FAQ Women to Avoid for Marriage
Aaron R Kulkis
Lenny Schafer wrote:
>
> For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless over the
> last 25 years. "Adjustments" to family law initially designed to
> protect woman and children from abusive husbands and poverty after
> divorce have gone so overboard that it offers a too easy way out for
> spouses instead of working out the problems that are inevitable in most
> relationships. Husbands and fathers by law are disposable, dispensable.
>
> If you have doubt about this ask just about any man who has lost his
> family, children and most of his assets in a "nobody's fault" divorce.
> Since the divorce rates hover at 50+%, they shouldn't be hard to find --
> a percentage that puts any man in marriage or considering marriage at
> great potential risk.
>
> Our society honors quick fixes and instant gratifications over
> honoring husbands and fatherhood. To reduce your disposability factor in
> future marriages (in lieu of waiting for the laws to change), I offer
> the following tips of problem "stereotypes" of women to avoid as potential
> partners.
>
> 1. THE FEARFUL FEMINIST -- Avoid women who see sexism and male privilege
> at every turn. These women are insecure, androphobic and it's only a matter
> of time before you are seen as part of the problem too--no matter how
> hard you try to prove you are fair. Her problem has nothing to do with you
> specifically, just men in general and her own self-doubts. You can't fix
> it.
>
> 2. THE IRONCLAD EGALITARIAN -- A red flag is when she insists on
> relationship "equality", yet is inflexible on how this "equality" gets to be
> defined: by her terms. In other words, she intends to dominate this "equal"
> relationship. Ask yourself if you want your family run by someone
> pretending she's not really the one in control. It's a device for avoiding
> the responsibility that goes with leadership. Such women are immature and
> have childhood-fixated control issues. Any natural expressions of your
> masculinity will be seen as a potential threat. Prepare for a life of
> paranoid-based petty fighting if you see yourself as someone greater than a
> total wus.
>
> 3. THE CAREER BOUND -- Avoid women who chase careers not so much
> because they love their work, but that they are adamant, even paranoid
> about being independent. You are going to be highly disposable as a
> husband and father in a culture that promotes instant gratification and
> taking the easy way out when the relationship takes its inevitable bumpy
> turn. Exception being if you are comfortable taking the submissive role in
> a relationship (many American men are). But if you want her to have as
> much of a career as you, don't have expectations of raising a family as
> well. Very few are able to "have it all," and only women can have a career
> and children. Usually both suffer. If you don't think daycare/surrogate
> parenting sucks, talk to some gen-xers raised this way.
>
> 4. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- Avoid women in recovery, therapy, or from
> fatherless or father-scarce families. Fortunately since victimhood is
> honored in this culture, these women tend to readily blab about their
> wounds 10 minutes after you meet them. Women who have truly healed
> have no scabs to obsessively pick at. Resist the urge to be the heroic
> rescuer, for her healing can only be done by herself and you will only be
> resented for your patronizing efforts, eventually.
>
> "In recovery" is present tense. If she identifies herself as an alcoholic,
> or drug addict, drug addict or asshole in recovery, believe her. Suggest
> that she call you when she gets done with "recovery." If unable to resist
> your ego's need to be a hero, join a Big Brother program instead. It's
> appropriate to patronize children (in it's positive sense).
>
> 4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS -- Avoid older career women with ticking
> biological clocks. These women can be particularly bad picks. They have
> demonstrated generally their low priority in taking the time and the
> effort into having durable relationships with men. By "ticking clock"
> age she may be too independent and set in her ways to be willing to make
> a whole lot of flexible room for your bad habits or personality flaws.
> You are a VERY disposable piece of family furniture (usually realized
> after you've deposited your seed and invested half your assets).
>
> Time given for you to shape up to her version of an "equal" partner
> varies from "strong woman" to strong woman. If you marry the boss,
> that's what you'll get. Again, many American men are fine with the
> submissive marriage partner role. Hell, they can even be President some
> day!
>
> 5. THE SEXUAL BUTTERFLY -- Those sexually liberated, sexually assertive,
> even sexually aggressive women can be fun for hot dates, but don't fall in
> love!! There is just no getting around the double-standard here. A woman
> will ALWAYS know who the mother is. A father doesn't have the same
> assurances that his kids are his, however. If this issue is important to
> you, don't make the mistake thinking mere marital status will change her
> old sexual habits.
>
> 6. AMERICAN WOMEN -- Consider marrying a foreign women from a culture which
> does not dishonor men, husbands and fathers. And only if you're exhausted
> with traditional dating methods and a seamless stream of "high-maintenance"
> women ("high-maintenance" is a euphemism for emotional immaturity).
> Warning: some foreign cultures encourage a predatory mentality of women
> against men without the need for feminist pretenses. Suitors beware.
>
> These are generalizations of course and they are only a suggestive
> guideline starting point in the ounce-of-prevention category of avoiding
> the dangers of divorce. The best solution is to reverse the trend today
> of making husbands instant disposables and making fatherhood
> functionally illegal. Help create family laws which promote family
> stability and commitment rather than divorce.
>
> Love, lenny
>
> P.S. Yes, men can be jerks too. But you don't need me to restate this
> when there are so many other people around who have made a profession out
> of men-bashing.
> --
> using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in the
> Subject: line.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ATTENTION: The security of my flashnet account was compromised
the weekend of Oct 10-12. Many posts were sent out under my name
were actually written by a former roommate. I will be moving to
a new account shortly.
Aaron R Kulkis
>
> In article <6vvjpu$oof$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, phil...@dial.pipex.com
> says...
> >
> >
> >Kize wrote in message <6vvi1u$m...@news.dx.net>...
> >>
> >>PHILIP LEWIS wrote in message <6vuuf7$bm8
> >>>1. THE FEARFUL FEMINIST -- Avoid women who see sexism and male
> >>privilege
> >>>3. THE CAREER BOUND --
> >>>Love, lenny
> >>>
> >>>-------Massive amounts of snippage-------------
> >>
> >>Gee, you ruled out 100% of women in this country.
> >>I guess I'll become a monk after all. ;-D
> >>
> >
> >Or you could try another country. :-o)
> >>Kize
> >>
> >Phil
> >(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
> >
>
> Another country? Please refer to the current subject-threads about
> marrying golddigging foreign women in search of green cards!
You mean like your grandmother, perhaps???
Aaron R Kulkis
stephanie wrote:
>
> Below is a quick re-do of Lenny Schafer's memo to warn people what kind of
> person to avoid.
>
> For women and recently for men as well the marriage contract has been
> gutted almost useless. In the past, the marriage contract was just gutted
> almost useless for woman only. "Adjustments" to family law initially
> designed to protect woman and children from abusive husbands and poverty
> after divorce have saved many people from abusive spouses and offers them a
> way out from abusive spouses instead of spending the rest of their lives
> trying to work it out and getting batterred to a pulp - emotionally and
> physically. Husbands, mothers, wives, fathers, and children are
> disposable, dispensable. Now, all people, not just woman and children,
> have turned into disposable trash.
>
> If you have doubts about this ask just about any woman or man who has lost
> his/her family, children and most of his/her assets in a "nobody's fault"
> divorce. Since the divorce rates hover at 50+%, they shouldn't be hard to
> find -- a percentage that puts any person in marriage or considering
> marriage at great potential risk.
>
> Our society honors quick fixes and instant gratifications over honoring
> wives, husbands, motherhood, fatherhood. To reduce your disposability
> factor in future marriages (in lieu of waiting for the laws to change), I
> offer the following tips of problem stereotypes" of people to avoid as
> potential partners.
>
> 1. THE FEARFUL ONE -- Avoid people who see sexism and gender related
> privilege at every turn. These people are insecure, paranoid and it's only
> a matter of time before you are seen as part of the problem too--no matter
> how hard you try to prove you are fair. Their problem has nothing to do
> with you specifically, just human-kind in general and their own
> self-doubts. You can't fix it. Nor should you waste your precious time
> trying.
>
> 2. THE IRONCLAD EGALITARIAN -- A red flag is when this person insists on
> relationship "equality", yet is inflexible on how this "equality" gets to
> be defined: by their terms. In other words, this person intends to
> dominate this "equal" relationship. Ask yourself if you want your family
> run by someone pretending not to be really the one in control. It's a
> device for avoiding the responsibility that goes with leadership. Such
> people are immature and have childhood-fixated control issues. Any natural
> expressions of your masculinity/femininity will be seen as a potential
> threat. Prepare for a life of paranoid-based petty fighting if you see
> yourself as someone greater than a total push-over. For the women out
> there, avoid the "My way or the highway" type of guy. For the men out
> there, "Avoid those woman who pay for dates".
>
> 3. THE CAREER BOUND -- Avoid people who chase careers not so much because
> they love their work, but that they are adamant, even paranoid about being
> independent. You are going to be highly disposable as a spouse and parent
> in a culture that promotes instant gratification and taking the easy way
> out when the relationship takes its inevitable bumpy turn. Exception being
> if you are comfortable taking the submissive role in a relationship (many
> American men are; and most American women are too). But if you want your
> spouse to have as much of a career as you, don't have expectations of
> raising a family as well. Very few are able to "have it all," and only
> some men and some women can have a career and children. Usually both
> suffer. If you don't think daycare/surrogate parenting sucks, talk to some
> gen-xers raised this way.
>
> 4. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- Avoid people in recovery, therapy, or from
> fatherless/motherless or parent-scarce families. Fortunately since
> victimhood is honored in this culture, these people tend to readily blab
> about their wounds 10 minutes after you meet them. People who have truly
> healed have no scabs to obsessively pick at. Resist the urge to be the
> heroic rescuer, for their healing can only be done by themselves and you
> will only be resented for your patronizing efforts, eventually.
>
> "In recovery" is present tense. If he/she identifies himself/herself as an
> alcoholic, or drug addict, drug addict or asshole in recovery, believe
> him/her. Suggest that he/she call you when he/she gets done with
> "recovery." If unable to resist your ego's need to be a hero, join a Big
> Brother or Big Sister program instead. Or, just get a life of your own.
> It's appropriate to patronize children (in it's positive sense).
>
> 4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS -- Avoid older career men/women with ticking
> biological clocks. These men/women can be particularly bad picks. They
> have demonstrated generally their low priority in taking the time and the
> effort into having durable relationships with men/women. By "ticking
> clock" age he/she may be too independent and set in his/her ways to be
> willing to make a whole lot of flexible room for your bad habits or
> personality flaws. You are a VERY disposable piece of family furniture
> (usually realized after you've been impregnated or deposited your seed and
> invested half your assets.
>
> For the woman out there: It's not worth it to get involved with this type
> of guy. Don't forget you have less eggs than he has sperm. And can only
> have a limited number of children during a limited time frame. Don't
> forget that not only do you invest your precious pro-creation time. You
> invest your body, your figure, your health, your fertile period, nine
> months (sometimes pure agony) for each child. And if you are a woman who
> breast feeds, don't forget what your nipples will look like after you've
> done that part for 1 year for each child. Not to mention the discomfort.
>
> As a side note on what some of these men with biological clocks look like:
> Balding, grey hair, wrinkles. These men with biological clocks are usually
> the older men who have futzed around in their youth. When they are finally
> in their 40s, 50s, with sperm that may be somewhat damaged (another reason
> to run if they want to impregnate you and cause you untold misery with
> miscarriages, etc), they realize they need to find some woman to settle
> down with and have a family. These types, older farts themselves,
> gravitate toward nubile woman who can serve as a vessel for their own
> needs. If you investigate his past, you will find a whole wasteland of
> hurt women - this man has probably had more than one abortion and has a
> history of long term cohabitations with woman who they never ended up
> marrying (usually this man has strung these pathetic woman along for so
> long that these women will end up adopting because he used up their clock's
> battery long ago).
>
> Time given for you to shape up to his/her version of an "equal" partner
> varies from "strong person" to strong person. If you marry the boss,
> that's what you'll get. Again, many American men and even more American
> women are fine with the submissive marriage partner role. Hell, they can
> even be President some day!
>
> 5. THE SEXUAL BUTTERFLY -- Those sexually liberated, sexually assertive,
> even sexually aggressive people can be fun for hot dates, but don't fall in
> love!! There is just no getting around the double-standard here. No
> sexually active person knows who he/she has pro-created with. If this
> issue is important to you, don't make the mistake thinking mere marital
> status will change a person's old sexual habits. Don't forget, folks, a
> slut is a slut, whether in male clothing or female clothing.
>
> 6. AMERICANS -- Consider marrying a foreigner from a culture which does
> not dishonor women, wives, mothers, men, husbands and fathers. Just don't
> forget, in the current state, most societies generally don't honor women or
> children. (So your best bet if you are a woman is to forget about marriage
> altogether and go to a sperm bank.) And only if you're exhausted with
> traditional dating methods and a seamless stream of "high-maintenance"
> people ("high-maintenance" is a euphemism for emotional immaturity).
> Warning: some foreign cultures encourage a predatory mentality of people
> against people without the need for pretenses. It's a jungle out there!
> Suitors beware.
>
> These are generalizations of course and they are only a suggestive
> guideline starting point in the ounce-of-prevention category of avoiding
> the dangers of divorce. The best solution is to reverse the trend today of
> making spouses instant disposables and making parenthood functionally
> illegal. Help create family laws which promote family stability and
> commitment rather than divorce. Or, we should just forget about marriage
> altogether and accept the fact that people suck.
Aaron R Kulkis
o...@ok.ok wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:48:02 GMT, "stephanie"
> <s...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
> >Below is a quick re-do of Lenny Schafer's memo to warn people what kind of
> >person to avoid.
> >
> >For women and recently for men as well the marriage contract has been
> >gutted almost useless. In the past, the marriage contract was just gutted
> >almost useless for woman only. "Adjustments" to family law initially
>
> The best way for a modern American woman to avoid most
> of the marital problems of modern American society is to get
> a mail order husband from the Philippines. That will also
> help to correct the imbalance between mail order brides and
> mail order husbands. Your Philippine mail order husband
> will have a much more positive attitude than the American
> you wisely rejected. Instead of giving you bitter
> arguments, deafening tirades, incoherent threats of
> violence, random disappearances with returns at
> inappropriate hours, and so many other attacks on marital
> harmony, your Philippine mail order husband will sing to you
> to make everything better, spend hours per day fixing up the
> house and doing yardwork, and bring peace to your whole
> neighborhood by being one of the world's best diplomats.
> And his neverending supply of charm will keep you madly in
> love for decades.
Aaron R Kulkis
>
> You betcha. What is it about these Philippino men? They have so much
> charm. So much "delicadeza". They never seem to yell and are soft spoken
> too.
>
> They may be macho inside, but outside they are all sensitivity. Yes, I do
> agree with you. I think that it's time to restore the equity, if there can
> be Philippino mail order brides, let there be Philippino mail order
> husbands.
For some reason, there doesn't seem to be much demand....
I wonder WHY?????
If Local men are so bad, then why aren't American women going
overseas to find men???
I'll tell you why?
1) They know that American men are the BEST they're gonna get, and
2) Foreign men won't have a THING to do with American women
Steve Chaney
>>
>> They may be macho inside, but outside they are all sensitivity. Yes, I do
>> agree with you. I think that it's time to restore the equity, if there can
>> be Philippino mail order brides, let there be Philippino mail order
>> husbands.
>
>For some reason, there doesn't seem to be much demand....
>I wonder WHY?????
There you go again, applying Earth matters to the people of Mongol...
>If Local men are so bad, then why aren't American women going
>overseas to find men???
But there are. Snigglers know thousands of women who are going foreign
husband-hunting as I speak.
-- Steve, and Ming the Merciless was really played by a Mongolian actor,
too!
Muttley the Evil Snickering Dog
Aaron R Kulkis <aku...@flash.net> wrote in article
<362E95EF...@flash.net>...
> stephanie wrote:
> >
> > You betcha. What is it about these Philippino men? They have so much
> > charm. So much "delicadeza". They never seem to yell and are soft
spoken
> > too.
I know exactly what it is about Filipino men that appeals to American
women . Ready?
NO SPINES WHATSOEVER, AND THE ONES WHO CAN AFFORD TO LEAVE THE PHILLIPINES
HAVE SERIOUS MONEY!
No, no, it's true. I was married into a Filipino family for a long time.
Filipinas are domineering, matriarchal, sadistic wenches who, over the past
couple of millennia, have cowed the men of that island into doing whatever
it takes to insure peace. This is not just my take on the situation. The
other men who married into the culture who I met all begged me to
reconsider my choice in future spouse, but I failed to listen. They wanted
to start a support group for "Husbands of Filipina Wives". So far, I'm the
only one who got together the balls to divorce one of them, and my life has
been hell ever since.
>
> For some reason, there doesn't seem to be much demand....
> I wonder WHY?????
Oh, there's lots of demand. Just a very, very short supply.
> If Local men are so bad, then why aren't American women going
> overseas to find men???
Because they know that they can milk Joe-average-American out of every
dime in a currency they're familiar with.
> I'll tell you why?
> 1) They know that American men are the BEST they're gonna get, and
> 2) Foreign men won't have a THING to do with American women
See, I told you the educational system was better overseas. :)
Me.
Bill McHale
: No, no, it's true. I was married into a Filipino family for a long time.
: Filipinas are domineering, matriarchal, sadistic wenches who, over the past
: couple of millennia, have cowed the men of that island into doing whatever
: it takes to insure peace. This is not just my take on the situation. The
: other men who married into the culture who I met all begged me to
: reconsider my choice in future spouse, but I failed to listen. They wanted
: to start a support group for "Husbands of Filipina Wives". So far, I'm the
: only one who got together the balls to divorce one of them, and my life has
: been hell ever since.
You know this is very strange, one of my best friends is from the
Phillipines; I have spent many hours at his house, and I can say from
personal experience that his mother and sisters all seemed perfectly nice.
I never saw any evidence of sadism or manupulation. The men for their
part seem about as independent as men do anywhere.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
The main problem with my job is that they expect me to actually work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Bill McHale
: stephanie wrote:
: >
: > You betcha. What is it about these Philippino men? They have so much
: > charm. So much "delicadeza". They never seem to yell and are soft spoken
: > too.
: > They may be macho inside, but outside they are all sensitivity. Yes, I do
: > agree with you. I think that it's time to restore the equity, if there can
: > be Philippino mail order brides, let there be Philippino mail order
: > husbands.
: For some reason, there doesn't seem to be much demand....
: I wonder WHY?????
: If Local men are so bad, then why aren't American women going
: overseas to find men???
Its simple really Aaron, the vast majority of women, like the vast
majority of men know that it is a mixed bag out there, just because they
have had failures in the past, it does not mean that all their future
relationships will fail as well.
: I'll tell you why?
: 1) They know that American men are the BEST they're gonna get, and
I love this particular bit of chauvinism. How Aaron does a society that
in your estimation produces nothing but screwed up women produce the best
men in the world?
: 2) Foreign men won't have a THING to do with American women
I know some international couples that would disagree with you (The
advantage of working at an international treaty orginization is that their
tends to be people from all over the world there.).
Steve UK
wrote:
>I wonder WHY?????
>
>If Local men are so bad, then why aren't American women going
>overseas to find men???
>
>I'll tell you why?
>1) They know that American men are the BEST they're gonna get, and
>2) Foreign men won't have a THING to do with American women
I did, and do.........
Steve..
sha...@*nospam*.mit.edu
I travelled in Italy a number of years ago with three blonde American women.
They were rather popular with the men there, so I am inclined to disagree
with you. (I steered clear, of course, being <ahem> virtuous (and brunette,
and 15 years old).)
-elizabeth
Muttley the Evil Snickering Dog
Bill McHale <wmc...@umbc.edu> wrote in article
<70nb6n$p62$1...@news.umbc.edu>...
> You know this is very strange, one of my best friends is from the
> Phillipines; I have spent many hours at his house, and I can say from
> personal experience that his mother and sisters all seemed perfectly
nice.
> I never saw any evidence of sadism or manupulation. The men for their
> part seem about as independent as men do anywhere.
>
The important word was seems. They'll never let you sense any form of
impropriety or unrest before you marry into the family. Then, your first
thanksgiving as a married couple, all the men will pull you off to the side
and let you know that they feel your pain. (This was a *huge* family, too.
Lots of guys pulling me away from the crowd to let me know all about the
torture I was in for.)
Me.
aaron
you...
mgra...@my-dejanews.com
Oh, those Italians!
Half the men I have dated and/or been in relationships with have been
Europeans. I'm American.
Maggie
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
cbianco
>> 2) Foreign men won't have a THING to do with American women
>
>I travelled in Italy a number of years ago with three blonde American women.
>They were rather popular with the men there, so I am inclined to disagree
agreed.
like tossing skinned cows to a shark. the florentine and roman dudes i
know go unnaturally gaga over le raggazze bionde. its a medical fact
>with you. (I steered clear, of course, being <ahem> virtuous (and brunette,
>and 15 years old).)
i too was once 15 and brun-, and at about the time that my virtue took
a hike. and good riddance.
btw which towns did you visit?
cbianco
Karen McFarlin
> Sent on to soc.singles and alt.romance
>
> Lenny Schafer wrote:
> >
> > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows! Damn, what's this world
coming to? Maybe you should join the Baptist Church? I hear they only let
thier women vote if their husbands get to watch and make sure they don't
vote "demoncratic!"
>I offer
> > the following tips of problem "stereotypes" of women to avoid as potential
> > partners.
> >
> > 1. THE FEARFUL FEMINIST -- (etc,)
> > 2. THE IRONCLAD EGALITARIAN -- (etc.)
> > 3. THE CAREER BOUND -- (etc.)
> > 4. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- (etc.)
> > 4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS - (etc.)
> > 5. THE SEXUAL BUTTERFLY -- (fuck them, ignore them later! etc.)
> > 6. AMERICAN WOMEN -- (etc.)
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
Aaron, have you ever considered just kidnapping a ten year old Indonesian
girl? No, really. I don't think anyone that young would threaten your
fragile manhood.
Hahahahahahah,
k
Alan Horowitz
Women totally control the cash in a Filipino (I mean in the Phils, not
talking about partially-Americanized families) family. They hold it all,
and give daily or weekly allowances to hubby.
There's the old stereotype about American women dragging along the hubby
on a shopping trip to carry things, and pay for them. Filipinas do not
grant this latter privilege to Filipinos.
--
Alan Horowitz al...@widomaker.com
alan
>In article <362E928E...@flash.net>, aku...@flash.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Lenny Schafer wrote:
>> >
>> > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
>
>coming to? Maybe you should join the Baptist Church? I hear they only let
>thier women vote if their husbands get to watch and make sure they don't
>vote "demoncratic!"
now, karen...
male idiocy is not limited to denomination...
--
support c4m
let our men walk again...!
aaron
--
According to an ancient story, a man once approached Buddha and began to
call him ugly names. Buddha listened quietly until the man ran out of
epithets and had to pause for breath. "If you offer something to a
person and that person refuses it, to whom does it belong?" asked
Buddha. "It belongs, I suppose, to the one who offered it," the man
said. Then Buddha said,"The abuse and vile names you offer me, I refuse
to accept." The man turned and walked away."
alan
>The Tagalog slang for wife is: "chief of police"
>
>Women totally control the cash in a Filipino (I mean in the Phils, not
>talking about partially-Americanized families) family. They hold it all,
>and give daily or weekly allowances to hubby.
>
>There's the old stereotype about American women dragging along the hubby
>on a shopping trip to carry things, and pay for them. Filipinas do not
>grant this latter privilege to Filipinos.
zat zo...? where is its reflection in filippino politics...?
(i donno, maybe so, but i don't see it...)...
Alan Horowitz
>>Women totally control the cash in a Filipino (I mean in the Phils, not
>>talking about partially-Americanized families) family. They hold it all,
>>and give daily or weekly allowances to hubby.
>>There's the old stereotype about American women dragging along the hubby
>>on a shopping trip to carry things, and pay for them. Filipinas do not
>>grant this latter privilege to Filipinos.
>zat zo...? where is its reflection in filippino politics...?
>(i donno, maybe so, but i don't see it...)...
Try a dept store or supermarket anywhere in Manila. Surveill the
cashier's positions at the checkout lines
No one was talking about politics. Go back to sleep.
--
Alan Horowitz al...@widomaker.com
JLT_ALB
(Karen McFarlin) wrote:
> Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows! Damn, what's this world
> coming to? Maybe you should join the Baptist Church? I hear they only let
> thier women vote if their husbands get to watch and make sure they don't
> vote "demoncratic!"
Ahem... as a member of the Baptist church, I take exception to that remark.
Doing a little stereotyping of your own, Karen? :-)
Janie
--
Many things are opened by mistake, but none so frequently as the mouth.
To reply via email send to janiet at earthlink dot net.
alan
i've not been to the phillipines, much less manila... i will
ask some of the filippinos i know (who do not seem to fit that
discription)...
i was talking about politics, and, as i am someone, you
may go back to sleep...
aaron
Alan Horowitz wrote:
>
> not@at_this.com (alan) writes:
> >>Women totally control the cash in a Filipino (I mean in the Phils, not
> >>talking about partially-Americanized families) family. They hold it all,
> >>and give daily or weekly allowances to hubby.
> >>There's the old stereotype about American women dragging along the hubby
> >>on a shopping trip to carry things, and pay for them. Filipinas do not
> >>grant this latter privilege to Filipinos.
>
> >zat zo...? where is its reflection in filippino politics...?
>
> >(i donno, maybe so, but i don't see it...)...
>
> Try a dept store or supermarket anywhere in Manila. Surveill the
> cashier's positions at the checkout lines
>
> No one was talking about politics. Go back to sleep.
Steve Chaney
>--
>According to an ancient story, a man once approached Buddha and began to
>call him ugly names. Buddha listened quietly until the man ran out of
>epithets and had to pause for breath. "If you offer something to a
>person and that person refuses it, to whom does it belong?" asked
>Buddha. "It belongs, I suppose, to the one who offered it," the man
>said. Then Buddha said,"The abuse and vile names you offer me, I refuse
>to accept." The man turned and walked away."
This parable works on snigglers, too. God, does it ever work.
-- Steve
George Davenport
Maybe so, but there's a lot to be said for someone like Aaron
(Kulkis) whose quick with his retorts. Steve, even YOU have to
admit that Aarons explanation (of how his account was compromised
by his roommate) was uniquely creative for soc.singles . Even
though I don't agree with a lot of what he says, I have to admire
that fancy footwork.
George
--
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Bluffs/3289/index.html
10/17/98 added L.A. trip, reorganized to use simple tables
and experiment with backgrounds; the Return of the Flea
Market Art Gallery
Stephen La Joie
>
> In article <362E928E...@flash.net>, aku...@flash.net wrote:
>
> > Sent on to soc.singles and alt.romance
> >
> > Lenny Schafer wrote:
> > >
> > > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
>
> coming to? Maybe you should join the Baptist Church? I hear they only let
> thier women vote if their husbands get to watch and make sure they don't
> vote "demoncratic!"
What, exactly, do men specifically and the major wage
earner in general get out of the Marriage contract?
I hear you ridicule people who say that there's the marriage
contract is gutted, but I don't see anything other than
stuffing words into his mouth to defend the marriage
contract.
A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
earning spouse give in consideration?
Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
nothing.
Courageous
> parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> earning spouse give in consideration?
>
> Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> nothing.
I agree. The contract for marriage should NOT be standard.
There should be a contract where each of the partners
accepts equality in the relationship, and divides in
equity based on earning power at seperation.
I can see how housewives would want some larger protection,
however. Perhaps the contract should be written to default
to 50% in the event the woman has children, otherwise by
percentage of income.
C/
JLT_ALB
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
> parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> earning spouse give in consideration?
>
> Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> nothing.
Help me out here Stephen - I think I have a grasp of your message, but need
to say it out loud and get your feedback - its a new way of seeing things
for me.
Am I hearing you say that the marriage contract, for all that it promises
to both parties, isn't fully enforceable? In other words, no consequences
befall parties who violate the "honor above all others" (fidelity) clauses
and such. Yet, the other clauses (that have to do with what you said above
re equalization of financial resources) do come with consequences, if
violated? A divorce court requires the wage-earning spouses to continue
honoring that part of the contract even after the contract is severed? In
other words, only the financial portions of a marriage contract are valued
by society to be enforceable?
Its certainly a new way of looking at this whole marriage thing - what good
is a contract, vows, etc. if no consequences are incurred upon violation?
Or if only the financial parts of the contract are deemed serious enough to
warrant enforcement?
Input appreciated - from all sides of this issue. Got my thinking cap on! :-)
Janie
--
Friendship with oneself is all-important because without it one cannot be
friends with anyone else in the world.
To reply via email replace "JLT" with "janiet"
Stephen La Joie
>
> In article <3634BB3F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
> > parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> > retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> > exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> > earning spouse give in consideration?
> >
> > Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> > nothing.
>
> Help me out here Stephen - I think I have a grasp of your message, but need
> to say it out loud and get your feedback - its a new way of seeing things
> for me.
>
> Am I hearing you say that the marriage contract, for all that it promises
> to both parties, isn't fully enforceable? In other words, no consequences
> befall parties who violate the "honor above all others" (fidelity) clauses
> and such.
>
> Yet, the other clauses (that have to do with what you said above
> re equalization of financial resources) do come with consequences, if
> violated? A divorce court requires the wage-earning spouses to continue
> honoring that part of the contract even after the contract is severed? In
> other words, only the financial portions of a marriage contract are valued
> by society to be enforceable?
Yeah, in most states. Most states don't care about what went on during
the
marriage. The old fault laws are gone from most states.
I am wondering, what kind of consideration is REQUIRED by the marriage
contract for the spouse who makes less to give to the spouse who makes
more. Let me be clear, the spouse who makes less can and often does
give a lot to the marriage, but it's not required to do so. Contracts
require consideration. The spouse who makes less can sit back and do
absolutely nothing for the marriage, and come the divorce, the higher
earning spouse can find himself even more deeply obligated because of
that.
What kind of contract is that?
(Awaiting flames...)
> Its certainly a new way of looking at this whole marriage thing - what good
> is a contract, vows, etc. if no consequences are incurred upon violation?
> Or if only the financial parts of the contract are deemed serious enough to
> warrant enforcement?
In no fault states. And required consideration, not consideration that's
given freely and not mandated by the contract.
Marg Petersen
Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>JLT_ALB wrote:
>>
>> In article <3634BB3F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
>> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
>> > parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
>> > retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
>> > exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
>> > earning spouse give in consideration?
>> >
>> > Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
>> > nothing.
>>
>> Help me out here Stephen - I think I have a grasp of your message, but need
>> to say it out loud and get your feedback - its a new way of seeing things
>> for me.
>>
>> Am I hearing you say that the marriage contract, for all that it promises
>> to both parties, isn't fully enforceable? In other words, no consequences
>> befall parties who violate the "honor above all others" (fidelity) clauses
>> and such.
That is correct. The marriage *contract* doesn't promise much.
It is the individuals who are doing the promising. ANd no, it
isn't enforceable by law.
>> Yet, the other clauses (that have to do with what you said above
>> re equalization of financial resources) do come with consequences, if
>> violated? A divorce court requires the wage-earning spouses to continue
>> honoring that part of the contract even after the contract is severed? In
>> other words, only the financial portions of a marriage contract are valued
>> by society to be enforceable?
>
>Yeah, in most states. Most states don't care about what went on during
>the
>marriage. The old fault laws are gone from most states.
Yup, that is correct. If the marriage is continuing, the law
doesn't care who earns the money or who controls it or who spends
it.
>I am wondering, what kind of consideration is REQUIRED by the marriage
>contract for the spouse who makes less to give to the spouse who makes
>more. Let me be clear, the spouse who makes less can and often does
>give a lot to the marriage, but it's not required to do so. Contracts
>require consideration. The spouse who makes less can sit back and do
>absolutely nothing for the marriage, and come the divorce, the higher
>earning spouse can find himself even more deeply obligated because of
>that.
>
>What kind of contract is that?
It isn't. However, both parties have *outs*. That is, if one
spouse isn't earning and *their* promise was to do so, the other
can leave (get a divorce). If one spouse is kicking back and
not living up to *their* promises, that spouse can leave (divorce).
If there is a divorce, the one who has been *earning* the money
gets to share their income with the other. The premise being that
the arrangement made BY the couple IS acceptable (or was) to that
couple and the arrangement continues. NOT, I agree, a terrific
situation but what else would you suggest? By the way, in today's
world, it isn't always assumed that the male will be earning the
salary or even the higher one (if both have jobs.) As well, in
today's divorces, when BOTH spouses have been working/earning,
there is very little chance of alimony being paid to either as
is reasonable, IMO.
> (Awaiting flames...)
No flames, just comments.
>> Its certainly a new way of looking at this whole marriage thing - what good
>> is a contract, vows, etc. if no consequences are incurred upon violation?
>> Or if only the financial parts of the contract are deemed serious enough to
>> warrant enforcement?
>
>In no fault states. And required consideration, not consideration that's
>given freely and not mandated by the contract.
The vows are not enforceable. The only thing that is is the income:
who was earning it, what was the *understanding* and arrangment between
the two and who is still earning income and who is not. I consider
that to be reasonable myself. For those who don't, they either a)shouldn't
get married or b) make certain that neither one is a stay-at-home or c)
make certain that if both work outside the home that their salaries are
pretty much even.
>> Input appreciated - from all sides of this issue. Got my thinking cap on! :-)
>> Janie
>>
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
James Buster
Karen McFarlin <ka...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>In article <362E928E...@flash.net>, aku...@flash.net wrote:
>
>> Lenny Schafer wrote:
>> >
>> > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
>
>Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows! Damn, what's this world
>coming to?
Why the extreme response? There's a vast middle ground between your
sexist non-sequitur and making marriage totally pointless.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Chris Priga
Karen McFarlin wrote:
> In article <362E928E...@flash.net>, aku...@flash.net wrote:
>
> > Sent on to soc.singles and alt.romance
> >
> > Lenny Schafer wrote:
> > >
> > > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
>
> Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows! Damn, what's this world
> coming to? Maybe you should join the Baptist Church? I hear they only let
> thier women vote if their husbands get to watch and make sure they don't
> vote "demoncratic!"
>
> >I offer
> > > the following tips of problem "stereotypes" of women to avoid as potential
> > > partners.
> > >
> > > 1. THE FEARFUL FEMINIST -- (etc,)
> > > 2. THE IRONCLAD EGALITARIAN -- (etc.)
> > > 3. THE CAREER BOUND -- (etc.)
> > > 4. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- (etc.)
> > > 4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS - (etc.)
> > > 5. THE SEXUAL BUTTERFLY -- (fuck them, ignore them later! etc.)
> > > 6. AMERICAN WOMEN -- (etc.)
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Aaron, have you ever considered just kidnapping a ten year old Indonesian
> girl? No, really. I don't think anyone that young would threaten your
> fragile manhood.
>
> Hahahahahahah,
>
> k
Guess what, this is becoming the prevalent attitude amongst men. It is also the
advice I may have to give to my son. I'll wait and see about that, but most men I
know no longer feel the need to marry and those that do are getting pre-nuptual
agreements.
I'd like to hear from some women who can give me one rational reason for a man to
get married today, especially in California where 3/4 ths of first marriages bite
the dust.
Chris Priga
Lenny Schafer wrote:
> [sci.med specifically included - a little behavioral experiment of mine]
>
> Karen McFarlin <ka...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
> : In article <362E928E...@flash.net>, aku...@flash.net wrote:
>
> : > Sent on to soc.singles and alt.romance
> : >
> : > Lenny Schafer wrote:
> : > >
> : > > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
>
> : Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows!
>
> Gee Karen, sounds like you've had a lot of experience talking with abusive
> people. I'd suggest you make new better friends or divorce your parents.
>
> : vote "demoncratic!"
Anyone seen the bumper sticker "Clinton and Lewinski in 69". I think I'll get
one for the next Presidential Election.
>
>
> You said it, I didn't. But I will next chance I get! Thanks, great slur!
>
> Love, lenny
> --
> using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in the
> Subject: line.
Steven B. Harris
writes:
>That is correct. The marriage *contract* doesn't promise much.
>It is the individuals who are doing the promising. ANd no, it
>isn't enforceable by law.
Well, of course it is. That's what alimony is all about.
>
>It isn't. However, both parties have *outs*. That is, if one
>spouse isn't earning and *their* promise was to do so, the other
>can leave (get a divorce). If one spouse is kicking back and
>not living up to *their* promises, that spouse can leave (divorce).
>If there is a divorce, the one who has been *earning* the money
>gets to share their income with the other. The premise being that
>the arrangement made BY the couple IS acceptable (or was) to that
>couple and the arrangement continues.
Why should the arrangment continue after it is no longer acceptable
to both parties?
Face it: the marriage contract historically has been twofold: 1) it
provides for the care of children, and 2) it provides for financial
compensation to women in exchange for loss of reproductive fitness
during the marriage period (ie, loss of virginity and years of youth
lost, both of which are assumed to be essentially marketable
quantities). All this is implicit in the law, and especially when you
look at things like legal ground for "annulment" of marriage, in which
such compensations are assumed not to opperate.
The few recent decisions in which women with high salaries pay
alimony to men, are basically pseudo-egalatarian window-dressing,
foisted off so that people won't have to face up what is actually the
basis for present law. Biology, however, is not going to be fooled by
rhetoric. In any species in which one sex devotes more time and energy
into reproduction, there will be competition in mating for that sex,
and a flow of food/energy resources TO that sex in exchange for mating.
In the few species in which males invest more energy in rearing young
(seahorses, some shorebirds, etc), there is actually female competition
for males. I assume that if phalarope birds had divorce courts, for
example, that not only "chick-support-payments," but also
"food-alimony," would more likely go to the male of the species. That
won't happen any time soon with humans, however. Not as long as
resources are limited.
Steve Harris
Allan Cybulskie
Marg Petersen <god...@kira.peak.org> wrote in article
<713f03$83v$1...@kira.peak.org>...
> In article <3634F73E...@eskimo.com>,
> Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >Yeah, in most states. Most states don't care about what went on during
> >the
> >marriage. The old fault laws are gone from most states.
>
> Yup, that is correct. If the marriage is continuing, the law
> doesn't care who earns the money or who controls it or who spends
> it.
>
> >I am wondering, what kind of consideration is REQUIRED by the marriage
> >contract for the spouse who makes less to give to the spouse who makes
> >more. Let me be clear, the spouse who makes less can and often does
> >give a lot to the marriage, but it's not required to do so. Contracts
> >require consideration. The spouse who makes less can sit back and do
> >absolutely nothing for the marriage, and come the divorce, the higher
> >earning spouse can find himself even more deeply obligated because of
> >that.
> >
> >What kind of contract is that?
>
> It isn't. However, both parties have *outs*. That is, if one
> spouse isn't earning and *their* promise was to do so, the other
> can leave (get a divorce). If one spouse is kicking back and
> not living up to *their* promises, that spouse can leave (divorce).
> If there is a divorce, the one who has been *earning* the money
> gets to share their income with the other. The premise being that
> the arrangement made BY the couple IS acceptable (or was) to that
> couple and the arrangement continues. NOT, I agree, a terrific
> situation but what else would you suggest? By the way, in today's
> world, it isn't always assumed that the male will be earning the
> salary or even the higher one (if both have jobs.) As well, in
> today's divorces, when BOTH spouses have been working/earning,
> there is very little chance of alimony being paid to either as
> is reasonable, IMO.
The problem is that if the wage earner gets a divorce, then the non-wage
earner gets a share of the property that the wage earner's money provided,
even though they never followed through with their part of the original
agreement.
--
Allan Cybulskie
" 'Do you suffer from long-term memory loss?'
'I don't remember' "
- From "Amnesia" by Chumbawamba
Surfer
All this stuff makes me very glad I live in the UK, where attitudes to
marriage are still not *entirely* about "what's in it for me".
Contented marriages seem to be those where the partners care as much or
more about each other than themselves. All these winging posts seem to
be from selfish and often arrogant people (mostly men!) who cannot put
anyone else first, not for a single second of a single day. Least of
all any children they happen to have.
In article <01be019e$e02a9460$0102...@test.carleton.ca>, Allan
Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> writes
And what exactly was their original part of the agreement?
>
>
--
Surfer!
http://www.nevis-vieww.demon.co.uk
http://www.nevis-vieww.demon.co.uk/flash
Hopeful anti-spam: alter double 'w' to single 'w' to view site & send Email.
Stephen La Joie
>
> In article <3634F73E...@eskimo.com>,
> Stephen La Joie <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3634BB3F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> >> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> > A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
> >> > parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> >> > retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> >> > exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> >> > earning spouse give in consideration?
> >> >
> >> > Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> >> > nothing.
> >>
> >> Help me out here Stephen - I think I have a grasp of your message, but need
> >> to say it out loud and get your feedback - its a new way of seeing things
> >> for me.
> >>
> >> Am I hearing you say that the marriage contract, for all that it promises
> >> to both parties, isn't fully enforceable? In other words, no consequences
> >> befall parties who violate the "honor above all others" (fidelity) clauses
> >> and such.
>
To be a true contract, the spouse who makes less HAS to give
something in consideration to the spouse who makes more. This
is NOT required in the marriage "contract".
For the spouse who makes more, a legal marriage is a universally
bad DEAL. They agree to transfer money to the spouse who makes less,
and are assured of nothing in return. Nothing.
From a legal point, why would anyone marry someone who makes
less than they do? It's far better to just live together. You're
legal exposure is much reduced, except in common law states.
> It is the individuals who are doing the promising. ANd no, it
> isn't enforceable by law.
Then it's not part of the contract. Where's the consideration given
to the spouse who makes more money?
And all that's left of the marriage contract is money issues.
There's nothing about any consideration that is related to
marriage at all.
> >> Yet, the other clauses (that have to do with what you said above
> >> re equalization of financial resources) do come with consequences, if
> >> violated? A divorce court requires the wage-earning spouses to continue
> >> honoring that part of the contract even after the contract is severed? In
> >> other words, only the financial portions of a marriage contract are valued
> >> by society to be enforceable?
> >
> >Yeah, in most states. Most states don't care about what went on during
> >the
> >marriage. The old fault laws are gone from most states.
>
> Yup, that is correct. If the marriage is continuing, the law
> doesn't care who earns the money or who controls it or who spends
> it.
This reduces marriage to who can spend more than
the other spouse's income so that they can get the
legal benefit.
No wonder the bankruptcy rate is increasing.
> >I am wondering, what kind of consideration is REQUIRED by the marriage
> >contract for the spouse who makes less to give to the spouse who makes
> >more. Let me be clear, the spouse who makes less can and often does
> >give a lot to the marriage, but it's not required to do so. Contracts
> >require consideration. The spouse who makes less can sit back and do
> >absolutely nothing for the marriage, and come the divorce, the higher
> >earning spouse can find himself even more deeply obligated because of
> >that.
> >
> >What kind of contract is that?
>
> It isn't. However, both parties have *outs*. That is, if one
> spouse isn't earning and *their* promise was to do so, the other
> can leave (get a divorce). If one spouse is kicking back and
> not living up to *their* promises, that spouse can leave (divorce).
> If there is a divorce, the one who has been *earning* the money
> gets to share their income with the other. The premise being that
> the arrangement made BY the couple IS acceptable (or was) to that
> couple and the arrangement continues. NOT, I agree, a terrific
> situation but what else would you suggest? By the way, in today's
> world, it isn't always assumed that the male will be earning the
> salary or even the higher one (if both have jobs.) As well, in
> today's divorces, when BOTH spouses have been working/earning,
> there is very little chance of alimony being paid to either as
> is reasonable, IMO.
You're ignoring that the "out", the dissolution of the marriage
"contract", will do nothing more than transfer wealth from the
wage earning spouse to the spouse who makes less.
There is no reason for anyone who earns an income marry someone
who makes less than they do. Which means, there is no reason
anyone would ever get married.
1) The adultery laws are gone from most state's books, so
fidelity isn't assured.
2) The illegitimate child laws are gone from the books, and
child related issues are separated from marriage laws, so
being married doesn't make a difference to having children.
3) Withholding sex isn't grounds for annulment like it was
in the past in most states.
4) There's no law that says your spouse can't up and move
out, and in most states this is not "grounds" for divorce.
5) All that's left on the law books in pure "no fault" states
for marriage is a transfer of money from the wage earning spouse
to the spouse who earns less.
> > (Awaiting flames...)
>
> No flames, just comments.
>
> >> Its certainly a new way of looking at this whole marriage thing - what good
> >> is a contract, vows, etc. if no consequences are incurred upon violation?
> >> Or if only the financial parts of the contract are deemed serious enough to
> >> warrant enforcement?
> >
> >In no fault states. And required consideration, not consideration that's
> >given freely and not mandated by the contract.
>
> The vows are not enforceable. The only thing that is is the income:
In other words, the whole thing is about money!!
> who was earning it, what was the *understanding* and arrangment between
> the two and who is still earning income and who is not.
Uh, the divorce court doesn't care what the "understanding" was.
The spouse that spends the most has the most fun. The only thing
the court cares about (disregarding children, which are covered
the same married or not...) is property issues and money, and if
a spouse doesn't work or makes considerably less during the marriage,
they get MORE after the marriage.
If you DON'T get married, you get property in proportion to
your incomes and don't have to pay spousal support. You also
maintain control of your own money, and can spend it how you
wish.
That's the only difference that marriage certificate makes.
(Other than if your spouse makes almost as much as you do,
which is what you want, you get taxed more!) Why would anyone
who makes more than their spouse want to get married?
> I consider that to be reasonable myself.
I find that surprising.
> For those who don't, they either a) shouldn't
> get married or b) make certain that neither one is a stay-at-home
What do you do when your spouse up and quits their job? They come
home an announce, for example, that they just up and quit their
job, and you're going to have to handle their big fat car payment?
Do you divorce them johnny on the spot? Then you have two separate
households to pay for and the car payment to make too! That's shooting
yourself in the foot.
The penalty of divorce goes against the higher wage earning
spouse. Not contributing as much to the marriage, money wise,
is reason to be compensated MORE. Any other intangible contributions
to the marriage are not even CONSIDERED. The court doesn't care who
kept house and did the chores, or example.
> or c)
> make certain that if both work outside the home that their salaries are
> pretty much even.
What stinks is that this is what John Cooley said to do, :-)
and I'm beginning to agree with him. So maybe I have a brain
tumor or something - I think he's right!
Bruce
Never marry any woman who:
1. Has ever been married before, unless she is a widow.
2. Has a child, unless she is a widow.
3. Has a mother who was ever divorced (even after the
daughter grew up).
4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
a close loving relationship with her natural father.
5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
Bruce
Bill McHale
: The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
: Never marry any woman who:
: 1. Has ever been married before, unless she is a widow.
Well I can understand this to some extent... probably because I am
Catholic and am therefore not suppose to marry a divorced woman (provided
she was married in a manner considered valid for her religion).
: 2. Has a child, unless she is a widow.
Yes obviously any such woman with a child is a slut is not worth the time
of us oh so virtuous men. I mean please, perhaps she was raped, or
perhaps, just perhaps she made a mistake when she was younger? Oh but I
suppose we can't have the women in our lives be human now can we.
: 3. Has a mother who was ever divorced (even after the
: daughter grew up).
And thus the child will be held accountable for the sins of the parent.
What if it was her Father who was divorced? I know there is an increased
likelyhood of divorce among the children of divorce, but that does not
garuntee the outcome.
: 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
: a close loving relationship with her natural father.
Of course that might not be her fault. What if the father died while she
was an infant? Or what if the father was abusive? Should we just
disregard this woman because of that?
: 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
And of course we are oh so good at knowing whether or not a woman is a
virgin. I certainly hope you hold men to the same standard. Afterall how
can we expect women to be virgins if the men looking to marry them are not
virgins as well?
: Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
: found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
: above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
: US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
: want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
And your sure she was a virgin? I would be really interested in knowing
how? I suppose perhaps your son showed you the sheets after the wedding
night, but that seems rather odd, and its not a perfect test anyway.
Perhaps he was just telling you she was a virgin so she would be accepted
by you?
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
The main problem with my job is that they expect me to actually work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Bruce
>
> Bruce (Nam...@usa.net) wrote:
> : The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
>
> : Never marry any woman who:
>
> : 1. Has ever been married before, unless she is a widow.
>
> Well I can understand this to some extent... probably because I am
> Catholic and am therefore not suppose to marry a divorced woman (provided
> she was married in a manner considered valid for her religion).
Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
woman is good sense.
> : 2. Has a child, unless she is a widow.
>
> Yes obviously any such woman with a child is a slut is not worth the time
> of us oh so virtuous men. I mean please, perhaps she was raped, or
> perhaps, just perhaps she made a mistake when she was younger? Oh but I
> suppose we can't have the women in our lives be human now can we.
It doesn't matter why or how she got the child. If she has one outside
of marriage it clearly indicates she does not hold to the moral
principles of marriage and will more than likely use you for a meal
ticket (in the form of child support) after she cons you into fathering
a second child with her and/or adopting her bastard.
> : 3. Has a mother who was ever divorced (even after the
> : daughter grew up).
>
> And thus the child will be held accountable for the sins of the parent.
> What if it was her Father who was divorced? I know there is an increased
> likelyhood of divorce among the children of divorce, but that does not
> garuntee the outcome.
Doesn't matter about the "sins of the parent." What matters is how "OK"
she is likely to view divorce. Since 70% of all divorces are initiated
by the female, any man marrying a woman coming from a background that
has divorce in it is making a mistake.
> : 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
> : a close loving relationship with her natural father.
>
> Of course that might not be her fault. What if the father died while she
> was an infant? Or what if the father was abusive? Should we just
> disregard this woman because of that?
True, it not only might not be her fault, it is highly unlikely for it
to be her fault. The most likely thing is that it is the fault of her
mother. But it doesn't matter who is at fault, if she hasn't had a close
loving relationship with her natural father she will be very unlikely to
be able to form proper relationships with men, particularly male
children if she has any. One should avoid such women for this reason
alone.
> : 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
>
> And of course we are oh so good at knowing whether or not a woman is a
> virgin. I certainly hope you hold men to the same standard. Afterall how
> can we expect women to be virgins if the men looking to marry them are not
> virgins as well?
There are many way to tell if a woman is a virgin. The LEAST RELIABLE of
these is blood on the sheets, but it's one way.
The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
> : Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
> : found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
> : above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
> : US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
> : want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
>
> And your sure she was a virgin? I would be really interested in knowing
> how? I suppose perhaps your son showed you the sheets after the wedding
> night, but that seems rather odd, and its not a perfect test anyway.
> Perhaps he was just telling you she was a virgin so she would be accepted
> by you?
Actually he is unaware of my current attitude on the subject. They were
together many years prior to marriage, but were an exclusive couple all
during that time. Over the years he said enough that I figured it out.
Men, particularly American men, who think things should be "equal" where
men and women are concerned, such as you seem to, are more of the
problem we have in today's society than the rabidly feminist women.
I have absolutely no respect for such men, nor for their views.
Bruce
Kathleen DeFilippo
Bruce wrote:
>
> Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
> demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
> all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
> woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
> woman is good sense.
As would be avoiding a divorced man; course, had I done that, I wouldn't
be married, as my husband was married once before.
> It doesn't matter why or how she got the child. If she has one outside
> of marriage it clearly indicates she does not hold to the moral
> principles of marriage and will more than likely use you for a meal
> ticket (in the form of child support) after she cons you into fathering
> a second child with her and/or adopting her bastard.
Bastard?? Where do you get this?? What if she was married, and her
scumbag husband took off with another woman because it was all "too much
responsibility" and "not fun anymore?" And what is it with this
pervasive belief that women are all looking for meal-tickets? I stay at
home to be with my son and STILL work 40 hours per week; meaning I have
TWO full-time jobs...meal ticket? I don't think so.
> Doesn't matter about the "sins of the parent." What matters is how "OK"
> she is likely to view divorce. Since 70% of all divorces are initiated
> by the female, any man marrying a woman coming from a background that
> has divorce in it is making a mistake.
Wrong again; my parents were divorced when I was 20; I only wish they'd
done it sooner. It was a terrible marriage, but it taught me what NOT to
look for in a mate. I think divorce is most certainly *not* okay;
unfortunately, there are situations when it's a necessary evil.
> True, it not only might not be her fault, it is highly unlikely for it
> to be her fault. The most likely thing is that it is the fault of her
> mother. But it doesn't matter who is at fault, if she hasn't had a close
> loving relationship with her natural father she will be very unlikely to
> be able to form proper relationships with men, particularly male
> children if she has any. One should avoid such women for this reason
> alone.
Bullshit. If my father is an asshole, he's an asshole. I should be
loving to him just because he was a sperm donor?? Give me a break...that
has no bearing on my marriage.
> The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
> matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
> exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
> in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
> general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
This is my favorite; of COURSE you're happy about the
double-standard...you get to party big-time while the women-folk sit
home and knit until Prince Charming comes to the door. What a hoot!
--
M. Kathleen DeFilippo
Technical Services Professional
http://members.home.net/mkdefilippo/index.htm
Stephen La Joie
each point?
2) What if she's a widow because she killed her husband?
3) Seems like you'd have to be robbing the cradle, wouldn't
you, if not a widow?
4) To be fair, do you have another list that rules out
all men above the age of 18 the way this one rules out
all women above that age?
5) What are people who make the list suppose to do?
Bruce wrote:
>
> The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
>
> Never marry any woman who:
>
> 1. Has ever been married before, unless she is a widow.
>
> 2. Has a child, unless she is a widow.
>
> 3. Has a mother who was ever divorced (even after the
> daughter grew up).
>
> 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
> a close loving relationship with her natural father.
>
> 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
>
> Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
> found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
> above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
> US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
> want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
>
> Bruce
Bill McHale
: Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
: demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
: all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
: woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
: woman is good sense.
Yep its true that most divorces are initiated by the woman, but what
exactly does that prove? Only that they are more likely to initiate the
divorce, not that they are more likely to be the cause of the failure of
marriages. In most cases deep problems exist in the marriage before a
single paper is filed with the courts and often one of the major
aggravations of the problem is the failure of the husband to recognize
that there is a problem.
: It doesn't matter why or how she got the child. If she has one outside
: of marriage it clearly indicates she does not hold to the moral
: principles of marriage and will more than likely use you for a meal
: ticket (in the form of child support) after she cons you into fathering
: a second child with her and/or adopting her bastard.
:
Or perhaps she made a mistake when she was younger, got pregnant and felt
that abortion was wrong, but did not want to give the child up for
adoption. What a horrible slut that women must be to do such a thing.
: Doesn't matter about the "sins of the parent." What matters is how "OK"
: she is likely to view divorce. Since 70% of all divorces are initiated
: by the female, any man marrying a woman coming from a background that
: has divorce in it is making a mistake.
:
Ok.. what if her grandparents were divorced? Or how about if there was a
criminal in the family? I mean please, even with statistics being what
they are, you cannot judge an individual based on statistics.
: > : 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
: > : a close loving relationship with her natural father.
: >
: > Of course that might not be her fault. What if the father died while she
: > was an infant? Or what if the father was abusive? Should we just
: > disregard this woman because of that?
: True, it not only might not be her fault, it is highly unlikely for it
: to be her fault. The most likely thing is that it is the fault of her
: mother. But it doesn't matter who is at fault, if she hasn't had a close
: loving relationship with her natural father she will be very unlikely to
: be able to form proper relationships with men, particularly male
: children if she has any. One should avoid such women for this reason
: alone.
Lol, so a woman without a good relationship with her father will be unable
to be a good mother to male children? LOL.... ROTFL... Has it ever
occured to you that the relationships are completely different? I will
grant that if her parents had a bad marriage, she may not understand how a
good relationship between a man and woman as lovers and spouses could
work, but while a handicap, it does not mean she cannot learn.
: > : 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
: >
: > And of course we are oh so good at knowing whether or not a woman is a
: > virgin. I certainly hope you hold men to the same standard. Afterall how
: > can we expect women to be virgins if the men looking to marry them are not
: > virgins as well?
: There are many way to tell if a woman is a virgin. The LEAST RELIABLE of
: these is blood on the sheets, but it's one way.
And these other methods are?
: The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
: matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
: exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
: in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
: general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
:
Sure it doesn't make a difference if the men could care less about
families, think it is perfectly ok to have a child with a woman and then
abandon them both. As long they are marrying virgins who were the
children of perfect parents everything will turn out right.
: > : Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
: > : found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
: > : above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
: > : US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
: > : want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
: >
: > And your sure she was a virgin? I would be really interested in knowing
: > how? I suppose perhaps your son showed you the sheets after the wedding
: > night, but that seems rather odd, and its not a perfect test anyway.
: > Perhaps he was just telling you she was a virgin so she would be accepted
: > by you?
: Actually he is unaware of my current attitude on the subject. They were
: together many years prior to marriage, but were an exclusive couple all
: during that time. Over the years he said enough that I figured it out.
That and $.50 will get you a cup of coffee. You actually have no way of
knowing if she was a virgin or not before your son met her. He may not
know either.
: Men, particularly American men, who think things should be "equal" where
: men and women are concerned, such as you seem to, are more of the
: problem we have in today's society than the rabidly feminist women.
Hey great... I am the cause of society's woes... Thats really cool. Here
is some advice, pull your head out of your 19th century ass and look
around. The reason the double standard exists is because its more
difficult for women to escape the consequences of premarital sex. It is
in fact one of the most scathing indictments of male behavior that we do
escape the consequences of our actions so often. Personally if I had a
daughter, and she was to bring a man like you home, I would lock her in
her room while I kicked you out of the house.
: I have absolutely no respect for such men, nor for their views.
Aww... what a shame, and the KKK doesn't respect the views of black
people... so we should be impressed because?
gi...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Alan Horowitz wrote:
> >
> > not@at_this.com (alan) writes:
> > >>Women totally control the cash in a Filipino (I mean in the Phils, not
> > >>talking about partially-Americanized families) family. They hold it all,
> > >>and give daily or weekly allowances to hubby.
> > >>There's the old stereotype about American women dragging along the hubby
> > >>on a shopping trip to carry things, and pay for them. Filipinas do not
> > >>grant this latter privilege to Filipinos.
> >
> > >zat zo...? where is its reflection in filippino politics...?
> >
> > >(i donno, maybe so, but i don't see it...)...
> >
> > Try a dept store or supermarket anywhere in Manila. Surveill the
> > cashier's positions at the checkout lines
> >
> > No one was talking about politics. Go back to sleep.
> > --
> > Alan Horowitz al...@widomaker.com
>
> According to an ancient story, a man once approached Buddha and began to
> call him ugly names. Buddha listened quietly until the man ran out of
> epithets and had to pause for breath. "If you offer something to a
> person and that person refuses it, to whom does it belong?" asked
> Buddha. "It belongs, I suppose, to the one who offered it," the man
> said. Then Buddha said,"The abuse and vile names you offer me, I refuse
> to accept." The man turned and walked away."
LOL...I'm gonna use that one...
GIna
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Blair Zajac
>Bruce (Nam...@usa.net) wrote:
>: The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
>
>: Never marry any woman who:
>
>: 1. Has ever been married before, unless she is a widow.
>
>Well I can understand this to some extent... probably because I am
>Catholic and am therefore not suppose to marry a divorced woman (provided
>she was married in a manner considered valid for her religion).
>
>: 2. Has a child, unless she is a widow.
>
>Yes obviously any such woman with a child is a slut is not worth the time
>of us oh so virtuous men. I mean please, perhaps she was raped, or
>perhaps, just perhaps she made a mistake when she was younger? Oh but I
>suppose we can't have the women in our lives be human now can we.
>
>: 3. Has a mother who was ever divorced (even after the
>: daughter grew up).
>
>And thus the child will be held accountable for the sins of the parent.
>What if it was her Father who was divorced? I know there is an increased
>likelyhood of divorce among the children of divorce, but that does not
>garuntee the outcome.
>
>: 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
>: a close loving relationship with her natural father.
>
>Of course that might not be her fault. What if the father died while she
>was an infant? Or what if the father was abusive? Should we just
>disregard this woman because of that?
>
>: 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
>
>And of course we are oh so good at knowing whether or not a woman is a
>virgin. I certainly hope you hold men to the same standard. Afterall how
>can we expect women to be virgins if the men looking to marry them are not
>virgins as well?
>
>: Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
>: found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
>: above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
>: US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
>: want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
>
>And your sure she was a virgin? I would be really interested in knowing
>how? I suppose perhaps your son showed you the sheets after the wedding
>night, but that seems rather odd, and its not a perfect test anyway.
>Perhaps he was just telling you she was a virgin so she would be accepted
>by you?
>
>--
>Bill
Bill posts from an educational site. One must wonder whether any of the
educational stuff ever got into his head.
When you want to get educated and you don't know the answers, you ask the
questions.
Bill is proposing that you don't ask the woman about herself before you
(the man) is going to get fully involved with her.
Regarding the possible lying stuff, examine the woman to determine whether
her life style is logically consistent.
One needs to marry not only with one's emotions, but one's brains, too.
Reading Marg's posts, she certainly followed the 'brains' business when she
went looking for a husband (recent Marg's posting re: recommendations from
Marg's grandmother).
--
le donne a vole sě sono scontrose
o forse han voglia di far la pipě
Paola Conte
Blair Zajac
<mkdef...@home.com> wrote:
>ROFLMAO!!!
>
>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
>> demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
>> all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
>> woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
>> woman is good sense.
>
>As would be avoiding a divorced man; course, had I done that, I wouldn't
>be married, as my husband was married once before.
>
>
>> It doesn't matter why or how she got the child. If she has one outside
>> of marriage it clearly indicates she does not hold to the moral
>> principles of marriage and will more than likely use you for a meal
>> ticket (in the form of child support) after she cons you into fathering
>> a second child with her and/or adopting her bastard.
>
>Bastard?? Where do you get this?? What if she was married, and her
>scumbag husband took off with another woman because it was all "too much
>responsibility" and "not fun anymore?" And what is it with this
>pervasive belief that women are all looking for meal-tickets? I stay at
>home to be with my son and STILL work 40 hours per week; meaning I have
>TWO full-time jobs...meal ticket? I don't think so.
>
>> Doesn't matter about the "sins of the parent." What matters is how "OK"
>> she is likely to view divorce. Since 70% of all divorces are initiated
>> by the female, any man marrying a woman coming from a background that
>> has divorce in it is making a mistake.
>
>Wrong again; my parents were divorced when I was 20; I only wish they'd
>done it sooner. It was a terrible marriage, but it taught me what NOT to
>look for in a mate. I think divorce is most certainly *not* okay;
>unfortunately, there are situations when it's a necessary evil.
>
>> True, it not only might not be her fault, it is highly unlikely for it
>> to be her fault. The most likely thing is that it is the fault of her
>> mother. But it doesn't matter who is at fault, if she hasn't had a close
>> loving relationship with her natural father she will be very unlikely to
>> be able to form proper relationships with men, particularly male
>> children if she has any. One should avoid such women for this reason
>> alone.
>
>Bullshit. If my father is an asshole, he's an asshole. I should be
>loving to him just because he was a sperm donor?? Give me a break...that
>has no bearing on my marriage.
>
>> The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
>> matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
>> exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
>> in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
>> general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
>
>This is my favorite; of COURSE you're happy about the
>double-standard...you get to party big-time while the women-folk sit
>home and knit until Prince Charming comes to the door. What a hoot!
>--
>M. Kathleen DeFilippo
>Technical Services Professional
>http://members.home.net/mkdefilippo/index.htm
This woman really must be a winner. Her husband must be a winner, too.
Married to a foul mouthed woman.
Bill Borsodi
alt.support.divorce, soc.singles, alt.romance (5 groups) --- think he's a
troll out to grate on people's nerves? ... hmmm ... yes I do believe --
he's an idiot ..
I'm not going to respond to his post (boy I considered it (good
troll, almost sucked me in) ... since he has no interest in debate ... just
irritating people.
I might consider some of his statements in an idealistic, christian
sense ... until I got to #5. These kind of double standards, and arrogance
are exactly what is wrong many times with the people in this world. All of
his statements were such over generalizations, that left so many holes ..
that it became quite obvious this was not a debate ... just irritating.
BillBo .' '. __
bil...@dicksonstreet.com . . . (__\_
http://users.dicksonstreet.com/~billbo/ . . -{{_(|8)
ICQ: 4673467 ' . . ' ' . . ' (__/`
_________________bzzzzzzzzzzz _______________
alt.support.Divorce Resource List is at:
http://users.dicksonstreet.com/~billbo/divorce2.html
-------------
Reply-to e-mail address masked. Replace ? with billbo=real address
Blair Zajac
<laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>1) How did you decide this? Whats the reason behind
>each point?
>2) What if she's a widow because she killed her husband?
>3) Seems like you'd have to be robbing the cradle, wouldn't
>you, if not a widow?
>4) To be fair, do you have another list that rules out
>all men above the age of 18 the way this one rules out
>all women above that age?
>5) What are people who make the list suppose to do?
>
>
>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
>>
>> Never marry any woman who:
>>
>> 1. Has ever been married before, unless she is a widow.
>>
>> 2. Has a child, unless she is a widow.
>>
>> 3. Has a mother who was ever divorced (even after the
>> daughter grew up).
>>
>> 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
>> a close loving relationship with her natural father.
>>
>> 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
>>
>> Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
>> found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
>> above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
>> US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
>> want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
>>
>> Bruce
If things don's work out for Stephan, he should look to get hooked up with
M. Kathleen DeFilippo (who also posted on this thread). They would be a
perfect match.
aaron
JLT_ALB wrote:
>
> In article <3634BB3F...@eskimo.com>, Stephen La Joie
> <laj...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
> > parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> > retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> > exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> > earning spouse give in consideration?
> >
> > Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> > nothing.
>
> Help me out here Stephen - I think I have a grasp of your message, but need
> to say it out loud and get your feedback - its a new way of seeing things
> for me.
>
> Am I hearing you say that the marriage contract, for all that it promises
> to both parties, isn't fully enforceable? In other words, no consequences
> befall parties who violate the "honor above all others" (fidelity) clauses
> and such. Yet, the other clauses (that have to do with what you said above
> re equalization of financial resources) do come with consequences, if
> violated? A divorce court requires the wage-earning spouses to continue
> honoring that part of the contract even after the contract is severed? In
> other words, only the financial portions of a marriage contract are valued
> by society to be enforceable?
>
> Its certainly a new way of looking at this whole marriage thing - what good
> is a contract, vows, etc. if no consequences are incurred upon violation?
> Or if only the financial parts of the contract are deemed serious enough to
> warrant enforcement?
>
> Input appreciated - from all sides of this issue. Got my thinking cap on! :-)
>
> Janie
>
> --
> Friendship with oneself is all-important because without it one cannot be
> friends with anyone else in the world.
>
> To reply via email replace "JLT" with "janiet"
--
"I've done way more stupid things on alcohol than I ever did on pot."
--Vote Jesse Ventura, Reform Candidate for Minnesota Governor
aaron
Stephen La Joie wrote:
>
> Karen McFarlin wrote:
> >
> > In article <362E928E...@flash.net>, aku...@flash.net wrote:
> >
> > > Sent on to soc.singles and alt.romance
> > >
> > > Lenny Schafer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
> >
> > Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows! Damn, what's this world
> > coming to? Maybe you should join the Baptist Church? I hear they only let
> > thier women vote if their husbands get to watch and make sure they don't
> > vote "demoncratic!"
>
> What, exactly, do men specifically and the major wage
> earner in general get out of the Marriage contract?
>
> I hear you ridicule people who say that there's the marriage
> contract is gutted, but I don't see anything other than
> stuffing words into his mouth to defend the marriage
> contract.
>
> A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
> parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> earning spouse give in consideration?
>
> Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> nothing.
--
aaron
Courageous wrote:
>
> > A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
> > parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> > retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> > exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> > earning spouse give in consideration?
> >
> > Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> > nothing.
>
> I agree. The contract for marriage should NOT be standard.
> There should be a contract where each of the partners
> accepts equality in the relationship, and divides in
> equity based on earning power at seperation.
>
> I can see how housewives would want some larger protection,
> however. Perhaps the contract should be written to default
> to 50% in the event the woman has children, otherwise by
> percentage of income.
>
> C/
--
Bill McHale
: Bill posts from an educational site. One must wonder whether any of the
: educational stuff ever got into his head.
It sure did, and you want to know what the first lesson I ever learned
was? One that predates the internet? People should be treated with
compasion, and not judged by looking at a single glance.
: When you want to get educated and you don't know the answers, you ask the
: questions.
: Bill is proposing that you don't ask the woman about herself before you
: (the man) is going to get fully involved with her.
I am not suggesting that a man not get to know the woman he is involved
in, but on the other hand, examining your girl friend/boy friend like a
prosecuting attorney is clearly out of line. If he or she shares things
with you great, but always remember, you have no way of knowing whether
they were honest. Your choice is to trust them or to live a life of
suspicision.
: Regarding the possible lying stuff, examine the woman to determine whether
: her life style is logically consistent.
This assumes two things, that she will make a mistake large enough to be
caught, and that you are mentally sharp enough to properly interpret these
things. Simple fact, she may have had sex with lots of guys before you
met her, and not long before you met changed her views. Her current
behavior might be consistent with someone who believes in waiting until
marriage, but there is no way you can be absolutely certain.
: One needs to marry not only with one's emotions, but one's brains, too.
No doubt, but less time should be spent examining her past with a fine
tooth comb and more time spent examining the content of her heart and your
basic compatibility.
Kathleen DeFilippo
My obscenity was to prove a point: funny that you noticed *my*
obscenity, but not the obscenity in the *original* poster's rhetoric.
And, you know what? I *am* a winner. I have a great husband, a terrific
child, and I'm kind to people.
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> In article <3635FF20...@home.com>, Kathleen DeFilippo
> <mkdef...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >ROFLMAO!!!
> >
> >Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
> >> demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
> >> all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
> >> woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
> >> woman is good sense.
> >
> >As would be avoiding a divorced man; course, had I done that, I wouldn't
> >be married, as my husband was married once before.
> >
> >
> >> It doesn't matter why or how she got the child. If she has one outside
> >> of marriage it clearly indicates she does not hold to the moral
> >> principles of marriage and will more than likely use you for a meal
> >> ticket (in the form of child support) after she cons you into fathering
> >> a second child with her and/or adopting her bastard.
> >
> >Bastard?? Where do you get this?? What if she was married, and her
> >scumbag husband took off with another woman because it was all "too much
> >responsibility" and "not fun anymore?" And what is it with this
> >pervasive belief that women are all looking for meal-tickets? I stay at
> >home to be with my son and STILL work 40 hours per week; meaning I have
> >TWO full-time jobs...meal ticket? I don't think so.
> >
> >> Doesn't matter about the "sins of the parent." What matters is how "OK"
> >> she is likely to view divorce. Since 70% of all divorces are initiated
> >> by the female, any man marrying a woman coming from a background that
> >> has divorce in it is making a mistake.
> >
> >Wrong again; my parents were divorced when I was 20; I only wish they'd
> >done it sooner. It was a terrible marriage, but it taught me what NOT to
> >look for in a mate. I think divorce is most certainly *not* okay;
> >unfortunately, there are situations when it's a necessary evil.
> >
> >> True, it not only might not be her fault, it is highly unlikely for it
> >> to be her fault. The most likely thing is that it is the fault of her
> >> mother. But it doesn't matter who is at fault, if she hasn't had a close
> >> loving relationship with her natural father she will be very unlikely to
> >> be able to form proper relationships with men, particularly male
> >> children if she has any. One should avoid such women for this reason
> >> alone.
> >
> >Bullshit. If my father is an asshole, he's an asshole. I should be
> >loving to him just because he was a sperm donor?? Give me a break...that
> >has no bearing on my marriage.
> >
> >> The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
> >> matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
> >> exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
> >> in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
> >> general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
> >
> >This is my favorite; of COURSE you're happy about the
> >double-standard...you get to party big-time while the women-folk sit
> >home and knit until Prince Charming comes to the door. What a hoot!
> >--
> >M. Kathleen DeFilippo
> >Technical Services Professional
> >http://members.home.net/mkdefilippo/index.htm
>
> This woman really must be a winner. Her husband must be a winner, too.
> Married to a foul mouthed woman.
>
> --
>
> le donne a vole sě sono scontrose
> o forse han voglia di far la pipě
>
> Paola Conte
>
> bza...@tcsn.net
--
Philip Ngai
JLT_ALB <J...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Am I hearing you say that the marriage contract, for all that it promises
>to both parties, isn't fully enforceable? In other words, no consequences
>befall parties who violate the "honor above all others" (fidelity) clauses
Yes, the courts are tired of being asked to deal with broken hearts
because they are not an appropriate forum. All they can really do is
move money around or put people in jail. And neither of these are
appropriate tools for cases of infidelity.
Crash Street Kidd
>
>Bill McHale wrote:
>>
>> And your sure she was a virgin? I would be really interested in knowing
>> how? I suppose perhaps your son showed you the sheets after the wedding
>> night, but that seems rather odd, and its not a perfect test anyway.
>> Perhaps he was just telling you she was a virgin so she would be accepted
>> by you?
>
>Actually he is unaware of my current attitude on the subject. They were
>together many years prior to marriage, but were an exclusive couple all
>during that time.
Aside from the yearly troopship incident.
> Over the years he said enough that I figured it out.
>
>Men, particularly American men, who think things should be "equal" where
>men and women are concerned, such as you seem to, are more of the
>problem we have in today's society than the rabidly feminist women.
>
>I have absolutely no respect for such men, nor for their views.
So why do you keep crossposting into other groups. You
inbred soc.men rejects should keep your spew to yourselves.
>Bruce
Crash Street Kidd
Steven B. Harris
<mkdef...@home.com> writes:
my parents were divorced when I was 20; I only wish they'd
>done it sooner. It was a terrible marriage, but it taught me what NOT
to
>look for in a mate. I think divorce is most certainly *not* okay;
>unfortunately, there are situations when it's a necessary evil.
Yep. A marriage is like a living body-- once it's dead, it starts
to stink pretty fast. Best to do what's necessary and get it over
with.
There ARE abusive men out there (and even abusive women, physically
and otherwise). They are people who should not have gotten married in
the first place, though often there's no particular thing in their past
to signal this. Any marriage philosophy which doesn't take that into
acount in looking for a potential mate, is pretty unwise. Perhaps we
could suggest avoiding people who've been divorced more than three
times...?
JLT_ALB
in this world even for you Bruce. I'm very very proud to announce that I
can say no such thing. You are the perfect example of all that can go bad
in a human being of either gender, or you are the most audacious troll I've
read to date. Either way, you do not have a place among the human species
- and I'm pleased to inform you that your genes will be extinguished from
our species through natural selection - you won't have to do a thing to
help that process along beyond being yourself in all its natural
repulsiveness.
Enjoy it while you can,
Janie
--
One can never pay in gratitude; one can only pay "in kind" somewhere else
in life.
David R. Voth
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) fired these fatal shots:
<snip>
>Perhaps we
>could suggest avoiding people who've been divorced more than three
>times...?
I'd be far more worried about people who have been WIDOWED more than
three times.
David Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Hang up that cell phone and DRIVE THE #$%^&{} CAR!
Steven B. Harris
R. Voth) writes:
>
>From a sixth-floor window in the sci.med schoolbook depository,
>sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) fired these fatal shots:
>
><snip>
>
>>Perhaps we
>>could suggest avoiding people who've been divorced more than three
>>times...?
>
>I'd be far more worried about people who have been WIDOWED more than
>three times.
<g>.
Bruce
>
> Bruce (Nam...@usa.net) wrote:
>
> : Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
> : demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
> : all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
> : woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
> : woman is good sense.
>
> Yep its true that most divorces are initiated by the woman, but what
> exactly does that prove? Only that they are more likely to initiate the
> divorce, not that they are more likely to be the cause of the failure of
> marriages. In most cases deep problems exist in the marriage before a
> single paper is filed with the courts and often one of the major
> aggravations of the problem is the failure of the husband to recognize
> that there is a problem.
Your statement in the above paragraph is absolute garbage. The reality
is, 70% of divorces are instituted by the woman, and in the vast
majority of these cases she does it for silly and selfish reasons having
nothing to do with such things as physical abuse or the man drinking or
cheating on her. She does it for female reasons that almost no man can
ever understand. Divorced mothers most often cite such frivolous reasons
as "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated." The most
common reason is the one they won't cite, "wanting a different lover."
> : It doesn't matter why or how she got the child. If she has one outside
> : of marriage it clearly indicates she does not hold to the moral
> : principles of marriage and will more than likely use you for a meal
> : ticket (in the form of child support) after she cons you into fathering
> : a second child with her and/or adopting her bastard.
> :
>
> Or perhaps she made a mistake when she was younger, got pregnant and felt
> that abortion was wrong, but did not want to give the child up for
> adoption. What a horrible slut that women must be to do such a thing.
It simply doesn't matter WHY she had the child out of wedlock and
decided to keep it. The FACT that she has it makes her a poor prospect
for a wife and one that a smart man should avoid.
> : Doesn't matter about the "sins of the parent." What matters is how "OK"
> : she is likely to view divorce. Since 70% of all divorces are initiated
> : by the female, any man marrying a woman coming from a background that
> : has divorce in it is making a mistake.
> :
>
> Ok.. what if her grandparents were divorced? Or how about if there was a
> criminal in the family? I mean please, even with statistics being what
> they are, you cannot judge an individual based on statistics.
If either she herself or her mother are divorced, avoid her. That's the
sum total of what I said. No exceptions, ever.
> : > : 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
> : > : a close loving relationship with her natural father.
> : >
> : > Of course that might not be her fault. What if the father died while she
> : > was an infant? Or what if the father was abusive? Should we just
> : > disregard this woman because of that?
>
> : True, it not only might not be her fault, it is highly unlikely for it
> : to be her fault. The most likely thing is that it is the fault of her
> : mother. But it doesn't matter who is at fault, if she hasn't had a close
> : loving relationship with her natural father she will be very unlikely to
> : be able to form proper relationships with men, particularly male
> : children if she has any. One should avoid such women for this reason
> : alone.
>
> Lol, so a woman without a good relationship with her father will be unable
> to be a good mother to male children? LOL.... ROTFL... Has it ever
> occured to you that the relationships are completely different? I will
> grant that if her parents had a bad marriage, she may not understand how a
> good relationship between a man and woman as lovers and spouses could
> work, but while a handicap, it does not mean she cannot learn.
Stop looking for the EXCEPTION. I'm refering to generalities. Avoiding
such a women simply makes good sense and it makes good sense for the
reasons I have given. You (being some sort of "humanist" nut) can't seem
to relate to that.
> : > : 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
> : >
> : > And of course we are oh so good at knowing whether or not a woman is a
> : > virgin. I certainly hope you hold men to the same standard. Afterall how
> : > can we expect women to be virgins if the men looking to marry them are not
> : > virgins as well?
>
> : There are many way to tell if a woman is a virgin. The LEAST RELIABLE of
> : these is blood on the sheets, but it's one way.
>
> And these other methods are?
>
> : The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
> : matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
> : exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
> : in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
> : general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
> :
>
> Sure it doesn't make a difference if the men could care less about
> families, think it is perfectly ok to have a child with a woman and then
> abandon them both. As long they are marrying virgins who were the
> children of perfect parents everything will turn out right.
That is YOUR rediculous logic, not mine. Talk about ROTFL, I'm doing it
now.
As stated. I have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT for men who choose to think the
way you do.
Bruce
Marg Petersen
Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3635FF20...@home.com> Kathleen DeFilippo
><mkdef...@home.com> writes:
>
> my parents were divorced when I was 20; I only wish they'd
>>done it sooner. It was a terrible marriage, but it taught me what NOT
>to
>>look for in a mate. I think divorce is most certainly *not* okay;
>>unfortunately, there are situations when it's a necessary evil.
>
> Yep. A marriage is like a living body-- once it's dead, it starts
>to stink pretty fast. Best to do what's necessary and get it over
>with.
I most definitely agree! My parents divorced when I was 19. I
wished they could have done it MUCH sooner.
> There ARE abusive men out there (and even abusive women, physically
>and otherwise). They are people who should not have gotten married in
>the first place, though often there's no particular thing in their past
>to signal this. Any marriage philosophy which doesn't take that into
>acount in looking for a potential mate, is pretty unwise. Perhaps we
>could suggest avoiding people who've been divorced more than three
>times...?
Well, that might be a clue. But you know, my mother has been
married 3 times now. And she has spent 20 years with each of
her husbands. Not a bad record when you get right down to it.
I fully expect that if her current husband were to die, she
might go for number four, but then she IS 80 years old now and
she might not be able to promise HIM 20 yeas. :-)
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Marg Petersen
Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>The problem is that if the wage earner gets a divorce, then the non-wage
>earner gets a share of the property that the wage earner's money provided,
>even though they never followed through with their part of the original
>agreement.
True, but then it would behoove the wage earner to get rid of (divorce)
the non-wage earner who isn't following through with their part of
the original agreement BEFORE there is anything much accumulated, eh? :-)
I mean, waiting 10 or 15 years and then deciding that one isn't thrilled
with the non wage-earners lack of contribution is a bit, shall we say,
suspect? Hehehehehehe.
>Allan Cybulskie
Marg Petersen
>writes:
>
>>That is correct. The marriage *contract* doesn't promise much.
>>It is the individuals who are doing the promising. ANd no, it
>>isn't enforceable by law.
>
> Well, of course it is. That's what alimony is all about.
The previous poster's comments (which have been removed) were
about the *promises* between a couple of fidelity and children.
Alimony is about the earned income of the wage earner who has
contracted to support both.
>>It isn't. However, both parties have *outs*. That is, if one
>>spouse isn't earning and *their* promise was to do so, the other
>>can leave (get a divorce). If one spouse is kicking back and
>>not living up to *their* promises, that spouse can leave (divorce).
>>If there is a divorce, the one who has been *earning* the money
>>gets to share their income with the other. The premise being that
>>the arrangement made BY the couple IS acceptable (or was) to that
>>couple and the arrangement continues.
>
> Why should the arrangment continue after it is no longer acceptable
>to both parties?
Because the one who hasn't been earning, but HAS been making their
contribution (assumed I realize), is the one who takes the HIT of
loss of time/experience/earning capability *because* they weren't
in the workforce. If alimony was to discontinue completely, then
it would not be reasonable for *anyone* to EVER be a stay-at-home.
Now, I personally think that wouldn't be a bad idea, but there are
many who would disagree with me. Some *want* their wives (in
particular) to be stay-at-homes, other women *want* to BE stay-at
homes and have their husband's agreement to that. To punish them
for that choice is not reasonable, nor fair.
> Face it: the marriage contract historically has been twofold: 1) it
>provides for the care of children, and 2) it provides for financial
>compensation to women in exchange for loss of reproductive fitness
>during the marriage period (ie, loss of virginity and years of youth
>lost, both of which are assumed to be essentially marketable
>quantities). All this is implicit in the law, and especially when you
>look at things like legal ground for "annulment" of marriage, in which
>such compensations are assumed not to opperate.
I agree with 1) but I vehemently disagree with 2). The contract
is NOT FOR compensation in exchange for loss of reproductive fitness
OR anything of the sort, but was simply an agreement to support in
exchange for services rendered. Nor are these things "marketable" in
any manner. As for annulment, that was a religious intervention
of a marriage when no children were produced and became acceptable
as legal grounds as a means for men to get rid of wives who didn't
give them children.
> The few recent decisions in which women with high salaries pay
>alimony to men, are basically pseudo-egalatarian window-dressing,
>foisted off so that people won't have to face up what is actually the
>basis for present law.
Bullshit! I know several women who are *paying* alimony to their
spouses and I know others (both men and women) who pay NO alimony
at all since their salaries were pretty even. No window-dressing
at all.
Biology, however, is not going to be fooled by
>rhetoric. In any species in which one sex devotes more time and energy
>into reproduction, there will be competition in mating for that sex,
>and a flow of food/energy resources TO that sex in exchange for mating.
Bwahahahahahaha. Dream on. :-) You know, one *could* (if one
had a mind to, and I do), make the counter suggestion that it is
MEN who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in reproduction.
I mean, after all, just WHO is it that runs around frantically
looking for someone to have sex with? Hehehehehehe.
> In the few species in which males invest more energy in rearing young
>(seahorses, some shorebirds, etc), there is actually female competition
>for males. I assume that if phalarope birds had divorce courts, for
>example, that not only "chick-support-payments," but also
>"food-alimony," would more likely go to the male of the species. That
>won't happen any time soon with humans, however. Not as long as
>resources are limited.
And seahorses and birds don't have to have anything to do with
their young once they are reared, no? Neither do humans. It's
just a *bit* longer time, eh? Heheheheheh. As well, you DO seem
to be confusing food/alimony with CS. They are not the same thing
and never will be. If more fathers actually DO the rearing of
children, they will get custody upon divorce and THEY will receive
CS. Many already do. AND if they have been stay-at-home parents
and never worked outside the home (or worked little) they will ALSO
receive alimony, as is proper.
> Steve Harris
Marg Petersen
>>
>> The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
>> matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
>> exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
>> in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
>> general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
>
>double-standard...you get to party big-time while the women-folk sit
>home and knit until Prince Charming comes to the door. What a hoot!
As well, I find it VERY interesting that HE is out there playing
the field with women (and thereby causing *them* to not be virgins
anymore and risking being a father), while at the same time
chastising these very women with whom he is consorting. Fine
upstanding young man there! NOT.
>M. Kathleen DeFilippo
>Technical Services Professional
>http://members.home.net/mkdefilippo/index.htm
John Cooley
>> exactly does that prove? Only that they are more likely to initiate the
>> divorce, not that they are more likely to be the cause of the failure of
>> marriages. In most cases deep problems exist in the marriage before a
>> single paper is filed with the courts and often one of the major
>> aggravations of the problem is the failure of the husband to recognize
>> that there is a problem.
>
>Your statement in the above paragraph is absolute garbage. The reality
>is, 70% of divorces are instituted by the woman, and in the vast
>majority of these cases she does it for silly and selfish reasons having
>nothing to do with such things as physical abuse or the man drinking or
>cheating on her. She does it for female reasons that almost no man can
>ever understand. Divorced mothers most often cite such frivolous reasons
>as "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated." The most
>common reason is the one they won't cite, "wanting a different lover."
Actually, Bruce, what you've said is mostly correct. The abusive mate and
the cheating hubby stories get the most press & media attention, but
your average garden variety divorce is basically the "growing apart"
or "not feeling loved enough" type. And, yes, women do file 70 percent
of the divorces. Why shouldn't they? If they're not "happy", there's
very little they loose in a divorce & a lot that they gain financially.
In addition, they no longer have to ever listen to that man again when
it comes to how the kids are raised -- she becomes the sole authority over
every aspect of their lives. It's the way our society works. Divorced
dads are disposable. And it's not something that any of us will change
in our lifetimes -- you can't fight demographic forces like the fact that
roughly half the kids today are growing up without dads in their lives.
Instead of fighting it, I've come to the realization that life's simply
much easier for all involved to focus on taking care of yourself and
enjoying life anyway. Immediately drop any relationship where a woman
is looking to get married or is interested in having kids, always wear
a rubber (or get a vasectomy), earn a good living, and enjoy life. Eat
right, run 3 miles a day, support your friends when they need it, be
financially self-sufficient, and have fun. That's as good as it gets
for a man in our present society.
- John
Karen McFarlin
> Karen McFarlin wrote:
> > > > For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless
> >
> > Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows! Damn, what's this world
> > coming to? Maybe you should join the Baptist Church? I hear they only let
> > thier women vote if their husbands get to watch and make sure they don't
> > vote "demoncratic!"
>
> What, exactly, do men specifically and the major wage
> earner in general get out of the Marriage contract?
>
> I hear you ridicule people who say that there's the marriage
> contract is gutted, but I don't see anything other than
> stuffing words into his mouth to defend the marriage
> contract.
>
> A contract requires that there be consideration given between the
> parties. The wage earner gives up a chunk of income, their
> retirement, and support the person who makes less money. What,
> exactly, does the marriage contract require that the lesser wage
> earning spouse give in consideration?
>
> Nothing that I know of. Not fidelity, not children, not love,
> nothing.
You're right, no woman has anything to offer you. If I were you, I'd stay
single. Keep your precious "wage-earner" money and avoid the pitfalls of
marriage. After all, we're all harlots and worthless and only after you
for your money.
"Children?" Why, they'd be a financial burden anyway, right? How much can
they earn?
Say, have you ever read Charles Dickens? Funny, you remind me of a
character in one of his novels. Gradgrind? No! Bounderbee! That's it!
k
Karen McFarlin
> "I've done way more stupid things on alcohol than I ever did on pot."
> --Vote Jesse Ventura, Reform Candidate for Minnesota Governor
Hahahahaahhhahah...I love this quote! I'd vote for him - if I lived in
Minnesota!
k
kim vawryk
Bruce <Nam...@usa.net> felt compelled to state:
>Bill McHale wrote:
>>
>> Bruce (Nam...@usa.net) wrote:
>> : The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
Please do not feed the trolls.
Kim, Thank You
set your cd player on stun!
- ad for a cd of william shatner and
leonard nimoy singing
Amrika
Crash Street Kidd wrote in message <715cga$s...@drn.newsguy.com>...
:So why do you keep crossposting into other groups. You
:inbred soc.men rejects should keep your spew to yourselves.
:
:>Bruce
:
This guy was over in alt.support.divorce posting the same thing, he's got a
great life of circle jerking to look forward to.
Kennyjoon
James Buster
>home an announce, for example, that they just up and quit their
>job, and you're going to have to handle their big fat car payment?
At that point you're screwed. You are obviously going to have to
make that car payment while married, and the family court will
sock it to you for attempting to divorce an unemployed spouse,
so it really doesn't matter what you do. In this case I'd divorce
immediately, since staying married isn't getting you anything.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
not.fo...@not.for.spam
<cpr...@gte.net> wrote:
>I'd like to hear from some women who can give me one rational reason for a man to
>get married today, especially in California where 3/4 ths of first marriages bite
>the dust.
How about a reason from a man? I'm a 45-year-old man
and am going to marry a 22-year-old girl who is a virgin. I
have to marry her legally because she insists on it and I
don't want to be without her. As far as I'm concerned,
she's worth millions of dollars, and it's a miracle that I
can get her at all. And I'm not worried about divorce,
because if we ever get tired of each other, I will be too
old to care, and she's a devout catholic who would never
even consider divorce. This will be the first time I will
have ever been legally married, and also the last.
But I agree that if I wanted a lady who was closer to
my own age and divorced, I would not want to legally
marry her, because I would have to be a sucker to go
for that kind of bargain. But fortunately for the women,
there's a sucker born every minute.
gi...@my-dejanews.com
aku...@flash.net wrote:
> stephanie wrote:
> >
> > You betcha. What is it about these Philippino men? They have so much
> > charm. So much "delicadeza". They never seem to yell and are soft spoken
> > too.
> >
> > They may be macho inside, but outside they are all sensitivity. Yes, I do
> > agree with you. I think that it's time to restore the equity, if there can
> > be Philippino mail order brides, let there be Philippino mail order
> > husbands.
>
> For some reason, there doesn't seem to be much demand....
> I wonder WHY?????
>
> If Local men are so bad, then why aren't American women going
> overseas to find men???
>
> I'll tell you why?
> 1) They know that American men are the BEST they're gonna get, and
except for a few obvious exceptions (clears throat)
> 2) Foreign men won't have a THING to do with American women
>
not true. I've dated several japanese men. It was...interesting.
Gina
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
>
> ATTENTION: The security of my flashnet account was compromised
> the weekend of Oct 10-12. Many posts were sent out under my name
> were actually written by a former roommate. I will be moving to
> a new account shortly.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gi...@my-dejanews.com
na...@netcomuk.co.uk (Steve UK) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:18:23 -0400, Aaron R Kulkis <aku...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I wonder WHY?????
> >
> >If Local men are so bad, then why aren't American women going
> >overseas to find men???
> >
> >I'll tell you why?
> >1) They know that American men are the BEST they're gonna get, and
>
>
> Steve..
damn...and you're not single...
Gina
>
> www.horrida.demon.co.uk/stev.html
gi...@my-dejanews.com
wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
> Muttley the Evil Snickering Dog (muttley...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> : No, no, it's true. I was married into a Filipino family for a long time.
> : Filipinas are domineering, matriarchal, sadistic wenches who, over the past
> : couple of millennia, have cowed the men of that island into doing whatever
> : it takes to insure peace. This is not just my take on the situation. The
> : other men who married into the culture who I met all begged me to
> : reconsider my choice in future spouse, but I failed to listen. They wanted
> : to start a support group for "Husbands of Filipina Wives". So far, I'm the
> : only one who got together the balls to divorce one of them, and my life has
> : been hell ever since.
>
> You know this is very strange, one of my best friends is from the
> Phillipines; I have spent many hours at his house, and I can say from
> personal experience that his mother and sisters all seemed perfectly nice.
> I never saw any evidence of sadism or manupulation. The men for their
> part seem about as independent as men do anywhere.
There are exceptions to every rule. There are nice filipinos men and women.
there are also some very nice americans of both genders. No one here seems to
understand that.
Gina
>
> --
> Bill
>
> ***************************************************************************
> The main problem with my job is that they expect me to actually work.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
> ***************************************************************************
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Marg Petersen
Kathleen DeFilippo <mkdef...@home.com> wrote:
>Blair, O Superior One:
>
>My obscenity was to prove a point: funny that you noticed *my*
>obscenity, but not the obscenity in the *original* poster's rhetoric.
That's just blair's *schtick*. He doesn't like women who swear.
Thinks they're unfeminine you know. Hehehehehe. And no, he
doesn't notice the obscenities of males. That's *allowed* in
blair's universe. :-)
>And, you know what? I *am* a winner. I have a great husband, a terrific
>child, and I'm kind to people.
Sounds great! I have a great husband as well for 33 years now.
(But blair will tell you that he's a pussy-whipped wimp). :-)
Surfer
Are you considering marriage as a business arrangement or as a close,
intimate relationship with another human being?
In article <363dd2c4....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
not.fo...@not.for.spam writes
--
Surfer!
http://www.nevis-vieww.demon.co.uk
http://www.nevis-vieww.demon.co.uk/flash
Hopeful anti-spam: alter double 'w' to single 'w' to view site & send Email.
Surfer
>Bill McHale wrote:
>>
>> Bruce (Nam...@usa.net) wrote:
>> : The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
>>
>>
>> : 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
>>
>> And of course we are oh so good at knowing whether or not a woman is a
>> virgin. I certainly hope you hold men to the same standard. Afterall how
>> can we expect women to be virgins if the men looking to marry them are not
>> virgins as well?
>
>There are many way to tell if a woman is a virgin. The LEAST RELIABLE of
>these is blood on the sheets, but it's one way.
>
>matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
>exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
>in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
>general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
And you wonder why most men are surprised when their wife files for
divorce? I hope you jest.
<snip>
>Actually he is unaware of my current attitude on the subject. They were
>together many years prior to marriage, but were an exclusive couple all
>during that time. Over the years he said enough that I figured it out.
Ah ha! So she may have been a virgin when they met but *not* when they
married. So they don't meet your definitions. After all, if she is
enough of a slut to with one chap she wasn't married to why not another,
regardless of her own marital status?
<snip>
Allan Cybulskie
Marg Petersen <god...@kira.peak.org> wrote in article
<716hnu$n72$1...@kira.peak.org>...
> In article <01be019e$e02a9460$0102...@test.carleton.ca>,
> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The problem is that if the wage earner gets a divorce, then the non-wage
> >earner gets a share of the property that the wage earner's money
provided,
> >even though they never followed through with their part of the original
> >agreement.
>
> True, but then it would behoove the wage earner to get rid of (divorce)
> the non-wage earner who isn't following through with their part of
> the original agreement BEFORE there is anything much accumulated, eh? :-)
>
> I mean, waiting 10 or 15 years and then deciding that one isn't thrilled
> with the non wage-earners lack of contribution is a bit, shall we say,
> suspect? Hehehehehehe.
In today's society, people can accumulate a lot of property in a year or
two, and it may take that long for the wage earner to realize that the
non-wage earner has no intention of living up to their end of the bargain.
However, you still prove the point -- there is no intent in the law to
enforce any part of the marriage contract.
--
Allan Cybulskie
" 'Do you suffer from long-term memory loss?'
'I don't remember' "
- From "Amnesia" by Chumbawamba
John Fereira
>Bill McHale wrote:
>>
>> Bruce (Nam...@usa.net) wrote:
>>
>> : Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
>> : demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
>> : all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
>> : woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
>> : woman is good sense.
>>
>> Yep its true that most divorces are initiated by the woman, but what
>> exactly does that prove? Only that they are more likely to initiate the
>> divorce, not that they are more likely to be the cause of the failure of
>> marriages. In most cases deep problems exist in the marriage before a
>> single paper is filed with the courts and often one of the major
>> aggravations of the problem is the failure of the husband to recognize
>> that there is a problem.
>
>Your statement in the above paragraph is absolute garbage. The reality
>is, 70% of divorces are instituted by the woman, and in the vast
>majority of these cases she does it for silly and selfish reasons having
>nothing to do with such things as physical abuse or the man drinking or
>cheating on her. She does it for female reasons that almost no man can
>ever understand. Divorced mothers most often cite such frivolous reasons
>as "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated." The most
>common reason is the one they won't cite, "wanting a different lover."
I was willing to buy the claim that 70% of divorces were instituted by
women without evidence but when you start making claims about the *reasons*
why the divorce was initiated I'm going to have to ask for a source for
this "information". Can you actually cite a study where all of those reasons
were given for initiating divorce or is this just your opinion?
One thing that I have read studies on is that the single biggest factor to
the increase in divorce rates is the no-fault divorce and there is another
little fact that you should be aware of. Even in a no-fault divorce, one
of the parties has to file, or initiate, the divorce. In other words, the
person that initiated the divorce proceedings is not necessarily at fault
for the divorce occuring.
John Fereira
ja...@cornell.edu
Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email - Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org)
Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.
Bill McHale
Distribution:
Bruce (Nam...@usa.net) wrote:
: Bill McHale wrote:
: >
: > Yep its true that most divorces are initiated by the woman, but what
: > exactly does that prove? Only that they are more likely to initiate the
: > divorce, not that they are more likely to be the cause of the failure of
: > marriages. In most cases deep problems exist in the marriage before a
: > single paper is filed with the courts and often one of the major
: > aggravations of the problem is the failure of the husband to recognize
: > that there is a problem.
: Your statement in the above paragraph is absolute garbage. The reality
: is, 70% of divorces are instituted by the woman, and in the vast
: majority of these cases she does it for silly and selfish reasons having
: nothing to do with such things as physical abuse or the man drinking or
: cheating on her. She does it for female reasons that almost no man can
: ever understand. Divorced mothers most often cite such frivolous reasons
: as "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated." The most
: common reason is the one they won't cite, "wanting a different lover."
Let me tell you a story about one of these silly and selfish reasons. An
aquaintance of mine got married and had several kids. Both he and the
wife worked. However not long after the wedding he was hanging out with
his buddies again; not just for a couple hours on the weekend, but every
day. He would spend an hour or two with the guys before he came home, and
would frequently go out on Friday Evening not to return until Sunday
Morning. Now mind you he was not cheating on her, and he did not abuse
her. So was she being silly and selfish when she filed divorce papers?
In any divorce, there are two people involved, and unless it is because of
infidelity or abuse, there are usually two people at fault. Now in the
above example I did tend to make it seem like it was all the guy's fault.
In fact I don't really know the woman, so I don't know how she
contributed to the situation. Still it is clear that this man was not
willing to work to make his marriage work. So why should the woman stay
in this marriage?
: > Or perhaps she made a mistake when she was younger, got pregnant and felt
: > that abortion was wrong, but did not want to give the child up for
: > adoption. What a horrible slut that women must be to do such a thing.
: It simply doesn't matter WHY she had the child out of wedlock and
: decided to keep it. The FACT that she has it makes her a poor prospect
: for a wife and one that a smart man should avoid.
:
See this is a pet peeve of mine. I know several women who made mistakes
in their late teens and early 20's and got pregnant and decided to keep
the child. All of them were otherwise very good people who simply made a
mistake. Having a kid did not change that, and I am pleased to report
that most of them are now married to very decent men and seem to be in
very good marriages.
Tell me, would you advise women to avoid a man who had ever sired a child?
Or is the fact that he can much more effectively abandon the child mean
its ok for him to do so.
: > Ok.. what if her grandparents were divorced? Or how about if there was a
: > criminal in the family? I mean please, even with statistics being what
: > they are, you cannot judge an individual based on statistics.
: If either she herself or her mother are divorced, avoid her. That's the
: sum total of what I said. No exceptions, ever.
:
Ah but my point is that even if the mother never had a divorce; if her
grandparents did, then perhaps they raised her mother to believe divorce
was all right. The point is it makes little difference what her parents
did; she is not her parents. While she might make some of the same
mistakes her parents made, there is no way to be sure she will. Some
women (and men) learn from their parents' mistakes and avoid them.
: > Lol, so a woman without a good relationship with her father will be unable
: > to be a good mother to male children? LOL.... ROTFL... Has it ever
: > occured to you that the relationships are completely different? I will
: > grant that if her parents had a bad marriage, she may not understand how a
: > good relationship between a man and woman as lovers and spouses could
: > work, but while a handicap, it does not mean she cannot learn.
: Stop looking for the EXCEPTION. I'm refering to generalities. Avoiding
: such a women simply makes good sense and it makes good sense for the
: reasons I have given. You (being some sort of "humanist" nut) can't seem
: to relate to that.
A humanist nut? Ah yes I am one of those horrid humanists who believe
that each person should be treated as an individual, and that it is not
for man to pass any judgements on another for the sins of their past
(except in so far as assigning responsibility for acts). Yep compassion
is a horrible thing for a man to have; I guess it makes me something of a
freak.
Here is a point, where do you think a woman learns to be a good mother?
From her father? Guess again, its from her mother. I would be far more
leary of a woman with an unloving mother than an unloving father; and I
would be far less wary of a woman who has a loving mother married to a
loving step-father than a woman whose parents are married but hate each
other. But regardless of their background, I would not toss them away
because of their background.
: > : > : 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
: > : >
: > : > And of course we are oh so good at knowing whether or not a woman is a
: > : > virgin. I certainly hope you hold men to the same standard. Afterall how
: > : > can we expect women to be virgins if the men looking to marry them are not
: > : > virgins as well?
: >
: > : There are many way to tell if a woman is a virgin. The LEAST RELIABLE of
: > : these is blood on the sheets, but it's one way.
: >
: > And these other methods are?
: >
: > : The men looking to marry them may or may not be virgins. It doesn't
: > : matter, due to the double standard that ought rightly and properly to
: > : exist in this area. Men should insist on this double standard, not only
: > : in seeking a wife, but throughout their marriage and in society in
: > : general. I do, and I am very happy with it. Men who don't are all fools.
: > :
: >
: > Sure it doesn't make a difference if the men could care less about
: > families, think it is perfectly ok to have a child with a woman and then
: > abandon them both. As long they are marrying virgins who were the
: > children of perfect parents everything will turn out right.
: That is YOUR rediculous logic, not mine. Talk about ROTFL, I'm doing it
: now.
Really, reread your post; your the one who in fact celebrated the double
standard, who says that a man does not have to be a virgin at marriage
but he better marry one; who says to avoid a woman with a cold father or a
divorced mother. I am simply drawing your premises to their logical
conclusion... and mind you I don't even have to work very hard to get to
that conclusion.
: > : > : Don't bother to ask "where will you find such a woman?" They can be
: > : > : found. My son recently married an all American woman who fit all the
: > : > : above criteria (and wasn't a widow). But if you can't find them in the
: > : > : US, there are millions of women meeting these criteria elsewhere. If you
: > : > : want to find a good woman, look where the better women are.
: > : >
: > : > And your sure she was a virgin? I would be really interested in knowing
: > : > how? I suppose perhaps your son showed you the sheets after the wedding
: > : > night, but that seems rather odd, and its not a perfect test anyway.
: > : > Perhaps he was just telling you she was a virgin so she would be accepted
: > : > by you?
: >
: > : Actually he is unaware of my current attitude on the subject. They were
: > : together many years prior to marriage, but were an exclusive couple all
: > : during that time. Over the years he said enough that I figured it out.
: >
: > That and $.50 will get you a cup of coffee. You actually have no way of
: > knowing if she was a virgin or not before your son met her. He may not
: > know either.
: >
: > : Men, particularly American men, who think things should be "equal" where
: > : men and women are concerned, such as you seem to, are more of the
: > : problem we have in today's society than the rabidly feminist women.
: >
: > Hey great... I am the cause of society's woes... Thats really cool. Here
: > is some advice, pull your head out of your 19th century ass and look
: > around. The reason the double standard exists is because its more
: > difficult for women to escape the consequences of premarital sex. It is
: > in fact one of the most scathing indictments of male behavior that we do
: > escape the consequences of our actions so often. Personally if I had a
: > daughter, and she was to bring a man like you home, I would lock her in
: > her room while I kicked you out of the house.
: >
: > : I have absolutely no respect for such men, nor for their views.
: > Aww... what a shame, and the KKK doesn't respect the views of black
: > people... so we should be impressed because?
: As stated. I have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT for men who choose to think the
: way you do.
Ah yes and translated into modern English "I can't really answer your
charges about the double standard so I will just dismiss them as drivel
from a man who is a liberal humanist".
cbianco
wrote:
>As well, I find it VERY interesting that HE is out there playing
>the field with women (and thereby causing *them* to not be virgins
>anymore and risking being a father), while at the same time
>chastising these very women with whom he is consorting. Fine
>upstanding young man there! NOT.
a man who who prefers virgins is either a coward or a pervert.
a woman who speaks of men en masse is unimaginative.
cbianco
Bill McHale
Distribution:
Lenny Schafer (sch...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Bruce <Nam...@usa.net> wrote:
: : Bill McHale wrote:
: - unseemly adolescent protests coming from an educated, full-grown man,
: snipped-
: : >
: : > : I have absolutely no respect for such men, nor for their views.
: : > Aww... what a shame, and the KKK doesn't respect the views of black
: : > people... so we should be impressed because?
: : As stated. I have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT for men who choose to think the
: : way you do.
: Well, guys like Bill can be useful for helping to clear the field of less
: desireable marriage candidates.
Yeah, guys like me have this nasty habit of getting hooked up with real
people; women who have lived lives, and have survived them to be stronger
and better people. Yep we will leave all the perfect porcelin dolls to
you folks who can't stand any imperfection in a woman that you did not
cause yourself.
: The wisdom behind your observations may not be appreciated by all, but they
: are accurate, in my opinion, and serve to lance the liberal blisters of
: long-time adult adolescents. That you are getting such marked reactions
: indicates to me that you are hitting a nerve of suppressed truth.
I do believe you should take a class on logic. By your logic, the people
who fought the charges that Jews, African-Americans, Catholics or whatever
were inferior in fact were doing so because they were inferior. The
simple fact is that the vehemence of the response may or may not have
anything to do with the truth or falseness of the claim.
: The desireable women you speak of do indeed exist, but they're not going to
: find them at a disco club or at a lesbian sumo wrestling match. Better luck
: in the churches of America's heartland (fly-over country to the urbane coast
: dwellers.)
Try in the china closet. And guess what, I have been in the mid west...
you better be careful, there are real people there as well.
Dinko Deranja
cbianco wrote in message <363725ea....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On 27 Oct 1998 23:49:14 -0800, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
>wrote:
>
>>As well, I find it VERY interesting that HE is out there playing
>>the field with women (and thereby causing *them* to not be virgins
>>anymore and risking being a father), while at the same time
>>chastising these very women with whom he is consorting. Fine
>>upstanding young man there! NOT.
>
>a man who who prefers virgins is either a coward or a pervert.
Or a virgin himself....
Bill McHale
: cbianco wrote in message <363725ea....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
: Or a virgin himself....
Yes, I can see this being the case. However I think the particular point
here is that if a man (or a woman for that matter) will only date virgins,
then there is probably something wrong with them. I mean why toss out a
person who might be otherwise perfectly suited for you simply because they
have a past?
Stephen La Joie
>
> Are you considering marriage as a business arrangement or as a close,
> intimate relationship with another human being?
You don't have to have a marriage license anymore to have a "close,
intimate relationship with another human being", do you?
WAY back when (I was a boy) there were adultery laws, fornication
laws, child legitimacy laws and a list for ground for divorce
(which included spousal abuse) and so on. You literally could get
into it with the law if you had sex without the required license.
It made great reading. I'd go to the University library and read
all the antiquated old laws; they would go into great detail...
(never mind)
If you violated the marriage contract, say by adultery, you were
NOT let out of your obligations but your spouse was.
Now, in many states, none of that matters. That part of the
marriage "contract" was essentially voided. ALL that remains
of the marriage contract is the financial agreement.
Why then, do you question why it is being treated as a
business arrangement?
Stephen La Joie
>
> In article <01be019e$e02a9460$0102...@test.carleton.ca>,
> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The problem is that if the wage earner gets a divorce, then the non-wage
> >earner gets a share of the property that the wage earner's money provided,
> >even though they never followed through with their part of the original
> >agreement.
>
> True, but then it would behoove the wage earner to get rid of (divorce)
> the non-wage earner who isn't following through with their part of
> the original agreement BEFORE there is anything much accumulated, eh? :-)
>
> I mean, waiting 10 or 15 years and then deciding that one isn't thrilled
> with the non wage-earners lack of contribution is a bit, shall we say,
> suspect? Hehehehehehe.
But put it in perspective. If I work at a place for 15 years, I'd
have earned myself a puny little retirement at the poverty level,
collectible when I turn 65, for the rest of my life, about, on
average, 10 years.
If the lesser earning spouse (or non-wage earning spouse) stays
married for 15 years, it IS possible to collect alimony for the
rest of her life, collectable immediately, plus half of the wage
earner's retirement (collectable at 65) plus half of all accumulated
wealth up till then. The alimony paid is usually intended (in my
state, at least) to equal out the two spouses standard of living.
That's a MUCH better severance package than working; and even
beats the heck out of a 20 year military retirement. The payments
can go for 40 years or so!
Stephen La Joie
>
> If things don's work out for Stephan, he should look to get hooked up with
> M. Kathleen DeFilippo (who also posted on this thread). They would be a
> perfect match.
Hey, flame boy. I suppose you're the hot item with all the virgins
and widows with happily married parents. Yeah, right.
I was thinking about how this list excludes almost every female on
earth.
Do you have a daughter, Zajac? Are you divorced? How do you feel about
her being on the "excluded" list?
The list is ill thought out, and your post is not only irrelevant, makes
no point, and completely lacks intellectual merit, it is immature,
something typical from prepubescent emotional dysfunctional
unsocialized
elementary school children.
But I'm sure you've finished elementary school.
Kathleen DeFilippo
handsome you look today? ;-) LOL!
--
Frederick
Nam...@usa.net wrote:
> The advice I would give any man is pretty simple.
>
> Never marry any woman who:
>
>
> 2. Has a child, unless she is a widow.
>
> 3. Has a mother who was ever divorced (even after the
> daughter grew up).
I think you have to look into why a woman (or man) is divorced before
automatically rejecting them on that basis. It could be that their former
spouse was the disturbed one of the couple. (I would not rely just on what
someone tells me about the reasons for their divorce, I would look into the
matter in other ways as well.)
> 4. Does not show obvious signs of having (or having had)
> a close loving relationship with her natural father.
Add to that people who don't have any long term close friends of either sex,
who's only friends are the people they work with, etc. In other words, people
who can't maintain close relationships for any period of time unless it is a
"friendship" that involves only a few brief encounters each year.
> 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
I don't see virginity as particularly relevant. You would have to stick to
women who are very young most of the time, and I think it's a very bad idea to
marry a very young woman. Many women have not fully established their
identities until the age of 25 or so, and when that identity is finally
established it might not include being married to you. It is better to wait
until you are 25 or older to marry, and marry a woman close to your own age.
=Fred
Bruce
> > 5. Is not a virgin when she comes to you (unless a widow).
>
> I don't see virginity as particularly relevant. You would have to stick to
> women who are very young most of the time, and I think it's a very bad idea to
> marry a very young woman. Many women have not fully established their
> identities until the age of 25 or so, and when that identity is finally
> established it might not include being married to you. It is better to wait
> until you are 25 or older to marry, and marry a woman close to your own age.
Not true. At the age of 50 I married a woman 34 who was a virgin. She
came from a culture where virginity in unmarried females is highly
prized, China. Like I said, these women exist. All you have to do is go
to where the better women are.
Bruce
Bruce
> >>
> >> : Nothing to do with that. Any woman who is divorced has clearly
> >> : demonstrated the capacity for divorce. Once divorced, a second time is
> >> : all that much easier. And since 70% of all divorces are initiated by the
> >> : woman (often as a complete surprize to the man), avoiding any divorced
> >> : woman is good sense.
> >>
> >> exactly does that prove? Only that they are more likely to initiate the
> >> divorce, not that they are more likely to be the cause of the failure of
> >> marriages. In most cases deep problems exist in the marriage before a
> >> single paper is filed with the courts and often one of the major
> >> aggravations of the problem is the failure of the husband to recognize
> >> that there is a problem.
> >
> >Your statement in the above paragraph is absolute garbage. The reality
> >is, 70% of divorces are instituted by the woman, and in the vast
> >majority of these cases she does it for silly and selfish reasons having
> >nothing to do with such things as physical abuse or the man drinking or
> >cheating on her. She does it for female reasons that almost no man can
> >ever understand. Divorced mothers most often cite such frivolous reasons
> >as "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated." The most
> >common reason is the one they won't cite, "wanting a different lover."
>
> women without evidence but when you start making claims about the *reasons*
> why the divorce was initiated I'm going to have to ask for a source for
> this "information". Can you actually cite a study where all of those reasons
> were given for initiating divorce or is this just your opinion?
Yes, try the book "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths" (Penguin
Putnam), written by Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver
with Diane
O'Connell.
> One thing that I have read studies on is that the single biggest factor to
> the increase in divorce rates is the no-fault divorce and there is another
> little fact that you should be aware of. Even in a no-fault divorce, one
> of the parties has to file, or initiate, the divorce. In other words, the
> person that initiated the divorce proceedings is not necessarily at fault
> for the divorce occuring.
I referring to the person who "wanted" the divorce in the first place.
In 70% of the cases, it's the woman.
Bruce
Marg Petersen
>>
>> In article <01be019e$e02a9460$0102...@test.carleton.ca>,
>> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >The problem is that if the wage earner gets a divorce, then the non-wage
>> >earner gets a share of the property that the wage earner's money provided,
>> >even though they never followed through with their part of the original
>> >agreement.
>>
>> True, but then it would behoove the wage earner to get rid of (divorce)
>> the non-wage earner who isn't following through with their part of
>> the original agreement BEFORE there is anything much accumulated, eh? :-)
>>
>> I mean, waiting 10 or 15 years and then deciding that one isn't thrilled
>> with the non wage-earners lack of contribution is a bit, shall we say,
>> suspect? Hehehehehehe.
>
>But put it in perspective. If I work at a place for 15 years, I'd
>have earned myself a puny little retirement at the poverty level,
>collectible when I turn 65, for the rest of my life, about, on
>average, 10 years.
True, but then all of us who are in the workplace have the
*option* of choosing where we will work.
>If the lesser earning spouse (or non-wage earning spouse) stays
>married for 15 years, it IS possible to collect alimony for the
>rest of her life, collectable immediately, plus half of the wage
>earner's retirement (collectable at 65) plus half of all accumulated
>wealth up till then. The alimony paid is usually intended (in my
>state, at least) to equal out the two spouses standard of living.
>That's a MUCH better severance package than working; and even
>beats the heck out of a 20 year military retirement. The payments
>can go for 40 years or so!
Well, it all depends on YOUR definition of *working* but I've
dealt with that before so I won't go into it again. However,
if you believe that is a much better arrangement and the
situation appeals to you, then go for it. No one is stopping
you, eh? And yes, I agree that the *payments* CAN INDEED be
quite *cushy* for some. That would seem to suggest that NO ONE
should be *allowed* to NOT be a wage earner (especially if one
considers alimony to be unfair.
However, *I* consider it to be emminently fair. *I* personally
have the possibility of making a whole lot of money; much more
than my spouse has been able to make throughout his wage earning
days. Should that possibility turn to reality and we were to
divorce, I would expect to be paying HIM alimony. After all,
HIS supporting ME (in vaious ways) when I wasn't making that
kind of money makes him eligible to collect when/if I AM making
that kind of money. Seems emminently fair to me.
Steve Chaney
>
>> The few recent decisions in which women with high salaries pay
>>alimony to men, are basically pseudo-egalatarian window-dressing,
>>foisted off so that people won't have to face up what is actually the
>>basis for present law.
>
>Bullshit! I know several women who are *paying* alimony to their
>spouses and I know others (both men and women) who pay NO alimony
>at all since their salaries were pretty even. No window-dressing
>at all.
That's funny. I challenged m...@oz.net to dig up the stats on such cases and
he couldn't even come up with one. Oh oh oh damn I completely forgot - you
know several on YOUR world. I keep forgetting there are several realities
out there beyond Terra Firma's. Mea culpa's.
-- Steve
Marg Petersen
Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Marg Petersen <god...@kira.peak.org> wrote in article
><716hnu$n72$1...@kira.peak.org>...
>> Allan Cybulskie <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >The problem is that if the wage earner gets a divorce, then the non-wage
>> >earner gets a share of the property that the wage earner's money
>provided,
>> >even though they never followed through with their part of the original
>> >agreement.
>>
>> True, but then it would behoove the wage earner to get rid of (divorce)
>> the non-wage earner who isn't following through with their part of
>> the original agreement BEFORE there is anything much accumulated, eh? :-)
>>
>> I mean, waiting 10 or 15 years and then deciding that one isn't thrilled
>> with the non wage-earners lack of contribution is a bit, shall we say,
>> suspect? Hehehehehehe.
>
>two, and it may take that long for the wage earner to realize that the
>non-wage earner has no intention of living up to their end of the bargain.
Oh really? I'd say that individual was a wee bit slow then eh? :-)
>However, you still prove the point -- there is no intent in the law to
>enforce any part of the marriage contract.
What part of the marriage contract is it that you would like to
see enforced that isn't? Or are you simply confusing *expectations*
with what is actually there?
Steve Chaney
>In article <karen-23109...@207.201.32.31>,
>Karen McFarlin <ka...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yup, you can't beat your woman anymore fellows! Damn, what's this world
>>coming to?
>
>Why the extreme response? There's a vast middle ground between your
>sexist non-sequitur and making marriage totally pointless.
Karen is cross-training with feminists and snigglers. She has already
mastered the art of painting anti-feminists as being automatic wife beaters
(the feminist training), then waiting for you to jump in all serious and
argumentative and defensive (a goal which doesn't seem to be getting achieved
at this point) - definitely a sniggler tactic. Definitely a class captain,
a top-notch brown noser, and a high-grade ass kisser.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>typical unisex-reactionary feminst blather....
Reactionary it is, but in reality it is a close-to-humorless and very close
to angry response to Lenny's (arguably overused) dig at feminist culture in
regards to marriage. Overall it was grossly ineffective; I've seen women do
a lot better in response to him, even if he still came out on top (mostly).
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote:
>
>: Reactionary it is, but in reality it is a close-to-humorless and very close
>: to angry response to Lenny's (arguably overused) dig at feminist culture in
>: regards to marriage. Overall it was grossly ineffective; I've seen women do
>: a lot better in response to him, even if he still came out on top (mostly).
>
Hahahha! My apologies, Lenny. Only a true desperado would so such a
creature. :)
-- Steve
nos...@wolf-web.com
>
> Ug! You'll never find me on top of a feminist. I don't do feminists.
Me neither, Lenny, all that stubble is too scratchy!
Marg Petersen
James Buster <bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <716fsp$kg1$1...@kira.peak.org>,
>Marg Petersen <god...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>>I fully expect that if her current husband were to die, she
>>might go for number four, but then she IS 80 years old now and
>>she might not be able to promise HIM 20 yeas. :-)
>
>At that age, the likelihood she *won't* outlive a man of similar age
>is damn close to zero. In fact, the likelihood that her husband would
>be dead within 3-5 years is so high that marriage seems pointless.
Well, YOU don't know my mother. :-) And she doesn't seem to
have ANY trouble getting men to marry her. And as some might say,
"whatta way to go." :-) By the way, she's getting smarter in
her *old* age. She's chosing men younger and younger and she
still gets them to marry her. Of course, it *might* be the money
but she doesn't care.
>--
>Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
>atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
>much like Earth.