Opinions on relationship in the society.

[FEELEPIC]

~snip~

Single mothers cannot raise men. PERIOD. They require the masculine energy to guide them. The feminine only nurtures them. The children are well mannered to you because they are conditioned on the feminine imperative which is social and expressive. (Which can be viewed as fake such as make up + eye lash extensions + heels etc)  Statistics of single mother households are significantly different for men / women. Women raising women without a father make sluts.

Higher chance of suicide
Higher chance of incarceration rate (There's more)

Obviously there are outliers but at the end of the day , a woman can never raise a man. Only a man can raise a man. We might not be living in the 1950s but those ancient rules still exist today.

1. Ohhhh no no no no, single women can raise men, example men raised by a single moms are Former US President Barrack Obama, Kevin Durant and Michael Phelps. Addition to this I've known several colleague of mine who I can testify to be gentlemens who are also raised by woman.

You are belittling the ability of woman, disregarding their efforts, wisdom and knowledges. I've respected your former opinion but not on this one.

"Single mothers cannot raise men." you say?, but there are examples of respected gentlemens in different countries that will disprove your statement.

2. Sucide rates, and different kinds of statistics have different factors. For example, for suicide rates in Japan, the main cause of it is not single parents, but the pressure the family gives to the child, and bullying. (Pressure from parents, not just a mother or a father).

Also, if you may, can you give me the study about the statistics you mentioned about the higher chances of suicide, etc. or you are just making that up?

In conclusion, women can raise a man. PERIOD!.

1. You are pointing at outliers. I'm saying that a lot of people with single family households will have emotional damage. Obama wasn't necessary a nice guy either. You think politicians are good people , then you are deluded.

http://marripedia.org/effects_of_fatherless_families_on_crime_rates
https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk#1

Single mothers cannot raise men period. They just make more effiminate men.

You didn't say some or a lot, you say That "THEY CANNOT RAISE MEN", which is wrong, and a direct insult for those mothers who have raised gentlemen by themselves. You are literally saying "ALL" by that statement.

So what do you think of men? if obama is not included? huh?, nice guy really? is that the definition of men?

Also, the first link corresponds to studies made in 1800's and early 1900's, ergo it is not a valid study in this time and date. While the second link only mentions single parents, without identifying if it is a single father or a mother. In addition to the second link, it is doesn't state anything about "SONS" of a single parent, instead it talks about the "CHILDRENS" which maybe your daughter or son.

"You need a man to teach you how to be a man." - 2pac

I'll simplify it for you. Women raise EFFIMINATE MEN. More feminine than masculine.

[Natsuu]

~snip~

Single mothers cannot raise men. PERIOD. They require the masculine energy to guide them. The feminine only nurtures them. The children are well mannered to you because they are conditioned on the feminine imperative which is social and expressive. (Which can be viewed as fake such as make up + eye lash extensions + heels etc)  Statistics of single mother households are significantly different for men / women. Women raising women without a father make sluts.

Higher chance of suicide
Higher chance of incarceration rate (There's more)

Obviously there are outliers but at the end of the day , a woman can never raise a man. Only a man can raise a man. We might not be living in the 1950s but those ancient rules still exist today.

1. Ohhhh no no no no, single women can raise men, example men raised by a single moms are Former US President Barrack Obama, Kevin Durant and Michael Phelps. Addition to this I've known several colleague of mine who I can testify to be gentlemens who are also raised by woman.

You are belittling the ability of woman, disregarding their efforts, wisdom and knowledges. I've respected your former opinion but not on this one.

"Single mothers cannot raise men." you say?, but there are examples of respected gentlemens in different countries that will disprove your statement.

2. Sucide rates, and different kinds of statistics have different factors. For example, for suicide rates in Japan, the main cause of it is not single parents, but the pressure the family gives to the child, and bullying. (Pressure from parents, not just a mother or a father).

Also, if you may, can you give me the study about the statistics you mentioned about the higher chances of suicide, etc. or you are just making that up?

In conclusion, women can raise a man. PERIOD!.

1. You are pointing at outliers. I'm saying that a lot of people with single family households will have emotional damage. Obama wasn't necessary a nice guy either. You think politicians are good people , then you are deluded.

http://marripedia.org/effects_of_fatherless_families_on_crime_rates
https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030123/absent-parent-doubles-child-suicide-risk#1

Single mothers cannot raise men period. They just make more effiminate men.

You didn't say some or a lot, you say That "THEY CANNOT RAISE MEN", which is wrong, and a direct insult for those mothers who have raised gentlemen by themselves. You are literally saying "ALL" by that statement.

So what do you think of men? if obama is not included? huh?, nice guy really? is that the definition of men?

Also, the first link corresponds to studies made in 1800's and early 1900's, ergo it is not a valid study in this time and date. While the second link only mentions single parents, without identifying if it is a single father or a mother. In addition to the second link, it is doesn't state anything about "SONS" of a single parent, instead it talks about the "CHILDRENS" which maybe your daughter or son.

"You need a man to teach you how to be a man." - 2pac

I'll simplify it for you. Women raise EFFIMINATE MEN. More feminine than masculine.

Actually, you don't need to simplify anything, when your point is based on a lyrics of a song.

CLEAR EVIDENCES suggests that you're wrong, and I will stick with that. If you can't give a good and unarguable stand, then I might think again. But given your statements, which is clearly off. And your articles which you misinterpreted. I think, you are the one who needs to do the thinking

[CryptocurencyKing]

The term relationship itself seems to anchor the both parties on a gainful or beneficial reason. While yours might not be the reason for the other persons attachment to you, its at best that which ever it is, it should be readily available for the both parties else, it only ends in disarray. Your careful search for a partner is the best idea to go about starting a relationship if you ask me, there is nothing wrong with that but, you also can't rule out the fact that, there are many pretenders in our society today, who would only show their true nature when they feel assured.

[Mauser]

Hello there. In my opinion nowadays relationships are on another level. Quite difficult to explain. A lot of people search for love and dating via internet and many of them succeed. I also have accounts on several dating sites for older people from https://www.datingsitesforseniors.com.au/ list. For example Zoosk.com is one of my favorites!

I think today's generations would never consider dating without the Internet. There are so many different apps and websites out there which offer you pictures, bio and a lot of other information about your potential crush. It made the hole market more efficient,which also means sometimes it becomes more easy to get a new relationship instead of working on your current one.

[lienfaye]

“Would you term the conscious selection of who you want to be in a romantic relationship with on the basis of the other benefits apart from the usual sex which you get as “Gold digging “?

Nowadays people (either men or women) are already wise when choosing who they want to be with. Of course love is always be the top priority if you're looking for a companion for the rest of your life, but it would be better to have a partner that has a capability to give you a better life or came from a well-off family to secure your future.

I think its not wrong to become choosy or be tagged as a gold digger if that is what you think is best, not only for you but also for the family that you both going to build.

[GeorgeJohn]

Generally speaking girls won't accept someone who is financially in bad situation and also men also concerned about extra burdens and what we can do after getting in to relationship because they get more responsibility. Perfect relationship are mever exist, so make money then you have more choice to choice to choose from.

Money is not everything to influence a woman or girl, are you aware that some girls don't accept men because of their money, majority girls I know today like men base the potentially in them and how creative they are,some people got it wrong by generalising everything as money no, irrespective of massive poverty in some certain geographical region, some girls still have a policy that money can't change their decision.

[franky1]

women do form relationships with men who are in financially bad situations
trailer park romances. carers falling in love with their home cared clients

woman can find emotional bonds without money being a concern. but the man has to have a great personality that makes the woman relaxed and comfortable being around.

yep the secret is to have a personality that makes the woman relaxed and happy.
it does not have to involve gifts or presenting yourself as privileged. its just a case of if you can make a woman laugh you are one step closer.

media try to portray that successful relationships are based on consumerism
for instance buying expensive jewellery. celebrating valentines at top restaurants
all of that in the real world is BS

if both people have to put on an act/presentation. then they are not going to feel comfortable/relaxed to share intimate insecurities with. thus not really life partner material.

if your spending 60 hours a week working, hoping the extra income can afford you luxuries. like jewellery that is valued at 30% of your salary. though it might impress her that day.. the other 364 days she is miserable because your never home.

its better to work only 40hours and spend that extra 4 hours a day forming strong daily relationships. rather than trying to 'buy' her happiness, via the loneliness to afford it.

..
best relationship experiences i have had are not evening suit/dress and posh restaurants.. but wearing sweats and eating pizza on a sofa. learning each others ticklish spots and what types of jokes each other like. mean more then value of jewellery

so forget luxuries. instead take the time to get to know the woman and what makes her relax around you to open up to them special insecurities and deep thoughts only found in relationships

[Pancho95]

Well, it was not always like that. If you are 'looking' for gold digger you will get one. I believe there is people who are with you just because of you, and not because your money.

[MUHAMMAD NUR AMANAH]

Obviously we have a relationship with a friend who's a friend a business partner and a lot more, and with that relationship, we can benefit from one another, and it's different if love requires understanding between the two of them also keeps trust between the two of them. maybe that's what it takes With our creator because we have faith and it's clear that our beliefs are different, maybe it's a little understanding of what that relationship means and that as human beings we can live by ourselves we need that relationship and how the rest of us maintain and nurture that relationship

[Similificator]

You may have misunderstood the term gold digging there mate, butbI somehow get your point. You see, all of us have different likes and dislikes, needs and wants. But one this is for sure, we all long to achieve our goals. And either we compromise with just enough or the best is up to us. The only thing that would matter at the end of the day will be our satisfaction. Be it in life in general or in a romantic relationship.

[supine]

Oftentimes most single men from not so much a well to do background like myself and others that I have come across are constantly in the dilemma of wanting to be in a relationship for some reasons and not wanting to be in a relationship for some other reasons. Some say they are avoiding relationships because they cannot handle the financial burdens that come along with it, while others say they are waiting for a relationship that will be symbiotic (beneficial) to them. I hold no personal opinions about their respective choices. I however find myself asking the question-
“Would you term the conscious selection of who you want to be in a romantic relationship with on the basis of the other benefits apart from the usual sex which you get as “Gold digging “?

Gold digger often use face or body to gain luxury from their partner not involving love.
But there will be people that will stay with you nit because of your money.