Posted on 08/10/2016 1:16:27 PM PDT by C19fan
Fraud against a spouse is grounds for an immediate annulment here-and fraud even includes lying about job and income much less something like sex with another person-which is worse, considering the harmful STDs being passed around...
I meant it-but my 1st husband didn’t-I only got wise when he got careless-we’d been married for 17 years by then...
Yep. I logged just about 20 years with mine. If I had shot him back when he first deserved it, I’d be out of prison by now. ;)
Life is SO much better with him gone! :)
To play the devil’s advocate; who’s business is this anyway? Why is blackmail a crime? Blackmail only threatens to expose the truth. Why is speaking the truth or threatening to speak the truth (adultery, criminal activity, past activities criminal or otherwise) a crime? Perhaps there is a free market value on keeping activities, current or past, quiet?
A man has a lifelong ability to have children– barring a physical complication, he can be fertile into his last years (Mick Jagger, a father at 72, comes to mind).
For a woman, her fertility times out by her mid-30s.
If she does not have a commitment of monogamy from a man by her early 30s, or a child in hand, she's done.
We as a society are at the same time asked to believe a single mother is exercising a right, and also that she is a victim.
So when a man keeps a woman without making a commitment, he can change her for a younger version almost with impunity.
That woman pays a cost if she had wanted children. Women are told that they are entitled to children no matter what– children be damned– and that it's up to society to support (pay for) her choice. The child and the man have no say in the matter.
The behavior is destructive to men (they know they're being treated badly by society, so why not get what you can out of it) and to women who miss the life experience of a family.
I’ve thought that, too-this state is often sympathetic to a woman who commits a crime of passion like that-I’d be out by now, too...
Confronted with a pistol aimed at his crotch, he pleaded for another chance, so we reconciled and went to counseling-it worked for a couple years, but then he was back to horndogging-I kicked him to the curb in year 19, and didn’t look back.
With his mom being part Latina, you’d have thought he knew better than to provoke his Latina wife into una furia celosa-he was lucky it wasn’t worse...
“The inclination to confess an extramarital affair, or demand the details of a spouse’s sexual conquests in an open relationship stems, in part, from a Judeo-Christian morality that views all sex as inherently dirty and suspect...”
The author is clearly not a Christian.
am I the only one that notices it is always women who push this issue?
While I empathize with your position, since it emphasizes personal responsibility, I cannot entirely agree:
We are fallen beings. I Corinthians 10:12 cautions against assuming one can stand against any temptation. No one is infallibly immune to such.
(And, no, I do not write from personal experience, that is, in failing to be faithful in marriage.)
P.S.
Although it is not commonly understood anymore, “Till Death Do Us Part” [”Till Death Us Do Part”] is a bastardized phrase, distorted by time and culture, rendering it seemingly incorrect grammatically. The original statement is, Till Death Us Depart, meaning, till death depart - or separate - us. The proof of this is that “us” is the objective case; it is the object of the action being committed by Death. If it were meant to be the subjective case, then the original phrase would have been, Till Death We Depart.
“Someone’s been reading too much Nathaniel Hawthorne. Right thinking Christians view the marital act to be too important and even sacred to abuse. The opposite of dirty. You cannot read Genesis, the Song of Solomon, or the Gospel of Matthew and get any other idea. The Kingdom of God is like a Wedding Feast.”
Thank you!
I heard an academic (a musician, not a historian) a few years ago proclaim that the Pilgrims and Puritans were all sexually repressed, and that “all the historians agree.” (Was that all the communist historians who make a living distorting true history?)
The truth is that our forbears understood the fallen nature of Man [ooh! patriarchy!], and valued the marital bond. That is fundamentally different from being sexually repressed, or viewing sex as inherently corrupt.
In other words, they viewed humanity generally as corrupt, not just sex specifically, but since sex is uniquely personal and intimate, it is especially vulnerable to disastrous corruption.
The reality is that they were often very earthy: They lived off the land, and bred animals at close quarters (animal husbandry, anyone?). Many of them were more comfortable with sex than many of the supposedly liberated feminists of today. Witness the large size of their families: They were not shy about engaging in sexual intimacy.
Clive Staples Lewis understood the connection between leftism and frigidity.
Because living in a small village was so private and having several prostitutes working at the local watering hole cut down your access to sex.
Do these people ever read an actual history book?
I *completely* agree that “no one is infallibly immune”. But I know a hell of a lot of people who put themselves in temptation’s way and then try to play that card. First rule of staying faithful (be it to spouse or diet) is to not put yourself in the vicinity of temptation in the first place. If you just make sure you aren’t where you aren’t supposed to be, doing what you aren’t supposed to do, your chances of doing something that you will regret forever fall drastically .
You can say that again. Ten years later and I still have trouble with my mother.
It’s a pain like no other.
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.