- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/19/26 at 8:58 pm to gaetti15
I'm 100% against abortion, numbnuts.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 8:58 pm to PrattvilleTiger
quote:
I didn't say any of that. You're putting words in my mouth.
But, it's not that black and white. Some men are better nurturers than women. I've known women who had zero nurturing skills.
You have to accept those views if you accept man-man purchasing babies.
You believe a child has no right to its biological parents but must submit to the romantic whims of the highest bidder.
And there are so many stories of adopted and IVF babies seeking out their biological parents because it is INNATE TO BEING HUMAN.
Additionally , as of right now the government taxes people to pay for the children of parents who cannot afford to feed/house/clothe them.
Are you willing to extend government benefits to 2 gay men that purchase a baby and then cannot afford to feed/house/clothe it? Should the US government give money for LGBTQ couples to house other children?
There have been bills proposed for government subsidized surrogacy for gay and lesbian couples. From straight and religious people to pay money gay and lesbian couples.
When you sincerely believe there is NO difference between men and women then naturally there is NO difference between mothers and fathers, therefore man-man or woman-woman is the EXACT SAME as man-woman, zero difference, arbitrary social constructs that can be re-arranged any which way.
Thus, it is a HUMAN RIGHT for man-man and woman-woman to purchase a baby with taxpayer dollars and it is IMMORAL to deprive them of that right.
When you say "as long as the child seems happy" as the only criteria then you seemingly dont believe mother/father matters, only child happiness...however that can be measured.
This post was edited on 8/19/26 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 9:04 pm to Spankum
quote:
the number of unmarried men is surging, wouldn’t that mean the number of unmarried women is also surging?
Unmarried young men.
Young women can and do marry older rich men often. So I would assume there is a drop but not as severe.
Unmarried young men is a big problem for the future.
This post was edited on 8/19/26 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:18 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
My counter to this is how many men are still living at home and largely lack the motivation to leave that situation? In the last 5 years, I've had a ton of parents come to therapy over kids that have "failure to launch".
What does the current job market look like for a 20 year old male? We know wages haven't kept up with the cost of living, especially when we consider the jump in the price of just about everything you need to live on your own has doubled (from groceries to construction materials).
Pretending this is a woman-only/feminist issue is being horribly naive and one-sided.
My counter to this is look at what options the average man in their 20s has. Women in their 20s expect to date a Man in their 20s already making six figures, or they'll date older.
When Women says 90% of Men are below average, that is simply not statistically possible. Women are flat out rating Men who are indeed average as below average.
Most Men now, if they want a relationship, will have to severely settle. The average man is simply invisible to the average woman.
And if a man isn't going to get married or have kids, can we really blame them for failing to launch? Rent is high. Cost of living is insane. If the man is working it's a great way to save money and spend money on hobbies and other things they enjoy.
Here's the problem Belle, and I would love to get a direct answer from you. In what world does a 4 or 5 woman deserve to have a 9 or 10 man? Unless it's a really weird situation, they don't. But yet in our current society and dating environment, those 4 or 5 level women truly think they deserve a 9 or 10 level man. To the point where they would rather have occasional one night stands with 9 or 10 level men than to actually be in a loving relationship with the potential for marriage with a man at their level.
I would argue Belle that there's a difference between "not settling" and having unrealistic expectations. Feminism has made Women so afraid of "not settling" that they don't realize they no longer have realistic expectations.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:30 pm to TheMagicMan
Another point I've only seen vaguely set up. The change in what a woman expects a man to have already achieved.
Back in the Baby Boomer and Gen X days, women truly dated men they were interested in. They didn't care about money. The idea is they would build a life together. And yes, that meant starting in a crummy apartment or a small starter home. Then working hard and eventually being able to have a family and then moving to a bigger home. But women in their 20s didn't expect men their age to have their life completely together.
One of the biggest hypocrisy's I see with modern women is the idea that the man "better have their sh*t together". I always chuckle when I hear this, as it usually comes from a woman who absolutely DOES NOT have their sh*t together themselves.
But the serious problem we have now is that women already expect men to have done the heavy lifting before they become involved. They already want the man to be making six figures and have the nice house ready to go. Feminism has changed women to where they no longer believe in building a life together.
My sister and brother in law are in Gen X. When my sister married him, she made more than him. In fact he didn't work for two years while he finished his Master's degree and studied to become a CPA. They started in a small crummy apartment, then about 2 years after being married, they moved into a starter home. They had their first child in that starter home, and after being in that starter home for 6 years, moved into what has become their larger forever home.
My mom flat out told me, when she started dating and married my dad in the late 1960s, she never once thought about his income or what his income would be. She married him because she loved him, not because of his income potential.
That's the aspect that is gone now. It's not about building something to most women anymore (not all women of course, but most women). Women now already want the man to have that CPA or an MBA or a law degree and be making $100,000/year minimum. Women don't want the starter home, they want the 2,500 square foot house in a nice suburb or on a couple of acres. They want everything already built.
I would argue, if a woman won't support a man when they are just starting out, when they don't have a lot, that women doesn't deserve that man when he makes it and finally has a lot.
It's a big reason I'm not interested in dating. Women wanted nothing to do with me when I was just starting out, struggling (as I graduated in 2007 just before the 2008 financial crisis that set my career back several years) having subway subs, pizza, spaghettios, ramen noodles or campbell's chicken noodle soup for dinner. It's hard for me to want to date a woman, marry a woman and risk 50% of what I built when that woman wouldn't have given me a second look when I was just starting out and struggling.
I think many men in general feel the same way. Especially the men who weren't popular for women, who were always rejected by women. We've simply moved on and now that we are doing relatively well we don't want to put it at risk.
Back in the Baby Boomer and Gen X days, women truly dated men they were interested in. They didn't care about money. The idea is they would build a life together. And yes, that meant starting in a crummy apartment or a small starter home. Then working hard and eventually being able to have a family and then moving to a bigger home. But women in their 20s didn't expect men their age to have their life completely together.
One of the biggest hypocrisy's I see with modern women is the idea that the man "better have their sh*t together". I always chuckle when I hear this, as it usually comes from a woman who absolutely DOES NOT have their sh*t together themselves.
But the serious problem we have now is that women already expect men to have done the heavy lifting before they become involved. They already want the man to be making six figures and have the nice house ready to go. Feminism has changed women to where they no longer believe in building a life together.
My sister and brother in law are in Gen X. When my sister married him, she made more than him. In fact he didn't work for two years while he finished his Master's degree and studied to become a CPA. They started in a small crummy apartment, then about 2 years after being married, they moved into a starter home. They had their first child in that starter home, and after being in that starter home for 6 years, moved into what has become their larger forever home.
My mom flat out told me, when she started dating and married my dad in the late 1960s, she never once thought about his income or what his income would be. She married him because she loved him, not because of his income potential.
That's the aspect that is gone now. It's not about building something to most women anymore (not all women of course, but most women). Women now already want the man to have that CPA or an MBA or a law degree and be making $100,000/year minimum. Women don't want the starter home, they want the 2,500 square foot house in a nice suburb or on a couple of acres. They want everything already built.
I would argue, if a woman won't support a man when they are just starting out, when they don't have a lot, that women doesn't deserve that man when he makes it and finally has a lot.
It's a big reason I'm not interested in dating. Women wanted nothing to do with me when I was just starting out, struggling (as I graduated in 2007 just before the 2008 financial crisis that set my career back several years) having subway subs, pizza, spaghettios, ramen noodles or campbell's chicken noodle soup for dinner. It's hard for me to want to date a woman, marry a woman and risk 50% of what I built when that woman wouldn't have given me a second look when I was just starting out and struggling.
I think many men in general feel the same way. Especially the men who weren't popular for women, who were always rejected by women. We've simply moved on and now that we are doing relatively well we don't want to put it at risk.
This post was edited on 8/19/26 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 10:39 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Unmarried young men.
Young women can and do marry older rich men often. So I would assume there is a drop but not as severe.
Unmarried young men is a big problem for the future.
In many ways it's the biggest problem no one really talks about. And it goes far beyond just having a wife and kids.
Unmarried young men typically check out of life. Unmarried men in general are going to be less involved with their communities. Unmarried men in general are not going to see their society as worth defending or protecting, as they have no skin in the game. They will have very little, if anything, to truly protect.
History shows us that when a significant amount of men are unmarried, just see their lives as hopeless and most importantly have nothing to lose (whether that's economically or socially), that is when governments fall.
Unmarried young men in our society currently are going to have nothing to lose. And they are going to have nothing that will make them want to defend this country and our society in general. And why should they? Why should young men care about a society that has vilified them for the better part of 20 years now?
Unmarried men, and particularly unmarried young men, are going to be a big problem in the future. And I don't think most women have a clue, and even our society in general doesn't really sense how big of a problem it will be.
This post was edited on 8/19/26 at 10:42 pm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:05 pm to TheMagicMan
quote:
TheMagicMan
Great post
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:13 pm to PrattvilleTiger
quote:
I'm 100% against abortion, numbnuts.
But you see what happens when you take that stuff (surrogate children) to the next logical step.
"Kids look happy" who am I to judge? You arent there to judge, you are here to know what is right and what is wrong. Sure, you love your neighbor. Thats what he wants, but you dont condone the sin.
Do you call Trans by their preferred pronoun? If they are happy with themselves do you think that its ok they mutilated themselves? Do you think thats its ok to have a mental illness and that its ok that people just accept that and not try to help them, else be called bigots?
These people want acceptance for their way of life. They WILL force it on you if you dont. Even if what they believe goes against EVERY rational argument that can be provided by mankind.
This post was edited on 8/19/26 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:17 pm to RLDSC FAN
Because bitches be crazy
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:20 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:agreed. I got married at 31 so I’d have been a part of this statistic for 11 years.
What gives me pause is they're talking about the demographic of ages 20 to 39. Statistically, the average age of a first marriage for men today are right at 30 years old. The average in 2000 was right at 26 years old. That shift alone to getting married later would naturally create a large population of single men in the 20 to 39 year old range. Is it that men just aren't getting married at all or they're just getting married later?
And having an age range that goes to 39 also includes a probably not small number of men who have been married but are now divorced.
I think it’s prob accurate marriage rates are down overall but this “study” is also likely exaggerating the numbers with creative math
This post was edited on 8/19/26 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:32 pm to RLDSC FAN
As an unmarried man, I couldn't be happier about being one. Women are dumb. Just have your fun with them for about a month or two and move on to the next one.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:43 pm to RLDSC FAN
If you take into consideration this message board alone, there’s a lot of unmarried old men, too.
Posted on 8/19/26 at 11:55 pm to RLDSC FAN
Having lived through a divorce at a young age, I only saw my father 2 days every other weekend, and I was sent home with a check for her every time i stayed
That's one hell of life lesson for a 4 year old
It's absolutely fricked, because it was a mutual decision
Now add in the economics of life today vs 40yrs ago and you will see a pretty clear picture of why someone would be hesitant to get married and start a family... especially with the statistics being what they are
That's one hell of life lesson for a 4 year old
It's absolutely fricked, because it was a mutual decision
Now add in the economics of life today vs 40yrs ago and you will see a pretty clear picture of why someone would be hesitant to get married and start a family... especially with the statistics being what they are
Posted on 8/20/26 at 12:55 am to gaetti15
Dude, you're going way off topic. I didn't say anything about trans people. I don't know any trans people so I've never been confronted with what pronoun do I use.
I do, however, know gay people. And I don't care who they love. And the gay couple with the 2 kids brought them to a Halloween party I attended. That's when I was around them. I know plenty of people that came from f**ked up, dysfunctional heterosexual households. I'm not about to be judgemental against 2 gay guys who are seemingly happily raising 2 kids.
I do, however, know gay people. And I don't care who they love. And the gay couple with the 2 kids brought them to a Halloween party I attended. That's when I was around them. I know plenty of people that came from f**ked up, dysfunctional heterosexual households. I'm not about to be judgemental against 2 gay guys who are seemingly happily raising 2 kids.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 1:06 am to tiggerthetooth
Wow. You're putting way too much thought into my one little example of a couple I've met/been around only 3 times.
Um, any gay couple that pays a surrogate to have a baby for them ain't gonna be poor as to need government assistance. From what I've been told, they paid the surrogate 30k to have each child. Their kids are sent to private schools. Poor people (gay and straight) don't have the money to pay a surrogate. So your strawman argument for government assistance is kinda flawed.
Um, any gay couple that pays a surrogate to have a baby for them ain't gonna be poor as to need government assistance. From what I've been told, they paid the surrogate 30k to have each child. Their kids are sent to private schools. Poor people (gay and straight) don't have the money to pay a surrogate. So your strawman argument for government assistance is kinda flawed.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 1:11 am to RLDSC FAN
I would like to see the demographic breakdown.
I think we all know who is destroying the data set and making us all look like a bunch of whores.
Not to mention the FACT, that women have completely lost their fricking minds and gone off the rails. There is an epidemic of suicidal empathy, overly emotional, liberal psychotic women that have abandoned the role of the mature nurturing mother, and embraced prioritizing their careers, freezing their eggs, putting off a family, and instead of looking for a parterre, they would rather compete with men instead. Feminism has destroyed them.
I think we all know who is destroying the data set and making us all look like a bunch of whores.
Not to mention the FACT, that women have completely lost their fricking minds and gone off the rails. There is an epidemic of suicidal empathy, overly emotional, liberal psychotic women that have abandoned the role of the mature nurturing mother, and embraced prioritizing their careers, freezing their eggs, putting off a family, and instead of looking for a parterre, they would rather compete with men instead. Feminism has destroyed them.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News