Posted on 12/14/2001 3:21:12 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
You do know what thread I was talking about, don't you?
People have gotten along in marriages without society. Many couples have gotten married by finding a justice of the peace "across the state line" for many years. Marriage is an institution that does several things. One thing that it does is protect women in marriages. It also protects the institution of the family.
People may be divorced for any reason these days, including just plain incompatibility. A marriage is nothing but a sham as far as laws are concerned, with the exception of the man paying thru the nose when a divorce occurs. People do not need permission of the state to marry. Many states have the "common law marriage" provision in their state laws. A marriage license is a technicality. Point out a state clerk who will say to a couple that they cannot get a license. The license is a revenue provision in the state laws and goes to pay the recording fees.
I am going to go out on a limb here and assume (yes, I know the old saying) that you are speaking from the voice of experience and this is why you are unwilling to accept the reason for my posting this train of reasoning in the first place. Sorry that you feel that a woman who attempts (in YOUR eyes) to "explain" something, is only being underhanded or conniving. Sometimes this is simply not the case. You might want to take an in-depth study into the differences in the ways the sexes communicate. You just might learn something.
Your # 347 I resent your stating the obvious, because if those were the particulars that men complained about
You're probably correct about this. After having several male friends who have gone through divorces, I can tell you pretty quickly that (even to their female friends) they bitch and whine about either how much weight their wife has gained or how little sex they're getting without EVER stopping to think about the underlying reasons for either! Also, the guys never stop to realize that they have a few problems themselves (balding, pot-belly/love handles getting larger, lack of foreplay/romance, lack of attention outside household functions, etc., etc.).
Thing is - you started this entire diatribe because you didn't pay attention to the post that I was replying to in the first place which was faulting all women because they were the ones who mostly initiated actual divorce court proceeding without making ANY exceptions for circumstances. I have NO interent in (let's see...how did you put it?) "establishing plausible deniability for a hypothetical best case scenario for the woman" as you seem to think. When the women are wrong, I take up for the men and vice versa. When someone decides to make a blanket observation, I tend to want to clarify that this across-the-board condemation may not be the right conclusion.
As for When someone decides to make a blanket observation, I tend to want to clarify that this across-the-board condemation may not be the right conclusion. I subscribe to the "walks like a duck" school. Do you see no value in being sceptical as to motive when people say they have to clarify the obvious?
I love the way you think! One of my biggest beefs is that the accounting of the money I send for "child support" is (according to the courts) none of my business. I don't know if it goes to the children (including groceries, housing, etc), or for a fur coat for my ex-wife.
Actually, what may be "obvious" to one may not be so "obvious" to another and just like blanket condemations - observations can sometimes come back to bite one in the buttocks.
Again, why would you suggest I learn how to communicate in a way that you find pleasing, rather than you learning how to communicate without provoking me?
Tell me, if someone is bothering to read FreeRepublic, do you really think a worry of them being THAT obtuse is credible?
Maybe because I don't have any fear of your resorting to physical violence if you become "provoked". Frankly, I couldn't conceivably care less whether you are "provoked" or not. My only point of contention was and IS those who make blanket condemations and don't expect to be challenged because of it. Period.
I don't have any real reason to care if I "understand" how you communicate either. It just seems so much to me that I'm suppose to make way for your "sacred cow" while you expect to be allowed to do an FDA inspection on mine. So you challenge away....and so will I.
Unfortunately it is easy to get caught up in the fine points of religious dogma and forget why we were there in the first place.
I agree, however, that it is important to have compatibility here, also.
Note, too, that the list works for either gender. Glad to be of help.
My analyst told me I just kept picking the wrong women (she was a woman) but I believe it goes beyond that.
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.