Single Men Living Aboard and Cruising... an honest look.

[owly]

Originally Posted by cyan

There ya go.
Two apparently intelligent, thoughtful guys who intentionally removed their own intelligent, thoughtful genes from homo sapien sapien forever.
What would Darwin say?
A new theory?
Natural De-Selection?

There would seem to be a thread of racism or elitism running through that statement. If you consider your genes superior, you should try to out reproduce those who are inferior. The nazis, and I intentionally refuse to capitalize that word had that attitude and ran what was called the Lebensborn program, which sought to increase the birth rate of their "superior" race, in addition to the well known program of extermination. Today we are seeing panic as our white domination of western society in terms of numbers is threatened. The result has been efforts to disenfranchise minorities, and the huge transfer of wealth into the hands of a relative few white families, as well as to hone the means of controlling the political process with money. Even the so called "right to life" movement, which really is an anti choice movement is a part of this effort, but they don't dare mention right to "white life" lest they be called out for what they really are. Being childless, I presumably have no stake in this future, though it seems that I care more deeply about the future of humanity than many others who do have children.... go figure??

I wish folks would come right out and say what they mean.... that we need more upper class intelligent white babies and fewer minority babies.... Then we could clearly call them out as the nazis they are. I know who they are, but they hide behind a thin veneer of political correctness, and like the emperor who had no clothes, we are expected to pretend otherwise. No perceptive intelligent person is really deceived.

Reading back over what I wrote above, I was a bit brutal.... but I make no apology. It is as I see things honestly.

H.W.

[-bliss-]

Lets not jump to the conclusion that intelligence is the only parameter to evaluate quality of parenthood! Sure, being intelligent is an advantage, since it more likely than not will open doors to education, good jobs and steady income, making a solid financial platform to provide for a family. However, personality traits such as kindness, compassion, empathy, stability and security, being able to care and love, are not reserved highly intelligent people. I´d much rather see kids I care for growing up in working class families, where one, or possibly two providers would have time to read a bedtime story, being present to help with homework, answer all kinds of questions, take the offspring to go swimming, fishing, (and sailing of course), going to a concert or the theater and so on, rather than witnessing financially secure kids growing up in an environment where their highly successful parents communicate with their offspring via their nanny.

As a previous elementary school music teacher, I´ve witnessed parents showing up to all PTA- meetings with countless constructive questions and shoving insight in their kid´s schoolwork, indicating committed parenthood and a loving caring environment. I´ve also seen the total opposite, where parents never show up, even to a graduation ceremony, never make a sandwich for their kid´s lunch, but instead give them a big bill to go grab a pizza or a burger every single day before going back to an empty house. I know for a fact being an intelligent person doesn’t automatically make you the ideal parent in the first category. Real life is a tad more complex.

Regarding reproduction, I was approximately 16 when I came to the conclusion I didn´t want to have kids of my own. This seems to be rather controversial, as I´ve been asked countless times to give an explanation for this “absurd” statement. I have several different reasons for this choice, some of them too personal to proclaim to strangers at a dinner party, or publish on a public forum, but nevertheless, some people don’t seem to accept that reproducing is not the only reason why we walk around on the face of the earth. My personal view is that we are here to make a difference, do something good for our surroundings. I simply can´t grasp the concept that the numbers in our bank account and the number of kids we have brought to the world are the only valid parameters for a good life. In my opinion, I think the ones who repeatedly were able to make a positive difference to something or someone they cared for, and being happy while doing so, have succeeded in making a good meaningful life for themselves. I like to think I made a small difference to some of my students when I was teaching music. Being able to stimulate sense of achievement and witnessing both academically and socially challenged students ´ growth and joy of togetherness in a school choir or class band is priceless, and something I like to think of as my small contribution to the rising generation. The power of performing arts is immensely strong, and I feel privileged to have been a catalyst in some kids´ personal growth.

Indicating that adults choosing to live a life without children are selfish, irresponsible and not being able to deal with the responsibility, is a travesty I simply can´t relate to.
Early on, as a teenager, I knew that being a fulltime musician was the profession I wanted. I came to the conclusion that being able to perform, record, travel, explore, often being away from home, was not compatible with a regular 9- 5 suburban family life. I chose not to have a family of my own, as my conscience wouldn’t allow me to keep someone waiting for me to come home. I hardly see this as being egoistic. On the contrary, having a kid and spouse constantly waiting and longing for me would have been. Later on, in my early twenties when I had achieved some of my goals, I started sailing, and once again I knew I had made the right choice. Playing music and sailing both locally and to remote places is what I´d like to do as long as my health allows me to, and more than anything, I´m grateful I´m not leaving a broken family in my wake.

It is not about the freedom to live an irresponsible life. I´m not doing the casual dating, I´m not a participant of an endless party. I just try to be responsible, by not keeping someone waiting for me to get back home.
I want to give the audience an hour and a half they can remember and cherish. When I´m done playing, I´ll pack my drums and go sailing. Not having a significant other to share the precious moments with is the price I have to pay, and I´m okay with that. I just don’t understand why such choices automatically give others the right to label single childless people as irresponsible. I think we should embrace the diversity, and not feel frightened by people who make different choices in their life. All major choices come with a price, and we are hardly entitled to judge someone else without walking quite a few miles in their shoes.

Best regards and happy sailing to you all,
-kjetil-

[john61ct]

All of my various crops of spawn have been half-blood muggles, mixed breed mutts.

Hybrid vigor rules!

Somehow they all end up as high-bred wizards anyway 8-)

Can't believe some haven't got the memo yet, the whole concept of "race" has no scientific basis in biology or human genetics.

In fact most of up are a mix of different **species** for crissakes. . .

[Ex-Calif]

Observation leads me to believe nature (genetics) has a lot to do with intelligence. Nurture (raising) has a ton to do with effectively applying the intelligence one has.

Race has zero to do with either...

I know a ton of people who are intelligent, non-educated and and non-applied and they can be really stupid.

I know a ton of people who moderately intelligent, well educated and applied and they are really smart.

[john61ct]

Someone just PM'd me, reminded me of this old Bob Dylan number, might not be what he won the Nobel prize for, but. . .

https://youtu.be/A_-VxMXEcYI

Official lyrics, completely different 8-)

** I Shall Be Free No. 10 **
by Bob Dylan

I'm just average, common too
I'm just like him, the same as you
I'm everybody's brother and son
I ain't different from anyone
It ain't no use a-talking to me
It's just the same as talking to you.

I was shadow-boxing earlier in the day
I figured I was ready for Cassius Clay
I said "Fee, fie, fo, fum, Cassius Clay, here I come
26, 27, 28, 29, I'm gonna make your face look just like mine
Five, four, three, two, one, Cassius Clay you'd better run
99, 100, 101, 102, your ma won't even recognize you
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, gonna knock him clean right out of his spleen."

Well, I don't know, but I've been told
The streets in heaven are lined with gold
I ask you how things could get much worse
If the Russians happen to get up there first.
Wowee! Pretty scary!

Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy!
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.

Well, I set my monkey on the log
And ordered him to do the Dog
He wagged his tail and shook his head
And he went and did the Cat instead
He's a weird monkey, very funky.

I sat with my high-heeled sneakers on
Waiting to play tennis in the noonday sun
I had my white shorts rolled up past my waist
And my wig-hat was falling in my face
But they wouldn't let me on the tennis court.

I gotta woman, she's so mean
She sticks my boots in the washing machine
Sticks me with buckshot when I'm nude
Puts bubblegum in my food
She's funny, wants my money, calls me "honey."

Now I gotta friend who spends his life
Stabbing my picture with a bowie-knife
Dreams of strangling me with a scarf
When my name comes up he pretends to barf.
I've got a million friends!

Now they asked me to read a poem
At the sorority sister's home
I got knocked down and my head was swimmin'
I wound up with the Dean of Women
Yippee! I'm a poet, and I know it.
Hope I don't blow it.

I'm gonna grow my hair down to my feet so strange
So I look like a walking mountain range
And I'm gonna ride into Omaha on a horse
Out to the country club and the golf course.
Carry the New York Times, shoot a few holes, blow their minds.

Now you're probably wondering by now
Just what this song is all about
What's probably got you baffled more
Is what this thing here is for.
It's nothing
It's something I learned over in England.

[Lepke]

Why men won't marry you

By Suzanne Venker
Published May 01, 2015



Where have all the husbands gone?
That’s a question Peter Lloyd tackles in a series in London’s Daily Mail about Britain’s marriage rate, which is at its lowest level since 1895. “The state of matrimony is not just ailing. It is dying out faster than a mobile phone battery,” Lloyd writes. “For an army of women, Mr. Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him.”
Things are no better this side of the Atlantic. According to Pew Research Center, the share of American adults who’ve never been married is at an historic high—and men are more likely than women to have never made it down the aisle (23% vs. 17% in 2012).

There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.

What gives? Why are men here and abroad avoiding the altar in spades?
1. Because they can: Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too, but they had to marry the girl before taking her to bed, or at least work really, really hard to wear her down. Those days are gone.
When more women make themselves sexually available, the pool of marriageable men diminishes. “In a world where women do not say no, the man is never forced to settle down and make serious choices,” writes George Gilder, author of "Men and Marriage."
Scoff if you wish. Call me a fuddy-duddy. But how’s that new plan working out?
2. Because there’s nothing in it for them: What exactly does marriage offer men today? “Men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,” says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of "Men on Strike." “They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over. Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phoebes. They’re being smart.”
Unlike women, men lose all power after they say “I do.” Their masculinity dies, too.
What’s left of it, that is. In the span of just a few decades, America has demoted men from respected providers and protectors of the family to superfluous buffoons. Today’s sitcoms and commercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he.
There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.
Or perhaps therein lies the rub. If women no longer expect or even want men to “take care of” them — since women can do everything men can do and better, thank you very much, feminism — perhaps the flipside is the assumption that women don’t need to take care of husbands, either. And if no one’s taking care of anyone, why the hell marry?
For women, the reason is obvious: kids. Eventually most women decide they want children, no matter how long they put it off to focus on their careers. So they often nab the best guy they can find, usually the one with whom they’re currently sleeping, and convince him to get married.
If the man refuses, we call him, as Smith notes, a “commitment phoebe.” But is that fair? Perhaps these men know all too well that women initiate the vast majority of divorces — anywhere from 65-90 percent, depending on demographics. And when they do, they take the kids with them and hang hubby out to dry with the help of a court system that’s heavily stacked in their favor. In the past, Mom got the kids because she was home with them doing the thankless, unpaid, mountainous work associated with that role. Today, neither parent is home, so there’s no reason the default custodial parent should be Mom.
So remind me, why would a man marry today?
No, really. What’s in it for him?

Suzanne Venker has written extensively about marriage and the family and its intersection with the culture. She is also the founder of Women for Men (WFM), a news and opinion website committed to improving gender relations and to providing much-needed support for the American male. To learn more about Suzanne, visit her website. Follow her on Twitter@SuzanneVenker.com.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by owly

There would seem to be a thread of racism or elitism running through that statement. If you consider your genes superior, you should try to out reproduce those who are inferior. The nazis...
blah..blah.....

That is a spectacularly absurd stretch.

[john61ct]

Suzanne Venker
Peter Lloyd
George Gilder
London’s Daily Mail

Funny grouping there!

The whole values / premise behind that polemic is based on the traditional idea that marriage is good,

maybe even that child-rearing is good, or that child-rearing should occur within a marriage.

The fundamental shift that is the main **cause** of these trends, is that progress is being made, and

people realize that **none** of those reactionary assumptions are true.

Grouping ourselves together in self-defined like-minded families, villages or tribes, is of course helpful and pleasant for most, and certainly makes child-rearing easier and more effective

but those issues do not need to have anything to do with romance, much less healthy sexuality.

[Olddan1943]

This a prime example of a good thread that has become political and sexists.
Come on folks, get a drink of your choice, sit back and let the good times roll.

[owly]

Originally Posted by Lepke

Why men won't marry you

By Suzanne Venker
Published May 01, 2015



Where have all the husbands gone?
That’s a question Peter Lloyd tackles in a series in London’s Daily Mail about Britain’s marriage rate, which is at its lowest level since 1895. “The state of matrimony is not just ailing. It is dying out faster than a mobile phone battery,” Lloyd writes. “For an army of women, Mr. Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him.”
Things are no better this side of the Atlantic. According to Pew Research Center, the share of American adults who’ve never been married is at an historic high—and men are more likely than women to have never made it down the aisle (23% vs. 17% in 2012).

There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.

What gives? Why are men here and abroad avoiding the altar in spades?
1. Because they can: Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too, but they had to marry the girl before taking her to bed, or at least work really, really hard to wear her down. Those days are gone.
When more women make themselves sexually available, the pool of marriageable men diminishes. “In a world where women do not say no, the man is never forced to settle down and make serious choices,” writes George Gilder, author of "Men and Marriage."
Scoff if you wish. Call me a fuddy-duddy. But how’s that new plan working out?
2. Because there’s nothing in it for them: What exactly does marriage offer men today? “Men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,” says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of "Men on Strike." “They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over. Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phoebes. They’re being smart.”
Unlike women, men lose all power after they say “I do.” Their masculinity dies, too.
What’s left of it, that is. In the span of just a few decades, America has demoted men from respected providers and protectors of the family to superfluous buffoons. Today’s sitcoms and commercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he.
There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.
Or perhaps therein lies the rub. If women no longer expect or even want men to “take care of” them — since women can do everything men can do and better, thank you very much, feminism — perhaps the flipside is the assumption that women don’t need to take care of husbands, either. And if no one’s taking care of anyone, why the hell marry?
For women, the reason is obvious: kids. Eventually most women decide they want children, no matter how long they put it off to focus on their careers. So they often nab the best guy they can find, usually the one with whom they’re currently sleeping, and convince him to get married.
If the man refuses, we call him, as Smith notes, a “commitment phoebe.” But is that fair? Perhaps these men know all too well that women initiate the vast majority of divorces — anywhere from 65-90 percent, depending on demographics. And when they do, they take the kids with them and hang hubby out to dry with the help of a court system that’s heavily stacked in their favor. In the past, Mom got the kids because she was home with them doing the thankless, unpaid, mountainous work associated with that role. Today, neither parent is home, so there’s no reason the default custodial parent should be Mom.
So remind me, why would a man marry today?
No, really. What’s in it for him?

Suzanne Venker has written extensively about marriage and the family and its intersection with the culture. She is also the founder of Women for Men (WFM), a news and opinion website committed to improving gender relations and to providing much-needed support for the American male. To learn more about Suzanne, visit her website. Follow her on Twitter@SuzanneVenker.com.

A sad and pathetic situation, but there are two sides to it. Unfortunately feminism has created a deep division, where what should have happened is a general liberation of all people from the confining roles we were once forced into. We have to get over the "oppressor / oppressed" mindset, and learn to forge strong and stable relationships that are not overshadowed with fear of being "had". Trust, friendship, and confidence in each other, as well as honest communication without withholding our REAL feelings, as well as flexibility and an allowance for each other as individuals as well as part of a "couple" must be among the underpinnings of a good long term relationship. Precious few of us will find that mythical "soul mate". That's a fantasy many of us were brought up to believe in. Those sorts of relationships are forged through hard work and dedication. Often the most successful partners are bafflingly unlikely. Two people who I would never pair up..... they were ready at the same time, and they decided to make it work come hell or high water.

Nature made us to fall in lust with each other. It made young men and women "bloom" at a certain age, the hormones driving us, and the attractiveness of others in this state, bringing us together in an orgy of lust, living on "love" and little else. Conception was supposed to be the result, and the child / children the common bond. The common effort to provide and nurture providing depth and a real connection, and hopefully at the other end you came out as friends.
For most of us, that paradigm is a thing of the past. Birth control was a great enabler in many ways, allowing people to defer reproduction, and pursue careers, but it also degraded relationships, and deferred parenthood to a "convenient" time, took away the serendipity. Men and women were really meant to grow up WITH their children, not grow up first and have children. The change has taken a lot of the wonder and joy out of parenthood, and spawned bizarre phenomena like the "helicopter parent", and the obsessive protection of children that does not allow them to grow up confident and capable and independent. Parents simply do not allow children the liberty I had growing up. The liberty to disappear into the woods or the neighborhood all day finding small adventures and challenges. Parents today would have their children taken away for what was normal back then. I well remember the 10 year old son of a rancher friend of mine showing off his 270 and the 3 point buck he had just killed to me... and thinking YES!! These parents have it right. He knows safety, and how to take care of himself. He has confidence and judgment. He won't drown in the river, or shoot himself or anybody else. When he gets into a situation, he will get himself out... just as I / we did. Search and rescue will never be sent out looking for him. He's smart and capable, afraid of nothing and nobody, and will land on his feet no matter what. I've known the parents and the two boys for many years. What to some might seem irresponsible parenting, was the right way in that context. I'd trust him on watch alone at night in them middle of the Pacific..... he wouldn't call me without reason, and would not hesitate to call me when it was necessary. The same is true of his brother.

I might have been sorely tempted to set aside my resolve had the opportunity and circumstances let me bring two children into the world and adulthood like those two. There are too few of them, and too many glued to cell phones, texting and sexting. Where I live these kinds of children (and parents) are not uncommon, but alas they are scarce indeed in the wider world.


H.W.

[Olddan1943]

This has deteriorated into another forum that circles and circles with little benefit to anyone.
Ya'll send me a note with you return to civility and respect.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Olddan1943

This a prime example of a good thread that has become political and sexists.
Come on folks, get a drink of your choice, sit back and let the good times roll.

Originally Posted by Olddan1943

This has deteriorated into another forum that circles and circles with little benefit to anyone.
Ya'll send me a note with you return to civility and respect.

You've given us your opinion of this thread's direction twice now; please keep your word and depart until further notice.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by gamayun

Oh please. Y'all's ideas about high IQ people (or the reasons for the lack thereof) are uninformed and insulting. It's unfortunate where this thread is going. It had been fun up to now.

Hi gamayun.....
Congrats on your sailing achievements!

I agree with above, but as my English Great Auntie used to say....."we are just having a natter"....so it just rolls off my back.

One observation about those who deal in stereotypes.
They tend to fill the room with echoes. [emoji57]

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Some think that high IQ is a function both of Nature (genes) and Nurture (community environment)

The nature and nurture of high IQ: An extended sensitive period for intellectual development

Nature beats nurture as more than 60% of a child's intelligence comes from parents

I really don't put much stock into those studies as there are too many unmeasurable variables to give them credence
"Both types of twins were assumed to have been exposed to identical environments - including home and school, reports Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

As I said, I "prefer" to think it is environmental rather than genetic, because it is simply a healthier attitude.

Also, scientists tend to use the same measuring stick for different regions whereas, survival s very location specific

Originally Posted by john61ct

Suzanne Venker
Peter Lloyd
George Gilder
London’s Daily Mail

Funny grouping there!

The whole values / premise behind that polemic is based on the traditional idea that marriage is good,

maybe even that child-rearing is good, or that child-rearing should occur within a marriage.

The fundamental shift that is the main **cause** of these trends, is that progress is being made, and

people realize that **none** of those reactionary assumptions are true.

Grouping ourselves together in self-defined like-minded families, villages or tribes, is of course helpful and pleasant for most, and certainly makes child-rearing easier and more effective

but those issues do not need to have anything to do with romance, much less healthy sexuality.

[SV_Harbinger]

Ok, I've watched this thread and even commented a good few pages ago. That being said this is going down a silly path. "Tis the prudent sailor that choses the course that avoids reef and storm"* and that is where this thread is headed fast if I'm not mistaken, to deep and dark places that nothing good comes out of.
Are most single cruisers male?
In my experience yes.
Are there any females willing to live the cruising lifestyle?
Yes but there are fewer of them.
We ALL know this, it's been this way for a very long time.
For those having the IQ debate, while IQ plays a big part in where one ends up in life, it is not the mantel to which I choose to judge people, I would far rather judge them on what I see them do, if I see a bag of rocks trying to do the right thing, I will go considerably out of my way to help them, on the other hand if I see the smartest most successful "rectal orifice" showing their true colors, I will quietly watch them get theirs. To me the "Golden Rule" is well golden...

With deepest respects
A single male sailor, with an honest look