Shacking up

Now there is an even more insidious trend slowly spreading like Ebola amongst the dating crowd.  That of people moving in together waaayyyyy before they are married, if they even get married at all sometime in the mythical future.  Sometimes they move in together merely a few weeks after they start dating.

Jeebus, for the concrete logic-based issue of safety alone is reason enough not to move in together too soon.  Come on, do I really need to elaborate?

Any possible half-assed or full-assed arguments against the safety issue that any dumbarse can cough up -- I'm not even going to list them because they are usually some self-contained, self-contradictory, circular illogic crap.  Just thinking about the existence of these arguments gives me a headache.

Yes, you are in fact putting yourself through this.  No one forced you to go through this.  No one forced you to move in with your “boyfriend” who in all honesty was still veritably a stranger to you.  How much did you actually know about him?

Some people even try to say that they want to live together because “that is making a commitment to each other.”

Erm, no it is not making a commitment.  What it *is,* is doing everything physically humanly possible in this universe *not* to make a commitment to each other.  I’ve said it once, I will say it again.  The only full, true commitment on the planet is marriage.

The only thing living together accomplishes -- is to amplify all the things that I've been saying is wrong with modern dating in the first place.  It just highlights all the problems with modern dating attitudes -- and solves none of them.

The lack of actual commitment.  The crappy, beating-around-the-bush, nonexistent communication.  The not having actual emotional connection with each other.  The not getting to really know each other before jumping in the sack.  Making up excuses in your head and rationalizing away misunderstandings, rather than seeing them point-blank for what they are.

They will usually come back at me with something like, “Well it's a practical thing.  It’s logical that you would live together first before getting married -- so that you can find out how the other person is.”

That sounds like a good argument, at first.  But think about it more thoroughly.  What exactly are you trying to find out when you say that the two of you should live together before getting married?  What is giving you the reason that "the two of you need to find out about each other?”

Does that mean that one or both of you were hiding something from the other?  Does that mean that one or both of you were lying to the other about something?  Perhaps about something substantial?  Or keeping big secrets about things that should have been already revealed to the other person, if the relationship were truly so “serious” that they are moving in together?

It’s self-contradictory, circular, self-contained illogic.  You say you want to move in with this person because he/she is a stranger and you want to know them better.  But if he/she is a stranger, then why do you want to move in with them?

It’s like one of those strict orthodox religions where one of the tenets is that you are not allowed to convert out of the religion.  ...But... if you do go out of that religion, then you do not have to worry about their rules anymore...  Including the rule that says you are not allowed to go out of it.  Do you see what I mean about the ridiculous self-contained contradictory logic?

I read somewhere that some female moved in with her male significant other, and it was revealed that the male had severe money management issues and severe anger management issues.  Before they moved in together, she saw some clues -- the male had mood swings and had weird habits with money (I don't remember the money details).  Frankly, a full financial background check would have revealed the bad credit issues.

In other words, you two were lying to each other about some mah-johr issues throughout the entire relationship.

So in other words, moving in together simply highlights everything that I’ve been saying is wrong with dating in modern society in the first place.  Two people are lying to each other through the skin of their teeth just so they could get the other in the sack.  The two people are shallow, sociopathic creatures who are carved-out hollow bloodless bloodsucking soulless ghouls that have committed some serious psychosocial misdemeanors in their past, and are now conveniently lying about it.

And as far as the mood swings, I really believe -- because I have seen it demonstrated before my eyes -- that people cannot keep major things hidden for an indefinite amount of time.  This is true with friends, co-workers, extended family members, everyone.  Eventually they will crack and will get tired of putting on a happy face, and they will blow up in front of you.

Most likely, the reason the female did not pick up on that, is that the two of them were not in the relationship for very long before deciding to move in together.  They didn't know each other long enough for important behavioral traits to show up.  And they conveniently ignored the common sense argument that it is never a good idea to move in together too soon.

A lot of females will say, "oh I want to be closer to him."  Well, this could simply be the introvert in me talking, but dammit I like my space.

The Subject of Deadbeat Females

regarding deadbeat dads, adoption, and certain perceptions and misconceptions
-- for the adopion, abandonment parallel males femal, *remb, the adoption comparison to deadbeat fathers

Hmm...  A somewhat common editorial opinion is that there is a double standard between people's opinions of women with their children as opposed to men with their children.___

But to be honest, this is not really what I am seeing everywhere.  Let us discuss some double standards that are prevalent in popular culture.

We've all heard news reports about deadbeat dads who abandon their children and don't stay in the children's life and don't want to pay child support.  Okay, I admit all that is bad.

But then if a woman does essentially the exact same thing, how come she is praised as being a strong woman in charge of her own life?  For example, if a woman has an abortion, she is hailed for being a strong woman, she is lauded for practicing her right as a woman.

That's nothing to say, to speak of adoption.  Certain talking heads always hail lavish compliments upon a female that gives her unwanted baby up for adoption.  Common quotes are, "oh she's being so courageous, she's being so brave because" something or other.  They usually say something like, "imagine the amount of heart-wrenching pain she had to endure for giving up her child."

They shower [[__lavish]] admiration and praise such as the following canned responses.  She's being so very brave and so courageous because she wants to give her child a better life.  She knows that she would not be a suitable parent, she know that she would not be a fit parent. So therefore she um, therefore she gave the child up, up for adoption.

So supposedly all that is true even though essentially she abandoned the child.  The biological mother weighed all her options, and she made the wisest decision that would bring the greatest benefit for all involved parties.

The commentary is usually accompanied by factology that happens to be accurate.  It is true that if a female gives up a child for adoption, it is in fact for the best.  She is usually single, uneducated, sometimes even a high school dropout, unemployed, possibly on welfare, often not even a legal adult.  She is in no shape to be a good parent.  By staying out of the kid's life, she is giving it a chance at a better one.  Okay, alright fair enough.

But then why couldn't we use those exact same [[arg]]__ in defense of deadbeat fathers?  Theoretically, you could very easily furnish the same exact arguments towards deadbeat fathers.  You could use the same modes of logic__
they keep getting thei- girlfriends pregnant, or whatever,

He could also say, oh well he knows that he's not a good person, he knows that he would not be able to give the child a good life, give the child a life.  So therefore he abandoned the child because he knows he would not be a fit parent.  He knew he would not be a good, suitable parent.  So therefore he leaves the child in the hands of far more capable human beings, to give the child its best chance in life.

so how come there's a weird double standard
the word double standard would have to be in there somewhere

And frankly, to be brutally honest, if the guy really is a bad guy, then he probably did the best thing for all involved parties by staying out of the kid's life.  I know this is not a popular opinion at all; in fact I don't think I have read this particular viewpoint anywhere.  Of course that makes this a single-mother household with fatherless child having to be raised on food stamps and government cheese.

so back to the adoption.  Remember how I mentioned that the biological mother is under the impression she is sending the kid off to a better life.  She's being so brave because she's giving the child a better life.

Erm, a better life?? you have to know about the state of the foster care system in this country.  it is horrible, children are abused, neglected, uh broken, abused by [_]  horrible broken homes, like that is the definition of broken homes.

This simply brings me back to my initial assertion.  I know it's not politically correct, I know it's not sugarcakes and rainbows and puppies and zero personal responsibility.

But it is what I believe.  This is what I mean when I say the female needs to be more discriminating in her choice of people to have sex with.  Both sex partners should have thoroughly considered all of this before risking the production of an unwanted child.  Not just the male, and not just the female.  They are both equally stupid and irresponsible.  The male is stupid for having sex and possibly creating a fetus that he has no intention of supporting.  And The female is stupid for not making sure the guy was a good guy before having sex with him and possibly creating a fetus.

But no one in any talking sound bites anywhere, nor in any lengthy, languorous, drawn-out essays ever arrives at this revelation.  They all miraculously arrive at the exact same conclusion -- that the primary burden of birth control falls on the male participant's shoulders.  Very few opinionaters ever offer any groundbreaking insight outside of this prepackaged canned response.  There is no additional insight that maybe, just maybe, the female participant should shoulder some responsibility of making sure an unwanted fetus is not produced.  It is always some permutation of the following:  "The evil predatory male has to make sure the precious innocent sweet naive female does not get pregnant."

I do not understand why everywhere I encounter ___ nearly every single editorial opinion writer, and practically everywhere on the internet is [[ablaze__] with this same exact opinion.  There is an astonishing lack of diversity in opinion on this particular topic.  This is the box, and there is astonishingly little variance of thinking outside of it.