|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 08 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote:This article is so well written. Which is to be expect from Ta-Nehisi Coates. Show nested quote +We are now being told that support for Trump’s “Muslim ban,” his scapegoating of immigrants, his defenses of police brutality are somehow the natural outgrowth of the cultural and economic gap between Lena Dunham’s America and Jeff Foxworthy’s.
My favorites:
To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.
No news on drop tables, whether it's in the shape of a pumpkin spice latte, or comes at a discount since the Whole Foods buyout by Amazon.
It is often said that Trump has no ideology, which is not true - his ideology is white supremacy.
We'll defend to the death that we're not calling all Republicans nazis and white supremacists, except when we say you voted for white supremacy ideology. I imagine this is a logical successor to the Republicans, Trump Voters, Whites who haven't confessed their white privilege=racists meme.
Joking on this defies-the-parody-label piece aside, he at least gets that The End of Identity Liberalism conveys ideas that must be opposed by the identity-politics-positive class. It's too damning of an analysis to let stand.
|
On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her?
I think the problem here is that you consider divorce a threat in this situation.
|
On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her?
no, should that happen he should just go to jail. but i'm failing to see the relevance.
they both got to this place together. to pretend it was an overnight change and it's all one persons fault (honestly i'm not sure anymore which person you think is at fault) seems like a real lack of awareness of how relationships work. there's an adult way out of it. or they can stay together. what are you saying?
|
He is saying that if he wants to live with his children he has to stand that situation. She has the leverage because of how custody battles ussually work out. Is it that hard to understand why a father might go shitty lengths to be a father to his children? And no, having the children one day a week, and paying for stuff is not the same as having a father.
|
as a child of divorce i'm keenly familiar with the consequences. that doesn't make the woman at fault.
|
On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her?
The situation is obviously shitty. I don't think anyone complains about the money part, because it makes sense if two people split roles the classical way that even if they divorce, their income is still linked.
The problem here is simply that there is no good solution for a situation where two people hate each other, but have children together which both of them love. No possible solution would satisfy both of them. The classic marriage demands that you don't have sex with anyone other than your significant other. (With maybe the more modern addition: Unless they are fine with it) In a situation where you hate each other, this usually means no sex at all. In a traditional society, there are some layers on top of that. The woman herself might not even care who the husband that she hates has sex with, but it is deeply humiliating to her if her social cycle found out that her husband cheats on her. The best way to solve this situation would probably be figuring out some sort of deal on how to divorce that leaves both parties at least partially happy with the arrangement. That is not easy among people who hate each other, but they both should both have a reason to try to find a solution, namely that they are unhappy with the situation. It is a shitty situation that is hard to resolve. Especially once you start not only looking at one side of it. I bet you that the wife would tell you a completely different story of what is going on.
The better solution is not to marry people that you hate or might end up hating. This means no marriage after you know each other for only 2 weeks. Live together for 5 years, and you can start thinking about marrying. Of course, that is also taboo in a traditional society, as you are unmarried people having sex and "living in sin".
|
On September 08 2017 03:11 brian wrote:
as a child of divorce i'm keenly familiar with the consequences. that doesn't make the woman at fault.
Also important to note that a household that should be divorced is much worse for children than a divorce.
|
Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure married people can hold a mean "everything is fine" facade for as long as is necessary, IF both parties can be satisfied in the arrangement AND no total resentment is present.
|
On September 08 2017 02:42 Nevuk wrote:Devos is expected to roll back parts of title ix for colleges. www.buzzfeed.comOr the hyper partisan approach
Rolling back the Obama administration's overreach of Title IX, not Title IX. It was a Dear Colleague letter, not ever part of Title IX.
Excellent move on her agency's part, and it reflects very well on the Trump administration. No more denial of due process rights for university students. No more denying lawyers to the accused and the ability to cross examine witnesses. No more of the abuses that result in expulsions after everybody agreed it was consensual.
Fucking great speech too, whoever drafted it.
|
On September 08 2017 03:11 brian wrote:
as a child of divorce i'm keenly familiar with the consequences. that doesn't make the woman at fault.
So am i. I am just stating the obvious, who has the power in that relationship and who can truly change the situation in a way who might be the least bad for everyone involved.
On September 08 2017 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:11 brian wrote:
as a child of divorce i'm keenly familiar with the consequences. that doesn't make the woman at fault. Also important to note that a household that should be divorced is much worse for children than a divorce.
Is there data for this? I have a few friends whose parents went that way (no divorce, stay together, date other people, but only date), but granted they were adults enough to not get into hating each other before making the decission. I am sure divorce was the better option for my parents tho.
|
I'm having a hard time understanding what is actually happening. All I am hearing is "legalized rape" and "no more women being able to destroy a man's life on a whim". Is there a good summary of what is changing?
|
On September 08 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her? I think the problem here is that you consider divorce a threat in this situation.
The divorce isn't the problem. I'm fairly certain that if she agreed to just cut bait, take the 30% guaranteed to her by law and split custody along with something reasonable for alimoni(half of somebody's gross pay for 10 years is not reasonable) he'd be all for it.
The threat is that availability to the kids is being held over him as a punishment for wanting to have a fulfilling life. I dunno, maybe I'm more sensitive to this because my uncle got a divorce that was pretty ugly. His wife went back into doing hard drugs and he decided he had had enough. She took the kids and was a shit parent. The truancy people were all up in arms because of how much school they missed. Her kids would find her passed out on the toilet from drugs. When he tried to get them out of that shitty situation she had her 2 kids from a previous marriage lie about him sexually abusing them to try and stop it. Yet it still took probably around 5 years before he was able to get custody.
On September 08 2017 03:05 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her? no, should that happen he should just go to jail. but i'm failing to see the relevance. they both got to this place together. to pretend it was an overnight change and it's all one persons fault (honestly i'm not sure anymore which person you think is at fault) seems like a real lack of awareness of how relationships work. there's an adult way out of it. or they can stay together. what are you saying?
Abuse is abuse. I'm not saying 1 side is definitively worse than the other, I'm just asking that people be willing to acknowledge that the guy has a legitimate grievance in this case. There is no adult way out of their relationship, otherwise it would have happened already. The overwhelming amount of divorces aren't amiable.
|
On September 08 2017 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding what is actually happening. All I am hearing is "legalized rape" and "no more women being able to destroy a man's life on a whim". Is there a good summary of what is changing?
not really; there probably won't be until there's an actual formal announcement. I'd wait for that; all that article was saying was that there would be an announcement. Best to wait for the full wording on the actual announcement before figuring out what has actually changed; and ignore the hyper-partisan nonsense being spewed around.
what you're hearing are just the existing talking points of the extremes on each side; rather than the reasonable folk.
I'm assuming you're already familiar iwth the more general background of the situations.
|
On September 08 2017 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding what is actually happening. All I am hearing is "legalized rape" and "no more women being able to destroy a man's life on a whim". Is there a good summary of what is changing?
editt : nvm, mixed it with the marriage discussion.
|
On September 08 2017 03:22 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:11 brian wrote:
as a child of divorce i'm keenly familiar with the consequences. that doesn't make the woman at fault. So am i. I am just stating the obvious, who has the power in that relationship and who can truly change the situation in a way who might be the least bad for everyone involved. Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On September 08 2017 03:11 brian wrote:
as a child of divorce i'm keenly familiar with the consequences. that doesn't make the woman at fault. Also important to note that a household that should be divorced is much worse for children than a divorce. Is there data for this? I have a few friends whose parents went that way (no divorce, stay together, date other people, but only date), but granted they were adults enough to not get into hating each other before making the decission.
Gotta keep in mind not hating each other is an extremely unique case. In my case and in many other people's cases, the months or year leading up to a divorce are downright traumatic. People trying to stay together "for the kids", while visibly disliking each other is extremely difficult for a kid to go through. There is some pretty core psychological shit that gets torn in half when a kid has to watch his parents be combative with each other.
|
On September 08 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:08 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/905767812035203073This article is so well written. Which is to be expect from Ta-Nehisi Coates. We are now being told that support for Trump’s “Muslim ban,” his scapegoating of immigrants, his defenses of police brutality are somehow the natural outgrowth of the cultural and economic gap between Lena Dunham’s America and Jeff Foxworthy’s. My favorites: Show nested quote +To Trump, whiteness is neither notional nor symbolic but is the very core of his power. In this, Trump is not singular. But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies. No news on drop tables, whether it's in the shape of a pumpkin spice latte, or comes at a discount since the Whole Foods buyout by Amazon. Show nested quote +It is often said that Trump has no ideology, which is not true - his ideology is white supremacy. We'll defend to the death that we're not calling all Republicans nazis and white supremacists, except when we say you voted for white supremacy ideology. I imagine this is a logical successor to the Republicans, Trump Voters, Whites who haven't confessed their white privilege=racists meme. Joking on this defies-the-parody-label piece aside, he at least gets that The End of Identity Liberalism conveys ideas that must be opposed by the identity-politics-positive class. It's too damning of an analysis to let stand.
I believe his argument is that all Republicans being racist or not has no impact on his reality. It doesn’t matter, since the end result is the same. Again it is the intent vs outcome discussion. To him and other blacks, it doesn’t matter if a Republican is racist or not, because the policies of white supremacy are in a seat of power.
|
On September 08 2017 03:24 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her? I think the problem here is that you consider divorce a threat in this situation. The divorce isn't the problem. I'm fairly certain that if she agreed to just cut bait, take the 30% guaranteed to her by law and split custody along with something reasonable for alimoni(half of somebody's gross pay for 10 years is not reasonable) he'd be all for it. The threat is that availability to the kids is being held over him as a punishment for wanting to have a fulfilling life. I dunno, maybe I'm more sensitive to this because my uncle got a divorce that was pretty ugly. His wife went back into doing hard drugs and he decided he had had enough. She took the kids and was a shit parent. The truancy people were all up in arms because of how much school they missed. Her kids would find her passed out on the toilet from drugs. When he tried to get them out of that shitty situation she had her 2 kids from a previous marriage lie about him sexually abusing them to try and stop it. Yet it still took probably around 5 years before he was able to get custody. Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:05 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her? no, should that happen he should just go to jail. but i'm failing to see the relevance. they both got to this place together. to pretend it was an overnight change and it's all one persons fault (honestly i'm not sure anymore which person you think is at fault) seems like a real lack of awareness of how relationships work. there's an adult way out of it. or they can stay together. what are you saying? Abuse is abuse. I'm not saying 1 side is definitively worse than the other, I'm just asking that people be willing to acknowledge that the guy has a legitimate grievance in this case. There is no adult way out of their relationship, otherwise it would have happened already. The overwhelming amount of divorces aren't amiable.
i mean to call divorces often not amiable seems redundant. they are divorces, after all. regardless, it very well IS the adult way out of the relationship.
if you think an expectation of fidelity is abuse in a marriage i don't think we have much to talk about. to quote an earlier poster, it sounds like your grievance is with the system. this isn't abuse and the woman isn't at fault here. the man can file for divorce and be given it quickly. if he feels that's the answer because he wants some sex, that's the answer.
sure, he has hard choices to make. he got married and had children so, these choices are rightfully difficult.
|
On September 08 2017 03:24 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her? I think the problem here is that you consider divorce a threat in this situation. The divorce isn't the problem. I'm fairly certain that if she agreed to just cut bait, take the 30% guaranteed to her by law and split custody along with something reasonable for alimoni(half of somebody's gross pay for 10 years is not reasonable) he'd be all for it. The threat is that availability to the kids is being held over him as a punishment for wanting to have a fulfilling life. I dunno, maybe I'm more sensitive to this because my uncle got a divorce that was pretty ugly. His wife went back into doing hard drugs and he decided he had had enough. She took the kids and was a shit parent. The truancy people were all up in arms because of how much school they missed. Her kids would find her passed out on the toilet from drugs. When he tried to get them out of that shitty situation she had her 2 kids from a previous marriage lie about him sexually abusing them to try and stop it. Yet it still took probably around 5 years before he was able to get custody.
So is she a bad mother? If not, the bulk of this post is entirely irrelevant.
I mean, this is such a typical divorce situation. Stay at home mom, working dad. Divorce comes up and now the child raising dynamic is coming into question and suddenly the kids are being used as leverage.
It is entirely possible to come to a workable custody agreement that doesn't involve scheduled turns and court controlled days. I don't know if these two people could come to such an agreement, or how much the parents are going to care about the kid's opinion on the matter, but it's certainly possible.
|
On September 08 2017 03:33 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:24 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 03:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her? I think the problem here is that you consider divorce a threat in this situation. The divorce isn't the problem. I'm fairly certain that if she agreed to just cut bait, take the 30% guaranteed to her by law and split custody along with something reasonable for alimoni(half of somebody's gross pay for 10 years is not reasonable) he'd be all for it. The threat is that availability to the kids is being held over him as a punishment for wanting to have a fulfilling life. I dunno, maybe I'm more sensitive to this because my uncle got a divorce that was pretty ugly. His wife went back into doing hard drugs and he decided he had had enough. She took the kids and was a shit parent. The truancy people were all up in arms because of how much school they missed. Her kids would find her passed out on the toilet from drugs. When he tried to get them out of that shitty situation she had her 2 kids from a previous marriage lie about him sexually abusing them to try and stop it. Yet it still took probably around 5 years before he was able to get custody. On September 08 2017 03:05 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:58 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other. Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation. Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her? no, should that happen he should just go to jail. but i'm failing to see the relevance. they both got to this place together. to pretend it was an overnight change and it's all one persons fault (honestly i'm not sure anymore which person you think is at fault) seems like a real lack of awareness of how relationships work. there's an adult way out of it. or they can stay together. what are you saying? Abuse is abuse. I'm not saying 1 side is definitively worse than the other, I'm just asking that people be willing to acknowledge that the guy has a legitimate grievance in this case. There is no adult way out of their relationship, otherwise it would have happened already. The overwhelming amount of divorces aren't amiable. i mean to call divorces often not amiable seems redundant. they are divorces, after all. regardless, it very well IS the adult way out of the relationship. if you think an expectation of fidelity is abuse in a marriage i don't think we have much to talk about. to quote an earlier poster, it sounds like your grievance is with the system. this isn't abuse and the woman isn't at fault here. the man can file for divorce and be given it quickly. if he feels that's the answer because he wants some sex, that's the answer. sure, he has hard choices to make. he got married and had children so, these choices are rightfully difficult.
In a relatively typical marriage, no, but this is hardly anything but.
I don't think you quite understand what the list of pros and cons of getting the divorce are for both people. What does he lose by the divorce happening? What does she?
Women know the system is skewed in their favor and they exploit it. Same way corporations know the tax code is skewed in their favor and exploit it. The underlying structure is broken, but that's not a moral excuse for them to act like shit about it.
|
Fuck Trump. H1B visas are much harder now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
