Lots of sex going on in some nursing homes...

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how men are perceived as having an "advantage" when it comes to aging. Invariably overlooked is the fact that men usually have shorter lives. A healthy woman can reasonably expect to live independently until well into her 80s. Maybe she won't be the object of a young (or middle-aged) Prince Charming's desire, but maybe by then she won't care and will be happy to pursue her hobbies.

Yes. This is why it's very funny to read stupid lines about aging like milk vs. wine. Wine doesn't die before milk.

It's funny how men are perceived as having an "advantage" when it comes to aging. Invariably overlooked is the fact that men usually have shorter lives. A healthy woman can reasonably expect to live independently until well into her 80s. Maybe she won't be the object of a young (or middle-aged) Prince Charming's desire, but maybe by then she won't care and will be happy to pursue her hobbies.

Anonymous wrote:

Well, if you have a crystal ball that allows you to predict which potential spouse will stay healthy the longest, good for you. If you're in a position to be choosy when you're 55, good for you. Not everyone has these options.

There are always options. Certainly, at 25 you don't need a crystal ball to realize that a spouse 20+ years older than you will get sicker and die 20+ years sooner than the man your age.

At 55, you may not have these options (although the option to not marry is always there). All I'm saying is that women who plan to marry older and much older men need to be aware of the reality of physical decline that awaits everyone on the same schedule regardless of how rich they are. Marriage is a long-term proposition so one needs to look beyond the thrills of today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of the women I know who were pretty, smart and nice married in their late 20s to men who were also smart, good-looking and nice, and roughly the same age. Only men at the very bottom of the dating pool have a tough time in their 20s. Those same men wil struggle in their 30s and 40s as well.

Complete garbage.

Yes, in addition to being off topic. Thread is about "REMARRIAGE" (I.e., what happens when those men PP described ditch wife #1 for younger wife #2).

For my ex, I think it marrying a younger woman gave him emotional leverage. She is about 11 years younger than him and, in her mid-forties, at the very end of being able to try to have a baby. He is able to give her that hope, and in return, she is willing to overlook a lot of things that other women wouldn't. She is living in the haze of her baby fantasy, which enables him to convince her not to look behind his curtain.

She was also previously in an abusive relationship, so it's no surprise that she's signing up again.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are wired to be attracted to fertility, which favors 18-35 year olds. Women are wired to be attracted to competence, status and ability to provide. This inevitably leads to age gaps that tend to grow as people age.

That's all true, but it's a bad deal for the younger woman as time goes by.

Men and women just hit their primes at different ages. From 18-30 or so, attractive young women rule the roost, whether they realize it or not. They can enjoy being chased and courted by men while they are "in bloom" so to speak. For most young men, this is a difficult time (unless they are unusually high-status).

After 30-35, the pendulum shifts. Nothing is forever.

Most of the women I know who were pretty, smart and nice married in their late 20s to men who were also smart, good-looking and nice, and roughly the same age. Only men at the very bottom of the dating pool have a tough time in their 20s. Those same men wil struggle in their 30s and 40s as well.

That's right. The age gap gets wider as you get older.

If you want to marry the most eligible man in your social bubble, you have a better chance of doing that at 25 than at 35, when the pickins are much slimmer.

Anonymous wrote:
Most of the women I know who were pretty, smart and nice married in their late 20s to men who were also smart, good-looking and nice, and roughly the same age. Only men at the very bottom of the dating pool have a tough time in their 20s. Those same men wil struggle in their 30s and 40s as well.

Complete garbage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Mom remarried a man who is 15 years older than she is, she was 40, he was 55. He started to go downhill at around 58, and now she is 60, and caring for a very sick, disabled, cranky 75 year old man who resents her, resents her career (she's scared to retire, because her career is the only thing she has left and it keeps her mind fit and social life active), and treats her as a glorified nurse.

Let's say she was 55 when she married the 55 year old man. Now she'd be 75 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man.

Which is better than being 60 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man because... why, exactly?

Spouses get old, sick and die. If this is unacceptable to you, then don't get married. Are you hoping that your husband dies young so he doesn't trouble you with his decline? What are the alternatives to being married to someone who gets sick and dies? Are you expecting to marry someone "your age" so you can synchronize your senility with your husband so you both can burden your children instead of one of you taking care of the other? There are no easy alternatives.

You make it sound like the timing of sickness and death doesn't matter, and the fact of the matter is that it does. Sickness and death is easier to accept if they come after years of good life together. I don't expect to spend my good years being someone's nursemaid, or living a lifestyle of a much older person. I don't need to fast-forward death. It will find us all in good time.

Well, if you have a crystal ball that allows you to predict which potential spouse will stay healthy the longest, good for you. If you're in a position to be choosy when you're 55, good for you. Not everyone has these options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are wired to be attracted to fertility, which favors 18-35 year olds. Women are wired to be attracted to competence, status and ability to provide. This inevitably leads to age gaps that tend to grow as people age.

That's all true, but it's a bad deal for the younger woman as time goes by.

Men and women just hit their primes at different ages. From 18-30 or so, attractive young women rule the roost, whether they realize it or not. They can enjoy being chased and courted by men while they are "in bloom" so to speak. For most young men, this is a difficult time (unless they are unusually high-status).

After 30-35, the pendulum shifts. Nothing is forever.

Most of the women I know who were pretty, smart and nice married in their late 20s to men who were also smart, good-looking and nice, and roughly the same age. Only men at the very bottom of the dating pool have a tough time in their 20s. Those same men wil struggle in their 30s and 40s as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are wired to be attracted to fertility, which favors 18-35 year olds. Women are wired to be attracted to competence, status and ability to provide. This inevitably leads to age gaps that tend to grow as people age.

That's all true, but it's a bad deal for the younger woman as time goes by.

Nope. She has more money when she's younger AND when she's older.

Money isn't the only criteria of "bad deal". To be lonely when you don't expect to be is a bad deal. To be a nursemaid when your peers aren't is a bad deal. To have young kids grow up without a father is a bad deal. To have possibly waived your right to have kids is a bad deal. No matter how much money you have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Mom remarried a man who is 15 years older than she is, she was 40, he was 55. He started to go downhill at around 58, and now she is 60, and caring for a very sick, disabled, cranky 75 year old man who resents her, resents her career (she's scared to retire, because her career is the only thing she has left and it keeps her mind fit and social life active), and treats her as a glorified nurse.

Let's say she was 55 when she married the 55 year old man. Now she'd be 75 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man.

Which is better than being 60 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man because... why, exactly?

Spouses get old, sick and die. If this is unacceptable to you, then don't get married. Are you hoping that your husband dies young so he doesn't trouble you with his decline? What are the alternatives to being married to someone who gets sick and dies? Are you expecting to marry someone "your age" so you can synchronize your senility with your husband so you both can burden your children instead of one of you taking care of the other? There are no easy alternatives.

You make it sound like the timing of sickness and death doesn't matter, and the fact of the matter is that it does. Sickness and death is easier to accept if they come after years of good life together. I don't expect to spend my good years being someone's nursemaid, or living a lifestyle of a much older person. I don't need to fast-forward death. It will find us all in good time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Mom remarried a man who is 15 years older than she is, she was 40, he was 55. He started to go downhill at around 58, and now she is 60, and caring for a very sick, disabled, cranky 75 year old man who resents her, resents her career (she's scared to retire, because her career is the only thing she has left and it keeps her mind fit and social life active), and treats her as a glorified nurse.

Let's say she was 55 when she married the 55 year old man. Now she'd be 75 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man.

Which is better than being 60 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man because... why, exactly?

Because then she'd have had twenty good years before he got cranky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Mom remarried a man who is 15 years older than she is, she was 40, he was 55. He started to go downhill at around 58, and now she is 60, and caring for a very sick, disabled, cranky 75 year old man who resents her, resents her career (she's scared to retire, because her career is the only thing she has left and it keeps her mind fit and social life active), and treats her as a glorified nurse.

Let's say she was 55 when she married the 55 year old man. Now she'd be 75 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man.

Which is better than being 60 and dealing with a cranky 75 year old man because... why, exactly?

Because at 60, she's too young to devote her life to taking care of a grumpy old man. Our skin may wrinkle more, but out internal bodies age way, way better than men. Jesus, at 60, she should be going out, enjoying life, not staying home and playing nursemaid. At 75, she's older, too, but has spent a longer amount of time "living" without being a caregiver, which is an incredibly stressful position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sympathize with the difficulty of dealing with a dying boyfriend, but 48 is still pretty young to die.

He died at 52, four years after we started dating. Still pretty young. But I still wouldn't have had to deal with this if he was in my age bracket. You cannot defy physicality. A 52-year old body is what it is. Not from the looks perspective, from the disease perspective. There is simply more likelihood of sickness and death in much older men.

Ummmm... if you marry a guy roughly your own age, you don't think he's going to get sick, get old and die? Or that when he does, you won't have to deal with it? Why not?

Why is it better to deal with a man getting old and dying when YOU are also old, rather than when you are young?

Anonymous wrote:The second one was 50 and I was closer to 30. ... There were also, ahem, medical issues. And I realized that if I stayed with him, I would be his nurse maid.

So let's say you had married the guy and that you were 50 (not 30) and he was 50. Would you not have to be his nursemaid when you were both 65?

It certainly doesn't sound easier to be a nursemaid when you're 65 than when you're 40.

It's not about "easier". It's about the expectations at different stages of life. At 28, I needed to be dating, or maybe getting married, looking forward to planning a family, settling down. Not sitting in the cancer treatment sessions, not holding bedpans, not standing over his coffin. It's not the right place for the 28-year old. At 65, perhaps being a nursemaid is fitting. Absolutely not at 28.

Of course if you marry someone your own age, EVENTUALLY he will get old. But you'll have a good chunk of healthy, young life to live ahead of you. You won't have to fast-forward to its conclusion. And you won't have to spend time getting over death. You are trying to make it sound like what's in between the start and the end of life doesn't matter, as long as every soul will taste sickness and death, it doesn't matter if it happens at 20 or at 80. This is patently senseless.