Cougars vs sugar daddies - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2010, 11:33 AM   #121
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 05:20 PM
I mean, I think its safer just, not to bother about relationships! LOL


you know, this year I have heard quite a LOT of stories of male celebs cheating, and 'in the real world' people in general who we (family) know.......again the husband or male partner - cheating!

jeeeeeeeeesas.......Im staying single!
__________________

__________________
mad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 11:41 AM   #122
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,996
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Ok, I thought you meant something else

__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 11:45 AM   #123
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 05:20 PM


Can I just say, sometimes the things you say make me feel a bit better Mrs Springsteen.........can I borrow you for a day?
__________________
mad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 11:50 AM   #124
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,996
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Aw, that's so sweet

Only if you bring a hot young guy And not an immature frat boy type
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 11:53 AM   #125
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 05:20 PM
cause I was feeling paranoid recently, and now I want to hug you.
__________________
mad1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 12:18 PM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 10:20 AM
MrsSpringsteen is good that way, mad1 . She has a knack for that sort of thing. I wouldn't despair if I were you-it may seem cliche to say this, but I truly believe it-just continue to be the best person you are. Eventually somebody will appreciate that. And those that don't, well, that's their issue .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what's interesting, and i don't have the time to cite it because i'm rushing to get on an airplane soon, is that for people who got married in the 80s and 90s and who are college educated, the divorce rate is really quite low, far lower than the 50% (in the US) that's often cited and pointed to as proof that the sexual revolution was bad for families and children. it seems that couples who are educated, who wait until they are older than 25 to get married, which likely makes them more likely to have had prior sexual experience, and who wait to have children, tend to have much more successful marriages.
Interesting study-do you happen to know at all how that compares to pre-'80s/'90s facts about the divorce rate? 'Cause my parents, who started dating in high school (1972), got married when they were 20 (1977), and stayed married up to the end of my dad's days, and neither of them went to college (they did wait a while on kids, though-I'm the oldest and I came along 7 years later).

As for the discussion at hand-I'm with financeguy, I think ultimately people who already have confused ideas about sex and love are the ones who will most likely be even more confused by whatever the media spews out in regards to that issue (after all, girls DO go to strip clubs and look at porn and things relating to nude men, too. I don't understand why if a guy goes to a strip club or a brothel once he's suddenly scarred for life on his view of women. And why wouldn't the same apply the other way?). Though I do understand where the other side has a point-was watching the CBS morning show today and they had one of those "Too Much Too Young" segments about how far children take dating and sexual things and that nowadays, complete with a child psychologist who came up with the oh-so-revelatory conclusion that each child is different and you know your child best and it's up to you and you alone to decide what's best for them (no duh, really?) and stuff like that. Not even a half hour later, I'd bet, on that same show..."And now, 'Sex and the City 2'!"

I'd also be willing to throw in there that it's hard for kids to figure out what's appropriate in terms of sex and love when they have parents who are on, like, their fourth marriage or who keep bringing home different partners every other weekend, and then those same parents try to "lay down the law" about that stuff to their kids. It's the old "Do as I say, not as I do" deal.

Having only ever had one boyfriend in my life (back when I was a teenager), and still not at all experienced in the ways of sex thus far, shall we say, though, I don't know what all I can say about some of the other stuff here. But as for the "cougar" vs. "sugar daddy" thing-I think both terms sound really stupid, personally-hearing those words out of adult mouths just screams "immaturity" to me. As long as everyone's of legal age and all that good stuff, I really don't care, it's your life, do whatever you want. I'll agree, I get a bit of an "ick" feeling when I see somebody in, say, their 70s dating someone in their 20s and will pretty much assume love isn't a factor there, but beyond that, who am I to tell them what to do?

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 01:23 PM   #127
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:20 AM
i'm going to post the whole interview, because it's interesting, but the most relevant part about divorce is in bold:



Quote:
"For Better": The science of marital unhappiness
Our divorce rate is a myth? Snoring causes breakups? A new book applies rigorous research to the modern marriage
BY MARGARET EBY

Salon
As it turns out, much of what you think about the state of the American marriage is wrong: Half of marriages don’t end in divorce; married people don’t have less sex than their single counterparts and -- surprise! -- fighting can actually be beneficial to your relationship. That is what Tara Parker-Pope, a health journalist and the woman behind the New York Times' Well blog, discovered while researching her new book, "For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage." In the book, Parker-Pope argues that the marital bond isn't nearly as mysterious as you might believe, and unlike the vast majority of authors on the subject, she uses credible scientific research to back up her claims about everything from sex to housework.

As "For Better" points out, researchers found that couples in lasting marriages have at least five small positive interactions (touching, smiling, paying a compliment) for every negative one (sneering, eye rolling, withdrawal). When the ratio drops, the risk of divorce increases. Snoring and other sleep problems can contribute enormously to marital unhappiness. How you treat your partner during the first three minutes of a fight determines whether the argument will be good or bad for your marriage -- launching a volley of personal criticisms is worse than opening up a discussion with a complaint. It’s these small but recognizable actions, claims Parker-Pope, that distinguish a marriage bound for splitsville from couples who stay together.

Salon called Parker-Pope to talk about the science behind monogamy, our mythical divorce rate and Americans' problem with arranged marriage.

How reliable is science in predicting what makes a good marriage? Isn't
 happiness something that is highly variable?

Human behavior is variable, and science can't really predict whether any one individual will be happy in a particular marriage. The scientific study of couples does identify several patterns that are consistently seen in happy and unhappy couples, and statistical analyses can identify specific risk factors for divorce. But in the end, each partner has his or her own definition of what makes a happy marriage. There are some relationships that even science can't explain.

Monogamy isn't normal among other animals, so why should we be trying for something that biology isn't telling us is absolutely necessary?

It's true that monogamy and sexual fidelity are not common in nature, but it certainly does occur. There is no other area of human behavior in which we defer entirely to biology -- if we did that, every woman would have 10 kids. The very essence of human nature is the ability to control our impulses and make choices. Almost without exception, men and women say they value monogamy in relationships. So while it isn't absolutely necessary from a biological standpoint, from a social, cultural and emotional standpoint, it's important to many people and that's why we try for it.

But popular culture must play a large role in feeding this obsession with monogamy.

It doesn't seem to be just cultural. Psychiatrist Michael Liebowitz notes that biologically our brains have evolved two distinct chemical systems for romance: One brings people together and one keeps people together. From an evolutionary standpoint, men and women need to be attracted to each other long enough to reproduce and men need to form enough of an attachment that they stick around to protect and feed the kids. 



There really isn't an evolutionary explanation for why humans stick together after children are raised. But even without a biological imperative, monogamy is consistently valued across cultures. Anthropologist Helen Fisher points out that even in most polygamous cultures, fewer than 10 percent of men choose to have more than one wife at a time. She argues that monogamy is "pretty standard" for the human species.

However, there are legal, financial and social benefits in this culture to being married. There are studies that show a difference between the two. If you look at same-sex couples who don't have the right to marry, you definitely see higher breakup rates earlier in the relationship. But once they cross the 10-year mark, or they buy a house together or adopt a child, then you get into a legal commitment. And legal ties definitely do bind us. Being legally entangled with somebody appears to help couples weather storms better than those who can just walk away.

It’s surprising that the oft-cited statistic that half of marriages now end in divorce isn’t actually true. Why do we think divorce is so much more common than it is?

The 50 percent divorce rate is really a myth. The 20-year divorce rate for couples who got married in the 1980s is actually around 19 percent. Everyone thinks marriage is such a struggle and it’s shocking to hear that marriage is actually going strong today. It has to do with how you look at the statistic. If the variables were constant, then a simple equation might work to come up with the divorce rate. But a lot of things are changing. And it is true that there are groups of people who have a 50 percent divorce rate: college dropouts who marry under the age of 25, for example. Couples married in the 1970s have a 30-year divorce rate of about 47 percent. A person who got married in the 1970s had a completely different upbringing and experience in life from someone who got married in the 1990s. It's been very clear that divorce rates peaked in the 1970s and has been going down ever since.

I also think that there's a political agenda on either side of the spectrum. There's the built-in incentive to identify crises. If you're a researcher you can study them; if you're an advocacy group you can get funding and support. There's not a lot to be gained for your cause if you say, "Everything's pretty good right now." That doesn't generate a headline or supporters or grants. You see it in all areas of social sciences, but it’s part of the reason why this crisis of the American marriage has been overstated.


You found the success of a marriage can often be judged by the way the couple retells the story of how they met. How is that?

I was listening to Michelle Obama talk about her first date with the president, and it was fascinating. She remembered an enormous amount of detail, including the flavor of ice cream she had. And you could hear the pronouns were "us" and "we," and there was so much affection in the story. It's not that if you have a bad memory of your first date that you're headed for divorce, but I think it's a useful tool to listen to yourself and your partner, and when you start to hear the negativity creep in, it's a red flag.

I was in marriage counseling at one point and the counselor wanted to hear about our first date, and I thought it was a ridiculous question. I thought we needed to talk about what's happening now, not what happened 20 years ago. And I wish she had stopped to explain that it does matter. Later, I would tell the exact same story and there would be a few little negative fingers in there. There's a big difference between saying, "We got horribly lost on our first date," and, "Of course, you didn't stop to ask for directions." It's the same first date but by the time he's being accused of not getting directions, you can tell that the relationship is going south. You can see that the structure of the relationship has changed.

A lot of people blame problems in their marriage on the notion that women want something other than what men want from a relationship. Are they right?

You look at issues men and women argue about, and it’s true that men care about sex and women care about children. And you think, are we really that separated along gender lines? But when you really look more closely at these relationships you see that a lot of these issues are not about gender, they're about power struggles. You can see evidence of this when you look at same-sex couples. They obviously don't have gender issues, but they do assume various roles and you start to see patterns for power. It's really not about male or female, it's about who has the power in the relationship. If you don't recognize that it's a power struggle then you're never going to get an even playing field.

In many ways, arranged marriages are more scientific than love
 marriages. Why are we so shocked by the idea of them?


I didn't focus on arranged marriages, but I think we tend to be shocked by arranged marriages not because we over-idealize the value of romantic love, but because some cultures that favor arranged marriages are also those that devalue women's rights. When marriages are arranged for women, they are often done so at the expense of a girl's education and opportunities, with little regard for her wishes.


But aren’t many arranged marriages just as successful as non-arranged ones?

Their success depends on your definition of successful. I have seen data suggesting that arranged marriages are just as likely or more likely to last than a love-based marriage, but it's a misleading statistic. Cultural and family pressures play an important role in sustaining arranged marriages; that doesn't mean the individuals within the marriage are necessarily happy. Certainly some, and perhaps many, are. Because of differences in social expectations and gender roles across cultures, we don't really learn much by comparing arranged marriages from one culture to love-based marriages in the U.S. 



Even in Western cultures, marriage has historically been an economic and social institution, less about love and more about practical considerations, like acquiring wealth or land, joining families, or boosting social and political connections. Those marriages were certainly stable in the sense that they didn't end in divorce. Today couples judge marital quality by a different set of rules. In the 1950s, when men and women were taking on new social and cultural roles, divorce rates began to rise because expectations for marriage changed. Suddenly marriage was less about social worth and more about personal fulfillment. This whole idea of personal fulfillment in marriage is relatively new, and it has certainly gummed up the works. Marriage is a lot more high maintenance when you've married your "soul mate."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 01:43 PM   #128
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Very good article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Quote:
But when you really look more closely at these relationships you see that a lot of these issues are not about gender, they're about power struggles.
I agree they are power struggles but I would argue that they are also very much about gender....rooted in roles and expectations and how those change over time.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 03:05 PM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Thank you, Irvine, for sharing that. Fascinating stuff-mostly a lot of common sense, too. If we're going by that research, it explains a lot about why my parents were able to stay together-they did a lot of the stuff in there that seems conductive to a happy marriage (though my dad did snore...). And of course different eras would factor in, I actually didn't think about that. That's quite a comforting, reassuring study. Yay for optimism!

I am convinced, though, that one reason for divorces in this country is that people get so caught up in worrying about other people's relationships that they neglect to nurture their own.
.
Quote:
You can see evidence of this when you look at same-sex couples. They obviously don't have gender issues
I'm with AliEnvy, I too think gender does play a role, and I think it'd even play a role in same-sex couples, too. Some couples both fit the "stereotypical" gender role, some don't, and I'd think that would cause some friction somewhere.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 02:17 PM   #130
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:20 AM
more grist for the mill, and perhaps it's neither here nor there, but i found this post interesting as well:



Quote:
The “Menaissance” and Its Dickscontents

by Will Wilkinson on August 28, 2009

This City Journal piece by Kay Hymowitz perfectly exemplifies a time-honored form of conservative argument. It goes something like this: liberal equality is just too confusing!

I think I first saw this kind of argument clearly laid out in Tocqueville. If I remember correctly, he noted that there is a kind of soothing clarity in stratified societies with brightly marked class lines. When classes are stable over generations, and there is little mobility up or down, conventions that govern class relations become settled, making it easy to know how to behave toward those above and below one’s station. Moreover, when classes are fixed and mobility is limited, there is little anxiety about improving one’s position, since there’s so little prospect for doing so. American-style democratic equality creates a pattern of unceasingly stressful striving for relative rank, and all this mobility up and down produces a confusion in manners that can lead to dangerous social frictions and resentments. It becomes too hard to know what to expect of others, or what others expect from us.

This is, as far as I can tell, Hymowitz’s argument about gender relations in the post-feminist era. Women attaining something like social equality with men has created not so much liberation as a kind of toxic confusion. When women are free to be individuals, free to want different things than other women, men can’t be sure what any particular women might want from him. To open the door for her or not!? To pick up the check or not!? To be a nice guy like she says she wants or a bad boy like she really wants?! These unresolved and unresolvable questions have led inevitably to the contemporary condition in which men are either unlovable whining sad sacks or misogynist assholes who cite a cartoon version of Darwinism to justify treating a woman as little more than an upgrade from Jergens and a sock. If we don’t like it, we only have feminism to blame. Or something like that.

Look, the phenomenon Hymowitz describes is real enough. Rapid social change inevitably makes it harder to coordinate expectations. If it is a change worth having, then the pains of adjustment are worth it. Period. That doesn’t mean those pains are unimportant. Guys do suffer uncertainty about whether or not to open doors or pick up checks. It really can be frustrating for the sensitive guy to find out he’d be more generally attractive if he learned to be a bit more of a dick.

But annoyances and disappointments suffered in the process of realizing fundamental conditions of a decent society don’t call into question the desirability of those conditions. All this vexation is a very, very small price to pay for equality. For men, it is a very, very small price to pay for the opportunity to share a life with a peer, a full partner, rather than with a woman limited by convention and straitened opportunity to a more circumscribed and subordinate role in life.
Sexual equality has created the possibility of greater exactness and complementarity in matching women to men. That is, in my book, a huge gain to men. But equality does raise expectations for love and marriage. The prospect of finding a true partner, rather than someone to satisfactorily perform the generic role of husband or wife, leaves many of us single and searching for a good long time. But this isn’t about delaying adulthood, it’s about meeting higher standards for what marriage and family should be.

I think Hymowitz’s story gives too small a part to resentment at the loss of male privilege. Many men aren’t angry and confused because they don’t know what women want. They’re angry because they want what their fathers or grandfathers had, and they can’t get it. They’re confused because they can’t quite grasp why not. I think part of the fascination for many white guys with the show Mad Men is that it is a window into an attractive (to them) world of white male dominance and privilege that has largely disappeared. It is still possible to create a traditional patriarchal household, but it’s harder than ever for men to find women who will happily play along. And, in any case, there is little assurance of the stability of this sort of arrangement, since the social esteem that was once accorded to it — which helped reinforce men’s and women’s confidence in their traditional roles within it — has largely dissipated.

To my mind, too little attention has been paid to reconsidering ideals of manhood in the age of equality. Since I was a teenager, I’ve found old-school machismo pathetic and somehow irrelevant to the problem of becoming a man. Without even knowing what or why it was, I was heavily influenced by gay culture, which provided me, and many other straight young men, a wide variety of templates for manhood that are at once unmistakably masculine, playfully ironic, aesthetic, emotionally open, and happily sexual. You can be manly and care about shoes!!! I’ll confess that I used to periodically regret my heterosexuality because there seemed to be greater scope for constructing a distinctive and satisfying male identity within gay culture. I think that’s telling. And the virulent homophobia that remains in most American dude subcultures has cut most young men off from the possibility of modeling their manhood after any of the delightful variety of types available to the homophile. And that really doesn’t leave them with much to work with. Most Americans these days seem happy enough to see women succeed as high-achieving go-getters. And who doesn’t love Tim Gunn? But most of us have not yet given up on oppressively restrictive, strongly normative conceptions of hetero masculinity. That, I submit, is what stands in the way of a real, um … renaissance for men.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 03:13 PM   #131
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Fully agreed with that last bit of bold there. Course, too, I think a discussion of just exactly what constitutes "oppressive behavior" on the part of men would help as well. Like, for instance, while I know some women really don't like men holding doors open for them, I wouldn't consider that "chauvenistic" or "oppressive" or whatever in terms of behavior-I'm honestly sure most guys who do that don't have some underlying evil motive. But then again, I do like it when a guy holds the door open for me, so maybe I'm basing that on my personal belief (I like it when anyone, male or female, holds the door open, though-I've done it for other people, too. I just find that a nice common courtesy .).

Obviously men abusing women physically or forcing them into situations they don't want to be in would qualify as oppressive behavior in the eyes of society (or most of it, anyway), but I definitely think in terms of the minor things, we should really work out what could and couldn't truly be seen as oppressive behavior. Once we learn that, that'll help solve some things. I know everyone would have their own opinions on that topic, but I'd like to think some consensus would result.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 03:35 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:20 PM
I don't mind it when a guy opens a door for me. It shows he is a gentleman and not that he is up to no good. Any guy who doesn't open doors is the one who is up to no good - as experience has taught me.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 03:43 PM   #133
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
more grist for the mill, and perhaps it's neither here nor there, but i found this post interesting as well:
Ha, not just grist for the mill....this whole article cuts to EXACTLY what I've been ineffectively blathering on about and trying to get to. Thank you.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 04:41 PM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:20 AM
i'm glad it is edifying.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2010, 05:54 PM   #135
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I assumed she meant "doing it". Five dates is fine, as long as both people are into being that intimate in the same time frame. But if you're only going through the motions because you're expecting sex as in intercourse and you will dump the person if you don't get it by some previously selected number of dates, well you can introduce yourself to Mr. Hand

That would be the generic you, no one in particular.
You know, you sometimes make these kinds of posts which appear, frankly, to be directed in a somewhat personalised way and then back off with a comment like "generic you, no one in particular" which strikes me as pure passive-aggressive posting behaviour.

Firstly, what I had said was in response to a question posed, where Mad1 asked whether most men would likely move on if there was no physical after 5 dates and I indicated that probably that would be the case. Now I had initially read "any physical" as literally "any physical", as in, any touchy-feely and not necessarily anything sexual.

As I said I took this interpretation, but upon re-reading, yes, your interpretation is probably more likely to be correct. "Getting physical" would probably more generally be deemed a euphemism for sex. But then you went off a rant for some reason even after I pointed out that I had taken a different interpretation. But I don't know, perhaps Maddie can explain what she originally meant.

Then statements like this, which, fair enough, I realise was in jest:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Springsteen
Only if you bring a hot young guy And not an immature frat boy type
...but if, say, I was joshing with Diamond or someone and went "bring me a hot young chick, but not a skanky ho", you be the first to complain. (And, actually, I'd be pretty unlikely to say such a thing, even in jest).

Just try and accept that males have feelings too, is what I'm trying to explain. 'Cos I could be wrong but I occasionally the vibe from your posts that you seem to think we don't.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com