^Congrats, no one's denying that. But plenty of women are realizing they do fall somewhere on the spectrum. You can see it happening in HW, with a ton of Millenial female celebrities (big names) coming out as bi.

You are welcome to be strictly dickly. But there are lots of women that are open to more experiences, and the numbers are growing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict, now that same sex marriage is legal, that 50 years from now 50% of marriages will be F-F, 5% M-M and 45% M-F. Most of the F-F marriages won't be sexual, and the women will occasionally get sex on the side. They will be child rearing partnerships (maybe with a little sex). And there will be lots of horny men with no wives who just are not marriage material, and now women can avoid them.

I kind of agree, though I think more of the F-F marriages will be sexual.

I used to think I as 1000% percent straight, until I took an honest look at my relationships and realized that I had always connected emotionally with women (not on a sexual level, just emotionally). I asked myself honestly if there was any genuine sexual attraction to some of the celebrities I have had little "girl crushes" on, and there was.

Ever since then, it's been really fun exploring my bisexuality, and as time passes I get more and more interested in women and less in men.

It's so much easier now. All of the constant frustrations I experienced while dating men, which were all explained away by "he's a guy, he's not "converstional/emotional/empathetic" are gone.

Not to mention, boobs are pretty damn awesome and fun to play with. Even "straight" ladies have to admit that.

Also women have been shown to be way more sexually adaptable, able to get aroused from a variety of sexual situations, than men.

Overall, I think we will see more and more women dating other women, and raising kids with each other, as the years pass.

No we don't. I have no interest in doing anything with anyone's boobs other than my own. I don't lean toward the middle of the sexual spectrum, I am firmly on one side. I could see living with another single and we parent together as a household like on the old show Kate and Ally but I will never want to be sexual with women and will forever want dick. There is no getting around that.

Anonymous wrote:I predict, now that same sex marriage is legal, that 50 years from now 50% of marriages will be F-F, 5% M-M and 45% M-F. Most of the F-F marriages won't be sexual, and the women will occasionally get sex on the side. They will be child rearing partnerships (maybe with a little sex). And there will be lots of horny men with no wives who just are not marriage material, and now women can avoid them.

I kind of agree, though I think more of the F-F marriages will be sexual.

I used to think I as 1000% percent straight, until I took an honest look at my relationships and realized that I had always connected emotionally with women (not on a sexual level, just emotionally). I asked myself honestly if there was any genuine sexual attraction to some of the celebrities I have had little "girl crushes" on, and there was.

Ever since then, it's been really fun exploring my bisexuality, and as time passes I get more and more interested in women and less in men.

It's so much easier now. All of the constant frustrations I experienced while dating men, which were all explained away by "he's a guy, he's not "converstional/emotional/empathetic" are gone.

Not to mention, boobs are pretty damn awesome and fun to play with. Even "straight" ladies have to admit that.

Also women have been shown to be way more sexually adaptable, able to get aroused from a variety of sexual situations, than men.

Overall, I think we will see more and more women dating other women, and raising kids with each other, as the years pass.

Anonymous wrote:It's what bwings us togevah today.

That dweam within a dweam. That bwessed awwangement.

LOL. Nice Princess Bride reference.

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree.

I worked for a family law firm, and seeing almost every single fucking one of the women in these relationships be the ones who got fucked over cured me of my romanticism forever.

I'm 26 but my life plan is to have kids out of wedlock, either through the sperm bank or just getting with a guy, getting pregnant and not telling him (preferably an ex, someone I care about and respect), and raise them on my own.

I know everyone will say I'm crazy and it's harder than I realize but I have seen my mom be a single mom. And it was way easier than raising kids and having to deal with an overbearing asshole husband at the same time.

There's a person you're not considering in this scenario. The child? The statistics on fatherless children are very obvious. Children need both parents equally.

Not that it matters, but I don't agree with your cynical view on marriage. I think there are just as many women screwing men over. I think in divorce situations the person that is willing to be the bigger asshole usually "wins" be it man or woman.

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is beneficial to those who are married to each other. Also, children of unmarried unions grow up with a distinct disadvantage to their peers.

Get married - its the healthy thing to do!

What are you, 12?

Anonymous wrote:I predict, now that same sex marriage is legal, that 50 years from now 50% of marriages will be F-F, 5% M-M and 45% M-F. Most of the F-F marriages won't be sexual, and the women will occasionally get sex on the side. They will be child rearing partnerships (maybe with a little sex). And there will be lots of horny men with no wives who just are not marriage material, and now women can avoid them.

That's a very cool idea. How many of us have said we'd love to have a wife!

Marriage is beneficial to those who are married to each other. Also, children of unmarried unions grow up with a distinct disadvantage to their peers.

Get married - its the healthy thing to do!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At times it seems to me that marriage is a grand scheme, a ruse designed to use women to benefit men. I truly see way more advantages for men than for women in the institution of marriage.

Why? Women get pregnant. Men don't. If it weren't for marriage, women would be on their own raising the kid.

You do know how the kids get in there, right?

It's the raising kids part, not making them. Marriage is a societal extension that benefits the woman by ensuring a male caregiver for her child, and the man by ensuring he's raising his own child. Of course this covenant is broken in both directions, but I think this was the intent of formalized marriage early on.

Well, kind of. I think marriage is an extension of the creation of the idea of property. Before the agricultural revolution and the ability to accumulate property, I don't think marriage had the same connotations -- to the extent it existed at all. The tribe raises the kid, and that's ok. But when you accumulate property and want to be able to hand it down to your genetic offspring, a different approach is necessary to avoid having another man's son inherit your stuff.

I predict, now that same sex marriage is legal, that 50 years from now 50% of marriages will be F-F, 5% M-M and 45% M-F. Most of the F-F marriages won't be sexual, and the women will occasionally get sex on the side. They will be child rearing partnerships (maybe with a little sex). And there will be lots of horny men with no wives who just are not marriage material, and now women can avoid them.

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is the triumph of hope over experience. Suppose you date 2-4 people seriously before you get married. For whatever reason, all these situations ended. Therefore, you are entering marriage with a 100% failure rate. Why should it work out any better?

Because you made wiser choices each time, until you found a very wise choice for a partner?

What 9:52 said, and I'll add that this is a healthy attitude toward parenting too.

If you want a family with a spouse, single parenting is not that. If you want to grow old with someone, single parenting is not that.

Parenting is optional like marriage. Don't do it unless you can't imagine life without it. There are ways to be involved in a child's life without "giving up the dream." Mentor. Be a good aunt (biological or with friends' kids). Help a poor kid get access to an education. And keep YOUR life open to something closer to the dream than giving everything up for an arrangement that isn't the dream.

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree.

I worked for a family law firm, and seeing almost every single fucking one of the women in these relationships be the ones who got fucked over cured me of my romanticism forever.

I'm 26 but my life plan is to have kids out of wedlock, either through the sperm bank or just getting with a guy, getting pregnant and not telling him (preferably an ex, someone I care about and respect), and raise them on my own.

I know everyone will say I'm crazy and it's harder than I realize but I have seen my mom be a single mom. And it was way easier than raising kids and having to deal with an overbearing asshole husband at the same time.

I'm happy to have you take up all responsibilities for my two wonderful children for three straight days as a sort of practice run! Anytime!!

OP, it all depends.

Honestly, I've seen all kinds of marriage situations. Sometimes the husband has a better deal; other times, the wife has a better deal.

In my marriage, it's pretty break even. We both give up a little personal space and independence. And the upside to that is having a partner who has your back when you need, who can, as Leonard Cohen says, take the wheel when you need a break from driving (not the exact wording).

But I married a lot later in life (36, close to 37). And my husband and I lived together for a loooooonnnnnngggg time before getting married. So we both knew pretty much what we were getting into, had worked out all of the rough spots before we were legally entangled, and it's an even 50/50 split as far as income, domestic responsibility, et cetera.

I don't think marriage should ever be a "goal." I think where people go wrong is having as their goal to get married, and then the project is finding someone to fill the slot.

I never had marriage as a goal. I didn't rule it out, but I figured, eh, it doesn't matter either way. Instead, I looked for real companionship/partnership. I figured if I found it, great. If I didn't, that's fine too. So I set up a life that I could support on my own. When I met someone I liked, I dated for a longtime. Then we lived together. That's when I found out if it worked or not.

I had a couple live-in boyfriends who just didn't work out. They weren't even bad guys. But when you live with someone, you really see how things shake out in a relationship, the roles you settle into, the habits.

And because I was never attached to the idea of getting married and I wasn't afraid to be alone, I had no problem ending those relationships.

I think women get into trouble when they become too fixated on marriage as an end goal. Instead, they should focus on figuring out what kind of relationship they want. And they should never fear being alone -- that fear is what keeps women in bad relationships and what often leads them to ignore red flags and marry men when there are clear signs beforehand that it's not going to be a good situation.

Marriage is the triumph of hope over experience. Suppose you date 2-4 people seriously before you get married. For whatever reason, all these situations ended. Therefore, you are entering marriage with a 100% failure rate. Why should it work out any better?