Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In modern day society many choose not to get married.

Some even refuse to committ to living together.

Having no personal objections to this myself (I'm a firm believer in having my own space) I do however have difficulties in understanding why it is more socially acceptable for men, say from the 30+ age range, to be carefree, single (with many "acquaintances") and generally simply a "bachelor" compared to the today "spinster". Again, I stress Why?


N.B. the today "bachelor" to mean unmarried men who do not have and are not actively seeking a spouse or other personal partner and "spinster" to mean a woman or girl of marriageable age who has never been married maybe for the same reasons

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2721-spinster-v-bacholer/
Share on other sites

Hehehe....google image search gives the following:


Bachelor



Spinster:

http://www.takeourword.com/images/spinster.jpg


Maybe it's becaus secretly all men want to sleep around and be foot-loose and fancy free - they think they still have "it" no matter how old they are and therefore could have any women of their choosing. Most are more Bernard Manning than George Clooney however.


Whilst women are all desperate to get married and settle down to a life of shackled marital bliss. If this doesn't happen by 30 they turn into the above picture overnight.


Admin - can you re-size the top photo so he's not so goddamn scary with those perfect teeth and dreamy blue eyes!


* no probs, took an artistic licence to make him a bit tubbier though *

Why? We're not in Italy are we? In English a nubile is a marriageable woman or a sexually attractive woman and celibe or a celebate is someone who doesn't have sex and I'm sure KK isn't suggesting that because some of us who might be single go without.

This goes back to the old age arguement - one incidentally that I've always found ridiculous - that if a man sleeps around he's a man of the world but if a woman does the same she's a slag.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why? We're not in Italy are we? In English a

> nubile is a marriageable woman or a sexually

> attractive woman and celibe or a celebate is

> someone who doesn't have sex and I'm sure KK isn't

> suggesting that because some of us who might be

> single go without.


I felt that as the English words were so unfair to women then perhaps we could get a bit of balance by using the Italian!

Or queer. Or faggot.


Other than borrowing from Italy, what better suggestion do you have for those of the female gender who decide of their own free will to remain single but may occasionally shag some bloke if they've drunk enough Lambrini on a night out! ;-)

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Other than borrowing from Italy, what better

> suggestion do you have for those of the female

> gender who decide of their own free will to remain

> single but may occasionally shag some bloke if

> they've drunk enough Lambrini on a night out! ;-)


I think the term you're looking for is a goer.

er, it could be that actually most 'spinsters' as described by you are desperately seeking mr right, in a Bridget Jones type way, whereas most bachelors as described by you are having the Life of Riley, however I suspect that you and the PC world of EDF will call me a mysoginist git for suggesting that there is evean a miniscule grain of truth in my analysis...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
    • Amazing work from Leon, doing out electrical survey and replacing our consumer board. Great communications, tidy work, reliable friendly and reasonably priced. A pleasure to have around and highly recommended. 
    • Counterpoint: there was zero misrepresentation of truth    never mind the bbc or the uk (for now)-  his own country and government impeached him for trying to overturn an election.  What happened was unforgivable. Trump adding a few “non violent”’ legally wise words absolves him of nothing  but back to bbc and uk.  They were correct and now we have Trump threatening to sue for a billion have English people lost all self-respect (that question was answers 9 years ago and is repeated almost daily) 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...