Then don't marry a 30 year old whose ova are mostly degraded if they've not been used up already. Marry a younger woman, from a family that's taught her that she needs to marry earlier if she wants to maximise her chances of a decent family life. (1/2)
-
-
Replying to @HighToryRafidhi
1. British women become sexually active at 14 (low class). Middle classes at 16-17. The idea that a family “instructs” a girl is alien to British modernity, and doesn’t happen outside bizarre religious sects. Young women have 0 interest or incentive to marry an older man.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart
2. They have their pick of attractive younger men in their sexual prime, and they’re also expected to be educated and to have completed that before (+career) marrying. That puts the age range of marriage up to, at earliest, 27.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart
I am interested in the aetiology and genesis of this pattern of behaviour (which is indeed empirically attested), specifically in the British context. What kind of pressures cause and sustain such behaviour? Do you have any literature (by you or others) on that?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Konstant_V
I think any book on the sociology of sex in Britain published recently would cover it. It’s the pattern for the entire Western (&. Westernised world) pretty much. Cause? Education of women, collapse of the family/religion, birth control, feminism, women entering workforce.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tomxhart
I’ll look into it, though I am weary of academic sociology because of its progressive bent. Those are the material factors, yes; but where does the pressure to become promiscuous come for these girls? Their mothers? Their peers? The media? All of the above? (Most likely)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Konstant_V
Well, women are naturally sexual as we all are. They enjoy sex. Once you remove constraints, something that has been happening progressively for decades, people become promiscuous. Why wouldn’t you be? Sex is fun and advocating for sexual restraint is stigmatised.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart
In the short run, it is, of course, very exhilarating. But the kind of long run damage the lifestyle creates seems to me to be too dear a price. And, rose-tinted glasses aside, it is a fact that there was less of this specific kind of unhappiness under the old paradigm.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Konstant_V
There’s always unhappiness. But, as Wittgenstein observed, “I’m not sure why we’re here, but I’m pretty sure it’s not to be happy.” Yes, the old traditions created a different type of unhappiness but were better for society & people in general. Less harm rather than +happiness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think people do understand this and try to practice it—especially doctors!
-
-
Some do (it comes from the original Hippocratic oath after all) , but the sheer number of iatrogenic conditions and even deaths suggests many modern day medical systems create perverse incentives to overtreat.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.