Why Do Men Date Younger Women?

Jillian Richardson says below that men are keen to date younger women because older women are more inflexible. She puts a kinder spin on it but that is what it amounts to.

And she is right. Young women leap into relationships with greater alacrity than older ones do. But it is only a matter of degree. Women of all ages want relationships, with women in their 30s being pretty keen too. That biological clock promotes great flexibility.

And my current girlfriend and I have formed a warm relationship despite meeting in our 70s. And it certainly took a lot of flexibility for us to get there. We both made large compromises to form our relationship. So flexibility is undoubtedly a help but it is not a monopoly of the young.

I am afraid that it is all simpler than Jillian admits. It's about looks. Youth is beautiful. And men, like everybody else, go for that. Women battle it energetically but their looks deteriorate as they get older.

And I am not at all disrespecting older women. I in fact appreciate older women. I once married a lady 11 years older than me and two others of my significant relationships were with women 5 year older than me. Though most of my relationships have been with women younger than me.

So I personally think that age has little to do with the matter. I have found fine women of all ages. If the woman is good enough she will find a good partner. Looks do matter but age need not be a barrier. Looks are only one factor in attractiveness.

I prioritize brains myself. And that has a perhaps surprising benefit. High IQ women also tend to be better looking. Life is not fair. All three of my ladies that I mentioned above have been good looking. And Zoe, my present partner, is readily taken for much younger than she is. See below




This week on Instagram, I saw a video where actress Paulina Porizkov said that most men don’t want to date a woman in her 50s or 60s.

Her comments really hit my heart. Recently, I’ve been feeling very connected to the Jillian who is in her 40s and 50s. I think about how, if she is single, most of my male friends of the same age wouldn’t date her. (Context for people who are reading this and don’t know me — I’m in my twenties.)

I shared this in my Instagram stories, along with this commentary: “To every man reading this, if you’ve never dated a woman your own age, why? If you almost always date younger women, why?

Because here’s my knowing (trigger alert):

Whether you recognize it or not, older men usually date younger women because they have fewer boundaries and expectations. They’re easier to control. And you as a man cannot handle the power of a woman your age.

This is something I have been talking about and reflecting on a lot, but never posted on social media because I want everyone to like me. And this is something that men probably don’t want to hear. But I’m working on being ok with people not liking me so… I said what I said.”

What happened next absolutely blew my mind. I’ve never received so many DMs from people. Almost 100 women said that they would join for a conversation on this topic.

Clearly, this discussion stirred people’s emotions. You can see it in my stories highlights here. I include (with permission) tons of messages that people sent me.

This morning I was doing a guided meditation, and the voice asked: “What gift do you want to give people?” I thought about it and started to cry. Because this week, I want to give women the gift of knowing that they’re lovable, desirable, and worthy at any age — regardless of the feedback that they’re given. I want women to feel that in their soul.

https://medium.com/hello-love/why-do-men-date-younger-women-37c23b66c38e

************************************************

Abortion bill fails to pass in US Senate, as Supreme Court weighs overturning Roe v Wade

Legislation to make abortion legal throughout the United States has been defeated in the US Senate, amid solid Republican opposition and support from one Democrat representative. One lone Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin, joined 50 Republicans in voting to block the bill

The push to protect abortion rights comes as a draft opinion suggests the US Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v Wade
Democrats had sought to head off an impending Supreme Court opinion that is expected to overturn the nearly 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision, which established the national right to abortion.

Wednesday's effort was a protest gesture that never stood much chance of success.

With 49 votes in support and 51 against, the Women's Health Protection Act was 11 short of the 60 votes needed to be fully debated in the 100-member Senate.

Before the vote, more than two dozen House Democrats, mainly women, marched from the House of Representatives to the Senate, chanting: "My body, my decision".

They then entered the Senate chamber and sat quietly along a back wall while senators debated abortion rights.

US President Joe Biden expressed his disappointment in the outcome of the vote via Twitter and urged voters to elect more pro-choice senators.

"As fundamental rights are at risk at the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans have blocked passage of the Women's Health Protection Act," he wrote.

"They have chosen to stand in the way of Americans' rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives," Mr Biden wrote.

"To protect the right to choose, voters need to elect more pro-choice senators this November, and return a pro-choice majority to the House. If they do, Congress can pass this bill in January, and put it on my desk, so I can sign it into law."

Although the Senate defeat was widely expected, Democrats hope the vote will help propel more of their candidates to victory in the November 8 mid-term elections, as public opinion polls show deep support among voters for abortion rights.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-12/bid-to-enshrine-abortion-rights-bill-fails-to-pass-in-us-senate/101059250

************************************************

Conservatives mock Kamala Harris’ ‘How dare they!’ abortion speech

Conservatives on Twitter mocked Vice President Kamala Harris' speech in defense of abortion on Tuesday.

Harris spoke at a fundraising gala for the pro-abortion political action committee EMILY's List and weighed in on the leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion signaling the end of Roe v Wade.

During her speech, Harris stressed the urgency of the moment and claimed it presents a danger to women’s "rights" and "freedoms" to choose abortion.

In a viral clip of her statements, Harris asked defiantly, "How dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can do and not do with her own body? How dare they? How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future?"

"How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?" she added.

Conservative Twitter users blasted Harris for her pro-abortion speech with many noting Harris' use of the term "woman" after Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn't define the term and said, "I'm not a biologist."

Washington Times columnist Tim Young mocked the vice president as a less authentic Greta Thunberg and drew comparisons to the young Swedish climate change activist's infamous "How dare you!" speech.

"Greta Thunberg is better at pretending to be outraged than Kamala Harris," he tweeted.

In another tweet Young wrote, "’How dare they tell a woman what she can do and not do with her own body!’ - Kamala Harris

"Wait... when did Kamala become a biologist?"

"Kamala Harris takes a page out of [Greta] Thunberg's playbook in her reaction to Roe v. Wade being overturned," tweeted GOP strategist Greg Price.

"I can't believe Kamala pulled a Greta on her audience," tweeted conservative author Kyle Becker.

"Harris isn’t a biologist," conservative radio host Dana Loesch also noted.

The Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh wrote, "Kamala Harris is a despicable transphobe. Stop invalidating the lived experiences of pregnant men."

YouTuber and conservative Viva Frei provided a sarcastic critique of the vice president’s speech. "Kamala Harris, in a wanton act of bigotry and misogyny, callously presupposes the gender - and definition - of ‘woman’. Or worse, she deliberately denies the existence of non-woman birthing persons. She’s cancelled, right? Them’s the rules?"

Similarly, Daisy Cousens, contributor at Sky News Australia, tweeted, "Outrageous. Leftists must IMMEDIATELY cancel Kamala Harris for this blatant transphobia. ‘Women’? ‘She’? ‘Her’? Doesn't she know people of any gender can get pregnant? That's what leftists have been telling us for the past few years while trashing anyone who disagrees...right?"

https://www.foxnews.com/media/conservatives-mock-kamala-harris-how-dare-they-abortion-speech

***********************************************

Disinformation Governance Board Comes as No Surprise

On April 27, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced a “disinformation governance board.” As politicians, scholars, and journalists of various persuasions noted, such a board is more characteristic of Communist dictatorships than a constitutional democracy. On the other hand, in current conditions, the board should come as no surprise.

Saule Omarova, Biden’s choice for comptroller of the currency in the Treasury Department, was an advocate of Soviet-style banking, with the government running the show. The former Komsomol from Kazakhstan is on record that the “market doesn’t always know best,” and she is essentially uncritical of the “old USSR” where there was “no gender pay gap.”

Omarova failed to get the post, but her selection in the first place is revealing. What Omarova wanted to do with the currency, the new DHS board will do with information. That raises more than a few issues.

Chief White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci is a non-practicing physician and his bio shows no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry. Dr. Fauci has reversed himself many times but now claims to represent science. Will the new government Disinformation Board now brand criticism of Dr. Fauci as disinformation?

U.S. Agency for International Development boss Samantha Power recently went on record that a global food shortage crisis would push farmers toward more green energy. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” proclaimed Power. Will the government board now attack criticism of Power‘s misguided notions as disinformation?

Joe Biden recently claimed that during the Six-Day War in 1967 he served as a liaison between the Israelis and Egyptians. If some journalist dares to point out that in 1967 Joe Biden was still in law school, and could not have served as a liaison between the Israelis and Egyptians, will the government board target the writer for disinformation? And what will be the penalty?

The new Disinformation Board is a project of the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2002 to prevent 9/11-style terrorist attacks. The vaunted DHS failed to prevent terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009 (14 dead, more than 30 wounded); San Bernardino, California, in 2015 (14 murdered, more than 20 wounded); Orlando, Florida, in 2016, with 49 murdered and more than 50 wounded. In 2013, the DHS failed to stop the bombing of the Boston Marathon, which claimed three lives and inflicted hundreds of crippling injuries.

Back in 2002, the late P.J. O’Rourke said the Department of Homeland Security sounded like a failed savings and loan. In 2020, the DHS is a failed security agency now menacing freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of the press in America.

https://blog.independent.org/2022/05/03/disinformation-governance-board-surprise/?omhide=true

*****************************************

Losing the People? Then Change the Rules

Court-packing—the attempt to enlarge the size of the Supreme Court for short-term political purposes—used to be a dirty word in the history of American jurisprudence.

The tradition of a nine-person Supreme Court is now 153 years old. The last attempt to expand it for political gain was President Franklin Roosevelt’s failed effort in 1937. FDR’s gambit was so blatantly political that even his overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress rebuffed him.

Yet now “court packing” is a law school cause celebre. It is hailed as a supposedly quick fix to reverse the current 5-4 conservative majority.

Recently, a rough draft of an opinion purportedly overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion in all 50 states was leaked to the media by someone inside the court.

That insider leak of a draft opinion was a first in the modern history of the Supreme Court. It violated all court protocols. Yet it was met with stunning approval from the American left.

The leaker either intended to create a preemptive public backlash against the purported court majority in the hope that one or two justices might cave and switch under pressure—or to gin up the progressive base to fend off a likely disaster in the November midterm elections.

The recent leak, however, is consistent with a left-wing assault on the court that has intensified over the last five years. Democrats have gone ballistic ever since former President George W. Bush’s and especially former President Donald Trump’s appointees solidified a conservative majority.

During Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings in 2018, protesters stormed the Senate chambers in protest. The left rallied behind the now-convicted felon Michael Avenatti, who publicized crazy, wildly untrue charges about a teenaged Kavanagh.

Later in spring 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., whipped up a protest crowd right in front of the Supreme Court. He directly threatened Justices Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

What exactly did Schumer mean by “you will pay the price” or “you won’t know what hit you”?

Who or what would hit the two justices—and how exactly?

But it is not just the court the left is targeting. Long-standing institutions and even constitutional directives are now fair game.

At the 2020 funeral of Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., former President Barack Obama crudely proposed bringing in Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states—and with them likely four left-wing senators.

Obama’s “eulogy” also damned the 180-year-old Senate filibuster. Yet as a senator, Obama himself resorted to the filibuster in an effort to block the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

The Electoral College is under continued assault, especially since Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 were elected without winning the popular vote.

The Founders’ arguments for the Electoral College are never mentioned. But the drafters of the Constitution felt it forced candidates to visit rural areas. They believed it would discourage European-style multiple splinter parties. It made voter fraud more difficult on a national scale. And it emphasized the United States of America. That is, America today is 50 unique states that are represented as such in presidential elections.

The Biden administration also narrowly failed to push through a national voting law. Such legislation would have superseded the states’ constitutional rights to set most of their own balloting protocols in national elections.

So what is behind leaking Supreme Court drafts of impending opinions, or seeking to pack the Supreme Court with 15 justices, or ending the Senate filibuster, or adding two more states to the 60-year-old, 50-state union, or curtailing states’ rights to set their own balloting procedures, or trashing the Constitution’s Electoral College?

The answer to those questions also applies to President Joe Biden’s promise to cancel millions of contracted federally guaranteed student loans simply by a pre-midterm election executive fiat.

And how can Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas openly negate federal immigration law? How can he welcome millions to cross illegally the southern border?

The answers are obvious.

The hard left had detoured from the mainstream of American voters onto a radical trajectory. So it will never find 51% public approval for any of its current extremist and crackpot initiatives.

Instead, it sees success only through altering the rules of governance or changing the demography of the electorate—or both.

Still, leftists should be careful about what they wish for.

Latinos are historically transforming en masse into conservative voters.

Leftists are also greenlighting powerful precedents for the next Republican president. He may follow their lead by simply changing any rules, laws, customs, and traditions anytime he deems them inconvenient.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05/05/losing-the-people-then-change-the-rules/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************