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.

> 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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



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