@Gaashk's banner p

Gaashk


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:29:36 UTC

				

User ID: 756

Gaashk


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:29:36 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 756

Sure, and then they will not have a match, and will have very little to do with other, and any attraction will just be theoretical and not become an actual relationship. But I can't think of very many real life people who's relationships are primarily characterized by resources for sex, since they're mostly earning similar amounts before getting together, and the women have to continue working after.

I think this clarifies why I'm confused as well. Bidding a man to do something and he does it is lame. He should turn her down, but it will not lead to attraction, or she wouldn't have done that to begin with. Making fun of a woman for how short/weak she is and then helping her in a flirty way if cool and fun.

Huh. It seems like the feeling of "looking up to" a man and thinking him significantly higher status doesn't necessarily kill attraction (movie stars are attractive), but it does kill the chance of an actual relationship most of the time, he's too high status even to interact with.

I tend to disagree with this. Depending, of course on what is meant by "nice." Here's an example: Suppose you need help with something, such as moving a heavy object. So you ask someone you know if they can help you. Maybe it's the person down the hall in your college dorm. Maybe it's the person in the next cubicle at work. Most people would agree that the "nice" thing to do in this situation would be to help the person.

But when it comes to romance, if a man helps a woman in this way (and they are not already in a sexual relationship), it will reduce his chances of being sexually attractive to her.

If a woman asks a man for help and he turns her down, you think she'll be more attracted to him? Why would you think so?

Because IEPs are to mitigate genetic disadvantages, which they probably have, since their birth parents came from a worse off group. Even if the genetics are similar (though they probably have some issues there as well), if they gave them up for adoption to strangers their parents must have been unusually dysfunctional, and probably have some degree of fetal alcohol syndrome or some such issues.

Makes sense. Partying and hookups in a woman's 20s is signaling that she's wealthy and energetic enough to be able to do that, likes sex a lot, and has decent judgement that she didn't end up traumatized by it.

Women I've known who did that seem to be ending up with mixed results, since they go on to have a series of several year long relationships in their late 20s and early 30s, and it's easy to mess up the timing there. But most women I've known haven't been able to go out all the time anyway. They're working, a bit tired, and don't enjoy short term sexual relationships, which sounds like the more common female experience.

I almost entirely buy clothing online, with probably an 80% success rate, but I am quite picky and think about it for several weeks ahead of time.

Lately my preferred method of getting clothing is from Uniqlo collaborations, where they preview their items a month before the sales date, and if I still want something a month later, I generally really do want it and will wear it. Occasionally I have to send something back, which is annoying to do, more than other companies. Also their collaborations, specifically, are a bit better quality than other clothing at that price point.

I do not wear jeans at all, and still wear skirts with leggings in situations where jeans would be appropriate, because they never fit correctly.

My husband buys items in person but does not try them on, and wears literally everything he purchases for several years. This seems to be some combination of not being picky, and having the body type that most clothing is designed for.

They would probably end up with a higher proportion of IEPs than average, and possibly unemployment and welfare, though that can be hidden by mormons giving each other jobs at below market skill level.

I suppose 10? But none of us has ever been terribly worried about one another's health, other than everyone else about my brother's mental health.

According to the quiz, 27% German, 16% autistic, neither prevailing. I do seem to get along with autistic people, and am more autistic than the average basically normal woman.

If they're 25, and having babies, they're probably living on a single income, which might well be half of what they'll eventually make, even without raises.

It would be nice to have more indoor cheap kid places when the weather is bad. There are bounce and indoor playground places, but they are surprisingly expensive. These are still acceptable library programs, but not all that often.

I'd be willing to say they've been androgenized.

The current educational system isn't particularly well suited to women, as is seen by it instilling the idea they aren't ready to have children until they're 30.

We have a small SUV that fits three carseats abreast, but had to buy it new, because the used car marked was completely absurd at the time. I haven't checked on it since, as we are still paying for the existing vehicle.

We have state funded childcare.

No.

The huge SUVs can fit 6 people and aren't looked down on in the US. It's like driving a truck, except there are seats instead of the truck bed.

I someone gave me a minivan, I would have considered a fourth child, though really getting married two years sooner would have helped more with that.

No, you can absolutely fit three child seats into a standard SUV.

On the other hand, plenty of women actually like babies, especially their own. More than men who like war, probably.

Google suggests that <10% of American men served in Vietnam, of whom about 25% were drafted, whereas even now about 80% of women are having children. Apparently 10% - 15% of couples have fertility issues, though some of that might be age related. The easiest win is probably to re-normalize families with 3 - 4 kids.

You'll have better luck drafting women for war, especially since it's rare even for men.

The more society pushes women to act like men, the more like men they will act. Much of modern society heavily encourages women to act more like men in a variety of ways. Their education should be masculine, STEM oriented, and in co-ed settings. They should wear jeans and t-shirts most of the time. They should sleep around a fair bit in their 20s, and get the same jobs as their male peers. If they do choose to give birth, they should work those same jobs that are also worked by men right up until they're having contractions, and should come back when their babies are six weeks old. This is even true of women heavy professions like teaching! They're leaving their two month old infants with strangers all day to go to work. This is not appealing! But women who take a year or two off to raise their infants are also isolated, because we have no villages in much of the West. Societies that show such distain for motherhood don't deserve babies.

I suppose we could trial a military base for new mothers, where pregnant women are assigned a cohort to bond with, do exercise and nutrition classes together, and they get a housing discount or can move to a government compound with their husbands. They and their husband and baby can move around to various places where the US has interests every few years until their babies are all old enough for school. I might have signed up for that deal.

I have cats. One is a cuddle, the other a mouser; a good balance.

I want to get backyard chickens again, but do not feel up to building them an enclosure. When I had them before, they kept getting killed by dogs, and there are also mountain lions, so it might not work out. Too bad, since it solve the sad layers problem. They were very happy layers while alive. Or I could just commit to getting new not very secure hens every year? They start laying fairly quickly. I could eat them myself and also solve the sad meat chickens problem locally, but butchering is a lot of work.

Dogs are fine, but not worth the effort of boarding them when we're away. The cats just stay home for up to two weeks together, and seem OK with it

Is that how things are where you live? I haven't noticed any of those things, for the most part.

  • Child friendly restaurants - check (conversely, parents did not go to upscale romantic restaurants with their young children in the past, either)
  • Can I take my kids to a cheap townie baseball game? Yes. There's still a pizza and baseball ticket reading program for kids too.
  • Do most of the parks around here have playgrounds? Sure. Or they can climb on boulders, which is also fine. Or they can wade in a stream or river, likewise perfectly fine.
  • Do people smile at the kids in public, and ignore them when they're throwing a fit? Mostly, yes.
  • Can my kids legally play in my yard without me? Yes, though for the toddler, it should probably be in the fenced part of the yard, and not in the canyon or the driveway. Or at least, it would be actually negligent to let a toddler play there.
  • Is there enough kid-centric entertainment? Yes! Good grief! Yes, of course there is enough entertainment for them, that's why everyone's been complaining about "iPad kids" these past several years.

Not that there aren't ways the culture is less child friendly than in some other times and places. The lack of friends within walking distance is a genuine concern.

Then, when they have daughters, they can tell them about the experience, and this is how civilizations goes through various phases.