I Actually Don't Completely Disagree with Emily Ratajkowski
Candace Owens Podcast | 3 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gmRDVRHLAc
1:57 Jim Jones used Kool-Aid for the collective suicide.
Are you saying it's wrong to use Kool-Aid in your non-alcoholic punch bowl?
Confer age gap and kool-aid, porn industry and the Jim Jones sect. Punch bowl and lawfully wedded marriage.
2:10 Is Emily herself pronouncing her surname like that?
Because, it's obviously a Slavic one (though in the usual Slavic custom it's an adjective and would be Ratajkowska for a girl), and in Slavic (as well as most Germanic) languages, J is pronounced like Yod, and AJ is how we (Swedes are not Slavs, but non-English Germanics) would spell the diphthong in "pie, tie, cry" (paj - the actual loan word - taj, kraj).
3:02 I cannot answer for Kardashian.
I could answer for myself.
1) What I acquired since I was 18 is anyway so ultra-geeky, a 53 year old woman would be as much behind if she started dating me as an 18 year old girl.
2) I am 54. With a woman of 54, I cannot really hope to have children at all. With a woman of 40, I can, but with a large possibility of the first child being Downs syndrome.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think they deserve to be killed or something, but I do think it is permissible and advisible for men, even my age, to get younger women so they don't get a child with Downs as the very first one. I think it vastly better for a child of that condition to have elder siblings.
Yes, it has more to do with the age of the woman than with the age of the man. From 20 to 40 in a woman, the risk of having a child with Downs rises from 1 / 10 000 to 1 / 100. For every ten years a man is above 35, it only compounds this with 11 % of the risk as it is.
I am not sure you got the memo, but as a Catholic, I believe the FIRST purpose of marriage is to get children. Primum bonum matromonii proles. There are two other ones as well, defeating what lust would otherwise make sinful, and the honour of mutual exclusivity.
An unmarried man who dates someone around 18 while he is 50 is the moral equal of an unmarried man who does so while he is 18, not of a married man of 50 trying to get adulterously laid with a girl of 18.
And the reasons I am yet unmarried are partly due to the first thing I mention, and partly due to prejudices like the one you voice here. AND, yes, I could have avoided it if I had left Sweden a year or two before 30, but a Catholic (SSPX) priest I corresponded with told me not to. This led to (along with my very misplaced obedience) difficulties that degraded my life to when I finally left Sweden, and beyond.
- Jade Blackwell
- Why are u thinking about having a child at YOUR age? It is dumb for women AND men to become parents at that age…
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jade Blackwell It is that for woman. Not for men. Isaac was 60.
- Jade Blackwell
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl okay, you ask a child how it feels to have an old parent that is 60 plus. I bet they wish they could have had more time with them. It is just a selfish thing to do to a child…
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jade Blackwell Losing parents can happen anyway.
And if it's "selfish" to make children, we need more of that "selfishness" ... an aging population is not helping things. Rejuvenating the population obviously means making babies.
@Jade Blackwell One more thing: if I do not marry and do not make a baby, what benefit is it to a non-baby that it was never made?
- Jade Blackwell
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I am having a hard time understanding this question. Are we talking about Santa Claus now? Something that doesn’t exist?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jade Blackwell If I do not make a baby, how does that non-baby profit from my "altruism" in not making it?
Life is a gift. Sometimes we get it in somewhat painful circumstances. CSL and JRRT both lost mothers, to cancer and diabetes - at age 7. How would they have been happier if their mothers had foreseen to be dying soon, and abstained from "selfishly" making babies? They wouldn't have been happy, because they wouldn't have existed.
- Jade Blackwell
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl As a society, we should not be worried about quantity of life, but quality. Sure you can have children in bad circumstances. But how often does society suffer the consequences of children being brought up in trauma? Trauma is why there are so many drug addict, mentally ill, homeless people. More homeless people that society now has to deal with.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Jade Blackwell Society is not concerned, legitimately.
Putting society over people is Babylonian and Communist.
No, "society" does not have to deal with homeless people. Giving alms is an individual choice.
@Jade Blackwell Plus you are forgetting how fewer young is heavily impacting the "quality" of life of the old. Plus some young tend to overstimate it and think euthanasia is doing people a service.
3:09 In relation to matrimonial duties, man and wife are equal.
In biology, man and woman are not equal. A significantly older wife is not comparable to a significantly older husband. Man has the longer fertility span. Would not have been the case before the fall, was not perhaps even the case before the Flood, but is the case now.
A woman can marry an age peer, and her husband will still be active when it becomes irksom to her due to menopause, so, he will be tempted to infidelity.
Or she can marry an older man, they can calm down sexually same calendar year, and his "infidelities to her" will have been before they met or before they married.
3:48 The Church has definitely not deemed 18 year olds too young to marry, nor should you.
The push for 18 (raising marriageable age to) came from progressives and anticlericals, not from Christians.
The key is what you mean by "fully" - should you have run your own business at 18? No. But did you have the EQ to pick a husband? Yes, you did, even if you didn't actually pick one back then.
For centuries, the Church has held to 14 / 12, only in the XXth C. raising it to 16 / 14. The younger age being the one when a girl could become a married woman, because puberty comes on average two years later in men.
4:04 Yeah, experience.
One thing that should not be the determining factor in choice of a husband or wife because premarital experiences are not ideal.
I agree 18 is a bit too young to run a business with book-keeping - and business does require experience. But picking a man or a wife requires taste.
I took a look at the age stats (both death and marriage) in the offspring of St. Lewis IX of France up to the generation of Lewis XI (not getting in all of them, I got exhausted after somewhere beyond 600).
The dates for when they married were not available on wiki so often, so, I get a far numeric basis for my estimate (not to mention quite a few died unmarried).
Of the ladies, ten married at unknown ages, and 58 between 7 (would have been betrothal abusively counted as final marriage) and 24. Median 16.
Of the gents, 17 married at unknown age, and 46 at ages between 11 (see previous) and 49, median 24.
In other stats on royalties, I find even more discrepancy, like a couple ancestral to* Prince Albert, the man was 43 years older than a 16 year old wife.
Sorry, that was a conflation, that man was 43 years older than a 20 year old wife* and another couple** was between a man of 43 (age, not older) and a woman of 16.
*26) Anton Ulrich von Sachsen-Meiningen (* 22. Oktober 1687 in Meiningen; † 27. Januar 1763 in Frankfurt am Main)
⚭ 1750
27) Charlotte Amalie von Hessen-Philippsthal (* 11. August 1730 in Philippsthal (Werra); † 7. September 1801 in Meiningen)
**30 Jean-Frédéric de Brunswick-Calenberg, né le 25 avril 1625, Herzberg et 31 Bénédicte Henriette de Wittelsbach, née le 14 mars 1652 à Paris, sont mariés le 30 novembre 1668. Il avait 43 ans et elle 16.
No comments:
Post a Comment