Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ladies: Would you like to be a housewife?

jjohnmusic11
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?
eliseo
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2017 12:38:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hell no. I wouldn't work as a housewife even with an idea of the government compensating wives to become one. Honestly, to me, it's a dab of disrespect since I've spent years educating myself to earn a job and then the outcome would be that. Sure, the job is easy - take care of the house and kids but what's more to than that? Just taking care. The more financial support the family gets, the better.
Laurien
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2018 8:54:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Sure i wanna do that if my man ask that

Why not
Snowhite
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2018 7:00:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why not?! If my family income would allow me to stay home, I would definitely spend my whole day with my kids rather than sitting on a stupid office chair.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 4:40:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

It makes sense if you marry a doctor or a lawyer.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2018 4:43:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2018 4:40:32 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

It makes sense if you marry a doctor or a lawyer.

A sugar momma? ;)
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
renthewolverine
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 4:41:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean, I'm a lesbian (and I'm pretty sure you're thinking of man/woman marriage), but...

Either way, the answer would be no. On the surface, it's an equal deal--one person works outside the home, the other takes care of everything in the home (i.e. housework, kids, errands to get everything needed for the kids/home, etc). In practice, the person who doesn't work is ridiculously reliant on the person who does, to the point where the person who does can use their power advantage for evil. And many times, they do (i.e. being controlling, abusive, cheating, etc).

You have to think about the fact that the majority of relationships don't last anymore, so why put yourself in a position to where it'd be hard to walk away from the relationship if you need or want to, or where if you get dumped you're handicapped in society? If you're not working, you don't have your own money and you don't really own anything of your own. And you don't have the recent work experience you'd need to get a job and go back to standing on your own two feet, assuming you ever did.

I think this is one of the reasons many men have some kind of issue with "independent women" and/or women who make more money, have their own stuff all together, etc--they know those women can walk away from those men at absolutely any second. But if you're in a relationship and you're not positioned to walk away at any second, you're at a disadvantage and the other person has the upper hand.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2018 11:04:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Child-rearing is more fulfilling than a career.

So, the answer is yes.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2018 11:14:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2017 12:38:51 PM, eliseo wrote:
Hell no. I wouldn't work as a housewife even with an idea of the government compensating wives to become one. Honestly, to me, it's a dab of disrespect since I've spent years educating myself to earn a job and then the outcome would be that. Sure, the job is easy - take care of the house and kids but what's more to than that? Just taking care. The more financial support the family gets, the better.

It's displeasing yet expected that you would be indoctrinated with this Progressive nonsense.

Housewivery, if done correctly, is not easy. The first 3/4 years of a child's life require *full-time* commitment. Try convincing yourself that after 10 hours of work, you're going to be fine waking up at 1am to attend to a crying child. And then again at 3am. Then 5am. Then off you go to work at 7am, only to rinse and repeat later in the day.

That's only one aspect of it. That isn't taking into account feeding your child, buying the necessary equipment, adapting your life to account for your child etc.

You really haven't a clue if you think all that is easy.

You're also probably too immature to realise that attractive men aren't looking for someone to help with the financial support. They're looking for a mother who will raise their child as best she can, THEN think about other things (such as finance). If I can get through all the trials of attending to children, then I can fiddle around with a part-time job or the stock market.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2018 11:27:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2018 4:41:45 AM, renthewolverine wrote:
I mean, I'm a lesbian (and I'm pretty sure you're thinking of man/woman marriage), but...

Either way, the answer would be no. On the surface, it's an equal deal--one person works outside the home, the other takes care of everything in the home (i.e. housework, kids, errands to get everything needed for the kids/home, etc). In practice, the person who doesn't work is ridiculously reliant on the person who does, to the point where the person who does can use their power advantage for evil. And many times, they do (i.e. being controlling, abusive, cheating, etc).

Yeah that only happens to the idiot women who pick their partners with their hearts. Stop going after the bad-boys and just think about who you're about to commit to. YOU are responsible, as a woman, for picking a suitable husband. There are PLENTY of good men out there ready to provide for a family, who would like to engage in traditional gender roles.

I say all this as a woman, too.


You have to think about the fact that the majority of relationships don't last anymore,

That's because there is this pervasive, modern attitude of 'I'm not happy, therefore I'm leaving'. Newsflash: life is rough, and marriages are certainly no exception. People aren't willing to tough-it-out through some difficult times. They'd much rather be retardedly selfish and cry 'wahhh, not happy!', as if something as fickle as happiness should ever be the end goal.

I 100% understand leaving a man if he smashes your face in (especially if it was unprovoked -- I would be happy if those abusive, violent men were put to death), but I've heard excuses for divorce such as 'I caught him watching pornography'.

so why put yourself in a position to where it'd be hard to walk away from the relationship if you need or want to, or where if you get dumped you're handicapped in society? If you're not working, you don't have your own money and you don't really own anything of your own. And you don't have the recent work experience you'd need to get a job and go back to standing on your own two feet, assuming you ever did.

Don't ruin your marriage then.


I think this is one of the reasons many men have some kind of issue with "independent women" and/or women who make more money, have their own stuff all together, etc--they know those women can walk away from those men at absolutely any second.

No, it's because those women aren't attractive. They've developed, through Progressive indoctrination or workplace culture, masculine qualities. Furthermore, men aren't attracted to women's money -- it's the other way around. Women are becoming the men they are attracted to.

But if you're in a relationship and you're not positioned to walk away at any second, you're at a disadvantage and the other person has the upper hand.

If you're positioned to walk away any second, the marriage will never work.
Wylted
Posts: 25,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2018 12:22:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I 100% understand leaving a man if he smashes your face in (especially if it was unprovoked -- I would be happy if those abusive, violent men were put to death), but I've heard excuses for divorce such as 'I caught him watching pornography'.

Even if it is provoked he shouldn"T "smash your face in". He should just give you good paddling.

No, it's because those women aren't attractive. They've developed, through Progressive indoctrination or workplace culture, masculine qualities. Furthermore, men aren't attracted to women's money -- it's the other way around. Women are becoming the men they are attracted to.

But if you're in a relationship and you're not positioned to walk away at any second, you're at a disadvantage and the other person has the upper hand.

If you're positioned to walk away any second, the marriage will never work.

That"s part of why the welfare state and divorce rates go hand in hand. Women"s total voluntary reliance on men benefited both women and men. That reliance kept women"s hypergamy in check. A self destructive trait that only benefits them in the short run.

I think the purpose of the welfare state was to actually make it less risky of a move for women to leave good marriages. It acts as a safety net. Same thing with alimony and child support laws. All incentive to work through a marital problem is removed if the state is going to make sure you"re taken care of in relationships.

It"s not as if women have no power without those safety nets in place, it is just a system of mutually assured destruction. Something that kept both sides in check. You can look at black communities to see the problem with when men have all the power in relationships (white men are uninterested in black women, and the incarceration rate means there are 3 black women to every one black man available.) you see a community in disrepair.

Relationships need to be equal and that means mutually assured destruction. Women being in charge of making the home run well and men being in charge of providing creates that sort of dynamic.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference. For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.

Your making a number of assumptions here. I never said anything about constant happiness, transient happiness or healthy relationships. What I said is that people should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy. I stand by that statement and would like to remind you that there is a difference between not always being completely happy and actually being unhappy.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.


For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.

Your making a number of assumptions here.

*You're

I never said anything about constant happiness, transient happiness or healthy relationships. What I said is that people should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy. I stand by that statement and would like to remind you that there is a difference between not always being completely happy and actually being unhappy.

You haven't responded to what I said. I took issue with "happiness" being used as a barometer for a worthwhile relationship. Again, happiness is a transient phenomenon. The fact at some people in a relationship, someone will "actually [be] unhappy]", is irrelevant. Worthwhile pursuits in life often induce large amounts of unhappiness, and that's okay. The satisfaction and real value that is generated from unhappy tribulations, is what makes the unhappiness worth it.

In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2018 4:35:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.

So you have evidence but seem unwilling to share it. I find this suspect in an argument.

For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.

Your making a number of assumptions here.

*You're

Yes, thank you for your correction.

I never said anything about constant happiness, transient happiness or healthy relationships. What I said is that people should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy. I stand by that statement and would like to remind you that there is a difference between not always being completely happy and actually being unhappy.

You haven't responded to what I said. I took issue with "happiness" being used as a barometer for a worthwhile relationship. Again, happiness is a transient phenomenon. The fact at some people in a relationship, someone will "actually [be] unhappy]", is irrelevant. Worthwhile pursuits in life often induce large amounts of unhappiness, and that's okay. The satisfaction and real value that is generated from unhappy tribulations, is what makes the unhappiness worth it.

Define tribulations. What exactly makes them worthwhile?

In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.

Are you unhappy in your relationship? If so I'm sorry. I am pretty happy with mine. Our honeymoon was a week spent literally tied at the wrist. We still have the knot. I would not have committed like this to someone who made me unhappy.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2018 8:36:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2018 4:35:19 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.

So you have evidence but seem unwilling to share it. I find this suspect in an argument.

It's fragmented.

I've heard stories of lesbians adopting gender roles. I've heard girls who approach guys, and how that utterly fails. I've heard my girl friends say how much they enjoy a guy being the leader. I've heard a story of a house husband getting divorced, purely because his wife found his role "unsexy". I've read surveys on what men and women say they want in a partner.

None of these are sufficient enough to make a concrete argument. However, when combined, they are convincing to me. The problem is that it would take 100,000 of characters to describe to you all this evidence, assuming I haven't forgot some of it.


For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.

Your making a number of assumptions here.

*You're

Yes, thank you for your correction.

You're welcome -- you needed it.


I never said anything about constant happiness, transient happiness or healthy relationships. What I said is that people should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy. I stand by that statement and would like to remind you that there is a difference between not always being completely happy and actually being unhappy.

You haven't responded to what I said. I took issue with "happiness" being used as a barometer for a worthwhile relationship. Again, happiness is a transient phenomenon. The fact at some people in a relationship, someone will "actually [be] unhappy]", is irrelevant. Worthwhile pursuits in life often induce large amounts of unhappiness, and that's okay. The satisfaction and real value that is generated from unhappy tribulations, is what makes the unhappiness worth it.

Define tribulations. What exactly makes them worthwhile?

Things that test you.

They usually create something that is valuable, like a human's life, an impressive career, an interesting insight into life etc.


In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.

Are you unhappy in your relationship? If so I'm sorry. I am pretty happy with mine. Our honeymoon was a week spent literally tied at the wrist. We still have the knot. I would not have committed like this to someone who made me unhappy.

Your relationships is not going to last, if you think happiness is an integral component.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2018 1:36:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2018 8:36:29 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 4:35:19 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.

So you have evidence but seem unwilling to share it. I find this suspect in an argument.

It's fragmented.

I've heard stories of lesbians adopting gender roles. I've heard girls who approach guys, and how that utterly fails. I've heard my girl friends say how much they enjoy a guy being the leader. I've heard a story of a house husband getting divorced, purely because his wife found his role "unsexy". I've read surveys on what men and women say they want in a partner.

None of these are sufficient enough to make a concrete argument. However, when combined, they are convincing to me. The problem is that it would take 100,000 of characters to describe to you all this evidence, assuming I haven't forgot some of it.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to make a concrete argument. Do you have a concrete argument?


For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.

Your making a number of assumptions here.

*You're

Yes, thank you for your correction.

You're welcome -- you needed it.

Need may be a strong word since you clearly understood what I was trying to say.


I never said anything about constant happiness, transient happiness or healthy relationships. What I said is that people should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy. I stand by that statement and would like to remind you that there is a difference between not always being completely happy and actually being unhappy.

You haven't responded to what I said. I took issue with "happiness" being used as a barometer for a worthwhile relationship. Again, happiness is a transient phenomenon. The fact at some people in a relationship, someone will "actually [be] unhappy]", is irrelevant. Worthwhile pursuits in life often induce large amounts of unhappiness, and that's okay. The satisfaction and real value that is generated from unhappy tribulations, is what makes the unhappiness worth it.

Define tribulations. What exactly makes them worthwhile?

Things that test you.

Could you be a little more specific?

They usually create something that is valuable, like a human's life, an impressive career, an interesting insight into life etc.

Do you have any evidence or is this like your claim about people's relationship preferences?


In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.

Are you unhappy in your relationship? If so I'm sorry. I am pretty happy with mine. Our honeymoon was a week spent literally tied at the wrist. We still have the knot. I would not have committed like this to someone who made me unhappy.

Your relationships is not going to last, if you think happiness is an integral component.

More than a decade so far. It's okay to be wrong zarroette. We all are sometimes.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2018 4:44:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2018 1:36:35 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 8:36:29 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 4:35:19 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.

So you have evidence but seem unwilling to share it. I find this suspect in an argument.

It's fragmented.

I've heard stories of lesbians adopting gender roles. I've heard girls who approach guys, and how that utterly fails. I've heard my girl friends say how much they enjoy a guy being the leader. I've heard a story of a house husband getting divorced, purely because his wife found his role "unsexy". I've read surveys on what men and women say they want in a partner.

None of these are sufficient enough to make a concrete argument. However, when combined, they are convincing to me. The problem is that it would take 100,000 of characters to describe to you all this evidence, assuming I haven't forgot some of it.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to make a concrete argument. Do you have a concrete argument?

I have a concrete argument. The problem is that it takes tiny evidence from 100s of stories, of which I couldn't possible delve into without writing 100,000 of words.



For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.

Your making a number of assumptions here.

*You're

Yes, thank you for your correction.

You're welcome -- you needed it.

Need may be a strong word since you clearly understood what I was trying to say.

Don't blush.



I never said anything about constant happiness, transient happiness or healthy relationships. What I said is that people should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy. I stand by that statement and would like to remind you that there is a difference between not always being completely happy and actually being unhappy.

You haven't responded to what I said. I took issue with "happiness" being used as a barometer for a worthwhile relationship. Again, happiness is a transient phenomenon. The fact at some people in a relationship, someone will "actually [be] unhappy]", is irrelevant. Worthwhile pursuits in life often induce large amounts of unhappiness, and that's okay. The satisfaction and real value that is generated from unhappy tribulations, is what makes the unhappiness worth it.

Define tribulations. What exactly makes them worthwhile?

Things that test you.

Could you be a little more specific?

Challenges in life. Trying to think of the correct diction, yet having the word on the tip of your tongue. Finding the best outfit to express yourself properly. Knowing when to keep silent, when being otherwise would be offend.


They usually create something that is valuable, like a human's life, an impressive career, an interesting insight into life etc.

Do you have any evidence or is this like your claim about people's relationship preferences?

I think this is axiomatic.

Things that are difficult to achieve are often things that produce valuable things (e.g. becoming more skilled gets you a better paying job).



In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.

Are you unhappy in your relationship? If so I'm sorry. I am pretty happy with mine. Our honeymoon was a week spent literally tied at the wrist. We still have the knot. I would not have committed like this to someone who made me unhappy.

Your relationships is not going to last, if you think happiness is an integral component.

More than a decade so far. It's okay to be wrong zarroette. We all are sometimes.

That's well short of a lifetime.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2018 5:35:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2018 4:44:52 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:36:35 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 8:36:29 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 4:35:19 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
When you get married or if you are already married would you like to quit your job outside the home and be a housewife?

Would you quit your job and become a house husband?

House husbands are thoroughly unattractive.

A man goes to work and earns the household income. A woman attends to the children and supports him wherever possible. That's what is attractive to both parties, and that's the way it should be done.

Should is a strong word for your personal preference.

It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.

So you have evidence but seem unwilling to share it. I find this suspect in an argument.

It's fragmented.

I've heard stories of lesbians adopting gender roles. I've heard girls who approach guys, and how that utterly fails. I've heard my girl friends say how much they enjoy a guy being the leader. I've heard a story of a house husband getting divorced, purely because his wife found his role "unsexy". I've read surveys on what men and women say they want in a partner.

None of these are sufficient enough to make a concrete argument. However, when combined, they are convincing to me. The problem is that it would take 100,000 of characters to describe to you all this evidence, assuming I haven't forgot some of it.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to make a concrete argument. Do you have a concrete argument?

I have a concrete argument. The problem is that it takes tiny evidence from 100s of stories, of which I couldn't possible delve into without writing 100,000 of words.

That you have evidence that is impossible to share is functionally identical from my perspective to you having no evidence at all.



For one thing every one does not feel as you do and the should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy.

This notion of doing or not doing things, purely based on happiness, is unrealistic. We're not designed to be constantly happy all the time. Breaking a perfectly healthy relationship, purely because of transient happiness, is immature and unrealistic.

Your making a number of assumptions here.

*You're

Yes, thank you for your correction.

You're welcome -- you needed it.

Need may be a strong word since you clearly understood what I was trying to say.

Don't blush.



I never said anything about constant happiness, transient happiness or healthy relationships. What I said is that people should not be forced into a lifestyle that makes them unhappy. I stand by that statement and would like to remind you that there is a difference between not always being completely happy and actually being unhappy.

You haven't responded to what I said. I took issue with "happiness" being used as a barometer for a worthwhile relationship. Again, happiness is a transient phenomenon. The fact at some people in a relationship, someone will "actually [be] unhappy]", is irrelevant. Worthwhile pursuits in life often induce large amounts of unhappiness, and that's okay. The satisfaction and real value that is generated from unhappy tribulations, is what makes the unhappiness worth it.

Define tribulations. What exactly makes them worthwhile?

Things that test you.

Could you be a little more specific?

Challenges in life. Trying to think of the correct diction, yet having the word on the tip of your tongue. Finding the best outfit to express yourself properly. Knowing when to keep silent, when being otherwise would be offend.

And for you remaining in a miserable relationship is a worthwhile tribulation? You have your whole life ahead of you why not be happy when possible? I think a gentle hedonism is perfectly natural. I mean why do you want an impressive career for if it doesn't make you happy?


They usually create something that is valuable, like a human's life, an impressive career, an interesting insight into life etc.

Do you have any evidence or is this like your claim about people's relationship preferences?

I think this is axiomatic.

Things that are difficult to achieve are often things that produce valuable things (e.g. becoming more skilled gets you a better paying job).

Often but not universally, and a good relationship is one of those valuable things. You have to work at a relationship, you have to try and put the other person's happiness before your own, which only works if they do the same for you.



In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.

Are you unhappy in your relationship? If so I'm sorry. I am pretty happy with mine. Our honeymoon was a week spent literally tied at the wrist. We still have the knot. I would not have committed like this to someone who made me unhappy.

Your relationships is not going to last, if you think happiness is an integral component.

More than a decade so far. It's okay to be wrong zarroette. We all are sometimes.

That's well short of a lifetime.

Yes it is and I look forward to the rest of our lives together. The trick is you have to love everything about them, even the things you don't like. I love my partner's real self warts and all.

I don't recommend a pair bonding for everyone but if you find the right person it can be very satisfying.

On a side note I understand that love is chemically driven and that I have no choice in whom I love. This is immaterial to me as I enjoy the feeling no matter what it actually is.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2018 4:22:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2018 5:35:13 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/1/2018 4:44:52 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:36:35 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 8:36:29 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 4:35:19 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.

So you have evidence but seem unwilling to share it. I find this suspect in an argument.

It's fragmented.

I've heard stories of lesbians adopting gender roles. I've heard girls who approach guys, and how that utterly fails. I've heard my girl friends say how much they enjoy a guy being the leader. I've heard a story of a house husband getting divorced, purely because his wife found his role "unsexy". I've read surveys on what men and women say they want in a partner.

None of these are sufficient enough to make a concrete argument. However, when combined, they are convincing to me. The problem is that it would take 100,000 of characters to describe to you all this evidence, assuming I haven't forgot some of it.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to make a concrete argument. Do you have a concrete argument?

I have a concrete argument. The problem is that it takes tiny evidence from 100s of stories, of which I couldn't possible delve into without writing 100,000 of words.

That you have evidence that is impossible to share is functionally identical from my perspective to you having no evidence at all.

It's not impossible. It's just exceedingly difficult. Honestly, I don't have the time/energy to type 100,000 words for an online debate site.

But sure, it's functionally the same.

Define tribulations. What exactly makes them worthwhile?

Things that test you.

Could you be a little more specific?

Challenges in life. Trying to think of the correct diction, yet having the word on the tip of your tongue. Finding the best outfit to express yourself properly. Knowing when to keep silent, when being otherwise would be offend.

And for you remaining in a miserable relationship is a worthwhile tribulation?

The words we were using were "happy" and "unhappy". Obviously, if you were miserable, suicidal and suffering hourly anxiety attacks, all because you're in a relationship, I would then agree that it's time to leave. However, that agreement doesn't extend to "unhappy". That is far less potent, and is often trivial, too.

You have your whole life ahead of you why not be happy when possible? I think a gentle hedonism is perfectly natural. I mean why do you want an impressive career for if it doesn't make you happy?

Why would you bother with "an impressive career", if all you were after was to be "happy?" Why not play a videogame wherein you win? Why not have casual sex with some random? If all you are after is happiness, it's illogical to pursue a deeply meaningful activity, such as an impressive job.

I think it's possible that we're in semantic discordance, too. Happiness, for me, is a momentary smile. It's the sun coming out from behind the clouds. It's getting your favourite coffee from your favourite coffe shop. Is that what you mean by happiness?

They usually create something that is valuable, like a human's life, an impressive career, an interesting insight into life etc.

Do you have any evidence or is this like your claim about people's relationship preferences?

I think this is axiomatic.

Things that are difficult to achieve are often things that produce valuable things (e.g. becoming more skilled gets you a better paying job).

Often but not universally, and a good relationship is one of those valuable things. You have to work at a relationship, you have to try and put the other person's happiness before your own, which only works if they do the same for you.

I agree with everything you are saying, barring the usage of happiness. If you replaced it with "well-being", then I'd 100% agree with you.

In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.

Are you unhappy in your relationship? If so I'm sorry. I am pretty happy with mine. Our honeymoon was a week spent literally tied at the wrist. We still have the knot. I would not have committed like this to someone who made me unhappy.

Your relationships is not going to last, if you think happiness is an integral component.

More than a decade so far. It's okay to be wrong zarroette. We all are sometimes.

That's well short of a lifetime.

Yes it is and I look forward to the rest of our lives together. The trick is you have to love everything about them, even the things you don't like. I love my partner's real self warts and all.

Sure, that's the stuff that keeps people bound.

Notice how you didn't mention happiness.


I don't recommend a pair bonding for everyone but if you find the right person it can be very satisfying.

On a side note I understand that love is chemically driven and that I have no choice in whom I love.

Absolutely. It's subconscious.

This is immaterial to me as I enjoy the feeling no matter what it actually is.

Fine.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2018 4:35:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2018 4:22:03 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/1/2018 5:35:13 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/1/2018 4:44:52 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:36:35 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 8:36:29 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 4:35:19 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:40:11 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/28/2018 2:17:50 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/28/2018 1:55:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/27/2018 2:49:26 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/27/2018 11:16:17 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/23/2018 4:28:09 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 11/1/2017 11:18:52 AM, jjohnmusic11 wrote:
It's not merely a personal preference. It is how the vast majority of men and women prefer relationships, whether they realise it or not. Catering to the vanishingly small percentage that do not is ludicrous.

Citation please.

It's a theory I've derived from multiple sources, including life experience.

So you have evidence but seem unwilling to share it. I find this suspect in an argument.

It's fragmented.

I've heard stories of lesbians adopting gender roles. I've heard girls who approach guys, and how that utterly fails. I've heard my girl friends say how much they enjoy a guy being the leader. I've heard a story of a house husband getting divorced, purely because his wife found his role "unsexy". I've read surveys on what men and women say they want in a partner.

None of these are sufficient enough to make a concrete argument. However, when combined, they are convincing to me. The problem is that it would take 100,000 of characters to describe to you all this evidence, assuming I haven't forgot some of it.

I agree that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to make a concrete argument. Do you have a concrete argument?

I have a concrete argument. The problem is that it takes tiny evidence from 100s of stories, of which I couldn't possible delve into without writing 100,000 of words.

That you have evidence that is impossible to share is functionally identical from my perspective to you having no evidence at all.

It's not impossible. It's just exceedingly difficult. Honestly, I don't have the time/energy to type 100,000 words for an online debate site.

But sure, it's functionally the same.


Define tribulations. What exactly makes them worthwhile?

Things that test you.

Could you be a little more specific?

Challenges in life. Trying to think of the correct diction, yet having the word on the tip of your tongue. Finding the best outfit to express yourself properly. Knowing when to keep silent, when being otherwise would be offend.

And for you remaining in a miserable relationship is a worthwhile tribulation?

The words we were using were "happy" and "unhappy". Obviously, if you were miserable, suicidal and suffering hourly anxiety attacks, all because you're in a relationship, I would then agree that it's time to leave. However, that agreement doesn't extend to "unhappy". That is far less potent, and is often trivial, too.

You have your whole life ahead of you why not be happy when possible? I think a gentle hedonism is perfectly natural. I mean why do you want an impressive career for if it doesn't make you happy?

Why would you bother with "an impressive career", if all you were after was to be "happy?" Why not play a videogame wherein you win? Why not have casual sex with some random? If all you are after is happiness, it's illogical to pursue a deeply meaningful activity, such as an impressive job.

I think it's possible that we're in semantic discordance, too. Happiness, for me, is a momentary smile. It's the sun coming out from behind the clouds. It's getting your favourite coffee from your favourite coffe shop. Is that what you mean by happiness?

Indeed I think so too. You are mistaking pleasure for happiness.

They usually create something that is valuable, like a human's life, an impressive career, an interesting insight into life etc.

Do you have any evidence or is this like your claim about people's relationship preferences?

I think this is axiomatic.

Things that are difficult to achieve are often things that produce valuable things (e.g. becoming more skilled gets you a better paying job).

Often but not universally, and a good relationship is one of those valuable things. You have to work at a relationship, you have to try and put the other person's happiness before your own, which only works if they do the same for you.

I agree with everything you are saying, barring the usage of happiness. If you replaced it with "well-being", then I'd 100% agree with you.

Happiness or contentment if you like is a state of wellbeing while pleasure is short lived and breeds addiction. That is why I am happy with my partner. If I just had sex with randoms I might feel pleasure but I would likely be unhappy.

In other words, so you don't miss it this time: whether someone is unhappy in a relationship is irrelevant.

Are you unhappy in your relationship? If so I'm sorry. I am pretty happy with mine. Our honeymoon was a week spent literally tied at the wrist. We still have the knot. I would not have committed like this to someone who made me unhappy.

Your relationships is not going to last, if you think happiness is an integral component.

More than a decade so far. It's okay to be wrong zarroette. We all are sometimes.

That's well short of a lifetime.

Yes it is and I look forward to the rest of our lives together. The trick is you have to love everything about them, even the things you don't like. I love my partner's real self warts and all.

Sure, that's the stuff that keeps people bound.

Notice how you didn't mention happiness.

And yet that is exactly what makes me happy.


I don't recommend a pair bonding for everyone but if you find the right person it can be very satisfying.

On a side note I understand that love is chemically driven and that I have no choice in whom I love.

Absolutely. It's subconscious.

This is immaterial to me as I enjoy the feeling no matter what it actually is.

Fine.

Thank you for your approval ; )
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2018 4:37:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2018 4:35:08 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:22:03 AM, Zarroette wrote:

tl;dr: We are agreeing yet using different semantics on the word "happy".
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2018 5:05:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2018 4:37:48 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:35:08 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:22:03 AM, Zarroette wrote:

tl;dr: We are agreeing yet using different semantics on the word "happy".

That is always possible. My definition comes from neuroscience and the difference between serotonin and dopamine.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2018 12:07:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2018 5:05:15 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:37:48 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:35:08 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:22:03 AM, Zarroette wrote:

tl;dr: We are agreeing yet using different semantics on the word "happy".

That is always possible. My definition comes from neuroscience and the difference between serotonin and dopamine.

You would contend that happiness is a quantifiable term in neuroscience? I'm not sure this is supported by the scientific field...
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2018 12:16:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2018 12:07:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/2/2018 5:05:15 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:37:48 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:35:08 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:22:03 AM, Zarroette wrote:

tl;dr: We are agreeing yet using different semantics on the word "happy".

That is always possible. My definition comes from neuroscience and the difference between serotonin and dopamine.

You would contend that happiness is a quantifiable term in neuroscience? I'm not sure this is supported by the scientific field...

https://youtu.be...
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2018 12:55:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2018 12:16:29 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/3/2018 12:07:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/2/2018 5:05:15 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:37:48 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:35:08 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 3/2/2018 4:22:03 AM, Zarroette wrote:

tl;dr: We are agreeing yet using different semantics on the word "happy".

That is always possible. My definition comes from neuroscience and the difference between serotonin and dopamine.

You would contend that happiness is a quantifiable term in neuroscience? I'm not sure this is supported by the scientific field...

https://youtu.be...

I haven't got a spare 32 minutes to sit through a video, guessing that what you meant.

Could you please at least give a time-link to show what you were referring to?
bsh7000
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2018 12:57:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I know I'm a guy, but if my husband made enough money, I would be willing to be a stay-at-home dad.
I'm a Bish.

Debate Challenge Section Mod


Debate Me: http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.