PDA

View Full Version : Why Women Should Marry Young and Why They Should Marry Mature Men



Pages : [1] 2

Haldís
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 12:27 AM
women should marry between the age of 18 and 25 and they should marry men between 30 and 40 years old.... this are the happiest and best marriages and here is why....

look at it from the view of a woman.... her value for men is highest when she is young.... she is at the peak of her beauty, at the peak of her fertility and at the peak of her biology value.... she can have many children and she is in no hurry.... when she hits 20 her value decreases every year.... men prefer young women....

some women make the mistake to waste the best of their years.... either by being short-sighted idiotic bitches that whore around.... or by making very bad mate choices.... which means dating and marrying young males.... who are irresponsible, don't want to commit, and also have no financial security.... then they break up or divorce and are left with children what decreases their future value much....

a young woman (18-25) would do best to date and marry a mature male (30-40) and here is why...

1. he has studied and/or worked his ass off for 15 to 25 years.... he is at the peak of his creative force... he has a house and its paid off... he has two cars (one for you) and they are paid off... he has savings... he has everything and needs just a young woman to enjoy it....

2. he earns enough to support you and the family..... he works during the week... so you have time for yourself.... and on the weekend he needs you to party... you boost his image because there is nothing so envied by his friends and collegues than a man that is loved and worshipped by a young beautiful woman....

3. he is mature and has life experience.... he is stable, understanding and has temper.... he won't get angry easy if you mess up... your mood swings and throwing vases at the wall will probley even entertain him.... he will understand you and guide you.... he won't hit you.... he will spoil you because men love young women that love and worship them....

4. you have a better life and entertainment than any of the girls that hang out in discos looking for a slimy 20 year old male that will just screw and then dump them.... while they hang out there, you have dinners in restaurants... while they make holidays in sylt, you have holidays in the carribean.... while they get cheap glassware and silver you get jewelry and gold...

5. you don't need to have children immediately... you are young and have all time in the world.... your husband can have children in 5 years too... he has no biological clock.... you and he have all time in the world to prepare for the right time.... in the meantime you enjoy your lives.... and once you both want children you still have enough time to have as many as you want and you can afford....

6. chances that he will leave you are slim.... because he can't do better.... chances that you will leave him are slim.... because you can't do better... i have never seen such a marriage breaking up.... they work all out so great....

men should best be 10-15 older than their wives.... women should marry young and they should marry mature men....

zenos316
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 01:22 AM
No I believe men and women should stick to their own age group 1-4 years at the most.

Are you sure your Nordid?

It is not in the Germanic Spirit to be so Materialistic.

Stríbog
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 01:30 AM
She's not being materialistic, she's being practical. It may well be that this would be the system that worked best biologically. Nonetheless, I can't shake the uncomfortable feeling I get when I think of older men cradle-robbing like that.

Sword Brethren
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 01:53 AM
women should marry between the age of 18 and 25 and they should marry men between 30 and 40 years old.... this are the happiest and best marriages and here is why....

look at it from the view of a woman.... her value for men is highest when she is young.... she is at the peak of her beauty, at the peak of her fertility and at the peak of her biology value.... she can have many children and she is in no hurry.... when she hits 20 her value decreases every year.... men prefer young women....
I won't argue with that, too many women wait until they're 25-30 to get married, by then it's harder to have children.




some women make the mistake to waste the best of their years.... either by being short-sighted idiotic bitches that whore around.... or by making very bad mate choices.... which means dating and marrying young males.... who are irresponsible, don't want to commit, and also have no financial security.... then they break up or divorce and are left with children what decreases their future value much....
1) I agree with that point, too many women (and men for that matter) whore around.
However
2) If I was ever in a marriage, with children, and the marriage ended in divorce, I'd not so easily let my kids be taken from me. My father got full custody of me when I was about 12 or so, and I was better off for it.



a young woman (18-25) would do best to date and marry a mature male (30-40) and here is why...
Most older men don't want "new age" "Modern" women that are "liberated" and don't act feminine, but rather feminist. Women should be feminine, not feminists, not whores, not anything but proper ladies. And men shouldn't request, demand, or even tolerate anything else. And yes men, sleeping with women that act like whores, as fun as you may find it, just reinforces the destructive culture we whites are trapped in.




1. he has studied and/or worked his ass off for 15 to 25 years.... he is at the peak of his creative force... he has a house and its paid off... he has two cars (one for you) and they are paid off... he has savings... he has everything and needs just a young woman to enjoy it....
Men that are 40 or so and are not married, probably have problems. I know of a man who is 60, never left home, lives with his parents, but he literally has tons of money, and he is very successful at his work. Would this man be a great catch? He never left the home, never lived on his own... He doesn't know what it's like to truly live, he's obviously emotionally stunted.



2. he earns enough to support you and the family..... he works during the week... so you have time for yourself.... and on the weekend he needs you to party... you boost his image because there is nothing so envied by his friends and collegues than a man that is loved and worshipped by a young beautiful woman....
I wouldn't plan on taking my wife to parties as most parties today consist of losers getting drunk and whoring around. The exception perhaps is the "Dinner party" or "Gathering of friends" where good close friends meet to chat and have a general good time. But "parties" that center around going to a stranger's house, and getting drunk, no, I've never been to one, and never will go.




3. he is mature and has life experience.... he is stable, understanding and has temper.... he won't get angry easy if you mess up... your mood swings and throwing vases at the wall will probley even entertain him.... he will understand you and guide you.... he won't hit you.... he will spoil you because men love young women that love and worship them....
You throw things at my wall, well first of all, that'll give me flashbacks of how my mother treated my father, scare the hell out of me, and I'd probably leave immediately... I don't find women throwing things around to be funny. Women need to be emotionally stable, not "entertaining". I'd never hit a woman, regardless of how old I am. But still, please don't throw things, okay? That isn't too much to ask.




4. you have a better life and entertainment than any of the girls that hang out in discos looking for a slimy 20 year old male that will just screw and then dump them.... while they hang out there, you have dinners in restaurants... while they make holidays in sylt, you have holidays in the carribean.... while they get cheap glassware and silver you get jewelry and gold...
Why do women have such an attraction to jewelry and gold? They do nothing for the race, they do nothing for the family, or for themselves. I'd rather buy a woman guns and things of real use, a car, etc, something that can do something for them. Anyway, I'm a young mal, I don't hang out in discos looking to screw women and dump them. Hell, I'm not looking to screw anybody.




5. you don't need to have children immediately... you are young and have all time in the world.... your husband can have children in 5 years too... he has no biological clock.... you and he have all time in the world to prepare for the right time.... in the meantime you enjoy your lives.... and once you both want children you still have enough time to have as many as you want and you can afford....
I won't argue about that, makes sense.




6. chances that he will leave you are slim.... because he can't do better.... chances that you will leave him are slim.... because you can't do better... i have never seen such a marriage breaking up.... they work all out so great....

men should best be 10-15 older than their wives.... women should marry young and they should marry mature men....
I must say, if the man is 35 and the woman 20, by the time the kid's are older and in their middle teens, the dad might be too old to be actively involved in say, taking them hunting, fishing, swimming, bicycling. Energy goes down seriously after 40-45.

Sword Brethren
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 01:54 AM
It is not in the Germanic Spirit to be so Materialistic.
It is not in any real white Christian spirit to be materialistic, so of course it won't be in the Germanic.

nicholas
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 02:01 AM
I think women who need to marry men 10 years their senior have daddy issues.

I want a women who can take care of herself and doesn't look to me as her "father".

As for the man and the younger woman? I want a lover....not a child that needs protection from the big bad world.

Thorburn
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 02:25 AM
She's not being materialistic, she's being practical. It may well be that this would be the system that worked best biologically. Nonetheless, I can't shake the uncomfortable feeling I get when I think of older men cradle-robbing like that. She refereed to adult females and to an age difference of 10+ years, not to 17 year old minors and an age difference of 23 years (The Curse).

Jack
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 02:38 AM
She refereed to adult females and to an age difference of 10+ years, not to 17 year old minors and an age difference of 23 years (The Curse).
*feels sick*

I'm with Stribog. Cradle snatchers can go burn in hell, I don't know of many young white guys who would sit on their asses while their blood is pumped full of hormones while an entire generation of old folks prey on their girls.

TisaAnne
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 03:07 AM
As a woman, I feel that marrying a man that is 5-10 years my senior to be the best choice. I like older, more mature men, but not a man that is 20 years older than me... that is too old. My father is in his 40's and marrying with a man his age would just feel abnormal, if not just plain weird.

As for the original post in this thread, I think that Reginleif made several relevant points, especially in this excerpt:



look at it from the view of a woman.... her value for men is highest when she is young.... she is at the peak of her beauty, at the peak of her fertility and at the peak of her biology value.... she can have many children and she is in no hurry.... when she hits 20 her value decreases every year.... men prefer young women....

But, I felt that most of the post suggested that older men are naturally wealthy and want to spoil and pamper their women.

Women do not need to be showered with gifts and expensive treats, and men do not need some ideal 'trophy wife' to impress all of their friends. There are more levels of compatibility besides age, wealth and professional status that a woman must take into consideration when chosing a mate. Also, men cannot choose a wife based on her peak fertility rate, pretty face and willingness to be desensitized with presents and attention.

I briefly dated a man who was 38, educated, stable, attractive and wealthy. And, although our conversations were some of the most insightful and intellectually stimulating...I just couldn't see myself being married to someone so different in age and personality. I want someone who is wise, but also youthful in spirit. I don't want to always be serious for the benefit of my partner, or go to fancy restaurants, schmooze at uptight parties and sip expensive vintage wines...That's not me. I don't need wealth and affluence to be happy with a man, because there's more to life than "Carribean vacations" and "jewelry and gold".

I don't want a 'sugar daddy', I want someone who loves and respects me, and if he's poor as a pauper...then so be it. :D

Thorburn
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 03:17 AM
*feels sick*

I'm with Stribog. Cradle snatchers can go burn in hell, I don't know of many young white guys who would sit on their asses while their blood is pumped full of hormones while an entire generation of old folks prey on their girls. I herewith have bestowed upon you the Anti-Cosmo Hero Award First Class to the
Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds for long-term, excellent and examplary dedication in opposing and quaranting The Curse of the Cosmo. :goldcup

Stríbog
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 03:18 AM
This type of relationship is rather repulsive and befitting of Hollywood:

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/the_pledge/_group_photos/jack_nicholson13.jpg

http://eur.yimg.com/i/xp/premier_photo/5/55a7d90dc0.jpg

I think fathers should be young enough when they sire children to be able to play ball with their kids or take them fishing or whatever. Jack Nicholson had a kid at like 59 or 60 or something. That mean's he'll be almost 80 when that kid starts college. That's highly dysfunctional.

nicholas
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 03:37 AM
Jack Nicholson had a kid at like 59 or 60 or something. That mean's he'll be almost 80 when that kid starts college. That's highly dysfunctional.
When you're going to be too old to play catch with the kid when he's 10, you're too old to have a kid.

Nick

Jack
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 11:56 AM
I herewith have bestowed upon you the Anti-Cosmo Hero Award First Class to the
Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds for long-term, excellent and examplary dedication in opposing and quaranting The Curse of the Cosmo. :goldcup
Well at least something cool came out of feeling sick at the prospect of mass... for once I'm short of words. It's diseased. Thank the Gods I'm not the only one who considers that repulsive.

SargonusRex
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Im going to become older every day, so i agree with you ;) ... i think most males need a little bit more time to grow up mentally.
Hmm, this must be the reason why my girlfriend is only 1 year younger than myself - im really mentally grown up!

*giggle* - just "kid"ding ! :D

Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Genetic Engineering is a possibility is this a well. I could not think of a better idea. Why create more defects in man? I think a racial mixing ban should be included plus nationality preservation. What more could be better than that. I would more than likely want a girl of mixed-European heritage due to my mixed European heritage. Native-American blood must stop passing around through European-Americans in the US as well. It is destroying our people. This is not "Nutzi" sounding. It is true. I admire NS Germany, but I am not a sympathizer of Neo-Nazism or skinheads. All these American groups must be abolished for one political party to formed to overthrow the two party system. These rally nuts are helping multculturalism by eliminating themselves by going to jail.

I really see a woman with a mature man great because there are people who take advantage of women and abuse them and just pretty much throw them out like garbage in a sense.

Blood_Axis
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 08:57 PM
It's funny that I had the same discussion with a good friend of mine some days ago.

I'm 26 and haven't gotten married yet.

I intend to get married if and when I find the person that I consider to be the closest thing to a soulmate and fits most of my standards.

I will not make a marriage out of convenience or social pressure.

Besides, my life never revolved around boyfriend or husband hunting.

Rather, I have always strived towards becoming full and independent as a person, and not waiting from my man to make me feel so.

I think that when one achieves personal fullfillment, he or she will be more respected by the other half.

I do not like men seeing me as a trophy that boosts their male ego, nor I like seeing my man as a bank and an insurance company.

I guess that human relationships should be based on mutual love and understanding, and mostly respect towards the other's seperate entity and personality.

We have enough economic and social interactions to worry about in our everyday life, and I think that love affairs should be a seperate condition.

Saxon
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 10:05 PM
I don't think of it as an age problem but more of a maturity problem. When I was a younger male I liked older females because they represented my aspirations to have a family and just were more relaxed and confident rather than immature, unpredictable and "flighty". The materialistic part, well, I can see the point but I'd rather be a peasant with many kids whereas the opposing argument is usually have less kids so you can have more toys. One child is worth a thousand toys and are more fun with greater rewards.

I have seen many couples get together to be in their late 20s or their 30s and finally want kids but can't or have problems, where both males and females had some biological problem. Females I think should have children at a younger age because their bodies can bounce back a lot better. As long as the male is "mature" there shouldn't be a problem (some younger males are quite mature), and I agree that an older male is more likely to be that way.

Blood_Axis
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 10:22 PM
I concur ;)

I do believe that there should a slight age difference between the two partners (the man of course being older), only because in general females tend to "mature" faster.

I have had some second thoughts about that too though, since I have seen 40 year-old males with insecure, immature, infantile behavior, and 20 year-old males that are full grown individuals that know exactly what they want from life.

The same thing holds for females, too, of course :P

Therefore, I think that age difference is a vary unstable criterion for engaging into a relationship.

It is moslty a matter of "chemistry", mutual understanding and a proportionate level of life experience :)

Tommy Vercetti
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 11:30 PM
For me as an aging male, these are very consoling words

Gornahoor
Sunday, December 5th, 2004, 11:54 PM
I would recommend to everyone -- particularly those who seem to have unconsciously absorbed the "values" or the surrounding liberal culture -- to consider the chapter "Women and Marriage" from William Gayley Simpson's Which Way Western Man. For example, this is one thought:

"The difficulties and riskiness of a marital venture tend to increase with advance in the mental and spiritual development of the parties involved. It is one thing, and a comparatively easy thing, for a man and a woman of the peasant or laborer type to find satisfaction in marriage. Their rather lumpish natures can settle down side by side and without difficulty find their simple needs and desires satisfied. But a man or woman of highly developed personality has a sensitivity and bristles with points and angles of taste, conviction and imperious drive that make it exceedingly difficult to mesh his or her life comfortably and happily with the life of another. To some extent, the difficulty can be met by having the woman married early, white she is plastic, to a man perhaps ten years her senior. She will then tend to learn form him, and to shape her life to fit into his. But even so, marriage will continue to be more of a gamble for those of the highly differentiated development that goes with personality and culture."

It seems to me that a healthy-minded woman would want the best available father for the children. So it would be natural for her to choose a man who has already demonstrated his superiority, physically, intellectually, financially and spirituality. On the other hand, a woman of a "lumpish nature" will choose some young man who might (or might not) sweep her off her feet and simply hope for the best.

Evolved
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 12:17 AM
I'm not attracted to latently pedophilic old farts who need Viagra and the idea of them "worshipping" me is disturbing.

Why stop at 40? Grandpa has even more "life experience," he can tell you cool stories about WWII.

Johnny Reb
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 01:57 AM
I don't see any problem with a 10 year or so age difference. If they were going to do the traditional nuclear family with the husband being the provider, you would want him to be fairly well-established. 25-30 years old let's say. However, who in their right mind would want to marry a 30 year old woman who spent her 20's sleeping around, as is all the rage these days?

:hveðrungur:
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 02:05 AM
I allways thought two people should get married because they love eachother, not because one has a big bank account, two cars or one can carry the other on their back for their whole life. The opinions voiced in this thread by Reginleif seem rather shallow, materialistic and just plain jewish to me.


I think women who need to marry men 10 years their senior have daddy issues.

I want a women who can take care of herself and doesn't look to me as her "father".

As for the man and the younger woman? I want a lover....not a child that needs protection from the big bad world.

Agreed 110% on that.

Sword Brethren
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 02:27 AM
I don't see any problem with a 10 year or so age difference. If they were going to do the traditional nuclear family with the husband being the provider, you would want him to be fairly well-established. 25-30 years old let's say. However, who in their right mind would want to marry a 30 year old woman who spent her 20's sleeping around, as is all the rage these days?

Exactly, when I am 26-30 and ready to settle down and marry, I'm not going to take a 21-22 year old woman who has been sleeping around since age 18. I want a virgin, period, no exceptions (well maybe a few exceptions) but why would I want a woman who has put out for any or virtually any guy out there? Maybe it'd be okay if she had 1 boyfriend from 18-21 and they were sexually involved, but these women who have had dozens of different men inside them in every possible way, I wouldn't touch one with a 20 foot pole.

I plan to remain a virgin until my wedding night, so why would I want to take somebody who can't offer me the same? I plan to wait, so shouldn't I have the right to except whatever woman I someday marry to be a virgin? I'm not some hypocritical Sob that thinks it's a males right to fornicate far and wide while women can't do likewise.

Either sex fornicating far and wide, indeed either gender having sex outside of marriage angers me.

:hveðrungur:
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 02:46 AM
Exactly, when I am 26-30 and ready to settle down and marry, I'm not going to take a 21-22 year old woman who has been sleeping around since age 18. I want a virgin, period, no exceptions.

HAH!! Good luck man!!! As long as you know which hole to stick it in :P

Personally I like a older woman who knows what shes doing, relationship and sex wise. Virgins arnt any fun in bed, too timid, scared, shy ect ect. Im 18, turning 19 soon, ive allways been attracted to women in the 19-25 year old age range. And I know that age does not allways equal maturity but id rather have a woman who knows what shes doing that a kid who is totally ignorant on everything.

nicholas
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 03:33 AM
HAH!! Good luck man!!! As long as you know which hole to stick it in :P

Personally I like a older woman who knows what shes doing, relationship and sex wise. Virgins arnt any fun in bed, too timid, scared, shy ect ect. Im 18, turning 19 soon, ive allways been attracted to women in the 19-25 year old age range. And I know that age does not allways equal maturity but id rather have a woman who knows what shes doing that a kid who is totally ignorant on everything.
plus if you "teach" the young virgin she might end up wanting a lot more sex and not neccessarily with you. Thus you will have spent teh time and effort all for nothing.

Nick

:hveðrungur:
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 03:40 AM
plus if you "teach" the young virgin she might end up wanting a lot more sex and not neccessarily with you. Thus you will have spent teh time and effort all for nothing.

Nick
Yep, older women arnt as flakey as younger women, usually a older woman knows what she wants more than any 18 year old. Again I know a few 18 year old females who are verry mature and know exactally what they want, but that isnt verry common, especially in this day and age. Give me a 24 year old woman over a 18 year old any day :)

Rhydderch
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 04:46 AM
I'm with Stribog. Cradle snatchers can go burn in hell, I don't know of many young white guys who would sit on their asses while their blood is pumped full of hormones while an entire generation of old folks prey on their girls.
You call 30-40 year-olds old folks?

Just remember that in the past it was not uncommon for a 35 year-old to marry a 16 year-old; and yes this was in our own western society such as Britain and Australia.

In those days the rate of divorce was extremely low and marriages were, on the whole, happier than today.

So I think even 15 or 16 is not necessarily too young for a girl to marry, although it would be in many cases. I think anything under 20 is probably too young for a man in most cases.

Now I don't think a large age gap is necessarily preferable to a small one but I think there is nothing wrong with it and it should not be regarded as weird.

Many people see it as weird because they have been indoctrinated with modern ideas about women needing to be 'independent'.

Women need to be protected whatever their age so marrying at 18 or even 16 is not a problem.

nicholas
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 05:36 AM
Yep, older women arnt as flakey as younger women, usually a older woman knows what she wants more than any 18 year old. Again I know a few 18 year old females who are verry mature and know exactally what they want, but that isnt verry common, especially in this day and age. Give me a 24 year old woman over a 18 year old any day :)sadly in America it's socially acceptable for women to be flakes. Nothing is worse than women who cannot be depended on for anything. Then again its been like that here for decades...nothing as sickening as seeing an old woman act like she's 16.

Not to go off on a rant but I have a female freind whose mother has acted 16 for as long as she can remember. My freind was supposed to be picked up in a city 50 miles away by her mother late at night. Her mother never showed up, even after several messages on her machine. After sitting at the bus station for 8 hours my freind was able to get a ride from a stranger at 5am. When she asked her mother what the hell was wrong with her, her mother replied
"I changed my mind" and then went back to loudly chewing her gum. my freind decided to move out that day and hasn't spoken to her mother since. I told my freind that personally I would've taken a blunt object to the side of her mothers head. My freind however, takes after her father and is mature and responsible beyond her years.


Many people see it as weird because they have been indoctrinated with modern ideas about women needing to be 'independent'.

Women need to be protected whatever their age so marrying at 18 or even 16 is not a problem.
When the women can either bench press 300 or is a black belt in a martial art she doesn't need protection. But I see your point.

nick

Jack
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 06:48 AM
You call 30-40 year-olds old folks?Yeah, actually, I am.


Just remember that in the past it was not uncommon for a 35 year-old to marry a 16 year-old; and yes this was in our own western society such as Britain and Australia.Yeah, Australian aboriginies used to do it before whites force statutory rape laws on them. There's a lot that was disgusting during the Victorian age. Do you think I care? I find it repulsive when a fourty year old man tries attracting anyone under 20.


In those days the rate of divorce was extremely low and marriages were, on the whole, happier than today.In those days? Sixty years ago my grandfather married my grandmother at 18 and had seven children across a period of 14 years. That worked out fine. Marriages are unhappy because of high taxes which push women into the workforce, kids are raised courtesy of television, there is a very real social atmosphere which leads girls to think of guys as aggressive sleazes wanting nothing more than sex, which in turn sets guys into thinking girls are either tight-assed man-haters, or they're sluts. There's also laws in nearly every Western country which facilitate quick and easy divorce for any woman, who can then rape the man who stuck his dick in her for everything he owns.


So I think even 15 or 16 is not necessarily too young for a girl to marry, although it would be in many cases. I think anything under 20 is probably too young for a man in most cases.If the guy and the girl are both very serious about it, I find it perfectly acceptable for two 18 year olds to marry.


Now I don't think a large age gap is necessarily preferable to a small one but I think there is nothing wrong with it and it should not be regarded as weird.Fine. I do find it 'wierd'.


Many people see it as weird because they have been indoctrinated with modern ideas about women needing to be 'independent'.
I hate second and third wave feminists as much as I dislike foreigners pouring into this country. I also despise people who advocate something that borders on paedophilia.


Women need to be protected whatever their age so marrying at 18 or even 16 is not a problem.Thank the God's it's illegal because if that happened now in massive numbers I know the murder rate would skyrocket. Yes, it is sick and diseased when a fourty year old man sticks his dick in a 15 year old girl, married to her or not. I know over a dozen guys my age who would kill someone if they did that.

Rhydderch
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 11:16 AM
Yeah, actually, I am. Well they're not old, whether you like that or not.

However, most of my message was not really in reply to your post, I was merely stating my opinion, so you need'nt take it as a personal attack.


There's a lot that was disgusting during the Victorian age.

In those days? Sixty years ago my grandfather married my grandmother at 18 and had seven children across a period of 14 years. That worked out fine. Marriages are unhappy because of high taxes which push women into the workforce.....What I'm referring to was not confined to the Victorian age, it extended right back into ancient times.
The point I'm making is that it is nothing novel, but being repulsed by it something characteristic of the modern age.

Also, I did'nt mean that a great age gap was responsible for marital happiness, but that it clearly did not make them unhappy.


I hate second and third wave feminists as much as I dislike foreigners pouring into this country.Just because you hate feminists does not mean you have'nt picked up some of their philosophies. Many a son who hates his mother's advice will take on her ways without realising it, and the same thing happens with ideas which are very prevalent in the community.


Thank the God's it's illegal because if that happened now in massive numbers I know the murder rate would skyrocket.As far as I know, it's not illegal in Australia (nor Britain), and I made it clear in my first message that I don't think such marriages are necessarily preferable to those of lesser (or no) age gaps, just that there's nothing wrong with a large age gap per se.

Your 'dozen' friends should mind their own business.

Jack
Tuesday, December 7th, 2004, 02:52 AM
Well they're not old, whether you like that or not.
They're old enough to keep within their own generation, as far as I'm concerned. Old is relative.


However, most of my message was not really in reply to your post, I was merely stating my opinion, so you need'nt take it as a personal attack.Everything is personal, it all deals with people.


What I'm referring to was not confined to the Victorian age, it extended right back into ancient times.
The point I'm making is that it is nothing novel, but being repulsed by it something characteristic of the modern age.

Also, I did'nt mean that a great age gap was responsible for marital happiness, but that it clearly did not make them unhappy.
The Greeks and Romans used to accept pederasty. We could say revulsion with that is characteristic of the modern age. Apparently it didn't make the boys too unhappy. Should we accept paedophilia then?


Just because you hate feminists does not mean you have'nt picked up some of their philosophies. Many a son who hates his mother's advice will take on her ways without realising it, and the same thing happens with ideas which are very prevalent in the community.True, true. Which is why you seem to have adopted the tolerance morality that runs throughout Western society.


As far as I know, it's not illegal in Australia (nor Britain), and I made it clear in my first message that I don't think such marriages are necessarily preferable to those of lesser (or no) age gaps, just that there's nothing wrong with a large age gap per se.You cannot get married under 18 years of age except in special cicumstances (i.e. you're pregnant), and even then, with both parental consent and court approval.


Your 'dozen' friends should mind their own business.I don't believe in 'live and let live'. If I did, I wouldn't oppose Asians coming into this country and buying land 'legitimately' and 'going about their own business', breeding, and expanding like a cancer, and I wouldn't oppose paedophilia because 'if you don't like it don't look'. Now I pose the question of how one can be a racialist and hold to libetarianism (Thorburn, don't interrupt, not even your Hegelianism can save you from my argument).

Thorburn
Tuesday, December 7th, 2004, 09:21 AM
(Thorburn, don't interrupt, not even your Hegelianism can save you from my argument). This is definitely false. :P

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=97759&postcount=4
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=97880&postcount=15

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 7th, 2004, 12:51 PM
Everything is personal, it all deals with people.It was'nt a personal attack on you; that's what 'personal attack' means.


The Greeks and Romans used to accept pederasty. We could say revulsion with that is characteristic of the modern age.I don't think so, that sort of thing, together with sodomy, has generally been regarded as unacceptable even by most of the ancients.
The marriages I'm referring to have never (as far as I know) been regarded as unacceptable until the advent of feminism and various other modernist ideas.


True, true. Which is why you seem to have adopted the tolerance morality that runs throughout Western society.It's not a matter of me tolerating it. Immorality should not be tolerated by either the government or the general population.

My point is that I don't believe that such marriages are immoral, whereas homosexuality etc. is immoral and I do not tolerate it.


You cannot get married under 18 years of age except in special cicumstances (i.e. you're pregnant), and even then, with both parental consent and court approval.Yes, I looked it up again and the age is 18 now. However, until 1991 it was 18 for a man and 16 for a girl (14 for a girl under special circumstances, but only if the man was 18 or more).
Incidentally, I think this relatively recent change in law supports my point that it is modern feministic ideas that are responsible for the desire both to raise the marriageable age of women and also to equalise it with that of men.


I don't believe in 'live and let live'.I think you've misunderstood my statement; I mean your dozen friends should not consider interfering with legitimate marriages of people who have nothing to do with them.
If you're talking about something immoral, like a man forcing or assaulting a girl, then your friends' murderous intentions are more understandable, but still it is not their business to be dealing out justice, especially in cases which do not concern anyone they know.
Furthermore, it would be rather foolish for an 18 year old to take on a man of 35 or 40, who is likely to be physically and mentally stronger.


Now I pose the question of how one can be a racialist and hold to libetarianism.Did I ever say I'm a racialist? I don't believe in the intrinsic superiority of some races over others, although I'm like most humans, who tend to be most comfortable with (and fondest of, in many cases) people of their own race.
And as I've made it clear I'm not a libertarian so I also do not tolerate those who take the law into their own hands. I think they and other immoral fellows should be duly punished.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 01:01 AM
I think men should marry women who are at least 15 years older, wealthy and preferably terminally ill. If more men did that it may sone day even the score in the eternal gender war.

Jack
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 02:50 AM
It was'nt a personal attack on you; that's what 'personal attack' means.
I know what 'personal attack' means. I also don't draw a line between a man and his views.


I don't think so, that sort of thing, together with sodomy, has generally been regarded as unacceptable even by most of the ancients.
Interesting. The spartans had a phrase: 'women are for duty, boys are for pleasure'. Michel Foucault did an immense amount of research on the topic and wrote his three volumes of The History of Sexuality and argues otherwise, especially in the ancient Roman and Hellenic world, and shows that homosexual relationships between young boys and older men (with the young boys as the pursued and the older men as the pursuers) were quite common, and that the ancients had a thoroughly different view of sexuality than we moderns do.


The marriages I'm referring to have never (as far as I know) been regarded as unacceptable until the advent of feminism and various other modernist ideas.
You appear to hold to a morality that legitimises these marriages. This morality also seems to hold the customs of past ages over those of the present. Why is that?


It's not a matter of me tolerating it. Immorality should not be tolerated by either the government or the general population.
And who decides what is immoral?


My point is that I don't believe that such marriages are immoral, whereas homosexuality etc. is immoral and I do not tolerate it.
Again, who decides what is immoral and why is that immoral?


Yes, I looked it up again and the age is 18 now. However, until 1991 it was 18 for a man and 16 for a girl (14 for a girl under special circumstances, but only if the man was 18 or more).
Incidentally, I think this relatively recent change in law supports my point that it is modern feministic ideas that are responsible for the desire both to raise the marriageable age of women and also to equalise it with that of men.
So you've outlined that morality changes. This places legitimacy neither on the side your advocate or on my side.


I think you've misunderstood my statement; I mean your dozen friends should not consider interfering with legitimate marriages of people who have nothing to do with them.
Legitimate by who? The Government? And what is the Government made of? A collection of people who do what they can to further themselves. What makes them correct? Because they can spew out arguments that play on the morality and interests of the populations they rule over, and acquire majority consent in their electorates?


If you're talking about something immoral, like a man forcing or assaulting a girl, then your friends' murderous intentions are more understandable, but still it is not their business to be dealing out justice, especially in cases which do not concern anyone they know.
In that case I suppose it isn't the business of the police to be dealing out justice in whatever form 'especially in cases which do not concern anyone they know'. Remind me what legitimises the Government's monopoly on force.


Furthermore, it would be rather foolish for an 18 year old to take on a man of 35 or 40, who is likely to be physically and mentally stronger.
Guns, numbers and brains, three great equalisers.


Did I ever say I'm a racialist? I don't believe in the intrinsic superiority of some races over others, although I'm like most humans, who tend to be most comfortable with (and fondest of, in many cases) people of their own race.
And what made you think racialism equalled political racial supremacy of one group over another? Racialism in the context of Skadi usually equates with racial preservationism.


And as I've made it clear I'm not a libertarian so I also do not tolerate those who take the law into their own hands.
Of course, because it wouldn't be 'law', then, would it? What is law? The decision rendered by an authority that is generally respected and is backed up by the use of violence. If I wasn't going to be especially harsh, I'd say what you've revealed is not any principle here but a desire to kiss the arse of every political machine that has more potential power than you do.


I think they and other immoral fellows should be duly punished.
Question: what makes your concept of morality correct?

Rhydderch
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 01:01 PM
I know what 'personal attack' means. I also don't draw a line between a man and his views.If you want to take it as an attack on yourself and your views then that's fine with me.


Interesting. The spartans had a phrase: 'women are for duty, boys are for pleasure'. Michel Foucault did an immense amount of research on the topic and wrote his three volumes of The History of Sexuality and argues otherwise, especially in the ancient Roman and Hellenic world, and shows that homosexual relationships between young boys and older men (with the young boys as the pursued and the older men as the pursuers) were quite common, and that the ancients had a thoroughly different view of sexuality than we moderns do.I'm not obliged to accept Michel Foucault as an unbiased interpreter of facts. I know that such practices were quite common, but I don't think this means that it was generally accepted like the marriages I refer to.
The early Romans tended to consider homosexuality as something the Greeks practiced, but of course they eventually borrowed a lot from the Greeks.
Many modern authors are prepared to twist the facts to make it appear that unnatural vices which most people regard with horror are really quite natural.

But these marriages have never been regarded with suspicion (or as unnatural) until quite recently, and I would venture to say that this suspicion has coincided with a greater acceptance of homosexuality.


This morality also seems to hold the customs of past ages over those of the present.Not so at all. There were many highly immoral customs in past ages, but the particular vices tended to be different from region to region.
A custom which has been basically accepted universally is generally one which is not against the light of nature, that's the point I'm making about past ages, although I would'nt rely on that entirely as proof.


And who decides what is immoral?God.


Again, who decides what is immoral and why is that immoral?God has told us it is immoral.

Tell me, what moral or other grounds do you have for saying certain age gaps in marriages should not be accepted?


So you've outlined that morality changes.Morality does not change, it's people's perception and acceptance of it that does.



What makes them correct?Nothing. But their laws should reflect the laws of God and unfortunately this is becoming increasingly rare.


acquire majority consent in their electorates?That again is a modern concept of government and I think there are many problems with government systems today.


In that case I suppose it isn't the business of the police to be dealing out justice in whatever form 'especially in cases which do not concern anyone they know'. Remind me what legitimises the Government's monopoly on force.It is the business of police to deal out justice, and we would have a very unjust society indeed if everyone took the law into his own hands. A man must be proven guilty if he's to be punished, and this would not be possible in such a society. If you want to live in a society like that then you should go to the highlands of PNG.

God has put police and government in place for the purpose of enforcing his laws.
But if police and government no longer do this or are unjust (which is happening more these days) then our country is in a bad state and resorting to violence will only make it worse; in fact, there will be anarchy, which is what you apparently promote.


And what made you think racialism equalled political racial supremacy of one group over another?I did'nt say I thought that; I was'nt quite sure what you meant by the term so I explained to you my views.

As for your last two questions, I think I've sufficiently answered them above.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 01:27 PM
Foucalt is long dead while AIDS is still around. That alone should tell you something.

catchmeifyoukhan
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 08:57 PM
Let's go to the reality and do not reconstruct the world with wishes that you may regret, once you get older : Here you have some informations regarding the situation in France :

Life for both males and females is getting longer (75 for males, and 81 for females, in France)

However, periods for women, as well as fertility are more precocious : 12 to 13, instead of 15, one century ago (some argue that central heating is responsible for this). First sexual experience for women is also earlier : 14 to 15. On the other end, end of fertility begins between 38 and 45 and menopausis (end of periods) occurs at 50. Some argue, that the lesser a woman has been pregnant, the sooner the end of fertility occurs.

On the contrary, for males, total virility comes a bit later, 14 instead of 13 one century ago, and first sexual experience (not manual) happens by the age of 18 (according to psychanalists who have access to more honest confessions than surveys, where most teens boast, while still vergin). it seems that there is no official end for male fertility, except diseases that can be avoided even when they are hereditary, such as the cancer of prostatis (in fact, it does not stop fertility, but it renders impotent).

These different data militate, in France, for a minimum difference of age of 4 years : For reasons of equality, since, a woman having begun sex at the age of 14, has an advance of four years of maturity and experience, in comparison with a man, having had his first sex experience at 18. Very often, young couples breach, because one of them has the impression that he or she has not enough benefited from life.

This minimum difference of age, will increase with age :

- teens wish to have love affairs with teens of their age (although, for evident reasons, whether boys and girls, they are initiated by elderers). At this age, both men and women look for sexual experience and for improving their self confidence.
- But with age, love affairs are more and more orientated towards marriage. And, there, the sexual behaviour of men and women diverge deeply :
the older women remain single, especially after 30, the more they seek for a greater difference of age : why ? Because, they can "sell" a body which is approaching menopausis, in better conditions, to elderer mens who are less reluctant to commit themselves with women above 30. The period of fertility of women being from far shorter than that of men, although the life span of both is getting longer and longer, is the most important explanation for this difference of behaviour.

Other reasons are at work :
- men still earn more than women, even women who have remained single. Many women limit their professional ambitions with a view that, some day, they will have to interrupt their career for breeding children. Therefore, women, tend to look for older men, just to compensate the loss of earnings that they will consent when becoming pregnant ;
- In western societies, there are more women between 15-45, than men of the same age. Overmortality of young men and masculine homosexuality (from 2 to 5% of men, against 0,5 to 1% of women) are both responsible for this situation. As a consequence, occidental young women also look for men above 45 in order to compensate this deficit of men of their age. After all, this is surely better than looking for non white immigrants who are in their vast majority young males looking for consolidation of their social position via an advantageous marriage with a white woman.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Unfortunately we are not animals but humans and thus have to deal with a lot of more important things than procreation - especially as we have no natural enemies, unlike most animals.

This biologistic approach won't get us far.

catchmeifyoukhan
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Unfortunately we are not animals but humans and thus have to deal with a lot of more important things than procreation - especially as we have no natural enemies, unlike most animals.

This biologistic approach won't get us far.
I would say "fortunately" we are humans. But it happens to everybody to doubt whether he is not only an animal. We still have ONE natural enemy, which is "death". There may be different strategies to tackle or by-pass this lethal rendez-vous : you may be an artist and create and hope that your production will survive to you ; you may be a humanist and work for progress and transfer your anxiety to a more political level ; you may, in a more modest way, try to transmit your genes, your values and your hopes to the next generation by procreating and breeding it : women, since they have the possibility to have a very intimate contact with their offsprings, generally follow this third strategy.

Phlegethon
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Death is our friend, not our enemy.

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 10:41 PM
Life is like an arrow that goes off course and arches back where it previously ended for another.

catchmeifyoukhan
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 10:41 PM
Death is our friend, not our enemy.

Well, then it's of course a quite different approach : EROS and TANATOS are of course the two sides of the same medal. I also admit that death is longer than life ;-) About 90 billion human beings preceded us, now reduced to skeletons or dust. Thanks to them, we are now 6 billions waiting our turn and trying to survive 1 or 2 years more than our parents and belive in love and God to forget our fate. Let's have fun and faith !


Life is like an arrow that goes off course and arches back where it previously ended for another.
I like Baltus

Jack
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 11:22 PM
If you want to take it as an attack on yourself and your views then that's fine with me.
Good. It simplifies things.


I'm not obliged to accept Michel Foucault as an unbiased interpreter of facts. I know that such practices were quite common, but I don't think this means that it was generally accepted like the marriages I refer to.
The early Romans tended to consider homosexuality as something the Greeks practiced, but of course they eventually borrowed a lot from the Greeks.
Many modern authors are prepared to twist the facts to make it appear that unnatural vices which most people regard with horror are really quite natural.
Michel Foucault is not one whose research and interpretation of research strikes me as 'biased'. Perhaps you could go read some of his work.


But these marriages have never been regarded with suspicion (or as unnatural) until quite recently, and I would venture to say that this suspicion has coincided with a greater acceptance of homosexuality.
Ok, so here's your case: 'People don't like fourty year olds having sex with fourteen year olds, therefore we're all turning gay'. You see, the problem with that, is that society in general still isn't fond of homosexuality. Schoolchildren use 'gay' as an insult. Men in pubs use 'fag' as an insult. It's generally interpreted as an insult. So tell me, if homosexuality is generally accepted, then why is being called a faggot considered an insult? I'll tell you. It's for the same reason being called a 'retard' is considered an insult: because no one wants to be one.


Not so at all. There were many highly immoral customs in past ages, but the particular vices tended to be different from region to region.
A custom which has been basically accepted universally is generally one which is not against the light of nature, that's the point I'm making about past ages, although I would'nt rely on that entirely as proof.
And this is preparation for...


God.
Whose God? The God of the Catholics, the God of the Lutherans, the God of the Muslims, of the Jews? What makes you think this God exists? Because you 'feel' good whenever you think you've issued a successful 'prayer'? Because you have faith?


God has told us it is immoral.
God told you? Did he come down from the sky and read a book to you when you were little? Or is it because you've read a book and developed faith? What does that prove? Even the insane have faith in their own delusions. What prevents them from being right and the rest of us from being wrong?


Tell me, what moral or other grounds do you have for saying certain age gaps in marriages should not be accepted?
I've outlined them in earlier posts.


Morality does not change, it's people's perception and acceptance of it that does.
Define 'morality'.


Nothing. But their laws should reflect the laws of God and unfortunately this is becoming increasingly rare.
Tell me why we should bother listening to your God.


That again is a modern concept of government and I think there are many problems with government systems today.
I think there are problems with the idea of Government itself.


It is the business of police to deal out justice,
The police serve to control and mould a population into being compliant human beings for the service of power.


and we would have a very unjust society indeed if everyone took the law into his own hands.
Prove it. Anarchist settlements in California had less crime during the gold rush than when Government finally caught up with them.


A man must be proven guilty if he's to be punished, and this would not be possible in such a society.
'Must'? According to who?


If you want to live in a society like that then you should go to the highlands of PNG.
And what if I want it here? What if I want total control over my own property? Do you believe you have 'God's permission' to control me? If God needs to invent a Government to have me shot or beaten up or imprisoned for breaking 'his laws', why didn't he make me the right way in the first place? I hope you have a better argument than 'free will', for your own sake. And don't use an argument you can't comprehend.


God has put police and government in place for the purpose of enforcing his laws.
Oh, really? I suppose in that case your God is doing a pretty poor job in choosing his Governments, right? Because homosexuality is legal in every state of Australia and in most countries in the Western world.


But if police and government no longer do this or are unjust (which is happening more these days) then our country is in a bad state and resorting to violence will only make it worse;
Our 'country', like all countries, are based implicitly on violence. Our country would not exist without violence.


in fact, there will be anarchy, which is what you apparently promote.
For what I want, anarchy is only the beginning. And yes, I view that as a good thing. I'd view it as spectacular compared to what we have now.

Abby Normal
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 05:39 PM
I can summarize Reginleif's post in two words: establishmentarian idiocy.

The goal of monogamous relationships in modern society is not to produce as many children as physically possible or to pay homage to some cultural norm about how 'oldew men wike young n/ byootifuw wimmin'. The image of 'older rich men with young, attractive women' was not the 'norm' until fairly recently, its archetypal nature in the minds of the masses to the contrary.

Rather, monogamy is most effective as a family system when the aim is to foster a long, spiritually healthy relationship between two people, and possibly to raise a modest number of children alongside this. Extreme disparity in age is not conductive toward this; it is most often found in marriages of convenience. However, a monogamous relationship is most conductive toward a long, healthy relationship if the woman involved is slightly older; as women live longer on average, this statistically provides more of a chance of a long-lasting marriage.




women should marry between the age of 18 and 25 and they should marry men between 30 and 40 years old.... this are the happiest and best marriages and here is why....

look at it from the view of a woman.... her value for men is highest when she is young.... she is at the peak of her beauty, at the peak of her fertility and at the peak of her biology value.... she can have many children and she is in no hurry.... when she hits 20 her value decreases every year.... men prefer young women....

some women make the mistake to waste the best of their years.... either by being short-sighted idiotic bitches that whore around.... or by making very bad mate choices.... which means dating and marrying young males.... who are irresponsible, don't want to commit, and also have no financial security.... then they break up or divorce and are left with children what decreases their future value much....

a young woman (18-25) would do best to date and marry a mature male (30-40) and here is why...

1. he has studied and/or worked his ass off for 15 to 25 years.... he is at the peak of his creative force... he has a house and its paid off... he has two cars (one for you) and they are paid off... he has savings... he has everything and needs just a young woman to enjoy it....

2. he earns enough to support you and the family..... he works during the week... so you have time for yourself.... and on the weekend he needs you to party... you boost his image because there is nothing so envied by his friends and collegues than a man that is loved and worshipped by a young beautiful woman....

3. he is mature and has life experience.... he is stable, understanding and has temper.... he won't get angry easy if you mess up... your mood swings and throwing vases at the wall will probley even entertain him.... he will understand you and guide you.... he won't hit you.... he will spoil you because men love young women that love and worship them....

4. you have a better life and entertainment than any of the girls that hang out in discos looking for a slimy 20 year old male that will just screw and then dump them.... while they hang out there, you have dinners in restaurants... while they make holidays in sylt, you have holidays in the carribean.... while they get cheap glassware and silver you get jewelry and gold...

5. you don't need to have children immediately... you are young and have all time in the world.... your husband can have children in 5 years too... he has no biological clock.... you and he have all time in the world to prepare for the right time.... in the meantime you enjoy your lives.... and once you both want children you still have enough time to have as many as you want and you can afford....

6. chances that he will leave you are slim.... because he can't do better.... chances that you will leave him are slim.... because you can't do better... i have never seen such a marriage breaking up.... they work all out so great....

men should best be 10-15 older than their wives.... women should marry young and they should marry mature men....

Phlegethon
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Marriage is a fallacy anyway, and there is no marriage of convenience. That is an oxymoron. There's hardly anything more inconvenient. ;)

Abby Normal
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 05:51 PM
I'm not attracted to latently pedophilic old farts who need Viagra and the idea of them "worshipping" me is disturbing.

Why stop at 40? Grandpa has even more "life experience," he can tell you cool stories about WWII.ROFL, exactly.

The 'life-experience' argument is absurd; and, of course, to the types who accept it, women become repulsive once they attain that very life-experience that they should seek in a male.

The stale notion that "women must be innocent, young and beautiful and their marriage partners must be older, mature and able to take care of them" evokes in me a visceral disgust more than perhaps any other idea.

If personal preference counts for anything, I happen to prefer younger males both physically and in terms of 'life experience'-- I would rather teach and provide for someone than have someone else do the same for myself. Spending one's entire life as a child, with the parental role transferred from one's biological father to a much-older marriage partner, is preferable to those who never advance psychologically beyond childhood-- but not to me.

The rational point I made here stands as a powerful argument in favor of my position:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=240586&postcount=49

Phlegethon
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Spending one's entire life as a child, with the parental role transferred from one's biological father to a much-older marriage partner, is preferable to those who never advance psychologically beyond childhood-- but not to me.
But shouldn't it be our goal in life to maintain the innocence of a child and see the world through the eyes of a child? ;)

Unfortunately I have to deal with a lot of people who fall into that category and obviously seem to enjoy such a life - unfortunately in their case they do not quite live up to the philosophical ideal of childhood but fall into the hyperactive, unruly, loud, obnoxious, nervedrilling category - even as thirtysomethings. ;)

Phlegethon
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Once you have more than 70 years of life experience the difference get kinda levelled through dementia, Alzheimer and age-related paranoia, anyway. And that is true for both sexes, although it occurs more often with women. ;)

nicholas
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Abby Normal
If personal preference counts for anything, I happen to prefer younger males both physically and in terms of 'life experience'-- I would rather teach and provide for someone than have someone else do the same for myself. Spending one's entire life as a child, with the parental role transferred from one's biological father to a much-older marriage partner, is preferable to those who never advance psychologically beyond childhood-- but not to me.

Needing a lover because one needs a father/mother is a sure sign of emotional and psychological instability and thus is a sign one needs to grow up a little.

Teaching and providing for someone is fine as long as they don't expect it and can actually do things without assistance.

though I will not marry a women who needs a "daddy", my own father did that (twice) and was miserable both times.

Nicholas

Phlegethon
Thursday, December 9th, 2004, 06:24 PM
I only need someone to iron my shirts. ;)

Wulf
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 03:59 AM
Ideally, women should marry as virgins at 16-19 with men in their mid-twenties.

Abby Normal
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 06:50 AM
Ideally, women should marry as virgins at 16-19 with men in their mid-twenties.
With no such virgin qualification for the men, I presume?

I want to set all of you people right: read my above posts. :D

Phlegethon
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 10:01 AM
With no such virgin qualification for the men, I presume?

You come up with a test for males and we can debate it.

Chastity belts look cool - but they really aren't very hygienic! ;)

Abby Normal
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 01:36 PM
You come up with a test for males and we can debate it.I do not wish to get into all the nitty-gritty anatomical details, but the 'test' for girls doesn't exactly work, either-- honesty must serve as a test for both sexes. ;) This, of course, should be based on the fact that mutual 'purity' and 'inexperience' are conductive towards a relationship as opposed to some petty physical reason.



Chastity belts look cool - but they really aren't very hygienic! ;)Ah, such such trivialities should account for nothing compared with the joy of donning an instrument of forced devotion! ;)

Phlegethon
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 01:49 PM
I do not wish to get into all the nitty-gritty anatomical details, but the 'test' for girls doesn't exactly work, either True, but it keeps a whole industry of gynaecologists alive in Islamic societies.

And girls in western societies can still blame it on physical education in school. ;)


-- honesty must serve as a test for both sexes. ;) Honesty my ass! We are not talking about The World According to Immanuel Kant but the status quo. ;)


This, of course, should be based on the fact that mutual 'purity' and 'inexperience' are conductive towards a relationship as opposed to some petty physical reason. I wonder why someone pure and inexperienced should give up being pure? What the world needs most is purity in thought and action, not more bunny sex action.


Ah, such such trivialities should account for nothing compared with the joy of donning an instrument of forced devotion! ;) Does this mean I have to return this nice set to the store? Boohoo!


http://www.pvsaddleshop.com/ALL%20PICS/Indianhead1.jpg

Jack
Saturday, December 11th, 2004, 12:10 AM
However, a monogamous relationship is most conductive toward a long, healthy relationship if the woman involved is slightly older; as women live longer on average, this statistically provides more of a chance of a long-lasting marriage.Abby Normal is plainly rationalising her desire to dominate young boys :P ;)

The attachment, however, is predictable... Click on the number '1' next to the last option and you'll see my source.

Phlegethon
Saturday, December 11th, 2004, 12:18 AM
At least she's honest about it. Every female wants to do that, but no one admits it. ;)

Rhydderch
Saturday, December 11th, 2004, 03:13 AM
Ok, so here's your case: 'People don't like fourty year olds having sex with fourteen year olds, therefore we're all turning gay'.No, they are both correlated with a general dislocation of society and the entry of feminism and all sorts of other strange ideas.

Just a question here; is it the large age gap you don’t like or the youth of the girl? For instance would you regard a marriage between a 20 year old man and a 16 year old girl as weird?

But when did I say fourteen year olds? The laws formerly allowed that under exceptional circumstances, but as a general rule that is too young in my opinion.

A girl is fully grown at about 16 and a boy at about 18 so the older law was better fitted to reality.


You see, the problem with that, is that society in general still isn't fond of homosexuality. Schoolchildren use 'gay' as an insult. Men in pubs use 'fag' as an insult. It's generally interpreted as an insult. So tell me, if homosexuality is generally accepted, then why is being called a faggot considered an insult?Generally accepted? Perhaps you should read my post again.

It is much more widespread now and there is also undoubtably a greater acceptance of it than there used to be. Forty years ago it was scarcely heard of.


And this is preparation for...Obviously; but as long as you understand what the light of nature is.


Whose God? The God of the Catholics, the God of the Lutherans, the God of the Muslims, of the Jews? What makes you think this God exists? Because you 'feel' good whenever you think you've issued a successful 'prayer'? Because you have faith?The God of the Bible, and yes it’s a matter of faith. There is also a great deal of evidence in the world for this and it would take a rather long post to include it.


Or is it because you've read a book and developed faith?Many people read the Bible and do not develop faith. Faith in God and His Word is something which can only be given someone by God Himself.

If you think such faith is invalid then here’s an analogy:

you are asleep and dreaming; as far as you’re concerned at the time the dream is very real and you have no doubt that it is really happening. But as soon as you awake fully you see that it really was’nt true; you can see it clearly.

It’s the same with true faith; it will never be understood by those who have’nt…....woken up.

One can also dream that he is having a dream; in other words one dream inside another so he can think he’s woken up when in fact he has’nt. But when he really has woken up he can see clearly that both of them were dreams.


What does that prove?How does one prove to a skeptical blind man that colour exists? It’s impossible. He will only accept the truth if he receives sight.


Even the insane have faith in their own delusions. What prevents them from being right and the rest of us from being wrong?You think the insane are deluded? In other words you think there is such a thing as objective truth.

You seem to think it is possible to know the truth.

What then makes you think your views are valid and mine are not?

All that you’ve said to negate my statements also applies to you. If you don’t have faith in the God of the Bible then presumably you think you have faith in some other god/s, or perhaps you have faith in your own opinion.

Which is better, to trust an Almighty God or to trust one’s own opinion?


I've outlined them in earlier posts.So far you’ve only given your opinion on the issue; you have’nt stated why you have that opinion.


Define 'morality'.God’s laws.


Tell me why we should bother listening to your God.Because those who do not listen and never repent of it will be thrown into hell.

I also know from my own and the experience of many others that God’s laws are for our wellbeing.

Even those who could’nt care less about God but basically live according to his laws are generally better off for it. In fact that’s really what the light of nature is.


I think there are problems with the idea of Government itself.Such as?


Prove it.Prove it?! Do you think think it’s never happened before. PNG, as I said, is an example. Take a look at any country where laws are not properly enforced by an authority; you can also use a history book to find examples.

When people take the law into their own hands there is no proper, objective trial. When emotions run high there tends to be a lack of objectivity so this sort of thing is bound to result in numerous people being punished for crimes they never committed; common sense tells us it will result in injustice.

However I think it is probably impossible to reach total anarchy. There is always a ‘born leader’ who wants to take control and there are always people who are prepared to follow; that’s just the way the world works.


Anarchist settlements in California had less crime during the gold rush than when Government finally caught up with them.A lawless society will never work. Any scientist knows that every part of the universe is governed by laws; that is the way God made it and human society is no exception. Without laws there is only an incoherent mess.

If you see no problem with such a mess then there is nothing I can do about that. It is like a man who gets some kind of satisfaction out of torturing himself; I would have a hard time convincing him that he should stop. It is against the light of nature. Only God can convince such a man of his folly.


'Must'? According to who?God, of course; and according to common sense and the light of nature which God has put into the world.


And what if I want it here?Well I think those with your anarchist views would be only a small minority of the population so in the present state of things it seems unlikely that you’ll get it here even if you attempt it with violence. But God does bring that kind of thing on nations as punishment so one prays that He will have mercy on this country.


What if I want total control over my own property?Well I’m no Communist so I believe a man has a right to control his own property; but perhaps I’ve misunderstood your statement.


Do you believe you have 'God's permission' to control me?Do you think I’m claiming to be some sort of Divine ruler? I’m not a ruler of any sort and besides, I believe rulers are put in place to set limits on people’s behaviour, but not to control their lives beyond that.


If God needs to invent a Government to have me shot or beaten up or imprisoned for breaking 'his laws', why didn't he make me the right way in the first place? I hope you have a better argument than 'free will', for your own sake. And don't use an argument you can't comprehend.God said, "I made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions". God did make Adam the right way in the first place, and yes, with a free will. If you think God should’nt have made man with a free will, I’ll give you another quotation, "No but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?".

Bad men are always wanting to blame God for their own evil deeds.

Now why God made man with a free will and why sin is inherited by all Adam’s descendants is something I don’t fully comprehend. After all, it’s spiritual, and why should one expect to comprehend the ways of an Almighty God?


Oh, really? I suppose in that case your God is doing a pretty poor job in choosing his Governments, right?Well, bad Government is another way in which God sometimes punishes people.

Because homosexuality is legal in every state of Australia and in most countries in the Western worldYes, greater acceptance of it is a modern phenomenon; I think probably until the 19th century, British law punished homosexuality with death.

Our 'country', like all countries, are based implicitly on violence. Our country would not exist without violence.I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. But certainly rulers need to use violence in some cases for the purpose of restoring law and order.
What I mean by resorting to violence is when common citizens take the law into their own hands.

Such violence is forbidden by God except in cases of self-defence.


For what I want, anarchy is only the beginning. And yes, I view that as a good thing. I'd view it as spectacular compared to what we have now.And what is the end result of anarchy? It is murder, mayhem and misery. If that’s what you want then I say again you’re a lost cause as far as man is concerned. Only God can show you the truth.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, December 11th, 2004, 11:26 PM
I have enjoyed hearing from all you old married couples who speak with experience. All I can say is that I don't think a man should be married until after age 35 or so. I have no idea what goes on in the minds of women.

Phlegethon
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 12:06 AM
I have enjoyed hearing from all you old married couples who speak with experience. All I can say is that I don't think a man should be married until after age 35 or so.
Haha, then I still have a few years. Don't bet on that ever happening, though.


I have no idea what goes on in the minds of women.
If men really did they would never even think about getting married, anyway.

Tommy Vercetti
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 12:17 AM
Haha, then I still have a few years. Don't bet on that ever happening, though.



There's plenty of spinsters and old maids out there. I'm sure one of them eventually catch you or vice versa

Phlegethon
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 12:24 AM
They'd have to incapacitate me first. ;)

Stríbog
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 04:21 AM
"Bachelors know more about women than married men; if they didn't, they'd be married too."

- H. L. Mencken

King Yngvar
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 05:21 AM
Cradle snatchers can go burn in hell, I don't know of many young white guys who would sit on their asses while their blood is pumped full of hormones while an entire generation of old folks prey on their girls.Probably the most reasonable post I have read in this thread :D


The stale notion that "women must be innocent, young and beautiful and their marriage partners must be older, mature and able to take care of them" evokes in me a visceral disgust more than perhaps any other idea.
Agreed :)

Phlegethon
Monday, December 13th, 2004, 07:54 PM
"A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his solitude, and shows him this confidence, the greatest in his power to
bestow."

"Once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue to exist, an wonderful living side by side can grow up, if they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it possible for each to see the other whole and against a wide sky."

"All companionship can consist only in the strengthening of two neighboring solitudes, whereas everything that one is wont to call giving oneself is by nature harmful to companionship: for when a person abandons himself, he is no longer anything, and when two people both give themselves up in order to come close to eachother, there is no longer any ground beneath them and their being together is a continual falling."

Rainer Maria Rilke: Letters To A Young Poet

nicholas
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 12:25 AM
Just a question here; is it the large age gap you don’t like or the youth of the girl? For instance would you regard a marriage between a 20 year old man and a 16 year old girl as weird?

How bout if the sexes were reversed? A 16 yr old boy and a 20 yr old woman or a 35 yr old woman?

Part of the problem is this idealistic notion that young girls are virgin and pure.

I suggest that any age and gender can be the perpetrator and/or the victim.

For example, the lonely 70 yr old man who has a 25 yr old on his arm. Perhaps he's not a dirty old man and perhaps she is a gold digging bitch?

the 17 yr old boy and the 45 yr old woman. She wants the status of having a young stud in bed and he in reality either wants a mommy or a meal ticket.

I shall assume you are smart enough to see my point.

Nick

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 04:33 AM
How bout if the sexes were reversed? A 16 yr old boy and a 20 yr old woman or a 35 yr old woman?

Part of the problem is this idealistic notion that young girls are virgin and pure.

I suggest that any age and gender can be the perpetrator and/or the victim.

For example, the lonely 70 yr old man who has a 25 yr old on his arm. Perhaps he's not a dirty old man and perhaps she is a gold digging bitch?

the 17 yr old boy and the 45 yr old woman. She wants the status of having a young stud in bed and he in reality either wants a mommy or a meal ticket.

I shall assume you are smart enough to see my point.

NickI see your point in so far as any marriage can have sinister motives behind it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your view of marriage is based on the modern idea of equality between the sexes, which of course originated with feminism.

However, I believe that men and women have different roles in life and that the man is the protector and leader of the woman; but this would be nearly impossible if the woman is significantly older than her husband; she would be very tempted to take the role that he should have.

So my idea is not based on an idealistic notion of young women. For instance, I think re-marriage after the death of a spouse is not wrong; in fact right, and preferable to remaining widowed.

King Yngvar
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 06:18 AM
Abby Normal is plainly rationalising her desire to dominate young boys
What's wrong with that? :D

La Canadienne
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 07:04 AM
This is just disgusting.

Beauty does not decrease with age and I find it sickening that a womans "value" decreases with age (in your view.) People are not cars, they do not depreciate with value.

People marry who they love and "ideals" should not apply. What works for one will not work for another.

So essentially, by reversing this logic, I should perhaps get a young man as he is at his "peak" of beauty and sex drive. After all, why should women sleep with older men if they are not at their "peak" in life. Perhaps he should be a virgin as well, so I can have someone who is "pure" and "innocent."

What about children? how much time and how much of a QUALITY experience will they have with a geriatric father?

Mistress Klaus
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 09:11 AM
hmmm...I have always had men older than myself...8 years...11 years my senior (twice now,..with the 11 year difference... including my current lover).... :D ...I've had my own age & younger men, but I don't seem to get along with them...they always seem like 'kids' to me...I like 'men' :D .....

Phlegethon
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 09:22 AM
Following Anna Nicole Smith's example? ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/images/entertainment/annanicole2_120x180.jpg

Mistress Klaus
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Following Anna Nicole Smith's example? ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/images/entertainment/annanicole2_120x180.jpg


No I wouldn't go that far...I am not a gold-digging tart......I always seem to be attracted to the working class man... :D ...
I suppose I am a fool....My body & sexy touch are going to waste... :P :D but I could never embrace in the name of profit. :|

Phlegethon
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Shoulld you ever don't forget to send me a checque. ;)

nicholas
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 06:24 PM
=Rhydderch]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your view of marriage is based on the modern idea of equality between the sexes, which of course originated with feminism
Equality but difference. Far too many women in america want the perks but not teh consequences of their actions. Equality says "same cause for same action"

It strikes me as bizzarre how in my culture a man does something downright evil and people scream "string him up" but if a woman does it there are creis of "oh that poor thing she must be depressed".



However, I believe that men and women have different roles in life and that the man is the protector and leader of the woman; but this would be nearly impossible if the woman is significantly older than her husband; she would be very tempted to take the role that he should have.


Very true and often people grow to despise those they are leading and protecting, this is especially true if the society says one thing and you're doing another. And in my own life, I have found the kinder you treat a woman the more contempt she will have of you.



So my idea is not based on an idealistic notion of young women. For instance, I think re-marriage after the death of a spouse is not wrong; in fact right, and preferable to remaining widowed.

Definitly but she will have an easier time finding a single old guy to marry rather than get some youg stud. Then again after a certain number of years the young stud is not attainable or practical.

Nick

catchmeifyoukhan
Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 10:46 PM
As a woman, I feel that marrying a man that is 5-10 years my senior to be the best choice. I like older, more mature men, but not a man that is 20 years older than me... that is too old. My father is in his 40's and marrying with a man his age would just feel abnormal, if not just plain weird. :D
It's very wise, sensitive and also representative of the majority of the views amoung men and women in nordic countries. But as regards mating, there is no one best way.

Things are going different according to place and time. As a rule, the difference of age is all the more important that you are in a mediterranean or in a latin country : Sometimes, the difference averages at 15 or even twenty in Columbia and Venezuela, which are countries with a latin culture, although the amerindian element is as important as the mediterranean one. You may also find this tendency of late marrying of men in southern countries when comparing northern France with southern France, or northern Italy with southern Italy. It is as if women of mediterranean type were competing more intensively when looking for a husband, whereas northern women or women of nordic culture feel less pressure when approaching the symbolic cut off of their thirties.

Another rule, reflecting several statements found in this thread, is that the wealthier, the later men marry, which, reversely is not the case for their wifes. The bourgeoisy culture supports this difference in age. Malthusianism is taught to young bachelors when their father tells them "you'll be President, my son", which puts pressure on acquiring wealth before getting married. Reversely, young "bourgeoises" are taught by their mother "you'll mary a prince or a Harvard or a doctor", which pushes them towards seduction strategies and, among theses, take advantage of their young age.

These differences in age are not felt shameful or embarrassing, because the concerned persons share the same values than their cultural and social environment.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 12:30 AM
women should marry between the age of 18 and 25 and they should marry men between 30 and 40 years old.... this are the happiest and best marriages and here is why....

look at it from the view of a woman.... her value for men is highest when she is young.... she is at the peak of her beauty, at the peak of her fertility and at the peak of her biology value.... she can have many children and she is in no hurry.... when she hits 20 her value decreases every year.... men prefer young women....

some women make the mistake to waste the best of their years.... either by being short-sighted idiotic bitches that whore around.... or by making very bad mate choices.... which means dating and marrying young males.... who are irresponsible, don't want to commit, and also have no financial security.... then they break up or divorce and are left with children what decreases their future value much....

a young woman (18-25) would do best to date and marry a mature male (30-40) and here is why...

1. he has studied and/or worked his ass off for 15 to 25 years.... he is at the peak of his creative force... he has a house and its paid off... he has two cars (one for you) and they are paid off... he has savings... he has everything and needs just a young woman to enjoy it....

2. he earns enough to support you and the family..... he works during the week... so you have time for yourself.... and on the weekend he needs you to party... you boost his image because there is nothing so envied by his friends and collegues than a man that is loved and worshipped by a young beautiful woman....

3. he is mature and has life experience.... he is stable, understanding and has temper.... he won't get angry easy if you mess up... your mood swings and throwing vases at the wall will probley even entertain him.... he will understand you and guide you.... he won't hit you.... he will spoil you because men love young women that love and worship them....

4. you have a better life and entertainment than any of the girls that hang out in discos looking for a slimy 20 year old male that will just screw and then dump them.... while they hang out there, you have dinners in restaurants... while they make holidays in sylt, you have holidays in the carribean.... while they get cheap glassware and silver you get jewelry and gold...

5. you don't need to have children immediately... you are young and have all time in the world.... your husband can have children in 5 years too... he has no biological clock.... you and he have all time in the world to prepare for the right time.... in the meantime you enjoy your lives.... and once you both want children you still have enough time to have as many as you want and you can afford....

6. chances that he will leave you are slim.... because he can't do better.... chances that you will leave him are slim.... because you can't do better... i have never seen such a marriage breaking up.... they work all out so great....

men should best be 10-15 older than their wives.... women should marry young and they should marry mature men....

Women and Men should be able to marry when they want to whoever they want. I don't believe that the wife should always be younger. Though this often is the case.

Your giving young males a bad rap my dear. It's a sterotype that is all to pervasive but doesn't hold much truth. If anything some of the biggest players are older guys who have a lot of bling bling. Take Hugh Hefner. He's not exactly faithful. :D

Jack
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 04:12 PM
Your giving young males a bad rap my dear.
Perfectly correct. I don't know if Regenlief recognises this, but it is this perception of teenage boys by teenage girls that causes more pain, disgust and anger amongst young whites than even immigrants.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 08:33 PM
Perfectly correct. I don't know if Regenlief recognises this, but it is this perception of teenage boys by teenage girls that causes more pain, disgust and anger amongst young whites than even immigrants.


Maybe she just hasn't met a young man like you. :D

Tommy Vercetti
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 08:57 PM
Young men suck! All you young girls come to papa

nicholas
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 09:45 PM
Young men suck! All you young girls come to papa
They only want you for yer moonshine and coonskin caps.

Nick

Jack
Thursday, December 16th, 2004, 12:43 AM
Maybe she just hasn't met a young man like you. :D
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Walter Pittman
Thursday, December 16th, 2004, 05:53 AM
If you're truly interested in this issue, you MUST read Ludocvici's "Choice of a Mate."

A few quick quotes:

Galton found that the early marriages of women certainly led to greater fertility. And he gives the following table:—


Age of Mother at Marriage.
15–19
20–24
25–29
30–34 Average Family.

9.12
7.92
6.50
4.60 1
And he concluded his inquiry into the facts by saying: "Hence, if the races best fitted to occupy the land are encouraged to marry early, they will breed down the others in a very few generations."

When, therefore, a girl of ardent, i.e. normal sex endowments, is married late; when, that is to say, she is taken more than two or three years after the onset of the catamenia, we must expect to find her with distortions of her normal mental and physical equipment, commensurate with the length of time that her body has been held waiting. These distortions definitely mould her character, and, as we have seen, certainly mar the pristine health of her physical equipment. So that, from the standpoint of; characterology alone, we have for generations been damaging the majority of our womenfolk by condemning them to these long waits before natural and normal functioning begins. 1
Summing up the above arguments and data, I conclude that the modern prejudice against early marriage for girls, is based . on a mass of error, unconscious bitterness, middle-aged jealousy, asceticism, and feminism, which has infected even science (in the form of female and feminist-male doctors), and that it is the reader's patriotic duty to resist it with all his might.
If a man is of an age to marry, i.e. anything from 27 to 32 or 35 — let him choose a healthy, positive girl as low down in her teens as the recent feminist and ascetic laws will allow him to go, and let him turn a deaf ear to the chorus of protestations

from the middle-aged adults in his circle (including most probably his unconsciously incestuously inclined future father-in-law) that will be raised against him. 1
When Dr. Fritz Lenz, summing up this very question, says: "If the economic conditions permit, there is nothing to be said against marrying a girl of 16," 2 and Dr. August Forel recommends marriage for a girl at 17 or 18, 3 let the reader remember that they are both speaking of girls even more Teutonic, i.e. with less Mediterranean blood in them, than English girls, and that their words therefore apply with even greater force to the latter.

Heidi
Saturday, January 1st, 2005, 03:15 AM
I think that woman should marry wise and responsible men and at a young age to protect there purity and not to become cynics. Older men maybe bad sometimes so it matters more the heart of the person. If the man is good and secure and can provide can organize a good structure for the family and follow through on the best for the woman and children then he is respectable. A man understands other men. Sometimes as men get older or if they are taught at a younger age they can counsel the woman on deceptive men who are looking to take advantage and guide her in her life. But this has to be done in the best interests not self interests. Men should love woman even if they are different and don't understand things the same way. It is the man's job to protect and provide. If society was perfect then it would be great for woman to be dependent on men and not have to worry and it is great for guys to give girls lots of jewerly perfume and clothes and things that make them beautiful for the husband. But also I think now days it is good for woman to be strong and build security with the help of the men who care for her so instead of leaving her week teaching woman how to shoot guns and defend themselves is also important.

It is so often when a woman comes from a good father and providing dad that she thinks all men will do the same yet many take advantage of her nievity so it is good to teach them the world and what other men might want to do to them with out care but utter exploitation. When living in Western law where people are so able to abuse others then woman should learn the best way to judge others and expect that not everyone is her friend therefore not to give herself easily. Especially she should learn how to protect herself for so many woman in America are found dead everyday because they are vulnerable and where are her father, brothers, and husband at the time she was taken? Why was she not prepaired or can anyone be prepaired?

So not only is financail security important but physical security more important after that it is up to them to enjoy the life if the woman likes jewerly and perfume then it is nice for the man to make her feel like a woman if he robs us of that he takes our feminity away and develops a bread of not so kind and masculan woman.

What do you think?

shockgrrrl
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 06:33 AM
I don't fully agree because maturity comes at different ages. Plus I have seen some average or almost ugly looking men with hot young women. So with that a man at any age mostly( with exceptions of course) can get someone else.

When finding a mate, I find older men go for me, so it wouldn't be hard to end up marrying an older man in time anyway( if interested).

Drömmarnas Stig
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 05:21 PM
Obviously it's not possible to determine the ideal difference in absolute numbers.

For example: A relationship between a 14 year-old girl and a 29 year-old man cannot work.
However a 30 year-old woman with a 45 year-old man ist perfectly fine.

So the question should be asked in relative percentages.
I think the difference can be settled somewhere between - 20 to + 50 percent.
- 20 means that the man is 20 % younger than the woman whereas + 50 percent means that the man is 50 % older than the woman.

Somewhere within these numbers ranges the ideal difference in my opinion.

Huzar
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Percentages or not, i think 10 years, to be the max of difference.

Imperator X
Monday, March 28th, 2005, 06:10 AM
women should marry between the age of 18 and 25 and they should marry men between 30 and 40 years old.... this are the happiest and best marriages and here is why....

look at it from the view of a woman.... her value for men is highest when she is young.... she is at the peak of her beauty, at the peak of her fertility and at the peak of her biology value.... she can have many children and she is in no hurry.... when she hits 20 her value decreases every year.... men prefer young women....

some women make the mistake to waste the best of their years.... either by being short-sighted idiotic bitches that whore around.... or by making very bad mate choices.... which means dating and marrying young males.... who are irresponsible, don't want to commit, and also have no financial security.... then they break up or divorce and are left with children what decreases their future value much....

a young woman (18-25) would do best to date and marry a mature male (30-40) and here is why...

1. he has studied and/or worked his ass off for 15 to 25 years.... he is at the peak of his creative force... he has a house and its paid off... he has two cars (one for you) and they are paid off... he has savings... he has everything and needs just a young woman to enjoy it....

2. he earns enough to support you and the family..... he works during the week... so you have time for yourself.... and on the weekend he needs you to party... you boost his image because there is nothing so envied by his friends and collegues than a man that is loved and worshipped by a young beautiful woman....

3. he is mature and has life experience.... he is stable, understanding and has temper.... he won't get angry easy if you mess up... your mood swings and throwing vases at the wall will probley even entertain him.... he will understand you and guide you.... he won't hit you.... he will spoil you because men love young women that love and worship them....

4. you have a better life and entertainment than any of the girls that hang out in discos looking for a slimy 20 year old male that will just screw and then dump them.... while they hang out there, you have dinners in restaurants... while they make holidays in sylt, you have holidays in the carribean.... while they get cheap glassware and silver you get jewelry and gold...

5. you don't need to have children immediately... you are young and have all time in the world.... your husband can have children in 5 years too... he has no biological clock.... you and he have all time in the world to prepare for the right time.... in the meantime you enjoy your lives.... and once you both want children you still have enough time to have as many as you want and you can afford....

6. chances that he will leave you are slim.... because he can't do better.... chances that you will leave him are slim.... because you can't do better... i have never seen such a marriage breaking up.... they work all out so great....

men should best be 10-15 older than their wives.... women should marry young and they should marry mature men....
Some people would say that the younger woman-older man thing is a male cultural advantage, but I would disagree. A man has to work his ass off, and wait for a woman. Women reap much more benefits, a man has to be strong, dominant, wealthy and put in work like mad... and what does the younger woman do? Sit back passive and look pretty without having to put forth much effort, no work, no discipline, no expectations, just lay back stagnant and get a man, or actively seek him, which won't be anywhere near as hard for her.

Your sentiments are quite materialistic and show symptoms of the Elektra complex.

Torn_Humana
Monday, March 28th, 2005, 05:40 PM
Maturity is a quality most young men lack, and until they reach said maturity it is doubtful they can provide adequately and move into the husband role that is neccessary for a good marriage.

Haldís
Monday, May 30th, 2005, 10:20 AM
Are you sure your Nordid?I have been told so.


It is not in the Germanic Spirit to be so Materialistic. Material possessions are a selection advantage and facilitate survival. Are you preaching poverty?


As a woman, I feel that marrying a man that is 5-10 years my senior to be the best choice. I like older, more mature men, but not a man that is 20 years older than me... that is too old. Well said.


I don't want a 'sugar daddy', If I can get a husband, a lover, a 'sugar daddy' and a friend in one the better.


I want someone who loves and respects me, and if he's poor as a pauper...then so be it. :D Better buy a dog. ;)

Imbrex
Tuesday, May 31st, 2005, 11:05 PM
My common-law husband is 28 and I am 21. We both feel that the age gap is beneficial to our relationship.

He is of the belief that as the male, he must be the provider and defender of the family. He is the type who likes to have his current situation in life stable before taking on any new challenges (an investment, hobby, relationship, etc.) I've found, in my short life, that this attitude seems very common among men raised in traditional households. The age difference gives him certain advantages in this area as he already has a successful career, a home and other conditions that he believes must be satisfied before embarking on a serious relationship.


I, on the other hand, enjoy the experience more than the reward and am eager to share my life with a partner. Where he believes that, as the male, he must be the solid one with an established situation in life, I believe that, as the female, I must be more malleable and tolerant. As a young woman, it is still possible to mold my life decisions to best benefit the household, instead of an older female who might already be on a fixed path.


My ultimate goals are set, but I have the luxury of time to grow and learn with a partner and prepare for the future together instead of trying to combine two established lives ten years from now, which I imagine could result in more hurtful compromises than entering into a relationship with a clear vision of your role from the beginning.

Jack
Wednesday, June 1st, 2005, 02:07 AM
One last comment from me: Men should prey on women their own age :p

Rhydderch
Wednesday, June 1st, 2005, 04:17 AM
One last comment from me: Men should prey on women their own age :pDo you think men should prey on women? :D

Prussian
Wednesday, June 1st, 2005, 04:23 AM
Do you think men should prey on women? :DOf course he does, afterall he's Jack the ripper. :D

Rhydderch
Wednesday, June 1st, 2005, 04:31 AM
Of course he does, afterall he's Jack the ripper. :DYes, Jack the Ripper was famous for that very reason was'nt he, I'd sort of forgotten that :D

Jack
Wednesday, June 1st, 2005, 04:51 AM
Yes, Jack the Ripper was famous for that very reason was'nt he, I'd sort of forgotten that :D
Better than men preying on men :|

Rhydderch
Saturday, June 4th, 2005, 04:45 AM
Yes, it is sick and diseased when a fourty year old man sticks his dick in a 15 year old girl, married to her or not. I know over a dozen guys my age who would kill someone if they did that.Even if he was married to her? Well, there are probably dozens of thirty-five to fourty year olds who would strangle foolish and cocky 18/19 year olds who are to fond of poking their noses into the business of other people ;)


This morality also seems to hold the customs of past ages over those of the present. Why is that?mmm.......I don't see why a morality which holds the customs of the present over those of the past is better than vice versa. In fact, an upstart custom has much more reason to be examined very thoroughly before it is accepted; afterall, the past has existed for a lot longer than the present.
Personally, I wouldn't accept or refuse a custom on the basis of whether it is archaic or modern/upstart, because I believe in God and his laws; but I think for an atheist or agnostic, it would be more logical to stick with a custom which has been almost universally accepted throughout history, especially if he claims to be a traditionalist and when there is good reason to believe 'revulsion' at the custom is largely a result of feminism and other modernistic ideas ;) :D

Jack
Saturday, June 4th, 2005, 01:14 PM
Even if he was married to her? Well, there are probably dozens of thirty-five to fourty year olds who would strangle foolish and cocky 18/19 year olds who are to fond of poking their noses into the business of other people ;)
Those 35-40 year olds would be outnumbered by those they wish to strangle ;)


mmm.......I don't see why a morality which holds the customs of the present over those of the past is better than vice versa. In fact, an upstart custom has much more reason to be examined very thoroughly before it is accepted; afterall, the past has existed for a lot longer than the present.
Well, by logic, the past has obviously existed for a lot longer than the present :P The present is one unmeasurably tiny moment, and the past is infinite ;)



Personally, I wouldn't accept or refuse a custom on the basis of whether it is archaic or modern/upstart, because I believe in God and his laws;
To each his own :thumbup


but I think for an atheist or agnostic, it would be more logical to stick with a custom which has been almost universally accepted throughout history, especially if he claims to be a traditionalist and when there is good reason to believe 'revulsion' at the custom is largely a result of feminism and other modernistic ideas ;) :D
Ah, but there's two varieties of traditionalism - the historical traditionalism (what you're suggesting), and the eternal Traditionalism (similar to Platonism). You may very well consider my revulsion at you old decaying folks picking on our (i.e. young people) woman, but we are simply territorial :D Nothing to do with feminism at all.

Rhydderch
Saturday, June 4th, 2005, 02:33 PM
Those 35-40 year olds would be outnumbered by those they wish to strangle ;) Well, that's debateable, but I think the odds would favour the 35-40 year olds in a contest ;)



Well, by logic, the past has obviously existed for a lot longer than the present :P That's what I said, isn't it? ;)


Ah, but there's two varieties of traditionalism - the historical traditionalism (what you're suggesting), and the eternal Traditionalism (similar to Platonism).If I can judge from a post of yours which I came across a while ago, you seemed to imply the former of the two :D

You may very well consider my revulsion at you old decaying folksDo you mean me? You may well be surprised to discover my age ;) Your comment makes me realise that you've assumed my ideas on this issue have been moulded entirely by self-interest :D (unless you've judged I'm one of the 'old folk' because you think I'm a mature fellow :D :fwink: )


picking on our (i.e. young people) womanmmm.....since when did women of a certain age group belong exclusively to the men (or boys) of that age group? I would say unmarried women belong to their fathers, and that young men their age don't have a special monopoly over them (but of course I've never said I think men shouldn't marry until 35-40, so i don't believe older men should have a monopoly either).


Nothing to do with feminism at all.You'll have trouble convincing me of that :D

Tysk
Saturday, June 4th, 2005, 04:40 PM
My man is six years older than me and I think it's the perfect difference for us.

Jack
Sunday, June 5th, 2005, 01:47 PM
Well, that's debateable, but I think the odds would favour the 35-40 year olds in a contest ;)
We younger people have turned into pack animals. One on one fights don't happen as much :D


That's what I said, isn't it? ;)
Yes, but I'm questioning why age should imply value.


If I can judge from a post of yours which I came across a while ago, you seemed to imply the former of the two :D
I've supported both sides in the past :P


Do you mean me? You may well be surprised to discover my age ;) Your comment makes me realise that you've assumed my ideas on this issue have been moulded entirely by self-interest :D (unless you've judged I'm one of the 'old folk' because you think I'm a mature fellow :D :fwink: )
Rubbish. Who is not with us is against us :D Hence you are an old decaying man ;)


mmm.....since when did women of a certain age group belong exclusively to the men (or boys) of that age group?
Since we grew balls to claim them as our own :P


I would say unmarried women belong to their fathers, and that young men their age don't have a special monopoly over them (but of course I've never said I think men shouldn't marry until 35-40, so i don't believe older men should have a monopoly either).
I do not particularly believe in ownership except by mutual agreement. Does a 30 year old unmarried woman 'belong' to her father? You might believe so, I do not.


You'll have trouble convincing me of that :D
One word: ego ;) Hence my position.

Rhydderch
Monday, June 6th, 2005, 01:09 AM
Yes, but I'm questioning why age should imply value.Likewise I question why modernity should imply value; I don't agree that 'the latest is always the greatest'. But, as I said, "I would'nt accept or refuse a custom........etc".


Rubbish. Who is not with us is against us :D Hence you are an old decaying man ;) Age depends on the number of years since one's birth, not on his ideas :P



Since we grew balls to claim them as our own :P And that was.......yesterday? :D

Mind you, I think their fathers would take you to task on that one ;)


I do not particularly believe in ownership except by mutual agreement.Her father (and mother) did not need her agreement for her to be conceived and born, and they do not need her agreement to own her :D Since she owes her very existence to them, she must have their agreement to be owned by somebody else ;)
Does a 30 year old unmarried woman 'belong' to her father?What this brings up in your mind would depend on your definition of 'belong'; she wouldn't be treated the same as a ten or a fifteen year old, but yes I would say she still 'belongs'.



egoAh, yes, I think that sums it up pretty well :D

Jack
Monday, June 6th, 2005, 07:11 AM
Likewise I question why modernity should imply value; I don't agree that 'the latest is always the greatest'. But, as I said, "I would'nt accept or refuse a custom........etc".
Sure. But if you accept that the age of an idea is irrelevant as to its value, what is the prime value against which you measure all others?


Age depends on the number of years since one's birth, not on his ideas :P
Age is relative ;)


And that was.......yesterday? :D
Long before this thread started :P


Mind you, I think their fathers would take you to task on that one ;)
So be it.


Her father (and mother) did not need her agreement for her to be conceived and born, and they do not need her agreement to own her :D
Neither do the men her age. If we're going to analyse things in terms of force - then?


Since she owes her very existence to them, she must have their agreement to be owned by somebody else ;)
'Owe' depends on agreement. She did not ask to be brought into existence, despite the fact she may cherish her own existence now that she has it.


What this brings up in your mind would depend on your definition of 'belong'; she wouldn't be treated the same as a ten or a fifteen year old, but yes I would say she still 'belongs'.
You're the one who first employed the term 'belong'. Define it.


Ah, yes, I think that sums it up pretty well :D
Which is no different than your own standard of value.

Rhydderch
Monday, June 6th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Sure. But if you accept that the age of an idea is irrelevant as to its value, what is the prime value against which you measure all others?I don't think you'll have any trouble guessing that :D Although, the archaism of a custom and the degree of historical acceptance around the world can give an indication, so in that sense it's not totally irrelevant. But I wouldn't use it as the final word.


Neither do the men her age. If we're going to analyse things in terms of force - then?I think that may be a misunderstanding of my statement. I mean the latter is (or should be) such because of the former :)


'Owe' depends on agreement. No it doesn't, at least not in the sense I was using it. It just means if it weren't for them, she wouldn't exist, and therefore she has an obligation to respect that fact.


You're the one who first employed the term 'belong'. Define it.Well, it encompasses a wide variety of things, which I couldn't include here, but one important aspect is that she is under her father's full authority.


Which is no different than your own standard of value.Ego?! If God didn't exist, then perhaps in a sense, but if so, then that's definitely wrong ;)

cltncblondeagle
Monday, June 6th, 2005, 10:09 PM
women should marry between the age of 18 and 25 and they should marry men between 30 and 40 years old.... this are the happiest and best marriages and here is why....

look at it from the view of a woman.... her value for men is highest when she is young.... she is at the peak of her beauty, at the peak of her fertility and at the peak of her biology value.... she can have many children and she is in no hurry.... when she hits 20 her value decreases every year.... men prefer young women....

some women make the mistake to waste the best of their years.... either by being short-sighted idiotic bitches that whore around.... or by making very bad mate choices.... which means dating and marrying young males.... who are irresponsible, don't want to commit, and also have no financial security.... then they break up or divorce and are left with children what decreases their future value much....

a young woman (18-25) would do best to date and marry a mature male (30-40) and here is why...

1. he has studied and/or worked his ass off for 15 to 25 years.... he is at the peak of his creative force... he has a house and its paid off... he has two cars (one for you) and they are paid off... he has savings... he has everything and needs just a young woman to enjoy it....

2. he earns enough to support you and the family..... he works during the week... so you have time for yourself.... and on the weekend he needs you to party... you boost his image because there is nothing so envied by his friends and collegues than a man that is loved and worshipped by a young beautiful woman....

3. he is mature and has life experience.... he is stable, understanding and has temper.... he won't get angry easy if you mess up... your mood swings and throwing vases at the wall will probley even entertain him.... he will understand you and guide you.... he won't hit you.... he will spoil you because men love young women that love and worship them....

4. you have a better life and entertainment than any of the girls that hang out in discos looking for a slimy 20 year old male that will just screw and then dump them.... while they hang out there, you have dinners in restaurants... while they make holidays in sylt, you have holidays in the carribean.... while they get cheap glassware and silver you get jewelry and gold...

5. you don't need to have children immediately... you are young and have all time in the world.... your husband can have children in 5 years too... he has no biological clock.... you and he have all time in the world to prepare for the right time.... in the meantime you enjoy your lives.... and once you both want children you still have enough time to have as many as you want and you can afford....

6. chances that he will leave you are slim.... because he can't do better.... chances that you will leave him are slim.... because you can't do better... i have never seen such a marriage breaking up.... they work all out so great....

men should best be 10-15 older than their wives.... women should marry young and they should marry mature men....


Well then Houston we have a problem. I am 35 and never ever had a boyfriend of any sort. I never ever whored around or found the wrong ones because I never had one interested in me. I chased after the guys only to get no where and I only chased after white ones even before I awoke. Hell I had to drop out of college because I was accused of stalking men, two white male staff members. So maybe in you ideal world that could work, but I live in cold harsh reality sister.

Haldís
Friday, June 10th, 2005, 08:28 PM
One last comment from me: Men should prey on women their own age :p
Can women prey on men not their own age? :P

Horagalles
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 12:40 PM
She's not being materialistic, she's being practical. It may well be that this would be the system that worked best biologically. Nonetheless, I can't shake the uncomfortable feeling I get when I think of older men cradle-robbing like that.She is also reasonable. I recall Aristotle making a similar suggestion (women 19 + men 38). The charge of "materialism" doesn't stick, because this is only about economic security and writing from a country with lots of poverty now, I can actually undestand this very well.

Women also become much earlier mature then men do, so the "cradle robbing" doesn't stick either. Actually it was long the norm to give girls into marriage as soon as they could get pregnant and manage a household. There where higher demands to the men, who had first to prove the ability of good fatherhood and stable behaviour. You see there is a difference between being father and being the progenitor of children.

That we today think that people should be the same age has to do with egalitarianism, which is already indoctrinated in the schools. In a natural environment their would be always people from different age groups, gender and status.

I think it is important that the man is the authority in the family and that their are good reasons for the woman to accept this.

Enibas
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 01:44 PM
There is no ideal age or difference of age for a marriage. That what works with some couples goes wrong with other couples.

I was 28 years old when I have got married the first and only time. My husband is 5 years younger than me, we are together for almost 20 years and have 10 children.

Before I have met my husband, I was together with older men. But this has not worked. One had already children from an earlier relationship and the other one was busy with his job so that he had no time to start a family.

My opinion is the most important things for the a marriage are love, the same interests and aims and the ability to talk to each other if there is trouble.

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 01:58 PM
More or less agreed. There are some general "rules", but it depends on the specifics of the people involved...

Phleg, what is your take on the matter? :wsg

Japetos
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 02:01 PM
If man's age=X,
woman's should be: [X/2]+7 years

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 02:04 PM
If man's age=X,
woman's should be: [X/2]+7 years
:-O Wherever did you get that? :lol

Japetos
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 02:09 PM
:-O Wherever did you get that? :lol
Will u forgive me?:P

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 02:13 PM
Will u forgive me?:P
What's to forgive?

Anyway, it is an interesting equation... ;)

Japetos
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 02:21 PM
They marry mature men because that's the most important they can do.

Japetos
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 02:35 PM
What's to forgive?

Anyway, it is an interesting equation... ;)
That you couldnt be my wife:
23*1/2+7=18,5.
Sorry!

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 02:43 PM
That you couldnt be my wife:
23*1/2+7=18,5.
Sorry!
I guess I'll just have to live with that, then :( :D

Slå ring om Norge
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Why?...:roll

Sometimes better being a mature mans princess, than a young mans slave?
But I see no reason for any general rule here. People are individual.
Then comes that old of age, does not nescessarily mean mental and emotional mature.

Some grow old and wise, some just get old...

Johoo!:P

AlbionMP
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 05:17 PM
"what is the ideal age between men and women?"

Explain the terms - 'ideal', and 'age'?

Oski
Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 07:53 PM
I say stay in your age group but I guess love doesnt care about what I think.

GreenHeart
Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 11:44 PM
If one bases a marriage on economics alone the marriage will never be successful- at most being some superficial affair motivated by lusty desires. Marriage and relationships should be based on love and compatibility.

Love can happen at any age as most of us know all too well...

For the marriage to last, both partners should be mature which a person can be regardless of age. Maturity is a state of mind.

Here
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 08:16 PM
If one bases a marriage on economics alone the marriage will never be successful- at most being some superficial affair motivated by lusty desires. Marriage and relationships should be based on love and compatibility.

I guess it should be based in love and compatibility before anything. having that in mind i guess that couples shuldn't have more than ten years of age gap betwwen them, because it's less unlikely find compatibility.

i'm attracted to yonger boys fro some reason they have to be around my age (21) and 17. :D . In short last guys i have found attracted where around two years older and four years younger.

For some reason i found girls of my age dating men over 33-35 repulsive. let's not speak about some extreme cases. :-O

Bridie
Monday, January 1st, 2007, 12:06 PM
I married a man considerably older than me (more than 10 years).... and it was a BIG mistake. One of the many problems that we had was that he didn't like/get along with my friends (who he thought were immature and couldn't relate to), and I felt very uncomfortable around his friends... many of the women treating me disrespectfully. I was always the odd one out at any gathering, being so much younger than everyone else. I always felt somewhat inferior too... everyone in the group of friends was so much more sophisticated and worldly than me. I also found his friends boring and pretentious. I came to crave being around people of my own age after a couple of years of being with him. Marrying someone considerably older than yourself is like giving away your youth.

My husband and I had virtually no social life together because I couldn't stand his friends and he couldn't stand mine. We had different peer groups... and that's not a good thing in a relationship.

Then there's the matter of having an older man with less energy and less strong healthy years ahead of him being the father of your children. Being 23 marrying a 38 year old may not seem that bad to some people at the time... but what about in a few years when he starts looking more like her father than her lover... when she's still young and pretty, and he's grey and wrinkly. What an embarrassment! :| Does your average 35 year old woman really want to be tied down with a 50 year old man when she could have a 35 year old man??? :nope I doubt it.

Love doesn't really count for that much in a marriage IMO. I mean, there has to be more than just that. You've got to have common interests, common friends, common world perspectives and you've got to be able to communicate well and respect each other. You've also got to be willing and able to support each other through the bad times.

I think compatability is far more important than love when it comes to marriage, but for boyfriend/girlfriend relationships compatability is not so important.

Any woman who marries a much older man has got to have a screw loose. :D She's doing it either for money, to escape her life, because she hasn't got any common sense or because she wants her husband to be her father.

I think it's a good thing to marry someone around your own age. Maybe up to five years older or five years younger... but any more than that would just put too much of a strain on the relationship when it comes to more practical considerations.

Another thing... all of the relationships that I personally know of, (talking about average people here, not celebrities) where there has been a large age gap between the couple (say, more than 10 years), have ended in divorce sooner or later.

When John Lennon said "All you need is love", he was talking crap.



some women make the mistake to waste the best of their years.... either by being short-sighted idiotic bitches that whore around.... or by making very bad mate choices.... which means dating and marrying young males.... who are irresponsible, don't want to commit, and also have no financial security.... then they break up or divorce and are left with children what decreases their future value much....
Some women make the mistake of wasting the best years of their lives by giving their youth away to an old man who's selfishly trying to recapture his own spent youth.



and on the weekend he needs you to party... you boost his image because there is nothing so envied by his friends and collegues than a man that is loved and worshipped by a young beautiful woman....
If you think that being used as a fancy accessory for a man is a positive thing, and will make you feel good about yourself and loved, you've got a lot to learn.



he is mature and has life experience.... he is stable, understanding and has temper.... he won't get angry easy if you mess up... your mood swings and throwing vases at the wall will probley even entertain him.... he will understand you and guide you.... he won't hit you.... he will spoil you because men love young women that love and worship them....
Many older men are irritable, cranky old codgers who are stuck in their ways. Many old men that go for young women do so because they are controlling and want a door mat to wipe their feet on.



chances that he will leave you are slim.... because he can't do better.... chances that you will leave him are slim.... because you can't do better... i have never seen such a marriage breaking up.... they work all out so great....
The chance that the woman will leave him as she gets older and gains some common sense and wisdom and isn't satisfied with being a princess in a gilded cage anymore is high. Eventually they'll get sick of being controlled and used and want someone who can be a friend as well as a lover.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007, 04:56 AM
I married a man considerably older than me (more than 10 years).... and it was a BIG mistake. One of the many problems that we had was that he didn't like/get along with my friends (who he thought were immature and couldn't relate to), and I felt very uncomfortable around his friends... many of the women treating me disrespectfully. I was always the odd one out at any gathering, being so much younger than everyone else. I always felt somewhat inferior too... everyone in the group of friends was so much more sophisticated and worldly than me. I also found his friends boring and pretentious. I came to crave being around people of my own age after a couple of years of being with him.This might simply demonstrate that there is too much segregation of age groups all round. In any case that's what I've often thought already.

People tend to think they must marry and socialise within their own age group; maybe they should be freer in that respect. I'd suggest the obsession with schooling has a lot to do with it, and I get the impression that before modern style schooling (plus a lot of other modernist ideas) things were different. Spending most of one's waking hours right through childhood lumped in with a whole lot of kids the same age can't be a good thing, surely; it's a bit unnatural, to say the least, and tends to promote separation of young inexperienced people from older, wiser folk who would stabilise things.

Bridie
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007, 01:34 PM
This might simply demonstrate that there is too much segregation of age groups all round. In any case that's what I've often thought already.
I agree that there's too much segregation... but still peers are peers, and we all tend to relate better to people who are of a similar age group. I'm not saying exactly the same age... but at least in the same generation, if you know what I mean. Ever heard of generational gaps causing friction between parents and children? ;) That's a reality. When you grow up in different times it affects you, how you live and how you view life.

I personally have always gotten along really well with people of my grandparents generation. Something about having lived through a major WW and depression has generally made them tough, resilient, appreciative, wise and surprisingly positive in the face of adversity. I love that... but it doesn't mean that I want to marry an 80 year old man. :D



People tend to think they must marry and socialise within their own age group; maybe they should be freer in that respect. I'd suggest the obsession with schooling has a lot to do with it, and I get the impression that before modern style schooling (plus a lot of other modernist ideas) things were different. Spending most of one's waking hours right through childhood lumped in with a whole lot of kids the same age can't be a good thing, surely; it's a bit unnatural, to say the least, and tends to promote separation of young inexperienced people from older, wiser folk who would stabilise things.Well that's all very nice in theory, but I'm coming from a more practical, "real life" perspective. "Theory" has it's place, but not in relationships as far as I'm concerned. "In theory this could work, but in reality it rarely does", isn't a good bet in my book.

In any case, as far as inter-generational marriages go, the social aspect is only one small problem area....

Haldís
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 09:54 AM
boys in my age group are immature and silly... they have no life experience and most earn the money they draw from daddy's credit card.... they are only interested in sex (i am not at all), drinking (i am no longer), music (i am but not their music) and parties (i prefer nature).... it's impossible to have a serious conversation with them.... they are rude, aggressive, and vulgar also... in particular with their friends, even in your presence... they think they are so great and cool, but they are just useless and scathing... they consider me an object they want to get around and are only interested in my sexual organs. the person Haldís and what I feel is of no relevance to them...

this changes dramatically in the age group between 30 and 40...
i'm not bright but nonetheless (or maybe because of it) i like to talk about philosophy, history, politics, books/movies, wildlife, and all factual and serious topics.... it's food for my mind and i enjoy this.... i like to listen and it makes me think... i like to have my questions answered and things explained to me.... this needs people with knowledge, experience and maturity.... they are educated, patient, witty, polite and sweet... they are also good listeners if I have problems... they are gentlemen and i can feel that they appreciate me as a person...

This is a generalization and there are a few exceptions, but this is the rule... 20 year old boys are jerks but once they are 30... BOOM! the swine turns into a prince... maybe men just need longer to mature.

I also agree with what Rhydderch said... the idea that women should date men from their age group is a modern concept that came with modern schooling, feminism, socialism, and what not. traditionally, the men always used to be 5-10 years older.... seldom less, but often more.

Jäger
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 10:08 AM
This is a generalization and there are a few exceptions, but this is the rule... 20 year old boys are jerks but once they are 30... BOOM! the swine turns into a prince... maybe men just need longer to mature.
How long have you been observing this? I mean you are 21, I would think you haven't seen many men to develop from 20 to 30. Maybe it really is not so much an age problem, but a sociological one?
Maybe the 20 year old jerks you know will be jerks with 30 too, and maybe the 30 year olds you know were nice back when they were 20?

Haldís
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 10:47 AM
How long have you been observing this? I mean you are 21, I would think you haven't seen many men to develop from 20 to 30. Maybe it really is not so much an age problem, but a sociological one?
Maybe the 20 year old jerks you know will be jerks with 30 too, and maybe the 30 year olds you know were nice back when they were 20?
lol, but if there are 90% jerks at the age of 20, but only 30% jerks at the age of 30, then many jerks must have become non-jerks over time... or do you think jerkism just tripled over the last 10 years ? what would have been the cause? :P
I'm observing this at least since im 12 or 13... so for almost 10 years... it's a gradual thing... my cousins for example who are now 29 and 26, treat their gfs now much better than they did 5 or 6 years ago.... when they were just screwing them all over (not only sexually).... even hurting girls on purpose with stupid remarks... there can be fun in meanness... not that i agree, but for them... some boys when they are in groups think it's cool and strong to be mean and "tough"... "f*** off, bitch!"... throwing her out of the car when she wanted to talk... haha, very funny, a**hole!.... anyways, my cousins got more responsible and compassionate, it's no longer all hedonism and all me, me, me for them.... sometimes you can even talk to them like to normal human beings.... they will be ok in 5 to 10 years (i hope)...
ummmmm... yes it's really about maturity i think... if a woman is 30 she could date somebody that is 33 or 35... although that's only 3-5 years... it's most difficult for women my age.... but a man should be at least 2 to 3 years older in all cases.... as he should be at least 2 to 3 inches taller, lol... it just feels queer if the woman is older or taller...

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 10:57 AM
Haldis & Jaeger, I believe that both of your assertions apply in a general sense.

What Haldis says about men maturing from their 20s to their 30s is basically true about the average man. Usually they rearrange their priorities once they step into the 3rd decade of their lives.

However, what Jaeger says is valid for the extreme cases.

That is, an idiot will always be an idiot whether in his 20s or 30s, or 40s, whereas a rare case of a mature man with his act pulled together will show up very early, as early as his 20s perhaps ;)

Haldís
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 11:02 AM
Haldis & Jaeger, I believe that both of your assertions apply in a general sense. I think Jaeger is younger than 30 and doesn't want to be a jerk. :P

@Jaeger: I'm certain you are sweet and responsible man.... we all know that the folks on Skadi are special.... :)

Horagalles
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 11:15 AM
Haldis & Jaeger, I believe that both of your assertions apply in a general sense.Yeah, I think ye are right.

What Haldis says about men maturing from their 20s to their 30s is basically true about the average man. Usually they rearrange their priorities once they step into the 3rd decade of their lives. Agreed - That was similar with me...


However, what Jaeger says is valid for the extreme cases.



That is, an idiot will always be an idiot whether in his 20s or 30s, or 40s, whereas a rare case of a mature man with his act pulled together will show up very early, as early as his 20s perhaps ;)But how are you distinguishing the real idiots at 20 from the ones that are just in a jerk-moron phase....


For me the case is clear... A women/girl must accept my authority. This means that she has to trust me not to treat her like a jerk. No Trust, no me for the girl.

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 11:26 AM
But how are you distinguishing the real idiots at 20 from the ones that are just in a jerk-moron phase....

You don't. That's what got me to where I am today... :P

Boche
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 11:36 AM
boys in my age group are immature and silly... they have no life experience and most earn the money they draw from daddy's credit card.... they are only interested in sex (i am not at all), drinking (i am no longer), music (i am but not their music) and parties (i prefer nature).... it's impossible to have a serious conversation with them.... they are rude, aggressive, and vulgar also... in particular with their friends, even in your presence... they think they are so great and cool, but they are just useless and scathing... they consider me an object they want to get around and are only interested in my sexual organs. the person Haldís and what I feel is of no relevance to them...


I didn't know that i carry even one of those character attributes! :|
So, please. Could you stop to generalize?!
I also know alot of women who are older than you and behave like you have described the guys.
The age mostly doesn't explain anything concerning experience.
One can experience something in 1 year what others may experience within 20 years, so please stop writing such irrelevant things.

If i'd generalize like you do out of my experience, then i'd say "Girls between 20-30 are immature, unloyal and slutty."

Please write your statement like this:

"boys here where i live and are in my age group are immature and silly... etc."



Gruß,
Svartr

Haldís
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 11:50 AM
I didn't know that i carry even one of those character attributes! :| but you did take it personally although I said there are exceptions. bad conscience? :P


So, please. Could you stop to generalize?! no, i prefer to see the large picture instead of different mosaic pieces :P


I also know alot of women who are older than you and behave like you have described the guys. i believe you.... :)


The age mostly doesn't explain anything concerning experience. could you stop to generalize? :P


One can experience something in 1 year what others may experience within 20 years, so please stop writing such irrelevant things. yestake knowledge for example. there are kids that graduated in maths at the age of 12 or 13, but that's not the rule... most get their doctorate with 27 to 30. :)


If i'd generalize like you do out of my experience, then i'd say "Girls between 20-30 are immature, unloyal and slutty." true for the most part.... :)


Better write your statement like this:

"boys here where i live and are in my age group are immature and silly... etc." ok. boys in my age group wherever i lived (USA and germany) and probley everywhere in the West are immature and silly. happy? :)

Boche
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:01 PM
but you did take it personally although I said there are exceptions. bad conscience? :P

I took it personally because i had alot of bad experience with women, probably like you seem to had with men. And still i'm not bashing the morality of every women now.


no, i prefer to see the large picture instead of different mosaic pieces :PThen please don't complain about guys who prefer seeing the "large picture" of women who are not like you.



yes take knowledge for example. there are kids that graduated in maths at the age of 12 or 13, but that's not the rule... most get their doctorate with 27 to 30. :)I was talking about experience, not knowledge. Concerning life experience.
I've also experienced alot of bad things in my past, and i noticed that experience makes one mature. And not the age.



ok. boys in my age group wherever i lived (USA and germany) and probley everywhere in the West are immature and silly. happy? :)No - let's say it like that; "The guys, you got to known were immature... etc etc."
That sounds not so irrelevant.
Seems like you had bad experiences with guys, which makes you generalize and think mostly bad of them - which is understandable.
I experienced extreme and heavy bad things with women, and mostly i can't say good things about women at all.
But at least i don't generalize them and tell women on skadi indirectly "Hey you're slutty, you don't have morality, you are all cold-hearted etc."
I know there are alot of good women with moral who're not slutty and care more about important things - so i don't offend every women with such statements.


Gruß,
Svartr

Horagalles
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:07 PM
....
ok. boys in my age group wherever i lived (USA and germany) and probley everywhere in the West are immature and silly. happy? :)Unfortunately this might be the norm. But possibly there are exceptions as well.

Haldís
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:27 PM
I took it personally because i had alot of bad experience with women, probably like you seem to had with men. hmmmmm.... no, wouldn't say I had bad experiences.... I had to deal with lots of boys in my age group though (because of school and work) and i know what I'm talking about.... but i never started a relationship with immature kids.... i have that much brain and self control. :)

I'm maybe different than most women in my age group b/c having sex is not that important for me yet.... I'm a virgin and want to stay one until marriage.... i promised to my grandma and the older i get the more I understand it is the right decison.... because of this it's not important to me to meet young boys and to spend my nights in discos.... i'm also ok without boyfriend....


And still i'm not bashing the morality of every women now. neither do i bash the morality of every man.


Then please don't complain about guys who prefer seeing the "large picture" of women who are not like you. where did I complain? :scratch


I was talking about experience, not knowledge. Concerning life experience. nobody gets life experience in a few days or a year. that's the special thing about experience. One has to experience it, and this takes time. even if you experience a lot in a relatively short time, it still needs time to process it and to mature..... there is no fast and dirty road to life experience:)

if you are young and think you have life experience you probley don't have it..... with 19 i thought I experienced a lot, whew.... i probley have but i would not call myself experienced.... i talk much to older people.... also the old generation (50-90).... then i understood i have very little experience.... modesty is a beautiful thing:)


I've also experienced alot of bad things in my past, and i noticed that experience makes one mature. And not the age. bingo!! people in their 30s are more likely to have much more experience than teenagers though... it takes time


No - let's say it like that; The guys, you got to known were immature... etc etc."
That sounds not so irrelevant. ok, of the hundreds of guys in my age group i became acquainted during school and work in germany and the USA almost all were immature.... what should my conclusion be? is it probable that in your village everybody is mature? i doubt it....


Seems like you had bad experiences with guys, which makes you generalize and think mostly bad of them - which is understandable. no, i had not... not in the sense of what you or most people understand under "bad experiences".... i observed they are immature by talking to them and by observing their behavior....


I experienced extreme and heavy bad things with women, and mostly i can't say good things about women at all. sorry


But at least i don't generalize them and tell women on skadi indirectly "Hey you're slutty, you don't have morality, you are all cold-hearted etc." i don't do that either, lol. do you think Skadi is representative for the average person? the average joe and jill ain't on Skadi.... i don't know why you are so afraid to draw true conclusions about reality and the world around you... how would you characterize the average 20 year old of today? mature? responsible? educated? committed to his family and his partner? loyal to his people? fulfills the duty to his country? lol i don't know where you live, Svartr, but where I live this is not the reality.... in particular not in Germany.... it's better here in ND.... but NRW was like NYC....


I know there are alot of good women with moral who're not slutty and care more about important things - so i don't offend every women with such statements. great.... but don't state or create the impression i offended every man.... because i didn't. it would be a lie and it would offend me.... and please spare me the holier than thou attitude... it makes me puke. :|

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:30 PM
The peace maker is here:

I really don't see the point in overgeneralizing and/or arguing about it.

It's all about human relationships and it is mostly subjective because each and one of us has experienced it differently according to age, sex, location and socioeconomic factors.

Where I live, it's worse than what Haldis describes..yet I don't believe all males are like that.

I was hurt and had my heart torn apart by a 24 year old male just recently, and I do feel, however, that much of it was due to his young age, immaturity and lack of experience.

However, I can bring to mind examples of guys that are in their early 20s and possess more maturity than grown family men. I can think of a few from this forum right now.

It's both objective and relevant, and it largely depends on what you want at a certain time.

I am not pissed at the aforementioned 24 year old. I would be wrong to blame him for not acting "manly" enough when he is obviously still a boy.

I would rather blame myself for asking from a boy to behave like a man and expecting that he would have. Therefore, me, being more mature, I sould have seen it coming. Five years ago I would have perceived his behavior differently and would have reacted differently.

See where I am getting at? There is a time and a place for everything. ;)

Haldís
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:47 PM
The peace maker is here:

I really don't see the point in overgeneralizing and/or arguing about it.

It's all about human relationships and it is mostly subjective because each and one of us has experienced it differently according to age, sex, location and socioeconomic factors.

Where I live, it's worse than what Haldis describes..yet I don't believe all males are like that. nobody said ALL 20 year olds are like that.... i said 20 year old boys are silly and immature.... compared to the people in their 30s..... that's like stating men are taller than women.... nobody would imply from this that ALL men are taller than ALL women.

there are always exceptions....do we really have to go through the basics of distribution??

if he wants to disagree and believe that the generation of the 20 year old is as mature and experienced as the generation of 35 year olds, ok... but don't give me the holier than thou attitude and accuse me I insulted people on Skadi for stating the obvious.

it is exactly my experience with boys in their early 20s that they think they are so mature and have eaten the wisdom of the world with the spoon.... so the reaction doesn't surprise me... but it's a great illusion and it proves the point. immature, aggressive, insulting, silly....


However, I can bring to mind examples of guys that are in their early 20s and possess more maturity than grown family men. I can think of a few from this forum right now. Siegfried comes to mind.... but I can show you a negro who is teaching physics and a woman that is 6' 8" tall.

i think i said everything i wanted to say.......

Boche
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:55 PM
I'm maybe different than most women in my age group b/c having sex is not that important for me yet.... I'm a virgin and want to stay one until marriage.... i promised to my grandma and the older i get the more I understand it is the right decison.... because of this it's not important to me to meet young boys and to spend my nights in discos.... i'm also ok without boyfriend....

I had Sex very early and still i don't care much about Sex. I enjoy it, but i don't ask for it like probably the most guys do.
For some "No Sex before marriage" makes them feel better, and some simply don't care. That's the variation of characteristics.




nobody gets life experience in a few days or a year. that's the special thing about experience. One has to experience it, and this takes time. even if you experience a lot in a relatively short time, it still needs time to process it and to mature..... there is no fast and dirty road to life experienceThat's wrong. For example i'd consider a person which experienced alot of woe, death etc. in it's youth more experienced concerning maturity, strength and mental stability than a 30 year old never experienced anything concerning "death" in life (which is really often the case).
Seeing a mature 35 year old man who just lost a friend or their mother due to death and are mostly having several mental breakdowns and are not able to handle death at all.
And then there are young people who grew up with death and are mentally stronger and can handle it better.
- which therefor have more life-experience.




if you are young and think you have life experience you probley don't have it..... with 19 i thought I experienced a lot, whew.... i probley have but i would not call myself experienced.... i talk much to older people.... also the old generation (50-90).... then i understood i have very little experience.... modesty is a beautiful thingI call myself in a few issues more experienced than most 30+ people.
And in some issues i'm not experienced as most 30+ people.


bingo!! people in their 30s are more likely to have much more experience than teenagers though... it takes timeDepends on experience in what. Life is nothing with one shematic, there are different lives and different ways of experience.


ok, of the hundreds of guys in my age group i became acquainted during school and work in germany and the USA almost all were immature.... what should my conclusion be? is it probable that in your village everybody is mature? i doubt it.... It's true that the most men nowadays are sex-orientated.
But it's also true that the most women nowadays are slutty.



Gruß,
Svartr

Bridie
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:57 PM
Many old men that go for young women do so because they are controlling and want a doormat to wipe their feet on.
hmmm....


For me the case is clear... A women/girl must accept my authority.
;) :D


What worries me about a society that accepts much younger women marrying much older men (say a 10+ year age gap - I never criticised an age gap less than that) is that it would be quite likely that naive, inexperienced, mentally and emotionally immature (therefore weaker) females would be commonly taken advantage of by selfish, domineering, controlling older men who are inexperienced in relationships (most of them wouldn't have had relationships when younger, because all of the half decent girls would be married off in their younger years in this scenario) and stuck are in their ways, unwilling to compromise or even relate very well to young women.

This scenario would disempower women on a grand scale, and that would be bad for society in general. Young boys who grow up seeing their mums treated like children by their fathers are unlikely to be capable of establishing healthy relationships with women when they become men themselves. And daughters who grow up seeing similar relationship dynamics are more likely become unassertive, weak doormats as adults. Either that, or they'll go the other way and become hardcore feminists. ;)

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 01:04 PM
It's true that the most men nowadays are sex-orientated.
But it's also true that the most women nowadays are slutty.

I think that's the jist of the story, so no use picking on each other on what is a more general moral & spiritual decay of our times, more evident in our youth, of course, since it is the youth that portrays the core of a culture.

Keep also another thing in mind. Today's 30 year olds are not the same with what 30 year olds were 10 years ago. There is also cultural relativity depending on the times we are living and what kind of situations we have been brought up in, so the maturity like is shifting further and further away.

I see today's 20 year olds and compare them with the time me and my friends were 20 and I see decline. Same goes for people older than me who used to be more mature at the age of 20 than I was at the same age, etc.

I has fortunate enough to enter adolescense before the mass invasion of MTV culture, materialism and individualism, and some of the relationships of people my age were very true and sincere since money was an issue unknown to us until it became a necessity (adulthood).

I pity my kid brother and sister (13 & 11 years old respectively) who already choose their friends and class mate buddies according to their socioeconomic status and how fashionable they are. They talk about cell phones and gadgets already and compete with each other on who has the fancier and most expensive ones.

Imagine them in their 20s :|

In other words, it's getting worse and worse every year :|

Haldís
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 01:19 PM
I had Sex very early and still i don't care much about Sex. I enjoy it, but i don't ask for it like probably the most guys do.
For some "No Sex before marriage" makes them feel better, and some simply don't care. That's the variation of characteristics. OK i still have to add something after all.... :D


That's wrong. For example i'd consider a person which experienced alot of woe, death etc. in it's youth more experienced concerning maturity, strength and mental stability than a 30 year old never experienced anything concerning "death" in life (which is really often the case).
Seeing a mature 35 year old man who just lost a friend or their mother due to death and are mostly having several mental breakdowns and are not able to handle death at all.
And then there are young people who grew up with death and are mentally stronger and can handle it better.
- which therefor have more life-experience. Ok, the exceptions.... but i wanted to say something about death.... i experienced death and woe, but i don't think it made me mature.... not at all. in my case it was inhibiting, i completely went off the rails.... maybe it's different for others, but these are just things you are confronted with or not.... they just happen.... most of the time you are powerless and that's why i don't think they add.... hardship that results because of somebody dying does i think....

but in any case, i don't feel mature.... yes more mature than two years ago where i went postal every day.... but i'm not mature in some absolute sense..... I am basically a wacko, lol... but i am trying to get things right.... i don't want to disappoint myself and my friends anymore.... all i know about maturity i know by talking to people that are mature.... i'm the worst example.... but i trust them on this, and we can only learn from people with wisdom and experience..... because i'm so fickle and dependent, i probley long for a man that can give me guidance and stability.... and my classmates and their kind can't manage. :)


I call myself in a few issues more experienced than most 30+ people.
And in some issues i'm not experienced as most 30+ people. I'm certain you are ok. :)


It's true that the most men nowadays are sex-orientated.
But it's also true that the most women nowadays are slutty. I don't like this world :(

Jäger
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 08:35 PM
I think Jaeger is younger than 30 and doesn't want to be a jerk. :P

@Jaeger: I'm certain you are sweet and responsible man.... we all know that the folks on Skadi are special.... :)
Mmmmm, after acknowledging my greatness you are of course right with what you have said so far ;) :P

Yeah, and Blaxis I think you must be wrong with everything you have said, no Jäger compliments in there! :D

Seriously, of course the general tendency of what Haldis said is true, yet her description of the exact behavior of young boys is not, and this is most likely sociological, IMHO.

Here
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 10:13 PM
ok, when women date many guys or make up with a different guy evryday at a club is a slutty but when a men does it womanizer??

I have male friends (all in their early 20s) and i hate when they speak and say things like -oh you know those girls i met were all slots? aren't they as "slots" as them going from woman to woman?

Rhydderch
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 01:56 AM
Ever heard of generational gaps causing friction between parents and children? ;) That's a reality. When you grow up in different times it affects you, how you live and how you view life.There is a problem, that's exactly what I'm saying; but I'm saying that it probably doesn't need to exist. So I'm not disagreeing that a marriage today between a 35 year old man and a 20 year could have problems; I'm just making the point that it's caused by problems in society in general.


I personally have always gotten along really well with people of my grandparents generation. Something about having lived through a major WW and depression has generally made them tough, resilient, appreciative, wise and surprisingly positive in the face of adversity.Then again, the impression I get is that it's not only related to wars and depressions, but more that the last 50 years have been somewhat abnormal in comparison to history as a whole.


I love that... but it doesn't mean that I want to marry an 80 year old man. :D Well yes, I'd say ideally they would both be reasonably young :) (in ordinary situations that is, such as a first marriage)


Well that's all very nice in theory, but I'm coming from a more practical, "real life" perspective. "Theory" has it's place, but not in relationships as far as I'm concerned. "In theory this could work, but in reality it rarely does", isn't a good bet in my book.This isn't just theory, it's based on "real life" history. In the past (and in other cultures today) marriages like this were quite common, had no problems and certainly weren't regarded as being at all odd. It's only modern Western Society that sees things differently.

Horagalles
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 11:07 AM
ok, when women date many guys or make up with a different guy evryday at a club is a slutty but when a men does it womanizer??

I have male friends (all in their early 20s) and i hate when they speak and say things like -oh you know those girls i met were all slots? aren't they as "slots" as them going from woman to woman?I agree with the underlying principle that slutty behaviour is wrong whether women or men do it. However be careful that you don't fall in the trap of justifying wrong behaviour with the wrong behaviour of another person.

SubGnostic
Thursday, January 11th, 2007, 10:06 PM
It's true that the most men nowadays are sex-orientated.
But it's also true that the most women nowadays are slutty.Do you really think the sex drive has changed over the late 20th and early 21st centuries? I probably need not remind about the sexual ethics of pre-Christian, European civilizations. The problem with the contemporary European Kali Yuga is the absurd relativization of moral, the lack of pursuing virtue. I have nothing against sex, but I can see that youth today is more occupied copulating than considering and bearing their responisbilities. The sickly combination of sexuality held as a social taboo and the flooding MTV filth is what I think is causing problems with teenage pregnancies, STDs and such in America. It also strikes me quite bizarre that parents more readily allow their children to view violence than healthy expressions of affection between a man and a woman.


I don't like this world :(Well, your life is mostly what you make of it. Focus on the negative and dark clouds is what you get. :)

Aistulf
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 12:14 AM
When both boys and girls - [young] men and women - reach a certain age, the difference is less big.

It's a known fact that women are earlier ‘ripe’ than men (begin and end puberty earlier). So I guess it varies.

As for my own preference, I'm not really picky. I'm not really in a position to pick anything either, but ideally somewhat close to my age; not younger than five years. Older, doesn't matter all too much.

Please, for the reputation of this forum, scrap the last choice in the poll... :|

Blood_Axis
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 08:54 AM
Please, for the reputation of this forum, scrap the last choice in the poll... :|

And how come there are 4 votes and yet only three people appeared to have voted? :scratch

Bridie
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 12:38 PM
I have male friends (all in their early 20s) and i hate when they speak and say things like -oh you know those girls i met were all slots? aren't they as "slots" as them going from woman to woman?
Yes, they are sluts. ;)



ok, when women date many guys or make up with a different guy evryday at a club is a slutty but when a men does it womanizer??Males that sleep around are just as slutty as females who sleep around. Males usually get all defensive when it's said so, and deny that men can be sluts, because they'd like to believe that they can express their sexuality in any way they please without any consequences. It's pathetic really.

I met this guy when I was out for a few drinks recently, he sat there bragging to me about how many women he'd slept with (over 80 apparently :oanieyes ) and about how women just flock to him because he's such a stud. He said, "well if a chick is a loose tart, I'm not going to say no. But I can't respect chicks like that. I prefer ladies...." I just laughed at him, and said "that's rich. You admit being a completely immoral slut yourself, yet you only like women who are respectable?? :lol Get real mate, the only sort of woman that would want a slut like you is desperate whore." He looked stunned. Couldn't believe that someone would call him a slut. :oanieyes Then he tried to deny that men could be tarts and sluts... :2BlahBlah



There is a problem, that's exactly what I'm saying; but I'm saying that it probably doesn't need to exist. So I'm not disagreeing that a marriage today between a 35 year old man and a 20 year could have problems; I'm just making the point that it's caused by problems in society in general.
I think that largely the problems are developmentally inherent. Caused by the emotional, mental and maybe even spiritual natural developmental indiscrepancies between the two.



This isn't just theory, it's based on "real life" history. In the past (and in other cultures today) marriages like this were quite common, had no problems and certainly weren't regarded as being at all odd. It's only modern Western Society that sees things differently.Rubbish. It is very ambitious of you Rhydderch, stating that there were no problems, but I've read from quite a few different sources over the years that this just isn't true. I don't think young girls have ever, or would ever, welcome the idea of being married to old men. Maybe they were commonly forced into such "arrangements" in the past, but that certainly doesn't make it right or ideal.



I agree with the underlying principle that slutty behaviour is wrong whether women or men do it. However be careful that you don't fall in the trap of justifying wrong behaviour with the wrong behaviour of another person.I agree totally. :)




It's a known fact that women are earlier ‘ripe’ than men (begin and end puberty earlier). So I guess it varies.
The difference in development is only a couple of years though. And by the early-mid 20's this difference is no more. :) Actually, mentally, males and females reach equal levels of development at around the ages of 12 or 13. It's only in physical development that males still lag behind females until early adulthood. I think with regards to emotional development, males always lag behind. ;) :D




Please, for the reputation of this forum, scrap the last choice in the poll... :|Yeah, I think that option was supposed to be light-hearted and a bit of a joke... but still, to many people, paedophilia isn't a joke.




And how come there are 4 votes and yet only three people appeared to have voted? :scratchIf you vote when you're not logged in, the vote still comes up, but without your username. :)

fms panzerfaust
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 07:38 PM
Generalizations happens mostly because you're sit in front of a computer and dont moved from your place to another were you and the other with whom you're talking in the internet can talk face to face. If talking face to face, each will speak about "where I live", instead of "it is" that I have noted in some foruns. This ever happened with me too.

Oski
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 09:52 AM
I think women and men should marry as soon as they have their first love and can have kids. You never know when you are going to die.

Screwing around will just ruin your reputation and might kill you if a mistake is made.

Life can be great if you have the will power to make serrious commitments.

Derek
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Relationships don't work that way, you meet someone you like, and decide that marriage is the next step. If you pick the wrong partner and things don't work out, well tough!

The old saying old cock, young hen!

Rod Stewart might be getting on, but at least he breeds with white women, unlike some others who i could mention.

Derek.

Horagalles
Sunday, January 14th, 2007, 02:40 PM
Generalizations happens mostly because you're sit in front of a computer and dont moved from your place to another were you and the other with whom you're talking in the internet can talk face to face.That's how weak generalizations happen.
Generalizations are actually a tool for simplification. Take a statement like:
"Water boils at 100 degrees". That is a generalization but a pretty rigid one (unless you change the pressure).

"Man younger then 25 are often jerks" is also a generalization, but a less rigid one.

I think the reason for man less maturing relates to changes in the family culture and social culture in general. In the old days the father taught his sons and when they grew up they might become apprentices of an "uncle"... They would learn a trade, but they also would learn certain values and ways of conduct.

Lot's of it can be learnt via experiences (or experiments), but this might be often hard and bitter.

Girls seem to learn in a different way - often in a more social way (from other girls and women). There 'maturing' phase (in a non-biological sense) has also been extended over time. But in to a lesser extent then it is the case with men.

So I perfectly understand the point Haldis and some others were making. One should also think about the influence on the children, especially when they are young - Let's 30 as a benchmark for the father. What emotional influential will this have on a child or youngster?!


If talking face to face, each will speak about "where I live", instead of "it is" that I have noted in some foruns. This ever happened with me too.This also might be a habit of speech.

Rhydderch
Monday, January 15th, 2007, 10:58 AM
Rubbish. It is very ambitious of you Rhydderch, stating that there were no problems, but I've read from quite a few different sources over the years that this just isn't true.Do you mean modern sources commenting on the past? If so then I probably wouldn't take much notice of it.


I don't think young girls have ever, or would ever, welcome the idea of being married to old men.What do you mean by "old men"? I wouldn't call 35 "old"; if you mean 50 then I'd imagine young girls wouldn't welcome the thought of that; then again, people often don't welcome the thought of a particular "variety" of spouse but then end up meeting someone like that who they like.

For example I doubt that many young girls would welcome the idea of marrying an "ugly" man, but plenty of them end up doing it :)


Maybe they were commonly forced into such "arrangements" in the past, but that certainly doesn't make it right or ideal.No, they weren't forced (well, no more than with other marriages). However, I'm not claiming it's ideal, as in preferable to a smaller age gap, but that I think a 15 or 20 year gap is not too big.

In fact I'd say ideally, a man would probably be better off marrying before 35.

Bridie
Monday, January 15th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Do you mean modern sources commenting on the past? If so then I probably wouldn't take much notice of it.
No. I'm talking about modern books written from the view point of modern women living in developing nations where this sort of thing is still commonplace...



What do you mean by "old men"? I wouldn't call 35 "old"; To your average 20 year old, 35 is old.



No, they weren't forced (well, no more than with other marriages). They were often forced by social pressures.



In fact I'd say ideally, a man would probably be better off marrying before 35.Yes. It's now being uncovered more and more that older men who father children are more likely to produce genetically deficient babies... just like older mothers are. And when older men impregnate women, statistically speaking, the likelihood of the pregnancy ending in miscarriage increases too.

Oswiu
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 02:08 AM
And anyway, I'd kind of like to see my grandchildren while there's still a bit of strength and life left in me. :(

Rhydderch
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 12:20 PM
No. I'm talking about modern books written from the view point of modern women living in developing nations where this sort of thing is still commonplace...And presumably they're aimed at a Western audience. One also comes across books by people from these sorts of countries saying how terrible the "traditional" non-feminist way of life is. I suspect it's the same sort of thing here, but in any case, do you have a link to (or at least the names of) some of these books?


To your average 20 year old, 35 is old.So by "old" you were including 35 year olds?


They were often forced by social pressures.That has happened with all sorts of marriages, younger men or otherwise. And today, the pressure would go the other direction, so if young girls don't like the thought of marrying a 35 year old, that doesn't mean it's an inherent part of their nature. In the modern West, the pressure is to marry within one's own age group; people grow up with that idea.

Horagalles
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 04:16 PM
... To your average 20 year old, 35 is old....I am about this age and I must admit that I'm getting on well with women in their early 20s. Although I haven't ask anyone of them to marry me;), yet.

This brings us to Aristotle who suggested women to be 19 marrying man that are 38:D.

Women should marry when they are about eighteen years of age, and men at seven and thirty; then they are in the prime of life, and the decline in the powers of both will coincide.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aristotle-politics1.html



@Oswiu - I would have like to know my grandfather as well, I'm sure he would have to. But he died with the boots on. Not having much of a pension.

HVanDerMerwe
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 05:36 PM
women mature must faster than men. Men alos take much longer to lose the selfishness and self centeredness that they must lose to become good mates and fathers

Thalia
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 05:54 PM
I would rather marry a man who is 10 or 20 years older than a man who's one year younger than me. I've made the experience that I don't get on with men of my age. I'm not married, yet. On the one hand I'm happy about it because if I would have married my Ex who was of the same age as me then I would be divorced now. He left me when I was pregnant with our daughter.
On the other hand I'd like to be married. I'm 23, now. I want to be married not later than with 25 or 26, so please, someone marry me ;) :D

Slå ring om Norge
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 06:01 PM
I could not imagine anything else, but I am like Peter Pan, forever young, thanks to my exellent genes ;)

My father as well, but he is extreme, at the age of 75, he married a girl at 23...:P

Some family traditions should be keept....

Frans_Jozef
Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, 07:06 PM
Till this far, I was merely a convenient but unusual catalyst of feelings, affections, dreams and mourns bearing a flicker of hope, once the energy flow diminishes, once greener planets come into sight, these satellites break out from their orbit around me and slingshot themselves for the better or worse to the new champion (actually, I wasn't on their list of consideration).

Neat,very neat. :blueroll:

Bridie
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 03:08 AM
Well, it seems to me as though there are a lot of desperate older guys here arguing for ridiculously young women to enter into sexual relationships with far older men because they are just....


http://www.etontshirt.co.uk/designs/LC7.gif


;)

I suppose guys that can't get women when they're young always hope that one day age will change that. :-O :D


In any case...

not all younger men will leave their g/f's or wives when they get pregnant, nor will they be bad fathers. My sister is married to a great guy who at the age of 26 is now a father of 4... his first 2 kids (twins) were born when he was 20. I think it's just down to personality more than anything else.... and he says that he's happy to be a young father because he has plenty of energy to play with and care for his kids.... plus one day he'll most likely be a young grandfather and so have enough energy and strength to play with his grandkids.

I don't think it's a good thing for those who are concerned with the preservation of our race to advocate men getting married and fathering children so late in life. Younger men make better fathers in my opinion - as do younger mothers.



women mature must faster than men. Men alos take much longer to lose the selfishness and self centeredness that they must lose to become good mates and fathersThe average difference in maturity is a couple of years and this only applies up until the age about 22 years. And as I said before that's just physical development. With intellectual development, males catch up to females at around the age of 12/13 years. To advocate age gaps of 10, 15 or 20 years due to maturity differences is a joke. Women are NOT generally 10 years developmentally ahead of men! :lol

As for selfishness.... well I don't think men take longer to lose that at all. I think, by nature, men will always be relatively more selfish than women (this is probably a biological thing)... but still, you probably know yourself... it's becoming a parent that quells selfishness far better than age ever could. One does not have to be unselfish before becoming a parent, because having and loving your children creates that change in you automatically.

I think the longer people go into adulthood being childless, the more slefish and stuck in their ways they become. I know a man who married a 37 year old woman when he was 55. Because she was the first woman he'd ever lived with, first really serious relationship he'd ever had, he didn't know how to communicate with her and was a useless feck of a husband. He was also a wife and child beater to boot.

But anecdotes don't really add weight to arguments of course... just a bit of common sense and not thinking with one's genitals is a good thing though boys. ;)

I can tell you, if either of my daughters reach the age of late teens/early 20's and have men in their 30's or 40's pursuing them, I'd hang those dirty old buggers out to dry. :flamethro I would want better for my girls, and will raise them to have good enough self-esteem to know that they can get a better man than that. :)

Thalia
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 07:59 AM
I don't think that a man, who is 20 years older than his girlfriend/wife is an old dirty pervert. An example: A man in his early 40's still has no children. Isn't it better to "make" a child with a younger woman than with a 40 year old? ;)


I can tell you, if either of my daughters reach the age of late teens/early 20's and have men in their 30's or 40's pursuing them, I'd hang those dirty old buggers out to dry.

dirty old buggers? Why? Isn't it possible that an older man really LOVES your daughter? Do you really think that every mature men who takes a much younger woman is a pervert?

Fortunately "old" is a relative term. I would consider a man about 60 as "old" but not a man in his 30's or 40's.

btw: Happy Birthday, Bridie ;) :bdsmile :pballoons :party

HVanDerMerwe
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 08:52 AM
Well, it seems to me as though there are a lot of desperate older guys here arguing for ridiculously young women to enter into sexual relationships with far older men because they are just....


http://www.etontshirt.co.uk/designs/LC7.gif


;)

I suppose guys that can't get women when they're young always hope that one day age will change that. :-O :D


In any case...

not all younger men will leave their g/f's or wives when they get pregnant, nor will they be bad fathers. My sister is married to a great guy who at the age of 26 is now a father of 4... his first 2 kids (twins) were born when he was 20. I think it's just down to personality more than anything else.... and he says that he's happy to be a young father because he has plenty of energy to play with and care for his kids.... plus one day he'll most likely be a young grandfather and so have enough energy and strength to play with his grandkids.

I don't think it's a good thing for those who are concerned with the preservation of our race to advocate men getting married and fathering children so late in life. Younger men make better fathers in my opinion - as do younger mothers.


The average difference in maturity is a couple of years and this only applies up until the age about 22 years. And as I said before that's just physical development. With intellectual development, males catch up to females at around the age of 12/13 years. To advocate age gaps of 10, 15 or 20 years due to maturity differences is a joke. Women are NOT generally 10 years developmentally ahead of men! :lol

As for selfishness.... well I don't think men take longer to lose that at all. I think, by nature, men will always be relatively more selfish than women (this is probably a biological thing)... but still, you probably know yourself... it's becoming a parent that quells selfishness far better than age ever could. One does not have to be unselfish before becoming a parent, because having and loving your children creates that change in you automatically.

I think the longer people go into adulthood being childless, the more slefish and stuck in their ways they become. I know a man who married a 37 year old woman when he was 55. Because she was the first woman he'd ever lived with, first really serious relationship he'd ever had, he didn't know how to communicate with her and was a useless feck of a husband. He was also a wife and child beater to boot.

But anecdotes don't really add weight to arguments of course... just a bit of common sense and not thinking with one's genitals is a good thing though boys. ;)

I can tell you, if either of my daughters reach the age of late teens/early 20's and have men in their 30's or 40's pursuing them, I'd hang those dirty old buggers out to dry. :flamethro I would want better for my girls, and will raise them to have good enough self-esteem to know that they can get a better man than that. :)


Not all men with younger wives or girlfriends are necessarily perverts. The women in my life have generally been about 10 years younger than me. I am not a pervert or dirty old man. I didnt choose them by age. It just so happened that those were the women I fell in love with and was the most compatible with at the time. I tend to find women my age are too 'tannieish' for me. Gernerally focussed on things in life that I do not, but probably will in 10 years time.

Maybe this is because I settled down late in life, due to long military service followed by restlessness based on these experiences.

I want to select a woman that I can relate to, no matter what her age. of course I will have little in common with an 18 or 21 year old that wants to party. Or a 40 year old that wants to party.

I am 44 and am now seeing a woman of 31 and another of 36, niether one is a physical relationship. Just friends at this point. Since I am not involved with them for sex, I dont see how I am a pervert.

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 11:45 AM
Why do you people delay things so long? :??: I was married at 25 and grandfather before I was 55. I know a lady who was a grandmother at 29.

HVanDerMerwe
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 01:19 PM
Why do you people delay things so long? :??: I was married at 25 and grandfather before I was 55. I know a lady who was a grandmother at 29.

You are not white. The jews have not launched an assault against your nation yet through their media: materialism, joys of being single, multicult, race mixing, divorce, affairs, entertainment, liberalism, radical feminism, jew psychology new age life styles etc. All these jew ideas result in social ills.

The Jew has focussed his attacks on white christian countries, especially the anglo saxon and germanic ones. This race will soon be preying on you; once they see you are sufficiently wealthy to be worth infesting.

Keep the Jew and his media out of your country and you will continue to multiply.

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Keep the Jew and his media out of your country and you will continue to multiply.Let jews come (some were here earlier also), we will multiply in spite of them.

GreenHeart
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 02:04 PM
Let jews come (some were here earlier also), we will multiply in spite of them.

They are already there, just look at Bollywood trying to deconstruct the caste system. Be careful, I would hate to see your beautiful culture go the same way as ours did.

Boche
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Be careful, I would hate to see your beautiful culture go the same way as ours did.


What do you mean with "ours" ? I hope you dont mean the german culture. Because the german culture is still in a good shape

If you mean the us-american one, then you're right. Altough i would never have called it "culture".



Gruß,
Svartr

Slå ring om Norge
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 02:35 PM
As long as it is clearly legal, and they are mentally sane, sober, and there is no abuse, force or luring involved, and nobody gets hurt in any way, I let it over to their freedom to decide themselves.

I may like it or not, but cannot see that I then have any right to interfere.

People are quite individual, mentally, emotional and physical, and may need various kickoffs. Age of years do not say anything about that.

Sex is important, and as long they may get sexually satisfied by such and such constellations, I see not reason why not.

There are both healty and unhealty relations of this kind, as of all other kinds.

But of course there are limits for what is pracatical useful, not the least ethical.

Dirty old mens infantilization of sexobjects are another thing, highly unhealty, both for themselves, their objects, and for society as general.

Even imaginary sexualization of adolesecents may twist the sexuality of adult men.

But not all fantasies are ment to materialize. One should however lay bonds on oneself, for what directions one allows ones lusts or fantasies to take.

Internet of today has become an infective pestilence. Somebody should be executed for that, daily. You know whom I mean. Those that stretches the limits of age lower and lower.

Sexuality in itself is amoral, so it is correct to keep the heads high. But there are strange mechanics loose to. The higher the morals becomes, the more "perversison" are breeded in the closets.

And what is considered perversions, changes all the time. As long as exesses are between legal adults, sane and sober, with consent, and nobody get hurt in anyway, let them play.

Marriages implies also responsibility of another degree too, even better.

Bridie
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 02:53 PM
Hehehe... I thought I'd ruffle a few feathers with that "Dirty Old Man" pic. :D (What can I say? It takes skill to be this offensive. ;) :lol )




An example: A man in his early 40's still has no children. Isn't it better to "make" a child with a younger woman than with a 40 year old? ;)
Why would that be better? A man who gets to 40 and still has no children is childless for a reason. He would be better off not reproducing at all than taking a young woman who is in her prime and who should be reproducing with a young man in his prime. This is how the healthiest babies are made. ;) If it was natural for men to only begin fathering children past the age of 30, men wouldn't have sex-drives until then. Men's sperm is strongest, healthiest and most abundant when they are young. This is the ideal time to reproduce.

And so what are younger men supposed to do in this scenario where all the young women marry at about the age of 20 to men at about the age of 35-40??? What? Young men have to wait until they're 35+ to have sex or have a relationship with a decent woman? That's a joke. Men's sexual prime peak is late teens/early 20's... they'd all go nuts if they had to remain sexually abstinent because all of the desirable women their own age were being married off to old blokes!



dirty old buggers? Why? Isn't it possible that an older man really LOVES your daughter? Do you really think that every mature men who takes a much younger woman is a pervert?
I never said anything about perversion. I don't think it's unnatural for older men to desire having sexual relationships with women 20 years their junior... I just think that it's inappropriate and puts women in a position of disempowerment in society. You can't get away from the fact that a young, naive, inexperienced person is more easily exploited, dominated and taken advantage of. I think that in general, men who want relationships with vastly younger women (not just sex) do so because they are weak and immature and need someone who is easily dominated and manipulated. Same reason some men like dumb women.

Anyway, I couldn't give a toss whether or not the older man loved my daughter... it takes far more than love to make a marriage work. I would still want better for my daughter. Love isn't so hard to come by anyway...



Fortunately "old" is a relative term. I would consider a man about 60 as "old" but not a man in his 30's or 40's.
Good point. I couldn't agree more.... "old and young" are both relative terms. This is what I meant when I said that to the majority of 20 year olds, 35 is old. To me, 35 is quite young... but then, I'm 31 now. ;) When I was 20, I thought that 20 wasn't that young really... now that I'm 31, I think 20 year olds are still babies! :D And believe me, men in their 30's and 40's see young girls in their late teens/early 20's as very young... not really adults yet... and this is the attraction for most of them. Malleable, trusting girls who will treat them like Gods. (Until they get older and wisen up that is. ;) )



btw: Happy Birthday, Bridie ;) :bdsmile :pballoons :party
Thank you!! :yippee :sun




Not all men with younger wives or girlfriends are necessarily perverts. Like I said above... I said nothing about perversions. Just inappropriate behaviour.



The women in my life have generally been about 10 years younger than me. Well, I've been talking about age gaps of 10+ years being far from ideal....



I am 44 and am now seeing a woman of 31 and another of 36, niether one is a physical relationship. Just friends at this point. Since I am not involved with them for sex, I dont see how I am a pervert.
My comments have been in reference to Haldis' OP. Her stating that young women of around 20 (or 18-25) should marry men 10-15 years their senior. I think it's a different thing when we are talking about women who get past a certain age, because they are less vulnerable to exploitation and domination by more experienced men.

I only used the example of the guy I know that got married at 55 to a woman of 37 to illustrate that it's been my experience that older men (contrary to what Haldis and others think) are not always better fathers than a man in his 20's. I wasn't disapproving of this relationship because of the age difference. I figure that by the age of 37 a woman is wisened and experienced enough to know what she getting herself into.... so if she wants to marry a man old enough to be her father then that's her own problem. I just don't think that many 37 year old women would want to marry a 55 year old man, if they have the choice.


Anyway... the OP stated that young women should marry men 10-15 years their senior because this is best for everyone and for society too, I guess. I disagree, that's all. I see potential for social disruption there. (You shouldn't take my comments personally HVDM :) )

GreenHeart
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 04:18 PM
What do you mean with "ours" ? I hope you dont mean the german culture. Because the german culture is still in a good shape

If you mean the us-american one, then you're right. Altough i would never have called it "culture".



Gruß,
Svartr

If you like to believe that our western cultures are still alive and well, I suppose that's your right... if you want you may also believe that the earth is flat, or that pigs fly...

But honestly, most European cultures have been dead for ages now. Sure, there are cultured individuals, but there is no more culture as we would have it. Thank christianity, and the guys in your avatar and their monopoly on all of our media.

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 05:22 PM
What about the tibetans, young women may stay with old men, old women may stay with young men, children may stay with any, mother or father. I have not been able to understand their system, not that I find any fault with them. It is their business.

Boche
Wednesday, January 17th, 2007, 06:16 PM
If you like to believe that our western cultures are still alive and well, I suppose that's your right... if you want you may also believe that the earth is flat, or that pigs fly...

There is no "Western Culture" that's something "new" in my eyes.
There is an own culture for each country in Europe - nothing else.
And ive been in many cities and in alot of places in germany. And to be honest i've always saw cultural sights, ate cultural food and saw cultural values. Also the people act very cultural concerning their behaviour. Germany doesn't have so much "Wegros".

If you mean religious values concerning the beliefs - then yes, they vanished nearly completly, which is no wonder. But some families have kept it alive, so did mine.
And i'm glad about it.
Since you've grew up in the USA, you've been confronted with total neo-cultural crap everywhere, so that's maybe why you have such an unrealistic view.


Thank christianity, and the guys in your avatar and their monopoly on all of our media.What's about those 2 jewish thugs in my avatar? I hope you didn't fail to see the Parody of my Avatar. ;)
Also a true germanic isn't influence by media, so nothing i would care about. If the folk is so stupid and buys every crap they tell, then it's their own fault. Also it ain't even so much. I actually only know a few people who believe what they hear in media. And the most i know who never buy that crap in hollywood movies and media are not even slightly right-winged.


Gruß,
Svartr (Svartr stays in that part, for those who care ;))

Rhydderch
Thursday, January 18th, 2007, 04:41 AM
I just think that it's inappropriate and puts women in a position of disempowerment in society.Hehe, I thought that's what it'd come down to, it usually does (probably always) :D The reason these marriages have become "out of fashion" is that it's too un-feminist.

It's all part of the destruction of traditional society by indoctrinating people with these modernist (etc. etc.) ideas. Like so many other normal, traditional practices, it's less acceptable nowadays because people have been indoctrinated from a young age.

Bridie
Thursday, January 18th, 2007, 04:55 AM
Hehe, I thought that's what it'd come down to, it usually does (probably always) :D The reason these marriages have become "out of fashion" is that it's too un-feminist.
No the reason they're out of fashion is because they didn't work well... and were most likely unsatisfactory for the women.

You look to the past too much Rhydderch. Just because something has a precedent... or is old... doesn't mean that it worked or was ideal. We must look forward.

So you think that the disempowerment of women is fine? Well, good for you. I don't, and hell will freeze over before the educated, confident and strong women of today will allow any men put them in postions of subservience and submission again. ;)

However, it doesn't only come down to that.... I mean seriously, why do you find it so difficult to believe that most females of 20 or so would prefer a man in their 20's over a man in their 30's or 40's? Would you want to be 20 with a 35 year old wife? No? Surprise, surprise. Old is old whether you're male or female.

I think you must have ulterior motives for being so insistant on inter-generational marriage....

So here's the question for you : what do all the young men in their late teens and 20's do for sexual partners, when all of the suitable young women are married off to old men? Blow up sex dolls? Prostitutes?



It's all part of the destruction of traditional society by indoctrinating people with these modernist (etc. etc.) ideas. Like so many other normal, traditional practices, it's less acceptable nowadays because people have been indoctrinated from a young age.Deconstruction is a good discriminatory tool... it allows one to be analytical and not just accept anything and everything they're told. You criticise those who would dare question or disapprove of traditional practices, yet you then say that people are only critical of them because they're too malleable and aren't critical enough... they're too indoctinated. Don't you see the contraction here? ;)

Rhydderch
Friday, January 19th, 2007, 02:52 AM
No the reason they're out of fashion is because they didn't work wellHow much evidence do you have for that idea?


You look to the past too much Rhydderch. Just because something has a precedent... or is old... doesn't mean that it worked or was ideal.Well I agree with that. I don't use the past to legitimise something, but only to point out that some things which modern people think are natural or "normal" ideas are actually quite recent, and are not even the result of natural change, but of a conscious effort to enforce certain (unnatural) ideologies.


So you think that the disempowerment of women is fine?What do you mean by disempowerment? I think that men and women should have (and are suited to) different roles.


Well, good for you. I don't, and hell will freeze over before the educated, confident and strong women of today will allow any men put them in postions of subservience and submission again. ;)They've only reached that position because men have sat back and let it happen (or actively helped them). I don't actually think women really have a choice in the matter; they're taught to think they do.


Old is old whether you're male or female.I'd don't agree that it's the same. Men are attracted to femininity in women; the latter are attracted to masculinity in men.

Masculinity (including the ability to be more protective) tends to increase with age (well, until middle age at least), whereas femininity tends to decrease. In a sense 18 or 20 year olds are more "feminine" than 35 year olds, whether male or female.

Normally, when men show off, they tend to do it by, say perfoming some feat, or if it's related to physical appearance, it tends to be more along the lines of trying to look strong or impressive. Feminine "prettyness" involves not only shape of features, but softness of them, which is lost with age more so than masculine "handsomeness".
Men can beget children at a far older age than women too.

And finally, I think men should lead and protect the family, not women, which is why a large age gap with the woman older is inadvisable, but fine if the man is older.

All in all, I think mankind is designed in such a way that it's reasonable and not at all unnatural for a 35 year old man to marry a 20 year old girl/woman. And at the end of the day, I don't believe in forcing people into a marriage, so if young girls don't want to marry 35 year olds, so be it; if they do, then there is no reason to discourage that.


So here's the question for youYou needn't ask me, since I'm not saying men are better off waiting 'til they're 35-40.


You criticise those who would dare question or disapprove of traditional practicesI don't criticise people simply for disapproving of traditional practices, but when they disapprove of practices which are quite reasonable. They tend to do it because it doesn't fit with their new-fangled, unnatural philosophies.

Oswiu
Friday, January 19th, 2007, 03:32 AM
"What evidence?"
I would say that at least 5% of the material for traditional English folksongs and tales is provided by the problems of unequal marriages, long before the Enlightenment and whatever came along to change attitudes, too. Obviously a popular theme. Many of the songs had a Warning function too.

Bridie
Friday, January 19th, 2007, 04:28 AM
How much evidence do you have for that idea?
Plenty... not only from external sources, but from personal experiences also. And not just my own experiences, but the experiences of people I know well. Inter-generational marriage rarely works/ed, I feel confident in saying, whether we're talking about the past or the present.





Well I agree with that. I don't use the past to legitimise something, but only to point out that some things which modern people think are natural or "normal" ideas are actually quite recent, and are not even the result of natural change, but of a conscious effort to enforce certain (unnatural) ideologies.
But on issues like this I don't really care whether the ideas are old or new... I base my opinions on my own powers of observation and reason.




What do you mean by disempowerment? I think that men and women should have (and are suited to) different roles.
Well I agree that men and women are suited to different roles. I know this well. But that has nothing to do with disempowerment. I find women's natural roles to be quite empowering. Disempowerment entails loss of autonomy, control and respect. By young, naive, inexperienced women all being married off to dominant males who are superior in life experience and more likely to be authorative as a result... well, I don't think it takes a genius to see what the results will be. Not a big deal when this only occurs occasionally... but if this became the norm, and widespread, the consequences would shape the entire culture and women's positions within it.




They've only reached that position because men have sat back and let it happen (or actively helped them). I don't actually think women really have a choice in the matter; they're taught to think they do.
They weren't always taught that though... yet women in the beginning of the 20th century still fought for the right to vote, to have a voice etc. Ever read "My Brilliant Career" by Miles Franklin? Quite an eye opener when viewed as social critique within it's historical context.





Masculinity (including the ability to be more protective) tends to increase with age (well, until middle age at least), whereas femininity tends to decrease. In a sense 18 or 20 year olds are more "feminine" than 35 year olds, whether male or female.
This is an interesting idea. It calls into question our whole definition of "femininity" and "masculinity". Probably a good topic for another thread.

However, I think the two qualities are changable throughout one's lifetime, and while a generalised pattern may be observed, it really tends to be a rather personalised, unique thing (up to a certain age, which is menopause in women)... I know women who when they were in their late teens/early 20's were quite aggressive and "hard" (highly strung), yet after having children, they "softened" incredibly and became much more feminine, gentle, calm people. This was reflected in their appearance also. They looked harder and more boyish before having kids. I think the increased oestrogen levels that come after childbearing are responsible in part for this... it also probably has something to do with becoming more content and at peace with one's life.

At the same time, I know of some males who were very masculine, strong and spirited (sometimes aggressive) in their early twenties who, with age, are becoming considerably more feminine... fatter, lazier and more mellow (sometimes less aggressive). Faces don't seem so "chiselled" and determined looking anymore....

I think this is a rather individual thing.


There's no getting away from it though... age also brings physical degeneration... and this occurs in both men and women. And physical degeneration is never attractive in either sex.



Normally, when men show off, they tend to do it by, say perfoming some feat, or if it's related to physical appearance, it tends to be more along the lines of trying to look strong or impressive. Feminine "prettyness" involves not only shape of features, but softness of them, which is lost with age more so than masculine "handsomeness".That's just something older guys try to tell themselves to feel better about aging mate. ;)





Men can beget children at a far older age than women too.
There are still risks involved in that. And how fair is it on the children to have such an old father??




And finally, I think men should lead and protect the family, not women, which is why a large age gap with the woman older is inadvisable, but fine if the man is older.
Well I don't like the idea of much older women with younger men either... seems a bit twisted to me.




All in all, I think mankind is designed in such a way that it's reasonable and not at all unnatural for a 35 year old man to marry a 20 year old girl/woman. And at the end of the day, I don't believe in forcing people into a marriage, so if young girls don't want to marry 35 year olds, so be it; if they do, then there is no reason to discourage that.
Most 20 year females are still rather irresponsible and immature in this day and age. Would be sad to see them make a choice then realise years down the track that it was the wrong one, and know that with a bit more knowledge and maturity they could have made a better one.

Just think of it this way.... when she's 35, he'll be 50. :| She'll be relatively young and pretty... he'll be starting to become physically weaker and ugly.



You needn't ask me, since I'm not saying men are better off waiting 'til they're 35-40. That is what you've been saying all along.


NB - it should be recognised too, that inter-generational marriage is far from being the "traditional" option in Western countries.... looking at stats, more the most part, men would marry in their early - mid 20's, and women in their early 20's. I think a traditional age gap between bride and bridegroom could be determined at being around 2 or 3 years.

Peter
Friday, January 19th, 2007, 06:02 PM
I don´t know a lot of these things, sincerely, the marriage and the world of love is very complex and it´s difficult to generalise. Some women need old men, some women need young men and some women need men of their generation and some women don´t need men. And some women have vocation and they are nuns. The world is complex.

Rhydderch
Saturday, January 20th, 2007, 04:53 AM
Plenty... not only from external sources, but from personal experiences also. And not just my own experiences, but the experiences of people I know well.And the problem you mentioned was one which wouldn't have existed in the past.


Inter-generational marriage rarely works/ed, I feel confident in saying, whether we're talking about the past or the present.Your confidence is ungrounded :D With regard to the present, an awfully high proportion of marriages don't "work" full stop, but again that's entirely to do with the degenerate nature of modern Western society, not because the couple weren't suited.


But on issues like this I don't really care whether the ideas are old or new... I base my opinions on my own powers of observation and reason.That's what I'm doing when I look back on traditional practices, and that's why I point it out.


Well I agree that men and women are suited to different roles. I know this well. But that has nothing to do with disempowerment. I find women's natural roles to be quite empowering. Disempowerment entails loss of autonomy, control and respect. By young, naive, inexperienced women all being married off to dominant males who are superior in life experience and more likely to be authorative as a result... well, I don't think it takes a genius to see what the results will be. Not a big deal when this only occurs occasionally... but if this became the norm, and widespread, the consequences would shape the entire culture and women's positions within it.Do you think a head of the family is necessary, and if so, should it be the husband or wife?


They weren't always taught that though... yet women in the beginning of the 20th century still fought for the right to vote, to have a voice etc.They started to fight for it because the rot had begun, men were dropping their responsibilities, and they wouldn't have got anywhere with it if men hadn't allowed them. It wasn't the choice of women.


This is an interesting idea. It calls into question our whole definition of "femininity" and "masculinity". Probably a good topic for another thread.

However, I think the two qualities are changable throughout one's lifetime, and while a generalised pattern may be observed, it really tends to be a rather personalised, unique thing (up to a certain age, which is menopause in women)... I know women who when they were in their late teens/early 20's were quite aggressive and "hard" (highly strung), yet after having children, they "softened" incredibly and became much more feminine, gentle, calm people. This was reflected in their appearance also. They looked harder and more boyish before having kids. I think the increased oestrogen levels that come after childbearing are responsible in part for this... it also probably has something to do with becoming more content and at peace with one's life.

At the same time, I know of some males who were very masculine, strong and spirited (sometimes aggressive) in their early twenties who, with age, are becoming considerably more feminine... fatter, lazier and more mellow (sometimes less aggressive). Faces don't seem so "chiselled" and determined looking anymore....

I think this is a rather individual thing.

There's no getting away from it though... age also brings physical degeneration... and this occurs in both men and women. And physical degeneration is never attractive in either sex.Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, and at any rate, a 40 year old man definitely has the potential to be more masculine than a 20 year old.

Physical degeneration comes with age primarily beyond middle age, but what I'm getting at with the "showing off" is that women tend to be more concerned with aspects of the appearance which are lost at an earlier age. I think that's the natural way, and there is a reason for that. I'm also not referring to things like the impression which comes across due to someone's attitude; more physical than that.


That's just something older guys try to tell themselves to feel better about aging mate.So you don't think there is any truth in it?


There are still risks involved in that. And how fair is it on the children to have such an old father??Do you mean to say that men older than 35 shouldn't have children? This argument isn't really relevant to the issue of the man being older than his wife.

As far as risks are concerned, I'd have to look up figures, but I would imagine that there is only a somewhat higher chance of problems, rather than it being actually "risky".


Most 20 year females are still rather irresponsible and immature in this day and age. Would be sad to see them make a choice then realise years down the track that it was the wrong one, and know that with a bit more knowledge and maturity they could have made a better one.Another point I'd make here is that I think parents have an obligation to be involved in this. And do you think 20 is too young to marry?


Just think of it this way.... when she's 35, he'll be 50. :| She'll be relatively young and pretty... he'll be starting to become physically weaker and ugly.That's an exaggeration, but either way, should "ugly" men not marry pretty women? :D


That is what you've been saying all along.I haven't been saying that at all.


NB - it should be recognised too, that inter-generational marriage is far from being the "traditional" option in Western countries....Again, I didn't say it was. Perhaps my usage of the word "normal" made it ambiguous, but I just meant it wasn't discouraged, or considered odd or "inappropriate".

Some men just didn't marry as early, but they didn't worry about choosing someone the same age. And basically, my point is that I think it's more important that women marry young than it is for men.

Ideally, I'd probably say late teens to mid 20s for women, and early 20s to early 30's for men.

Horagalles
Saturday, January 20th, 2007, 10:17 AM
No the reason they're out of fashion is because they didn't work well... and were most likely unsatisfactory for the women. Do you mean "political" or "arranged" arranged marriages.


You look to the past too much Rhydderch. Just because something has a precedent... or is old... doesn't mean that it worked or was ideal. We must look forward.That line of argument would work both ways.


So you think that the disempowerment of women is fine? Well, good for you. I don't, and hell will freeze over before the educated, confident and strong women of today will allow any men put them in postions of subservience and submission again. ;) I don't get the impression that "todays" women are anyhow really smarter then let's say my grandmothers and the generations before them, despite all the explicit tertiary education available to them. The opposite seems to be true.

However, it doesn't only come down to that.... I mean seriously, why do you find it so difficult to believe that most females of 20 or so would prefer a man in their 20's over a man in their 30's or 40's? Would you want to be 20 with a 35 year old wife? No? Surprise, surprise. Old is old whether you're male or female.... Ah, here you make a mistake. Nobody designed a rule fixing the marriage dates and age gaps between marriages partners. All what has been argued was actually that there are some advantages to women entering marriage at an earlier ages (For arguments sake 18-23) to men that are maturer/older (For arguments sake 30-35). Actually the arguments criteria wasn't even age as such, but rather certain phases in live.

I personally have no problem mingling with people from any age group. But then I'm no egalitarian trying to norm people uniformly.



I think you must have ulterior motives for being so insistant on inter-generational marriage....That was an invalid ad hominem argument.


So here's the question for you : what do all the young men in their late teens and 20's do for sexual partners, when all of the suitable young women are married off to old men? Blow up sex dolls? Prostitutes?
Practice abstinence perhaps:D ?


Deconstruction is a good discriminatory tool... it allows one to be analytical and not just accept anything and everything they're told. You criticise those who would dare question or disapprove of traditional practices, yet you then say that people are only critical of them because they're too malleable and aren't critical enough... they're too indoctinated. Don't you see the contraction here? ;)... "Deconstruction" is useful for designing phoney refutation.

AlbionMP
Saturday, January 20th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Marriage ????

In the words of John Denver....

"I think I'd rather be a cowboy
I think I'd rather ride the range
I think I'd rather be a cowboy
Than to lay me down in love
and lady's chains."

Rhydderch
Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 01:15 PM
I would say that at least 5% of the material for traditional English folksongs and tales is provided by the problems of unequal marriages, long before the Enlightenment and whatever came along to change attitudes, too. Obviously a popular theme. Many of the songs had a Warning function too.And I bet these songs and tales about "unequal" unions didn't involve marriages to men of 35-40. Probably men of 50, 60 and older.

I'm assuming that by "unequal" you mean a large age gap.

Aupmanyav
Monday, January 22nd, 2007, 01:42 PM
We have Indian folk songs where an old spouse is a boon, he could be made fun of, and after he goes to sleep, the lady can have trysts with more eligible younger lovers. Of course, the old one takes care of all the financial needs of the spouse, and when he dies, leaves her a fortune.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 06:08 AM
These issues keep recurring on other threads, so I decided to start a new thread on them.

The thought of a 24 year old man picking up a 14 year old schoolgirl on facebook or at a party and engaging in a sexual relationship with her is repulsive to most modern westerners. I think it's reprehensible, most of society thinks it's reprehensible, entire TV show have been made about catching these scummy guys.

Yet, in the past, sexual relationships often began as soon as puberty was reached, and it was common for a 14 year old to engage in a relationship.

What's different now? Emotional maturity. Towards the latter part of the 20th century, a high school education became a 'necessity', and no longer just for males, females were now expected to live up to this standard as well. Of course, one can't complete high school while working full time, so one must remain financially dependent on and live with one's parents, which necessitates a continuation of the parent-child relationship and prevention from achieving full emotional maturity.

Thus, laws were put in place regarding 'age of consent' in order to prevent males from taking advantage of emotionally immature females.

In the past couple decades, completion of a college degree or some other kind of post-high school training has become a 'necessity', and thus the age of parental dependency and emotional maturity has continued to migrate upwards, now in the early 20s. This is evident in popular culture and the media which regard legally adult females as 'girls' and worthy of protection against predatory males. (such as Natalie Holloway, who vanished in Aruba a few years ago). Likely, the 'age of consent' would have continued to migrate upwards if not for other factors effecting a general atmosphere of 'sexual freedom'.

As regards alternative communities such as the FLDS: there is no expectation that women should enter the workforce, thus females are not delayed in their emotional development as in the rest of modern society (with both genders). Thus, for a 14 year old female member of the FLDS or other alternative society to be involved in a marriage is no way way reprehensible, nor should it be illegal, because the FLDS is not subject to the forces of modern society which make it morally reprehensible and illegal for males to take advantage of 14 year old females in mainstream society.

The concept of 'not with older men!' doesn't hold water in a logical sense. If it's wrong for a male to take advantage of an emotionally immature female to fulfill his sexual desires, then it's wrong regardless of the age of the perpetrator. This is further evidenced by the way society mitigates or removes punishment for other crimes committed by young males, even murder.

A number of studies show that the majority of females are involved in sexual relationships while underage anyways. One recent famous example, 15 year old music star Mindy McCready with 28 year old baseball star Roger Clemens.

Why the general acceptance of this in the media/'opinion leaders' while much anger is directed at the FLDS? The differences between the FLDS and myspace/party hookups are that the FLDS individuals get married and have children. This fits in with a general pattern in the media/'opinion leaders' of being against marriage and children in general.

Thus, attacks on the FLDS relationships should properly be seen as a continuation of attacks on marriage, family, and children, and not allowed to hide behind the guise of 'protecting young females from sexual exploitation'

Mrs. Lyfing
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Very good thread SOV, :)

Yet, in the past, sexual relationships often began as soon as puberty was reached, and it was common for a 14 year old to engage in a relationship.

Very true, my grandmother married at 15 years old, and my grandfather was 23. But, here is the thing SOV...that was in ohhhh about 1927. In 1927 the world was nothing like today. The idea of a traditional family was what they were seeking. It was about the only thing to do. There wasn't colleges everywhere, there wasn't money everywhere. So, what did they do, they did the only thing they could. They married, they started a family and they worked hard to keep it. Most of these marriages lasted. My grandmother died at 79, at that time my grandfather was 87...they, like many others had been married for 69 years...and after her death, he became ill, which he had not been prior. He died very soon after. I will say its because he lost his wife, his wife of 69 years...it killed him.

You can not compare those marriages to the marriages of today...if a girl was 15 years old and the man was 23...there are many opportunities in the world for us today, and if you wanna make it in life..you better get the proper education so you can prosper in life. A women should mature first and foremost before she marries. I don't see many 15 year old girls marriages lasting long either. At 15 girls do not know what they want...and for a grown man to want a child as a wife....wrong!

I am sure in the 20's the couples had sex but it wasn't until the 60's that this " free love " came along, which has progressed into what we have today. Basically a bunch of whores. :) What I am trying to say is the mind of a man and a women in the 1920's, the lifestyle ...was totally different than what it is today. And, thats the reason why then it was acceptable and now its not.


As regards alternative communities such as the FLDS: there is no expectation that women should enter the workforce, thus females are not delayed in their emotional development as in the rest of modern society (with both genders). Thus, for a 14 year old female member of the FLDS or other alternative society to be involved in a marriage is no way way reprehensible, nor should it be illegal, because the FLDS is not subject to the forces of modern society which make it morally reprehensible and illegal for males to take advantage of 14 year old females in mainstream society.

I see what you are trying to say here: because the women have no reason to do anything educational they should just be uneducated...have children, cook clean, etc ...not a good life in my eyes. But, it is their choice. And, even if these girls are going to live these sheltered lives, it does not make underage sex OK. Their minds nor bodies are ready in my opinion.


Thus, attacks on the FLDS relationships should properly be seen as a continuation of attacks on marriage, family, and children, and not allowed to hide behind the guise of 'protecting young females from sexual exploitation'

It is no different than charging a man from the street for rape of child...and it is to protect...in their eyes. And, it is most definitely no attack on marriage and family and children. It is to open the women/children eyes involved and to protect them, just as they try to do in regular people.

Pino
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 03:51 PM
People may say society find things like older men having sex with 14 year old girls however as somone who has seen it first hand on many occasions you would be suprised how wide spread it is in Britain (I dont know about other countries)

It seems to be somthing alot of people fantasise of doing or have done so but dont go out and annoucne it to the world a bit of a taboo subject to admit to, a bit like 99% of Females I've found do not admit to masturbation however official surveys by magazines and other sources suggest this is impossible.

When I used to go to parties, the Males where all late teens or early twenties and the girls where always of the same age or lower, somtimes as low as 14 or 15 and it would not be weird for these groups of 14 year old girls to all end up in bed with a complete stranger somtimes when not even drunk. This wasn't just common among the circle of people I new either this seemed to be at every party/social gathering I seemed to attend of young Males.

Girls definately are growing up quicker, and so long as teenage Boys act 3 years younger than the Girls of the same age the Girls will always look to older people for lust. Girls always look towards Older men in all circumstances even adult Women in there 30s would rarely go for a Man younger than them.

I'm not justifying anything and to be honest I dont know what the solution is for underage girls having sex with older Men. I think we need to install masculine tendencies into our youth again and maybe mentally the Males will mature at a more similar rate than Females and maybe with the correct nutrition and physical exercise at a more physical one and then maybe Girls wont be so tempted to go to older men.

Loddfafner
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 04:56 PM
It seems that the law has become increasingly intolerant of violence among older people while sex has become less tolerated among the young. So, if you want to fight, do it while you are still underage, then when you get older switch to sex as your main physical release.

Patrioten
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 06:25 PM
Some statistics would be helpful, when claims on the commonality of polygamy and childbrides among Germanics are thrown out there without statistics or numbers to back those claims up I tend to get a bit sceptical. I wont deny that there has been instances of young brides in some communities, but I doubt that is has been a common practise in our societies unless I see proof of otherwise.

Anyway. I don't see how a change in attitudes toward relationships between old men and young women would be beneficial to us as a people, never mind how perverse I find it to be when males in their late 20s pick up girls in their early teens. In this day and age, when various perversities have become almost fully normalized politically, and others are lurking right around the corner, I can't help but fear that this would help advance an agenda of a more liberal view on sex between children and adults, pedophilia in other words. It would certainly be to push the boundaries quite a bit, and that is precisely how perversities become normalized, by pushing the boundaries for what the public can tolerate, gradually, bit by bit. If sex between 29 year olds and 15 year olds is perfectly acceptable, why not sex between 25 year olds and 13 year olds? Why not sex between 15 year olds and 60 year olds? Why not sex between 12 year olds and 70 year olds?

It would not serve any meaningful purpose. The declining birthrate is not dependent upon childbrides, all it would serve would be the sexual preferences of a few possibly perverse individuals.

rainman
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 07:35 PM
Actually there is a very good reason for younger folk to have children. In old Germanic custom a man was supposed to be married by age 25 and a woman usually before age 20. Beyond that she would be considered an old hag. Both were to marry young as a duty to the folk and as part of correct social order. If we look at Adolph Hitler for instance, in his 30s married Eva who was 17.

For an old man to marry a very young woman that is absurd and shouldn't be common, but typically also older men marry younger women. Yet here are some genetic reasons: women's fertility severely declines after age 32. All these tales about 60 year olds having babies are enemy propaganda. It involves medical preocedures pills etc. For all practical purposes after age 32 is is difficult for a woman to get pregnant.

2. Secondly the genetic quality of a child goes down the older the woman is. This is proven. The older the woman is the more likely her child will be born retarded or with other problems. Mutations increase. This has been statistically documented. The reason for this is a woman is 'born with all her eggs'. These eggs remain in her body her whole life and the chances of them becoming defective increase the older she is. This is also why she can't have a baby at old age- she runs out of eggs. The younger that egg is fertilized generally the healthier and more genetically ideal it is.

- This relates also to "first born inheritance" studies have shown that on average first borns have slightly higher I.Q.s and over perform in coparison to their siblings- this is why in the past first borns generally received the inherentance and leadership roles. Because the child was born at a younger age.

3. Young men and women were never mature. This is bullsh*t. Children are raised by the folk and especially grandparents in traditional societies. The enemy has taken this away from us and tried to make children look like a burden so we delay child birth.

4. None of this occurs in a man. A man's sperm count might get lower when he gets really old like 50+. He might get ED, but his sperm is just as good when he's 90 as when he is 18. He is always making new sperm so what happened in the past wont effect future children (women if you want a child understand you could get exposed to radiation which damages all your eggs and you may never have a child again. It is easier for a woman to become infertile if she delays). Anyway this is why we evolved in a way that women seem most attractive when youngest- there is a genetic reason. men on the other hand generally are obliged to wait longer becaues they are providers. They need to accomplish a little something in life first. A Germanic custom is before marriage the woman asks "where have you been- what have you accomplished?" to the man. If he cannot give a good answer then why should she marry him? A man's attractiveness should be more focused on what he has accomplished and contributed to the community- but both of them their parents and lineage is taken into account.

At any rate current social norms have failed. We aren't replacing ourselves. Our genetic quality is declining faster than a downhill roller coaster and we are on the verge of extinction. These new social norms are mostly to blame. One other thing to turn around in your head around 1700's and 1800's this was all normal. 13 or 14 year olds getting married (consider also they didnt neccessarily become sexually active the first day of marriage as marriage is seen primarily as a social function though at some point having children is needed for the folk). Also back then it was common for first cousins and such to marry. Another make believe social taboo created in modern times to destroy us!

Deary
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 08:26 PM
4. None of this occurs in a man. A man's sperm count might get lower when he gets really old like 50+. He might get ED, but his sperm is just as good when he's 90 as when he is 18.

Wrong. The quality of a man's sperm also decreases as he ages, usually around age 30. With men, the older he is, the more likely he is to pass on mental disorders or genetic diseases to his children.

Hauke Haien
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 08:26 PM
England, 17th-19th century:
Men: 26-28
Women: 24-27

Germany, 18th/19th century:
Men: 28-30
Women: 25-27

In early modern times, the average was between 20-25.

Löwenherz
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Can we distinguish sexual motives from marriage motives?

Somehow I think behind all of this there is a drumbeat that reinforces a cultural meme that says "marriage is all about male sexual gratification". Guys get married to legitimate their sex lives, and should be happy with one woman about their own age. Then if a guy wants to marry two or more women he is a pervert, or if he wants to marry someone more than "x" years younger than he is then he is also a pervert. Isn't there a bigger context than that?

For rational, mature adults, there is. A guy considering asking a woman to marry him is undertaking to provide for her and her children for life (and if our culture had any sense, it would enforce those agreements). He is also, in this culture, risking her displeasure and the virtual loss of his children and about a third of his income if he pisses her off. He's taking a bit of a risk.

And apart from the sex fantasies that are assumed to be at the heart of this, doesn't it generally make sense that a man looking for a wife would look younger, rather than older? And in FLDS culture, for example, the women are looking forward to becoming mothers and homemakers, so what's the hold up once they're a few years past puberty (from the woman's pov)? Further, they are in a culture that values marriage and can offer every woman in the culture a good husband (if you don't mind sharing him with others; big "if", I know...). There are forces at work here to drive down the marrying age that are not all that sinister, and I don't think it's fair to presuppose that this is all being driven by a bunch of dirty old men.

[N.B. I'm not FLDS and to the best of my knowledge have never even met one. I'm not defending anybody; I'm just thinking out loud, here, and these are basically new thoughts for me.]

So let's just pass a law that sets the minimum age for marriage and minimum age for sex (hopefully the same age...) and be done with it.

Wait, we already have! Every state in the USofA has laws that protect the integrity of those (mostly/typically/almost exclusively the women) who are considered too young to consent to marriage or sex, and even limit the ability of parents to consent for them at a slightly younger age.

Texas actually raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 a few years ago when they saw the YFZ guys moving in. I thought that was simple religious persecution (why was 14 okay all those years before then?...), but whatever. It was a valid democratic response to a perceived threat.

But what do we do beyond that? Do we pass a new law that "no two parties whose age difference exceeds 'x' will be permitted to marry"? Do we pass a law that says "no two parties whose age difference exceeds 'x' will be permitted to have sex"? How exactly do we police that, anyway?

And is "age difference" really the issue? Really? Is there a problem with a 70-year-old widower hooking up with (marriage, sex, whatever) a 50-year-old divorcée? Or is it just the 30-year-old and the 15-year-old, and is it really the age difference that's the problem or is it the 'ewww' factor of picturing a young (and presumptively innocent) woman with an older (and presumptively evil-intentioned) guy? And if it's the 'ewww' factor, then why is it okay (face it, you KNOW you don't have the same emotional problem with this... :-O) for her to have sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend?

[Note: SOTV, I thought your original post was hit clean out of the park. Lots of good stuff in there.]

rainman
Friday, January 16th, 2009, 10:43 PM
Wrong. The quality of a man's sperm also decreases as he ages, usually around age 30. With men, the older he is, the more likely he is to pass on mental disorders or genetic diseases to his children.

Have any links? In College biology and Anatomy and Physiology they told us this is not true. I think I read elsewhere as well that studies have shown no correlation between fathers age and deformities though with women there is a correlation. Hold on I'll google it.

No I think the studies are misleading people. The sperm seems more defective which lowers fertility, but these defective sperm with missing tails and such simply won't fertilize the egg. The studies that say a man contributes to birth defects are taking his sperm and analyzing it. They aren't taking studies to say what is the frequency of birth defects among children with 50 year old fathers vs. 20. I think those studies show the fathers age has little effect exept for he is less fertile and it is more difficult to get someone pregnant to begin with.

Here's one such misleading article. Read the fine print. I am convinced that these misleading ideals are purposely put out there to influence the public. Propaganda if you will.
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0002286/49/

This article coming out of Israel supposedly has a study, but doesn't publish the results of the study. Then goes on to explain quite incorrectly that sperm is copied throughout a person's age. I'm studying health care in College- their explanation is bogus. A 50 year old mans sperm is not a copy of a copy of a copy of his 20 year old sperm! It's made new each time. I think the reason the fathers age had an effect here was because they were married to older women.

http://justnoticeabledifferences.blogspot.com/2007/03/fathers-age-and-serious-mental-illness.html

And this article reveals the flawed thinking of the previous one:
"Older fathers may contribute just as much as older mothers to the dramatic increase in Down syndrome risk faced by babies born to older couples. A new study found that older fathers were responsible for up to 50% of the rise in Down syndrome risk when the mother was also over 40."

Let me repeat that: sure it's all dads fault when the mother is over 40. but magickally when the mother is less than 40 age of dad doens't matter?? These articles are purposely misleading. Going on to quote the article:

"Paternal age has an effect on Down syndrome but only in mothers 35 years old and older,"

And guess who wrote the article. Jennifer Warner (related to Time Warner cable?). She works for CBS- in other words the same Jew run media machine that turns out the multicultural race mixing classics we've all come to love. Here's what her biography says:

"Prior to joining WebMD in 1999, Ms. Warner was news editor at CBSHealthwatch.com and MedscapeHealth.com. Before making the move to online journalism, she worked as a freelance television news producer and writer for ABC News in their Chicago and Moscow bureaus."

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20030701/dad-age-down-syndrome

It's possible that old age in fathers can contribute to genetic disorders but if there are any effects it is very minimal. The main effect of old age is decreased fertility. Which just means they need to have sex more time to get someone pregnant. I understand the confusion. It's hard to sort through relentless enemy proopaganda posing as science. I'm sure these same people are the one's that have been putting out "scientific" studies that race doesn't exist in the mean time donating funds to keep the racial state of Israel alive! You have to be clever- these propagandist are sneaky!

rainman
Saturday, January 17th, 2009, 12:02 AM
again we are dealing with sperm- not offspring. The defective sperm don't make it to the egg- the fastest/healthiest do. More defective sperm just lowers fertility- not child's genetic quality. Your talking about hundreds of thousands of sperm ejaculated at a time and maybe ten thousand of them becoming "defective".

Again the articles are purposely misleading. A good quote from your article:

Unlike in women, the researchers found no correlation between male aging and chromosome changes that cause Down’s syndrome and other forms of trisomies – such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, triple X syndrome, and XYY in offspring – that are associated with varying types and severity of infertility as well as physical and neurological abnormalities. They did conclude, however, that some older men could be at risk for fathering children with dwarfism, and that “a small fraction of men are at increased risks for transmitting multiple genetic and chromosomal defects.”

I did the bold part myself. The key word here with men is small fraction. Very tiny effect of trivial matter.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, January 17th, 2009, 08:22 AM
It's difficult to tell from things like median age of marriage, since we don't know in fuller detail what percentile of the population was married before certain age. A center in the early 20s for females and mid-late 20s for males seems roughly constant.

The age gap seems to be narrowing, in 1890 the median age gap was 4.1 years, in 2006 it was 1.6 years:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html

Certainly not all, or even most, relationships were between teenage females and males in their mid 20s or older, but it does seem to be accepted by society. For example, I am currently reading a biography of John Adams, he met his wife when she was 17 and he was 26. There's no mention of any societal disapproval whatsoever regarding either her age or the age gap between them.

George Washington's wife was on her second marriage, her first had been at age 18 to a 38 year old man. Thomas Jefferson's wife also had her first marriage at age 18, although to a man only 4 years older than her, his daughter likewise married at age 18 to a man 4 years older than her.


An article here:
http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/teenmarriage.htm

Apparently using information drawn from this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z95nQfRiYcMC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=1371+marriage+age&source=bl&ots=CDZkSdBexz&sig=IcwXqGq5jH6B8dFdtk2nHyF7gMo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

States:

In 1371, due to the plague, the average age at marriage for men was 24, and for women it was 16. By 1427, the average male of all classes did not wed til he was in his mid-30's, usually choosing a bride about half his age.


Reading through that and other books on google books, it seems that continental northwestern Europe developed a high marriage age at an earlier date, whereas England/Britain and the rest of Europe continued traditional practices for a much longer period of time.

Löwenherz
Monday, January 19th, 2009, 05:18 AM
The age gap seems to be narrowing, in 1890 the median age gap was 4.1 years, in 2006 it was 1.6 years.
I wonder about the effect of age-segregated schooling on this. The late 1800s saw the rise of government schools in America, with their age-segregated classrooms. Basically, in America today, anyone going to college will spend most of his or her first 25 years hanging out mostly with people his or her same age, give or take a few months. Small wonder, then, that so many couplings are—wait for it—among people of roughly the same age. Even non-college types spend most of their childhood and teenaged years with folks of the same age, and twelve or more years of conditioning is pretty hard to overcome in one's 20s....

For all the rest of human history, a woman of marriageable age (basically anything past puberty) would be looking for a male who had established himself as a good provider and protector, which is almost by definition an older male (and the age would be roughly correlated with the provision available).

Sigurd
Monday, January 19th, 2009, 05:44 AM
and other forms of trisomies – such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, triple X syndrome, and XYY in offspring – that are associated with varying types and severity of infertility as well as physical and neurological abnormalities.

Allow me to make a minor correction here: Turner Syndrome is not a trisomy, with the Karyotype 45,X I believe it becomes a little obvious that it is more correctly a monosomy.

Also, whilst Klinefelter's, Triple X and XYY are trisomies much like Down's Syndrome is, to combine them within the same category would be somewhat fallacious, Down's is a genetic defect of the 21st chromosome pair (hence, Trisomy-21), rather than the 23rd chromosome (sex chromosome) pair. There are for the record several other trisomies, too.

Finally, Triple X Syndrome does not usually inhibit fertility, most women with 47,XXX are able to conceive. It also does not lower the cognitive abilities by much on average, a trend which has been observed "more commonly" with the rarer occurences of XXXX and XXXXX syndromes, respectively. It also rarely manifests in physical features --- tall stature and slight androgyny have been observed, but none of the extreme features experienced with Klinefelter's, for instance.

I know it's a bit of an aside and doesn't immediately deal with the topic at hand, but I thought I'd put matters into a correct light here. :)

Kriemhild
Saturday, February 28th, 2009, 01:01 PM
If a man is between 0 and 5 years older than the woman, I think that is ideal. Personally, I'd want to want to have a relationship with and possibly marry a slightly older man. A gap of 5-10 years doesn't bother me either, though I think it's crucial that the younger woman has a good deal of sense and maturity to match her partner's life experience. Obviously this wouldn't work for all women, though for some, it might yield a better relationship than what one could cultivate with a younger man.

Gustavus Magnus
Saturday, February 28th, 2009, 01:26 PM
What's important here is how old the two people are, to compare if the age gap is too big.

I know one guy who's 27 and is dating a 17 year old. I think that's a too big age gap. But 25 and 35? Slightly better.

Bärin
Saturday, February 28th, 2009, 01:28 PM
I'm married to a man who is 14/15 years older than me and we have a son together. Everything is well between us. I wonder how much experience with age gap relationships the people who speak so hateful of them have. :|

Gustavus Magnus
Saturday, February 28th, 2009, 01:32 PM
I'm married to a man who is 14/15 years older than me and we have a son together. Everything is well between us. I wonder how much experience with age gap relationships the people who speak so hateful of them have. :|

Good for you that you have a working marriage, and I hope you'll live happily with your partner for a long time, but I've been in that situation, my dad was about your partner's age when he dated someone your age, while I was just a few years younger than her. It's kinda sick when your dad's partner is about the same age as yourself. But then again it didn't last long.

Bärin
Saturday, February 28th, 2009, 01:40 PM
Good for you that you have a working marriage, and I hope you'll live happily with your partner for a long time, but I've been in that situation, my dad was about your partner's age when he dated someone your age, while I was just a few years younger than her. It's kinda sick when your dad's partner is about the same age as yourself. But then again it didn't last long.
At least she wasn't younger than you. Some Hollywood actresses dated guys younger than their sons. :P There is a considerable age difference between my partner and my dad thankfully. :D

Anyway in the past it wasn't an anomaly for women to marry young and to marry older men. The marriages were often arranged by their fathers because they were concerned to secure them a future and have someone to take care of their daughters once they couldn't be around anymore. The guy was older as a rule.

InvaderNat
Saturday, February 28th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Like many other men, I don't envy waiting until I'm 30-40 to get married.
I'm quite an outdoors sort of person so I want to be able to enjoy physical activities with a partner for as long as possible.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, March 1st, 2009, 06:04 AM
I notice at least one individual who voted in the top category is now divorced

Ossi
Sunday, March 1st, 2009, 06:32 AM
I notice at least one individual who voted in the top category is now divorced
Men are like wine, they become better with age. But the same doesn't apply to women. ;)

TheGreatest
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 03:09 AM
My male ancestors all got married between 25-35. And some of my maternal ancestors were married and pregnant at 17. This wasn't the Medieval Ages but back at the beginning of the last century.


Things have not changed much. I'm a student. And I received no attention from women in the long-term relationship or dating realm. Though that doesn't bug me since it makes a lot of sense. The only success I've ever had was prowling around bars and that has only been flings.


That's the thing I am a student. I can barely sustain my own academic studies, I would be financially ruined if I found out I had a pregnant Wife to deal with. I would have to drop out of school and become a laborer.
Or I can wait 6 and 10 years, graduate with a couple of degrees and make a high five figure salary as an entry level accountant and lawyer, and raise four high stock children or become like the duggars and raise 15, lol.

Deary
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 04:54 PM
I've read in a study that 4-6 years is the ideal age gap, with the woman being younger than the man. However, I think 10 years difference is okay as well between matured individuals. Many married couples seem to have 10 years between them. I would generally advise to steer clear of anything beyond that because then it's more likely for differences to show. Women dating younger men strikes me as a perverse and unnatural though.

Sigurd
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 06:43 PM
Last year we had the following odd constellation: I was 19, my (now ex) girlfriend at the time was 26, my father was 44 and his current partner (not my mother, lol, she's a year older than my father ;)) was approaching her 32nd birthday. It was curious, because there was less than a year of an age difference between my precedessor with that girl and my father's woman. :D

Either way - I spoke about the topic with marrying late to my grandfather today. He told me that perhaps it was wiser if I left my romantic matters beyond my degree for the simple fact that women crave security. Perhaps something rings true in that.

Ideally - perhaps the man should be 3-7 years older than the woman. He would be more experienced, and thus have a more stable life to offer, and it's perhaps the best basis for having a large family. But when are things really ideal? Many people meet during their degrees or even during "high-school" (to make it understandable for the Americans here :D) and there's no such age gap - they make the same experiences together as they move through life, which can perhaps also be a good experience: One that tends to test relationships --- and if they pass that test of adverse times, then they are stronger thereafter.

Practically - at present such isn't feasible for me. I'm 20 years of age, and if the love of my life approached me tomorrow, she couldn't be much younger than I. Perhaps 17 (3 years younger) would be as far as I would go, if she is mature enough. There was a pretty amazing and rather mature (physically and mentally) lassie last year at near enough 5 years my junior (i.e. she was 14 when I met her) who chased me for awhile --- before she revealed she was 14, I had seriously thought she was 18. That was of course a clear no-no. 14/15 is clearly too young! :-O

My experiences with women younger than I have at large been absolutely catastrophic --- so for myself, I have long looked 2-3 upwards, i.e. at present that'd be a woman aged 22-23: I finished my school at 16, so I have about two years of a head-start --- by the time I'm finished with all of my degree and safely in work, she's not approached the "I'm 30 and I'm still childless threshold". A bit of a bonus, really. ;)

For myself, in terms of the woman's mental maturity, I'm always looking towards 2-3 years older at this stage; in terms of actual age I'd prefer a woman 0-3 years younger at this stage. But Hel, love will find me either way --- and I'm sure I'd be thrilled to take up the challenges involved with a relationship, regardless of whether the girl is younger or older. A German-speaking member of this forum is 6 years her husband's senior and had her first child around the 29/30 turn - yet still went on to have 10 children. So it really depends on the situation, etc. pp. :thumbup

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 08:12 AM
Student males aren't reliable for marriage. They're too busy taking care of themselves, how will they take care of their wife and child too? Women students marrying isn't a problem, because the woman's role is to be taken care of, and with the man doing all the necessary work she'll have time for the children too. ;)

Sigurd
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 12:24 PM
Women students marrying isn't a problem, because the woman's role is to be taken care of, and with the man doing all the necessary work she'll have time for the children too. ;)

BS. In those formative first three years a child needs a parent around at at most times. A student mother is usually taken off for either the morning or the afternoon for lectures and coursework. The time the course takes out of the man's breadwinning hours is the exact same time it takes out of the woman's hours at home.

You say that "with the man doing all the necessary work" that she'll have time for the children too: So what do you expect the man to do when you're a student female: That you can get a degree and have all the fun sides with your children whilst he both earns the money AND does the household? Sounds a lot like the feminists' version of "fair share of chores" to me. :|

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 12:38 PM
I think it totally depends on the couple.

I believe that, generally speaking, a 5 year difference with the male being older is optimal, however if it works otherwise, fine.

I do find age gaps that are too big to be somewhat aesthetically ridiculous, especially if the female is older.

I can somewhat digest it more easily when an older guy has a much younger partner, since the role of the male is leading and protective, plus males have a larger reproductive period than women.

I cringe at the sight of 20 year old gold-diggers, though, dating men that are twice, or even three times their age, for money.

I also cringe at the sight (and boy, has it become a common sight nowadays) of 30, 35, and even 40+ year old women dating 20 year old boys :-O

It's even more aesthetically unpleasing a sight than that of a young girl with a dirty old man. Usually those women are unhappily married or divorcées seeking their lost youth and sexual excitement via a relationship with a boy the age of their sons, something that I find utterly futile and irrational, since it's some sort of regression...

Anyway, in any of those cases, it's none of my business. I'm just thinking aloud. I am also sure I have replied to this thread again but I'm too bored to browse 20 pages to seek my original response. :P

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 12:41 PM
BS. In those formative first three years a child needs a parent around at at most times. A student mother is usually taken off for either the morning or the afternoon for lectures and coursework. The time the course takes out of the man's breadwinning hours is the exact same time it takes out of the woman's hours at home.
To be a student you aren't obligated to attend all courses. If you work or you're pregnant the professors will understand, or you can enroll under a long distance or non-frequence study program. My mother had one of her pregnancies when she was a student and she only attended the examinations. She managed to finish her studies and have children too, and her love, care and attention was never absent. Besides today there are newer options like online study. You can earn your degree while your baby sleeps.


You say that "with the man doing all the necessary work" that she'll have time for the children too: So what do you expect the man to do when you're a student female: That you can get a degree and have all the fun sides with your children whilst he both earns the money AND does the household? Sounds a lot like the feminists' version of "fair share of chores" to me. :|
*I* don't expect that since I gave up my studies and my job since I got pregnant and married because I have a husband who supports me now. By the way, I said nothing about only having fun and the husband having to raise the child and doing the household. Don't jump to conclusions and put false agendas in my mouth.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 01:11 PM
BS. In those formative first three years a child needs a parent around at at most times. A student mother is usually taken off for either the morning or the afternoon for lectures and coursework. The time the course takes out of the man's breadwinning hours is the exact same time it takes out of the woman's hours at home.

You say that "with the man doing all the necessary work" that she'll have time for the children too: So what do you expect the man to do when you're a student female: That you can get a degree and have all the fun sides with your children whilst he both earns the money AND does the household? Sounds a lot like the feminists' version of "fair share of chores" to me. :|

Most schoolwork is done at home, so a student would only be gone from the home for 2-3 hours per day, rather than 8+ hours. Also, you won't get kicked out of school if you miss a few classes in the space of a couple months, whereas you will get fired if you miss a few days in the space of a couple months.

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 01:15 PM
Also, you won't get kicked out of school if you miss a few classes in the space of a couple months
In the College I went to, you would. Easily, and they were very strict about it (3 missed lessons for Mon-Wed-Fri courses, and 2 missed lessons for Tue-Thu courses, and boom! you're out, and there goes your money and effort).

I wish policies of many colleges/universities were more lenient towards young mothers as well as working people.

Ossi
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 01:23 PM
BS. In those formative first three years a child needs a parent around at at most times. A student mother is usually taken off for either the morning or the afternoon for lectures and coursework. The time the course takes out of the man's breadwinning hours is the exact same time it takes out of the woman's hours at home.

You say that "with the man doing all the necessary work" that she'll have time for the children too: So what do you expect the man to do when you're a student female: That you can get a degree and have all the fun sides with your children whilst he both earns the money AND does the household? Sounds a lot like the feminists' version of "fair share of chores" to me. :|
How much experience do you have with work? You're a student, and you have time to be online most of the time. You're here and post here more than Bärin who is a stay at home mom. If all women students had the time to spare you have, it would suffice to take care of their kids. :D

Horagalles
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 06:28 PM
How much experience do you have with work? You're a student, and you have time to be online most of the time. You're here and post here more than Bärin who is a stay at home mom. If all women students had the time to spare you have, it would suffice to take care of their kids. :DI think you got him there.
But what does it have to do with the issue raised by Haldis:

Why Women Should Marry Young and Why They Should Marry Mature Men (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=928690#post928690)

There are certainly a few points one could think of as well.

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 06:38 PM
I think you got him there.
But what does it have to do with the issue raised by Haldis:

Why Women Should Marry Young and Why They Should Marry Mature Men (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=928690#post928690)

There are certainly a few points one could think of as well.
It started with my post where I was supporting the idea mature men are better than young ones, because they, unlike students (typically young) have enough means to provide for a family.

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=928651&postcount=204

Sigurd disagreed and said students are as busy as men who work full time. Ossi just proved him wrong, because students (like Sigurd) have more time on their hands than men with full time jobs. :)

Horagalles
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:16 PM
... (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=928651&postcount=204)

Sigurd disagreed and said students are as busy as men who work full time. Ossi just proved him wrong, because students (like Sigurd) have more time on their hands than men with full time jobs. :)By demonstrating that Sigurd spent so much time online.

Well, I am running my own business, which means that I am working (more then) full time. But I spent lot's of time online (which, due to the nature of business is of course also work related) and peek in at Skadi from time to time:D. I am btw. also a part time students of mineral sciences - which is work related as well.

Personally I am of the opinion men should first acquire the means to sustain a wife and family, so I agree with you.

Sigurd
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Most schoolwork is done at home, so a student would only be gone from the home for 2-3 hours per day, rather than 8+ hours. Also, you won't get kicked out of school if you miss a few classes in the space of a couple months, whereas you will get fired if you miss a few days in the space of a couple months.

The "most schoolwork is done at home" thing doesn't mean anything. Whilst you're doing your schoolwork/uniwork you quite frankly don't have the time.

Believe someone whose mother - at least until I was about 11 - was a teacher and thus spent much time at home ... yet she oft had to prepare for her next teaching class the next day, which oft took longer than the actual teaching.

Theoretically she was at home, but practically I never saw much of her before she came a stay-at-home mom and later decided to work from home. :|


snip

I am not going to answer any of your questions, because I'm not the one taking this to the personal. My answer was general - the "you" and "the man" was not directly nor indirectly aimed at yours and Bärin's actual arrangement - that is as little business of mine as my own daily arrangement is a business of yours. I questioned her views, not your actual arrangement.

I will however say that I have some work experience and am in the process of building up a small business of my own, if you really care to know. Much of which is also done by online contacts. :)


Sigurd disagreed and said students are as busy as men who work full time.

That is incorrect. I did not say that students are as busy as men who work full time - I said that female students are as busy as male students are, and with some in-between-the-lines reading that a woman's household chores and mothering chores are as demanding as a man's duties at work.

A student woman can perhaps look after one or two children "part-time" --- but likewise can a student man feed one or two children "part-time". If all the single mothers can sustain one child on a part-time job, so could a man on a part-time job.

If the family has like 7 or 8 kids --- then obviously the mother needs "full time mothering", and likewise the father needs "full time work". My grandfather comfortably fed a wife and two little children whilst having a (for granted, exceedingly well paid) part-time job and still studying - only when they had a third, did he need to drop out and work full-time to sustain his family.

The claim that a woman could manage looking after children during university whilst a man could not manage feeding them during university --- pretty much claims that child-nurturing duties and household chores are less demanding than work.



Personally I am of the opinion men should first acquire the means to sustain a wife and family, so I agree with you.

I agree with that as well. However, subject to what I specified above, it remains only the ideal solution rather than the necessary solution. Technically, a part-time job pays a small family, if you don't take the luxury. I have a friend who became a father during his apprentice years --- and apprentice years are hardly better paid than part-time jobs. His girl stayed at home with the child - and watching the money a little, they got by well enough even though they had to count every penny.

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 08:44 PM
That is incorrect. I did not say that students are as busy as men who work full time - I said that female students are as busy as male students are, and with some in-between-the-lines reading that a woman's household chores and mothering chores are as demanding as a man's duties at work.

A student woman can perhaps look after one or two children "part-time" --- but likewise can a student man feed one or two children "part-time". If all the single mothers can sustain one child on a part-time job, so could a man on a part-time job.

If the family has like 7 or 8 kids --- then obviously the mother needs "full time mothering", and likewise the father needs "full time work". My grandfather comfortably fed a wife and two little children whilst having a (for granted, exceedingly well paid) part-time job and still studying - only when they had a third, did he need to drop out and work full-time to sustain his family.

The claim that a woman could manage looking after children during university whilst a man could not manage feeding them during university --- pretty much claims that child-nurturing duties and household chores are less demanding than work.
A woman can manage looking after children during university if her man works a job and provides an income, because then she doesn't have to work too. That was my point. But if the man is a student, then they have problems, because his study will prevent him from working full time, he won't have the experience and qualification to get a great job and even if he works part time, student + part time job will mean less money. That's why a mature man with a full time job is preferable to a young student with no job, or with a part time job.

Sigurd
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Alright, let's give a very practical answer here. :D


But if the man is a student, then they have problems, because his study will prevent him from working full time, he won't have the experience and qualification to get a great job and even if he works part time, student + part time job will mean less money.

Sometimes, well-paying jobs are available to students in some practical degrees: If you are a Medicine student you may well work in a Chemist's (provided you've passed all necessary exams at ordinary level in pharmacy), if you are a Law student, you might be of use as a clerk at a legal practice; if you are a Business student, some jobs as junior manager might well be up for grabs.

Assume he was studying a degree in Business and was appointed to be a junior manager in a nightclub on the basis of his last year in undergraduate studies.

Assume he was paid €16.00 per hour and worked during night club opening times - let's say 9 PM till 3 AM, four days a week. That is a total of 24 hours and clearly part-time.

Per day, he would earn €96.00, per week he would earn €384.00 ... a month is seen as having 4.3 weeks ... his average monthly salary would be €1,651.20 - Times that by 14 (in Austria) or 13 (in Germany) and his annual wage would be €23,116.80 (Austria) / €21,465.60 (Germany).

But bear in mind that the academic year only has 7 1/2 months. Perhaps add the time he cannot work at all, during exam revision time, let's call that three weeks each semester. Due to exam revision, he loses €2,304.00 ... yet let's say he works at his job six days a week (36 hours = full time) during his holiday periods - however he earns an extra €3,840.00 there ---- his total annual salary would be €24,652.80 (Austria) / €23,001.60 (Germany) --- a salary slightly in excess of the average per-head product (and well in excess of the actual average salary). If he's additionally funded by his family, he'll be virtually swimming in money.

That's more well than enough to pay the bills and feed a child --- it is well in excess of the salary of for example a full-time teacher (non-grammar school, but primary or comprehensive secondary), a popular job, who typically earns about €1,200 - €1,400 a month.

He then gets home by 4AM, if his lectures are at noontime, let's say 1 PM till 3 PM and he uses 2 hours for revision per day and is back at 5PM --- that gives him about 3 1/2 hours with his family, which is hardly less than the average full-time working father sees his family.

My maternal grandfather worked in a Chemist's during his studies, likewise quite well paid. In comparison, if he had this job in this day and age --- he would have earned more part-time there than my father does after 5 years of working as an administrative clerk, 4 years of social work and 14 years of working as a primary teacher. And also an excellent comparison because both fathered three children (well technically one fathered four, but since that one died within an hour of birth, it doesn't count here). :P


That's why a mature man with a full time job is preferable to a young student with no job, or with a part time job.

What about a young man with a well-paying full-time job and qualifications? Is he, as a provider less desirable than a mature man with a well-paying full-time job.

Assume you have one man who finished his Bachelor at age 28, his Masters at age 32 and his Doctorate at age 36. He has five years of work experience and is now 41.

Then assume you have a man who finished his Bachelor at age 22 (I'll have my LLB degree this summer at 20 - but of course, that's not the norm), then his Masters at age 24 and his Doctorate at age 26. He has five years of work experience and is now 31.

Therefore they are the same in terms of qualifications and work experience. Yet one is ten years older than the other: 41 vs. 31 ... which one is more desirable to the young woman looking for a provider, if qualifications and work experience are seen as the major deciding factors? ;)

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, March 5th, 2009, 11:50 AM
Maybe this is a country/national difference, but here the law&business students would be lucky to earn half of what you described. Nowhere near what a full time employed person would earn.

As far as 'being at home': children do not require 24/7 constant activity, just that someone is able to watch over them 24/7 and sporadically intervene to feed them, extract legos from their mouth, or whatever. This is something someone can easily do while studying, but can't do if working outside the home.

Bärin
Saturday, March 7th, 2009, 07:00 PM
What about a young man with a well-paying full-time job and qualifications? Is he, as a provider less desirable than a mature man with a well-paying full-time job.
Yes. Mature men are simply more attractive. :inlove I don't like men between 18-20s. They look like boys.


Assume you have one man who finished his Bachelor at age 28, his Masters at age 32 and his Doctorate at age 36. He has five years of work experience and is now 41.

Then assume you have a man who finished his Bachelor at age 22 (I'll have my LLB degree this summer at 20 - but of course, that's not the norm), then his Masters at age 24 and his Doctorate at age 26. He has five years of work experience and is now 31.

Therefore they are the same in terms of qualifications and work experience. Yet one is ten years older than the other: 41 vs. 31 ... which one is more desirable to the young woman looking for a provider, if qualifications and work experience are seen as the major deciding factors? ;)
Age wouldn't matter then, 31 and 41 are both mature. :)

Sigurd
Saturday, March 7th, 2009, 07:18 PM
Yes. Mature men are simply more attractive. :inlove

Fair enough - that is your personal preference then. The question was more rhetorical in a way and aimed at the general question --- if success and experience are the deciding factor:

If a man of 22 and a man of 32 are at the same stage in their lives, with the same success: What, on an objective rather than subjective scale makes the 32 year old more desirable and more ideal as a father?

Assume for the sake of the argument that the 22-year-old had such a fast-moving childhood and youth that both have also made exactly the same experiences.


I don't like men between 18-20s. They look like boys.

Some do, some don't. I know a guy who is 29 this summer and at best passes for 23-24 due to being babyfaced, with his features staying very youth-like.

Likewise, I know another guy who is 21 --- and whom even I, though being generally good with estimating age judged to be 24-25. With those less observative, he could easily pass for a well-kept 28-29 year old. Even the stage of his hair loss and his beard growth is phenomenal for such a young man. :D


Age wouldn't matter then, 31 and 41 are both mature. :)

Again, the hypothetical question it is. What if you met them in the last year of their doctorate --- one being 25, the other being 35. Assume the latter is just studying slower and his late Bachelor's is because he'd constantly change courses he paid no attention to ... would you go for the younger one with much promise, having achieved as much at 25 as you possibly could, or the older one who's not earned a single penny as of being 35? ;)

Bärin
Saturday, March 7th, 2009, 07:30 PM
Fair enough - that is your personal preference then. The question was more rhetorical in a way and aimed at the general question --- if success and experience are the deciding factor:

If a man of 22 and a man of 32 are at the same stage in their lives, with the same success: What, on an objective rather than subjective scale makes the 32 year old more desirable and more ideal as a father?

Assume for the sake of the argument that the 22-year-old had such a fast-moving childhood and youth that both have also made exactly the same experiences.
There's no such thing as exactly the same experience. Anyway, if you're right and at 22 someone really has this experience and a well paid job then he's not less desirable, but most men in their 20s know aren't like that. They're still studying and/or working first time jobs or part time jobs. I'm more likely to meet a guy with experience in the 30s generation than in the 20s.


Some do, some don't. I know a guy who is 29 this summer and at best passes for 23-24 due to being babyfaced, with his features staying very youth-like.

Likewise, I know another guy who is 21 --- and whom even I, though being generally good with estimating age judged to be 24-25. With those less observative, he could easily pass for a well-kept 28-29 year old. Even the stage of his hair loss and his beard growth is phenomenal for such a young man. :D
There are exceptions, I'm not saying ALL men in their 20s are like that. Besides facial hair growth doesn't necessarily make a guy look mature.


Again, the hypothetical question it is. What if you met them in the last year of their doctorate --- one being 25, the other being 35. Assume the latter is just studying slower and his late Bachelor's is because he'd constantly change courses he paid no attention to ... would you go for the younger one with much promise, having achieved as much at 25 as you possibly could, or the older one who's not earned a single penny as of being 35? ;)
If the latter is studying slower and hasn't worked at all then he's a waste, because by that age he should have accomplished something. Like I said, there are exceptions, but in reality I never met such a case. Maybe in Greece or Italy where the men still live with their parents at 38 y.o. :D

Ossi
Sunday, March 8th, 2009, 09:25 PM
I am not going to answer any of your questions, because I'm not the one taking this to the personal. My answer was general - the "you" and "the man" was not directly nor indirectly aimed at yours and Bärin's actual arrangement - that is as little business of mine as my own daily arrangement is a business of yours. I questioned her views, not your actual arrangement.

I will however say that I have some work experience and am in the process of building up a small business of my own, if you really care to know. Much of which is also done by online contacts. :)
Her views are clear, they're the normal and healthy views of a young woman who wants the best for herself. Most students your age wouldn't able to feed a family if mommy and daddy stopped financing them, that's how it is. Take away their support and they will barely be able to pay the rent.

Sigurd
Monday, March 9th, 2009, 12:26 AM
Her views are clear, they're the normal and healthy views of a young woman who wants the best for herself. Most students your age wouldn't able to feed a family if mommy and daddy stopped financing them, that's how it is. Take away their support and they will barely be able to pay the rent.

Sure, and I understand and support them to some extent. I only desired clarification on some aspects of her post which I felt needed expanding upon to allow a most thorough discussion and allow her views to be brought out in detail. The parts which I didn't feel needed expanding upon I consequently didn't ask about.

Yes, it is a fact that most students are incapable of financially supporting a family --- the question I thus asked back was in terms of a hypothetical (well, realistic but uncommon) student who was able.

Also, I think she is well capable of laying out her own ideas --- and if I consider her views clear enough, then I will not ask her to expand. If I don't I will ask her to expand ... and if she is willing to expand upon it she will, and if not then she won't.

Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with what you and Bärin have said upon the matter. My intention was only to ask: If students are considered uncapable of supporting a family at large --- what if they are actually able to: Does it change the situation? ;)

White Africa
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 06:47 PM
When I see couples with a big age difference, if the man is older I can't help thinking he goes out with her for the sex and she goes out with him for the money. If the woman is older, it's even more revolting.

þeudiskaz
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 07:18 PM
When I see couples with a big age difference, if the man is older I can't help thinking he goes out with her for the sex and she goes out with him for the money. If the woman is older, it's even more revolting.

perhaps this is some biological assurance of pairing a man who can support a family with a woman who will be fertile for many years?

Doesn't sound that disgusting to me, I figure, let people make their own choices in life.

Horagalles
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 07:33 PM
When I see couples with a big age difference, if the man is older I can't help thinking he goes out with her for the sex and she goes out with him for the money. If the woman is older, it's even more revolting.... We've got that subject on an other forum as well (age differences in partnership). While I think that what you say is true of some relationships. I don't think that's true for all. On the other forum we became rather suspicious why so many women 30+ were so opposed between partnerships between relationships (let's say guy 45 girl 25) differing in age. Me and a couple of others suspect that their fear of competition is actually the driving factor for their views. You see some (aging) women maybe afraid that their partner/husband becomes bored or pissed with them and leaves them for a +10 years younger woman.

In my view marriage is about starting a family. To me that means that the woman needs to be ready to bear and rear children and the man needs to be ready and willing to sustain a family and be its head. So naturally some age difference may occur.

þeudiskaz
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 07:49 PM
In my view marriage is about starting a family. To me that means that the woman needs to be ready to bear and rear children and the man needs to be ready and willing to sustain a family and be its head. So naturally some age difference may occur.

You'll note it seems quite prevalent in many ancient societies that older men would marry younger women? As I suggested, it is possible that this is some form of biological insurance for successfully raising families.

AngloTeutonic
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 07:07 AM
I think it is personal preference if a person prefers an older or younger partner. I chose older women because I find older women attractive, well into their 30s and 40s, and I have always felt that way towards older women ("milfs" as they are called) since I first started getting a jolly out of women. I do not look down on older men who prefer younger women, even if the age difference is great, because they are doing it for their own reasons, and you should not judge them for that. If a man spent many of his 20s and 30s trying to get rich and "make it", and he worked his butt off for so many years, is it not his right to go for a younger woman, even if people think he is merely going for a trophy girl? So what, let the guy have some fun, he deserves it after all.....that's why people work hard... to make lots of money.

So that they can get the woman they want. Quit judging, it's not like he's going for another man, or a child.

Atlas
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 08:19 PM
Without even mentioning marriage and just talk about normal relationship I really don't think that "Men should be older fur such reasons" I just prefer my girlfriends younger, matter of preference I guess. I was with older girlfriends years ago and never really liked it.

Ossi
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 10:18 PM
When I see couples with a big age difference, if the man is older I can't help thinking he goes out with her for the sex and she goes out with him for the money. If the woman is older, it's even more revolting.
Ya right... as if teenage boys who go out with their attractive female schoolmates do it for the deep profound love they hold for them. Nothing to do with sex at all. :oanieyes

Sigurd
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 10:46 PM
Ya right... as if teenage boys who go out with their attractive female schoolmates do it for the deep profound love they hold for them. Nothing to do with sex at all. :oanieyes

LOL, you DID save my day with that one....:D

Nonetheless, this is not about teenage boys and teenage girls, this is about men and women. Marriage is not permitted under 18 in most Germanic countries, usually 16 at best when they parents agree. And around the time they hit approx. 20 they're usually over that "OMFGZ, a pair of pants I need to get into!" phase, and those who aren't probably will never be. ;)

Bärin
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 10:52 PM
When I see couples with a big age difference, if the man is older I can't help thinking he goes out with her for the sex and she goes out with him for the money. If the woman is older, it's even more revolting.
How nice. :oanieyes

It's exactly the type of comment as from the liberal bitches who scorn me for being a young mother and married with a man older than me. It's funny because my husband is no wealthy Jew, and I am no sex symbol, more as I have a girl next door look.


And around the time they hit approx. 20 they're usually over that "Oh my, a pair of pants I need to get into!" phase, and those who aren't probably will never be. ;)
Not judging by the 20 year old guys I know. They hit on me and other women my age with stupid pick up lines, and all they think about is a good screw. They usually get over it by 25 or later.

Norman Pride
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 11:00 PM
This is obviously a matter of personal preference. I don't think anyone's personal preference should be imposed on others. :shrug

þeudiskaz
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 02:12 AM
This is obviously a matter of personal preference. I don't think anyone's personal preference should be imposed on others. :shrug

Unfortunately, many people think that because their opinion is the best for them, it must be the best for everyone.

Sadly, looking at the amount of degredation throughout the world it seems like enough people don't even know what is best for themselves, much less other people.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 02:57 AM
Two Reasons!
1) The older man is looking more for a wife that has the ability to raise children, and is fit for that task.

2)Younger mature women are generally looking for security, both financially and emotionally.

That is why it happens with older males and younger females, but usually not over 10 years of age for the male.

Older female younger male is mostly a sex thing, on the part of both parties. The older woman is looking for validation that she is still attractive, and the younger guy is simply looking for a good screw; any screw.

D. H. Yeager
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 05:16 AM
I think the statement ''women (should) marry young'' is a crock load of, for lack of a better word, crap. Personaly, I believe that no man nor woman should engage in marrige until at earliest their late twenties. This gives the person time to ''explore'' and participate in activities that when in a marrige would be un-aceptable. In the end, waiting to marry in a persons late twenties allows the marrige to be more stable both financialy and emotionaly. And ladies, don't marry an old fart.

Bärin
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 05:30 AM
I think the statement ''women (should) marry young'' is a crock load of, for lack of a better word, crap. Personaly, I believe that no man nor woman should engage in marrige until at earliest their late twenties. This gives the person time to ''explore'' and participate in activities that when in a marrige would be un-aceptable. In the end, waiting to marry in a persons late twenties allows the marrige to be more stable both financialy and emotionaly. And ladies, don't marry an old fart.
Maybe some of us don't want to "explore and participate in activities that when in a marrige would be un-aceptable", ech, thought of that? :oanieyes Which "activities" would those be anyway? It sounds like something liberal and degenerate the way you word it. Oh, and my marriage is perfectly stable, financially and emotionally, thanks. :)

By the way: unless my math is failing me, 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2. So there is information missing from your profile. What is your other 1/2?

Wolgadeutscher
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 12:39 PM
This gives the person time to ''explore'' and participate in activities that when in a marrige would be un-aceptable.
What are those activities and how are they more important than child rearing?

þeudiskaz
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 11:45 PM
I think the statement ''women (should) marry young'' is a crock load of, for lack of a better word, crap. Personaly, I believe that no man nor woman should engage in marrige until at earliest their late twenties. This gives the person time to ''explore'' and participate in activities that when in a marrige would be un-aceptable. In the end, waiting to marry in a persons late twenties allows the marrige to be more stable both financialy and emotionaly. And ladies, don't marry an old fart.

Well, I won't ask you about those dubious "activities" because other people already have... but way to tell women what they should, and shouldn't do ("don't marry an old fart." who can possibly provide a more stable financial life, and is generally more mature than a younger man...). Also, way to decide what's the best way for everyone.

I'm 23, and I've been married over a year, and I'm well more than happy in my marriage, and my wife, who is currently cooking me a wonderful dinner is also quite happy.

Sigurd
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 12:23 AM
Maybe some of us don't want to "explore and participate in activities that when in a marrige would be un-aceptable", ech, thought of that? :oanieyes

To some extent, he is actually talking some truth. If you're generally a faithful person with some integrity, who doesn't much enjoy those "teenage one-night-stands", but who still has a remarkably high libido --- then it is well possible that if you wait until marriage, that you start thinking "How is it to have sex with other people?" - having not explored this before.

This is how many otherwise faithfully-inclined people end up cheating - pure curiosity. Though it actually stressed the point of the older man being a part to the marriage, because if he is some 5-10 years older than the woman, then chances are he's already made those experiences, and won't be tempted to cheat out of sheer curiosity: He's now had them, and wants to settle down.

Two virgins marrying each other and staying faithful for life, and never even having a sexual fantasy about things they cannot practice together - that's highly unlikely. Hinting at the past won't help, that would be over-romanticising the past ... let's face it, if we look back long enough in our gen-tree we'll all find an illegimate child somewhere down the road. And for those who don't - if it was a city boy, pretty damn likely that during his youth he went to the prostitutes, but never talked about it. Medieval times weren't always as chivalrous as we all like to think. And as far as the women were concerned, that's kind of where the "knight in shining armour" story comes from - "experimentation". ;)

And yes - I'm somewhat speaking from experience there. With my Ex, the whole thing was new, because I'd more or less waited long enough. But this had me curious, and yes, I found myself fantasizing about things I would never have done. It took splitting up and having the odd one-night-stand to realise that this was merely curiosity. As you make your sexual experiences, you notice that even a woman that fulfils all your sexual fantasies in one night won't ever make up for that unique look in your girl's eyes that says "I want you, nothing but you" - the ultimate turn-on. :)

Some learn the easy way, some learn the hard way. I learnt the hard way (I had to leave the first sexual relationship I had been in to notice that all the "fun" was actually quite boring), though chances are that, had the relationship lasted, I would have learnt the easy way. You make your experiences either way, though I am wagering to say that - past or present - few men, and also reasonably few women, learn their lessons the easy way. :shrug

Bärin
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 12:43 AM
To some extent, he is actually talking some truth. If you're generally a faithful person with some integrity, who doesn't much enjoy those "teenage one-night-stands", but who still has a remarkably high libido --- then it is well possible that if you wait until marriage, that you start thinking "How is it to have sex with other people?" - having not explored this before.

This is how many otherwise faithfully-inclined people end up cheating - pure curiosity. Though it actually stressed the point of the older man being a part to the marriage, because if he is some 5-10 years older than the woman, then chances are he's already made those experiences, and won't be tempted to cheat out of sheer curiosity: He's now had them, and wants to settle down.

Two virgins marrying each other and staying faithful for life, and never even having a sexual fantasy about things they cannot practice together - that's highly unlikely. Hinting at the past won't help, that would be over-romanticising the past ... let's face it, if we look back long enough in our gen-tree we'll all find an illegimate child somewhere down the road. And for those who don't - if it was a city boy, pretty damn likely that during his youth he went to the prostitutes, but never talked about it. Medieval times weren't always as chivalrous as we all like to think. And as far as the women were concerned, that's kind of where the "knight in shining armour" story comes from - "experimentation". ;)

And yes - I'm somewhat speaking from experience there. With my Ex, the whole thing was new, because I'd more or less waited long enough. But this had me curious, and yes, I found myself fantasizing about things I would never have done. It took splitting up and having the odd one-night-stand to realise that this was merely curiosity. As you make your sexual experiences, you notice that even a woman that fulfils all your sexual fantasies in one night won't ever make up for that unique look in your girl's eyes that says "I want you, nothing but you" - the ultimate turn-on. :)

Some learn the easy way, some learn the hard way. I learnt the hard way (I had to leave the first sexual relationship I had been in to notice that all the "fun" was actually quite boring), though chances are that, had the relationship lasted, I would have learnt the easy way. You make your experiences either way, though I am wagering to say that - past or present - few men, and also reasonably few women, learn their lessons the easy way. :shrug
Oh right, this wouldn't have been complete without you stepping in and defend the liberals again. :oanieyes
Marriage at a young age doesn't mean you can't have sex. I didn't marry a virgin, and I had sex with my former boyfriend before my husband. And, I had sex and got pregnant before marriage. So what? Am I a saint? Of course not, and I don't want to be. It's a bullshit excuse. Nobody said anything about saving yourself. However, if you promote sex with many people at the same time, or promiscuity, to put it nicely, because we both know what the true word for that is, I say that's not worth putting marriage and children on hold for. Fuck that kind of "experimentation". What next you will tell me women should also experiment with other women before marriage, or they will get an urge to become bisexual after they marry? :oanieyes :thumbdown