wrote in message
news:1109874078.556209.19610{at}g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > In article  the tree
by the river
> > >  wrote:
> >
> > > >I suppose I'm awfully old-fashioned about these things, but
> > settling>for a guy who doesn't turn you on because you've hit a
> > particular point on the calendar doesn't sound like a recipe for
> > personal happiness--for >either the settle-er or the settle-ee.
>
> I think America is full of people miserable with
> choices that would make people ecstatic in other countries
> (and happy or at least content with choices that these
> same foreigners would find horrid.)
>
> I have friends who settled down because of a situation
> such as one guy getting hitched because there was a bun
> in the oven.  It turns out he's quite happy.  He's not
> ecstatic, I suppose, but at the same time he's probably
> more happy than he would be if he was single.
>
> Some people need deadlines otherwise they don't get anything
> done.  Sometimes, you have to settle.  The world doesn't
> always offer us everything perfect as we would like it.
> That's life.
>
> >> The trick is to be *open* to commitment - to be *open* to accepting
> a
> >> guy's offer for trew-luv-for-life even while you're young and
> *might*
> >> still be able to find a better deal.
> >
> > That's ridiculous.  You either love a person enough to be with them
> or
> > you don't.
>
> You aren't on the same page as Bernd.
>
> It's possible that a person can love someone even if that
> person isn't the best "deal" they can get.  On the contrary:
> romance is about feeling acceptance and that the other
> person won't run off the moment a better looking woman
> walks into the room, for example.
>
> In some ways, love is about "settling".  It's about compassion
> and kindness and forgiveness and giving people help that
> you wouldn't be inclined to give a stranger.
>
> >  Marrying for "offers" doesn't seem the right thing to do at
> > all, unless there exists the kind of love that defies other things.
> > Women don't need to marry young any more than men do.
>
> Ah, more denial.  It doesn't work too well, does it? :-)
>
> Men's marriage options generally improve with age while
> women's decline.  It can be said that women don't need
> marriage in general, of course, but all the fuss over
> gays wanting to join the party would seem to imply
> that marriage isn't such a bad institution after all.

That's all about money and the inheritence tax which will soon be entirely
eliminated between spouses.



>
> > Because, as many women find out the hard way, you *might* also *not*
> > find a better offer.
> >
> > And, as many men find out, the same is true for them.

Not true. A man has a large window of opportunity.



>
> Agreed.  Surprisingly.
>
> Sadly, a person's compatable mate list can sometimes be
> very short especially for the things that matter for them.
> The more time goes on, the greater probability that the
> other person has "moved on" and "settled" or found someone
> they love or just plain wound up changing into a person
> that is no longer good for a relationship with that person.
> Cupid does not encourage people to wait around.
>
> On the other hand, it's not "the same" for men even
> as you may want to pretend that it isn't.  Women
> have advantages in the dating game just as men.
> That's equality in a way.
>
> It's hilarious how you're so incredibly chauvanistic that you
> find it repugnant to give men their due even if just
> by acknowledging reality.  You really do hate men.
>
> >> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch: scouting for ever better
> men
> >> costs time, which costs attractiveness, which reduces your
> >> opportunities for finding those men.

Females go downhill FAST. By 25 their tits and asses are starting to drop
:o)



>
> Indeed.  This works great for men scouting for women since men
> generally have to hustle while for women it's a no-win
> proposition.
> >
> > Trying to portray women as being needy when it comes to marriage
> isn't
> > going to work.  Even in patriarchal Japan, young women are more
> > interested in getting careers going long before marriage.  That will
> > make the marriage date later and later for women, so if there are no
> > young women to marry, :-) the men will make their choices amongst the
> > ones that are ready.

Men only want YOUNG females. Oh. and those girls who want careers so they
can make and save money, they end up spending it on large weddings. The
Japanese have one of the highest rates of saving but it's all blown on
weddings which can cost $100,000>


>
> "no young women to marry?!?!"
>
> I doubt that's true.  There will always be young women
> available for marriage but maybe slightly less.
>
> I happen to think that declining birth rates are a good thing
> provided the proper controls are in place.  The benefits of
> a declining population including more natural resources
> becoming available and a more educated, modern workforce.
>
> However, if this is not balanced out with Western European
> style socialism OR tight controls on immigration, the
> situation doesn't last long.
>
> > After all, women don't need to marry in order to
> > have children.
>
> "Germany has much better healthcare than the US" --
> women's reproductive rights marcher, DC 2004
>
> Yep, they don't have to marry to get stuck with
> all the bills either.  See my comment about
> euro style socialism above.  Career women
> LOVE money.  I wonder how much they love
> spending it on other women to look after their
> children.
>
> "Mommy?  When can I be a client?" -- AT&T mobile commercial
>
> >>  Leave it too late and you'll either have to settle for *worse* than
> >> you (once) could have had, or do without (even without
"just" sex in
> >> many cases - there will always be younger models around for that
> >> purpose).
> >
> > Apparently not.  The "younger models" are too busy establishing
> > careers, even in Japan.
>
> I got a particular laugh about an article you cited about
> Japanese women buying their own diamond rings.
>
> That was popular initially in the states as well when
> young career women didn't worry too much about
> the lack of professional but liberal men and bought
> their own diamond rings out of spite.

I think it's a great idea :o) They should buy the man one too.



>
> The "coolness" factor of this quickly wore of as it became
> seen as similar to "combovers" for men.  "Shopping
masturbation"
> as I call it.  Women viewed diamond rings bought for themselves
> as similar to men walking about with "I'm number 1" baseball
> caps.  Also, my wife points out that it's BAD LUCK for a woman
> to buy diamonds for herself.
>

Mark, I think she made that up lol



> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/4/05 12:57:36 AM ---