Posted on 07/05/2005 5:31:57 AM PDT by Bon mots
Go figure?
I don't know either. We have a nice home in a nice neighborhood and I'm a stay-at-home Mom. I found the comment insulting because my husband works so hard and he's an excellent provider for our family.
I guess I shouldn't take comments like that so personally, but it just rubbed me the wrong way.
How very typical. Let's all blame the faceless society for the bad behavior of individuals.
It's not the fault of that girl signing on the dotted line that her baby is about to be killed. It's society. And if it's not society, it's at least just as much the fault of that guy that got her pregnant. You just don't understand the pressure he might exert on her, even though he has no legal right to compel her to abort, nor any legal right to prevent her from aborting. It's still just as much his fault. He should have made his reproductive choice before she gets pregnant, even though she makes her choice after she knows she's pregnant.
Yeah, tell me about how you're fighting for equality.
You don't even know what my personal view on abortion is...I see that you only hope to further your misygonist view. Please leave me alone.
Sure it does. Deterrent. The is the reason for locking people up for any crime. No deterrent naturally leads to more of the same behavior. If there is no punishment, there is more likihood of the objectionable, damaging to others, and illegal act being committed.
The idea of elevating that moral failing to a criminal level doesn't make any sense.
If I have a weakness for stealing, heroin, or nude pictures of little kids, etc, etc, ... it is both a moral failure and crime. As a matter of fact, most crimes are the result of moral failures.
Saying that once you get married you should do everything to make it work doesn't make much sense either.
Maybe to you it doesn't. It makes perfect sense to me.
Most people have never done everything possible towards any end in their lives: why should marriage be different?
Be content to do everything half-assed? Is that really your official position on the matter?
Marriage requires a similar worldview and aligned goals, as well as aligned values. To me, saying that someone should do 'everything' possible, in light of the fact that overwhelmingly nobody does everything possible towards any goal in their life, makes it an unrealistic standard.
What, in prticular, do you consider unrealistic actions to preserve the sanctit of marriage? What things shoudl we refuse to do?
I think people should do a lot thats practical, but that's different than saying they should do everything that's possible.
Marriage is the largest committment you can make, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that each party should do everything in their power to meet their committment to their family. Why do you find the suggestion so repugnant?
Nobody needs to have sex outside of marriage, certainly. But that's not to say it doesn't happen. And in separating needs from wants, maybe somebody genuinely needs the emotional and physical affection that their spouse isn't giving them (for whatever reason).
Do they, or is that an overused rationale for bad behavior?
I agree its wrong, but don't overstate it. The fact that a man cheats on his wife means that he made a very bad decision, but that very bad decision doesn't necessarily mean that his wife is a completely innocent victim.
If she was faithful, then she was an innocent victim to that particular crime.
It appears that you are taking the "there is no such thing as an innocent person" angle on this issue. This is the same angle used by some bank robbers, inside traders, serial killers, etc. Just because everyone is not as pure as the driven snow does not give one a right to hurt them.
I agree we should strive for personal excellence, though thats not to say personal perfection.
What is wrong with striving for personal perfection? Even if it cannot be attainted, what is wrong with striving for it? Aim high, and you might suprise yourself with your potential. "Nobody's pefect" isn't an excuse for anything. If you are an adult, you know right from wrong. There is nothing "imperfect" about doing what you know is wrong, in advance of doing it. It is premeditated, and not an accident. Imperfect is missing a free throw. imperfect is backing the car into the mailbox. Imperfect is not screwing someone other than you spouse. That is intentionally malicious.
A person who is a perfectly good spouse for a decade or more, loyal and sincere, can make some very bad choices for very bad reasons, for example, and enter into a relationship with another person. I don't think that automatically makes them a vile and subhuman person, nor do I automatically think that their cheated-upon spouse is necessarily an innocent victim.
Again, are you using the terrorist definition of "innocent" (as in nobody is), or are you implying that the spouse held a gun to your head and told you to do it. Those really are the only two ways that the spouse could be "guilty" of your infidelity. Otherwise, they are indeed innocen to the act.
The repercussions for doing a wrong thing (like cheating on my wife) is that she leaves me and costs me that marriage.
Sure, but what if you wanted out anyway? Should there really be no repucussions for intentionally hurting another? There should be absolutely zero penalty for breaking marriage vows. What then is the point of marriage if it may be adhered to or deviated from at will. Are you making the assertion that the whole concept is obsolete, as it may be dissolved without penalty as soon as you see a 21 year old hot piece of tail? If so, I disagree.
Like I said, there is no benefit nor penalty financially to what I am saying: each party gets the 1/2 they already owned anyway. Why is this controversial?
Because the at fault party should not get "half", as this would imply no fauly nor penalty nor obligation to the dissollusive act which was done with the knowledge that it was wrong (unless the person can make a case of being mentally incompetent). This is why I think "no-fault" divorce should be abolished. You either take the wedding vows for better or worse, or you don't take them at all. This is marriage, not a book of the month club membership.
And why is there a presumption that a cheated-upon spouse somehow deserves some benefit above and beyond the 1/2 of the property that they already own, anyway?
Because an atrocity was committed upon that spouse, and as a victim, compensation is due, and as a perpetrator, responsibility is due. Anything less provides for adultery as "a quickie divorce", and futher leads to the erosion of marriage. As you have adeptly pointed out, the lack of a deterrence leads otherwise rational people to do things they know are wrong without regard for others. That's a bad thing.
You are giving too much credit to a cheated upon spouse.
No, I am using a cliche'. Namely "two wrongs don't make a right". And why, exactly, do we presume a cheated on spouse to be creditless?
Such as the example I used in the previous post. Should one be allowed to rob a bank which has a corrupt CEO? If so, almost every bank could legally be robbbed.
I'm not sure I agree with that logic. Actually, I'm pretty sure I don't.
They get what they deserve, nothing more. This dynamic works to both spouses advantage. It is fair.
It is fair? The person who knowingly does the most damaging thing that can be done to a marriage gets the exact same treatment as the person who does not commit that act? That's fair? Well heck, why bother trying to work at the marriage at all? You need some nookie and want the b***h gone, go bang some chick and call the whole thing off. Yikes! And we wonder why hole the country is headed down.
Fair?
Forgive me in advance if I oppose your nomination to the Supreme Court should that situation ever arise.
I quit dating US women 14 years ago now, and only wish I had discovered Latinas earlier in life. They are far more passionate, honest, respect their man, and have no interest in whining or growing a penis. Thank God I stayed single and never married the typical neurotic US woman who is one imaginary crisis away from a nervous breakdown and just looking for a guy to blame it on. This whole "what have you done for me lately" or the "your not worthy of me" attitude is pitiful, and certainly not feminine. The attitude used to make me vomit, now it's hilarious from a distance. Particularly since the worst offenders dumped on all the guys in their 20's and now find themselves all alone in their late 30's. What goes around comes around.
Absolutely. Apparently there is a school of thought that the fact that we have people seeking ways out of their marriages isn't important. Instead, they tell us, the problem is that there are ways out for those that seek exit.
I disagree completely. I contend that the problem is that we have so many people seeking egress. The problem is that the marriages are being broken in the first place. Divorce, in the legal sense is just the paperwork. Marriage itself needs to be fixed so that fewer people are seeking the exit. The fact that the exit itself exists is of little consequence.
In short, I think the problem we have with marriage starts long before anyone goes looking for a divorce. When a couple, or a member of a couple seeks a divorce, ie legal remedy, the damage to the marriage is said and done.
As the statement, "Women would never sign a marriage document if the man faced no financial consequences and she faced fifty percent seizure.", I'd say you're wrong. Apparently I married just such a woman. As things worked out, I've stayed home these last 13 years, and she's brought home the bacon.
I agree with your post 100%. Thank you! And although I feel its a drastic measure, there used to be social disgraces as a deterrent, being an adulterer could have easily ruined ones life in previous decades, divorce for any reason, for that matter...these days its too common...along with bankruptcy and other things that brought shame in the past. Too many people have no shame anymore. Society and possibly civilization are threatened by this "who cares?" attitude. Obviously the current way of thinking isn't working well!
Let me give you another example, of "rich people tossing away money, without even thinking about it". Here in the Cincy area, we have an event called "homerama", where about a dozen or more (this year, it was 14) Million dollar- plus, homes host an "open house", to showcase the builder's talents, different kinds of decor, etc. In these homes, all of them have a HT system,. with a Dolby digital surround system, and a big screen(usually a front projo), and a screen from 80-100 inches. Now, in EVERY case, these Home theater systems were installed, by pros, and the result was a system, that LOOKS good, to the "average" buyer, BUT is truly inferior, considering the price paid. I did a little looking, and in EVERY case, had the buyers did a little looking themselves, and got the "best deal" on the HT components, it would had cost them about a THIRD of what the pro charged them, for the SAME stuff. Sure people say, "it's only money, but WHY BE SO WASTEFUL WITH IT??T To me, this is its own kind of selfishness, when some says something like that, to a poorer person, and makes fun of their situation
If my "ship ever comes in" so to speak, I do NOT intend to change my frugal ways. I will continue to seek the best deal for anything I buy, even if I can afford to do otherwise. Having had to make do with what I could afford, or do without for so long, it is the way I know.
If you polled 100 women whether they would sign a marriage document in which the man faces no financial consequences, and she faces fifty percent asset seizure, I'd venture to guess roughly 99 of them would say no. Apparently you found the one, congrats are in order. Most Cosmopolitan cities, women who make 3 times as much as a male suitor are rarely willing to even split the drinks tab.
/Salute
Why would some males not want to pay, if they want the date?
Uh, if you go out and you make more(esp significantly) more than the other person, why would you not be willing to SPLIT or *GasP* pay teh whole thing?
And based on my experience, women often want the date as much as the man. That's why splitting the bill makes the most sense at first. It protects both man and woman from getting used for free drinks/dinner.
It's just kind of ironic to hear guys complaining about paying for a date on one hand, then complaining about the lack of respect women seem to have for them on the other.
It seems like some males can be as ridiculous as some females.
Oooh. Lots of nice toasty flames from that one.
Personally, I only need three hots and a cot for myself. But I'm also not going to send my wife out away from the home and children for 60k. We just don't need it.
I could live on less and have at more than one point in my life.
I know. :-)
Ford pinto???
Simply making a point, and no man on this thread has said they request women to split the cost of a date. You're welcome to go off on an imaginary tangent though if it makes you feel better.
I agree :-)
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.