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.
Re: settling. I could be wrong but it seems for every 10 years a woman ages, the requirement list for mr right gets 2 pages longer.
Usually not but if she gets divorced with a nice house and settlement, plus has a reasonable job, don't expect her to ever settle.
However, most women rapidly prepare a list between ages 17 and 20 and then add only a little over the next 15 or 20 years. At some point, however, reality clicks in and they may chuck the list overnight. This is where "settling" gets a bad name. In a panic, they marry the wrong guy and seldom take stock and realize that they passed over many far better prospects a decade earlier.
Women who don't take stock early can be annoying. I worked art a place where the manager hired pretty, busty blonds for entry level professional training positions. Many (2/3) arrived with a hubby in tow who required financial support but definitely met all the requirements for Mr. Right, at least among 20 year olds. However, their opinion of these men was gradually evolving, especially when they were unable to do anything with their degree.
The rest (the annoying ones) were those who hadn't been able to snag a guy who impressed their girlfriends, while in college. I believe that they started work with the expectation that they would soon do them one better by snagging a Mr. Right who was a manager. Unfortunately for them, these guys were all married and that only left me! I never hit on any of them because it was obvious that they had no interest but all the same, treated them well at work. This didn't prevent them from taking their frustrations out on me.
Well, you would be the gold medalist in that event. Let's see, you're arguing with an MD and a PhD on a disease? Nice try, Scooter.
And when you make an ass of yourself on here by arguing with people who actually work in the field, that makes us all winners.
I could care less if you or anyone else works in the field, you must be terrible doctors and really not know ANYTHING if you think there are diseases that make you spontaneously gain weight despite not eating. That's a miracle! That's like an elephant literally springing up out of nowhere. I'm trying to think, MAYBE a cancerous tumor could somehow grow on its own without feeding it, but even then that couldn't account for 25 pounds of weight, realistically speaking, so nope that's out. The fact is if you eat 2,000 calories a day and you burn 2,000 calories a day, you will not gain weight. That's a fact. It's indisputable. If your metabolism slows down, and you are burning only 1,400 calories a day, and still consuming 2,000, yes, you will gain weight.
It's a VERY simple equation, and if you cannot understand that you seriously do not even deserve a high school diploma let alone a college or post-graduate degree. Bottom line: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GAIN WEIGHT IF YOU ARE NOT EATING MORE THAN YOU ARE BURNING. 'nuff said.
I could care less if you or anyone else works in the field, you must be terrible doctors and really not know ANYTHING if you think there are diseases that make you spontaneously gain weight despite not eating. That's a miracle! That's like an elephant literally springing up out of nowhere. I'm trying to think, MAYBE a cancerous tumor could somehow grow on its own without feeding it, but even then that couldn't account for 25 pounds of weight, realistically speaking, so nope that's out. The fact is if you eat 2,000 calories a day and you burn 2,000 calories a day, you will not gain weight. That's a fact. It's indisputable. If your metabolism slows down, and you are burning only 1,400 calories a day, and still consuming 2,000, yes, you will gain weight.
It's a VERY simple equation, and if you cannot understand that you seriously do not even deserve a high school diploma let alone a college or post-graduate degree. Bottom line: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GAIN WEIGHT IF YOU ARE NOT EATING MORE THAN YOU ARE BURNING. 'nuff said.
First rule of holes, man. When you find yourself in one, stop digging.
I could care less if you or anyone else works in the field, you must be terrible doctors and really not know ANYTHING if you think there are diseases that make you spontaneously gain weight despite not eating. That's a miracle! That's like an elephant literally springing up out of nowhere. I'm trying to think, MAYBE a cancerous tumor could somehow grow on its own without feeding it, but even then that couldn't account for 25 pounds of weight, realistically speaking, so nope that's out. The fact is if you eat 2,000 calories a day and you burn 2,000 calories a day, you will not gain weight. That's a fact. It's indisputable. If your metabolism slows down, and you are burning only 1,400 calories a day, and still consuming 2,000, yes, you will gain weight.
It's a VERY simple equation, and if you cannot understand that you seriously do not even deserve a high school diploma let alone a college or post-graduate degree. Bottom line: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GAIN WEIGHT IF YOU ARE NOT EATING MORE THAN YOU ARE BURNING. 'nuff said.
'Knowledge and ego are directly related. The less knowledge, the greater the ego.' ~ Albert Einstein
on settling i guess i have settled if i can have pleasant conversation with a few people on CDF and be kind to a few small animals in my daily life, i feel like a success. i wonder if women think that way or just me.
Wow, this is an interesting, yet not surprising, thread.
I've been dealing with PCOS for as long as I can remember. The first time I cried about it was about 8 years ago when my doctor said to me, with a look of true sadness on her face, "you can go to the gym for two hours a day, but you will not, at this point, see the results you want to see".
Oh, hell yeah. I got the "golden ticket". I had something that, at that moment in time, was "controlled" by medications meant for diabetics. Somewhat. Maybe. Woo hoo.
I went for months undernourishing myself. Severely. After about 5 months of subsisting on less than 1200 calories a day, I lost about 3 pounds. Yup. A boyfriend of mine at the time actually made a comment about it. Much like what I've read here. "Oh duh....you need to burn more calories".
Several years of therapy later...
I have been with my boyfriend for 3 years. When I hear him complaining about his "gut", it's like a punch to mine. That's life. And, what he says can't make me feel worse than what I feel on my own.
As I expected, both the articles and many of the posts commenting on it are brimming with misogyny. Basically, they boil down to the idea that women either have impossibly high standards for potential husbands, or no standards, and of course, they are to be blamed either way, because let's face it, women are just shallow and don't know what's good for them. Outrageous canards are spouted about, like that supposedly "most women" make formal lists of impossible qualities for future husbands, as if NotARedneck used X-ray vision to scan the private files of "most women", or as if he read their thoughts, or as if "most women" would ever bare their soul to someone who is so obviously full of contempt for the female sex. (Hint: If most members of the opposite sex want nothing to do with you, it's far more likely there is something wrong with you than that half of humanity has a problem.)
The author is an idiot. She operates on the assumption that since couples that are in love frequently become disillusioned with marriage, couples whose partners don't much care for each other take the road in the opposite direction, from indifference to bliss. This is a crazy assumption, one that can only be made by someone who has never been married, much less out of desperation. The truth is that marital satisfaction is almost always a trip on an even surface or downhill. Best case scenario, you will only be as happy in your marriage as the day after your wedding, whether you married because you are madly in love, or because you wanted to get married for the sake of getting married. More likely, however, your marital satisfaction will decrease over time. It decreases a little for some and a lot for others, but decrease it does. The higher you start out on the marital satisfaction scale, the higher you are likely to end up when your marriage hits its relative rock bottom; and conversely, the lower your marital satisfaction is in the beginning, the lower it will sink as the time goes by. And so this means that if you get married, you should love, or at least really, really like your fiance.
And there is another thing about marital satisfaction. It is really not subject to rationality. That is, certain likes and dislikes can be rationally explained, but there is no way to convince oneself not to be disgusted by your potential partner's eczema. We cannot simply decide, as a matter of practicality, what will turn us on and what will turn us off -- and since it's exactly the same for men and for women, it's really unfair to slam women as shallow for it.
I bet most women here have gone out on a blind date at one time or another, that turned out to be a total drag. Perhaps there isn't anything "wrong", per se, with the man (in that he isn't a serial killer, doesn't have 3 heads, and speaks English) -- but there is no chemistry, no rapport, no "it", and ohmygod ohmygod, how do I excuse myself early and what do I do if he tries to kiss me???? Well -- take that feeling and intensify it by a factor of a million; after all, a bad date can be put behind you with one slightly awkward phone conversation, but escape from a marriage will wreak a total devastation on you, especially if you have children. And imagine, you spend not a few hours with this man, but whatever is left of your life. In a typically pedestrian fashion, the author of the article idealizes the Fifties and "traditional marriage", ignoring the fact how many of those "traditional marriages" were intensely unhappy, how many married women took heavy medication to deal with their chronic depressions, and how many of them dealt with their marital dissatisfaction by undergoing lobotomies. On that last one -- yeah, many of these 1950's and 1960's housewives were so appallingly miserable, they actually paid doctors to stick an ice-pick in their brain and wiggle it about; preferring to become zombies or vegetables to experiencing one more day of marital bliss.
Marriage can be heaven, but only with the right person. And no one, no one can decide for any individual woman what the right person is for her. Most women have reasonable standards for a future husband -- he should be passably attractive, not violent, free of weird rashes or loathsome diseases, not plagued by major issues with women, and more or less an equal in terms of interests, intelligence and accomplishments. Is that really too much to expect? Don't men have standards too? And for some women, it just doesn't pan out. The right person never comes along. Sorry. Life isn't perfect. This is no reason to go off and marry someone who turns you off, then spend the next few decades popping Valium and convincing yourself you like this person even though you don't. Instead, people like the author of this article should appreciate what they already have. She should be thankful for her family and friends, for her healthy kid, her prosperity, and for the fact that she lives in a time when a single woman can experience the joy of motherhood without being fired from her job, chased out of her house, and pelted with stones by her neighbors.
She should also appreciate the loving and healthy home she is (presumably) giving to her child. Yes, having a two-parent household is best provided it's a functional, healthy, loving family. However, a normal single parent is certainly better for a child than a father who acts like a boarder and a mother who is strung out on anti-depressants.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Last thing I wanted to remark upon is this totally unfounded observation about older women having higher standards despite being desperate to get married. Again, these totally unproven assertions are used to demonstrate how supposedly irrational women are. I can believe that older women have tougher standards -- but that is because they are probably satisfied with single life more, not less. The older you become, married or not, the more you become set in your ways. Marriage always being a major overhaul of a life, it only makes sense that people whose lifestyles are very entrenched would require more compelling reasons to undertake it. One of my grandmothers became a widow when she was still thin, stylish and socially active. Most people who knew her encouraged her to remarry. She did date, but as far as marriage, she once made a statement that encapsulates the reasons why an older woman would be more exacting: "Look, I am 60. My husband and I spent nearly 40 years together. Marriage to someone new would completely turn my life upside down. I have no time to grow with another person and get used to each other's quirks. So if a really fabulous guy comes along, I'll remarry. If not, I'll be content to live out the rest of my life as a widow." And she did.
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.
