ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1hr ago
and I personally wasn't driving hard anywhere since I respected their inexperience enough I didn't particularly want to escalate to sex unless I really liked the girl and the girl in question didn't really drive to anywhere out of a combination of timidity and not really understanding how to drop the proverbial handkerchief.
Then your parents needed to make sure you respected women in the appropriate measure (rather than respect women enough to disqualify yourself) and in not doing so I honestly think they failed you as hard as 1950-1970s traditionalist fathers did their daughters by encouraging them to be housewives in the face of... absurd unprecedented opportunity to do literally anything else.
It's not like they knew any better, for the same reason parents in the 1960s didn't know any better. And yet.
that complexity generally allows for the support of more human lives.
It allows a larger number of human beings to exist.
It does not allow for the support of more full human lives.
in our environment
Of course, the thing we're debating is whether it's proper for assumptions about your environment to prevent someone else's environment from being suitable for developing such a human being.
I assert that once the physical capacity for this exists, it is incompatible with the dignity of that human being to treat it as if the mental one does not, even if that was the case for most of them.
Because the sociopathic ultimately cares about his power, success, status, reputation.
And this is... unique to the sociopath, somehow?
If you have two different Centers for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too, one run by a sociopath and one run by a relatively reasonable person with sincere love for the pupils, what superseding benefit should we expect from the former?
Well, for it to not go out of business, for one. The purpose of a business is to make money, just as the purpose of life is to reproduce. Whether "going out of business in an environment where such a school is marginally or completely unprofitable" is a moral good or not, I leave to you.
I would expect to see a lot of waste which benefits the owner’s pockets or reputation.
You see waste, I see a price paid to stop him from deciding to do literally anything else. Maybe it's a little, maybe it's a lot, depends on how the market is and his other objectives.
He’ll probably do a lot of worthless assemblies and meetings where he gets to feel powerful, maybe he’ll send flyers to make the town sad about how little they care for the stupid in a bid to bring in private donations, maybe he’ll overstate how much money the school needs so he can pull a bigger salary, maybe he’ll do a whole redesign of the school that doesn’t matter simply because it makes him feel cooler.
In order: 'feeling power' is part of the compensation package, that's called 'an effective marketing strategy' (is it really his fault most people are literally hard-wired to respond to it?), that's called 'negotiating appropriately with government entities' (that either aren't paying attention or don't care), and as for the last one... it's his money, he can do what he wants with it.
Or maybe there’s some “test” that gives him a national ranking so he ignores the holistic needs of the pupils to focus on min-maxxing that one metric, so he can be boastful among his peers.
I thought that was just called "standardized testing". In this case, the metric does not match reality, and so Goodhart-ing is the rational response. And sure, if you actually care, you're going to focus on the other stuff too [because it is good to focus on those things- when non-sociopaths say "give back to the community", this is what they mean- compare car companies sponsoring racing teams, it's not just "drive up demand for the product", these people sometimes like what they're doing if indeed a sociopath is capable of liking anything], but if push comes to shove and the school is not sufficiently profitable otherwise, then yes, I'd expect maximization on the metric.
The 60iq should be trained to fulfill the duties appropriate for his iq, and he should be trained in how to pursue a happy life likewise.
You might have heard this one before.
Let's say you have 3 servants. Let's call them A, B, and C.
You have 800 dollars to distribute between them, so that they will invest those dollars and make you more money.
How should you distribute those dollars to maximize your return on investment, including what those employees cost?
If you give servant A X dollars, and he returns with 2X dollars, should he be honored more, less, or the same amount than the servant B, who you gave X-3 dollars, but returns 2*(X-3)?
How about the servant C, who does nothing?
If he justifies not doing anything by claiming the oppression inherent within the system was too much for him to handle (a point on which he is correct), how would you respond?
Ideally, each person would have the same amount of wellbeing (high), sacrificing his own for another in need
if anyone is to receive an overabundance in wellbeing
Your examples are all instrumental: "an overabundance" is seed money. Seed money for someone who isn't going to work as hard is wasted; it should have gone to the man who could have used it.
If you want to be a wellbeing-maximalist we therefore agree that the transfer goes both ways- that's what the "to each according to their need" part means (otherwise you're paying the guy who is more capable than you less just because he is more capable, and it's fundamentally destructive to do this to the guy who is [in a sense] holding your world up lest he exercise his right to display indifference to that task).
The dirty little secret of Marx and Rand is that, assuming all parties [both the "sociopath" who can see things clearly and the others who are less able] are Christ-like, they reach the same conclusion. The requirements for someone barely capable of anything, capable of some, and capable of much to be Christ-like are all different, and when we decide that "no, actually, they're all the same", we have cheated whoever that reflects least.
I think cheating is bad.
If you need me to bring further receipts for the claim, I can take the time to do that; I feel as if I've been running a little hotter in that respect than usual lately.
However, as far as "no pushback against law that states female abuse doesn't happen", this one is honestly pretty clear. So's the "male statutory rape victim forced to pay child support" one. So was the UK rape law that, for quite some time, was written so that only men could even be guilty of the crime (it requires anatomy women do not possess). Canada, too- "we'll change the law so men accused of rape can't as easily gather evidence of the women collaborating to frame the guy" actually happened, again with zero pushback.
I think men are obsessed with Protecting Women; I think women are happy to say "thank you very much" and pocket the resulting political power differential while at best simply looking the other way when women abuse men (from women's perspective). The female jurors are, as I recall from previous threads on the subject, literally on record stating that Protect Women is why they voted that way.
These have largely replaced long effortposts when people would at least bother to pretend the capability to consider the thoughts being thought by people who are not them.
I've tried, I just get downvoted without engagement. And yes, I'm frustrated by the fact nobody wants to bother to ask then, what's in your head?; it is present here, it is present there, it is present everywhere.
(Perhaps the men and women getting married are doing so simply because they are, on average, the only human beings on the planet capable of asking at least their life partner that question merely at a higher than average base rate. Education predicts that much, at least.)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
11hr ago
But if you let the sociopathic guide the low IQ
You seem to be under the impression that this is not a natural process, and you have control over if it happens or not.
But it is natural, and you are not in control of it. So you best hope you treat them well, lest they remember you.
Seems to be infinite ways for him to ignore the Important Thing to act selfishly.
Why would you think the moral requirements for an idiot and a savant are the same? (Are you a communist?) The system includes both of them, but the moral requirements are not. (Requires prerequisite: 'equality of effort'.)
Every sociopath will eventually be tempted to do what you have described (and indeed, their work will on occasion look like this to some degree); it is their responsibility not to do that (or they suffer one of the worst fates, that being not getting to exercise that ability any more- it's kind of like being locked in, Mr. House style, until they are dead).
And it is incorrect to expect sociopaths to not benefit themselves. That's how they are paid for that unique ability. (See also: US politicians. They're not paid directly, but indirectly through the power to pass policies that will enrich themselves far beyond that measly six-figure salary.)
Their burden is choosing between "right" and "more right", not "wrong" and "right".
That is not the job of the idiot. It is the job of the idiot to contribute, because that is all he can do. Maybe he knows that, maybe he doesn't, but that is irrelevant to what is required of him.
Their burden is simply choosing between "wrong" and "right". It takes just as much effort for them to do the right thing as it takes the sociopath to do the more right thing.
Equality of effort, not equality of outcome. Some people are better than others and thus deserve more than you do, just as Abel was (effortlessly, and in the exact ways you initially described "selecting a sociopath"- he bore a greater offering from natural alignment, Cain brought a lesser sacrifice for personal gain).
Cain, famously, had extreme difficulty accepting this concept. He found the rock easier to grasp.
So 66% of men, n = 3, agree that female abuse is literally beyond their ability to comprehend.
(And the 33% was of a particular demographic whose women are stereotypically maximally hostile to men.)
The teenage laborforce participation rate never really recovered from the 2008 crash.
Teenage labor force participation rate never really recovered from the 1934 crash. There was a brief respite in the '50s and '60s, which is why they were golden years by comparison, and why the generation in charge now, who came of age during that time, still act as if that is reality.
It's because boys are stupid and men are awesome.
Nah, bro. Men are lame, boring, decrepit, and dead inside. Boys might be annoying, but at least they actually bother to live... until men teach them they shouldn't, commonly around the late teens. (Women haven't figured out they need to encourage men yet; it might be as incomprehensible to women as "women can be abusers too" clearly is for men.)
I remember observing this viewpoint emerge gradually among late-teen male peers and not necessarily because they were told, which leads me to believe the willingness to actually live properly for once ends in one's teens.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
11hr ago
I would still argue that less sex is more due to fewer relationships + lower social skills.
And women carrying out their version of mass shootings/abductions- false rape allegations and pedo panic-ing- against men. Rare, but highly destructive, and a crime that's always perpetrated by women of the same social class/race.
And every man knows this. Accusations of sexual impropriety are assault, and the iPhone (and social media) are the assault weapon.
One is just as destructive as the other to the social fabric.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
12hr ago
Don't underestimate the appeal of men who have government permission to kill to some women.
Note that "men signalling they can/will kill for you" is the root here. ("Government permission" is whitewashing it.)
Normally, too many women chasing too few men do result in debauchery and lower standards, yet that is not what we are seeing.
So obviously, there aren't too many men relative to the number of women.
Men are in surplus. Women are not. Men can't accumulate enough of a resource surplus in these conditions to be worth it for the average woman. (And no, "women are worse today" doesn't matter [whether that is true, I make no judgment]. Women are in deficit; therefore they are free to enshittify.)
I will point out that in large degree, this is eugenics in action; women who good enough to get along with men are marrying them, women who are not are not, so the next generations will likely be far more psychologically healthy than the current crop of feminists and inherit a world that has enough economic opportunity per capita for men to continue in a healthy way.
Automation makes the "clearing price" for humanity rise. So does pornography (adventure substitute, romance substitute, free for both genders in enough quantity and quality to fill one's entire life- the automation frees up people to make this stuff).
Every woman and man who come in under the clearing price cannot afford to be with each other. And given the divorce rates in the '70s, maybe that's the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (involving the State stepping in to matchmake).
What you are witnessing is the natural population control cycle of post-scarcity humans.
You don't have an example of that ingrained into your instinct because it has literally never happened before; if you're a man, that's why you hate life (and the concept that any man younger than you should have it better than you did), and simp so hard for women and get nothing in return.
Pre-scarcity, this would have precipitated a civil war and the population control would have happened that way, restoring men to the ~10% population deficit human instinct seems to always assume exists. (Can't imagine why that would be at all.)
Post-scarcity, population control happens one natural funeral at a time, because it turns out your chains have never before set so lightly upon you compared to what it would cost to break them.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
12hr ago
I think there would be considerable pushback against a law that is that explicit about stating that female abuse doesn't happen and that only men can be abusers.
How many male jurors pushed back against the Clancy verdict?
I don't think there would be any pushback; I think men would actively welcome this.
and the fact that most men and women enjoy sex with each other suggests that it must be possible for the man and the woman to satisfy each other's desires at the same time
It's the lock-step I'm most interested in. Because I don't think they are satisfied at the same time; I think the mating dance of 'dinner and a show' and then 'sex' is like that for a reason, so when 'I don't want to have sex that way' comes out, it's 'the song and dance beforehand isn't good enough for me to want to have sex that way'.
But if no man can perform well enough to merit the sex because the woman has already separately prohibited dining and shows, then that ask is fundamentally unreasonable [and has to be accompanied by 'back off on the prohibition on dining and shows', and a proper understanding of why that prohibition made asking for less sex unreasonable, to be honored].
What happens right now is... very much not that. You can't convict someone of being unfair if you are unwilling to first speak their language, and since women think it is fair (and have received zero comprehensible communication that tells them it is not), it falls to men to open that line of communication.
Yet, I don't see them attempting this; it's all just "retvrn to veiling our she-devils" or whatever, and then all anyone on the other side hears is "they don't understand and they just want to replace shitty 21st century sexual relations with shitty 19th century sexual relations; selfishness is rational, guess it's back to Plan A".
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Yet we see that most don't do this... So?
Maybe they're more interested in being the Designated Bad Guy and attacking symbolically (or having specific grievances that cannot be resolved in anything other than the current semi-targeted fashion) rather than wanting to rack up serious body count.
Nobody who can elaborate on how has anything to gain by doing so, and as soon as you become able to elaborate on how, you are now one of those people who has nothing to gain.
So I guess I confess that my observation was based on vibes and anecdotes.
Oh, no- so is mine.
And... sorry about that. /c/ is the 'cute anime girls' board, /cm/ is the 'cute anime boys' board, /u/ is the yuri one, /y/ is the yaoi one, /h/ is the vanilla porn board. (/hm/ is turbo-gay and full of nude men, /b/ is the everything board.)
I actually figure the 'cute' boards are ironically more representative precisely because they're non-central examples of sexuality; there's no nudity on either one (mostly), and it's not generally something anyone wants to admit is sexual mainly because it's really embarrassing for both parties (which I find fascinating and mysterious).
My running theory at this point is that male and female sexualities are mirror images that are supposed to compliment each other, but are not symmetric. So, before one should adjust a visible piece of, say, male sexuality, you then have to back-derive which aspect of female sexuality maps to it, and then ask for moderation in that piece for compromise.
I think "well, stop men from sexualizing us" is more productively mapped to "well, stop women from taking away our ability to perform in a way such that they will be attracted to us". The other way is rejected by both men and women, because running it backwards results in an invalid state (i.e. "why are you saying women are sexual predators? Only men can rape"), and that state will continue to be invalid. In an environment where equality between genders exists- an equality neither gender was ever equipped to handle (and is depending on physical effects to moderate its impulses that was largely automated away 100 years ago)- co-operation is only possible if the right questions are asked.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
British media will address the obvious street or school sexual harassment problem by using white actors as stand-in for the perpetrators.
No, this is wrong. Progressive women cast white male perpetrators because they mean white male perpetrators.
They aren't trying to solve the foreigner street or school harassment problem- they don't give a damn about it, and you can tell because they intentionally make it worse! They're trying to solve the existential problem they have with white men.
Progressives are constantly telling you this, and yet you don't listen. Why?
Progressives are constantly telling you they hate you, specifically, and you think they're still trying to solve the street crime they themselves created. Why?
Strangely, modern progressive/feminist norms of behaviors have adapted to that situation
What grounds do you have to believe this is an adaptation and not just how they naturally function?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Probably easier to weed out the somewhat more sociopathic in childhood before they learn how to adeptly lie.
You're shooting yourself in the foot if you do that. Sociopathy is an inherent trait of any leader worth following (the ones that aren't sociopaths aren't worthy of leading).
This leaves them open to being manipulated.
Which is OK (you can't avoid this any more than you, if you are a man, can avoid being physically stronger than women- you just have that rank, and that's fine so long as you carry out the attendant responsibilities of that rank). You just need the guy doing the manipulation to be aligned, or if you know that you are aligned, that you answer your calling to be doing that before a less-aligned intelligence does; you can generally spot other sociopaths against whom "lesser" human beings have no defense.
In my dream system we would select the relatively high IQ who cry easily when you show them sad videos or play them sad music, and then you throw them into a twenty-year-long program where they spend all day reasoning and arguing and being emotionally-indoctrinated into Christlikeness, give them a salary for their whole life so that there’s no competing motivations, and then just listen to whatever they say. That’s probably the best bet: IQ, temperament, extreme training since childhood in pragmatic thinking, propaganda / inculcation (to make them love saying what is right even if crucified for it).
Personal experience?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
whereas you don't have to poke male sexual fantasies too hard to find that, beneath the surface level of porn, big-breasted bimbos, etc., there are some softer yearnings there
Yeah, even in its softer form (het) female sexuality isn't actually escaping the allegations, but they're only valid allegations as pattern-matched by male sexuality.
I get that "yeah, /d/ exists", but so does /hm/ and I'm pretty sure that commentariat is 95% male too. I don't think there's any picture on there that would be appealing to women at all (if there are, they're on a board dedicated to K-drama).
I think the more interesting comparison is between /y/ + /cm/ and [every porn board that isn't /d/ or /hm/] + /c/.
Now, I'm not going to pretend /c/ and /cm/ aren't both 100% sexual, or that one is less sexual than the other. Because yes, they very much are.
/cm/ is way more physically sexual than /c/ is. /c/ doesn't use a sexual name for kid characters in its thread titles, doesn't have anywhere the number of kissing threads (admittedly, partially confounded by the existence of /u/), and the average picture is in a state of undress or vulnerability-to-physical-aggression to a higher degree than the vulnerability-to-emotional-rejection you'd usually observe on /c/ (but less than /u/- women don't respond as readily to naked men unless they're actively fucking/getting fucked, and for shota [and loli] that lives on /b/).
And I get that you could brush some of that off as "well, obviously that's all gay male shotacons", but if that was the whole story the board should look far more like /c/ in the emotionally-sexual sense. Which is where the sexuality in /c/ fundamentally is; the girls there are striking attractive [sub] emotional poses and are shown to be resting in inherent value, in the same way the boys are striking attractive [dom] physical ones and are shown to be driving inherent power on /cm/).
(Actually, if that theory is correct, it would mean the "acts unusually physically aggressively towards cute things" trait is a part of female sexuality. I get it's a meme for a reason, but does the data bear that out?)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Yeah as I pointed out in another comment race and immigration are irrational explanations for one simple reason, almost every crime against a child is by someone the child is related to or already knows well and therefore is almost always someone of the same race.
Not quite. Random abductions (and mass shootings, to a point- same class of crime) are, in popular consciousness, always same-race strangers. And as I described, that has some unique consequences that wouldn't apply if it was strangers of a different race (and the solution to that is generally increased segregationism in some form).
White women can't get away from white men, though, would that they could. They want a divorce they can't get.
If we want to be paranoid of someone, we need to be paranoid of ourselves
No. This one is 100% on the female parent, and it's actively destructive for men to think they could have seen it coming. That's not their job.
And that's something women do not want to talk about. Because sure, you can blame men for the existence of child abduction. But what you can't fully erase is that blaming men for intentionally letting them molest your kid as the price of sticking around is, at the end of the day, the ultimate fault of women (though they have tried very hard to confuse the issue- men are largely too stupid to figure that out, and I blame men for that).
The same is true of mass shooters, to a degree, for reasons women again do not want to talk about. I wouldn't want to take accountability for failing to perform my gender role because I was a selfish piece of garbage either. But outside of "someone kills my ass because I deserved it", there's really no way to force them to account for that misbehavior in any current legal system (much as there is no way to force them to account for the above).
We find ways to help teach them accountability
And yet "being even-handed when it was exclusively the responsibility of one side" teaches them the opposite.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
weird loners just dropped out of school and lived live as relatively poor people
Which was possible, even practical, at a time when rent wasn't 100% of a wage these types could actually pull down.
The economic conditions that enabled that no longer exist.
What does a wild animal do when it believes- correctly or otherwise- that it is cornered?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
It's well understood that humans reach sexual maturity before mental and physical.
This isn't true for literally every other animal on the planet, even highly social creatures born helpless.
So please, go on, explain to me the mechanism for why it's magically different for humans (we'll leave out certain hormonal defects as those exist in every creature too).
Because I have a simpler explanation: the reason they're not reaching mental maturity is simply because you are unable or unwilling to provide an environment where they may mature properly. There are a few perfectly adequate reasons for this statement- if you're a parent or institution, it's easier to control a child than an adult, maybe you fear being an empty-nester so you keep them around far longer than they should, or maybe modern technology has bamboozled you into believing that younger human beings are less capable than they actually are.
But since most of those problems are those you have created for yourself, there's no reason to expect, and certainly not with force of law, that this is or should be universal.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
A young teen may be able to watch a younger kid for a couple hours alone.
A young teen is capable of giving birth, and in many places and times this is what they actually did.
The time she should be able to watch a younger kid is, logically, "infinite". (The fact I need to explicitly point that out is part of the problem.)
I've talked about this topic before here on themotte, how children and teens are now treated as completely incapable babies
Yes, there was hysteria in the 1980s about children getting randomly kidnapped and raped to death or whatever. The problem here is the same problem as it is for mass shootings, in that the perpetrators were white and suburban- it's one of the only crimes that can actually challenge the Real Housewives of Whereverthefuck.
The people complaining about "diversity" or "lack of social cohesion" are missing the point; it is precisely because these crimes are white-on-white that the hysteria is generated. Even progressives blame [destructive outgroup doing destructive outgroup things] for drugs and random murder (the rate goes up when they're in charge, therefore their claims they care are lies).
You can't blame the outgroup for this. Now, you could just set your outgroup to "men", which has been the definition of progressivism for the last 40 years as a consequence (and... arguably the root cause of it in large degree: "men will come abduct your toddler, set them on fire, and rape the corpse because they are men" is something even the more liberal women won't directly defend). In fact, there's such a demand for "men raping flaming toddlers" that there are arguably more fabrications of this than there are actual cases (when we abduct children ourselves, we do so with the justification explicitly being "we're saving you from raping flaming toddler men- they could have got to you first, you know", even if we literally deliver them to a man who is more likely than baseline to be the kind of man who rapes flaming toddlers, as happened in this case!)
But the sacrifice that outgrouping cost- hundreds of millions of child life-years- has not only failed to reduce the base rate of these crimes, it has only made them worse. Hysteria is at an all-time high, the cost of hysteria is at an all-time high, and yet, flaming toddler rape continues.
Every day, a new case- usually a mass shooting (abduction is more a serial thing and the targets know better; and humorously, "every tweenaged boy is issued a gun" is something I'd honestly consider, and not actually that radical given this was basically normal even in urban areas 40 years ago... started to become less normal coincident with the Abduction Panic, interestingly enough).
It's actually shocking to me how similar the two are; abductors tend to admit to themselves they're 'really bad people', just like mass shooters do, and follow a very stereotypical script because that is how they think it looks like. Mass shooters obsess over how they're going to be Just Like Columbine, and would-be abductors obsess over how they're going to be Just Like the Pedophile Stereotype, complete with 'lost dog'/'want some candy'/'want a ride', even though every human being (once they're old enough to understand the meme, so 6-7) will never let that happen to them for the same reason no passenger aircraft will ever be hijacked from the cabin again.
Which is all you actually needed to deal with the problem. Men and women together, if they were in any condition to co-operate, should have co-ordinated that; and in areas where child protection laws prioritize children over hysterical Karens, they do. There's something uniquely wrong with New World Western white men, and it has to be an HBD thing. Their drive when it gets tough is to just leave, but they can't leave any more, and they must evolve.
I strongly suspect a common cause. The same was true of Satanists more generally, which flaming toddler rapists in the '80s tended to be really into for... some reason (which is why it was such a big joke in the '90s/early '00s); mass shootings are now more common simply because that's the standard "my mind tells me that I am bad, and so now I must do a bad thing" script. Serial killers in the '70s and before were like that too, if you recall- psychologists were absolutely obsessed with why they work that way, they were standard stock antagonists for cop movies (as an extension of the western, itself a symbol of the quest for capital-j Justice- might have prolonged the trend for a while until CSI killed it dead), it was a whole thing.
but it's another example of how a lot of parents are so crazy nowadays like that!
Something's wrong with the kids, too. No child should tolerate that, and yet, something they should have grown out of in their teens persists into their twenties and beyond.
Part of that is that, being completely dominated by women, they naturally inherit that hysteria (even the men) and take some time in the real world to grow out of that, but conveniently, the real world has become less real and more out of reach for anyone under 40 or so (partially as a result of that outlook- you cannot develop as a human being if you're stuck hiding under the bed fearing flaming toddler rape). Depression is a valid response to this lack of stimulus; where stimulus doesn't exist, it must be manufactured or the attention dial turned up so hard that you need stimulants to calm you the fuck down. (I believe widespread nicotine use in the 20th century eased this transition; replaced by dextroamphetamine- smoking is a symbol of being cool, calm, and collected, and considering what stimulants do to an ADHD sufferer...)
At this point I can't even let my own children have independence even if I wanted to (which I do), they literally are not allowed to grow as normal human beings used to because the cops might show up cause they're out on the front yard!
You can run, but you can't hide. Your wife needs to fight that law (and if she isn't, she's in the wrong), and you need to back her up (and if you don't, you're in the wrong). That's it.
And yes, one of the ways that you can fight is to run to a place where protections are stronger, but if the war comes to them you're going to have to help them fight it, or you're just freeloading. But you already know that.
All the more for me, I guess? I dunno.
I guess appreciating those aspects really is rocket science or something. And in their defense it's biologically contraindicated for them to do that, but then again it's also biologically contraindicated for me to do that.
I dunno, it seems to me that marrying far older kind of removes any reason for them to bother to actually adapt, and if you have a sufficient frame of reference you can pretty clearly see where they're headed (occasionally in such measure that you'd want it now). Compared to 'known quantity, take it or leave it, for better or worse'. Which is ironically probably more attractive a quality in women than it is in men, or at least it is from my point of view, when it comes to something that predicts they'll get along with me better.
More options
Context Copy link