Posted on 06/20/2019 10:03:45 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
“My boyfriend can’t get over how many people I’ve slept with. I shouldn’t have told him, but he pressed me for the info. He was 'nerdy’ for most of high school and college, and just started coming into his own in his mid to late 20s. I have been dating consistently for years, and have had my fair share of hookups and relationships. And while I don’t think my number is crazy at all, he can’t deal with the discrepancy. We’ve been dating for two years and we’re serious. I don’t want to break up. How can I handle this?”
I agree that you probably shouldn’t have told him, but lots of people fall into the trap of discussing their sexual history with their current partner, and I get it. If you trust someone, it’s natural to want to talk about what you’ve learned from past relationships and sexual experiences. That said, numbers really aren’t necessary, and rarely do anything aside from making one person feel bad.
But you can’t go back, and his reaction may have provoked an important conversation. After all (and as you well know), this isn’t an issue of who has slept with more people. It’s about his comfort with his past, and it’s about both of you establishing that your needs are being met by this relationship.
First, you have to figure out the problem you’re tackling, because it will change the course of action.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Did your friend move out of the house and leave the children with the mother? That's what the courts look at.
Same for the mother: If the mother moves out of the house and leaves the children with the father, the father gains primary custody.
The court looks at who stayed with the kids and who moved. Unfortunately, much of everything else doesn't matter to the courts.
In fact, there was a murder case recently about a father with full custody of his children. The mother had moved out of the house, so the courts awarded primary custody to the father and visitation to the mother. (Look up Timothy Jones Jr.)
No I didn't. If you look at my post #234 (which is the one I think you must be referring to) I was replying to esquirette, who said "they were economically stuck" and I said "Yep. They couldn't leave even if they were being beaten." I didn't say "All men beat their wives in the early 1900s." I didn't make any claim whatsoever as to the frequency. I just said that they couldn't leave (because they were economically stuck) even if they were being beaten. Then another poster leapt in to suggest any claim by women about domestic violence existed were exaggerated. That is a specific claim, and it needs supporting.
Furthermore, it is heinously disingenuous to impugn men for not criticizing claims they did not make while ignoring the lack of critical review by women for claims they DID make.
Again, I am talking about the state of women's rights in America before about 1950. Very few women were in the positions to get the education, degrees, and tenured posts and funding required to undertake the studies, review, and publication you seem to be calling for. Imagine a cop in Saudi Arabia saying "We have no domestic violence here. Prove me wrong. Where are the peer reviewed studies? The feminists can't prove it!" No, they probably can't.
So far, your responses have been absolutely Pavlovian in their anti-male bias. The fact you have to reach back a hundred years to even begin to approach valid societal complaints apparently means nothing to you.
Oh, I'm definitely as anti-male as many men on here are anti-female. The difference is, being anti-male is wrong, wrong, wrong, and being anti-female is quite understandable. Apparently.
As for reaching back a hundred years, yes, I said from the beginning not "Our culture is just like Islam today" but that our culture in the not-too-distant past was rather like Islam today. It's true. Indeed, most cultures have been male-dominated.
Finally, your two-faced “it wasn’t illegal to deny” even though “it” was common practice “legal theory,” with NO supporting evidence women were routinely denied those things that weren’t made illegal to deny them until long afterward only typifies your truculence and lack of intellectual integrity.
If they weren't being routinely denied, why did the issue come up at all? Do you see any laws being passed preventing people from refusing to make blue t-shirts? Any laws preventing people from giving all their children the same first name? Any laws forbidding old ladies from licking elevator buttons?
But no, I understand. You want a list of every woman who was denied entrance into college from 1850-1950. And of course, you'll demand that it come from "reliable" sources. No female source being reliable, no "liberal" college being reliable, no source to the left of Sean Hannity being reliable, and I'll once again be in the position of a woman in Saudi Arabia being told that no charges of rape will be believed unless validated by 4 male witnesses.
See, that's why Islam is spreading: it speaks directly to men's darkest impulses... utter control over women. And yes, I'm pretty anti-male because as far as I can tell, too many of you would relish a return to abject female subordination. I have no idea why you expect me to approve of that.
Those statistics are from the U.S. Census, based on answers people gave to questions about alimony. (Some men might not want to admit they're receiving alimony.)
Lawyers today say that women are ordered to pay alimony in about 10% of divorce cases now. Still, yes, mostly men pay it.
That's because alimony depends on who was earning more money (averaged over the last 3 years, for example). And child support depends on who stayed with the children.
Men tend to earn more money. And they tend to be the ones who leave the house (or who don't want primary custody).
Yes, judges can use some discretion. That's not necessarily a bad thing because there are other factors to consider, such as age and length of marriage.
Such a load of crap. You and I both know the man is always booted out of the marital house. The judges find ANY reason to give the women custody etc. You can rationalize whatever you want. The system favors women strongly today.
Prove the 10% statistic on alimony. It doesn’t exist.
Nope. I know without a doubt my wife wasn't a virgin when we met and neither was I. After 15 years of marriage and four children together I've never asked how many men she slept with before me and she's never asked about my sexual past. It makes absolutely no difference. I can't think of any good reason to pursue this information.
Agreed. Life is tough. Some mistakes stay with you for a lifetime. 50+ shows a pattern. It’s too bad. We are all failed but apparently she failed a lot of times and that can be a deal breaker. If she was divorced once ok but divorced 5 times would show a pattern. True for both men and women. Perfect ladies or not.
I’m going to say that, on this issue, forgiveness is paramount. There are many ladies who won’t be virgins, because they were abused, but they still need to be loved.
We’ve all failed in our sexual lives, no matter how close we adhered to the Scriptures, and the only way to get Christians back on track, sexually, is to forgive and pick up the pieces from where they are.
You and I both know the man is always booted out of the marital house.
Not in my state - unless there's a compelling reason:
Your statistic is from the 2010 Census. That was 9 years ago.
First of all, only about 10% of divorce cases result in alimony being paid by anyone. So, the vast majority of divorces don't result in alimony at all.
So your 97% is from 10% of divorces, and that 97% statistic is 9 years old. Statistics change. As of 2013, the percentage was 93.4 percent male. And those Census Bureau statistics include people still collecting alimony from divorces long ago.
Today the percentage of female alimony payers is increasing.
Still, AS I STATED BEFORE, the majority of alimony payers are male.
Which tells us nothing about the reasons for divorce. Or any of the other factors.
As a child I learn not to play “army” with the little $h1ts that invariably screamed “YOU MISSED,” even when my “gun finger” was screwed into their ear.
That’s you.
Somehow, you’ve so prostituted your sensibilities that you actually sneer at reasonable requests for validation, then refuse to provide ANY validation by imputing to those requests unreasonable demands of your own invention.
Your performance here only solidifies my conviction that you are indeed, “a perfect lady.” Which also supports my further conviction “you can respect women, or you can understand women: you can not do both.”
“I think of a man. Then I take away reason and accountability.”
You need to read the first bullet point in the article you’ve linked. I’ve had two friends with the threat of that if they didn’t leave. And it’s generally expected for the man to leave (sleep in the sofa, in a more, whatever) and the wife stays out. You can act like it’s not a problem all you want but the regulations and rules and judicial discretion all lead in favor of the woman. And the reason alimony is only 10% of the time is for a variety of reasons, including child support changes based on ones income so it’s a defacto steal alimony. But like I said, keep ignoring what men are saying and watch the marriage rate which has already dropped from 75% to sub 50 drop to 30% over the next 30 years.
Again, the proof is required on the accuser, ie you, that there was significant domestic violence 70, 100, 200 years ago. Given that the only groups that have ever made this claim were radical feminist groups that have an agenda, and there are no statistics supporting this claim to my knowledge and I have dome some research on it in the past, the burden of proof is on YOU not me.
I notice that you avoid directly addressing anything specific that I say, so your decision to declare victory, level a string of insults, and then stomp away will be given all the respect it deserves.
No, I never said that. Show me the post where I said that.
Sigh, stop playing semantics. What level of domestic battery do you think occurred 100 years ago vs today per say 100,000 married women and what evidence do you have to support that belief?
Given what happened in the Duke lacross case as well as the UVA frat house, the feminist movement and MSM have shown they have an agenda to act like male violence towards women is far more of an issue than it is. I personally believe that has been the case for the entirety of feminism waves 2 and 3.
How old are you? STDs are gross at ANY age. Old people having sex, is NOT.
(I don’t ascribe to promiscuity. I’ve had sex with 2 people -— my first husband, and my now husband.) His sexual past is, shall we say, abundant, as a young man, to the point where he began to feel like a slut, and stopped behaving like one. I’ve no idea how many women he’d had sex with, up to that point; it’s irrelevant to me. But he began to be mostly celibate (As a personal decision) for the next 20 years. I say mostly, because he fell in love with, and had pretty long relationships with a total of 3 women, during that time, 2 of whom he left when they cheated on him, and 1 whom he left when he realized was never going to develop into a life-long relationship. He had been celibate, as a choice, for a few years, when we met. I told him, up front, that I didn’t believe in sex outside of marriage; he found that refreshing. We’ve been married for almost 16 years, and are deeply committed to each other, and our marriage. He had become a Christian as a child, and though he was not an amoral person, had drifted away from God for many years. He re-dedicated his life to the Lord, about a month before we met. His prayer, when he came back to the Lord, was for a Godly woman. I had been believing, for several years, that God would present to me a Godly man. (I had no intention of going out trying to find one, myself). God answered both our prayers, and we thank God daily, for that. We have a deep respect and love for each other.
No, you accused me of saying something that I did not say. Now, you march your butt through my old posts and you find where I said what you accused me of saying, or you admit you were wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.