Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Should a man try to settle down and raise a family?

Ask questions and get advice, or share advice. Disclaimer: Any advice you take here is at your own risk. We are not liable for any consequences you might incur from following someone's advice here.
Note: Before posting your question, do a search for it in the Google Search box at the top to see if it's already been addressed.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby Winston » Thu May 09, 2013 12:34 am

theprimebait wrote:Children have no benefit these days unless you enjoy raising them.in the ages of yore they were your slaves on a farm,they cared for you in your old age.

they carried on your legacy etc

but what is the importance of a legacy?when your dead,does it matter?legacy is immaterial.1000 years from now youll be forgotten.

what can a wife really offer you?validation?

I think thats it.as Sex,food,maid can be bought.

its the need to ''feel loved''since most humans cannot love themselves,they need external validation.

a good website on marriage,family,society etc

http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/

also following the social script means very little in our atomized societies.


Good points. It seems that everything in society wants to tie you down and restrict your freedom. You ever notice that? This goes for all the basic things around you, such as:

- your family, spouse, marriage, children
- your job and work
- your house and bills
- contracts, subscriptions and leases
- pets you own
- people who want to sell you stuff and get you hooked on it
- your material assets, property and junk, which end up owning you as well
Etc. etc.

Have you noticed that? Everything around you wants to tie you down and obligate you. That's why sometimes I think it's better to just be alone and away from commercial distractions, at least for a while.

Btw, your link above made an interesting point about how you are allowed to say you love others, including your family and country, and even food, but if you say that you love yourself, it's a taboo and makes you look narcissistic. Isn't that odd? Why are you allowed to love others and other things, but not yourself? Here is why:

http://forbiddentruth.8k.com/sex_love_marriage.html

This brings us to a key and extremely important Forbidden Truth: Regardless of whether or not the "love", meaning positive attachment, that a person may feel for other living things or objects is in fact valid, society overtly instructs all human beings that they must not love themselves! This is amazingly perverse, but absolutely true! If a person declares: "I love my wife", "I love my children", "I love the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team" "I love chocolate" "I love america", etc..., every single one of these declarations is met with approval by society. But if the person declares "I love myself", he meets with disapproval from society, he is labeled a "narcissist" at best, suffering from a mental dysfunction, or a selfish, perverse, evil person at worst. Do you creatures realize how utterly insane and diseased this is?? The only legitimate type of actual love that should exist within a sane person's mind, is love of self. Every sane human being should reserve this deepest, most intense emotional feelings of value and unconditional, positive embrace, for himself. Not for other living things, not for objects or foods or teams or countries, but for yourself! Society decrees love to be the deepest, most intensely positive emotion in existence, and yet at the same time, decrees that it's citizen-slaves must not love themselves, but instead must direct this deepest and most intense of positive emotions towards other creatures and even towards inanimate objects like chocolate, and theoretical concepts, like a "nation". This is part of a deliberate, malicious policy of ego-destruction, undertaken by all societies to strip all individuals of the precious, irreplaceable, incredibly valuable, intensely narcissistic "love" of self that all children are born with, that is instinctual in nature, and is a wonderful asset for all creatures, as they navigate through life. Narcissism is an extremely positive, valuable character and emotional trait to possess. It carries literally no drawbacks, for the individual himself. It does carry extreme drawbacks for societal leaders, since a narcissistic, self-loving person would defy all of the evil, destructive, malevolently harmful doctrines, literally hundreds of different doctrines, that every society is determined to foist upon it's citizen-slaves. The entire structure of society is designed to get citizens to suffer, to sacrifice themselves, their safety, their health, their freedom, their lives, for no valid or legitimate reason. The only way society can achieve this genocidally evil goal, is to strip all citizen-slaves of their self-love, and make them addicted to and dependent upon, the "love" of others, as well as to cause them to reject love of self, and direct this emotion, in a pale, invalid version, onto other people, creatures, objects, and concepts.

Perversely, societies enjoy remarkable success in achieving this goal. You literally will never hear any human being publicly declare: "I love myself", so demonized and stigmatized has this glorious, precious, perfectly natural and incredibly valuable attitude, been decreed by society. Because there are no public decrees of self love, individuals who are trying to build up, preserve and protect their precious emotional and character trait of narcissistic self-love, have almost no chance of keeping their self-love alive. Society teaches that it is wrong and bad to love yourself, constantly ordering all human beings to direct this emotion outward, to "give it away" to other creatures, objects, concepts, rather than to direct it inward, to give yourself the love that you deserve and that is pure, genuine, and so wonderfully empowering and nurturing. And so you creatures give it away, day after day, you throw this precious emotion away, on others, on things that are not even alive. Absolutely amazingly! And you grow to despise and loathe yourselves, you grow to perceive your own life and your own body as being worthless, disposable, expendable, exactly as your society wishes. Score yet another victory for your evil societies, as a result of your pathetic inferiority as individual creatures. Think about it, you fools! Why would your society overtly instruct you to "love" other people, animals, foods, sports, countries, etc..., but not to love yourself, while at the same time putting forth the definitional decree that "love" is the strongest, most important, most positive and necessary emotion in existence, that all citizens must experience and enjoy?? The only possible explanation for this, based upon sane thinking patterns, is the True, accurate explanation: Your society deliberately and with malice aforethought, wants to deny you the emotional and intellectual ability to love yourselves, and for the purpose of achieving this goal, demonizes all self-love by applying negative definitional labels such as "narcissist, to any and all humans who dare to try and defy societal efforts to strip them of their self-love. This societal demonization of both self-love and narcissism, constitutes one of the most pervasively brutal, harmful, and destructive of all societal policies, for all individuals, on a personal level. Not only is the person stripped of self-love, but they are also ordered by society to find invalid substitute creatures/objects to give this precious emotion to, which means they are ordered to care about, like, value, other living things as well as inanimate objects and concepts, more than they care about, like, value themselves. Again, this is because love is decreed to be the strongest and most intense of positive emotions, and society recognizes that it is far too dangerous to allow you creatures to properly love yourselves.

Therefore, if society orders you to love other creatures and things, but not to love yourself, the only possible message that this perverse decree can deliver to individuals, is that their own lives, safety, welfare, comfort, are of less importance than the lives, safety, value, comfort of other living things, of inanimate objects, and of concepts such as "national pride". This is how all societies get citizen-slaves to join their militaries. The hapless, pathetic citizen-slave is brainwashed into accepting the notion that he needs to "love his country", after he has been stripped by society of the ability to love himself. The natural, beneficial embrace of self-love emotion is stripped away, and society creates invalid substitute creatures, objects, and concepts, instructing and redirecting it's torture victim to apply and focus the emotion of love, onto these exterior, substitute venues. None of these exterior paths of love focus, have any legitimacy or validity, because the only proper direction that human beings should focus the emotion of love, is towards themselves. The primary method by which society gets individuals to direct "love" outward, is by stripping them of the ability to love themselves. This makes all subsequent outward directions of love, invalid, because an individual who cannot love himself, can never genuinely and in a rational, sane way, love anyone or anything else. All outward declarations and feelings of love that follow, are invalid, artificially induced and terroristically compelled by society. Lets consider an example: A woman gets pregnant, gives birth to a child, and is instructed by society to love their child. Most women who have children claim to love their children a great deal. A majority, if quizzed, will even declare that they love the child more than they love themselves. They will even declare that if necessary, they would sacrifice their own life to save the life of their child. Society praises and supports this type of an utterly insane attitude, as being demonstrative of proper "motherly love", a proper feeling and expression of love by the mother, for the child. But in reality, the attitude is utterly, completely deranged! Why would any sane person "love" another creature, more than they love themselves? How can a person adopt this ridiculous attitude? Why would a person adopt such a perverse philosophical mindset?? The person is saying that they value, care about, feel affection for themselves, less than they value, care about, feel affection for, some other living thing. The only reason they would feel this way, is because they have been stripped by society of the ability to properly love themselves, and coerced by society into agreeing to invalidly and harmfully transfer their "lost" emotion, onto another living thing. The insane mindset of being willing to sacrifice their own life in order to save the life of someone else, is a natural outgrowth of this brutal victimization. If you don't love yourself, then naturally your own life will have minimal value, to you. The person does not love herself, therefore the person will not value herself, her safety, welfare, or life, while at the same time the person has been terroristically compelled by society to invalidly apply love towards their child, or for that matter, their country/government, thus the person feels compelled to place extreme value upon the safety, welfare, life, of their child/country/government/spouse/etc...

This is the root goal of society, to get all individuals to hate and devalue themselves enough, to the point where they become willing to completely sacrifice their own happiness, comfort, safety, health, and especially their life, upon the command of societal leaders, in whatever manner society wishes. Once stripped of the ability to love himself, it is easy for society to create whatever "substitute objects and paths" it wishes, and to get the individual to embrace and direct an invalid, illegitimate form of love, towards these substitute objects and paths. Understand this folks, it is perfectly possible for some human beings to feel a great deal of affection, caring, empathy, for other human beings. Some mothers can care about, value, really like and feel protective towards their children, in a completely genuine manner. But only if they genuinely love themselves, and feel a stronger sense of affection, caring, value, towards themselves than they do for their child, or for anyone or anything else. This is why, in a sane society, all current definitions of "love" would be declared invalid, and a brand new definition would take their place. Love would be defined as: A powerfully positive emotion that mentally healthy human beings feel and direct towards themselves. The most powerfully positive emotion that exists within human consciousness. This definition would not only allow, but overtly encourage all human beings to embrace a narcissistic love of self, while at the same time allowing them to feel genuinely positive emotions, such as affection, empathy, caring, for other living things as well as inanimate objects/concepts. But never to the degree that any of the self-love that they feel for themselves, is sacrificed, compromised, or directed outward. All mentally and emotionally healthy human beings, in a sane society, would reserve the emotion of "love", since it is the most positive and powerful and valuable emotion, for themselves. They would direct it inward. They would value and embrace the gloriously narcissistic love of self, that they instinctually possess. They would recognize that no other creature, no object, no ideology, and no concept in existence, is worthy of receiving this most powerful of positive emotions. Yes, you can "like" your children, your parents, the people you have sex with, your friends, food that you find delicious, your car, your government, etc... You can like those people/things. You can value them, you can care about them, you can feel protective towards them, you can empathize with them, you can go to quite a lot of effort to try and protect them, keep them safe. Assuming that your True Reality so allows/dictates. But you must not "love" them. Because love is the most powerful emotion of all, and must be properly directed inward, towards yourself. I suppose some people who do genuinely love themselves, would feel the need to intellectually apply the word "love" to people that they really care about, such as their children. And this in itself would be okay, because "loving" other living things only becomes catastrophically harmful when combined with an inability to properly love yourself. So, if a parent wanted to "feel love" towards their child, this would be okay, as long as the parent has not been stripped of the proper ability to love himself. This means the parent could not love the child more than he loves himself, and the parent could not be willing to sacrifice his own life or welfare, for the benefit of the child. Both of these feelings/actions indicate and prove an inability to properly love yourself. You cannot love any living thing more than you love yourself, and you cannot place the life or the welfare of any living thing above your own life and welfare, unless you have lost the ability to properly love yourself.

The horrific consequences of being stripped of the ability to love yourself, are obvious to all sane and rational observers of the human condition. People agree to join nationalistic armies, because they have lost the ability to properly love and value themselves. People agree to enslave themselves to other people, because they want the other person to love them, as a result of having been stripped of the ability to love themselves. People create children, claim to love them, and yet viciously assault them via spanking, brutally torture them in thousands of different ways, sometimes murder them, because they have no genuine and legitimate concept of what love is, as a result of having been stripped of the ability to love themselves. People engage in desperate, futile, lifelong, obsessive quests to obtain the love of other living things, or they obsessively direct their love onto food, drugs, alcohol, sports, political movements, nationalistic movements, all because they have been stripped of the ability to love themselves. There are hundreds of additional negative consequences, downright horrific consequences, that I could list here. The bottom line is, every so-called "civilized" society on planet earth here in the early part of the 21st century, deliberately attempts to strip all citizens of their ability to properly love themselves, and to an extreme degree, with at least 99.999% of all citizens, society succeeds in accomplishing this malevolent feat. There are horrifically negative consequences, on a direct and personal level, for the vast majority of all human beings who have been stripped of the ability to properly love themselves. The life choices that these societal victim-creations make, and the life paths that they follow, are invariably inferior, perverse, irrational, harmful, deadly, and this a direct result of the fact that society has malevolently stripped them of the ability to properly love themselves.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23579
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm







Postby abcdavid01 » Thu May 09, 2013 12:48 am

Winston, if you want freedom from all attachments, why aren't you a monk?
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby Winston » Thu May 09, 2013 1:01 am

abcdavid01 wrote:Winston, if you want freedom from all attachments, why aren't you a monk?


Because that would be boring. Without pursuing our desires, we would not feel alive. Plus monasteries are places with strict rules and routines, especially Buddhist monasteries (I've visited them and spent a few nights in them), so that wouldn't exactly give you freedom. Perhaps you meant hermit?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23579
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby abcdavid01 » Thu May 09, 2013 1:56 am

Desire is necessarily a restriction on freedom. I don't think that means it's bad though.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby Christianfilipinacom » Thu May 09, 2013 4:50 am

momopi wrote:This is not a question of "should you", but rather, "what do you want", and if you can find someone with compatible life goals.

If you don't want to have a family and settle down, by all means, don't. If you're a cloud type person who'd enjoy being a perpetual traveler, by all means, do it.

What you should NOT do, is knowing that you'd be happier as a cloud, but choose to live as a grass and be miserable with yourself and blame everyone else for your own life choices.


I think this one hits it right on. If you have it deep inside you that you want to have a family now - a deep desire that will stay the course, not just a brief fantasy - then you can do it. It is of course a big sacrifice to have children, because the free time you once had is all gone; even when you once were able to sleep, you cannot because there is often a screaming child. If you have or can develop joy in taking care of someone else, and joy in their happiness and development, then it will be rewarding; but if you end up seeing the family relationship as a zero-sum game, and actually feel that their development detracts from your joy, it would be quite tough.
Christianfilipinacom
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:36 pm

Postby Hero » Thu May 09, 2013 10:37 am

I can't imagine giving up my freedom. Suppose I want to quit my job and move abroad? Can't do that if I have a wife. Suppose I meet an incredible woman, but can't date her because I'm tied to somebody else? Maybe when I start to feel old, I'll settle down with one woman; but for now I just want to keep having adventures :)
Hero
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:19 pm

Postby lavezzi » Thu May 09, 2013 5:25 pm

Winston, literal-mindedness always leads to false and foolish conclusions. The failure to recognize this is the catastrophic fallacy of the modern world.

Having a child is the single most freeing and liberating thing the vast majority of humans on earth will get to experience in their lifetimes. Other than spiritual realization, it is the single only thing that will effectively take a considerable amount of focus off their own suffering/insecurities. This is because your child gives you a new body to identify with other than your own. Being alive causes you to identify yourself as being your body (while in actual reality this is a deluded belief because you do not experience it directly) and then your mind begins to function perpetually in survival mode; a state of habitual anxiety so constant you mainly fail to even recognize it. This anxiety in most cases is totally irrational as it is based in needless desire and pertains to a mind-made self with no solid existence. When you have a child, you shift your attention to a large degree from yourself onto them. Anxieties/fears you experience in regards to your child are far more rational (and resultantly less frequent) because you do not experience the child's mind directly, and hence never pick up and integrate his/her subjective perceptions which are the root of human suffrage.
lavezzi
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:38 pm
Location: Republic of Éire

Postby zboy1 » Thu May 09, 2013 5:54 pm

lavezzi wrote:Winston, literal-mindedness always leads to false and foolish conclusions. The failure to recognize this is the catastrophic fallacy of the modern world.

Having a child is the single most freeing and liberating thing the vast majority of humans on earth will get to experience in their lifetimes. Other than spiritual realization, it is the single only thing that will effectively take a considerable amount of focus off their own suffering/insecurities. This is because your child gives you a new body to identify with other than your own. Being alive causes you to identify yourself as being your body (while in actual reality this is a deluded belief because you do not experience it directly) and then your mind begins to function perpetually in survival mode; a state of habitual anxiety so constant you mainly fail to even recognize it. This anxiety in most cases is totally irrational as it is based in needless desire and pertains to a mind-made self with no solid existence. When you have a child, you shift your attention to a large degree from yourself onto them. Anxieties/fears you experience in regards to your child are far more rational (and resultantly less frequent) because you do not experience the child's mind directly, and hence never pick up and integrate his/her subjective perceptions which are the root of human suffrage.


I, too, would like to have children before I get old. I think having children and being a father--is the most wonderful thing in the world.
zboy1
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4441
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:33 am

Postby Winston » Sat May 11, 2013 10:44 am

Question: Do men regret it if they don't settle down and raise a family? Hollywood portrays men who didn't do this as being filled with regret about it.

For example, in the movie "Star Trek Generations", when Picard meets Kirk in the Nexus, Kirk is living out his fantasy of having stayed on Earth (instead of jetting around in the Enterprise) and raising a family in a house in the forest. Part of Kirk always regretted that he didn't settle down but instead spent his career on a starship.

Is that accurate? Do men who lead lives of adventure eventually regret that they didn't settle down and raise a family? Have any of you met anyone like that?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23579
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Ghost » Sun May 12, 2013 5:15 am

There would likely be regrets either way. The exception might be if a man explicitly wanted to settle down and nothing else. But most men want adventure. And men don't have an expiration date anyway. Things will get tougher if they get too old, but they can still marry and procreate at old ages.

It is important to sow your oats first. No regrets that way. Get it out of your system. I would like to settle in the forest somewhere and have a family of my own too. But I know it is all for nothing if I don't get to experience lots of sex first.

Although now it seems rather hopeless. I'm not appealing to women, so I will probably have to rely on p4p for the rest of my life. (Not that I've even started that yet.) Long lonesome road ahead, but at least there is some fulfillment in p4p.

No man can do it alone, and that is why "loser" men like me need camaraderie to be successful in raising a family. I know I couldn't protect them all by myself and in this world that is my primary concern when it comes to having a family.

http://www.coalpha.org - This is in essence what I need. No man can do it alone. Trust is what ultimately allows a culture to become prosperous. After all, trust breeds camaraderie and fidelity. Alone, you don't know when the guy next door might try to f**k your wife and if she is receptive to that. But if your true friends have your back, and that guy knows he will get the shit kicked out of him if he tries to commit adultery with one of your "tribe," and if your wife knows being adulterous will be severely punished, well, then it is a whole different story. Then raising and protecting a family is possible.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby Christianfilipinacom » Sun May 12, 2013 5:39 am

I think Winston isn't talking about Sowing his oats, but actually caring for oats.

I like your good points about the importance of good friends.
Christianfilipinacom
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:36 pm

Postby Teal Lantern » Sun May 12, 2013 6:19 am

Winston wrote:Question: Do men regret it if they don't settle down and raise a family? Hollywood portrays men who didn't do this as being filled with regret about it.

For example, in the movie "Star Trek Generations", when Picard meets Kirk in the Nexus, Kirk is living out his fantasy of having stayed on Earth (instead of jetting around in the Enterprise) and raising a family in a house in the forest. Part of Kirk always regretted that he didn't settle down but instead spent his career on a starship.

Is that accurate? Do men who lead lives of adventure eventually regret that they didn't settle down and raise a family? Have any of you met anyone like that?


Hollywood markets to gullible @$$#oles, and charges a fee.
Whatever path a man takes, he will catch fleeting glimpses of men who took another path and are, at that moment, happy.
He will wonder if he'd have been happier on that other path.
Just as often, other men will see him and envy the path he took.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20gT9aBgzsY[/youtube]

Part of being a man means making choices and sticking to them.

Instead of taking your social cues from Hollywood, about raising a family or anything else, try doing some real world $#!^
a) sit in "family" court for a day -- each of those men bought into the B.S.
b) read the MANY forums where men write in about their wife cheating, about facing false DV charges, about her escalating demands & unhappiness, no matter what he does.
c) go to the mall (wear shades) and watch the "happy" couples and families.

If, after all this, you decide herp derp, gonna "settle down and raise a family", in the West (and spreading rapidly East) then you can't say you weren't warned.
не поглеждай назад. 8)

"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:48 pm
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Postby anamericaninbangkok » Mon May 13, 2013 12:05 am

ladislav wrote:It's a natural desire, and this is why one starts getting horny and stuff at a certain age, and falls in love. The problem is if it's in the US, the society is not normal, so one's sexual urges won't be channeled into a normal, productive groove. If one is deprived of it long enough, the desire will ferment and then take new shapes. Some sickos will become kidnappers like what they had in Cleveland now. Some will become gays, some will become sex tourists and residents of Bangkok and AC. After that, it's hard to settle down and follow a natural path anymore.

After you hit 46-47, the sexual urge diminishes, but a new urge rises- you want to have kids growing up around you whom you protect, nurture and educate. But you don't have them. This is why you have all these middle aged couples dying to adopt and have a complete home.

Philosophically speaking, none of those things are lasting.


I agree. I'm 50 now and my urges to go out and nail everything that moves subsided a couple of years ago. I just do not want to spend the time and energy running through women to see which one is the one. Also, I've slept with more than my share of women, so I sowed my oats many times over. The reason I married my wife is I felt she was someone I could live with for years and not get tired of her. She doesn't talk too much, which I like, she's mellow, and she's a good mother to our kids. It was an easy choice for me.
anamericaninbangkok
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 6:23 am
Location: Bangkok, Thailand

Postby kai1275 » Mon May 13, 2013 12:38 am

Not wanting to become serious and procreate is demonic and more fuel for the feminist idiots that you all hate. The more time you spend away from any stray seeds you planted (kids with baby mommas), the worst they become and the machine eats them up. You come to them trying to spout all this red pill mantra and shit, and all he or she will do is look at you and think, "whatever you deadbeat sack of shit. you have no credibility with me."

Running around creating covenants non-stop with many women makes you the same loser as the non-virgins you guys trash on all day long.
kai1275
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:19 pm

Postby Winston » Wed May 15, 2013 7:25 am

Christianfilipinacom wrote:I think Winston isn't talking about Sowing his oats, but actually caring for oats.

I like your good points about the importance of good friends.


Christian Filipina,
Since you're married, maybe you can tell us if you ever regret getting married, or envy those who are still free, or feel like you fell into a trap. Do such thoughts ever cross your mind?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23579
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Questions and Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests