Young, unmarried, and pregnant

[Roland98]

Just wanted to discuss some issues Abe brought up in Sycophant's thread without completely making a mess of it, and allowing everyone else to chime in. So...

1) Feel free to elaborate on this:

I don't wish to make a debate out of it in this thread, but I believe that two parents tied together by a binding legal contract is the best thing for a child. If you disagree, then please discuss it with me elsewhere.

because I (somewhat) disagree. I agree that two parents committed to putting both putting their time and energy into sharing the responsibilities for raising that child are best--but I don't agree that a "binding legal contract" has a damn thing to do with it.

2) What is a "young parent" to anyone?

I don't think mid-20s is an absurd age to have a child by any stretch of the imagination (of course, maturity of the individual will always play a greater role than age, IMO). And of course, biologically it's a peak time--a woman's fertility begins to decline in her late 20's, and obviously earlier generations were wrapping up their childbearing years in their 30's rather than beginning them. As a related note, how much is your concept of the "acceptable" age at which to have kids influenced by the culture where you grew up or live in currently? I'm curious about this because my college friends (only one more of whom is even contemplating marriage at our age, much less babies) are still pretty freaked out that I have children, yet where I come from, I'm one of the late starters as far as having children, and no one finds it strange at all that I am a mom at my age.

3) This:

how can you want a child when you are young and unmarried? If you wanted a child before the pregnancy, then you wouldn't have bothered with contraceptives. You must have changed your mind after your girlfriend got pregnant. What brought about the change?

This was already answered in the initial thread, but I wanted to throw my two cents in as well. There is a difference between "not wanting children" and "not wanting children now." As Sycophant mentioned, an unexpected pregnancy, in many cases, can shift that stance.


(I know Sycophant said he didn't mind the derailment in his original thread, but I felt uncomfortable contributing further in that thread; I'm sure I'm not the only one).

[ApostateAbe]

Children take a lot of time and money. When people are in their twenties, they are still developing their careers. When they have a children, then they can't focus their time and money on their careers. They can't save and invest so well.

People in their twenties normally are not done changing their attitudes about marriage and children. When a man becomes rich and successful, he chooses much-higher-quality women. If a man chooses a woman early or have a child early, then he is stuck with her regardless of how much more desirable he becomes later.

Statistically, those who get married at the age of thirty have the best chance of staying together than any other age group. The closer you are to thirty, the better the chance.

I don't recommend marriage or having children for men. Both are ball-and-chains around a man's ankle. They lose much they get little out of it.

Youth is a time to experience many different people and relationships to get a sense of who you are and what you want. It is easy to make the wrong decision at a young age even when you are fully confident.

[Roland98]

Children take a lot of time and money. When people are in their twenties, they are still developing their careers.

They are developing their careers in their 30s, 40s, and beyond as well.

When they have a children, then they can't focus their time and money on their careers.

Incorrect. Time management simply becomes critical. One's children can be the primary focus with plenty of time left over to have a career.

They can't save and invest so well.

According to studies, people in their 20s don't save and invest very well anyway. And just by my own antecdotal evidence, I've found that people with kids actually are more fiscally responsible--saving for college, retirement, and watching their budget very closely while many other single 20-somethings are spending money on fancy cars and the like.

People in their twenties normally are not done changing their attitudes about marriage and children.

Again, this is not limited to people in their 20's. Older people change their attitudes as well. If you're waiting for some final state of certainty or stasis in attitude, it's never going to happen.

When a man becomes rich and successful, he chooses much-higher-quality women. If a man chooses a woman early or have a child early, then he is stuck with her regardless of how much more desirable he becomes later.

I really am not sure how to respond to this--the insanity of it overwhelms me. Perhaps you could define what a "high quality woman" is, to start off with.

Statistically, those who get married a the age of thirty have the best chance of staying together than any other age group. The closer you are to thirty, the better the chance.

So? You haven't explained how this "binding legal agreement" is so critical in any of this.

I don't recommend marriage or having children for men. Both are ball-and-chains around a man's ankle. They lose much they get little out of it.

Please elaborate.

Youth is a time to experience many different people and relationships to get a sense of who you are and what you want. It is easy to make the wrong decision at a young age even when you are fully confident.

I certainly agree. But once again, this is possible at any age--and the abiility to have children, unfortunately, is finite for women; as, of course, is our lifespan. If you're going to wait for absolute certainty before doing anything, you'll never do anything, period.

[godfry n. glad]

Wow.... Abe, I don't know how you got to be so androcentric in this day and age.

Yes, children take time and effort. If engendered early in one's earnings career, they can severely stifle savings and accumulation of wealth. But reputedly, reproduction is a very strong urge. Second only to survival.

You think it's a ball and chain for the man, think about the woman. It really puts a crimp on her ability to earn, particularly when the sperm donor disappears after the news of the next generation is released, which is all too often.

godfry

[wildernesse]

People in their twenties normally are not done changing their attitudes about marriage and children. When a man becomes rich and successful, he chooses much-higher-quality women. If a man chooses a woman early or have a child early, then he is stuck with her regardless of how much more desirable he becomes later.

I'd also like a definition of what a higher quality woman is. Just to inspire me to be the higher quality woman that RA would have had if he hadn't married me when he was 23. If I had to guess, I would say that becoming rich and successful doesn't make a man higher-quality, so I'm really interested in the quality definitions.

I don't recommend marriage or having children for men. Both are ball-and-chains around a man's ankle. They lose much they get little out of it.

I don't know, I think you're pretty much wrong. But then maybe my husband, dad, most male relatives and a good number of friends have different priorities than men in general.

Youth is a time to experience many different people and relationships to get a sense of who you are and what you want. It is easy to make the wrong decision at a young age even when you are fully confident.

I was never convinced that I should leave a loving, supportive, successful relationship just so I could have variety.

[viscousmemories]

Children take a lot of time and money. When people are in their twenties, they are still developing their careers. When they have a children, then they can't focus their time and money on their careers. They can't save and invest so well.

People in their twenties normally are not done changing their attitudes about marriage and children.
People's attitudes about everything are subject to change throughout their life. Why do you think people in their 20's are perfectly capable of making sound career and investment decisions yet incapable of making choices about marriage and children with the same confidence?

When a man becomes rich and successful, he chooses much-higher-quality women. If a man chooses a woman early or have a child early, then he is stuck with her regardless of how much more desirable he becomes later.
As Roland pointed out what constitutes a "much-higher-quality woman" is subjective. When I was in my early 20's I would have probably judged such a thing on physical appearance before values. Now values are more important to me than physical appearance. And in my opinion any woman who would put the highest value on my net worth doesn't have priorities that would appeal to me no matter how physically attractive she was.

Statistically, those who get married at the age of thirty have the best chance of staying together than any other age group. The closer you are to thirty, the better the chance.

I don't recommend marriage or having children for men. Both are ball-and-chains around a man's ankle. They lose much they get little out of it.
Who cares if your odds of staying together are better if you marry later when in your opinion men shouldn't marry or have children at all?

Youth is a time to experience many different people and relationships to get a sense of who you are and what you want. It is easy to make the wrong decision at a young age even when you are fully confident.
It's also easy to use this as an excuse to avoid responsibility and as a justification for being emotionally crippled and shallow. Why would you think you're objective enough to judge, given your point that 20-somethings don't have fully developed attitudes about some important life choices?

[D. Scarlatti]

Good to see Social Darwinism is alive and well.

[seebs]

If I'm getting little out of marriage, I'd be very interested in seeing what something I got a lot out of would be like.

[JoeP]

Holy crumbed mackerel, Abe.

Statistically, those who get married at the age of thirty have the best chance of staying together than any other age group. The closer you are to thirty, the better the chance.This is the most believable part of your post - but I would be interested in some hard data to back it up.

I don't recommend marriage or having children for men. Both are ball-and-chains around a man's ankle. They lose much they get little out of it.
Would you care to take this a little further? What is the conclusion of arguing this - what would a society look like where men didn't marry or have children, but which is stable over time?

I'm going to have to be bigoted and call you out for talking like a 21 year old male. (Godfry, I don't think "this day and age" necessarily has any effect on the attitudes of younger people.) Have you ever had children? Have you been married? Do you have wide experience of married couples and people raising children (you may)? Do you know men who behave as and believe in the opinions you listed - and what do you feel about them?

...

Roland: I'd define a "young parent" as some aged 20-23 at the birth; have a child earlier than that is "too young" - but in both terms, it varies enormously with the individuals. Mid-20s, as you say, is not young.

[Dingfod]

I really hate to join in on this gangbang, but you opened this:
http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/CanofWorms/main.jpg

Children take a lot of time and money.Yes they do. The last figures I heard was about $200K to raise a child from infancy to 18 years old, forget about college.
When people are in their twenties, they are still developing their careers.You generalize much. Some are developing their careers, but from what I see there are hell of a lot of them that are just fucking up, doing drugs, wrecking cars, going from job to job, or just chronic unemployment. Too many 20-somethings aren't doing anything with their lives.
When they have a children, then they can't focus their time and money on their careers.If all your focus is on is career, that will never end until retirement, as Life 101: Just Do It! says, if something is in the way of your goals set it aside or get rid of it.
They can't save and invest so well.Most 20-somethings aren't doing very good on that, most 30-somethings aren't doing that well on that, and one hell of a lot of 40,50,60-somethings lost their ass in the stock market and don't have a damn thing to fall back on.

People in their twenties normally are not done changing their attitudes about marriage and children.No shit, who is?
When a man becomes rich and successful, he chooses much-higher-quality women.Bullshit! A lot of rich men choose eye candy.
If a man chooses a woman early or have a child early, then he is stuck with her regardless of how much more desirable he becomes later.Can. Of. Worms. Man, I hope your words are tasty, for your sake.

Statistically, those who get married at the age of thirty have the best chance of staying together than any other age group. The closer you are to thirty, the better the chance.OK, I'll be the first to call you on this one, cite please, or retract. I mean, it could be true, but there really aren't that many marriages among people in their 30s as compared to the 20s.

I don't recommend marriage or having children for men. Both are ball-and-chains around a man's ankle. They lose much they get little out of it.See picture above. The payoff can be great, much greater than a rewarding career or wealth.

Youth is a time to experience many different people and relationships to get a sense of who you are and what you want. It is easy to make the wrong decision at a young age even when you are fully confident.The wisest thing you've said.

[Dingfod]

I think Abe's been hanging out at http://www.nomarriage.com/ .

[wildernesse]

I think it's interesting--I've been thinking about what Abe has said about developing a career and all that being important. And, it would be true, since I'm not graduating until I'm 27, my initial career development would last until my mid-30's.

But the kicker is that I don't want a career. I want a life. My goals in life are not to reach the top of some corporate ladder (barf), but to help people and to learn a lot. My success in life isn't dependent on how much I make or things that I own (I can hear the All-clad mocking me from the kitchen) but who I help and what I contribute to the community in which I live. My future career is just part of that and not the focus. So when children interrupt my career (as RA and I have pretty much agreed that it will, although like Roland and my mother could tell you it doesn't have to), it's not like it will be the end of my life. And I'm sure that many people who have children at my age and younger feel the same way--that children are a part of that larger life that career is also a part (and not the most important part either).

I think I'm pretty much talking about the same think that warrenly was talking about in his can o' worms post re: career focus.

[Adora]

but I believe that two parents tied together by a binding legal contract is the best thing for a child.
Because yeah, as we all know, when you get married you instantly become a good parent. It's like, god does it to you, or something.

[seebs]

I make more money working fewer hours now, focused on my family, than I did when I was focused on my career. 'cuz I'm more experienced anyway.

[Sycophant]

For what it is worth, I am certainly still developing my career, however I am certainly at a stage in it where that should require more than 40-50 hours a week of my time, and if it does I am in a strong position to change the demands on my time.

My career is sufficent to support myself, my child and my partner while the child is still in it's infancy, so my partner may be a stay-at-home mum as long as she feels it is necessary, however she is also keen to return to work in the future, and is also in a position where she can advance her career without having to make major time scarifices.

So for the idea that my desires or feelings or whatever may change in the future, that is certainly possible. But I can't see any reason why it would be any more likely to happen at my current age than it would be in ten years time. In this case, I do not think age is specifically relevant to my situation.

I realise that Abe is talking in general rather than specific details about my situation or anyone elses, however it become difficult when he takes those generalities and tries to apply them directly to my situation.

I am confident that I am as ready for this in my life now as I am ever likely to be.

So that it from my specific point of view, from here on, feel free to continue in general about theoretical couple with potential babies and possible marriages.

[Petra]

I admit to not having read this thread yet - I just got back from Rotorua a short while ago - but wanted to give a positive view on having children younger.

People who have children in their late teens/early to mid-twenties will be young enough to enjoy life after their children have grown, and be better able to begin again the financial preparation for retirement as they will still be youngish and dynamic.

Children don't have to be a *burden* and an *expense*, etc - I mean, yes they are - but that's not all they are. They are also a joy, and will teach you a great many things that will be of value to you as you pursue your lives together in unison.

Yes, there are some benefits to having children later.

There are equal benefits to having children earlier. They are just different benefits. As the saying goes; what you lose on the roundabout, you gain on the swings.

On a more personal note regarding Sycophant, the woman he loves, and the child they created - planned or not - I wish them every success with their lives and family. In my mind, their attitude and willingness to make life flexible enough to adjust their life and 'lifestyles' to new and great challenges make them worthy of respect in my book.

Sycophant you rock, honeybee - I hope your life continues to be so serendipitously wonderful. And successful, too. :)

[ApostateAbe]

They are developing their careers in their 30s, 40s, and beyond as well. When a man is in his thirties and forties, unmarried, and unencumbered with children, then he is rich and desirable.

Incorrect. Time management simply becomes critical. One's children can be the primary focus with plenty of time left over to have a career. This was in response to my assertion that, “When they have a children, then they can't focus their time and money on their careers.” You say it is “incorrect,” but the follow-up is not far from agreement with what I said.

According to studies, people in their 20s don't save and invest very well anyway. And just by my own anecdotal evidence, I've found that people with kids actually are more fiscally responsible--saving for college, retirement, and watching their budget very closely while many other single 20-somethings are spending money on fancy cars and the like.
++++++++++++++++++
You generalize much. Some are developing their careers, but from what I see there are hell of a lot of them that are just fucking up, doing drugs, wrecking cars, going from job to job, or just chronic unemployment. Too many 20-somethings aren't doing anything with their lives.
++++++++++++++++++
Most 20-somethings aren't doing very good on that, most 30-somethings aren't doing that well on that, and one hell of a lot of 40,50,60-somethings lost their ass in the stock market and don't have a damn thing to fall back on. Well, in any of those cases, people who are irresponsible with their lives should have no responsibility over the lives of children. I try to be as responsible and as successful as I can, and those I know are also likewise, and my advice is directed toward them. Besides, a man in his twenties doesn’t stay that way into his thirties and forties but a mistake about having children at a young age lasts that long.

Again, this is not limited to people in their 20's. Older people change their attitudes as well. If you're waiting for some final state of certainty or stasis in attitude, it's never going to happen.
++++++++++++++++++
People's attitudes about everything are subject to change throughout their life. Why do you think people in their 20's are perfectly capable of making sound career and investment decisions yet incapable of making choices about marriage and children with the same confidence? When people get older, they get smarter. Making a bad investment is a problem that can fixed and learned from, but having a child is something that can’t be fixed and it permanently affects a person’s life.

I really am not sure how to respond to this--the insanity of it overwhelms me. Perhaps you could define what a "high quality woman" is, to start off with.
++++++++++++++++++
I'd also like a definition of what a higher quality woman is. Just to inspire me to be the higher quality woman that RA would have had if he hadn't married me when he was 23. If I had to guess, I would say that becoming rich and successful doesn't make a man higher-quality, so I'm really interested in the quality definitions.
++++++++++++++++++
As Roland pointed out what constitutes a "much-higher-quality woman" is subjective. When I was in my early 20's I would have probably judged such a thing on physical appearance before values. Now values are more important to me than physical appearance. And in my opinion any woman who would put the highest value on my net worth doesn't have priorities that would appeal to me no matter how physically attractive she was. There is no need to define a “higher-quality woman.” It is absolutely subjective. It depends on the man. And when a man is rich and successful, he has the top picks of a large selection of women. If a man is semi-successful, he has a better chance of scoring well than he did when he was in his twenties. Variety is the point I was trying to make. Normally, the rich and successful men choose eye candy (as warrenly put it) and that demonstrates what I am talking about.

So? You haven't explained how this "binding legal agreement" is so critical in any of this. Please forgive me. It is my belief that children turn out better when they have parents who stay together over the course of growing up. A marriage contract makes them more likely to stay together. But it doesn’t need to be a legal contract if the commitment is sincere and the parents are compatible with each other.

Please elaborate.
++++++++++++++++++
You think it's a ball and chain for the man, think about the woman. It really puts a crimp on her ability to earn, particularly when the sperm donor disappears after the news of the next generation is released, which is all too often.
++++++++++++++++++
I don't know, I think you're pretty much wrong. But then maybe my husband, dad, most male relatives and a good number of friends have different priorities than men in general. What I mean by “ball and chain” is that there is no correcting what could be a mistake if a man has a child or signs a marriage contract. If there is a divorce, then the woman makes off with half the wealth, alimony, and perhaps child support. In divorces, men are the big losers because they are usually the ones making the big money. If a man has a child, then there is no escaping paying for the child unless he changes his identity or moves out of the country. If a man doesn’t pay up once he changes his mind about taking care of his kids, then he can go to prison if the wife wills it, and that would be more of a literal ball and chain.

I certainly agree. But once again, this is possible at any age--and the ability to have children, unfortunately, is finite for women; as, of course, is our lifespan. If you're going to wait for absolute certainty before doing anything, you'll never do anything, period. My advice is more concerned with men than women. Still, I think the age range of 30-35 is a sufficiently big window of time to have children, unless you wanna give birth to a large mob of rugrats like my mother did. In that case, you would have to start in your twenties.

Yes, children take time and effort. If engendered early in one's earnings career, they can severely stifle savings and accumulation of wealth. But reputedly, reproduction is a very strong urge. Second only to survival. Nah. Maybe reproduction is a strong urge for women, I don’t know. But I’d say SEX is the strong urge you are really talking about. So it is a good thing we have condoms.

I was never convinced that I should leave a loving, supportive, successful relationship just so I could have variety. Fine with me. The benefit to variety is that it offers you the means to acquire as good as you want.

Who cares if your odds of staying together are better if you marry later when in your opinion men shouldn't marry or have children at all?Men should not get married or have children because there is nothing in it for them. But if they are intent on doing either of those things, then they should do it at the age of thirty.

It's also easy to use this as an excuse to avoid responsibility and as a justification for being emotionally crippled and shallow. Why would you think you're objective enough to judge, given your point that 20-somethings don't have fully developed attitudes about some important life choices?I am too young to make permanent choices about life, so I’m playing it safe by making the best of the intelligence I have and not making risky decisions that will affect me for the rest of my life if I can make the same choices later, and I suggest that others behave similarly.

This is the most believable part of your post - but I would be interested in some hard data to back it up.
OK, I'll be the first to call you on this one, cite please, or retract. I mean, it could be true, but there really aren't that many marriages among people in their 30s as compared to the 20s. I learned it in my sociology course. You can do your own research. If it stands in opposition to what I say, then I will stand corrected.

Would you care to take this a little further? What is the conclusion of arguing this - what would a society look like where men didn't marry or have children, but which is stable over time?My concerns are about making myself and other men happy with their lives. I don’t care about the continuation of the human race.

I'm going to have to be bigoted and call you out for talking like a 21 year old male. (Godfry, I don't think "this day and age" necessarily has any effect on the attitudes of younger people.) Have you ever had children? Have you been married? Do you have wide experience of married couples and people raising children (you may)? Do you know men who behave as and believe in the opinions you listed - and what do you feel about them? No, no, some, and I am the only one I know personally who shares my opinions. I developed many of my opinions from listening to the Tom Leykis radio show. I think nomarriage.com is also cool. There are very few people in the media who are not feminist and not Christian conservatives.

If all your focus is on is career, that will never end until retirement, as Life 101: Just Do It! says, if something is in the way of your goals set it aside or get rid of it. Career is a means to an end. A person’s focus should be on making his or her self happy. Focus on the career can end as soon as one becomes sufficiently wealthy.

[JoeP]

Abe, you're making points that have some basis in reality, but you are presenting them with a very limited perspective. Do you really believe what you are saying, and are you seriously making a general recommendation to all men?
When a man is in his thirties and forties, unmarried, and unencumbered with children, then he is rich and desirable.
Big generalisation. I'm sure there are many men in such a position who don't feel that way. Generally, OK, men have more disposable income in their 30s and 40s than in their 20s.
It is my belief that children turn out better when they have parents who stay together over the course of growing up. A marriage contract makes them more likely to stay together. But it doesn’t need to be a legal contract if the commitment is sincere and the parents are compatible with each other.
The contrary situation is possible, and imo more likely: if the commitment isn't sincere or the parents become incompatible, the existence of a legal bond may result in a worse situation for the child than if the parents separated. I'm not claiming this, but I am challenging your position and I request evidence.

You're making two claims: men shouldn't have children or get married at all (fair enough; it's a decision you can make; but don't tell everyone else to make it as well); and that if you are going to have children a legal marriage is important. This latter claim you have not substantiated at all.

My concerns are about making myself and other men happy with their lives. I don’t care about the continuation of the human race.
or half of the present human race. You don't have to be a feminist to be concerned about women being happy.

[JoeP]

Statistically, those who get married at the age of thirty have the best chance of staying together than any other age group. The closer you are to thirty, the better the chance.OK, I'll be the first to call you on this one, cite please, or retract. I mean, it could be true, but there really aren't that many marriages among people in their 30s as compared to the 20s.

Too late, worn-lay:
Statistically, those who get married at the age of thirty have the best chance of staying together than any other age group. The closer you are to thirty, the better the chance.
This is the most believable part of your post - but I would be interested in some hard data to back it up.
C'mon Abe, evidence please. And be sure to distinguish first marriages among 30+ year olds from second and subsequent marriage. ("Second marriages: the triumph of hope over experience.")

[Dingfod]

When a man is in his thirties and forties, unmarried, and unencumbered with children, then he is rich and desirable.Or just old and ugly and set in his ways. One of my best friends since high school is 48 now, never married, very focused on career and is a very successful manager making well over $100K per year. He complains that wants a relationship but only get overnight stands with women in their mid to late 30s and up and he has to take Viagra to consumate those relationships. In my case, I'd have to be pretty damn rich to be desirable to a 20-something woman or she's probably too weird in tastes for me, the old Groucho Syndrome, "I don't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member." Also, I don't need Viagra.
Well, in any of those cases, people who are irresponsible with their lives should have no responsibility over the lives of children.Sometimes that is just the wakeup call they need. It was for me.
Besides, a man in his twenties doesn’t stay that way [irresponsible] into his thirties and forties...That's laughable. Just watch and episode of cops or check your local police blotter, while not so many are into the types of crime committed by youth there are way too many 30 and 40 somethings into drugs, alcohol, physical abuse, and the like. I'm constantly amazed by the number of guys my age that I encounter that are deadbeat losers just like my daughter's 20-something loser sperm donor.
...but a mistake about having children at a young age lasts that long.In the case of my friend's son that had his first and only child at age 16. He'll only be 34 when she is 18, he'll have lots of life left to focus on career and wealth if that's what he wants, right now he's a contract welder making $35 an hour (more than I make per hour). Maybe having children even younger would be better.
When people get older, they get smarter.Not necessarily, many just get set in their ways, even if those ways are completely wrong.
Making a bad investment is a problem that can fixed and learned from, but having a child is something that can’t be fixed and it permanently affects a person’s life.The truest thing you've said, you become a parent, you are a parent for life.

A 30-something friend of mine confided in me that his very career-oriented and socially-outgoing (party-loving) wife wanted to have a baby. Knowing I had kids he wanted to know if that was a good thing to do. I asked him if he and his wife liked their life the way it is right now, with the freedom to go out whenever they want, do what they want for as long as they want, and such. He said they did. I said "Don't have children, because they will change your life." I didn't mean it was all bad, there are many rewarding moments with children in your life, many, but they are kind of a pain in the butt sometimes.
There is no need to define a “higher-quality woman.” It is absolutely subjective. It depends on the man. And when a man is rich and successful, he has the top picks of a large selection of women.I wouldn't really rate someone that would marry someone just because they are rich as the best quality person, rather shallow in fact. In fact, there's a name for women like that, what is it? Gold-diggers? Pretty shallow.
If a man is semi-successful, he has a better chance of scoring well than he did when he was in his twenties. Variety is the point I was trying to make. Normally, the rich and successful men choose eye candy (as warrenly put it) and that demonstrates what I am talking about.Shallow like that.
Please forgive me. It is my belief that children turn out better when they have parents who stay together over the course of growing up. A marriage contract makes them more likely to stay together. But it doesn’t need to be a legal contract if the commitment is sincere and the parents are compatible with each other.With nearly 60% of all marriages ending in divorce, I'd say that contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. In general, children may turn out better when parents stay together, but it is possible for single-parent raised children turn out just as well, I know of many cases myself. Even more likely than where those contractually obligated parents don't get along, and age has no bearing on that.
What I mean by “ball and chain” is that there is no correcting what could be a mistake if a man has a child or signs a marriage contract. If there is a divorce, then the woman makes off with half the wealth, alimony, and perhaps child support. In divorces, men are the big losers because they are usually the ones making the big money.Men are usually much better off than the women within one or two years after a divorce for the same reason as your last sentence, they're the ones that make more money, more money means more wealth. As for making off with half the wealth, that's not usually a problem with young people with children as they usually don't have much wealth to have half of. Alimony is almost never awarded except where there are significant assets or a huge disparity in income. And there is no perhaps in child support, not if the man has a steady job he cares about keeping (that focus on career you support). But, very often, child support doesn't go anywhere near paying their share of the true costs of raising a child.
If a man has a child, then there is no escaping paying for the child unless he changes his identity or moves out of the country. If a man doesn’t pay up once he changes his mind about taking care of his kids, then he can go to prison if the wife wills it, and that would be more of a literal ball and chain.Yeah, it's horrible what they've done to deadbeats that don't own up to their personal responsibilities. I see no age discrimination in that responsibility.
My advice is more concerned with men than women. Still, I think the age range of 30-35 is a sufficiently big window of time to have children, unless you wanna give birth to a large mob of rugrats like my mother did. In that case, you would have to start in your twenties.Or in your teens like my mother did. Now she is 63 with her youngest child 40, she's got grandchildren older than you.
Nah. Maybe reproduction is a strong urge for women, I don’t know. But I’d say SEX is the strong urge you are really talking about. So it is a good thing we have condoms.I strongly recommend you use them until you become wealthy enough. You specifically, not the general you.
Men should not get married or have children because there is nothing in it for them.That is so ignorant, marriage and children can be rewarding in so many more ways than money. It is easy to focus on the bad times, most often those are all you hear about. Hardly anyone wants to listen to a father get all gooey over their wife doing this or that or their children's performance in the school pageant, but almost everyone want the lurid details of the problems of marriage and parenthood. I think someone has painted you a picture that isn't entirely accurate.
I am too young to make permanent choices about life, so I’m playing it safe by making the best of the intelligence I have and not making risky decisions that will affect me for the rest of my life if I can make the same choices later, and I suggest that others behave similarly.Listen to the all-wise, all-knowing OZ! Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.
I learned it in my sociology course. You can do your own research. If it stands in opposition to what I say, then I will stand corrected.That's not normally the way it works. Usually the one making a claim has the responsibility to back it up.
My concerns are about making myself and other men happy with their lives.Wow, someone concerned for their fellow man...
I don’t care about the continuation of the human race.... or maybe not.
No, no, some, and I am the only one I know personally who shares my opinions. I developed many of my opinions from listening to the Tom Leykis radio show. I think nomarriage.com is also cool.And we all know Tom Leykis is the ultimate authority on the subject.
There are very few people in the media who are not feminist and not Christian conservatives.If they aren't feminist and not Christian conservatives, then they automatically have exclusive hold on truth?
If all your focus is on is career, that will never end until retirement, as Life 101: Just Do It! says, if something is in the way of your goals set it aside or get rid of it. Career is a means to an end. A person’s focus should be on making his or her self happy. Focus on the career can end as soon as one becomes sufficiently wealthy.In that book they say that the source of happiness isn't the accumulation of wealth or the attainment of a goal, it is in the pursuit of a goal. Perhaps ones goal can be raising children and worrying about career and wealth after they've grown.

[Dingfod]

One of my best friends since high school is 48 now, never married, very focused on career and is a very successful manager making well over $100K per year. He complains that wants a relationship but only get overnight stands with women in their mid to late 30s and up and he has to take Viagra to consumate those relationships.I just thought of another point about my friend. The fact that he is so concerned that the women are only after his money may be at the core of why he cannot form lasting relationships and also why he can't get it up. The latter may be as much due to meeting them in singles bars as anything. Alcohol does seem to have that effect on men.

[wildernesse]

In divorces, men are the big losers because they are usually the ones making the big money.

Perhaps this is true traditionally, but among my peers (and even my parents) this is certainly not the case. ETA: Regarding men making the big bucks.

Maybe reproduction is a strong urge for women, I don’t know. But I’d say SEX is the strong urge you are really talking about. So it is a good thing we have condoms.


Maybe you're unaware that sex is the means of reproduction? The point of our biological existence is to reproduce, and so we have evolved to enjoy sex a whole lot. Also, condoms are not 100%.

[viscousmemories]

That there long post was great, warrenly. Can't say I disagree at all. :yup:

[Dingfod]

That there long post was great, warrenly. Can't say I disagree at all. :yup:I guess the Wellbutrin is working. I'm seeing more of the sunny side of life.

[Clutch Munny]

Huh. I married young and unskilled; had children after seven years of marriage; and gradually became professionalized and qualified in various socially weighty ways. Probably became better looking, too, though that may just be an artifact of regression to the mean. In short, I took on a ball and chain chosen when my pick was too limited, and started a family when I should have been focusing on my career. Man, I sure lost out!

What bullshit.

There is no Right Life Plan; what there is, is Quality of Life. And that is largely measured subjectively. Personally I would rather be poor and married for years to the quite astonishing woman who has made me consistently happy, than be rich, forty-five, and able to pick from the whole cohort of women whose criteria for an attractive male are rich, forty-five, and childless.

That's me, of course. For somebody else, getting engaged at twenty might have been disastrous. But the idea that it's somehow a matter of basic rationality that I should wish to trade 15 years of knowing my children for leather seats in the car and one size bigger bra cup in my spouse is idiotic. I might regard someone who had those values as entirely welcome to pursue them; I regard someone who thinks everyone should have those values as risible.

[Dingfod]

I think Abe is talking about more than one cup size.

[ApostateAbe]

It has been a pleasure, but I am done arguing with y'all. Everyone here but me has the same set of values and outlooks, and I can't relate to them.

[Petra]

Sadly, I think you're going to be a bitter and lonely old man in years to come, AA.

Life, love, children, adults, communities - they are all so much richer and chaotic than mere assets and contracts. You're a smart guy, but so rigid and clinical in your thinking.


If I had my life over again, I would have my children between 17 - 21, I think. I don't think we should be having children all that much after the age of, say, 35. The uterus ages with the rest of the body and a child is probably best gestated in a healthier and more youthful womb. Milk production and quality is probably better, too. And I'm sure I've seen a doco a while back making the claim that older sperm is condusive to schizophrenia in offspring.

Younger parents tire less, too. They are more likely to have the energy to juggle school, career, child and home.


And as Clutch said, I wouldn't trade the last 10 years of knowing and loving my daughter - even through the hard times - for leather car seats and tailored suits.

[Sycophant]

If I had my life over again, I would have my children between 17 - 21, I think. I don't think we should be having children all that much after the age of, say, 35. The uterus ages with the rest of the body and a child is probably best gestated in a healthier and more youthful womb. Milk production and quality is probably better, too. And I'm sure I've seen a doco a while back making the claim that older sperm is condusive to schizophrenia in offspring.

Younger parents tire less, too. They are more likely to have the energy to juggle school, career, child and home.

It's funny, I spent two and half months working on a TV show about pregnancy and babies recently, and I saw interviews with two specialist doctors who said much the same thing. They were saying that biologically speaking, younger women are far better suited to pregnancy, and are less likely to have complications. However they also noted that within our society that generally those same women are not really socially ready for that development. But that certainly isn't always the case,

[Adora]

If I had my life over again, I would have my children between 17 - 21, I think. I don't think we should be having children all that much after the age of, say, 35. The uterus ages with the rest of the body and a child is probably best gestated in a healthier and more youthful womb. Milk production and quality is probably better, too. And I'm sure I've seen a doco a while back making the claim that older sperm is condusive to schizophrenia in offspring.
Yeah, because as we know, the only requirements to raising a healthy member of humanity are biological, and old women aren't allowed to reproduce with younger men. Emotional maturity, economic stability or good relationship experience that usually comes with age and life experience are totally irrevelant.

Yeah!

Ye gods... this thread is killing me... *hedesk*

[LadyShea]

At least 1/3 of the women I met or talked to undergoing fertility treatments are there due to age. They waited to get married and have children, and their eggs are all bad. In fact, my "youth" was mentioned several times as being in my favor, so I know my doctor sees alot of women over 35.

Over 35 the chances of chromosomal abnormalities are much much higher as well.

[Petra]

Yeah, because as we know, the only requirements to raising a healthy member of humanity are biological, and old women aren't allowed to reproduce with younger men. Emotional maturity, economic stability or good relationship experience that usually comes with age and life experience are totally irrevelant.

Yeah!

Ye gods... this thread is killing me... *hedesk*


:rolleye1:

[pzmyers]

Just as a single data point, I got married at 23, and we had our first kid at 26.

We knew all the arguments here. We were both in grad school, which was hard, and then there would be postdocs, which would be hard, and then there was the business of getting our first job, which would be hard, and then we'd have to climb the career ladder, which would be hard...you get the idea. It never ends. There is never a time when you can sit back, relax, and start popping out babies without job stress or piles of non-family obligations. At least not in my experience, and I'm an old geezer now.

I expect that that moment when I can finally invest full time in thinking about the family will be when I'm on my deathbed. It'll be a little late then.

So we just said what the heck, since they're always going to be impossible to squeeze into our schedule, we might as well have 'em young, when we're tough enough to handle insane workloads.

I was also a model of discipline and restraint compared to my mother, who had me when she was 17 (yes, it's true: if you have your babies when you are young, they turn out perfect) and had 5 more over the next ten years. My parents were also happily married for 36 years. And I've been married for about 25.

[Farren]

I realise this is tangential to the actual OP, but I'd like to comment on Abe's original premise on the thread from which this sprung - that all too often "surprise" births are in fact planned by one or the other partner then masqueraded as accidents.

I have personal experience of such situations where I'm fairly certain of what went down. Before I continue, however, I'd like to provide some necessary backfill.

Backfill

First I should stress that I'm well aware that the anecdote does not the general case make. Nonetheless I believe a fair proportion of "unplanned" births spring from deliberate planning on the part of one or another of the parents, sometimes with negative consequences on one of the parent's live's.

The reason I believe this description fits a sizeable number of such births in my own country is not simply because of personal knowledge of individuals in my own life but an observation of the larger social signifiers (the gender of people in homemaking product adverts, the content of gender-specific magazines and so on) coupled to my (fairly broad) experience of South Africans.

In the country where I live, the culture of equality of the sexes is considerably behind other western democracies (by which I mean democratic former European colonies), even if only the descendants of European colonists are considered. I say "the culture" rather than "the cause" because our liberal law and underlying constitution seem way ahead of the diverse cultures here that must obey them.

I remember listening to an American on local radio three or four years back who had spent some time here taking part in various women's forums and events. The local interviewer at one point asked her why she thought feminsim had come so late to, and proceeded so sluggishly in, South Africa. Her reply, to paraphrase, was

"Well it seems under Apartheid black women with a political consciousness were far more concerned with the discrimation suffered from being black and white women had little to be concerned about at all, since they were not expected to do any meaningful work - Black women cleaned their houses, cooked their children meals and generally did all of the things that made housewifery in the traditional mode an actual job. The consequent dependency of not being a breadwinner was less of a price to pay in these circumstances and was for many white women a bargain when all things were considered."

I have observed this logic at work personally and its still at work today. There has been a surge in equality consciousness among black women but far less among white and a fair amount of the time among white women it's an opportunistic, "have your cake and eat it" interpretation. Namely a demand for equality where previously men held an advantage with an attendent demand for special treatment where traditional gender roles demand it.

That's not to say that SA men are beyond reproach. On the contrary, we're largely sexist pigs of the worst kind. Both black and white men (moreso for some ethnic groups - once again both black and white) tend to blissfuly ignore any and all concept of rational gender equality and respond to such concept only grudgingly when it is forced upon them by circumstance, in the form of a female boss, an unyielding wife and so on.

There is very little proactive seeking of equality. Gender capitalism in the extreme is practiced. Give only what is demanded.

The crap thing is that, because alpha males among us still largely behave like this, many even independently-minded women adopt the strategy not of filtering out such males, but of first snaring them, then attemting to subvert them to fit the more ideal role. This, IMHO, is inevitable and human nature, but nonetheless leads to much heartache on both sides.

Sorry for the long preamble but I felt obliged to provide a fragment of the compexity of my observations lest the comments that follow be misread as simpleminded and biased towards a narrow and unreflected subjective standpoint.

The actual meat of the post (if I recall it properly after typing the long preamble)

Many years ago a friend, A, was on the hunt for a long-term partner. He's an obsessive compulsive kind of guy who approaches every endeavour with both simplistic naivete and determination and its generally served him well but he has a surfeit of logic and a deficit of empathy, which means, even to this day, he has bugger all faculty for recognising deceit, because he takes everything on face value and intuits little.

Even in mating rituals, he was logical in an absurd kind of way. He used to practice something, IIRC, he called "The hundred hits principle", which came down to this: Whenever we went out he'd hit on every living thing with the other kind of genitalia until he got a response, simply because statistics favoured such an approach over anything more demure. This was not simple crassness. It was a calculated behaviour. Subsequent filtering for suitability was, in his estimation, was a luxury he could indulge in afterwards. It was far easier once the fly was in the web.

In any event by this method he ensnared then discarded a marvelously intelligent and complex fellow-engineer who's loss all his friends regretted - and immediately afterwards somehow got stuck on a rich man's daughter, born of a trophy wife, with great beauty but very few other endearing qualities... other than the fact that she agreed with absolutely everything he said all the time, without qualification.

The very obvious dynamic of the situation led, naturally, to some nasty commentary among his chattering and inquisitive friends, but in my later years I realised that our meddlesome criticism should have at least acknowledged the damning evidence of his own vanity in the equation if we were going to comment, which we did, at length.

His naivete was like clear glass. You could see straight through to his horny, self-centred soul. He really believed that he had met someone who had thought through everything he had and arrived at all of the same conclusions he had (he was a serious thinker when to came to "life, the universe and everything" kind of issues).

It didn't occur to him, as it did to every friend who knew him intimately, that the complete lack of dissent, or, for that matter, the complete lack of any opinion from her that he hadn't, in his ineffable wisdom, considered, was a warning sign. A sign that he was dealing with someone who did, in fact, dissent on a great many issues and had considered things at length he'd only given a moments thought to - but was ensuring that the spider was first securely snared before continuing with her plans.

Something we all, men and women friends both, saw, as clear as bright sunlight, was that she saw him as a means by which she would live the same life as her trophy wife mother. A woman fulfilled, with a fine house, every conceivable luxury, some children to make her feel like a real woman in the old way and a maid to attend to their every need, including feeding them. X, you see, was an extremely promising prospect. He is exceptionally bright (although possessed, to this day, of a low EQ) and was on the verge of completing an engineering degree, with plans to do post-graduate studies.

The reason I am entirely certain of our collective rightness is that, as the years ticked on, we were proved right on every demonstrable point. For instance, we said "X has said that he and Y have discussed his relationship with his female friends and he sees no reason why he should forego innocent friendship with them for the sake of their relationship - and similarly grants that 'luxury' to Y. He says Y agrees but that is simply a temporary measure. Watch closely - as soon as she is secure he will be allowed to speak to no other women in the intimate fashion of friends" - and sure enough, that came to pass.

Similarly, we said "X has assured us that he does not want children until he is at least thirty, on account of his career plans. He says, confidently, that Y agrees wholeheartedly, because she loves her work. He says it in the presence of Y - and she nods vigorously and affirms. But wait, another year and she'll be pregnant by hook or crook. Then she'll insist that the rift with both of their excessively religious parents is too great a damage and they must be married or be disowned. Then she'll testify to hating the work she now professes to love and he'll indulgently tell her she need not" - AND WE WERE RIGHT ON EVERY COUNT.

Now, among or circle of friends a that time we cultivated a great amount of frankness, a habit even Y adopted, despite her highly traditional mindset (I suppose if she was willing to deceive at every other level talking openly about her sex life was a small additional price). As she developed "allergies" to each different contraceptive, one by one, it was openly discussed as we all did almost everything. Finally, a year later, the diaphragm, their last resort, inexplicably failed, almost on queue, and X was suddenly the father of a son. Soon after that they were married, to prevent alienating both of their parents. X dropped out of his Doctoral studies, got a good job and a maid was hired to take care of the newborn's every need.

Shortly after, Y professed a sudden realisation that she hated her job and X indulgently said there was no need for her to work since his salary would be more than enough.

In later years she matured somewhat and at this point in time I actually get along better with her than him (they're now divorced), sinced she has an artistic and empathic bent and I am more enamoured of the arts and empaths than Vulcan-like engineers, so I recount this without present malice, only an attempt at honest testimony relevant (if only tangentially) to the topic.

They had to beautiful children who benefited enormously from their mutual talents. Their daughter, who I love dearly (she used to sit on my knee and tell me stories for hours at the age of 4 while I waited for her father to finish coding) is now 11-ish and a brighter, more charismatic child you cannot imagine.

But X is an emotional shipwreck. Because it took enormous energy out of him. Because to this day, he never quite reconciled himself to the fact that all his plans had gone so horribly wrong. That he never got the doctorate he wanted and ascended to the lofty heights of academia he desired. That in the end, with the divorce settlement and various commercial failures and the enormous cost of giving his children the best he could, so many of his dreams shattered.

He really tried and to an extent succeeded in being the best father he could be, having resigned himself to the inescapable nature of his situation - and inasmuch as his children are angels succeeded - but in the process he became a shell of himself and sacrificed all his own dreams.

He actually came right out and said it four years ago, describing the underlying mechanic exactly as I have and cursing himself for being so niave.

What's important to note here is that, out of respect, none of the friends I mentioned, myself included, ever discussed our misgivings with him, lest we were wrong and caused harm by commenting to him directly. But ten years after getting married he described to me what went down, as we speculated it was - and what the hidden motives were and how horrific the realisation was to him - and how goddamn much he resented it. How he felt that ten years of his life was stolen from him and could never be recovered.

I had some kind of a conclusion in mind when I started writing this, but I can't recall exactly what it was right now. Nonetheless, I think the tale is instructive in many ways. My observation of it has certainly given me a healthy caution.

[Farren]

Oh, wait, I actually wrote a poem about the two of them, anticipating their inevitable divorce - for which I was roundly criticised by my lefty friends and called sexist because they mistook the specific for the general (back then I was doing performance poetry and narrated it to a less than intimate audience):

Flunkies and Floozies

If an nightingale perches on your tower
and breaks into the sweetest song
Then dives into the darkest lake
Be strong, please be strong

If the forest seems to come alive
and tempts you in full bloom
remember then the undergrowth
where longer shadows loom

For look
here dancing from the west
a maiden
in her girded, beaded best
comes quickly
for she's much impressed
by men of duty
who do their best

And as you, new
careen and preen
Down, down,
around the tower
She below,
her eyes aglow
In thrall of all your manly power

A vision in your brawny brain
the road of life
stretched
clear and plain

A girl!
To keep!
To taste!
To touch!
A girl to man the midnight watch!

And she

She,
who's seen you hold the main
and is driven temporarily insane
Agrees to be your wife
For life
but no sooner have you tied the knot
than fate
will twist
the knife

For once betrothed, she gets no rest
At night she dreams of Biggie Best
She hates this filthy eagle's nest
This neighbourhood
This dirty tower
"We've been up here for years," she says
"You said it was your finest hour!"

Then
When at last, she says
"I must, must depart"
and you
with aching heart
must bid "Fairwell my lovely wife"
and she says
"Go to hell"
"And while you're at it..."
"Get a life"

Then sorrow not, good sentinel
for the loss of beauty
for such is the lot
of men of duty

[Dingfod]

Dammit Farren, stop talking about me in your thinly disguised critique. :wink:

[JoeP]

I think Abe is talking about more than one cup size.
One million cup sizes! :drevil:

[Dragar]

That was a fascinating read, Farren. I'm now completely convinced I should stay away from all women, being of the naive type myself. :)

[Petra]

Farren, your poem reminds me of a song...

You scumbag, you maggot
you cheap lousy faggot
Happy Christmas, my arse,
I thank God it's our last
etc

[JoeP]

Farren, I have to agree on your analysis of gender inequality in SA and the reasons for it.
Many years ago a friend, A,
Although his real name is ARTHUR JACKSON, 32A MILTON AVENUE, HOUNSLOW, MIDDLESEX (http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode02.htm#11)

Is A the same person you refer to as X later on? How secretive do you have to be?

I had some kind of a conclusion in mind when I started writing this, but I can't recall exactly what it was right now. Nonetheless, I think the tale is instructive in many ways. My observation of it has certainly given me a healthy caution.
I'll draw this conclusion: in a case like this one, many of the points Abe has been making do apply. His case is certainly possible. But it's instructive that the dynamics rely on the woman assuming inequality and attempting to ensnare the male. It doesn't support recommending such an approach to all men.

they mistook the specific for the general
I think there's been some of that going on in this thread too...

At night she dreams of Biggie Best
For the benefit of other readers, this is not a well-hung porn star but the home furnishing chain.

[Farren]

Farren, your poem reminds me of a song...

You scumbag, you maggot
you cheap lousy faggot
Happy Christmas, my arse,
I thank God it's our last
etc

:D
LOL! Good one! Where can I find the rest?

[edit]
Wait, was it from this? I just realised I know the song (its the Pogues & Kirsty MacColl):

It was Christmas Eve babe
In the drunk tank
An old man said to me, won’t see another one
And then he sang a song
The Rare Old Mountain Dew
I turned my face away
And dreamed about you

Got on a lucky one
Came in eighteen to one
I’ve got a feeling
This year’s for me and you
So happy Christmas
I love you baby
I can see a better time
When all our dreams come true

They’ve got cars big as bars
They’ve got rivers of gold
But the wind goes right through you
It’s no place for the old
When you first took my hand
On a cold Christmas Eve
You promised me
Broadway was waiting for me

You were handsome
You were pretty
Queen of New York City
When the band finished playing
They howled out for more
Sinatra was swinging,
All the drunks they were singing
We kissed on a corner
Then danced through the night

The boys of the NYPD choir
Were singing “Galway Bay”
And the bells were ringing out
For Christmas day

You’re a bum
You’re a punk
You’re an old slut on junk
Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed
You scumbag, you maggot
You cheap lousy faggot
Happy Christmas your arse
I pray God it’s our last

The boys of the NYPD choir
Still singing “Galway Bay”
And the bells were ringing out
For Christmas day

I could have been someone
Well so could anyone
You took my dreams from me
When I first found you
I kept them with me babe
I put them with my own
Can’t make it all alone
I’ve built my dreams around you

The boys of the NYPD choir
Still singing “Galway Bay”
And the bells are ringing out
For Christmas day

[livius drusus]

Oh man, you've never heard the Pogues' Fairytale of New York (http://www.kirstymaccoll.com/music/lyrics/fairytale_of_ny.htm)? It's just so much greatness.

Woops, crosspost. Yes, that's it, Farren.

[viscousmemories]

Just to clarify something, when I said earlier that the "live it up while you're young and unencumbered" philosophy might just be used as "an excuse to avoid responsibility and as a justification for being emotionally crippled and shallow", I wasn't trying to insult Abe.

In fact when I was in my early 20's I had exactly the same theory of relationships, and in retrospect I blame it on emotional retardation and shallowness that I've largely overcome. Maybe it's an unfair assumption, based as it is on my own experience, but I just can't imagine an emotionally mature or 'deep' person hoarding cash to save up for a hot gold digger to comfort him in his middle years.

[godfry n. glad]

Heh... yeah, I get that feeling, too. I was twenty once. My cohatibator of the time and I both swore we'd never marry. Then, she broke my heart.

Twelve years later, when I did marry, it seemed the "right thing to do" and we had fun with it. The following eighteen years were the best in my life.

Time and experience make a lot of difference.

So, pz, you're a geezer, too, eh? Beyond 50, yet?

godfry

[LadyShea]

leather seats in the car and one size bigger bra cup in my spouse

Well, we have leather seats in one car and I have bigger breasts now than then, and we married at 21. Yes, you too can have it all ;)!

Really, as has been said, there is no perfect age or perfect time to do anything.

[pzmyers]

So, pz, you're a geezer, too, eh? Beyond 50, yet?
Not yet. Still ripening. Getting better every year, and with many years yet to go, culminating in deification.

[godfry n. glad]

So, pz, you're a geezer, too, eh? Beyond 50, yet?
Not yet. Still ripening. Getting better every year, and with many years yet to go, culminating in deification.

Hmmmm...I think I've got crank down; I'm just trying to refine my skills for curmudgeon status....hadn't even considered deification. I'm not sure I'm for it; it seems everybody wants to put their beliefs in your mouth. It leaves me with a foul taste.

You seem to have prickly developed further than I. Congratulations.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

leather seats in the car and one size bigger bra cup in my spouse

Well, we have leather seats in one car and I have bigger breasts now than then, and we married at 21. Yes, you too can have it all ;)!

Really, as has been said, there is no perfect age or perfect time to do anything.

Agreed. But I've heard that most men want to trade the 40 they have for two 20s.

godfry

[Dingfod]

But I've heard that most men want to trade the 40 they have for two 20s.I've not only heard that, but have said in on more than one occasion, but I always retract it because I've come to the realization that I can't even handle one old woman, let alone two energetic young women. They would probably kill me... but, what a way to go.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey...Just start talking about geezers, and worn appears.

I couldn't agree more, warn.

Meet pz, another geezer.

godfry

(so...what the hell are we all doing in this thread?)

[Dingfod]

I'm no geezer, I'm only 14 in my mind. Easy to accomplish if I ignore my flabby aged body and right now, fortunately it isn't reminding me of how aged it is.

[Beth]

leather seats in the car and one size bigger bra cup in my spouse

Well, we have leather seats in one car and I have bigger breasts now than then, and we married at 21. Yes, you too can have it all ;)!

Really, as has been said, there is no perfect age or perfect time to do anything.

Agreed. But I've heard that most men want to trade the 40 they have for two 20s.

godfry
By the time I'm 40, hubby better be loaded to find two 20 year olds who would have him.;)
Gives me a secure smugness he cannot miss. Oh, and if her were loaded, he would not be for too long after I was done. We ball and chains are so hard on a guy.

[seebs]

Ironically, I'm sort of dating a 20-year-old. (Well, we are. Or something. But there's a 20-year-old, anyway.) And I personally find it rather intimidating. I have vague memories of what Beloved Spouse was like at that age, and I don't really think I'm up to it.

[Beth]

Ironically, I'm sort of dating a 20-year-old. (Well, we are. Or something. But there's a 20-year-old, anyway.) And I personally find it rather intimidating. I have vague memories of what Beloved Spouse was like at that age, and I don't really think I'm up to it.Actually, husband is not too keen on the idea of very young women, I think because he married me when I was so young. He likes to look, but sees no appeal in a relationship. Or maybe that is just what he tells me.;)

Anyway, your adventure sounds very fun!

[Clutch Munny]

leather seats in the car and one size bigger bra cup in my spouse

Well, we have leather seats in one car and I have bigger breasts now than then, and we married at 21. Yes, you too can have it all ;)!

Really, as has been said, there is no perfect age or perfect time to do anything.

Did I say that? What I meant to say is that I wouldn't trade anything for a spouse with leathery breasts, and one size larger seats in the car.

Sorry for the confusion.

[godfry n. glad]

Larger seats in the car?

I resemble that remark!

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

Ironically, I'm sort of dating a 20-year-old. (Well, we are. Or something. But there's a 20-year-old, anyway.) And I personally find it rather intimidating. I have vague memories of what Beloved Spouse was like at that age, and I don't really think I'm up to it.Actually, husband is not too keen on the idea of very young women, I think because he married me when I was so young. He likes to look, but sees no appeal in a relationship. Or maybe that is just what he tells me.;)

Anyway, your adventure sounds very fun!

I love twenty somethings. They are so...cute and fresh. I work with scores of them. Lovely, intelligent women. Of course, they're not interested in me, I'm the just friendly old goat at the library, not a young, valiant physician to be. I love to watch them come and go. And occasionally, I flirt.

godfry

[Soubrette]

Here's an interesting link to the BBC which seems to throw some doubt on the anecdotal and subjective feeling from a lot of men that they are fleeced by divorce:

Divorce makes men richer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3065227.stm)

Sou

[livius drusus]

Very interesting article, Sou. I wonder if such a study would yield similar results in the United States.

Yay! She's posting!