No fault divorce
davi...@steinmetz.uucp
>In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
>> person)?
I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but
I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on
which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important.
Physical attraction: after the first 20 years neither of you is going
to be a sex symbol, and unless your drives strip a gear, some of the
younger members of the opposite sex are going to look a LOT better.
People who think this is important get young lovers about 40.
Agreement about (pick a topic): looking at my friends who've been
married for 20 or more years, roughly half of them fight and the other
half agree on most things. None of them have a relation based on one of
them being the dominant partner (although a few are based on both
thinking they are).
Money: being rich and poor is easy. Being middle class you will
disagree about allocation of funds. It shouldn't be a big problem,
although it is used as an excuse when other things aren't working.
----------------
Notice that I haven't given the secret of HAVING a good marriage, just
mentioned things which don't prevent it. The only thing I can state
that will almost always wreck a marriage is one person (or both)
thinking "s/he'll change that when we get married". People don't
mention the little things that bug them, because they don't trust the
relationship, and all too often their right! If you want to change
someone, either do it before you get married, or forget it!
"Still in love, 23 years next week"
--
-bill davidsen
ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
\
unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
chinet ------/
sixhub ---------------------/ (davi...@ge-crd.ARPA)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"
Bill Bagot
I'd like to say at the start that I'm glad Bill Davidsen
shared his opinions to the net about what he has
observed in marriage. It's good to hear from someone
who has been married for 23 years...
Now let me rip into him!
In article <8...@steinmetz.UUCP>, davi...@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
> In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> >In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
> >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
> >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
> >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
> >> person)?
>
> I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this
That's me
> I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on
> which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> gospel?
Wait! Hold on! I have accouple of things to say:
Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers'
in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level'
or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them?
Secondly, just because I'm not married yet doesn't mean I don't
have valid points or opinions. In fact, I didn't see anything in
your article that disputed any of my points (since I have 10
of them you'd think you'd at least hit one :-))
Quite the contrary, you agree that physical attraction is not
the major point of importance and seem to agree with me that
no one side is dominant - that both sides give in alittle.
So what's the problem?
Please, don't set yourself up as being virtuous because you
resisted the temptation to respond.
If you have something to say to me then fire away, I'm ready.
Still happily awaiting marriage,
Bill Bagot
Elaine Richards
>In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
>>In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
>>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
>>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
>>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
>>> person)?
>
>I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but
>I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on
>which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
>gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important.
>
That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either
they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how
many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how
to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair!
Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as
married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss
going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there.
Lighten up.
E
*****
Don Licsak
> >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> >>In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
> >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
> >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
> >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
> >>> person)?
> >
> >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but
> >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on
> >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> ^^^^^^
> >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important.
> >
>
> That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either
> they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how
> many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how
> to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair!
>
single life because they know they don't want marriage or aren't
ready for it, and freely admit it.
> Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as
> married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss
> going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there.
>
Another good point. I may rattle some readers with my "blunt"
postings, however, I'm a staunch defender of the open forum
concept. To the one who referred to "losers", I say "if people
aren't measuring up, you'd better check your own yardstick!"
> Lighten up.
>
> E
> *****
--
Don Licsak ihnp4!hsi!licsak
Health Systems International
New Haven, CT 06511
"I'm the person your mother warned you about"
archie
>
> I'd like to say at the start that I'm glad Bill Davidsen
> shared his opinions to the net about what he has
> observed in marriage. It's good to hear from someone
> who has been married for 23 years...
>
> Now let me rip into him!
>
> In article <8...@steinmetz.UUCP>, davi...@steinmetz.UUCP writes:
> > In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> > >In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
> > >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
> > >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
> > >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
> > >> person)?
> >
> > which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> > gospel?
>
> Wait! Hold on! I have accouple of things to say:
>
> Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers'
> in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level'
> or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them?
> > People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed
> > i.e. ended in divorce. Some people are sensitive to calling their
> > marriages failures or saying that they personally failed because
> > they got divorced. I think it's like getting fired from a job:
> > it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances,
> > but it's not what you would call a success.
> > I don't think that I am better than anyone else because I have
> > a happy marriage and he/she doesn't. Although I have a happy
> > marriage, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make
> > speeches about what an oppressive and demeaning state being single
> > is, and I am reasonably sick of single people making similar
> > speeches about marriage. I think relationships/marriages should be
> > evaluated (if you need to do that) in the instant cases, not in the
> > general case.
>
> Secondly, just because I'm not married yet doesn't mean I don't
> have valid points or opinions. In fact, I didn't see anything in
> your article that disputed any of my points (since I have 10
> of them you'd think you'd at least hit one :-))
> > I agree, since most people have some basis for comparison in the
> > marriages of the people around them. However, I know a lot more
> > about marriage now that I have been married for a few years, a
> > point that seems to be lost on people that have never been married.
> >
> > I missed your original article so don't know what the 10 points were.
>
> Quite the contrary, you agree that physical attraction is not
> the major point of importance and seem to agree with me that
> no one side is dominant - that both sides give in alittle.
>
> So what's the problem?
>
> Please, don't set yourself up as being virtuous because you
> resisted the temptation to respond.
> > Why not?
archie
> In article <8...@steinmetz.UUCP> davi...@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes:
> >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> >>In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
> >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
> >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
> >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
> >>> person)?
> >
> >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but
> >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on
> >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> ^^^^^^
> >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important.
> >
>
> That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either
> they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how
> many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how
> to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair!
> > didn't want to get married (this may be wrong in some cases, but it
> > seems a more respectful point of view). Why should it have to be "deep
> > in there"? There are many people with many reasons for not wanting
> > to be married. I've read some of them on the net. What I resent a lot
> > is that if I say I have a happy marriage and that since I have a counter
> > example to the theory that MARRIAGE is always an oppressive, rotten
> > relationship that always deprives women of their freedom and individuality,
> > the theory isn't
> > correct, I am told ( by unmarried people, whatever their reasons or
> > circumstance) that I am just one case and not the norm, and that I have no
> > right to use my experience to attack their theory. In fact, all they have
> > to justify their theory is their (selectivly viewed) experience.
> > Just because I preferred being married to being single doesn't give
> > me the right to assume there is something inherently wrong or inferior
> > about the state of singlehood except for a few isolated cases, which
> > is what a lot of single people say about marriage.
> > I don't think people whose marriages or relationships ended are 'losers'
> > but they did fail at those relationships. I don't think it's fair to
> > say something is bad because I personally made some mistakes at it.
>
> Unmarried people are entitled to discuss marriage and divorce just as
> married people are entitled to discuss singleness. All of us may discuss
> going to the Moon, but not too many of us will get there.
> > moon than you or I do from reading about it and watching it on TV.
>
> Lighten up.
>
> E
> *****
> > All married people were once single people, but not all single
> > people have been married. Granted, they have probably observed
> > other people's marriages, but there's a difference between observing
> > something (watching somebody drive a car, hearing about somebody's
> > college experiences but not going to college yourself) and doing it
> > yourself.
> >
ihlpn!ihlpg!kapa
Hoff
I have a question....
Why is it that the discussions I've been reading for
the past few days are responses about responses about responses.
(I think I saw 5 '>>>>>' in the last article I read.) I have
a hard time following a discussion when the next response
sometimes just picks at pieces of the last posting. You know,
when a word like "loser" or "naive" is used and the person being
"summoned" feels the duty to respond?
The discussion has been good, but I wish I didn't have
to read some articles again and again to get to the point or
opinions of the poster.
I guess if you'd like to tell me I'm wrong about this,
please electronic-mail to me if you can.
Julie A. Hoff ihnp4!ihuxa!hoff
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, IL
archie
married, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make
archie
> > In article <8...@steinmetz.UUCP> davi...@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes:
> > >In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
> > >>In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
> > >>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
> > >>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
> > >>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
> > >>> person)?
> > >
> > >I was going to write a flame to the person who replied to this, but
> > >I'll pass, let him be happy. Why is it that marriage is one topic on
> > >which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> > ^^^^^^
> > >gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important.
> > >
> >
> > That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either
> > they (somewhere deep in there) don't want to be, are not ready (know how
> > many really YOUNG people read net.news?), or they haven't figured out how
> > to "go about it". Saying they are "losers" is really unfair!
Not nice? get serious. I assume that people who didn't get married
didn't want to get married (this may be wrong in some cases, but it
seems a more respectful point of view). Why should it have to be "deep
in there"? There are many people with many reasons for not wanting
to be married. I've read some of them on the net. What I resent a lot
Cheryl Stewart
>In article <8...@steinmetz.UUCP> davi...@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes:
>>In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
>>>In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
>>>> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
>>>> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
>>>> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
>>>> person)?
>>
>>which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
> ^^^^^^
>>gospel? Let me pass on a few tips on what's NOT important.
>
>That is NOT nice!!! Someone who is not married is that way because either
Correct. Why is it a loss to not want to be married? Is it also a loss
to not want to be a plumber? If everyone else wants to do their own
plumbing, and I happen to already have perfectly good plumbing, and have
no desire to ever do any plumbing, does that make me a loser? I
consider married life just another choice in life, just like carrer-choice
or what make, model and year car to drive, and what part of the
country to live in. I can criticize 1970 VW bugs, 1978 Plymouth Furies,
1968 Chevy Novas and 1982 Mazda RX7's. I can also criticize the marriage
laws of New York and Illinois, and the societal attitudes regarding
marriage that I, as a married person, was exposed to.
Cheryl
che...@oddjob.uucp
>> > In article <159@wheaton> bagot@wheaton (Bill Bagot) writes:
>> > >In article <59...@sri-spam.ARPA>, g...@sri-spam.UUCP writes:
>> > >> If you are married or engaged now, are you happy?
>> > >> Do you think you will be happy 10, 20, n years from now?
>> > >> Were you happy 10, 20, n years ago (while married or engaged to the same
>> > >> person)?
>> >
>> > Why is it that marriage is one topic on
>> > which the opinions of the losers and non-participants are accepted as
>> > gospel?
>>
>> Wait! Hold on! I have accouple of things to say:
>>
>> Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers'
>> in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level'
>> or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them?
>
>> > People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed
>> > i.e. ended in divorce. Some people are sensitive to calling their
>> > marriages failures or saying that they personally failed because
>> > they got divorced. I think it's like getting fired from a job:
>> > it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances,
>> > but it's not what you would call a success.
What about quitting a lousy job and going on to a better one, i.e.
one that pays better and that you like more? This is what MY divorce
was like, and I call it a great success. Within a year of my divorce,
I also changed jobs to a much, much better one--I was free to do so!
Now, less than a year after that, my former office mate has ALSO opted
for the get-divorced, get-a-better-job option. I consider hers a great
success, and I suspect that my getting fed up with allowing myself to
be shit on in my ex-job and ex-marriage had something to do with her
getting fed up with it too.
>> > I don't think that I am better than anyone else because I have
>> > a happy marriage and he/she doesn't. Although I have a happy
>> > marriage, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make
>> > speeches about what an oppressive and demeaning state being single is,
You most certainly do. You call all divorced people failures. That
is demeaning and oppressive. You fail to see the negative effects of
marriage on women.
>> > and I am reasonably sick of single people making similar
>> > speeches about marriage. I think relationships/marriages should be
>> > evaluated (if you need to do that) in the instant cases, not in the
>> > general case.
So why is it that married women are more likely to commit suicide than
unmarried women, and married men are less likely to commit suicide than
unmarried men? Statistically, marriage has more negative effects on women
than men? It is then vailid to conclude that women are more oppressed
in marriage than men. Therefore, divorce can be considered a success for
women who find themselves oppressed in marriage.
Cheryl
WrightMM
people spend much time breaking other articles down to comment on them.
I do not have the patience to read and re-read these articles.
If an article is interesting I think the thoughts it provokes would be
effective as stand alone articles.
e.m.eades
%>> > marriage, I don't think everyone should be married, I don't make
%>> > speeches about what an oppressive and demeaning state being single is,
%
%You most certainly do. You call all divorced people failures. That
%is demeaning and oppressive. You fail to see the negative effects of
%marriage on women.
%
%>> > and I am reasonably sick of single people making similar
%>> > speeches about marriage. I think relationships/marriages should be
%>> > evaluated (if you need to do that) in the instant cases, not in the
%>> > general case.
%
%So why is it that married women are more likely to commit suicide than
%unmarried women, and married men are less likely to commit suicide than
%unmarried men? Statistically, marriage has more negative effects on women
%than men? It is then vailid to conclude that women are more oppressed
%in marriage than men. Therefore, divorce can be considered a success for
%women who find themselves oppressed in marriage.
%
%Cheryl
I object to your attitude that marriage is oppressive to women.
Obviously you have made some choices that you
were not happy with. While divorce does not make you a failure, I do think
it implies that someone(s) made a mistake somewhere (possibly in getting
married in the first place). I don't think that marriage as an institution
is oppressive, I do think some people make it that way. I'd guess that
more of the stress on women has to do with the changing role of women
in society as a whole than because a woman got married.
On a slightly different track, why are there so many woman who want to get
married? According to the above statistics (and I do know from an article
that I have read that married women rated themselves the least happy and
married men rated themselves the most happy) woman do not seem to enjoy
being married as much as men do, yet most of the single women I know
(myself included) want to get married and most of the single men I know
in the same age group (~25) do not want to get married. Those men who
are aprox 25 and are getting or have gotten married recently seem to have
been given the choice of get married or find someone else. Am I looking
at an unusual slice of people or do others find this true also?
-Beth Eades
A. K. Laux
Cheryl Stewart:
%So why is it that married women are more likely to commit suicide than
%unmarried women, and married men are less likely to commit suicide than
%unmarried men? Statistically, marriage has more negative effects on women
%than men? It is then vailid to conclude that women are more oppressed
%in marriage than men. Therefore, divorce can be considered a success for
%women who find themselves oppressed in marriage.
%
%Cheryl
> I object to your attitude that marriage is oppressive to women.
> Obviously you have made some choices that you
> were not happy with. While divorce does not make you a failure, I do think
> it implies that someone(s) made a mistake somewhere (possibly in getting
> married in the first place). I don't think that marriage as an institution
> is oppressive, I do think some people make it that way. I'd guess that
> more of the stress on women has to do with the changing role of women
> in society as a whole than because a woman got married.
>
> On a slightly different track, why are there so many woman who want to get
> married? According to the above statistics (and I do know from an article
> that I have read that married women rated themselves the least happy and
> married men rated themselves the most happy) woman do not seem to enjoy
> being married as much as men do, yet most of the single women I know
> (myself included) want to get married and most of the single men I know
> in the same age group (~25) do not want to get married. Those men who
> are aprox 25 and are getting or have gotten married recently seem to have
> been given the choice of get married or find someone else. Am I looking
> at an unusual slice of people or do others find this true also?
>
> -Beth Eades
Sorry, Beth, we may agree on cats & kittens (net.pets.oldnews), but I'll
have to agree with Cheryl here. In a generic sense, without talking about
individual people, the laws/social customs/whatever make it rather oppressive
to be a wife. A woman DOES surrender a good deal of her individuality when
she marries. Now it's true that there are a LOT of young men and women out
there who are waking up to the "good old boy" system that has prevailed for
so many years, and they are changing it. But both you and I know, as well as
a lot of net.singles and net.women readers, that there are certain males that
shall remain nameless who still have inane and archaic ideas about women.
Fred whatshisname wrote what I hope was a satire, but I've seen real, live
human males who actually think this way. Old habits die hard. The one that
gets me is "Mrs. John Jones" - whereinheck is it written that the woman lost
her FIRST name, too?! Mrs. Mary Jones, if you please! Just try to keep your
MAIDEN name when you marry - you want to see insurance, credit card and other
companies have a heart attack? ("But you can't DO that!!") BS!
As for why people want to get married, it will vary from couple to couple.
I have yet to run across anyone who was a victim of marriage blackmail -
"Marry me or leave me!" That kind, be it male or female, doesn't rate too
highly on my list.
For the record, I'm divorced. We BOTH made a mistake. It happens. He expected
a good little wife just like mommy to always be there and play maid. The
craziest thing is, he didn't really give any indication of this attitude while
we were dating. Did I know him well enough, you ask? Is ten years enough?
The IDEA of marriage is basically good. Western society has made it hard to
be a wife.
AKL@DEC
Peter Barbee
what. But somebody typed in some real bullshit, so here goes -
>> > Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers'
>> > in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level'
>> > or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them?
>>
>People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed
>i.e. ended in divorce.
>... I think it's like getting fired from a job:
>it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances,
>but it's not what you would call a success.
The world is black and white, the world is black and white, the sky is falling,
the sky is falling.
Get the point?
I can only hope that whenever something you do doesn't work for the best
someone reminds you you're a failure. Or maybe you'll change your viewpoint.
Care,
Peter B
cheryl
>>> > Firstly, isn't it alittle bit strong to call people 'losers'
>>> > in marriage. Why? Just becasue they haven't reached the 'high-level'
>>> > or marriage that you have? Do you think you're better than them?
>>>
>>People can probably be called 'losers' if their marriages failed
>>i.e. ended in divorce.
>>... I think it's like getting fired from a job:
>>it may not be all your fault, there may be extenuating circumstances,
>>but it's not what you would call a success.
>
>someone reminds you you're a failure. Or maybe you'll change your viewpoint.
Hey, my ex MISREPRESENTED HIMSELF AS A FEMINIST before we got married.
He said "Of course you'll finish your SB at Cornell and go on to grad
school" before the wedding. Then, afterwards, he did everything in his
power to make it impossible--"I'm sorry, but we just can't afford Cornell,
why don't you transfer to a state school? U of I Urbana is just as good
as U of Chicago [sic] -- why don't you stay here with me?" I defied him
on both counts (figured out a way to graduate from Cornell anyway, without
having to give them any more money, went to the U of C) and then he had
the nerve to blame *me* for making it difficult for *him* to produce his
papers for his precious tenure.
Yeah, it was a bad decision, but it was a bad decision based on
disinformation provied by the enemy. And it was *no* failure to
recognize the swindle. Many women give in to this kind of bullshit--
how many times have you heard "well I would have gone to grad school but..."
and "well I would have had a career but..." and "well I would have
finished college but..." where the stuff following the "but" is a
bad circumstance carefully provided by their husbands. They never
recognized how they've been cheated out of what they openly admit that
they *would* *have* *done* -- and yet they are considered successes
in their marriage. They'd rather settle for less than admit that
they've been swindled. It's not *nice* to call your husband a liar
and a cheat. I'd rather be NOT-NICE than be cheated.
Cheryl
>
>Care,
>Peter B
Henry Perkins
> (myself included) want to get married and most of the single men I know
> in the same age group (~25) do not want to get married. Those men who
> are aprox 25 and are getting or have gotten married recently seem to have
> been given the choice of get married or find someone else. Am I looking
> at an unusual slice of people or do others find this true also?
>
> -Beth Eades
It seems to be pretty common. My brother (24) just recently decided to
get married instead of breaking up with his lover. (I think he may be
more interested in the tax break than any other part of the institution.)
My lover and I (~30) are probably going to break up because she wants
marriage and I don't.
--
{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins
It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck?
One in a million, perhaps.
Glen T Fujimori
> (myself included) want to get married and most of the single men I know
> in the same age group (~25) do not want to get married. Those men who
> are aprox 25 and are getting or have gotten married recently seem to have
> been given the choice of get married or find someone else. Am I looking
> at an unusual slice of people or do others find this true also?
>
> -Beth Eades
I've found in my limited :-) dating experience, that what you say is indeed
true; i.e., alot of women want to get married (I'm 29, going on the rest
of my life...). That's no problem with me. My problem arises when the subject
of kids comes up...it seems that alot of the women who are so willing to get
married are *unwilling* to have kids (at least the one's I've met). I guess
I'm old fashioned but I'd like to have a few kids, maybe more. I understand
the reasons for not wanting to have alot (or a few kids).....So, I have a
general question for women out there....Are there any of you who are willing
to have more than two children?
_Glen
ihnp4!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!fuji
--
glen fujimori
ihnp4!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!fuji
ir708
> [...]
>
> > (myself included) want to get married and most of the single men I know
> > in the same age group (~25) do not want to get married.
> >
>
> I've found in my limited :-) dating experience, that what you say is indeed
> true; i.e., alot of women want to get married (I'm 29, going on the rest
> of my life...).
> general question for women out there....Are there any of you who are willing
> to have more than two children?
>
> _Glen
I was one of two kids (my brother is 2.5 years older),
I sometimes thought it would have been nice to
have another sibling or two since I wasn't close with my brother. I
realize that my parents had only the two of us because that was all they
could afford, they were practical in that sense.
So, *if* I ever get married and *if* I have any kids, I think I would
want to balance economics with experience, and, naturally, the desires
of my partner. If I could *afford* to have more kids, I would
maybe like to have three or four, but if I could only afford one,
fine, it's quality, not quantity, that counts.
carol
e.m.eades
>[...]
>> (myself included) want to get married and most of the single men I know
>> in the same age group (~25) do not want to get married. Those men who
>> are aprox 25 and are getting or have gotten married recently seem to have
>> been given the choice of get married or find someone else. Am I looking
>> at an unusual slice of people or do others find this true also?
>>
>> -Beth Eades
>
>I've found in my limited :-) dating experience, that what you say is indeed
>true; i.e., alot of women want to get married (I'm 29, going on the rest
>of my life...). That's no problem with me. My problem arises when the subject
>of kids comes up...it seems that alot of the women who are so willing to get
>married are *unwilling* to have kids (at least the one's I've met). I guess
>I'm old fashioned but I'd like to have a few kids, maybe more. I understand
>the reasons for not wanting to have alot (or a few kids).....So, I have a
>general question for women out there....Are there any of you who are willing
>to have more than two children?
>
>_Glen
>ihnp4!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!fuji
ME! I'd like lots of kids, unfortunately Brad (my fiance) has a lets have
one or two and then will see attitude on the subject. He also wants to
wait as long as physically safe to start. (We agreed on when I reach 29)
-Beth Eades
Spang
> >[...]
>
> >> -Beth Eades
> >
> >I've found in my limited :-) dating experience, that what you say is indeed
> >true; i.e., alot of women want to get married (I'm 29, going on the rest
> >of my life...). That's no problem with me. My problem arises when the subject
> >of kids comes up...it seems that alot of the women who are so willing to get
> >married are *unwilling* to have kids (at least the one's I've met). I guess
> >I'm old fashioned but I'd like to have a few kids, maybe more. I understand
> >the reasons for not wanting to have alot (or a few kids).....So, I have a
> >general question for women out there....Are there any of you who are willing
> >to have more than two children?
> >
> >_Glen
> >ihnp4!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!fuji
>
Well, Old-fashioned _Glen, I have two questions for you.
If a woman is not physically able to have children, is she still on your list?
If you say yes, then what is the difference between that situation
and when a woman is emotionally unable to have children?
Debbie
PS. I would love to have more than two children but,
unfortunately, I fall into the former group. We're checking
into adoption.