Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2017, 04:30 PM
 
Location: NNJ
15,051 posts, read 10,043,591 times
Reputation: 17223

Advertisements

1950s, I would be breaking the law by being in an interracial relationship. No thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2017, 04:49 PM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
7,400 posts, read 6,351,299 times
Reputation: 9636
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDistinguishedGentleman View Post
I'm not trying to politicize anything. I was making a statement towards that poster, who is known for being extremely liberal in her views.
You weren't responding to me when you initially shared about your M.O. when it comes to meeting women online, or sowing your oats via flings, and how you make moves on women even when they don't show interest in you. *shudder*

Nah. You offered up all these gems on your own. I took these points and contrasted them with one of your posts (not in response to me) about not preferring to date liberal women (no big deal, feelings are mutual), and how you now prefer to date conservative and religious women.

What you've shared in the three threads you've been active in today is in stark contrast of the [socially visible] behaviors of men in the "golden years" of the seemingly idyllic 1950s. If you want, or attempt, to argue a certain era/culture was better because x, y and z, then it makes sense to possess traits that align with said culture. Instead, you wish to argue it was better... for men, not actually better.

Quote:
Source?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0205103258.htm

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/imp...divorce-rates/

Barna survey: Baptists have highest divorce rate (Baptist denominations and sects are concentrated in the South.)

http://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/111705

Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
It is a lazy argument to clump people into a group (liberal vs conservative in this case) and flog the group with generalizations.
He knows I'm very liberal. I don't hide that detail. He's also expressed his preference for a certain type. Fine. It's just fallacious to behave one way, tell others they should be *this* way, or think a certain way, the way of a bygone era (chemistry was of little importance for the purpose of coupling up in older generations, as it was seen as a duty and served the function of having children), while not practicing those principles. Don't argue for something by making broad pronouncements that you can't even uphold. It is an ideological matter at that point. If you don't want folks to poke holes in your argument, don't make a weak argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2017, 05:16 PM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
7,400 posts, read 6,351,299 times
Reputation: 9636
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDistinguishedGentleman View Post
Again, had their been better options, I wouldn't have engaged in flings. I grew up in the very liberal New York City and that's just how people behave in that area for the most part.
If only your "options" remained chaste, then you would have, too? So, your chasteness relies on the type of available women? Hmm. And here I thought if you have strong principles that you believe in, not just for others, apparently, but for yourself, you'd adhere to them. That means practicing those principles all by yourself by not doing x, y and x until the time was right.

Of course, people can come to new understands and dedicate themselves to their new principles, but they'd still make it a point to practice what they preach.

Quote:
I actually am abstaining and have for some time, thank you very much. I have not engaged in casual sex in years and do not plan on restarting that.
Uh huh. What do the receipts say? Tells a different story, but go ahead, change your tune to fit your questionable narrative.

Quote:
I do not. I generally avoided even attempting to start relationships until a couple months ago when I decided that I wanted kids.

From about 18-27, I mostly was interested in short-term flings, going to bars, and hooking up. Then from 27-29, I lost interest in that and kind of just dated whoever was around. It was only about 2 months ago that I decided that I wanted a family and am, therefore, dating again and meeting a lot of women.
And dudes who abstain, or behave as a 1950s distinguished gentleman, don't make moves on women just to see what you can get, when she doesn't show interest. But let me guess, you're reformed now, right?

It is what it is. You can't back your own argument with your dearly-held "principles" because you don't actually practice them. You just want "women" to.

Quote:
Speak for yourself.

The 1950s were a far better time and the culture was better. I was young and formidable and brainwashed by our current society in the past to think that what I was doing was the best thing. It wasn't.

I was wrong in the past and I admit that.
Yes, Jim Crow and Anti-miscegenation laws were fantastic. Just great. And women lacking autonomy and agency, having so few options, being able to be more than a helpmate and caregiver, staying in crappy, abusive, controlling marriages, also fantastic. I mean, who wants equity and equality.



Quote:
Well, there are moral issues with these things even if you don't subscribe to them.
Those are your moral issues. Not mine.

Quote:
To put it a bit more frankly, there are certain types of people that shouldn't be engaging in certain behaviors. I will do the best I can to see that they do not engage in such behavior.

I think we both know what I'm saying here.
Nope. You're being intentionally vague, or you're not quite sure how to convey your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2017, 06:35 PM
 
3,271 posts, read 2,180,151 times
Reputation: 2458
What man goes into a relationship thinking divorce?

All he's trying to say is, sometimes you got to have heart. To many people don't have heart. That's all he's trying to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2017, 11:41 AM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,612,234 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster View Post
What man goes into a relationship thinking divorce?

All he's trying to say is, sometimes you got to have heart. To many people don't have heart. That's all he's trying to say.
What person of either gender goes into a marriage thinking divorce?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2017, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Middle of the valley
48,436 posts, read 34,627,532 times
Reputation: 73585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms.Mathlete View Post
Geez, if my husband wanted a divorce tomorrow, I can't imagine wanting to hold him hostage in a marriage that he no longer wants to be in.
This is the bottom line!!

Who wants to be in a marriage with another who wants out?
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2017, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Middle of the valley
48,436 posts, read 34,627,532 times
Reputation: 73585
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDistinguishedGentleman View Post
If this is true, and I'm highly skeptical that it is, then why do women seem so quick to divorce? If they don't benefit from it, why are 70%+ of divorce initiated by women?

No human in their right mind would push for something that negatively affects them.


Dude.


Women initiate 70% of ALL chores and errands.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2017, 01:45 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,126 posts, read 107,381,087 times
Reputation: 115942
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDistinguishedGentleman View Post
If this is true, and I'm highly skeptical that it is, then why do women seem so quick to divorce? If they don't benefit from it, why are 70%+ of divorce initiated by women?

No human in their right mind would push for something that negatively affects them.
I have no idea what you're talking about--women being "so quick to divorce". I know no such women. You could ask why men are so quick to cheat, and thereby cause divorce proceedings to be initiated. But these are nonsensical questions. Women generally don't divorce to get a shower of goodies, of some sort. They divorce because something in the marriage has gone bad. Maybe they and their spouse got married too young, and made poor choices. It could be anything.

I did know a guy, however, who seemed to marry and divorce for the shower of goodies, in the divorce settlement. But the divorce was mutually-initiated, because the marriage didn't work out. He made out like a bandit in the settlement, but that's not why he divorced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2017, 01:54 PM
 
Location: NNJ
15,051 posts, read 10,043,591 times
Reputation: 17223
They do exist though.... Gold diggers marry for money. It isn't a stretch they would also divorce for money

BUT

One has to admit that that is probably a small percentage of marriages. Even smaller for "male gold diggers" or whatever that's called.

I personally know one "gold digger" who obviously married for money and a few that would marry for money if given the opportunity. They aren't ashamed of that... it is what it is.... it is a door to a better life. Not to mention if they break up they'll probably still have a better life than prior. Mutual benefits from both parties of consenting adults...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2017, 02:12 PM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
7,400 posts, read 6,351,299 times
Reputation: 9636
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
They do exist though.... Gold diggers marry for money. It isn't a stretch they would also divorce for money

BUT

One has to admit that that is probably a small percentage of marriages. Even smaller for "male gold diggers" or whatever that's called.

I personally know one "gold digger" who obviously married for money and a few that would marry for money if given the opportunity. They aren't ashamed of that... it is what it is.... it is a door to a better life. Not to mention if they break up they'll probably still have a better life than prior. Mutual benefits from both parties of consenting adults...
Yep.

I have a friend who openly admits she likes older men with money. She doesn't specify how much, but definitely mid-six figures and up. And by older, 20+ years. She's 26, and her current beau is 50, and the one before that. She hasn't always had the greatest taste in men apart from their healthy bank accounts. Her last relationship could actually be the Christian Grey/Anastasia dynamic. He flew her places, spent time in Hollywood going to screenings and functions, vacationed, boating trips, took her shopping, let her stay at his house.

But... he was abusive. Behind that facade of the Cinderella fantasy, as she claimed, things weren't all well.

She jumped into the next relationship a month later with a new guy she gushes about. He "seems" nice. Thing is, she's drop dead gorgeous, and she knows it, and they know it, so they get the "arm candy" and she (and her daughters) get a nice life, temporarily at least. These men know the deal, but it's consensual and mutual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 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 10:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top