@plainoldme,
I was sorta hinting at that sort of thing when I mentioned doing the dishes (above), POM.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Im ugly as a toad and I got a beautiful girl to marry me'
OH wait.....
Im rich.
I thought you looked exactly like Ulysses S. Grant ?
This co-dependency thing somewhat annoys me (coughs to Mame), though I appreciate it is true sometimes. Further, I think it is a function, to some extent, of people being able to be independent, the concept showing up in, what, the eighties? I know, we all knew independent people before then. Me, for example.
When I was supporting my husband, that laggard, he was writing plays and screenplays more hours than I was working. He also cooked, and so on.
That didn't work out but he got very close, at Paramount and Disney. I'm a crabby reader and I liked a lot of his work, beating a lot of stuff I've seen on the screen and I'm from a hollywood family background. I could go on with stories. There's still one of his screenplays I'd like to see made.
He did work several years and made more than I did, while still writing in the middle of the night. And then stopped for a while to try again. I agreed with him on this. It was easy enough to get along on my income, and he hardly ever spent money, much less waste it, but we didn't have savings or investments, insurance was hard enough. (We bought a house together, he with his prior earnings, and me, with some savings. Payments were low.) Eventually, I wanted to go to school again, which coincided with his work years, though I still worked. He eventually branched out on his writing and theater managerial knowledge and started getting good work, slowly. At some point I started my own small business, read small as the main word, small and time consuming. And then I had my designs on writing a book, and even got a reputable publisher.
And then we grew apart, as the Gores would say. But I don't think we were co-dependent, we were co-supportive.
I think I would do it again, we had interesting times. I agree it was all financially foolish. But the experience was rich.
@james203,
The capacity to reproduce successfully.
One the one hand, this includes:
Physical fertility, capacity to provide resources whilst rearing offspring, capacity to protect whilst rearing offspring, reliability in all of the above qualities. I'm sure there are a number of related qualities I've not thought of.
On the other hand, this includes;
Tendency to take risks. Tendency to unpredictability.
Whilst the above alternative qualities may seem somewhat contradictory, this is because they are. However, the conclusion one might draw from this is that there are differing environments where to the two types of qualities are differentially best fitted and women face a dilemma of deciding which type of man is the best bet. This seems to have been resolved (certainly in the case of other mammals as evidenced by the research) that what they do is form a stable relationship with the first type of man and sire several offspring with him. However, also covertly copulate with a type 2 man and so produce at least 1 child who is likely to inherit these qualities instead.
A case of not placing all of one's eggs in one basket, I suppose.
@stevecook172001,
Well, supposedly, good looks are a signal of the capacity to reproduce successfully because good looks are partially based upon good health.
@stevecook172001,
given that women can now completely control their childbearing I dont think that they are looking for good genetics for child production. They can use any sperm they want, what they are wanting in a mate is a guy who is good at raising kids.
We have no way to know, but I would expect that the rate of presumed paternity is not the real paternity is going up. I think that women are increasingly tending to play house with the boys, but are getting themselves breed by the men.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote :
Quote: We had a bunch of Seikh engineers that worked for us and the had very tailored nose hairs that were trained to grow among the hairs of their very coiffed moustaches. Lotsa wax and pomade was used "Dapper Dan" I believe. They dont use no "Fop", they were DAPPER DAN guys.
do i use the DAPPER DAN before or after i braid my nose hair ???
pls adv asp
@hawkeye10,
Quote:given that women can now completely control their childbearing I dont think that they are looking for good genetics for child production. They can use any sperm they want, what they are wanting in a mate is a guy who is good at raising kids.
We have no way to know, but I would expect that the rate of presumed paternity is not the real paternity is going up. I think that women are increasingly tending to play house with the boys, but are getting themselves breed by the men.
The hard wired sexual preferences of men and women were forged in the unforgiving crucible of Darwinian selection over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Four thousand years of civilisation and a few decades of reliable birth control don't even begin make a dent in those behavioural predispositions.
Women are all humans, they each one are produced from DNA recombination making each one truly unique. Some women want to be married and others are fickle. It goes a bit like the "taming of the shrew", if you are brave enough to try and tame one. Good hunting brothers!
@stevecook172001,
Quote:The hard wired sexual preferences of men and women were forged in the unforgiving crucible of Darwinian selection over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Four thousand years of civilisation and a few decades of reliable birth control don't even begin make a dent in those behavioural predispositions.
so that increase in divorce and the creation of blended families that I thought I noticed is a figment of my imagination? There have been huge changes in behaviour.
As a result of our constantly breaking families and building new families out of the pieces there is now a lot less interest in who the bio parents are. It becomes too emotionally draining to care. Women still want the best genetics in their kids they can get, they still want their kids to be raised as well as possible, but now they don't need the same man for both duties.
@hawkeye10,
Not true. Please do not put words into the mouths of others.
@plainoldme,
Quote:Not true. Please do not put words into the mouths of others.
I speak only for myself. If I have said something not true then feel free to show up with either evidence or argument, your drive by does not impress.
@hawkeye10,
You contradict yourself. You said that women . . . therefore, you speak, or, at least aspire to speak, for women.
@plainoldme,
Quote:You said that women . . . therefore, you speak, or, at least aspire to speak, for women.
I am speaking for human understanding as best we know it, as is supported by science. There is so far as I am aware no serious debate about what women want when it comes to kids.
@hawkeye10,
Quote:so that increase in divorce and the creation of blended families that I thought I noticed is a figment of my imagination?
Divorce is following the instinctive formula. Security, safe breed, risk breed. A lot of women get divorced when the children are old enough to be looked after by society. This was a winning formula when people died young.
Quote:but now they don't need the same man for both duties.
They never did. Genetic testing is raising some serious questions about who was who's father in the past. It is just that they remained married anyway.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Women still want the best genetics in their kids they can get, they still want their kids to be raised as well as possible, but now they don't need the same man for both duties.
Then how do you explain women who live with low-life scum? The best of the worst?
There are women who get pregnant accidentally who decide to keep the child, regardless of the genetic pedigree of the sperm donor. How do you explain that?
How do you explain Leona?
@Mame,
Quote:Then how do you explain women who live with low-life scum? The best of the worst?
I think the three biggest reasons we find women shopping down market are:
1) they are at the bottom of the market thus don't have a choice
2) they have a bad self image of themselves/have no confidence/are victims so they think they need to be down market
3) they are doing it out of spite, as in "daddy would hate him, so I am going to **** him"
Think about the kind of guys you would consider having sex with, and the kind of guys you would consider being in a relationship with....would you consider the ugly inside and out guys for either position? Is there is difference...as in "I would consider ******* him but I would never go out with him?
I think when you examine who you are attracted to, and women in general are, you will see that I am right. And some of those "scum" are probably aggressive and mean men that you dont think women should be attracted to, so you can't figure out why women are putting up with them....but women tend to be attracted to aggressive men, it is genetically coded. A generation of Feminist law making and indoctrination is not going to overwrite the code.
Quote:There are women who get pregnant accidentally who decide to keep the child, regardless of the genetic pedigree of the sperm donor. How do you explain that?
Do I really need to explain the emotional storm that is abortion?
Quote:How do you explain Leona?
IDK Leona
Women want communication, support, friendship, attention, sex, and of course money. It all depends on TRUST. Communication is key.
Some fall prey to pride, self image, and other sins of human nature. They are human.
@hawkeye10,
You can't say that women do not look for potentially good genetics because they control their reproduction . . . that's a contradiction. A woman above a certain social rank and a certain IQ with some education is going to look for good genes in a man.
BTW, there is some evidence that intelligence is inherited more strongly through the mother's side than the father's.
