Women - your weirdest experiences with the lovely ones

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Tom Leykis (sp?) is right about one thing: if people feel they MUST get married, they shouldn't do it until their at least 30 years old and have been dating/****ing for at least 5 years.

I don't see why?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
KH, you sound like you wish these women were more goal-oriented at an earlier age. Seems a bit judgemental. Are you angry that they did not give you a go?

Nope. As previously stated, I was locked up by age 20 anyway.

If the men can enjoy a lack of relationship, e.g., Heraclitus, then why can't the ladies. They don't HAVE to be married, have children, or meet any other of society's expectations, unless they want to.

That's the problem: most of them seem to want to. They're just doing it wrong.

[Colonâ„¢]

Women *sigh*

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't see why?

JM

Most people aren't emotionally mature enough to be locked into an LTR until that age, and until you've been with someone a suitably long period of time, you really can't judge if you will be compatible long-term (5 years being somewhat arbitrary, but given the anticipated length of a marriage, entirely reasonable).

[Jon Miller]

See thread on adolescence. And from what I have seen, I could see the problems in most relationships in the first year or two. I don't think you need 5 years to determine if the needed qualities are in the relationship.

JM

[Zkribbler]

It might not be about compatibility. It might be about commitment. And a prolonged wait-and-see period of 5 year might call into question the amount of commitment present.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
It might not be about compatibility. It might be about commitment. And a prolonged wait-and-see period of 5 year might call into question the amount of commitment present.

I actually think that commitment might be the biggest thing.

And I also think that a prolonged lack of commitment doesn't strengthen the commitment in a relationship.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
See thread on adolescence. And from what I have seen, I could see the problems in most relationships in the first year or two. I don't think you need 5 years to determine if the needed qualities are in the relationship.

JM

Since the average length of a marriage that ends in divorce in the U.S. is 8 years, I'd argue that is not in fact the case.

[Pekka]

I don't see hwo you should first be together for 5 years either. Yeah, even if you have your dream partner, you're going to hit some rocks by then or before that. But if you're commited and work the relationship, with the right person, you'll move along and grow stronger, or weaker or whatever but you still remain together.

I don't see why it should be 5 years. This would be highly subjective, maybe for someone... but to me it seems a bit long, I mean... if you start dating someone when you're 16, then yeah, maybe you shouldn't get married after a year. But people over their 20s, I just don't see what the big deal is, you know someone when you live with them for a year or two, I don't see what the extra 3 years will give you, except those few conflicts you have to resolve and continue to love after that, but to me it seems like a question of commitment by then, not compatiliblity.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have to say I agree with KH, but I'm still at the age where the stuck up folks haven't gotten the picture yet.

As for me, I'd like to get married. I really don't like dating much, because I'm not going to ask anybody out that I haven't already considered, or that I don't know very well.

I think my only rule would be at least knowing them for a year or so before I ask them out. Then a year after getting engaged before marriage. Between the two totally depends on the circumstances.

[Pekka]

BG, I just don't buy that. Listen. Let's take a scientific look. Americans are FAT and getting more obese (FACT!). American marriage gets shorter and shorter (FACT!).

OHH! You want little fact checking?
BOOM!!!!

You see that, huh? And this is just 91-03, we know the real boom started in the 80s. FACT 1 PROVEN AS A FACT!!

AMerican marriages:
According to U.S. Census Bureau, people are generally getting less married and divorce rates also increased from 9 to 23 per married couples from 1960 to 1980, before declining slightly and remaining steady at 20 per 1,000 through 1998.
BOOOM!!


Hey buddy, I can go all night long. Let's just accept these both as FACTS!!

Now, with tested monkeys, we showed that the fatter the monkeys get, the more immoral they become. You see, they become sloths, it is a show of weak morality, it is a proof of weak self control that drives for more hedonistic tendencies EVEN WHEN IT IN FACT KILLS THEM!!!

So, fat incerases the immorality, and using moral theory as an underlying theory, we have empirical evidence that supports it. Not only this, but the first hypothesis, H1 The amount of obesity in society affects the divorce rate... this was proven true, but we also showed our second hypothesis true, that it also corrupts the morality of that same society.

There is a clear correlation between divorce and fat. Americans have both. Not only this, but ... it's just waste of time to argue about this BG. Waste of time. Hey, Europeans are getting fat too, less into marriage, more into divorce, more into moral corruption. ANd did I mention more fat? Yes.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Since the average length of a marriage that ends in divorce in the U.S. is 8 years, I'd argue that is not in fact the case.

Most marriages end due to lack of commitment. That is generally already present earlier, it is just that people decide to marry anyways.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Obviously obesity effects divorce rate... how many men go after some new girl because their wife is fat/etc?

JM

[Colonâ„¢]

What's the correlation with piracy?

[Pekka]

JM, no no, the moral theory explained (that was empirically then tested), that the fatter the people are, the more moral weakness they show, tendency towards hedonism. These individuals are then weak individuals when it comes to their morals and self control. Reverse, you are likely to find fat people when ever there is lack of morality going on. It is not the fat itself that causes divorce, it is just a sign, a visible sign, of lacking morals.

In US, it is quite obviousy.

Colon, I don't know. I guess there is none.