Duhs can't deal with defective brats?

I have no links or proof of this, just my own observations.

Has anyone else noticed that many Duhs seem to up and leave if their brat is ill or disabled (in other words not perfect/defective)?

My observations:
There was a girl in this country several years ago who had been infected with HIV as a baby after a blood transfusion, and her father left after a few years, apparently 'unable to cope' (thus placing the entire burden on the shoulders of his ex-wife, nice move, asshole).
I also recall watching a programme about a girl in Britain who had that awful disease where the muscles of the body slowly turn into bone and eventually the body becomes locked and immobile (I can't remember the name of the condition), and when the girl was about five, her Duh had left, and IIRC, had remarried and fathered new sprogs, almost as if he had to prove that it wasn't his fault that the daughter was genetically fucked (I felt like he was practically pointing at ex-Moo and saying "Look! It wasn't MY genes, it was HERS!").

I've just noticed that a lot of the time, mothers of defective brats are single moos, but not because they're your typical single moo whores who made bad life choices, but because their wonderful husband and father of their child couldn't cope with the fact that his sperm hadn't produced the next star athlete/prom queen etc and bailed, leaving ex to solely cope with the defective child's care, while he fathers new 'normal' brats and carries on life as usual (well, as usual as life can get with even 'normal' healthy children who don't require multiple doctor's visits for their disease or whatever). It's like they truly can't handle knowing that their genes contributed to this not-perfect child, so they have to bail and try again to prove that it 'wasn't their fault'.

Have others noticed this?

I don't know. I've, personally, seen plenty of fathers be active parents even if the kid's defective. These men are real parents. I tend to think the ones that leave are the ones that were never truly all that interested in kids in the first place, and just did it to appease the moo-cow. These idiots probably would have left, regardless, and they'll probably leave the new moo-cow too.

Kaye

I am with you Kaye. These men has some disability and admit that they are not fit to have a child due to their disability and not pass that disabled DNA to a child. Unfortunatly these moocows do not and never get in their thick skull that their partner do not want it but they 'oops' them regardless of the men's health condition and do not care what DNA it passes.

For instance I am Aspergers' (High level of Autism), OK not a big deal disability. But again I do not want to pass my Aspie DNA to a child, simple as that. But you get these bingo going about "You'll still hava a child not matter what condition you have". These baby-rabie do not even care if their man passes these mutated gene like a 3 eye green alien DNA to a child. As long as they have a child. It is not worth passing DNA to appease these moos.

My advice is simple - just get a snip.

Pigs who leave are just interested in one thing: the pussy.

I do think having disabled kids makes all fathers instinctively want to cut n run.

But most don't, because they know it's wrong and it doesn't change the fact they sired a kid with parts missing. Some really good men, once they've re-calibrated their expectations, actually come round to considering it an interesting challenge.

As for the significant number who do pack up and leave, they'll probably give a myriad of reasons why they're leaving and then insist it's nothing to do with their kid coming out with parts missing. I think for men who were brought up in a section of society where 'toughness' is highly valued, they find it the most difficult to accept and live with their disabled offspring. They know their daughter will never be the smart, gutsy, straight-talking fluffy haired babe with the gravelly voice and put-you-in-your-place whipcracking humour. They know their son will never be the strong, street-smart, in-your-face fighter cut from a slab of granite who can carry an engine under his arm like a loaf of bread. To some dumb-ass men, these are the only types of people who 'count' in this world, so no way are they going to grin and bear it towing the still-in-diapers 15 year old sons around Bad Ass Nowhere, Indiana. Too much of a strain on macho pride.

I also think men who are still way too hung up on their fathers - competing with them every minute of the day - "look Dad, my dick works!" - may not leave their wives (too much pressure from Dad to do the right thing), but will pretty much ignore and reject their disabled kid throughout life because it didn't come out better than Dad's kids.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

Quote
Banshee
Pigs who leave are just interested in one thing: the pussy.

Even those who don't leave!

So many of us here have told of our experiences of Duhs-On-The-Make. Married, partnered, divorced: they will do anything for a bit of CF pussy.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

Very few men make good caregivers to the ill,injured, and handicapped in general, and CERTAINLY not to their wives when they have been unexpectedly and suddenly stricken with a disability and require any care or for the man to "pick up her slack". I don't know why any of these women are surprised when the man leaves because already he won't change diapers or do any cleaning, cooking, or child care related work for a "normal" child. I would imagine they leave for many reasons with the most common being that their wives aren't paying them as much attention due to the handicapped kyds' needs, or out of the guilt and emotional pain that surely accompanies bringing a severely handicapped child into the world. Another common thing I have noticed that seems to break up marriages is when they were made aware early on that the child was SEVERELY deformed while he was still a fetus and the moomie REFUSING to abort. A lot of blame placing and assigning guilt causes major stress on a marriage when a severely handicapped child is brought into the mix, especially when the man wanted to abort or never wanted a new kyd to start with and the woman insisted.



I would imagine that the only men who do NOT leave are the men who are committed to their marriage and famblee because honestly, it IS the "right thing to do". They are generally soft hearted AND selfless men, AND their wives absolutely do most ALL of the work and arrange it in such a way so that the man is the least inconvenienced. That has been my experience and observation anyway and I experienced just such a thing (more than once) when my first husband's mother had a stroke and needed some live in assistance for a while, although he didn't know it was short term at the time. He did NOTHING and put ALL of her caregiving off on me which I greatly resented. My fourth husband did the same damned thing when HIS mother became medically incapacitated and there are other numerous examples throughout my famblee history of men bolting (or doing nothing) and women, some not even blood relatives, being FORCED to caregive for the sick, injured, or handicapped wives, mothers, fathers, and children.



I have only known a handful of men who were long term hands on caregivers to disabled parents, wives, children, etc.....and even then they had assistance from outside sources (or they remarried to a woman who was willing to slide into the role) and only when there was NO WOMAN in the picture to do it for them either..Most men immediately start looking for ways to place their disabled famblee member in a home when its starts to looking like they will be expected to actually become a full time caregiver. They like to use the excuse that they have to work, but SO DID I, work during all of my "caregiving" experiences. My ex husband started looking for a place to dump me when I was in a coma after a head injury and the prognosis didn't look good, EVEN before I woke up or was even near being released from the hospital. I can't judge them too harshly though because I wouldn't make a good caregiver either, at least not long term. However, MOST women do and many of them like to use it as a "martyr feather" to go alongside the others in their "whoa is me" cap. Women just need to learn to say, "NO" and maybe men would step up to the plate more often.


To refuse to caregive for a famblee member though (for a woman) is about as socially acceptable as being CF. Women are expected to do whatever is necessary to change or re-arrange their work schedules and in some cases to completely dedicate the REST OF THEIR LIVES to caregive for relatives, particularly if it's a husband or a child. While I realize that there are exceptions, it's just that I have never seen any in person. It's a cultural thing. On a brain injury/stroke support site where I am a member, when a spouse is injured or has a stroke, the MALE new members always always always seek advice about "how long before she can take care of the kyds again"......"how long before she is just like before?"........or basically questions relating to WHEN she can start doing for them again. Where as when it's the women who ask for advice about the husband, it's more directed to what they can do to help make things easier at home for his recovery, medical questions relating to assisting him however he may end up, and other caregiver related questions. It's definately cultural programming and possibly even just a "Southern thing", I really am not certain.

check out this link

http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/evolution_of_humankind.html

some men are closer to the early hominid form, some are a later form.


in a purely, biological sense, running from "defectives", was a good thing millions of years ago. if the genes were "wrong", then the young wouldnt survive. and the male (and female) would look elsewhere for a better genetic match. stronger, faster, smarter.

the men who run in my opinion are closer to these primitive humans. its understandable. but its not right.

all humans are are vessels for passing on dna, a dna's goal is to reproduce. but as humans we can over ride that to some extent some more than others. The ones who breed over and over are actually in my opinion throwbacks to the very primitive forms of us.

i quote "
In the natural world, the number of animals that can survive in an area depends on the amount of food that the land can produce. Numbers may grow until there is no longer enough food to support every animal. Then competition between individuals to satisfy their hunger becomes fierce. Younger animals may not be able to compete against stronger and more experienced ones. The population will be limited by the number of young that can survive long enough to breed.

Some animals develop such strong instinctual affections that they continue to live together in family groups. Groups of animals must compete against nearby groups for food, but animals within each group can often do better by sharing their food with other group members and by cooperating in other ways that help the survival of the young. (it takes a village)

Members of the same group still need to compete against each other. Stronger members will fight to breed with the most desirable partners. When food is scarce, they will muscle each other for the largest share of the meal. Weaker members will compete for the affections of those who can secure them more food and better protection.

For each type of animal, there will be a balance between how much they can cooperate and how much they need to compete against other group members. When conditions change, so will the best balance between competition and cooperation. "

now doesnt that sound like most of these breeders.

and here.

http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/advancing_technology.html

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Quote
mercurior
check out this link

http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/evolution_of_humankind.html

some men are closer to the early hominid form, some are a later form.


in a purely, biological sense, running from "defectives", was a good thing millions of years ago. if the genes were "wrong", then the young wouldnt survive. and the male (and female) would look elsewhere for a better genetic match. stronger, faster, smarter.

the men who run in my opinion are closer to these primitive humans. its understandable. but its not right.

all humans are are vessels for passing on dna, a dna's goal is to reproduce. but as humans we can over ride that to some extent some more than others. The ones who breed over and over are actually in my opinion throwbacks to the very primitive forms of us.

i quote "
In the natural world, the number of animals that can survive in an area depends on the amount of food that the land can produce. Numbers may grow until there is no longer enough food to support every animal. Then competition between individuals to satisfy their hunger becomes fierce. Younger animals may not be able to compete against stronger and more experienced ones. The population will be limited by the number of young that can survive long enough to breed.

Some animals develop such strong instinctual affections that they continue to live together in family groups. Groups of animals must compete against nearby groups for food, but animals within each group can often do better by sharing their food with other group members and by cooperating in other ways that help the survival of the young. (it takes a village)

Members of the same group still need to compete against each other. Stronger members will fight to breed with the most desirable partners. When food is scarce, they will muscle each other for the largest share of the meal. Weaker members will compete for the affections of those who can secure them more food and better protection.

For each type of animal, there will be a balance between how much they can cooperate and how much they need to compete against other group members. When conditions change, so will the best balance between competition and cooperation. "

now doesnt that sound like most of these breeders.

and here.

http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/advancing_technology.html

I have read similar material and it makes perfect sense. You can actually witness it in person (albeit on a smaller scale) whenever a tragedy happens, there is some impending severe weather approaching upon groups of people, during and after natural disaters, or in something as simple as the Wal-mart stampede incident where one of the employees was trampled to death, which certainly isn't an isolated incident. People who generally seem giving, nice, and friendly, will become like wild hungry animals when the food/water/shelter becomes or appears to become scare and literally snatch commodities out of the hands and mouths of small children if need be. (GIMME THAT SIPPY CUP!) You can see it at Walmart on the first of the month with the grabbing at WIC approved items and in buffet lines when the chafing dishes start to get low.



Supposedly we are a "civilized" society, but that's only because at least our basic needs are being met. Take away food sources from the do gooders who drop "care packages" to terd worlders and just wait and SEE how generous they become. Take away shelter from the people during freezing cold winters and just wait and see how many blankets they distribute to the "homeless". My 27 outsider cats are loving, cuddly, sweet and docile little purr balls, but they are used to getting fed at 5AM and at 5PM (like clockwork) Let me oversleep to 7 or 8AM (or later if I am sick) or get caught for longer than I intended in town or somewhere and not get home until 8pm or later and see how "friendly" they are. They charge at me and yowl like civil defense sirens, scratch and growl at one another and occasionally get into rumbles, snatch the first food by the mouthfuls and run to an isolated area of the porch, put their paws over the other food on the plate as they eat and growl, and basically act exactly like humans do when they have a fear of going hungry.

Quote
kidlesskim
My 27 outsider cats are loving, cuddly, sweet and docile little purr balls.

This is a bit OT, but I am willing to bet you a few bags of Hill's c/d that you got a damn sight more than 27 cats outside. Those you mention are the 27 that you KNOW about.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I have learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is easy and fun as hell"

:eatu

I do agree that guys staying and helping take care of their retards or awwtizztyck snowflakes is the right thing to do, but I can see why they'd want to run for the hills. Normal kids are difficult enough to take care of, and parents tend to look forward to the days when the kid gets out of his or her phases, like pants-shitting and acting like a rotten little brat. When the kid is disabled in some way, those phases might not ever end. And what guy wants to try and control a 17-year-old throwing a toddler tantrum? That's about 8 times the power of a toddler behind that screaming and fit-throwing. And I think a lot of guys just can't deal with the possibility that their little swimmers were half responsible for making their freak-baby (like the giant retard my mom's BF spawned). And as others have said, the guys know sex will be only a fond memory for the rest of his life with Moomie Dearest and Tardleigh to deal with. They probably figure that life's too short to be spent caring for a disabled brat, and so they run off and try the whole life thing again with another woman.

Quote
Cambion
I do agree that guys staying and helping take care of their retards or awwtizztyck snowflakes is the right thing to do, but I can see why they'd want to run for the hills. Normal kids are difficult enough to take care of, and parents tend to look forward to the days when the kid gets out of his or her phases, like pants-shitting and acting like a rotten little brat. When the kid is disabled in some way, those phases might not ever end. And what guy wants to try and control a 17-year-old throwing a toddler tantrum? That's about 8 times the power of a toddler behind that screaming and fit-throwing. And I think a lot of guys just can't deal with the possibility that their little swimmers were half responsible for making their freak-baby (like the giant retard my mom's BF spawned). And as others have said, the guys know sex will be only a fond memory for the rest of his life with Moomie Dearest and Tardleigh to deal with. They probably figure that life's too short to be spent caring for a disabled brat, and so they run off and try the whole life thing again with another woman.

I used to work for a man like that years ago and before that I had known and gone to school with his only "normal" child. He had spawned one of the abnormally big, bully-type, boisterous, tantrum throwing "bulls in a china shop" type of brats the first go-around. Although I am not certain what was wrong with him, he definately wasn't faking it because he had an empty stare, drooled, flapped about, and would just bellow out as well as act violent to anyone (or anything) in his vicinity, unless he was being doted over and/or entertained (distracted) by a clown or a favorite toy or something. That boy was a constant source of embarassment for him as well as a strain on his marriage which ended shortly after the kyd hit puberty and became a real burden. This was partly due to the fact that his wife REFUSED to place the child in a special school and there was a good one in the area at that time too. The last I heard this poor guy (the "challenged" one) was killed when he wandered off and walked out onto a busy highway in front of a Mack truck.



Then he remarried and immediately sired ANOTHER "special needs" child, although this one was at least not violent like the other one. However, she was a handful too and needed constant (like every second) supervision and THAT moocow insisted on mainstreaming her and it was one incident after another until that marriage ended shortly after she got past toddler age. I am not certain, but I believe that this child had a severe form of Down's syndrome, judging by her physical features. THEN, he married yet another woman and spawned with her and that kyd was SO mentally and physically disabled, that he required institutionalization. I don't know what all was wrong with him but I do know that he was bed ridden since birth and uncommunicable. I heard as recently as last Christmas though that he was STILL alive, which would make him past the age of 50 so he must have been getting pretty good care at least, paid for by run away duddy.



The only "normal" child that he managed to sire was the boy (the 2nd kyd of the 1st wife) who I went to school with and even he wasn't what I would call "right in the head", although he seemed to function well enough and seemed like a genius in comparison to his brother Tardlee. This was back in the early 80's when I worked for his dad and those kyds (his brothers and sister) were born before these genetic tests and DNA tests were done so I have no idea what exactly was "wrong" with these kyds. It would seem kind of obvious though that it would have had to have had something to do with a genetic defect on his end. Either that, or it was just a statistically unlikely 3 chance marriages with some recessive gene problems or a medical anomoly of some sort. If someone's genes are fucked up then it's Russian Roulette to spawn kyds and it is SO irresponsible and selfish to keep loading that damned gun and firing away and hoping for the best.:sx:bdid

This is not that odd, have you never heard that rant among women with children which says: "It is always the same, when they (the brats) do something good they are HIS children, when they do something wrong, they are MY children, fuckers". Besides, as someone pointed out, few men are prepared to acknowledge their genes have less than prom king/queen material.

Quote
kidlesskim
I have only known a handful of men who were long term hands on caregivers to disabled parents, wives, children, etc......

K-Man excepted, of course!

Quote
kidlesskim
On a brain injury/stroke support site where I am a member, when a spouse is injured or has a stroke, the MALE new members always always always seek advice about "how long before she can take care of the kyds again"......"how long before she is just like before?"........or basically questions relating to WHEN she can start doing for them again. Where as when it's the women who ask for advice about the husband, it's more directed to what they can do to help make things easier at home for his recovery, medical questions relating to assisting him however he may end up.

How right you are. I recognise this completely. My great-grandmother bore 13 children, 10 of whom made it to adulthood. She never wanted so many children, but my great-grandfather did, the miserable pig. She was glad to see the back of him when he died around 1950. Twenty years later, she was becoming too elderly to live on her own. She had 8 fully grown children left. Only her daughters and her sons' wives were candidates for unpaid permanent caregiver, obviously. One of her daughters skipped down to live in Florida forever. Another died (good work). My grandmother ensured she and my grandfather sold their big beautiful brick 2-story 4-bedroom victorian home with two large lawns and mature trees in Chicago... to move into a tiny one-bed frame house in the 'burbs with no way in, front or back, without encountering a flight of 10 stairs. My g-gmother's youngest daughter drew the short straw. She had to look after her mother day in, day out, for 15 long years because life was so comfortable my g-gmother lived to 102 years of age. Let it be a warning!

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

Quote
Sanguinius
This is not that odd, have you never heard that rant among women with children which says: "It is always the same, when they (the brats) do something good they are HIS children, when they do something wrong, they are MY children, fuckers". Besides, as someone pointed out, few men are prepared to acknowledge their genes have less than prom king/queen material.

I think that's one of the primary symptoms of chronic Kodakitis. Duhddy doesn't want to be known as the contributor to Junior's shitty behavior, which is why Duhs tend to "babysit" their own kids or spend an hour or so with them on the weekend. People will figure the one the kid spends more time with is responsible for all his character and behavioral flaws...which is Mommy.

Quote
Amethyst

Quote
kidlesskim
I have only known a handful of men who were long term hands on caregivers to disabled parents, wives, children, etc......

K-Man excepted, of course!

Quote
kidlesskim
On a brain injury/stroke support site where I am a member, when a spouse is injured or has a stroke, the MALE new members always always always seek advice about "how long before she can take care of the kyds again"......"how long before she is just like before?"........or basically questions relating to WHEN she can start doing for them again. Where as when it's the women who ask for advice about the husband, it's more directed to what they can do to help make things easier at home for his recovery, medical questions relating to assisting him however he may end up.

How right you are. I recognise this completely. My great-grandmother bore 13 children, 10 of whom made it to adulthood. She never wanted so many children, but my great-grandfather did, the miserable pig. She was glad to see the back of him when he died around 1950. Twenty years later, she was becoming too elderly to live on her own. She had 8 fully grown children left. Only her daughters and her sons' wives were candidates for unpaid permanent caregiver, obviously. One of her daughters skipped down to live in Florida forever. Another died (good work). My grandmother ensured she and my grandfather sold their big beautiful brick 2-story 4-bedroom victorian home with two large lawns and mature trees in Chicago... to move into a tiny one-bed frame house in the 'burbs with no way in, front or back, without encountering a flight of 10 stairs. My g-gmother's youngest daughter drew the short straw. She had to look after her mother day in, day out, for 15 long years because life was so comfortable my g-gmother lived to 102 years of age. Let it be a warning!

Actually, K-man is the only reason I went back and added "a handful of men", because I really grew tired of trying to dig deep into my memory to recall one single man (in real life) who has/had been a hands on caregiver to ANY relative. Since I knew that K-man was an exception and there may have been one or two who I overlooked throughout my life, although I seriously doubt it, I added that in because he is certainly the exception since he is a hands on sole caregiver to his mother. I was a volunteer staff member on a 4000+ member stroke support group for several years and there was a strong (membership/number wise) caregiver forum. In all that time and among all of those people who were located around the globe, I can only recall ONE male who gave full time caregiving a whirl and the wife ended up in a home within 6 months. For whatever reasons, men just don't or won't do it, although I don't blame them in the least. They will however pay someone else to do it which is the way to go as far as I am concerned. Men DEFINATELY have the right idea on that issue.



It's not because men don't seek support groups either because at least half of the members of that stroke support forum were male survivors who either didn't need a caregiver OR their wives were their caregivers. I really think it's a culturally ingrained thing, much like the societal view that it's worse for a woman to be CF than it is for a man, for some strange reason. When it involves the hands on care of famblee, kyds, spouses and "womens' domain" type things like the home, cooking, cleaning, decorating, etc.....It is frowned upon if the woman doesn't take care of it all. Oddly, getting everybody else under the roof fed and clean INCLUDING getting husbands to buy his mother/famblee birthday-Christmas presents, or be present at a famblee function, show up for a wedding, funeral, get together, etc......It is SOLELY the woman's fault if it isn't done. It AMAZES me that it's still this way, but I just dealt with it yesterday so it's fresh on my mind. I feel really sorry for my mother in law because I am a shitty traditional daughter in law. I won't give birth to grandbrats, I won't come to the womens' quilting and cannning get togethers, I don't participate in the shopping frenzies, and I will NOT be responsible for her son's actions or inactions.



Afterall, it's HIS fucking grandfather's birthday party so HOW is it MY fault if he doesn't go? It's wasn't good enough for just me to go either because she wanted to make me responsible for HIS attendance as well. That just really irritates the piss out of me.

So - biologically and perhaps traditionally, men want pretty, young females long enough to stick their peckers in before moving on.

Then all the best offspring born to those mothers would grow up to be beautiful or handsome, perfect young specimen only long enough to do this all over again before they all eventually grew old and undesirable.

For WHAT?

Because of this silly sexual merry-go-round, we're no better than beasts in the wild (and also, no wonder divorce rates are so high.)

And - no wonder I don't want a live man anywhere near me, no offense.:lips (He could "oops" me anyway.)

yes essentially banshee, the genes and biology tells you one thing, but the brains overrides most of this.

brains almost always trump the body needs.

look at cf men, they dont want kids, look at cf women, the brains override the biological/ genetic imperatives. the ones who dont are the least evolved in my opinion.

women too, also have this best genes, thats why there is so much cheating, its a form of getting the best genes.

we are only animals, who got lucky. all you need to do is look at the wild animals. and you will see a parallel with humanity.

biologically, and today women want studs, strong 6 pack men (there are exeptions), handsome, not fat etc..what makes a man attractive to a woman, what makes a woman attractive to a man (or man to man, woman to woman).

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Glistening young men with bulging muscles kind of gross me out, though.

And some chubby men CAN be cute, too. Depends on how well they take care of themselves and present themselves in spite of the paunch, heh. Like, if they reek of too much beer, wear unwashed clothes for weeks, or make too much inappropriate sexual humor about women, of course most girls wouldn't want to date them. Now women look for ideal men in different way from the original biological requirements, especially when we live in a society that makes us extremely comfortable...a bit too comfortable (that is why we can get overweight from too much good food to eat and working behind desks for years, too.)

I'm too much of a loner, though.^_^

I have dated all "types" of men over the years and in between my numerous marriages and I have always been attracted to what people might term "nerds". I like the guys who can play chess for hours and lose track of time, are a wiz at card games, can intelligently discuss abstract ideas, and for some reason the computer nerd types are overwhelmingly attracted to me as well, although I am not particularly proficient in binary lingo. I have discovered a few things in that time about men (and what I like and don't) and those are that:



1) Humor is of the UTMOST importance because it generally equals a higher intelligence 2) Ignorant know it all types are a no go 3) The less a man brags about himself the more he has to offer in every way 4) It's really true what they say about quiet types 5) Muscle bound men (not to be confused with just "in good shape"), are terrible lovers 6) A man who isn't interested in his own personal hygiene never will be 7) Men with bad manners don't change 8) Hypocondriacs never get better and are a PAIN in the ass 9) Men who hate their mothers generally will hate their wives as well, by default 10) If a man doesn't like animals and/or just doesn't want pets (for no reason) then he must be avoided at all costs 11) Men who hunt for sport have something to prove and I am not interested in finding out what it is 12) Men who have "crazy ex wives" more than likely made them that way 13) If you tell a man that you like colored gems and wild flowers, yet he continues to have roses delivered to your office and shower you with diamonds, then he isn't the right man for you no matter WHAT all of your friends say 14) How a man looks is unimportant for several reasons, as long as he is clean, well groomed, and wears clothing that was manufactured in recent decades; Looks can change, hair can be lost(and replaced), people age, weight can be gained or lost, teeth can fall out or be replaced, and illness or accident can turn "This year's next model" into a former shell of themselves, paralyzed from the neck down, or horribly disfigured. 15) If you wouldn't trust your winning lottery ticket in the hands of your betrothed, then you shouldn't marry him.





Back on the subject at hand with duddys running out on defective brats, I honestly believe that MOST of the time (and there are certainly exceptions as have been mentioned) the blame lies squarely on the woman if this happens. If a man's feelings on reproducing in the first place are considered and he is a gung ho duddy wannabee, then he is MUCH LESS likely to tuck tail and run regarding kiddie defects or kiddie related bullshit in general. If once the AGREED UPON KYD is born fucked up, if the moomie would listen to the specialists and get the kyd appropriate care, education, treatment, (which is often AWAY from her watchful gaze ) etc.......instead of the typical not wanting the kyd to leave her side for one minute, then the chances of the man leaving are less likely, I believe. What happens though is that they often go on ahead, against medical advice, and get preggo when they shouldn't, carry fucked up kyds to term, (against the husband's wishes) and spend every waking martyr-moo moment literally GLUED to the kyd and no longer meet even the basic needs (emotional,physical, financial or sexual) of their husbands. It's not so much that the defective kyds made them run as it is the behavior of the moomie toward the kyd in question that does the trick, IMO.

Uh oh, my name came up!

Totally agree with the majority of the comments here about men bolting and running. I suppose it isn't so much fun to show that your dick works when the grand prize is a drooling tard you have to support for the rest of your life, and not just till age 18.

About caregiving for other family members, there seems to be a strong belief among most people that women are better at it and men just aren't cut out for it. When my beloved stepdad ended up in the hospital for pneumonia in late 2007 (he was about to come home when he died from sudden heart failure), I broke down in front of a doctor while talking with him about stepdad's problems. The doctor said something along the lines of, "Women usually handle this kind of thing better."

Also, men face expectations that they will work to support the family anyway, whereas women supposedly have the "freedom" to assume the responsibility of caring for others; both stereotypes are unfair. I should add that I have heard of men as caregivers being looked upon with suspicion, including neighborhood busybodies calling authorities because "he's bathing his mother and there just has to be sexual abuse going on". Men see themselves viewed as wannabe sexual predators, which is why many avoid such occupations as teacher today. The same goes for caring for the elderly.

Mom has been in a rehab facility since her major stroke last fall but comes home next week. I have been doing a lot of work around the house (just finished a LOT of painting), so caring for her will seem more like a vacation by comparison. She has dramatically improved and I have high hopes for how things will go once she returns.

Quote
kidlesskim
I have dated all "types" of men over the years and in between my numerous marriages and I have always been attracted to what people might term "nerds". I like the guys who can play chess for hours and lose track of time, are a wiz at card games, can intelligently discuss abstract ideas, and for some reason the computer nerd types are overwhelmingly attracted to me as well, although I am not particularly proficient in binary lingo. I have discovered a few things in that time about men (and what I like and don't) and those are that:

01001100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110101 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100010 01100101 01100001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 00100000 01110100 01110111 01101111 00100000 01100010 01100001 01100011 01101011 01110011 00101110 00100000 00111011 00101001

(Captcha: CjCFt - woo for "CF"!)

I love KK's list:

1) Humor is of the UTMOST importance because it generally equals a higher intelligence absolutely. And when people age and aren't as spry/sexy/pretty, humor can still make it a delight to be around your sweetie.

2) Ignorant know it all types are a no go Talk about tiresome. I'd rather have someone curious; along with humor, I think an all-around curiosity is a sign of high intelligence.

3) The less a man brags about himself the more he has to offer in every way QFT. Humility is very attractive.

9) Men who hate their mothers generally will hate their wives as well, by default Yep, unrelenting trash talking about moms/exes is generally a RED FLAG.

14) How a man looks is unimportant for several reasons, as long as he is clean, well groomed, and wears clothing that was manufactured in recent decades; Looks can change, hair can be lost(and replaced), people age, weight can be gained or lost, teeth can fall out or be replaced, and illness or accident can turn "This year's next model" into a former shell of themselves, paralyzed from the neck down, or horribly disfigured. So true. A man who can make me laugh, who is affectionate, thoughtful, and kind, and can help me have a great day can look however he wants so far as I'm concerned.

but you can see how a lot of these men and women go for the looks, rather than the mind or heart

male strippers, and models, female strippers and models. unfortunatly a lot of people buy into the superficial (its a biologocial throwback to thousands of years ago).

we dont have to be trapped as you know by our biology, or genetics(to some extent). but a few are .

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Quote
mercurior
but you can see how a lot of these men and women go for the looks, rather than the mind or heart

male strippers, and models, female strippers and models. unfortunatly a lot of people buy into the superficial (its a biologocial throwback to thousands of years ago).

we dont have to be trapped as you know by our biology, or genetics(to some extent). but a few are .

The funny thing to me though are the people who buy into a "look", hook line and sinker, only to be sorely disappointed when they wake up and discover that they are sleeping next to a stranger. Of course this doesn't usually happen to regular every day people because they generally are "what you see is what you get". However, in the world and sub-culture of the strippers, models, dancers, and even minor local celebrity types, a lot of what you see is illusion. This is especially true in the transgendered performing circuit as well as with showgirls, beauty contestants, performers of various types including musicians in minor league traveling bands/shows, and other "glamour" jobs or careers. Perhaps no group has it down pat better than Hollywood though.



If you were a passenger on an airplane that ditch landed on a remote island and there was a group of "glamour types" on board, by the end of the day they would start to "wilt", by the end of the week they would look a bit like a cheap washed up hooker, (or gigalo) by the end of the month their true hair color would start to emerge if they hadn't already taken off hairpieces and wigs and revealed their paper-thin (if any) hair, their "beautiful nails" would start snapping off, their sprayed on tans would start getting splotchy, body hair (including facial for some of the ladies) would start showing up in unsightly places, and by the end of three months they would be completely unrecognizable. If their maintenance was further delayed then their faces would start to change shape (and not attractively so) their penile implants would deflate and their tits could be sitting in most any given direction on or around their chest area. Terrible things also happen when collagen and botox injections are abruptly stopped as well.



I have known women and some transgendered male to female performers who were in these glamour professions and without their stage makeup, hairpieces, clothes, specialty underwear such as ass pads, dick mimimizing straps, padded push up bars and other accessories of the trade, they were COMPLETELY unrecognizable in comparison to their 'look". They could be standing right next to a guy at a convenience store who was begging for an autograph the night before or throwing $100 bills at them while on stage, and he wouldn't even notice them or glance their way. Looks not only fade or change, they can also be nothing more than an illusion. Hence, another reason to look within a person when considering a long term relationship rather than only the outward appearance.