Tying the two Prudie posts together, as an anthropologist I can say that both of these seem incredibly commonplace and normal, healthy relationships. Apparently, these two women watch too much Lifetime.

Millions of years and billions of births later, we seem to have forgotten that most partnerships in this world are forged on the kind of feelings described by the woman who misses fireworks. Yah, it's called stability, honey. Turn off the television and step away from the Sleepless in Seattle dvd.

As to those who think that this guy could only be after the woman 1) as a baby predator 2) as a baby maker, 3) 'cause she is beautiful, or 4) 'cause she is wealthy (why then would she need him again?) have we forgotten so easily that the way we got to 6 billion people on this planet is that people want children? Generally? Children are a form of property to many, a legacy, a sign of adulthood...and women, ala Levi-Strauss, are the first form of exchange. Have you never noticed that most women who give a good goddamn can find a partner? Not so true of men.

Finally, look around, I live in the middle-upper middle class bounds of the social network, and I can think of several women of my acquaintance who hooked up with men other than their first (or second) child's father while pregnant or shortly thereafter. It is not that uncommon. In times past, it was common not to even bother getting married UNTIL a woman was proved fertile.

Some of you guys would really benefit from reading Stephanie Koontz's "The Way We Never Were" and getting your heads out of Leave it to Beaver-land.