How a Real Man Responds When a Married Girl Offers Her Body (Updated: Yes, It’s Fake)
Since there still seems to be some confusion about the difference between Man Vs Boy and Woman Vs Girl then let’s provide a concrete example to illustrate the behavior in action. This showed up in my Facebook feed today and it speaks for itself:
Updated: And before anyone else freaks out, yes, it’s faked. “Taelor Vega” doesn’t exist (as if the first name wasn’t obvious enough) and Johnny Heward is just getting his 15 seconds of internet fame.
But people still don’t want to understand the point I’m making. From the comments:
David, your argument keeps shifting. First you made this big spill about how you were shocked and considered it immoral for older men in their 30+ years to find younger women between the ages of 18 to 25 sexually attractive. Then you went on this red herring about how men should be able to tell the mental an emotional maturity of women based entirely on their appearance (completely ignoring our mother’s lesson about never judging books by their covers). Now you shifted to another red herring with an example of a proposition of adultery (whose validity I highly question). But this example does not support any of your previous arguments and is being used to distract everyone to just how poorly your previous two arguments were.
My argument, repeated again: there are two levels of sexual maturity. There’s the sexual attitudes you have as a teenager just going through puberty, the way you view the opposite sex when you’re a boy or a girl. Sex is just about fun and how great orgasms feel. But as we get older we’re supposed to grow out of this immature way of approaching sex. Why? Because living out teenage sexuality in practice — a life of promiscuity, a life in perpetual pursuit of the better orgasm — does not generate as much long-term happiness as a life of adult sexuality. Men and women treat sex like adults. They’ve found things in life more interesting and more meaningful than orgasms. Sex becomes less about me and my orgasms and more about nurturing intimacy between a husband and wife and then creating children.
But not everyone makes this leap. And everyone who thinks they’ve made this leap is always in danger of sliding back to acting like a boy or a girl instead of a man or a woman. So, to make clear for those who chose to selectively read my initial point: there’s nothing wrong or abnormal with a 50 year-old man being attracted to an 18-year-old female. But we as men should be attracted to her because she reminds us of a mature women. Not because she’s acting like a girl, wearing pigtails, flaunting her sexuality, trying to climb into bed with us, and allowing us an opportunity to be teenage boys again. At some point in a man’s development the word “girl” should no longer primarily inspire sexual longing.
Make sense? Men should pursue women, not girls. And being a “girl” means to be immature, like the fake woman above.
its fake.
Doesn’t matter if it’s factually true or not. I’m illustrating a point and could just as well have picked any instance of a man or woman turning down being propositioned by a married man or woman.
Doesn’t matter if it’s factually true or not.
Ahem.
Dave, on reflection, maybe you’d like to take a deep breath and wipe out this post before someone takes a screenshot of it?
What you said.
WHO Cares? People are People, cheaters or not cheaters, most times it just takes a few drinks and people will fool around with NOT THEIR SPOUSE. Only 4 species of animals are listed as ONE SPOUSE for life & guess what Humans are not a ones spouce person. JUST Learn to KEEP you m0outh shut if you do fall in bed with someone else
To quote Ken Kesey: “It’s the truth, even if it didn’t happen.”
A real man doesn’t say things like “it doesn’t matter if it’s factually true or not,” because statements like that completely undermine the point you’re trying to make.
Whether there really is a Taelor Vega doesn’t change whether my point is valid about the difference between women and girls. I cited this as an example of how a girl behaves instead of a woman.
Except once again, you cited something fake to make a point. Something no journalist should ever do, be he ethical (yes I realize most of my brethren are nothing of the sort.) Be your point ever so well taken, you still used a falsehood to illustrate it, thereby making your point worthless.
I am not a journalist. In arguing this point I’m not acting like a journalist. And this blog post was not an act of journalism. So you’re applying to me a standard that’s incorrect.
*just shakes his head*
Why is this a hard concept to get? Bridget Johnson is a journalist. She does real journalism. Journalism has NEVER been my passion. I can do it when I want to but it’s not my strength. Going back to junior high and high school I did other tasks involved with publications. And I do the same ones today professionally.
I’m an editor and a commentator. They’re not the same jobs as a journalist and shouldn’t be judged by the same standards. I could’ve picked a fictional scene from a movie illustrating this same point.
My day job is as an editor David, and that most certainly does not free me from ethical constraints.
I didn’t do anything unethical, Patrick.
And you are correct, editors and journalists should not be judged by the same standards — editors should be held to higher standards as we have final control over what the public sees.
Mr Swindle
(Side comment: how very apt your name seems right now) If you are unable to see that journalistic standards of accuracy also apply to editing and commentary, perhaps you should not be taking PJM’s money.
So far you’ve managed three separate “commentary” pieces on the same topic, when all bar the first could have been covered in comments on the first or on Dr Helen’s rebuttal – pieces for which you are being paid.
Editors have been fired for doing what you did here: first failing to do your due diligence on a piece you highlighted, then silently updating after your readership called you out on the piece being a fake, and then refusing to acknowledge that your ethics are at all problematic.
I never claimed in the piece that the people in it were real people. (And knew when I posted it that we didn’t know yet. I checked to see if there was any confirmation yet that the guy had faked the conversation. There wasn’t yet so I didn’t take a position.) Whether they’re real people or not was irrelevant to the point being made. But I knew when I posted it and if it turned out to be a hoax that people would attack me for it even though I never claimed they were real people.
I love it when people make fun of my name. Then I know they’re still operating at 2nd grade level maturity.
Mr Swindle,
I never claimed in the piece that the people in it were real people. (And knew when I posted it that we didn’t know yet. I checked to see if there was any confirmation yet that the guy had faked the conversation. There wasn’t yet so I didn’t take a position.)
You also failed to indicate that as yet you had no information on how accurate the piece was. People in your position have lost their jobs over doing exactly what you did, yet you see no problems.
” People in your position have lost their jobs over doing exactly what you did, yet you see no problems.”
Nobody has lost their jobs for putting a viral image that’s circulating around the web in a blog post and not taking a position on whether the people in it are real or not. Stop trolling me. This isn’t the first time I recall you picking a personal fight with me for no reason.
Prove that. Or shut up.
I tire of people making such absolutist, empty assertions of opinion as fact. If you had said, “I suspect it is fake”, I would be fine with it, but you did not. You stated it as fact.
Personally, I have done exactly this kind of thing, while playing an online game. So, yes this does happen.
I don’t have facebook, but I get things like this all of the time on Skype. The conversation appears automated, and they’re trying to get you to go to some site.
It appears to me genuine. If you go to facebook and search for “Johnny Heward” you will find this very post in his timeline.
Fake, true; however, it’s realistic. This is the “sexual market place” (as the dating/mating scene is now described) today… being married is no defense against “I’m not haaapy” and “I’ve found someone else” any more. Now the dating game never stops. Pre-nup and paternity testing, or don’t get married.
It’s fake but personal responsibility and dignity can’t be faked.
I’ve turned down married women, and single women who knew I was married.
It’s not that difficult.
People who go down that road are not weak; they’re evil. It’s your choice all the way.
There is nothing more dangerous than a disappointed woman.
I am a retired U.S. Army paratrooper that served 22 1/2 years and am also a 5-time combat veteran. Sadly, this is a very frequent episode in the lives of many service members of all branches, including myself. I married my high school sweetheart in 1989 when I was just a young soldier. We had dated for 4 years and had been engaged for another year because I wanted her to understand what kind of relationship she was committing to (lots of separation due to deployments). We had been married for 15 months when I found out. Many years later, as a company 1st Sergeant with a deployed regimental combat team (RCT), I had to counsel more soldiers than you would imagine due to this exact type of situation; I knew where they were coming from. Second only to death or maiming due to combat action, it is the saddest memories that I have from my service, and even sadder, in my experience almost 40% of young soldiers (E1-E5 with less than 4 or 5 years service) will experience that pain…..while trying not to get their asses shot off so they can get home in one piece to the woman that they love.
Whether or not this specific situation is real or fake is irrelevant to me because I know that in real life, at least for my soldiers, it was very real.
Flagged as sanctimonious trolling.
Dave, if that *is* a faked conversation meant to illustrate a point, then I do hope you have permission from the woman whose picture illustrates it to use her likeness in this ambiguous way. I also hope there’s no woman called “Taelor Vega” on Facebook.
If either of these hopes is not borne out by reality, you might want to amend or remove this post right quick.
(And no, a real man does not respond to a proposition by publicly embarrassing the woman who has behaved badly, and possibly worse damaging her marriage – not unless doing that is necessary to protect his own reputation and safety. You simply say No and you never mention it again. Same for a grown woman propositioned by a married man. These are teenage shame-games that have serious consequences when chronological adults indulge in them.)
I actually had this happen to me when I was single, though the husband in question wasn’t in Iraq or anything…the lady in question was just from out of town, and wanted to get a hotel room to “do” me. I just said no thank you, and explained that if I ever did get married, I didn’t want anyone cheating on me with my wife, and I couldn’t see doing the opposite, cheating behind some other guy’s back, and then being indignant if it happened to me.
And regardless of the skeptics, you’d be surprised what sort of stupid things people get up to on Facebook. It wouldn’t surprise me if the whole thing is real. Not in the least…
I have a facebook account, mostly to keep up with stuff my wife wants me to see…though I also have reconnected with both classmates and relatives through the thing, so it’s not completely useless. Anyway, I looked these two people up. They are both on Facebook, with their profile pics looking as they do; however, there is a weird circumstance. The guy lives in Utah, and the woman in NYC, which makes it unlikely they would “hang out” and “have fun” unless one of them travels regularly. The girl has about 1200 facebook friends. I just looked at her “wall” and she insists the whole thing was taken out of context, that her husband has her facebook password (!) and that she doesn’t cheat on him. She also insists she’s real, believe it or not, and complains about the “haters” who are decrying her behavior. She says Johnny was flirting with her, and that all she wanted to do was go out and enjoy herself–no sex.
Whatever, this has taken up way too much of my life. And I don’t really care, frankly…
A few points:
1) As people have pointed out, it’s probably fake.
2) What did she actually say she wanted to do? “Hang out”? The reader assumes she means sex, maybe she wants to see a movie or go have a drink? For this the guy is willing to destroy her marriage?
3) The guy’s overseas… is this the time for him to find out he might have a serious problem with his relationship?
Sorry, this is lame.
Hmmm…could also be a case of booze and/or drugs + Facebook = making an ass of yourself.
David, your argument keeps shifting. First you made this big spill about how you were shocked and considered it immoral for older men in their 30+ years to find younger women between the ages of 18 to 25 sexually attractive. Then you went on this red herring about how men should be able to tell the mental an emotional maturity of women based entirely on their appearance (completely ignoring our mother’s lesson about never judging books by their covers). Now you shifted to another red herring with an example of a proposition of adultery (whose validity I highly question). But this example does not support any of your previous arguments and is being used to distract everyone to just how poorly your previous two arguments were.
Well put indeed!
One thing you forgot to say is that the ur-argument was that it’s immoral for a mother to show pictures of her underage daughters in bikinis … which btw was tantamount to stating that it’s normal for men to find underage women attractive.
Somehow, Dave twisted that into an argument that it’s not normal for men to be attracted to women at the peak of their fertility.
Well, I’ve seen the images of Kylie and Kendall Jenner in their bikinis and don’t see them dressed any more sexually than other girls their age for the past 20 years. The only reason there is so much hoopla about it is that because they are related to Kim Kardashian. Thus they will receive more media attention than you average 14 and 16 year-old young teenager.
Whether those girls are sexually attractive or not, has nothing to do with the point that you were making and that I was expanding on.
And one of his previous “arguments” was that violent video games lead to massacres. Challenged, he backed off of that, because he realized it was untenable.
Swindle’s problem is that he’s a kid. He thinks he has all the answers, when he’s really just beginning to see the questions. Also, he suffers from two of the most dangerous impulses in modern American life: “my aesthetics are morally correct and should be universal” and “fantasy cannot be distinguished from reality”.
PS: in his update, Dave offers a fifth version of his argument: you can lust after a woman of any age within the boundaries of the Law. The only constraint now is that she is not “in perpetual pursuit of the better orgasm”.
Sort of like Groucho Marx not wanting to join a club that would take people like him as a member.
Yeah, I noticed how David’s arguments have morphed from decrying 30+ year old men finding a 18-22 year old female sexually attractive to men pursuing a sexual relationship with them. Sexual attraction has very little to do with pursuing sexual relationships, even if many sexual relationships may start with an initial sexual attraction. However, even though a man may find a women/girl sexual attractive doesn’t mean that he wants to pursue a sexual relationship with her. And condemning the former as if it is synonymous to the latter shows a great deal of immaturity of the one who is doing the condemning.
It’s more than that: Dave’s making it up as he goes along shows by itself a great deal of immaturity. (And let’s not forget the elephant in the room: his use of colored fonts.)
For instance:
“we as men should be attracted to her because she reminds us of a mature women. Not because she’s acting like a girl, wearing pigtails, flaunting her sexuality, trying to climb into bed with us, and allowing us an opportunity to be teenage boys again.”
If Dave had been thinking _before_ hitting the keyboard (like real men do) he’d have realized that (some) men are attracted by girlie girls for the exact opposite reason: not because they look slutty, but because they look virginal.
And who wants to be a teenage boy again? most of us were sex starved until we went to college! (NB: sex starved does not necessarily mean virgins.)
Besides, neither girls nor women want sex with boys: they want sex with men. This is the basic asymmetry that Dave tries hard to ignore.
Overheard in the hall where I work:
(His response was effective, by the way.)
LOL!
Real life.
I don’t know anything about whether the original Facebook capture was real or fake. Perhaps the woman’s contributions were just some automated canned thing trying to get the guy to follow a link over to a hooker-brokering site…if there is such a thing? (There must be. Any conceivable sexually-oriented thing exists somewhere on the Internet.)
But assuming for the moment it was an entirely real exchange, then, I approve of how the man responded to it.
Men are pretty much trashed left and right these days.
The guy being propositioned COULD have just said “No” and not outed the girl’s misbehavior.
But by doing that he’d be preventing the Army husband from having much chance to find out about his wife’s misbehavior. That leaves the soldier open to future betrayal.
Better that men stick together on this. Not only does every man have the moral obligation to scorn a proposition from a married woman like this, but if he has the opportunity to reveal the misbehavior in a fashion that warns other men away from this damaged-goods female (including men who may already have the misfortune of being married to her), then he should. Doing so places power (in the form of information, and in the form of a enforcing a culture of female fidelity) in the hands of the relevant men.
We could use a bit more of that, to counteract the unbalanced legal system and other prevailing trends.
A “real” man responds by threatening? That is stupid and horribly immature. A real man responds with “No, thank you. I’m not interested.” Someone needs to reconsider what they think is honorable and courteous behavior.
I don’t have a problem with that sort of a threat. Stupidity and immorality should have consequences.
I believe that the author’s point is: Real Men respect marriage vows whether they be their own or someone else’s.
I have done that in my life – and with some really hot women. I can truthfully say I may as well not have because in every single instance, other than my own personal smugness at having done the right thing, it was a case of never letting a good deed go unpunished. I got squat for doing it, not that I ever expected anything, but I sure didn’t expect to be taken to the cleaners for it.
On the other hand, friends have regularly killed our friendship to have something I’ve had. Life is weird – you just do the best you can and hope you’re not too cynical in the end.
Like the above First Sergeant, I, too, have seen many a spouse cheat on his or her husband/wife when they are deployed. It is almost a cottage industry. In fact there are even women’s “cheater’s clubs” where they support one another and assist with babysitting each others kids on cheat nights”. I do not know if male (civilian) spouses have the same sort of thing but I know for a fact women do as one of them confessed it to me. I, too, have been offered sex by women whose husbands were away. I imagine the same is true for male civilian spouses but have no personal knowledge of it. In fact, women have come to me offering sex to try and quash the rumors when they were caught red-handed, as it were. One even offered herself to me in any way imaginable if I would find a way to see her husband did not come home from Afghanistan. I reported her to the military police. And guys, I am no Adonis. I was a 40-something CSM (command sergeant major), with a receding hairline and a face only my own wife could love (thankfully, she still does). In fact, many unkind people have wondered how a homely old codger like me wound up with such a snappy number as my Mrs, who is no crow and has held her figure over 4 kids and the intervening years. My wife held talks for junior enlisted wives about avoiding the “missed-man blues”. She’s had 30 years of experience doing just that.
So, no, this sort of thing is not at all rare. What is apparently rare is the sort of marriage I have with my Mrs. Think about that when you see some young woman out in a GI town, cruising.
In the Navy, at least in San Diego, they were commonly referred to as WesPac Widows. (WesPac being the common abbreviation for the roughly 6 month carrier group deployment in the Pacific) Haven’t been out that way in a decade, but I’d imagine there are still a few nightclubs where they tend to congregate.
Who is David Swindle to judge someone’s attitude toward sexuality.
Did it ever occur to you that some people may not want (or need) a “nurturing, mature” relationship, as you put it? Some people just might be self-sufficient enough to want sex just for sex’s sake (IOW, for the fun of it) without the attachments of a long-term rleationship with children.
Why are you so hung up on this, anyway? Most people (including “immature 18 -25 year-old girls) understand there’s a difference between sex for love and sex for fun, anyway. So do middle-aged “boy” who never matured into “men” in your opinion, for that matter. And even if they don’t, it’s really none of your business.
Mind your own store, not everyone else’s.
“Did it ever occur to you that some people may not want (or need) a “nurturing, mature” relationship, as you put it?”
Yes, I used to be such a person. And in the long run it’s a dead end. Empirical studies demonstrate that those who are married and with families are happier than those who stay single.
See George Gilder’s books Naked Nomads and Men and Marriage. I’m not saying anything original.
I’m not saying anything original.
That, I think, is the weight of most of the responses.
My argument, repeated again: there are two levels of sexual maturity.
Two? Do I hear three? Or seventeen?
Nobody much disputes your major point, that a lot of people practice irrational or disfunctional sexual behaviors. IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE NEWS?
“Nobody much disputes your major point,”
I beg to differ on that. These “irrational” and “disfunctional sexual behaviors” are being described as “normal.” I object to 14 and 16 year old bikini photos preparing two girls for the life of their sister — a sex object — and I’m told that I’m the one that’s abnormal.
You demand a privilege for one (your) sexual standard.
Nobody’s saying you’re abnormal. I mean, “Kardashian”, y’know? ’nuff said.
Why should they turn down money selling bikinis to other girls in their age group for some abstract point of prudish etiquette? It’s not like they were in Maxim. They’re earning money – you’re trying to make it seem like they’re virtual hookers. They’re not. I’ve seen the photos in question – they seem perfectly innocent to me. You’re reacting as if they’re in fetish gear with ball-gags in their mouths.
“Empirical studies demonstrate that those who are married and with families are happier than those who stay single.”
Pah!
That doesn’t mean that all married people with families are happier than all people who remain single, and it doesn’t mean the happiest married person with a family is happier than the happiest person who stayed single. All that means is that MOST people need a long-term relationship to be happy. It doesn’t contradict my point at all – that not every single person indulging in sex for fun is “immature.” Some know what they’re missing and don’t want it.
“That doesn’t mean that all married people with families are happier than all people who remain single, and it doesn’t mean the happiest married person with a family is happier than the happiest person who stayed single.”
No sh*t, Sherlock.
“It doesn’t contradict my point at all – that not every single person indulging in sex for fun is “immature.””
Yes, they are. This is the crux of the difference in what I’m talking about sexual maturity and sexual immaturity. Those who regard sex primarily as something “fun” have the sexuality of teenage boys and girls. Maturity is in realizing that there are more amazing things in life than new mindblowing orgasms. Like being a Dad.
Speaking of immature, you have a tough time with people who disagree with you, don’t you? This is hardly the first time I’ve noticed. Thin skin, much? If you’re going to react that way, maybe you should think things out a little better before you write next time.
Of course, responding to my point with a simple “is too” like that doesn’t aid your cause much, either. Sex for pleasure is no more immature than any other physical pleasure. It’s a physical act, neither mature nor immature. It’s how one engages in it that makes it one or the other.
But to be mature, someone has to refrain from sex with people they’re attracted to for more “amazing” things like being a Dad – which they may not even want?
Says who? You? What makes your definition of maturity the definitive one? As long as someone takes precautions against unwanted pregnancies and doesn’t mislead anyone about their intent, engaging in casual sex is only immature by YOUR standards.
Wow, you’re judgemental and intolerant.
Sounds like you have a very, very, very serious marriage there Dave.
David,
Marriage and having children are not for everybody, and for many reasons other than immaturity. Some people are naturally private people; some don’t handle relationships well; some can’t find someone they’re compatible with, etc. I know you’re aware of these possibilities, and I know you’ll respond that, of course, you are indeed aware of them, but you write as though you’re not aware of them. Life is very complicated and is not easily divided into the Manichean “mature” and “immature” groups. There are many different personality types, many different circumstances, many different trade-offs to different people. You cannot sum this up in a grand meta-narrative.
“Marriage and having children are not for everybody”
This is a point we disagree on. I’m of the view that everyone should strive to get married and have children some day. Everyone needs to rise up from their animal nature. And I’m not being a “totalitarian” in saying that. I’m not going to legislate that people become good, decent, happy people. I’m just going to advocate the way to that direction as I research it and live it.
“Some people are naturally private people; some don’t handle relationships well; some can’t find someone they’re compatible with, etc.”
Part of the difference between maturity and immaturity is developing the ability to change our nature and our temperament. “Naturally private people” would lead happier, more meaningful lives if they dealt with their psychological issues and joined the rest of the world. Those who “don’t handle relationships well” can learn how to handle relationships well. (There are plenty of books on the subject.) some can’t find someone they’re compatible with, etc” then they haven’t looked properly.
“Everyone needs to rise up from their animal nature.”
Would this include the impulse to protect oneself and one’s own children from harm? It could be argued, and has been argued, that pacifism is a way to rise up from one’s animal nature. The point is that there’s no a priori reason to think that shedding animal nature is either positive or negative, since those terms are defined by particular moments in particular circumstances for particular reasons, according to particular values. Moreover, there is also no a priori reason to think that remaining single is an animal insinct, since many animals, including humans, are herd-like by nature. Abolishing this diversity of humanity, if not by fiat then by spirit, would be a horrible thing.
I am a naturally private person and am the best judge of whether my life is meaningful and happy. As of right now it is and improves every day.
And there are many people who cannot learn relationships from books. Prima facie this is absurd to me, although I’ll concede that perhaps a lot of people could become better at relationships. They could not, however, test their new found knowledge unless they try. If they try and fail over and over and over, they may find it more rewarding to settle into a single existence–focusing on a career as a missionary, clergyman or surgeon, for instance, or any one of a million choices that isn’t a long-term relationship. This does not make them immature. I can understand you think marriage is the best solution. But for those for whom it is not feasible, theyre existence ought not to be denigrated.
“I am a naturally private person and am the best judge of whether my life is meaningful and happy. As of right now it is and improves every day.”
Yeah, but I’m still keeping my eye open for a good woman to set you up with.
“If they try and fail over and over and over, they may find it more rewarding to settle into a single existence–focusing on a career as a missionary, clergyman or surgeon, for instance, or any one of a million choices that isn’t a long-term relationship.”
The difference there is that in the case of missionary, clergy, etc. they live lives of celibacy and are effectively “married” to God. That’s a whole other phenomenon than the Naked Nomads I’m confronting here.
“Yeah, but I’m still keeping my eye open for a good woman to set you up with. ”
This might be a long search, which observation gives me the opportunity to shamelessly plug my newest piece on the PJ Lifestyle homepage: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/06/18/the-hunt-for-the-law-of-infinite-cornucopia/
“The difference there is that in the case of missionary, clergy, etc. they live lives of celibacy and are effectively “married” to God. That’s a whole other phenomenon than the Naked Nomads I’m confronting here.”
One may still be dedicated to a non-clerical, non-celibate profession and still be mature. Surgeon. Cop. Soldier. Teacher. Tinker. Tailor. Soldier. Spy.
“One may still be dedicated to a non-clerical, non-celibate profession and still be mature. Surgeon. Cop. Soldier. Teacher. Tinker. Tailor. Soldier. Spy.”
But then what are they doing with their sexual energy? If they’re having sex promiscuously then they’re being immature.
“Part of the difference between maturity and immaturity is developing the ability to change our nature and our temperament. “Naturally private people” would lead happier, more meaningful lives if they dealt with their psychological issues and joined the rest of the world.”
Since when do “naturally private people” have “psychological issues?” According to whom? You? Who died and made you Freud? And who is to say they aren’t happy and leading meaningful lives? Who gets to judge that? You? What great accomplishment have you acheived that gives your life supreme meaning and the ability to gauge the life’s worth of others?
“Those who “don’t handle relationships well” can learn how to handle relationships well. (There are plenty of books on the subject.) some can’t find someone they’re compatible with, etc” then they haven’t looked properly.”
Well, lookee here! We have an expert on how to find the right girl! The world’s first!!! Just to think, there’s a poor sad fool out there who doesn’t know how miserable he is having sex without a mortgage and kids and lots of free cash to do whatever he wants with! It’s up to David Swindle, the high guru of Maturity and Meaningful Life to set him straight!!!
For some people, it isn’t that they don’t handle relationships well. Believe it or not, they don’t need long-term committed relationships to be happy. Or maybe some of them DID go that route and wound up sith a soul-sucking divorce as their reward…so uncommitted physical intimacy is enough to make them happy.
But they most be delusinal, immature boy-men, right? It must be nice to be so damn certain you’re right about everything and everyone who disagrees with you and/or chooses a different lifestyle must be mentally ill and/or immature. Actually, I take that back – it’s not nice at all. It’s a symptom of a limited mind and an even more limited life experience.
But let me guess – I bet your mom spent your entire childhood telling you how much smarter you were than everyone else. That explains the attitude and the inability to deal with differing opinions. And the freedom with which you cast aspersions on others is the product of naivitee combined with arrogant judgementalism and narcissism. Good luck with that long term relationship. Something tells me you’ll need it.
“Or maybe some of them DID go that route and wound up sith a soul-sucking divorce as their reward”
I’m sorry your marriage didn’t work out and that you had your soul sucked out of you. I hope you find it again.
Maybe that’s true but you can’t have everything in life sometimes. Choosing to get married at such and such a time and then have the responsibilities of children may mean you’ll never spend 5 months living in Rio and photographing Carnival. Life’s a trade off, and in ways we may never completely figure out. No regrets is smarter than choosing one safe way and saying “this defines happiness” 76.5% of the time for everybody. If one thinks about this the wrong way you’ll always be thinking of everything you didn’t do rather than what you did do. Be happy.
Odd. More than a few people here seem angry with Mr. Swindle’s suggestion that real men want real women, not girls. It’s as if some resent the idea that they should leave their emotional “teens”.
Dude, your taking a marginal idea and obsessing over it. There’s no evidence we’re a closeted, insulated community that doesn’t WANT to see the point or that we’re too stupid to see the point. You can say all you want about what we’re supposed to do but life after 18 is staggeringly different for each person and they’re going to approach it however they will and no matter how you try and lasso it it’s going to slip away.
It’s not like I don’t understand that people can be clannish and stubborn on specific issues like a recent moronic dust-up I read about where fiction writers for some reason became obsessed with the idea they are held to the same research standards as non-fiction writers. In that case they became so heavily invested in a single idea they rallied around their brains literally shut off. The simple idea of necessary footnotes, money for research, and academic community standards somehow became exactly like nerdish fan pedants who notice when a frakenstoosh of the spacestation should actually be a frakensteesh and apparently William Prescott could’ve gotten bored and said the Aztecs really won and Cortes was from China.
I once had a friend who worked in a garden shop who for whatever reason got it into her head she did aerobic exercise like when I biked as fast as I could and jumped rope and that word “aerobic” became a fixation she couldn’t be argued out of. People often like to co-opt a space they have no right to – it saves them the trouble of actually having to hold themselves up to a rigid standard – it’s a lot easier to say you do a thing and so a lot more fun. Words come easy and there’s no sweat involved. If someone wants to explore their basement and say it’s the same thing as hiking the Inca Trail, more power to them. You’ll enjoy many hours of bickering on the internet about it.
I’ve seen the same thing happened with perfectly reasonable Egyptians whose eyes suddenly roll up into their heads when you mention Israel – reason flies away. This sexual thing is not like that. It’s a far flung subject no one feels particularly protective of in any single way and even generalities are going to fall short. Declare defeat, I was wrong – the single rarest action on the internet.
“Because living out teenage sexuality in practice — a life of promiscuity, a life in perpetual pursuit of the better orgasm — does not generate as much long-term happiness as a life of adult sexuality.”
Citation needed.
McDouchebag, Jim. “Promiscuous Sex and Reduced Dopamine Levels in Middle-Class Men,” Journal of Fake Studies, January 2007, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 202-212.
George Gilder’s Naked Nomads: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812904958/pjmedia-20
“But people still don’t want to understand the point I’m making.”
That’s probably because your real man is actually nothing more than a real phony.
That tends to detract from your point.
Now, if you were trying to make the point that you’re a tad on the gullible side…
There are two distinct subgroups in the service family situation and innumerable sub-sub-groups.
1…Committed… Forsake all others, no ifs, and or butts.
2…Suspended for the duration… Still married on paper, dependancy allowance checks continue … If either one feels the “Itch”, scratch it, with anyone willing. Separation is the Spice of life.
The problem occurs when the parties of the couple are ‘one of each’.
It has always been this way, wifey waving goodby as the troopship leaves the dock and then heading off to the nearest pick-up bar. Spouse waving from the deck and then hitting on the nurses onboard.
Or, more often, both looking ahead to long months of separation and only brief platonic encounters with the other gender.
I’m no angel, not even close, but I’d never do that with a soldier’s wife.
A ‘real person(tm)’ (fake or not) would turn this kind of offer down due to the ‘eww factor’.
But it’s not like you save the marriage if you do turn it down, or that the married wanna-be stray is ‘saved’ from themselves — they already have ended the marriage in their mind and are looking to fill the next chapter in their empty lives, it’s not that you’re special, it’s just that you happen to be around, so you get used as a handy prop.
Nor has the cheated partner lost much, since they never really had what they thought they did, and what they currently have is not really what anyone would want either.
The only benefactor here is you — if you decide to stay well away from the mess that is about to ensue, one way or the other, with, or without you.
O, Dave, your whole column is just a SWINDLE.
Why do you think an insult I’ve heard every month since kindergarten is still going to hurt my feelings? Just proves the whole point about immaturity.
Dave, you old swindler, I think you protest far too much. What’s under all that celibate rage? I think you’re just as fake as your “doesn’t matter if it’s factually true or not” style of “journalism”. It doesn’t matter to you if you can connect an idea or not, factually.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is one thing to respectfully disagree with a PJM poster’s position. It is entirely different to sink to nasty ad hominem attacks. Feel free to stop reading Dave’s posts if they irritate you to the point that you have to personally tear into him when refuting his position. You think it is clever to use someone’s name to bludgeon him? Your lack of refinement and good taste escapes you.
“So, to make clear for those who chose to selectively read my initial point: there’s nothing wrong or abnormal with a 50 year-old man being attracted to an 18-year-old female. But we as men should be attracted to her because she reminds us of a mature women.”
Thank you for clarifying your point. But you’re still wrong.
Yes, adult relationships are more satisfying overall. In order to maintain those adult relationships we become mature enough to choose which impulses we act upon and which we don’t. But I’ve never met a man in his fifties who’d look at a 21 year old swimsuit model and say “wow, if only she were 30 years older she’d be hot”. That’s beyond absurd.
Physical appeal peaks in the 20′s, that’s a biological fact. You’re arguing against 50,000 years of evolution here.
“But I’ve never met a man in his fifties who’d look at a 21 year old swimsuit model and say “wow, if only she were 30 years older she’d be hot”. That’s beyond absurd.”
Of course it is absurd. And I haven’t made that argument. Nothing wrong with a 21 year old swimsuit model looking like a woman. But if she looks like a 14 year old (pigtails, girly attitude, presenting herself as promiscuous etc.) then grown men shouldn’t be attracted to her.
I can’t believe how swindled I feel wasting 10 minutes reading all of this.
No….. this is not lame…….
The idea of Christian love and marriage is incoherent to assumably self-identified conservatives. That’s the feeling I’m getting from reading this series of related blog entries. That’s a seriously troubling development. Think about it……..
You can divide the responses to this commentary into two groups,
1.
Liberal: Perpetual Immaturity, Selfish, Immoral, Entitled, Untrustworthy, unfaithful betrayer, basically the ‘Me’ generation. The whole ‘never had what you think cop-out’ is just another justification for not calling the ‘whore’(Her),’dog’(Him) out on their behaviour.
2.
Conservative: Mature grown-up, dependable, trustworthy, dedicated, moral, loving and faithful. An older generation that actually were taught values and believed in the responsibility each spouse owed each other…
So there you have it…. Having spent 15 years like other military members on here and seeing the disgusting behaviour of spouses (Both male and female) when their other half got deployed really pissed me off, it used to be an offence that could lead to a dishonorable discharge or if the spouse was civilian lead to the couple being denied military housing but now with everything else and the progressive liberalization of our country and military considered to be acceptable….
Doc Out: