[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Warning America About Palantir: Richie From Boston

I'm not done asking questions about the killing of Charlie Kirk.

6 reasons the stock market bubble is worse than anyone expected.

Elon Musk: Charlie Kirk was killed because his words made a difference.

Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT

Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles

Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis

Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About

BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong


Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Who says men need to get married to be happy?
Source: London Times
URL Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ ... lationships/article4922052.ece
Published: Oct 19, 2008
Author: LT
Post Date: 2008-10-19 10:03:31 by robnoel
Keywords: None
Views: 3211
Comments: 124

There comes a point in every man’s life when he must check out of Guyland, wrote Martin Deeson two weeks ago in these pages. This, for those of you who missed it, is the place in a man’s life when he lives singly and without responsibility. A place where he is no longer a boy but not yet a man; where he trips over beer cans in the morning on his way out the door, and asks for the woman he wakes up with to jot down her e-mail rather than her phone number to save him the embarrassment of having to ask her name.

It’s also known as bachelorhood and, according to Deeson, the age at which he should make his way to the departure gate is 35. This is when a man should start thinking about finding a good woman and settling down. Shortly afterwards, he should also consider trading in the sports car for a Volvo, donate the Xbox to a children’s charity and decommission the DVD collection. The reward for doing so is a life of simple bliss, where he lives longer and happier, snuggled up in the warm embrace of a loving relationship.

Well, not so fast, Deeson. Not everyone feels this way. George Clooney seems to be pretty happy in Guyland. Bruce Parry, the TV adventurer, is 39, and when he’s not rampaging through the Amazon, he hangs out in a beach hut in Ibiza, partying like a dervish. In fact, Clooney shows no sign of wanting to change: when Nicole Kidman bet him $10,000 that he would be married by 40, he mailed the cheque back after his birthday, with a note saying, “Double or nothing for another 10 years”. He’s 47 now.

Readers agree. “Stay single and see her at the weekends. Man is not meant to be caged,” wrote Lucas from London. “It’s a great lifestyle choice,” wrote Rob D, also from London. “As for married men living longer, well, the indoor cat lives longer too. But it’s a fur ball with a broken spirit looking out on a world that it will never enjoy.”

And I agree, though it is becoming increasingly apparent that many people close to me don’t. Now in my mid-thirties, I am used to my mother asking where various ex-girlfriends were, but then, last weekend, she sat me down and told me that finding a “life partner” was like looking for a job: you had to be determined and focused, she said, before finishing with “and stop faffing”.

I’ve lost count of the number of times a friend’s girlfriend has taken me aside and asked me when I am going to “come in from the cold”. Usually I yawn and say, “When I meet the right person”, but even I don’t believe it any more. Truth is, I probably have met the right person, probably more than one. But I’ve been in a couple of long-termers and I’ve seen what marriage can do to my friends, and I’ve decided I am happy in Guyland and I want to hang out here longer.

This should be a bit of a worry. Under Deeson’s rubric, if I continue walking single file, I will — in a few years — be suicidally unhappy and statistically more likely to be heading for an early grave. I will drink more, smoke more and slowly go to seed. Women will stop regarding me as an “eligible bachelor” and begin seeing me as, well, a sad spinster.

Problem is, I just don’t buy it. For a start, bachelors are different now. Traditionally they can be one of two things: a toxic bachelor who spends his evenings with a bucket of KFC and a can of lager, or a career bachelor who is too busy to socialise because he is working until 3am.

Over the past five years, however, a third type has emerged. Dubbed “city adventurers” (which, I grant you, sounds a bit naff — Bear Grylls in pinstripes?), these are single men aged 25-39 with an average wage of more than £40,000. They spend their spare time eating out, going to the pub and the cinema and taking weekend breaks. They will probably ski or snowboard and, when asked, they will say they are knowledgeable about wine (though they probably aren’t).

In short, they lead interesting and fulfilling lives. “We have the time to pursue things that we really want to,” says Duncan, a 33-year-old art director who has found a new lease of life since breaking up with his girlfriend. “My friends who are settled have almost every minute of every day accounted for. Because all of my time is not taken up by a relationship, I can write that script, play some squash, chase dreams and enjoy the finer things in life.”

Too many feeble men give in to the supposed security of marriage. They see it as panacea to their problems (including, but by no means limited to, alienation, indecision, and lack of direction and motivation). “I don’t want to be the oldest father at the school gates,” lamented one friend recently, explaining why he was getting engaged to his girlfriend, who we all know will make his life a misery.

Marriage like this is for wimps. “I genuinely pity most of my married friends, who feel trapped, bored and frustrated,” wrote Mike from Hong Kong. “The only men I know who are happily married are the laid-back guys who need a woman for direction. Marriage is not a smart idea for the alpha male.”

My old flatmate, Zar, a 32-year-old lawyer, agrees: “The best thing for me is realising that I have not been panicked into thinking I have met the right person and then discovered that I have married the wrong person, with whom I have a child and am in debt and losing my hair about what school I am going to send them to.”

Being single, solvent and in charge of your own life is fun. And then there’s the sex. “When I first found myself a bachelor at 33, I hadn’t realised how much women in their mid-twenties enjoyed the company of a man of that age,” said James, 35. “More cash, more charm and more of the benefit of the trial and error of what women like.”

The fact that you probably have a flyer place that isn’t full of deadbeats playing Nintendo only adds to the appeal.

Incidentally, dating younger girls draws a curiously bitter response from single women my own age. I remind them that there is nice symmetry in this: every schoolboy remembers the moment at 15 when all the best-looking girls in his year decided they didn’t fancy their spotty-faced contemporaries and began dating the sixth-former with a Vauxhall Astra. It’s not revenge, exactly, but they started it.

There are downsides, naturally: having to go out with your married mates on a “pink ticket” when all they want to do is hit pathetic strip clubs because they are so severely rationed by their Mrs; listening to similarly aged single female friends bang on about being left on the shelf; fear of shotgun weddings.

And then there’s the part about dying early. It’s true: bachelors die younger than their married counterparts. When I dug deeper, though, I discovered this has a lot to do with smoking, drinking and diet. And if you can keep these things under control, you can hang out in Guyland, well, indefinitely.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 120.

#85. To: robnoel (#0) (Edited)

And I agree, though it is becoming increasingly apparent that many people close to me don’t. Now in my mid-thirties, I am used to my mother asking where various ex-girlfriends were, but then, last weekend, she sat me down and told me that finding a “life partner” was like looking for a job: you had to be determined and focused, she said, before finishing with “and stop faffing”.

I’ve lost count of the number of times a friend’s girlfriend has taken me aside and asked me when I am going to “come in from the cold”. Usually I yawn and say, “When I meet the right person”, but even I don’t believe it any more. Truth is, I probably have met the right person, probably more than one. But I’ve been in a couple of long-termers and I’ve seen what marriage can do to my friends, and I’ve decided I am happy in Guyland and I want to hang out here longer.

A set of attitudes brought about by militant feminism, Palimony, and disposable relationships.

Certainly the demand by women, beginning in the 1960's for equality was a just and reasonable complaint.

However, "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" followed by Andrea Dworkin (all sex with a man is rape) rejection of men and treating them as objects (Sperm Donors) to be milked for their financial worth and then discarded when things become "too onerous" resulted in a sea change of male attitudes. Yes, Chivalry is dead - and it was murdered in the night by radical feminists (many lesbians) who simply hated men for the fact of being men. So, all justifiers aside a lot of men are simply reluctant to get involved, or married, because they don't want to be taken to the cleaners, forced to support children they are not allowed to see because they were falsely accused of abuse, neglect, or worse by a bitter ex-wife looking to "get even" and with a lawyer to help. In other words they are frightened and confused. Thanks feminism. So, rather than venture into a realm loaded with land mines and misery a lot of men choose to go against their nature and remain single because they simply do not want to take on the risk of getting married only to have Suzy Creamcheese turn into Cruella DeVille.

Like a lot of the social dysfunctions in our culture this is a created dysfunction following a specific agenda. One can see in the writings of Psychiatrists, Brock Chisholm comes to mind, in the late 40's and into the 50's (and earlier with Barnhardt in the 30's) that the family was regarded as a "disease" which got in the way of controlling people.

"Brock Chisholm (1959 Humanist of the Year) was at one time head of the World Health Organization, and in the February 1946 issue of PSYCHIATRY he wrote, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition national patriotism, and religious dogmas....We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests....The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives...for charting the changes in human behavior."

(Note: Chisholm was also the founding Chairman of the "World Federation of Mental Health" in the 1950's.)

Feminism was part of the agenda to split the family up and render it dysfunctional and impotent against those seeking to establish a totalitarian world government.

While I frequently find myself in disagreement with some of Henry Makow's conclusions he does research his facts:

March 18, 2002

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"In the 1960's, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a New World Order."

Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA.

Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970's by a radical feminist group called "Red Stockings." In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in "Feminist Revolution." Nevertheless the story appeared in the "Village Voice" on May 21, 1979.

Steinem has always pretended that she had been a student radical. "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era," she told Susan Mitchell in 1997, "and that made me a Marxist." (Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130) Her bio-blurb in June 1973 MS. Magazine states: "Gloria Steinem has been a freelance writer all her professional life. Ms magazine is her first full-time salaried job."

Not true. Raised in an impoverished, dysfunctional family in Toledo Ohio, Steinem somehow managed to attend elite Smith College, Betty Friedan's alma mater. After graduating in 1955, Steinem received a "Chester Bowles Student Fellowship" to study in India. Curiously, an Internet search reveals that this fellowship has no existence apart from Gloria Steinem. No one else has received it.

In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots. ..."

The point here being that the CIA is also linked to multiple psychiatric programs, such as MK Ultra, which are aimed at mass manipulation and individual mind control. The programs, unsurprisingly enough, are run by Psychiatrists - some of whom return to "private practice" such as the one that "treated" Cliebold and Harris of Columbine fame, or Timothy McVeigh.

Returning to the main point here - the programs to destabilize the family and create social dysfunction, such as males wishing to remain single - running contrary to our natural inclinations, are all created. Rather diabolically and with malice a forethought as well.

Original_Intent  posted on  2008-11-27   15:26:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Original_Intent (#85)

A set of attitudes brought about by militant feminism, Palimony, and disposable relationships.

I would agree with your comments about about radical feminism being a corrosive factor in society, for successfully pitting females against males and screwing up a natural human desire to love and be loved and to raise a family as a natural off-shoot of that intimate love between a husband and wife. Betty Frieden was a communist first and a feminist second and nuclear family units represented a grave threat to the worship of state government so that's why she and her fellow communist travelers hitched their wagons to "feminism," imo.

I'd also add Affirmative Action, that specifically included the female gender which will be the law for the next 25 years though there was no need for such legal enshrinement at this point in society, as having a significant deleterious effect on mutually respectful long term male-female relationships flourishing today. AA continued a sense of false entitlement for females that was already fostered by abortion on demand ( men have no say on the fetus' lives they helped create) and Hollywood's promotion of Girls Just Want to Have Fun With Boy Toys slut shaping message 24/7 along with the concomitant theme of Men Are Useless and Inept and Stupid.

Both sexes lose in a society wherein socially engineering, manipulation has free rein.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-11-27   16:31:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: scrapper2 (#90)

A set of attitudes brought about by militant feminism, Palimony, and disposable relationships.

I would agree with your comments about about radical feminism being a corrosive factor in society, for successfully pitting females against males and screwing up a natural human desire to love and be loved and to raise a family as a natural off-shoot of that intimate love between a husband and wife. Betty Frieden was a communist first and a feminist second and nuclear family units represented a grave threat to the worship of state government so that's why she and her fellow communist travelers hitched their wagons to "feminism," imo.

I'd also add Affirmative Action, that specifically included the female gender which will be the law for the next 25 years though there was no need for such legal enshrinement at this point in society, as having a significant deleterious effect on mutually respectful long term male-female relationships flourishing today. AA continued a sense of false entitlement for females that was already fostered by abortion on demand ( men have no say on the fetus' lives they helped create) and Hollywood's promotion of Girls Just Want to Have Fun With Boy Toys slut shaping message 24/7 along with the concomitant theme of Men Are Useless and Inept and Stupid.

Both sexes lose in a society wherein socially engineering, manipulation has free rein.

Excellent overview. Yes the selling of sluthood as desirable has done a lot to degrade women. It is also non-survival in that people who engage in serial promiscuity catch a lot of rather unpleasant infections. I am not a prude and I think sex is a wonderful pastime that should not be reserved just for procreation (despite that being it's biological function).

As well the "macho" bragging, without accepting responsibility, about how many "bitches" one has knocked up is equally poisonous.

In the end we have several false prophets that have used as tools to further the agenda i.e., Hugh Hefner, Gloria Slimem, Betty Friedan, Paul, greasy, Guccione, et. al., ...

The Playboy model was one of irresponsibity and promiscuity - just as the same as sluthood is pushed at women in such glossy trash as "Cosmopolitan".

The "men are inept and stupid" meme seems to have more than one intent. It accelerates the break-up of the social fabric by discouraging marriage, and it is aimed primarily at "White Males" so as to fractionate along race lines and encourages White Males of taking on the mantle of "victimhood". Being a "victim" is a very very low order of responsibility and cause.

Original_Intent  posted on  2008-11-27   17:09:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: Original_Intent (#94)

so as to fractionate along race lines and encourages White Males of taking on the mantle of "victimhood".

Bullshit.

It's about not becoming a victim. Only a fucking moron walks into a plainly visible trap. You can play the game with the deck stacked against you if you want, though.

Go ahead, make a statement to The Man. Do it for the principle of fighting the eeeevil NWO. Do it for the red white and blue, I dont care. People will do what they want.

PSUSA  posted on  2008-11-27   17:39:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: PSUSA (#97)

You miss the point. There is a distinct difference in mindset between being victimized and "being a victim". Sure men are getting screwed left and right in the current toxic stew of the culture in which we, unfortunately, live, but that does not require one to take on the role of "victim". My entire point was that the current environment is one which was created and is being created to generate social dysfunction and a sense of powerlessness.

Do some women dramatize the part they've been programmed into? Well, yes.

Do some men dramatize the part they've been programmed into? Again, yes.

The distinction is that you can either be cause or at the effect of someone else's cause. I much prefer being at cause than effect. Much more empowering.

It is only natural for women to wish the same.

One can make this more complex than it really is.

For ages women were made the effect of a Patriarchal Society. A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship.

Women, understandably, got tired of being trod upon and used as sperm receptacles.

However, the claim upon justice by women simply seeking due equality was subverted, perverted, into a war upon men in order to advance a control agenda.

That, not women seeking equality, is the problem.

This is not Rocket Science. It just requires being willing to think outside the straightjacket imposed by those doing the manipulation.

People are individuals. Some behave well, and some behave badly. Gender has nothing to do with that. However, the current toxic environment of "The War Between the Sexes" is a created conflict.

If you can't make the leap to see that I cannot force you to.

Original_Intent  posted on  2008-11-27   18:16:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Original_Intent (#98)

People are individuals. Some behave well, and some behave badly. Gender has nothing to do with that. However, the current toxic environment of "The War Between the Sexes" is a created conflict.

Well said, OI! As usual, you show remarkable insight to a thorny issue that's been made to seem very complicated so the guilty social engineers won't be identified as the evil people they are for their destructive game playing.

scrapper2  posted on  2008-11-27   18:49:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: scrapper2 (#100)

People are individuals. Some behave well, and some behave badly. Gender has nothing to do with that. However, the current toxic environment of "The War Between the Sexes" is a created conflict.

Well said, OI! As usual, you show remarkable insight to a thorny issue that's been made to seem very complicated so the guilty social engineers won't be identified as the evil people they are for their destructive game playing.

Thank you for the kind words.

All problems are ultimately simple. You simply have to find the correct "why" for the problem. You know you have the correct "why" when it is a simple observation that allows the problem to be solved. The check on the proof is that if it does not allow you to resolve the problem then it is not the correct "why".

Original_Intent  posted on  2008-11-28   1:50:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 120.

        There are no replies to Comment # 120.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 120.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]