Women working outside the home, along with Socialist government, negates the need for them to have husbands. It also displaces men who could otherwise have those educational slots of positions at work. Many women prefer to marry men who earn more money. Unfortunately the more women take slots away from those men, the less women who will be able to marry those high-earning men.abcdavid01 wrote:I don't think even American 16 year olds are that bad. Besides, you can usually guess who's a virgin and who's not.
I get what you mean about maturity publicduende. Like I said, my last relationship didn't work out because she was too emotionally immature for me. I still care about virginity though. I just don't want to adapt to what I see as societal decadence. I mean, I don't think most women should be going for anything but Mrs. Degrees. It's not necessarily that I think women are less intelligent. Just that they naturally make decisions emotionally, which is a recipe for disaster in most traditionally male careers.
It's important to remember these things aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can still be very mature and care about virginity. I've known at least two girls like that. One had other problems and I fear she'll wind up a single mother. The other was pretty much my dream girl. Or at least as far as I've seen, though going by what Jester said she may only be half as good as what's out there. Probably the type Tsar would like too, though I agree it helps to have emotional maturity. Sexual maturity I'm not sure I agree with.
I mean, my first kiss on the lips was when I was eight and I kissed my thirty year old babysitter. I'm not a prude, but I have a certain set of values.
I'm not exactly religious, or maybe I can say I'm reluctantly religious, but if I were here's what I'd say: Sex has two roles, procreation and pleasure. I don't disagree with the sexual libertines on this. Yet disassociating the two just seems sterile. So I can understand Catholics like Tsar not liking contraceptives, which again I know are pretty ancient. I also think people should be sexually active as soon as they become sexually developed. If God didn't mean for thirteen year olds to have sex then he wouldn't allow them to. Could someone argue that's just God's test against temptation? Well that just sounds ridiculous. The real problem is that there aren't safe institutions for sex. To me, teen pregnancy isn't a problem, but the fact that we have a society that arrests development is. Teenagers in Western societies aren't raised to be mature enough for it. Besides, in older eras it wasn't as if teen mothers were all on their own anyway. This leads back to the idea of the disillusion of the family. Again, we have a society where kids are treated like kids for eighteen years then pushed out of the house. In a different era it would have been that kids matured much faster, but stayed in the family household much longer. I wish there was still a more transactional role for marriage. This doesn't necessarily preclude the role of love. But there are two choices in modern Western society: adapt, or put off having sex. I choose the latter in hope of riding out the storm. I don't think a society that promotes the current type of sexuality is sustainable in the long term. It's a Sexual Communism that reflects a further Communization of all aspects of society. Just one manifestation of the zeitgeist.
Ideally women should be homeschooling the children and teaching them good values, not competing in the workplace.
Studies also so that for every $1,000 per year after $30,000 per year a woman earns, the divorce rate increases.
Those are just a couple of reasons to avoid career oriented women.