but it is fun nonetheless.

If I were you, I'd concentrate on my own life, instead of trying to manipulate or control women into behaving as you think they should behave and doing what you think they should do.
I'm not the feminist on CNN or blogs telling women how to live thier lives sweetheart. I just came to CD to vent a little and hear some opinions. I am quite focused on my career and my life and take care of my own. If women want to ho it up, fine by me, just don't complain when the guy you really want thinks your gross cause you slept with half the city.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 12:31 PM
 
Location: NY
6,211 posts, read 5,405,962 times
Reputation: 6750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110 View Post
There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

First, you're equating sexual attractiveness to be the primary reason a man marries a woman. That is beyond sexist in its objectification.

Second, you're encouraging hypergamy, because you later talk about how men don't marry until they are older, themselves. Actually, as the article notes, it's 27 for women, 29 for men these days. But even if you were right, the implication is that women should trade their sexual attractiveness to get some kind of security or marry up, as men who are older are generally more well-established and wealthier than young men. Are you then going to complain if a woman marries a man for his money?

Third, the very notion of "lesser than what they could have" is offensive to humanity in general, because it implies that some people are somehow better human beings than others. That is not what marriage is about. It's not about net worth, alphas and betas, standing in society, or anything of that nature. It's about love, partnership, and building a life together.

Fourth, women are not brood mares. We are not required to "settle down" and breed just to make men happy, and the human race is in no danger of dying out.

If I were you, I'd concentrate on my own life, instead of trying to manipulate or control women into behaving as you think they should behave and doing what you think they should do.
Every day I try to rep a post of yours, and every day it tells me I cannot until I spread more reps around!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:05 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top