Why men won't marry you

[1PeaceMaker]

Your view of older women is truly sad. You imply that woman in there late 20's and 30's have somehow become undesirable and worse, they begin to see themselves as failures. How dare you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Some women do feel like they have less options the older they get. Deal with it. It's not a complete picture of all women but I'm not advocating we bar older women from marrying.

But if they ask why men don't marry them, maybe they want less solitary hardened women, less desperate women.... just maybe a woman who hasn't been soured in her perspective on marriage and life.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Model T's worked for transportation why not go back to them?

You are dodging.

You really think the world would have been better off without my first 4 children, because they are so outdated by longer lifespans?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Getting married young and having babies young makes a heck of a lot more sense when the average life span is 40 years. It makes far less sense when the average life span is 80 years.

Preventing cancer by having babies young is still cool, as are those children.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

http://marquettewire.org/2012/11/20...rce-rates-lower-during-recession-mg1-cb2-ap3/

What’s an indicator of a healthy and improving U.S. economy? Higher divorce rates, according to Abdur Chowdhury, a professor of economics in the College of Business Administration.

 

[elohiym]

Seriously, Elo/Doormat ...

You don't call your "friend" ArthurBrain/Red77. :think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Preventing cancer by having babies young is still cool, as are those children.

According to Susan G. Koman foundation (see the link above) the cancer preventing benefits of having a baby are bestowed to woman as "old" as 35. Bang goes that theory.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You are dodging.

I didn't dodge, I pointed out that times change. What made sense 100 years ago no longer works well today. You seem to think that because our ancestors married young that is the best. It was best for them. For us today, waiting is better. Mr. Heretic has provided supporting data for this.

You really think the world would have been better off without my first 4 children, because they are so outdated by longer lifespans?

I have no idea where you get ideas such as this. I never said nor implied any such thing.

 

[elohiym]

Dol/Volt invited flak the way he went on on here and I think the guy is one seriously disturbed individual.

You are entitled to your opinion ArthurBrain/Red77.

If you can't see the blatant misogyny of Yorzhik then I can't help you by even quoting the guy. It seems clear enough to plenty others.

His daughter used to post on this website, and she is the best evidence that he isn't a misogynist.

 

[elohiym]

Why choose 21 ...

Because people like you will never agree to it and everything will stay the same, or perhaps it will force people to see the wisdom in an objective assessment of individuals instead of randomly picking ages.

Do you agree with poster Cabinetmaker that a female under twenty-one should give her baby up for adoption instead of marrying? I can't imagine any woman defending that idea.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Do you agree with poster Cabinetmaker that a female under twenty-one should give her baby up for adoption instead of marrying? I can't imagine any woman defending that idea.

Because this is SUCH a good idea: Teen Mom

 

[1PeaceMaker]

According to Susan G. Koman foundation (see the link above) the cancer preventing benefits of having a baby are bestowed to woman as "old" as 35. Bang goes that theory.

Studies have shown that a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is related to her exposure to hormones that are produced by her ovaries (endogenous estrogen and progesterone). Reproductive factors that increase the duration and/or levels of exposure to ovarian hormones, which stimulate cell growth, have been associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. These factors include early onset of menstruation, late onset of menopause, later age at first pregnancy, and never having given birth.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/reproductive-history-fact-sheet

 

[CabinetMaker]

Studies have shown that a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is related to her exposure to hormones that are produced by her ovaries (endogenous estrogen and progesterone). Reproductive factors that increase the duration and/or levels of exposure to ovarian hormones, which stimulate cell growth, have been associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. These factors include early onset of menstruation, late onset of menopause, later age at first pregnancy, and never having given birth.

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/reproductive-history-fact-sheet

"Later age at first pregnancy" has been found to be after age 35.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I didn't dodge, I pointed out that times change. What made sense 100 years ago no longer works well today. You seem to think that because our ancestors married young that is the best. It was best for them. For us today, waiting is better. Mr. Heretic has provided supporting data for this.

I have no idea where you get ideas such as this. I never said nor implied any such thing.

Your implication is that early childbearing is outdated, which naturally implies the world is better off without those children, such as my first 4.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

"Later age at first pregnancy" has been found to be after age 35.

Patently false. The number of ovulatory cycles is associated with breast cancer risk. Says the CDC you respect. Therefor the earlier and more kids, the less risk.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Patently false. The number of ovulatory cycles is associated with breast cancer risk. Says the CDC you respect. Therefor the earlier and more kids, the less risk.

Here is a link for the Susan Komen breast cancer site. The link points out that "later age at first pregnancy" is after age 35. Interesting that you "missed" that point.
Women who give birth to their first child at age 35 or younger tend to get a protective benefit from pregnancy.
As I said, bang goes your theory.

 

[elohiym]

"Later age at first pregnancy" has been found to be after age 35.

Don't be obtuse. Read:

Early age at first full-term pregnancy: Women who have their first full-term pregnancy at an early age have a decreased risk of developing breast cancer later in life. For example, in women who have a first full-term pregnancy before age 20, the risk of developing breast cancer is about half that of women whose first full-term pregnancy occurs after the age of 30 (4). This risk reduction is limited to hormone receptor-positive breast cancer; age at first full-term pregnancy does not appear to affect the risk of hormone receptor-negative breast cancer (5, 6).​

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Because this is SUCH a good idea: Teen Mom

So instead of having a mom and dad you'd deny those babies both. What a fix. Instead of uniting the parents. You tear them all apart with that idea. Good times.

God never gave that idea. God put mom and babe together - not for you to tear them apart. Breastmilk is the clearest evidence they belong together. And children need their fathers, too.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your implication is that early childbearing is outdated, which naturally implies the world is better off without those children, such as my first 4.

No, that is a straw man argument you have created to argue against. I made no such implication. I said, quite plainly, that in today's society, waiting to have children until your 20's makes much more sense than having babies in your teens. As a general rule. As with all matters of human affairs, there are exceptions. Both good and bad.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Here is a link for the Susan Komen breast cancer site. The link points out that "later age at first pregnancy" is after age 35. Interesting that you "missed" that point.
Women who give birth to their first child at age 35 or younger tend to get a protective benefit from pregnancy.
As I said, bang goes your theory.

A CDC quote is what you are arguing with. I'll box it for you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So instead of having a mom and dad you'd deny those babies both. What a fix. Instead of uniting the parents. You tear them all apart with that idea. Good times.

You assume they were united in the first place. Instead I recommend that the baby goes to a family with a mom and a dad.

God never gave that idea. God put mom and babe together - not for you to tear them apart. Breastmilk is the clearest evidence they belong together. And children need their fathers, too.

Most teen fathers are not around. The completely abandon their pregnant girl friend. Not what God intended but there it is. A cold hard fact. God intended mother and child to be together. But then God intended that married couples have babies. Single teen mothers don't have that, do they. There are times in life where a mother giving up her child to adoption is the best thing for both the mother and child. It gives the child a home that they can grow up in safely and well loved (we hope) and it gives the mother a chance to grow up and become a woman better prepared to care for her future children (we hope).