Snowflake shoe0nhead / June Lapine / June La Porta & Armoured Skeptic / Gregory "Greg" Fluhrer - A poor man's Boxxy: rejected by Vaush, disowned by /pol/ for burning coal, sleeps in a dog's bed surrounded by trash, and her ex-boyfriend.

  • Thread starter Thread starter HG 400
  • Start date Start date
  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Shoe being a skinwalker continues to work out for her I suppose. As for Greg, the last thing I remember hearing from him was when he sadposted online about how alone he was, but that feels like a while ago. Decided to check his channel to see if he's still moping around and it doesn't look like it. He's uploading more frequently now and he seems to have lost some weight too (but now he just looks like a tall, long haired Maddox). At first I thought maybe he bounced back after checking his channel it just looks like he's going further into doomer conspiracy videos at a more rapid pace and trying to cater to what's left of his audience. Only a gradual improvement but hasn't done any e-begging or anything since last year.

I can't help but think of this song when I think about this situation:




Even though it seems like his situation improved, I'm pretty sure Greg is terminally online now because there's nothing else he can do for income. If he had changed his mind then he'd probably be better off. Oh well, at least Shoe did.
 
We'll see how long this lasts. If she takes more breaks, and if her content upload starts to get slower, then this is more than likely to stick. It's hard to be a content creator and raise a kid (without help). My cynical ass isn't holding out any hope, but I do at least applaud June for trying. Maybe hope isn't completely lost, fellas.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures
I can't believe people still have this ridiculous conversation.

Yes, the ideal for kids is your 20s, but that doesn't mean you can't have healthy kids at your 30s or even early 40s. If you've had good pregnancies before and you had a healthy life and proper pregnancy care, all will go well. It's not like women in their 20s won't produce sick children ever.

I mean, give me a break. Women who had a kid at 25 still keep having more kids at their 30s.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: broken chiyron, Dr. Eldon Tyrell, Placeboing and 41 others
Alpha Widowed IMG_0421.jpeg
Tasty Tatty said:
I can't believe people still have this ridiculous conversation.

Yes, the ideal for kids is your 20s, but that doesn't mean you can't have healthy kids at your 30s or even early 40s. If you've had good pregnancies before and you had a healthy life and proper pregnancy care, all will go well. It's not like women in their 20s won't produce sick children ever.

I mean, give me a break. Women who had a kid at 25 still keep having more kids at their 30s.
Click to expand...
It’s obviously an extreme overreaction to women waiting too long, plus some revenge fantasy mixed in. As evidenced by the moronic take that men can take their sweet time and perhaps released their extra mutationally-loaded old sperm into a younger girl when they’re ready.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: broken chiyron, BeckhoffAX5702, Cryin RN and 28 others
Smar Mijou said:
There is definitely biological timeframes involved, especially for women. But the weird push by many religious conservatives to have everyone squirt out kids by 25 is insane, especially post-Great Recession. In case you haven't noticed, the economy has kinda been in the shitter for alot of people for the past 15 years or so. Sure, the "American dream" of a wife, house with a picket fence, and 2.5 kids is all well and good, but I would argue that waiting a bit longer for relationship and financial stability is more important than an arbitrary mid-20s starting point.
Click to expand...
This mf lettin the economy decide the fate of their family line.
Also, "But the weird push by many religious conservatives to have everyone squirt out kids by 25 is insane" is such a weird take. 20-25 are like prime ages to have healthy kids , and equally as important, you'll be at an age where as they grow, you can maintain the energy level to see them properly guided. You don't have to be religious to agree with that.
I won't completely dunk on your economic concerns, because being able to provide is indeed important, but a person who worries about money too much will likely just end up being childless even if-and-when they do obtain the means to provide.
 
  • Dumb
  • Winner
  • Disagree
Reactions: broken chiyron, Decoy St. Chum, MintandRue and 8 others
Berrakh said:
Alpha WidowedView attachment 6049367

It’s obviously an extreme overreaction to women waiting too long, plus some revenge fantasy mixed in. As evidenced by the moronic take that men can take their sweet time and perhaps released their extra mutationally-loaded old sperm into a younger girl when they’re ready.
Click to expand...
Is he deleting community posts now? The most recent one I can see on his channel is from 5 months ago.
Screenshot_20240603-062908.png
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Syntaxion and Berrakh
Big Miss Steak said:
The term "geriatric pregnancy" is misleading. Women who give birth over the age of 35 are more likely to have complications, but for a lot of women that's not a big uptick in risk. The real deterrent is the exhaustion of carrying the baby for 9 months and then caring for an infant when you don't have as much energy as you used to.
Click to expand...
Anecdotal certainly, but I live in an area with a lot of "geriatric moms" and none of the ones in my circle have autistic, retarded, or otherwise problem kids. I mean, we all have access to abortion, but then again I knew about many of my friend's pregnancies early on so ...
The older parents I know with autistic kids happen to also be pretty fuckin weird themselves. The one family I know with a downs kid happens to be the first born. Then again, many of the kids at the special day class on my kids' campus belong to older parents. So, it's certainly a phenomena, but shouldn't stop good people from starting families on the later side.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: NimertiS, hunter2, Male Idiot and 1 other person
Smar Mijou said:
There is definitely biological timeframes involved, especially for women. But the weird push by many religious conservatives to have everyone squirt out kids by 25 is insane, especially post-Great Recession. In case you haven't noticed, the economy has kinda been in the shitter for alot of people for the past 15 years or so. Sure, the "American dream" of a wife, house with a picket fence, and 2.5 kids is all well and good, but I would argue that waiting a bit longer for relationship and financial stability is more important than an arbitrary mid-20s starting point.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, there's the disadvantage that having kids in your mid 30s means that by the time they're 10 or so you can't really say with confidence that you'll be able to keep up with them. Not saying that's the norm, but I'd rather be 30 than 40 when the eldest is 10.

To contradict what I just said, however, there's also the aspect to consider that at 40-50 you have more life experience to share with a child as he/she begins the journey to adolescence/adulthood.
Tasty Tatty said:
I can't believe people still have this ridiculous conversation.

Yes, the ideal for kids is your 20s, but that doesn't mean you can't have healthy kids at your 30s or even early 40s. If you've had good pregnancies before and you had a healthy life and proper pregnancy care, all will go well. It's not like women in their 20s won't produce sick children ever.

I mean, give me a break. Women who had a kid at 25 still keep having more kids at their 30s.
Click to expand...
Ideal, yeah, but if you feel mentally prepared to have a child at 30, and have a partner worth a (literal) fuck only then, then you have to play with the cards you've been dealt. It's not the worst situation ever to be in.

Side note:

What really bothers me is people making economic arguments. Trust me, you really won't miss the extra money when having a kid. Sure, it's pretty much doing parenting on hard mode, but if you're not ready to give up some personal amenities to make sure you have a healthy child, perhaps it is indeed not time to have one and that's fair enough.

Also, there's so much stuff people try to sell you on that you "absolutely neeeeeeeeeed" for your kid that are completely unnecessary. You'll notice that kids will often discard a fancy $200 "muh learning toy" for a smooth rock. No, you don't need the extra-deluxe diaper pail, there are variants that are $120 cheaper that work just fine. No, your kid doesn't need a stanley cup. There are also better ways of dealing with "But I want that thing!" tantrums than buying that thing. Seriously, people have become too accustomed to throwing money at everything.

Having a child is more about what kind of partnership you have + what mental fortitude you personally have than any financial issues. People have raised children through worse conditions than today, I assure you, and they came out much better than the lot we call Generation Alpha. Wealth might even be an *impediment* to good child development, as so many people outsource childcare to devices/strangers trying to troon them out.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: NimertiS, MintandRue, Syntaxion and 4 others
Tasty Tatty said:
I can't believe people still have this ridiculous conversation.

Yes, the ideal for kids is your 20s, but that doesn't mean you can't have healthy kids at your 30s or even early 40s. If you've had good pregnancies before and you had a healthy life and proper pregnancy care, all will go well. It's not like women in their 20s won't produce sick children ever.

I mean, give me a break. Women who had a kid at 25 still keep having more kids at their 30s.
Click to expand...
Well yes, but we are not talking about the people that just lived a well-balanced life and outside forces prevented them from having kids earlier, but rather those that spent their days off drinking and partying for most of their early adulthood. And also let's be honest, plenty of mothers in the US don't change their habits enough for a pregnancy in their mid 30s to be safe, the medical industry is the one doing most of the work here.

And there's also the problem with raising the kid(s), particulary when there's more than one, as they can get quite unruly and you can't precisely keep up with their energy and contrarian tendencies when you are in your mid 40s or 50s
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Mimitchi
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back