Hyerdahl wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > > American male wrote:

> > Listen, (assuming you aren't a troll), you're in a perfect
> > position to find a mate.  You can easily start having a family
> > 10 years down the road and nobody will bat an eye.  The women
> > in their late 30's and 40's are at the end of the road.
>
> Mark is offering you advice he was unwilling to take himself.  He had
> to buy a bride from Russia.

That's "alleged" bride for you! :-)  And you make buying sound
like such a bad thing. :-)

Nearly all men "buy" their wives or sexual encounters
even if it's paying for a meal (ok, I forgot the
all important _asking_ out and then paying for the meal :-)

We can say that I (and men) "have to" buy relationships but
the other way of looking at it is that men are ABLE to
do so.  Once I accepted the sexist nature of women
and looked at my own needs, I was quite happy.
"Buying" allows mediocre men to make up for their lack of SMV.
By the same token, physically attractive men are useless
to women if they don't have something financial to offer.
This can help make us physically mediocre men feel better.

> It appears to me that this postor wants
> companionship rather than chattel, Mark.

If he's paying for companionship rather than chattel,
is that supposed to make him feel better?

> He may not be interested in
> waiting for love for ten years,

Indeed.  That's one of the advantages of "buying"
companionship or chattel: He doesn't have to watch
Bridget Jones' Diary to feel better or make up "partners."

> nor may he be interested in lording it
> over his wife, which is why you suggest waiting.

I suggested that he could AFFORD to wait.  Note that
your agenda usually leaves "het" women seeking
to be double dippers alone hence their craving
for a German socialist state to rescue 'em.

> > Also, nobody is limiting you to dating these women.
> > Look younger (down to 23 or so if you like.)  Go to
> > performing arts and art clubs with a lot of young
> > professional singles.  You'll find plenty of women
> > ready to settle down AND have the time to enjoy
> > the relationship first.
>
> Age differences may or may not be a sticking point in a relationship;

For older men dating younger women, it's usually not a
sticking point so much as an advantage.

> it depends on the maturity of the couple.  The reason Mark advises
you
> to date younger women is because he is insecure with women his own
age.

So is this an admission that older men can get hot,
younger chicks easier than an old spinsters?

>  That doesn't seem to apply to you.  Certainly, people date and marry
> out of their age bracket.
>
> > Why should you feel a need to rush when you don't need to?
>
> He is 40.  He may not want to wait for his dotage to find love, Mark.

At 40?!?!  Pot, meet kettle!

Indeed, your argument would seem to imply precisely why he's
better off dating younger women: His fertility may only
be slightly lower but hers may be much higher.  Her clock
may already have run out.

> And again, not all men are so boorish that they need to buy love or
> wait until they are 50 to seek it.

I didn't tell him to not seek it.  I said that he needn't
settle too low and rush.  Men who don't buy love are usually
called "cheap".

> However, there's no reason why he
> can't find love if he places himself in the right places to find it;
he
> doesn't seem a sexist like you.

Let's assume he's not.  Heck, let's give him even more
credit and say he's a "nice guy" who'll ask aging women out,
pay their way, listen to them talk about how equal they are
and do cooking, cleaning, and even diaper changing someday.

I know guys who went for this.  Many of them are happy
provided they don't get too "uppity" with the wife and
express opinions she disagrees with.  You claim I want
to control my wife yet the poor man who actually does
follow your advice or live how you view men should be
will ultimately wind up an "Edith Bunker" to a female Archie
(if they're lucky.)

Does he want that kind of "companionship?"

> > Indeed, you don't want such a woman especially if she's
> > older because she'll have a kid and dump you in 10 seconds.
> > And a lot of other men know it too.
>
> Again, her age isn't relevant unless you want a housefull of
children,

I know of women in their 30's who have had children and there
were all kinds of complications.  Is that "relevent?"

Hmmm, a thought just popped into my head: you argue that
women should get some kind of medal for "birthing" life
(unless she wants mommy support, then he co-created it :-)
yet at the same time, shouldn't women who really love
their children make an effort to have them when it's
most optimal for everyone's health?  Such women really
show their priorities when it comes to their children
and their career, eh?

> and there, a woman closer to 40 is not going to be as productive.
Mark
> is assuming you don't want children;  I am not assuming.

Non-sequitur.  I'm assuming he may not want children RIGHT AWAY
before _he's_ had time to settle down and become comfortable
with the risks and burdens of parenthood.

If he wants to wait a little to have children, there are plenty
of younger career women who will date him...

> Demi Moore is
> an actress who has a relationship with a much younger man, but she
has
> already had her children, and so, I would have concluded that she
> didn't want more children, but rumour has it that she is pregnant, so
> all bets are off.  :-)

So good for Demi Moore and her hot Hollywood boytoy!

But this is about normal (or at least middle class) men
and women and what's best for them.

> > F them!  You're successful in your own right and you
> > can enjoy yourself.  Don't apologize.
>
> Mark, this isn't about personal success; it's about finding love.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Pot, meet kettle!

If these women were as focused upon finding love as he was,
wouldn't this be a moot discussion?  Hmmm?  Hey, he's
got a lot of gumshoe work to do so there has to be something
in it for him.  He need not be a martyr.

> > > and be loved in return.  There are so many dating services; why
not
> try
> > > one?  Younger people use them all the time.  And remember, you
may
> have
> > > to kiss a few frogs before you meet the princess.
> >
> > Dating services are a mixed bag because a lot of
> > the same women you've met who've been golddiggers find
> > that the internet gets them a lot of hits from men.
> > Maybe not hits that are productive, but they still
> > find some satisfaction that men find them attractive.
> >
> Mark, you remind me of all those old films about Russia and the cold
> war.  The Russians never nuked us; they were not waiting to take over
> our govt., and, in the end, their economy went sour.

If you go to amazon.com and type "verona", you can probably
find a ton of books on the subject of how Soviet operatives
infiltrated the entertainment industry and Western
governments and were constantly trying to create
socialist regimes in Africa, Asia, and South America.
They also didn't build all those nuclear subs and missiles
because they were afraid of a US invasion.

In the end, their economy went sour because they couldn't
achieve a decisive enough military advantage to make an attack
worthwhile.

> So it is with
> golddiggers; it's easy to tell who they are;  they marry men for
money
> like sexist men marry them for looks.

Or non-sexist men marrying them for their looks. :-) Or heck,
men marrying them for whatever makes them happy.

Perhaps what makes a golddigger successful is precisely
that they treat the relationship with the man as people
would a customer: You don't want people who get a refill on
their coke to feel that you find the task repugnant, yes?

> They both get what they deserve.

In some cases, they don't.  This can be said of anything.

>  This man appears to want a genuine relationship and I simply don't
> think he'll have to [go] all the way to Russia to find one.

He'll "have to" do something regardless.  Whatever he does,
it should give him what he "deserves".

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/22/05 4:00:27 PM ---