Posted on 11/19/2008 6:36:46 AM PST by AJKauf
Look around you. Most men are heavier, and some are way heavier, than they were in the beginning.
The "women get fat after marriage" joke is both tired and spectacularly one-sided.
Just as I'm right in saying BOTH women and men get fatter.
Hardly, I’ve been married for 13 years and never had any issues meeting or dating women.
I also meet young women regularly with in professional and social settings to this day, and I can tell you that particularly in the metropolitan areas there are very few in their 20s that aren’t self absorbed and the majority are not remotely marriage material.
What the younger lads are dealing with today in terms of what’s out there, and frankly the women griping about the peter pan commitment phobic men generally should be looking in the mirror in my opinion.
And if you think dating requirements are the same as marriage requirements you have a much lower threshold for marriage requirements than I do. Considering going out on a date with someone is not remotely requiring the same criteria as what should be considered for marrying someone.
There are pleanty of gals that are fun to date out there, but very few of them that i would say are going to make good wives. Most 20something gals I meet are just too wrapped up in themselves to be considered serious marriage canidates.
Met my husband on line talking about civil war history. Both of us had ancestors who had been prisoners of war. We never did go on a “real” date, but it’s been a wonderful marriage.
Sometimes, the traditional dating games aren’t the best way to get to know a person. People don’t always have their “real” face on in those situations. And that real face is the one you have to deal with day in and day out in a marriage. It needs to be one you can handle on good days and bad...
The thing is, “provoking your children to anger” probably doesn’t mean what either you or your dad thought it means.
It’s pretty much a reference to inconsistent training of a child, such that he never knows when he’ll be punished or not, what the rules are, and ends up exploding in frustration one day.
>>The thing is, “provoking your children to anger” probably doesn’t mean what either you or your dad thought it means.
>
>It’s pretty much a reference to inconsistent training of a child, such that he never knows when
>he’ll be punished or not, what the rules are, and ends up exploding in frustration one day.
Really? It seems to me that is only an exaggerated form of it. I mean what about the natural tendency of parents to be more giving in their standards as they have more kids? (The cause of the spoiled youngest.)
What about incessant teasing, which is hurtful and the child has no ‘standing’ to say quit it?
But inconsistent standards are, definitely, a bad thing.
ah yes, there ARE several ways to “provoke you children to anger”, and you nailed them.
Teasing and favoritism (Joseph) are two other biggies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.