The fact that Louis Vuitton has anti-looting barricades in a time of mass quarantine says enough.

Let me see if I understand: you wrote a column that someone thought was worthless, and decided to exert enough effort to tell you this?

Then it wasn't worthless. It probably zinged him in some manner and that's what motivated him to give feedback. And that's why on-line ratings and surveys are biased: the only respondents are those motivated enough to spend time, either in praise or in disgust.

Everyone else: meh, not worthy my time.

The toilet nightlight is pretty worthless to me. But you can see from the reviews that others like it. "Urinary Revelation!" one fellow says.

https://www.amazon.com/Original-Bathroom-Activated-Lighting-Christmas/dp/B01HTU9TLY?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_4

Someone sold a scrambled egg tube cooker that was pretty worthless and rather weird too. You put scrambled uncooked egg in it and 20-30 min later a tube of cooked egg slowly crawled out of it. The fact that you couldn't really clean it was just icing on the cake for that product.

Those barricades seem odd. I've heard that other stores have simply removed all their goods. You can see the empty shelves from outside.

But then, I'm not referring to NYC.

Conan:

The fact that Louis Vuitton has anti-looting barricades in a time of mass quarantine says enough.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what do you think it says? Seems like a reasonable precaution to me, particularly if Louis Vuitton carries pricey items that opportunistic lowlifes (or is it lowlives?) might break in to steal.

Lenona points out that other stores are simply displaying empty shelves. That, however, is not proof that the goods have been removed from the property. Most stores have stockrooms that aren't visible from the street through the windows. Someone might be willing to break in hoping to find something has been left in the stockroom.

And even if there's nothing there, if someone tries, there will be windows to replace, and possible weather damage. A homeless person might be looking for a place to crash, etc.

Those barricades seem odd. I've heard that other stores have simply removed all their goods. You can see the empty shelves from outside.

But then, I'm not referring to NYC.

Lenona at April 24, 2020 10:34 AM

Real property sometimes has a greater value than the stock. That looks like a historic building. Store fixtures can be expensive to replace. Not to mention those big plate glass show windows. Wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of property damage isn’t covered when the cause is civil unrest.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what do you think it says? Seems like a reasonable precaution to me, particularly if Louis Vuitton carries pricey items that opportunistic lowlifes (or is it lowlives?) might break in to steal.

Just that - the fact that in a national emergency there are still people against whom we have to protect our property (and lives).

BTW, I think it's lowlifes.

Very good point, Isab.

In the meantime...

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/2020-04-24-teenager-baby-sitting-aita-reddit-college-student-parents-24081555.html

I just wish I could access the comments. Clicking on them only shifts the entire article - the comments do not appear!

Can't access the ones at Reddit, either.

Most of it:

Dillon Thompson
April 24, 2020, 12:20 PM UTC

A teenager is causing a wide-spanning debate about responsibility after sharing her parents’ “unacceptable” babysitting request.

The 19-year-old, writing under the username rooceyroo, shared her dilemma in Reddit’s AITA (Am I The A******) forum. In the post, she described a recent argument with her dad and stepmom, which began when they found out they were having another baby.

“I’m a full-time [college] student. I’ve been living at home with them and leading up to their decision my dad was constantly asking if I was ok with having a sibling,” the Redditor wrote. “[To be honest] I didn’t feel it was my place to even say anything.”

But that feeling changed when the teen’s dad began discussing the help he’d need once the baby was born.

‘I thought this was a joke’

The Redditor explained in her post that, despite living at home, she has several expenses she handles herself — from student loans to transportation — and works a part-time job while taking classes. But as the baby’s due date approached, her father started asking her to give up those commitments.

“One day we had a conversation about the baby being a handful and he said, ‘Well since you don’t have to pay board and only work 3 days a week you can just quit your job and babysit so we can have a break,'” the teen wrote. “Of course I thought this was a joke.”

She went on to explain that her dad got mad at that response, explaining that the child was also her responsibility because “this is how family works.” She added that her dad even suggested she start skipping class in order to occasionally help out with the baby.

“Ever since [the argument] he’s been saying stuff like, ‘This is what being an adult is about. You look after family. Don’t you love your brother?'” the teen added.

‘I have to drop everything’

The teen wrote that she still believes it’s her parents’ responsibility to look after the child, as it was their decision to have him.

“I’ve honestly gotten really sick of the expectation that since they’re having a kid I have to drop everything for it so ‘they can have a break,'” she wrote.

She went on to say that she’s continued to “put her foot down” over the issue, but is now feeling guilty — thanks in part to other family members saying she’s being inconsiderate.

“I’m wondering if I am being selfish,” she asked her fellow Redditors.

‘Stand your ground’

Many users in the forum seemed widely supportive of the teenager, telling her she was in the right and even suggesting she move out of the house....

_____________________________________

(One suggested she make sure that her stepmother actually knows what's going on.)

If anyone is kind enough to tell me the two top-rated comments, here, I'd be very grateful - again, I can't access them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/eizcvf/aita_for_saying_my_babysitting_rates_are_35_an/

"AITA for saying my babysitting rates are $35 an hour?

"I'm a software engineer, with a full time job and a side hustle of doing freelance coding work in my own time. I've always been the type to have a side hustle I put a lot of my free time into; I get really bored sitting idle.

"My freelance hourly rates are $60 an hour, and at my full time job, my hourly pay works out to about $40 an hour. So that's how I value my time...."

(snip)
__________________________________

I suspect the real mistake here was in the engineer's phrasing, not so much the content. Another was assuming that ANY parent would pay a lot more than $15 an hour for a non-professional caretaker. The right thing would have been to say, very sweetly and innocently, even before they said what the pay would be: "oh, thank you kindly, but I don't do minimum wage jobs; I don't need to."

As you may have guessed, she's female, so it would likely be far more shocking to the parents than if a MAN were to say that. (Many people still seem to think that if a woman loves her job, whether it's babysitting or not, she shouldn't get paid very much for it.)

And even couples who are poor and desperate enough to ask for FREE babysitting (not this couple) have an obligation to offer some substantial service in return. Typically, that would mean simply swapping babysitting services, but that's not possible, here.

Or maybe "thank you, but I don't babysit; I don't need minimum-wage jobs, and other people do, so why not ask one of them?"

The teen wrote that she still believes it’s her parents’ responsibility to look after the child, as it was their decision to have him.

“I’ve honestly gotten really sick of the expectation that since they’re having a kid I have to drop everything for it so ‘they can have a break,'” she wrote.

She went on to say that she’s continued to “put her foot down” over the issue, but is now feeling guilty — thanks in part to other family members saying she’s being inconsiderate.”

What is room and board worth? And what other monetary contributions does she make? How much does her part time job pay? What would it cost her to live on her own?

Small babies aren’t a lot of work. Maybe she could figure out the value of what she is getting living at home and arrange to babysit on a regular schedule when she isn’t at class or her part time job? After all you can do homework, social media, etc. while the kid sleeps.
The parents shouldn’t expect a full time nanny, but I don’t think it is unreasonable for her to do something as a contribution to the very real cost of a mortgage, utilities, food, Internet etc.

Most people don’t have any idea how expensive it is to have their own place until they try it.

(Many people still seem to think that if a woman loves her job, whether it's babysitting or not, she shouldn't get paid very much for it.)

I should have added "even when a job is highly challenging."

And obviously, there exists the child who is just as challenging and awful to care for as three children typically are, so parents shouldn't be surprised when a babysitter demands more per hour in BOTH such situations, compared to a caring for a single, well-behaved child.

How much babysitting are we talking?

It's the parents job to launch this 19-year-old, and if babysitting means she can't work and get her schoolwork done, then that's a problem.

If it's a Saturday night per week it is one thing. If it is daily it is another. Babies and toddlers are not easy to look after unless they're asleep.

Exactly. Anyone knows that the smaller they are, the more often they need to be fed. Then they need the freedom to crawl. Then to walk and play without wrecking the house, which means supervision. It should be no surprise to anyone that mothers of babies don't get much sleep - and mothers of toddlers don't get much housework done.

It's unbelievable that her dad would expect her to cut classes. If she hadn't been living there, I wonder if the couple would have been so eager to have the baby in the first place?

It's unbelievable that her dad would expect her to cut classes. If she hadn't been living there, I wonder if the couple would have been so eager to have the baby in the first place?

Lenona at April 25, 2020 12:29 AM

Always realize when you are reading AITA on reddit, you are only hearing one side of the story, as any lawyer or Amy with her mediation work can tell you.

We don’t know enough of the facts here.

You posted two relatively similar situations, Lenona. So it is a little hard to tell which ones people are responding to.

On the lady going to uni while living at home, yes she is the asshole. If she wants to focus on school and not have to deal with these kinds of family issues she should move out.

I understand her concerns that her father will cut off contact (apparently her mother already has). But that just makes this sound like an abusive relationship she needs to get out of even more. If her becoming an independent adult is enough for her last parent to cut of contact then she needs to do that sooner rather than later.

As for the wonder about the couple not having this kid if their older daughter wasn't living at home, yeah no, that is just hopeful thinking on your part Lenona. Especially since there are claims in the comments that this was an IVF baby.

One the $35/hr babysitter, not an asshole. She already offered them a discounted rate. She doesn't live with them. They don't provide food, housing, etc for her so the real payment isn't in some other form. They wanted three days of her vacation and offered to pay. Well, now they know what her time is worth and can search for cheaper options elsewhere.

She added that her dad even suggested she start skipping class in order to occasionally help out with the baby. ~ Lenona at April 24, 2020 8:54 PM

Dad's the a*****e here. However, she's skating close to it, too.

College classes do not require just the time spent in class, but the time needed to study as well. She may not have as much free time as Dad thinks she does.

Has Dad considered the ramifications of her quitting her job and cutting classes?

• Will Dad be paying for her car, insurance, and other expenses since she'll no longer have a job?
• Is Dad prepared to support her later, when she has no degree and cannot get a decent job because she spent her college years nannying her stepbrother?
• Once she's no longer at least a half-time student, that student loan enters repayment. Is Dad prepared to repay it for her?

She can reasonably discuss helping out with baby-sitting in exchange for room and board, an arrangement that would leave her with enough free time for studies, socializing, or work, instead of absolutely refusing to help at all.

She is right, however, in that they chose to have a child. The child's care and welfare is primarily their responsibility.

How much of a "break" does Dad want? A night out here and there is not unreasonable. A full-time unpaid nanny is.

I'm reading into this that Dad didn't really want to have another child, this was Stepmom's idea. That's why Dad is asking his daughter to re-arrange her life so "we can have a break."

The reality is in these days, a 19-year-old is not a fully functioning adult in society. Dad's job is to make sure she becomes one. She is doing what she needs to be doing to become one.

Again, pitching in is one thing. Skipping class and dropping work? No.

This post, by lurker-derp, was in response to the 19-year-old's situation, but parts of it would likely be relevant to the software engineer's situation too.

"A few comments make the very good point that duh probably wouldn't be asking this if it was a 19 year old son, but because she's a daughter, she has to pick up the slack because that's what wimmins are for! /s

"I notice that it seems to be only duh making these demands - stepmoo hasn't said anything about the teenage daughter becoming the 2nd mom - at least, that's the drift I get from the article. Duh is pre-empting the fact that having a kid at his age is gonna be exhausting, so it's time to "cash in" on his investment in raising his teenage daughter, and guilt trip her into taking on his share of the responsibility.

"This kind of reminds me of when I was still a teenager and living at home. My older brother got a dog, bio-dad got a dog, but guess what mug ended up looking after both of them, despite having no say in them being brought into the home?

"ETA: I love dogs, but I resented being expected to look after pets that I had no say in getting."

Oh, and NicoleK, your last post reminds me of what I want to say to those who think and talk as though the average father (born after 1970, that is) still cares deeply about being able to walk a virgin daughter to the altar.

Namely, if parents REALLY felt that way these days, they'd be doing the same thing that many of them did less than a century ago. That is, unless they were dirt poor and needed to let their daughters move out and go wherever the jobs were, there used to be a saying that went: "A decent woman leaves her parents' home in one of two ways - behind her new husband, or feet first, in a coffin." (No, I didn't make that up. I found it hard to believe when *I* heard it!)

That would certainly help to explain why many pre-WWII women said they got married "so they could leave home."

But, of course, almost any parent today would BRAG about a daughter who was resourceful and independent enough - and WILLING - to leave home permanently as soon as she finished school, even if it were at age 18 - and even if she didn't marry until age 30, for economic reasons! That pretty much says it all.

Not to mention that if young, educated men still felt strongly about marrying virgin brides, THEY'D be doing what they did about 250 years ago - for different reasons.

That is, back then, many unmarried women past their teens were considered old maids, so it was considered normal for men to refuse to court or marry them. Plus, of course, women often died in childbirth, so pushing women to marry early seemed to make sense. (Doctors likely didn't know that teen pregnancy is more dangerous than pregnancy after 20.)

And nowadays, in the age of birth control, men could argue that since most virgins are under 21, why should they have to marry any woman older than that?

Obviously, one reason men don't argue that way is that the men would have to struggle, economically, a lot harder, so THEY could afford to marry before age 25 - and nowadays, about half of them just can't marry until their 30s. (Young women, As A Rule, do not want to marry men who are 10 or more years older. Yes, there are exceptions - but they're just that.) Reason 2 would be that if there's anything men are scared of, it's divorce court, so they're not about to marry someone who's immature or who can't support herself or her babies.

On top of that, neither men or women, gay or straight, are attracted to virgins over a certain age - or, as Shakespeare's Parolles would have called them, "withered pears." So unless we're talking about two asexuals who manage to find each other, a man who wants to avoid divorce court might do well to avoid a 25-year-old virgin. If she's not asexual, religious or traumatized, there's a good chance she's just very unpopular.

woman who has never done more than kiss another human being

Responsible parents do not have additional children with a care plan that includes burdening their older children.

While every newborn is different, what is more or less universal is that when they are small they require a great deal of care and attention.

Diaper changes and feedings every 2 hours or so are normal and expected.

The idea that anyone can get studying done while they are sleeping is also extremely naïve.

Newborns do not sleep like adults do, they have a series of tiny naps throughout the day and if one is lucky they will have a 4 hour block overnight (assuming of course they are not day/night reversed which is common early on and can occur again with sleep regressions).

The older sibling should be bonding with their new baby brother/sister when time permits and otherwise taking care of getting their own life on track.

Whoops - forgot to erase that line!

And to go back to what I said at 9:10:

It's likely a safe bet that most modern parents would agree - if silently - that there are far worse things than having a daughter who has premarital sex before age 30 or who coldly refuses to answer certain nosy parental questions once she moves out - EVEN if she's about to get married. Namely, having a daughter who marries in haste (because she's sick of waiting for sex), repents at leisure, gets divorced in three years and moves back in with a couple of babies that she just can't support and pay rent at the same time. OR a daughter who stays home for decades and wait for her prince to come - and thinks that being sweet, pretty and chaperoned is her only job.

“Responsible parents do not have additional children with a care plan that includes burdening their older children.”

No doubt Orion is a product of the Chicoms one child policy.

His knowledge of child care and sleep patterns and how a multi child family functions and cares for each other is entirely theoretical.

No pets either huh Artemis?

> No doubt Orion is a product of
> the Chicoms one child policy.

CLICK

Excellent.

That's an important part of what we're seeing. Orion's lack of worldliness appears at that fundamental level.

And the ad hominem brigade marches on.

Isab,

I hate to break it to you, but your comment here was completely out of touch with reality:

"Small babies aren’t a lot of work."

They are in fact a lot of work for anyone actually doing the job of being a parent.

I am left to assume you either never actually cared for small babies... or you were a shit parent.

Neither would surprise me.

JD,

At this point I don't even know what their purpose is anymore.

I'm clearly not going anywhere and they are just embarrassing themselves constantly by saying ignorant things.

Apparently having an understanding that infant care isn't the responsibility of adult children is an indication that people only have one child.

It is really an indication that parents should be the primary care givers and not be reliant upon existing children for the duty of care they owe to any new babies they bring into the world.

This isn't a difficult concept for any rational person to comprehend.

“Small babies aren’t a lot of work."

They are in fact a lot of work for anyone actually doing the job of being a parent.

I am left to assume you either never actually cared for small babies... or you were a shit parent.”

I’m sure it was because I was a shit parent, at least by Chinese standards.

Artemis, you give away more clues to your soulless, mechanistic, loveless and solitary upbringing with every post.

Isab,

The most pathetic part of your method of discourse is your constant assumption that you can tell anything of value about anyone else on the internet.

There is nothing the least bit "soulless" or "mechanistic" or "loveless" or "solitary" about advocating that parents should have a care plan for their children that involves them not being reliant upon existing children to make things work.

That fact that one is able to recognize that small babies do in fact require a large degree of time and care is a greater demonstration of love, devotion, and care than your formulation of parenting here:

"Small babies aren’t a lot of work."

There are parents such as myself who carried around their newborns for hours in the wee hours of the night because they couldn't sleep without the constantly rocking motion.

There are parents such as myself who sang to their babies every day and cuddled them as much as possible such that they would become emotionally well adjusted and loving people.

There are parents such as myself who got onto the floor and played with the crinkle paper, the shape sorters, the flash cards, played peek-a-boo... along with a million other activities that are too numerous to enumerate on this blog.

And then there are parents like you who insist that babies aren't a lot of work and college students can study for exams and write papers while the baby sleeps.

Babies sleep in short and easily interrupted intervals and need to be watched constantly.

That you don't understand this suggests any babies you raised were shoved in a mechanical rocker and left to scream until they were too tied to yell anymore while you went off and did your own thing.

You are in no position to talk to be about soul, or love, or being part of a family.

Only the most trashy low class people I am peripherally aware of raise children in the manner you describe.

"...and they are just embarrassing themselves constantly by saying ignorant things."

It's a clear case of "what you say about others reveals more about you than them."

The text in the photo is photoshopped in. Note the perfection of the width of the text, the lack of overspray and how it fits evenly between the vertical objects.

And nowadays, in the age of birth control, men could argue that since most virgins are under 21, why should they have to marry any woman older than that?

Obviously, one reason men don't argue that way is that the men would have to struggle, economically, a lot harder, so THEY could afford to marry before age 25 - and nowadays, about half of them just can't marry until their 30s. (Young women, As A Rule, do not want to marry men who are 10 or more years older. Yes, there are exceptions - but they're just that.) Reason 2 would be that if there's anything men are scared of, it's divorce court, so they're not about to marry someone who's immature or who can't support herself or her babies.
_______________________________

I forgot Reasons 3 and 4. Maybe I was in a hurry.

3. A lot of women don't feel they can afford to marry in their early 20s - and if they're in college debt, THAT'S a big fat reason for men to wait until the women have paid in full. Even women who don't go to college feel the need to build up their own savings account. Even the perfect husband can get hit by a car and become an invalid, after all.

4. Leaving aside evangelical families, no one really expects a MAN to abstain until age 25. Again, plenty of men can't marry until their 30s. So a 30-ish man who insists on marrying a virgin likely has serious double standards - and women have more than one good reason to reject such men. As Miss Manners wrote in the chapter "Gender Roles" in her book "Guide for the Turn-of-the-Millennium": "Victorian gossip is full of stories about innocent brides receiving unpleasant diseases from their parent-chosen bridegrooms."

(She didn't say this in so many words, but double standards are often a violation of the Golden Rule, so it makes sense that a man of double standards would refuse to get himself checked for diseases BEFORE he marries, if he doesn't have blatant symptoms, and even herpes isn't always obvious. Plus, a woman who's raised according to Victorian standards is obviously not going to have the backbone to ask her fiancé for proof that he's clean. Bottom line: double standards do not protect women from familiar men.)

Lenona,

I agree with many of your points regarding the way people feel or what people expect, but as has been asserted on this blog for many years... the dating world is rife with double standards and almost no one here views those double standards as being some kind of moral violation.

The very concept of "gender roles" is chock full of double standards by design... isn't objecting to some double standards imposed by "gender roles" while not objecting to others in an of itself a kind of meta double standard?

This is where I find people often run into trouble from a logical consistency perspective in this kind of moral construction because it relies heavily on special pleading.

I said "OFTEN a violation of the Golden Rule." Not "always."

A modern virginal Mormon bride has every right to be upset if her barely-21 Mormon fiancé isn't a virgin as well.

I also don't know what you mean by "not objecting to others."

Unless you mean that too many women see nothing wrong with pushing men to do two-thirds of the inviting and paying on dates, even for YEARS before they marry or break up, when plenty of men consider that unfair. Yes, in those cases, that's wrong - and a violation of the Golden Rule. (It's also a good reason to teach everyone the value of face-to-face dates that don't involve spending money. Even watching a free movie together is not "socializing," since you're not really interacting face-to-face.)

And, of course, women don't get to argue that they shouldn't have to earn their own living. "I've heard of men complain of doing women's work, and I've heard of women complain of doing men's work, but I've never known the WORK to complain of who did it, so long as it got done!"

As it happens, I have another right to add to the seven dating rights I listed for young men, which you may have seen in other threads.

8. A man has the right to expect the women he dates to be just as hard-working, forward-looking, clean-living, well-read, and mature as HE is. I.e., good candidates for marriage. Hint: if you have no interest in the future, or in improving yourself, or in long-term relationships in general, don't be surprised when women won't even sleep with you. Remembering that would make life a lot easier for "incels" who aren't even 18 yet.

Lenona,

I know that you said often and not always.

What I am trying to get at here is how you have defined what the exceptions to the golden rule are in this context.

In your view when is it okay to violate the golden rule and when must one adhere to it?

What I'd like to parse out here as well is if you see a problem with folks having wish list items for a partner which they do not necessarily meet.

For example, in your view is it immoral for an overweight person to desire a partner who is fit?

If this is immoral, is it immoral for a brown eyes person to desire a partner who has blue eyes?

There is also a difference between a preference and a requirement, but in any case, I hope you agree that no one owes a relationship to anyone else, so if it so happens that someone doesn't measure up to some criteria then it isn't necessarily a moral failing for them to express those preferences and move on.

Incidentally, it is the "often"/"not always" dichotomy that sets up the concern for special pleading.

Special pleading occurs when one sets up cases for exceptions to a general rule without justifying the exception.

As you can see I have not ignored your statement about such double standards "often" but "not always" being a violation of the golden rule.

That is in fact what I am trying to understand about your position.

Under what precise circumstances doesn't the golden rule apply when it comes to romantic interest and involvement.

For starters, as G.B. Shaw said: "Do NOT do unto others as you would have them do unto you; they may not have similar tastes."

In other words, expressing respect is not always as simple as we'd like it to be. (In the movie "Taxi Driver," the main character clearly hasn't learned even the adolescent basics of respecting that different people have different tastes when he takes a first(?) date to a porno theatre - he doesn't even anticipate that she might not appreciate that.)

And yes, as I mentioned in the other threads, people have every right to have outrageous standards for their future dates and spouses. That doesn't make it civilized to express those preferences out loud when they can just politely reject the people in question - and the rejected party is NOT entitled to an explanation. Example: If you don't date people with a different skin color, it's only racist if you say that out loud - or when you've already let most people know, nonverbally, that you're a racist.

If you're fat and find other fat people unattractive, fine. Just don't say anything. If you want a fit partner so as to inspire YOU to slim down, fine, but fit people can afford to be picky, so they are - and they may well reject you, politely.

What's immoral is when, in effect, you tell people (even if it's nonverbal) that it's OK for YOU to break certain moral rules but it's not OK for others.

Does JD exist in threads in which Orion hasn't participated?

Lenona,

We are in agreement when it comes to being polite in terms of how one expresses themselves.

We also agree that people have every right to have any standards of personal preference for potential dates and spouses.

This part is where we diverge I think:

"What's immoral is when, in effect, you tell people (even if it's nonverbal) that it's OK for YOU to break certain moral rules but it's not OK for others."

If someone rejects someone else for failing to live up to a moral standard that they themselves fail to live up to that isn't necessarily objectionable.

As an example, take a recovering alcoholic, they could very well not want to be in a relationship with someone who drinks at all.

That may be their criteria and it might seem hypocritical that they drank to excess and now do not want to date others who drink at all.

As you stated, people have a right to any standard they want when it comes to their future dates and spouses.

They should strive not to insult anyone in the process of course, but they are not under any obligation to date or marry someone who they don't feel is right for them.

Crid,

JD has been posting here for at least a decade.

There are lots of folks who see your behavior for what it really is.

It's not the same thing.

Alcoholics generally cannot be around alcohol, from what I understand, so it can't be in the house. What's more, of course you don't want to be around someone who STILL behaves badly, whatever "badly" means to you. (Who wants to court - as opposed to date - someone who has multiple current sex partners?)

But to refuse to date secular people over 25 for having had one or two affairs beforehand is sort of like rejecting people for ever having had wine at home with their parents, as teens, even if they've never been drunk. (Hint: most such people are not potential alcoholics.) That is, if your religion bans alcohol as well as premarital sex, well and good, but it's hypocritical to think that, even if you did the same things as a young adult (AND you don't regret it), you are still somehow a desirable candidate for marriage while the other person is not. Plus, of course, two can play at that game, so no man should be SURPRISED if a virginal woman refuses a man once she finds out his hypocritical attitude - and past. (See what I said above regarding the Mormon couple.)

After all, a man who seriously expects any secular person to abstain until marriage or death but who refuses to live up to that principle himself could easily also consider himself entitled to cheat on his future spouse as well - but not vice versa.

I trust we can agree that, just as most men accept the fact that a woman barely out of her teens, as a rule, will refuse to marry a man old enough to run for president - and there's no reason for men to resent that - so too most women will reject men for insisting on sexual double standards, and most men accept that, too, which is why they don't insist. (Yes, I've heard of teen boys saying THEY expect to marry virgins, but they'll likely think twice once they're older and they realize many of them can't afford to marry until their 30s anyway. Again, who really wants to marry a virgin who's over 25?)

And yet I don't trust him, or most anyone here, with Latin. How 'bout that?

When smart people say interesting things, they become obvious in short order.

Lenona,

I'm not sure if there is ever a good reason for anyone to "resent" being rejected by anyone presuming they follow the outline where they are rejected politely (and that they are not owed an explanation).

What doesn't make sense is why you have carved out this singular exception for men who might have a preference for spousal virginity.

We've already established that you are okay with people having physical preferences that they do not measure up (i.e., obesity) to and that you are okay with people having behavioral preferences that they do not measure up to (i.e., drinking alcohol).

You are of course free to disagree with their preferences, but why exactly wouldn't they be entitled to them?

Provided they are polite why should it be of anyone else's concern?

You said it perfectly here as far as I can tell:

"people have every right to have outrageous standards for their future dates and spouses."

This principle applies pretty much across the board I think.

Crid,

No one posts here because they are trying to earn your trust or impress you.

As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone gives you much if any thought at all when they share their perspective here.

You are going to have to find a way to live with the reality that you just aren't important enough to the overwhelming majority of the human race for that kind of consideration.

To put it simply... people are much too busy with their own lives to care if some random guy on the internet trusts them.

Is Kanye West Narendra Modi?

You never see them together.

I’d say this seems to fit:

“Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is characterized by a long-standing pattern of attention seeking behavior and extreme emotionality. Someone with histrionic personality disorder wants to be the center of attention in any group of people, and they feel uncomfortable when they are not.“

Provided they are polite why should it be of anyone else's concern?

Because there is no polite way to lie about your past - or, if you're honest about your past, there is no polite way to defend being a hypocrite.

I am reasonably sure Miss Manners would agree.

And while the whole issue of making outrageous demands may be a moot point, since most people try to avoid dating men or women with a severe sense of entitlement anyway, there's still the issue of parents who RAISE such selfish brats in the first place - or who turn a blind eye to "self-spoiled" teens and what they're turning into. (I wish I knew when that expression began - and how.)

In other words, while it's not directly rude for parents to do that - or allow it to happen - it's definitely uncivilized.

Lenona,

What exactly is so impolite about anyone simply explaining to someone else they aren't interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with them and leaving it at that?

No one has to lie about their past and as you said before, no one owes anyone an explanation.

Sometimes things do not work out and people are not compatible.

I will also remind you that you saw no moral failing in an overweight person refusing to date other overweight people.

You are making a special exception for sexual experience here and I don't really see a logical justification for why that would be any different from any other subjective criteria someone might have for a partner.

As another example... would you begrudge a single parent the right to choose to only date other folks without children?

No, but obesity and single parenthood are things of the present, not the past. Even adult children have been known to make trouble for their stepparents, which is why stepfamilies are so vulnerable to divorce. Also, even a recovered alcoholic is stil an alcoholic. Also, all those people know better than to act as though those facts make them God's gifts to the dating pool - or that most people would WANT to date them, since all those facts are difficult to hide. Most importantly, none of those types is gender-specific.

Why can't you come up with an example that is strictly about the past and not the present?

The only one I can think of is when a man is not a virgin and is deeply repentant and says so. How common is that? More common is the type who thinks a woman should be grateful for a man who's lost count of his lovers - as if incurable STIs didn't exist.

It's somewhat fair to expect an 18-year-old to be a virgin. It's not fair to expect that person to be all set to marry - or to abstain for another 7 years while building a career or waiting for the other person to prepare for marriage.

IF one can manage to hide one's reasons for refusing a first date with someone, well and good. And yes, when it comes to breaking off an ongoing romance, it's often a bad idea to try to explain - but not always. After all, what if the reasons for breaking up were caused by mistaken or false, malicious information? Who wants to risk that?

As I said, many personal facts can't be hidden. Others are well-kept secrets that can only be unearthed.

So, if he asks if she's a virgin, she has every right to ask first: "Are you?"

If he refuses to answer, then she can too. So when he dumps her the next day, the implication is that her past is somehow an unforgivable sin, even if it's considerably more modest than his. Of course she's going to be offended - especially since it's gender-specific. It's no more civil than dumping a long-term partner immediately after he/she reveals a mixed-race background.

Granted, one way around that minefield is to assume that no one over 25 is a virgin - and then plan accordingly. But, as I said, that often means being willing to marry very early.

Maybe the question here is: Why is it so important to anyone to delve into an S.O.'s non-criminal, non-addict past?

Finally, if you care, Miss Manners wrote: "A lady does not give reasons for not being accessible to a particular gentleman. She doesn`t explain why she won`t go out with him, she doesn`t explain why she won`t marry him and she doesn`t explain why she won`t do anything in between.

"The very notion that every lady would yield, if she didn`t have a compelling reason not to, is insulting. However, the rule against explaining is not made for the convenience of ladies so much as it is for the protection of gentlemen. They may think they want to hear why a particular lady is turning them down, but they are mighty unhappy when they do."

Which is all very well if she doesn't want to marry him. But what if she does? How does she explain she's saving sex for marriage without scaring him off? If she says nothing, he'll assume she's trying to dump him.

Forgot to say that most people would agree that nowadays, there ARE cases where it would be uncivilized for a woman to dump a man.

Example: If a childfree woman and a childfree man are happily together for a year and she somehow expects him to support her as a housewife after they marry, she should not be shocked when he tells her he would never consent to that particular marital arrangement. Nor is it fair to dump him because of that - she should have known better. (See what I said earlier about people over 25.)

What's more, if there ARE any childfree - not childless - women who think that way, I've never heard of them. Likely, that's because most people understand that that attitude, nowadays, is just plain outrageously arrogant, unless HE suggests the arrangement first. So, at the very least, any woman with that attitude should try to ask the question "do you want a full-time housewife" early on, to avoid hurt feelings.

Lenona Says:

"No, but obesity and single parenthood are things of the present, not the past."

It isn't really our place to judge someone's motivations for why they have a particular preference in romantic partner.

We don't actually know if it is because of the past or for some other reason that doesn't need to be disclosed to us... that would require a detailed explanation, which you already said was unnecessary:

"the rejected party is NOT entitled to an explanation."

Furthermore, you also stated that it is okay for people to discriminate in the dating market over someone's skin color:

"If you don't date people with a different skin color, it's only racist if you say that out loud"

It could be argued that such a tendency is born out of the past, could it not?... and yet that one didn't bother you.

So as it stands we have established the following double standards that are permissible within your framework:

1 - It is okay for an obese person to reject other obese people in the dating market

2 - It is okay to reject people in the dating market on the basis of skin color

3 - It is okay for an alcoholic to reject other people who drink alcohol in the dating market

4 - It is okay for a single parent to reject other single parents in the dating market

The only thing that really appears to violate your criteria for morality here is if someone with sexual experience rejects someone else with sexual experience.

This is why I am saying this seems to be a case of special pleading.

I really don't see a substantive difference between this and any of the other four examples. People can and should be able to choose to have their own dating criteria, whatever those happen to be and it isn't reasonable for us to select which criteria they are allowed to have and which ones they aren't.

"So, if he asks if she's a virgin, she has every right to ask first: "Are you?""

Of course she has the right to ask, that was never in question. She also has every right to make her own choices based on her own preferences.

"So when he dumps her the next day, the implication is that her past is somehow an unforgivable sin, even if it's considerably more modest than his."

When someone is rejected and no explanation is provided it is unreasonable to then apply a motivation to them. People are rejected for a wide variety of reasons.

What you are essentially arguing is that if a woman reveals anything about her sexual past then she cannot be rejected... because regardless of the actual reason the "implication" will be that was the reason. So if she happens to reveal her sexual past and is also a boring conversationalist... now she cannot be rejected because of the "implication".

People shouldn't be trapped into continuing to see someone because someone else might interpret the rejection in an unfavorable light. People can reject romantic partners for pretty much any reason at all. You said as much here:

"people have every right to have outrageous standards for their future dates and spouses."

Furthermore, how exactly is this any different than two people going on a date and revealing that they have children and then the other person revealing they have children... and then one dumping the other the next day?

Isn't the "implication" they were dumped because of the existence of their kids? That also has nothing to do with addition or criminality.

People should be free to reject potential romantic partners for any reason at all and shouldn't have to explain themselves. Just be polite and wish the other person luck in the future.

Lenona,

As for what Miss Manners has to say on the subject I don't think there is anything wrong with her perspective at all. I think it has universal application.

No one owes anyone any explanation for why they will not date or marry someone or do anything in between.

Furthermore, the very notion that if someone rejects someone else they do not have a compelling reason is insulting.

This is why it doesn't make much sense to me why you would argue against someone having a subjective criteria for marriage on the basis that you don't find it compelling.

That isn't for us to decide, and since we aren't owed an explanation we aren't really in a position to scrutinize their motivations.

What it seems like you are worried about I believe is summed up here:

"Which is all very well if she doesn't want to marry him. But what if she does? How does she explain she's saving sex for marriage without scaring him off? If she says nothing, he'll assume she's trying to dump him."

If she is saving herself for marriage and that isn't something he is interested in he has every right to disengage from that relationship as well.

These are the things of fundamental incompatibility that cause relationships to end.

It would be no different than her expressing her desire to save herself for marriage... him continuing to pressure her for sex outside of marriage... and her dumping him for not respecting her boundaries.

For a marriage to work people need to be on the same page with this kind of thing.

Similar to discussions about how many children if any each person is interested in having.

I've seen several relationships fall apart due to deal breakers involving of one person wanting kids and the other not wanting kids.

No one has the right to marry someone who doesn't want to marry them.

You danced around a basic issue at 2:25. Which is: there's a big difference between rejecting someone before or after a first date - and breaking up a relationship that's already lasted a year or two, over something that isn't all that rare.

Maybe I should have made clear that just because people have the RIGHT to break people's hearts, half the time or so, they are still jerks for doing that. Especially when it could have been prevented simply by asking subtle questions very early on - and breaking up back then. Or simply by looking at the numbers, then assuming that certain types just don't exist anymore, and planning accordingly.

Educated women should not expect to be supported anymore, if they don't want children. So it would be wrong for a CF woman to expect any man to want to support her.

Women who want to save sex for marriage need to learn to express that indirectly - maybe on the second date. Of course, they have to keep dropping hints, since being blunt about it could easily backfire. Either that or they have to date only religious men.

And a man who thinks virginity is essential for women but not men should also date only the most religious women - or date only women under 21 or so. However, he shouldn't be shocked when a religious woman rejects HIM for not being virginal. After all, plenty of religious women no longer accept double standards.

And, to clarify, if a woman expects a man to be a virgin but not asexual, SHE clearly needs to date only the youngest, religious men.

Lenona,

I haven't danced around the issue... it just seems to me that someone would know well before a year or two if their partner is interested in premarital sex or not.

That is something that should be worked out very early on in a relationship.

Why in your scenario is the man completely oblivious to his partners stance on premarital sex after 2 years?

"Women who want to save sex for marriage need to learn to express that indirectly - maybe on the second date. Of course, they have to keep dropping hints, since being blunt about it could easily backfire."

What is there to express indirectly... won't the guy notice that they aren't having sex?

As for being blunt backfiring... I don't know what you mean here.

If she wants to wait until marriage for sex and he doesn't the only purpose of her not saying anything is to hope that he'll develop emotional ties before disclosing a potential deal breaker.

As an analogy this would be a lot like a man with children dating a woman for 3 months without directly disclosing to her that he has kids (only dropping hints because being blunt "could backfire")... then AFTER things seem to be going well he introduces her to his kids and leaves her in the unfortunate situation to have to break off an established relationship if that happened to be a deal breaker for her.

None of this is a good way to establish a healthy dating relationship let alone a marriage.

Trust and honesty are key... hiding things until you think revealing the truth will generate enough emotional dissonance to get what you want is manipulative and cruel.

Also... none of what you are saying now really seems to hold up in light of your Miss Manners quote that:

"A lady does not give reasons for not being accessible to a particular gentleman. She doesn`t explain why she won`t go out with him, she doesn`t explain why she won`t marry him and she doesn`t explain why she won`t do anything in between."

Relationships do not typically progress to marriage after 1 or 2 dates.

This quote is talking about well established relationships where it is made clear that a lady simply doesn't explain why she isn't interested in marrying someone.

Yet it seems like if a gentleman isn't interested in marrying a lady you are casting him as an uncivilized heart breaker.

He owes her no more duty to an explanation that she owes him.

Please remember that this entire discourse was because you were raising a concern over what you viewed as a gendered double standard.

As a result, if we are to be consistent we wouldn't expect a man to have to explain himself for why he isn't interested in marrying someone if they had no obligation to explain themselves to him.

Hearts get broken in any situation where someone wants to marry someone else and the feeling isn't mutual.

Lenona,

I haven't danced around the issue... it just seems to me that someone would know well before a year or two if their partner is interested in premarital sex or not.
___________________________________

I said "something that isn't all that rare." I thought it was clear I was referring to a lack of virginity. Waiting for marriage IS rare, outside of religious communities.
____________________________________

"Women who want to save sex for marriage need to learn to express that indirectly - maybe on the second date. Of course, they have to keep dropping hints, since being blunt about it could easily backfire."

What is there to express indirectly... won't the guy notice that they aren't having sex?
__________________________________

I doubt most men really expect sex on the first date.
______________________________________

As for being blunt backfiring... I don't know what you mean here.
______________________________

It's simple enough, as I think you know. A woman does not say "I am saving sex for marriage," too early on, since that sounds cold and calculating - and unattractive. However, on the second date, she might say something like "don't you think it's crazy the way practical strangers hook up these days? With all the STIs, you'd think more people would wait for marriage."

If he doesn't start to get the message, she can drop stronger hints. Or maybe he'll ask directly.

Not to mention, since condoms don't prevent everything, demanding a blood test or two on the second or third date wouldn't be very romantic either, so expecting sex within the first three dates hardly seems civilized.
_________________________________

As an analogy this would be a lot like a man with children dating a woman for 3 months without directly disclosing to her that he has kids (only dropping hints because being blunt "could backfire")...
___________________________________

Obviously, that has to be revealed early on, but there's no way to be subtle about it. Apples and oranges.

I realize there MAY be dating sites that cater only to those who want to court and not date (though courting doesn't necessarily exclude premarital sex), but I also don't blame anyone for being afraid of online dating.

Lenona,

The rarity of a particular trait really should factor into any of this.

If a particular woman only wants to marry a multimillionaire that is her prerogative (even if she is dirt poor). That such standards will limit her field of romantic interest is something she will have to contend with, but she should realize that such standards may result in her never marrying anyone at all.

Similarly, if a particular man only wants to marry a virgin that is his prerogative (even if he has had sex with several women). That such standards will limit his field of romantic interest is something he will have to contend with, but he should realize that such standards may result in him never marrying anyone at all.

They are the ones who deal with the consequences of their standards, but if that is all they are interested in from a marriage perspective then to each their own.

"I doubt most men really expect sex on the first date."

You keep jumping back and forth between two completely different scenarios.

Sometimes you talk about first dates... other times you insist we are talking about long term relationships.

If we have settled on this situation being early on in the relationship then all previous concerns you brought up relating to "breaking up a relationship that's already lasted a year or two" can be tossed aside as irrelevant.

"If he doesn't start to get the message, she can drop stronger hints. Or maybe he'll ask directly."

Regardless of if he asks or not, he will certainly notice when they aren't having sex.

If that is a deal breaker for him then she should take no offense when all she did was express concerns about hook up culture. Concerns about hook up culture do not translate into a prohibition on sex before marriage.

That kind of a thing needs to be disclosed early on... just like children as you point out here:

"Obviously, that has to be revealed early on, but there's no way to be subtle about it. Apples and oranges."

Sure there is a way to be subtle about it... just to make a parallel argument I will paraphrase your previous statement (however bare in mind I do not believe in either of these arguments... I am simply pointing out they are logically the same):

'A man does not say "I am a single father looking for someone to raise my children with" too early on, since that sounds cold and calculating - and unattractive. However, on the second date, he might say something like "don't you just love children? they are so honest and really full of life, sometimes I wish we could all be so free to just express ourselves like that, you know?

If she doesn't start getting the message, he can drop stronger hints. Or maybe she'll ask directly.'

The point is that sometimes people will go far out of their way not to disclose things that they know might be disqualifying to a potential partner... this is not a wise way to try and establish a long term relationship.

In any event, I am curious about your thoughts on two additional scenarios:

Scenario #1 - A man and a woman start dating. Both have been previously married and are each divorced. She has no interest in dating a man that has been married before... do you have a problem with her rejecting him when she finds out he was married previously?... do you have a problem with him failing to bluntly disclose this fact about his past early on because he worries doing so could result in backfire?

Scenario #2 - A woman has a very strong preference regarding being in a romantic relationship with circumcised or uncircumcised men (for the sake of this argument it does not matter which way her preference goes, just that it exists). Do you have a problem with her rejecting a man after she discovered he doesn't meet with her criteria?... keep in mind this discovery might not occur for several dates and there could very well be an implication that this is why he was rejected even if she says nothing specific about her reasons.