Agreed -- or some might confuse what is required of friends vs. what is required for coupledom.

When I see that in a profile (which is surprisingly often), no matter how appealing it might be otherwise, that is as far as I read



Agreed -- thankfully

Perhaps it would be appropriate to use REASONING. To say "If you don't accept my position you must then provide an alternative explanation" is irrational.

Good point. If the animals and offspring are pleasant and likeable, there is no need to demand "love them."

On the other hand:



Why be judgmental about the issue?

Is it critical that friends "love" your kids or grandchildren? Will you be taking them along for chaperones? Do you require that friends interact with your family?



Will you be taking the dog along too?



Good point -- many ladies seem to require that a man be "god fearing"



You imply that unless they "get along with" your kids and dog they are "heartless."

That seems like a rather narrow and exaggerated use of the term "heartless" which is defined as: A person that doesn't care what they do to hurt someone, or Devoid of compassion or feeling; pitiless, or unfeeling; unkind; unsympathetic; harsh; cruel.

Is it "heartless" to have no desire to interact with a spoiled dog (or spoiled children when that is the case)? If a woman did not care for my offspring --�� which is not an issue (or animals if there were any), should that eliminate her from friendship, companionship, spending pleasant time together?

Ladies, is it really necessary for a man to "love dogs, kids and god" to be your friend?

People of all ages are often struggling to find jobs. If I am not mistaken, the younger age brackets have the highest unemployment rates. If so factors other than age must be involved.

Often getting a job is a matter of having marketable skills -- skills that employers need. Having low-demand skills is of limited value and just being a warm body doesn't qualify for many positions.

For instance, a friend who owns a large machine shop and is a significant local employer has unfilled positions because most who seek employment simply do not have the skills needed to run the machines (and he only needs a few people for unskilled tasks). The jobs are there, the skills are not.



As the decades pass more and more people become our "younger competition." It may be tempting to consider attractive young women "eye candy" – ignoring the fact that the thirty year old can also be a university professor, a commercial pilot, an engineer, an attorney, etc, etc (i.e., much more than just attractive).

Beauty is not restricted to the young – as indicated by http://www.stylebistro.com/The+50+Most+Beautiful+Women+Over+50

Likewise, "thinner" is not restricted to youth. Weight control is possible at any age; however, many people put on the pounds with increasing age. I am particularly conscious of this, being a lifetime fitness enthusiast, and managing my own weight / body composition regardless of age. It might not be surprising that I am not physically attracted to heavyset and out-of-shape women (personal preference).

Condolences



Evidently the corporate attitudes did not preclude getting a great job . . .



To some of us YOU are a "younger woman" (the same age as my daughter). Of course, many younger women refuse to associate with "older" men (even as friends). Perhaps it is a matter of perspective and opinion.

In my experience many people of either gender consign themselves to the "older" category at some arbitrary age, be that thirty, forty, fifty or whatever – and begin thinking of themselves as old and acting old. And, sure enough, they are old.

It is a common tactic in parlor (uninformed) "debate" to take the position, "If you don't accept my position you must then provide an alternative explanation." There is no such requirement in reasoned discussion or debate.

What is so difficult about simply and honestly admitting "I don't know how the universe originated or how life began"?

NO ONE KNOWS "how it began." There are many theories, some religious, some scientific, some totally fanciful (or a combination of these).

Those who read the opinions of others (who do not know either) and conclude that NOW I KNOW are gullible (in my opinion).

Demanding or requesting that someone tell "how it began" (if they do not accept your opinion) assumes that the information is available. It is not -- nothing more than theories, opinions, hearsay, conjecture and/or fanciful and wishful thinking.

Life in the real world we inhabit does NOT require that we know "how it began." We can live happily, peacefully, productively and satisfyingly without demanding that information.

Some propose that one must believe that a favored "god" was responsible and that they must worship the "god" to find favor in an "afterlife." However, that is all conjecture that cannot be shown to be anything more than human imagination.

When I turned forty I decided that it was time to retire from "the best job in the world" and do more interesting and challenging things.

Thirty five years later I can say with confidence that is the best decision I ever made.

If someone had told me decades ago that life would be wonderful at seventy plus I would have questioned their judgment. Had they said I would thoroughly enjoy NOT having a partner-in-residence, I would have considered them totally nuts.



"So old" -- at fifty? WOW. No one convinced me to feel that way at any age.

Fiction, fantasy, fables, folklore, legends, etc are of little or no interest to me.

Many maintain that they learn from all the above -- and perhaps they do learn things of value??? However, I prefer to learn from the actual world I inhabit rather than from fanciful stories made up by others.

Evidently the same thing happens during wars -- both sides sometimes praying to the same "god" for victory.

How do you suppose the "god" decides which side to favor? Is it based on which one prays the most earnestly or which represents the most religious society?

If the combatants pray to different "gods" does the strongest "god" provide victory for "his" side?

That is similar to religion that adults (and "priests", "prophets" and "authorities") tell kids (and adults) who sometimes grow up to repeat the tales ad infinitum.



Well, at least the kids can't build palaces (only posters and figurines, etc) and can't start wars. Bravo.



There is also NO DOCUMENTED evidence of any of the proposed "gods" (from any century) rising from the dead or performing any of the supernatural feats in tales. There are TALES and testimonials about such things happening, but nothing that can be verified as truthful and accurate. That some of the tales were written about decades, generations or centuries after they supposedly occurred is NOT documentation that they are anything more than folk tales, legends, fables, fiction or other forms of human imagination.

In one of the threads someone asked what the difference is between "God" and "Santa."

Here are some suggestions for starters:



Santa is not said to send people to "hell" if they do not worship him

People do not hate and condemn each other over differences in Santa beliefs

Wars are not caused by differences in Santa beliefs

Elaborate Palaces of Worship are not constructed for Santa

Offerings collected for Santa are typically limited to cookies

No sacrifices (animal or human) are made to Santa

Santa believers do not generally consider themselves superior to those who do not believe or worship

If looks are the primary criteria it might pay to check local model agencies

Some believe that, others do not. Those who make the claim cannot show they speak truth or that their favorite "god" is any more or less imaginary than any of the thousands of others proposed, worshiped, feared by humans.

Long ago and far away, shrouded in ignorance and superstition, all sorts of magical things are claimed to have happened -- some by "good" spirits and some by "evil" ones. Some are claimed to change humans into snakes and others are claimed to turn water into wine.

What the tales have in common is complete lack of verification. Anyone can claim anything but cannot show that they speak truth. Testimonials, hearsay, legends, fables and folk tales "prove" only that lips or pens are moving and that someone promotes an agenda.

It seems as though if there is to be a contest it should be based upon ability and performance of those involved -- rather than seeking special advantages from a supernatural entity

Santa is not portrayed as giving preferential treatment or assistance to athletes (or soldiers) who believe in him?

Can it be true in 21st Century US that half the spectators at modern day "gladiator" contests believe that outcomes are influenced by supernatural entities (based upon religious preferences and practices of contestants or prayers and supplications by spectators)?

Really?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2014/jan/21/half-american-fans-say-supernatural-forces-are-pla/#.Ut7iHgPNCmc.twitter

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gladiator‎
a man in ancient Rome who fought against another man or animal for public entertainment.

Based on several decades of being the "bad boy" or "rogue" (not intentionally, just being non-conformist and irreverent -- and therefore at odds with mainstream society), it appears as though SOME women (perhaps a minority) prefer those characteristics – at least for the short-term. They may think they can "change him" or "take off the rough edges" and become disappointed upon discovering they cannot.

More "sensible" or traditional women may be intrigued but not interested in pursuing a relationship. A rare unconventional "outside the box" woman might make a good partner.