Who would turn down perpetual attractiveness?
Would any of us reject the opportunity for our beauty or handsomeness to last into our old age?
That seems a likely cost of open marriages, uncommitted relationships, transgenderism, anti-marriage (and I’m NOT talking about government permits), and, basically, the entire attack on the man-woman, long-term-commitment model.
While there may be instances, in fact I’ve seen some where the non-traditional can work in the long run, most do not. Yet culture after culture around the world and throughout history have had the One-Each M+F model work well.
I purloined a few sentences from a post on this topic. Click the link to read the whole thing.
———-
To me, fair friend, you never can be old
… I particularly liked the speaker’s acknowledgement of time’s savagery to our appearance. Thus he understands that after many seasons his eyes (seeing beauty still) may be deceived. But it is a deception he embraces happily. And that benign self-deception after the dizzying bloom of youth is precisely what young women are purchasing with their chastity and loyalty. What was clear to their grandmothers is concealed by their professors.
Male-female pair-bonding could accurately be considered the cement of civilization. Thus it should be no surprise at all to find it so fervently subjected to the solvents of feminism, pansexuality, and gender-spectrum theory. If you want to destroy an edifice from the ground up, you begin with its foundation…
———-
From the government educational model, through banking, inheritance law, welfare programs and on through destruction of marriage, the nuclear, multi-generational family has been the fount of real-world knowledge, development, stability and strength. Destroying that to create an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-controlling government model was necessary.
In many ways and numerous places, they have pulled it off.
Do not give up easily.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
