Please cite where the Catholic Church makes this assertion that living single is a sin.
As for the wife who doesn't allow her children with single men over age 30. That seems like a good policy but sooner or later your kid's going to have a teacher, coach, family member in this category. Better communicate your concerns to your kid.
Brompton Sinclair wrote:
if you marry a girl with a solid income, no fault divorce can work in your favor. (K-Fed).
take a look at the 40+ single crowd, it's not a pretty picture for guys or girls - just a bunch of misfits and leftovers.
Being single at 40 is a great deal for guys with high-dating marketability as women lose interest in sex way earlier than guys do. if youa re a reasonably good looking 40 year old with a good job and income, you will be screwing women 10 years younger. Bad deal for women, of course, because cougary type A achievement in women runs up against their hypergamous natures, so the men they would accept (the aforementioned successful 40 year olds) will be dating the younger version of them instead of them. Women care about status (and markers of status) in men. Men care about looks. Age doesn't hurt a man's mating market value as it does a woman's - it helps a man's as he has had time to accumulate wealth and status. Fair? Well, on whose part is it unfair? That men with the ability to choose choose what they like (youth and beauty) or that women with the ability to choose choose what they like (status)? Wh is it considered unfair that men prefer younger hotter girls when they are able to choose but perfectly fair that younger hotter girls pick status/wealth when they can choose? Just different preferences, neither morally defensible or indefensible, owed to evolutionary psychology.
Pick your mate well, because it is likely your wife will lose interest in sex before you do if you are the same age, especially if she has kids and will hit the wall once her oxytocin fix comes from her kids instead of you (and when reproduction is no longer playing on her unconscious mind owing to rapidly approaching infertility.
Women's sex drive peaks at a later age than men's sex drive. Speaking as a woman, the problem is not that women lose interest in sex. The problem is that women lose interest in sex with their partners, because their partners stop taking the time to do the things that satisfy them. (Not across the board, of course. Many married women are satisfied, just as many married men are satisfied.) I just think it's amazing to see how few men acknowledge their own role in the "post-nuptial shut-off" discussion.
Pius wrote:
Please cite where the Catholic Church makes this assertion that living single is a sin.
As for the wife who doesn't allow her children with single men over age 30. That seems like a good policy but sooner or later your kid's going to have a teacher, coach, family member in this category. Better communicate your concerns to your kid.
The church can kiss my ass. I don't need a "church" to practice my religion.
Well, for the record, I am married with kids and very happy. I feel sorry for you guys who are married and unhappy, that must suck.
If you cannot find a woman that you would also consider your best friend, why marry?
"Women's sex drive peaks at a later age than men's sex drive. "
This is absolutely wrong. You are half reading the research, women experience a spike in sex drive just before menepause, then it falls off the cliff.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2002838,00.html
"By contrast, men's sexual interest and output, usually measured by a reported number of orgasms per week, peaks in the teen years and then settles to a steady level (an average of three orgasms per week) for most of their lives. As I pointed out in March, most men remain sexually active into their 70s. According to the new study, as well as the study I wrote about in March, women's sexual ardor declines precipitously after menopause. Why would women be more sexually active in their middle years than in their teens and 20s? Buss and his students say evolution has encouraged women to be more sexually active as their fertility begins to decline and as menopause approaches."
David Buss, mentioned in the article, is a leading force in evolutionary psychology. His (along with Cindy Meston) "Why women have sex" and Roy Baumeister's "What Good Are Men" should be required reading in gender studies classes, but they won't be.
"because their partners stop taking the time to do the things that satisfy them"
In this case, as in most cases, the reasoning brain is post hoc rationalization of subterranean unconscious causes. It is well-documented that both menopause and childbirth have deliterious effects on women's sex drive, for obvious evolutionary reasons.
Stop paying attention to feminist scholars that go beyond equality for individuals and instead see patriarchy hiding under every bed and in every closet and acquaint yourself with evolutionary psychology - cruel nature, so long as men have infinite sperm and little cost to reproduction and women have only 300 eggs and huge time cost for reproduction, will enforce inequality.
Cruel nature probably primes us to have one set of needs pre-kids and another set post kids. And we probably unconsciously pick our mates with our hypothetical kids in mind, rationalized by our frontal lobe as something else.
curious mind.. wrote:
I don't get this. People constantly ask me when am I going to get married but never seem to ask my divorced friends or relatives when they are going to marry again.
Because there is still hope for those of us who are single and never married.
Someone who is divorced is damaged goods - emotionally bankrupt, dwelling on their failure, and carrying all kinds of baggage.
I would NEVER even consider marrying a divorced woman. I would date a divorce woman, though. Especially if she was a real mink.
curious mind.. wrote:
I don't get this. People constantly ask me when am I going to get married but never seem to ask my divorced friends or relatives when they are going to marry again.
Just say, "I've not found someone I want to marry." Pretty easy. Takes all of about 3 seconds.
Flagpole wrote:
Takes all of about 3 seconds.
Poor Lovely Mrs. Flagpole!
curious mind.. wrote:
I don't get this. People constantly ask me when am I going to get married but never seem to ask my divorced friends or relatives when they are going to marry again.
I think it depends where you live, in California, I cannot imagine anyone asking me this question...as I have never been asked that question. In Oklahoma? If you aren't walking through the door with a pregnant wife...they probably think you play for the other team.
Perhaps this explains GF's abssence...
i think geography plays a role and that where you live helps define your own version of "normal". And unfortunately I don't think very many people think outside the box. Most seem to stick with what they know as normal and judge others accordingly. I see so many fat people and people getting sick often and people who are depressed. But they refuse to change their habits (those very habits that cause their issues) from what they think is normal. It's crazy to me. Those are my thoughts to the OP. Some people just have small minds.
But yeah, those who live in Cali or a big city like NYC and Chicago and Miami...i don't think hardly anyone will think twice about someone being single at 30 & 40. In the city limits you may even see more 30somethings w/ no ring than those w/ rings. From what I can tell, the guys sitting in VIP w/ all the models are usually single 30somethings & older. But in contrast, out in the suburbs or rural towns or midsize midwestern cities it seems you may have more people who get married in their mid 20's, along with just about everyone they know within a small 2-3 year window of time. It seems as if the wedding years start at 25 and by the time you're 29, you all of your friends are hitched. My own personal opinion is that you should wait to get married. An individual can evolve so much in their late 20's & 30's, but I think marriage can really slow that down or even halt it completely. Nothing scientific here, just my 2 cents. Of course there are exceptions to everything.
Pius wrote:
Please cite where the Catholic Church makes this assertion that living single is a sin.
My catechism text from the early 70s (printed in the mid 60s).
That is what we were told, and it was in print. Confirmed by parish priest on a few occasions.
Does it make sense to marry someone you're not in love with or not really physically attracted to? It seems that some people just get married either for companionship or to build something together (family, financial growth, etc).
Maybe people just ask this because they figure you might have some news for them, as something like north of 90% of people get married, and they don't ask your divorced friends because they figure that marriage is a sore topic for them.
So with whom are you suggesting that men in their 70s remain sexually active? Are you really saying that the majority of men in their 70s are having sex with pre-menopausal women? Because I find that hard to believe, and I know that research wouldn't support that claim. By and large, if men in their 70s are having sex, then women in their 70s are having sex, too.
I'm pretty sure that the people on this board complaining about post-nuptual shut-off aren't men in their 60s, complaining about their 58-year old post-menopausal wives. (Although, I concede that it's possible that I drastically underestimate the age of Letsrun.com readers.) Rather, I assume it's a much younger audience, in which case your theory isn't particularly relevant to this discussion. In fact, it rather proves my point. Women in their 30s and 40s are, evolutionarily-speaking, at their sexual peaks. So the problem isn't them . . . it's their partners. (Again, I reiterate in some cases. I know many many married men and women who are sexually very satisfied. Conversely, I'm sure that there are quite a few women with low libido, just as I'm sure that there are quite a few men with low libido.)
Funny brother. Easy, but funny.
marijuoIogist wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Takes all of about 3 seconds.
Poor Lovely Mrs. Flagpole!
I guess if you want to be more subjective about the word "serious" then I guess we can individualize it for many different people.
I take brushing my teeth seriously but that's because my teeth and gums would rot if I didn't.
I take wiping my butt seriously because imagine how bad I would smell if I didn't.
I take eating (and drinking water) VERY seriously because I need it to survive.
I take my job seriously because I need money to maintain my life and help others who need it.
I take sleeping seriously because I wouldn't be able to do all the above without it.
Now running I take seriously because it makes me money (wait no it doesn't), it helps others feel good (well not really), I do it because it keeps me in shape and from becoming an obese bastard (but a healthy diet would do the same).
except . . . wrote:
So with whom are you suggesting that men in their 70s remain sexually active? Are you really saying that the majority of men in their 70s are having sex with pre-menopausal women? Because I find that hard to believe, and I know that research wouldn't support that claim. By and large, if men in their 70s are having sex, then women in their 70s are having sex, too.
I'm pretty sure that the people on this board complaining about post-nuptual shut-off aren't men in their 60s, complaining about their 58-year old post-menopausal wives. (Although, I concede that it's possible that I drastically underestimate the age of Letsrun.com readers.) Rather, I assume it's a much younger audience, in which case your theory isn't particularly relevant to this discussion. In fact, it rather proves my point. Women in their 30s and 40s are, evolutionarily-speaking, at their sexual peaks. So the problem isn't them . . . it's their partners. (Again, I reiterate in some cases. I know many many married men and women who are sexually very satisfied. Conversely, I'm sure that there are quite a few women with low libido, just as I'm sure that there are quite a few men with low libido.)
I'm a 30 yr old guy and I agree with this. I know guys who complain about the "post-nuptual shut off" and none look in the mirror for the source of the problem. All of them should. A lot of the guys expect way more out of their wives than the effort they give themselves.
It's like the guy who goes to a bar in flip flops & a tshirt and expects to have a chance at the lady who spent 2 hours getting ready. It just doesn't match up fellas. And then when the guy fails he just calls the gal a bad name instead of realizing that what he's offering is often the problem. That same woman likely reacts much differently to guys who offer something better.
Get Real Real wrote:
curious mind.. wrote:I don't get this. People constantly ask me when am I going to get married but never seem to ask my divorced friends or relatives when they are going to marry again.
I think it depends where you live, in California, I cannot imagine anyone asking me this question...as I have never been asked that question. In Oklahoma? If you aren't walking through the door with a pregnant wife...they probably think you play for the other team.
Perhaps this explains GF's abssence...
POD!!!!!