Luigi ...

Submitted by Curious (United States), Sep 1, 2009 at 23:42

My response to some of your comments, Luigi:

** Opinions lack credibility when they are not supported by facts.

That's exactly right, Luigi. Opinions do lack credibility when they are not supported by facts. I'd say the facts of this matter (changing of women's role in society) have spoken quite clearly over the last 6 decades.

** I guess that depends on what your idea of "selecting a mate" means. If you are referring to casual sex, you won't get much of an argument from me, although, several female posters felt the need to be adamant to insist that their appearance is much younger than their age.

Did I ever once refer to "casual sex" when discussing the selection of a mate? Nope. Not me ... though I seem to remember you having made several references to casual sex in these posts. If you're concerned about the validity of the poster's appearance, why dont you ask them for a some recent pictures or videos, Luigi. Let me know if you feel the need to see me, I'd be quite happy to oblige.

**Kind of negates the whole appreciation of older women, dontcha think, Curious?

I don't know about that, Luigi. Does it? I mean after all, we are all different. We don't all suddenly become cut from the same mold just because we get older. You are 27 now? You will be finding out all about that soon enough.

** Not quite the 180, radical change you had in mind, I think.

What's that supposed to mean? 2009 seems pretty radically different to me from 1955 :-)

** Radically? I don't think so. The failure of distance relationships involving different cultures and age differences have been well document via landline phone and snail mail. Poster Hisham Zein shared his experience that occurred by letter.

Yes, Luigi. Quite radically considering that we never even had the option to create long distance relationships in the old days, not unless we were world travelers. I suppose these relationships fail when two people have unrealistic expectations, Luigi .... and there are probably as many unreal expectations about long distance relations as there are about domestic relations.

** Technology should not be shunned, Curious, but it is important to understand how it works, and on this particular blog, why it leads to so many disasters. Mainly because a mere fraction of the full human spectrum of communication can occur over such media. Why else do you think so many women come on here with uncertainty? Uncertainty that is not usually present in realtime dating.

Well, Luigi. I suppose you and I live on a different planet because I have surely seen plenty of uncertainty in my lifetime over realtime, domestic dating (and the marriages that result and often end in divorce).

** Your choice of gettting a younger man is better than your ancestors. The chance of that turning into a lasting relationship is not much different, if not less.

Why is the chance of "getting" a younger man or it turning into a "lasting relation" not much different or even less, Luigi? Seems to me that there is plenty of this sort of thing going on in the domestic front. Again, I think if we use our logic and leave our "heart" out of the decision making process, we will find the right mate regardless of the age. Granted, it is probably easier by going domestic, but some women may prefer foreign men, I don't know Luigi ... you'll have to take a poll.

** You mention birth control----this limits the birth rate. You say its bad to have kids (you call them a litter?) Please tell me how civilization is supposed to survive without children. Feminists and liberals have trouble answering that question every time I pose it. Why do you think we have legal immigration here in America? Why do you think the Europeans put with mobs of angry Muslims, young communists and Russian-speak minorities in their central cities? Because it's tolerant and diverse? No! Because without these people, their status, heck, our status, as world powers would vanish overnight!

Firstly, I never said it was "bad" to have kids. But, Luigi, in the old days that's exactly what most women were relegated to in their life ... having "litters" (for lack of a better term). This happens when we dont have access to birth control. No one has suggested that we should have a zero birth rate, Luigi ... really, you are reaching well beyond the scope of my discussion. I will say that we should have balance in population, not cut it to zero or have another baby boom. Moderation in all things, Luigi ... including birth control.

** You mean opting for a "career" instead of a family? More times than naught, I find such decisions to be selfish. Yet, many women do this because they have to in order to maintain a decent standard of living, not because they want to be some ideallic beacon of change.

Prior to the 1960's, women didnt have the choice to "opt" for a career, Luigi. If we want to analyze selfishness, we could take a look at the attitudes of men toward their wives in those days, Luigi. That was the epitomy of selfishness. I think maintaining a decent standard of living is an obstacle we all must overcome, regardless of the time in which we live.

** That is what my logical mind sees, and logic and idealism are a poor match, Curious.

That's right, Luigi. Logic and idealism are a poor match. You should take your own advice on that count.

** More pregnant teenagers and single Moms on welfare where the taxpayer and the US government is father. Is that your idea of better?

Oh my, Luigi ... you really are grasping at straws here. Can you copy and paste my quote regarding teenage pregnancy and welfare moms being a better way of life? I never once mentioned teenage pregnancy or single moms on welfare. Never once made the statement that this is a better way of life. Such scenarios are bad for soceity and are socially unsustainable.

** Fashion changes and pop culture changes did not orginate in the 1960s, Curious. In the 1900's, it was Ragtime, in the 1920's it was the Charleston. In the 1930s and 1940s it was folk and swing. In the 1950s it was Boogie Woogie and Rock and Roll.

Yes, Luigi, I think we're all well aware of the culture changes that occur over time. I analyse the most recent considering (and affecting) this particular age group.

** Birth rates were higher then. It was the edge of the Baby Boom, and it demanded the attention of women to be at home. Besides, back then, families were more content, meaning not every kid needed their own car and tv . One salary was usually sufficient.

Were families really more content back then, Luigi? Well, I lived back then and I can tell you that some members of the family were more content, but not all members, Luigi. Comparing life now to life then ... well, there is no comparison and for a woman, this day is infinitely better, Luigi.

My comment, "Now, just because our great grandmothers were prohibited from working due to "biological functions" that relegated them to home life, should it mean that we should ignore the modern controls that we, as western women have, and allow prefer to return to a day that we were relegated to marrying old, secure men, sit at home, have children, and be relegated to the life of a 1950's housewife?

** (your response) Interestingly enough, American power was at an all-time apex in world power during this time.

Luigi, in case you didn't know it, the reason American power was at an "all time apex", or America being established as a world power by the 1950's had absolutely nothing to do with the 1950's American housewife and everything to do with the FDR administration's policies for dealing with the Great Depression and it's subsequent merge into WWII with the Allied European countries ... really, Luigi, you do grasp at straws.

** Fortunately, a lot of women would prefer a similar lifestyle, but cannot have it because it's not economically viable. The "demand for change" does not have as much to do with it as you think it does.

You put one of these women in the role of a 1950's housewife, and I will give them 6 months, a year, tops before they go screaming out of the marriage.

** Also, Curious, most women still do marry "older, secure" men. It sure beats marrying a guy she doesn't feel safe with. Younger men weren't even the first choice for many women on here, many of whom are divorced.

Well, you could be right about that, Luigi ... but face it, we just never see many (if any) blogs about the pursuing of "older men" by women of ANY age. Please do provide us with a link to a few of these sites.

** Really? Care to explain to me then why so many women on this site mull over being housewives for their Muslim men? Is this the "change" you refer to?

They "mull" it over because it's exciting, it's different, Luigi. But given the reality of the situation and as I've seen many of these posters make similar comments, in fantasy it seems like a wonderful life, but in reality, they know it's not the life they really prefer.

** Also, who is "us"? Do you now presume to speak for all women, Curious?

No, Luigi. I speak only for the women involved in the movement at the time. If these women don't like it, they're free to make a change or demand a change back to the times prior to the mid 60's. I havent seen it happening, Luigi.

My prior comment, "Until the early 60's, divorced women or women / girls who dared to "casually" date (without chaperone, other companions, or curfew) were the object of gossip and social shunning. Would we (as women) ever have a preference to return to these extreme standards? Are we still subject to these extreme rules, Luigi?

Your reply, Luigi , " You never were subject to them, Curious. They were done to protect the girl. It's just another social norm is all. You did have a Constitutional right not do to that, you know."

My current response? Well, I was most certainly subject to "them", Luigi. And I realise these customs were initiated for protection, but it was protection gone wild. There is a place somewhere between rigid social standards and out of wedlock mothering, Luigi.

I said, "No! Why? Because our thought processes and preferences have demanded change, Luigi.

You said, "I'd say they demanded situations where sex would be easier to have. The biological need to reproduce. Never fails."

Well, my response to all of this is ... it may well have something to do with making sex easier but probably very little to do with the biological "need" to reproduce. Maybe that's why so many men leave their girlfriends or wives when they find out they're pregnant?

My comment, " Would we (as western women) think these standards are backward and oppressing,"

Your response, "Try being responsible. Also, most teens I know still have a curfew. The ones who don't are the ones who get into trouble."

My reply ... This was aimed more at the muslima who is relegated to the wearing of a burkha, accepting three other wives for her husband, and being subject to strict societal regulation. No doubt that teens do and should have curfews and they vary with age, but lets face it, Luigi, I think 10:00 may not be the new Friday or Saturday night curfew for most 17 y/o teens . More likely 11:00 to midnight on weekends. Obviously school nights require much earlier curfew.

I said in prior post, " just as we consider Islamic rules which cause so many muslim women relegation to the Burqa, homelife, and child baring, backward?"

You said, "Then explain to me why so many women on here and why so many liberal women across the EU defend Islam, even more than Muslims do. In fact, I have not need read a single defense post by a Muslim yet. Just look around, Curious! It's almost always Western women who are dating Muslim men who are jumping on the front line to defend Islam, you know, those ones who are so adamant about "change" who are doing the defending!"

My response, " Defending the religion should not be confused with the defending of Islamic males who perpetrate these confidence games on unsuspecting women. I agree that I see many women on these blogs defending Islam, and in the same breath they're saying that Islam refutes the actions of these men. And actually, it seems I have seen response from more than a few muslims saying the same words, Luigi. Don't judge Islam by the evil actions of desparate men. We all know that Islam is not the issue presented on this blog, Luigi..

Your comment, "...it was because of primal urges from human biology that we developed culture and social norms, Curious. Your preference has only changed as an excuse to have more sex and rationalize it as a good thing. It's as simple as that, isn't it? One whopping rationale to excite your sex. Pathetic.

My response, " You're really reaching, Luigi, if you can accuse me of advocating for "more sex" in any of my posts. Your reading comprehension is quite pathetic, Luigi". Try Google, Luigi ... I'm sure you can find some great remedial reading sites. Try Reading for Comprehension .

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".