To paraphrase Kay Hymowitz, I guess these "women-girls" are afraid of their "authentic selves".

Acting like people who defy gender norms are somehow less ambitious, less talented, or generally dissatisfied with their lives is being tossed around more and more, for both men and women.

FYI, that guy Chris, who says, "She'll come back to me when she's 37" is an idiot.

Holy Bullshit, Batman!

Reminds me of the, woman over 40 is more likely to die in a terrorist attack than get married, "factoid."

Yo, Chris. Take a hint. Look elsewhere, or stick with your hand. You're not getting any younger yourself.

Correct, Jessica. I can only imagine what young women must feel when they hear these gender stereotypes repeated. Women don't need men and shouldn't settle for "the nearest douchebag." And men don't need women, and most young men are not looking for a damsel in distress to marry. This is nonsense.

I believe that most adults, both men and women, at whatever age, are looking to be in a committed relationship with someone with whom they are sexually and otherwise attracted. Not all, certainly, but certainly most. That doesn't mean anyone should "settle" for someone they don't love.

This message spills over to the guys, too, you know. The last thing young men need to hear is that a woman
"needs" them, that they are still expected by society -- by women -- to be the macho "breadwinner" who will take care of his wife. It is attitudes like this that preclude men from being stay-at-home dads -- society tells men they HAVE to be the "breadwinner." Talk about gender stereotypes tying us down!

"That doesn't mean anyone should "settle" for someone they don't love."

I understand your point, Tim, and I wish the same for people, but I feel it necessary to point out that not everyone has equal access to desirable partners (has it ever been demonstrated there are enough?) through no fault of their own, and *lasting* romantic love at least, is a fairly recent concept, inspired by fairy tales and romance movies.

Chris in the OP, should consider himself lucky to have found himself with a doctor, however temporary, even IF he were a nice guy.

I think that picture of yours really says it all. And that face is amazing on about 50 different levels. Thank you.

Because *sniff, sniff* woe is me, a 39 year old male rookie nurse like myself who blew through his savings to go back to school, will probably never date or marry a lady doctor, if she considers her future.

So much of the 'settling' talk seems to be not only about marrying someone you might not love, but about marrying someone you might not even like very much. And isn't that a recipe for disaster? Place a bookmark in articles like these when people try to suggest that feminists hate men, because it's the anti-feminists who seem to come up with the rules that will make both men and women the most unhappy. Do people really need to be reminded that it's more important to truly care for the person you choose to be your partner? Rather than just make a desperate grab and hope for the best?

Happiness is not a one-stop shop. I don't understand the trend in America to disallow other people's lives if they don't follow a set agenda. I'm married. I love being married. But I wouldn't for a second suggest that it's the only way for anyone else to be happy. It isn't.

I pretty much figured that public meltdowns jumped the shark last week. She could have shortened the whole thing to, "Chris won't return my calls, so I'm going to show him."

Sadly, it seems there are women out there that agree with this. I've lost count of how many times I've read a personals ad from a woman in her early 30s who is desperate to marry and have kids before it's "too late."

I've learned to recognise those ads from the subject line and avoid them.

(For the record, I'm 31 and never married.)

The scariest part of the entire article was the last three lines...

“You’re so lucky, you don’t have to have sex with someone you don’t want to.� ... “OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!� ... Not one person has taken me up on this offer.

Feeling pressured into sex by a husband you am not passionate about... that sounds like happily ever to you?

She already has a book out Jessica, about how she was an anorexic at elven, striving to be the skinniest elven year old on the planet. You can check out the editor's review on Amazon.com.

Methinks she's still struggling with a whole bunch of issues, finding a man being the least of them.

You...you mean it's not OK to be single at 30? If I don't get married within the next seven years, I have to settle for whatever man will have my sorry ass, or I'll be *desperately* unhappy? Oh Ms. Gottleib, you have saved my life! I don't know what I would have done without your invaluable article!

Ugh. I have two unmarried aunts, and they both seem happy enough without "a man". While I'm only twenty-three, I certainly don't feel some kind of desperation to nest before I'm 30. Perhaps Ms. Gottleib needs to stop projecting her personal discomforts onto every woman in the US.

Oh, Jessica. I love your worried face.
I'm 28, and I find that I'm so much happier when I'm single than when I'm in a relationship. That must be the denial talking. Good thing there are people out there to remind me that I'm sad and tragic because I'm without a man.

lol what a coincidence- I'm almost 30 and unmarried and I have the exact same face as you, Jessica!
Seriously, what is it that's so great about marriage that women should give up everything to be a part of it? What?

My boyfriend used to date Gottlieb. I'm glad she passed him up, not least because I wouldn't wish a life with her on anyone.

Ugh. I saw this on The Today Show yesterday and hoped it was some sort of hyper-realistic fever dream. I was appalled! Why didn't anyone tell me that life ends at thirty? I'm already eighteen! I need to find some random dude to attach to stat! I mean, sure, it'll be denying both of us a chance at happiness, considering neither of us will likely care that much for the other, but consider the benefits! 1. Free live-in nanny! 2. I can lead an exciting life of quiet desperation and repression.

I don't think there's much to say about this besides, "Wow, I hope this lady learns to love and value herself soon."

Hahaha...I LOVED that picture, Jessica!! Just brilliant. You ought to let us all post our "worried" faces on here. I'm 34, and giving the finger to marriage. I have a great boyfriend, a self-described feminist, but I am no where near ready to marry him. I'm very happy living alone, and can't really envision anything changing in the future. All I can say is that I hope those desperate women learn to value themselves.

Love the face, Jessica. :-)
Hate the article. Stupid, unimaginative and old.

That said, I still struggle with how to talk about this issue with some friends who ARE marriage obsessed. As they swoon away over dresses, flowers, rings, plate dinners and musicians before they have even talked with the partner in question about living together, let alone marrying. They think I am petty for having issues with marrying the person I love when my gay friends can't marry the person they love. And I do hear it- "well, you know, I am nearly 30...." AHHHH! It makes me crazy, for all the reasons here.

i'm appalled by this article on multiple levels, many of them already articulated.

what stood out to me (and has yet to be mentioned i think) was this line early on:

Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).

too often, it seems to me, marriage is conflated with procreation (and in fact, as we've seen with equal marriage debates, often the "inability" to procreate is raised as a reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples). to me the presumption that the decision to get married is one about having children is as reductive as the assertion that womyn "must" get married even if it means "settling".

I can't imagine why this lady is still single at 40. She just sounds like so much fun! I actually feel rather sorry for her, along with being pissed at her moronic presumption about my life. She views her perpetual singleness as a personal failure and thinks it's some epidemic that the rest of us over-30-somethings are suffering from too. And she's clearly mentally ill: she's weighing the possibility of ending up alone against the guarantee of spending the next fifty years with someone she doesn't like very much...and choosing the latter? I don't get it.

I feel kinda sorry for her kid too, having to fill such a huge void. How many piano recitals will it take to cure Mommy's paralyzing disappointment?

I recommend reading the interview with her as well, which is here.

I think if she'd framed the issue more the way she talks about it in the interview and hadn't used Sex and the City (why is this show an example for *every* social psychology question about women?), it wouldn't provoke such a visceral reaction. Fortunately I'm too young to fall into her settle category, though I can understand why fulfilled 30 year old single women would be offended by the implications of her argument. I just think that there is an economic and social calculus that happens in relationships and the issue deserves a little more thought than you gave it.

Gee, I guess it was a mistake to wake up and dump the irresponsible loser I was engaged to at 27. Now here I am at 32, in a committed relationship, happily living with my boyfriend of four years. Yeah, my worried face looks a lot like yours Jessica!

nisemono: That line really freaked me out too.

“You’re so lucky, you don’t have to have sex with someone you don’t want to.�
“OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!�

So...let me get this straight. She'd rather be raped by a husband on a regular basis than be single and..not raped? When I hear, "You have to have sex with someone you don't want to," I'm not quite sure how that's not considered rape. I guess spousal rape doesn't exist in Gottlieb's world. Puke.

I'd feel sorry for that woman if it weren't for her dictating the "true" opinion of all womankind. Perhaps if her journalism career doesn't work out, she could try being a Psychic Friend.

"I'm married. I love being married. But I wouldn't for a second suggest that it's the only way for anyone else to be happy. It isn't."

Amen, sgzax.

Thank you for reminding me. Marriage or independence is a personal choice, and I will not put one over the other for anyone but myself. I am limiting my comments to marriage:

"Do people really need to be reminded that it's more important to truly care for the person you choose to be your partner?"

Not at all. But I have learned through personal experience, 12 years in Japan witnessing and experiencing their culture, and US tradition, that the kind of love and commitment that keeps families together is not the same as the intense romance that occurs in the early stages of a relationship. People who can claim in middle age or as seniors that they love each other like the day they first met, are fortunate.

It must also be stressful. Personally, even at the age of 26, I acted like a giddy fool with my future wife, and we used to spend up to five or six hours on the phone every night, as well as whisking off for morning to night dates and sexual romps of 2-4 hours (we got a room on a clock, and acted like it) every weekend when we shared days off from work.

Try managing that with careers, children, other friends and commitments, and private time for yourself. You'd likely be cutting into your sleep time and performance at work, have little time to yourself, as well as spending at unsustainable levels, if you'd like to save for a house, future children's education, or retirement. My own honeymoon stage lasted a few months, and quite frankly, both my wife and I are thankful. We like some time to ourselves. She watches TV and reads. I spend time online, reading, shopping, doing home projects, watching my own programs and videos, driving, riding, and with my pets. Despite her performance, my wife prefers sleep to sex. Ah, well.

Stable relationships that have been good for the children at least, used to be considered the norm, even when romance or free choice were not the reasons for marriage. Were a lot of people, particularly women, unhappy? Of course. But marriage is not only about each partners' happiness. My wife is free to leave with my blessing if she believes she will be happier alone, with another man, or as a single mother (at the moment, explicitly not), but marriage is a commitment we both chose to make. I'll take my wife over any 20 year old Filipino nurse (or doctor) from work, as well. We also do not have the ugly kind of relationship that would traumatize the children. Therapy, separation, or divorce are possible solutions for those, or if it ever happened to us.

Do I not believe that maintaining romance, or having a happy marriage through growth and maintenance of love for one's partner is ideal? Of course I do. But that is an ideal. And it is great that there are so many who can do without relationships.

I'm doomed. I'm 41, never married, not in a committed relationship (or any relationship for that matter), and not really interested in settling. In fact, I'll emphatically say I *won't* settle. Why would I settle? I own my own house, have a great job, am well-educated, and am happy. Why would I settle for a relationship that won't give me the life I've already built for myself?

Interesting, though, was her comment: Having turned 40, I now have wrinkles, bags under my eyes, and hair in places I didn’t know hair could grow on women. I don't have many wrinkles (good skin, little makeup, no tanning, etc.), no bags (again, firm skin), and no hair growing in unwanted places. I actually like myself better now than I did in my 20s.

I will say, however, that I have met plenty of men who have said they aren't interested in a relationship because my baby-producing years are nearly over. They want someone young. What I say to them is - Goodbye.

I was trying to think of a good response to this article (and the horrible NPR piece she did on "All Things Considered" in the last couple of days on the same topic), but then I realized that Sara Bareilles beat me to it:

"Fairytale" by Sara Bareilles:

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cGQoPmefyA

Lyrics: http://lyrics-explorer.com/lyrics/artists/s/sara_bareilles/fairytale.html

“You’re so lucky, you don’t have to have sex with someone you don’t want to.�
“OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!�

"So...let me get this straight. She'd rather be raped by a husband on a regular basis than be single and..not raped?"

I don't want to get inside this writer's head, but I hope she means that she would not mind having her friends' husbands, or sex with them, one and all, because of her alleged desperation. I note she may have personal issues. I have eyes myself, but my wife and I choose to stay together, and that is how I like it.

"When I hear, 'You have to have sex with someone you don't want to,' I'm not quite sure how that's not considered rape. I guess spousal rape doesn't exist in Gottlieb's world. Puke."

Her response to her friends are insensitive, and I hope, a very poor attempt at humor. However, as my own definition of rape is any time a woman feels sexually violated (even with realization after the fact), it is possible her friends do not feel violated, but the magic has simply gone, or they are bored. Maybe their husbands are balding, overweight, sloppy, demanding, poor fathers, and take their wives for granted, all things the women did not foresee when getting married. The friends were not reported to state that they have sex against their will. It is possible to consent to boring or bothersome sex with people you do not find particularly attractive.

I know this is serious, but this article is so out, it had me in stitches. How can this be in 2008 that people perpetuate such poopoo?! Was there a group lobotamy over at Atlantic?! What a bunch of sensationlistic nonsense!!!
Excuse me while I return to baking an apple pie so as to ensnare any man who will have me. Mee-ow!!!!

It's a shame really. I thought her book "Stick Figure" was a very clever commentary on the roots of anorexia in our society.
It makes me wonder if this was meant to be satire and she was just waaay to subtle. I doubt that is the case, though.

"How can this be in 2008 that people perpetuate such poopoo?!"

I see by reading that the article itself is probably not an attempt at humor or satire. I do come away with her sense of desperation and bitterness, against men, whom she claims do not "need" to settle for less (bullshit), and do not perceive their choices as "settling" (Hmmmm. Her friend Alan has a definite point.*); against her own so-called ticking biological clock**, and against her friends who have marriages yet seem to be unhappy against expectations. This gut feeling, and the comments above by the poster who's done some checking on this writer, lead me to believe this woman has some personal issues. She also needs a more diverse selection of friends, friends who are not also feeling their age and desperate, and friends who are not married and tired of it. Some younger women and feminists who have not lost the spark like herself, perhaps.

* "Men settle far less often and, when they do, they don’t seem the least bit bothered by the fact that they’re settling."

"My friend Alan, for instance, justified his choice of a 'bland' wife who’s a good mom but with whom he shares little connection this way: 'I think one-stop shopping is overrated. I get passion at my office with my work, or with my friends that I sometimes call or chat with—it’s not the same, and, boy, it would be exciting to have it with my spouse. But I spend more time with people at my office than I do with my spouse.'"

It is true that I spend only a few minutes a day with my wife, and none at all if I work or am out past my family's bedtime. We both enjoy the variety of experiences and social connections we have outside the home, and have few activities and no friends in common. I do not consider my wife bland, or an inferior choice to any woman I consider attainable, but I feel Alan understands me well. Here's to having one's own life, even within a relationship.

** It is a simple unfortunate fact of nature that around the age of 42, a woman is very unlikely to become pregnant in the conventional manner. The peak of fertility occurs at about 27. There is no cause for alarm. There is no need to settle for less "man" than what you deserve if you want one, and no need to forego a career, but having one's own biological children IF desired, does require some planning.

Readers will not like this. Readers will likely deny it, as surely as the president of NOW quoted in the article. But this article describes what science tells us, if a woman would like to have children in the conventional manner, with her own eggs. Ignore any alarmism you see. Come away with this:

"Reproductive freedom is not just the ability not to have a child through birth control. It's the ability to have one if and when you want one."

Making Time For A Baby
Sunday, Apr. 07, 2002
By NANCY GIBBS

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020415/index.html

[start quote]

Women generally know their fertility declines with age; they just don't realize how much and how fast. According to the Centers for Disease Control, once a woman celebrates her 42nd birthday, the chances of her having a baby using her own eggs, even with advanced medical help, are less than 10%. At age 40, half of her eggs are chromosomally abnormal; by 42, that figure is 90%. "I go through Kleenex in my office like it's going out of style," says reproductive endocrinologist Michael Slowey in Englewood, N.J.

[Author of book] Hewlett and her allies say they are just trying to correct the record in the face of widespread false optimism. Her survey found that nearly 9 out of 10 young women were confident of their ability to get pregnant into their 40s. Last fall the A.I.A. [American Infertility Association] conducted a fertility-awareness survey on the women's website iVillage.com. Out of the 12,524 respondents, only one answered all 15 questions correctly. Asked when fertility begins to decline, only 13% got it right (age 27); 39% thought it began to drop at 40. Asked how long couples should try to conceive on their own before seeking help, fully 42% answered 30 months. That is a dangerous combination: a couple that imagines fertility is no problem until age 40 and tries to get pregnant for 30 months before seeing a doctor is facing very long odds of ever becoming parents.

In one sense, the confusion is understandable: it is only in the past 10 years that doctors themselves have discovered the limitations. "I remember being told by a number of doctors, 'Oh, you have plenty of time,' even when I was 38," says Claudia Morehead, 47, a California insurance lawyer who is finally pregnant, using donor eggs. Even among fertility specialists, "it was shocking to us that IVF didn't work so well after age 42," admits Dr. Sarah Berga, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. "The early '90s, to my mind, was all about how shocked we were that we couldn't get past this barrier." But even as doctors began to try to get the word out, they ran into resistance of all kinds.

[omission]

"The implication is, 'I have to hurry up and have kids now or give up on ever having them,'" says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "And that is not true for the vast majority of women." Gandy, 48, had her first child at 39. "It was a choice on my part, but in most ways it really wasn't. It's not like you can create out of whole cloth a partner you want to have a family with and the economic and emotional circumstances that allow you to be a good parent. So to put pressure on young women to hurry up and have kids when they don't have those other factors in place really does a disservice to them and to their kids."

To emphasize a woman's age above all other factors can be just one more piece of misleading information, Gandy suggests. "There are two people involved [in babymaking], and yet we're putting all the responsibility on women and implying that women are being selfish if they don't choose to have children early." She shares the concern that women will hear the research and see the ads and end up feeling it is so hard to strike a balance that it's futile to even try. "There is an antifeminist agenda that says we should go back to the 1950s," says Caryl Rivers, a journalism professor at Boston University. "The subliminal message is, 'Don't get too educated; don't get too successful or too ambitious.'"

Allison Rosen, a clinical psychologist in New York City who has made it her mission to make sure her female patients know the fertility odds, disagrees. "This is not a case of male doctors' wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant," she says. "You lay out the facts, and any particular individual woman can then make her choices." Madsen of A.I.A. argues that the biological imperative is there whether women know it or not. "I cringe when feminists say giving women reproductive knowledge is pressuring them to have a child," she says. "That's simply not true. Reproductive freedom is not just the ability not to have a child through birth control. It's the ability to have one if and when you want one."

Also from the same issue of TIME Magazine, regarding IVF:

"Even the most powerful techniques can turn back a woman's biological clock only so far. Women in their early 30s who want to use their own eggs have a better than 30% chance of delivering a live baby by artificial means. After age 43, the success rate drops to a forbidding 3%."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020415-227541,00.html

[start quote]

"It's tremendously comforting for a 34- or 36-year-old professional woman to imagine that she has time on her side," says Hewlett, which can make for resistance to hearing the truth.

This is the heart of Hewlett's crusade: that it is essential for women to plan where they want to be at 45 and work backward, armed with the knowledge that the window for having children is narrower than they have been led to believe and that once it begins to swing shut, science can do little to pry it open. And Hewlett argues as well that employers and policymakers need to do more to help families make the balancing act work. "The greatest choice facing modern women is to freely choose to have both, a job and a family, and be supported and admired for it, not be seen as some overweening yuppie."

[omission]

Hewlett calls herself a feminist, but she has often crossed swords with feminists who, she charges, are so concerned with reproductive choice that they neglect the needs of women who choose to be mothers. In the history of the family, she notes, it is a very recent development for women to have control over childbearing, thanks to better health care and birth control. But there's an ironic twist now. 'In just 30 years, we've gone from fearing our fertility to squandering it--and very unwittingly.' The decision of whether to have a child will always be one of the most important anyone makes; the challenge is not allowing time and biology to make it for them.

[end quote]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,227528-4,00.html

Dang. Is Lori Gottlieb really 40? Because she sounds like she's about 80 and somewhat senile. Like, she says: "What I and many women who hold out for true love forget is that we won’t always have the same appeal that we may have had in our 20s and early 30s."

The only way you can forget that is if you're suffering from some dementia, since it's impossible to turn on the TV, watch a movie, read a magazine, or shop in a store, without being reminded that it's women in their teens and 20s who are considered to be most appealing in our society. These same BS articles and special news reports get recycled every few years or so, usually fronted by a woman who acts with as much of a sense of discovery and import as a kindergartener with a new color crayon.

I turn thirty in September. I'll admit I'm having a few issues with the fact, but being alone isn't one of them. My definition of hell includes a spouse and children, so making my way alone is pretty much heaven in a box. :)

"So...let me get this straight. She'd rather be raped by a husband on a regular basis than be single and..not raped? When I hear, "You have to have sex with someone you don't want to," I'm not quite sure how that's not considered rape. I guess spousal rape doesn't exist in Gottlieb's world. Puke."

i would like to second A male's clarification that bothersome or boring sex does not equal rape. i realize this is not the focus of the thread, but i've become quite disillusioned with reactionary responses which use the term rape so ubiquitously and inappropriately, which i truly believe lessens the true meaning of the term..

"i would like to second A male's clarification that bothersome or boring sex does not equal rape."

Speculation on what those friends mean. And never to imply that such a relationship would be pleasant.

A male: have you considered starting your own blog?

You are always too kind, sgzax.

No, I prefer to choose my readers, and not worry about who likes me. I've sold some work, and had the opportunity to do more, but it wasn't for me.

"I will say, however, that I have met plenty of men who have said they aren't interested in a relationship because my baby-producing years are nearly over. They want someone young. What I say to them is - Goodbye."

I can think of something else.

Has this woman ever gotten an inside view of an unhappy marriage and what it does to people? Like, an inside view? Like, say, one's parents? I have. And coming out of a 20-year marriage, my mother told me never to stay with anybody who didn't love me passionately and whole-heartedly, never to let myself think I didn't deserve that. And, by the way, she subsequently found it and the advanced one-foot-in-grave age of...44.

And, God, I hate to do a "think of teh poor menz!" but...jeez. So she wants to marry some poor fool who thinks she loves him for who he is, just so she can get...what? Free babysitting? Nice.

too often, it seems to me, marriage is conflated with procreation (and in fact, as we've seen with equal marriage debates, often the "inability" to procreate is raised as a reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples). to me the presumption that the decision to get married is one about having children is as reductive as the assertion that womyn "must" get married even if it means "settling".

Indeed. And I'd like to approach this from another angle. I'll be turning 32 in a month, and I'm not really keen on the prospect of marriage, shacking up, or settling down in a committed romantic/sexual relationship. I was a few years ago, but not anymore, and not for a while. What I do want are children. And I do worry about how I can make that happen--I don't have a lot of money, I don't have a large extended family, I don't have any paid family leave in my job. And I do worry about difficulty conceiving as I age, about the difficulty of taking care of a toddler at a later age than I'd like, the increased hardship on my body of pregnancy and childbirth as I age, the increased rate of congenital defects.

In Gottlieb's world, I suppose that translates as worrying about finding a man. But of my worry is anger that I live in a society and culture in which women having children is treated like some kind of weirdo personal aberration every single time, so that we don't have reliable, state-run day-care, we don't have mandated paid maternity leave, we don't have the support systems in place which would make it possible for me to have a kid regardless of whether or not I have a husband/partner.

Bullshit. During the course of my life (I'm 20) my grandma has many boyfriends, but she has absolutely no interest in settling down. She sees no need for it and is perfectly happy with the way her life is now.

My Grandma is one of the most self-confident and strong women I know and I'm proud to be related to her.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and speculate that the main difference between my Grandmother and Ms. Gottlieb is that my Grandma has a fucking spine.

Okay. So, if you have to have sex with someone you don't want to have sex with, what is it then?

Just an inconvenience? From my point of view, if I have to have sex with someone, I damn well better want it, whether it's my spouse or a total stranger.

I have been a reader of Feministing for a long time but this is my first comment here.

I don't believe this article is sincere.
I suspect that the woman who wrote that nasty article is just shamelessly promoting herself... possibly to create interest in new men.

“By the time she turns 37,� Chris said confidently, “she’ll come back. And I’ll bet she’ll marry me then. I know she wants to have kids.�

Great! Like Chris I'm a single guy in his 30's and obviously nothing would make me happier than finding that special someone with lukewarm feelings for me to trap in a passionless and confining marriage by using our future children as anchors.

Clay

"So, if you have to have sex with someone you don't want to have sex with, what is it then?"

1. mercy fuck
fucking someone you really don't want to but you do it anyhow because you don't want to hurt their feelings.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mercy+fuck

If the author reported that the sex was against her friends' will, or that they felt violated by their husbands, obviously that would be rape.

There is a difference. Imagine being with your boyfriend or husband at the age of 50, 60, 70. Will he still be THE man you fell in love with? Will he still be so hawt, the one you had sex with perhaps at practically every opportunity early in your relationship? Perhaps not. Is he going to lose interest in sex, and never ask you for it, just because HE is not as attractive or virile as he was in his youth or his prime? Is he going to stop wanting sex with you, just because you are aging and your body changing?

Iiiii don't thiiiiink sooooo. Seniors want it, and do it, too. In long term care, the younger female residents, say in their 40s, might be on the pill, just in case they get it on with the men. And hetero is not all. What would one expect when a group of single men and women are living together, maybe for decades? They won't form new relationships, or simply hook up? They magically stop wanting it just because they reach a certain age, or their spouses are out of the picture? Not. They will hit on staff of the opposite gender as well, male as well as female, young and not so young.

Just fair warning for the women who may be imagining a long term relationship now or in the future. You have a right to your bodies, and the right to say no. I hope none of you will ever be exploited or abused. But it doesn't mean your man will never *ask*, even if you have made prior arrangements like for procreation only, only during the "safe" time of the month, not when the kids are awake or older kids still living in the house, or not after he gets a gut.

The flip side may also be true: men may be having sex with their partners whom they do not find as attractive as when they first met/got married. Should I consider that rape as well, of the man? It may be loss of that old spark, or actual changes in her personality or physique. There are married women who still want sex from their long term partners. What happens if their men no longer want them? Time to start kinky sex to get him interested? Time for a Hitachi Magic Wand just for her? Time to fool around? Time for a breakup or divorce? Are the men just assholes for wishing their wives were something or someone else?

Aaaaand... my girl crush on Jessica has commenced with that picture.

Seriously though, I'm 21 and the straight girls I knew in high school (granted my school was in Texas) are lining up to get married and have babies all before they hit 25. I'm assuming there's always going to be some women who want to marry and procreate young, but it seems like a scary flashback to the 50s.

A male: I see what you mean.
I wasn't trying to say that these husbands are raping their wives every night.
I was speaking in the context of the article, she quotes her friends saying that they have to have sex with someone they don't want to. The problem I have is with the "have to." It's one thing to have sex with someone when you don't necessary feel like it, but are being generous and doing it anyway and having to do it.
Honestly, I have no idea what is going on in Lori Gottlieb's friends' bedrooms. I was mostly bothered by the fact that when her friends told her that they "had to have sex with someone [they] don't want to," she implies that this is what women SHOULD settle for, even aspire to, which to me, is a throwback to times where women had no voice in their marriages at all.
I just wanted to clarify that.

"It's one thing to have sex with someone when you don't necessary feel like it, but are being generous and doing it anyway and having to do it."

Yes, that is the problem with only a single sentence to go on, and based on that writer's report. Is it the "have to" of being compelled to do it against one's will = rape? Or is it "only" a chore, like "having to" cook and clean, and one of the traditional "duties" of a wife, or "having to" bear a firstborn son?

And I will point out once more that such a relationship hardly sounds desirable. Just raising the possibility she may not be talking about rape. Considering her four pages of views and generalizations about women, men, parenthood, and marriage, I can't say I know anything about her friends.

BTW, I found this. I am more acquainted with the term marital rape or simply rape, than "wife rape."

TRIGGER ALERT:

The Wife Rape Fact Sheet
Excerpt from the National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/wiferape.shtml

Patricia Mahoney, M.A.
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center
Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesely College Stone Center

What is Wife Rape?
Wife Rape is the term used to describe sexual acts committed without a person's consent and/or against a person's will by a woman's husband or ex husband. Sexual acts may be committed through physical force, threats of force against her or a third person, or implied harm based on prior assaults causing the woman to fear that physical force will be used if she resists.

When a woman submits to sexual acts out of fear or coercion, it is rape. A wife does not need to be "putting up a good fight" for it to be rape (even according to the law). Sexual acts include but are not limited to penile vaginal intercourse, the insertion of genitals into the mouth or anus, or the insertion of objects into the vagina or anus.

How Common is Wife Rape?
Two studies have documented similar rates among random samples of women:
Ten to fourteen percent of ever-married women have experienced at least one forced sexual assault by a husband or ex-husband (Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985; Russell, 1990).

Studies of battered women staying in shelters and women seeking relationship help show one-third to three-quarters of those asked reported sexual assaults by their husbands or intimate partners.

[omission]

Why Would a Man Rape His Wife?
Our ability to answer this question is limited, as so little research has focused on husband-rapists. It is, however, clear from survivors’ reports that it does not stem from wives withholding sex, which is the most common myth. Most women who report being raped by their husbands also report having consensual sexual intercourse. Researchers who have spoken with husband-rapists conclude that husband-rapists rape to reinforce their power or control over their wives or families, or to express anger.

[end quote]

I shouldn't be surprised, but apparently, a lot of IPV/DV among women seeking services of a women's shelter, is sex abuse, if they are over two to seven times more likely than "ever-married" women to report being sexually assaulted. [I don't know if they are using the term sexual assault as synonymous with rape. Clearly they consider any form of insertion without consent to be rape.]

Considering that rapists are the problem in rape, I wonder why "so little research has focused on husband-rapists"? I believe the same holds true for rapists in general, or at least reporting on them. Most of what I see is about victims, and the scale of the problem.

Here's the deal, Lori:

Settling for "Mr. Good Enough" at any age will result in eventually being stuck with "Mr. Not Good Enough Anymore" a little late. In most cases, marriage requires you to spend a considerable amount of time together, make major financial and personal decisions together, maintain a home together, and possibly raise children together - you cannot successfully do these things with someone you think is "okay" and maintain your sanity. You can only overlook major differences in values, priorities, and personalities for so long. Inevitably, you will be unhappy with "Mr. Good Enough" and try to change him. In turn, he will get tired of your attempts to turn him into something he's not and want out. And then you might have to try to find "Mr. Good Enough II" at 50.

That should be "a little later".

I'm reminded of how some people recommend settling for arranged marriage (not to e confused with forced marriage) instead of marrying for love...

...but forget to mention that it depends on lowering your standards. Of course you'd be less likely to want to divorce a spouse who doesn't love you anymore, if your standards were so low you were happy to marry someone who didn't love you in the first place...

I found the article just plain sad. There is something to be said for being a little less shallow and superficial in determining who you will get into a relationship with, and not expecting perfection because it just doesn't exist. But the article goes far further than that to suggest that it's better to be married to a person who you don't even particularly like, whose touch makes you shudder, and even who is gay, rather than not be married at all.

I think what the article portrays, without intending to, is how lacking we are as a society in supportive social structures, particularly for raising a child. Fertility IS on a limited timeclock, and women who want children should not have to marry men they don't like just to have a baby. But being a single mom is intensly difficult in a hypercompetitive capitalist society where work work and more work ALWAYS has to come first, where the most you're entitled is 12 weeks of UNPAID leave. Marriage is basically the only legally and socially accepted way to take advantage of economies of scale and share domestic burdens.

Help, help, I must get married right away. I only have fourteen months until I'm thirty! I just thought I was a perfectly happy not-really-attached lesbian, but now I realise I've been lying to myself all these years. (Or maybe it'll just kick in OUT OF NOWHERE at midnight on my thirtieth birthday?)

Meh, I don't know. I actually have been engaged to a man before, and... it was when I was engaged that I felt panicky, anxious, is-this-all-there-is, wondering if I could really do this for the rest of my life, etc. Some of this was due to not having come to terms with my sexuality at that point, but I also think a lot of it was due to the fact that I just... don't really want to get married; he was a great guy and all, but I just really didn't want to, deep down. And it would seem unfair to go through with it if I didn't really want to - not only to me but to my partner too. Would "Chris" and his friends really, seriously feel happy knowing that their wives had only agreed to marry them out of desperation? I can't imagine anything more depressing than looking at a woman standing beside me in a wedding dress, pledging to be with me until death do us part, and knowing she was only doing it because she couldn't get a better offer... Ugh.

Gottlieb sounds a lot like that miserable wench that co-wrote "The Rules". The one who never smiles, tells women to play games to land a man, and whose husband promptly left her a year or so after the book came out.

Honestly, if she's so hard up for a husband, why not find a divorced man or a widower with children, since she makes the assertion that men want younger women to breed, and that doesn't really sound like her goal anyway.

Though to be fair, I used to have a professor who had us translate Hebrew singles ads, and the parameters the women set forth weren't much better than what's listed here. "I'm over 40 with children! Looking for a man. Any man. I can cook. Seriously, you guys."

She's that willing to settle and still single? Hmm.

I find it funny how in articles like these they acknowledge what we would say and then try to rebut in an unconvincing way ("if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying"). Riiiight. Same with Vagina Monologues. "This play is effective, has done this and this that is good but we don't like it because it's vulgar." Great reasons.

Ack.

Is anyone else seeing the site as text only? No graphics? Or is there something wrong with my computer?

Anyone?

I hate it when people tell me how I'm supposed to feel, and if I dare question their conclusions, they then tell me that I'm in denial. Because it couldn't be true that I know my own mind--after all, I'm only a woman.

I had my age-related freakout at age 29, not 30 (many people do.) However, I guess I did it wrong, Gottlieb seems to be saying, because I broke it off for good with the med student I'd been dating off and on for years. On paper, he was a great catch: studying to be a surgeon, tall, handsome, charming, very much in love with me. But although I was fond of him, and we were great friends, I just wasn't in love with him. According to Gottlieb, I should have married him. We still talk occasionally, twelve years later, and he is now that successful surgeon, but he's unhappily married and constantly cheats on his wife. Maybe he would have been happy in our marriage and faithful to me. Who knows? Still, according to Gottlieb, I would have been married to a surgeon, right? Except that I'm deliriously happy with reality, where I'm married to the love of my life, a computer geek I met when I was 37, and pregnant with my first child.

Gottlieb seems to have missed the point: it's more important to be happy with yourself, than to achieve the "goal" of getting married. Because I believe that many women get married because they think they should, and that's why we have such a high divorce rate. Marriage in itself won't make you happy. A good marriage will make you happy. I'd much rather be alone than in a bad relationship, which is why I was single for so much of my adult life. Gottlieb would think I was foolish for holding out for real love, and maybe I am a romantic. But I did find it, and nothing is better. I think Gottlieb needs to spend more time in therapy than in writing books. Even if she can never be truly happy on her own--I think there are people who have been culturally wired that way--maybe she can learn to be less desperate, which is not attractive to any gender.

"I think if she'd framed the issue more the way she talks about it in the interview and hadn't used Sex and the City...it wouldn't provoke such a visceral reaction."

I don't care what her interview says. She's writing for the fucking Atlantic, not her local newspaper. If she can't get her meaning across correctly in the 5 billion words it takes her to write that piece of trash, why should I humor her by reading her interview? She says that because I'm 31 and single I need to get with it and find a man. Any man. What else is there to say?

Being the black sheep old maid of my family, who every Christmas is asked to justify my cointinued singleness, I'm a little tired of the "if you'd just quit being so PICKY" line. I guess it's all that darn booklearnin'. I've probably read too many Jane Austen novels.

This kind of thing has always bothered me, especially since I'm living proof that settling is a VERY BAD idea. I decided to settle at the ripe old age of 19, convinced that an unattractive fat girl like me would never find someone better than my high school boyfriend. Four years of hell later, I found a backbone and moved back in with my mom. This was after two or three nervous breakdowns; almost every holiday he'd decide to go to the bar instead of spending time with me, and he told me three or four times the only reason we were still married was so he could save face with his friends. At 25, I love myself dearly and am at least 1,000 times happier single than I ever was living with the husband I settled for.

** It is a simple unfortunate fact of nature that around the age of 42, a woman is very unlikely to become pregnant in the conventional manner. The peak of fertility occurs at about 27. There is no cause for alarm. There is no need to settle for less "man" than what you deserve if you want one, and no need to forego a career, but having one's own biological children IF desired, does require some planning.

People should read the actual statistics of how easy it is or isn't to get pregnant around the age of 40, from medical sources. You'd be surprised. Yes, fertility isn't the same as for a sixteen-year-old, but it's not all gloom and doom. This is anecdotal evidence, but I just got pregnant the very first month we tried, about a week before my 41st birthday, with no assistance whatsoever. No fertility drugs, not even any charting. It happens a lot more than you'd think. If you're in a good position to have a child when you're younger, I wouldn't advise indefinitely putting it off. But I wouldn't advise getting pregnant just because you think it won't happen when you're older. I'm living proof that it's not true.

This is my response to Lori Gottlieb:

Video Link

I'm not sure why Gottlieb and commenters here are linking late marriage and lowered changes for children. Gottlieb herself has a child despite never being married. It's easier with a partner who is going to be an equal participant in parenting, but it isn't a requirement. And it's not any easier with a partner who shares an attitude that watching the kids for 20 minutes to let Mom have some lunch is generous.

WOOHOO!!! Now I can marry that bum who shakes his maracas three times and then asks for change! I don't have to ask him to do more to impress me! Thank goodness. I was worried there for a second.

:op

How great will it be when the woman, years later, will look at the mr settled for and say with coldness, "You know, I never did actually love you."

I guess that is what the author is going for. Because you know, women just love to hear that statement from a man or to say it themselves.

Even better - tell the kids you never loved the man you married.

So much for the sacredness of marriage.

If you want kids, there are other ways to have them than to get in a loveless marriage.

Did anyone else watch the Today show clip? I was struck by the fact that even the "real women" they found to interview for the segment said what most of us are saying here -- settling is not an option. This, combined with the fact that all Gottlieb's "evidence" is pop-culture references, speaks volumes.

Married by 30?! I'll be 30 in June and I can't afford to live on my own ... and neither can my boyfriend. Nor can we afford to live together. Yes, we both have full-time jobs.

I hate being told that I have to do such and such before I turn a certain age - because almost always, those who determine the deadlines have no sense of reality.

It didn't work in the 80's, the 70's or the 60's. Last time it worked was the 50's.

It's reactionary out there. Watch out.

"Interesting, though, was her comment: 'Having turned 40, I now have wrinkles, bags under my eyes, and hair in places I didn’t know hair could grow on women.' I don't have many wrinkles (good skin, little makeup, no tanning, etc.), no bags (again, firm skin), and no hair growing in unwanted places. I actually like myself better now than I did in my 20s."

...and on the flip side of that, I've had hair in places she didn’t know hair could grow on women since I was ten years old (and it runs in my family). Does she think Iranian girls should be married at 9?

Indeed, Card Carrying Buddhist. Something seems afoot.

And Brynne Zaniboni, your comment about friends wanting babies by 25 mirrors a conversation I had with our (like-a-little-sister) babysitter the other day. She was just wondering what's up with several (like, more than three) of her friends who are pregnant now. She's 21. They're all in University in a large city, she hangs with a very cool, progressive crowd... Most were engaged, not married, but we were speculating as to whether there's a trend or cultural shift going on and more women are wanting babies younger, whether it's more acceptable somehow.

I wondered if maybe the surge of celebrity party girls having babies and staying independent and sexy (Britney being the obvious exception) had any residual effect...don't laugh too much at that; when I was 25, part of the reason my friends and I never would have dreamed of having children is we didn't want to change our identity so much into "mother" when we were having so much fun. We had no models of people who stayed the same and just had kids in addition. Now they have Nicole Richie and Christina A, and Angelina Jolie, and Gwen S. etc. etc. These are hardly domesticated examples. And while we never would have wanted to BE any of those people, knowing that they were similar after as they were before would have been inspiring for us to think that we could be our (quite different) selves after, too. Even if that was unrealistic.

I wondered, too, if maybe the advances in fertility treatment, rather than extending women's options, are keeping it in the news (to an exaggerated degree?) that women "need" them after 35. So younger women are paying attention and rewriting the life plan?

I really don't know. But that's what she said is going on around her. (However, just to keep things in perspective, I'm often the youngest (early 30's) in my prenatal yoga classes in this city. But I live in a pretty professional neighborhood, so that makes some sense.) I'd be interested to know if it mirrors anyone else's experience besides yours and hers. It's a big subject, and I find it fascinating.

Just because she chose not to wear sunscreen for so many years doesn't mean she should take it out on the rest of us.

I'm not sure why society still reveres old dude sperm anyway, since it too can be a time bomb for autism and webbed digits, among other undesirable results...it's not like a fine wine!

"I'm not sure why society still reveres old dude sperm anyway"

The impression I got is that it's more a reverence for old dude money...

How good of Lisa Gottlieb to speak on my behalf. Admittedly, being in my early twenties excludes me from some of the “commiseration� she offers 30+ women. But, luckily, she was still inclusive enough to inflict her helpful presumptions of the heteronormative-marriage-and-child-rearing dream on all of us womenfolk who – come on, admit it, sweetheart – are lying to ourselves. If there’s one thing the mainstream media has always been lacking, it’s friendly, matronly advice for we poor dears who aspire to rewarding lives of mediocrity and the lack of fulfillment. What a refreshing, original piece!

Seriously, I’m sorry that Gottlieb’s unhappy with the way her life has turned out. But for her to turn her envy for her married friends and her own feelings of inadequacy into something innate to all of us and only remedied through settling into a convenient marriage, is as pathetic as it is sexist. I resent her tone, the affectation of concern for we delusional single women who are so naïve for respecting ourselves. I dislike her token, “Yeah, I once thought feminism was great too before I grew out of that silly fantasy.� Her blatant disregard for all the women for whom settling was once the ONLY option, and who fought so hard to be free of the types of marriages she’s so jealous of. Her failure to consider alternative lifestyles. All the endless defensive language of the “I know my position is offensive� variety. This shit is so transparent. And unbearably dull.

I hope the insightful and charming author will pardon this reader for not following such sound advice - I guess I must be one of those crazy, "free-spirits" who, oddly, would rather impale herself on a rusty spear than spend day after soul-destroying day with some of the dudes she's recommending.

PS. I ::heart:: BluePencils

The impression I got is that it's more a reverence for old dude money...

I think it used to be a package deal, and now that we make our own money the reproductive issue is the last attempt to shame us into motherhood. Because, our eggs are supposedly crap and their sperm is "great" after a certain age, when in reality it starts going downhill for everyone after 27.

Call me crazy, but I just don't get the impression there are armies of women in their 20s who want to breed with old guys when you take money out of the scenario.

god this article pisses me off. I'm 24 but I never thought I'd be married before 30! 30 was my "now I'll consider this date" I know so few people who even get married before they're thirty. People wanna work on their careers and get their lfie on track before they have to get more than one persons life on track. I'm engaged but my fiance and I have decided to post-pone the wedding from our original date for the exact purpose of getting our careers somewhat established first. I always thought it was standard to wait until your thirties to tie the knot!? But then I read articles like this. Maybe it's just the generation gap.. i have no clue.

"(Also, someone may want to clue Gottlieb in about, you know, lesbians.)"

Now I wonder if she's already clued in about them and would tell them to move to Massachusetts to get married by 30.

I found a few more comments on it here:

http://www.metafilter.com/68954/Mr-Good-Enough

"Here's a pragmatic viewpoint for you: part of the reason for the ancient institution of marriage is to make you, the woman, part of another family. How much do you think that other family is going to love and value you in the future if they think of you as the bitter, nagging, obviously dissatisfied woman that their son/brother/nephew threw himself away on? Settling hurts people."

posted by Countess Elena at 10:03 AM on February 10

"Here’s a fun idea: Let’s ask someone who settled! After all, they probably did so after a period of being alone, so they have full information... So we’re going to have to settle (See what I did there?) for a woman who’s never been married, and certainly never to someone she doesn’t really love, tell us how great she imagines a loveless marriage probably is."

posted by grouse at 10:36 AM on February 10

The Atlantic has been a big ball of suck ever since I remember. Unfortunately, being new to America, it took me a few years to see that mean-minded, wealth-revering, conservative, middle class, euphemistic "style" for what it was (coincidentally, at about the same time that I began to figure out why people go into a wordless panic at the very mention of "30", or cheer like idiotic automata at the very mention of "marriage").

After many years, I recently got a weirdly-worded subscription offer, which I immediately threw out. Still, I wondered if they really had fired the mind-numbing deadwood at that place, and brought in actual living beings. And hey! I see that they have even more stunningly unoriginal articles, in worse English and on pettier topics!

What we are seeing here is yet another suckfest of a "revered institution" going into desperation mode. Remember when Rachel dumped Ross? It's kinda like that. Or not. Or both, or none of the above. Die already, Atlantic.

PS. I ::heart:: BluePencils

Aw, thanks, Tattooed Virgin. You sound a lot like me when I was your age. It's sad that anyone should think that someone your age should be worrying about this crap. You should be having fun, having adventures, traveling, meeting people, studying, building a career--babies and partners can come later. If you want them to. If you meet the right person and want to have a baby, go ahead, as long as you can afford it. Having a baby isn't the end of everything. They're pretty portable. ;)

I just can't believe that anyone, in this day and age, is advocating settling. Years ago, my parents were close friends with another couple who got divorced. After the divorce, the woman confessed to my mom that she only married her husband because she didn't think she'd ever get another offer. I thought it was sad, that she thought she had no other choices at that time (middle 1960s)--and she probably didn't, in the real world. My dad, though, who is otherwise the quintessential tough NYC cop, was shocked to his core that anyone would do such a thing, that they would marry someone they weren't in love with. (I adore my dad.) Anyway, it goes to show, that even back then, settling didn't work for a lot of people, and these days, I'm sure it would work for even fewer.

This is a very long rationalization for gold-digging.
She doesn't need a *husband* to help her care for her kid. She needs an extra pair of hands. She could hire a nanny, a mother's helper, or move in with another single mom friend (like Kate & Ally!).
But apparently all women are hard-wired to want traditional, hetero marriages, no matter how soul-sucking they turn out to be.
What makes her think a man she settles for, who is rude to waitstaff and doesn't turn her on, would do his fair share around the house, anyway?
Gag, there is just so much to dissect in this article. Amanda at Pandagon does a good job.

Dude. Married women are MISERABLE in overwhelming proportions. I know because I was one. When is someone going to write *that* fucking article?

Thank you for this. I was dumped on Thursday night because this alleged intellectual, acccomplished, educated man was not satisfied with the shape and size of my breasts. No, I am not kidding. And so now I have been thrust into the "Oh no I'm 31 and single!" panic mode and you are right, it's because of bullshit articles and opinions like this. I can be happy and single and 31 and I do NOT need to be with some douche who has an issue with my boobs. Thanks so much for this post, really helped me a lot. I have a master's degree, I have good friends, a rewarding career, two great cats, a good family: guys who don't like my boobs can go to hell and I won't stand for that kind of treatment simply because some people view me as an "old maid".

Sorry to come back so late to the thread.

A male – I just meant that I really don’t believe that Lori Gottlieb was making any kind of inference to or light of spousal rape. And while a relationship that involves boring or bothersome sex may certainly not be pleasant, to equate that with spousal rape seems to me to be reactionary and inappropriate..

And nerdalert, I can completely understand how the language “have to� would *technically* indicate some kind of force, but I just thought that the language of the article should be taken in context.

ehabby: real men do not, *should* not, say those things to women. You're lucky you got out of that relationship with your sanity intact. (He's lucky, IMO, to get out of that conversation alive!)

"ehabby: real men do not, *should* not, say those things to women. You're lucky you got out of that relationship with your sanity intact. (He's lucky, IMO, to get out of that conversation alive!)"

Now *this* reminds me of how some people out there seem to think a girl finding a boy unattractive justifies him shooting her at school. Ehabby, you're not only lucky but civilized!

I think we need to write a new article: "Marry Her! The Case for Settling for Good-Enough Breasts." It would be on how men who throw away relationships over things like breast shape, and choose relationships that may not be as good for them based on cleavage, will end up bitterly regretting their choice, as they realize that supermodels aren't lining up to marry them (and are airbrushed anyway), and wither up alone into their old age. Some among them will find women whose bodies meet their ridiculous standards and who are willing to marry them, but these men will likely become unsatisfied with their shallow marriages and will be horrified to find out that breast size and shape do not stay the same over the course of a woman's life, especially if she has kids. They try to cheer themselves up, remembering that women still find George Clooney attractive, and figure they can just keep finding younger women, only to realize that they do not look like George Clooney or take in his paycheck. In the end, they wish they just had someone they liked and could talk to, like that old girlfriend whose left breast was a little lower than her right, but now she's with someone with brains and a soul (whether that's herself, a spouse, a bf/gf...). The moral: Gather ye A-cups while ye may!

Of course, for your sake, ehabby, I'm glad your ex had not read such an article, because then maybe you wouldn't have found out what an asshat he is until later. Wish you all the best.

"Settling for "Mr. Good Enough" at any age will result in eventually being stuck with "Mr. Not Good Enough Anymore" a little late."

I hope no one needs to be reminded that Mr. Right also easily becomes Mr. Not Good Enough. Maybe he'll lose his hair and let himself go. Maybe he will not, in fact, be any good with children, much less growing children. Maybe love does not last forever. Maybe he'll stray, like many men and women do, surveys claiming about a third to up to more than half of both men and women. Men change. Women change. Tastes and goals change.

"women who want children should not have to marry men they don't like just to have a baby."

Oh, hell no. That is never my intention in bringing up fertility. In a nursing environment, I would never even dare. Parenthood just requires planning, for women and men.

god, what awful advice. i don't want an ex tracking me down to get married because she needs to settle for someone. i'd prefer to be alone than to know my wife settled for me.

oh, and my sympathies to Dawn. I've had relationships end because of my baby-making-deficiency, it ain't fun - and I'm only 27.

"People should read the actual statistics of how easy it is or isn't to get pregnant around the age of 40, from medical sources. You'd be surprised. Yes, fertility isn't the same as for a sixteen-year-old, but it's not all gloom and doom."

BluePencils, my SIL also had her first ever child at 39, soon after being married, like the president of NOW *started* at 39. That still makes it nothing more than an anecdote. No, it may not apply to any individual reader, but why don't you accept research for what it is? Yes, find any source you want, reputable research should always tell you something similar. Women have their limit, average in their early 40s. Men have their limit, though it is still being debated where. It's not fair, but it is not anyone's fault.

And no, there is no need get "some" man just to have a baby or because there might not be a better one later. (If one desires a relationship or children.)

"I think we need to write a new article: "Marry Her! The Case for Settling for Good-Enough Breasts." It would be on how men who throw away relationships over things like breast shape, and choose relationships that may not be as good for them based on cleavage, will end up bitterly regretting their choice, as they realize that supermodels aren't lining up to marry them (and are airbrushed anyway), and wither up alone into their old age. "

This is why the concept that men do not settle, is also bullshit. It's not like the average man (unlike say, Wilt Chamberlain) can marry or have sex with anyone they feel like. Men are simply fortunate that the average woman does look beyond men's age, looks, or money.

"I'm not sure why society still reveres old dude sperm anyway"

---------
"The impression I got is that it's more a reverence for old dude money..."

Hugh Hefner. People may like to consider being around to see one's children born or grow, perhaps even become independent adults and have children of their own. It's sometimes depressing to consider men in my line appear to die by 56, but I might see grandchildren. My wife knew this when we got married, and I know that people in her family may go blind like her father and herself or die young of cancer, like my family dies of cancer or some form or circulatory disease. There are no deaths from "old age" in my family.

It's the choice of Hefner and his partner, but their child will have no choice.

I remember when I was much younger, hearing my mom on the phone telling her friend or sister how my dad wasn't "Mr.Right," but that 'he' might never have come. Throughout their almost 27 years of marriage (though I'm only 21), I've rarely seen them happy. Maybe because I'm comparing them to the idea of happiness I've constructed from watching to many movies and TV shows. Still, I don't want what they have. I do want to get married someday,but only if I fall in love with a guy who I'm compatible with, and who will be a good role model for my children, and can handle money, and will be a good match for me - because I can do better on my own and lonely than I can miserable with someone else. Even if I don't marry, I'll still adopt kids, because I want to have children someday. Even without a husband to help (my dad was never too present in my childhood, despite coming home everynight), I can still call and ask my mom/sister/friends/kids' friends' parents to help me out if I need it.

"we were speculating as to whether there's a trend or cultural shift going on and more women are wanting babies younger, whether it's more acceptable somehow."

While I was still in Japan, this was the feature of a British national newspaper. Despite all the problems related to young parenthood, there is ONE definite advantage: when one's children are grown and moved off, you will also still be young. Some of my classmates have children up to 23 years old, and we are only 39. By their mid 40s, these classmates who started early will have paid off their college debts, as well as enjoy possible grandchildren. Meanwhile, I will be dealing with rising tuition, and skyrocketing cost of housing. Less than 20 years ago, houses in this neighborhood went for $65,000. Now they are selling for $750,000 to $1.4 million, and these are ordinary houses, as small as 1,200 square feet. My smart classmates bought houses as soon as they could. I will never be able to.

"How great will it be when the woman, years later, will look at the mr settled for and say with coldness, 'You know, I never did actually love you.'"

Aaah, you may be interested in reading some Glenn Sacks, where you will see a lot of the woman-hate among his readers is related to scenarios just like that, where it is claimed 65%/66%/two thirds of divorces are initiated by women, as found by the AARP, The National Center for Health Statistics, the American Law and Economics Review, and others.

"Evidence is given that among college-educated couples, the percentages of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%." (Wikipedia)

Ouch.

[start quote]

In their study titled "Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the US," Kuhn and Guidubaldi find it reasonable to conclude that women anticipate advantages to being single, rather than remaining married.[4]

When women anticipate a clear gender bias in the courts regarding custody, they expect to be the primary residential parent for the children and the resulting financial child support, maintaining the marital residence, receiving half of all marital property, and gaining total freedom to establish new social relationships. In their detailed analysis of divorce rates, Kuhn and Guidubaldi conclude that acceptance of joint physical custody may reduce divorce. States whose family law policies, statutes, or judicial practice encourage joint custody have shown a greater decline in their divorce rates than those that favor sole custody.

I want to second sgzax - marriage can be great for some but that doesn't mean it is for everyone. You can't extrapolate your feelings out to the rest of the world and it is stupid to try. Life is never that simple.

I got married at 23, which a lot of people consider pretty young, but for me it's working out great and now at almost 30 we are planning to start our family. However I don't feel any urge to go out there and start lecturing 23 year olds about finding a man! My life is great for me but how could I take that to mean it is the template for happiness? I don't understand the way this woman thinks.

In fact a lot of my conversations with friends go along the lines of "You married your high school sweet heart? Wow. I'm so glad I didn't do that!" Most of my girlfriends thinking back to early relationships are certainly glad they didn't settle. I'll have to tell them they are just in denial and they should be calling up those old boy friends!

"Despite all the problems related to young parenthood, there is ONE definite advantage: when one's children are grown and moved off..."

That's *if* one's children are grown and moved off, right?

I mean, I heard that some young parents still live with *their* parents. For example, when someone moves in with her husband who still lives with his parents and she expect her daughter-in-laws to move in rather than expecting her sons to move out...

"Some of my classmates have children up to 23 years old, and we are only 39. By their mid 40s, these classmates who started early will have paid off their college debts"

That's an advantage of starting (and finishing college) early, kids or no kids. I've also heard of people who postponed college (and face the same school expenses you do) because they had children early and didn't want to combine formal study with childrearing.

Uh, I'd like to point out that I am not interested in reducing divorce to keep women in bad marriages considering:

"The AARP study found that most women said they filed for divorces because of physical or emotional abuse, infidelity or drug and alcohol abuse. Men said they sought divorces because they fell out love, they had different values or lifestyles or infidelity." (CBS News, from "The Divorce Experience: A Study of Divorce at Midlife and Beyond").

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/27/national/main619850.shtml

"That's *if* one's children are grown and moved off, right?"

Parents can be burdened by dependent children at any age - see: "freeter." It is also quite normal in Hawaii, where most people may never independently afford housing, or those who have kids in their teens in general. Live-in, dependent adult children is also a social phenomenon in Italy:

Married to the Mom
Newsweek International, June, 2002
by Nadeau, Barbie

"A recent report says that seven out of 10 unmarried Italian men over the age of 35 still live at home; in Europe's next most coddling country, Germany, 50 percent don't have the heart to leave."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3335/is_200206/ai_n8055719

WHAAAAAT?

Screw that. Considering my financial situation living in Hawaii, I will strongly promote military or Coast Guard service to my children if they *expect* me to pay for college or support them through adulthood. Coast Guard, if they or my wife are concerned about "going to war."

"That's an advantage of starting (and finishing college) early, kids or no kids."

No, I mean parents will have paid off their children's college debts while still young. Many parents still provide for their kids' education.

Not that this is anyway important to the article at hand, but the Coast Guard is considered a branch of the military - and Coasties are currently serving in the Persian Gulf and other dangerous areas.

Jesus. That Chris guy... what a pig. I can't believe he thinks just because she's getting older she'll come back to him. His ideas sound to me like an overconfident bastard who thinks he's the best thing that ever happened to that woman.

I hope this doesn't become widely believed. This woman needs to take some Prozac and get her facts straight.

"Not that this is anyway important to the article at hand, but the Coast Guard is considered a branch of the military - and Coasties are currently serving in the Persian Gulf and other dangerous areas."

I am aware of both. But consider:

"At the height of the conflict, Collins said the Coast Guard deployed 1,200 men and women, 11 ships and a port-security unit to the theater to conduct maritime-interception operations and coastal-security patrols."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/coastguard/a/uscgwar.htm

1,200, at its *peak*? Look, I respect Coast Guard members as much as I respect anyone else in uniform serving their country or community, and I am questioning no one's devotion or courage, but with about 50,000 members and reservists, I do not worry my son or daughter will be one of those 1,200, or one of the casualties. If one wishes to avoid war, it would be riskier to join the Army, not qualify for a specialty that recruiters promote when playing up Army opportunities, and being put in infantry.

Even if this piece weren't that bad on its own, keep in mind that the Atlantic, like almost all Serious Magazines, publishes very few stories from women (unless things have changed in the past year or so.) One of the women they have published consistently is Caitlin Flanagan.

Their interns tend to be an overwhelmingly female group, so they are okay with women doing unpaid work.

"Parents can be burdened by dependent children at any age - see: 'freeter.'"

And see "you'll be a disgrace to the family and make us look like bad parents if you move out before you can afford to give yourself the same standard of living we're giving you here!!!" o_O

"No, I mean parents will have paid off their children's college debts while still young. Many parents still provide for their kids' education."

Yeah, but I had the impression that paying off a college debt within a few years of the student graduating was unlikely, so I didn't realize you were talking about their kids' education instead of their own.

No, it may not apply to any individual reader, but why don't you accept research for what it is? Yes, find any source you want, reputable research should always tell you something similar. Women have their limit, average in their early 40s

amale--A 35 year old woman has a 75% chance of getting pregnant in a year without any assistance. A 40 year old woman has a 40% chance. Yeah, those aren't the best odds, but that's without any assistance, no fertility drugs, no IVF, etc. Personally, I don't think the odds are so bad, when you add in the possibility of fertility drugs. (I was going to try fertility drugs if I didn't get pregnant in six months.) They're not as good as those for a 25 year old, but it's not as if you have no chance of getting pregnant at age 40, which is the impression you get in the media. Fertility then drops quite a bit each year after 40. I don't think it's a reason to settle for some guy you're not in love with, or to give up your career at an important point. And I'm practical, I always figured there was adoption, or foster care--there are other ways to parent than to have a baby.

And see "you'll be a disgrace to the family and make us look like bad parents if you move out before you can afford to give yourself the same standard of living we're giving you here!!!" o_O

No such thing, given current economic realities, at least in Hawaii. The standard of living for future generations including myself, can only go down in the foreseeable future. We have modern conveniences and technology, but will never live as well as our parents.

My parents, a high school teacher and full time national guardsman, had an combined annual income greater than the cost of a house in my community when I was a child. Salaries have only about tripled in 30 years, while the cost of housing has gone up about 30 fold in Hawaii.

I know my mother also regrets not investing in real estate or upgrading. Just last week, she was speaking to someone from the neighborhood and revealed that she and my late dad had not considered it worth buying a house here for $65,000 in 1995 (again, less than their combined annual income, even as civil service retirees on a generous pension). [My own jaw dropped, because I had about three times that in the bank, prior to blowing it all moving back home and being a full time student.] Well, they should have, because now houses here are $750,000 to $1.4 million. Again, totally nondescript homes 10-25 years old, and around 1,200 square feet, the most expensive ones about double that, and still much smaller than the average US home.

Can you imagine housing prices in the same neighborhood, with nearly the exact same houses, increasing 12-20 fold in just 13 years? Is that not obscene? Even people lucky enough to have bought when houses are affordable (until about 2001), are paying taxes befitting the value of their homes, while obviously salaries have not increased that much in the same period of time.

The only thing financially dumber than me not buying a house in Hawaii prior to 2003, was not investing in Yahoo! Japan when it was released (and I knew from US stock performance five months earlier that it was a sure thing), when $60,000 could have got me $3,000,000 had I sold at its peak about two years later. Not investing in Apple at $3 per share prior to the introduction of the iPod (currently 125.48), or Google (516.69) at its initial offering ($105) were also stupid. That Apple could have got me about 2.5 million today as well. Meanwhile, I live off what would have been my retirement money. No one including my psychiatrist can understand how pissed that gets me.

Bah, I hate articles like this. I work in health care, and I see different sets of figures constantly. Twenty years ago, it was claimed peak fertility was at 27. Now they are saying 23 or 24. Why the change? Toxic environment? Bad math skills? The old figures were a guess?

I have a friend who married at 37, and her doctor told her how hard it would be to conceive because she was so old, and that she needed at least 6 months to rid her system of the birth control pills' years of effects. he claimed she had dramatically lowered her changes by being on the pill so long too. So she stopped all birth control, expecting to have a baby in a year or two. She was pregnant, to her shock, by the end of the honeymoon. That was not what she wanted. After she had her first baby, she got the same story about how hard it would be for her, and that she was nursing as well so she needn't bother with birth control. Baby #2 was born a year after #1. She ignored her doctors, and resumed normal contraception so she could have a breather and had #3 at 43. My grandmother was 40 when my mom was born, my great-grandmother 38 when grandma was born. Mom was almost 32 when I was born

This is all anecdotal, but so really is the research. It's not collected in the way cancer research is and ignores the simple fact that like with everything else in life not everyone starts out on a level playing field. No one submits their babies to be evaluated from birth to determine future fertility-there is no real way we can say what the normal level of fertility might be. People who have trouble at 35, or 40 might have been born less fertile or infertile all along. You don't really know if you can until you try to procreate.
I also have a friend who got married young and has been trying to give birth to a viable child for 15 years. She has had 2 sets of twins die at birth or be stillborn, and 7 miscarriages. She conceives as easily at 39 as she did at 23, and the doctors have no idea why she either loses the baby or it dies soon after birth.

Articles like this, and the various conventional wisdom about women's health issues are basically scare tactics meant to keep us in our place. Medicine is an inexact science, and of course fertility goes away when menopause hits, but these statistics change all the time. Someone just recently figured out that the age of the MAN has some effect? Were they supposed to be immune to aging? Or did the male researchers look at people like Charlie Chaplin and say "can't be us." as a cause of infertility.
Don't let the clock run out, I know I have to start soon, but don't buy all this crap that seems to be aimed at pushing women to have babies younger and younger.

"Fertility then drops quite a bit each year after 40."

People don't "need" relationships or babies, but why not come out and say, probability of pregnancy is already in the single digits by 43? Same for IVF, about 3% success rate at 43. These middle aged women and grandmothers in the news giving birth through IVF are using donor cells. Fertility drugs can stimulate ovulation, but it's still the person's eggs. The problem is with the gamete cells themselves.

Reading about fertility today not only confirms to me that the age of the man also matters, but men's fertility also drops beginning in their late 30s (end limit unknown - researchers probably can't get enough elderly subjects who find younger partners still attempting parenthood). That's right. I'm not blaming women, and I'm not trying to panic women. Just as a man who'd like to father children may improve his chances with a younger partner, so can a woman:

Chance of pregnancy falls as male partner ages - Fertility Interval Holds
OB/GYN News, July 1, 2002 by Terry Rudd

The daily probabilities of becoming pregnant within the fertile period fell as age increased. Compared with women in their early 20s, women in their late 30s had about half the chance of becoming pregnant on a specific day during their fertile period. Fertility also appeared to fall as men aged, beginning with the late 30s. A 35-year-old woman with a partner of the same age had a 29% probability of becoming pregnant following intercourse on her most fertile day. That probability dropped to 18% if she had a 40-year-old partner. The best chance of achieving pregnancy may come with intercourse 2 days before ovulation, when an average couple's probability of pregnancy peaked at 37% (Hum. Reprod. 17[5]:1399-1403, 2002).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_13_37/ai_89379389

And that is with ovulating women who plan sex based on their most fertile days. Reportedly that is no fun for couples, either. Another "have to" type of sex.

I find it very interesting that I'm supposed to want to get married by a certain age so I can have children. I'm also a tad disgusted by all of the articles along the lines of "the feminists told me I could have kids when I wanted and now I'm too old and I'll never have children now!" Hello, adoption? Why does no one bring up adoption when discussing options for having children? If you raise a kid, it's yours, regardless of whose vagina s/he rolled out.

"Twenty years ago, it was claimed peak fertility was at 27. Now they are saying 23 or 24. Why the change? Toxic environment? Bad math skills? The old figures were a guess?"

In Japan, dioxins have been found to be environmental hormones, and physical effects have been directly observed in river carp, with underdeveloped testes, and human male sperm counts are dropping as well. As with the article I just linked above, it could be the men's sperm which is a factor. The urine of women on the pill in the sewage system has also been blamed as one cause of environmental hormones. Effect *on* women, I have not seen reported. Also, I wonder if earlier onset of puberty in girls has had any effect on age of "peak" fertility.

"I also have a friend who got married young and has been trying to give birth to a viable child for 15 years. She has had 2 sets of twins die at birth or be stillborn, and 7 miscarriages. She conceives as easily at 39 as she did at 23, and the doctors have no idea why she either loses the baby or it dies soon after birth."

That is about the worst real life nightmare I can imagine. My right eye teared up, and it's that burning kind that causes more tearing. It is nobody's business to say so, but have they considered alternatives to biological parenthood?

"Hello, adoption? Why does no one bring up adoption when discussing options for having children? If you raise a kid, it's yours, regardless of whose vagina s/he rolled out."

You came out and said it. As illogical as it may be with so many children waiting for placement, and so many optimistic pro-lifers, having children with one's own DNA does matter to many people. I had to make clear to my wife after her first abortion that it did not matter to me whose children she has. She can be confused who the fathers are, you see.

"but it's not as if you have no chance of getting pregnant at age 40, which is the impression you get in the media."

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2003/09/30/unexpectedly_expecting_pregnant_after_40/

"Yes, women in their 40s crowd fertility clinics these days. Yes, the odds of getting pregnant over 40 are slim. But recent statistics point up some lesser-known facts of mid-life: They are second only to 'irresponsible' teenagers in the percentage of their pregnancies that are accidents..."

'And see 'you'll be a disgrace to the family and make us look like bad parents if you move out before you can afford to give yourself the same standard of living we're giving you here!!!' o_O'

"No such thing, given current economic realities, at least in Hawaii."

I wasn't only thinking of Hawaii.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1644655,00.html

This kind of thing isn't only in India, BTW.

"You came out and said it. As illogical as it may be with so many children waiting for placement, and so many optimistic pro-lifers, having children with one's own DNA does matter to many people"

...and for some people it matters only until their own DNA actually shows up in their children.

Hence some Iranians who pass on genes for thick body hair then pressure their daughters to remove it all, some Malians who pass on dark skin genes then pressure their daughters to bleach, some Americans who pass on genes for curvy figures then pressure their daughters to be super-skinny, etc. instead of tolerating the sight of the traits they pass on or at least using birth control.

Hi folks, great post. I have a real problem with the it-happened-on-TV-so-real-life-must-be-like-that school of journalism. Last year I was in a debate called "The Trouble With LOVE" and there was a little weasel-man there, I forget his name, who said he'd love to meet a real-life Bridget Jones but he just couldn't find one. (Note he was considerable less attractive than anyone Renee Zellweger has ever dated in real life). I was just hopping out of my seat shouting "Yes dude, I've read Harry Potter so why can't I meet a teenage wizard!!??"

From TIME:

"Single men may face some of the same prejudices, but generally it's much easier for them. People are less likely to question why a man is living alone, or even why he's not married."

Really? Unattached men in India aren't suspected of being gay? Do family and acquaintances flat out ask women not with a man if they are lesbians?

"...and for some people it matters only until their own DNA actually shows up in their children."

Actually being with a woman and having children changed my mind for the positive about both.

Returning to Japan from a two week trip home alone for my grandmother's funeral in 1998, I found unmistakable physical evidence that my coworker, a former lifeguard on his way to law school, had not only been to my home during my absence without informing me or asking my permission (he also used my computer equipment), my wife made no mention of said visitation, either. I didn't even bother.

I would have considered it extremely amusing in Japan for a Japanese blooded couple like my wife and myself to have a baby with caucasian features. People in Japan like that.

"there was a little weasel-man there, I forget his name, who said he'd love to meet a real-life Bridget Jones but he just couldn't find one."

At least he was not wishing for a real woman like a female Japanese animation character, or a Japanese school girl in uniform. Ref: comment number 1:

http://news.3yen.com/2007-10-20/the-ultimate-otaku-hookup-hug-pillows/
http://www.moemoerabu.net/2007/03/12/levelling-up-my-otakuism/

Unfortunately, my friend and her husband are like my mom was they don't believe in adopting. A child is only a real child if it looks like you and continues your line.

As for me, I have issues with the scare tactics and the samples of the studies. I know no one who had a child older, and it has never been an issue in my family line, who needed IF except the ones like my friend who should be adopting and not doing experimental treatments. The doctors don't know what is wrong with her after 15 years they still are not sure.

Can you imagine housing prices in the same neighborhood, with nearly the exact same houses, increasing 12-20 fold in just 13 years?

Yep. I grew up in NYC.

Apologies if this posts twice...

Anyway, I'm irritated by how she says (pg. 3) that women who claim to be happy with men who are less educated or make less money have settled but just can't admit it.

I suspect the author is one of those women who passes (or used to, I guess) on great guys because they don't have the right clothes/job/car/whatever, and now she's all upset about having to settle for some bald fatty who only appreciates her and makes her laugh. She didn't land the handsome lawyer-doctor with a shiny white porsche and is now forced to consider one of the losers that other women won't envy.

The older I get, the more certain I feel that there are just some people who are going to be bored with life and find things to complain about and ways to loath themselves, whether they are married or single. And there are others who will choose joy and growth and love, whether they're married or single.

What kills me here, are so many people thumping the idea of marriage for "love", as if that's actually a [i]good[/i] idea.

Love is honestly the worst reason for marriage. Marriage for love is part of why we have such a massive divorce rate. Too many people want divorces after their "perfect" stops being so perfect, when the "butterflies" stop, or when their life doesn't resemble a Meg Ryan rom/com.

Love is the most temporary, most fickle, most tenuous, and least solid reason to marry, period.

Another problem, is that society has convinced women that they're "settling" if they're with anyone who isn't 200% better than everything they could have possibly ever wanted, while simultaneously telling men that we have to lower our standards, and take what we can get.

Love goes away, it's not permanent. Being highly compatible with someone, based on ideals, goals, vision of the future, financial matters, desires, wants, etcetera, is MUCH more important than "love".

I don't see how it's "settling", to stay on 19 or 20, instead of hitting for 21.

D'oh. Used to BBCode over html. My apologies.

"I was speaking in the context of the article, she quotes her friends saying that they have to have sex with someone they don't want to. The problem I have is with the "have to." It's one thing to have sex with someone when you don't necessary feel like it, but are being generous and doing it anyway and having to do it.

***********

I'm not so sure. Sometimes I have to have sex with my wife when I don't feel like it...If she wants it. We made a deal, afterall. And withholding affection for more than three or four days isn't part of the deal. And the same goes for her. Alienation of affection is grounds for divorce. You may not like that fact now. But someday when you're an old hag, it'll come in handy as a way of coercing your old codger to give it up.

Another problem, is that society has convinced women that they're "settling" if they're with anyone who isn't 200% better than everything they could have possibly ever wanted, while simultaneously telling men that we have to lower our standards, and take what we can get.

What society are you living in? Because I'm living in the one that's constantly tell ing women that we're too fat, too skinny, too ugly, too successful, not successful enough, too loud, too quiet, too smart, too dumb to be worthy of a decent man. I'm living in the one that's constantly portraying dumb, balding, fat men married to picture-perfect women who run their households. I'm living in the one where advice books telling women how to land a man--any man--are routinely published and promoted and women's magazines are full of tips and articles about how to keep your man--any man--happy.

Love is honestly the worst reason for marriage. Marriage for love is part of why we have such a massive divorce rate. Too many people want divorces after their "perfect" stops being so perfect, when the "butterflies" stop, or when their life doesn't resemble a Meg Ryan rom/com.

Have you got any evidence for this? I've known divorcing couples, many of them. I don't see any reason to write off their experiences in such a condescending way--divorce is no small matter, and the divorcing couples I know have been together for years on end and have decided that being alone is better than living with someone they don't love.

Love is the most temporary, most fickle, most tenuous, and least solid reason to marry, period....Love goes away, it's not permanent. Being highly compatible with someone, based on ideals, goals, vision of the future, financial matters, desires, wants, etcetera, is MUCH more important than "love".

Love goes away? Always? Really? It never deepens, changes form, increases? It always just goes away? And do you really think love is radically different from sharing goals, ideals, desires, etc.?

What you say would make sense except for one thing: most people expect their spouses not only to have sex with them, but to refrain from having sex with others. Those who practice polyamory may feel that your model of primary partnership is more feasible. But for those of us who don't, the idea of having to wake up next to, spend our free time with, have sex with, negotiate the most important life decisions with somebody we don't love is...repulsive. And that's why those people you refer to before don't stay married.

Those who practice polyamory may feel that your model of primary partnership is more feasible. But for those of us who don't, the idea of having to wake up next to, spend our free time with, have sex with, negotiate the most important life decisions with somebody we don't love is...repulsive. And that's why those people you refer to before don't stay married.

What society are you living in?

The one where women seem to think that it's "settling" to take a man that's not Brad Pitt, with the wealth of Bill Gates.

The one where they're taught that they're perfect, admirable, and on a pedestal, and the only thing they should "settle" for is perfect.

Or where they're taught that the most important quality in a man is his wallet.

Society also teaches the foolish notion that love is magical, so when it's not so magical, people cut and run, and get a divorce.

Have you got any evidence for this? I've known divorcing couples, many of them. I don't see any reason to write off their experiences in such a condescending way--divorce is no small matter, and the divorcing couples I know have been together for years on end and have decided that being alone is better than living with someone they don't love.

I've been divorced. I know plenty of people that have. The problem has almost always been some aspect of "I don't love you as much/it's not as exciting as it used to be", combined with infidelity. Basically, empty nonsense that comes from people who expect that early romance, overwhelming butterfly filled feeling to last forever, when it certainly does not.

Love goes away? Always? Really? It never deepens, changes form, increases? It always just goes away? And do you really think love is radically different from sharing goals, ideals, desires, etc.?

Yes, it goes away. Always. People are foolish to think that that buzzing butterfly feeling (as described above) is how it's always going to be, or how it always should be.

Yes, I do think it's radically different. A couple I know that has a fantastic marriage, aren't "in love" by the Hallmark-societal sense at all.

But they agreed wholeheartedly on kids, religion, finances, the future, politics, and every other issue of compatibility. They're best friends, and I see their partnership lasting a hell of a lot longer than two people getting married because they're "omg so in lurve" like a couple of highschoolers.

What you say would make sense except for one thing: most people expect their spouses not only to have sex with them, but to refrain from having sex with others.

People don't like cheaters. That's simple.

Those who practice polyamory may feel that your model of primary partnership is more feasible. But for those of us who don't, the idea of having to wake up next to, spend our free time with, have sex with, negotiate the most important life decisions with somebody we don't love is...repulsive. And that's why those people you refer to before don't stay married.

Like I said, expecting to be "in love" forever is why there is so much divorce. All the couples I know that divorced, married out of love, all the ones still together, married out of mutual compatibility and respect for one another.

Just because you aren't rom/com in love with someone, doesn't mean you aren't great friends and a fantastic team with them.

Ack, what happened there? It...quoted some of yours, and left out everything I wrote, and then posted the second time correctly?

That's...new.

The shame of it is, the non-flamebait aspect of this story is one worth exploring: the idea that courtship is about as different as being married-with-kids as you can possibly get, and that fun/sexy/exciting boyfriend and great reliable husband are two entirely different things.

But unfortunately, the flamebait -- the "all women want husbands and kids and if they say they don't they're lying," the "you should totally marry a gay man or someone who completely grosses you out instead of staying single because at least you'd have someone/anyone," the "even women in miserable marriages are better off than any single woman because at least they get free babysitting (babysitting? it's his kid too, right?)" -- is the entire reason why it was purchased.

Of course she meant to offend. Offending people gets page hits. Page hits are the order of the day. Page hits don't mean you said anything intelligent, they mean you got people all worked up with gross oversimplifications and outright nonsensical accusations. And that is what publishers want, apparently.

@ Mild Ennui: I don't know anyone who has defined "love" as a buzzing butterfly, at least not since second grade. Love of a marital level is a sense of ongoing content, having a connection with someone, caring deeply about their happiness. Objectively, you are wrong, because plenty of marriages have sustained that warm satisfaction to old age. It certainly doesn't happen every time, but you can't guarantee that it won't. Even the buzzing butterfly of lust/romance/infatuation which you seem to have confused with love does stick around for some couples.

I think you're right, however, that people who want to stay together need to consider it pragmatically as well as emotionally. Getting married is a business arrangement in many ways, and it's hard enough without fundamental disagreements over values, goals, finances, etc.

But of course, even if you agree on all those important things when you're 29, you may not when you're 49. There's no way to get around the fact that some marriages will fail and some will last, all strategies aside.

But I don't think an unhappy marriage can be called a success even if it lasts 60 years.

And really -- I don't see anyone romanticing a man with money. The modern love story is always someone who shuns the prince for the pauper. If women have unrealistic expectations, it's what married/family life will feel like, not how much cash her man brings in.

Even the buzzing butterfly of lust/romance/infatuation which you seem to have confused with love does stick around for some couples.

That's just it. It's not *me* that's confusing that. It's what most people are expecting out of relationships. They assume that that is how it's always going to be, and when it's not, they want out.

And really -- I don't see anyone romanticing a man with money. The modern love story is always someone who shuns the prince for the pauper. If women have unrealistic expectations, it's what married/family life will feel like, not how much cash her man brings in.

Yeah, perhaps in some fictional stories, but not in real life.

Society strongly teaches women to date for money, and even if that's slowly (and barely) changing, the vast majority still hold that view.

It's doubly bad as it gives women unrealistic expectations, and gives men undue stress that we're "not good enough" if we aren't independantly wealthy.

Even if that's true--so what?

If people are entering and leaving marriages based on whether or not they feel romantically and butterfly-edly fulfilled--what's the problem? Let 'em. If people are happier being alone and falling in and out of love over the course of their lives than gritting their teeth and deciding to suck it up for the sake of their financial arrangements, trudging drearily to the grave, I'm glad they're in culture that allows them to do that, and I'm glad they're in a financial position that allows them to do that.

The idea that any marriage that ends, no matter how good it was for a while or how much it created is a "failure," while any marriage that lasts until somebody dies is a "success," regardless of the happiness of the union or its effect on others, is not one that I buy.

Society strongly teaches women to date for money, and even if that's slowly (and barely) changing, the vast majority still hold that view.

Marrying for love? What kind of fairy tale princess fantasy is that? Marriage is for the security that comes from making lifelong commitment.

Whoa, hold it -- I didn't mean FINANCIAL security! Geez, these women are a bunch of golddiggers.

Because the entire point of entering a marriage is for something permanent, not temporary.

If it's not going to last, why bother? It just inflates the divorce statistic, gets conservatives in a froth that "marriage is in danger", makes the entire thing trivial, and causes unnecessary conflict with people.

That's the problem. If two people enter into what is supposed to be a lifelong contract, and one sees as such, and the other sees it as a temporary bit of fun until they find someone else they want to sleep with, that's obviously not fair to one half of the arrangement, and foolish all around.

The idea that any marriage that ends, no matter how good it was for a while or how much it created is a "failure," while any marriage that lasts until somebody dies is a "success," regardless of the happiness of the union or its effect on others, is not one that I buy.

Then you're shopping in the wrong place.

If a marriage ends, it has failed. That's all there is to it. If you were "oh so in lurve" for a few years, then fought like mad and one of you cheated on the other, how could you call that a "success"? A successful marriage would be, by definition, one that doesn't end prematurely.

Divorce over "Wah, I'm not giddy anymore" is an admission of failure.

If it ends prematurely, what it created means nothing, as in the process of dismantling the marriage, you dismantle and destroy everything that was "created".

People are not going to be happy all the time. Another flaw in the system, is people are taught, and expect, that if they get married, they should be happy 100% of the time, and if they aren't, for any reason, they should leave.

Reality says that's bull, it's just a shame people don't accept that reality as much as they should.

Marrying for love? What kind of fairy tale princess fantasy is that? Marriage is for the security that comes from making lifelong commitment.

Whoa, hold it -- I didn't mean FINANCIAL security! Geez, these women are a bunch of golddiggers.

Mmm, context and the taking of things out of it.

I'm saying marriage should be done for mutual compatibility and agreement on life and the goals therein.

Huge difference between that and someone who specifically seeks out someone who makes a six figure salary because they want to "marry up".

Just saying, the two main things that are shown to women as "ideal" in relationships are fairy tale "love", and later "get rich quick, regardless of personal compatibility".

The annoying thing is, there was an element of a good idea in there: What flaws can you compromise on? Which ones are dealbreakers (I'm talking about flaws other than serious drug abuse, violence and the like)? When is "OK, he/she isn't quite what I imagined, but he's the right one" the right thing to say?

But that got pretty much lost in the bullcrap. I notice that even when one of her friends (the attorney) says that the guy she's with is nothing like she expected but she's happy anyway, the writer insists she's "settling."

I'm also reminded of an article (critiqued here a year or two ago, I believe) by a woman who did marry out of desperation and now felt desperately miserable.

Mild Ennui, if my reason for getting married was that I'd sat down and marked off a list of logical points on a checklist ... well, I wouldn't get married if that's all there was to it. I can't imagine anyone undertaking such a humongous commitment on pure logic, which is what you seem to advocate.

I also disagree about all women being programmed to marry for money, and that love can't possibly last (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't) and that that's the primary reason for divorce (based on observing the couples I know who've split). And as someone noted, no amount of careful, logical analysis guarantees you'll still be compatible 20 years down the line.

In short, I pretty much think everything you said was wrong.

As for housing, my area went from 24th most affordable in the USA a decade ago to 125th (or thereabouts). Prices are insane, insurance and property taxes are forcing people to sell (Florida, what can I say?) and a lot of people who did as A Male recommends and bought in as investment are now sitting on properties that won't move. It's a mess.

Dear heavenly days - what a twatwaffle tool this bitch is - there are plenty of people who are happy on their ownsomes who don't need to find personal validation by hanging on some dude's arm. Massive disdain and pity for the rest of her days with the dude for whom she "settles."

"And really -- I don't see anyone romanticing a man with money. The modern love story is always someone who shuns the prince for the pauper."

But Lizadilly, in too many of those stories after the girl chooses the pauper, she finds out either that 1. he is secretly wealthy or 2. Was actually the prince in disguise! afterall.

It's kind of like reading fan fic where the author felt it nessesary to take Hermione Granger and find a way to make her a pureblood afterall(or better yet desended directly from one of the hogwarts founders). I see this a lot with Draco/Herimonie shippers who have Draco overcome his struggles regarding her being muggle-born, and once he decides that he'll take her over the approval of society and his family (of course putting him in Mortal Danger), they find out that she was kidnapped or lost at birth or something (like her parents are squibs) that turns her into a pureblood so that they can have their HEA.

In the case of the woman, in a lot of stories she is in a sense 'rewarded' for choosing the pauper by having him turn out to not be a pauper afterall. Or somebody else kicks the bucket and leaves one of the two of them oodles of money. She rarely ends up being poor by the end of a lot of stories (the majority?).

It's certainly a major plotline in romance novels, and at least in my experience, a lot more common than her getting her HEA with a poor man. And that doesn't even touch the majority of romance novels that like to ignore poverty all together.

I dunno about more general fiction. But I wouldn't think it'd be too different.

Mild Ennui, if my reason for getting married was that I'd sat down and marked off a list of logical points on a checklist ... well, I wouldn't get married if that's all there was to it. I can't imagine anyone undertaking such a humongous commitment on pure logic, which is what you seem to advocate.

Why not? Doing something because it makes sense, and is good for you, is, well, more sensible than doing it out of a rush of temporary emotional highs.

I also disagree about all women being programmed to marry for money, and that love can't possibly last (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't) and that that's the primary reason for divorce (based on observing the couples I know who've split). And as someone noted, no amount of careful, logical analysis guarantees you'll still be compatible 20 years down the line.

In short, I pretty much think everything you said was wrong.

Opinions are fine. A great deal of what I say can be tested. I've tested some of it myself. Yes, anecdotal, I know. Make two identical (male) profiles on two separate dating sites. Now, list one with an average income and job, the other with something exemplary, and 150k/year. See what happens. The "normal" me, got no responses, the "rich" me got 677 "winks" and 432 emails.

What most people consider "love", isn't. Which is why I say it doesn't last. Giddiness and overwhelming bliss do not last. Getting along well with someone and liking them can, and does.

What I see as the primary reason for divorce is what I stated. Infidelity is a large part of it, but why was there infidelity? One partner missed the "excitement" of the "falling in love" phase.

Make two identical (male) profiles on two separate dating sites. Now, list one with an average income and job, the other with something exemplary, and 150k/year. See what happens. The "normal" me, got no responses, the "rich" me got 677 "winks" and 432 emails.

Then the following study is going to blow your mind: put up two profiles of women, one with a picture of a 20-year-old model and one with a picture of an average-looking woman. The first one will get more responses! Even if the two profiles list identical moral values and life goals!

Then the following study is going to blow your mind: put up two profiles of women, one with a picture of a 20-year-old model and one with a picture of an average-looking woman. The first one will get more responses! Even if the two profiles list identical moral values and life goals!

So? People want someone they're physically attracted to for a partner in a romantic relationship. Physical attraction is part of the deal. Would YOU enter into a romance with someone you found physically repulsive?

I think not.

Even outside of that, it's been similarly experimented on. Even perfectly average looking women get huge amounts of contacts.

Being attracted to/judging someone solely because of how much money they make is another thing entirely.

Hell, you can even list the "rich" profile without a photo, and watch the responses roll in.

Besides, at the end of the day, pretty much no matter what you look like, someone, somewhere, will find you attractive. Doesn't quite work the same for not being wealthy and successful.

@Faerylore: I wasn't literally refering to fairy tales, but movies, books, cultural narratives. It's true tons of people still have the Prince syndrome, but generally, I think the prominent value in modern romance is "authenticity."

@ Mild Ennui: You say, "Society strongly teaches women to date for money." Well, I am a woman and I grew up in this society. I am very in tune to sexist pressures, but I have never, ever felt the dominant lesson in society is for me to date for money. There's certainly pressure to HAVE money, and lazy people might choose to date around for it instead of earning it, and there is a superficial expectation of who is a "catch," but I would challenge you to specify how exactly American women are uniformly raised to be golddiggers.

"Would YOU enter into a romance with someone you found physically repulsive?"

By the same logic, would YOU enter into a marriage with someone who was chronically unemployed, had huge debts and was a wastrel?

Yeah, so? I will be 30 in April and I'm not married and I don't plan to marry anyone before April...so what, will I like explode or something if I don't marry before then?

What a fucking idiot.

I am very in tune to sexist pressures, but I have never, ever felt the dominant lesson in society is for me to date for money. There's certainly pressure to HAVE money, and lazy people might choose to date around for it instead of earning it, and there is a superficial expectation of who is a "catch," but I would challenge you to specify how exactly American women are uniformly raised to be golddiggers.

The standard "tradition" of "man = overworked provider" is one, women taught to stay home with a child (which requires a "provider"), De Beers commercials inundating women that they should be on the lookout for a guy who can buy this $8000 rock to "prove" himself.

Just the general stereotype that men exist to provide and work and so forth, combined with the "you're a princess and you're perfect and you deserve whatever you want".

By the same logic, would YOU enter into a marriage with someone who was chronically unemployed, had huge debts and was a wastrel?

Again, this is a false analogy.

There's a huge difference between someone making an average or decent salary (but who is not "wealthy"), and someone who is "chronically unemployed, has huge debts and is a wastrel".

Seriously. False analogies do not a point or argument make.

I don't understand why people knock those wanting their own biological kids. I have no desire to be a leaf node in the evolutionary tree. Moreover, I may not like everything genetic about myself but there are things that I would like to see survive into the next generation. Concerns about overpopulation is just irrelevant here unless you're planning to have a few thousand kids.

Mild Ennui: "There's a huge difference between someone making an average or decent salary (but who is not "wealthy"), and someone who is "chronically unemployed, has huge debts and is a wastrel".

There's a huge difference between someone whose attractive but doesn't have 38 DD breasts and someone you find "physically repulsive." So I don't think the analogy was false.

As to why I wouldn't marry based on "doing something that makes sense and is good for you"--I don't see that it does make sense if you don't want to be with that person at some gut level. It should also be a sensible decision ("Oh, his coke habit isn't that bad" is Not Making Sense, for the sake of argument), but without the emotional urge to be with that person, I don't think it is sensible, at all.

Of course, I've noticed I'm rarely strongly attracted to people who aren't compatible, so I suppose I'm as biased by experience as you are by what you've observed of life--if I were in the habit of falling for women who were self-destructive, mean or a seriously bad fit ("Don't you think Rush Limbaugh is one of the great Americans of our time?") I might see things differently.

There's a huge difference between someone whose attractive but doesn't have 38 DD breasts and someone you find "physically repulsive." So I don't think the analogy was false.

No one even mentioned breasts.

Besides, the analogy is false because these women are passing up men because they make less than 100k/year. The men are still sending emails to the women that aren't super gorgeous.

Even still, physical tastes are physical tastes. A lot of women don't want to date a man shorter than them, and would outright refuse to do so. If you fault men that are attracted to a large chest, will you then fault women that are attracted to tall men?

I should clarify that I'm in my 40s and unmarried and enjoy my life. I've never had the feeling that marriage was something I "had" to do, it was something to do if I found a person I wanted to marry (which I've done once or twice, but they saw things differently).

It's true average looking women get dates. So do guys who make average salaries. Like I said, the analogy holds (breasts was just an example).

As someone 5'2" I do have feelings about height ... but what I go through isn't a fraction of what women get in the lookism department.

As to why I wouldn't marry based on "doing something that makes sense and is good for you"--I don't see that it does make sense if you don't want to be with that person at some gut level. It should also be a sensible decision ("Oh, his coke habit isn't that bad" is Not Making Sense, for the sake of argument), but without the emotional urge to be with that person, I don't think it is sensible, at all.

My point is, if you rely on that "emotional urge", eventually it will go away, and you're left with nothing at all. If you go into it expecting that feeling to be the prevailing motivator for being together, you're going to find yourselves quite quickly separate.

Going into something expecting a partnership, and having realistic expectations ("love forever!" is not what I would call realistic), you'll find that the relationship will have a hell of a lot stronger chance of holding up.

"Would YOU enter into a romance with someone you found physically repulsive?"

Not me. But obviously, people have different tastes in what is desirable in a mate. The average man is not married to an older, taller, heavier woman of a different nationality and culture, as I am. Most men with a taste for Asian women (but I am Asian) would probably choose someone young and petite, more along the lines of what is seen in entertainment and adult media. My wife has likewise expressed to me (in honesty, not insult) that I am not her ideal man. She wished I worked "like" a Japanese man, and did not complain about my lot in life, the way Japanese men are supposed to be stoic (ok, that part is insulting). Conveniently for herself, she does not want to behave or be treated like a "Japanese" wife.

"Can you imagine housing prices in the same neighborhood, with nearly the exact same houses, increasing 12-20 fold in just 13 years?"
"Yep. I grew up in NYC."

Rest assured, Hawaii is not New York. If Hawaii were densely populated with high rises like New York, with its services and amusements, at least there would be justification for the high cost of living. The view is not an excuse. Hawaii is also a mainly rural island chain with comparable cost of living everywhere, at least four hours' flight from anything else. Trying to be independent often means leaving. Nevada is a favored destination for some reason. I chose to go west.

@ Mild Ennui: You're just wrong. People have lifelong friends, lifelong hobbies, lifelong affection for their children and their siblings -- so why not also their spouses?

You can make all the points you want, but they fall flat in the face of reality, because love is just not as formulaic, predictable, and uniform as you would like it to be. Sorry if you had a failed marriage, but that was because of your relationship, not a universal destiny.

You're just wrong. People have lifelong friends, lifelong hobbies, lifelong affection for their children and their siblings -- so why not also their spouses?

That's such a terrible argument. One, you can't pick who your children are, and there's a certain pressure from society to always love your children, no matter what.

Secondly, your friends can be lifelong (though few people have the same friends for their entire life) simply because you don't spend nearly 24/7 with them.

Hobbies aren't the same thing as romance. Shouldn't even have been mentioned.

Siblings fall under the same class as friends, though not everyone likes their siblings. I don't even speak to mine.

So, why not their spouses? Because people are largely unwilling to accept less than perfect, or understand that there will be times that you don't love your spouse, or get a thrill in your stomach when you see them.

They're taught that if this occurs, go ahead and leave, you can always get someone else.

You can make all the points you want, but they fall flat in the face of reality, because love is just not as formulaic, predictable, and uniform as you would like it to be.

Your points apparently fall flat in the face of reality. Don't we have something like a 57% first marriage divorce rate? (Which rises into the 70% range for third marriages).

That's reality. Lifelong romantic love is a fairy tale bit of cheese, and that's mostly all.

It's definitely not something solid enough to base a life altering decision on. That's foolish, and childish.

Sadly, you define "love" much like a starry-eyed teenager, and less like a rational adult.

If you are in fact, a teenager, I do apologize.

Sorry if you had a failed marriage, but that was because of your relationship, not a universal destiny.

I'm not sorry. One learns from their mistakes.

Ennui, I accept that what you're saying is true for you, but I know--from having several friends whose love has lasted, sometimes for decades--that it's not universal.

Which is a good thing, because if I thought yours was the only way a marriage would work, I'd resign myself to dying single.

"Like I said, expecting to be 'in love' forever is why there is so much divorce."

Another reason there is so much more divorce is higher survival rates. For example, your first wife's far less likely to divorce you at age 40 if she already died giving birth to your child at age 14...

"But I don't think an unhappy marriage can be called a success even if it lasts 60 years."

Right on!

"Moreover, I may not like everything genetic about myself but there are things that I would like to see survive into the next generation."

OK - as long as you don't pick on your daughter or som for having some of the genetic things you don't like about yourself and/or your family.

"My point is, if you rely on that 'emotional urge', eventually it will go away..."

...and if you marry someone despite lacking any "emotional urge" for him, then his penetrating your vagina could be a lot more painful what with you not feeling any arousal.

i think it will interesting to see where this debate stands in 20-30 years if current trends continue.

if a woman wants to get married, if its just something she'd like to experience, well not to be too classist but it will become harder and harder as she gets older. 30 is incredibly young, 40 might make a better number. we already see whats happening to black women professionals in their late 30's, they want to get married, test the waters and so on. they look for a black male (of course not always but a lot of the time) who is as educated as they are, as happy or successful in their careers as they are, and guess what happens? demographically those men just arent there.

in 30 years if the % of college graduates continues along its current course, in a world where a college education will become near a necessity, you will have a similar situation facing professionals of all ethnicities. will this be the same as "getting married at 40/terrorist attack" thing? of course not but it will be fascinating to watch.

if you want to bring having your own kids into it, well perhaps if we go 20-30 years women by then will be able to have a kid, with a partner of their choosing, say a husband, at any age they like. that would be a wonderful thing but I would hope they get some scrutiny. as it stands now men, though its not easy, produce viable sperm their entire lives but I think its a little stupid to have a kid when youre 60+. I dont think anyone should have that option taken away but damn, it almost seems unfair to the kid and no one really talks about it.

Geez. As if women haven't been implored to 'settle' for less than they deserve for way too long. I tried (honestly) to read the Atlantic article, but I really really couldn't choke down that same old tired trash again.

"Love is the most temporary, most fickle, most tenuous, and least solid reason to marry, period."

Romance akin to what occurs in the early stages of courtship and honeymoon, is undeniably temporary. I lost that within a few months and the 5-7 days (not times) a week sex stopped because we had weekday jobs and other commitments. The bond that keeps non-abusive happy families together is something different.

"The shame of it is, the non-flamebait aspect of this story is one worth exploring: the idea that courtship is about as different as being married-with-kids as you can possibly get, and that fun/sexy/exciting boyfriend and great reliable husband are two entirely different things."

Exactly. It's been done in a serious, if not scientific manner, just can't tell you where.

"Even still, physical tastes are physical tastes. A lot of women don't want to date a man shorter than them, and would outright refuse to do so. If you fault men that are attracted to a large chest, will you then fault women that are attracted to tall men?"

The nonsensical thing about men (or women) going after looks, athletic performance, etc, is that is surely going to change in a few years or decades, unless your tastes change with it, like watching Robert Redford or Elizabeth Taylor age. This is one reason men may have a series of trophy wives. Unless the unforeseen befalls him, a tall, successful man will likely remain so for most of his life. Income and wealth may actually increase. Desiring a financially successful mate, or one more successful than oneself is quite practical. It's just not an option for most men.

"It's true average looking women get dates. So do guys who make average salaries."

Study suggests 97% of people will actually be married at least once in their lifetimes, despite all this individual talk of remaining single, or waiting for someone right. Glenn Sacks readers also declare they are on marriage strike and will never be trapped by a woman. Let us wait 50 years and see. This, in addition to divorce rates, and reports of marital unhappiness, mainly female, demonstrates that people settle for less than their ideal on a regular basis. The only reason I found this author's article offensive, is because she projected her insecurity onto every other woman, claimed men do not need to "settle," and dismissed the concerns of her married friends.

"Another reason there is so much more divorce is higher survival rates. For example, your first wife's far less likely to divorce you at age 40 if she already died giving birth to your child at age 14..."

That's right. Historically average couples never had to look forward to 50 or more years together, much less be burdened by expectations about marriage as a lifelong romance akin to courtship or honeymoon, or seeing where the grass was greener. My wife can never be like a five foot, 90lb., 20 year old nurse from the Philippines, earning $70,000 per year, which I can see on a daily basis. Duh.

"The nonsensical thing about men (or women) going after looks, athletic performance, etc, is that is surely going to change in a few years or decades, unless your tastes change with it, like watching Robert Redford or Elizabeth Taylor age."

Yeah, there's definitely a problem with having looks be 100% of it.

At the same time, having looks be 0% of it seems to only work for bisexuals (who can be attracted to someone whether that someone looks male or female)...

looks are a major part of it, at least initially.

is it heresy to say that, as groups, hetero men and women might look/place a higher priority on slightly different things?

"is it heresy to say that, as groups, hetero men and women might look/place a higher priority on slightly different things?"

Differences can be observed. But being pragmatic and practical, as selection based on wealth or job security, is wise. Even favoring height or looks if they are desired to be passed on to one's children, is reasonable. People regretting marriage simply because their partners don't look or perform like when they were dating (who knows why the attitudes of the _Atlantic_ wives towards sex or their husbands changed), is foolish. Were they not listening to their vows?

Another reason there is so much more divorce is higher survival rates. For example, your first wife's far less likely to divorce you at age 40 if she already died giving birth to your child at age 14...

The divorce rate has been high for a long time, and women haven't been expected to die at that age, during childbirth in a much longer time.

...and if you marry someone despite lacking any "emotional urge" for him, then his penetrating your vagina could be a lot more painful what with you not feeling any arousal.

I'm fairly certain that raw sexual attraction has very little to do with romantic love.

Geez. As if women haven't been implored to 'settle' for less than they deserve for way too long.

Thank you, part of the problem, for proving my previous points.

You doj't "deserve" anything. Thinking you do is acting spoiled and entitled.

That's part of why I see so many going after money. They feel they "deserve" it.

Romance akin to what occurs in the early stages of courtship and honeymoon, is undeniably temporary. I lost that within a few months and the 5-7 days (not times) a week sex stopped because we had weekday jobs and other commitments. The bond that keeps non-abusive happy families together is something different.

Yes, and many people expect that initial burst to be what lasts, and assume that if they don't have that, all the time, then something is wrong.

The nonsensical thing about men (or women) going after looks, athletic performance, etc, is that is surely going to change in a few years or decades, unless your tastes change with it, like watching Robert Redford or Elizabeth Taylor age.

Sure, but an initial component IS physical attraction. You can't really get around that. We're a visual species.

Desiring a financially successful mate, or one more successful than oneself is quite practical. It's just not an option for most men.

Still doesn't justify golddigging. If you want a financially successful mate, how about being financially successful yourself?

demonstrates that people settle for less than their ideal on a regular basis.

If everyone waited for their ideal, no one would have a relationship with anyone.

That's why you have personals sites full of dateless women, because they want tall, dark, handsome, rich, well educated, single and never married, and they want him to be okay with plain, boring, poor, dropped out of highschool, and single mom of 3.

People would be a lot happier with realistic expectations.

dananddanica,

Perhaps as a group, but I'd just add the caveat that I think that's mainly cultural.

Personally, I know I'm young in the scheme of things. However, looks are pretty important to me. If that initial physical attraction isn't there, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone.

If I was looking for an actual relationship next important to me are common interests, common politics, someone who's polite, someone who I'd consider a good friend, etc.

Thing is, those things can change over time too (people's interests and values, I mean). I really think it's a bit silly to try and shop for a spouse trying to project how you'll feel about them in decades to come. I mean, either you change together and still like each other or you don't. Please, please don't stay married to someone you no longer like all that much -my parents did, and I really think it did the family as a whole no favors.

Life-long monogamy is not a universal, and I hardly think it's inherently the best. Maybe your spouse won't still attract you when you're 55. But probably there's another 55 yr-old out there somewhere who would -so why stay in a situation you're discontent with? Of course, I know legally divorce is a pain in the butt. That's why I'm against marriage -I think you can pledge that you want to spend your life with someone w/o having to get married... and I think for most people, lifelong monogamy is not practical (or at least, not the best way to keep themselves enjoying life).

Mina:

"At the same time, having looks be 0% of it seems to only work for bisexuals (who can be attracted to someone whether that someone looks male or female)..."

I think you're wrong about this. I identify as bi, and looks matter to me. For all the other bi people I know (male and female) looks matter too. Now, I can say among both het and bi males and females I know, the degree to which looks matters can vary pretty widely.

Mild Ennui:

"Geez. As if women haven't been implored to 'settle' for less than they deserve for way too long.

Thank you, part of the problem, for proving my previous points.

You doj't "deserve" anything. Thinking you do is acting spoiled and entitled.

That's part of why I see so many going after money. They feel they "deserve" it."

Umm... everyone deserves someone who will respect them as a person and love them and treat them well. And I feel okay saying that in general, women are brought up to treat men with more respect than vice versa. I think that's what a lot of this "love" stuff comes down to really -it's not about technicalities (tall, dark, rich) as you seem to be convinced it is, it really is also about wanting a partner to treat you a certain way, and to connect intellectually and emotionally on a certain level.

"That's why you have personals sites full of dateless women, because they want tall, dark, handsome, rich, well educated, single and never married, and they want him to be okay with plain, boring, poor, dropped out of highschool, and single mom of 3."

I find this pretty insulting. You don't think there are just as many men looking for unrealistic things in a partner? Not to mention the caracature you paint of both parties is pretty extreme here -I imagine women in that position rarely have the time and energy to be on dating sites, and I know next to no women who are looking for all of those things in a partner. And I think your belief that lots of women are looking for money is pretty unfounded. At least in the group my age (20s) I don't know many.

Umm... everyone deserves someone who will respect them as a person and love them and treat them well.

Again, acting entitled is childish. So is saying that romance or love "isn't fair", or whatnot. You do not "deserve" anything when it comes to relationships. Period. In other terms, you are not entitled to a perfect person to fit all your needs and wants and desires, nor are you entitled to anyone at all.

And I feel okay saying that in general, women are brought up to treat men with more respect than vice versa.

Men are generally taught the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour". Be polite, always pay for dinner, hold the door, blah blah blah.

I think that's what a lot of this "love" stuff comes down to really -it's not about technicalities (tall, dark, rich) as you seem to be convinced it is, it really is also about wanting a partner to treat you a certain way, and to connect intellectually and emotionally on a certain level.

Oh, and one needs that partner to make a six figure salary in order to "connect" with them, right? Yeah, can't connect with those average income people. They're so...common and unwashed!

I find this pretty insulting. You don't think there are just as many men looking for unrealistic things in a partner? Not to mention the caracature you paint of both parties is pretty extreme here -I imagine women in that position rarely have the time and energy to be on dating sites, and I know next to no women who are looking for all of those things in a partner. And I think your belief that lots of women are looking for money is pretty unfounded. At least in the group my age (20s) I don't know many.

Find it insulting all you like. The degree of unrealistic expectations is much worse on the side of women. Men generally want someone "hot". The women I see generally want someone so very far out of their league that it's ridiculous. Such as the example I gave.

No, that is not an extreme example. It's one I took from Match.com earlier today. I was specifically seeking an example, and found one on my first search.

In fact, the majority of women there are low-income single moms, many of which are dropouts, who specifically place the "income" section of their "match" as higher than 75k/year.

Also, my belief that lots of women are looking for money is quite well-founded, as I stated above, which I will requote here:

Make two identical (male) profiles on two separate dating sites. Now, list one with an average income and job, the other with something exemplary, and 150k/year. See what happens.

The "normal" me, got no responses, the "rich" me got 677 "winks" and 432 emails.

'Nuff said.

"'Geez. As if women haven't been implored to 'settle' for less than they deserve for way too long.'

"Thank you, part of the problem, for proving my previous points.

"You doj't 'deserve' anything. Thinking you do is acting spoiled and entitled.'"

You don't deserve sex and/or marriage with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you and/or marry you. In fact, no one deserves that. Calling women who don't want to have sex with and/or marry people like you "spoiled" is totally missing the point.

"I think you're wrong about this. I identify as bi, and looks matter to me. For all the other bi people I know (male and female) looks matter too. Now, I can say among both het and bi males and females I know, the degree to which looks matters can vary pretty widely."

Thanks for reminding me that I should have been clearer and said "maybe some bisexuals" instead of implying all of you! I was thinking of how monosexuality kinda requires that physical traits be >0% of the attraction, not of bisexuality ruling out physical traits being part of the attraction (as you note, it doesn't).

"Umm... everyone deserves someone who will respect them as a person and love them and treat them well."

More accurately, everyone deserves better than someone who won't respect her or him as a person, love her or him, and treat her or him well. Both a loving relationship and staying single are better than that! For example, the world doesn't owe me a loving boyfriend (men have the right to say no too) but I still deserve the right to choose being single instead of stuck under a man I don't love.

Mild Ennui,

Perhaps you spend too much time on dating sites. I happen to go to a good school, with a lot of smart, attractive, hard-working people, and none of us seem to feel that once we're out of school we'll only be interested in people who make good money.

(In fact, the last person I really enjoyed dating didn't make much money at all, in spite of the fact he was almost 30).

Perhaps there are some other things you do that simply turn women off in real life, and it has nothing at all to do with your income...

And re: your comment about men not being unrealistic -what makes you think that wanting someone "hot" is not being unrealistic? I know some guys who want some kind of mainstream media ideal of hotness in terms of looks, and they're certainly not all that and a bag of chips themselves. I'm sure that lowers their dating options... (Actually, I had a drunk overweight older man get mad at me once for not agreeing to go out with him -and I have plenty of other stories like that)

"More accurately, everyone deserves better than someone who won't respect her or him as a person, love her or him, and treat her or him well. Both a loving relationship and staying single are better than that! For example, the world doesn't owe me a loving boyfriend (men have the right to say no too) but I still deserve the right to choose being single instead of stuck under a man I don't love."

Ahh. That sums it up very well, Mina.

Also Mild Ennui,

It seems to me you're contradicting yourself pretty strongly, to say that on the one hand all most guys want is someone "hot" and on the other hand to imply that there's something unattractive about a woman being uneducated, poor, and a single mother...

Umm... everyone deserves someone who will respect them as a person and love them and treat them well.

Again, acting entitled is childish. So is saying that romance or love "isn't fair", or whatnot. You do not "deserve" anything when it comes to relationships. Period. In other terms, you are not entitled to a perfect person to fit all your needs and wants and desires, nor are you entitled to anyone at all.>>

Having someone love you, respect you and treat you well is not the same as "a perfect person to fit all your needs and wants and desires" in any rational meaning of the phrase, Ennui. Nor is it an unreasonable standard to shoot for.

And your repeated insistence that physical standards are perfectly reasonable, financial standards are not seems to be a way of insisting "Well the things I value in a woman are perfecty reasonable, it's all their standards that are at fault." Just as you 'know' that if those women weren't such golddiggers, they'd be able to find someone by now.

As for the importance of physical attraction, am I the only one who finds it increases the more I like someone? The more attracted I become over time, the hotter they seem to get.

As for changes, Nina, here's a perfect example: One of my best friends joined a charismatic church a few years back, becoming much more devout and conservative. If we'd been in a romantic relationship (and I'm sure in some parallel timeline we probably were for a while) I think it would have been much, much more awkward than it was as friends. And Ennui to the contrary, I don't think any amount of logical analysis and checklisting when we were younger could have seen the potential.

Calling women who don't want to have sex with and/or marry people like you "spoiled" is totally missing the point.

Assuming I date and/or have sex is missing the point. I don't, and I don't. I'm sorry to take away what you probably thought was a good zinger.

I call spoiled women as I see them, and frankly, thinking you "deserve" someone so ideal that they're a fantasy, is acting entitled and spoiled.

Perhaps you spend too much time on dating sites. I happen to go to a good school, with a lot of smart, attractive, hard-working people, and none of us seem to feel that once we're out of school we'll only be interested in people who make good money.

I just use them as a fast and easy demographic of local single people.

Perhaps there are some other things you do that simply turn women off in real life, and it has nothing at all to do with your income...

Like telling them to take their interest elsewhere, because I don't date? Yeah, the very few occasions I am approached, using that line usually tends to turn people off, and has nothing to do with my money.

what makes you think that wanting someone "hot" is not being unrealistic? I know some guys who want some kind of mainstream media ideal of hotness in terms of looks, and they're certainly not all that and a bag of chips themselves. I'm sure that lowers their dating options...

Because wanting someone you're physically attracted to, for what will most likely be a physical relationship isn't incredibly unrealistic. No, they aren't going to find Scarlett Johannsen at their door, but it's still not as bad as women who both want the looks of Brad Pitt or whatever, combined with his income.

Actually, I had a drunk overweight older man get mad at me once for not agreeing to go out with him -and I have plenty of other stories like that

So, men that don't want unattractive women are bad, but women that don't want unattractive men are good?

Having someone love you, respect you and treat you well is not the same as "a perfect person to fit all your needs and wants and desires" in any rational meaning of the phrase, Ennui. Nor is it an unreasonable standard to shoot for.

No, but it's unreasonable to think you deserve it, or you're somehow entitled to it, or to act like life isn't fair if you don't get it.

And your repeated insistence that physical standards are perfectly reasonable, financial standards are not seems to be a way of insisting "Well the things I value in a woman are perfecty reasonable, it's all their standards that are at fault." Just as you 'know' that if those women weren't such golddiggers, they'd be able to find someone by now.

Again, I do not date. Do not bring my tastes and standards into it, because I do not have any.

As for the importance of physical attraction, am I the only one who finds it increases the more I like someone? The more attracted I become over time, the hotter they seem to get.

Perhaps, but if someone is initially repulsive to you, you're not going to be around them to change that.

Why is there such vehement denial here? Look anywhere you want - studies show men like traits that suggest reproductive potential in women, women like traits that suggest ability to provide for a family. To base relationships on that alone, or make it a top priority, however, may indeed a recipe for unhappiness in the years to come.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2002, Vol. 82, No. 6, 947–955

The Necessities and Luxuries of Mate Preferences: Testing the Tradeoffs
Norman P. Li, Arizona State University
J. Michael Bailey, Northwestern University
Douglas T. Kenrick, Arizona State University
Joan A. W. Linsenmeier Northwestern University

Social exchange and evolutionary models of mate selection incorporate economic assumptions but have not considered a key distinction between necessities and luxuries. This distinction can clarify an apparent paradox: Status and attractiveness, though emphasized by many researchers, are not typically rated highly by research participants. Three studies supported the hypothesis that women and men first ensure sufficient levels of necessities in potential mates before considering many other characteristics rated as more important in prior surveys. In Studies 1 and 2, participants designed ideal long-term mates,purchasing various characteristics with 3 different budgets. Study 3 used a mate-screening paradigm and showed that people inquire 1st about hypothesized necessities. Physical attractiveness was a necessity to men, status and resources were necessities to women, and kindness and intelligence were necessities to both.

[omission]

Though most characteristics influenced targets’ acceptability as mates, only the predicted ones were treated as necessities. First, women evaluating mates most often inquired first about social level, and men most often inquired first about physical attractive-ness. Second, the impact of these traits on the acceptability of mates displayed a curvilinear pattern. Thus, going from Level 1 to Level 2 on our hypothesized necessities increased a potentialmate’s acceptability more than going from Level 2 to 3 did, as predicted. We also found evidence that kindness is essential to both sexes and that increased kindness does not yield diminishing marginal utility (see below).

[end quote]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l28x8320288qqr8w/

Identifying the ideal mate: More evidence for male-female convergence
Current Psychology
Volume 15, Number 2/1996年6月

Robert Ervin Cramer1 , Jeffrey T. Schaefer1 and Suzanne Reid1

Male and female students participated in an experiment designed to test specific hypotheses from sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) regarding their preferences for certain personal and physical traits in a potential mate. Participants distributed 50 points among a number of trait-pairs. The items consisted of a consensually valued trait-pair, “biologically relevant� trait-pairs, and a reference to ethnic and cultural similarity. In Condition 1 participants distributed the points among the trait-pairs without any additional information about the potential mate; Condition 2 participants distributed the points after being asked to assume the potential mate possessed some biologically relevant traits. Males, compared to females, assigned more points to trait-pairs signalling high reproductive value, and females, compared to males, assigned more points to trait-pairs signalling high resource potential.

More for feminists to deny.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rjdBtiNMluYC&pg=RA1-PA323&lpg=RA1-PA323&dq=desirable+traits+in+mate&source=web&ots=r_fRTZY18k&sig=Jk5ZnkTYxBd_eWJHqjhrAg-vgWk

Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication
by Kathryn Dindia, Daniel J. Canary - 2006

page 323:

In addition to these genetic fitness markers [ie looks, see link for previous pages], men and women show differences and similarities in their preferred behavioral attributes, as women prioritize social status and men prioritize physical attractiveness. Because women prefer men who can contribute resources, women tend to value socially dominant males (e.g., those with social status, ambition, and acquired wealth; Buss, 1989; Kenrick et al., 1990, 1993), and evidence indicates that the children of such men do have lower mortality rates (Geary et al., 2004). This effect is pancultural, as Buss surveyed 10,000 people in 37 cultures and found that the trait of being a "good financial prospect" was significantly more important for women than for men /in all of the cultures/, as were "ambition and industriousness" in 29 of 37 cultures. Moreover, when forced to consider the importance of a mate's social level versus other desirable characteristics, women rated it as a necessity; whereas others, such as physical attractiveness, were rated as luxuries (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). However, men's preferences across all of these same studies prioritize physical attractiveness over other traits. Even when the choice of qualities in a partner was constrained by availability, men emphasized the necessity of physical attractiveness over other characteristics (Li et al.).

A male,

Scientists can write bad articles just like anyone else, you know? The thing about those "theories" to explain what men and women are attracted to, respectively, is that for the most part they're not universal.

First of all, our society's views of attractiveness has very little correlation with female fertility, so that doesn't work so well...

Also, there are plenty of societies where women are valued for things like their work ethic, their skills that they will be needing in their life (in East Africa, women farm; some places, women are valued for cloth-making skills, etc.) And their are plenty of societies where men are valued for their looks, it's hardly a phenomenon of recent American culture. Although, the fact that thin guys are in also kind of throws the evolutionary biology theories of male physical attractiveness out the window...

I mean, I'm an Anthropology major. I /was/ a Biology major. Trust me, these kinds of studies that try to say that everything our culture does is evolutionarily based, are hardly uncontroversial...

I mean, really, if you want a reason to rethink some of those studies, and the notion that standards/qualifyers of attractiveness are universal, I'd really recommend just trying to look at pictures of some couples from cultures that have little contact with mainstream modern media.

"First of all, our society's views of attractiveness has very little correlation with female fertility, so that doesn't work so well..."

You mean about the youth, looks, and figure, and sexiness or willingness to provide sex?

"Also, there are plenty of societies where women are valued for things like their work ethic, their skills that they will be needing in their life (in East Africa, women farm; some places, women are valued for cloth-making skills, etc.)."

Not the ability to have children? You could have fooled me.

"And their are plenty of societies where men are valued for their looks, it's hardly a phenomenon of recent American culture. Although, the fact that thin guys are in also kind of throws the evolutionary biology theories of male physical attractiveness out the window..."

There are women who like "thin" guys, as is the favored body type in Japan, as there are men who like realistic or even large women, instead of the 1:.7:1 hourglass shape.

"I mean, I'm an Anthropology major. I /was/ a Biology major. Trust me, these kinds of studies that try to say that everything our culture does is evolutionarily based, are hardly uncontroversial..