S04.E05: Honeymoons, Part 2

[holly4755]

about the dogs, I could see choosing the dog s over someone I have known a short time. I think I posted here about my dogs. People tell me how much they fear dogs, so when they stay over here, I try to keep the dog in my room with me most of the time, still after a short time, they are all in love with the dog and pretty much ignore me.  I think some people have just not spent time with well behaved dogs.Years ago and dogs ago I had new neighbors where the husband had been attacked by dogs and had the scared to prove it, when he first saw me walking towards him with my dog off the leash, he was terrorized, grabbed his kids and put them behind him.  within a week he would call my dog into his yard to play with him, she was the calmest most obedient dog I ever owned.  If the dogs behave themselves and have calm moments, I think that Sonia could adapt even though she thinks she can not. 

[Evil Queen]

20 minutes ago, holly4755 said:

about the dogs, I could see choosing the dog s over someone I have known a short time. I think I posted here about my dogs. People tell me how much they fear dogs, so when they stay over here, I try to keep the dog in my room with me most of the time, still after a short time, they are all in love with the dog and pretty much ignore me.  I think some people have just not spent time with well behaved dogs.Years ago and dogs ago I had new neighbors where the husband had been attacked by dogs and had the scared to prove it, when he first saw me walking towards him with my dog off the leash, he was terrorized, grabbed his kids and put them behind him.  within a week he would call my dog into his yard to play with him, she was the calmest most obedient dog I ever owned.  If the dogs behave themselves and have calm moments, I think that Sonia could adapt even though she thinks she can not. 

I think it depends on what happened to make her fear dogs. Not everyone can adapt to them after having something happen to cause this fear. Like I said I have been bit by a family dog in the past and had to go to the er for it. So for me no matter what I am leery when it comes to certain breeds of dogs or if I am just getting a certain vibe about them and/or the owner. Otherwise for the most part I am fine with most dogs. My younger son when he was a toddler had a dog that was just to hyper jump on him so it freaked him out for years to be around dogs. With something like that though it was easy to get over that fear once he realized not all dogs do that or mean it as trying to harm you. I will say that as well as in the situation you mentioned with the neighbor. My SIL's kid when she was little was being watched by someone else and some dog came barking at them. So from what I had heard the lady picked up SIL's kid fast thinking the dog was going to attack. No idea if that was the case or not but because of that the girl was afraid of dogs for the longest time. I am not sure if she is or not still since she isn't around them. Yet she was also afraid of cats and bugs and anything else you could think of. Which for the most part was my SIL's fault with how she treated it all. Instead of helping get over the fear she would make it worse but getting paranoid if a dog or whatever was in sight going their walk so her kid would freak out and go into an over the top screaming fit. While I think its fine to be cautious when you don't know the owners and pets, its another when its like that or pushing the kids behind in fear yourself. It makes the kids fearful more or become fearful. So great that your neighbor was able to be ok with your dog so his kids don't end up that way. But I can understand for some if it was something really bad they may never get over it. 

[Nowhere]

1 hour ago, LennieBriscoe said:

I just watched the Tom and Lily in the ocean with horses part. It seemed to me he was speaking to the horse when he made the "Mama" remark.

One other observation in general: None of the women is a skinny-Minnie. They look real!

Heather is pretty thin so now I'm wondering what size makes a woman not real in your opinion? 

[Lola16]

4 hours ago, Evil Queen said:

I think it depends on what happened to make her fear dogs.

Sonia explains that it was an incident with her grandmother's Saint Bernard with another little girl.

[Jack Sampson]

4 hours ago, Nowhere said:

Heather is pretty thin so now I'm wondering what size makes a woman not real in your opinion? 

I wonder what would make her...hyper real?  Real plus?  Enhanced reality?  Chubby...if Sonia is "real", what are we calling a little too real? 

[film noire]

On 8/24/2016 at 1:34 AM, Jack Sampson said:

 

But I agree with him about her age and I've said it several times before.  She's getting too old to be this picky.  I'm sure it worked just fine when she was 22, but 32 is another situation completely. 

Despite the boring bullshit patriarchy throws around, age has nothing to do with standards (luckily, most women know that, despite boy-men trying to convince them otherwise). And whether a woman is 22 or 32 (or 108) a self involved pothead with control issues playing out an endless mantrum is nobody's soul mate. Absent therapy or self awareness,  men like that sink to the bottom while all the good men -- who don't dabble in sad sack math equations involving a woman's age and her supposedly diminishing horizons -- rise.  

Edited August 31, 2016 by film noire

[qtpye]

13 hours ago, KateHearts said:

what do you mean by that?

I felt Courtney and Jason from season one had a genuine connection.  They were not all over each other, but you could definitely see the affection and mutual respect, even though they had just met each other.

Something about the way Tom can not keep his hands off Lily screams artifice to me.  I think he is very attracted to her, but does not seem to really want to know her.  Also, he could be playing up for the cameras, like Sean did for a while with Davina.

However, he might be sincere, right now it is too soon to tell.

[Jack Sampson]

4 hours ago, film noire said:

Despite the boring bullshit patriarchy throws around, age has nothing to do with standards (luckily, most women know that, despite boy-men trying to convince them otherwise). And whether a woman is 22 or 32 (or 108) a self involved pothead with control issues playing out an endless mantrum is nobody's soul mate.

You're right, it doesn't.  It's just that those standards become increasingly unrealistic and unattainable.  It's a pretty obvious fact that a 22 year old woman can attract men that a 62 year old can't.  The same effect applies, a little less pronounced, when she's 32.  Age, and signs of age on a woman's face, body and personality, are a determining factor in attraction.  To deny that is absurd.

[Evil Queen]

1 hour ago, Jack Sampson said:

You're right, it doesn't.  It's just that those standards become increasingly unrealistic and unattainable.  It's a pretty obvious fact that a 22 year old woman can attract men that a 62 year old can't.  The same effect applies, a little less pronounced, when she's 32.  Age, and signs of age on a woman's face, body and personality, are a determining factor in attraction.  To deny that is absurd.

Funny because you see it all the time where an older lady has attracted a younger man just the same as an old man has. Yet the older lady will look a heck of a lot better than the older man of the same age in those situations. Plus, I don't get why 32 is old to some. She isn't that old at all. I actually think its younger people that seem to be having unrealistic and unattainable standards when it comes to finding someone. That once they do get older and more mature they realize that they might have to change those standards if they ever want to find a mate or they just change because they matured enough to see how silly some of the standards they thought might be important once really are not. 

[Nowhere]

8 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

I wonder what would make her...hyper real?  Real plus?  Enhanced reality?  Chubby...if Sonia is "real", what are we calling a little too real? 

Lily's neck is a little too real IMHO.

[Nowhere]

1 hour ago, Evil Queen said:

Funny because you see it all the time where an older lady has attracted a younger man just the same as an old man has. Yet the older lady will look a heck of a lot better than the older man of the same age in those situations. Plus, I don't get why 32 is old to some. She isn't that old at all. I actually think its younger people that seem to be having unrealistic and unattainable standards when it comes to finding someone. That once they do get older and more mature they realize that they might have to change those standards if they ever want to find a mate or they just change because they matured enough to see how silly some of the standards they thought might be important once really are not. 

My boyfriend is 14 years younger than me. I look much younger than my actual age though. I'm under no illusion that he'll be very attracted to me when I'm in my 60's. I can maybe hold my looks until 50 but I'm not necessarily expecting that he'll want to stick around that long. And that's ok. I understand the order of things. For now we're enjoying life and not thinking too far ahead.

[film noire]

4 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

 To deny that is absurd.

What's absurd is insisting that a woman of 32 (or your new hypothetical, 62) must lower her standards when it comes to a life partner because she has nothing to offer but her looks.  Any man who thinks a woman can be seen as a commodity - dairy vs his fine-wine-in-a-box -- is a dumb clod with no depth or self awareness.  No woman should feel the need to desperately court the company of pathetic, shit-heeling losers, especially because (as anyone who has been married for several years can attest) finding someone to happily spend your life with has very little to do with looks.   A good marriage, thankfully, does not have the standards of a low rent titty bar.  If Heather never finds someone to love, it won't be her age that keeps her from achieving that goal.

[Jack Sampson]

25 minutes ago, film noire said:

What's absurd is insisting that a woman of 32 (or your new hypothetical, 62) must lower her standards when it comes to a life partner because she has nothing to offer but her looks.  Any man who thinks a woman can be seen as a commodity - dairy vs his fine-wine-in-a-box -- is a dumb clod with no depth or self awareness.  No woman should feel the need to desperately court the company of pathetic, shit-heeling losers, especially because (as anyone who has been married for several years can attest) finding someone to happily spend your life with has very little to do with looks.   A good marriage, thankfully, does not have the standards of a low rent titty bar.  If Heather never finds someone to love, it won't be her age that keeps her from achieving that goal.

So men are just evil idiots if we factor looks into who we find attractive.  Got it. 

[film noire]

2 minutes ago, Jack Sampson said:

So men are just evil idiots if we factor looks into who we find attractive.  Got it. 

Never said anything like that -- women factor in who they are attracted to as well -- but a woman of 32 doesn't has to be with any man who turns up just because she's not 22 anymore.  

[Jack Sampson]

Just now, film noire said:

Never said anything like that -- women factor in who they are attracted to as well -- but a woman of 32 doesn't has to be with any man who turns up just because she's not 22 anymore.  

She's not going to attract the same caliber of man she could when younger.  She either starts to compromise on her standards or she'll be alone.  It's not only true in nature but in this particular case - Heather can't find a man.  It's a simple truth.  She's had years of looking and men she's attracted to are out of her league and unwilling to commit.  Why?  Because they can do better.

[Madding crowd]

Well, if that's the case, then Derek can't find a woman either. If you are saying a 32 year old woman can't find a 22 year old man, maybe. But to suggest no 32 year old women find men or marry is ridiculous. People marry later in general now and Heather not being married at Elly Mae Clampett age is more a reflection of current times than her age. Many men and women marry in their 30's-maybe she wasn't ready before and is now. Maybe Derek wasn't ready before and is now. Or maybe Derek can't find a woman because he is the incredibly ancient age of 35 and might as well hang it up. 

[Jack Sampson]

7 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

Well, if that's the case, then Derek can't find a woman either. If you are saying a 32 year old woman can't find a 22 year old man, maybe. But to suggest no 32 year old women find men or marry is ridiculous. People marry later in general now and Heather not being married at Elly Mae Clampett age is more a reflection of current times than her age. Many men and women marry in their 30's-maybe she wasn't ready before and is now. Maybe Derek wasn't ready before and is now. Or maybe Derek can't find a woman because he is the incredibly ancient age of 35 and might as well hang it up. 

I didn't say no 32 year old can find a man...I'm suggesting that she needs to wake up to reality that the men she's been going after are out of her league.

The same basic idea works for men too but it's especially pressing for women because fertility starts to drop off at 30 and tanks at 40.  Being able to have healthy children is a major factor in determining who men marry.  Men can produce healthy children well into their 50s and 60s.  Most women need to get the job done before 40.

Heather's now 32 or 3, if she waits much longer to compromise, she won't be able to bring the possibility of children to a marriage and that drops her value even further.

[stuckin60s]

I think Heather hasn't been able to find a suitable husband because she wants what she wants when she wants it

No intelligent man or woman wants a partner like that.  Marriage is a partnership. Two way street. Shared village.  What ever term you want to use

It takes two people willing to compromise, give up "their turn" "their choice" "their desire" "take a back step" for the other person.

She does not seem to want to listen, compromise, or even try.  Derek is not near perfect, he may just be saying the words, but at least he is doing that.

She wants to just sit and sulk

[Nowhere]

I don't disagree with you@Jack Sampson but I'm wondering how you know what kind of men Heather has been going after. Do you have some insider info you'd like to share? You do talk about her like you know her. You said one time that she's a washed up party girl who sleeps with any guy who will buy her a drink. 

Seriously though it is very true that the clock is ticking for Heather. That is why instinctively men go for women who are still young enough to have children and maybe because of that instinct they don't find women who even appear to be over forty very attractive. However, I still havent found a man who wouldn't do the hell out of Angelina Jolie. 

I really don't think Derek is somebody she needs to settle for anyway. He's not exactly quality goods. Heather may be a butter face but Derek has nothing to offer as far as looks are concerned. His face is busted and he has a dad bod. But maybe I just have high standards. 

[film noire]

1 hour ago, Jack Sampson said:

She's not going to attract the same caliber of man she could when younger.  She either starts to compromise on her standards or she'll be alone.  It's not only true in nature but in this particular case - Heather can't find a man.  It's a simple truth.  She's had years of looking and men she's attracted to are out of her league and unwilling to commit.  Why?  Because they can do better.

If by "same caliber of men when younger" you mean men with the ability to go the distance in a marriage, then the facts show that 22 year old women absolutely don't attract that caliber; the divorce rate among under 25 marrieds is higher than for someone in Heather's age bracket. They call them "starter" marriages for a good reason -- so whatever Heather's issues are in not being married (barely three years out of her twenties) those issues do not exist because she missed her one and only chance to ride the Caliber Man Carousel.

Edited August 31, 2016 by film noire

[Evil Queen]

50 minutes ago, Jack Sampson said:

I didn't say no 32 year old can find a man...I'm suggesting that she needs to wake up to reality that the men she's been going after are out of her league.

The same basic idea works for men too but it's especially pressing for women because fertility starts to drop off at 30 and tanks at 40.  Being able to have healthy children is a major factor in determining who men marry.  Men can produce healthy children well into their 50s and 60s.  Most women need to get the job done before 40.

Heather's now 32 or 3, if she waits much longer to compromise, she won't be able to bring the possibility of children to a marriage and that drops her value even further.

Hate to tell you this but there are plenty of medical facts out there to say the older the man's sperm the more chance of a child with issues. Just as the same goes for a woman who is older and it being risky. Yet many in either age groups have healthy kids as well but there is always that chance. As well as its pretty selfish and sick when men of a Grandpa age are knocking women up. Just because it can happen doesn't mean it should. 

The fact with Heather is we have no clue what her type of man is. So its assume she needs to do this or that when it comes to finding a mate. Yet Derek is 35 going on 14 with his whining and his relationships don't work because the woman doesn't compromise. Which basically is like saying she won't do what I want so its over WAH! He needs to get a clue in things as well. He doesn't really have anything to offer IMO. While Heather during her 20s was probably doing her job as a travel agent and the traveling that comes with it before settling down. Its not an uncommon thing at all nowadays for people to marry in their 30s/40s and have a family instead of in their 20s. While I am sure as many get older and out of there 20s they start to change in what they are looking for in a mate but it doesn't mean one should just settle for anyone just because they are in their early 30s. That is just silly. As well as its a bit much to assume all women need to just settle so they can pop kids out too before they are to old and their "value drops". *rollseyes* 

[Dahlia]

The way Derek dresses and behaves is I stark contrast to Heather.   Travelling internationally with someone in a muscle shirt tattoos on display and a baseball cap on backwards  would not even be ok for my teen aged son let alone a thirty something year old married man. 

It is crazy to me - she is getting the shit end of the stick and watching the 'pastor' beat her with it  is ridiculous 

[Nowhere]

There's nothing wrong with having tattoos or wearing a "muscle shirt" on vacation. She's no better than him. They just don't match. The "experts" put them together so that we would have the pleasure of watching a train wreck. If these two were friends of mine, there's no way in hell I'd think setting them up is a good idea. It's so obvious that the producers needed some drama so they chose polar opposites. It's sad really. These are real people that trusted that the experts had their best interest at heart. 

[Jack Sampson]

1 hour ago, Evil Queen said:

Hate to tell you this but there are plenty of medical facts out there to say the older the man's sperm the more chance of a child with issues.

Only after mid 50s.  It's equivalent to a woman at 37ish.

[film noire]

2 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

it's especially pressing for women because fertility starts to drop off at 30 and tanks at 40. 

As it does for men; regardless of the age of the mother, the risk of miscarriage is higher if the father is over 45 and the children of older fathers are at greater risk of autism, mental health problems and learning difficulties -- so actually, Heather (and your hypothetical 22 year old) should be dating younger men to gain access to the best quality sperm.

Edited August 31, 2016 by film noire

[Jack Sampson]

1 minute ago, film noire said:

As it does for men; regardless of the age of the mother, the risk of miscarriage is higher if the father is over 45 and the children of older fathers are at greater risk of autism, mental health problems and learning difficulties -- so actually, both your hypothetical 22 year old (and Heather) should be dating younger men to gain access to the best quality sperm.

Agreed.  The problem is that Heather can't attract one.

[film noire]

Just now, Jack Sampson said:

Agreed.  The problem is that Heather can't attract one.

Of course she can! (btw, you keep conflating dating with long term mating -- not the same thing at all.)

[Jack Sampson]

2 minutes ago, film noire said:

Of course she can! (btw, you keep conflating dating with long term mating -- not the same thing at all.)

I don't see any evidence of that. 

[film noire]

3 minutes ago, Jack Sampson said:

I don't see any evidence of that. 

And I see no evidence supporting your sweeping generalizations about women aged 32  -- ideas which last enjoyed social currency when Miss Scarlett threw a vase at Rhett Butler -- and their desperate need to accept just any ol' man that crawls on by,  because mumblecore caliber dudebros.

 

Quote

Only after mid 50s.  It's equivalent to a woman at 37ish.

Nope. Younger. Evidence:

http://yourfertility.org.au/for-men/age/

The average time to pregnancy if a man is under 25 is just over 4.5 months but nearly two years if a man is over 40 (if the woman is under 25).

There is a five-fold increase in time to pregnancy if the male partner is aged over 45 years.

For couples having IVF, the risk of not having a baby is more than five times higher if the male partner is aged 41 or older.

The volume of a man’s semen and sperm motility (the ability of sperm to move towards an egg) decrease continually between the ages of 20 and 80.

The risk of miscarriage is twice as high for women whose male partner is aged over 45 than for those whose partners are under 25.

Children with fathers aged 40 or older are more than five times as likely to have an autism spectrum disorder than children fathered by men aged under 30.

[Jack Sampson]

14 minutes ago, film noire said:

And I see no evidence supporting your sweeping generalizations about women aged 32  -- ideas which last enjoyed social currency when Miss Scarlett threw a vase at Rhett Butler -- and their desperate need to accept just any ol' man that crawls on by,  because mumblecore caliber dudebros.

 

Nope. Younger. Evidence:

http://yourfertility.org.au/for-men/age/

The average time to pregnancy if a man is under 25 is just over 4.5 months but nearly two years if a man is over 40 (if the woman is under 25).

There is a five-fold increase in time to pregnancy if the male partner is aged over 45 years.

For couples having IVF, the risk of not having a baby is more than five times higher if the male partner is aged 41 or older.

The volume of a man’s semen and sperm motility (the ability of sperm to move towards an egg) decrease continually between the ages of 20 and 80.

The risk of miscarriage is twice as high for women whose male partner is aged over 45 than for those whose partners are under 25.

Children with fathers aged 40 or older are more than five times as likely to have an autism spectrum disorder than children fathered by men aged under 30.

Autism risk grows steadily with fathers' increasing age, but accelerates with mothers' age after 30. These charts show generalized additive model estimates of the probability of ASD in the Stockholm Youth Cohort. Dashed lines show 95 percent confidence intervals. - See more at: http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/April/Autism-Risk-Older-Parents/#sthash.HfBn8naG.dpuf

It's a decline in fertility and an increase in complications in men, no doubt.  But the risks with women are dramatically higher.

I'm sorry if biology offends your feminist sensibilities.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Jack Sampson

[WichitaStateShock]

Did you ever think maybe reproduction is not on the top list of priorities for everyone? My husband wanted a career woman who he can make an empire with. If we can and choose to conceive then that's great but he wasn't thinking about my ability to reproduce when we got together. This generation in particular are relatively disinterested in reproducing. Most people are realizing parenting isn't the American dream and actually leads to decreases in overall happiness. Married no child couples are that happiest.

[film noire]

9 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

Autism risk grows steadily with fathers' increasing age, but accelerates with mothers' age after 30. These charts show generalized additive model estimates of the probability of ASD in the Stockholm Youth Cohort. Dashed lines show 95 percent confidence intervals. - See more at: http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/April/Autism-Risk-Older-Parents/#sthash.HfBn8naG.dpuf

It's a decline in fertility and an increase in complications in men, no doubt.  But it risks with women are dramatically higher.

I'm sorry if biology offends your feminist sensibilities.

I'm not offended,  I'm amused (in no small part b/c you think ignoring evidence of your flawed statement and presenting a different argument instead is a blow against feminism --lol & wtf ) Anyway,  to get back to the point -- the one you avoided -- you stated men's fertility only declined in their mid fifties, which is incorrect. As early as 41, issues with aging sperm are found. And for men who use pot, smoking more than *once a week* can lower their sperm count by a third, create hyperactive sperm (which burn out before they can fertilize the egg) and for the swimmers that do make it to the egg,  thirty percent of those will not be able to create/release the enzyme needed to penetrate the egg wall.  So if you're worried about poor Heather finding a mate, Derek  is the LAST man she should be courting and sparking with. his sperm ain't high caliber. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by film noire
don't lean on me man cuz you can't afford the ticket / back in suffragette city

[Jack Sampson]

1 minute ago, film noire said:

I'm not offended,  I'm amused (in no small part b/c you think ignoring evidence of your flawed statement and presenting a different argument instead is a blow against feminism -- wtf? ) Anyway,  to get back to the point -- the one you avoided -- you stated men's fertility only declined in their mid fifties, which is incorrect. As early as 41, issues with aging sperm are found. And for men who use pot, smoking more than *once a week* can lower their sperm count by a third, create hyperactive sperm (which burn out before they can fertilize the egg) and for the swimmers that do make it to the egg,  thirty percent of those will not be able to create/release the enzyme needed to penetrate the egg wall.  So if you're worried about poor Heather finding a mate, Derek  is the LAST man she should be courting and sparking with. His sperm ain't high caliber.

I said a man in his 50s is equivalent to a woman of 37.  After looking at the data, I was wrong, it's late 50s.

[film noire]

8 hours ago, Jack Sampson said:

I said a man in his 50s is equivalent to a woman of 37.  After looking at the data, I was wrong, it's late 50s.

Actually, no: you made two statements about male fertility, both of which can be checked for accuracy: 

"Only after mid 50s.  It's equivalent to a woman at 37ish."

The first is demonstrably untrue (as early as 41, a man's sperm can cause problems in offspring) and the second is (sorry to be so blunt) super factoid-y (equivalent when compared to what? Compared to your false assertion that a man younger than mid-fifties does not suffer a decline in fertility? Is the woman of 37 nullipara or on her second child? And did she, at 32, miss the Caliber Man Boat?) 

But to get this back on the show (so the mods don't bring down the hammer) the producers should have done a better job weeding out (no pun intended) Derek from the mix: he was doing something illegal, which could have rebounded horribly on Heather (getting caught up in a pot buy -- he sure as hell didn't bring that on the plane -- and if he did, even worse) and if her job has a morality clause (not sure how airplane companies roll) then Derek's "only on vacay" bullshit could've endangered that as well.  Even if I think the law is stupid, I'd be furious being forced to live with someone breaking the law while the show turns a blind eye to the predicament they've put me in.

Edited September 1, 2016 by film noire
cause you ain't got time to check it / You know my Suffragette City

[Evil Queen]

40 minutes ago, film noire said:

I'm not offended,  I'm amused (in no small part b/c you think ignoring evidence of your flawed statement and presenting a different argument instead is a blow against feminism --lol & wtf ) Anyway,  to get back to the point -- the one you avoided -- you stated men's fertility only declined in their mid fifties, which is incorrect. As early as 41, issues with aging sperm are found. And for men who use pot, smoking more than *once a week* can lower their sperm count by a third, create hyperactive sperm (which burn out before they can fertilize the egg) and for the swimmers that do make it to the egg,  thirty percent of those will not be able to create/release the enzyme needed to penetrate the egg wall.  So if you're worried about poor Heather finding a mate, Derek  is the LAST man she should be courting and sparking with. his sperm ain't high caliber. 

Not only all that but for some men using pot it could lead to problems in the bedroom and being able to basically perform. So throw all that together and boy is he a real catch for that 32 yr old needing to just take what she can get and procreate. =P 

[film noire]

8 hours ago, Evil Queen said:

Not only all that but for some men using pot it could lead to problems in the bedroom and being able to basically perform. So throw all that together and boy is he a real catch for that 32 yr old needing to just take what she can get and procreate. =P 

I hear you, Evil Queen :)

Edited September 1, 2016 by film noire
Oh, Suffragette! Suffragette!!