Women :who do you love more ,your husband or kids (married, jealous)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
But it's the husband's seed that ensures those generations.
Besides, the wife and husband share sexual bond that's beyond anything a mother shares with her children.
I think that this logic shouldn't even be present. But I guess your logic is very much going with the general attitude in society. I mean, if people are aborting well over 1 million perfectly healthy fetuses each year because they simply plan on spending a few more years child-free, your logic makes perfect sense. People are already following your logic very, very often.
But then again, like I said... it's the #1 in my previous post about "personal fulfillment, rather than that.
Actually, the reason you think you'd choose your husband first in a drowning or other emergency situation is simply because you have not had kids yet.
In general, once a woman has a child there's a fierce natural instinct to protect that child that comes out in them. You simply can't appreciate this right now.
Most parents agree that in such an emergency they would both choose to save the child over trying to save one another. It's just what parents instinctively do.
It might be what the woman would do but not the man.
With the question, "if kids and hubby were drowning, who would you save?"
I've asked my friends this, they all say the kids.
When I was a lot younger, someone asked me this question, I said, "the husband because I can have kids with him again".
I guess that was the wrong answer. Maybe that's why I don't want kids. I'll take the man over them, because in my world, he comes first and will always come first (unless he's an ass and I leave him, LOL).
You would feel differently if you had kids. If you don't have kids, it's really impossible to imagine how you feel about them.
With the question, "if kids and hubby were drowning, who would you save?"
I've asked my friends this, they all say the kids.
When I was a lot younger, someone asked me this question, I said, "the husband because I can have kids with him again".
I guess that was the wrong answer. Maybe that's why I don't want kids. I'll take the man over them, because in my world, he comes first and will always come first (unless he's an ass and I leave him, LOL).
The man who finds a woman like this is very fortunate, too many women these days are willing to throw their man under the bus.
But I should have said this is the priority list for everyday life, not emergency situations like the drowning someone else was talking about.
Think about it, God would never need you to rescue HIM, so he would never be your "top priority" in an emergency. See?
Once you cite Bible, please realize that your parents would come over your spouse as well. Your parents literally had control over your life and could order you anything. The alternative to any family member was to move out or be cast out. Many family members would rather choose death than being cast out in the Middle Ages. If you ask why is that.... just think of Socrates, the situation wasn't any better even 2,000 years later. You couldn't leave your feudal landlord's domain but you'd be cast out. You wouldn't survive first winter in most cases, and by leaving your landlord's property you'd become an outlaw as well. People would run away only in dire situations and even then they'd rather face the consequences more often than running away.
I really don't see how this would make marriages any more stable by placing your relatives above your nuclear family. If you think that makes marriages more stable, just look at countries like Saudi Arabia. Many marriages (including the "official ones") are literally destroyed by the in-laws.
Once you cite Bible, please realize that your parents would come over your spouse as well. Your parents literally had control over your life and could order you anything. The alternative to any family member was to move out or be cast out. Many family members would rather choose death than being cast out in the Middle Ages. If you ask why is that.... just think of Socrates, the situation wasn't any better even 2,000 years later. You couldn't leave your feudal landlord's domain but you'd be cast out. You wouldn't survive first winter in most cases, and by leaving your landlord's property you'd become an outlaw as well. People would run away only in dire situations and even then they'd rather face the consequences more often than running away.
I really don't see how this would make marriages any more stable by placing your relatives above your nuclear family. If you think that makes marriages more stable, just look at countries like Saudi Arabia. Many marriages (including the "official ones") are literally destroyed by the in-laws.
I did not cite the Bible
In addition, Christians are no longer living under the law of the old testament.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
