Excuse me FH, but I think you are unaware of the definition of a "trophy wife".

It's not just winning something, the phrases's connotation is more negative in premise. It implies someone who is "objectified" and is gained and valued only as a prize or an object.

Saying your wife is a "trophy wife" is not something I think you'd want to claim, unless you want people to think you devalue her in such a manner.

bob you crack me up! i am not impressed by any man of that age or older dating someone in their young 20's, i personally think it is ridiculous. but, like you said, they are easy to impress. i am 34. i am NOT so easy to impress! u best be offering me more than a cool car and a cool pad! mlhb

Resilient - you really don't understand sarcastic humor, do you?

I fully understand what a so-called "Trophy Wife" is.

I also understand that in the battle with the OM for my wife, I won and he lost, if the measure of "won/lost" is decided by who she chose to be with and whether on or not we are recovering our marriage.

If "winning" in that arena isn't worthy of a "valuable trophy" to you, then perhaps you need to reassess the "value" of your own spouse. Mine is worth more to me than everything short of Christ.

And for the "record," my wife IS an object that I love, and much much more. There is NOTHING "hypothetical" about my wife, she is real and the object of my love.

Sorry you seem to have such a problem with "figures of speech." I'm sorry if it bothered you.

I agree with WAT. Men who date much younger women does so because it elevates their self-worth and image. They are insecure. But hey, if men claim that dating younger women require less expectations, than what are we to assume of such women? Let me just say that my FWH did have an A with such woman which I refer as a "doormat with tits." The OW, was too available, too much of a pleaser and not much of a challenge.

WS and OP are just as insecure. Folks, don't forget, WE, yes even as BS are insecure like every human beinge, but in different ways. What separates us BS from WS and OP is that we choose to not fix our insecurities outside our M.

You know FH, I sometimes feel victorious in this, but I stop myself as it feels I am being arrogant.

I tore back what OM tried to steal from me and made sure he faced every consequence of his actions on Earth.

And my wife is now also my "trophy" as yours is to you. Trophy as in Hard fought for and won.

FH,

Clearly you've taken this personally and are angry. My apologies. In the future I'll avoid responding to you to avoid angering you further.

Jo

Jo, you don't get to play that sort of game with me.

I am not angry and I don't take anything "personally" other than the FACT that you, out of nowhere, CHOSE to attempt to chastise me for not knowing what a commonly referred to phrase, "Trophy Wife, means.

The fact that I made a "play on those words" seemed to offend you enough to try to "correct me" and "take me to task."

NOW you get your little nose out of joint because I had the temerity to not sit idly by and take your nonsensical "correction and attack."

NO, Jo, I am not angry. What I am is NOT into Conflict Avoidance anymore. You have every right to state your opinion, just I do. I also have every right to state that in my opinion, YOUR opinion was wrong. That's NOT anger, that's correcting a misstatement and NOT allowing it to stand as if it were fact.

If you choose to no longer respond, that suits me just fine. I didn't call you out, you called me out. If you can't stand that little amount of "heat," I can only wonder at what other things you run from rather than confront.

One last time, Jo, DON'T bother trying to put words in my mouth or try to make others think that I am "mad" at you. I am not mad, not angry, and will not allow you make false assumptions about me and state them as fact, especially when YOU are the one who started the whole thing by trying to "take me to task" on something I said "Tongue in cheek" to Bob Pure.

Nice try. I'm not buying. Call it a learned consequence of having dealt with Adultery and the hazards of Conflict Avoidance as a way of "getting along." Not sitting still for that sort of stuff anymore.

What DOES anger me is the sort of condescending self-righteousness of your statement,
"In the future I'll avoid responding to you to avoid angering you further." You can avoid anything you wish, but don't you DARE assume that just because you say something I'm going to get "mad" at you. And don't you DARE try to imply through your statement that perhaps others might also get me "mad" if they say anything.

Arrogance. That about sums up what your two brief posts seem to convey. You are welcome to it.

If all of that offends you....then I apologize for your hurt sensibilities, but not for stating the truth.

Gee FH, another "attack" on you.

You paranoia is showing again.

But, I guess you have reason to be paranoid. You desperately try to defend your crazy world view against all logic to the contrary.

Try this out for some learning about the 2nd Law - you need it.

And about those male nipples - your explanation doesn't cut it, that women were "made" from men. Dern, women have a uterus that men have nothing close to. Creating women from men doesn't explain that. Besides, why do men have a weenus OR nipples if sexual reproduction wasn't originally comtemplated? It couldn't have been if women were an afterthought. And what about all the other male mammals with nipples? Were female chimps made from male chimps? - female dogs made from male dogs?

An about those land bridges - no way they existed in the last 6000 years, your age of the earth. Try again.

WAT

I agree with the fact that the less expectations the grater the atraction. A married man raising a family has more obligations than one that is not married. An older woman with children has many priorities in her life to be fully devoted on elevating her husband's ego.

Its not the age, I think its more about not much expectations. The availability is there and nothing is expected from them. It gets harder when they overlook the family and any obligations they might of left behind.

I strongly believe that at the end the younger women will get tired or bored with the older man and everything comes to an end. The man is left behind with their egos hurt and have no family to come home to.

a very sad delema

FH, thanks for sharing your POV. At this stage I’m not interested in learning more and going into depth about this whole evolution issue, but thanks for the offer! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I know God (and Jesus as our Lord and Savior) exist and that He was the Creator of everything… And whether God created the universe through the evolution process or not, doesn’t really matter IMO. I believe there are many things we as human beings might not yet completely understand and things which are still unknown/unrevealed to us while we are here on earth. I the meantime I can't see any purpose in “splitting hairs” about these issues.

hmm...perhaps....but then your condescending arrogance and presuppostion that evolution is "proved" is equally showing again. Does an attack on me (paranoia) somehow equate to an answer to my question to you or a "support" for evolutionistic presupposition?



You deem my belief to be "crazy" when it is based upon the presupposition that God created. If my presuppostion is "crazy," then yours is equally so since your evolutionary stance is based on a presupposition, without any proof, that evolution is correct. Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black!" No supportive proof for your position, just an attack on someone holding an opposing viewpoint.



Okay, and to borrow your phrase and send it right back to you: WAT, Try THIS out for some learning about the 2nd Law - you need it.



WAT, now you are being just plain ridiculous. You attempt to ridicule Conscious Design by a Living Creator by using "evolutionary" reasoning to support your ridicule?

Let's see, just how does Evolution show a need for, much less an "evolutionary" advantage for male nipples?

As for sexual reproduction, are you going to tell us which came first, the chicken or the egg, according to any evolutionary FACT? Let's talk about the original, to say nothing of all the various KINDS of animals that make use of sexual reproduction, that arose, SIMULATANEOUSLY for BOTH Male and Female?




Glad to see WAT's opinion is "Law." I had no idea that you were that Omniscient. Or is that just your presupposition that evolution is true and that nothing else, proven or unproven, matters?

Perhaps instead of your futile attempts to defend evolution through the use of ridicule and presupposition, you could move this discussion, if you are bent on pursuing it, to another thread and let apl have her thread back?

No problem Suzet. Just an offer should you ever want to explore it more.




Granted. Though there ARE things that God has chosen to reveal to us Scripture, such as HE created and the timeframes He chose to accomplish His creation.




I understand. But here's something to consider..."God created" is not reconcilable with "God evolved." Either God did what He said He did and Created all things according to His will, or He didn't. It IS important from the standpoint of trying to accomodate "error" or that "God didn't really mean what He said."

Anyway, the offer remains open anytime you care to ask any questions.

God bless.

No FH - I'm not interested is discussing this further. I keep forgetting that it's a waste of time to discuss anything scientific with anyone who truly believes the earth is younger than 10,000 years. That by itself signals the end of all rationality.

WAT

Well, at 30 I didnt realize that was why I was in the relationship, so I'm guessing that at 21 he didnt know, either. I think we both thought we were just in it for the kicks. Again, we were both single. It's been mentioned a few times now, it's just easier to get a quick, admiration 'fix' from people who are younger than yourself.

Now real admiration would have to come from someone I respected, for it to really count with me. But after a bad marriage and divorce, I sought a quick 'fix'. I was seriously vunerable and needy. I see that now, I didnt then - Dru

Yep, the "end of all rationality." Just like it's "irrational" to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

No God, no miracles, no nothing but the remaining unsubstantiated PRESUPPOSTION of evolution, sans any proof that it actually caused anything.

And you talk about the "end of all rationality?!?"

It is very interesting how you refuse to address KNOWN difficulities in your evolutionary surmisings and how you only surface long enough to launch attacks against the person, but never address the actual ideas. WAT, for what it's worth, SCIENCE does not prove evolution any more than it proves creation. You begin with a premise and then you attempt to make the "observable" fit the facts and discard the "troubling areas" that evolution can't answer.

So please forgive me if your laments about the "end of all rationality" don't move me. All it does is stir a little heartburn from the sour food you are trying to feed the masses.

Interesting thread.

As the sex drive starts quite young, I choose to ignore the adolescent years and point something out, at least from my viewpoint, that I have noticed.

When I was a "young adult" (and I cannot really say when that happened, but let's argue 21) I can remember the ole libido firing on all cylinders when a young, similar aged nubile thing strolled on by. The "wondering gaze" and the "carnal thought" would appear. Now I made a choice as to wether or not to pursue said nubile female, but the set of females I would consider was age ranged close to my own. Say as young as 16 and as old as 25. (And I realize that 16 would be a minor, I am talking the FEELING here, rational thought would quickly rule out "considering" the young girls). At that time, a mature woman of 30 was out of the question. (And there are notable, exotic exceptions such as Ms. Welch, I am talking everyday females I would encounter in my everyday life, which sadly, did not include frequent visits to the Playboy mansion. I'm just sayin' is all.)

No offense to the ladies who were 30 back then, that is just how it was.

Well now that I have aged, what I have noticed is that my gamut of acceptable females who "inspire" those feelings has undergone a mean shift as well as a tolerance increase. Meaning today, I can get those feelings by admiring a young woman of (dare I say) 22 at my ripe old age of 39. (Again, even though I am a pirate by night, your daughters are safe. Rational thought wins the day, I am answering what tickles the loins.) But strangely, the upper limit has increased quite a bit. A woman of 42 or 44 can get the feelings started as well.

So the young NCWalker 21 yrs old had a tolerance of 21 +/- 5 years. But the today NCWalker has a tolerance of about 33 +/- 11 years.

So 15 years ago when an attractive mother of 3 sashayed on by in a sweatsuit, kids in tow, and hair pulled back with little makeup, she did not get a second glance. But now? Yeah. I'm checkin' out the "birthin' hips".

Or maybe I'm just desperate. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Frankly, the statistical sampling of women has expanded. And I am talking carnal relations NOT relationships. If a nubile 24 year old strolled by and I was asked if I would "take a roll in the hay" with her, my answer would be yes. But a relationship? No. When I told her that I missed my "Duran-Duran hairdo" she would have no idea what I was talking about. That would pretty much end it right there.

So statistically, it is pretty explainable why men choose the younger women. As they age, their "acceptable range" increases. It follows that there would be more age discrepancy in their choices. ESPECIALLY if the "helper brain" (or is it "hindering brain"?) were making the choice. It is pretty simple and obvious to me.

But would such a discrepancy be something to build a relationship on? THAT is what boggles my mind when I see the old/young thing in either direction. To me, it seems that the obstacles to something meaningful would already be in place (no offense to anyone with a successful old/young thing, this is after all MY opinion).

I guess I COULD get a nubile young girl. As I am told I am generally nice and engaging and can certainly shell out a little more dough than my 20 something competition could on a date. Just don't want to. The feelings appear when the young ones (not too young) go by, but the desire just isn't there. Based on my personal worldview, guys that go after the "younglings" just aren't after a relationship, or wouldn't know one if it bit them in their wrinkled butts. Again. My opinion.

So your daughters are safe. But you single moms in the sweatsuits - AVAST! and PREPARE TO BE BOARDED!! (At least we could "Safety Dance" and know what it is).

NCWalker

LMAO! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Well, you asked, I suppose, why men had A's with younger women.

I have nothing to add to that, but I will say that my wife was much younger than me, and there were only two reasons for that.

1) She is the only woman who ever wanted me. (TRUE, so I don't want to hear the standard response to that).
2) I wanted children (and still would like to have one or two more).

She is and was the only woman with whom I've had an intimate relationship.

I think it is a natural (almost biological) thing. The older guy has gathered the goods to provide a home. The younger woman can produce children. I know that it shocks many to think of it that way, but ultimately, we exist because of all the succesful strategies of our ancestors, and not necessarily because of the nice tidy theories.

If you know a 48-year old woman who is able and eager to have more children, then she is certainly an exception.

Companionship is nice, but without children, it is only a useless diversion while waiting to die.

Children are the only thing that matter in this life. The only thing a man is good for is gathering the stuff that his family needs. When they don't need any more stuff, he can die.

It took me a long time to accept this view, and I know it is not a popular one.

You asked for blunt. There it is.

-AD

How terribly sad, AD.

I'd love to talk with you about that sometime should you ever want to discuss it.

God bless.

AD, this is indeed a very sad and shocking viewpoint… If you believe this is true, then what about couples who are in childless marriages because of severe infertility problems (like me and my H)? What are you saying? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Even though me and my H both LOVE children and long to have a child of our own, we had to adapt to the circumstances and accept the fact that our wish to have a child of our own might not necessarily come true (depending on God’s will for our lives). Yes, the inability to have children definitely leaves a void in the life’s and hearts of couples who want to have kids but can't have them...but I can also assure you that a childless life and marriage don’t prevent such a couple from living a rich, happy and fruitful live. Having children is NOT the only purpose in the world and certainly not the only thing that matters…