Man "Ridicules" His Date After She Reveals Her Dream Of Being A Childfree Housewife

[kilroy69 1,251]

1 minute ago, zsasz said:

 

Maybe she wants to kick it old school,  Slippers, pipe, martini when you walk in.....dinner on the table.....sex on demand.  Nothing wrong with that. 

I just can not imagine wanting to be with that type of person. To me a person who wants to stay at home all day and have someone else take care of them is not a grown up. 

[League Champion 1,911]

3 minutes ago, zsasz said:

 

Maybe she wants to kick it old school,  Slippers, pipe, martini when you walk in.....dinner on the table.....sex on demand.  Nothing wrong with that. 

Damn right. You marry that b1tch immediately 

[kilroy69 1,251]

This thread has reached 2 pages. By peenie rules I have to delete it? Or does she not do that anymore. 

[jerryskids 6,800]

27 minutes ago, zsasz said:

 

Maybe she wants to kick it old school,  Slippers, pipe, martini when you walk in.....dinner on the table.....sex on demand.  Nothing wrong with that. 

Maybe, but there would be no way to draw that conclusion when she drops it on a first date to a guy who doesn't know her.

This was part of my point -- if she had spent a few days laying the groundwork of how she is looking for a guy to dote over like this, and gauging the guy's interest in this, her final message might have had a shot.  

[Cdub100 3,909]

Dumb beotch. Hope she enjoys her cats and box wine.

[WatsonRules 46]

Lots of judgement and projection going on for someone who was honest enough to state what she wanted, and despite the certainty of some here that it could never happen unless she was Giselle Bundchen level, there would be plenty of men who would be perfectly fine with the arrangement, especially if they are the type that doesn't know how to/want to cook, clean, do  laundry, etc. There are plenty of guys out there that don't want kids and want someone to take care of their needs exclusively. If someone is capable and wants to do that for them, more power to both of them.

Also, is this really the way that normal, non-wealthy people approach marriage? Worrying about what the other person might take that they don't deserve if they get divorced? 

Sad state of affairs.

 

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

So basically she wants to be a leach. Yeah that’s not something society should be lauding

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 hour ago, TheNewGirl said:

So a woman would have to be hot in order for a man to want this too? 

There's no way an unattractive woman would find a man willing to work and have her stay home and take care of the home, cook all meals, clean house, do volunteer work, etc? 

I focking hate this so much. Unattractive women get nowhere in this society. 

If a dude wants a sugar momma he better be hung like a Pringles can or something. It does go both ways 

[listen2me 23 1,873]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Not necessarily unattractive men, but the guy needs to be some combination of rich and powerful, and preferably tall (not a dig on Gutter, he is happily married, but height is a real factor to many women).  

The woman in our story is not looking for a beta guy in a dead end, low paying job so that she can stay at home in their slum in the projects.

This is a good answer.  A guy who cannot support this lifestyle for her isn't even a possibility.  He could be the best looking guy in the city but if he doesn't make enough to support this lifestyle he is obsolete.  And if the guy isn't good looking yet makes the money there is a decent chance she runs around on him eventually.  

I respect thenewgirls views but to think it works one way is wrong. 

 

[Cdub100 3,909]

37 minutes ago, WatsonRules said:

Lots of judgement and projection going on for someone who was honest enough to state what she wanted, and despite the certainty of some here that it could never happen unless she was Giselle Bundchen level, there would be plenty of men who would be perfectly fine with the arrangement, especially if they are the type that doesn't know how to/want to cook, clean, do  laundry, etc. There are plenty of guys out there that don't want kids and want someone to take care of their needs exclusively. If someone is capable and wants to do that for them, more power to both of them.

Also, is this really the way that normal, non-wealthy people approach marriage? Worrying about what the other person might take that they don't deserve if they get divorced? 

Sad state of affairs.

 

 

So focking what if she was honest. She is living in a delusion. I know in today's world where a man can pretend to be a unicorn or woman. But this just ridiculous. She wants to be a housewife without children? 100% support that that's part of the trade-off. In fact I wish more women would make that decision. I asked my wife to make that decision but she chose to remain as a teacher. This woman like so many people these days wants to do nothing. So no society as a whole should not be okay with that do not care how honest she was being. She should be shamed

[listen2me 23 1,873]

Doesn't shonuff stay home with the kids and do chores?  He probably has big jugs.   

[TheNewGirl 1,494]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

This analogy sucks.  Attractiveness is a proxy for health/childbearing ability in women.  Just like power/wealth/strength in men is a proxy for ability to protect and raise the family.  

Then why are there so many men who don't support their own children? 

[WatsonRules 46]

One in four married couples are childless by choice. You think all of those couples have two working people?

 

I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[TheNewGirl 1,494]

15 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

This is a good answer.  A guy who cannot support this lifestyle for her isn't even a possibility.  He could be the best looking guy in the city but if he doesn't make enough to support this lifestyle he is obsolete.  And if the guy isn't good looking yet makes the money there is a decent chance she runs around on him eventually.  

I respect thenewgirls views but to think it works one way is wrong. 

 

It truly bums me out that this is the view point. 

Not good looking, then you better make a lot of money, but she will fock around on you anyways. 

Men fock around on their women as soon as she gains a few pounds. 

Why bother with marriage anymore? 

[jerryskids 6,800]

2 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Then why are there so many men who don't support their own children? 

I could answer this a few ways:

1. It's not a perfect model.  Ugly women get married, as do loser men.

2. There is some evidence that humans adapted from somewhat of a more... rapey species.  The more kids you could have, the better for passing on your genes.  While our society obviously doesn't condone rape, the predisposition to impregnate a lot of women might still linger in the gene pool.

This article happens to also very closely agree with my model of attractiveness and power.

Quote

Among scientists at the university of New Mexico that spring, rape was in the air. One of the professors, biologist Randy Thornhill, had just coauthored A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, which argued that rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, the 2000 book contended, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.

The argument was well within the bounds of evolutionary psychology. Founded in the late 1980s in the ashes of sociobiology, this field asserts that behaviors that conferred a fitness advantage during the era when modern humans were evolving are the result of hundreds of genetically based cognitive "modules" preprogrammed in the brain. Since they are genetic, these modules and the behaviors they encode are heritable—passed down to future generations—and, together, constitute a universal human nature that describes how people think, feel and act, from the nightclubs of Manhattan to the farms of the Amish, from the huts of New Guinea aborigines to the madrassas of Karachi. Evolutionary psychologists do not have a time machine, of course. So to figure out which traits were adaptive during the Stone Age, and therefore bequeathed to us like a questionable family heirloom, they make logical guesses. Men who were promiscuous back then were more evolutionarily fit, the researchers reasoned, since men who spread their seed widely left more descendants. By similar logic, evolutionary psychologists argued, women who were monogamous were fitter; by being choosy about their mates and picking only those with good genes, they could have healthier children. Men attracted to young, curvaceous babes were fitter because such women were the most fertile; mating with dumpy, barren hags is not a good way to grow a big family tree. Women attracted to high-status, wealthy males were fitter; such men could best provide for the kids, who, spared starvation, would grow up to have many children of their own. Men who neglected or even murdered their stepchildren (and killed their unfaithful wives) were fitter because they did not waste their resources on nonrelatives. And so on, to the fitness-enhancing value of rape. We in the 21st century, asserts evo psych, are operating with Stone Age minds.

https://www.newsweek.com/can-we-blame-our-bad-behavior-stone-age-genes-80349

[GutterBoy 2,899]

4 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

It truly bums me out that this is the view point. 

Not good looking, then you better make a lot of money, but she will fock around on you anyways. 

Men fock around on their women as soon as she gains a few pounds. 

Why bother with marriage anymore? 

This is the opinion of mostly failed single men.

Real men still believe in marriage, strong relationships, trust in partner, etc.

[Baker Boy 1,699]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

This analogy sucks.  Attractiveness is a proxy for health/childbearing ability in women.  Just like power/wealth/strength in men is a proxy for ability to protect and raise the family.  

No it is not! Women don’t have to be attractive to have health/childbearing ability.

[TheNewGirl 1,494]

I am sorry but did jerry just excuse deadbeat dads because of an ancient rape-gene? 

I wonder if Ancestry DNA tests for that. 

[WatsonRules 46]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

This is the opinion of mostly failed single men.

Real men still believe in marriage, strong relationships, trust in partner, etc.

The majority of the Geek Bored thinks vaginas have teeth. 

[WatsonRules 46]

1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said:

I am sorry but did jerry just excuse deadbeat dads because of an ancient rape-gene? 

I wonder if Ancestry DNA tests for that. 

Yes. It sounds a lot more sciencey than “Men just can’t help it”.

[jerryskids 6,800]

Just now, Baker Boy said:

No it is not! Women don’t have to be attractive to have health/childbearing ability.

It's a correlation, not a perfect one of course. 

What is "attractiveness" anyway?  To the extent it is objective, it includes things like smooth, healthy skin (youth), hips slightly larger than waist (child bearing), etc.  

Also, I do not find certain ethnic women to be as attractive as others because they are not from my ethnic tribe.  Others will have different opinions based on their ethnicity.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said:

It truly bums me out that this is the view point. 

Not good looking, then you better make a lot of money, but she will fock around on you anyways. 

Men fock around on their women as soon as she gains a few pounds. 

Why bother with marriage anymore? 

The whole focking around can work both ways.  Doesn't mean there aren't genuine people and relationships.  

I think the times have changed a bit honestly.  Today with social media you will have guys slip in women's DMs.  Even taken women.  Women don't slide into men's DMs at nearly the rate.  I don't have facebook anymore so maybe I am wrong here but seems like the case.  Maybe they are married guys sliding in.  

I'm just saying there is an expectation of men to have money and provide (as it should be).  Yeah ugly women have it the hardest perhaps.  But hot women have it the easiest.  An ugly fat dude is only worth a damn if he makes serious money.   

Besides, look around.  Heffers are in for more of society now than they used to be.  

[jerryskids 6,800]

5 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I am sorry but did jerry just excuse deadbeat dads because of an ancient rape-gene? 

I wonder if Ancestry DNA tests for that. 

I didn't post the entire content which is quite long but interesting.  Here is the next paragraph:

Quote

Over the years these arguments have attracted legions of critics who thought the science was weak and the message (what philosopher David Buller of Northern Illinois University called "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for heinous behavior) pernicious. But the reaction to the rape book was of a whole different order. Biologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University called it "the latest 'evolution made me do it' excuse for criminal behavior from evolutionary psychologists." Feminists, sex-crime prosecutors and social scientists denounced it at rallies, on television and in the press.

It is a contentious topic; I said "evidence" not "proof."  I was merely answering your question as to why some guys don't stick around.  It has nothing to do with excusing it.   

[Cdub100 3,909]

14 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

It truly bums me out that this is the view point. 

Not good looking, then you better make a lot of money, but she will fock around on you anyways. 

Men fock around on their women as soon as she gains a few pounds. 

Why bother with marriage anymore? 

Marriage is great to build a family. Otherwise in most cases it's a huge negative for men to get married and it's not even close.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 minute ago, WatsonRules said:

Yes. It sounds a lot more sciencey than “Men just can’t help it”.

But your honor, my great great great great great great grandfather, raped a caveman, and they had a have caveman kid, it's true it's true, so that makes me, part rockhead.

[RogerDodger 798]

@jerryskids is looking at it through the lens of a young couple just starting their careers and trying to establish themselves.  He is probably correct for the vast majority of young couples that likely live in an apartment, share a car, etc. that you would need more participation from the wife that doesn't need to take care of kids.

But, ultimately the goal is for nobody to work so you both can do whatever you want.  So if you just signed an NFL contract worth million then of course your young wife can stay home and do whatever.

 

[listen2me 23 1,873]

Just now, RogerDodger said:

@jerryskids is looking at it through the lens of a young couple just starting their careers and trying to establish themselves.  He is probably correct for the vast majority of young couples that likely live in an apartment, share a car, etc. that you would need more participation from the wife that doesn't need to take care of kids.

But, ultimately the goal is for nobody to work so you both can do whatever you want.  So if you just signed an NFL contract worth million then of course your young wife can stay home and do whatever.

 

Works really well for the young athlete to have a wife who sits home and watches the maid clean.  Makes them less likely to bltch knowing the dude is out banging sluts.  

[RogerDodger 798]

12 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I am sorry but did jerry just excuse deadbeat dads because of an ancient rape-gene? 

I wonder if Ancestry DNA tests for that. 

The reason so many people are fat is because the industrial and agricultural revolutions happened so fast, relatively, that our species has yet to fully adapt to having food at our fingertips all the time.  So yeah our old genes have a lot to do with our behaviors.  There is no doubt there is sexual drive and the need to procreate.  I buy less of a rape gene. I see it as more as a flawed gene that hasn't caught up, much like the genes that make people eat too much.  

 

[RogerDodger 798]

18 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Marriage is great to build a family. Otherwise in most cases it's a huge negative for men to get married and it's not even close.

Tax and social security advantages.  It's unfortunate, but, the government links benefits to marriage and family.  

[nobody 2,674]

2 hours ago, Baker Boy said:

Yes, beauty bias is the most prevalent discrimination in our society. Yet no one will talk about it. 
 

The market size of the plastic surgeon industry is estimated to reach USD 27.1 billion by the end of the year 2023, which is 1.98% more than in 2022.

I've talked about it.  I'm a victim of looksism.

[jerryskids 6,800]

22 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

The reason so many people are fat is because the industrial and agricultural revolutions happened so fast, relatively, that our species has yet to fully adapt to having food at our fingertips all the time.  So yeah our old genes have a lot to do with our behaviors.  There is no doubt there is sexual drive and the need to procreate.  I buy less of a rape gene. I see it as more as a flawed gene that hasn't caught up, much like the genes that make people eat too much.  

 

I don't disagree with this.  Doesn't mean it might not exist. 

[kilroy69 1,251]

1 hour ago, WatsonRules said:

One in four married couples are childless by choice. You think all of those couples have two working people?

 

 

Uhhhhh yes. Yes I do. 

[WatsonRules 46]

1 minute ago, kilroy69 said:

Uhhhhh yes. Yes I do. 

Cool. Meet me in Brooklyn right where the bridge is. Bring all the money you have, and it's yours.

[TheNewGirl 1,494]

42 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Marriage is great to build a family. Otherwise in most cases it's a huge negative for men to get married and it's not even close.

It's not necessarily a plus for women, either. 

Men these days are often just another large child that the woman has to keep up after; cleaning, cooking, supporting his career while he tries to get ahead. Sure, this can happen for the wife, but anecdotally I've seen it happen mostly with the man wanting to further his career or hobbies when the woman stays back and takes care of the kids. 

I saw a stat that said about 70% of divorces are filed by women. 

I've been married for 22 years. If I found myself single for whatever reason, I probably wouldn't date much and I wouldn't get remarried. 

[kilroy69 1,251]

8 minutes ago, WatsonRules said:

Cool. Meet me in Brooklyn right where the bridge is. Bring all the money you have, and it's yours.

According to the BLS In 2022, 3.8 percent of married-couple families had an unemployed member. 3.8 percent. Can you tell me....is that a lot? It seems like a little number. Is that a big number to you? 

 

 

Kilroy.....for the win. 

 

[Cdub100 3,909]

2 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

It's not necessarily a plus for women, either. 

Men these days are often just another large child that the woman has to keep up after; cleaning, cooking, supporting his career while he tries to get ahead. Sure, this can happen for the wife, but anecdotally I've seen it happen mostly with the man wanting to further his career or hobbies when the woman stays back and takes care of the kids. 

I saw a stat that said about 70% of divorces are filed by women. 

I've been married for 22 years. If I found myself single for whatever reason, I probably wouldn't date much and I wouldn't get remarried. 

It absolutely is a plus for most women. There is near zero risk for them to get married. At worst the come out even ( the vast majority of the time) and if there's kids involved women come out ahead 9 times out of 10. Sorry but there is no debate about this. 

[WatsonRules 46]

2 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

In 2022, 3.8 percent of married-couple families had an unemployed member. 3.8 percent. Can you tell me....is that a lot? It seems like a little number. Is that a big number to you? 

 

 

In 2022, that would be 2,340,000 couples. 

[Cdub100 3,909]

2 minutes ago, WatsonRules said:

In 2022, that would be 2,340,000 couples. 

So your answer is no that's not a big number and you are wrong.

[WatsonRules 46]

1 minute ago, Cdub100 said:

So your answer is no that's not a big number and you are wrong.

It's way bigger than the zero that was claimed earlier.

[kilroy69 1,251]

2 minutes ago, WatsonRules said:

It's way bigger than the zero that was claimed earlier.

ok ok ok. Fine. not zero. 3.8 percent. 

 

 

Soooooo your saying there is a chance? -Dumb and Dumber