[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by spring_chicken

I find it odd when people say that their generation was better than any other, then proceed to whine when people from another generation want to have a club and not include the person that goes out of their way to insult them due to their age.

Doesn't make sense to me, either. I missed being a boomer by four years and that is just how it is. Oh well...It is still a free country, at least in most respects. I have adjusted to taking my senior discounts without shame whenever and wherever I can get them.

BTW, from what I have read in senior communities younger trophy wives are resented and discriminated against by older married women who worry about their husbands, or at least their husbands eyes, wandering. (Senior mate guarding? Mate guarding in humans - Wikipedia.)

"Female mate guarding concentrates on avoiding attractive, fertile females.[7] Research suggests that females are more likely to avoid women that are attractive and exclude them from the group, as these women are interpreted as potential poachers.[11]"

"One way to overcome this issue is to avoid introducing threatening friends to desirable mates. In one study women were shown three pictures of the same female. In one picture the model was dressed conservatively, in the other two she was dressed provocatively, but in the third the model had been photoshopped to have a larger frame. All the women tested rated the thin, provocatively dressed women as the sexiest. Participants were also twice as likely to avoid introducing the model to their partners compared to the conservatively dressed model, who was rated as the least threatening. The authors interpreted these findings as, women who are dressed provocatively are seen as more promiscuous, so therefore are less likely to be introduced to partners due to the possibility of poaching.[17] Not introducing an attractive female to a mate, minimises the likelihood that poaching will occur as it is a form of indirect aggression that minimises contact between a mate and a potential threat.[17]"

Too, the older single women comprising the casserole brigade do not want relatively younger single women around competing for relatively scarce single men. All this and more. "From Sun City to The Villages", by Judith Ann Trolander, pp. 216 - 223.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Doesn't make sense to me, either. I missed being a boomer by just four years and that is just how it is. Oh well...It is still a free country, at least in most respects. I have adjusted to taking my senior discounts without shame whenever and wherever I can get them.

BTW, from what I have read in senior communities younger trophy wives are resented and discriminated against by older married women who worry about their husbands, or at least their husbands eyes, wandering. (Senior mate guarding? Mate guarding in humans - Wikipedia.)

"Female mate guarding concentrates on avoiding attractive, fertile females.[7] Research suggests that females are more likely to avoid women that are attractive and exclude them from the group, as these women are interpreted as potential poachers.[11]"

"One way to overcome this issue is to avoid introducing threatening friends to desirable mates. In one study women were shown three pictures of the same female. In one picture the model was dressed conservatively, in the other two she was dressed provocatively, but in the third the model had been photoshopped to have a larger frame. All the women tested rated the thin, provocatively dressed women as the sexiest. Participants were also twice as likely to avoid introducing the model to their partners compared to the conservatively dressed model, who was rated as the least threatening. The authors interpreted these findings as, women who are dressed provocatively are seen as more promiscuous, so therefore are less likely to be introduced to partners due to the possibility of poaching.[17] Not introducing an attractive female to a mate, minimises the likelihood that poaching will occur as it is a form of indirect aggression that minimises contact between a mate and a potential threat.[17]"

Too, the older single women comprising the casserole brigade do not want relatively younger single women around competing for relatively scarce single men. All this and more. "From Sun City to The Villages", by Judith Ann Trolander, pp. 216 - 223.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what they say.

But I gotta tellya, all you boomers or beyond or before, and whether you are a man or women -- if you enter into a later in life marriage, you better be smart enough to get a pre-nup.

And I am not talking about just protecting assets for the kids. Make sure you protect your own assets for yourself. Ya know, just in case the rose of romance loses its bloom -- or never really had it in the first place and was merely an agenda.

My mom used to say, "There is no fool like an old fool" when some older man would be taken in. Or some woman who had no idea they had a lot of money, until her husband died and left her wealthy and then -- she blabbed. A lot. Word got out fast and EEK! Out from under a rock crawled a much younger man, a real sleaze. It was a saga to behold. Sad and true.

Being savvy about assets is a survival skill, especially important as we age.

(I remember when I met Mr. Boomer, I thought he had to be rich because he had a Seiko watch and a set of huge Pioneer speakers that he brought home from Okinawa. I was confused though by the old, old, rusted out '64 Plymouth Fury he drove. I was driving a Triumph GT6 in those days. (Uh, oh, maybe he thought I was rich. )

But we truly didn't care about any of that.

We are still happily together -- but I made him finally get rid of those damned huge speakers that were taking up a lot of room in our northern basement. But oh the sweet memories of those days when we used those speakers as end tables in our living room because we could not afford real furniture.)

I know some of you know exactly what I am talking about in my silly little digression above.

Is my age showing? Of course. What's in a name? Did you see mine up there in the corner.

Back to now -- if considering a remarriage later in life, please don't forget that it is quite all right -- in my book anyway -- if a loving couple does not get married, but decides to live happily ever after, unmarried but together, for financial reasons because each one of them has assets that could get all messed up with a piece of paper saying they are legally married.

Ohhhhh, the things I have heard about and seen happen to people marrying later in life -- people who entered in like lambs to the slaughter.

My point is -- no matter what age you are -- keep your assets covered.

Boomer

Did I just jump the topic track. I don't think so. We are talking about aging and all that entails. All.

[manaboutown]

Boomer, you are wise beyond your years.

As for me, I am still dodging bullets. I cannot count the number of single folks I know who remarried and divorced, some more than once, in the last 25 years I have thoroughly enjoyed being single.

[Velvet]

Time for me to listen, thank you Boomer.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by Boomer

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what they say.

But I gotta tellya, all you boomers or beyond or before, and whether you are a man or women -- if you enter into a later in life marriage, you better be smart enough to get a pre-nup.

And I am not talking about just protecting assets for the kids. Make sure you protect your own assets for yourself. Ya know, just in case the rose of romance loses its bloom -- or never really had it in the first place and was merely an agenda.

My mom used to say, "There is no fool like an old fool" when some older man would be taken in. Or some woman who had no idea they had a lot of money, until her husband died and left her wealthy and then -- she blabbed. A lot. Word got out fast and EEK! Out from under a rock crawled a much younger man, a real sleaze. It was a saga to behold. Sad and true.

Being savvy about assets is a survival skill, especially important as we age.

(I remember when I met Mr. Boomer, I thought he had to be rich because he had a Seiko watch and a set of huge Pioneer speakers that he brought home from Okinawa. I was confused though by the old, old, rusted out '64 Plymouth Fury he drove. I was driving a Triumph GT6 in those days. (Uh, oh, maybe he thought I was rich. )

But we truly didn't care about any of that.

We are still happily together -- but I made him finally get rid of those damned huge speakers that were taking up a lot of room in our northern basement. But oh the sweet memories of those days when we used those speakers as end tables in our living room because we could not afford real furniture.)

I know some of you know exactly what I am talking about in my silly little digression above.

Is my age showing? Of course. What's in a name? Did you see mine up there in the corner.

Back to now -- if considering a remarriage later in life, please don't forget that it is quite all right -- in my book anyway -- if a loving couple does not get married, but decides to live happily ever after, unmarried but together, for financial reasons because each one of them has assets that could get all messed up with a piece of paper saying they are legally married.

Ohhhhh, the things I have heard about and seen happen to people marrying later in life -- people who entered in like lambs to the slaughter.

My point is -- no matter what age you are -- keep your assets covered.

Boomer

Did I just jump the topic track. I don't think so. We are talking about aging and all that entails. All.

Great post Boomer. So much I agree with and so much I have seen happen to desperately lonely people when they lose their partner. Can never understand "old" people getting married again, you nursed one old man so you want to do it again - and this one you have no history with, no memories of great times? If you cannot live alone, live with but don't marry. I'm one of the lucky ones .... I still have my first love alive and well.

[Boomer]

Velvet, it sounds like you are doing beautifully.

The reason I wrote what I did was because I have seen a few things with others that are so sad to watch and not be able to help so I wrote that general warning, as I am sitting here between loads of laundry.

Sometimes, I write posts on here like I think I am "Dear Abby" -- except -- I don't always wait for the questions.

[Velvet]

You are so right, that is why I edited my post.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

Great post Boomer. So much I agree with and so much I have seen happen to desperately lonely people when they lose their partner. Can never understand "old" people getting married again, you nursed one old man so you want to do it again - and this one you have no history with, no memories of great times? If you cannot live alone, live with but don't marry. I'm one of the lucky ones .... I still have my first love alive and well.

Because in some states, if your beloved non-wife is hospitalized and her darling daughter shows up and forbids you from visiting her, you aren't allowed to visit her. Even if she's dying. And then when it's time to settle the estate, it's a bloody mess when daughter gets everything in her mother's name - including her mother's half of the house you are living in.

Then there's the whole "married filing jointly" issue for taxes. And social security payments to widows/widowers.

Marriage is a legal contract that comes with benefits non-married couples aren't entitled to.

I love my husband dearly and am glad to call him husband, and live with him til death do we part. But that marriage contract protects each of us, and both of us as a couple and a potential widow/widower.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

Because in some states, if your beloved non-wife is hospitalized and her darling daughter shows up and forbids you from visiting her, you aren't allowed to visit her. Even if she's dying. And then when it's time to settle the estate, it's a bloody mess when daughter gets everything in her mother's name - including her mother's half of the house you are living in.

Then there's the whole "married filing jointly" issue for taxes. And social security payments to widows/widowers.

Marriage is a legal contract that comes with benefits non-married couples aren't entitled to.

I love my husband dearly and am glad to call him husband, and live with him til death do we part. But that marriage contract protects each of us, and both of us as a couple and a potential widow/widower.

Jazuela, the points you are making here become an interesting addition to my little “advice column” post earlier.

When I was talking about living together vs. marriage later in life, I was thinking of situations in which social security and/or pension benefits or maybe even health insurance from an earlier spouse would stop upon remarriage. Those things can happen.

You bring up a really good point about healthcare decisions. I don’t know for sure but I am guessing that if choosing to live together rather than marry because of losing financial benefits, a trip to an attorney to get healthcare powers-of-attorney in place, as well as other things, could be a wise thing to do. A life-estate, if the house is owned by just one of the two, would be something to look into also.

Each of the choices certainly has pros and cons and, of course, varies by circumstance. I don’t know the answers, but a committed couple who chooses not to marry but live together should find out how to protect themselves from a mess like the one you used as an example.

Good points, Jazuela.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Healthcare POA can be a very ugly thing though. If there is hostility between daughter and live-in, then whoever has the POA has the legal right to forbid the other from visiting said dying beloved hospital patient. In a situation of marriage, the spouse doesn't have the right to forbid a blood relative from visiting, and vice versa. They can go through the process of getting a court order, but being married to someone - or being someone's daughter - doesn't automatically convey the right to forbid the other spouse or daughter. I'm using spouse and daughter as the hypothetical just to keep it consistent - apply whoever you want - siblings, mother and son - anyone considered "immediate family" plus legally wed spouse.

This is actually one of the (many) reasons marriage equality is such a big deal with regards to the LGBTQ community. Being legally recognized as a spouse means they can rest easy knowing that if something should happen to their loved one, they have the right to care for them, visit them, see to their comfort, and yes - even see to their final moments.

APOLOGIES THAT THIS IS OFF TOPIC! Maybe we could move this part of the conversation to a new topic?

[manaboutown]

From Boomer: "I completely agree with your thinking about the rights of same sex couples. I believe they should have the same rights as any other couple. Love is love and fair is fair."

Then what about the animist community? Are animists discriminated against? What about their rights? Animism documentary explores the world of people in love with objects | Calgary Herald

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

From Boomer: "I completely agree with your thinking about the rights of same sex couples. I believe they should have the same rights as any other couple. Love is love and fair is fair."

Then what about the animist community? Are animists discriminated against? What about their rights? Animism documentary explores the world of people in love with objects | Calgary Herald

Easily addressed by stating that the law only applies to.... two, consenting, adult humans.


The ridiculous argument to stop two human beings in love from marrying each other, regardless of their gender...is steeped in creating fear and personal revulsion.

Often tried to be justified...by citing the Bible.

Kinda funny when you think about it though, because that same book has some pretty harsh suggestions for lots of things, including those who commit adultery...who should be stoned to death.

So why the hypocrisy and why aren't people so adamant...that this also be the law?

And then there's the issue of states, that have only recently changed the age of consent for girls to marry. The Bible says it's OK for an old man to marry a 12 year old girl and many states have had, until fairly recently...laws that allowed 13 year old girls to marry.

Who in their right minds and claims they're 'good/decent' people...thinks that's even close to being OK?

But then again, that's whence the term 'Cafeteria Christian'...emanated.

Just choose those parts that you like...and ignore the rest.




**And a small plea to any mods that may have their red, 'post deleting pen' poised, I would posit that discussing 'marrying age' is on-topic...when the thread is about 'age prejudice.' So thank you for your consideration.

[Bay Kid]

Many are lucky to have years of happy marriage. I tried twice and the second scared me to death. We were together for 2 years, got married and within a few weeks she changed into the scariest, meanest person I have ever meant. Luckily I had a prenup.

Still wish I could find the last love of my life, but still very scared.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

From Boomer: "I completely agree with your thinking about the rights of same sex couples. I believe they should have the same rights as any other couple. Love is love and fair is fair."

Then what about the animist community? Are animists discriminated against? What about their rights? Animism documentary explores the world of people in love with objects | Calgary Herald

Absolutely. If your kitchen table truly feels the emotional connection to you, then by all means it should be free to hail a cab and get to the hospital to be by your bedside.

[Nucky]

What a perfect thread with beautiful useful thoughtful information and ideas. I have one to add if a Second, Third Marriage is in the cards. If you need a Pre-Nuptial you are marring to quickly or don't know the other person well enough. A great person to ask would be Nickolas Cage!

Living in what was considered Sin a long time ago sounds like fun!

The answer to me is not to marry anyone who you don't have faith in. I can't argue with one thing in Jauela's post. I can't get the picture of Sweetie Pie I Love You with all my Heart! All said on bended knee. And trouble standing up afterward! Will you marry me Sweetie Pie? She says Yes Baby Face Sweetie Pie Snookie Ukums. They embrace and then the next thing is Sign Here just in case! I understand and grasp the concept in this day and age its probably a great idea. It doesn't fit into my profile. Not a chance.

We prefer to see our children enjoy what we were going to leave them after we pass now instead. It's a blast. It made our life and their life better and made our Grandchildren see more of their parents instead of them having to work too much.

I'm not being difficult at all. That's not the point. We cut up the Money Pie but I kept more than half for us.