- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,356
- 24,252
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #41
I agree most men need a wife or partner, more than most women need a man, or partner. We don't need a crutch. Hear us roar....
Um, that's not what I meant, but ok.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Women Need Husbands
- Thread starter Unkotare
- Start date
Um, that's not what I meant, but ok.
Vox
Gold Member
- Jun 17, 2013
- 10,937
- 867
- 138
Live a life of sin then repent on your deathbed and go to heaven.
That's why I'm a Christian. It's the awesomest religion.
Oh, and Macallan 25.
you might get an unpleasant surprise if that is your plan
My unpleasant surprise will be that you're there too.
nope. you will have your own.
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,356
- 24,252
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #44
Marriage is a joke.
Speaking only for myself, marriage, at best, is boring. Very boring, which is why many husbands and wives spend so much time on their computers. They ARE more stimulating and excitin`!!!
Expecting to be entertained 24/7, or to live like a never-ending jewelry commercial is a recipe for disappointment. People need to grow up sometime.
Marriage is a joke.
Speaking only for myself, marriage, at best, is boring. Very boring, which is why many husbands and wives spend so much time on their computers. They ARE more stimulating and excitin`!!!
Expecting to be entertained 24/7, or to live like a never-ending jewelry commercial is a recipe for disappointment. People need to grow up sometime.
Yes, people need to know more about the reality of marriage, ( after that first year ) before going into it. I was not meant to be married but I enjoyed finding that out, with some pretty terrific men. Our paths changed and I wanted to stay on the one I started out on. Pretty simple, and we are still friendly and all is well. We each found what we needed.
Marriage is an institution designed to give meaning to our lives. Families will be nothing more than a pack without it.
Commitment to family is where it's at and you don't have to be married to be committed in my opinion.
Marriage is an institution designed to give meaning to our lives. Families will be nothing more than a pack without it.
I give meaning to my life, that I have designed to meet my needs. It doesn't get any better than that for someone like me.
- Moderator
- #50
Why are men not encouraged to stay home and to have their wives provide for them?
There are a handful of marriages like that out there, but that is not the way nature intended it to work.
Uncle Ferd says womens need husbands...
... to keep `em in line...
... so dey don't get onna high horse...
... an' show dey's butt...
... an' do sumpin' goofy.
... to keep `em in line...
... so dey don't get onna high horse...
... an' show dey's butt...
... an' do sumpin' goofy.
It is amazing how short our collective memories are, and how "we" have forgotten the impact of the biggest medical/cultural advance of the mid-20th century: safe, painless, and reliable artificial birth control, often referred to collectively as, "The Pill."
Ignoring the degenerates on the margins, for most of America (and Western Countries generally), before the advent of The Pill, sexual activity had to be controlled; the biological father was PRESUMED to be responsible for any offspring, whether the couple were married or not. Women could not enter into a "serious" career unless they made on overt choice not to have children, and convinced the significant others in her career that the choice had been made. Otherwise, why would you take a woman into a serious management track position? It would be stupid. She could render the whole thing worthless the minute she got pregnant. And it wasn't just the short period when she would have to be off to have a baby; you knew that she would be the primary nurturing parent for the following 20 years or so, thus rendering her an uncommitted, unreliable employee for that entire period. Every time that kid got sick or had any other significant problem, the mother would be off work tending to it.
The Pill completely changed the focus of responsibility from the man to the woman. Since she had the ability to prevent pregnancy, if she DID get pregnant it was "her fault." Although the law hasn't changed substantially (buttressed by DNA testing in recent years), in the popular culture, the "sperm donor" has no obligation to marry the mother or to play a significant personal role in raising any offspring.
Prior to 1970, any woman in the U.S. could look the world straight in the eye, and say, "I choose not to work." Her life goal could be to find a "responsible" husband who would take care of her and their joint offspring for the rest of her life. And that was a perfectly legitimate - even honorable - choice for a woman to make, even if she were a college graduate.
But now, a woman is expected not only to be a baby factory, but also to support herself, and NOT let the introduction of a child or children significantly impair her career! If she starts off with the thought that she will "not work (outside the home)" she is considered lazy and lacking ambition - or worse.
And if a woman is a baby factory and a productive person economically, then what more is a husband but an optional doo-dad? If he pleases her in some ways, that's fine, but she can get along fine without him, if need be. If she chooses to have a kid or kids on her own, the culture supports the choice, her employer is almost forced to support the choice, her family (such as it is) will not condemn her and will support her choice. Having a husband is purely an option.
Ignoring the degenerates on the margins, for most of America (and Western Countries generally), before the advent of The Pill, sexual activity had to be controlled; the biological father was PRESUMED to be responsible for any offspring, whether the couple were married or not. Women could not enter into a "serious" career unless they made on overt choice not to have children, and convinced the significant others in her career that the choice had been made. Otherwise, why would you take a woman into a serious management track position? It would be stupid. She could render the whole thing worthless the minute she got pregnant. And it wasn't just the short period when she would have to be off to have a baby; you knew that she would be the primary nurturing parent for the following 20 years or so, thus rendering her an uncommitted, unreliable employee for that entire period. Every time that kid got sick or had any other significant problem, the mother would be off work tending to it.
The Pill completely changed the focus of responsibility from the man to the woman. Since she had the ability to prevent pregnancy, if she DID get pregnant it was "her fault." Although the law hasn't changed substantially (buttressed by DNA testing in recent years), in the popular culture, the "sperm donor" has no obligation to marry the mother or to play a significant personal role in raising any offspring.
Prior to 1970, any woman in the U.S. could look the world straight in the eye, and say, "I choose not to work." Her life goal could be to find a "responsible" husband who would take care of her and their joint offspring for the rest of her life. And that was a perfectly legitimate - even honorable - choice for a woman to make, even if she were a college graduate.
But now, a woman is expected not only to be a baby factory, but also to support herself, and NOT let the introduction of a child or children significantly impair her career! If she starts off with the thought that she will "not work (outside the home)" she is considered lazy and lacking ambition - or worse.
And if a woman is a baby factory and a productive person economically, then what more is a husband but an optional doo-dad? If he pleases her in some ways, that's fine, but she can get along fine without him, if need be. If she chooses to have a kid or kids on her own, the culture supports the choice, her employer is almost forced to support the choice, her family (such as it is) will not condemn her and will support her choice. Having a husband is purely an option.
Last edited:
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,356
- 24,252
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #53
Prior to 1970, any woman in the U.S. could look the world straight in the eye, and say, "I choose not to work."
She can still do that today and many do, but what they say and have always said is "I choose to stay at home, raise my children, and care for my family." There is a difference.
- Dec 17, 2009
- 19,377
- 3,398
- 183
Prior to 1970, any woman in the U.S. could look the world straight in the eye, and say, "I choose not to work."
She can still do that today and many do, but what they say and have always said is "I choose to stay at home, raise my children, and care for my family." There is a difference.
But in the 'olden' days they had to have a husband to make that choice. They couldn't live off the government and not work.
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,356
- 24,252
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #55
If she starts off with the thought that she will "not work (outside the home)" she is considered lazy and lacking ambition - or worse.
Considered by whom?
- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,356
- 24,252
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #56
Prior to 1970, any woman in the U.S. could look the world straight in the eye, and say, "I choose not to work."
She can still do that today and many do, but what they say and have always said is "I choose to stay at home, raise my children, and care for my family." There is a difference.
But in the 'olden' days they had to have a husband to make that choice. They couldn't live off the government and not work.
What "olden days"?
Truthseeker420
Gold Member
First rule of getting a wife is don't seem desperate like saying "you need me".
Prior to 1970, any woman in the U.S. could look the world straight in the eye, and say, "I choose not to work."
She can still do that today and many do, but what they say and have always said is "I choose to stay at home, raise my children, and care for my family." There is a difference.
But in the 'olden' days they had to have a husband to make that choice. They couldn't live off the government and not work.
Men married for regular sex and women married for financial security, and along with that came a family and what came along next to end those goals, was television, then the 60's.
Zoom-boing
Platinum Member
I need a wife ... specifically a housewife. Just for a bit till everything is all caught up.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 960
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 174
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 70
- Replies
- 230
- Views
- 853
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8081
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-